8837
Post by: Trench-Raider
Ok, pardon the rant here.
I'm a big 40k Nurgle fan. Nurgle Chaos Renegades (originally built using the Lost and the Damned book) were my second 40k army and for a long time was my favorite. Last summer I repainted my Nurgle army and have been playing it quite a bit. Recently another player at the LGS was looking at my army and said "Cool, Nurgle! I play Nurgle too!". He proceded to show me an army that consisted of two Plague Marine squads backed up by nine oblitorators and two lash princes.
I'm sorry. That's not a Nurgle army. That's an army picked for maximum table top performance with no thought given to a theme. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for winning. No one goes into a wargame trying to loose and I believe to some extent or another we all tyr to win. But come on..
Mixing of chaos powers is an army is not automaticly a bad thing. It's been done since day one. But is it that hard to make a themed chaos army competative?
Mixing gods in an army REALLY steps over the line when you start putting the opposing chaos gods in the same force. (you know, Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other as do Nurgle and Tzentch) How do you defend that?
I recently observed a local tourny in which this was rampant. One CSM army had Plague Marines and Thousand suns (and not some "counts as" thing...they were painted in canon style) together, while another had a large force of Khorne Berserkers being lead by a Slaanesh sorceror with lash! :wtf: I actually asked the owner of the latter army "You do know that one of the first things the World Eaters did when they turned renegade was kill all their librarians. Why do you think they would tolerate the pressence of any sorceror..especially one from a power they are opposed to?" His answer was something along the lines of "Well, they are an effective combo!" :rolleyes: Another army from the same event was a Chaos Daemon army with a mix of Nurgle and Tzentch daemons. Yikes!
Had I played any of those forces I would have given them low scores for army comp as I consider mixing opposing chaos powers to be a WAAC move.
So as I asked in the title, do today's chaos players care about the long standing fluff of the game or do they just consider the units in the codex to be a meaningless collection of bits to make "mix and pick" armies?
TR
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Don't blame the players for that. Blame Gav, Jervis and Alessio. They're the reason why Lucius can lead a unit of Berzerkers and why Fateweaver can lead an army of Plague Bearers.
5147
Post by: tomguycot
I think part of the problem here (assuming that it's even really a "problem") is games workshop. The recent books don't seem to care what sort of mix of units/powers you use. The older books at least tried to some extent to limit or discourage this by limiting access to cult troops (they were elites in the last two books) and then giving ways to make them troops if you dedicate your army to a certain god. The system was not perfect but I thought the previous Chaos Marine book handled the cult armies pretty well while still retaining the option to run a black legion style mixed army.
Frankly though I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about the tournament crowd not caring about which marks/powers/gods they mix together. This has always been the case it's just that Games Workshop doesn't try to discourage it anymore.
8837
Post by: Trench-Raider
Oh believe me. I know were the blame lies. You are correct.
However just because you can do it in the codex does not mean that a player should take that option.
TR
752
Post by: Polonius
It's long standing fluff that's utterly lacking in the new codex, and they also in no way built the new chaos book for mono-god armies to be remotely complete.
Previous chaos books allowed for (admittedly thin) armies to be built around every god, complete with full support and having a theme that can actually succeed. Now, the cults are much more like Aspect warriors: specialists that need to be combined to have any success.
So, the old fluff restrictions were also gaming restrictions: they were the counterbalance to the insane diversity and power of the chaos book. Now, those fluff restrictions are just as quaint as arbitrary as any other fluff or theme based protocol.
752
Post by: Polonius
Trench-Raider wrote:Oh believe me. I know were the blame lies. You are correct.
However just because you can do it in the codex does not mean that a player should take that option.
TR
well, and I think that players shouldn't take 20 nob bikers, or all assault terminators plus 10 scouts as a space marine army, but it happens.
443
Post by: skyth
The ancient enemies thing isn't in the fluff any more...Khorne and Slaanesh are buddies now 
7189
Post by: MrGiggles
Pretty much. The good news is that the newer books offer a ton of choice. That means that you'll see some folks who will make choices based on how things perform or even just the fact that they like the models rather than looking at all at the fluff.
For instance, were I doing CSM's, there's a pretty good chance you'd see a Plague Marine and Thousand Sons army. My reasoning wouldn't have anything to do with the fluff. I just happen to think the models for those two cults are great.
On the other hand, if GW came out with a Chaos rules set which encouraged (not shoehorned) players to follow the fluff a little more, I think that would be great. I've zero issue with folks getting a bonus of buff when playing those nice, themed armies. Couple that with the large amount of background GW has already done for things, it does make sense to use it.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Yup, the fluff has changed. Read the new codexes before making judgements of other's forces...
It's no more valid expecting someone to make an army that conforms to outdated fluff than it is to allow them to play using the outdated rules.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
I really miss the old codex. The new one just doesn't make up for the loss of the ability to take a fully geared-up Chaos Lord that can rip up Termies and MCs.
By the way, does anyone else remember that super cheesy Nurgle plague sword? A power weapon that wounds on a 2+ and can be taken on ANY champion. Brutal.
9375
Post by: typhus
Yea i remember i loved that weapon lol
6458
Post by: Bunker
Trench-Raider wrote:Oh believe me. I know were the blame lies. You are correct.
However just because you can do it in the codex does not mean that a player should take that option.
TR
Cry more.
Seriously.
In the 10 minutes it took you to post your OP, you could have been setting up a game against a Chaos army to figure out how to beat whatever it is you have a problem with this week.
inb4 son, kiddo, champ, tiger and cheif.
3039
Post by: Grotsnik
I'm sorry. That's not a Nurgle army. That's an army picked for maximum table top performance with no thought given to a theme. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for winning. No one goes into a wargame trying to loose and I believe to some extent or another we all tyr to win. But come on..
Here we go again with the "I don't like that people don't play thier armies the way I think they should whine.
It is a fraking game and everyone doesn't look at or play it the same way. Some people like fluffy little armies that they can make up all kinds of stories/background about and give cute names to all thier models. Others play competitive and build armies with the strongest units in the codex. Most however are somewhere in between.
Simple solution....play your army the way YOU want and let others do the same without having to listen to any whinning on your part. 
827
Post by: Cruentus
My first army was Word Bearers from 2nd edition. You know, the same models/rules/etc as every other CSM legion, except for the paint job, and eventually being able to take 1 chaplain from the SM codex.
My army has evolved over the 3 editions of the game, and somewhere in the area of 7 printings of the various CSM codexes. However, I still don't use cult troops, or marked troops other than undivided. I do use Oblits. And Raptors. I also used to not like using marked Daemons, so the new "generic" daemons are great by me.
All that being said, my army has always been about chaos marines. Not vehicles, not cult troops, not daemons, so I'm probably less affected than others might be.
Now let's take a look at the current 5th ed codex:
1) chaos god animosity is now gone
2) cult armies (legions) are now gone - but can be replicated in some form
3) marked daemons are gone - replaced by generics
4) the focus of the book has gone from "chaos legions" to "chaos renegades" - moving closer to spiky marines than we've ever been before.
All of that, plus the emergence of the interweb as a place to get "the most effective army lists evar!" is slowly driving the nail into the historical fluff of armies in 40k. Hell, if I want to make a "dark apostle" for my Word Bearers, I need to take a Tzeentch marked lord to get the "rosarius invulnerable save". So even those of us who build fluff-based forces, not using all the best combos (never have, and never will use lash), have to cut some corners to make things work.
I also had someone show me the ropes when I got into the game in 4th edition whose primary teachings were 1) sportsmanship and fun matters at all times, and what the game is built around; and 2) fluff makes the experience more enjoyable. Both of which I believe and continue to follow 10 years later.
My .10 (inflation, you know  )
*edit* @ Grotsnik - I agree, and which is why I play with a good group of like-minded players, and never play in FLGS or GW stores.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Like HBMC said, blame Gee-Dubya. They messed things up.
Personally, I have a hard enough time allying with Nurgle and Tzeentch when we do 3 on 3 battles with my friend.
It's ridiculous. Tzeentch I can kind of stand. But my friend who plays Tzeentch should be killing my friend who's Nurgle in addition to the other side.
I should be killing everyone. I play Khorne.
It's annoying. I know.
But in this case, don't blame the players. If they even want to win one game out of 100, they need to take a combo of units.
It's Gav's and Alessio's and Jervis' and Jervis' kid's fault.
In this 'rare' instance, it's not the player's fault. So please don't blame them.
I'm like 100% sure that if it wasn't for combining, they would lose every game.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
Look, everyone understands that CSM are quite a powerful army, but that's not what we're talking about here. No-one is complaining about cheese, Bunker, so read posts fully and don't open your mouth until then,
We're complaining that the fluff for CSM (and other new codexes) no longer has any effect on thhe gameplay. In this dreadful era of 'counts as', we have ludicrous situations like Slaanesh psykers leading an otherwise Khornate army.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Vladsimpaler wrote:But in this case, don't blame the players. If they even want to win one game out of 100, they need to take a combo of units.
Gee, I don't know. I still use almost the same exact CSM list I did back in 3rd, and I still win more than 50% of my games. And that includes GTs. It might actually be the player in some cases, unless you're talking about Cult armies attempting to replicate the legions. My Word Bearers work just fine, although at this point, I might as well use the Marine Codex
Let's see:
Dark Apostle - Chaplain
Veteran CSM - sternguard
CSM Marines - tacticals
CSM Devs - Devs
Raptors - Assault Marines
Chaos Dread - Dread (plus venerable, etc.)
Vindi/Pred/ LR all the same, or better.
I'd miss out on the generic daemons, but what does that matter 
*edit* - oh yeah, I'd never do the above btw, but is an example of cheese elementals "counts as" era, which I also find sad.
8363
Post by: Tierlieb
Redbeard wrote:Yup, the fluff has changed. Read the new codexes before making judgements of other's forces...
It's no more valid expecting someone to make an army that conforms to outdated fluff than it is to allow them to play using the outdated rules.
QFT.
On a more personal note: I know it sounds cool to insist on ideas from a book that cannot be bought any more and that few people really have read. I did that myself. But I found that doing so does not say anything about the other people ignoring my rants but about me. Yet it still was kind of hard to stop. Until I read the older books again. And boy, I am quite happy that we are rid of that fluff. God, that was some gakky writing, combined with gakky ideas based on gakky rules that only people who had never thought beyond Chainmail could have come up with. Good riddance! Yay for the new, vague style that allows for players to actually create a personalized feeling for their army.
Notabene: I love how the GW staff make fun of their former ways. It is not as good as Terry Pratchett stating "yeah, it might have been the another Lord Vetinari [in the earliest books]. Because I described his looks and behaviours differently. Or maybe I was just a bad writer at that time". It is not as reflected as Stephen King writing long intros to every new revision of "The Dark Tower" begging for pardon that he improved while writing his books and that he dared to update them. But it is lovable.
-Tierlieb
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Trench-Raider wrote: two Plague Marine squads backed up by nine oblitorators and two lash princes.
...snip...
Mixing gods in an army REALLY steps over the line when you start putting the opposing chaos gods in the same force. (you know, Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other as do Nurgle and Tzentch) How do you defend that?
plague marines, Nurgle
oblits i think are undivided
lash princes are Slaanesh right?
Nurgle and Slaanesh have no problems with eachother 
Nurgle likes to cause disease and create new life, Slaanesh likes to create new life 
Although i do agree with the rest of your points that one just confused me a little.
8709
Post by: OnTheEdge
Yeah, well that's the new GW policy for ya. *beep* the fluff and sell more stuff. Unfortunately...
I was really into Chaos before this last codex which really killed the joy of it... Same with the ork dex a bit later...
//Edge
411
Post by: whitedragon
Cruentus wrote:Vladsimpaler wrote:But in this case, don't blame the players. If they even want to win one game out of 100, they need to take a combo of units.
Gee, I don't know. I still use almost the same exact CSM list I did back in 3rd, and I still win more than 50% of my games. And that includes GTs. It might actually be the player in some cases, unless you're talking about Cult armies attempting to replicate the legions. My Word Bearers work just fine, although at this point, I might as well use the Marine Codex
Let's see:
Dark Apostle - Chaplain
Veteran CSM - sternguard
CSM Marines - tacticals
CSM Devs - Devs
Raptors - Assault Marines
Chaos Dread - Dread (plus venerable, etc.)
Vindi/Pred/ LR all the same, or better.
I'd miss out on the generic daemons, but what does that matter
*edit* - oh yeah, I'd never do the above btw, but is an example of cheese elementals "counts as" era, which I also find sad.
Booyah, Codex Marines works better than codex Chaos for the original traitor legions. Night Lords led by Counts as "Shrike" for instance...
On another note, Polonius hit the nail on the head. The codex is now designed with Cult Troops as "Aspect Warriors" of the Chaos army, so that you can't really build a mono-power Chaos army and have the same flexibility as you used to in the older dex. (Oddly enough, Codex Demons has alot more powerful Mono-Power builds since each power gets its own units in each Force Org Slot. The same failing of the Chaos Dex can be said for the Eldar dex as well, where all the craftworlds disappeared.
Unfortunately, you can't "hate" on the newer players that don't know the old fluff, since they have no idea because the fluff doesn't appear in the books anymore. How are they supposed to know Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other? How do they even know about the Traitor Legions and Horus? It's barely mentioned in the new book. Hell, most of the fluff focuses on Huron Blackheart (BORING) boarding a space wolf ship.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
corpsesarefun wrote:oblits i think are undivided
Obliterators are Obliterators, not Undivided. They belong to the Obliterator Cult(at least they used to, don't have my Codecii on me to check the newest fluff) and bear the Obliterator Virus instead of a Mark of Chaos.
443
Post by: skyth
Cheese Elemental wrote: we have ludicrous situations like Slaanesh psykers leading an otherwise Khornate army.
There is a story in an old Inferno with a Khorne army led by a champion of Khorne that had a voice that could influence people to do things...Sounds A LOT like what the Lash does...
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
It's less thearmy builds andmore nobody caring about fluff at all. Lots of people don't know anything about The chaos army, how they fight, or what they fight for. All they know is "this combo wins. Tragic past of Death guard.....Huh? Used to be the dusk raiders...what? And what does that leave us with, you ask. Bare bones battle reports lacking anything more than, Lash prince A lashes tact unit 2 for Oblit squad C to Plasma cannon.
Ask them why there are 2 daemon princes of slannech leading thier army, where did the oblits come from, and what are they fighting for? It's easy to come up with a back story, but most will not have bothered with that. And when something new comes out this army will end up on ebay like the Iron warriors and Khorne daemon princes of old.
My chaos lord has been battling the hated Emperor for 14 years, he's slain Titans, and been pulled down by grots. He's seen the rise of the necrons and the fall of the squats. All the campains he's been in has given him a rich back story. Last week he killed a nameless lash prince and it's nameless army. No kidding, I asked the guy and all he came up with was. Uhhhhh.
Rant over, Flame shield up.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Platuan4th wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:oblits i think are undivided
Obliterators are Obliterators, not Undivided. They belong to the Obliterator Cult(at least they used to, don't have my Codecii on me to check the newest fluff) and bear the Obliterator Virus instead of a Mark of Chaos.
Thanks for clearing that up
still my point stands oblits dont follow a rival god to slaanesh or nurgle.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
I think that it depends on your point of view.
I started a WE army back in 2nd Ed, when I joined again in 4th Ed, I went back to them as I had the units. But man is it dull just charging on headlong! So with a bit of stripping my chaos force are now mercenaries and renegades, plynig the stars serving their dark masters whims, sometimes there's a Slaaneshi sorceror and some bezerkers, they know how to make use of the pansy princes servants to ensure khorne's cup of blood is full.
My Nurgle lord has a tzeenchian sorceror under his command, he knows he can not be trusted, and that the changer of ways has some scheme up his sleave, but for now they have their use, and will be used as tools in the war that consumes the stars.
12531
Post by: diablarist
i hate the way thigs are going now to..i play death gard, in my armey there is nothing with out the M.O.N and all my infantery are in squads of 7. the only thing i admit that is counter fluff is that my army is mostly maeckanised..but thats cuz i see the idear of a invading force of guys inhi matanese armor with out trasport stupid. and you know whar really got my goat? the fantasy army book..you can give a champion with a mark gifts from a rival god! damit!
8363
Post by: Tierlieb
Platuan4th wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:oblits i think are undivided
Obliterators are Obliterators, not Undivided. They belong to the Obliterator Cult(at least they used to, don't have my Codecii on me to check the newest fluff) and bear the Obliterator Virus instead of a Mark of Chaos.
A nice example of fluff not fitting with other fluff - so what did we have? Only the 4 chaos gods, several Chaos gods, only lesser gods. Where did that Obliterator virus thing come from? From an attempt to make up an explanation why you couldn't fit Oblits into a cult army. Because of game-balance reasons. Now the game-balance thing is gone and we still consider the idea fluffy.
One more point for going the vague way. Or for separating the what (rules) from the why (fluff).
It's a lesson role-playing games learned earlier.
So while it may hard to explain having a Slaneesh-marked sorcerer leading PM and Obliterators, having a Preacher of Nurgle (with a seducing voice, simulated by LOS) lead the same Plague Marines and those infected former terminators (hmmm... Obliterator virus - sounds like Papa Nurgle had a good idea there, that's much more interesting than this bubonic plague thing the last time - if you ask me at least) sounds good.
It's less thearmy builds andmore nobody caring about fluff at all. Lots of people don't know anything about The chaos army, how they fight, or what they fight for. All they know is "this combo wins. Tragic past of Death guard.....Huh? Used to be the dusk raiders...what? And what does that leave us with, you ask. Bare bones battle reports lacking anything more than, Lash prince A lashes tact unit 2 for Oblit squad C to Plasma cannon.
Ask them why there are 2 daemon princes of slannech leading thier army, where did the oblits come from, and what are they fighting for? It's easy to come up with a back story, but most will not have bothered with that. And when something new comes out this army will end up on ebay like the Iron warriors and Khorne daemon princes of old.
My chaos lord has been battling the hated Emperor for 14 years, he's slain Titans, and been pulled down by grots. He's seen the rise of the necrons and the fall of the squats. All the campains he's been in has given him a rich back story. Last week he killed a nameless lash prince and it's nameless army. No kidding, I asked the guy and all he came up with was. Uhhhhh.
Good one! That I would care about. Stories. Not army builds. To me story, modelling and gaming are equal parts of the hobby.
Sometimes people need help with one or the other. How about we start finding some helpful questions for the story thing?
I'll begin with simple stuff:
What is that warband named?
Who is their leader(s). Why?
How are they based?
Since when have they been around?
How did they come to be?
What did they do since then?
Why did they do it?
Of course these stories may change (changing HQs, increasing size...). Hopefully they'll incorporate parts of older stories.
EDIT:
i hate the way thigs are going now to..i play death gard, in my armey there is nothing with out the M.O.N and all my infantery are in squads of 7. the only thing i admit that is counter fluff is that my army is mostly maeckanised..but thats cuz i see the idear of a invading force of guys inhi matanese armor with out trasport stupid. and you know whar really got my goat? the fantasy army book..you can give a champion with a mark gifts from a rival god! damit!
So of all the possible plot hooks and stories from those old codices, you managed to get away with counting models up to a certain number and sticking to giving them a certain special ability?
-Tierlieb
2776
Post by: Reecius
Fluff does not equal rules.
Fluff changes with every codex.
Therefore, what you think is fluffy has no bearing on what other people should bring to the table.
8392
Post by: Xenith
corpsesarefun wrote:Platuan4th wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:oblits i think are undivided
Obliterators are Obliterators, not Undivided. They belong to the Obliterator Cult(at least they used to, don't have my Codecii on me to check the newest fluff) and bear the Obliterator Virus instead of a Mark of Chaos.
Thanks for clearing that up
still my point stands oblits dont follow a rival god to slaanesh or nurgle.
Haha, this is hillarious, obliterators arent even infected marines with the obliterator virus anymore, the fluff has changed! They are now dark mechanicus-alikes, who work for armies in return for tech/slaves/candy etc.
corpsesarefun, tzeentch likes new life and change, nugle likes death and stagnation. thats why they fight.
Yes, when not fighting the imperium, the chaos factions fight amongst eachother, and even then, champions of the same god fight amongst eachother.
chaos is chaos. you seem to getting worked up about the fact that peoples armies dont comply to a set of arbitrary rules that you deem appropriate, thereby attempting to bring order to chaos?
If you do that and make armies comply, is it still chaos?
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Cheese Elemental wrote:Look, everyone understands that CSM are quite a powerful army, but that's not what we're talking about here. No-one is complaining about cheese, Bunker, so read posts fully and don't open your mouth until then,
We're complaining that the fluff for CSM (and other new codexes) no longer has any effect on thhe gameplay. In this dreadful era of 'counts as', we have ludicrous situations like Slaanesh psykers leading an otherwise Khornate army.
Seriously, cry harder. Maybe when you start tear-staining the tables, people will care. You're getting all blurry-eyed that you're facing Khorne and Slaanesh? Fine. It's a warband where the leadership has fallen into Slaanesh's camp, while the rank and file drifted under the sway of the Blood God. It's been a violent, and factitious divide, and was just about to be finally settled in a spectacularly bloody confrontation when a whole bunch of loyalist marines drop-podded right into the middle of things, and the warband's differences will still be waiting to be settled after they finish flaying the souls out of the false emperor's dogs.
There you go, you have your fluff. Now stop crying over the fact that everyone does not play the game the way you think it should be played, and just play the damn game. 
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Xenith wrote:
corpsesarefun, tzeentch likes new life and change, nugle likes death and stagnation. thats why they fight.
i thought nurgle was all about destruction to bring new life?
10123
Post by: BoxANT
Well, if you are at a tourny, then you have to be ready for the most optimized (non fluffy) lists to come at you. It's just the nature of the beast, you can't blame people for wanting to build the hardest army they can
As for friendly games, well again, it depends on the person. At my FLGS there are Chaos armies that have ... questionable ... alliances. Like the Daemon Khorne/Tze (Fateweaver + BloodCrushers). But, then there are some really great themed armies as well Just gotta take it as it comes and have fun.
If GW built a codex that really forced people to play with "fluffy" armies, then people would btich that they didn't have enough freedom.
So basically, i'd rather have the option to build both a fluffy and non fluffy army, then have to build it a certain way.
6035
Post by: Techboss
The more the current CSM codex exists, the more I hate it with every being in my soul.
10123
Post by: BoxANT
corpsesarefun wrote:Xenith wrote:
corpsesarefun, tzeentch likes new life and change, nugle likes death and stagnation. thats why they fight.
i thought nurgle was all about destruction to bring new life?
You're right, nurgle is the lord of decay. But decay is essential for change (imagine a world with no bacteria)
Tzeentch is the god of change, and i assume, doesn't like nurgle interfering with his sinister plans
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
Voicing one's Opinion isn't crying, it's free speech. I think a lot of SM players would be uppset is you could have a Blood angels captain leading an black templars army. Or if GW threw all the SM follow the codex who-hah out of the window. Some people lost thier Entire armies in this codex. All undivided leigion rules were purged. Imagin if SM were forced to only play ultra marines, with space wolves only as a troop choice.
Flame shield up.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Trench-Raider wrote:Recently another player at the LGS was looking at my army and said "Cool, Nurgle! I play Nurgle too!". He proceded to show me an army that consisted of two Plague Marine squads backed up by nine oblitorators and two lash princes.
So as I asked in the title, do today's chaos players care about the long standing fluff of the game or do they just consider the units in the codex to be a meaningless collection of bits to make "mix and pick" armies?
I don't know why you get your panties in a bunch. He has a legal army and should be free to play it. Today's players don't have to care about Fluff, but then nor do they deserve Theme points from older players who know the Fluff. He just gets a zero for comp (dual-lash oblit spam) and theme (pure win build).
5566
Post by: studderingdave
in the current enviroment, ive stopped trying to preach the word of chaos fluff. in a tourney your obviously going to run a hard list, but i know good players who run themed armies in tourneys and do very well. so teling me that the only way for chaos to win is with 2 lashes, 9 oblits and PM's in the center just doesnt fly.
in the end its the player that makes the call. i for one will follow the fluff, and just becuase its outdated doesnt mean its wrong. so may people look at the most recent codex, read about the chaos gods holding hands and assume thats the way its always been. thats a load of garbage, but if you wanna pull the wool over your eyes then thats on you.
everyone has access to the same codex, some people just want to abuse it, min/max the best stuff out no matter what mark it has and smash people with it. other people want to make a themed/balanced list and enjoy themeselves, in the end its all about choice.
i chose to recognize the older fluff about ancient enemies and that sort of thing, thats just me. obliterators arn't techmarines to me, they have the obliterator virus, and a lash prince will never lead my plague marines anywhere.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
sexiest_hero wrote:Voicing one's Opinion isn't crying, it's free speech.
It's all about how you phrase it.
Trench-Raider wrote:IF ITS IN THE CODEX U KAN DO IT!!11!! IF ITS A GO0D K0Mb) USE IT! i PLAt 2 W1N!!!!11!! Hur hur
Yes, making a poll where you have three properly written choices, and then that does nothing at all to make you look like a butt-hurt little baby who can't wrap their head around the fact that just because it's your way, doesn't mean it's the only way.
6846
Post by: solkan
The great thing about people complaining about mixing previously hated forces is that it has always been possible before, but it was limited by requiring a neutral guy in charge of the army. All GW did was decide to get rid of the requirement for a middleman.
How many Space Marine players care about the old Space Marine fluff where Space Marines were brain washed, mind wiped psychopaths? Or did that never happen because GW would never change the background?
10920
Post by: Goliath
Hello.
Firstly i would like to ask, would you consider a combined army of all four powers an O.K army,
Secondly, I started playing in 2005(I'm 15) , and so consider myself a relatively new hobbyist, and yet i still know about the chaos god "eternal enemies" fluff.
Thirdly, and this is just me being a stickler for latin grammar: Its CODICES not Codecii (one of my pet hates is bad pluralisation)
BYE
466
Post by: skkipper
my flying khorne prince with super cool rage inducing aura "counts as" a lash prince.
The old fluff is dead. until I can give psyhic protection to my khorne princes (very fluffy).
If you want me to play old fluff I will gladly play codex v3.5. I have an 888 point 8 man chosen bike squad that is always ready.
6377
Post by: Solasun
At OP:
I'm sorry my Malal-themed Daemon force consists of Daemons that are Slaaneshi/Khornate/Nurglish/Tzeentchian by rules and fluff and not of the "correct" Malalian Daemonic Legion that's totally in my codex/armybook.
I'll just go smash all my models up and melt the remains because it's upsetting you that the mortal enemy of all chaos is using the wrong type of Daemons that don't really like each other!
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
i retract the previous statement after looking it up.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
corpsesarefun wrote:Nurgle likes to cause disease and create new life, Slaanesh likes to create new life
And spreads a little disease in the process, perfect match.
Well, except for Nurgle's fluff being wrong.
9589
Post by: whocares
Trench-Raider wrote:while another had a large force of Khorne Berserkers being lead by a Slaanesh sorceror with lash! :wtf: I actually asked the owner of the latter army "You do know that one of the first things the World Eaters did when they turned renegade was kill all their librarians. Why do you think they would tolerate the pressence of any sorceror..especially one from a power they are opposed to?"
In the Black Library book about Kharne a Slaanesh sorcerer used his seductive power to turn Kharnes men against him. Kharne then preceded to happily slaughter them. But, the point is, he could have easily argued that the berserkers were under the spell of the sorcerers and he got the idea for his "theme" from a certified GW book.
Point being, fluff can be used to justify any power gaming technique you dream up if you just try hard enough.
The major complaint seems to be that the chaos book is less limiting. But I see that as a good thing. If you want fluff, build all nurgle, or all Khorne, etc. If you want to power game, then power game. Power gamers never really cared about the fluff anyway, they didn't see it as a cool addition to their army, just a silly limitation.
The problem with putting limitations on power gamers is that you can kill the fluff for some people too. Let's take my initial example of the dancing berserker army. What if someone out there read that book and thought that playing that army would be a really cool idea? Nothing about how good it was, but this guy just really liked that book. If there were limitations written into the rules, he couldn't do it.
At the end of the day, I think excess limitations hurt the fluff more than they hurt they power gaming. Power gamers will always find another way to make the most powerful army and bend the rules. Sure, maybe some lash runners would have bought orcs instead and all brought the same biker nob army. What fun that would be. If there is going to be cheese, there may as well be a variety of cheese. Because, if you want a fluffy army, it is still perfectly in your ability to build one. Sure, it won't stand up to dual lash prince, but it won't stand up to biker nobs* and whatever else the over powered flavor of the month is and that's what the players who care more about winning than their armies will bring anyway.
*I personally don't think biker nobs are as all powerful as everyone says, but I use them as an example of a cheesy flavor of the month army. There are plenty of other examples.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
Bookwrack wrote:Cheese Elemental wrote:Look, everyone understands that CSM are quite a powerful army, but that's not what we're talking about here. No-one is complaining about cheese, Bunker, so read posts fully and don't open your mouth until then,
We're complaining that the fluff for CSM (and other new codexes) no longer has any effect on thhe gameplay. In this dreadful era of 'counts as', we have ludicrous situations like Slaanesh psykers leading an otherwise Khornate army.
Seriously, cry harder. Maybe when you start tear-staining the tables, people will care. You're getting all blurry-eyed that you're facing Khorne and Slaanesh? Fine. It's a warband where the leadership has fallen into Slaanesh's camp, while the rank and file drifted under the sway of the Blood God. It's been a violent, and factitious divide, and was just about to be finally settled in a spectacularly bloody confrontation when a whole bunch of loyalist marines drop-podded right into the middle of things, and the warband's differences will still be waiting to be settled after they finish flaying the souls out of the false emperor's dogs.
There you go, you have your fluff. Now stop crying over the fact that everyone does not play the game the way you think it should be played, and just play the damn game.
Stop trying to sound intelligent, it doesn't suit you.
Seriously, when you saw an Alpha Legion or World Eaters force in the old codex, you could really appreciate the theme of the army. Cult armies were wonderfully unified forces, but nowadays we have the same cookie-cutter lists with really lame explanations like the one you gave. In the old codex it was made quite clear that rival cults would NEVER fight alongside each other unless they were led by a charismatic undivided Lord.
284
Post by: Augustus
Bunker wrote:Trench-Raider wrote:Oh believe me. I know were the blame lies. You are correct.
However just because you can do it in the codex does not mean that a player should take that option.
TR
Cry more.
Seriously.
In the 10 minutes it took you to post your OP, you could have been setting up a game against a Chaos army to figure out how to beat whatever it is you have a problem with this week.
inb4 son, kiddo, champ, tiger and cheif.
Wrong attitude, posted like a brand new player. The abortion of the current chaos codex flys in the face of nearly 20 years of published GW history. I'm with the OP!
There is suppose to be Chaos Rivalry
Where are the Daemons and possesed Marines in the Chaos armies? Right, no one plays them because the rules are trash!
The Daemon Codex is completely inane, essentially mixed chaos teleporting WHFB army that grew AP1 flame throwers and meltabombs?
Who wouldn't take plague marines as troops?
The other side effect, new players aren't even bothering to buy/paint the models correctly as wysiwyg because of the poor structure. If I had a dollar for every chaos army at Adepticon of black (or whatever color regular chaos marines) where the troops were plague marines and the Landraider guys were berzerkers and 2 lash princess were leading other marked units it would have paid for my trip...
SAD
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
If anyone said: Oh, these Khorne Berzerkers and Slaaneshi Noise Marines are going to enter this terrain piece with the Tzeentchian Thousand Sons and the Nurgle Plague Marines, I'd probably laugh my head off.
But, still, it is their army.
Archaon the Everchosen united the Chaos Legions, as did Horus during the Heresy. It's not impossible.
844
Post by: stonefox
Cheese Elemental wrote:Bookwrack wrote:Cheese Elemental wrote:Look, everyone understands that CSM are quite a powerful army, but that's not what we're talking about here. No-one is complaining about cheese, Bunker, so read posts fully and don't open your mouth until then,
We're complaining that the fluff for CSM (and other new codexes) no longer has any effect on thhe gameplay. In this dreadful era of 'counts as', we have ludicrous situations like Slaanesh psykers leading an otherwise Khornate army.
Seriously, cry harder. Maybe when you start tear-staining the tables, people will care. You're getting all blurry-eyed that you're facing Khorne and Slaanesh? Fine. It's a warband where the leadership has fallen into Slaanesh's camp, while the rank and file drifted under the sway of the Blood God. It's been a violent, and factitious divide, and was just about to be finally settled in a spectacularly bloody confrontation when a whole bunch of loyalist marines drop-podded right into the middle of things, and the warband's differences will still be waiting to be settled after they finish flaying the souls out of the false emperor's dogs.
There you go, you have your fluff. Now stop crying over the fact that everyone does not play the game the way you think it should be played, and just play the damn game.
Stop trying to sound intelligent, it doesn't suit you.
Seriously, when you saw an Alpha Legion or World Eaters force in the old codex, you could really appreciate the theme of the army. Cult armies were wonderfully unified forces, but nowadays we have the same cookie-cutter lists with really lame explanations like the one you gave. In the old codex it was made quite clear that rival cults would NEVER fight alongside each other unless they were led by a charismatic undivided Lord.
That's funny. I remember the old Codex had cookie-cutter lists with 9 oblits and basilisk spam, or all-infiltrating spam, or demonbomb spam, or slaanesh combat drugs demon prince with sound blasters spam. The background just happened to fit with the "wonderfully unified forces" so they didn't need to come up with lame background stories.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
stonefox wrote:Cheese Elemental wrote:Bookwrack wrote:Cheese Elemental wrote:Look, everyone understands that CSM are quite a powerful army, but that's not what we're talking about here. No-one is complaining about cheese, Bunker, so read posts fully and don't open your mouth until then,
We're complaining that the fluff for CSM (and other new codexes) no longer has any effect on thhe gameplay. In this dreadful era of 'counts as', we have ludicrous situations like Slaanesh psykers leading an otherwise Khornate army.
Seriously, cry harder. Maybe when you start tear-staining the tables, people will care. You're getting all blurry-eyed that you're facing Khorne and Slaanesh? Fine. It's a warband where the leadership has fallen into Slaanesh's camp, while the rank and file drifted under the sway of the Blood God. It's been a violent, and factitious divide, and was just about to be finally settled in a spectacularly bloody confrontation when a whole bunch of loyalist marines drop-podded right into the middle of things, and the warband's differences will still be waiting to be settled after they finish flaying the souls out of the false emperor's dogs.
There you go, you have your fluff. Now stop crying over the fact that everyone does not play the game the way you think it should be played, and just play the damn game.
Stop trying to sound intelligent, it doesn't suit you.
Seriously, when you saw an Alpha Legion or World Eaters force in the old codex, you could really appreciate the theme of the army. Cult armies were wonderfully unified forces, but nowadays we have the same cookie-cutter lists with really lame explanations like the one you gave. In the old codex it was made quite clear that rival cults would NEVER fight alongside each other unless they were led by a charismatic undivided Lord.
That's funny. I remember the old Codex had cookie-cutter lists with 9 oblits and basilisk spam, or all-infiltrating spam, or demonbomb spam, or slaanesh combat drugs demon prince with sound blasters spam. The background just happened to fit with the "wonderfully unified forces" so they didn't need to come up with lame background stories.
True,there were "cookie cuter"spam list culled from the old codex,just as there are from the current one,power gamers will find ways to be power gamers reguardless,sadly in a search for "balance" in the current CSM codex things have become a bit bland and dull.
I do however belive it's very possible to create a "fluffy" army using the current dex,I used to make my Death Guard and I belive it turned out competitive and fluffy....and not a lash in sight.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition on:
This thread has been reported-twice.
Everyone needs to remember the primary rule in Dakka: Be polite. Before you hit send on that post you should re-read said post to insure it falls within that minimum standard of courtesy.
Because of multiple reports, posts after this warning will be reviewed to insure they meet said criteria, in harsh terms. Consider this a warning to be especially mindful of Rule #1, as summary disciplinary proceedings will be invoked should posts violate that on this thread going forward, starting with suspensions.
I am as serious as a heart attack and will periodically check this thread.
modquisition off.
5340
Post by: deadlygopher
If a new player walks into his FLGS, picks up the chaos codex and reads it cover to cover, he'll have no idea that running slaaneshi sorcerers in khorne squads isn't fluffy. As much as I sympathize with the OP, it just isn't fair to criticize a player for not following fluff that doesn't exist anymore.
91
Post by: Hordini
solkan wrote:How many Space Marine players care about the old Space Marine fluff where Space Marines were brain washed, mind wiped psychopaths? Or did that never happen because GW would never change the background?
I actually think that's a lot cooler and more interesting than most of the current lame-ass background material.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I think the background all depends on how you interpret the interaction between the Gods of Chaos and their followers.
Lets take Daemons as an example. What they need to carry out their nefarious behaviour, is a doorway of some kind. Most often, this is either a Psyker, or a pre existing rift in Real Space. Now Daemons can sense these things, and do their level best to wedge said doorway open, allowing them to rampage on the material plane. Thus, when the door is finally opened, it's less a matter of 'I won't follow through, because Khorne is their already' and much more of a free for all feeding frenzy. Get through, munch as many souls as you can before the door slams shut and they are cast back into the Warp. And the Gods are known to work together as a foursome (fnarr) from time to time. Is it that hard to imagine some Daemons forming a brief alliance with others, even from their Gods rival, as long as they can further their goals? And what could be more appealing than piggybacking on the effort of another, fulfilling your goals, whilst also preventing them from achieveing theirs? The alliances are temporary at best.
Same with the Chaos Legions. Nowadays, they are portrayed as a lot less organised than before. Ego has crept into the renegade marines. Each squad could be a seperate warband allied to the overall commander through mutual convenience, bribery or some other form of coercion. Read the gubbins on the Obliterators. Former Techmarines, not really allied to anyone, and utterly mercenary in their outlook.
Now, if someone decides to make a purely win list, is that the Games Designer being a dick, or the player? The background is put into the books as inspiration. Something to read through and spark your imagination, the army plan following on from there. However, some ignore it utterly and simply make the most poweful list they can, presumably because something in their life is lacking, and winning at a wargame has become the be all and end all.
844
Post by: stonefox
Hordini wrote:solkan wrote:How many Space Marine players care about the old Space Marine fluff where Space Marines were brain washed, mind wiped psychopaths? Or did that never happen because GW would never change the background?
I actually think that's a lot cooler and more interesting than most of the current lame-ass background material.
I dunno. I mean it sounds cool, but was all the homoerotic feel with the plasma guns, geneseed, and age of initiation present back then?
some ignore it utterly and simply make the most poweful list they can, presumably because something in their life is lacking, and winning at a wargame has become the be all and end all.
Right.
91
Post by: Hordini
I'm not sure if it was, stonefox, but there's no reason you can't mix and match if that's your thing.
"Sergeant Cadmus knew in the depths of his pounding double heart that he would always stand behind his battle brothers. The support provided by his hot, pulsing plasma cannon had proved crucial in previous battles. This struggle would be no different."
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh geez 40K pron.
131
Post by: malfred
The player who demands that you play the way they want you to, buy the minis
they want you to buy, paint the way they want you to paint. is not the player you
want to play against. You find this out the first time you play someone, and you
either talk it over and adjust, or not play each other.
131
Post by: malfred
Frazzled wrote:Oh geez 40K pron has been with us since day one.
fyt
6887
Post by: Greebynog
Frazzled wrote:Oh geez 40K pron.
I should NOT have googled that.
Anyone got any retina bleach?
844
Post by: stonefox
malfred wrote:The player who demands that you play the way they want you to, buy the minis
they want you to buy, paint the way they want you to paint. is not the player you
want to play against. You find this out the first time you play someone, and you
either talk it over and adjust, or not play each other.
It's like a relationship. Between nerds. Who are both boys. Because girls are icky and alien and the concept of talking to them is foreign.
12510
Post by: Dronze
While I'd be compelled to agree that the current codex's fluff is lacking at best, consider the following:
1. At the release of the CSM codex, they would have already had the Codex: Chaos Daemons book in the pipe, or at the very least had a strong clue as to how they wanted the new army to pan out. Would you bother making/keeping an army that just got refitted with a bunch of half-proven mechanics that may or may not have any bearing to your own army? I didn't think so.
2. According to current canon, not all followers of any given god become cult marines. In fact, thanks to infighting and the fact that more than a few chapters just completely dissolved into smaller warbands, who, in turn, would end up practically required to join forces in order to be effective as anything more than the Pirates Of The Eye Of Terror.
3. 2 words: Black Legion. The Ultrasmurfs of the Chaos Space Marines... If you want fluffyness, find a group that likes fluff, but realize that the new 'dex was written to accommodate the big vanilla flavored legion, as it tends to do for all the armies. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it's just a bit, well, overly bland.
4. Finally, a word to everyone who still wants their flavored daemons: If you're so worried about it, just pick up the Chaos Daemons codex, and form an alliance. I don't think there's a casual player in the world who wouldn't allow that. A band of World Eaters led by a real Bloodthirster AND Kharn? Maybe it's just me, but, frankly, it makes as much sense to me as running CSMs with allied not-so-Imperial Guard... And that, my friends, is a lot.
Stop thinking inside your boxes, those of you who choose to whine about the fact that the codex isn't as fluffy as it once was, and realize that the fact of the matter is that they just moved a good portion of the fluff around.
To put it another way: Does anyone complain when you take Inquisitorial allies with IG? Then why should this be any different?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Frazzled wrote:Oh geez 40K pron.
Rule 34 says it must be so.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Dronze wrote:While I'd be compelled to agree that the current codex's fluff is lacking at best, consider the following:
Does anyone complain when you take Inquisitorial allies with IG? Then why should this be any different?
The Inquisition permits IG to take allies. Daemons does not. Although it probably should. For Renegade Guard. Only. Same as Inquisition.
Fluff-wise, the current CSM book is superior in that CSM players aren't limited to only playing one of the original Traitor Legions. To wit: Not all Berzerker bands are WE. Heck, not all Berzerkers are WE. And not all WE are Berzerkers. Imagine that!
12510
Post by: Dronze
JohnHwangDD wrote:Dronze wrote:While I'd be compelled to agree that the current codex's fluff is lacking at best, consider the following:
Does anyone complain when you take Inquisitorial allies with IG? Then why should this be any different?
The Inquisition permits IG to take allies. Daemons does not. Although it probably should. For Renegade Guard. Only. Same as Inquisition.
Fluff-wise, the current CSM book is superior in that CSM players aren't limited to only playing one of the original Traitor Legions. To wit: Not all Berzerker bands are WE. Heck, not all Berzerkers are WE. And not all WE are Berzerkers. Imagine that!
And that was my entire point....
Besides, if the points values are all meant to act as a universal metric that serve to gauge balance, then why would it matter if you're mixing and matching armies in friendly games?
844
Post by: stonefox
Besides, if the points values are all meant to act as a universal metric that serve to gauge balance, then why would it matter if you're mixing and matching armies in friendly games?
They're (supposedly) meant to serve as a comparitive metric only within the codex itself. Plasma costs differently between IG and SM.
12510
Post by: Dronze
stonefox wrote:
Besides, if the points values are all meant to act as a universal metric that serve to gauge balance, then why would it matter if you're mixing and matching armies in friendly games?
They're (supposedly) meant to serve as a comparitive metric only within the codex itself. Plasma costs differently between IG and SM.
That's because IG have a lower BS, therefore plasma becomes less effective... This is the same reason why flamers cost MORE in the IG 'dex, because it circumvents BS, making it a more effective piece for the model at the points.
If it's only a comparative metric within the codex itself, it means that they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, as there is no standard by which to compare them. Actually, by GWs own reasoning and definition, it should take 3 Ork Boyz to deal with a single Space Marine, based on the points cost.
Sounds to me like they established it as a universal metric for use within the game....
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@stonefox: not anymore it won't - Guard are going to be paying the same 15 pts as SM, despite having less accuracy and suffering twice the deaths to Overheat...
Points are comparable, but armies exclude things and have cost discounts / premiums, so just taking X points of stuff from another book is unbalancing unless you allow all armies the same flexibility. In which case, you no longer have armies, but rather a pile of stuff you can pick the best of.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
H.B.M.C. wrote:Don't blame the players for that. Blame Gav, Jervis and Alessio. They're the reason why Lucius can lead a unit of Berzerkers and why Fateweaver can lead an army of Plague Bearers.
I agree, the players are only doing to their armies what they are being forced to do with the current codex trends.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
Trench-Raider wrote:Oh believe me. I know were the blame lies. You are correct.
However just because you can do it in the codex does not mean that a player should take that option.
TR
I'll bite and play devil's advocate.. Why not? if it is an viable option, why not take it?
844
Post by: stonefox
Right. I forgot they were changing plasma. Bad example, but I'm sure you can find a similar one. Maybe a powersword. :-P
But yeah, John has it right there. If everyone had the flexibility I'm sure they'd love to have some cheap ork boyz with vendetta backups and lash prince HQs.
That's because IG have a lower BS, therefore plasma becomes less effective... This is the same reason why flamers cost MORE in the IG 'dex, because it circumvents BS, making it a more effective piece for the model at the points.
If it's only a comparative metric within the codex itself, it means that they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, as there is no standard by which to compare them. Actually, by GWs own reasoning and definition, it should take 3 Ork Boyz to deal with a single Space Marine, based on the points cost.
Yep. It's all right there. You read through enough of HBMC's rants and all sorts of other people's rants about points costs and it's all right there. Tanks are cheaper for some armies than others, same with heavy weapons, access to speed, access to special abilities, etc. etc. etc. It's not universal.
Even if you were to say that "at total number of points X", it still wouldn't be accurate. Armies like Tau start to falter and run out of useful stuff to buy at 2500+ whereas BT and GK love it, while inversely you get armies at 1500 where some armies shine because you can easily pack multiple 3x of all the special FOC slots while other armies require you to buy certain squads to unlock or attach other squads to them.
131
Post by: malfred
Greebynog wrote:Frazzled wrote:Oh geez 40K pron.
I should NOT have googled that.
Anyone got any retina bleach?
How'd you even get that stuff in your eye? Closest for me has ever been my chest.
844
Post by: stonefox
You mean you never tried it upside down? Or at least an incline?
131
Post by: malfred
I use a tissue when I'm upside down on the couch.
844
Post by: stonefox
You could try a funnel.
102
Post by: Jayden63
The issue is age. Anyone of us who had a Chaos army prior to the newest codex see the newest codex as an abomination and total betrayal of what Chaos used to be.
Anyone who's first introduction to Chaos is the new codex will not see any problem with it.
Neither are bad, but it is what it is. Personally, I'll ask if I can still use the old codex in games (it has all the rules right in it) because that is what I have 2500 points based off of. When they see that it has theme and follows fluff, most don't have a problem with it. Besides, they get to play against a chaos army that doesn't have Lash in it.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
stonefox wrote:You could try a funnel.
well, then it won't get in your eye.
91
Post by: Hordini
two_heads_talking wrote:stonefox wrote:You could try a funnel.
well, then it won't get in your eye.
Maybe you're just pointing the funnel in the wrong direction?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
My problem isn't that people can make stupid armies so much as it is the difficulty in making a fluffy army that's anything but Black Legion.
It's one thing to make Lash sorcerers in berserker squads okay, it's quite another to make Tzeentchian sorcerers in Thousand Sons squads so much worse.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
And actually being on topic fully this time, to my mind, there is a world of difference between a mixed god army, and a cherry picked one.
As you may or may not have noticed, I'm not the sort of gamer who considers effectiveness a top priority in selecting a force. Just isn't my bag. So if I felt I really wanted a Lash Prince or Sorceror, there would be other Slaaneshi presence in my list. That sorted, I could then select other units more or less willy nilly. Essentially, my train of thought is that my HQ choice should relfect the core of my army, with anything deviating from the theme being the hired help. Now this can fluctuate, but if I took a Khornate HQ choice, my two minimum troops would be likewise Khornate, though not necessarily Bezerkers.
13519
Post by: Napalm
FLUFF FOR THE FLUFF GOD!
Someone had to say it.
Interesting debate, I can see the complaints on both sides but in the end to me it just seems to be a matter of personal choice; whether a player is playing for the story or strictly for the dice rolling aspect of it. (or if they can happily reconcile the two)
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I think it all comes down to self justification.
If your justification is that you wanted to write an extremely competitive and high powered list, then fair enough. It's a justification as valid as my own, but I don't think we'd necessarily enjoy a game against each other.
But just be honest about it. Don't go picking what others might call a beardy list, and then make up a tenuous 'theme' for it. Be proud if your competitive. Nothing wrong with it. There is a time and a place for all of it.
91
Post by: Hordini
Just because you have built an effective list, doesn't mean your theme has to be tenuous.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Fluff-wise, the current CSM book is superior in that CSM players aren't limited to only playing one of the original Traitor Legions.
Notice how the two parts of this sentence are unrelated. To break it down: This fluff is better than previous fluff because rules are dfferent. Wha...? But let us all keep in mind that this is from the same guy who things that fluff and theme are somehow more important in 5th Ed and that this somehow actually affects the game... even though it's no more or less important than in previous editions. And you were never ever limited to the playing one of the original traitor legions. Never. The basic list could be used to represent any sort of Chaos formation (and Black Legion). So take your lies and other insane falsehoods elsewhere John. JohnHwangDD wrote:To wit: Not all Berzerker bands are WE. Heck, not all Berzerkers are WE. And not all WE are Berzerkers. Imagine that!
It wasn't that way before. It was quite clearly stated (and had been since 2nd Ed) that the Black Legion (who were playable - you didn't have to play Cult armies, you could play Vanilla Chaos) had their own 'cult' troops. You coudl have Black Legion Berzerkers, Black Legion Noise Marines and Black Legion Plague Marines. You can't have Black Legion Thousand Sons (that'd be like having a Cadian Valhallan, or a Blood Angel Ultramarine), but you could have bands of Thousand Sons hoodwinked into working for the Black Legion. Saying that the old Codex was somehow limiting in how you made your force is completely fething false. Completely. In every way. It's a blatant fething lie.
12914
Post by: FoxPhoenix135
I love the 4th ed codex. It was HUGE! You could make any kind of chaos army you want. I don't like how now you can't take the better deamons with the CSM, that just is silly. Now you get these bland generic demons that suck. That is a tragedy, in my opinion.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
On the subject of The Legions, I was under the impression that....
Not all Bezerkers are World Eaters, but all World Eaters are Bezerkers, the rest having left the Legion to found their own forces, complete with new name, and so on through the various Legions. Except as HBMC correctly pointed out for Thousand Sons, seeing as it's a tad tricky to get more of them.
752
Post by: Polonius
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it all comes down to self justification.
If your justification is that you wanted to write an extremely competitive and high powered list, then fair enough. It's a justification as valid as my own, but I don't think we'd necessarily enjoy a game against each other.
But just be honest about it. Don't go picking what others might call a beardy list, and then make up a tenuous 'theme' for it. Be proud if your competitive. Nothing wrong with it. There is a time and a place for all of it.
The only problem I have with this sort of thinking is that it treats Chaos differently than every other army. If you want to mix Harliquins with Dire Avengers, nobody thinks you're desecrating fluff. If you take lootas and trukk boys, Conscripts and Stormtroopers, or Scouts and Sternguard, nobody gives you a hard time about not playing the fluff. Feel like playing with an 8 man devestator squad? No problem. Want to field an IG army without a commissar? Who cares?
Mix two chaos gods, though, and it's a problem.
Sure, if they're taking a top notch POD list that's tweaked to stomp all comers, than the list is a tough one that's built to win. But not all combinations like that are that powerful, and I for one am not going to hold Chaos players to any standard more stringent than I hold anybody else.
7782
Post by: Tresson
JohnHwangDD wrote:Frazzled wrote:Oh geez 40K pron.
Rule 34 says it must be so.
And rule 35 says if there wasn't any before there is some now.
11
Post by: ph34r
Polonius wrote:The only problem I have with this sort of thinking is that it treats Chaos differently than every other army. If you want to mix Harliquins with Dire Avengers, nobody thinks you're desecrating fluff. If you take lootas and trukk boys, Conscripts and Stormtroopers, or Scouts and Sternguard, nobody gives you a hard time about not playing the fluff. Feel like playing with an 8 man devestator squad? No problem. Want to field an IG army without a commissar? Who cares?
Mix two chaos gods, though, and it's a problem.
Sure, if they're taking a top notch POD list that's tweaked to stomp all comers, than the list is a tough one that's built to win. But not all combinations like that are that powerful, and I for one am not going to hold Chaos players to any standard more stringent than I hold anybody else.
The thing is, there are pages and books of fluff on how and which gods hate each other. There is no intense hatred between trukk boys and lootas, or harlequins and dire avengers, or scouts and sternguard.
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
There is no more fluff.
Old fluff is dead. Uber-power lists are the new fluff.
Do orks even have clans anymore? I know that they don't have madboys anymore. Why do demons have their own codex? Why does the space marine codex let you take any special character, paint him any way you want, with any painted (or even unpainted) space marine army, even "call" him a different name, but still use the SC rules?
If you want to play a game with fluff, I believe 2nd edition had some to spare(plus corresponding WDs).
And since you clearly stated that it was a rant in your opening post, rant away. I too miss playing my Death Guard and Iron Warriors armies, but they just don't exist anymore under the new codex.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Jayden63 wrote:The issue is age. Anyone of us who had a Chaos army prior to the newest codex see the newest codex as an abomination and total betrayal of what Chaos used to be.
Not so. Some of us go back to RoC: LatD and we find the new CSM to be just fine going back to the roots in the 40k3 Rulebook and initial 40k3 Codex. ____ Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it all comes down to self justification.
It doesn't have to. I'm not planning on a single Lash, nor Obliterator. I'm planning on Dread, 7-strong PM, along with 6-strong NM and 8-strong KBs backed by generic "counts as" Daemons. ____ FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Now you get these bland generic demons that suck. That is a tragedy, in my opinion.
Not if you're a MoCU player like me. Not having to sign up with one (or more) of the Greater Powers to field Daemons is a great advantage in theme. ____ Perturabo's Chosen wrote:Why do demons have their own codex?
Because the Chaos players complained that SM had so many Codices and they had only one, so GW split Chaos up in 40k following the WFB Mortals / Beasts / Daemons.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I'm still right Fraz.
13824
Post by: ©µωая→!
Wow that's a nice question i can tel i loled hard.
752
Post by: Polonius
ph34r wrote:Polonius wrote:The only problem I have with this sort of thinking is that it treats Chaos differently than every other army. If you want to mix Harliquins with Dire Avengers, nobody thinks you're desecrating fluff. If you take lootas and trukk boys, Conscripts and Stormtroopers, or Scouts and Sternguard, nobody gives you a hard time about not playing the fluff. Feel like playing with an 8 man devestator squad? No problem. Want to field an IG army without a commissar? Who cares?
Mix two chaos gods, though, and it's a problem.
Sure, if they're taking a top notch POD list that's tweaked to stomp all comers, than the list is a tough one that's built to win. But not all combinations like that are that powerful, and I for one am not going to hold Chaos players to any standard more stringent than I hold anybody else.
The thing is, there are pages and books of fluff on how and which gods hate each other. There is no intense hatred between trukk boys and lootas, or harlequins and dire avengers, or scouts and sternguard.
Ahhh, you're talking about the past, during which there were also pages and pages of rules so that a Khorne heavy force didn't need help from slaanesh to compete. Now that the codex is designed for every cult to be includable in any given army, that fluff has gone.
My point with the other examples is that we don't hold other armies to old fashioned and frankly arbitrary fluff restrictions. Eldrad leads what are clearly Biel Tan mechanized aspect warrior armies. Half the space marine armies out there are built around any unit other than tactical squads. They're not exactly pilloried (well, the eldrad thing was pretty nasty for a while).
In short: the animosity of the gods was a fluff rule that was represented as a codex rule, but it was balanced by advantages given to single god lists. Both of those things are absent in 5th, and holding chaos players to any different standard is unfair. Now, if you're a fluff bunny that likes to play totally in the theme, than feel free to ask your opponent to follow those fluff rules, but you'd better have your own stuff in a freaking line.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Polonius wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it all comes down to self justification.
If your justification is that you wanted to write an extremely competitive and high powered list, then fair enough. It's a justification as valid as my own, but I don't think we'd necessarily enjoy a game against each other.
But just be honest about it. Don't go picking what others might call a beardy list, and then make up a tenuous 'theme' for it. Be proud if your competitive. Nothing wrong with it. There is a time and a place for all of it.
The only problem I have with this sort of thinking is that it treats Chaos differently than every other army. If you want to mix Harliquins with Dire Avengers, nobody thinks you're desecrating fluff. If you take lootas and trukk boys, Conscripts and Stormtroopers, or Scouts and Sternguard, nobody gives you a hard time about not playing the fluff. Feel like playing with an 8 man devestator squad? No problem. Want to field an IG army without a commissar? Who cares?
Mix two chaos gods, though, and it's a problem.
Sure, if they're taking a top notch POD list that's tweaked to stomp all comers, than the list is a tough one that's built to win. But not all combinations like that are that powerful, and I for one am not going to hold Chaos players to any standard more stringent than I hold anybody else.
Like all things, double standards are indeed rife.
However, the point I was trying to make was that it's entirely down to each player to self justify. Me, I prefer to keep the fluff in mind when designing a list, but I don't always let it limit me. For example, I have an entirely Savage Orc army for Fantasy. 2,000 points of turbo nutters. Including Big'Uns as a seperate unit, I make use of precisely 4 different units, and 2 types of character. Now this fine up to my current points, but beyond that gets very, very boring, and throws most chances of winning it's game.
Similarly, if I played Marines, I would have at least 3 full strength Tactical Squads as the backbone. But if someone else chooses to go min/max then fair play to them. I just won't play them but I'm sure many would.
Also the double standard comes mainly from Chaos players holding themselves to certain values rather than non-Chaos players.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
I agree 800% with Polonius.
Back in the day it seemed like balanced, mixed lists were the norm (2nd ed, the gamestore that I played at being my only exposure to the game), and when someone wanted to make a "themed" list (mono-god, all aspect warriors, whatever) they did it for the "cool factor" and not because they had any specific bonuses for doing it.
Nowadays, it seems like many on the internet (thank goodness not in my local gaming community) expect all chaos lists to be single-god, or you're an utter cheddar-monger playing only to win and you're not doing it right.
I have a couple of problems with that idea.
As Polonius has mentioned, gamers often hold Chaos to a different standard than other lists. I think this is likely because of their very iconic place in the fluff. At a tourney one time, I was playing my Black Legion, but was using only Khorne-Marked, or Undivided-marked units (3.5 ed codex). I think I lost comp points against every player I was matched against, despite following all of the rules for army creation, and even following the fluff for the Black Legion in the codex: the book said that the main army list was representative of Black Legion forces... ergo I could take anything in the book I damned well pleased. One player complained that I "had all the benefits of a World Eaters list but none of the penalties." I thought that was funny because I sure didn't get the free aspiring champions or +1 summoning rolls, and I sure DID get troops that ran after rhinos instead of fighting things.
Secondly: there's nothing wrong with taking powerful units. It may be a design flaw of the Chaos Codex that there are so few units which are obviously good, and also that since you can't cover your metagame bases (anti-transport, multi-meltas, anti-infantry) with any FoC slot like Loyalists can Obliterators are the obvious choice because of their versatility. Since regular CSM are actually subject to running-the-F-away, and sturdy troops are the way to win objective-based missions, Plague Marines become obvious, and because chaos doesn't have fast transports, drop pods, good bikers, or any of the other ways that other armies gain initiative (meaning, being able to choose when to shoot and assault) or mobility, Lash is such an obvious way to shore up that weakness. People don't hate on other armies nearly so much for "taking the good stuff" as they do on Chaos.
I think that some people just won't be happy until there are 5 pre-written lists for Chaos: Nurgle, Slaanesh, Khorne, Tzeentch, and Undivided, and they all suck.
Remember: when you fight for Chaos, there are no prizes for conformity. Do what you want, not what others tell you is "appropriate."
6035
Post by: Techboss
JohnHwangDD wrote:Not so. Some of us go back to RoC: LatD and we find the new CSM to be just fine going back to the roots in the 40k3 Rulebook and initial 40k3 Codex.
The roots are 40K 2nd edition or earlier, not the crap that was put out for ALL armies at the start of 3rd edition. The initial run of codeces were aweful by almost all standards. That is why most of them were starting to get redone or updated with WD chapter approved near the end of 3rd edition.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Not if you're a MoCU player like me. Not having to sign up with one (or more) of the Greater Powers to field Daemons is a great advantage in theme.
Except for 2nd edition and maybe prior, you can summon any demon using an Undivided character/mark/icon. You do not have to have god specific troops in order to use demons. However, you do have to pick which demons you want to use, but you had FOUR choices of demons with differing abilities and points costs. If you had to have a generic demon, you could use furies, which were available in the 3.5 codex. Now players are stuck with ONE generic demon, ONE.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Because the Chaos players complained that SM had so many Codices and they had only one, so GW split Chaos up in 40k following the WFB Mortals / Beasts / Daemons.
Chaos players wanted the armies split into god specific codeces, not unit type codices. The equivalent would be removing all Land Raiders, Terminators and Dreadnaughts and making that one army, while the putting everything else in another codex and calling that SM. Chaos players wanted once codex for each god, such as.
Undivided -> Ultramarines
Khorne -> Blood Angels
Nurgle -> Dark Angels
Slaanesh -> Black Templars
Tzeentch -> Space Wolves
12510
Post by: Dronze
Techboss wrote:Chaos players wanted the armies split into god specific codeces, not unit type codices. The equivalent would be removing all Land Raiders, Terminators and Dreadnaughts and making that one army, while the putting everything else in another codex and calling that SM. Chaos players wanted once codex for each god, such as.
Undivided -> Ultramarines
Khorne -> Blood Angels
Nurgle -> Dark Angels
Slaanesh -> Black Templars
Tzeentch -> Space Wolves
And why not? Why is it that SM players feel the need to get all loud about having their 5 different codices, but why not just release all the requisite material into a single codex so that people stop getting all uppity about it?
Is it so wrong to ask for a complete product in terms of flavor and fluff?
Space marines are space marines are space marines. Powered armor and serving the emperor should about cover that aspect of it, plain and simple, let the codex actually have what you need to play in one place. Is it really that difficult?
844
Post by: stonefox
I agree Dronze. But tell that to SMs who are downright convinced that their light blue space mariens play wholly differently from their red or green spacehams.
They'll try to convince you that it's as different as playing Eldar and Nids.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
I agree with Willy D style....
Seriously... fluff changes. Orks used to be a shooting based army back in the day (way back!) then in 3rd they changed to Close combat....
How about we stick to the fluff and penalize anyone that takes marines? there are only supposed to be sooooo many of them right? therefore everyone takes marines so they all should be punished!
7445
Post by: robertsjf
Hordini wrote:"Sergeant Cadmus knew in the depths of his pounding double heart that he would always stand behind his battle brothers. The support provided by his hot, pulsing plasma cannon had proved crucial in previous battles. This struggle would be no different."
sigged
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not all Bezerkers are World Eaters, but all World Eaters are Bezerkers, the rest having left the Legion to found their own forces, complete with new name, and so on through the various Legions. Except as HBMC correctly pointed out for Thousand Sons, seeing as it's a tad tricky to get more of them.
And all Death Guard are Plague Marines. Only the EC couldn't decide if everyone was going to be in a band or not.
As far as 1ksons, why not a lesser form of the rubric?
121
Post by: Relapse
In response to the OP without going through all the pages here I can only say this at the risk of repeating what may already have been said:
1. It's a game set in a made up universe in the far future. Nothing is set in stone.
2. You're talking about Chaos in this made up universe. Chaos means anything is possible.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Relapse wrote:Chaos means anything is possible.
Except Legion armies and non-Generic Daemons in Chaos Marine armies.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
H.B.M.C. wrote:Relapse wrote:Chaos means anything is possible.
Except Legion armies and non-Generic Daemons in Chaos Marine armies.
Score!!! H.B.M.C!....In all seriousness Daemons as represented in the current codex( CSM) are just sad,daemons that cant have daemon wepons..Wha!!??
it's just..silly.
And,while I am happy with my Death Guard,it's obviously a cobbled army having to use the current dex.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Polonius wrote:It's long standing fluff that's utterly lacking in the new codex, and they also in no way built the new chaos book for mono-god armies to be remotely complete.
I have every Chaos codex printed and it is NOT 'long-standing fluff'. It was mentioned in the original Realms of Chaos books, but not enforced as a rule. And pretty much absent from each following book.
The usual studio armies always mixed their gods.
And besides this is CHAOS, it always struck me as odd that insane, drooling worshipers of mad gods would somehow be even more intollerant than the Imperium.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1. Is it noted at all in the Renegades (er Chaos Marine) Codex? If you're starting point is that codex then this whole argument is utterly alien to you.
2. The new Demon Codex notes the Big Four fight it out all the time. However, it also notes in direct fluff an utter mixed bag of demons going into the ampitheatre thing and dropping into battle. Thats pretty much official sanction of a mixed force.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:And pretty much absent from each following book.
It's been as long a standing fluff as I can remember. 2nd Ed Chaos Codex had animosity tests for opposed daemons that got too near to one another.
And it's not mixing Gods that is the problem, it's mixing the wrong Gods. You want a Tzeentchian lord leading a Khornate Legion? Cool. Just don't have a Slaaneshi Lord leading a Khornate Legion, or a Nurgle Guy trying to tell Tzeentchians what to do.
844
Post by: stonefox
HB, you're always talking about having options for people in codices. You also like talking about fluff != rules. You acknowledge that fluff changes to suit GW's marketing whims.
Yet you say you don't want slaanesh-khorne or nurgle-tzeentch armies. Wut. Seriously, wut?
11452
Post by: willydstyle
stonefox wrote:HB, you're always talking about having options for people in codices. You also like talking about fluff != rules. You acknowledge that fluff changes to suit GW's marketing whims.
Yet you say you don't want slaanesh-khorne or nurgle-tzeentch armies. Wut. Seriously, wut?
Yet another example of players holding Chaos to a different, and more restrictive standard than other armies.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
willydstyle wrote:stonefox wrote:HB, you're always talking about having options for people in codices. You also like talking about fluff != rules. You acknowledge that fluff changes to suit GW's marketing whims.
Yet you say you don't want slaanesh-khorne or nurgle-tzeentch armies. Wut. Seriously, wut?
Yet another example of players holding Chaos to a different, and more restrictive standard than other armies.
Arbitrary Restrictions are Arbitrary.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Dronze wrote:
And why not? Why is it that SM players feel the need to get all loud about having their 5 different codices, but why not just release all the requisite material into a single codex so that people stop getting all uppity about it?
Is it so wrong to ask for a complete product in terms of flavor and fluff?
Space marines are space marines are space marines. Powered armor and serving the emperor should about cover that aspect of it, plain and simple, let the codex actually have what you need to play in one place. Is it really that difficult?
This. I like my ultras, but I never understood how different colors = new army. What? Isn't UM, DA, BA, SW, BT, etc. just a theme and comp choices (IE BA take lots of assault troops/azcanz, DAs take lots of plasma, SW don't like jump troops but do like fighty squads with tooled characters, BTs like a command squad with banner and champ + cc scouts, etc.)? Heck, I thought the old trait system was a great way to reflect changes from the standard. But I guess GW won't sell as many codex that way.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Depends how you look at it.
Space Marines are far and away GW's biggest seller. So how dull would gaming be if all the armies came from a single Codex. At least with variants, you have a touch more variety, however tenuous you might feel the differences between them to be.
Now, Dark Angels I could agree with you on. Barring their Special characters and the options they open up, the differences are more or less cosmetic. But, Black Templars and Space Wolves have more pronounced differences. BT have mixed squads and the vows, plus their fetish for HTH. This is a fair difference from normal SM. Same with Space Wolves. The differences between these two are fairly slim (well, for the moment until the Wolves get their own book).
And rumour still is that their will be cult Codecies released at some point.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
Redbeard wrote:Yup, the fluff has changed. Read the new codexes before making judgements of other's forces...
That entirely depends on -which- fluff you mean.. if you limit yourself to just the codex, but GW's extended their fluff sources considerably, with their fiction line and the rivalry between the powers is still present there...
As for making judgements, I say go ahead.. if someone's gone and dug though the old books and thought out the theme of his army and in correspondance too the old fluff, sure as heck I'll look up to them more than somone who's just min maxed through the rulebook before making their army. You -have- to follow the rules, following the fluff is optional, but if you do so,you'll get browine points..
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Lanceradvanced wrote:Redbeard wrote:Yup, the fluff has changed. Read the new codexes before making judgements of other's forces...
That entirely depends on -which- fluff you mean.. if you limit yourself to just the codex, but GW's extended their fluff sources considerably, with their fiction line and the rivalry between the powers is still present there...
In the fiction line a Guardsman can kill terminators and dreadnoughts.
844
Post by: stonefox
Lanceradvanced wrote:
As for making judgements, I say go ahead.. if someone's gone and dug though the old books and thought out the theme of his army and in correspondance too the old fluff, sure as heck I'll look up to them more than somone who's just min maxed through the rulebook before making their army. You -have- to follow the rules, following the fluff is optional, but if you do so,you'll get browine points..
I'm curious, but what did you think of the 9-oblit + bassie iron warriors and rhino rush blood angels lists?
13852
Post by: ihatehumans
I'm glad this article was brought to my attention, I've never come across any one who took offense at combining chaos powers, so was unaware that there was any kind of issue there!
I've always been keen on fluffy, in fact it used to be that I would refuse to play an army unless I could write a story of at least 3000 words that made sense and kept the reader interested. The WAAC way of playing revolts me, as it should any true war-games player, that's why so many tournaments have scores for army themes as well as wins/losses.
If I went against this fellow you and he gave me a bad score for army composition (because I had a non-fluffy army), I'd give him a low score for sportsmanship, because he has a very closed mind to what is and isn't, fluffy. The idea of war games is to follow the fluff, but not to follow it like it's godamn law, be creative, make strange army lists, if we all followed the specific given text to the letter, everyone would have pretty much the same armies, games would be boring to say the least!
And if that's not enough for you, check a lot of the recent fluff that's been out, and how often it clashes with past fluff! Don't hate the hobbyist, hate the hobby! You can blame foolish people for only ready most of the current fluff and not having a comprehensive knowledge of all past and present data on their specific army, but all your doing is ruining a perfectly fun game by limiting it's potential creativity. If some guy want's to put Khorne warriors in the same army as a Tzeentch Sorcerer because he thinks his army needs bloody warriors and scheming cultists, then let him, it's classic D&D style flavor, just because it doesn't fit some of the GW specific text doesn't mean it makes the guy a WAAC player, or some other lesser form of hobbyist!
I mean seriously, post up your 'perfect' army lists so I can have the opportunity of tearing it apart, how some certain trooper shouldn't have a heavy weapon, or carry a power fist, or how an army of that size should have more fast attack or less elites!
I hate to flame, but the fluff nazi is the lowest form of gamer, I'd rather face a WAAC player for a challenge in strategy and intense gaming than play some guy who says he depises me for having an army that isn't cookie cutter!
12027
Post by: KaloranSLC
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:Why does the space marine codex let you take any special character, paint him any way you want, with any painted (or even unpainted) space marine army, even "call" him a different name, but still use the SC rules?
I'm one of those people, but that's because I started with the 4th ed. SM codex that had specific rules for Divergent Chapters. I'm a big fan of customization and creative creation. It's what drew me to 40k to begin with. When the new codex was released, it killed my Torch Bearers (had the Cleanse & Purify and Purity Above All rules). What did I do? I repainted my army as a Salamanders successor, using a counts-as He'stan. What of it? I also have a counts-as Khan since I wasn't happy with my Tac squads any more and wanted to try out a list that included bikes. The whole bloody thing is rife with meltas and flamers, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Not because of the rules, or because meltas are the new candy, but because I like fire. A lot.
My roommate plays chaos, and has every god but Nurgle present in his army. It's a great army, doesn't use Lash, and has an evolving fluff that's actually quite entertaining ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/235121.page). I'm actually starting my own chaos army that's going to be completely fluff-based - my own, mind you, not a traditional legion - and will probably lose every game.
I have no idea what the point of my post was. Maybe an illustration that it's all about WHY you play the game, not HOW. Or something.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
stonefox wrote:You also like talking about fluff != rules. You acknowledge that fluff changes to suit GW's marketing whims.
Just because they don't doesn't mean they shouldn't.
GW does whatever takes their fancy in order to keep selling kits, hence the sudden invention of things like Sternguard or Land Speeder Storms and other things that didn't exist up until the most recent books. But there's no reason fluff cannot = rules.
Platuan4th wrote:Arbitrary Restrictions are Arbitrary
Except these are not, and have never been, arbitrary restrictions. An arbitrary restriction would be "Slaaneshi models cannot be taken in a Khorne-led." and that's it. No explanation as to why. But it's not, it's "Slaaneshi models cannot be taken in a Khorne-led army because of [extremely long fluff explanation]." It is the complete opposite of arbitrary - it's fully explained and justified.
284
Post by: Augustus
willydstyle wrote:...Back in the day it seemed like balanced, mixed lists were the norm (2nd ed, the gamestore that I played at being my only exposure to the game), and when someone wanted to make a "themed" list (mono-god, all aspect warriors, whatever) they did it for the "cool factor" and not because they had any specific bonuses for doing it.
Nowadays, it seems like many on the internet (thank goodness not in my local gaming community) expect all chaos lists to be single-god, or you're an utter cheddar-monger playing only to win and you're not doing it right.
I have a couple of problems with that idea....
It's happened because Chaos Elites became troop choices. Explain to me why Deathguard, Berzerkers, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are troops when Firedragons, Scorpions, Banshees, Dark Reapers and Swooping Hawks are not?
Of course it makes more sense to take fearless, FNP, blight grenades and T5 for 3 (I think) more points than regular Chaos Marines? Also Cult marines special powers don't magicly go away when the banner gets killed. It's a bad (poorly balanced) codex entry.
The Chaos dex is obviously written with a different permissive paradigm in mind, and there is a huge double standard in the game (from the player base and the creators' perspectives) caused by codexes witten in different contexts like this.
121
Post by: Relapse
H.B.M.C. wrote:Relapse wrote:Chaos means anything is possible.
Except Legion armies and non-Generic Daemons in Chaos Marine armies.
If you have a restrictive gaming group that won't let you use such a mix for friendly games that's true. I've seen enough games played where people just mix codexes to know that yes, it is true, anything is possible in a 40k game.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Augustus wrote:willydstyle wrote:...Back in the day it seemed like balanced, mixed lists were the norm (2nd ed, the gamestore that I played at being my only exposure to the game), and when someone wanted to make a "themed" list (mono-god, all aspect warriors, whatever) they did it for the "cool factor" and not because they had any specific bonuses for doing it.
Nowadays, it seems like many on the internet (thank goodness not in my local gaming community) expect all chaos lists to be single-god, or you're an utter cheddar-monger playing only to win and you're not doing it right.
I have a couple of problems with that idea....
It's happened because Chaos Elites became troop choices. Explain to me why Deathguard, Berzerkers, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are troops when Firedragons, Scorpions, Banshees, Dark Reapers and Swooping Hawks are not?
Of course it makes more sense to take fearless, FNP, blight grenades and T5 for 3 (I think) more points than regular Chaos Marines? Also Cult marines special powers don't magicly go away when the banner gets killed. It's a bad (poorly balanced) codex entry.
The Chaos dex is obviously written with a different permissive paradigm in mind, and there is a huge double standard in the game (from the player base and the creators' perspectives) caused by codexes witten in different contexts like this.
yea... this could have been fixed if they made the special chaos ones an elite... If you take a Chaos Lord (not prince or special character) with a mark you can take the same god specific ones as troops. Of course I didn't write the codex.... so yea
(I try not to whine about things that bug me... I like to offer solutions or ask for one)
7445
Post by: robertsjf
I'm going to butcher the quote, probably, but it sums up the studio's new approach perfectly. It was in response to the Chaos Demons spearhead content thread:
Poster 1: Jesus Christ, Khorne and Slaanesh in the same box?
Poster 2: No, only Khorne and Slaanesh in the same box. Christ is going to be released in a blister pack.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Relapse wrote:If you have a restrictive gaming group that won't let you use such a mix for friendly games that's true. I've seen enough games played where people just mix codexes to know that yes, it is true, anything is possible in a 40k game.
Yes, the rules for Warhammer 40k aren't very restrictive when you don't follow them and instead make up your own.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Well the first and most important rule is to have fun, and if you have fun by mashing up the Army lists, then you are playing by the rules!
In your face Orkeosaurus!
(sorry, been ages since I was able to declare 'in your face' to someone!)
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Just because the first rule is to have to fun doesn't mean you can do so in violation of the other rules. The rules are important.
Without rules we'd have chaos!
Wait. It's starting to come together now...
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Outside of a Tournament type game, I look at the lists as a kind of guideline.
It soon becomes obvious when someone is blending purely for an advantage, and since you need your opponents permission, they will soon lose their gaming circle if they persist in doing so.
Essentially, the spirit of Apocalypse need not be limited to Apocalypse.
Anyways, enough of this, and back on topic!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Techboss wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Not so. Some of us go back to RoC: LatD and we find the new CSM to be just fine going back to the roots in the 40k3 Rulebook and initial 40k3 Codex.
The roots are 40K 2nd edition or earlier, not the crap that was put out for ALL armies at the start of 3rd edition. JohnHwangDD wrote:Not if you're a MoCU player like me. Not having to sign up with one (or more) of the Greater Powers to field Daemons is a great advantage in theme.
Except for 2nd edition and maybe prior, you can summon any demon using an Undivided character/mark/icon. However, you do have to pick which demons you want to use, but you had FOUR choices of demons with differing abilities and points costs. If you had to have a generic demon, you could use furies, which were available in the 3.5 codex. Now players are stuck with ONE generic demon, ONE. JohnHwangDD wrote:Because the Chaos players complained that SM had so many Codices and they had only one, so GW split Chaos up in 40k following the WFB Mortals / Beasts / Daemons.
Chaos players wanted the armies split into god specific codeces, not unit type codices.
The roots for (current) 40k Chaos Codex is the original 40k3 Codex. And as I noted (and you quoted), 40k Chaos goes back before 2E to the RT-era tomes Lost and the Damned and Slaves to Darkness. I'm not talking about the *ability* to summon, I'm talking about *what* you summon. For that, you have to summon a Marked Daemon. And while Furies aren't marked, they're not basic foot Infantry Daemons. If players want Marked Daemons instead of Chaos Marines, they can play C: Daemons. But, as I've said earlier, the only way 40k could have Markable Summoned Daemons is if they were downgraded to GEQ stats before Marks, which would be an even more signficant nerf. First, this shows, when dealing with the powers of Chaos, one should be very careful as to what one wishes for. Second, GW already set precedent with the split between Mortals & Beasts, so splitting Daemons off separately was a foregone conclusion. ____ Augustus wrote:It's happened because Chaos Elites became troop choices. Explain to me why Deathguard, Berzerkers, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are troops when Firedragons, Scorpions, Banshees, Dark Reapers and Swooping Hawks are not?
That would be because GW really loves Chaos a *lot* more than they love the Eldar. As I've argued for a long time, Dragons, Scorpions, and Banshees should *all* be Troops for similar parity of Troops utility. Reapers and Hawks, I'm OK with them as Heavy / Fast, although I wouldn't be opposed to an option to also take them as Troops in a Biel-Tan army with the right SC HQ. ____ frgsinwntr wrote:this could have been fixed if they made the special chaos ones an elite... If you take a Chaos Lord (not prince or special character) with a mark you can take the same god specific ones as troops.
Actually, I'd have done this: KB: If led by MoK, KB may be taken as Troops or Elites; if led by MoCU, KB may be taken as Troops. PM: If led by MoN, PM may be taken as Troops or Elites; if led by MoCU, PM may be taken as Troops. ... This means that a same-Marked army can take 9 Cult units instead of 3 or 6, whereas a MoCU army could take up to 6 Cult units, but they compete with each other. Ancient Enemies is in a limited fashion, as a MoS army would have KB, PM, and TS still competing for Elites.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Outside of a Tournament type game, I look at the lists as a kind of guideline.
I do as well, to an extent.
Mostly what I was getting at is it's kind of silly to say GW's rules are good because you can ignore them.
If the rules were good you wouldn't be better off changing them.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Im sure people would love to build their army around fluff or what they find cool.
But with the high amount of gloating and trash talk ( pretty evident from just the forum itself ) Who can blame the victims to not want to make a competitive list.
So ya... the people that have a big mouth... shame on you!
*points
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Yeah, I think Luna's right.
This is the Wrecking Crew's fault.
121
Post by: Relapse
Orkeosaurus wrote:Relapse wrote:If you have a restrictive gaming group that won't let you use such a mix for friendly games that's true. I've seen enough games played where people just mix codexes to know that yes, it is true, anything is possible in a 40k game.
Yes, the rules for Warhammer 40k aren't very restrictive when you don't follow them and instead make up your own.
I guess that's where I'm fortunate. I'm in a group that's fairly intellegent, can expand or change the rules as written, and doesn't get their panties all bunched up if someone wants to take some different directions with their armies now and then. Quite a few times, we've found ourselves doing things ahead of the curve, like experimenting with FOF for Orks about a year before the new codex came out. Don't be afraid to have some fun with the rules. Really, a GW hit squad isn't going to come breaking down your door.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Are you sure?
I spent all night on that booby trap and-
Oh, gak.
Hold on, I think I gotta take my friend to the ER.
13852
Post by: ihatehumans
I think the main reason they made the Chaos Elite choices in to troops choices is to give more flexibility to the codex, the more choices you can have the better the armies are going to be.
Also the elites section would be bloated while the troops section would be sparse. You would have like 8 elites choices, and only 1 troops choice, that's a VERY awkward codex. Perhaps they could have thrown in GEQ cultists, but I think you would see even cheesier lists as anyone will tell you a bunch of GEQ backed up with Chaos vehicles can be harder to beat than T5 FNP marines!
And since you say we can go back to RT roots, why not go so far back as D&D, or even biblical roots where Daemon Gods are aplenty and as long as there's corrupting and carnage no one gives a damn whether your daemons are red with horns or pink with 8 breasts, or rotting bloated zombies or a shimmering display of all those and more...
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
IMO, Cultists generally belong with Mutants and Traitor Guardsmen, not CSM.
Also, once upon a time, Chaos had lots of Gods. Why, there even used to be a black-and-white god who went to 11!
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
HAHA. After an awesome, winning chaos army from 2nd edition, my army got neutered in 3rd. After no wins in 3rd (none at all :( ), 4th was a refreshing change, and my army started to re-group with a few victories. After almost a decade of broken and/or missing rules, I gave in. Hey, if you can't beat them, join them! Right? Now, I play the best army I can with the models that i have (PAINTED!). Would you want me to not try to win? I believe a WAAC is more of a play-style and sportsmanship than army selection. I'll shake your hand, smile, and try to make sure that you have as much fun as I do. All while trying to win. And we can go out for beers after to discuss 40k and all other topics of geekdom.
Perturabo's Chosen wrote: Why does the space marine codex let you take any special character, paint him any way you want, with any painted (or even unpainted) space marine army, even "call" him a different name, but still use the SC rules?
And in response to KaloranSLC; My WIP army is Huron Blackheart's traitor marines. I'm using the imperial Space Marine codex with Huron's model "counting as" Vulkans rules (it's the heavy flamer and power weapon). Remember, he turned traitor recently as compared to his heresy brethren.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
I'm curious, but what did you think of the 9-oblit + bassie iron warriors and rhino rush blood angels lists?
Was too busy painting the tactically useless but omfg overthemed Imperial Coast Guard to care... (and my Talaran with dark elf crossbowment =I= stormies, because the eldar probably left someone behind to watch the Cursus, and my Golden Compass inspired Fallen) Theme is pretty big to me, especally with a try as hard as you can paint job.. competiveness.. meh..
If you go back to the -orginal gripe- I think the thing that gets me is they guy saying "I play Nurgle too.." and coming up with a mixed force... In my mind he plays -Chaos- or mebbe "Nurgle,Univided, and Otherstuff" not -Nurgle- and saying he does just makes him a metoowananbe..
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I agree with that.
Having an army led by two lash princes is mildly annoying. Calling it a Nurgle army is just stupid.
No, it's not a Nurgle army, it's led by two people who worship Slaanesh. It doesn't make any sense.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
There's new fluff. If I tried to use old fluff it's the same as trying to use an old rule. Would you be fine with it if the powers didn't have to do with particular god alignment? I think you'd still complain.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
corpsesarefun wrote: Nurgle likes to cause and create disease; Slaanesh likes intercourse, which spreads disease and creates new life
Fixed your Post
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:There's new fluff. If I tried to use old fluff it's the same as trying to use an old rule. Would you be fine with it if the powers didn't have to do with particular god alignment? I think you'd still complain.
Eh? Was that directed at me?
284
Post by: Augustus
ihatehumans wrote:I think the main reason they made the Chaos Elite choices in to troops choices is to give more flexibility to the codex, the more choices you can have the better the armies are going to be.
I suspect the reason they did it was probably random, as there is little consistency in codex design. Assuming it wasn't, I suspect it was because of a new permissive design idea, allowing any of the marked armies to still be created, but ignorantly leaving the Barn door swinging wide open for mixed cult armies, which, historicly speaking at least, looks like a big accident.
Also for the record, more variety of troops choices does not improve a dex by itself, look at Eldar:
Guardians
Avengers
Jetbikes
Pathfinders
Scouts
Wraithguard
A mighty 6, and the Eldar codex is percieved as mediocre, see?
ihatehumans wrote:Also the elites section would be bloated while the troops section would be sparse. You would have like 8 elites choices, and only 1 troops choice, that's a VERY awkward codex.
Like the Necrons? At least chaos Marines can use the marks, squad size and transport options to make a wide variety of troop combinations, and for the record the reason it would be limited is NOT because the cult marines would be absent but because the other type of chaos troops got jerked out of the codex, THE DAEMONS! I say again, it's a bad list back to the OP, players ignore the history, theme and fluff, and the (new bad) rules encourage that.
ihatehumans wrote:You would have like 8 elites choices...
Say, like the Eldar? How many heavy support are there competeing for the same slot? and how many elites? Erm lots
ihatehumans wrote:And since you say we can go back to RT roots, why not go so far back as D&D, or even biblical roots where Daemon Gods are aplenty and as long as there's corrupting and carnage no one gives a damn whether your daemons are red with horns or pink with 8 breasts, or rotting bloated zombies or a shimmering display of all those and more...
Because that is completely OT and irrelevant, we are talking about GW cannon doing a 180 here, and that being a bad thing as it hurts the game play and theme.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
It was aimed at the thread in general.
13852
Post by: ihatehumans
I like Cannerus point about new fluff. Trying to enforce old fluff on new rules is stupid. If I started using old rules because I felt they were better I don't think it would get a very good reception, the same way your enforcing old fluff seems... well... gay.
Now as a retort to Augustus:
Firstly lets address the Eldar codex. I find the codex to be quite nice, lots of viable choices (except perhaps swooping hawks, they seem pretty horrible in almost all situations), lots of creativity to work with, but it obviously lacks something... oh that's right, some kind of ridiculous win-all IMBA-list. Taking aspect warriors as troops was foolish, as was the seer council, the new codex allows you to have equiv army lists (dire avengers are aspect enough and 2 farseers, one with a warlock retinue) with out having the WAAC army.
The necron codex next. The necrons used to have like 4 units, if that, then came the codex and they went up to like what... 8 or something, I mean do you have any idea how much it costs in time and money to model whole new units with fluff and as balanced as possible rules. Everyone knows necrons aren't gonna have a great codex, not for at least 5-10 years I'd say.
Which brings us to CSM. The list does suffer in that lash of submission is a ridiculous power. I don't know what they were smoking when they thought mixing khorne berzerkers with 2 D6 move your enemy powers would be ok. Understandably people are upset about losing their daemons, but they gained a separate codex entirely devoted to daemons. It means that they are gimped in a tournament setting, but in friendly circles they are clearly gifted, take 2 detachments and you keep your same, slightly better balanced army.
The change in fluff, and the addition of a separate codex was heading in the right direction, clearly they want to nerf most of the units in the game, and it's sad that CSM got hammered first, but it was bound to come since they were clearly the most ridiculous before. It's just sad they screwed up and made lash, hopefully in some kind of mighty gift of insight they will realize their mistake and change it in some kind of errata.
As for taking multiple cults in the same army, I think that it gives CSM a more Fallen Marines feel rather than the old 'cult' feel where armies were more likely to be solely dedicated to a single power! You can still go cult if you want, but now you can have a just as viable non-cult army!
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:There's new fluff. If I tried to use old fluff it's the same as trying to use an old rule.
Using old fluff, isn't the same thing as using old rules.. Rules are mandatory, because you have to be playing to the same standards. If you're -both- playing with old rules it's okay, (and given how nutz I'm going trying to shoehorn my EC in short of using Apoc rules, almost prefreable) but two diffrent rulesets is just incompatable. Fluff on the other hand is arbitrary, you don't have to follow it AT ALL if you don't want to, or you can make your own fluff up for your army. I've seen Hello Kitty, NHL and other armies.. that are completly unfluffy.. but they're great because someone took the time to build the army to their theme. What's more, the fluff -isn't- confined to the codexes and rulebooks, and that fluff is pretty much -eternal- which makes claims of "new fluff" overriding "old fluff" meaningless..
In short, folks get brownie points for building their armies to themes in my book, arguing that their theme doesn't fit the latest fiction that the theme is therefore somehow obselete, like old rulesets -looses- you brownie points.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
ihatehumans wrote:I like Cannerus point about new fluff. Trying to enforce old fluff on new rules is stupid. If I started using old rules because I felt they were better I don't think it would get a very good reception, the same way your enforcing old fluff seems... well... gay.
You gave it six periods of consideration to come with "gay"?
As for taking multiple cults in the same army, I think that it gives CSM a more Fallen Marines feel rather than the old 'cult' feel where armies were more likely to be solely dedicated to a single power! You can still go cult if you want, but now you can have a just as viable non-cult army!
I disagree with this.
Yes, you can now make non-cult armies that are strong, but they weren't that bad in the last codex either. The thing is, non-cult armies aren't "just as viable" now, they are much more viable. Depending on which you try to use playing as a cult can be a slight hamstring or it can render you severely underpowered.
(Granted, Thousand Sons weren't great in the last codex either...)
11
Post by: ph34r
Orkeosaurus wrote:(Granted, Thousand Sons weren't great in the last codex either...)
Any army with 2 wounds each has got a lot going for it!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
ihatehumans wrote:Firstly lets address the Eldar codex. ... Taking aspect warriors as troops was foolish, as was the seer council, the new codex allows you to have equiv army lists with out having the WAAC army.
I mean do you have any idea how much it costs in time and money to model whole new units with fluff and as balanced as possible rules.
Everyone knows necrons aren't gonna have a great codex, not for at least 5-10 years I'd say.
Which brings us to CSM. The list does suffer in that lash of submission is a ridiculous power.
Eldar Aspects as Troops is fine and not broken at all. The only real problem with the Biel-Tan list was that they allowed Dark Reapers to be taken as Troops, a mistake as glaring as Obliterators as Elites. Similarly, Seer Council not having a maximum size was foolish, which GW corrected in the rewrite. Biel-Tan with Reapers staying as Heavy is in no way WAAC. The issue is in GW not recognizing the root problem and addressing it properly.
You mean, like the original Tau Codex, which had lots of new plastic (!!!) models, good fluff, and well-balanced rules? I see the Tau, and Ogre Kingdoms, are examples of introducing a new army with full investment and great sales afterwards.
Necrons definitely need more work, but the idea that it's going to take 2 more versions doesn't make sense. I think the next version should be quite a bit more playable for both sides of the table.
CSM Lash is about the only real problem in their Codex. And I think a lot of the issue is that it is worded badly. If Lash simply allowed the caster to specify an (unengaged) unit and desired direction then it would be fine. The opponent would do the actual moving. All regular movement restrictions would still apply. This stops the grubby mitts, wierd positioning, and so forth. But to damn the entire CSM book for one badly-worded option is overkill.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
JohnHwangDD wrote:Why, there even used to be a black-and-white god who went to 11!
But was he black on his left or his right side?
7445
Post by: robertsjf
Platuan4th wrote:But was he black on his left or his right side?
It's front and back. Black on the front, white on the back....
6051
Post by: avantgarde
Are we talking about Will Smith?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
No, we're talking about one of the now-ignored Chaos Powers.
13852
Post by: ihatehumans
I tried hard to phrase it better but gay was all I could think of lol.
I think if you pretend Lash doesn't exist and that 1k sons were just a mistake (I mean in the 4+ cover save savvy 5E why pay 23 points for ap 3 and a 4+ invulnerable) then your mixed armies are about as valid as your cult. So the mistakes are clear!
I think that having your whole army being able to infiltrate, or all having power weapons, or all having melta guns, or a very desirable mix of the three is way too powerful! Elites troops are Elite.
Granted they did do a whole codex with Tau, but that thing practically wrote itself. I mean, the greater good? Fast technology, battle suits and hover tanks and feral mercenaries. Even then kroot haven't gotten the attention they deserve, going from a full playable army that can be fielded as allies, to a single troop slot in an army that also makes you take a compulsory non-kroot squad is poor form.
Necron fluff, and units have to be more creative and are harder to keep together, after the initial skeleton robot there's not much more you can do, I think flayed ones are even a bit of a stretch but heaps of people love them so I can't pass judgment. I think it will be a long time before we see good Necron codex released, especially since SOOO many other armies are higher in the list.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
ihatehumans wrote:I tried hard to phrase it better but gay was all I could think of lol.
I think if you pretend Lash doesn't exist and that 1k sons were just a mistake (I mean in the 4+ cover save savvy 5E why pay 23 points for ap 3 and a 4+ invulnerable) then your mixed armies are about as valid as your cult. So the mistakes are clear!
I think that having your whole army being able to infiltrate, or all having power weapons, or all having melta guns, or a very desirable mix of the three is way too powerful! Elites troops are Elite.
Granted they did do a whole codex with Tau, but that thing practically wrote itself. I mean, the greater good? Fast technology, battle suits and hover tanks and feral mercenaries. Even then kroot haven't gotten the attention they deserve, going from a full playable army that can be fielded as allies, to a single troop slot in an army that also makes you take a compulsory non-kroot squad is poor form.
Necron fluff, and units have to be more creative and are harder to keep together, after the initial skeleton robot there's not much more you can do, I think flayed ones are even a bit of a stretch but heaps of people love them so I can't pass judgment. I think it will be a long time before we see good Necron codex released, especially since SOOO many other armies are higher in the list.
[andre the giant voice]I'm not sure you know what "gay" means... [/andre the gieant voice]
anyways I agree the 1k sons are expensive for the 5th ed cover save era... but good playing/positioning will overcome the cover save issue any day. Just my 2cents
as for lash... yes it is powerful... yes obliterators are powerful... but it's not going anywhere for a while. and why should you care what other people you aren't playing in your own group are using?
all this fluff vs waac crap is just a bunch of whining crying for the waaaaambulance.
If you want a fluffy game, ask ahead of time for a fluffy game or run a campaign. If you want a game in general don't cry when the opponent brings something you don't like and you failed to communicate your hopes and dreams to them. And if you're in a tournament... don't cry if you see an optomized list made to win the tournament... after all it IS a tournament.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
ihatehumans wrote: I think it will be a long time before we see good Necron codex released, especially since SOOO many other armies are higher in the list.
yep a codex due for release within a year is a LONG way off...
12136
Post by: Lorgar's_Blessed
All this talk of fluff reminds me of a kid at my FLGS. He was new, and I accepted that. (Back in this thread someone spoke of the lack of fluff the little ones now know.) So, I played him. He was using AoBR SM that he had converted into CSM. I must say, for a new player, they looked good. (aside from the ork-dread. It had an ork mask on it with 'tusks'. YIKES!!!) I ask him what his paint scheme was all about, since it was poor but the different shades of dark blue with a light blue looked pretty good... He tells me his army represents a fifth chaos god, the god of 'death'. I'm thinking to myself, "Anubis was a chaos god?" So I went on playing and soon found out, he had a Chaos Lord with blissgiver (yeah big woop) LEADING a squad of PMs with a power weapon (I explained right away he needs to give them pfs and he accepted it as great advice). So we kept going, he has various random MoC ALL OVER HIS ARMY. He must've had every mark from the codex in his models. Needless to say, I *facepalmed* myself at least twenty times when I got away from him. I hadn't dared to rant on him, explain the farce in everything he put on the table, and yeah. I felt like an idiot playing him, but I let it go.
My point in all of this is, PLAY HOW YOU WANT TO! You don't have to shove it in the other person's face when the 'classic' fluff was destroyed by his army. Big whoop. We're looking into a new era of 40k, and that era is devoid of fluff. Deal with it and enjoy the game. Personally, i've never touched a model with lash to put it in my army, and I never will. I use a Chaos Sorcerer as my Dark Apostle, yes, but it's so I can make sense of his previous standing as a chaplain. In the second Word Bearers book, the Dark Apostle says he looks at the BL sorcerer with disgust as sorcery is weak sauce.
So, for when you see stuff that's conflicting like PMs and Lashes, just deal with it. If they want to say 'I play Nurgle' and it's obvious this is just cheese, then oh well. I hate to say it, but you can't even call that cheese anymore. It's using the 5th ed C: CSM as best as you should, and they run with it. Let them, shut up, and enjoy the game.
May Lorgar be with you.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
For those who havent read lost and the damned and other old things, the fluff is to mix everything in a big chaotic pile. Thats what the rules say it is. (And you cant expect everyone to have all the old things now can you? Smack them with 0 theme/comp and you just lost a potential new player)
For any of the old players the fluff changed and became pretty much none existant, get with the program. It might change again later.
And like someone said at the start of everthing, GW f**** the fluff to sell more miniatures. Who cares about story or theme or anything anyways. Besides, when they change it later you will all have to but craploads of new minis again.
11374
Post by: Ktulhut
I've seen a few people say something similar so far in this thread, but my group uses the army lists as just that. A list of units and points costs. If you really want to spend 1500 points on chaos terminators and a single sorceror, then do it. Like land speeders? Take them all in triplicate. The other side of it is, that if everyone's playing this way it's rarely unbalanced.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
Lorgar's_Blessed wrote:So we kept going, he has various random MoC ALL OVER HIS ARMY. He must've had every mark from the codex in his models. Needless to say, I *facepalmed* myself at least twenty times when I got away from him. I hadn't dared to rant on him, explain the farce in everything he put on the table, and yeah. I felt like an idiot playing him, but I let it go.
Hadn't thought of it before really, but this does bring up one issue with "generic" Chaos armies, or as someone but in a earlier remark, the abilities without connection to specific gods.. you begin to get into WYSIWYG issues, if you have ECs, WEs, DG,1k Sons, or a "look" to every mark, you can tell what you're fighing against.. if you don't then you've got issues, how can you tell if a model has a 5+ inv save or +1 toughness, without some neo-fluffian distinction...
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Lanceradvanced wrote:Lorgar's_Blessed wrote:So we kept going, he has various random MoC ALL OVER HIS ARMY. He must've had every mark from the codex in his models. Needless to say, I *facepalmed* myself at least twenty times when I got away from him. I hadn't dared to rant on him, explain the farce in everything he put on the table, and yeah. I felt like an idiot playing him, but I let it go.
Hadn't thought of it before really, but this does bring up one issue with "generic" Chaos armies, or as someone but in a earlier remark, the abilities without connection to specific gods.. you begin to get into WYSIWYG issues, if you have ECs, WEs, DG,1k Sons, or a "look" to every mark, you can tell what you're fighing against.. if you don't then you've got issues, how can you tell if a model has a 5+ inv save or +1 toughness, without some neo-fluffian distinction...
As long as the icon is clearly modeled there's no WYSIWYG problems
12157
Post by: DarkHound
To say that fluff has entirely disappeared from Chaos, and 5th Edition to a greater extent, is beyond reason. I take offense when I hear the Deathguard (for example) don't exist because there are not rules for them. The fluff exists, and the tools to build a Deathguard army exist. I think this codex has opened up to a more 'build your own renegades' approach. Yes, we lost options in this codex, but we gained more creative freedom. Complaining about powergamers abusing that is as old as time, ironically enough. You make a new way to smelt iron to build a stronger plow, but someone uses it for a sword to kill that farmer. I can still make an army of stoic marines, marching across the battlefield shrugging off incoming rounds and returning them two-fold, as the sun sets on the battle. As far as it will ever matter, they are the Deathguard. It comes down to how you build and paint your models, which is the soul of the hobby. That is what determines what your army is, as much as any rule.
I see this is as an age of freedom of design, where count-as rule rules. The rules dictating what a unit is, are less concrete now. The entry for Thousand Sons is less about the actual Ahriman's Rubric Marines and more a ruleset for a unit, if you can graft it into your force. An Aspiring Nurgle Sorcerer obsessed with creating a new form of life sustaining spell spell for his warriors, loses control and looses a virus on his bodyguard, reducing them to mindless zombies in their armor. All the modelling required here is a Sorcerer baring Nurgle Icons and some CSM with boils, blown off limbs and a rather slouched stance. The modelling is used to show the story, without you having to say a word. A Slaaneshi Sorcerer uses a surgeon to tamper with his soldiers, resulting in monsters obsessed with cutting opponents in the most brutal fashions imaginable. Slaaneshi Sorcerer leading a unit with the Khorne Berserkers rules. With proper modelling this shouldn't feel unnatural to all but the most devoute followers of the text. Thinking inside the box of what things are is what restricts Chaos players for the most part and at the moment. There are even examples of how units of Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines have come to be in other ways in the Codex. The fluff is alive and well, to me atleast, and you can utilise it without restriction with a silver tongue, a keen eye and a pack of green stuff.
There are players who won't make the effort in modelling or story telling to explain how this army came to be. I do truly feel sorry for them, as that is one of the most rewarding aspects of this game. To watch as your battles contribute to the story of this grim future is the most satisfying aspect of the hobby.
13852
Post by: ihatehumans
But Darkhound, how can you say all that when there is such a strong counter argument evident in prior fluff?
How can you make your own army when one has existed for so long that, although in no way similar to your army, it is considered the only true army?
How can you justify light bulbs and telephones and steam engines when God gave us Fire and Writing and Horses?
I believe the OP may have been an Amish lost on the internet lol.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
willydstyle wrote: As long as the icon is clearly modeled there's no WYSIWYG problems
*points upward* In the example at hand, they wern't... And that's why I replied, and Icons are only half of it, when you consider cult troops and characters. Your response is the equivalent of "As long as it's obvious, it's obvious" the problem is that devaluing the fluff, without players filling that void even to the extent of "clearly modeling icons" (in this case of one's own design) leaves a gap that non-obviousness can creep into.
As it stands right now the fluff on four gods, give particular abilties a "look", that may be absent in armies that folks build with their own ideas, so what I'm saying is that folks who build that sort of army should make the extra effort to make things clear by making not only an army theme, but sub themes to mark what's what. The last codex this wasn't as much a problem, since you could reasonably expect a cult army to be of one flavor, and an undivided to be more mixed, but lacking the tricks of a cult army, now -everybody- is undivided, and the posibilty for rude surprizes is greater unless folks make the effort to go above and beyond OOB stuff when building. (and going above and beyond is that much trickier without a decent bitz service)
284
Post by: Augustus
Lanceradvanced wrote:willydstyle wrote: As long as the icon is clearly modeled there's no WYSIWYG problems
*points upward* In the example at hand, they wern't... And that's why I replied, and Icons are only half of it, when you consider cult troops and characters. Your response is the equivalent of "As long as it's obvious, it's obvious" the problem is that devaluing the fluff, without players filling that void even to the extent of "clearly modeling icons" (in this case of one's own design) leaves a gap that non-obviousness can creep into...
WYSIWYG issues, exactly. As a minimum the correct models need to be used, thematic concerns aside. Technicly:
Plague Marines have a model
Berzerkers have a model
Thousand Sons have a model
Noise Marines have models
But the way the codex is written, and the way people play them they are using regular marines or "my own idea" and it is technicly wrong. This is an issue that exists apart from the concept of say Plague Marines Troops and a Slaneshi Daemon Prince. Using the wrong Icons is also the same, there are a lot of new bits on the chaos sprues (historicly speaking) and I can understand how a new player might not realize what they are. This however does not excuse the issue. For example what would be thought of a "NEW" Loyal Marine player who played regular marines as terminators because he "didn't know any better"?
That's not a make up a story to excuse it idea, that's a you need to learn how to play issue. The chaos troop model issues are the same way, cult troops have models and they need to be used or custom modeled to look correct. Literally I don't care what your story is Plague Marine Model!=Chaos Marine Model!=Noise Marine!=Berzerker etc.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Well, of course with my example you have to tell your opponent they are TS or KB.
You are always going to have those little kids who just don't know better. The smallest ones simply won't have had read the entire codex and simply can't grasp meaning of everything. You just have to sigh and keep going or try to help him understand.
At ihatehumans: I don't know what your first line is about, but I don't mean to suggest my version of a Deathguard army is the only way. Fluff has been established, and so long as there are Plague Marines and Nurgle Marks for Terminators, you can build Deathguard. A refusal to build and paint the army around the fluff because there isn't a bold-faced list labled Deathguard is just sad, really.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@DarkHound, nice post, thanks.
13852
Post by: ihatehumans
Lol, I guess the idea of sarcasm doesn't carry on the inter-web ><
I was saying that the OP makes it seem that SINCE there is prior Fluff for a Deathguard Army, AND the rules are mostly made for such, then to make any other army is simply WAAC.
Likewise, he is saying there is prior Fluff that slaanesh and khorne hate each other, and therefore since we can have armies that don't have them both in the same force, we shouldn't, and if we do, we are exploiting the rules and making WAAC armies with no Fluff!
I was calling him out as having a similar mind set to Amish communities who I imagine consider cars and televisions to be exploitations of natural resources and that we have no idea of our founding and therefore no spiritual enlightenment at all, we are soulless devils wondering the world and corrupting it...
I was simply using your, rather accurate post, as an example to counter his illogical arguments. I agree with you wholly, the rules are made so that we can expand with our own Fluff, instead of sticking rigidly to out dated past Fluff, you can still have the old Fluff (as there are still Amish communities) but just because you don't it doesn't make you evil (just like good, kind people that still drive cars and watch TV)!
284
Post by: Augustus
As long as your models are right...
12157
Post by: DarkHound
So, the conclusion is that: the clothes make the man and everyone is ok with that, the fluff is alive and kicking (the fact that the aforementioned kid had a story for his army at all is proof of that), and Dual Lash is always a WAAC. Did I leave anything out or can I leave yet?
11
Post by: ph34r
The fluff is the fluff. Some things are really vague and open to interpretation. Some things aren't. There is a ton of material saying how the chaos gods hate each other. I don't blame you for taking lash+PM, it is a very good list, but don't trick yourself into thinking that your army is totally justified by the fluff. Making a place for your army in the 40k setting is one thing, but making your army a super special exception to long established fluff isn't fluffy.
7143
Post by: Golga
Polonius wrote:Trench-Raider wrote:Oh believe me. I know were the blame lies. You are correct.
However just because you can do it in the codex does not mean that a player should take that option.
TR
well, and I think that players shouldn't take 20 nob bikers, or all assault terminators plus 10 scouts as a space marine army, but it happens.
Why shouldn't they? the fluff easily explains that the scout ocmpanies act as well scouts for all the other ocmpanies. That and the first company always has all the terminator Armor in a space marine chapter (with the exception of captains libbys and chaps)
So long as they keep the chapter symbols where they should the fluff would easily support such an army.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
For a one-off game tied to s special scenario, sure, go ahead and play the Scouts & Termies -- I did.
But that in no way pretends to be a "normal" SM force of any type.
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
Wow, I can't believe that this went on for 6 pages.
I think that the real conclusion is that some chaos players care about background and history, and others don't. And you can't really be mad at anyone for not caring about the fluff as long as their army list is follows the codex and is legal. Really you should be mad a GW for letting non-fluffy lists be legal.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:Wow, I can't believe that this went on for 6 pages.
I think that the real conclusion is that some chaos players care about background and history, and others don't. And you can't really be mad at anyone for not caring about the fluff as long as their army list is follows the codex and is legal. Really you should be mad a GW for letting non-fluffy lists be legal.
And some players think that if a list is legal, then it can represent a force that exists in the 40k universe, and thus be "fluffy."
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
And you have revealed the great secret of the 40k universe; the rule/fluff paradox. How can something that is within the rules not be within the fluff?
844
Post by: stonefox
Making a place for your army in the 40k setting is one thing, but making your army a super special exception to long established fluff isn't fluffy.
Oh, I saw kids doing it all the time when they tried to explain to me that their spacehams were one of the "long lost legions" or something. And that guy with the boobmarines.
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:And you have revealed the great secret of the 40k universe; the rule/fluff paradox. How can something that is within the rules not be within the fluff?
Because a non-game designer guy from the Internet says so.
5531
Post by: Leigen_Zero
To be fair, I think the way they were going with the new chaos 'dexes was that they wanted to portray that at the end of the horus heresy, the traitor legions went into the eye of terror and were scattered about (as the tattered remnants of a defeated army are want to do), and so they are not necessarily fighting as a legion anymore. However with the gods the designers said in WD a few issues back they wanted to portray the pantheon as being less 'divided' e.g. yes Khorne hates slaanesh, but will call in a favour if need be.
I like to see cult armies on the tabletop, but I also like to see mixed forces. Facing an all-deathguard nurgle marine army is awesome, brilliant fluff and usually fun on the table, but however if someone came up and said 'these are plague marines, they are not death guard but renegade marines who have been gifted by papa nurgle' I wouldn't gripe if they also had berzerkers, because they are not a unified army, they are all separate warbands fighting under one powerful leader.
But, to be fair, it would be a vast undertaking to represent ALL cult armies (the old 'nurgle gets T5, I WANT T5 on my khornate stuff) so it is more feasable for designers to give some more 'generic' wargear + rules and let players create the fluff, the only restrictive point here is the MoC upgrades, If I was allowed a Tzeentch DP with LOS + mark of Tzeentch I wouldn't care (the opponent SHOULD however come up with fluff as in 'Its a lash, but its a tzeentchy thingy that does the same thing in a Tzeentchy was lol) but a Tzeentch DP with mark of Slaanesh and LOS turned up I would feel a bit narky.
But at the end of the day, its a game, and if it makes it fun, go with it so these aren't exactly major concerns.
284
Post by: Augustus
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:And you have revealed the great secret of the 40k universe; the rule/fluff paradox. How can something that is within the rules not be within the fluff?
AHh, theres the rub indeed, well written!
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:And you have revealed the great secret of the 40k universe; the rule/fluff paradox. How can something that is within the rules not be within the fluff?
Apocalypse?
My army is 30 Abaddons!
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
DarkHound wrote:To say that fluff has entirely disappeared from Chaos, and 5th Edition to a greater extent, is beyond reason. I take offense when I hear the Deathguard (for example) don't exist because there are not rules for them. The fluff exists, and the tools to build a Deathguard army exist. I think this codex has opened up to a more 'build your own renegades' approach. Yes, we lost options in this codex, but we gained more creative freedom. Complaining about powergamers abusing that is as old as time, ironically enough. You make a new way to smelt iron to build a stronger plow, but someone uses it for a sword to kill that farmer. I can still make an army of stoic marines, marching across the battlefield shrugging off incoming rounds and returning them two-fold, as the sun sets on the battle. As far as it will ever matter, they are the Deathguard. It comes down to how you build and paint your models, which is the soul of the hobby. That is what determines what your army is, as much as any rule.
I see this is as an age of freedom of design, where count-as rule rules. The rules dictating what a unit is, are less concrete now. The entry for Thousand Sons is less about the actual Ahriman's Rubric Marines and more a ruleset for a unit, if you can graft it into your force. An Aspiring Nurgle Sorcerer obsessed with creating a new form of life sustaining spell spell for his warriors, loses control and looses a virus on his bodyguard, reducing them to mindless zombies in their armor. All the modelling required here is a Sorcerer baring Nurgle Icons and some CSM with boils, blown off limbs and a rather slouched stance. The modelling is used to show the story, without you having to say a word. A Slaaneshi Sorcerer uses a surgeon to tamper with his soldiers, resulting in monsters obsessed with cutting opponents in the most brutal fashions imaginable. Slaaneshi Sorcerer leading a unit with the Khorne Berserkers rules. With proper modelling this shouldn't feel unnatural to all but the most devoute followers of the text. Thinking inside the box of what things are is what restricts Chaos players for the most part and at the moment. There are even examples of how units of Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines have come to be in other ways in the Codex. The fluff is alive and well, to me atleast, and you can utilise it without restriction with a silver tongue, a keen eye and a pack of green stuff.
There are players who won't make the effort in modelling or story telling to explain how this army came to be. I do truly feel sorry for them, as that is one of the most rewarding aspects of this game. To watch as your battles contribute to the story of this grim future is the most satisfying aspect of the hobby.
Word.
9787
Post by: Leotilt
I used to be an old school fluff puritan (or an elitist jerk depending on which end of the rant your staring down) but have eased up for a while now.
I mean where do you draw the line? At the badly photocopied sheets of A4 I used to get in the post from citadels games workshop before they even had brick and mortar stores? I can tell you the whole thing was utterly different in every way and I can see how it's grown both ruleswise and fluffwise since then.
See what I mean? You have to roll with the punches. It's cool to look back at the "golden days" (that really weren't that golden) but when you try forcing that onto other players all you achieve is making yourself look like an elitist jerk, this is the polar opposite of TFG and just as annoying. Sorry but that is how people will see you when you rant at them.
My whole view on chaos now is that you do what you want, if you want to win then build to win, if you want fluff then go for it, if you want both then abuse "counts as" and write a cool story. However you deal with it just deal with it. Or go and setup your own tabletop gaming company and call the shots yourself. Shoehorning your outdated views into a changing fantasy reality designed to make money and then moaning when you lose is an exercise in masochism that I feel guilty for putting myself through lol.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
I think it's not abusing the "count as" rule the same way you abuse wound allocation. GW is endorcing it with the new SM codex, allowing you to use SCs to customize your force, and allowing you to mold the SCs to your own fluff.
9787
Post by: Leotilt
Yeh, I phrased that badly  "make full use of" would be a better way to put it.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
DarkHound wrote:To say that fluff has entirely disappeared from Chaos, and 5th Edition to a greater extent, is beyond reason. I take offense when I hear the Deathguard (for example) don't exist because there are not rules for them. The fluff exists, and the tools to build a Deathguard army exist. I think this codex has opened up to a more 'build your own renegades' approach. Yes, we lost options in this codex, but we gained more creative freedom. Complaining about powergamers abusing that is as old as time, ironically enough. You make a new way to smelt iron to build a stronger plow, but someone uses it for a sword to kill that farmer. I can still make an army of stoic marines, marching across the battlefield shrugging off incoming rounds and returning them two-fold, as the sun sets on the battle. As far as it will ever matter, they are the Deathguard. It comes down to how you build and paint your models, which is the soul of the hobby. That is what determines what your army is, as much as any rule.
I see this is as an age of freedom of design, where count-as rule rules. The rules dictating what a unit is, are less concrete now. The entry for Thousand Sons is less about the actual Ahriman's Rubric Marines and more a ruleset for a unit, if you can graft it into your force. An Aspiring Nurgle Sorcerer obsessed with creating a new form of life sustaining spell spell for his warriors, loses control and looses a virus on his bodyguard, reducing them to mindless zombies in their armor. All the modelling required here is a Sorcerer baring Nurgle Icons and some CSM with boils, blown off limbs and a rather slouched stance. The modelling is used to show the story, without you having to say a word. A Slaaneshi Sorcerer uses a surgeon to tamper with his soldiers, resulting in monsters obsessed with cutting opponents in the most brutal fashions imaginable. Slaaneshi Sorcerer leading a unit with the Khorne Berserkers rules. With proper modelling this shouldn't feel unnatural to all but the most devoute followers of the text. Thinking inside the box of what things are is what restricts Chaos players for the most part and at the moment. There are even examples of how units of Khorne Berserkers and Plague Marines have come to be in other ways in the Codex. The fluff is alive and well, to me atleast, and you can utilise it without restriction with a silver tongue, a keen eye and a pack of green stuff.
There are players who won't make the effort in modelling or story telling to explain how this army came to be. I do truly feel sorry for them, as that is one of the most rewarding aspects of this game. To watch as your battles contribute to the story of this grim future is the most satisfying aspect of the hobby.
well ive been converted...
PRAISE THE LORD!!
12290
Post by: gennadius
i thought i readed once somewhere that the chaos gods will work something if they want something very bad like the death of the emperor for example but after they archieved something like this they'll fight eachother
11
Post by: ph34r
To say that fluff has entirely disappeared from Chaos, and 5th Edition to a greater extent, is beyond reason. I take offense when I hear the Deathguard (for example) don't exist because there are not rules for them. The fluff exists, and the tools to build a Deathguard army exist.
So even though there aren't rules for them, you still consider them a part of the game as much as any other army, and that there isn't anything wrong with this?
12157
Post by: DarkHound
There is something wrong with the fact that some of the Legions don't have their own codicies (Deathguard, Word Bearers, Nightlords and Iron Warriors are on the top of my list). GW loves their poster boys more than us however, so we have to make due. Like I said earlier, not playing them because there isn't a list with a bold-faced title of Deathguard is sad.
EDIT: I suppose, though, if we got our own Legion PDFs, then Tau will want a Farsight PDF and Nids will want PDFs for the main Hive Branches, etc. and then we might as well not have main codicies. 'If you give a mouse a cookie...'
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@DH: That is what Special Characters are for, apparently...
Which isn't actually a bad thing, if GW hadn't been so ham-fisted about the whole thing, things could be a lot better.
For example, presume that each Legion gets a Special Character.:
- Night Lords could have a Chaos version of Shrike
- Iron Warriors might have a Lord who makes Scoring Havocs
etc.
- Word Bearers have a Lord with a Daemonic Crozius & Corrupted Rosarius
It wouldn't be the worst way to differentiate Legions and give a few more options.
But it would probably require the Marked forces to be split from the unmarked forces, or we'd have Special Character overload.
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
OMG, scoring havocs!?! HAHAHA, You are done for as i have more heavy support units than i have trops and fast attack combined.
All your base are belong to Perturabo! We will set you up the bomb!
That might be the actually be a good way/the best way to bring back legion armies, SC that give army-wide special rules.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Sweet, a next edition consensus! Give us SCs like the loyalists, and some new options for gak's sake! We've not gotten any new units for two codicies! The SM and Ork codicies stressed changing your army through your HQs. That doesn't fit well with Guard, so they just gave them sheer options. I think this is a good turn for Chaos, when our new codex comes out eventually we should get an SC trait system too and some new units for once! This should force fluff legal lists back to being the only legal ones, as we are the only race that seems to have that problem.
11
Post by: ph34r
DarkHound wrote:There is something wrong with the fact that some of the Legions don't have their own codicies (Deathguard, Word Bearers, Nightlords and Iron Warriors are on the top of my list). GW loves their poster boys more than us however, so we have to make due. Like I said earlier, not playing them because there isn't a list with a bold-faced title of Deathguard is sad.
EDIT: I suppose, though, if we got our own Legion PDFs, then Tau will want a Farsight PDF and Nids will want PDFs for the main Hive Branches, etc. and then we might as well not have main codicies. 'If you give a mouse a cookie...'
The difference between Farsight and regular Tau is pretty small. It's not like they went out and developed their own technologies, weapons, etc. They are just Tau that happen to have killed all their Ethereals and like close combat. The Death Guard, on the other hand, have been sitting in the eye of terror for 10,000 years becoming different than your average renegade. In fact considering how all Space Marine chapters follow more or less Roboute Guilliman's big book of war, and the traitor legions never homogenized in this way, the traitor legions are more deserving of different rules than SM chapters. But that's not how things worked out, is it?
7750
Post by: da gob smaka
the new codexes are going to adress this, you want nurgle you run a nurgle army, khorne a khorne army, if you dont want to run a dedicated army you get to play undivided. So, soon you wont see a squad of khorne berserkers being led by a tzeench champion on a nurgle steed with a slanesh banner (I know this is not a possible combination in 40K its just an example). The new codexes will make you chose a faction, so all the purists will be happy and all the uber gamers...who knows Im sure theyll find something.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ph34r wrote:DarkHound wrote:There is something wrong with the fact that some of the Legions don't have their own codicies (Deathguard, Word Bearers, Nightlords and Iron Warriors are on the top of my list). GW loves their poster boys more than us however, so we have to make due. Like I said earlier, not playing them because there isn't a list with a bold-faced title of Deathguard is sad.
EDIT: I suppose, though, if we got our own Legion PDFs, then Tau will want a Farsight PDF and Nids will want PDFs for the main Hive Branches, etc. and then we might as well not have main codicies. 'If you give a mouse a cookie...'
The difference between Farsight and regular Tau is pretty small. It's not like they went out and developed their own technologies, weapons, etc. They are just Tau that happen to have killed all their Ethereals and like close combat. The Death Guard, on the other hand, have been sitting in the eye of terror for 10,000 years becoming different than your average renegade. In fact considering how all Space Marine chapters follow more or less Roboute Guilliman's big book of war, and the traitor legions never homogenized in this way, the traitor legions are more deserving of different rules than SM chapters. But that's not how things worked out, is it?
I call BS. Overroided freaks waving swords in skull enhanced green armor are identical to Overroided freaks waving swords in skull enhanced black armor to everybody else. They all get the artillery fire...
284
Post by: Augustus
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:All your base are belong to Perturabo! We will set you up the bomb!
What you say? For great justice take off every Zig.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Just because you follow old stories doesn't make you right, or someone to respect; I can run Dual Lash because the rules say so. I swear, people run other lists that are good, but Dual Lash just gets under their skin for no apparent reason. If you don't like my books powers being used on you, try playing with it yourself. Otherwise SHUT UP, I'm buying models and painting them just like you.
11784
Post by: Ad Meliora
I'm not sure where all this “fluff is dead” and “GW don't care about fluff” comes from. The last few army books have been crammed with great fluff, as was the 5th ed core book. Yes sometimes it changed old fluff but we'd all be complaining if they just reused old fluff in new books.
I left wargaming years ago and returned only recently and I really enjoyed catching up on all the changes. I love the fact that the golden throne is failing, that Gazellekull returned to Armageddon and converted it into ork heaven, that the Zoats are back in cannon (if only as fluff in the Tyranid codex). It's all crazy fun and shows the GW writers and designers are just as invested in the fluff as the rest of us.
As for the complaints about army builds and fluff, well I recall the exact same arguments being made back when I used to play 2nd and 3rd edition. It's the nature of the hobby I suspect.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
JohnHwangDD wrote:...But it would probably require the Marked forces to be split from the unmarked forces, or we'd have Special Character overload.
They could rework the ones we have... Kharn leading every Khorne army FTL.
284
Post by: Augustus
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just because you follow old stories doesn't make you right, or someone to respect; I can run Dual Lash because the rules say so. I swear, people run other lists that are good, but Dual Lash just gets under their skin for no apparent reason. If you don't like my books powers being used on you, try playing with it yourself. Otherwise SHUT UP, I'm buying models and painting them just like you.
Taken a little personal?
Try to consider it from a 3rd person perspective. Theres a convention that generally the cult marines have been lead by cult characters or perhaps one of the great unalligned leaders of chaos, but seeing a sudden change in the army composition structure that contradicts that, in the last year, at least from the perspective of players with many years of history seems a travesty.
IMO, if it's a legal list, you should play it, absolutely. But, there is a melancholy sadness when the rules leave an obviously advantageous combination that seems to contradict cannon. Can you at least see that perspective?
To change the example, today the new IG dex is out and it is going to create a similar situation, probably an oversight, where Imperial officers can give orders to friendly units, say, allied grey knights and let them have the power of orders, like twin linking and rerolled target cover saves etc!
Book RAW legal: sure.
Looks cool: sure.
Tacticly Advantageous: You Betcha!
But an IG officer issuing orders to allied Grey Knights? Absurd in the fluff, and also a new precident from this new codex that is, questionable. Please understand, this is not picking on Chaos players, or IG players, it's an argument about bad codex structure that contradicts years of GW cannon. (At least from my, and possibly others perspective.)
8411
Post by: asugradinwa
I only started playing 40k 10 months ago and after buying and learning with Tau I decided to buy some space marines when the new codex came out and really liked the Salamander shoulder pads icons. I read through the fluff section of the book and really liked the parts of Salamanders helping people where others thought it was hopeless so I decided to base my army around them.
Once I got into army design I really liked the idea of a Space Marine Captain taking up the quest to find the lost treasures of his chapter. So I went with Vulkan as my army master. Only after playing around with lists did I find how powerful he could make an army.
In a recent tournament I got knocked on the bringing 2 fast attack units in my Salamanders army. Due to the way the scoring sheet was laid out I lost 3 points under sportsmenship for NOT having a fluffy list. Every squad either had a flamer or a melta, my terminators with thunderhammers had the forgeworld shoulder pads for Salamanders, and my rhinos & land raiders had the Salamander doors yet because I took 2 land speeders with multimeltas and heavy flamers I get docked.
However, in the 4th edition codex (which I DO NOT own) it gives Salamanders a limitation on fast attack. So therefore I got knocked with being unfluffy.
Funny thing is that the knock came from a player with Eldrad. Should I have knocked him for bringing a DEAD CHARACTER?
On one hand I like playing themed lists. If the guy I'm playing actually has a reason the two lash deamon princes are leading some plauge marines with a unit of krone zerkers being support by 9 oblitorators then I'm all for it. However, I havn't come across a good reason yet.
If farsight shows up in the next Tau codex and allows people to take 2 hammerheads are players going to get knocked because they arn't being true to the previous codex's rules?
284
Post by: Augustus
Ouch sorry to hear that.
I fully support the "if it's legal play it"
I would not doc someone for sportsmanship, when they are playing a codex legal list, whatever combo that is.
Despite my feelings on theme, tournament play is different:
asugradinwa, I say you were injustly robbed, sorry.
*EDIT* This is also a problem with allowing options that go against the fluff, what happens in say, 2 years with a chaos dex rewrite where HQ models have to be marked to lead cults as troops, then what are all the players who were new with Lash/Plague going to say? (Hey but chaos is generic, this is wrong... See?)
9787
Post by: Leotilt
I find comp scores annoying as hell because anyone with a case of sour grapes can find fault (even in a tame list) and dock you points.
Lash prince working with plague marines seems simple to me just use your imagination. Small band of nurgle marines are stalking a space marine patrol, there champ hears a whisper in his mind and a pair of slaaneshi princes materialise. They offer the plague marines a simple offer to help with the attack and use there slaaneshi charms and mind tricks to bring the nurgle lads into the fold alongside the obliterators who are there in exchange for there pick off the loot. The plague marine champs order there lads into the fight knowing that if they didnt they would have two powerfull princes to deal with, better to let them think they are calling the shots... For now.
Jobs a good'un. Makes as much sense as the elite of the elite spaz mareenz been the most common thing in 40k and then the elite of the elite of the elite sterngaurd making up 50% of that number.
8411
Post by: asugradinwa
Leotilt: See I'd have NO problem if someone said it like that. The problem is when I ask for the story they look at me and then talk about how they heard about how great this list was on the internet.
9787
Post by: Leotilt
Yeh there is no avoiding that and it's not a chaos specific thing
The chaos fluff is changed in current codex, we don't have to like it but it is there to support builds. Maybe powergamey lists should be posted with terrible fanfic like I just wrote to support there comp scores
284
Post by: Augustus
asugradinwa wrote:Leotilt: See I'd have NO problem if someone said it like that. The problem is when I ask for the story they look at me and then talk about how they heard about how great this list was on the internet.
Yea, I got nothing...
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Not taking it personally, just sick of being accused of the same crap over and over. It gets really, really old. I play fairly original lists, but it shouldn't matter to anyone whether I do or not.
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
DarkHound wrote:There is something wrong with the fact that some of the Legions don't have their own codicies (Deathguard, Word Bearers, Nightlords and Iron Warriors are on the top of my list).
[b]HELL YEAH!!!!
I play Iron Warriors, ALL my men are painted in the LEGION'S heraldy. So that would rock to have a codex for them. More heavy support please, and can I have three vindicators to a choice as well?
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
Sorry, still new at posting. :(
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
Any way, send me an PM to hear my army's story it is to long to post I think. Unless...
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Welcome to the Forum Sugna, but if you have things to add to your post, just edit them in. It looks really noob if it takes four 3 posts to get half a paragraph in. I do mean that as gently as possible.
The problem I have with Dual Lash is it is blatently WAAC, and in a tournement where sportsmanship matters, they should get marked down. Dual Lash is the one top tier WAAC list that has no previous examples in the fluff. That sounds lame, but when you can chalk Nob Bikers up to being in a Kult of Speed and it feels right, and where the fluff you put together for Dual Lash doesn't, something is wrong. It's natural that Nobs in a Kult of Speed would take bikes, even if the rest of the army isn't part of the Kult of Speed (which is acceptable fluff). Dual Lash combines vastly contrasting elements of Chaos. Ascended warriors of decadence go and lead soldiers who thrive on decay and have no intention of serving the god you are dedicated to (so much so that you have risked your soul to him), instead of other like minded soldiers? Then a massive Obliterator cult is lulled by Slaanesh to join the Princes? It's a lot of effort on the part of the Princes for no fluff gain. (Alright, Obliterator Cults are always a gain, but my point still stands.)
When GW makes stories in the codex, examples on how certain units band together, it makes doing so feel more natural. They did this very well in this codex, showing how splintered warbands have become a force and how it comes down to individual squads of a force being represented. When GW says that any ork can be part of the Kult of Speed (I keep coming back to this example because it is a good one) and still be in his own clan, it feels very kunning and fluffy when you choose to utilize this fluff. I'm probably just jaded against it, but at this point I can't think of a fluff tangent that would make Dual Lash kunningly fluffy without almost blatently encouraging WAAC gaming.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
DarkHound, did you even read Leotilt's short story up there? It does a great job of explaining how a dual Fzorgle+Death Guard+Oblit Cult could work together for a short period of time. That's all a game of 40k is, a short period of time.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Yes, but you can band together nearly anthing for a short peroid of time. I'm talking about an actual warband who stays together for years at the least.
9787
Post by: Leotilt
I wrote that as fast as I could type it with no pre-planning. If I felt the urge I could flesh the story out into an unlikely alliance that develops into a larger plot arc (terrible fanfic story ) where the princes are the protagonists and the various other chaos elements provide tension aswell as meatshields.
If an imperial inquisitor can make alliances with daemons and heretics to achieve his aim's while not breaking fluff (eisenhorn books) then a pair of lash princes can sure as hell create an ad-hoc chaos warband that goes forth to glory. Especially slaaneshi princes who would be the most charasmatic (pavane of slaanesh), beautifull (aura of slaanesh) and inspirational (former officers of the great crusade) of them all with the added arogance and disregard for people they consider beneath them carrying over from there days in the emperors children.
"No sweeter glory than one that invloves the death of anothers minions for my own aims, a win-win situation, the perfection of command where even my losses are victorys".
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
So a question about what is acceptable for a Chaos Army;
What would you guys think about a Warband made up of Renegade Marines( from a DIY Chapter), World Eaters and Fallen?
Despite not being able to Field 3 HQ units normally they'd each have one that could be swapped out depending on what the Battle required.
The Fallen being made up of a biker squad, a Chosen Squad and probably a Sorcerer w/o a Mark at this time.
The DIY Guys being basic CSM, Chosen, a Raptor squad or two and a winged Commander w/ MoT who eventually may become a DP.
and the World Eaters being made up of KB, Termies and a Termie Lord.
Conflict too much with your ideas of cannon or what? Of course a good reason would be come up with for them working together and why the DIY guy is marked by Tzeentch (Maybe he's cunning, and likes to make battle plans that are some times overly elaborate and he pleased Tzeentch).
9787
Post by: Leotilt
In fact I liked that last quote I posted, I might start a new CSM warband based around a former emperors children commander who sees the use of other gods troops as perfection in battle planning. You can achieve what would be to another legion commander a phyyric victory (victory at the cost of extreme losses) into a truely glorious victory where you achieve your own aims and also weaken your rivals.
Oh and another thought is Fabious Bile, there right in the heart of the cannon is a slaanesh follower who will happily work with anyone if it allows him to progress further towards perfection in what he does.
9787
Post by: Leotilt
BrotherStynier: I see no problem with it.
For me I think the best case you can make for ad-hoc warbands is the Eisenhorn Arguement. He worships the god-emperor and is devout, yet he uses demonic allies and makes pacts with heretics to achieve his aims. Why is it ok for him to do that but not ok for a Chaos lord to do it? Because Eisenhorn woships space jesus and that somehow makes it ok?
Why can't chaos have "radicals" who use any means to achieve there aims aswel as "puritans" who will work soley within the confines of there own god. I think chaos have an even greater case for radical thinking since there sole aim is more power at any cost, anything to become a prince of chaos.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
Okay cool.
You would think that the whole, Achieve power by any means necessary would be something that Chaos Lords and Sorcerers would do, after all isn't the whole by any means necessary thing what drove a lot of them over the edge in the first place? As you can see Leotilt I more or less agree with your findings on the matter.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
While the story is a cute as it is contrived, typically, when players talk about a "Fluffy" army, I believe that they mean it conforms to some version of previously-written, GW-created Fluff.
If you have to create a backstory, my Plague Marines happened to corrupt the Moderati while he went to the restroom, which is why I'm bring a Titan to my next game of regular 40k.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
JohnHwangDD wrote:While the story is a cute as it is contrived, typically, when players talk about a "Fluffy" army, I believe that they mean it conforms to some version of previously-written, GW-created Fluff.
If you have to create a backstory, my Plague Marines happened to corrupt the Moderati while he went to the restroom, which is why I'm bring a Titan to my next game of regular 40k.
There's a difference between creating backstory to fit your concept in the 40k universe, and creating backstory to break the rules.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
JohnHwangDD wrote:While the story is a cute as it is contrived, typically, when players talk about a "Fluffy" army, I believe that they mean it conforms to some version of previously-written, GW-created Fluff.
If you have to create a backstory, my Plague Marines happened to corrupt the Moderati while he went to the restroom, which is why I'm bring a Titan to my next game of regular 40k.
Then would Lash Princes leading Plague Marines be "Fluffy" beings that current Ed fluff states that groups will often form into warbands regardless of who they follow out of the necessity to survive?
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Well, most of them do not.
But I don't blame them, I'd blame GW.
I still play Emperor's Children able to win RTTs with them (proved one month ago).
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
Thanks darkhound for the advise, but to answer the topic question, I still care about this fluff, in fact I intended to use it. In the book Storm of Iron, the Iron warriors used a modified version of the tecno virus to take control of a hive fleet Node Queen (the Tyrinid flag ship), and eliminate its army! My character (who is a lutenant to my overall force comander) is a little infectied with the virus alowing him to survive and come back from the dead, (after the battle is over of corse!) and there is more. If you want to start an army read a Black Library book that stars them, it showss their motivatons, methods and history. I read the book the Storm of Iron befor I stared my army. This way you know what that army likes to field and what they don't. The iron warriors don't like deamons, save the princes, because they put their faith in the hope of victory in their wargear and heavy artilery.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
BrotherStynier wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:typically, when players talk about a "Fluffy" army, I believe that they mean it conforms to some version of previously-written, GW-created Fluff.
Then would Lash Princes leading Plague Marines be "Fluffy"
current Ed fluff states that groups will often form into warbands regardless of who they follow out of the necessity to survive?
Of course not, don't be silly.
If led by MoN and MoS characters, it'd be somewhat believeable. But MoS-only Psykers leadong only MoN Cult Marine Troops is laughable from a Fluff perspective, as any explanation is highly-contrived. That said, if there's a GW Fluff piece that matches, please do share it.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I gotta say, the obliterator/plague marine/daemon prince story kind of sucks.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Ork, you mean the brainstorm/sketch of a story idea? If you're gonna insult someone's writings, at least insult a real story, not something that someone made up on the spot as an example.
To JohnHwangDD, taking Fzorgle and Plague Marines in an army is comparable to taking a titan with Plague Marines how? One of those is entirely legal, one of those isn't. Have you read the current Chaos Space Marine codex? Where does it say that Chaos warbands won't have different god's forces in them? Where does the current Chaos Space Marine codex state that Slaaneshy Daemon Princes will NEVER work with Death Guard? In the current codex, it never once even hints that mixing god's is a bad idea. Hell, look at the Daemon codex. The only god restriction in it is that the Heralds can't join other god's squads. In fact, doesn't the Daemon codex contain a short story where forces of all four god's go to war under the command of a Bloodthirster and a Lord of Change?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Rusty: First off, you're neither clever nor amusing in misspelling my name that way as an insult.
Second, the "real" writings for Lash/PM/Obits aren't any better than the "on the spot" example.
Third, it's just pseudo-Fluff to justify a non-Fluffy force. Pretending that Lash/PM/Oblits are Fluffy is just silly. It's better to simply admit to your opponent (and yourself) that you're fielding the most optimized list that you can. At least you'll be honest, and people can respect you for that.
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
The list is:
2 Deamon princes/sorcerer lords with MoS and Lash
3 squads of plague marines
3 squads of Obliteraters
This is the uber list/most powerful army list that can be made from Codex: Chaos Space Marines. We all know this already. Fact: this list is not fluffy. Some call it Win at all Costs (I don't know what the costs are, 9 obliteraters$$?). Not all chaos player use this list, so let us not make generalizations about all chaos players or all chaos lists.
Mixed warbands are ok, fluff wise, all the way back to 2nd edition. The real point of contention here is a HQ with no troops having the same mark. This is consideed un-fluffy by many, and I believe is the point of the OP.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
@John, I misspelled your name on accident. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
Second, that's a matter of outdated fluff-nazi mindset versus openmindedness.
Third, there is nothing saying it can't BE fluffy. The warbands of chaos are made up of fragmented remnants of old legions and other traitors.
Fourth, I don't field that list. If you want to see what I'm going to be fielding at tournaments, look at my sig. I'm just tired of fluff nazis that are stuck in the past and feel the need to inflate their epeens.
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
And to Sugna, my fellow Iron Warrior Brethren. We don't need daemons, we don't need bikes, or jump packs, or any of that silly fast attack stuff. Heck, we don't even need basic troops. All we need is slaves to find the enemy mines, and big guns with enough ammo to keep them firing till the end of time.
My old platoon Sargeant used to say "Every night you should pray for war, so that you can go to work."
9079
Post by: FITZZ
@JohnHwangDD:Fully agree with your third point,if people choose to run a Lash/PM/Oblit list then they by all means have the rights to,after all it's their army,codex says it's legal..however,fluffwise..nope I just don't buy it.
11
Post by: ph34r
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Rusty: First off, you're neither clever nor amusing in misspelling my name that way as an insult.
Funny, I remember that you criticized me for complaining that you spelled my name wrong (and there is no way you can honestly misread a 3 and 4 as e and a) Now, you complain that someone else spelled your name wrong.
I would likely have to correct myself spelling your name, as I know more people with the last name Whang than Hwang. I can't say that there is the same precedence for an honest mistake when misspelling my name, however...
But I still agree with you that Lash sorcs, PM, and oblits being thought of as fluffy is ridiculous.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Of course not, don't be silly.
If led by MoN and MoS characters, it'd be somewhat believeable. But MoS-only Psykers leadong only MoN Cult Marine Troops is laughable from a Fluff perspective, as any explanation is highly-contrived. That said, if there's a GW Fluff piece that matches, please do share it.
I don't think there is anywhere where there is fluff on Dual Lash Princes, PM, Oblits, but on the same note I can't think of there not being any. Its a tournament list, no argument here, that has nothing in the fluff for it or against it other than vague references Gods not working together and the Gods working together.
On another note would it be "fluffy" for a Lord with MoT to have Khorne Berserkers in the army, even if the Khornate lord isn't there? Would it be to far gone to assume that he convinced or some how deceived them into following him, look at the God who marked him after all.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Well, how I look at it is that if the main body of your force is dedicated (or not) to a God, squads of other Gods may join up out of necessity (they are cut off from their warband, or are simply guns for hire). Which is to say, a Nurgle Sorcerer, leading a couple squads Plague Marines with a squad of Khorne Berserkers along for the ride. That is entirely different from a Nurgle Lord leading a body of Khorne Berserkers and Noise Marines (without the count-as speech I gave earlier) with no other Nurgle units in sight.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
DarkHound wrote:Well, how I look at it is that if the main body of your force is dedicated (or not) to a God, squads of other Gods may join up out of necessity (they are cut off from their warband, or are simply guns for hire). Which is to say, a Nurgle Sorcerer, leading a couple squads Plague Marines with a squad of Khorne Berserkers along for the ride. That is entirely different from a Nurgle Lord leading a body of Khorne Berserkers and Noise Marines (without the count-as speech I gave earlier) with no other Nurgle units in sight.
That's funny, because that's exactly what my Black Legion army consists of:
Nurgle DP
1 squad noise marines
1 squad berzerkers
1 squad icon of khorne
1 squad icon chaos glory
I do have a slaaneshi sorcerer that I don't use much, and a khorne DP who I don't use much either, but the codex simply doesn't have any of the artificial list constrictions that the last two codices had. Note that I generally don't use any Tzeentch-marked units in my warband, but that's more of a self-imposed restriction than anything else, and I wouldn't begrudge a player who wanted to do so. The last time that someone accused my army of being "unfluffy" was back when I actually chose to run only Khorne-and-undivided marked units with the 3.5 codex.
The way I see it, the units are led by aspiring champions who are well on their way on the path to daemonhood in their own right, and they probably don't listen to the boss as much as the boss would like them to (which is why they run away all the time ). When you are a servant of chaos, you don't get any "points" for conformity, and the best way to gain attention from your patron god is through bold acts.
5431
Post by: Voodoo_Chile
whitedragon wrote:Cruentus wrote:Vladsimpaler wrote:But in this case, don't blame the players. If they even want to win one game out of 100, they need to take a combo of units.
Gee, I don't know. I still use almost the same exact CSM list I did back in 3rd, and I still win more than 50% of my games. And that includes GTs. It might actually be the player in some cases, unless you're talking about Cult armies attempting to replicate the legions. My Word Bearers work just fine, although at this point, I might as well use the Marine Codex
Let's see:
Dark Apostle - Chaplain
Veteran CSM - sternguard
CSM Marines - tacticals
CSM Devs - Devs
Raptors - Assault Marines
Chaos Dread - Dread (plus venerable, etc.)
Vindi/Pred/ LR all the same, or better.
I'd miss out on the generic daemons, but what does that matter
*edit* - oh yeah, I'd never do the above btw, but is an example of cheese elementals "counts as" era, which I also find sad.
Booyah, Codex Marines works better than codex Chaos for the original traitor legions. Night Lords led by Counts as "Shrike" for instance...
I wouldn't blame anyone for using Codex:Marines for a Chaos army since as you point out it sorta syncs up and its not even a major stretch for "count as" since everything is wearing power armor and armed with essentially the same weapons.
On the original topic, I play Black Legion so having Khorne Bersekers running along side Rhinos packed with Thousand Sons is not beyond the realms of possibility. Though my god specific troops are painted in Black Legion colours with just one shoulder pad or in the case of the TS the base armor painted in the original colours of their legion.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Blighter, I missed that. Black Legion is the exception the this. They are our Ultrasmurfs that can take anything without breaking any fluff.
12928
Post by: Deuce11
I think Polonius, and later whitedragon, are really seeing the problem for what it is. The loss of mark specific units in each FOC slot really does necessitate the use of multiple marks in a single army to be a ferocious competitor.
I am a fan of stuffing an army full of fluff because you get to breath life in your hobby with personal touches and considerations which in turn make the victories even sweeter. However I don't knock anyone for using counts as to accomplish that goal because often it is the most creative way to getting at the desired end.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
DarkHound wrote:Blighter, I missed that. Black Legion is the exception the this. They are our Ultrasmurfs that can take anything without breaking any fluff.
But should the paintjob really matter that much? I play Black Legion because I love their iconic place in the story of 40k... but if someone plays a homebrew warband or renegade chapter rather than a Legion should they have more restrictions than I do?
12928
Post by: Deuce11
But should the paintjob really matter that much? I play Black Legion because I love their iconic place in the story of 40k... but if someone plays a homebrew warband or renegade chapter rather than a Legion should they have more restrictions than I do?
great arg. willydstyle 
14490
Post by: Tao
H.B.M.C. wrote:Don't blame the players for that. Blame Gav, Jervis and Alessio. They're the reason why Lucius can lead a unit of Berzerkers and why Fateweaver can lead an army of Plague Bearers.
I think it is GW marketing...why limit what people can take in and army instead of letting them buy EVERYTHING.
11
Post by: ph34r
willydstyle wrote:But should the paintjob really matter that much? I play Black Legion because I love their iconic place in the story of 40k... but if someone plays a homebrew warband or renegade chapter rather than a Legion should they have more restrictions than I do?
Why have different rules and restrictions for anything? Because it makes those armies more interesting when they are different.
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:The list is:
2 Deamon princes/sorcerer lords with MoS and Lash
3 squads of plague marines
3 squads of Obliteraters
This is the uber list/most powerful army list that can be made from Codex: Chaos Space Marines. We all know this already. Fact: this list is not fluffy. Some call it Win at all Costs (I don't know what the costs are, 9 obliteraters$$?). Not all chaos player use this list, so let us not make generalizations about all chaos players or all chaos lists.
Mixed warbands are ok, fluff wise, all the way back to 2nd edition. The real point of contention here is a HQ with no troops having the same mark. This is consideed un-fluffy by many, and I believe is the point of the OP.
Sugna: The cost in monitary value would be $225.00 before tax.
And 2; to John, the GW fluff does match up, not to that in particular but having read white dwarfs since the creation of the tau (a time before the start of my first army) there have been instances where two of the of the gods of chaos have allied to get an advantage over the others. so in an ad hoc situation (or caution) Slannesh might have only sent the prince to sid the death guard because ether 1.) he/she/it only thought that the prince was all that nurgle needed or 2.) that is all he wanted to give him.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Regardless, just because someone wants to focus more on the ACTUAL game and less on stories that will constantly shift and change, they aren't wrong for doing so. If "unfluffy" is the worst you can say about someone, it's really not bad. At all.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
ph34r wrote:willydstyle wrote:But should the paintjob really matter that much? I play Black Legion because I love their iconic place in the story of 40k... but if someone plays a homebrew warband or renegade chapter rather than a Legion should they have more restrictions than I do?
Why have different rules and restrictions for anything? Because it makes those armies more interesting when they are different.
Now, I could see being a bit bugged if someone were claiming that their army was "Death Guard" or one of the other Traitor Legions and running that mix of HQ/Troops, but for people who are doing their own thing I don't think they should be held to arbitrary restrictions.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Regardless, just because someone wants to focus more on the ACTUAL game and less on stories that will constantly shift and change, they aren't wrong for doing so. If "unfluffy" is the worst you can say about someone, it's really not bad. At all.
I agree with this statement. Having a "fluffy" theme and cool paintjob should be an "oooh cool" factor, but nothing else.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Deuce11 wrote:The loss of mark specific units in each FOC slot really does necessitate the use of multiple marks in a single army to be a ferocious competitor.
I don't knock anyone for using counts as to accomplish that goal because often it is the most creative way to getting at the desired end.
Exactly. Being able to pick and choose units and Marks is more powerful than applying some sort of restriction on one's choices. In a nutshell, that is the inherent tension between "ferocious" power and non-ferocious Fluff.
Neither do I. I just expect players who're building for power to not claim that they're actually building for Fluff.
____
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Regardless, just because someone wants to focus more on the ACTUAL game and less on stories that will constantly shift and change, they aren't wrong for doing so.
Nobody said that they were wrong for doing so.
Unless they were also claiming that their force was somehow "Fluffy".
Such as the original issue with a guy calling himself a "Death Guard" player, by dint of having 2 PM units as Troops.
All we ask is that players be honest and admit that they're powergaming when they field Lash/ PM/Oblits, or similar kinds of optimized forces, and not pretend that their forces are "Fluffy" in any way.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
So have you all figured out the answer to the original question?
11452
Post by: willydstyle
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Unless they were also claiming that their force was somehow "Fluffy".
Such as the original issue with a guy calling himself a "Death Guard" player, by dint of having 2 PM units as Troops.
All we ask is that players be honest and admit that they're powergaming when they field Lash/PM/Oblits, or similar kinds of optimized forces, and not pretend that their forces are "Fluffy" in any way.
The original issue was not with a guy who claimed be be playing Death Guard, but just said "cool, I play Nurgle too."
Playing "Nurgle" is honestly a pretty open statement.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
JohnHwangDD wrote:All we ask is that players be honest and admit that they're powergaming when they field Lash/PM/Oblits, or similar kinds of optimized forces, and not pretend that their forces are "Fluffy" in any way.
So as long as the Jew wears their badge, you won't have any problems? That seems a little unfair.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
So as long as the Jew wears their badge, you won't have any problems? That seems a little unfair.
Did you really have go there? Really?
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
I guess that is slightly innapropriate. I should probably get flamed for it.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
When I'm powergaming, I make no bones about it.
I expect similar honesty in my opponents.
284
Post by: Augustus
Noisy_Marine wrote:So have you all figured out the answer to the original question?
I suggest the answer is there is a line in the sand between players who have seen multiple editions and people who only know the most recent.
-unknown quote:
Age and cunning wins out over youth and zeal
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Augustus wrote:Noisy_Marine wrote:So have you all figured out the answer to the original question?
I suggest the answer is there is a line in the sand between players who have seen multiple editions and people who only know the most recent.
Isn't that life in a nutshell? The old farts lament how things used to be better back in the good old days, and the young pups roll their eyes and say "whatever old man".
11643
Post by: BlackDracoSLC
I think the real lesson learned is that you'll never make everyone happy and you shouldn't try to. Do want you want.
284
Post by: Augustus
CT GAMER wrote:...the young pups roll their eyes and say "whatever old man".
Indeed! Touche'
In my darker moments, I worry I am to old for this hobby anyway...
221
Post by: Frazzled
The problem of course is-what fluff? I can directly take nearly any force mix I want in the demon codex and have that follow actual fluff storyline, wherein many types of demons were gathering to jump, and the hurley burley of getting to the prey. Would I be penalized by some player for bringing a mixed force? Indeed, following that story arc in the actual codex, shouldn’t I penalize players for bringing god specific lists, as being unfluffy?
284
Post by: Augustus
Are there stories of mixed demons? Surely
Are there stories of single type demons? Yes
However:
Do you know of a GW published story where exclusively Slanesh heros lead nurgle marines?
Is there even one? I am not trying to be rhetorical here, I am trying to be literal, I do not read the Abnett books, or other 40k stories to often, and I am not up on all the codex stories.
Does anyone know of a story like that in any printed GW material, from... ever?
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Wait, so now we have to have a printed example of anything for it to be valid? How many invisible standards are there? What about the armies that don't get as many books written about them? They must not have as many fluffy choices as the other armies.
284
Post by: Augustus
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wait, so now we have to have a printed example of anything for it to be valid?
Of course not. I was just wondering if there is even a single story of a Slanesh leader of Nurgle troops. I was wondering in the context of wether players/people following the thread could recall such a story?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:How many invisible standards are there? What about the armies that don't get as many books written about them? They must not have as many fluffy choices as the other armies.
It would seem so however.
11
Post by: ph34r
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wait, so now we have to have a printed example of anything for it to be valid? How many invisible standards are there? What about the armies that don't get as many books written about them? They must not have as many fluffy choices as the other armies.
If you are going to make an army that entirely goes against the fluff, and then argue that you don't go against the fluff because there is new fluff that supports you, you should be prepared to show said fluff where you have slaanesh daemon princes leading nurgle plague marines and non-god marked obliterators.
So yeah, I would say that you do have to have a printed example for your army to be "fluff-justified"... if it goes against everything that the fluff says and you claim that it is fluffy. Almost every army does not go against the fluff and claim to be fluffy, in this situation the army does.
EDIT: for example, if cadians and catachans were said to be mortal enemies and fight often when they meet, and completely hate each others guys, and this was said in every publishing of the IG codex, then I would not accept someone's army with Creed&Kell leading a force of catachan jungle fighter troopers as "fluff-justified". It would be ridiculous for them to argue otherwise without an example to back them up.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
So if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless the little paragraphs at the front match which ones you're picking?
284
Post by: Augustus
Cannerus_Thye_Unbearable wrote:if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless...
Cannerus, I don't think so. If options are book legal by the codex structures then so be it.
I wouldn't expect a printed story about Slanesh leading nurgle troops from a Chaos player anymore than I would expect to see a story about the Crimson fists and the Imperial Fists cooperating from the player of an army with Lysander and Kantor.
If the OP question was do chaos players care about the fluff though, then doesn't it seem a reasonable question to ask? Are there any stories about Nurgle and Slanesh fighting together under Slaneshi Generals?
I can't think of any. (But then, admittedly I don't read the books.)
I can think of stories however where Imperial Marine chapters fight together, like the Deathwatch for example.
Someone who has read the Eisenhorn series, what happens in there?
* (My apologies to the thread for turning a portion of the discussion into "fluff for nutters.)
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
I can partially understand what you're saying. I can also call a little bit of malarky in the regard that Space Marines and the Imperium get a lot more published than any other army. If there were an equal amount about Chaos, I'm sure there would be a combination of all the marks in various bits at some point. That's just not a point you can argue effectively with from my view (others may differ).
And Ph34r, it does not "go against the fluff." Read the new CSM codex. Black Legion can use anything. Boom, justified. That's it.
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
I say that if you want a fluffy army, make sure it matches the fluff, if you want to power game, and it fits the rules, more 'power' to you. (pun intended)
105
Post by: Sarigar
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:So if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless the little paragraphs at the front match which ones you're picking?
Not at all. Just don't try to disguise it as 'fluffy'.
I've participated in some variations of tourney scoring. While the Lash/Plague/Obliterator is a good tourney army, folks shouldn't be surprised when their score for 'composition' is lower than expected when composition is explained as 'is this a fluffy army'. This is where I've seen some folks get but hurt over it.
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
How do you get pict for tourny scoring
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Sarigar wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:So if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless the little paragraphs at the front match which ones you're picking?
Not at all. Just don't try to disguise it as 'fluffy'.
I've participated in some variations of tourney scoring. While the Lash/Plague/Obliterator is a good tourney army, folks shouldn't be surprised when their score for 'composition' is lower than expected when composition is explained as 'is this a fluffy army'. This is where I've seen some folks get but hurt over it.
That would be fine if it stopped at that. In addition, many, many people whine about it being "unfluffy" and act like you're satan if you play dual lash, 9 obliterators or lots of plague marines, outside of placing really akward restrictions on yourself that give you no benefit anymore (I'm playing "Death Guard" or "Emperor's Children" or "Iron Warriors." Ok, I'm playing Warhammer 40k.). At this stage in the campaign, the whole "mixed Chaos is unfluffy" isn't a pinata, it's a dead horse. In the same way that you're no better for playing with all one type of thing, I'm no worse for mixing.
14571
Post by: gretar
well , i dont really know ... i guess if you make a chaos army of enemies in the same team why not make two different teams be an team ?
Like , for an example , what if you had an Tyranid Carnifex leading a space marine army ?
Or , having Tau team up with the Imprerial Guards ?
Think about this before some of you post that it doenst matter anymore Couse it does =)
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
I say make up a really good storry and make it really convincing.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
gretar wrote:well , i dont really know ... i guess if you make a chaos army of enemies in the same team why not make two different teams be an team ?
Like , for an example , what if you had an Tyranid Carnifex leading a space marine army ?
Or , having Tau team up with the Imprerial Guards ?
Think about this before some of you post that it doenst matter anymore Couse it does =)
I'm gonna be nice and just point out that your example refers to mixing Codices, and mine doesn't. In apocalypse you could do any of those and noone could give you flak, as an aside. And it doesn't matter anymore.
14615
Post by: Xevious
Thing is there's so much fluff, all of which overlaps and differs slightly, and all of which is open to interpretation. The chaos gods dislike each other and will quite happily fight each other, and the main rivals (khorne/slaanesh tzeentch/nurgle) are more likely to break into a fight than anyone else.
Now some people view this as that they'll work together but really don't trust each other, and as soon as it's over they'll go back to fighting each other, and other people view this as they utterly hate each other.
For this reason it's equally fluffy for someone to have khorne models alongside slaaneshi models as a grudging and temporary alliance as it is for someone to never put khorne and slaanesh in the same army.
Then of course it depends on how you prefer your fluff - khorne is currently portayed as spilling blood in CC - I remember when khorne was god of martial prowess: his warriors still claimed skulls in his name, but they did it in the most effecient way possible; a heavy bolter was for shooting lots of things, and running sceaming at a citadel waving an axe merely made you a cretin.
For this reason my own khornate army uses the older fluff - the best way to take out that artillery tank crew is to shoot them with a missile launcher rather than run 2km to try punching a hole in their tank.
Then of course you have when the army is set; a world eaters army could be pre heresy (everyone armed with bolters, tank support etc), set at the hight of their power, or as they are currently (spit into tiny warbands).
A unit of beserkers in a larger chaos army is as equally fluffy as a pure khornate horde. Similarly ranged firepower with a counter attack is as equally fluffy for a khornate army as running screaming at them to stove their head in.
Lastly, things in the background don't have to be represented on the tabletop;
The chaos gods dislike each other but this doesn't need to be an ingame penalty.
Each individual chaos marine doesn't trust the one next to him and will quite happily sacrifice his "buddy" but that isn't represented on the tabletop.
An ork warboss that takes a wound would probably be attacked by the next biggest ork now that he's weakened, but that isn't present on the tabletop.
No serious death skull would ever NOT steal all the important bits off of a shock attak gun, but there are no penalties for deplying lootas next to a big mek
etc etc
There are plenty of background reasons why people wouldn't overly like each other, but these don't need to be strict rules enforced onto the players.
If you want to only field plague marines with bolters then that's cool, just don't try to force it onto someone else just because they like the idea of an uneasy alliance and you don't.
14679
Post by: Packeteer
Hai der
I started reading the books waaaaay before playing the tabletop, and I've only really started playing that seriously this year. I have to say... it really annoys me when I this, and most people I wargame with go "lol dood wut you talkin' 'bout?" I think easiest solution would be to integrate the fluff into the game, no I don't mean imposing some strict stuff, I mean... if you have some plague marines and Thousand Sons, there 'ought to be consequences.
7209
Post by: Nofasse 'Eadhunta
Chaos players don't care about fluff anymore.
/thread
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
To Nofasse, thank you for that highly well thought out post. I'm sure it swayed many people's opinion on the matter at hand.
At Packeteer, why should there be some consequences? Are Thousand Sons and Plague Marines so stupid that they're incapable of short term cooperation? Are they going to be "bff's"? No, but both are intelligent and can work together.
To Xevious, yes!
To sugna, (in regards to making a story) people will go, "hur hur Chaos can't work together unless GW explicitly states that those exact CSM will work together. All the others are idiots and incapable of long term planning."
To gretar, what? Using two god's is equivalent to mixing two codeci? Until (if GW ever makes the Legion codexes) I see a Thousand Sons codex, it is perfectly fine to mix my Thousand Sons with any other unit in the CSM book.
To Augustus, the CSM are okay with working together under the banner of Abaddy. Who's to say the army you fight isn't a small task force sent by a Black Legion commander? Who's to say it isn't a small slice of a larger battlefield? Going only by written works severely restricts what some armies can field while staying fluffy. Armies like Tyranids and Dark Eldar have few (if any novels) that really follow them. As far as I know, Tyranids only show up as something for the Space Marines to butcher.
I don't think that a min/maxxed Fzorgle/Death Guard/Obliterator list is a shining example of a standard Chaos Space Marine party. I also wouldn't say that it is unfluffy. It isn't impossible, just uncommon. Such an alliance would only occur in rare instances/circumstances. I think "fluffy" is being used as an excuse to bash power gamers. I've no problem if you don't want to play power gamers, but I don't think going to tournaments and then complaining about power gamers is a very rational plan. Whether an army is fluffy or not is subjective. Two people will have differing ideas on what is fluffy and what isn't fluffy, such a subjective criterion should not be being decided by someone who can't be objective.
6846
Post by: solkan
It says on page ten of the Chaos Space Marines codex...
page ten wrote:
However, it is not uncommon for renegades with very different histories to find a common cause in their service to the Ruinous Powers of Chaos.
page 57 wrote:
The Unholy Garbinger is used as a mobile base by a large contingent of Chaos Space Marines at various times including warriors from the Black Legion, Death Guard, Sons of Vengeance, Anointers of Blood and the Pyre.
and on page 74 it shows Black Legion themed Khorne Berzerkers, Thousand Sons, Plague Marines and Noise Marines.
<sarcasm> So clearly, it would be completely unreasonable for a demon prince or sorcerer of Slaanesh who was still loyal to the Black Legion to be leading Black Legion plague marines. </sarcasm> If that's not good enough fluff, then every last "Counts as Pedro" has no claim to fluff because all of those little made up Space Marine chapters aren't in any of the books, either.
105
Post by: Sarigar
While I don't really mind what a person brings to a tourney, the reality is some tourneys utelize army composition.
Fzorgle/Plague/Obliterator combos simply have a higher probability of getting a scoring low on army comp. Right or wrong, perception is reality and army comp is subjective.
Fluffy or not, I'm of the firm belief the only reason GW decided to change the Chaos Codex to its current incarnation was to sell more models. No restrictions opened the door to buy any and all models for a single army.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Augustus wrote:Noisy_Marine wrote:So have you all figured out the answer to the original question?
I suggest the answer is there is a line in the sand between players who have seen multiple editions and people who only know the most recent.
-unknown quote:
Age and cunning wins out over youth and zeal
I disagree with you. I've been playing Chaos since 2nd before there even was a Chaos codex. In fact, I was building a very fire-themed "Flames of Tzeentch" Thousand Sons army, lots of flamers and hand flamers, and even chaos marines riding on Disks of Tzeentch. Of course that was destroyed as soon as the 2nd ed codex came out and turned all my pretty Thousand Sons into illegally-equipped empty suits.
So I've been playing Chaos for a long time, and I've seen the "fluff" change and the restrictions built into the army list change many times. Even though this is the first edition codex to completely leave out any mention of Ancient Enemies (although IIRC the 2nd ed codex had it in the fluff but no restrictions in the army list) I don't begrudge players who don't follow it.
If it's not in the current codex, either in the rules section or the background section, then it is not a part of the fluff.
So the answer is: Yes, many chaos players do care about the fluff (I'm not going to use generalizations and say "all") but they just don't care about the same fluff that you do any more.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Augustus wrote:CT GAMER wrote:...the young pups roll their eyes and say "whatever old man".
Indeed! Touche'
In my darker moments, I worry I am to old for this hobby anyway...
I wasn't challenging you, heck I'm pushing 40 myself which means I'm in the "old fart" range myself at this point.
I played chaos multiple times in my past. I have had massive Black Legion armies on two separate occasions and was a staunch Death Guard Player for many years. I also had a heavily converted Nurgle themed LATD force.
My DG and LATD collections would have easily been 5000+ points and nice to play some Apocalypse games with if I still had them, but first GW dropped LATD and then I really didn't like the direction GW took Chaos. I sold all my chaos at this point and haven't looked back, it just wouldn't be the same today as it was, and I'd rather just have the memories of chaos in the greatness of past editions at this point.
For me the flavor and fluff was what chaos was all about. You took pride in building/converting and playing a themed force regardless of any limitations it might impose. Flavor used to be key for chaos players; it was converter's army, a painter's army, a fluff hound's army.
These days chaos just seems so watered down, one dimensional and uninteresting for me personally. The double lash "sporthammer" list that everyone fields makes no sense to me based upon what chaos was told to be for so many years. Gw has moved on however and the old farts need to get out of the way I guess...
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
There were no restrictions on mixing troops with different marks in 2nd edition. It has always been in the fluff to have a mixed force. Again, the main point under contention here is that an HQ with a particular mark is leading a force with no other unit in that force bearing the same mark.
I liken this to, in eldar, taking Maguan-ra and no dark reapers, in IG taking Lord Castellan Ursarkar Creed and no cadians, only catchacan, in Tyranids, taking a broodlord and no genestealers, in Witchhunters, taking a cannoness and no sisters. Are these legal builds? Yes, all of them are. Do they make sence? No, not one bit.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
What really makes Fzorgle so painful to people who pay attention to fluff is how powerful it is. Fzorgle is utterly gamebreakingly powerful. This led me to a thought: if the list wasn't so powerful, would anyone play it? That is the true measure of fluff. People will play lists just because the story is so interesting. Can anyone honestly say they'd play Fzorgle if it was second or third tier?
14062
Post by: darkkt
Maybe Ive missed something... I always considered that single faction armies were somewhat counter-fluff (particularly the world eaters, who were supposed to be broken into small warbands). Ive always considered my various units to be bound together by a single strong chaos champion warlord (or abbadon).
I figured that was sufficiently fluffy to justify playing the army I wanted (and Im yet to use lash in a game, but expect to in the future - I am planning a couple of Slannesh Demon princes)!
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
But what you consider a small warband might not be a small warband to someone else. My small warband is over 200+ chaos marines. This represents just over 0.2% of the 90,000 traitor marines.
On a plus note, this thread has made me realise that I was a TFG with fzorgle in an Iron Warriors army. This has now ceased an I am currently trying to re-gain Perturabo's favor.
14062
Post by: darkkt
Fairy Nuff, Although im sitting with 200+ cms too ... mostly Zerkers, but good chunk of my 'black iron legion' (I paint them boltgun, then throw over 3-4 washes of badab black - I think it provides a bit more 'texture' than just black) and a couple of squads of the other legions for specialist roles.
Spose its just how you interpret the fluff (as long as youre having fun, Im not going to point the stick at anyone!)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Darkhound: Given that nobody played Slannesh Psyker / PM / Oblits *before* 5E, I think you have your answer....
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Which was my point exactly John. I want to believe that will shut people up about Fzorgle being fluffy, but it won't. Infact, another one will pop up within the next 7 posts.
13512
Post by: Jon Garrett
I think the list is possible to achieve via fluff. If nothing else it could be the remains of a larger warband whose Slanneshi troops and Nurgle leader have been wasted.
However, it's clearly not the reason people play it. People play a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch leading large numbers of Thousand Suns because it's fluffy. People play an Undivided Lord with a Slaneshi Sorcerer and troops from each Cult as a fluffy Undivided force.
People play this because it's very, very powerful. If Lash of Submission suddenly required the unit to take a Leadership test before you could move it, then I very much doubt we'd see this list played again. In fact I suspect we won't see it after the next Chaos Marines Codex.
I personally prefer to avoid lists like this, because I dislike the 'must win' mentality behind it. Just as I'd avoid taking two Nob Biker squads. That is not to say, if I chose to make a Chaos list, I wouldn't take Lash of Submission. I wouldn't, however, take three squads of Obliterators. One, sure. They're a cool and potent unit. But three is overkill.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
It's really the principle of why you play the game. Some play to play a war game, some play to play in the 40k universe, etc. There's no wrong approach. Any opponent you play that has a different one will "grind your gears" a little bit, so expect that. I think if a player can hit all the marks (extremely themed, extremely competitive and well-painted/modeled) then they'll earn extra points in the opponent's books regardless and be more fun to play, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be at that level or want to be.
I personally play to play a war game, and usually have a theme and decent enough "hobbying" that my army doesn't look out of place, even if it's not the best. I've also never played more than 4 Oblitz and don't plan on it because I can't come up with a decent conversion, and the GW models are getting ridiculous. I've only ever run 1 squad of Plaguers, and now I don't even do that because I'd rather have more regular CSM. I usually only run 1 cult marine squad in an army ever (I love Chaos Glory and Slaanesh-marked units though). I play to hit all of the marks slightly, but mainly to play a war game (I do enjoy thrashing a Space Marine or IG player more though).
221
Post by: Frazzled
ph34r wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wait, so now we have to have a printed example of anything for it to be valid? How many invisible standards are there? What about the armies that don't get as many books written about them? They must not have as many fluffy choices as the other armies.
If you are going to make an army that entirely goes against the fluff, and then argue that you don't go against the fluff because there is new fluff that supports you, you should be prepared to show said fluff where you have slaanesh daemon princes leading nurgle plague marines and non-god marked obliterators.
So yeah, I would say that you do have to have a printed example for your army to be "fluff-justified"... if it goes against everything that the fluff says and you claim that it is fluffy. Almost every army does not go against the fluff and claim to be fluffy, in this situation the army does.
EDIT: for example, if cadians and catachans were said to be mortal enemies and fight often when they meet, and completely hate each others guys, and this was said in every publishing of the IG codex, then I would not accept someone's army with Creed&Kell leading a force of catachan jungle fighter troopers as "fluff-justified". It would be ridiculous for them to argue otherwise without an example to back them up.
Of course with similar logic you could not have loyalist marines or IG playing each other. Loyalists don't battle in the fluff so its right out.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Frazzled wrote:
Of course with similar logic you could not have loyalist marines or IG playing each other. Loyalists don't battle in the fluff so its right out.
Really?
I seem to remember some pretty serious Loyalist on Loyalist action during the Horus heresy and other historical times in the Imperium's history...
Not to mention that People like Apostate Cardinals often convince PDF forces and other "loyal" citizens to follow their cause which leads them to open conflict with other Imperial forces
Not to mention that whole populations of people don't always willingly submit to being "purged" by an overzealous Inquisitor...
221
Post by: Frazzled
CT GAMER wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Of course with similar logic you could not have loyalist marines or IG playing each other. Loyalists don't battle in the fluff so its right out.
Really?
I seem to remember some pretty serious Loyalist on Loyalist action during the Horus heresy and other historical times in the Imperium's history...
Not to mention that People like Apostate Cardinals often convince PDF forces and other "loyal" citizens to follow their cause which leads them to open conflict with other Imperial forces
Not to mention that whole populations of people don't always willingly submit to being "purged" by an overzealous Inquisitor...
Please define the fluff where Space Wolves fought with Blood Angels?
Please elucidate on the epic battle where Dark Angels smashed the Iron Hands?
Wars between Catachan and the Smurfs?
2700
Post by: dietrich
DarkHound wrote:What really makes Fzorgle so painful to people who pay attention to fluff is how powerful it is. Fzorgle is utterly gamebreakingly powerful. This led me to a thought: if the list wasn't so powerful, would anyone play it? That is the true measure of fluff. People will play lists just because the story is so interesting. Can anyone honestly say they'd play Fzorgle if it was second or third tier?
I think that's the best summary of the fluff vs rules debate.
I have no trouble with people fielding dual-Lash princes, oblits, and Plague Marines. it's a legal list. The only thing that I can expect my opponent to do is field a legal list. But, it's also an obvious net-power-build. And I don't think people can hide behind it be fluffy, it isn't. If the tourney had a player judged comp scoring that was as simple as, "This list is built to win and ignores the fluff", I would check it. If I played a dual-lash, oblit, PM list, I would expect my opponents to check that box.
People play power-builds (dual-lash CSM, Nob bikers, etc.) for one reason - to try to win games. I'm fine with that, just be honest about it. If you have to explain the 'fluff' of your list to people, then it doesn't work. If you field 3x 10 tac marines, 1x10 assault squad, and 1x 10 dev squad - do you have to explain it? No, because everyone recognizes it.
Now, there's exceptions. If you want to field the Tanith First and Only and are basing your army list on some Table of Organization and Equipment that appeared in an odd book, that's fine. People might not get it, and you might have to explain it. But, I'm pretty sure the list wouldn't include 2 choirs in chimeras.
284
Post by: Augustus
Earlier I asked if anyone knew of examples in fluff where cult troops followed another marked leader. The only example that came up was black legion and the discussion moved on to fzorgle and justification for 2LashOblitfest.
I think it's reasonable to say:
Chaos players (new and Old) don't care about the fluff
New players think rule structure=fluff
Old Fluff is gone
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
There will always be min/max gamers in pretty much any gaming system.
With every edition and codex change in 40k there has been the same type of people that crunch the numbers and come up with the WAAC army and trump it around the game shop and tournaments for their own reasons. They will try and justify it via "the rules allow it" or "well the fluff is open to the players".
Now, the drawback that these individuals will have to live with is that eventually people are just not going to want to play them. I mean what is fun in knowing that you are tossing your regular army into a meat grinder for no reason other then to inflate a power gamers e-epeen.
Furthermore, when they win tournaments with all massacre wins, they will also end up with lowest comp/theme/sportsmenship scores from me and probably other gamers that look at their army list the same way I would.
Power Gamer: I WON!! I WON!! I AM THE BEST 40K GAMER IN BUMF**K, EGYPT!!
Gamer: Yea, but you're a d**k.
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
To quote RustyKnight: "To sugna, (in regards to making a story) people will go, "hur hur Chaos can't work together unless GW explicitly states that those exact CSM will work together. All the others are idiots and incapable of long term planning."
Sugna: I meant that you create a backgound story for YOUR army using Ye Old Fluff (books, stories, And ALL codexs), though I only have the last two CSM codexs)
Then you can ADD to your story through you battles and campiagns.
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
What is a mod? And to my supierior, Perturabo's Chosen, The comander has to have fun Right? Slannish has got it. FROM ALL THOSE WHO YELLED AT ME ABOUT THAT THERE!  
14698
Post by: Lansirill
Brother Ramses wrote:There will always be min/max gamers in pretty much any gaming system.
With every edition and codex change in 40k there has been the same type of people that crunch the numbers and come up with the WAAC army and trump it around the game shop and tournaments for their own reasons. They will try and justify it via "the rules allow it" or "well the fluff is open to the players".
Now, the drawback that these individuals will have to live with is that eventually people are just not going to want to play them. I mean what is fun in knowing that you are tossing your regular army into a meat grinder for no reason other then to inflate a power gamers e-epeen.
Furthermore, when they win tournaments with all massacre wins, they will also end up with lowest comp/theme/sportsmenship scores from me and probably other gamers that look at their army list the same way I would.
Power Gamer: I WON!! I WON!! I AM THE BEST 40K GAMER IN BUMF**K, EGYPT!!
Gamer: Yea, but you're a d**k.
That's the problem with the current Ork codex. People can power game -and- be fluffy. Lucky bastards. Ah well, I guess that just means I need to get off my butt and paint me some orks.
14793
Post by: karnaeya
The answer is GW dosent care about fluff. Players will play what they can and what is good. This is natural in any remotely competitive environment.
Fzorgle is dirty and gaks me no end, But when you think about it chaos is meant to be dirty, rebellious and well ..chaotic.
14518
Post by: sugna the repairible
So when do you kill a thread? Because I think that this one is a bout dead.
|
|
