Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 17:21:02


Post by: abhorsen950


I dunno if this is in the right place Move if it is wrong.

But basically the CSM codex loads of people hate it and really think its terrible!
and i own the codex and i dunno why people hate it so much?
so love to hear why and what you think should be updates in the next one


ABH


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 17:23:08


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


The only thing I hate are the unit Icons, which make absolutely no sense whats so ever.

'Oh No, bob got shot, we don't count as Khorne anymore!'


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 17:32:13


Post by: abhorsen950


Haha i know what you mean



ABH


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 17:33:15


Post by: BOSS_PIMPALOTZ


Its because they have taken them and toned them down cult lists no longer exist and it just caters for people who like to deploy a stupidly huge Khorne Berserker squad for half the points they'd pay in 4th edition.

I for one saw it as a bloody huge let down being a frequent chaos player I base my Emperors Children round the forth edition lists which I and my friends are still playing.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 17:39:41


Post by: studderingdave


i didnt like the book much when it was first released, but it grew on me.

things that still irritate me:

Cult troops without Cult leaders. as a deathguard player i would like lords and demon princes with FNP, even at a steep cost, same for terminators.

slaanesh gets the best psychic power AGAIN, even though warptime is a very close second.

the loss of demons. generic demons are demons, but i would have just liked something like an upgrade like +1 T for nurgle, +1 str for khorne, maybe a shooting attack for the tzeentch ones and +1 attack for slaanesh.

the over simplication. i guess this is all the new books, but the basic dumbing down of the HQ choices especially. i mean a DP takes agaes to gain its status, you dont think it wouldnt get some cool gear along the way? maybe just a two handed weapon that gives +2 str or something?

im trusting the legion books offer more, as a dedicated deathguard player i look forward to it.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 17:40:31


Post by: Gaznab


its that they needed to be tonned down from 4th edtion because they were so ridiculously powerful or at least could be the difference is that instead of tonning them down they are instead completely torn apart.

they needed certain things to be reworked but cult lists and the elimination of having decent daemons in the army put a big hurt on the chaos game. These are supposed to be more powerful then space marines, generrally theyve been alive longer and they at minimum have bartered their lives withteh dark gods but there isnt a whole lot available that actually shows that effect.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 17:56:32


Post by: Starfarer


studderingdave wrote:i didnt like the book much when it was first released, but it grew on me.

things that still irritate me:

Cult troops without Cult leaders. as a deathguard player i would like lords and demon princes with FNP, even at a steep cost, same for terminators.

slaanesh gets the best psychic power AGAIN, even though warptime is a very close second.

the loss of demons. generic demons are demons, but i would have just liked something like an upgrade like +1 T for nurgle, +1 str for khorne, maybe a shooting attack for the tzeentch ones and +1 attack for slaanesh.

the over simplication. i guess this is all the new books, but the basic dumbing down of the HQ choices especially. i mean a DP takes agaes to gain its status, you dont think it wouldnt get some cool gear along the way? maybe just a two handed weapon that gives +2 str or something?

im trusting the legion books offer more, as a dedicated deathguard player i look forward to it.



This.


I'm overall happy with the Chaos codex, but playing Death Guard myself I have to agree with everything you listed.

That, and Typhus, leader of the Death Guard has T4(5)! This was slightly annoying until I picked up the SM codex and Cassius is T6. That had me pretty genuinely pissed.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 18:42:48


Post by: Frazzled


They took a good codex that was the most customizable in the game and replaced it with toilet paper, USED toilet paper.


For example, they removed god specific demons, fast attack demons, greater demons, and replaced with a generic demon and generic greater demon. Er, yea.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 18:42:54


Post by: avantgarde


I miss Spiky Bits.

In fact I miss: Dread Axes, Dark Swords, Daemon bomb, cultists, Plague Swords, S10 Daemon Princes, Berserker Glaives, Rubric Terminators, Thrall Wizards, Daemonic Stature, Combat Drugs, Mutated Hull, Parasitic Possession, Coruscating Warp Flame, Furious Charging Raptors, Hit and Run Raptors, Daemonic Armor, Manreapers, Axes of Khorne, Tank Hunting Autocannons, infiltrating armies, Indirect Defilers, T5 Oblits, 5 attack 2 re-roll PFs, 3+ Bloodletters and the list goes on.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:00:22


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Meh, it's fine. At least least the focus is back on Chaos SPACE MARINES instead of Daemons and Powers.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:03:51


Post by: Frazzled


JohnHwangDD wrote:Meh, it's fine. At least least the focus is back on renegade SPACE MARINES instead of Daemons and Powers.


Corrected your typo


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:05:07


Post by: Nurglitch


I actually really like the most recent Codex: Chaos Space Marines. It got me back into the hobby around the end of 4th edition, since it was such an improvement (my opinion, your mileage may vary) on the previous one.

I also really like the Icons, and how they differentiate Power-aligned Chaos Space Marines from the Cults (also, how they beefed up the Cults and got rid of that awful Chain-axe rule). It finally allowed me to field my firepower-heavy Khorne army without having to get into the same old argument about how Khorne being identified with close combat was 2nd edition revisionism.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:05:27


Post by: JohnHwangDD


All Chaos Space Marines are renegades...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:18:35


Post by: Danny Internets


From a competitive standpoint, the army can't compete without taking Obliterators, and that's just makes for boring composition. They're the only source of points-efficient ranged firepower in the entire codex.

Without them your anti-tank is limited to short-range infantry, over-priced melta bikes, one-shot combi-melta terminators, and unreliable Chaos Dreadnoughts. Against IG, Tau, or Eldar you're completely boned.

The book is just poorly designed from start to finish. It's like the 4th edition Space Marine codex with all of the customization removed.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:18:46


Post by: Ciaphas-Cain


All Chaos Space Marines are renegades...


But not all renegades are Chaos Space Marines


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:26:00


Post by: Nurglitch


Ciaphas-Cain:

The codex explains that turning away from the light of the Emperor is simply the first step on the road to damnation. Renegades are more than just Imperial dissenters, they're Marines that have renounced their vows, and struck out for their own goals and purposes. Such selfishness is the seed of Chaos.

Danny Internets:

I disagree with your assessment that Obliterators are somehow necessary for a competitive list. If anything, they're an occasional flavour-unit. The Heavy Support section of Codex: Chaos Space Marines is wide open in terms of the number of live options that it offers players.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 19:42:40


Post by: warpcrafter


Frazzled wrote:They took a good codex that was the most customizable in the game and replaced it with toilet paper, USED toilet paper.


For example, they removed god specific demons, fast attack demons, greater demons, and replaced with a generic demon and generic greater demon. Er, yea.


Now it's my turn to steal a line from your post for my sig.

What they need is a CODEX CHAOS. A massive tome that includes Traitor Legions, post-Horus Heresy Renegade Space Marines, Daemons of all sorts, Cultists, Mutants, Traitor Guard and Dark Adeptus. Even if it were a leather bound phone-book of a Codex with a price tag that would make my debit card weep tears of blood, I would still snap one up quicker than anybody believed me capable of moving. Rant off, for now...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:09:10


Post by: KingCracker


What pissed me off the most, was I played Chaos since I got into the game. I played an Iron Warriors successor chapter of my own making. I could do some damage with the extras you got using Iron Warriors. But then the new dex came out, and Iron warriors are the same as everyone else apparently. It pissed me off lol


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:11:40


Post by: Vintagemustangs


If not compared to codices before it, it's great! I love the upgrades and especially love the Plague Marines now


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:12:05


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


Nurglitch wrote:
The codex explains that turning away from the light of the Emperor is simply the first step on the road to damnation. Renegades are more than just Imperial dissenters, they're Marines that have renounced their vows, and struck out for their own goals and purposes. Such selfishness is the seed of Chaos.


Aye other than the fact the book is still supposed to represent the Black Legion, who are not apparently not so keen to remember they have been undivided Chaos for ten thousand years and if the Icon bearer dies, they might as well be Space Marines, but without They shall have no fear.




On a side note I feel I was too quick to post earlier, Icon's are my bugbear (I love the ability for any unit to be marked now, but I don't understand why it required this Icon rule and not just a unit upgrade,) but also there are holes all over the codex. It says its a Renegades list, but then also expects us all to use it for Cult armies for the forseeable future. It is a mess and I heavily agree with the Daemon comments as well.

I also take from most posts I see around forums, the tournie list is set in stone, don't bother coming if you don't have Oblits, a lash Prince, probably two and so on, which is just awful really. I have about a 50-50 rating with my force atm against my foes and I don't use Lash at all as I don't have any Slaanesh PSykers in my army yet.
If I field them and see a major swing in my favour, I'll be disgusted tbh as I really hate cheap units.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:18:41


Post by: studderingdave


i think we got shafted a bit as the last codex to be put out before the whole "pick a commander. get this armywide upgrade" like the SM, ork and guard codex.

in a new codex i would like to see night lord commanders make raptor's tropps, iron warriors commanders grant special or more heavies, and deathguard commanders offering more DG squads to replace fast attaxk slots.

thats just an idea, but this alone buts the current codex on a backfoot as far as flexibility.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:25:29


Post by: Brother SRM


It just has less overall flavor than the previous one, and splitting the codex into Chaos Daemons (who can't ally!) and Chaos Marines was stupid, but probably got the money wheels-a-turning for GW.

I prefer fighting it though, since there's no first turn assaults from infiltrating super kitted out flying daemon princes and lords who can kill an entire squad per round of melee. Just Plague Marines who refuse to die.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:27:38


Post by: Necros


I like the codex a lot. granted I didn't have an army before the current codex and I didn't get screwed like some people, but all the games I've played with my army have been real fun.

I don't have any obliterators, I usually run 2 vindicators and a defiler, or 3 vindicators and both combos seem to work real well for me.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:30:47


Post by: Night Lords


No Legions make playing Night Lords (or any other legion) nothing but a weakened version of Black Legion. If I go with the fluff and take raptors (which are decent at best), and don't take the undivided Obliterators, Im severely handicapping myself.

If you take anything other than a Prince, Sorceror, Suicide Termies, CSM, Plagues, Zerkers, Oblits and Defilers, youre handicapping yourself, because the other units really are THAT much worse. All of these units combined are well rounded and do what they do much better than the alternatives. Even Elite Melee Possessed Units are outdone by cheaper scoring Berzerkers.

The codex is so simple. There are no choices or customization when making your list if you want to win. Every competitive list is the same. And if youre playing for fun with other units, youre going to have a really hard time against anyone with a decent list, as youre substituting key units with an intended role for subpar ones.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:55:31


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Non-optimal doesn't mean unplayable.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 20:59:41


Post by: dietrich


People hate it because it eliminated about 8 flavors of Chaos Marines. It'd be like GW eliminating Space Wolves, Black Templars, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. While that is maybe what -should- happen, it still hurts to have your army eliminated, especially if you have units that are no longer fieldable.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:17:13


Post by: Bookwrack


What was no longer fieldable? Basilisks and cultists?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:17:15


Post by: JohnHwangDD


If CSM still had 5-man Lascannons & Elite Oblits, with the option for extra looted Pie, there wouldn't nearly be the same amount of whining.

No, people hate it because it nerfed a couple broken flavors of Chaos Marines.

If flavored Daemons were nerfed down to a GEQ base statline, (e.g. S3 T4 A1 Plaguebearers & S3 T3 I5 Daemonettes), the complaining would be even greater ...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:18:49


Post by: Night Lords


JohnHwangDD wrote:Non-optimal doesn't mean unplayable.


Say whatever you like, people are upset because if they dont use this cookie cutter list, theyre going to get spanked. You may be happy with a rather bland, subpar army, but Im simply stating a reason why people are upset.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:If CSM still had 5-man Lascannons & Elite Oblits, with the option for extra looted Pie, there wouldn't nearly be the same amount of whining.

No, people hate it because it nerfed a couple broken flavors of Chaos Marines.

If flavored Daemons were nerfed down to a GEQ base statline, (e.g. S3 T4 A1 Plaguebearers & S3 T3 I5 Daemonettes), the complaining would be even greater ...


That is not why at all. Ive never heard people complain about Obliterators at all - infact, only the opposite that theyre TOO good and everything else it horrible.

Chaos is a fantastic army if you want to win. Its just not FUN.

Stop making silly assumptions.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:25:17


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


Aye tbh those of us who have been around long enough to have owned Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned first time around, (or paid silly money on ebay since) pretty much weep at the current CSM codex.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:27:04


Post by: Nurglitch


Slaves to Darkness, and the Lost and the Damned, were (and still are) over-rated.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:38:20


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


Ah didn't own them then.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:40:16


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Aye tbh those of us who have been around long enough to have owned Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned first time around, (or paid silly money on ebay since) pretty much weep at the current CSM codex.

I like the current CSM Codex, and I've got Slaves, along with the Codices ones going back to 2E...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:43:21


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


I sold mine.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:45:04


Post by: Danny Internets


I disagree with your assessment that Obliterators are somehow necessary for a competitive list. If anything, they're an occasional flavour-unit. The Heavy Support section of Codex: Chaos Space Marines is wide open in terms of the number of live options that it offers players.


If you aren't taking Obliterators you are handicapping yourself. They provide desperately needed flexibility by combining long-range AT with extremely efficient anti-infantry dakka. You cannot run a Chaos list without long-range support because the fast units (bikes and raptors) are restricted to short-range AT and are both crap for the points (and they don't fit in the mech metagame).

Terminators are the other option, but they are hampered by the randomness of reserves + deep strike AND only get one shot. Not bad for a suicide unit, but paying 120 points for 3 meltagun shots (per game) isn't anything to call home about.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:49:01


Post by: endless


Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Ah didn't own them then.

I did, and do, though I don't have 'em on me so I'm gonna have to go off memory. What did you run from S.t.D that you can't run now? Other than wargear such as Tox. grenades, obviously. I'll give you L.a.t.D, but then they weren't legion lists.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:53:28


Post by: Lanceradvanced


Why? Lets see what I've got that I can't field...
This is across a couple armies, btw..

*Slaneesh Lord with Doom Siren
*Dreadnaught with warp amps
*Rhino, ditto.. also extra combi bolter + havok
*Dreadnaught with Havok Launcher
*Predator with blastmaster
*Chosen AC with combi bolter and powerfist
*2 Blastmaster havok squad
*6 man squads with SW and HW (cuz 6 was slaneesh's fav number)
*raptors with 3 SW, raptor AC with a combi melta

For those who cry cheese, I say , I can live with the points going up, not being able to use stuff I took the effort to model pisses me off, also, these changes make me buy less models, not more, because I -used- to spend about 2x the cost to get the bits to do em -just right- now.. why bother..


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:55:15


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


@ endless - Thinking more of the character stuff, like Mutations and the weapons etc, its the ability to create things of, well Chaos.

The new dex doesn't feel like you can do that as well, especially when you compared it with the last one. Hell if they had said look lets be honest ten or so of these enhancements are overkill, we'll remove them it wouldn't have been an issue.

However for some twisted reason I still can't fathom they removed the whole dang thing, and suddenly the fun part of the old dex. Playing around with mutaions/rewards and then modelling an equivilent figure was gone.





edit - ninja'd.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:56:34


Post by: dietrich


Bookwrack wrote:What was no longer fieldable? Basilisks and cultists?

Also, Berzerkers on Bikes and Noise Marine havoc squads to name two others. iirc, Dreads could be marked and have some funky weapons (Slaneesh getting Blastmasters, iirc). It was a lot of little things that went away and have no replacement.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 21:57:18


Post by: Nurglitch


Sure, but Land Raiders provide more reliable Lascannons and anti-infantry firepower, Defilers are more mobile and have better anti-infantry firepower, and Havocs can have more weapons, a transport, and they can fight in close combat. That's not counting the Vindicator and the Predator as being cheaper and harder-hitting than a unit of Obliterators.

Using Raptors and Bikers for anti-tank Melta Guns is a waste when Havocs and Chosen can take far more anti-tank firepower - heck a unit of Chaos Space Marines with two Meltas and a Combi-Melta in a Rhino have more anti-tank as Raptors or Bikers. Raptors are best for flanking assault troops, and Bikers are best for bringing Icons to bear.

If anything Obliterators are a handicap because they are I1, and despite being W2 Terminators, that leaves them to having their hash settle by any Johnny-Power Weapon that happens to wander in their direction and trap them in combat. Havocs have the numbers and attacks to deal with a tarpit, and the vehicle units can simply drive away. If you're taking them, then you need units to screen them from the inevitable fire and fodder they'll draw.

The reason people think they need the flexibility of Obliterators (flexibility at a premium), is because they get mixed with very rigid and short-ranged units like Plague Marines, Berzerkers, etc. Havocs provide great redundancy to units of Chaos Space Marines, while their Rhinos (and Defilers, Predators, Vindicators, Land Raiders, etc) provide great redundancy to Rhino transports.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 22:07:42


Post by: endless


@Morathi- Yeah, of course, but really that was due to the more 'roleplay' aspect to Rogue Trader. I actually like the way the new codex allows me to, finally, recreate the E.C.list I had back then, without having to spam dumbass Noise Marines. It has actually inspired me to revisit Chaos when previously the legions felt like they'd been reduced to one dimensional stereotypes. I know I'm not alone, but we get lost in the noise a bit. I know the new codex ain't perfect, and there's stuff I'd change, but I do like the move away from single weapons or rules being the definition of the legions.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 22:15:41


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


Aye don't get me wrong, I still play CSM with gusto. I'm just missing some of the nibbles we used to have on the plate.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 22:27:08


Post by: endless


This game has changed a lot, and I can see why people feel like Chaos, particularly, have suffered a loss of options. For me, however, what seems to be complained about most is stuff I didn't really like, or downright hated (still annoyed so many people think E.C. = N.M. ). So, personally, I'm happy to take the rough with the smooth. Much of what people seem to define as 'chaos' was the long list of weapon options. This a) doesn't fit with the way codexes are currently being written and b) was a pale, wan shadow of the personalisation that was possible originally. Oh well...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 22:41:53


Post by: Night Lords


Endless, the problem is, the mutations and combinations are what set CSMs apart from SMs. Now CSMs are just spiky SMs, with a couple of unique units. Its almost a mirror image.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 22:47:47


Post by: JohnHwangDD


At their core, CSM *are* spiky SM without ATSKNF, so why shouldn't they largely overlap?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 22:51:11


Post by: Night Lords


Uhh, because they have been with Chaos for 10 000 years? The old codex shook the feeling that it was just SMs with spikes, theres no reason this would couldnt have done the same.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 22:52:57


Post by: viney


I started playing Chaos last year, with the current codex, I liked it. Then a friend showed me the previous codex and the current while competitive is lacking some variety and flavor. Compared to New SM, Ork and IG codexs, CSM are very one dimensional which gets old.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 23:01:34


Post by: endless


Night Lords wrote:Endless, the problem is, the mutations and combinations are what set CSMs apart from SMs. Now CSMs are just spiky SMs, with a couple of unique units. Its almost a mirror image.

Yeah, but without units like cultists, Thrall Wizards and Plague Skeletons, that's all CSM are. How many mutations could you take in the 3.5 codex? Is it really feasible for every unit (at least) to have a different mutation with different rules in the ruleset as it exists? How do you write that codex?
In Slaves to Darkness the three legion lists are almost exactly the same, Daemonettes were better in combat than Bloodletters, which was balanced by having the units being different numbers. Other than that, no real difference.
Later, in 2nd, Chaos became one legion, one trick. Is that 'chaos'? Not for me.
Yes, a chaos codex where the multitudes of cultists, odd deamons, mutated fauna with the occasional 10,000 year old CSM appearing in the midst of them would be great, fluffy and fun. Can you imagine the complaints if GW turned round and said 'you want fluffy? Well, there are no CSM armies, and those that exist are just bad SM (IW)'. Then there would be chaos


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 23:07:08


Post by: Lorgar's_Blessed


I remember when the current chaos codex came out I looked at it and almost wept. I took my list, found what I could that was still playable, then saw my biggest issue. I HAD NO DARK APOSTLE! I no longer took the most fluff-tastic unit in my list because the writers are a bunch of idiots. So, I decided to have a laugh with a friend, who played Space Marines but was an avid supporter of my fluffy Word Bearers.

We went to our FLGS and asked a red shirt there what I was supposed to take now that I had no Dark Apostle. (Granted I knew it was a sorcerer for me since I hated the lords and they didn't represent how the dark apostles were gifted slightly enough to summon daemons and such).

The red shirt asked me, "Would you like your HQ to be effective or be closer to a Dark Apostle?"

So i thought, I'll bite, and asked him, "What's the effective choice..." Big mistake.

He told me to take a Daemon Prince.

So, this red shirt now tells me the transition between codecies has turned my wonderful Dark Apostle into a DAEMON PRINCE! Anyone else see a problem?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/06 23:18:08


Post by: JohnHwangDD


The idea that you can't field a "Dark Apostle" because GW didn't make a specific entry for one is kind of odd to me.

IMO, he's just a CSM Lord with a Dark Crozius (Inv. Save) who summons Daemons, so you could give him MoT and an Icon.

If you want to bump him into a Psyker or Daemon Prince, that's your perogative.

Or you can bring both a CSM *and* a DP to cover all the bases.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 00:49:51


Post by: warboss


the late 3rd edition codex (the one with oblits as natural T5 in the first printing) was completely broken but at least had flavor. i definitely don't miss chaos lord whose stats make bloodthirsters want to lick their boots or iron warriors with 4 heavies, t5 oblits, etc. what i do miss is the number of units that were simply different from the standard marine equivalents. raptors used to actually have special rules instead of being a vanilla assault squad without ATSKNF. if you took a chaos lord with the MoK, you couldn't take anyone with the MoS. specialty marines (berzerkers, noise marines, etc) were only troops if they corresponded to the mark on your lord. regular CSM squads had infiltrate so that they could compete with the utility of the marked marines in the troops category. daemon princes could actually buy wargear other than wings/marks/psyker powers.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 01:05:01


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Mostly right (IIRC, only Chosen had Infiltrate, not all basic CSM), and as things have evolved:
- Raptors aren't (as) cripplingly overpriced
- you're free NOT to take MoS and MoK together
- players can choose Cult vs Marked marines as they desire
- Chosen and Havocs have loads of guns and options available compared to Cult Marines.

It's different but no worse than you choose to make it.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 01:29:02


Post by: Lemartes


No, people hate it because it nerfed a couple broken flavors of Chaos Marines.


100% right. You used to be able to run 4-5 different distinct lists. Now you have one.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 01:32:43


Post by: Nurglitch


Lemartes wrote:
No, people hate it because it nerfed a couple broken flavors of Chaos Marines.


100% right. You used to be able to run 4-5 different distinct lists. Now you have one.

That's a popular misconception exacerbated by the edition change. Now that people are catching up with the 5th edition rules, the Double-Lash is old hat.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 01:37:15


Post by: Commissar Molotov


JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, people hate it because it nerfed a couple broken flavors of Chaos Marines.


Please don't presume to tell me why I hate something.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 01:38:57


Post by: djones520


abhorsen950 wrote:I dunno if this is in the right place Move if it is wrong.

But basically the CSM codex loads of people hate it and really think its terrible!
and i own the codex and i dunno why people hate it so much?
so love to hear why and what you think should be updates in the next one


ABH


My guess is that because it was hit with the Nerfbat from the last edition, and a lot of players are pissed off about not being able to bring completely broken armies anymore. It's still a pretty competitive book IMO.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 01:49:09


Post by: High Commissar Biffsmack


I really see no problem with it, but then again I have no experience in the previous editions..... one of the things that pisses me off is that space marines get missile launchers for free and CSM have to pay 10 points for them, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the new Codex. I do think they should make it more apparent that they're superior to normal Space Marines, though...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 01:57:44


Post by: H.B.M.C.


abhorsen950 wrote:CSM Codex why is it hated so much?


Two words:

Generic f#*@ing Daemons.

The last Chaos Codex is what brought me back into 40K after a long hiatus. The current 'Chaos' Codex is what got me out, for good. Don't play GW's rules no more.

Beyond that, I have nothing else to add on the matter.

Nurglitch wrote:Slaves to Darkness, and the Lost and the Damned, were (and still are) over-rated.


Oohh look! Opinion as fact! So tasty!

djones520 wrote:My guess is that because ... a lot of players are pissed off about not being able to bring completely broken armies anymore.


Yeah, no, I think it's more to do with the fact that people invested a lot of time and money (hundreds if not thousands in some cases - I have over $1K worth of Daemons myself) into armies that don't exist any more.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 02:24:06


Post by: Nurglitch


H.B.M.C wrote:Oohh look! Opinion as fact! So tasty!

Opinion expressed as opinion, actually. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your venom... Tell us how you really feel!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 02:33:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I said I had nothing more to add, and thus, I have nothing more to add. If you want more, keep baiting me. I may give in eventually.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 02:41:06


Post by: Nurglitch


Bait, bait, bait!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 03:23:47


Post by: CF Scout


Lets see, where to start, where to start.

1: 30 Deamonettes I can no longer use.
2: Havoks with Bolt Pistol, CCW, and Doom Sirens I can no longer use.
3: Noise Marine Terminators I can no longer use.
4: Predator with Blastmasters I can no longer use.
5. Chosen Noise Marines I can no longer use.
6. Chaos Bikers with Sonic Blasters I can no longer use.

I will stop at 6, because that is the Sacred Number of Slaanesh, and at some point that actually meant something.

Seeing as the new dex left me with a lord, about 2 noise marine squads, and a squad of Chaos Marines with close combat weapons, and a lord, and a bunch the previous style rhinos, I have dunked the entire army in simple green and am starting over.

I am however taking my Deamonettes and starting a Slaanesh Deamon army, Deamon Princes may be heavy Choices, but when I build one, he will be my old Emperor's Children Lord given Deamonic Stature.

I played a Deamon Delivery Rhino Rush Noise Marine army, without the deamonettes with their rending claws, the army just doesn't work. The army wasn't reliable but it was fun as hell. Load the entire army up with noise marine weapons, (sonic blasters and blast masters) or close combat havok squads with doom sirens. Rush the enemy. pop out of tanks, shoot like there is no tomorrow. Summon Deamons, then follow deamons into close combat. It would alternatingly work great or poorly. Such is the fickle ways of the Chaos Gods.

Oh and to those who complain about Slaanesh getting the best psychic powers, I never liked Lash of Submission, Gift of Chaos is much more my style. When it works it is so much fun to use on enemy HQ choices.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 03:29:56


Post by: JohnHwangDD


@Nurglitch: The biggest problem with certain literalist individuals is that they are mentally incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact unless you actually preface your comment with the specific phrase "In my opinion, ..."


____

Oh yes, smilies don't help things, either.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 03:34:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


JohnHwangDD wrote:@Nurglitch: The biggest problem with certain literalist individuals is that they are mentally incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact unless you actually preface your comment with the specific phrase "In my opinion, ..."


And the problem with people like you John is that you are incapable of seeing that your opinion isn't always fact.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 03:35:33


Post by: carmachu


JohnHwangDD wrote:If CSM still had 5-man Lascannons & Elite Oblits, with the option for extra looted Pie, there wouldn't nearly be the same amount of whining.

No, people hate it because it nerfed a couple broken flavors of Chaos Marines.


Geez, could you be any worse of a GW fan boy?

No people dont hate it for losing power. People hate it because its really a renegades marine book, masqurading as a chaos marine one.

No you cant make a real Alpha legion army. Nor night lords. Nor iron warriors and so on.....Not because people want a bassie or an extra heavy slot.


Chaos legions, the big 8. Thats what chaos players really want. Not the watered down renegades. The legions that started the dark road of damnnation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:At their core, CSM *are* spiky SM without ATSKNF, so why shouldn't they largely overlap?


If thats your logic, why have a Dark angel, space wolf, blood angel, black templar codex? They're all just marines after all.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 03:45:48


Post by: CF Scout


carmachu wrote:
Chaos legions, the big 8. Thats what chaos players really want. Not the watered down renegades. The legions that started the dark road of damnnation.




The current Dex is like bad light beer, perhaps even near beer. I want some fricking imported European Lager and I want it yesterday.

It's like going through rehab, without the oh so slaaneshi drugs to get you through the withdrawl.

*Sends his Marines off to score some combat drugs from the Dark Eldar*


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 04:05:00


Post by: JohnHwangDD


carmachu wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:If CSM still had 5-man Lascannons & Elite Oblits, with the option for extra looted Pie, there wouldn't nearly be the same amount of whining.

No, people hate it because it nerfed a couple broken flavors of Chaos Marines.


Geez, could you be any worse of a GW fan boy?

No you cant make a real Alpha legion army. Nor night lords. Nor iron warriors and so on.....Not because people want a bassie or an extra heavy slot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:At their core, CSM *are* spiky SM without ATSKNF, so why shouldn't they largely overlap?


If thats your logic, why have a Dark angel, space wolf, blood angel, black templar codex? They're all just marines after all.

I suppose that I could buy several times as much GW stuff and pretend to hate the company, and then continue to spend inordinate sums supporting a company that I profess to hate along with inordinate amounts of time paying attention to said company. But no, in my case, I've spent enough and am reasonably satisfied with what I've got; otherwise, on the sales block it goes. If that's being a fanboy, so be it.

You know, I own every Codex: Chaos GW has ever printed. And of them all, the current book is no less playable or flexible than the rest. It's just down-powered. GW retconning AL and NL for one version doesn't make it so for perpetuity.

The difference is that robed marines, werewolf marines, and knightly marines look different from Roman marines and spiky marines, and that is why they get Codices. When vampire marines can have a distinctive look, they'll get a Codex, too.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 04:19:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I lied. Turns out I do have some more to add.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I suppose that I could buy several times as much GW stuff and pretend to hate the company


I don't pretend.

JohnHwangDD wrote:...and then continue to spend inordinate sums supporting a company that I profess to hate along with inordinate amounts of time paying attention to said company.


Actually have stopped paying attention mostly. I haven't even read my copy of the Guard Codex yet, if that's any indication. I'm only interested in Planet Strike and Planatary Empires as it's to do with Campaigns, the one thing I do care about.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And of them all, the current book is no less playable or flexible than the rest.


EPIC-fething-FAIL JOHN. Maybe you should be the king of men made from straw, because Carmachu didn't say that at all. And he's not even talking about the power of the Codex, yet you insist on reframing the issue to something he's not even discussing to score cheap points.

As I said the first time we fought, in my review thread, and you still, after all these years, can't get it through your wall-like skull:

It's not about power, it's about flavour. He's not complaining about a loss of power, he's complaining about a loss of choice. Many armies vanished when that abortion of a Codex was printed, and in its place we got a single generic army list that's still powerful, but far less interesting.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference is that robed marines, werewolf marines, and knightly marines look different from Roman marines and spiky marines, and that is why they get Codices. When vampire marines can have a distinctive look, they'll get a Codex, too.


Double-standards much?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 04:29:19


Post by: Lemartes


It's great if you just want to play Black Legion or Renegades. At least Abbaddon is what he is supposed to be.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 06:05:57


Post by: Lorgar's_Blessed


H.B.M.C. wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Nurglitch: The biggest problem with certain literalist individuals is that they are mentally incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact unless you actually preface your comment with the specific phrase "In my opinion, ..."


And the problem with people like you John is that you are incapable of seeing that your opinion isn't always fact.


WOOT WOOT! STICK IT TO HIM, HBMC!

Oh, and to answer what you said up aways in this thread John, that isn't fluffy. MoT makes him chosen by Tzeentch. The only marks I EVER use in my army is Chaos Undivided. Meaning, NO! So no, that's a horrid idea. I still use my old Dark Apostle model, I've given him doombolt and say it's one of the few powers he uses. I dislike proxying marks and such when I want to stick to fluff, that's just how I play.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 06:11:27


Post by: JohnHwangDD


@Lorgar: Up to you, man. I just don't see why one has to be so literal about things like that.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 06:28:38


Post by: Mad Rabbit


H.B.M.C. wrote:It's not about power, it's about flavour. He's not complaining about a loss of power, he's complaining about a loss of choice. Many armies vanished when that abortion of a Codex was printed, and in its place we got a single generic army list that's still powerful, but far less interesting.


Win. Sums it all up. If you have all the past Chaos codexes, why not compare the pages devoted to cult armies in the one that everyone loves to the pages devoted to variant armies in the new codex.

You'll notice that each Cult Legion gets several pages of rules and wargear and each Undivided Legion gets a page worth of rules. This kept things fluffy and much more importantly INTERESTING. Also, individual units got neutered. See Also: Chaos Raptors. See Also: Chosen.

Yes, current Chosen are good. But they used to talk about how stupid it was that Chaos vets only got infiltrate and they should have more skills to reflect their centuries of experience. This time around they said no, learning to be as sneaky as a Space Marine Scout is all they learned in those centuries. Gee, thanks.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 06:42:14


Post by: CT GAMER


dietrich wrote:People hate it because it eliminated about 8 flavors of Chaos Marines. It'd be like GW eliminating Space Wolves, Black Templars, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. While that is maybe what -should- happen, it still hurts to have your army eliminated, especially if you have units that are no longer fieldable.


So glad i unloaded my massive DG army before this codex hit. I hate the generic brush over of the fluff and removal of the ability to make proper cult armies.

I'm also sick of hearing "two lashes" within the first 30 seconds of anyone telling me about there chaos army...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 07:27:03


Post by: the_emperors_renegade


Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:The only thing I hate are the unit Icons, which make absolutely no sense whats so ever.

'Oh No, bob got shot, we don't count as Khorne anymore!'


why would you take any non specific(Plagues, Berzerkers, Thousnads and Noisys)anyway???waste of points...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 08:32:46


Post by: studderingdave


the_emperors_renegade wrote:
why would you take any non specific(Plagues, Berzerkers, Thousnads and Noisys)anyway???waste of points...


because i felt the need to run my watered down cult terminators in my deathguard.

icons are really lame, it was a poor move by GW.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 12:37:14


Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin


the_emperors_renegade wrote:

why would you take any non specific(Plagues, Berzerkers, Thousnads and Noisys)anyway???waste of points...


well other that noting the irony of that statement in a thread about peoples issues with the book, (I don't want a cookie cutter codex thanks,) I like using the varying units.

Plus what studderindave said. I spent way too long converting my termies not to use them.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 13:40:28


Post by: Frazzled


No people dont hate it for losing power. People hate it because its really a renegades marine book, masqurading as a chaos marine one.

Correct. Its quite literally, boring.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 14:14:11


Post by: StormHalo


I purchased a 1500 point Chaos SM army after pouring through the codex. I was that excited about the fluff, models and flavor. To me, it has a lot of options, especially in the troops section. It should be said though, I have no experience with any of the previous CSM codexes.

I've played only a single game with my new army, but the way it played was so different than my orks or Crimson Fists. To say I loved it would be an understatement.

I suppose I am the type of player who is satisfied with painting my favorite faction within the codex as opposed to having GW feed me the options to play a hundred different lists.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 14:25:57


Post by: abhorsen950


Hi guys sorry i forgot about this post
ill reply again soon when ive managed to read all the replies
im in skwl atm

cheers
ABH


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 17:46:06


Post by: lord of corn


I'll preface this by saying that i did not own or play a Chaos marine army from the last book but I'm torn about the newest chaos book, on one hand the new book has excellent troops, i think in general our basic marines are better than they were before (and some of the best troops in the game) and i really like what they have done with the cult units. i also like the new defilers and that vindicators are now standard in the list. but on the other hand its very obvious that the book is only half baked with lots of units that are just there for the sake of being there ( raptors, possessed, dreadnoughts, bikers, spawn, greater and lesser daemons)

i would actually be happy with the current book if they only changed a few minor things:
- icons are an upgrade to a unit pts per model
- icons given to lords resemble the marks that cult troops have (+1 attack and furious charge for example)
- icons can be given to daemons
- change dreadnought's "crazed" back to the old rule
- allow possessed to buy their upgrades
- allow chosen to chose one veteran skill (infiltrate, tank hunters, etc.)

i think GW have an opportunity to make the next chaos book really great, its very clear people like playing their cult and undivided legion armies. hopefully they will bring the focus back to the 10,000 year old legionnaires and instead of being "spikey marines with less options" diversify the list by bringing in more lost and the damned type of units. im convinced they would have a hit if they incorporated cultists, mutants and weird daemon engines. hell i wouldn't mind if they removed the generic watered down daemon units we have now for more stuff like this.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 18:28:57


Post by: RxGhost


I like the renegades list, myself. Power-wise, I find it's really very good. Fluff-wise I prefer it. I don't have a lot of interest in playing a single chapter of the chaos marines like I would space marines; I like the build and aesthetic I have with my renegade list.

It gives me the option, as a painter and modeler, to do lots of different things in my army. I've got guys painted as ultramarines with furrows in their chapter symbols shoulder to shoulder with horned bronze and red madmen.

WHAT HAPPENED TO USING YOUR IMAGINATION AND CREATING SOMETHING NEW AND EXCITING WITHOUT NEEDING TO BE SPOON FED LIKE A CHILD!?

Besides, if you hate the company and don't pay attention to anything, why would you care?



EDIT: Verb conjugation errors.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 18:38:59


Post by: gorgon


warpcrafter wrote:What they need is a CODEX CHAOS. A massive tome that includes Traitor Legions, post-Horus Heresy Renegade Space Marines, Daemons of all sorts, Cultists, Mutants, Traitor Guard and Dark Adeptus. Even if it were a leather bound phone-book of a Codex with a price tag that would make my debit card weep tears of blood, I would still snap one up quicker than anybody believed me capable of moving. Rant off, for now...


To your point, the real issue IMO is that they replaced a book with a great deal of color and many themes with a much more conceptually limited version. They didn't really offer us a different look at Chaos or anything new conceptually. You could field renegades in the last version. Frankly, this one isn't even that good of a renegades list. You can't tell me Red Corsairs (for instance) shouldn't be a helluva lot more colorful than anything you can field from the CSM codex. It's as if the creative brief said "trim it all back" and little else.

You'll never convince me it wasn't a rush job, because usually (whatever faults they might have) the design team does a good job on the conceptual end. And I'm really not seeing that with the CSM book.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:10:37


Post by: karnaeya


I wish they had never updated the list. Just look at all the choice in the armoury.. all the daemonic gifts. The currnet codex is so dull i thought jervis wrote it, only to ddiscover it was aliesso and gav..


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:17:56


Post by: dietrich


The CSM codex is like the tinman in Wizard of Oz. It has no heart. It just doesn't inspire you, unlike previous versions of the book. You can build an army out of it, and there's at least one effective build from it. But, it just doesn't invoke the same awe and wonder, unlike the Second Edition CSM and the 3.5 CSM codex did. GW can never get Chaos right. It's either bland and nothing or overpowered cheese.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:28:07


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Those of us who wanted the freedom to make our armies in our own image were pretty happy to see the new book.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:30:21


Post by: Mad Rabbit


JohnHwangDD wrote:Those of us who wanted the freedom to make our armies in our own image were pretty happy to see the new book.


If your image is bland, you must have been overjoyed by it.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:36:52


Post by: Frazzled


Help me out. How do I make this army in "my own image." Old codex arch heretic with traitor guard backed by demons, oblits, and defiler? No MEQs.
It WAS my own image and its now an illegal list.

You can't make the statement that this gives you freedom to make armies in your own image with suffiicent support. The "new" codex literally has significantly less options. Therefore the list by its very nature cannot be as tailored to a player's specific view of their list, vs. what could be provided in the "old" codex.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:37:06


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Nah.

More like my image wasn't to be shoehorned into somebody else's arbitrary army concept and restrictions.

Especially as the Legion lists and rules were pulled out of thin air. It's not like there was any precedent for any of them in the previous Codices.

You see, back when I first got into Chaos, you had to use imagination to make up an army.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:51:47


Post by: RxGhost


No John, I want GW to tell me how to paint my models and what units to use in my list.

Unless it's not exactly what I had in mind, then damn their black hearts for it.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:52:34


Post by: Danny Internets


JohnHwang, all rules are pulled out of thin air at some point. It's not like they were set in stone from the beginning of time. It's all made up by somebody.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:56:49


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Yup. So, given that it's all arbitrary, why shouldn't I have the freedom to make my own?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 19:58:50


Post by: Frazzled


JohnHwangDD wrote:Nah.

More like my image wasn't to be shoehorned into somebody else's arbitrary army concept and restrictions.

Especially as the Legion lists and rules were pulled out of thin air. It's not like there was any precedent for any of them in the previous Codices.

You see, back when I first got into Chaos, you had to use imagination to make up an army.


Your statement does not square with the actual codex JH. We all have visions of our army. The new codex specifically forces that vision down a narrow permit or eliminates it entirely. Please define how less choice equals more, as it lacks a reasonable basis absent some other factor I am not aware of.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:00:57


Post by: gorgon


dietrich wrote:The CSM codex is like the tinman in Wizard of Oz. It has no heart. It just doesn't inspire you, unlike previous versions of the book. You can build an army out of it, and there's at least one effective build from it. But, it just doesn't invoke the same awe and wonder, unlike the Second Edition CSM and the 3.5 CSM codex did. GW can never get Chaos right. It's either bland and nothing or overpowered cheese.


The old LatD list should have showed them the way. Do you want to go CSM-heavy with some traitor IG and chaos spawn? No problem. Want to field loads of mutants backed by daemons? Can do. Want a traitor IG army with Russes and Basilisks led by a Daemon Prince and a small cadre of cult CSMs? Fine. And ironically it was, despite its mix of unique choices and units coming in from various codices, more balanced than the v3.5 CSM book on its own.

To me, the issue isn't exactly that the current book has fewer wargear items or that Legion lists are gone. If they had removed those but given players more diversity in their army builds, I think the new book would have been received better. As it is now, I think army build decisions happen at a more granular level ("Do you want to field Bezerkers or Plague Marines in your transports alongside your near-mandatory oblits and lashers?") than they did with the v3.5 book or the LatD list. And I think that's what some people find less-than-inspiring.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:01:54


Post by: Nurglitch


JohnHwangDD wrote:Nah.

More like my image wasn't to be shoehorned into somebody else's arbitrary army concept and restrictions.

Especially as the Legion lists and rules were pulled out of thin air. It's not like there was any precedent for any of them in the previous Codices.

You see, back when I first got into Chaos, you had to use imagination to make up an army.

Word to that. I remember when it was first declared that all World Eaters were Berzerkers... Now I can have my World Eaters with heavy weapons. I like it.

Maybe GW should put a warning on the Codex: "Some Imagination Required"


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:05:02


Post by: gorgon


Nurglitch wrote:Maybe GW should put a warning on the Codex: "Some Imagination Required"


I agree, it should. Because not much made it in from the design team, which is unusual IMO.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:07:44


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Frazzled wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Nah.

More like my image wasn't to be shoehorned into somebody else's arbitrary army concept and restrictions.

Especially as the Legion lists and rules were pulled out of thin air. It's not like there was any precedent for any of them in the previous Codices.

You see, back when I first got into Chaos, you had to use imagination to make up an army.


Your statement does not square with the actual codex JH. We all have visions of our army. The new codex specifically forces that vision down a narrow permit or eliminates it entirely. Please define how less choice equals more, as it lacks a reasonable basis absent some other factor I am not aware of.

"less choice"?

What are you talking about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Nah.

More like my image wasn't to be shoehorned into somebody else's arbitrary army concept and restrictions.

Especially as the Legion lists and rules were pulled out of thin air. It's not like there was any precedent for any of them in the previous Codices.

You see, back when I first got into Chaos, you had to use imagination to make up an army.

Word to that. I remember when it was first declared that all World Eaters were Berzerkers... Now I can have my World Eaters with heavy weapons. I like it.

Maybe GW should put a warning on the Codex: "Some Imagination Required"

Old school alert! Old school alert!

Somebody remembers when Khorne was perfectly happy to field Havocs!



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:10:58


Post by: Frazzled


There is less choice in options in the new codex vs. the old codex. That simply cannot be disputed.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:13:29


Post by: Nurglitch


Actually I'd suggest that making something so open-ended requires much more imagination than reprinting or re-writing the Index Astartes articles, themselves usually below pulp quality writing. I think it's just me, but GW's background is best when presented in random quotes, snippets, and flavour pieces, rather than any attempt at actual substantive writing; they're simply not good enough writers to make it worth reading, and the material itself is simply too 2-dimensional. I much prefer to write my own. I think it's like Star Wars: the original movies are fun, but the Extended Universe turns Star Wars into a phone book.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:13:49


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Oh, you're talking about how everybody lost Wargear?

Meh. Hardly worth caring about.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:21:46


Post by: Frazzled


The fact remains, whether in YOUR OPINION it was hardly worth caring about, options have been limited.
You're attempting to put your view of a list and options upon those disagreeing with you JH. This flies directly in the face of your argument, which is that one everyone is actually agreed on, that codexes should permit players to create their own image, their bit of list art. The old codex was especially good at that. The new codex, by its fundamental design, does not. Less options means less of "the vision thing."

Its really what you're arguing-less options equals more choice. Under that construct a dex with only a tac squad option with one missile launcher/plasma and nothing else, would be the ultimate codex.

Your inherent desire of "making a codex" your own is the same as the chaos players you are disagreeing with. They had images, and recognize the greater absolute variety of options available under the old codex to make that vision closer to reality. While you may disagree with the options, you cannot invalidate their vision by one off statements. Come on JH I expect a more reasoned argument from you.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:23:13


Post by: dietrich


gorgon wrote:The old LatD list should have showed them the way. Do you want to go CSM-heavy with some traitor IG and chaos spawn? No problem. Want to field loads of mutants backed by daemons? Can do. Want a traitor IG army with Russes and Basilisks led by a Daemon Prince and a small cadre of cult CSMs? Fine. And ironically it was, despite its mix of unique choices and units coming in from various codices, more balanced than the v3.5 CSM book on its own.

I don't have a problem with GW segmenting Chaos like they have the Imperial armies. Allies, if done well, are fine. GW hasn't traditionally done them well though. My vision of the Chaos forces is more like:

Daemons (done)
Recently renegade marines (use Codex: SM)
Vanilla Chaos Marines (use Codex: CSM)
Traitor Legions (needs done)
Traitor IG (use Codex: IG)
Lost and the Damned (needs redone, untrained mobs of zealots and mutants)

So, to me, 4 of the 6 are done (or done enough to 'count as'). There's a big whole in the 40k universe that there isn't a Lost and the Damned and/or Genestealer Cult army. Both are based around big mobs of untrained civilians, backed up with either big stompy things (mutants or warriors) and/or fast killy things (mutants or genestealers). I don't even care if my Lost and the Damned can have a unit of allied Alpha Legion or Word Bearers. But, IG is not Lost and the Damned, they can pull off Tratior Guard, but that is it.

The army list for the CSM codex is fine. It's there, you can field a decent army out of it. But, it just doesn't seem to have the same sense of excitement that previous incarnations of the codex have had.

Further, I hate when GW invalidates models, never mind a whole army. I can accept swapping flamers for meltaguns, or plasma pistols for bolt pistols, but losing a whole squad because there's no longer Noise Marine havoc squads with 4 blast masters, etc. just isn't right.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:23:36


Post by: Nurglitch


Frazzled wrote:There is less choice in options in the new codex vs. the old codex. That simply cannot be disputed.

Certainly it can. There's a difference between the totality of options, and the number of live options. Live options are the options that a person can realistically take and that make a difference. A rainbow of Model T Fords gives you a live option of one car (so long as it's black...). The previous Chaos Codex gave a wider range of total options, most of which were either pointless, frivolous, or restrictive or other options; really the natural result of squishing all the Index Astartes articles together in one document.

The new Codex ditches all the decorative and pointless choices like "Spiky Bits", the various mutations, and pointless Daemon Prince stuff, and replaces it with a range of relevant options. If there's a tragedy it's that GW players tend to be lemmings when it comes to Internet Listhammer, so a handful of "Competitive Builds" were replaced by Dual Lash Princes when the Codex itself provided a greater range of live options for players to build lists. Partly this is due to prevailing conditions, where the Internet lists of the previous edition proved stupidly vulnerable to Lash Princes, but mostly it's due to the players, the ones who aren't willing to risk learning about the new options available. I suppose we're fortunate that, with time, boredom will eventually encourage a greater variety of armies to flourish.

I've noticed that since the Chaos Space Marine Codex has come out that people are gradually discovering the previously ignored strengths of the Codex, discovering the utility of Chaos Dreadnoughts (here's a hint, don't stick them beside units they can hurt!), Possessed, Havocs, and basically all the units beyond Daemon Princes, Obliterators, and Plague Marines (all Plasma Bait).


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:37:52


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Frazzled wrote:The fact remains, whether in YOUR OPINION it was hardly worth caring about, options have been limited.

codexes should permit players to create their own image, their bit of list art. The old codex was especially good at that.

Everybody lost wargear, not just CSM, so it's not something to care about. Now, if CSM were singled out this way, there would be a leg to stand on, but that's not the case. Similarly, everybody lost variant lists (i.e. Traits, Doctrines, Craftworlds), not just CSM, so again, it's not a real complaint that I would recognize.

What matters is what you can do with the CSM list in terms theme and design. And the current one does a lot more than the old one. Mixed Marks and Cult troops immediately come to mind as a major change. More balanced FOC offerings as well. Much tighter balance between all units.

For example, someone was complaining that they couldn't field his Daemonettes, but what he was *really* complaining about was that his perviously-uber (and better than CSM) Daemonettes were nerfed down to non-Rending standard Daemons that CSM were better than. Similarly, Havocs "losing" Cult weapon options, despite those models being fieldable as regular NM, is easily made up by their sheer versatility with regular Special and Heavy weapons. Same with the Word Bearer not having the imagination to count a MoTz Lord as a Dark Apostle.

In lieu of 8 straitjacketing "Legions" lists, CSM have a flexible list that lets one field 90+% of what was possible before, in a more-balanced manner, and with additional design options that didn't previously exist. So when you say that options are limited, perhaps you should be a bit clearer rather than merely mouthing the platitude that the new CSM are "bland" or "lack options".

The new CSM can do a lot more than any other Codex out there. They have the broadest and most varied selection of effective Troops in the game, along with excellent support options across the rest of the FOC. As far as Codex design goes, the new CSM are outstanding, and I wish my Eldar and IG armies had similar flexibility.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:38:06


Post by: gorgon


dietrich wrote:I don't have a problem with GW segmenting Chaos like they have the Imperial armies. Allies, if done well, are fine. GW hasn't traditionally done them well though. My vision of the Chaos forces is more like:

Daemons (done)
Recently renegade marines (use Codex: SM)
Vanilla Chaos Marines (use Codex: CSM)
Traitor Legions (needs done)
Traitor IG (use Codex: IG)
Lost and the Damned (needs redone, untrained mobs of zealots and mutants)

The army list for the CSM codex is fine. It's there, you can field a decent army out of it. But, it just doesn't seem to have the same sense of excitement that previous incarnations of the codex have had.


My ideal breakdown would have been:

Codex Chaos: old-school mishmash of renegade marines and traitors
Codex Ruinous Powers: cult legions and selected aligned daemons
Codex Daemonworlds: daemons, but also mutants, more daemon engines, with supplemental rules for fighting on daemonworlds.

I agree with you that it's a perfectly functional book if you want to field evil Space Marines. And certainly players can inject their own creativity into their army fluff, etc. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more imagination than what's in that book. The designers are first and foremost creative professionals...they're not heavy-duty game theorists, mathematicians, etc. They're there to inspire, but IMO they fell far short in this instance.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:47:44


Post by: Frazzled


JohnHwangDD wrote:
Frazzled wrote:The fact remains, whether in YOUR OPINION it was hardly worth caring about, options have been limited.

codexes should permit players to create their own image, their bit of list art. The old codex was especially good at that.

Everybody lost wargear, not just CSM, so it's not something to care about. Now, if CSM were singled out this way, there would be a leg to stand on, but that's not the case. Similarly, everybody lost variant lists (i.e. Traits, Doctrines, Craftworlds), not just CSM, so again, it's not a real complaint that I would recognize.

What matters is what you can do with the CSM list in terms theme and design. And the current one does a lot more than the old one. Mixed Marks and Cult troops immediately come to mind as a major change. More balanced FOC offerings as well. Much tighter balance between all units.

For example, someone was complaining that they couldn't field his Daemonettes, but what he was *really* complaining about was that his perviously-uber (and better than CSM) Daemonettes were nerfed down to non-Rending standard Daemons that CSM were better than. Similarly, Havocs "losing" Cult weapon options, despite those models being fieldable as regular NM, is easily made up by their sheer versatility with regular Special and Heavy weapons. Same with the Word Bearer not having the imagination to count a MoTz Lord as a Dark Apostle.

In lieu of 8 straitjacketing "Legions" lists, CSM have a flexible list that lets one field 90+% of what was possible before, in a more-balanced manner, and with additional design options that didn't previously exist. So when you say that options are limited, perhaps you should be a bit clearer rather than merely mouthing the platitude that the new CSM are "bland" or "lack options".

The new CSM can do a lot more than any other Codex out there. They have the broadest and most varied selection of effective Troops in the game, along with excellent support options across the rest of the FOC. As far as Codex design goes, the new CSM are outstanding, and I wish my Eldar and IG armies had similar flexibility.


It killed every LATD list.

EDIT: So less is more eh? Thats a unique vision. Especially considering everything that can be done with the new codex I could do with the old codex.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 20:50:04


Post by: JohnHwangDD


gorgon wrote:I agree with you that it's a perfectly functional book if you want to field evil Space Marines.

The designers are first and foremost creative professionals...they're not heavy-duty game theorists, mathematicians, etc. They're there to inspire, but IMO they fell far short in this instance.

Yep, and your trifecta of Traitor Marines, Ruinous Powers, and Daemonworld is pretty good, and almost certainly what 40k Chaos will ultimately evolve into. Just look at WFB for inspiration. WFB Chaos was a mismash until someone broke out Beasts vs Hordse, and now they split Hordes into Daemons and Mortals. 40k saw Daemons split off first, so the Traitor vs. Cult Marine split is very likely going to happen later, towards the end of 5th edition.

Actually, Legions catered almost purely to the creative side of their work, and would be applauded if 40k didn't ever have tournaments or other competitive events, but rather focused solely on campaign and narrative gaming. The problem is that 40k's biggest whiners incessantly demand "balance" from the Codices. So GW had to take a step back across the board and simplify the lists into things that were easier to playtest and balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Frazzled wrote:codexes should permit players to create their own image, their bit of list art. The old codex was especially good at that.

In lieu of 8 straitjacketing "Legions" lists, CSM have a flexible list that lets one field 90+% of what was possible before, in a more-balanced manner, and with additional design options that didn't previously exist. So when you say that options are limited, perhaps you should be a bit clearer rather than merely mouthing the platitude that the new CSM are "bland" or "lack options".

The new CSM can do a lot more than any other Codex out there. They have the broadest and most varied selection of effective Troops in the game, along with excellent support options across the rest of the FOC.

It killed every LATD list.

Really?

Where was the LatD army list in the CSM Codex? What page was it on?

Oh, wait, it's *not* in there.

LatD was tied to a discontinued supplement that had nothing more to do with the CSM Codex than anything else out there.

Like Blood Angels, GW is free to do a webdex for LatD at any time. The difference being that BA have actual models, and LatD never did. But to blame LatD on the new CSM book is nonsense. LatD died on their own lack of measurable sales.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 21:06:34


Post by: Frazzled


'Could', 'will', 'might' those are all potential future events. In the here and now there is no longer LATD, the is no longer options, merely a straightjacketed renegade marines book which is relatively difficult to tell apart from the vanilla marine dex book. In the here and now, there is no vision.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 21:28:30


Post by: 40kenthusiast


The old book had a trillion options...that no one used. And a few that people spammed. Chosen could have Veteran skills....like move through cover. Yeah, that saw a lot of use. Chaos HQ's could have a Dark Blade and move as cavalry, or....they could be suboptimally configured.

Do any of those arguing in favor of the old book even remember that thing? t5 oblits? IC characters that could wipe out squads with with a 24" inch charge starting from behind units and taking advantage of 4th edition's untargettability rule? The ever popular Alpha Legion army with the "choice" of cultists that only a scrub could love, but with the "fluffy" option to give EVERY MARINE IN THE ARMY infiltrate for, what, 1 point? 5 for the chars? The book was rubbish.

God, and the Daemons! Seekers of Slaanesh who moved as Cav and came in off Icons carried by untargettable HQ units who also moved as cav?

Ooh, and remember how Iron Warriors had to lose a fast attack slot to grab a 4th heavy support slot? Visionary writing there! They could also have a servo arm on their warsmith, but no one cared about that as the t5 Obliterators (and indirect firing pie plater, back when that mattered) were shooting you off the board.

The new book has more actual viable options than the old book ever did, and less rubbish. There are 5 troop choices, all of which are mong the best in the game, a great transport, good special characters, and an amazing heavy support section. They've got cheap landraiders, cheap terminators, Marks for all who desire them, and even a broken psychic power for Slaanesh.

The new book is the best codex in the game. Those who argue that it produces lists similar to the Space Marine codex simply aren't playing the tournament scene. CSM lists are rhino borne cult troops backed up by a strong heavy support section. SM lists are rarely made of rhino borne troops. They might have Land Raider Assault Terminators, they might have Ironclad dreadnaughts, they might have drop podding Sternguard with Pedro, or any of a host of other options, but it won't look much like CSM.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 22:00:08


Post by: gorgon


40kenthusiast wrote:The new book is the best codex in the game. Those who argue that it produces lists similar to the Space Marine codex simply aren't playing the tournament scene.


And it's uninspiring.


You're arguing a different case.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 22:37:08


Post by: Night Lords


The people arguing that the CSM codex is actually good just make me laugh - As hard as i try, I cant take them seriously.

The CSM codex is poorly written from a rules perspective as well as a fluff perspective.

For the rules - Why is it that every CSM list is exactly the same - Daemon Prince with lash, Plague Marines, Zerkers, CSM, Obliterators, Defilers, Suicide Terminators? Because these units clearly out do, point for point, every alternative. There is no reason to take non scoring raptors for a mere point less than berzerkers when zerkers completely own them in combat. There is no reason to take a lord when a DP outdoes him in every way for only a few points more. They took out the crazy combinations and upgrades to cater to your own strategy, now theyre just generic lords, princes, etc.

Its not even like units do things differently - No, they just do them WORSE.

Fluff - With that being said, there is no point to playing a fluffy army. My night lords are just black legion painted blue. If I try to play with fluffy units, such as raptors, Im either trading in zerkers (which are much better in CC), or something like Oblits which are also much more points effective, for subpar units.

They took out the legion specific rules that made the army legions unique and rich, as well as effective. While the army can easily win (Ive never lost a game with my Black Legion type list), it gets demolished if you take combinations of the other horrible units.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 23:04:58


Post by: CF Scout


To add to what I said earlier, the CSM Codex simply does not work with my army, as it was started and intended. Having been one of the people who played a Cult Army, my want to continue with that army is severely hampered.

Also, being someone who plays Vanilla Space Marines and loves Vanilla Space Marines, playing Vanilla Chaos Marines has very little appeal.

That said, the current dex is certainly playable, and makes me consider the possibility of playing an Chaos warband and for that it is certainly a decent dex.

I just think they should have found a way to address the Cult Armies that many people had, but in that vein, it is no different I suppose than making various Loyalist Marine armies wait for rules.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 23:05:28


Post by: H.B.M.C.


JohnHwangDD wrote:Those of us who wanted the freedom to make our armies in our own image were pretty happy to see the new book.


You keep repeating this line like it actually means something John. How does removing choice somehow restrict you less? Do you want to explain the (no-doubt) killer logic that goes behind stupid statements like the one above?

To put it another way, you are arguing that:

Previous Codex - Less freedom:
Black Legion list that allows for virtually anything.
8 Legion lists for a variety of flavours.

Current Codex - More freedom:
1 List that allows for virtually anything.

Umm... does not compute?

Frazz wrote:Come on JH I expect a more reasoned argument from you.


You do? Jesus Frazz... where the feth have you been?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/07 23:21:48


Post by: studderingdave


how about those of us that wanted to run a legion specific force? alot of you that are for the new codex seem to miss the fact that the new book killed of alpha legion (cultists) wordbearers (able to summon different demons).

sure, i can run "deathguard" in the new codex, but i cant have proper lords or termies. termies are supposed to be the vets of the legion, why would i have plague marines and no PM termies? and certainly i could use that argument for lords.

the book supports renegades, which is great, but it snubbed alot of us who actually wanted to restrict ourselves to a specific legion.

and if the book represents the "new renegades" whre are our land speeders and assault cannons? cyclone missile launchers and the like?

i think the book was a shoddy fix to a great previous book that was abused by a few people.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:00:19


Post by: JohnHwangDD


In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?

And the angst over MoN Lord & Termies backed by PM to represent DG? Wow.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:08:50


Post by: H.B.M.C.


JohnHwangDD wrote:In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?


Anecdotal evidence, isn't.

And you're avoiding the question (surprise surprise!) and attempting to reframe the issue (surprise surprise) and vilify (surprise surprise) those who liked the old Codex as being nothing but Iron Warrior-ing Daemon Bombing power gamers.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And the angst over MoN Lord & Termies backed by PM to represent DG? Wow.


And here start the ad hominems (surprise surprise). Now people who disagree with you are 'angsty'.

One day John you're actually going to have to put up or shut up, cut the bullgakery, and answer someone's question directly. You're not going to be able to worm your way out of it by reframing the question to fit your answer, you're not going to be able to belittle or vilify those who disagree with you, you're not going to be able to try for the moral high ground, you're just going to have to answer the fething question.

That day will be a great day for Dakka.

Until then though, you'll remain the singular black spot on what is otherwise a wonderful 40K forum.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:10:12


Post by: StormHalo


I think a lot of people are under-valuing many of the units in the current CSM codex.

I for one love the possessed marines. Not only are the models absolutely gorgeous (to me they epitomize chaos and elaborate on just how far gone the traitor legions are), but I think they're wonderfully fun to play. Of course, I am also an ork player who loves random units (shokk attack gun FTW).

Likewise, I field the regular chaos space marines with a variety of marks (dependent upon my mood). They're way more interesting to paint than their "good" brethren, and I also think they're better. They're different enough to make them flavorful to the army. Giving them less heavy weapons, for example, is a prime way to encourage a CSM player to charge forward and get mixed up. Whereas, with my Crimson Fists, I tend to sit back as long as I can, knowing most armies I play are going to chew through my power armor and spit me out as a sticky puddle of strawberry-blueberry yogurt (I play Daemons quite frequently).

I think the only unit I couldn't find a use for are the raptors. Of course, I can't really find a use for the SM assault marines either (and I've tried). Not every unit in every codex has to be amazingly effective, or even average. I really do think that GW puts a lot of units into codices based upon nostalgia. What I think we as players have to remember is that they do that for us.

Sure, the raptors aren't likely to win you games, but they're there for you to use in your Night Lords army if you wish. You'd likely complain more if they weren't there at all, right? I would.

It's not that difficult to support the fluffier units with the more capable ones and have a great game with an army that looks good and fits your imagery.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:21:53


Post by: H.B.M.C.


StormHalo wrote:It's not that difficult to support the fluffier units with the more capable ones and have a great game with an army that looks good and fits your imagery.


But you could do all that with the last Chaos Codex, plus you could do lots more. We've lost lots and haven't gained anything other than a bland boring Codex. You can better represent Chaos armies using the vanila Marine 'Dex, and that's a huge problem IMO.

As far as undervaluing units and how some units might not be that powerful, I'll repeat myself:

"It's not about power, it's about flavour. He's not complaining about a loss of power, he's complaining about a loss of choice. Many armies vanished when that abortion of a Codex was printed, and in its place we got a single generic army list that's still powerful, but far less interesting."


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:22:09


Post by: JohnHwangDD


And one day, HBMC will unclench, the rod will fall out, and he'll learn to act like a decent human being.

Guess which event will happen first...

(see, I can do "not attacks", too...")


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:30:55


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Act like a decent human being? Besides yourself I've been nothing but nice, calm and civil to everyone in this thread. I just don't like you because you're a mean spirited poser who likes to talk down at everyone then pretend to be the victim, vilify those you don't agree with, and make endless strawmen and false clauses in an attempt to win arguments that no one else was making.

JohnHwangDD wrote:(see, I can do "not attacks", too...")


Calling me 'not a decent person' is a 'not attack'? What are you blithering about?

Oh, John, BTW, you still haven't answered the question. You're attempting to turn this into a me vs you thing (how long 'til you hit that little 'report post' button John? Have you done it yet? How many times? ) to get the thread locked. Hide behind Dakka's rules in order to avoid the question.

So come on then - how does Less Choice = More Flexible? I know you can answer questions, much as you don't want to. I'm not the only one utterly confused by your nonsensical line of argument - you've got Frazz more frazzled than normal - so go on, I dare you, quit stalling and answer. The. Question.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:44:06


Post by: Orkeosaurus


JohnHwangDD wrote:In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?
You should have seen the sixty I converted for my Alpha Legion.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:44:42


Post by: RxGhost


No seriously, you have been acting very poorly, HB. How about you just calm down and step away from the internet.

How about some nice topical cream, mmm, yes? Some topi-some topical cream.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:53:06


Post by: StormHalo


I think what John is trying to say is that you can work the list given to you in the current codex however you want - there just won't be rules behind it. In essence, you're only limiting yourselves. He feels (or I think he does) that you haven't lost anything that matters in the old codex (codices?) via the same argument many are making against the current one - the material not present now that was present in the past was either too weak to appear in lists, or too overpowered to be in anybody's lists.

I think what it boils down to is this: there are people like me (and I am assuming John) that don't mind modelling our armies to represent our favored faction, chapter, tribe or whatever. Then there are people that want the rules to back up their respective preferences. Both groups find validation via different means, and I don't think one is necessarily better than the other.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 00:59:44


Post by: Alpharius


Orkeosaurus wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?
You should have seen the sixty I converted for my Alpha Legion.


I 'only' had 40 converted cultists myself, but yeah...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:02:37


Post by: ph34r


The new codex gave me the "freedom" to stop playing chaos space marines.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:06:42


Post by: Nurglitch


Alpharius wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?
You should have seen the sixty I converted for my Alpha Legion.


I 'only' had 40 converted cultists myself, but yeah...

Sounds like a great basis for a Renegade Guard army.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:12:06


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Alpharius wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?
You should have seen the sixty I converted for my Alpha Legion.


I 'only' had 40 converted cultists myself, but yeah...

Too bad I didn't get a chance to play you, instead of some guy fielding quad Heavy IW...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:12:38


Post by: studderingdave


JohnHwangDD wrote:In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?

And the angst over MoN Lord & Termies backed by PM to represent DG? Wow.


i really dont appreciate being lumped in with what you saw in your experience. goes to show what kind of players you dealt with. we had an alpha legion guy at our LGS that was crushed when the new book came out, as well as an iron warriors guy that lost his basalisk. im not saying IW should have had them from the get go, but this was around the time that the top dogs at GW said that new codexes wouldnt invalidate models.

and wow, the idea of my PM's being lead by non PM lords and termies? yes it does bother me, and it is very valid as an argument from both a fluff and gameplay perspective.

im glad there are so many oh this thread that actually stand up for the old codex. it was honestly one of the most flavorful books ive had the pleasure of playing with.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:17:01


Post by: H.B.M.C.


RxGhost wrote:No seriously, you have been acting very poorly, HB.


Towards John, yes, 'because [omitted] need to be pointed out to everyone for the [omitted] that they are.

RxGhost wrote:How about some nice topical cream, mmm, yes? Some topi-some topical cream.


They don't make anti-rage cream. Duh.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
studderingdave wrote:im glad there are so many oh this thread that actually stand up for the old codex. it was honestly one of the most flavorful books ive had the pleasure of playing with.


Which is why I find those who rail against it in favour of the new one so perplexing, especially those that claim that the new one is less restricting and offers more choice.

Oh, and for the record, he still hasn't answered the question.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:19:14


Post by: RxGhost


Actually they do.

Ice Cream.

Go one, have some...come to the delicious side of life.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:21:24


Post by: JohnHwangDD


studderingdave wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:In all the years I played against Chaos Legions, I never saw Cultists. I saw extra Heavies backed by Oblits. I saw Daemonbomb. But Cultists? Really?

And the angst over MoN Lord & Termies backed by PM to represent DG? Wow.

i really dont appreciate being lumped in with what you saw in your experience. goes to show what kind of players you dealt with.

and wow, the idea of my PM's being lead by non PM lords and termies? yes it does bother me,

im glad there are so many oh this thread that actually stand up for the old codex. it was honestly one of the most flavorful books ive had the pleasure of playing with.

I'm sorry if you took it that way. It's part of the reason I just don't do tournaments anymore.

While I understand you don't like not having Cult Termies (which I don't recall actually being in the CSM Codex), what I don't understand is how MoN Lord doesn't work. That's just wierd.

I was a lot happier playing under the original 3E Codex, and was pretty pissed when the update came out.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:23:41


Post by: StormHalo


RxGhost wrote:Actually they do.

Ice Cream.

Go one, have some...come to the delicious side of life.


Ice cream is nigh irresistible.

It's something that needs no codex, no lists, and no rules to enjoy.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:28:42


Post by: Dendarien


Most players seem upset by three things: loss of wargear, loss of god specific demons, and loss of mono-god armies.

Everyone lost wargear, so I agree it is a fairly moot point.

Demons are getting separated period, it is time to just realize that that is the way GW is taking things: no more multi-book allied forces outside Apoc and the like.

The loss of mono-god armies I find kind of pathetic. Simply because the book does not force a player to take a Nurgle lord for a DG army doesn't mean you cannot do it. Sure the powergamers are gonna abuse it but it doesn't mean you can't keep your mono-god armies going.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:28:54


Post by: FITZZ


This again?,ok,IMO the "not even as chaotic as a 90 year old nun"codex basicly sucked the fun and flavor right out of CSMs,bland boring generic daemons,no real cult armies,just an overall lack of variety...it may well be the worst codex GW has published.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:30:44


Post by: StormHalo


FITZZ wrote: This again?,ok,IMO the "not even as chaotic as a 90 year old nun"codex basicly sucked the fun and flavor right out of CSMs,bland boring generic daemons,no real cult armies,just an overall lack of variety...it may well be the worst codex GW has published.


I dunno about that...have you read the Dark Eldar codex?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:34:39


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Dendarien wrote:Demons are getting separated period, it is time to just realize that that is the way GW is taking things: no more multi-book allied forces outside Apoc and the like.


That's an odd way of looking at it. Daemons weren't an 'allied' part of Chaos in the previous Codex... or any Codex prior to the current one actually. They were simply part of the Chaos list. It's only recently that the distinction was made. Actually, when you look at it, Daemons are still part of the Chaos list, they're just generic... for no actual reason.

Why remove Daemons from the Codex and replace them with pathetic generic nonsense aside from wanting to sell new model kits/a new army?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:35:49


Post by: Mad Rabbit


StormHalo wrote:
FITZZ wrote: This again?,ok,IMO the "not even as chaotic as a 90 year old nun"codex basicly sucked the fun and flavor right out of CSMs,bland boring generic daemons,no real cult armies,just an overall lack of variety...it may well be the worst codex GW has published.


I dunno about that...have you read the Dark Eldar codex?


Eh but how much do they really care at this point? We USED to have a great codex, then they took it away and gave us a kick in the balls instead.

Dark Eldar players have been locked in that dark basement corner for 10 years. They're used to it by now.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:36:01


Post by: FITZZ


StormHalo wrote:
FITZZ wrote: This again?,ok,IMO the "not even as chaotic as a 90 year old nun"codex basicly sucked the fun and flavor right out of CSMs,bland boring generic daemons,no real cult armies,just an overall lack of variety...it may well be the worst codex GW has published.


I dunno about that...have you read the Dark Eldar codex?

Actualy I have it was the first codex I ever bought,and ..um point taken,I will now rephrase my previous statement to "one of the worst codex GW has ever published".


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:42:34


Post by: StormHalo


H.B.M.C. wrote:Why remove Daemons from the Codex and replace them with pathetic generic nonsense aside from wanting to sell new model kits/a new army?


I think what GW was trying to do was, 1) make more money by doing just what you suggest, sell two armies and justify a host of new models and, 2) focus more on the daemons and their machinations, goals, factions, etc. by giving them their own codex and thus, narrowing the scope on the chaos space marines in theirs.

I don't mind the daemons being of a generic variety in the CSM codex - it keeps the attention on the summoners rather than the summonees (is that a word?). The generic daemons are fodder for the CSM while the daemons in the Chaos Daemons codex are the real deal - the elites, the bad mofos, the personal representatives of their respective gods outside of the warp.

In my opinion, it's a fluff thing.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:51:27


Post by: RxGhost


You see Sto*munch*Halo, that might be the problem...hold on, I've got ice cream on me...that's better, I don't know if you meant this or if it just sparked me to think it.

Behind every shout of "now this is bland and generic and fluffless" I still hear a voice shouting, so high pitched that the untrained cannot hear, and that voice is shouting "these aren't as strong as they were".

Demons are still in the book right? Right. Why doesn't anyone use them? Because people think they're weak. They don't have the special rules that they used to/the other army gets/insert other complaint.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:54:33


Post by: studderingdave


JohnHwangDD wrote:While I understand you don't like not having Cult Termies (which I don't recall actually being in the CSM Codex), what I don't understand is how MoN Lord doesn't work. That's just wierd.


my basis here is that MoN for plague marines carries blight grenades, FnP and the IN penalty. for sake of completeness i would like this for all models bearing the mark.

i cannot recall how many times my OP opened fire on my termies expecting them to have FnP and i just say Nope they dont get that, it even confuses my opponents. i know FNP termies and DP's sounds crazy, i would gladly pay double the points now to mark my termies, lords and DP's properly, even more if i had too.

hell, if they took away FNP from plague marines i would feel better, knowing MoN and plague marines are uniform across the board.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 01:59:24


Post by: JohnHwangDD


I thought this was GW getting away from "every MoN is a PM" and just like every "DG is a PM"


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 02:09:16


Post by: studderingdave


they could go in whatever direction they want, im just saying this is why i am pissed about the new book.

i know i shouldnt bring logic into it, but all my deathguard start as plague marines, senior plague marines get termie armor, the most agressive aspire to be lord, or even DP's. i dont see where FNP falls to the wayside once they leave PM status.

i hope in the legions codex(es) they tie it back together for the legions.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 02:13:48


Post by: FITZZ


studderingdave wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:While I understand you don't like not having Cult Termies (which I don't recall actually being in the CSM Codex), what I don't understand is how MoN Lord doesn't work. That's just wierd.


my basis here is that MoN for plague marines carries blight grenades, FnP and the IN penalty. for sake of completeness i would like this for all models bearing the mark.

i cannot recall how many times my OP opened fire on my termies expecting them to have FnP and i just say Nope they dont get that, it even confuses my opponents. i know FNP termies and DP's sounds crazy, i would gladly pay double the points now to mark my termies, lords and DP's properly, even more if i had too.

hell, if they took away FNP from plague marines i would feel better, knowing MoN and plague marines are uniform across the board.

Agreed,as of now you can have termies with MON increasing their toughness,no FNP,how is this reflective of an veteran PM who has acquired terminator armour?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 02:30:19


Post by: studderingdave


FITZZ wrote: Agreed,as of now you can have termies with MON increasing their toughness,no FNP,how is this reflective of an veteran PM who has acquired terminator armour?


word. this is my main argument.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 02:33:37


Post by: Orkeosaurus


I think attempting to make two different tiers of worship for one god (Mark of Khorne -> Berserker, Mark of Nurgle -> Plague Marine) was a bad idea. Especially since it's woefully incomplete, and there's nothing for daemons.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 03:45:48


Post by: H.B.M.C.


StormHalo wrote:I don't mind the daemons being of a generic variety in the CSM codex


You are the first and only person I have ever said that.

And my Word Bearer army hates you.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 03:56:55


Post by: Cheesepie


I dot own it but my gaming pal does and i see it often but i cant seem to find out why its just so darn confusing, and seems like a messed up version of the current codex's. Maybe it just me but i cant ever get used to the book. Its rules i find acceptable but as i said the concept of the book and its format oddly confuses me. But rules wise it just like any other codex its never balanced units like the noise marines are barely ever used with a tournament in mind while units like DP are basically mandatory in larger games. Oh and i also hate the terminators and all their confusing options i cant ever make up my mind in fun games and sometimes tournaments.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 04:32:23


Post by: DarkHound


I wrote up this long thing expressing my views on this new codex that got me brownie points. I think it's appropriet here, but as you can see my spelling is deteriorating rapidly do to lack of sleep. So I'll just quote myself. Goodnight, see you in the morning.

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.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 04:47:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I think this codex has opened up to a more 'build your own renegades' approach.


Except it hasn't.

The standard list, ignoring the 8 Legions, allowed for what we have already today, plus it still had Daemons, plus it still have universally consistent Marked troops, more options and so on. The new 'Codex' didn't add anything, it just took things away. 'Counts As' isn't an excuse for the fact that there is no such thing as a Death Guard, World Eater, Alpha Legion, etc. army. What there is is a singular list where once there was many, a single list with far fewer options than the previous list, and a bunch of armies pretending to be something they're not.

There are no Cult Commanders or Cult Possessed or Cult Terminators, Havocs, Bikers and so on - just a single unit that is supposed to represent all the Cult troops (so all Plague Marines wear Power Armour? There are no Noise Marine Bikers? No World Eater Possessed?), there are no more Daemonic Gifts (something I find abhorrent, given that they have been a stable of Chaos since the beginning - Realms of Chaos had a D1000 table for these things), and there are Generic Daemons (something that is just insulting to Chaos players).

The old Codex had a list that was amazingly adaptive and flexible, capable of representing just about any force you could think of. The new Codex has the same list with the options, flexibility and flavour removed. It wasn't an improvement, it was a giant leap backwards.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 06:34:49


Post by: chaplaingrabthar


My biggest gripe with the current 'dex is the genericised daemons. I want bloodletters or horrors or plaguebearers in my CSM armies, just like they had since I started playing back in 1993 there was no good reason to genericise them.

And where are my proper Thousand Son terminators? Termies with Mark of Tzeentch aren't quite the same thing.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 06:58:41


Post by: Orkeosaurus


My own copypasta rant, largely in response to the sentiment that the old codex was unnecessarily restrictive, and that the new codex allows for greater freedom:

Orkeosaurus wrote:As a former Alpha Legion player, I'll tell you I don't give a rat's ass about the restrictions that were taken away.

You know what's restricting? Playing a cult army now, that's restricting. Being unable to give your chosen anything besides "infiltrate", and your daemon princes anything besides "wings", that's restricting. Trying to play a Khorne army with a daemon prince that's worse in close combat than the prince of any other god is restricting. Playing a Tzeentch army and ending up with a pathetic sorcerer and overpriced troops is restricting. Not being able to use a basilisk is a restriction, not having veteran skills available for anyone is restricting, having no human servants for chaos - in the codex or outside of it - that is restricting. Not being able to take a Dark Apostle is restricting. Not being able to take more than two permutations of daemon is restricting. When attempting to use two thirds of the options means that your points are wasted, that is restricting.

The claim that the new chaos codex is less restricting is ridiculous. So you couldn't take plague marines if your general had the mark of Tzeentch; so what? At least you could represent nine legions. You could have the Word Bearer's leaders, the Iron Warrior's artillery, the Alpha Legion and Night Lord's skills, the Cults' daemons and gifts. Now you can represent one. The Black Legion. Everything else takes a back seat.

I hate this codex.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 07:21:18


Post by: H.B.M.C.


chaplaingrabthar wrote:there was no good reason to genericise them.


If you worked for GW, you'd realise that there was a very good reason. Their mistake was assuming that we'd just go along with it...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Orkeosaurus is awesome! He's also 100% bang on the money


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 07:30:16


Post by: Orkeosaurus


Yay!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 07:44:00


Post by: the_emperors_renegade


Danny Internets wrote:
I disagree with your assessment that Obliterators are somehow necessary for a competitive list. If anything, they're an occasional flavour-unit. The Heavy Support section of Codex: Chaos Space Marines is wide open in terms of the number of live options that it offers players.


If you aren't taking Obliterators you are handicapping yourself. They provide desperately needed flexibility by combining long-range AT with extremely efficient anti-infantry dakka. You cannot run a Chaos list without long-range support because the fast units (bikes and raptors) are restricted to short-range AT and are both crap for the points (and they don't fit in the mech metagame).

Terminators are the other option, but they are hampered by the randomness of reserves + deep strike AND only get one shot. Not bad for a suicide unit, but paying 120 points for 3 meltagun shots (per game) isn't anything to call home about.


i totally agree with danny...not taking at least one obliterator in a csm army is like playing orks, staying in the deployment zone and shoot at the enemy.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 11:24:47


Post by: Ironwarriors4life


Necros wrote:I like the codex a lot. granted I didn't have an army before the current codex and I didn't get screwed like some people, but all the games I've played with my army have been real fun.

I don't have any obliterators, I usually run 2 vindicators and a defiler, or 3 vindicators and both combos seem to work real well for me.


ye man same,i only started chaos marines(ironwarriors)when the new codex came out,i run 2 vindicators and 1 defiler or 3 vindicators and it works extremely well for me!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 12:43:08


Post by: Frazzled


ph34r wrote:The new codex gave me the "freedom" to stop playing chaos space marines.

Ditto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think this codex has opened up to a more 'build your own renegades' approach.


Except it hasn't.

The standard list, ignoring the 8 Legions, allowed for what we have already today, plus it still had Daemons, plus it still have universally consistent Marked troops, more options and so on. The new 'Codex' didn't add anything, it just took things away. 'Counts As' isn't an excuse for the fact that there is no such thing as a Death Guard, World Eater, Alpha Legion, etc. army. What there is is a singular list where once there was many, a single list with far fewer options than the previous list, and a bunch of armies pretending to be something they're not.
There are no Cult Commanders or Cult Possessed or Cult Terminators, Havocs, Bikers and so on - just a single unit that is supposed to represent all the Cult troops (so all Plague Marines wear Power Armour? There are no Noise Marine Bikers? No World Eater Possessed?), there are no more Daemonic Gifts (something I find abhorrent, given that they have been a stable of Chaos since the beginning - Realms of Chaos had a D1000 table for these things), and there are Generic Daemons (something that is just insulting to Chaos players).

The old Codex had a list that was amazingly adaptive and flexible, capable of representing just about any force you could think of. The new Codex has the same list with the options, flexibility and flavour removed. It wasn't an improvement, it was a giant leap backwards.


Quoted for truthiness. The section bolded eplains it best for me.
The old codex had problems and power builds (like the new one doesn't?). Those could have been easily corrected though. If GW had wanted to go into a new direction and break chaos into 2-3 books they could have done that as well. But the only thing they did do was turn Codex Chaos into Codex Vanilla Angry Marines with lash whip.

OT but it is evenmmore horrendous with the LATD list. They could have taken that list and added a 3 line FAQ. But they didn't. They didn't try. They didn't care one whit about the LATD players, for something that would have taken ten minutes of time to adjust. Its sad and was the big break for me with 40K. I still play (some). I still paint. But I won't buy new armies. IG (finally) nope not gonna do it. SPace Wolves-my first army back in 2nd Edition? Forget it.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 14:17:54


Post by: DarkHound


Alright, I'm sorry you guys can't use your cultists, and invalidating entire Slaaneshi armies was a jerk-move. I really am, but I'm new and I'm making due with this.

By freedom, I mean there are no restrictions. None. Nothing says you can't take this if he happens to love Khorne. I'm a fluff Nazi too, so shouldn't this appall me? Maybe, but GW threw down the SPESS MARHEENS codex, their posterboys, and said "COUNTS-AS IS GOOD." Now, no, the Legions aren't represented well in this codex which is mostly what the older players have against it. We lost options, but we gained more options because the codex has 0 restrictions. Yes, newbs will abuse that, but cunning players will use it too. I don't have to make a confangled story to show those "Noise Marines" are actually followers of Nurgle. Now I can, but I don't have to. My Noise Marines do worship Slaanesh to escape Nurgle's taint, and my Renegade Librarian is too depressed about killing his Captain in the first place to care. They are there, and he uses them.

I have a story, I can do whatever I want. Those Noise Marines shouldn't be weakened because they are with Nurgle followers. They represent a section of my Renegades that DOESN'T want to get turned into Plague Marines. This codex makes it easy to tell a certain story. Renegades who just turned Chaos. They don't have the numbers to be picky about who joins them. Ancient Enemies is not gone, it is just suspended because these Renegades are noobs. Alliances must be forged to survive. The Legions don't have this problem, they have huge armies and vast numbers of worlds under their control, but Renegades may have as much as a single fortress, or a single Battlebarge to base their operations.

Do they need Legion codicies? Hell yeah. Do they need all of them? No, just the ones that haven't dissolved into Renegades at this point anyway. Can they get one big book of Legions, and use that to patch together an ally system with the Renegades and Daemon? Yes, and we would all use it, but they probably won't. We'll just have to wait and see. In the mean time, I'm loving the time I'm having with my homebrew's story, gameplay and modeling.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 14:58:14


Post by: gorgon


RxGhost wrote:Behind every shout of "now this is bland and generic and fluffless" I still hear a voice shouting, so high pitched that the untrained cannot hear, and that voice is shouting "these aren't as strong as they were".

Demons are still in the book right? Right. Why doesn't anyone use them? Because people think they're weak. They don't have the special rules that they used to/the other army gets/insert other complaint.


That may be what they're vocal about. But what I read between the lines (if I were you, I'd talk to a professional about the voices you're hearing) is bigger picture stuff. Because if someone's complaining about the weakness of the current codex -- or claiming the last version was leaps and bounds more powerful than the current one -- they're kind of an idiot. It's a strong codex in terms of power level.

It isn't a terribly diverse one, though. The Legion lists likely had to go based on where the game is headed. But it's reasonable to say the designers could have structured the CSM codex to allow more varied styles of play, especially when they're doing just that in other codices. To me, it's a strange state of affairs when IG can field more drastically different armies than Chaos. And they most certainly can.

You know, some players might have just liked the way a particular Legion played, and now that it plays mostly similar to every other Legion, they're not as happy with it and have a bad taste in their mouth. That doesn't make them a complete powergaming jacka$$.

The rumored-but-likely-far-away Legions book might solve this issue. Although then you have to question the strategy in not releasing it within a reasonable time frame after the CSM book.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 15:03:49


Post by: Frazzled


Um, you could do that with THE OLD CHAOS CODEX as well, but still had more options available to do it.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 15:16:50


Post by: Ironwarriors4life


Lorgar's_Blessed wrote:I remember when the current chaos codex came out I looked at it and almost wept. I took my list, found what I could that was still playable, then saw my biggest issue. I HAD NO DARK APOSTLE! I no longer took the most fluff-tastic unit in my list because the writers are a bunch of idiots. So, I decided to have a laugh with a friend, who played Space Marines but was an avid supporter of my fluffy Word Bearers.

We went to our FLGS and asked a red shirt there what I was supposed to take now that I had no Dark Apostle. (Granted I knew it was a sorcerer for me since I hated the lords and they didn't represent how the dark apostles were gifted slightly enough to summon daemons and such).

The red shirt asked me, "Would you like your HQ to be effective or be closer to a Dark Apostle?"

So i thought, I'll bite, and asked him, "What's the effective choice..." Big mistake.

He told me to take a Daemon Prince.

So, this red shirt now tells me the transition between codecies has turned my wonderful Dark Apostle into a DAEMON PRINCE! Anyone else see a problem?


Hey man that is lame! Word Bearers are so awesome,(i'll b doing an army of them soon!)but what bounes did you get from having
a Dark Apostle in the last dex????


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 15:18:45


Post by: DarkHound


Second edition had more options, but was it better?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 15:36:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Well it had a Daemon World and Cultist List, plus the main list, if that gives you any indication.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 15:40:31


Post by: DarkHound


I was just refering to second edition in general.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 15:44:46


Post by: Frazzled


The last codex? yes
Fluff better
Options better


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 15:45:29


Post by: Ketara


Mad Rabbit wrote:
StormHalo wrote:
FITZZ wrote: This again?,ok,IMO the "not even as chaotic as a 90 year old nun"codex basicly sucked the fun and flavor right out of CSMs,bland boring generic daemons,no real cult armies,just an overall lack of variety...it may well be the worst codex GW has published.


I dunno about that...have you read the Dark Eldar codex?


Eh but how much do they really care at this point? We USED to have a great codex, then they took it away and gave us a kick in the balls instead.

Dark Eldar players have been locked in that dark basement corner for 10 years. They're used to it by now.


*hammers on basement door*

'Please let us out! We've been down here ten years! You've even let the Orks and Space Wolves out, why are you leaving us all alone down here.....'*cries in corner*


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 16:01:03


Post by: Dronze


If I could get my two cents in here, might I present an option that could possibly appease both sides of this argument?


If people are so twisted up about not liking the new codex, then why not just use the old one? It seems to me that a lot of the issue is that people had many hours of work and several paychecks sucked up only to have them "wasted" when the new codex dropped. It seems to me that the developer's intention for 40k was to bring it a touch closer to D&D, and they say it rather expressly... if you don't like it, come up with a house rule and move on. The codex has points values, and the structure of the stat lines hasn't changed since 3rd edition (when I picked up my first starter box, but had nobody to play with), so, barring a few over-costed units, why wouldn't this be a feasible option for non-tourney play?

Even beyond this, if you want to run a Word Bearers army, pick up a copy of the Chaos Daemons codex, and run the 2 side by side... Is it really that big an issue?

If you're not playing at the tourney level and/or not interested in playing at the tourney level, you will likely be able to find people willing to play against older codices just for gaks and giggles... and if you can't, find a new group or store to play at/with.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 16:15:13


Post by: abhorsen950


Crikey!
Look at all the posts on here by far my most popular topic
glad you guys want to have a rant so much lol
Tbh i dont even know what army to pick up and play anymore
but im really lookin at Chaos Daemons
who do you guys think i should pick?


ABH


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 17:57:48


Post by: 64mas


Dronze wrote:If I could get my two cents in here, might I present an option that could possibly appease both sides of this argument?


If people are so twisted up about not liking the new codex, then why not just use the old one? It seems to me that a lot of the issue is that people had many hours of work and several paychecks sucked up only to have them "wasted" when the new codex dropped. It seems to me that the developer's intention for 40k was to bring it a touch closer to D&D, and they say it rather expressly... if you don't like it, come up with a house rule and move on. The codex has points values, and the structure of the stat lines hasn't changed since 3rd edition (when I picked up my first starter box, but had nobody to play with), so, barring a few over-costed units, why wouldn't this be a feasible option for non-tourney play?

Even beyond this, if you want to run a Word Bearers army, pick up a copy of the Chaos Daemons codex, and run the 2 side by side... Is it really that big an issue?

If you're not playing at the tourney level and/or not interested in playing at the tourney level, you will likely be able to find people willing to play against older codices just for gaks and giggles... and if you can't, find a new group or store to play at/with.


this = win


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 19:18:43


Post by: Orkeosaurus


Dronze wrote:If I could get my two cents in here, might I present an option that could possibly appease both sides of this argument?


If people are so twisted up about not liking the new codex, then why not just use the old one? It seems to me that a lot of the issue is that people had many hours of work and several paychecks sucked up only to have them "wasted" when the new codex dropped. It seems to me that the developer's intention for 40k was to bring it a touch closer to D&D, and they say it rather expressly... if you don't like it, come up with a house rule and move on. The codex has points values, and the structure of the stat lines hasn't changed since 3rd edition (when I picked up my first starter box, but had nobody to play with), so, barring a few over-costed units, why wouldn't this be a feasible option for non-tourney play?

Even beyond this, if you want to run a Word Bearers army, pick up a copy of the Chaos Daemons codex, and run the 2 side by side... Is it really that big an issue?

If you're not playing at the tourney level and/or not interested in playing at the tourney level, you will likely be able to find people willing to play against older codices just for gaks and giggles... and if you can't, find a new group or store to play at/with.
I think if I was going to use an unofficial set of rules, I'd homebrew something up.

While I don't like the new codex one bit, I think the old one had a host of problems as well. GW just swung the pendulum on that one, and ended up with an equally unbalanced codex with less options. (All you get is increased mark-combining ability, which only benefits one of the nine legions. Every other legion lost something.)


Also, to those claiming people want an overpowered codex back, that's ridiculous. Chaos Marines are the third most powerful army now, just like they were in their 4th ed heyday. (Chaos Daemons are probably the fourth most powerful, so there's your "daemon bomb" back.)

The difference is before there were multiple good or even broken lists. Now they're reduced to one broken concept, and it's not even a fluffy one, like Iron Warriors were.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 19:44:45


Post by: augustus5


I really think the new codex is an upgrade over the last CSM codex, which I liked.

It pains me to no end that my Berzerker horde no longer has Khornate chain axes that struck fear into MEQs and even more fear into units of terminators.
And I could no longer demon bomb a bunch of bloodletters and Khorn doggies.

My berzerkers have been shelved, but I've invsted some time into building some plague marines and noise marines.

I also was absolutely overjoyed by the fact that there is no mention of the "sacred number" bs from the previous codex.
I found it so odd that demons and servants of disorder were so stuck on being in units of a certain number. It made absolutely no sense.

I was disappointed by the lack of any chaos cultists troop choices. I would have gladly given up my demons to have legions of damned souls fighting
alongside my marines.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 20:42:26


Post by: Dendarien


H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dendarien wrote:Demons are getting separated period, it is time to just realize that that is the way GW is taking things: no more multi-book allied forces outside Apoc and the like.


That's an odd way of looking at it. Daemons weren't an 'allied' part of Chaos in the previous Codex... or any Codex prior to the current one actually. They were simply part of the Chaos list. It's only recently that the distinction was made. Actually, when you look at it, Daemons are still part of the Chaos list, they're just generic... for no actual reason.

Why remove Daemons from the Codex and replace them with pathetic generic nonsense aside from wanting to sell new model kits/a new army?


Fair point about the demons, I guess I was thinking fantasy more than 40k demons. Obviously demons were released to capitalize on the new model ranges and such. I don't necessarily agree with it (I would love plaguebearers in my DG army!!). There is no doubt the new Chaos book is very confused as to what it is supposed to represent.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 20:53:15


Post by: A-P


Ketara wrote:
*hammers on basement door*

'Please let us out! We've been down here ten years! You've even let the Orks and Space Wolves out, why are you leaving us all alone down here.....'*cries in corner*


. *kicks the door* "Silence! Stop whining! It is unbecoming of the spawn of Commoragh! DonĀ“t give in to despair and hate! Use them! Let the anger flow through you and make you stronger!"


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 21:22:27


Post by: Mad Rabbit


Ketara wrote:
Mad Rabbit wrote:
StormHalo wrote:
FITZZ wrote: This again?,ok,IMO the "not even as chaotic as a 90 year old nun"codex basicly sucked the fun and flavor right out of CSMs,bland boring generic daemons,no real cult armies,just an overall lack of variety...it may well be the worst codex GW has published.


I dunno about that...have you read the Dark Eldar codex?


Eh but how much do they really care at this point? We USED to have a great codex, then they took it away and gave us a kick in the balls instead.

Dark Eldar players have been locked in that dark basement corner for 10 years. They're used to it by now.


*hammers on basement door*

'Please let us out! We've been down here ten years! You've even let the Orks and Space Wolves out, why are you leaving us all alone down here.....'*cries in corner*


"We already got hungry and ate all the Squat corpses down here!"

"Oh yeah? Have some Lost and the Damned!"


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/08 23:12:41


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Dendarien wrote:Fair point about the demons, I guess I was thinking fantasy more than 40k demons. Obviously demons were released to capitalize on the new model ranges and such. I don't necessarily agree with it (I would love plaguebearers in my DG army!!). There is no doubt the new Chaos book is very confused as to what it is supposed to represent.


Well even there there was no separation between Daemons and regular Chaos units (other than the in-game need to list what was 'Mortal' and what was 'Daemonic'). Daemons have been part of Chaos since the Realms of Chaos books first showed up. It's only recently that GW decided to split them up. I'm sure there's the same sort of rage from Chaos players in Fantasy who just had all their Daemons taken away - they didn't even get gakky generic replacements either like CSM did!!!

Now I'm not going to try and fool myself into thinking that GW did it out of the kindness of their hearts - they wanted to redo the model kits and sell a new army, but the only way they could do that was to invalidate many hundreds if not thousands of existing Chaos forces (this is across Fantasy and 40K). And, as I've said a couple of times in this thread and in my original review, it's just plain insulting.

Like many others, I play Word Bearers (and Deathguard, World Eaters, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, LatD...). I put together a nice big list, using the rules to create a fluffy list with lots of troops choices. I have Bloodletters, Daemonettes, Daemonette Cav, Furies and Plague Bearers - all ready to go waiting in the warp for my squads of Marines to bring them forward. Now technically I can still do that, but it's with Generic CSM Squad and they're summoning in Generic Daemons. Where's the fun in that? Why does my Deathguard army suddenly not have access to Plague Bearers or a Great Unclean One? Does that make any sense? Well it does in a way, because Death Guard don't exist anyway.

And speaking of my Deathguard, they're one of my boutique armies, an army that has a set size and doesn't expand beyond my original design. Ignoring the Daemons, my Deathguard has 7 units of 7 Marines - one 7-man Plague Marine Terminator Squad, four 7-man Plague Marine squads and 2 7-man Plague Marine Havoc Squads. In the current rules that would be a Marked standard Lord leading some normal Terminators with an Icon, 4 units of Plague Marines that would be unable to take their second special weapon (I believe), and then two units of Havocs with an Icon. And 2 units of 14 Generic Daemons. And a Generic Greater Daemon. And a Daemon Prince who's only option is to take Wings or not take Wings. I really dig the Deathguard fluff, with them being self-sufficient units trained to be the best they can be, able to use their Bolters like CCWs, moving forward in transports to lay down a withering hail of Bolter, Melta and Plasma fire. I also really liked it when the fluff met the rules, and the two worked together to create a better army. I don't like it when the fluff doesn't have any impact on the rules - I can still take 2 Lash Princes and 9 Oblits and paint them up as Deathguard, which is just stupid. Fluff and rules should be congruent and one should influence the other. Fluff shouldn't be there just as a 'counts as' reason to have an army that sits behind the rules and has no real effect on them.

I guess when I'm trying to say is that the previous Chaos Codex gave us so much and the new one took so much away that it drained the life out of what was a vibrant, colourful and dynamic force with so many different ways of playing it. Not all of those ways were balanced of course - there were a lot of problems with that book - but it's not as if the new Codex solved those problems. There are still balance problems with the current book and it reigns as one of the better Codices in the game. But it is also one of the more dull. I'd love someone to give us a list of things the old Codex couldn't do or couldn't do better that the current one can (aside from Slaaneshi armies based around two Princes with 9 Oblits).

And I still find the idea that the old book was restrictive and that the new one 'freed us up' to be such an amazingly silly line of thinking. Obviously JonnyDD does as well, as he's yet to answer Fraz's question.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 00:34:10


Post by: Food Store Hero


I'm alright with the new codex, but I can't say I'm happy. I'll use it, but only because I kind of have to.

I had recently just unpacked my Night Lords and figured I'd get the new book if I wanted to play them. The Night Lords were actually my first 40k Army overall. I was sad to see they basically did away with the little chapter-specific upgrades (even just taking 4 fast attack and 2 heavies instead of the usual FOC ). A lot of the gear isn't even there either. Another thing that really bugged me is I took a lot of time making a very customized Retinue for my leader (Gave my Leader Fantasy Wing Bits and bought separate wing bits from furies to stick onto my marines as a winged retinue). Unless I missed something, I don't see an option for a Retinue anymore. Also, a lot of the Wargear isn't there anymore (Stealth Adept) and just a lot of the stuff I remember that make Chaos isn't really the way it was.

The one thing I really did like about the older Chaos Book is it kind of did what I wish they'd do with the marine supplemental books. No extra books, just slight changes for each of the armies within the main book.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 00:49:48


Post by: DarkHound


Man, I'm tired of hearing "Deathguard don't exist anymore." That means that the Soul Drinkers, Emperor's Swords, Blood Ravens, various Tau Cepts, the main 'Nid hive fleets, Imperial Guard Tallarans, and every other force that is mentioned in the codex but not given a unit or list to represent them doesn't exist. So only armies with their own codicies or unit choices specific to them "exist?"


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 01:27:19


Post by: H.B.M.C.


They exist in the fluff, they don't exist in the game.

What I have a problem with is the notion that the two cannot co-exist. They did before, but now they don't. Why?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 01:42:18


Post by: studderingdave


DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm tired of hearing "Deathguard don't exist anymore." That means that the Soul Drinkers, Emperor's Swords, Blood Ravens, various Tau Cepts, the main 'Nid hive fleets, Imperial Guard Tallarans, and every other force that is mentioned in the codex but not given a unit or list to represent them doesn't exist. So only armies with their own codicies or unit choices specific to them "exist?"


nah, most of these armies NEVER had their own army. deathguard had a legal cult list, with a complete cult build, its own set of rules within the old chaos codex. then they dumped most of it, kept plague marines, but dumped the senior members of deathguard for "icon" marines.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 01:55:35


Post by: DarkHound


But they CAN exist in the game. You MAKE them exist in the game by playing your army. The story isn't in the list! It isn't in the codex! It never has been! It is in the models! The holy trinity of tabletops, modeling, story and gaming. Modelling tells a story, while gaming progresses that story through the models. So long as you can have Plague Marines, the Deathguard will march on. Just because it there isn't a big, boldfaced "DEATHGUARD" over that section in the codex doesn't mean they disappear. I can see where it stings that someone will run a similar list that isn't the Deathguard, but so long as they follow the rules this can always happen. The Deathguard is in the models and the paint. I mean, look at Traitor Guard currently (and this isn't an invitation to cry about LatD, we went over that already). They use regular Guard lists, but the thing that sets it appart are the models.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 02:03:56


Post by: BeefyG


The Chaos codex effectively killed 40k for me and my gaming group. I don't know if you can get larger FAIL than that.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 02:13:53


Post by: DarkHound


BeefyG wrote:The Chaos codex effectively killed 40k for me and my gaming group. I don't know if you can get larger FAIL than that.


I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I have to say: if one codex broke down your gaming group, I don't know with whom the fail lies.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 02:23:00


Post by: studderingdave


DarkHound wrote:But they CAN exist in the game. You MAKE them exist in the game by playing your army. The story isn't in the list! It isn't in the codex! It never has been! It is in the models! The holy trinity of tabletops, modeling, story and gaming. Modelling tells a story, while gaming progresses that story through the models. So long as you can have Plague Marines, the Deathguard will march on. Just because it there isn't a big, boldfaced "DEATHGUARD" over that section in the codex doesn't mean they disappear. I can see where it stings that someone will run a similar list that isn't the Deathguard, but so long as they follow the rules this can always happen. The Deathguard is in the models and the paint. I mean, look at Traitor Guard currently (and this isn't an invitation to cry about LatD, we went over that already). They use regular Guard lists, but the thing that sets it appart are the models.


your missing my point partially. i understand that in my fluff i can call them deathguard, im all about that. but in the GAME they arnt, and they were in the last book. if i could have deathguard havoks, lords, DP's and termies, i wouldnt be posting here. like i said before i would be willing to drop FNP and blight grenades to make the MoN the same across the board.

again, my main gripe, and its my largest gripe is icon termies and non DG lords and DP's leading plague marines. i know it seems like such a small thing, but to me it isnt. i dont want flexibilty, i want my deathguard.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 02:27:27


Post by: Nurglitch


DarkHound wrote:
BeefyG wrote:The Chaos codex effectively killed 40k for me and my gaming group. I don't know if you can get larger FAIL than that.


I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I have to say: if one codex broke down your gaming group, I don't know with whom the fail lies.

You know something? I've had it up to here with your pinko-commie notions of personal responsibility. Take your high falutin' liberalist ivory-tower book-learn', and go back to Russia!



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 02:52:17


Post by: FITZZ


studderingdave wrote:
DarkHound wrote:But they CAN exist in the game. You MAKE them exist in the game by playing your army. The story isn't in the list! It isn't in the codex! It never has been! It is in the models! The holy trinity of tabletops, modeling, story and gaming. Modelling tells a story, while gaming progresses that story through the models. So long as you can have Plague Marines, the Deathguard will march on. Just because it there isn't a big, boldfaced "DEATHGUARD" over that section in the codex doesn't mean they disappear. I can see where it stings that someone will run a similar list that isn't the Deathguard, but so long as they follow the rules this can always happen. The Deathguard is in the models and the paint. I mean, look at Traitor Guard currently (and this isn't an invitation to cry about LatD, we went over that already). They use regular Guard lists, but the thing that sets it appart are the models.


your missing my point partially. i understand that in my fluff i can call them deathguard, im all about that. but in the GAME they arnt, and they were in the last book. if i could have deathguard havoks, lords, DP's and termies, i wouldnt be posting here. like i said before i would be willing to drop FNP and blight grenades to make the MoN the same across the board.

again, my main gripe, and its my largest gripe is icon termies and non DG lords and DP's leading plague marines. i know it seems like such a small thing, but to me it isnt. i dont want flexibilty, i want my deathguard.

I agree with studderingdave,my Death Guard army is now several sqauds of Plague marines being led by a lord with MON or a DP with MON with several MON terminators,I know this may seem "small potatoes" but to me it really isn't,this is an army I put alot of time into that the curent codex has altered.
Sure I could "write up" some new fluff to fit with the new dex,but the point is,I shouldn't have to.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 02:57:57


Post by: DarkHound


I'm too elitist to see how communism would work in real life. History proves it anyway. I think socialism can work though, it just needs a direct democratic augmentation. Granted, it still isn't my ideal style of government, but that is a story for another thread.

ANYWAY, I'm still not getting that the lack of offical title makes them not Deathguard. As far as lists were concerned, weren't Deathguard just Plague Marines being led by Nurgle marked HQs, Termies, etc. anyway?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 02:58:44


Post by: skyth


The biggest problem with the codex is the icons...You have Khorne Beserkers. Give them terminator armor and suddenly they run away when a couple guys in the squad are killed. Not to mention that when the icon gets killed, the whole squad forgets that it's dedicated to a god.

The idea of generic daemons sucks...Should have made them markable with the same bonus as the icons give. Not overpowered, but gives them flavor.

Not to mention that I lost the ability to use models...I had 10 guys modeled as centaurs to represent daemonic speed (Lord, Lt, and 8 chosen) plus my cultists...Not to mention, that my squads of CSM were not legal any more. I identify my squads to make things easier for my opponent and me, and I made my squads 8 men strong LIKE WHAT CAME IN THE BOX. Two specials or a heavy and a special in each. so either I buy more models or I have to use one less guy, rendering MORE models useless.

Btw, I thought the usual thing to do with trolls (Like John) is to simply ignore them rather than let them get the attention that they lavish. Just hit the report button and ignore him.

HBMC, Plague marines can take two specials regardless of squad size.

As for the people saying that the legions are removed just like all the other army's abilities to alter the FOC, and old phrase comes to mind...If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe that it's the truth. Wazdakka, Nobs as troops, Dreads as troops, Terminators or Ravenguard as troops, scoring Sternguard, Bikes as troops, Assault squads as troops, fast attack, or elites. Most of the new lists that have come out have had a way of haivng sublists that altered the FOC or something very similar. Not so with the Chaos codex.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 03:02:20


Post by: Night Lords


I dont understand how this topic is at 7 pages. He asked why its hated so much, people have given him answers. Obviously enough people hate it if this guy hears how much it sucks. Just because YOU do like it, it doesnt mean others have to, nor does it necessarily mean it doesnt suck. Ofcourse there are some people who are going to like it - theres thousands of people who play Chaos. However, for what seems like (easily) the majority, its not fun, and many have moved on to other armies (tyranids here).


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 03:05:52


Post by: skyth


I've moved on to Fantasy...After 5th edition came out.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 03:16:55


Post by: DarkHound


This is called a discussion Night Lords, we keep talking until there is nothing to talk about. There is something at the bottom of the codex hate, and I'd like to get at it personally. I'm not trying to make you love this codex. I'm trying to pick your brain. Why is it YOU don't like the codex and I do? That is interesting, and I'd like to find out. Mostly I've seen the invalidation of armies is the biggest gripe. At the risk of getting yelled at, I could fix a Blastmaster filled army with counts-as, as the sound weapons have multiple settings. It'd probably get some points for style on the table too.

There are little tweaks every codex wants. I'd like points per model Icons. I'd like markable daemons, but I think daemons not being as powerful as they are in a full daemonic invasion makes sense. It has always been much harder for daemons to sustain themselves in the material plane without a large rip in the materium. I'd like orks to have more options for the Warboss. I'd love it if Tau's infantry were 8pts. Most of all though, I'd like a new Dark Eldar codex and model line. I've been a good boy this year GW, really.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 03:29:23


Post by: FITZZ


DarkHound wrote:I'm too elitist to see how communism would work in real life. History proves it anyway. I think socialism can work though, it just needs a direct democratic augmentation. Granted, it still isn't my ideal style of government, but that is a story for another thread.

ANYWAY, I'm still not getting that the lack of offical title makes them not Deathguard. As far as lists were concerned, weren't Deathguard just Plague Marines being led by Nurgle marked HQs, Termies, etc. anyway?

Well,politics aside...No,Death Guard were not just Plague Marines bieng led by Nurgle marked HQs (well of course they were marked by Nurgle,but in a different manner of speaking),and Plague terminator are Plague Marines who have aquired terminator armour,now we have terminators with MON...it's not the same thing.
The thing is,of course I can "call" my Death Guard "death guard",but the current codex has renedered them into somthing less, and I sincerly hope that when GW finaly dose it's next "chaos tome"we will get cult list back,for me it's not about "power builds",it's about flavor and depth.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 03:38:45


Post by: Night Lords


DarkHound wrote:This is called a discussion Night Lords, <just cut the rest for simplicity>


I would agree with you, but there are clearly a few people in this topic pressing their opinion on others. These people have many posts in this topic trying to convince others that the codex does not suck, or posts where they make stupid assumptions of those that do not like it.

Im pretty sure weve reached the bottom of the reason. How many times does loss of themed/fun/unique/customized/etc. armies need to be brought up before we conclude that this is, indeed, the reason people do not like it?

My reason is simple - its bland. No themed armies, and broken units (which makes making a themed army even harder). There is no picking my brain out of this.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 03:53:50


Post by: Mad Rabbit


DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm tired of hearing "Deathguard don't exist anymore." That means that the Soul Drinkers, Emperor's Swords, Blood Ravens, various Tau Cepts, the main 'Nid hive fleets, Imperial Guard Tallarans, and every other force that is mentioned in the codex but not given a unit or list to represent them doesn't exist. So only armies with their own codicies or unit choices specific to them "exist?"


I think the point of that statement is that the army list you can use to represent that force in the fluff has been steadily moving to a more and more general list. Instead of lots of Nurgle-specific goodies, DG players are in a hellish land of "counts-as" and logical inconsistencies (i.e. cult terminators).

It's the same as saying "Oh, well they stopped supporting CSM, so I'll just play counts-as Space Marines."

I mean, they're still power armored superhumans, who cares if it's more generic?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 04:06:36


Post by: DarkHound


Mad Rabbit wrote:
DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm tired of hearing "Deathguard don't exist anymore." That means that the Soul Drinkers, Emperor's Swords, Blood Ravens, various Tau Cepts, the main 'Nid hive fleets, Imperial Guard Tallarans, and every other force that is mentioned in the codex but not given a unit or list to represent them doesn't exist. So only armies with their own codicies or unit choices specific to them "exist?"


I think the point of that statement is that the army list you can use to represent that force in the fluff has been steadily moving to a more and more general list. Instead of lots of Nurgle-specific goodies, DG players are in a hellish land of "counts-as" and logical inconsistencies (i.e. cult terminators).

It's the same as saying "Oh, well they stopped supporting CSM, so I'll just play counts-as Space Marines."

I mean, they're still power armored superhumans, who cares if it's more generic?


Now THAT puts it in perspective for me. I still don't think the new codex deserves most of the dirt thrown on it, but I can definately see where you guys are coming from now.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 04:10:00


Post by: FITZZ


DarkHound wrote:
Mad Rabbit wrote:
DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm tired of hearing "Deathguard don't exist anymore." That means that the Soul Drinkers, Emperor's Swords, Blood Ravens, various Tau Cepts, the main 'Nid hive fleets, Imperial Guard Tallarans, and every other force that is mentioned in the codex but not given a unit or list to represent them doesn't exist. So only armies with their own codicies or unit choices specific to them "exist?"


I think the point of that statement is that the army list you can use to represent that force in the fluff has been steadily moving to a more and more general list. Instead of lots of Nurgle-specific goodies, DG players are in a hellish land of "counts-as" and logical inconsistencies (i.e. cult terminators).

It's the same as saying "Oh, well they stopped supporting CSM, so I'll just play counts-as Space Marines."

I mean, they're still power armored superhumans, who cares if it's more generic?


Now THAT puts it in perspective for me. I still don't think the new codex deserves most of the dirt thrown on it, but I can definately see where you guys are coming from now.

Now,if we can just get GW to see that as well.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 04:18:13


Post by: Orkeosaurus


I think it's pretty clear that every other legion has taken a back seat to the Black Legion in this codex. They even get a two page spread, while every other legion is mixed in with the terribly-named renegade chapters.

I would have liked GW to make a codex similar to the orks, or IG, or eldar. Sure they had problems, but they were built with more than one army build in mind, and that gives them a lot more versatility.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 04:31:40


Post by: Nurglitch


Pointing out that someone's opinion sucks isn't pressing one's own opinion on others. Likewise pointing out closed-mindedness (despite any obvious hypocrisy...) isn't a personal attack. It's basically just a rhetorical way to solicit validation from like-minded people for one's own opinion, and to invite criticism that might change one's own opinion.

If you're not willing to enter into a discussion open to the idea that your opinion may suck, then you're not open to discussion either since you're not inclined to critically engage with any replies you may solicit from dissenters to your opinion. Merely stating your opinion isn't discussion, it's bald assertion.

I mean, I really like Codex Chaos Space Marines. It got me back into the hobby when previous versions had, like Beefy, turned me off. Certainly I have a grocer's list of stuff I'd like to change about it, but I like it. However, sometimes I worry about having bad opinions or bad taste, and would really like for people who disagree with me to be able to persuade me otherwise if I am in the wrong. So I come here instead of being content with the limited perspective I have access to in my corner of the real world.

Having said that, I think that the arguments given for the ideas that the Codex does not allow themed armies, and that it contains broken units simply aren't persuasive. They aren't persuasive, to me (as any such judgments should be read as purely my opinion rather than statements of fact), because the book allowed me to make my themed World Eaters army, and my experiences with what are popularly considered "broken units" is so sharply divergent from popular opinion around here that I simply cannot conceive a charitable reason why they would be considered so.

I mean, I certainly find it interesting that we disagree so fundamentally, and I'm really interested in discussing it just in case you're right and I'm wrong (or I'm right and you're wrong, or we're both wrong), but you declaring that "There is no picking my brain out of this" kind of shuts down the possibility of doing so.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but we can enjoy our own opinions in the privacy of our own homes. Giving your opinion in a public forum, on the other hand, is about persuasion, and trying to persuade you of our ideas is not pressing them upon. You will not be kicked off the forum for disagreeing with people (well, maybe if those people are mods/admin), you will not have to write an exam, you will not even be required to be convert. Some wise bugger once said that it was the mark an intelligent person that they could entertain an idea without taking it home...

I could be wrong, for example, that the new book doesn't really allow me to theme my army. More accurately, I think, it doesn't allows you to employ rules that match the them of your army, and allows me to employ rules that match the theme of my army. It's too bad you lose out, but I'm not inclined to complain because I get my theme army at long last.

I could be wrong about the Lash Spam army units being broken. Lord knows I'm in a very small minority around here about that. But since argumentum ad populum is a fallacy in cases such as these, the jury is still out and I continue to press my case in the 40k Tactics forum (and am somewhat comforted to see the tide of opinion apparently turn me way, or at least the way I was turning several months ago, which is kind of weird). But I've been experimenting with the Chaos Codex since it came out (Thank God for people willing to play with proxies), and doing so from the starting point of assuming that each unit in Warhammer is viable given the right context until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise. I think this is approach is both more effective at developing solutions to tactical problems in 40k, and more fun because it doesn't lead to the monotony of only a few (or one...) army being considered competitive. I think that the opinion that the Lash Spam is the only competitive option, and that the Lash Spam units are broken, is the result of several factors, including:

-a slow transition to 5th edition, legacy meta-gaming from the 4th edition distorts the playing field so that people field armies that are vulnerable to Lash Spam, and play those armies in a very 4th edition way (even Stelek has caught onto this...)

-The combination of Internet Group-Think and Listhammer Players ("Timmies") - Basically Little Timmy sucks at Warhammer 40k, and since Little Timmy knows that he is the next Einstein, the problem must be with his list. Which is cool, because everyone on the Internet agrees with Timmy, and their combined genius has allowed them to determine the Winning List, the grail of Listhammer players everywhere that will allow each and every one of them to win the next Grand Tournament if their dice don't let them down. Little Timmy plays his friends down at the local GW, who fortunately also suck, and wins. The list is validated, Timmies' friends copy him, and the cycle continues. Older players mutter about Rock-Scissors-Paper, and go back to painting those Praetorians they bought back in the '90s, and who they can't field anymore because bayonets no longer give +1S, +1I, and +1A (they never did, points to the person who names the White Dwarf this suggestion was printed in).

-The attitude that because GW sucks at balancing units (everyone on the internet talks about how GW can't balance its units, after all), some units must be better than others, and it's a simple matter to determine which those units are because, after all, it's obvious that some units suck. What, you don't think they suck? What are you, stupid? It's obvious. What? Well, of course I haven't tried them, they suck! Duh!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 04:40:24


Post by: DarkHound


+1 Nurglitch, if only for my army being based around Possessed and Daemons and killing everyone for it.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 04:43:46


Post by: Nurglitch


DarkHound wrote:+1 Nurglitch, if only for my army being based around Possessed and Daemons and killing everyone for it.

Thanks. It's nice not being the lone voice in the wilderness.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 04:53:28


Post by: Mad Rabbit


Nurglitch wrote:
Having said that, I think that the arguments given for the ideas that the Codex does not allow themed armies, and that it contains broken units simply aren't persuasive. They aren't persuasive, to me (as any such judgments should be read as purely my opinion rather than statements of fact), because the book allowed me to make my themed World Eaters army, and my experiences with what are popularly considered "broken units" is so sharply divergent from popular opinion around here that I simply cannot conceive a charitable reason why they would be considered so.


Your point on Listhammerers is an excellent one. I just wanted to respond to this section. I don't think that anyone says that themed armies are gone. Any codex can produce a themed army. The argument (and it's extremely hard to disagree with) is that themed armies have lost a lot of their flavor and options. With the disappearance of differences between Codex chapters and lack of Craftworld lists seems like a trend towards more generic army lists. The death of Chaos Legions continues this. (Although admittedly the Eldar codex does a very good job of reflecting the various craftworlds and Codex:SM has an attempt in the form of special characters). So it looks like Chaos is the one that really suffers from this.

Themed armies in Codex:CSM have lost flavor since the transition from Traitor Legions to Renegades (stupid Red Corsairs). If you disagree with this, look at the number of pages in the old book that were devoted to variant lists.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 05:05:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Well enjoy the wilderness, 'cause that's where you're staying along with your generic daemons and non-Cult other troops.

Skyth wrote:HBMC, Plague marines can take two specials regardless of squad size.


Cool, thanks. Wasn't 100% sure there.

And I had never thought about Nurgle Terminators running away, or the idea that a squad of Khornate Marines forgets who they worship because the Icon bearer buys it.

"Forward my bloody brothers! Forwards for the glory of KH..." -lascannon shot takes out the Icon- "... uhh... what was I saying?"
"Gul'dar the Crazed has fallen, and with him goes our icon!"
"Help us Slaanesh... wait... was it Slaanesh? Or Nurgle?"
"Blood for the Change Lord? No... that doesn't sound right."
"Couldn't we just pick up the icon he dropped."
"Yes! In the name of uhh... Gork... Khaine? Whoever, we shall pick up the Icon!"
*picks up Icon*
"Khorne!"
"Yes!"
"That was it! Khorne! Forwards for Khorne!"
*then the Chaos Marine squad fails a Morale Check and Falls Back in the name of Khorne while some real Berzerkers look on doing chainaxe facepalms*


Ok, for a second I want everyone to cast their minds back into the deep misty... uhh... depths of 3rd Ed. We had this Codex, a Chaos Codex - more of a pamphlet really - and it was written by trusty ol' Jervis "Jervis" Johnson, back before they realised that he was better off writing Blood Bowl than fething up 40K. Do you remember a couple of things from that:

1. Daemon Princes as a separate choice with few options.
2. Random Possessed.
3. No Cult troops beyond the basic squads.

The latter one, the lack of Cult Terminators, was actually addressed in Chapter Approved (remember Chapter Approved everyone?) where they were given rules.

Then Pete "Page 41" Haines came along, buffed his own personal army (Iron Warriors) and changed a few things:

1. Princehood was now an option for a Lord/Sorcerer, and they didn't lose all too many options by taking it.
2. Possessed were fixed to allow players to plan their use, rather than react to random rolls.
3. Marks were made consistent across the board, meaning that the general rules that applies to Nurgle Terminators were the same general rules that applied to Nurgle Bikers or Havocs or whatever (aside from specific unit options and differences).

And we had that.

Then Jervis comes back into a leading role within the 40K design team, we get Snore-Angels as his first effort (Dark Angel players across the land gnash their teeth and the lameness of their Codex and wonder why their Deathwing Armies can't be led by Chaplains or Librarians any more) and soon after Jervis comes back we get a new Chaos Codex that has:

1. Daemon Princes as a separate choice with few options.
2. Random Possessed.
3. No Cult troops beyond the basic squads.

Hmm... bit odd don't'cha think?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 05:10:04


Post by: Mad Rabbit


H.B.M.C. wrote:1. Daemon Princes as a separate choice with few options.
2. Random Possessed.
3. No Cult troops beyond the basic squads.

Hmm... bit odd don't'cha think?


I literally thought I had grabbed the wrong book the first time I flipped through the new one. I asked if this was a reprint of the old one and the red shirt assured me that oh no, it was the new and improved one.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 05:12:49


Post by: Nurglitch


Mad Rabbit:

It might be something to note that my army theme is my own, and would probably get me burned at the stake by the more fanatical fluff-gurus: a shooting-based post-heresy battalion of the World Eaters. I could care less about a lack of background material rehashing the 2nd edition background (and the Index Astartes background, and the previous edition background, etc) because I don't really like the 40k background as it has been developed, so a 'generic' list really works for me as a blank canvas that I can paint with my own imagination without all the hassle of fluff-zealots telling me that I can't have Khornate Sorcerers, all World Eaters are Berzerker-cultists (my World Eaters are Destroyer-cultists), and so on.

So I could agree that the match between the theme of your army and the rules representing it has loosened, that the loosening meant less flavour, less of your army acting like you imagine it should given its most recent background material.

But I won't because it has simply changed flavour to one that I like and you don't, from one that I didn't like and you did. My World Eaters aren't dead, and now I don't have to read about the goons that stole their identity being the new gospel.

What I liked best about 40k back in Rogue Trader days was that the background was, at best, a framework in which to tell your own stories; perhaps a result of its roleplay-oriented format. The development of a specific set of stories, facts, figures, and events forming an official Warhammer 40k background ain't my cup of tea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I really like Jervis Johnson's design ethic (I once had the privilege of chatting about it over a few drinks during a Canadian Grand Tournament around 2001), I like his work on Blood Bowl, I like his work on Epic 40k & Epic Armageddon, and I'm glad he's turned that over to Warhammer 40,000. The only thing I'm disappointed by is that he's hamstrung by certain 40k legacy rules, and wish I could see what he could do in a Starship Troopers-style situation like Andy Chambers did.

It's certainly a relief from Pete Haines' Codex where Daemon Princes had options, but you were stupid unless you took the right ones (yes, I think there were broken units in 4th edition). Ditto for the Possessed: you had options, but only one set was live. And your Legion was your rules, which sucked for reasons I have already elaborated on.

Of course, the real problem is that Jervis is holding a gun to your head, and if you don't use the latest Codex: Chaos Space Marines exactly as it is printed, he will pull that trigger. Then he's going to hunt down your whole family. And eat them. He's that kind of ogre.

I may be imagining things, as I do tend to have an over-active imagination, but I recall H.B.M.C mentioning somewhere that he didn't play Warhammer 40k any more and that he and his group had decided to stick with their own rules which they had hammered out and tested, and which were putatively better than the Studio version. Which, whether I'm imagining this or not, would be pretty cool because I did something similar around the middle of 4th edition.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you don't like the current Codex, don't use it. Use the previous one. The only thing stopping you is your impending gory death at the hands of the unstoppable killing machine that is Jervis Johnson...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 05:45:35


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Nurglitch wrote:What I liked best about 40k back in Rogue Trader days was that the background was, at best, a framework in which to tell your own stories;

Actually I really like Jervis Johnson's design ethic

Agreed on both points. Tho, admitting the second is likely to get you burned at the stake around here...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 07:07:28


Post by: Orkeosaurus


Nurglitch wrote:It might be something to note that my army theme is my own, and would probably get me burned at the stake by the more fanatical fluff-gurus: a shooting-based post-heresy battalion of the World Eaters.
So you like the new codex in a large part because you play a shooting-based Khorne army?

I can definitely see how the old codex would screw with that concept. That doesn't mean much to all of the players who've found themselves with a crippled army concept thanks to the new codex, though.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 08:47:31


Post by: studderingdave


DarkHound wrote:

ANYWAY, I'm still not getting that the lack of offical title makes them not Deathguard. As far as lists were concerned, weren't Deathguard just Plague Marines being led by Nurgle marked HQs, Termies, etc. anyway?


yes, but in the old book those lords and termies had the same stats and rules as the plague marines.

old codex plague marines granted T4(5), same to termies, lords, whatever.

new codex plague marines get T4(5), FNP and blight grenades, lords get T4(5) but no FNP and blight grenades, same with DP's, termies and everything else we used to run.

we have generic lords and icon termies leading true plague marines.

this is my gripe.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 12:49:30


Post by: Frazzled


H.B.M.C. wrote:Well enjoy the wilderness, 'cause that's where you're staying along with your generic daemons and non-Cult other troops.


Exactly. This codex would only be minimally sucktacular if they had a pending LEGIONS codex, but clearly that wasn't the idea. they just ed it up.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 14:45:33


Post by: Nurglitch


Orkeosaurus wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:It might be something to note that my army theme is my own, and would probably get me burned at the stake by the more fanatical fluff-gurus: a shooting-based post-heresy battalion of the World Eaters.
So you like the new codex in a large part because you play a shooting-based Khorne army?

I can definitely see how the old codex would screw with that concept. That doesn't mean much to all of the players who've found themselves with a crippled army concept thanks to the new codex, though.

Yeah, I do like the Codex in large part because I play a shooting-based Khorne army, and the previous Codex didn't allow that theme without some serious 'counts-as'. But, as I pointed out, that just means that my army concept was crippled thanks to the old codex, and now it isn't. I don't see why my army concept is any less valid than those players whose them the previous codex enabled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
studderingdave:

Typhus is the Death Guard Lord unit. He has the Toughness Bonus, Feel No Pain, and Blight Grenades.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 14:56:35


Post by: cadak


Nurglitch wrote:What I liked best about 40k back in Rogue Trader days was that the background was, at best, a framework in which to tell your own stories; perhaps a result of its roleplay-oriented format. The development of a specific set of stories, facts, figures, and events forming an official Warhammer 40k background ain't my cup of tea.
Nurglitch wrote:Actually I'd suggest that making something so open-ended requires much more imagination than reprinting or re-writing the Index Astartes articles, themselves usually below pulp quality writing. I think it's just me, but GW's background is best when presented in random quotes, snippets, and flavour pieces, rather than any attempt at actual substantive writing; they're simply not good enough writers to make it worth reading, and the material itself is simply too 2-dimensional.
The current codex presents the background in a much more explicit and definite way than the previous one. Pretty much all the fluff is told from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, including the elaborate unit entries and the recount of the HH. It even delves into the psyche of Traitor Marines.
3rd edition was where the fluff was presented in an ambiguous manner. Especially early on.

Nurglitch wrote:Word to that. I remember when it was first declared that all World Eaters were Berzerkers... Now I can have my World Eaters with heavy weapons. I like it.

Maybe GW should put a warning on the Codex: "Some Imagination Required"
I take it you had the imagination to use the vanilla list of the old Codex.

DarkHound wrote:But they CAN exist in the game. You MAKE them exist in the game by playing your army. The story isn't in the list! It isn't in the codex! It never has been! It is in the models! The holy trinity of tabletops, modeling, story and gaming. Modelling tells a story, while gaming progresses that story through the models.
Well, to me rules are as much part of an army as the fluff or the models. One part doesn't become a substitute for the other if it is toned done.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 15:03:22


Post by: DarkHound


Nurglitch wrote:It's certainly a relief from Pete Haines' Codex where Daemon Princes had options, but you were stupid unless you took the right ones (yes, I think there were broken units in 4th edition). Ditto for the Possessed: you had options, but only one set was live. And your Legion was your rules, which sucked for reasons I have already elaborated on.


That's a problem right there. HMBC, you should be very familiar with this because of the old Guard. Wasn't there pretty much only one set of Doctrines had to take? More options doesn't mean better. More options means there is more crap you have to sift through. This codex is skimmed down to basically only the useful stuff. I mean, my force is built on top of everything that is supposed to be the worst stuff in the codex (Possessed, Lessers, a Defiler), and I'm killing everyone right now. This means either they all suck all the time or the bad stuff in the codex isn't bad, and that comparing units in a void really doesn't work. I predict a renaissance for this codex once the internet people figure out Fzorgle is starting to lag behind and that there are things that are better in the Mech age.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Digganob wrote:
DarkHound wrote:But they CAN exist in the game. You MAKE them exist in the game by playing your army. The story isn't in the list! It isn't in the codex! It never has been! It is in the models! The holy trinity of tabletops, modeling, story and gaming. Modelling tells a story, while gaming progresses that story through the models.
Well, to me rules are as much part of an army as the fluff or the models. One part doesn't become a substitute for the other if it is toned done.


Ah, but this is the age of count-as according to GW. It goes hand in hand with this no restriction codex, and I guess if you don't like count-as the codex is going to hurt.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 15:50:25


Post by: Nurglitch


Digganob:

Yes, the new Codex does abandon the diagetic perspective of previous editions, but it also abandons the habit of recounting the campaign history of the Legions in favour of what seems to me to be a more general approach. I like the bit about the psyche of the Traiter Marines especially because it fits well with the 'alternate history 40k universe' of my army's background. These are nice structural cut-to-fit narrative rules that help me write 40k-flavoured background for my army, rather than have the details filled in for me.

Which brings me back to the complaint that Chaos Space Marines are just Marines without And They Shall Know No Fear, which is usually dismissed as making them generic, but I think it constitutes the important difference between Loyalists and Traitors: the Loyalist know no fear because they put the needs of the many before the needs of the few and themselves. That means they have fantastic unit cohesion, each member trusting each other to do the appropriate thing, to hold the breach while the rest conduct a firing retreat (okay, add Combat Tactics here as well), to conduct heroic Forlorn Hopes, and to general be heroic. The Traitors have turned inward, selfishly putting themselves and their own interests first. This rediscovery of a desire for self-preservation endangers them as a group and that destroys their unit cohesion. They now know fear because not only is staying alive (and, indeed, gaining immortality as a Daemon Prince) at the cost of others their first priority, but their allies are selfish back-stabbing madmen. So long as things are going well, they're confident and efficient, but when the going gets tough and the tide turns, then panic sets in where previously death was no biggie. The Cult Marines, by comparison, went over the edge long ago and none have any reason to fear their own death. So it makes sense to me that Chaos Lord are both not usually members of the cults, having retained some semblance of sanity and self-interest, and Fearless because you don't get to be a Chaos Lord without having the testicular fortitude to literally enter Hell. The Sorcerers, on the other hand, being psychic and reasonably clued into the real nature of the universe, are well aware of the consequences of their own mortality and hence are not Fearless.

Actually I had the imagination to twist the old Codex to my own purposes, but to be honest resolving the conflict between the WYSIWYG (Khorne Marines) and the Count-As (symbols of other Gods being Marks of the Destroyer Cult, as opposed to the Berzerker Cult) get pretty tiresome.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 17:34:02


Post by: karnaeya


This thread has change my mind I no longer hate the chaos codex. JohnDD had nothing to do with it though.

Might give it another look through.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 17:52:21


Post by: studderingdave


Nurglitch wrote:
Typhus is the Death Guard Lord unit. He has the Toughness Bonus, Feel No Pain, and Blight Grenades.


yeah i ran him alot too in the new book. my usual lists were all basiclly him and 6 PM squads. i just feel like his termies should be plague marines as well, and the havoks and everything else i have in my "deathguard"


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/09 18:57:23


Post by: Nurglitch


studderingdave:

I don't think you'd actually want Terminators and Havocs that are Fearless, have Feel No Pain, -1I, and blight grenades on the latter.

The way that GW prices models, they would be considered prohibitively expensive and over-priced.

If we follow the analysis I made below about Possessed rather a long time ago we get something like

Plague Terminators
+1 Toughness - 6pts
+Fearless - 5pts
+Feel No Pain - 5pts
-1 Initiative - -1pt

So, exactly has a Plague Marine adds ~53% points cost to a Chaos Space Marine, a Plague Terminator adds 50% of cost to a Chaos Terminator. So they start at 45pts before upgrades, roughly.

Nurglitch wrote:So if it is found that Possessed are viable at their current cost, then what?

Taking Chaos Space Marines as the basic cost for the profile of the Possessed, let us see what their stats and abilities over that base-line sum up to:

Possessed have +1S, +1Ld, an Invulnerable Save, Fearless, and lack a Bolt Pistol or Bolter. They also have the Daemonkin rule.

Noise Marines, at 20 points apiece, have +1I (+3pts) and Fearless (+2 pts).

Plague Marines, at 23 points apiece, have +1T (+3pts), Feel No Pain (+3 pts), and Fearless (+2pts).

Berzerkers, at 21 points apiece, have +1WS (+2pt), +1A (+2pts), Furious Charge (+2pt), and Fearless (+2). But no Bolters. (-2pt)

If this is a reasonable approximation, then +2pts onto 15 for your basic Marine makes it reasonable for the Possessed point value.

Chosen pay 10 points for a Champion upgrade, for +1A, wargear, and Daemon-hosting ability, while Chaos Space Marines pay 15 points for a Champion upgrade, for +1A, +1Ld, wargear, and Daemon-hosting ability. So say 5 points for Leadership if it makes a difference, otherwise none (+0pts for Daemonkin).

So how much for the Invulnerable Save? Thousand Suns are 23 points each, but they have no Bolt pistol or Close Combat Weapon (-1A, -2pts), Slow and Purposeful (-/-), and the Sorcerer Commands (-1pts). They also have Inferno Bolts (+4pts), Fearless (+2pts) and a 4+ Invulnerable save (+5pts). Since the Mark of Tzeentch makes 5+ Invulnerable saves 4+ at 15pts for Lords that gain no massive psychic abilities, then that's at least three points (Lord has 3x the wounds of Thousand Suns) on top of the original Invulnerable save. That makes Invulnerable saves 2pts, eyeballing it like this.

Notice a pattern here? An extra rule/stat on top of the Chaos Space Marine profile is two points, plus one for every other extra rule/stat it interacts with directly (hence why Feel No Pain and +1T on Plague Marines costs so). So give it +2pts for the +1S.

Possessed Bonuses
+1S, +3pts
+1Ld, -pts
+1A, +3pts
Sv5++, +2pts
Fearless, +2pts
Bolt Pistol, -1pt
Bolter, -1pt
_____________
23pts

Daemonkin. 3pts (average)
[Fleet - 2pts
[Rending - 4pts
[Power Weapons - 4pts
[Furious Charge - 3pts
[Scout - 2pts
[Feel No Pain - 3pts

Total: 26 points.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting note: The above analysis forgets to factor in the I3 and Blight Grenades of the Plague Marines. Presumably they cancel out.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 01:07:11


Post by: studderingdave


Nurglitch wrote:studderingdave:

I don't think you'd actually want Terminators and Havocs that are Fearless, have Feel No Pain, -1I, and blight grenades on the latter.

The way that GW prices models, they would be considered prohibitively expensive and over-priced.

If we follow the analysis I made below about Possessed rather a long time ago we get something like

Plague Terminators
+1 Toughness - 6pts
+Fearless - 5pts
+Feel No Pain - 5pts
-1 Initiative - -1pt

So, exactly has a Plague Marine adds ~53% points cost to a Chaos Space Marine, a Plague Terminator adds 50% of cost to a Chaos Terminator. So they start at 45pts before upgrades, roughly.


i would pay it gladly. if they had these options i wouldnt be as active in this thread.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 01:49:53


Post by: H.B.M.C.


And that's the issue.

One side wants all the options to be there. The other only wants what's there currently.

The thing is, if the side that wants all the options got their way everybody gets their way, as it doesn't stop the other side from continuing as they already have been.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 02:08:24


Post by: JohnHwangDD


studderingdave wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:studderingdave:

The way that GW prices models, they would be considered prohibitively expensive and over-priced.


i would pay it gladly. if they had these options i wouldnt be as active in this thread.


I'm sure that you would. And I'm sure that GW would love to give you the options. Heck, I would, too.

The down side would be that we'd end up with a lot of generally unused options along with a return of the balance problems we had before, and players would be up in arms about how GW can't balance a Codex. Or players would be up in arms about how GW didn't support their armies by producing every option available.

The fact of the matter is, a streamlined, flexible Codex that covers 90% of the bases, but does it in a balanced manner keeps the noise down, while allowing the vast majority of players to play their armies. The small number of players who want strongly-themed forces, like Plague Terminators, will either make do, or house rule it. For example, if you wanted to field "true" Plague Terminators against me, I'd allow you to pay +25 pts/model to upgrade each PM to wear Terminator armor.

The problem is when GW starts making these kinds of things in Index Astartes or other semi-official documents, then players start demanding to be allowed to field them "officially". We saw this throughout 3E, when GW tried to give all of the "fun" players all of the options that they could imagine, and GW was then lambasted for not having complete model support.

Ultimately, GW learned their lesson, and shrank the Codices down to things that they would have models for within a 2-year window of release, along with things that they could cleanly balance in their playtesting.

If the players could have been cool about things, as Apocalypse shows, I'm sure GW would be giving us far more expanded lists for optional, "friendly" play.

Blame the players, not GW.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 02:19:24


Post by: DarkHound


Well, I think I can blame GW for not giving Chaos the flavour codicies it needs. Deathguard, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion should play miles different regular CSM. I don't think Word Bearers and Alpha Legion would mind sharing a split codex (since they do play similarly, so long as the fluff sections really shout about how much they hate each other), so that we are down to an even 3 sub-codicies to the Loyalist 3. Then again, if you give a mouse a cookie... (for those of you who weren't read that bed time story, it means if they give us what we want, then they are going to cave in for what everyone else wants)

Like I said before, Legions aren't well represented here. If they were given their own codicies, balanced specifically for them it would work. The problem is, they have to pump out 3 more codicies when they are already need to update atleast 2 official codicies anyway.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 03:24:41


Post by: Mad Rabbit


DarkHound wrote:Well, I think I can blame GW for not giving Chaos the flavour codicies it needs. Deathguard, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion should play miles different regular CSM. I don't think Word Bearers and Alpha Legion would mind sharing a split codex (since they do play similarly, so long as the fluff sections really shout about how much they hate each other), so that we are down to an even 3 sub-codicies to the Loyalist 3. Then again, if you give a mouse a cookie... (for those of you who weren't read that bed time story, it means if they give us what we want, then they are going to cave in for what everyone else wants)

Like I said before, Legions aren't well represented here. If they were given their own codicies, balanced specifically for them it would work. The problem is, they have to pump out 3 more codicies when they are already need to update atleast 2 official codicies anyway.


I think this is more than we're even asking for. Us Legion players just want ONE book with additions and changes to represent each legion. They can toss it all into one Codex:Traitor Legions. The old book had no more than a couple of pages per Legion and we were generally content. Chaos legions don't EACH need a codex, we just need army lists with expanded options to reflect the differences. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable considering how many loyalist chapters get their OWN codexes.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 03:26:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Blame the players, not GW.


Sigged.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 03:45:13


Post by: BeefyG


DarkHound wrote:
BeefyG wrote:The Chaos codex effectively killed 40k for me and my gaming group. I don't know if you can get larger FAIL than that.


I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I have to say: if one codex broke down your gaming group, I don't know with whom the fail lies.


One codex did not break down our gaming group. Chaos was a last and biggest straw, as several players were included with this codex release rather than just individuals previously.

I played Night Lords and had gone to the trouble of ordering the Night Lords Helmets and customising my force and using bikes, raptors and multiple squads of furies. How do you feel if something "individual" is taken away from you, put in a food processor and served back to you through a straw.

To follow the analogy further:
How many Steak dinners that you've paid top dollar for (and are used to steak dinners) get served to you blended in a bowl with a straw before you stop ordering?

So to answer your non-jerk like statement (fair comment) - the fail lies intensely with the restaurant serving space food (hehe space...40k..hurr..get it?).


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 03:50:13


Post by: DarkHound


H.B.M.C. wrote:
Blame the players, not GW.


Sigged.


That was just a jerk move.

Yeah, the Legions though would have to be pressed hard into JUST each Legion. Each Legion doesn't really have variations of tactics, so the Legions might end up boiling down to superficial variations on a standard core and that might piss more people off. What do you think?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 04:25:03


Post by: Mad Rabbit


DarkHound wrote:Yeah, the Legions though would have to be pressed hard into JUST each Legion. Each Legion doesn't really have variations of tactics, so the Legions might end up boiling down to superficial variations on a standard core and that might piss more people off. What do you think?


That's why I don't think we need a codex per Legion. Just a few rules to make each Legion feel right. Maybe cult armies and Word Bearers should get real daemons. That would certainly change things up. I think cult forces need something extra to justify the fact that they sacrifice that Black Legion-esque versatility. Sorry if this post is rambling or odd. The Mad Rabbit just took a lot of benadryl after a crappy allergy day. Major drowsiness.

The space marines are fairly decent at representing slight variants (i.e. White Scars bike army) but Chaos is really terrible for those slight changes that we want for our cult/legion forces. Honestly, I'd play a cult army if they had something special going for them. Noise Marines interest me but I can't justify a whole new army if the rules say that I can mix them freely in with my Night Lords without any sort of restrictions.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 04:52:39


Post by: H.B.M.C.


DarkHound wrote:That was just a jerk move.


Takes two to tango. But fair enough, I'll remove it after this post. To not do so would make me a hypocrite, and that's dishonest, and I hate dishonestly. I apologise for that.

DarkHound wrote:Each Legion doesn't really have variations of tactics, so the Legions might end up boiling down to superficial variations on a standard core and that might piss more people off.


Well they didn't before, why would suddenly do that now?

But wait, hold on, you're not saying that if they did it now (ie. made Legion rules) it would be very bad and no one would like it, therefore let's not even try. You're not actually saying that, are you?



Ok, time for me to have a big heaping slice of humble pie here, drop the snarkiness (which is quite fun, I admit) and just respond normally to someone.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Heck, I would, too.


I'd say you wouldn't. That's not a dig, I just think you wouldn't. It's contradictory to your previous comments, so I cannot see how this would be true. Anyway, this point is relatively minor, so we'll get to the body of the text.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The down side would be that we'd end up with a lot of generally unused options along with a return of the balance problems we had before, and players would be up in arms about how GW can't balance a Codex. Or players would be up in arms about how GW didn't support their armies by producing every option available.


Not quite, and that last one is a slippery slope logical fallacy (ie. X must automatically lead to Y), and I'll explain why:

1. We have a host of generally unused options already. How would this be any different?
2. We have balance problems already. How would this be any different?
3. Players were up in arms about GW's inability to balance a Codex before this Chaos Codex and the last one, and will continue to do so in the future. So how would this be any different?

GW didn't support every option before - there were no models for Berzerker Bikers, Noise Marine Terminators, Plague Marine Possessed or Thousand... ok they don't really count as the Rhubric limited their modelling options. The other Legions, from a modelling perspective, were just paint job and like any paint job could be altered. There was no outcry though. People made their own models using the bits from others - a simple headswap would give any player a squad of Khornate Bikers. Mounting Sonic Weapons on Terminators was easy. A few extra tentacles on a Plague Marine and bingo, you've got your possessed.

You're not trying to say that there'd be an outcry about unused options, then balance, then GW's inability to balance and then modelling - all problems that are either no different to what we had before or what we have now, or problems that simply don't exist (the modelling one).

I like the fact that you're attempting to make a reasoned argument (for a change) DD, but it's still not right.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The fact of the matter is, a streamlined, flexible Codex that covers 90% of the bases...


Whoa! Ok, stop. Hold on. This is a faith-based statement John, alright, not an absolute. I may harp on about "opinion stated as fact", but the fact of the matter is you do keep doing this. All the time. Then you yell at people when they disagree with your opinion or add the meaningless after though "Well it's just my opinion" which is about as useless as calling someone a complete fether, insulting their mother and punching them and then going "Just kidding!" or "No offence!" at the end.

As to the quote above, nobody agrees that it covers '90%' of the bases (and where do you even get the 90% figure from?), and there is contention see that it's flexible (especially considering that it took lots of stuff away and didn't give everything back). You've seen several people in this thread say that already, you've seen the contention. If you haven't, then you are purposefully ignoring what people have been saying - I'm not saying me, forget about me, I'm saying all the others in this thread, Orkeosar, Fraz, White Rabbit and so on. You cannot unilaterally declare your above quote to be true for no other reason than you say so, and that John, if I'm being honest, is why I take such an issue with your posts.

Essentially your lines of thinking boil down to this:

"Item X is always like this, therefore Y is always the case."

You allow no room for disagreement, you simply state what is, and base your conclusions on that. And then, when someone says "I disagree" you come back not with a reasoned response as to why you think you are right, you simply repeat your original statement without change. This continues back and forth a few times until the other person just gives up out of exhaustion, at which point you often just claim victory - "I'm right". Well, no, the other person just can't be bothered fighting against an immovable object and really, who can blame them. That's why there's friction between the two of us, because I'm insanely stubborn - a lot like you really - and I don't give up like others - you only have to look at the thread about Forge World items in Discussions to see that kind of behaviours. So where others might say "Bugger it, I can't be bothered" and walk away, I keep coming at your arguments, which is why it probably seems that I'm coming after you specifically (not to say that I haven't come after you specifically outside of an argument, but we'll set those instances aside for a moment).

But I digress. I'll put the above quote back in context and continue.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The fact of the matter is, a streamlined, flexible Codex that covers 90% of the bases but does it in a balanced manner keeps the noise down, while allowing the vast majority of players to play their armies. The small number of players who want strongly-themed forces, like Plague Terminators, will either make do, or house rule it. For example, if you wanted to field "true" Plague Terminators against me, I'd allow you to pay +25 pts/model to upgrade each PM to wear Terminator armor.


1. But it's not balanced John. How can you honestly believe that the current Chaos Codex is balanced? The fact that the 2 Lash/9 Oblit army exists is a testament to the fact that, like all GW Codices, the Chaos Codex is no more balanced (or unbalanced) than any other Codex.
2. You cannot claim that there are a "small" amount of people who want to play lists. What are you basing this one? What do you have to back up your assertions besides your own opinions? You may well be right - who knows? - but you cannot simply state it. I come from a school of thought that ensures that I never make a statement without backing myself first (or, at least, try to - can't be right all the time nor can I be expected to know all the facts). Now I realise that not everyone is like me (thank God!), but surely anyone can see the flaws in just stating that something covers 90% of the bases and that the small number of people who disagree aren't all that important. How does it cover 90%? Based on what? How are they a small group? How do you know that? You don't, so you cannot state it. Or if you do, then please explain it to us so we can see why and we'll let it drop. I have to believe that you can see where I'm coming from John.
3. You'd allow the upgrade to Terminators, and that's fine. But the very fact that you're talking about homebrew just proves that there are problems with the existing Codex. If you have to even consider the concept of changing rules to help yourself or help another player achieve what they've lost, then the Codex is not achieving its goal of being 'flexible', as you claim.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem is when GW starts making these kinds of things in Index Astartes or other semi-official documents, then players start demanding to be allowed to field them "officially". We saw this throughout 3E, when GW tried to give all of the "fun" players all of the options that they could imagine, and GW was then lambasted for not having complete model support.


The next most frustrating part of your standard argument John are paragraphs like this one. It's some kind of pseudo-red herring strawman OJ Simpson style defence. Why? Because:

1. It's either only partially related to the topic at hand or not related at all (Red Herring). I don't agree that X is bad because Y was worse, therefore Z.
2. No one's brought it up but you, you brought it up only to disprove it or who why it's bad (Strawman). You think X is bad? Well Y is also bad, therefore X is bad.
3. You're forcing those that disagree with you to prove or disprove things that you've brought up before getting back to the main point (OJ Simpson Defence). You thing X is bad? Well A, B, Y, K, L and O - prove that before we get back to X!

Back in context, it's got nothing to do with Chapter Approved or Index Astartes and the simple reason for that is that it didn't before, or, it doesn't need to. They were in the Codex and they worked (for the most part, 1KSons had its issues and Iron Warriors were victims of author bias). You didn't need Chapter Approved or to carry around extra outdated rules - you had a single list, and then the variant lists came off that list without any issue, and the odd unique unit in there, like a Basilisk or Cultists or whatever.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Ultimately, GW learned their lesson, and shrank the Codices down to things that they would have models for within a 2-year window of release, along with things that they could cleanly balance in their playtesting.


GW changes horses multiple times during a race. We see that every couple of Codices. We saw it between Chaos and Marines. With Chaos they removed the flexibility, ripped away the variant Legions, and left a basic list with dramatically reduced options. Still powerful - no arguments there, and this isn't an argument about power - but the list was bare. I suspect, based upon what I've seen here in the two years (or so) since the Codex came out that many people's armies were invalidated or at least shifted to the point where they were essentially playing 'Counts As' with a list that was legal a month before hand.

And then the Marine Codex came along in all its glory, and the Marines got to keep their variant Chapters, this time via Special Characters rather than the well-conceived but horribly clunky Traits system.

So it can't be a case of GW 'learning their lesson'. They ripped most of the Chaos Codex away one week and then allowed Marines to keep their variant lists (albeit in a slightly different fashion) within one or two Codices of one another. I'd argue (Note: argue, not state as fact) that GW hasn't learnt any lesson, they're just acting on a whim. The Chaos Codex was 'reactionary' - Oh it's overpowered let's take away all the options!!!! - where as the Marine Codex was 'celebratory' - It's a new edition! Let's start with a bang and give the biggest bestest Marine Codex we've ever done! They changed horses, changed mindsets, changed design ethos, all within a few books.

And the Chaos players suffer because of it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the players could have been cool about things, as Apocalypse shows, I'm sure GW would be giving us far more expanded lists for optional, "friendly" play.


So, what, Apoc is the new Chapter Approved? A safety net they can use whenever they don't do something? "What's that - you can't use your army any more, well just use it in Apoc then!" Apoc can't be a crutch for lazy game design. The phrase "Well you can just use it in Apoc" should never be something that gets said with any level of seriousness attached to it.

And yeah, 'blame the players, not GW', while I think you were being facetious, is a very silly thing to say. But I think you know that.

I'll leave at that for now.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 05:28:09


Post by: BeefyG


LOL back in earlier days GW gave you special characters for strictly ONLY friendly play. If players were ever cool about things it was letting your opponent field their requisite special character.

Now Apocalypse is a free for all environment that "Doesn't work without players co-operation". This is far from a similar environment to the one described above.

GW have a track record of only learning from fiscal error. Everything else is apparently random.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 05:35:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


See I wouldn't say random, I'd say a combined case of having too many masters to serve, and too many cooks spoiling the soup.

One one hand you've got higher-ups with different agendas (that change in reactionary fashion to how well they're doing financially) telling them to do one thing, and then you've got a studio full of ideas, yet wildly varying ideas, not all of which work together (just look at the formatting and style changes we've had in Codices between the last Marine Codex and the current one - and how else would we end up in a situation where items with the same name have different rules between Codices?). I'm sure they mean well, but when all this comes together we're left with the stumbling and lurching mess that is the GW Codex design and release schedule.

I feel sorry for them really, being caught between two masters - money vs creativity - and I don't ever see them improving.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 06:22:37


Post by: Orkeosaurus


As much as I would like to have improvements made for the playing of legions, I think the Lost and the Damned need a codex more.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 06:51:48


Post by: Noisy_Marine


The 3.5 codex had much, much better artwork than the current codex. I hate you John Blanche.

And I agree that oblits are necessary to be competitive. A oblit is 95 points cheaper than a ten man csm squad with lascannon. If you want lascannons, then take oblits. That and their SAP makes them outshine all other Heavy Support choices.

And I agree the current codex is far too cookie cutter. Army construction goes like this:

HQ - take a demon prince. Or Kharn.

ELITES - Termies if you like them. Ignore the rest.

TROOPS - Take your favorite flavor of cult troop. This is the best part of the army list.

FAST ATTACK - Meh. I honestly am not impressed by bikes or raptors.

HEAVY - Oblits, then maybe a Vindi or a Defiler. Then another one, because large blasts are cool.

And that's it. There's no reason to take anything else.

And to all those who oppose CSM and demons together I just say WTF? Demons differentiate CSM from loyalists. Otherwise we end up with marines minus ATSKNF but with Demonic Possession on their rhinos. We need more stuff to differentiate CSM not less. And the deployment rules for demons in the demon codex are just dumb. It's like playing a drop pod marine army without all the benefits from drop pods. That's fething fun!!!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 08:02:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Noisy_Marine wrote:And the deployment rules for demons in the demon codex are just dumb. It's like playing a drop pod marine army without all the benefits from drop pods. That's fething fun!!!


It also doesn't make any damned sense. Why does your army show up to fight? On the off-chance a Daemon army might appear?

"Colonel Archer."
"Yes Captain."
"May I speak freely sir?"
"You may."
"Why are we here?"
"To serve the Emperor of course!"
"No, sir, I meant, why are we here? In this section of ruins?"
"To defend it."
"The enemy are no where near here. That Sergeant from the Nova Marines told us that this morning. The enemy are moving west, away from our position."
"The Daemons, Captain. The Daemons."
"Sorry sir?"
"A Daemonic army might appear here. It's happened before."
"They're going to appear here?"
"They might."
"You mean to say then, sir, that we don't know if they're going to be here?"
"No."
"Then... what's to stop them from appearing somewhere else? A mile away? Ten? Behind our lines. In front or someone else's lines."
"Well... nothing I suppose."
"That doesn't make much sense sir. Would it not be better to be in a more central location ready to respond quickly to a threat, rather than sitting here, wide on our flank, on the off chance the Daemons show up?"
"Hmm... you raise an interesting point. Lord Commissar Calgar, what do you think?"
*Commissar Calgar shoots the Captain in the face with his Bolt Pistol*
"Questioning orders defies the will of the Emperor."
"I agree Commisar. Lieutenant, have the Captain's body removed. We'll show those Daemons who the best waiters in the Imperium are!"

It's just... silly!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 18:09:10


Post by: warboss


JohnHwangDD wrote:Mostly right (IIRC, only Chosen had Infiltrate, not all basic CSM), and as things have evolved:


nope, every standard chaos undivided marine squad could take a veteran skill. one additional thing i noticed when trying to make my army list is that, for some unknown reason, chaos characters can't take retinues/command squads/entourages/etc. IG, SM, Eldar, Tau, Nids, etc all can but chaos marine characters are apparently too cool for school.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 19:29:31


Post by: DarkHound


Noisy_Marine wrote:The 3.5 codex had much, much better artwork than the current codex. I hate you John Blanche.

And I agree that oblits are necessary to be competitive. A oblit is 95 points cheaper than a ten man csm squad with lascannon. If you want lascannons, then take oblits. That and their SAP makes them outshine all other Heavy Support choices.

And I agree the current codex is far too cookie cutter. Army construction goes like this:

HQ - take a demon prince. Or Kharn.

ELITES - Termies if you like them. Ignore the rest.

TROOPS - Take your favorite flavor of cult troop. This is the best part of the army list.

FAST ATTACK - Meh. I honestly am not impressed by bikes or raptors.

HEAVY - Oblits, then maybe a Vindi or a Defiler. Then another one, because large blasts are cool.

And that's it. There's no reason to take anything else.

And to all those who oppose CSM and demons together I just say WTF? Demons differentiate CSM from loyalists. Otherwise we end up with marines minus ATSKNF but with Demonic Possession on their rhinos. We need more stuff to differentiate CSM not less. And the deployment rules for demons in the demon codex are just dumb. It's like playing a drop pod marine army without all the benefits from drop pods. That's fething fun!!!


This bugs me. It's like you took 30 seconds to flip through the codex. You can make a cruelly "cheesy" build around Gift of Chaos, just to blow your mind. My Renegades are built around Possessed and the Generic Daemons, and we are rockin'. Start thinking like an Eldar player (every army benefits from this). Things with weaknesses need to be supported by other units that make up for it. Everything has a weakness, and Fzorgle makes up for most of its weaknesses. This doesn't mean that no other combination is worth taking, it was just the first one people came up with, so they stopped looking.

Daemons aren't the only thing that makes Chaos different from CSM. We can cover our bases better with our troops. We have better objective holders, better shooting, and/or better assaulting from our troops that we can augment with our other slots. Space Marines get a solid, rugged troop choice, but then have to cover their other bases with their other slots. The thought process for list design is fundamentally different. Codexaemons is an issue for another time though.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 22:02:34


Post by: Night Lords


The people arguing that the codex is actually decent are arguing for the sake of arguing. There have been what? 2? 3 people in this topic who have agreed? Its funny how its always the minority arguing, making 20 posts each trying to press their opinion on others (yes, you are pressing opinions saying "X is the same as it was in the old codex if you just take Y and Z together" or anything similar). I mean seriously, Nurglitch is one of the few arguing, and I was reading in another topic where he actually tries to argue spawn are good - You know, the "fast attack" unit that costs 40 points with no save, Slow and purposeful, and the mindless rule where you cannot even control it. I believe it was voted in a few places as the worst unit in 40k.

Anyone can waste their time and take random, subpar units. Some people did before because it fit the theme of their army. However, some (judging by the 100 topics on this exact same issue, id say most) people do not want to waste 2 hours of their time getting slaughtered while being unable to control their units. 40k is all about averages whether you want to believe it or not, and in the chaos codex, there is a huge difference in the averages between the units, to the point where half the codex (at the very least) is obsolete if you want to take a good list.

Noise Marine got it perfect. His summary of the Chaos units is dead on. I would even say the vindicator is a waste.

The thing with 3.5 was that it had all these options (aside from a few that actually made sense, like no cross lists) but compensated you if you played differently. Here all you get are different painted marines.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 22:42:04


Post by: DarkHound


Night Lords wrote:The people arguing that the codex is actually decent are arguing for the sake of arguing. There have been what? 2? 3 people in this topic who have agreed? Its funny how its always the minority arguing, making 20 posts each trying to press their opinion on others (yes, you are pressing opinions saying "X is the same as it was in the old codex if you just take Y and Z together" or anything similar). I mean seriously, Nurglitch is one of the few arguing, and I was reading in another topic where he actually tries to argue spawn are good - You know, the "fast attack" unit that costs 40 points with no save, Slow and purposeful, and the mindless rule where you cannot even control it. I believe it was voted in a few places as the worst unit in 40k.

Anyone can waste their time and take random, subpar units. Some people did before because it fit the theme of their army. However, some (judging by the 100 topics on this exact same issue, id say most) people do not want to waste 2 hours of their time getting slaughtered while being unable to control their units. 40k is all about averages whether you want to believe it or not, and in the chaos codex, there is a huge difference in the averages between the units, to the point where half the codex (at the very least) is obsolete if you want to take a good list.

Noise Marine got it perfect. His summary of the Chaos units is dead on. I would even say the vindicator is a waste.

The thing with 3.5 was that it had all these options (aside from a few that actually made sense, like no cross lists) but compensated you if you played differently. Here all you get are different painted marines.


I... I just don't know where to begin. We are argueing because we think there is life in this codex that other people aren't seeing. Just because your views (and even the majority's views) are different doesn't mean we are wrong and MUST be trolling for saying otherwise. I think I read the same thread that Nurglitch was in. He wasn't argueing Spawn was good, but that Gift of Chaos was good. You can take enough Tzeentch marked psychers to turn everyone else into Spawn, for free after buying the power. This is when Spawn are effective.

Half the codex isn't obsolete if you want to make a good list, you just aren't looking hard enough (or at all apparently). I'm not saying that taking X and Y is the same thing as Z from the old dex. That isn't even remotely what I said. I'm saying that units are effective when you compinsate for their weaknesses. It is not specific to Chaos, but I think it is something people who say that there are very few "good" lists in the dex have forgotten. Synergy people! If you don't support a shooty army with some CC units, or some defensive tricks, a CC army is going to roll you if they get close. Oblits are slow and get picked off by sneaky melee units, so I either sit them next to my Defiler to scare off melee units or Deepstrike them off my Icons, depending on what weapons and ranges I need them to bring. If your list has no synergy, then it will fall flat on its face. I'm sorry if now you have to think about what units are good for your specific list.

"I would even say the vindicator is a waste." I don't know how much more cost effective you want units. It provides ample protection from Terminators and Hordes alike, and 2 of them are just amazing. What exactly makes them a waste?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 22:58:54


Post by: Lanceradvanced


JohnHwangDD wrote:Yup. So, given that it's all arbitrary, why shouldn't I have the freedom to make my own?


The problem with that argument is that you -could- make your own, I have a very nice Fallen Angels army made just that way...
The cults gave some players more options, (with some restrictions too... ) the new book takes those options away, and doesn't signifigantly add to the vanilla lists that wasn't there before (okay, -mebbe- the vindicator but...)


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 23:06:22


Post by: abhorsen950


Hahahaha i cant belive this thread
i thourght it would be ignored but look at the response

please use it to discuss


ABH


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 23:17:18


Post by: Lanceradvanced


Similarly, Havocs "losing" Cult weapon options, despite those models being fieldable as regular NM, is easily made up by their sheer versatility with regular Special and Heavy weapons.


Um, no.. First off, the kink in the Havok rules is that you got -multiple- special or heavy choices that could trade up to Doom Sirens or Blastmasters, "normal" NM's are now restricted to one blastmaster and one doomsiren per squad, barring the Apoc EC formation, those options are -gone-. Secondly, what you're claiming "makes up for it" -was in the last codex allready-


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/10 23:50:39


Post by: Noisy_Marine


DarkHound wrote:

This bugs me. It's like you took 30 seconds to flip through the codex. You can make a cruelly "cheesy" build around Gift of Chaos, just to blow your mind. My Renegades are built around Possessed and the Generic Daemons, and we are rockin'. Start thinking like an Eldar player (every army benefits from this). Things with weaknesses need to be supported by other units that make up for it. Everything has a weakness, and Fzorgle makes up for most of its weaknesses. This doesn't mean that no other combination is worth taking, it was just the first one people came up with, so they stopped looking.

Daemons aren't the only thing that makes Chaos different from CSM. We can cover our bases better with our troops. We have better objective holders, better shooting, and/or better assaulting from our troops that we can augment with our other slots. Space Marines get a solid, rugged troop choice, but then have to cover their other bases with their other slots. The thought process for list design is fundamentally different. Codexaemons is an issue for another time though.


Nope, I've owned this codex for over 2 years now. I still see no reason to take possessed or generic demons. And I never use Lash because it makes me feel bad for my opponent.

Things that differentiate CSM: demons, older weapons, demonic tech, 10k year old characters and veterans. Cult units weren't troops until this codex. In every other codex they were elites, unless your lord shared a mark with that cult - then it became a troop. Currently CSM are like tac marines and assault marines rolled into one. Which is good for me, because most of mine have bolt pistols. *shrug*


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 00:11:51


Post by: Lanceradvanced


oh, one more thing... generic dameons I coulda lived with... but they took away my Nurglings and Furies..


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 00:35:31


Post by: DarkHound


Man, I'm so glad I made this thread. I can just toss it down whenever anyone wants to know about Possessed: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231940.page


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 00:44:43


Post by: FITZZ


Lanceradvanced wrote:oh, one more thing... generic dameons I coulda lived with... but they took away my Nurglings and Furies..

Nurglings!!..Holy gak, I was so busy complaining about Lords & Terminators and such that I didn't even mention the pile of NurglingsI have that are now all but useless,well,unless I choose to use them as a "single generic lesser daemon" choice.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 00:49:01


Post by: sourclams


DarkHound wrote:
Half the codex isn't obsolete if you want to make a good list, you just aren't looking hard enough (or at all apparently).


If there were other competitive lists besides some variation on Plague Marines and OBLITS/OBLITS/OBLITS, then we'd see them. In 4th ed, the Daemonbomb army was moderately effective because not every list was mech, which is definitely the trend in 5th. Since 5th ed requires a competitive assault army to be able to crack transports via shooting, you need to add ranged firepower, and unfortunately the best way to do this is to add Oblits and even Lash shouldn't be ignored because it synergizes with Daemon assaults.

In other words, the most competitive way to play Daemons is as a variant of Lash/Oblits.

"I would even say the vindicator is a waste." I don't know how much more cost effective you want units. It provides ample protection from Terminators and Hordes alike, and 2 of them are just amazing. What exactly makes them a waste?


Because two oblits lay down more firepower for similar points. Against vehicles you have an array of S7, 8+melta, and 9 weapons to choose from, some of which are twin linked and/or have the coveted AP1. Against hordes or even small squads two small blasts will hit more models than a single large blast. They have the same minimum number of targets hit (0) with higher averages and maximums.

The Vindicator is an okay unit, but S10/AP2 isn't as much of a deterrent to either Terminators or Hordes as S7/AP2 twice is.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 01:31:58


Post by: DarkHound


sourclams wrote:
DarkHound wrote:
Half the codex isn't obsolete if you want to make a good list, you just aren't looking hard enough (or at all apparently).


If there were other competitive lists besides some variation on Plague Marines and OBLITS/OBLITS/OBLITS, then we'd see them. In 4th ed, the Daemonbomb army was moderately effective because not every list was mech, which is definitely the trend in 5th. Since 5th ed requires a competitive assault army to be able to crack transports via shooting, you need to add ranged firepower, and unfortunately the best way to do this is to add Oblits and even Lash shouldn't be ignored because it synergizes with Daemon assaults.

In other words, the most competitive way to play Daemons is as a variant of Lash/Oblits.

The problem is, I don't think thats true. I do think people were wowed by Fzorgle then stopped looking, and anyone who is really competative isn't going to try to bank on a new list over a proven one. There are other ways to cover all your bases in this codex, but since most lists tend to just get written off as not as good as Fzorgle by the internet people, we'll never really know if there is anything better out there. My money is still on the Gift spam lists.

sourclams wrote:
DarkHound wrote:"I would even say the vindicator is a waste." I don't know how much more cost effective you want units. It provides ample protection from Terminators and Hordes alike, and 2 of them are just amazing. What exactly makes them a waste?


Because two oblits lay down more firepower for similar points. Against vehicles you have an array of S7, 8+melta, and 9 weapons to choose from, some of which are twin linked and/or have the coveted AP1. Against hordes or even small squads two small blasts will hit more models than a single large blast. They have the same minimum number of targets hit (0) with higher averages and maximums.

The Vindicator is an okay unit, but S10/AP2 isn't as much of a deterrent to either Terminators or Hordes as S7/AP2 twice is.

I'd say they are about on par since each one can cover everything (GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, all tanks) and cost the same, it comes down to what the rest of your list looks like. Without ample Icons, Obliterators aren't nearly as mobile as a Vindicator, and they still aren't even with the Icon. You also need to look at how much target saturation you have. My list doesn't have enough large targets to keep the Vindicator safe, and I do have Icons, so Obliterators are the better choice. In a list with a Daemon Prince or two, a Landraider and several BAWKSES, a Vindicator would be much more at home. Like I've been harping about for a while now, it comes down to synergy.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 01:32:33


Post by: Night Lords


DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm so glad I made this thread. I can just toss it down whenever anyone wants to know about Possessed: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231940.page


I dont know why you would link to that topic: All that topic did was prove that they REALLY suck, even under ideal conditions. Berzerkers out perform them in close combat in almost every situation (the one being power weapons charging into a unit not in cover), and are much more versatile. Having possessed get charged by something as simple as a dreadnought would be the end of the game for them.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 01:33:08


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Lanceradvanced wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Yup. So, given that it's all arbitrary, why shouldn't I have the freedom to make my own?

The problem with that argument is that you -could- make your own, I have a very nice Fallen Angels army made just that way...

I had a nice FA army, prior to the previous Codex.
____

Lanceradvanced wrote:
Similarly, Havocs "losing" Cult weapon options, despite those models being fieldable as regular NM, is easily made up by their sheer versatility with regular Special and Heavy weapons.

"normal" NM's are now restricted to one blastmaster and one doomsiren per squad, barring the Apoc EC formation, those options are -gone-. Secondly, what you're claiming "makes up for it" -was in the last codex allready-

40k5 pulled the Heavies and Specials on all units, so this is merely following along.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 01:47:46


Post by: DarkHound


Night Lords wrote:
DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm so glad I made this thread. I can just toss it down whenever anyone wants to know about Possessed: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231940.page


I dont know why you would link to that topic: All that topic did was prove that they REALLY suck, even under ideal conditions. Berzerkers out perform them in close combat in almost every situation (the one being power weapons charging into a unit not in cover), and are much more versatile. Having possessed get charged by something as simple as a dreadnought would be the end of the game for them.

Actually, between a Dreadnaught charging the Berserkers or Possessed, the Possessed will survive longer. The Zerkers will take more wounds from the Dreadnaught and then more wounds from No Retreat. They are different units design for different roles though. The Possessed are shock troops, designed to run in, kill stuff and their 5++ requiring the enemy make an effort to kill them, while Berserkers are designed to clear objectives and sometimes hold them. The Possessed don't need to out perform the Berzerkers, just out last them.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 02:20:59


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I write a nice, polite, honest responce in an attempt to genrate a non-snarky and healthy conversation, and I get ignored.

*sigh*

Seems I can't win...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 02:35:02


Post by: Night Lords


DarkHound wrote:
Night Lords wrote:
DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm so glad I made this thread. I can just toss it down whenever anyone wants to know about Possessed: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231940.page


I dont know why you would link to that topic: All that topic did was prove that they REALLY suck, even under ideal conditions. Berzerkers out perform them in close combat in almost every situation (the one being power weapons charging into a unit not in cover), and are much more versatile. Having possessed get charged by something as simple as a dreadnought would be the end of the game for them.

Actually, between a Dreadnaught charging the Berserkers or Possessed, the Possessed will survive longer. The Zerkers will take more wounds from the Dreadnaught and then more wounds from No Retreat. They are different units design for different roles though. The Possessed are shock troops, designed to run in, kill stuff and their 5++ requiring the enemy make an effort to kill them, while Berserkers are designed to clear objectives and sometimes hold them. The Possessed don't need to out perform the Berzerkers, just out last them.


Do you actually read the stats or rulebook? Do you understand the math and common sense behind the game? Because what you just said was complete nonsense.

A dreadnought with 4 attacks is going to kill 2 on average. Then the zerker with powerfist has 4. 2-3 hit (2.64). 4 to glance, so that means 50% chance youre going to do something with 2-3 tries at it.

Even assuming nothing happens, lose combat by two, you take two 3+ armour saves. You lose 0.66 of a guy. Lets say the dread DOES get that extra kill and kills 3 a turn. Thats still 4 turns of combat, and 3 powerfists x 4 attacks. If you dont do anything to it with 12 powerfist attacks, you have bad luck.

Lets see possessed now: Oh look, they all died. Great, you tied up a 100 point unit with a 260 point one for 4 or 5 turns.

This is assuming that zerkers dont get the charge off too - possessed can charge but theres no point. Furious charge greatly increases the odds with that extra strength and attack.

When possessed run in and kill stuff, they do it much worse except when they have power weapons (1/6 chance) and when they are not assaulting through cover. Their 5++ save means that 1/3 guys survive - big deal? The 2 or 3 guys left that survive because of it arnt going to do much anything anyways. Possessed only survive longer against power weapons, except that zerkers kill more so theres less attacks coming in - which means they survive just as well if not better. Zerkers can also shoot ontop of all that, and scoring should not be brushed off.

So no, possessed are terrible, and should never be taken. 4 points more I auto get power weapons, a 2+ save, and guns to shoot with too. Not to mention deepstriking. 5 points less, I get units that outperform them in everyway but 1 very very specific situation.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 03:38:08


Post by: Nurglitch


Stupid question, but how does a Skull Champion with a Power Fist get 4 Attacks?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 03:39:16


Post by: Noisy_Marine


DarkHound wrote:
Night Lords wrote:
DarkHound wrote:Man, I'm so glad I made this thread. I can just toss it down whenever anyone wants to know about Possessed: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231940.page


I dont know why you would link to that topic: All that topic did was prove that they REALLY suck, even under ideal conditions. Berzerkers out perform them in close combat in almost every situation (the one being power weapons charging into a unit not in cover), and are much more versatile. Having possessed get charged by something as simple as a dreadnought would be the end of the game for them.

Actually, between a Dreadnaught charging the Berserkers or Possessed, the Possessed will survive longer. The Zerkers will take more wounds from the Dreadnaught and then more wounds from No Retreat. They are different units design for different roles though. The Possessed are shock troops, designed to run in, kill stuff and their 5++ requiring the enemy make an effort to kill them, while Berserkers are designed to clear objectives and sometimes hold them. The Possessed don't need to out perform the Berzerkers, just out last them.


Bezerkers with a Power fist skull champ can actually kill the dread. Possessed can't, unless they rolled rending. And on the charge the skull champ is S9, making the pen that much more likely. I'm sorry but berzerkers win over possessed everytime. And they cost 5 point less. The only thing possessed have over them is the invul save. And zerkers are WS 5 with Furious charge every game. So you always know what they are going to do.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 03:40:07


Post by: DarkHound


Alright, here be the dealio my homeslice. Did the Possessed tie up the Dreadnaught for longer? Yes. Did the Zerkers take more losses? Yes. That was all I said. Yes, I know a Powerfist is going to kill a Dread (albeit slowly). Granted, Rending and Icon of Tzeentch would have changed that significantly, but I digress.

I've found (by actually playing the unit *gasp*) that the lack of grenades are more of a benefit. If you can stay in Assault and wrap it up on the following turn, you get to skip being shot at for a turn. Generally units that are in cover (ie, shooty units, as assaulty ones are out trying to get into CC) are going to get over-powered by Possessed regardless of whether or not they swing first. I run mine with Icon of Nurgle, so that minimizes small arms damage, forcing the enemy to waste big guns on them. If they even take 3 Battlecannons away from my other units, they have done their job. Berserkers will not survive 1 Battlecannon, however, thus making them poorer for the task. If your army is seriously lacking a way to assault into and claim objectives, Berserkers are your man. That's what they are there for. Possessed serve a roll that can't be mathhammered out as easily, which is why you are having a hard time with it, since you've never used them. Things like Fleet and Scout and FnP have a huge effect without impacting their killiness, but you can't see that in the mathhammer.

As for comparing them to other choices, the Chosen need to take full weapons and an Icon (10 man, Champ, 2 Powerfists, 2 Meltaguns, 1 Dual LCs, Icon of Tzeentch, 320) to compare to Possessed (10 man, 260) out of the box, making them significantly more expensive. Terminators have the trouble of being transported places. Deepstriking Terminators I've found (again, by playing with them) have the problem of being force to sit there for a turn. In that turn, all the anti-TEQ fire gets turned on them. Now, while this can sometimes be better for being a fire soak, they aren't a fire soak until they arrive. The other option is putting them in a Landraider, and then the price tag sky rockets. The point is, they aren't all meant to compete for the same thing. Terminators are expensive heavy hitter units, Chosen have versitility but generally make great outflanking meltagunners.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 04:02:45


Post by: Night Lords


Did the Possessed tie up the Dreadnaught for longer? Yes. Did the Zerkers take more losses? Yes.

How is it better they tied him up? And how did the zerkers take more losses when theyre still alive?

I've found (by actually playing the unit *gasp*) that the lack of grenades are more of a benefit. If you can stay in Assault and wrap it up on the following turn, you get to skip being shot at for a turn. Generally units that are in cover (ie, shooty units, as assaulty ones are out trying to get into CC) are going to get over-powered by Possessed regardless of whether or not they swing first. I run mine with Icon of Nurgle, so that minimizes small arms damage, forcing the enemy to waste big guns on them.

So because zerkers are better, theyre worse? Take less zerkers then if youre worried about this. That is a rule for something like a hive tyrant where theres only one unit. You save the difference of the points between Possessed and zerkers + 2 or 3 whole zerkers. So what if they get overpowered? I would hope so for 26 points. The fact is youre going to lose a couple of guys, so after everything else that unit did that game, theyre taking down 52 points right before they die.

If they even take 3 Battlecannons away from my other units, they have done their job. Berserkers will not survive 1 Battlecannon, however, thus making them poorer for the task

Youre assuming they are on foot first off. Second, no body is going to shoot a battlecannon at 3 guys, and then 1 guy.

If your army is seriously lacking a way to assault into and claim objectives, Berserkers are your man. That's what they are there for. Possessed serve a roll that can't be mathhammered out as easily, which is why you are having a hard time with it, since you've never used them. Things like Fleet and Scout and FnP have a huge effect without impacting their killiness, but you can't see that in the mathhammer.

If you need melee powerhouses, you take zerkers, period.

As for comparing them to other choices, the Chosen need to take full weapons and an Icon (10 man, Champ, 2 Powerfists, 2 Meltaguns, 1 Dual LCs, Icon of Tzeentch, 320) to compare to Possessed (10 man, 260) out of the box, making them significantly more expensive. Terminators have the trouble of being transported places. Deepstriking Terminators I've found (again, by playing with them) have the problem of being force to sit there for a turn. In that turn, all the anti-TEQ fire gets turned on them. Now, while this can sometimes be better for being a fire soak, they aren't a fire soak until they arrive. The other option is putting them in a Landraider, and then the price tag sky rockets. The point is, they aren't all meant to compete for the same thing. Terminators are expensive heavy hitter units, Chosen have versitility but generally make great outflanking meltagunners.


Chosen suck, and terminators are anti tank, but can hold their own in CC if thats what you want. They can also shoot.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 04:06:16


Post by: Nurglitch


Seriously, how does the Skull Champion get four attacks with a Power Fist? Inquiring minds want to know.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 04:06:18


Post by: the_emperors_renegade


I vote for the Berzys...just 'coz they look better IMO!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 04:06:32


Post by: DarkHound


And I don't need a melee powerhouse. I've got a Greater Daemon for that. (Generic Daemon hate, incoming! Brace for impact!!!)

EDIT: Nurglitch, he's on the charge. The contest was being charged though, but meh.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 04:09:57


Post by: Nurglitch


DarkHound:

I can't brain today, I have the dumb! Skull Champions have A3...


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 04:44:53


Post by: Noisy_Marine


DarkHound wrote:And I don't need a melee powerhouse. I've got a Greater Daemon for that. (Generic Daemon hate, incoming! Brace for impact!!!)

EDIT: Nurglitch, he's on the charge. The contest was being charged though, but meh.


Yeah greater demons are great. Except you have to sacrifice an champion for one. For my money have a powerfist is better than a greater demon. One of those things can't be targeted individually.

My point is the zerkers have a better chance at killing the dread, and that's what I want to do. I don't want to tie it up. Last game I played my DP was tied up with a dread for three turns because of bad armor pen rolls. I do not consider that a good thing. I wanted him to smoke the dread and then get on with killing the command squad nearby with a combination of warptime and wind of chaos. That's wound on a 4+ with no armor or cover with rerolls to wound.

And I don't see how lacking grenades is ever a benefit. I want my boys to strike at their initiative, because its a decent 4. If they were orks I wouldn't really care, most stuff is faster than them anyway. But any specialist assault unit needs grenades. Especially in an army like CSM where you pay lots of points for your models. I'm pretty shocked that possessed don't have them actually. I thought they did. But I use zerkers, because they're cheaper and more reliable.

And an icon of nurgle is what, 50 points? That's a whole possessed right there. I'd only run icon of nurgle on a 20 man squad, otherwise it's chaos glory for that cheap re-roll.

Possessed serve the same role as zerkers. They are both assault specialists. Zerkers just happen to be better. And there is no nebulous role that cannot be math hammered. You're just making up stuff now. I agree that fleet and scout have a big impact, but since you cannot reliably get the ability you want, possessed just aren't worth it. Reliable is the best quality for an army to have. A random power table, not so much.

I'm not sure how your chosen set up compares to 10 possessed. IMO having even one power sword makes chosen better because the possessed champ can't get one. If I could give my possessed champ a powerfist, you can bet your ass I'd take them.

As for termies, they are cheap heavy hitters as long as you don't give them a ton of stuff. Chaos termies are dirt cheap for what you get. I only ever give them a land raider if I'm using Abbadon, because otherwise he never makes it into CC. My all shooty all dancing termie squad has killed more than enough to earn my respect. But they can't hold objectives now. Zerkers can.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 04:54:47


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Noisy_Marine wrote:Possessed serve the same role as zerkers. They are both assault specialists. Zerkers just happen to be better. And there is no nebulous role that cannot be math hammered.

Against basic CSM Termies or Eldar Banshees, I think Possessed do better...

Each PW wound kills 21 pts of Zerks, but only 17 pts of Possessed. Go Possessed!


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 05:02:43


Post by: DarkHound


Noisy_Marine wrote:Possessed serve the same role as zerkers. They are both assault specialists. Zerkers just happen to be better. And there is no nebulous role that cannot be math hammered. You're just making up stuff now.
Oh dear, you've found me out. I've just been trolling this entire time. Nope, nothing about them being shock troops compared to objective takers makes sense. I guess I'll go back to running my dual lash now.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 05:23:51


Post by: Noisy_Marine


JohnHwangDD wrote:
Noisy_Marine wrote:Possessed serve the same role as zerkers. They are both assault specialists. Zerkers just happen to be better. And there is no nebulous role that cannot be math hammered.

Against basic CSM Termies or Eldar Banshees, I think Possessed do better...

Each PW wound kills 21 pts of Zerks, but only 17 pts of Possessed. Go Possessed!


/golfclap

DarkHound wrote:Oh dear, you've found me out. I've just been trolling this entire time. Nope, nothing about them being shock troops compared to objective takers makes sense. I guess I'll go back to running my dual lash now.


Who said anything about trolling? Not I.

What I'm getting is that zerkers *are* shock troopers and objective takers for less points than possessed.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 05:28:42


Post by: skyth


JohnHwangDD wrote:
Noisy_Marine wrote:Possessed serve the same role as zerkers. They are both assault specialists. Zerkers just happen to be better. And there is no nebulous role that cannot be math hammered.

Against basic CSM Termies or Eldar Banshees, I think Possessed do better...

Each PW wound kills 21 pts of Zerks, but only 17 pts of Possessed. Go Possessed!


And each Beserker that's left kills 1.6 tims as many Banshees as Possessed, and this is on recieving the charge. Of course, this is ignoring the chance of the Possessed getting the power weapon ability...But it is also ignoring the power fist on the Skull Champion. If the Beserkers get the charge instead (And the requisite shooting before hand), it is worse for the banshees.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 05:29:21


Post by: Lanceradvanced


I had a nice FA army, prior to the previous Codex.


Which proves what? It doesn't prove that you somehow couldn't build "generic" CSM armies under the last codex, I did, I was quite happy with it, generic demons in the new dex mebbe made it marginly better, as I can now put down my Watchers in the Dark *cough*ringwraiths*cough*, down with less explanation but my Angels (read furies) got taken away...

40k5 pulled the Heavies and Specials on all units, so this is merely following along


Quite the non-answer.. I assume you're talking about a general reduction in squad option availbility, like the CSM's only getting a heavy at 10 men, and Chosen only getting one HW period, not that I see how that matters, since in a EC list, NM Havoks were still Havoks, and Havoks can still take 4 special or heavy weapons, just like they could before..

On your specific example, where you were blowing smoke, NM Havok units are not fieldable anymore.. Sure you can use the models, once you split them among more squads, and buy other EC's to fill out the 4 squads. Best case, assuming 4 Blastmaster,s in a 10 man squad, being spit to 4 5 man NM Squads, that gets you buying at least 1 box of marines... The likely splitting 4 Blastmasters, from a 6 man squad (6 being Slaneesh's favored) has you buying 14 more..

And all those marvelously flexible Havoks that somehow make up for the loss of the NM Havok squads? They were just as flexible before, I even had some in my army before the new codex. So, please explain how keeping something I had before, makes up for something I've lost? Usually when one claims that something makes up for a loss, it means you're getting something new, which the Havoks, just aren't.

In short, it doesn't seem that you've made much of a case that folks have gotten much more "freedom" to build stuff, and what folks have lost is quite concrete, sure you can whine about stuff being unbalanced, or underused, or having odd stats, but that sort of stuff can and frankly should be fixed in the pointvalues and statlines.




CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 05:37:33


Post by: JohnHwangDD


As I stated very early on, the current book has far greater freedom to mix marks, superior Troops selection, and non-restricted support (e.g. Raptors & Obliterators). That allows for more flexible builds overall.



CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 05:53:49


Post by: skyth


Let's run the numbers here...8 Possessed cost the same as 8 Beserkers including a Skull champion with a fist.

Against 10 marines with fist in cover - Beserkers shoot first, killing .9 Marines. The beserkers then strike first. 28 attacks leading to 4.1 dead marines. 4 Marines strike back, killing .3 Beserkers. Fists go, killing 2.2 marines and .8 Beserkers. This leaves 2.8 Marines facing 6.9 Beserkers.

Possed, on the other hand...Marines attack first, killing .8 Possessed (.4 on the 1 in 6 chance they had feel no pain).

1/3 of the time the Possessed kill 2.4 Marines, then lose another .6 Possessed. This leaves 7.6 Marines to 6.6 Possessed.

1/6 of the time (FnP), 2.5 Marines are killed, then .6 Possessed killed. 7.5 Marines to 7 Possessed.

1/6 of the time (FC) 3 Marines are killed, leaving 7 marines to 6.6 Possessed

1/6 of the time (Rending) 3.6 Marines killed, leaving 6.4 Marines vs 6.6 Possessed

1/6 of the time (Power Weapons) 7.3 Marines are killed, leaving 2.7 Marines vs 6.6 Possessed.

So, Beserkers kill 7.2 Marines for 1.1 casaulties (oh, and will be able to claim to objective due to 5th's clunky rules)

Possessed kill 3.5 Marines for 1.3 Casaulties (And do not hold the objective).

Still trying to claim Possessed are as effective as beserkers, when both share a common goal (assault)


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 05:54:04


Post by: skyth


JohnHwangDD wrote:As I stated very early on, the current book has far greater freedom to mix marks


Since there aren't marks any more, rather icons that go away kinda a moot point.

superior Troops selection

6 entries now vs 11 in the old codex.

and non-restricted support (e.g. Raptors & Obliterators).


You could take as many Raptors and Oblits in an army before as you can now.

That allows for less flexible builds overall.


Fixed your quote for you. Especially since the new codex lost 4 entries from the fast attack section one from the troops section, and one from the heavy support section while adding no new units.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 06:08:07


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


Night Lords wrote:

Chosen suck, and terminators are anti tank, but can hold their own in CC if thats what you want. They can also shoot.


I beg to differ sir, I have used MeltaChosen to great effect, same with Plasma Chosen.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 06:18:56


Post by: Night Lords


BrotherStynier wrote:
Night Lords wrote:

Chosen suck, and terminators are anti tank, but can hold their own in CC if thats what you want. They can also shoot.


I beg to differ sir, I have used MeltaChosen to great effect, same with Plasma Chosen.


...Ok? They still suck whether you want to believe it or not.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 06:29:27


Post by: Orkeosaurus


JohnHwangDD wrote:Against basic CSM Termies or Eldar Banshees, I think Possessed do better...

Each PW wound kills 21 pts of Zerks, but only 17 pts of Possessed. Go Possessed!
It may not be true of termies, actually.

If there's no Marks of Slaanesh, and berserkers get the charge, they're hitting first and they'll probably take a few termies down before they strike back.

I5 is pretty good for those types of situations.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 06:49:55


Post by: skyth


Orkeosaurus wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Against basic CSM Termies or Eldar Banshees, I think Possessed do better...

Each PW wound kills 21 pts of Zerks, but only 17 pts of Possessed. Go Possessed!
It may not be true of termies, actually.

If there's no Marks of Slaanesh, and berserkers get the charge, they're hitting first and they'll probably take a few termies down before they strike back.

I5 is pretty good for those types of situations.


Shooting plus charge from Beserkers averags 2.5 dead Terminators before they can swing. About 1.5 dead from the fist.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 06:51:22


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


Night Lords wrote:
BrotherStynier wrote:
Night Lords wrote:

Chosen suck, and terminators are anti tank, but can hold their own in CC if thats what you want. They can also shoot.


I beg to differ sir, I have used MeltaChosen to great effect, same with Plasma Chosen.


...Ok? They still suck whether you want to believe it or not.




What Elites choice do you use then? Or do you not take one?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 07:17:13


Post by: Night Lords


BrotherStynier wrote:


What Elites choice do you use then? Or do you not take one?


Nothing except 3 terminators with combi-meltas the odd time. See Noisy Marines' list of viable units, as thats pretty much what i follow (though I take raptors to TRY to incorporate the night lords theme).


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 07:39:10


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


I see.

Yeah I need some Raptors for my Lords, or bikes I remember some old fluff mentioning them liking bikes as well.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 08:03:50


Post by: skyth


Old codex (with enough points) Night Lords used to be able to do effectively 8 units of Raptors (Or 7 Bike units)...Those were the days


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 08:16:37


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


Raptors also had 3D6 Hit and Run and could always break away.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 08:28:44


Post by: skyth


Only half of them if you did the 8 units though


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 08:50:00


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


Wait you could give wings to normal 3.5 CSM?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 08:55:56


Post by: Cheese Elemental


No, only characters, Possessed, and Chosen.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 09:33:03


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


So 3 winged Possessed Squads, 1 winged Chosen Squad, 4 Raptors, Winged Lord and 2 basic CSM Squads, and there is your Night Lord army?


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 10:11:45


Post by: Noisy_Marine


Your possessed don't get wings/jump packs. They can get fleet, if you roll a 3 on their table.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 12:21:01


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


I was talking about 3.5 Ed possessed Noisy. I know that current Possessed don't get them, despite the two winged packs in the box. I don't run Possessed, I just like their bits and use them to make commanders look more personalized.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 14:15:48


Post by: wuestenfux


avantgarde wrote:I miss Spiky Bits.

In fact I miss: Dread Axes, Dark Swords, Daemon bomb, cultists, Plague Swords, S10 Daemon Princes, Berserker Glaives, Rubric Terminators, Thrall Wizards, Daemonic Stature, Combat Drugs, Mutated Hull, Parasitic Possession, Coruscating Warp Flame, Furious Charging Raptors, Hit and Run Raptors, Daemonic Armor, Manreapers, Axes of Khorne, Tank Hunting Autocannons, infiltrating armies, Indirect Defilers, T5 Oblits, 5 attack 2 re-roll PFs, 3+ Bloodletters and the list goes on.

Yeah, everything the last codex offered.
By the way, I played a pure EC army with blastmaster havocs.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 14:54:53


Post by: Lanceradvanced


JohnHwangDD wrote:As I stated very early on, the current book has far greater freedom to mix marks, superior Troops selection, and non-restricted support (e.g. Raptors & Obliterators). That allows for more flexible builds overall.


I'm not particularly sold that this makes things much more "flexable" in a way that matters. I never fielded more than one of the "support" units anyway, if at all. Shoehorning all the cult troops into Troops actually reduces my options a lil bit, as before I could push the non-matching marks into elites. Mixing marks was never much my thing, particualrly as I tend to regard them as gateway drugs for the cult lists, and the Vet Skills, particularly Tank Hunter and Furious Charge, beefed with demonic gifts on your AC's more than made up not taking marks.

This whole point, of course could be argued back and forth... the more important one is regardless of what you think of the flexability of the main list, adding the Cult options would have been a trivial effort, that wouldn't have detracted from the main list. The fact that they've gone and put out 1KS, EC's and LATD at least as thowaway download formations for apoc, just highlights this. It's simply about pushing the cult army players to their bigger game, and for that I have no problem saying that this verson of the codex, effctivly, well sucks..

PS, I want my Warp Amps..


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/11 16:29:22


Post by: skyth


BrotherStynier wrote:So 3 winged Possessed Squads, 1 winged Chosen Squad, 4 Raptors, Winged Lord and 2 basic CSM Squads, and there is your Night Lord army?


4 Raptors, 3 winged Chosen, and 1 Flying Possessed actually. I'm going by memory that Night Lords lose an Elite slot too...If not, they can go to effectively 9 Raptors and 8 Bike units.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/12 01:14:36


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


No they loose only a HS option.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/12 01:46:40


Post by: skkipper


the 888 point 8 man chosen of khorne bike squad!!!!!! any codex after that was going to be a let down.


CSM Codex why is it hated so much? @ 2009/07/12 13:22:57


Post by: Samus666


Ok, most of what I have to say has been said numerous times already, but I'll add my list of gripes anyway, partly to try to expand on some things, partly just to vent.
Here's my little list of what is wrong with the newest Chaos codex, in no particular order.

1. Generic Daemons. This was absolutely a kick in the teeth to chaos players. I fully believe this was done just to sell a new army. As I've noted elsewhere, I do not like Counts As. If a unit is distinct in any way it should have its own unique rules. I see Counts As as a last resort. I would prefer 4 different statlines that each had the power level of Guardsmen, so long as each daemon type had different rules. But of course they couldn't do that, it wouldn't force us to buy a whole new army to use daemons properly.

2. Removal of Wargear. True, this was done to every army. Doesn't mean it wasn't a fething stupid move. Besides, the wargear options were such an important part of the chaos list, pages of options counting the Mark-specific things, available to many units. The loss of them really hurt. And unit options they were replaced with are mostly pretty limited even by modern codex standards.

3. Mixed mark armies. True, I don't have to play it that way, but I still object, because this is related to point X, below.

4. Loss of the Legions and LatD. Why do the loyalists get a plethora of seperate codexes, while Chaos dont even get variant lists?

5. The fluff and art. I can't put my finger on what, exactly, is wrong, but it just doesn't capture my imagination. The old codex felt darker, had more atmosphere. These weren't just rogue space marines with spikes - these were ancient, daemon-worshipping sadists, set on destroying the entire galaxy. I also think the excuse that any Space Marine who breaks programming is automatically on the path to Chaos makes Marines more 2 dimensional than ever.

6. The number of changes that invalidated old units. People on this thread have mentioned many, more than I even realised. A new codex should be a time of celebration, of exciting new possibilities. It should not force many players to completely start from scratch. Or maybe, from GW's perspective, it should. Ker-ching, cashy money.

X. The power level. It's too high. It's ironic to me that, in the name of making the codex less cheesy, they surrendered many fluffy but (as others have noted) 'useless' options, done away with fluffy restrictions and boosted the power levels of things like Oblits, 1K sons, Bikers, Noise Marines etc. I'd be embarrassed to field some of the things in that codex (lash, anyone?) in a standard competitive pick-up game. Maybe in an ultra competitive tourney, maybe in an apoc game, maybe against a mate where we both agree to have very powerful units in the mix. Not against some random guy in a store. So I don't want to be told that I'm annoyed because my army's now less powerful, OK?

In fact its interesting to me that the more GW claim to want the game to go in a more casual friendly direction (thus justifying half-baked rules), the more they streamline all the options and variant lists, presumably to placate the tourney players (also justifying half baked rules, interestingly enough). The Government should hire these guys as spin-doctors.

So, yeah, not happy with it at all. I could go on til my fingers bleed tbh, but I'll spare the server the full extent of my bile.