Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Praxiss wrote:
I'm liking most of the new codex. i think i prefer the Maulerfiend to the Forgefiend tbh.

The heldrake rules? - yes. model? No. I'll be using a FW Helblade instead.

i'm also not too keen on the Warpsmith model. dont get me wrong, it looks great. But all those thin tenacles are going to snap so easily! I'm tryign to source an action figure or some kids plastic toy i can rip apart and use bits to convert my current metal Warsmith model.

i'm thinking some sort of "Doc OCk" figure woudl work best, but not sure if there are any out there small enough.

You could convert a chaos marine by using really thick guitar wire. It's pretty hard to cut and bend but isn't going to snap once you've got it how you like - and it looks all mechatendril like.

Personally I quite like the heldrake model - one of the better new releases IMHO.

 Skriker wrote:
This book *is* interesting. It will be competitive and the nitpicky little complaints people keep throwing around are exactly that. How many people liked the new IG book when it came out? Few. It *ruined* the guard, was completely useless and was reason to rage quit. Now it is seen as one of the more competitive lists out there. Instead of complaining about what is not included that was on someone's wish list, why not look at what is there and how to use it effectively on the table top instead?
Skriker

Do you know what, that's fair enough. I'm changing my mind about this list. I hoped for cheaper assault transports for the zerks and nm's but we can't have everything we want can we. There are some outstanding value units in the codex and they could be combined for a variety of possibly competitive lists. The combo's are there just not the ones we dreamed up (mainly for legions). There is still a lot of fun to be had. Check out cute-hydra's review in this forum. It's a good starting point for ideas.

Spawn spam is all I'm saying!

vonevilstein wrote:
Do you know what, that's fair enough. I'm changing my mind about this list. I hoped for cheaper assault transports for the zerks and nm's but we can't have everything we want can we. There are some outstanding value units in the codex and they could be combined for a variety of possibly competitive lists. The combo's are there just not the ones we dreamed up (mainly for legions). There is still a lot of fun to be had. Check out cute-hydra's review in this forum. It's a good starting point for ideas.

Spawn spam is all I'm saying!

Exactly. We just have to look beyond what we wanted and didn't get to really understand what we got. Agreed on Hydra's review as well.

Skriker

This is going to contain some integrity issues, I'll try to explain myself though.

I'm out of buying new things from GW and for sure am not going to buy the new codex, at least until someone convinces me that Defiler point nerf is not an intentional move to sell the fiends, might be hard though given the GW history of such practises. I don't own any Defilers but refuse to pay for a marketing tool dressed up as a 50$ army-specific ruleset. I told myself a while ago that I can't tolerate such crap and they seem to have done it again, say goodbye to my money then. My GW spendings from last three months could have bought me a next gen console so not that small I guess, I'm not going to stop playing but am going to stop supporting GW itself and embrace the used models or equivalents market.

Now, puting my personal disgust and Defiler aside, the codex is great. Noone would throw cheese at me winning (unless maybe Death Guard with bikes + Epidemius, something I have lying around btw heh) which I really hate, I prefer my codex to be mediocore or slightly uphill tbh to know that it's more my moves that give me the win if it happens.

Comparing to the OP codieces like SW or GK is imo wrong, it's those codieces that should be brought down to "mediocority" so what you do on the field matters more, not the other way around.

I'm ok with the lack of drop pods or infiltrate, the army should gravitate away from mirroring loyalist playstyles imo.

As for allies, normaly I consider taking them to fit holes lame (like Tau with Terminators or sth) but CSM + Daemons is so natural that it's obvious to consider it. That also might be a reason of supposed "mediocority" of the codex, to make up for possible combinations with current or future Daemons.

Helldrake is too fantasish for my taste but I could convert a lot of things, daemon winged nurglified stormtalon with a horn, belly and multiple hands comes to mind.

Obviously my final opinion on the codex will depend on the power of upcoming ones and faqs, the question is whether it's a separate incident or a new direction of reasonable codieces, tamed Matt Ward and active FAQ work. Btw only if the latter turned out true, the codex could be worth it's price, imo.

why do you play the game then ? new codex means new stuff has to be bought . otherwise it wouldnt make any sense to to make new editions or new dex . they made 6th so you would buy psykers flyers and ally[SW or IG depands what is your main imperial army] . you think the next codex is going to be anything else ? you can be sure that TH/SS termis in the next sm codex suck royaly,. that you will never touch eldrad in eldar etc etc.
I mean they nerfed draigo wing just because it was too popular and GK players werent switching their armies to new 6th ed builds and that is just for one army .

Makumba wrote:
why do you play the game then ? new codex means new stuff has to be bought . otherwise it wouldnt make any sense to to make new editions or new dex . they made 6th so you would buy psykers flyers and ally[SW or IG depands what is your main imperial army] . you think the next codex is going to be anything else ? you can be sure that TH/SS termis in the next sm codex suck royaly,. that you will never touch eldrad in eldar etc etc.
I mean they nerfed draigo wing just because it was too popular and GK players werent switching their armies to new 6th ed builds and that is just for one army .

If new edition or a new codex is better and forces me to buy new stuff, that's the oly way that I'm going to accept the new rules - when I see them as game quality improvement (that's why I bought 6th edition cheap and really incidentaly with DV instead of going for the shiny BRB). Among questionable changes in 6th there are flyers though for example, those imo improve the game (though GW tries hard to spoil it) and buying flyers or AA units is sensible and justified. Buying new models because GW decided to heavily nerf the old ones without any ingame reason is not justified at all, it's just GW trying to make me a fool.

There are other ways to promote me a new model that through cheap tricks hidden in the rules you have to pay for and that define the quality of the game. They create internal unbalance in the codex, make people's carfuly built and painted models close to unusable, that's impundent crap, zero respect for consumers and their money. They earn enough on all their overpriced stuff to not have to resort to such a low blows.

I understand a reasonable nerf to put an OP character or unit in line. I could understand even a huge nerf that would be required to change the whole game to the better. This, an intentional nerf that goes too far I can't accept anymore, it's probably the 50$ price that made me realise how much of a sucker the whole affair makes me.

Anyway I'm not going to stop playing or buying new stuff, I'm just going to stop buying stuff from GW. I felt them worth of support despite the incredible amount of crap included in the experience with the game but this is probably a last straw.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
Again, Praxiss, please stop stealing my thoughts, it's getting to the stage where I'm assuming you're just an older clone of myself who has somehow teleported to England.

(Translation: I also will be using the Hell Blade model with Heldrake rules, explaining the Vector Strike as being barbed grapnels that fire from the underside to wreck the enemy's face, and I will also be using my metal Warsmith model, AND I prefer the Maulerfiend to the Forgefiend)

Lol!! I apologise. But surely if i am the older one then it is You stealing MY thoughts. Thought thief.


Heres what i ended up getting - only cost my 29p!!! According to the seller the model is 45mm tall so the tentacles should be a decent fit for a metal techmarine model.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/200829107148?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

And here's the pics on my newly painted and slightly converted Hellblde (counts-as heldrake)





As for the poor neglected Land Raider, there was a vraiant in JustDaves chaos fandex that i have used a few times and no opponent has complained. I've tried updating the rules for the new codex:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/479155.page

There are other ways to promote me a new model that through cheap tricks hidden in the rules you have to pay for and that define the quality of the game. They create internal unbalance in the codex, make people's carfuly built and painted models close to unusable, that's impundent crap, zero respect for consumers and their money. They earn enough on all their overpriced stuff to not have to resort to such a low blows.

true but they arent as efficient . people had lords and Lt in 3.5 times , those were made unplayable in the 4th ed codex . there were no other options then to go 2xDP . now you need lords/specials and a caster to play . While the DP sucks for how much it costs . But I do agree with you that GW dont respect theyr customers . thing is ,being a monopolist they dont have to . If you bought an army from them already , you buying a second one is just a bonus for them . they are more interested in getting new players that will buy the new big kits , thinking they are awesome , up untile they play against a scyth wing.

My main problem with the codex is that i now have to go through my 15 terminators and do a shed load of arm swaps since they nwo can't upgrade both their power weapon AND TL bolter.

Comparing to the OP codieces like SW or GK is imo wrong, it's those codieces that should be brought down to "mediocority" so what you do on the field matters more, not the other way around.

The problem is GK, and Necrons are the newest armies beforehand, we will suffer them for a LONG period of time.

I'm ok with the lack of drop pods or infiltrate, the army should gravitate away from mirroring loyalist playstyles imo.

So you feel that they should gravitate away from having any sort of tactical options at all? Because the loyalists literally have every style there is.

Makumba wrote:

There are other ways to promote me a new model that through cheap tricks hidden in the rules you have to pay for and that define the quality of the game. They create internal unbalance in the codex, make people's carfuly built and painted models close to unusable, that's impundent crap, zero respect for consumers and their money. They earn enough on all their overpriced stuff to not have to resort to such a low blows.

true but they arent as efficient . people had lords and Lt in 3.5 times , those were made unplayable in the 4th ed codex . there were no other options then to go 2xDP . now you need lords/specials and a caster to play . While the DP sucks for how much it costs . But I do agree with you that GW dont respect theyr customers . thing is ,being a monopolist they dont have to . If you bought an army from them already , you buying a second one is just a bonus for them .

Yes their current aproach is sadly efficient a lot, at least until people stop tolerating such crap and send them a message with elaborate explanations like f__k you and your cheap tricks. That's daydreaming ofc, anyway what I meant is that introducing a new options for an army that open new possibilities for gameplay, or new great sculpts would be enough for many people to buy new models despite having old ones, and for GW to make the profit especialy with their prices. Make rules and codieces free, then the crap could be more tolerable but 100 pages 50$ addon to rules is a premium product and it better be top notch quality in what it is meant to provide, rules for playing the army.

Makumba wrote:
they are more interested in getting new players that will buy the new big kits , thinking they are awesome , up untile they play against a scyth wing.

And this is another effects of their practices, if they didn't promote their new products with rules so strongly, there wouldn't be such power disproportions, at least that many and that apparent.

Their greed and salesmanship over quality aproach are the main reasons of the game problems, imo.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Comparing to the OP codieces like SW or GK is imo wrong, it's those codieces that should be brought down to "mediocority" so what you do on the field matters more, not the other way around.

The problem is GK, and Necrons are the newest armies beforehand, we will suffer them for a LONG period of time.

Yes it is the problem, you have to start at some point though - assuming that's a new start not a separate incident ofc, which is wishful thinking. We will see, best way would be to faq nerf the OP armies a bit. Hope is fools mother they say so I'm not counting on it too much but can give them some more credit, given that I can steadily observe the situation thanks to not going to spend a coin on GW anytime soon.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm ok with the lack of drop pods or infiltrate, the army should gravitate away from mirroring loyalist playstyles imo.

So you feel that they should gravitate away from having any sort of tactical options at all? Because the loyalists literally have every style there is.

I'm not saying they don't have to make up for it and not that they did with the new codex, but you get tougher bikers, FMCs, cultists, daemon allies, supposed chaos craziness in all the new throws (which I dislike btw but that's a general problem of the edition, too much dice) - that's some differentiation, a step into a right direction maybe. Daemon allies is what seems intended for CSM army and that's the place where the additional tactical option may come from, making the army feel different the same time. Anyway I may be wrong on this ofc, just my thoughts as I haven't played the codex or seen it in action.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Hetelic wrote:
Is it true you can combine the Dragon, 2 maulers and an oblit kit to make a Chaos Megazord?

Well played. The dragon looks terrible, terrible, terrible. One of the most ugly minis GW has ever released in the current gen.

Totally Agree!!! Saw the new chosen I was like "nice", saw the cultests I was like "about time," saw those other new charectors I was "Whatever," saw the new HS and Helbrute I was like "NICE!!!" saw the drake and I was like "Is this a cartoon or are they really trying to sell me this?" Then I heard about the Icons, no infiltrate, no Daemons, and new DP and I was like "$%#@ you GW, change my entire army, chaos = no tactics" Then I bought two Dark vengence for under $200 after shipping. GW wins

 lazarian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 lazarian wrote:

 whigwam wrote:
Thanks. And could someone give a quick breakdown on what exactly Dark Apostles do? I remember reading about a bunch of ridiculous abilities/USR's they would confer on Cultists, but I haven't heard anything about those for awhile. Blackfang saying the rumored "Apostle powers" were just "trolling" makes me wonder what they do do.

They are chaplain analogs, they do not give unit boosts like rumored. They do allow people in his unit to reroll boons.

They have a leadership bubble, a 4++ and Power maul.

I take it a Plasma Pistol is an option

What FOC do they take up? I keep hearing difrent things

They are HQ and can take all the melee shooting options normal char can.

More reasons: Chaos lost its Cults power, its Icon power, its Daemon Power, and its DP... Its like tank free Vanilla with special weapons and obliterators. But hey, at least the Legendary charactors are cheaper, better, and give cult options. Who knows, maybe they will be in winning tournament list.

I will use Typhus and bring back some plauge zombies..... Tis the season for zombies.

 Lord Magnus wrote:

Instead of the old, bland, Daemons of no-one the old dex gave you, you can take Daemon allies, THE RULES ARE IN PLACE FOR A REASON.

I'll hold off on business model criticisms until later on, 2nd post...that aside, the last codex was pure and utter drek. An arguing that the new codex is "good" because the last codex was "bad"...I mean, damn. I'm just kind of speechless at that logic. I won't debate that the new codex is "better", but the last codex was so awful that they could have added Chaos art to a DMV manual and it would have been a better codex.

I'll touch on GW fleecing Chaos players later.

 Lord Magnus wrote:
Do you think that Orks are mediocre?

Why even ask this? After how they were ignored for so long I was thrilled that Ork players got some love. It was just too bad that players had to wait as long as they did.

 Lord Magnus wrote:
Not everyone can be Grey Knights and Space Wolves. This codex is on par with Necrons (Maybe not the air force, but most Necrons) so PLEASE STOP.

Meh. I'll disagree on account of the Crons but /shrug. I don't think that they're OP, and I can see some holes in their codex, but I still think that they are solid otherwise. But I did make the point earlier that one of the gripes in regards to Chaos is that GW let codex power creep up and now I guess Chaos gets to be the new baseline. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing...except, well, until you start comparing it to all of the OTHER codexes that came out already. And I'll be honest, after the last codex I guess I expected more. Another thing I will say is that we aren't talking about one single codex that pushed out ahead of others in terms of power, we had multiple codices that probably went too far. IMHO, at that point, they should have seriously considered just having THOSE codexes be the new baseline instead of hoping that Chaos players wouldn't gripe too loudly. And you HAVE to know this as well, considering that you even said "Not everyone can be Grey Knights and Space Wolves".

One thing I do want to say is that I don't think that it's ALL bad, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed either.

 Skriker wrote:

This is exactly how GW does business and has done business since back then.

I can't say that that is a really compelling argument considering how GW does indeed do business. I didn't touch on it because, to be frank, that can be it's own topic but since you were kind enough to bring it up...

The entire "You guys will love plastics, because it will drop pricing" was bad enough, but IMHO the changes in business model to squeeze as much money as possible out of a limited and finite playerbase has been worse. And I'm not talking about frequent codex/model additions and revisions, as that is gaming 101. Look at CCGs and PnP RPGs - they they do similar things because they know that they need new ways to entice players to give them their money on a regular basis. But what about Apocalypse? If players think that that was done solely for the benefit of the gamers, then boy do I have a bridge to sell you! GW wanted to give players a venue to buy ADDITIONAL armies and codices, which they've done in other ways as well. What about ripping demons out of Chaos wholesale? Do people really think that was a balance issue? That was GW taking a chance that players would buy two codices instead of one, not to mention those people who shelled out even more money to have enough for separate CSM and Daemons armies. And now...allies. You know, if someone had told me 10 years ago that people on an internet forum would be telling me to buy a second codex so that I could play with my FIRST codex, I'd have burst out laughing. And I really can't believe that people go along with it.

 Skriker wrote:
Not a single chaos codex that has come out has done so without a lot of hoopla and complaining about people's wants not being met.

You could say that about just any codex. But it's a flawed argument to make in any event. If player's expectations are not met, then people will stop playing and go elsewhere. Which is another topic in regards to GW - and for GWs sake I hope that they pull their collective heads out. They are far from the only kid on the block in regards to this type of gaming anymore, and it is nonsensical to expect people to just swallow their complaints wholesale because "every codex has had complaints" . Also, please don't be the guy to say "If you don't like it, then leave".

Though one could argue that GW is failing at MANAGING player expectations to a large degree. It might not even be fair to blame the players, and people expecting something like SW/BA/GK/ETC after that spate of codexes really shouldn't be surprising.

 Skriker wrote:
Anyone who has been a long time chaos player, heck GW game player period, should know that as a fact and by now be able to accept it and move on and not start crying every time a new version of their favorite book comes out and isn't exactly what they wanted it to be.

Did you say this when the last codex came out too? LOL

 Skriker wrote:
Such a list would be 500 pages long and unusuable because it would be full of so many special rules.

I had to laugh at this considering how much crap GW puts into books anymore that isn't even remotely related to rules and army lists. Like the 6th ed BRB, it's like what, 100 pages of rules and 300 pages of fluff and pictures? And what about this codex? Think that they couldn't have chopped some of that type of stuff out of the Chaos codex and put in another 4-5 pages of supplemental rules? Of...COURSE...they could have.

Honestly, I don't read Dakka often but let me ask this...has there been much discussion here in regards to GW pricing? As in, going out of their way to make what could be a $25 dollar product into a $50 product? As in, instead of making a codex that could probably be around ~$25, making it hardback and jamming in enough that they can warrant charging ~$50? As instead of making a core rulebook for around ~$25, making it hardback and jamming in another 300p of stuff that will never be used just so that they can charge ~$75?

Your argument here leaves me at a loss when (IMHO) it is well within GW's ability to add in a few extra pages of rules when they bloat stuff like this just for the issue of pricing. And for anyone that isn't sure what I am getting at - it's a typical business strat if you think that you may have limited growth and you are faced with a somewhat static customer base. Making a product as cheap as possible with a low price point really only works when doing so will result in much higher sales. But GW isn't in that position. They probably figure that they'll sell much the same number of Chaos codices and core rulebooks no matter if it's $25 or $50, but if GW can make $1 profit off of a $25 book and $2 off of a $50 book, then they'll double their profit selling the $50 book (assuming again that the number of customers are static and you can keep from driving them away wholesale). So now we are at a point where we are paying through the nose for products because we are somewhat captive consumers and people act like asking for a few additional pages of rules (in reference to the players of the other legions that aren't happy) is too much to ask when just about EVERY book had a ton of artwork that a lot of gamers couldn't possibly care less about.

And for the sake of argument, let's say that they were to include 12 lists beyond the vanilla (what, 9 Legions + Red Corsairs and maybe some "Traitor Guard" alternatives?). They could probably do 1 page per list, but let's say 2 pages each. All they would have to do is list what units are precluded, changes to FOC slots, additional "These units can upgrade to this list of USR @ _pts", etc etc etc. And that would only be 24 pages. And if memory serves (I'm not feeling like pawing through boxes of books atm) they did EXACTLY this in the 3.5 dex. Sure some weren't really balanced, but that isn't a reason not to even try. 24 pages, you KNOW they cold do another 24 pages...

 Skriker wrote:
Not the uber-codex you expected/hoped for.

Well, first off I don't think that that would be an unreasonable expectation to have considering a lot of the codexes that have come out prior, and an "uber" codex would have simply put it on par with others. Also, I think you were quoting Lovepug? Look, I'll be honest and say that some of he wants would have been over the top - but at the same time I can't toss all that he wants out the window either. You mention "Loyalist Marine-envy", but is that unexpected? Especially when you talk about specific codexes, or my big gripe, vehicle variants. Aren't there like 10 LR variants? I'll tell you RIGHT OUT that yes there are things that I am 100% envious of SMs of, and if it's something like this then I don't see how that is even a bad thing. I'm envious of quite a few things, not even going to deny it LOL.

 Skriker wrote:
How many people liked the new IG book when it came out? Few. It *ruined* the guard, was completely useless and was reason to rage quit. Now it is seen as one of the more competitive lists out there. Instead of complaining about what is not included that was on someone's wish list, why not look at what is there and how to use it effectively on the table top instead? My armies be able to be pretty much the same as always *and* I get to add some interesting new models into the mix as well. Both big wins in my book.

Skriker

I'll promise you this, if this codex turns out to be that good then I'll make a point to come back and eat crow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Comparing to the OP codieces like SW or GK is imo wrong, it's those codieces that should be brought down to "mediocority" so what you do on the field matters more, not the other way around.

Yeah but that won't happen, I can't see them doing anything to those codices. And hell, I know people who play those codices and claim that they aren't powerful in the least while pointing at others and accusing them of being powerful (Like a GK player saying that they are underpowered if anything, then pointing to IG or SW and saying that THEY are OP)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So you feel that they should gravitate away from having any sort of tactical options at all? Because the loyalists literally have every style there is.

I thought the same thing.

 Praxiss wrote:
My main problem with the codex is that i now have to go through my 15 terminators and do a shed load of arm swaps since they nwo can't upgrade both their power weapon AND TL bolter.

I wouldn't rush into it; I will probably wait to see an FAQ, and perhaps not even then.

If they did FAQ the termiantor thing that would be nice.

I'm going to be ripping some arms off anyway to make a Lightning Claw squad (7 points for Twin Claws - almost rude not to!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
just foudn somethgin shocking.....

To give a Helbrute a Heavy Flamer in its powerfist...costs 15 points?!? 5 points more than a Plasma Cannon!

 Praxiss wrote:


To give a Helbrute a Heavy Flamer in its powerfist...costs 15 points?!? 5 points more than a Plasma Cannon!

Actually, the hellbrute fist comes without anyn shooting weapon. So adding a TL bolter is 10 pts, a HF is 15.

 Seb wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:


To give a Helbrute a Heavy Flamer in its powerfist...costs 15 points?!? 5 points more than a Plasma Cannon!

Actually, the hellbrute fist comes without anyn shooting weapon. So adding a TL bolter is 10 pts, a HF is 15.

TL Bolter is 5 points.

Erronius wrote:
The entire "You guys will love plastics, because it will drop pricing" was bad enough, but IMHO the changes in business model to squeeze as much money as possible out of a limited and finite playerbase has been worse. And I'm not talking about frequent codex/model additions and revisions, as that is gaming 101. Look at CCGs and PnP RPGs - they they do similar things because they know that they need new ways to entice players to give them their money on a regular basis. But what about Apocalypse? If players think that that was done solely for the benefit of the gamers, then boy do I have a bridge to sell you! GW wanted to give players a venue to buy ADDITIONAL armies and codices, which they've done in other ways as well. What about ripping demons out of Chaos wholesale? Do people really think that was a balance issue? That was GW taking a chance that players would buy two codices instead of one, not to mention those people who shelled out even more money to have enough for separate CSM and Daemons armies. And now...allies. You know, if someone had told me 10 years ago that people on an internet forum would be telling me to buy a second codex so that I could play with my FIRST codex, I'd have burst out laughing. And I really can't believe that people go along with it.

I got out of Fantasy years ago for that Army list splitting reason. I got screwed on Undead become Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts and Chaos becoming Beastman and Warriors of Chaos. I didn't like that I now had 2 full armies that were no longer even 4 half armies because of enough changes and units disappearing and the like. I put my money where my mouth was and stopped playing Warhammer Fantasy, selling off those minis for fantasy I didn't want to keep in my collection and using the funds to buy gaming products from other companies. As I said this isn't *new* for GW and every time it happens people acting like it is something they just suddenly came out with out of the blue is just dumb. Your examples all prove my exact point, yet somehow you seem to be using as evidence against my point. I haven't said I agree with GW's policies. All I said is this is exactly how they do business and have been doing business for years. Don't like it then by all means take your money elsewhere. I sold off tons of GW minis I had and invested the money in minis for games like Flames of War for options other than putting up with GW's annoying practices all the time.

Erronius wrote:
You could say that about just any codex. But it's a flawed argument to make in any event. If player's expectations are not met, then people will stop playing and go elsewhere. Which is another topic in regards to GW - and for GWs sake I hope that they pull their collective heads out. They are far from the only kid on the block in regards to this type of gaming anymore, and it is nonsensical to expect people to just swallow their complaints wholesale because "every codex has had complaints" . Also, please don't be the guy to say "If you don't like it, then leave".

Though one could argue that GW is failing at MANAGING player expectations to a large degree. It might not even be fair to blame the players, and people expecting something like SW/BA/GK/ETC after that spate of codexes really shouldn't be surprising.

Did you say this when the last codex came out too? LOL

Actually I would argue the opposite. Players expectations are not met, but they KEEP PLAYING THE GAME ANYWAY. I would also argue that the majority of people complaining today about the new Chaos Codex were here or on another forum similar to it complaining just as loudly about the release of the LAST Chaos Codex, so exactly how has GW lost anything by not meeting their expectations. Many of them are still here and still expecting GW to magically turn into a company that actually cares about them. It is no different than being in abusive romantic relationship and telling yourself each day, "oh they are a little better today." Its just delusional.

There is a difference between expecting the uber codex and hoping for the uber codex. I was expecting and afraid that the CSM book would be an uberfest of cheese of all varities. I am actually quite happy it is not, because it isn't what I hoped for or wanted it to be. *That* is the difference. If someone is complaining about it not being the uber codex compared to all the broken books out there, they were probably pinning their hopes on being the next big kid on the block and not having a list that was interesting to play, but rather balanced.

As for the last book I, aside from the chaos daemons being generic, I accepted it and played with it. Why? Because I like my armies and enjoy playing them and the rules are secondary to me for that. In fact we had even worked out our own house rules for combining the Daemons codex with with the last Chaos book which is now standard with the allies now. Once the new book comes out it doesn't matter what the old book was. Either you accept it and play on or you stop and do something else. Complaining about it to no end and acting as if GW owed you something different is just pointless.

Erronius wrote:
I had to laugh at this considering how much crap GW puts into books anymore that isn't even remotely related to rules and army lists. Like the 6th ed BRB, it's like what, 100 pages of rules and 300 pages of fluff and pictures? And what about this codex? Think that they couldn't have chopped some of that type of stuff out of the Chaos codex and put in another 4-5 pages of supplemental rules? Of...COURSE...they could have.

Note that my point was to cover *EVERYONE's* desires, not just a couple pages of special rules that have been picked out of the morass of comments. No matter how much is included in the book, someone is going to feel hurt and annoyed that what they specifically wanted to see wasn't there, unless they wrote a massive, massive book that somehow included everything. This is NOT the same as 4-5 pages of supplmental rules.

Erronius wrote:
Honestly, I don't read Dakka often but let me ask this...has there been much discussion here in regards to GW pricing? As in, going out of their way to make what could be a $25 dollar product into a $50 product? As in, instead of making a codex that could probably be around ~$25, making it hardback and jamming in enough that they can warrant charging ~$50? As instead of making a core rulebook for around ~$25, making it hardback and jamming in another 300p of stuff that will never be used just so that they can charge ~$75?

Hahahahahahahahaha! you have no idea...obviously you don't spend much time around here. Price complaints are common, loud and the conversation always goes exactly the same way: GW is evil for charging so much for the toys I wanted; Suck it up or go do something else; That isn't fair!; No, but it is true. Price is one of the biggest complaints people have with GW.

Erronius wrote:
Well, first off I don't think that that would be an unreasonable expectation to have considering a lot of the codexes that have come out prior, and an "uber" codex would have simply put it on par with others. Also, I think you were quoting Lovepug? Look, I'll be honest and say that some of he wants would have been over the top - but at the same time I can't toss all that he wants out the window either. You mention "Loyalist Marine-envy", but is that unexpected? Especially when you talk about specific codexes, or my big gripe, vehicle variants. Aren't there like 10 LR variants? I'll tell you RIGHT OUT that yes there are things that I am 100% envious of SMs of, and if it's something like this then I don't see how that is even a bad thing. I'm envious of quite a few things, not even going to deny it LOL.

Yes I agree...SMs get tons of individual books, and all the cool toys and special rules because they are the poster children for the game and GW loves them. As for the different LR variants, in friendly games I have yet to find someone who has begrudged me playing a crusader or some other variant of the land raider instead of just the basic chaos land raider. We either pull the points out of the SM book directly or come to cost it. I far prefered the Space Marine codex a while back that offered up all the "build your chapter" advantages and disadvantages so that you could build whatever chapter you wanted from a single book without having to have separate books that then need to be filled with more special rules to not just be an almost cookie cutter clone of the base SM codex. Yes GW could have certainly added something like that to the new CSM book and I would have embraced it and taken full advantage of it to make up even more interesting forces for the table top. The fact is, though, that they didn't and complaining that they should have is just a waste of time that can be spent poring through the book and coming up with interesting ways to use what *is* there.

Skriker

Erronius wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Comparing to the OP codieces like SW or GK is imo wrong, it's those codieces that should be brought down to "mediocority" so what you do on the field matters more, not the other way around.

Yeah but that won't happen, I can't see them doing anything to those codices. And hell, I know people who play those codices and claim that they aren't powerful in the least while pointing at others and accusing them of being powerful (Like a GK player saying that they are underpowered if anything, then pointing to IG or SW and saying that THEY are OP)

Numerous people claim that in 8th edition fantasy there's no codex creep anymore. If that's true, the sooner they start the sooner the game will aproach something at least resembling balance. Another OP codex wouldn't make sense if we assume they are going to stop releasing them, wishful thinking I know but I can afford the luxury as I'm not going to spend money on GW until the situation is cleared.

I don't believe in active FAQ work from GW as well but who knows, 6th edition have only just started and there was a glimpse of hope with first FAQs imo.

Erronius wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So you feel that they should gravitate away from having any sort of tactical options at all? Because the loyalists literally have every style there is.

I thought the same thing.

As that is about my comment of being ok with no drop pods and infiltrate, I'll point you to what I consider a good way to differentiate CSM from SM and give them tactical options as well. From the other CSM codex thread:

 twistedbydesign wrote:

-Give us a rule to shoot on our own troops in combat! Like WTF we are Chaos, we dont give a gak! Hell Abaddon is KNOWN for ordering fire on his own troops, Kharn already does kill them. Give us the ability to Dakka Dakka on a group in close combat! Blood for the blood god, all that jazz!

Obviously we have neither the former nor the latter option but tbh I find it quite interesting, forcing me to build a force around no possibility of infiltrate or drop drop pods and find other ways to get to the enemy. At least it would force me to build around it if I planned to buy the codex or anything new from GW, which I don't - I speculate only, that's what most people commenting on the codex do though. Also on a second thought, I have multiple armies and maybe if CSM was my only one, I would be pretty pissed about simplyfying it too, can't say.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm ok with the lack of drop pods or infiltrate, the army should gravitate away from mirroring loyalist playstyles imo.

So you feel that they should gravitate away from having any sort of tactical options at all? Because the loyalists literally have every style there is.

As a CSM you are not supposed to use fancy tactical options to defeat your enemy - your enemy is supposed to use fancy tactical options to defeat you. We are forging a narrative here and in this story CSM are the foil. Remember the staged coliseum battle in Gladiator? Well CSM = barbarian horde and drop pods = chariots. Your job is to dutifully march your scary gribblies up the center of the board and let your SM opponent unleash hell upon you. You have even been provided a new cultist unit to aid you in your role - upping the death toll to more satisfying levels makes for better cinematic gameplay.

You should still try to put up a good fight of course for the sake of sport, but fret not - rest assured your codex has been painstakingly play-tested to identify and remove any option that could conceivably inconvenience your SM opponent. And after the dust has settled and our heroes have once again emerged victorious over the dastardly Chaos horde, you and your opponent can shake hands and congratulate each other on forging another successful narrative. Cheers!

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm ok with the lack of drop pods or infiltrate, the army should gravitate away from mirroring loyalist playstyles imo.

So you feel that they should gravitate away from having any sort of tactical options at all? Because the loyalists literally have every style there is.

As a CSM you are not supposed to use fancy tactical options to defeat your enemy - your enemy is supposed to use fancy tactical options to defeat you. We are forging a narrative here and in this story CSM are the foil. Remember the staged coliseum battle in Gladiator? Well CSM = barbarian horde and drop pods = chariots. Your job is to dutifully march your scary gribblies up the center of the board and let your SM opponent unleash hell upon you. You have even been provided a new cultist unit to aid you in your role - upping the death toll to more satisfying levels makes for better cinematic gameplay.

You should still try to put up a good fight of course for the sake of sport, but fret not - rest assured your codex has been painstakingly play-tested to identify and remove any option that could conceivably inconvenience your SM opponent. And after the dust has settled and our heroes have once again emerged victorious over the dastardly Chaos horde, you and your opponent can shake hands and congratulate each other on forging another successful narrative. Cheers!

/Je pleure

For cultist, is the Autogun option on an individual basis (Any model may) or a squad basis (every model).

 Deadshot wrote:
For cultist, is the Autogun option on an individual basis (Any model may) or a squad basis (every model).

Any cultist may, so you CAN combine all the DV cultists in one unit

 Slinky wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
For cultist, is the Autogun option on an individual basis (Any model may) or a squad basis (every model).

Any cultist may, so you CAN combine all the DV cultists in one unit

Sweet. Now just pick up some Zerks and I have a decent legal army.