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.

Thanks Boss_Salvage.

Right, so i've lost my dragon ogres, demons and beastmen, but my shaggoth can "count as" a chaos giant mutant monstrosity. I'll need to find a new build for my Chaos lord, but i may start taking a demon prince instead.

Other than that, i should be ok, army wise. I'm pretty much resigned to losing with this list (my main opponents are shooty empire and shooty dwarfs, difficult enough with a combined chaos army) but i'll see how things go.

After a little time looking over the options, I would have to say ...

Biggest Gain
- 90 point Exalted with T5

Biggest Loss
- No Mark of Chaos Undivided Ld rerolls

Runner-Up Losses
- No Tzeentch caster characters
- No ward saves beyond 6+
- No 'chaos big guys' unit
- No new units
- Marauder horsemen to special

This is of course ignoring the lack of demons / beasts.

- Salvage

As others have posted, while definitely the army list has been slapped hard, it is not down for the count.

The points reductions in Warriors, Knights, and Chariots is good news.

Throwing axes on Marauder Horsemen rock at 1 pt per model!

The Banner of the gods making all units stubborn within 12" coupled with the fact that the BsB can
now use a shield means the banner has some definite possibilities (especially if you are running
Slaanesh / Nurgle to avoid autobreak).

The warrior cost reduction is a false economy. The loss of the Undivided re-roll on psychology tests is a big deal, so they're STILL significantly overpriced.

I had my first game with the new list last night, though it wasn't a "real" game. I was playing a 2 on 2 battle, my chaos + a friend's O&G teamed up against Dwarves and Empire. 650pts per player. Not a real test, but so far it confirmed my thoughts. Playable, and warriors still suck badly.

Guess it's time to either move this thread, or continue
elsewhere. If we could get information compiled, maybe
someone could write the changes:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/212646.page

Mannahnin wrote:The warrior cost reduction is a false economy. Playable, and warriors still suck badly.

Agreed. Warriors are still 0-1 IMO. Chosen being the only decent option (still overpriced with the now necessary Mark) but at least playable.

Our group is throwing the get you by list in the garbage and unanimously decided to use the old army book. I don't even see why this exists. When I saw in last month's white dwarf the blurb about "Now that HoC has been invalidated with the daemon book, don't worry we'll give you something to get you by next month!" I thought ".....really? It has?" Chaos Space Marines use their list and everything in it is "generic daemon". The old HoC book would still be "not as cool daemons", you would use the daemons as they appeared in your book and would be left to drool over the new daemons in theirs unless you wanted to make a whole army of them. That's it! No change required!

I'm not using it. And if the new real book resembles this, I won't use that either, and I'll gladly refrain from joining any tournaments for the duration. I wouldn't want to play in them anyway. I put a lot of work into converting Slaaneshi chaos trolls and really cool dragon ogres with two hand weapons, and I'll be damned if I'm going to stand for having them tossed aside so completely.

Of course, the HoC book doesn't say anything about including beast units, but the beast of chaos book says its units may be used in a mortal army. So really no matter what the new HoC book has in it, the beasts book still says I can take units from there to include in it. Score!

What I don't like is how there's little separating Tzeentch and Undivided now. Tzeentch used to have its own flavor - now it's just Chaos with Ward Saves. I would still very much like to see the old Mark of Tzeentch in that list.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:What I don't like is how there's little separating Tzeentch and Undivided now. Tzeentch used to have its own flavor - now it's just Chaos with Ward Saves. I would still very much like to see the old Mark of Tzeentch in that list.

Well ... I disagree on that point, for anything past the characters. Tizz characters used to be these really unique combat casters with a subpar-but-decent-and-interesting (and oddly good for combat!) lore behind their beefy stats. And everything else was worse than their undivided versions but gave the caster characters some more dice to play with.

Now, MoT gives everybody something they can use, as opposed to making them batteries for the wizards (and their not great lore) and otherwise pretty terrible Ld-wise. Partially this is because MoCU is now defunct, so ANY mark makes things better by default. Pity about no more tizz combat casters, and I also think that the character's ward save should be 5+ and 5 points more, though I suppose being able to buy 10 point talismans of protection for every character (without using item allowance) is something

- Salvage

Therion wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

Therion wrote:I like the get you by list. What really is the problem in playing with this for 6months?

Yeah, there is. I don't have the right models to form a legal 2000 point army any more. So that's a problem, in my book. Also, the army looks really boring, so why should I even bother?

Why should you bother with anything? When army books are updated, people have to buy new models. People who refuse to do so will play another army or another game.

Or they keep using the old Army Book, which is what I'm going to do, at least until the new book comes out.

as far as my groups concerned, you can use the specific mortals/daemons/beasts books or can choose a combined force and use the old HoC book. Its not broken so no probs.

you just cant cherry pick from the new daemons book and use in old HoC.

we find that works fine.

As someone just getting into Fantasy, looking at the differences between the "get you by" list and the Hordes book list, I really have to question what the hell whoever wrote the list was thinking.

I'm not sure why the characters needed to be removed, and the removal of the Ld re-roll for only a modest points decrease which was already necessary seems almost like an uninteded omission ("oops, we forgot to explicitly print it" type thing) even though I'm sure its not. Also the change of Knights and mounted marauders to Special seems like it was done for the sole purpose of simply filling out Special choices rather than any balance issue.

It really looks like a 15 minute copy-pasta job by an intern rather than a well thought out temporary army list.

Vak: It's more of a Ravening Hordes style list than a
Blood Angels Mephiston is AWESOME list. It's a placeholder.

malfred wrote:Vak: It's more of a Ravening Hordes style list than a
Blood Angels Mephiston is AWESOME list. It's a placeholder.

Oh, I totally understand, but at the same time I could have written that whole army list in 10 minutes, and its apparent thats how long GW spent on it as well. I mean, for a relatively core army, one would think they could put a bit more time into the army for the players using the list for 6ish months. The lack of the Ld reroll for non-marked troops and several other things really stands out as something that was simply written up as the WD was going to the printers in two hours rather than something that effort was put in to.

That said, I'm still going to give it a go as I haven't bought the Hordes book (just getting into Fantasy) and don't really want to spend $22 on a book I'll use a couple times before its replaced.