5394
Post by: reds8n
Kudos to Mr. Thorpe for responding :
Woah! Thank you to everyone who has joined the discussion about Chaos armies in 40K. To say that my previous post sparked some interest would be like saying the Atlantic Ocean is ‘a bit wet’… To put things in perspective, here are a few stats from the last few days. My previous ‘best day’ came about from the Dark Elves Q&A, which generated about 800 visits in its best day. The day I posted ‘Differences of Opinion‘ brought in more than 1200 visits and I thought ‘That was busy!’. The next day that went up to 1400+ and I thought we’d peaked. Then last Sunday, there were more than 8,300 visits to Mechanical Hamster. Clearly 40K players like to do their web surfing on the weekend! Up until then, the most popular post on the site was Realism is Fake, an essay about dialogue that benefits from a link on TVTropes. It’s been up more than a year and has been beaten into second place in just four days!
Enough of the numbers, thank you all for the comments as well. Some of them are quite lengthy and detailed, but I have read them all. It isn’t practical to write a response to each and every one, so I’m going to pick up on the main themes raised and address them here.
Not My Job, Guv
First off, as some of you pointed out, I left the GW Design Studio and this discussion is purely as a former games developer not a current one. I have no influence in any way on the direction of future Codexes, this is just a debate on theory not a consumer feedback exercise. As such, I am also not privy to GW’s current thinking about Chaos, this is all hypothetical.
Ice Cream!
HBMC used the analogy of the ice cream store to represent the many different Chaos armies. I like ice cream, so let’s run with it. He described a store in which you could only buy vanilla ice cream. Well, vanilla is certainly the finest of the flavours (bonus points for knowing where that lyric is from) and one of its biggest strengths is its versatility. You can have it on its own, you can put sprinkles on it, or many flavoured syrups, or serve it with pie, or with cake (mm, cake). The problem with your cookie doughs and phish food flavours is that they’re ready-made. The shop is offering only the flavours they’ve created and not giving you any information about the cool stuff they’ve used to make them up. What if there were, say, five different ice cream shops, each one a flavour specialist? There’s the vanilla shop with all its versatility, but there’s also a shop dedicated totally to rocky road, with special rocky road-themed extra toppings, and it also served different types of rocky road, so that you can have it with extra marshmallow, or no nuts, or… I’m running out of things you can out into rocky road ice cream, but I’m sure you get my point. And next door is a special cookie dough shop that does the same with its ice cream. The other good thing about the multiple shops is that they don’t charge you for looking at other flavours of ice cream that you aren’t interested in. If you like all flavours of ice cream (as HBMC clearly does judging from his ice cream collection – er, I mean different armies!) you can visit as many shops as you like. If you’re all about the rocky road, the vanilla, cookie dough and tutti-frutti boys aren’t going to hit you up for some extra cash just to disinterestedly peruse over their wares.
Practical Issue
Er, this analogy is creaking, so let’s talk reality. The background and diversity of Chaos is big. As big as the Imperium almost. Let’s say we want to create the ‘perfect’ codex, that covers everything anyone would want. That means giving people proper amounts of background about the different types of armies, all of the troop types, pictures of models and so on. An army is more than just a few rules and an extra option or two of wargear, and if you’re just coming into the hobby there’s a lot of information to absorb which we can’t just skip over like the last Codex did.
Let’s start by combining the contents of Codex: Chaos Space Marines and Codex: Daemons. 192 pages of cool Chaos stuff. But we don’t have any god- or Legion-specific stuff yet. This is where any potential developer faces the first big decision, and there’s no right or wrong answer. The background of Chaos is divided along two separate yet overlapping themes.
You have the Traitor Legions on one hand, some of which are dedicated to a specific god, some of which aren’t. Like those loyalist scum, each Legion has a slightly different way of fighting. Are these presented as sub-lists (as they were in Index Astartes) or is everything rolled into one big list and players are given the background info to shape their armies for themselves? Let’s take Night Lords as a random example. Infiltration and terror tactics. Should Chaos Space Marine squads have an upgrade that represents the Night Lords? Or, should there be a separate army list entry, perhaps called Night Lords Squad? Or, should there be a separate entry for an infiltrating, terror-causing squad that could represent Night Lords but could equally be used for other infiltrating, terrorising squads devised by the players’ imaginations?
The end result in rules terms could be exactly the same, but the presentation of those rules has a profound effect on the way some players perceive them. Is it better to call them Night Lords and then have players change the names for themselves (such as using the Dark Angels for one of the other Unforgiven), or is it better to keep the presentation generic and let players know that using ‘Infiltrating Chaos Marines’ is how they can represent Night Lords on the table?
And just how flexible do we want players’ armies to be? Do we say that the Night Lords can’t have Khorne Berzerkers and leave it up to players to ‘break the rules’ if they want to represent a combined force of Night Lords and World Eaters? If the army list functionally allows you to represent forces from different Legions and Chapters, there’s nothing to stop someone (by the rules) painting their Khorne Berzerkers in Night Lords colours. At what point do the Codexes force players to adhere to the background and when do they inform them of that background and leave it to their discretion?
[I prefer the approach of informed freedom, the encompassing of many 'what if?' situations, since the purpose of the Codex is to allow players to collect a load of toy soldiers, paint them however they see fit, and then play a game with them if they want to. Is important whether a Chaos Space Marine is painted red or blue? It's an unanswerable question except with reference to our personal tolerances and preferences. One might say an WWII German army has too many Tiger tanks because there is historical fact. With 40K, everything is a) fictional, and b) deliberately written to allow hobbyists to come up with their own ideas and form their own opinions. World War II happened and is documented, 40K is a vast sandbox for players to create and explore.]
With regard to our physical Codex and its length, both ways of doing things will add about the same number of pages. Rules-driven guidance means more army list entries (and more pages in the Forces section), a flexible list might mean more options for generic troop types but more required in the form of background and sample armies to inform players choices if they want to pick a Legion-themed force.
For the sake of argument, lets say it take about 8 pages per Legion to do this justice – origins of the Legion and how they’re organised, extra or extended Forces pages to describe their troop types, additional army list entries and colour pages. That’s another 72 pages, bringing our book up to 264 pages. If there were actual full sub-lists for each I would expect this to be even longer.
The Gods Issue
The Legions are one of the two strands that Chaos players like to theme along; the other are the four Chaos gods. We come back to presentation issues. You want to collect Khorne, but not paint them in World Eaters colours? Should you be allowed Berzerkers or only Khorne-marked units (since Berzerker technology is known only to the World Eaters supposedly)? What about non-Emperor’s Children Noise Marines? The odd one in the mix are the Thousand Sons, who are not just ’super marked’ Marines but something entirely unique to that Legion thanks to Rubric and his hi-jinks. So, there’s an argument that there should also be some form of ’super-marked’ magic Marine for Tzeentch, in addition to Rubric Marines, like anti-Grey Knights or something. And then there’s all the Terminator Berzerkers, World Eater war engines, tank variants, Defiler types and whatever else we would need to make a proper World Eaters army. How much of that is transferable and how do we differentiate in the army list?
And then we get to the issue of cross-god armies. Have Thousand Sons and Khorne Berzerkers ever appeared on the same battlefield? Plague Marines and Emperor’s Children? We have the hardline view that such a thing would never, ever, ever happen. Or there’s the realistic view that the chances are at some point the goals of warbands and personalities dedicated to different gods have found common cause. We come back to the grey area of whether the separations are hard-wired into the rules (in which case players can play ‘outside the Codex’ if their opponents are happy with it), or if the army list allows it but the background makes a point of demonstrating how this might come about to give the army its proper context.
Let us assume that we’re going to allow non-named forces to be represented by some of the named troop types. This requires further information to be put in the book – examples of named ‘historical’ Khornate forces that weren’t part of the World Eaters, more examples of toy soldiers and armies. Let’s make it neat and tidy and say four pages for each god, a nice 16-page complete section to bring up our total page count to 280. Thats about two dozen pages short of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.
All The Small Things
But wait! This isn’t Codex: Chaos, so far it’s only be Codex: Chaos Space Marines. We need mutants, renegade guardsmen, daemon-possessed psykers and cultists. I’m sure folks can see where I’m going next, so let’s just cut to the chase. To do this justice (that means more background, more Forces pages, more army list entries), let’s add a very conservative 32 pages.
So our awesome Codex: Chaos runs to roughly 312 pages (a little more than the rulebook). It contains everything every player would ever want out of Chaos. Okay, it’ll be a few quid more than a regular Codex, but look at everything you’re getting, right? Let’s not even worry about how long that would take the write, or issues caused by one book supporting a huge swathe of the miniatures range (cos we need miniatures for most of this cool stuff too, because they’re in the Official Rules now and you can’t expect people to convert everything).
A Many-splendored Thing
Or we can go back to our five different ice cream shops, by which I of course mean our five separate Codexes. Actually, maybe six if we did one regular Chaos Marine, one Daemon and one for each Chaos God (remember, not a definite plan, just discussion). A Codex is usually 80 pages long, sometimes 96 and for a few special cases more than that. Let’s just keep to that basic 80 pages. Over the course of six different Codexes, that means a whopping 480 pages of Chaos goodness, more even than our super-Codex.
But we know there are issues with multi-Codex armies from much of the discussions that arise around the Imperial Space Marines. Why does the Reaper Autocannon have different rules for Khorne’s armies than for Slaanesh ones? Why does an Emperor’s Children Daemon Prince not have the psychic powers allowed to a generic Slaaneshi one? And so forth. The benefit of the one book solution is that at least it’s all in one place and gets updated in one swoop.
Another question comes back to the flexibility issue. Do we allow Chaos Space Marines to take units from the other books, particularly Daemons, or are they (as now) completely separate? Even if every single unit was perfectly fair and balanced within its own list, what are implications for cross-lists and game balance? Actually, this applies to any multiple-list format whether in one book or several.
Every entry has to serve not just one purpose (and on the evidence of some of the dislike for Dreadnoughts, Spawn and Possessed some feel even that hasn’t been achieved), but multiple purposes. At a fundamental level, an army that contains so much diversity, the ability to pick-and-mix from such a plethora of different troop types is going to have as many optimal, cookie-cutter builds as any other. Mixing cheap cultists with deep-striking Daemons, rockhard Terminators, and so on, will create an army that doesn’t have any weaknesses, and from that point of view it doesn’t have much gameplay character either because an army is as much about what it can’t do on the tabletop as what it can.
Yet another problem with multi-volume armies is that the information is not self-contained. Where, for example, does Codex: Space Marines tell you that they can be included in a Witch Hunters force? Having faced exactly this issue with Hordes of Chaos and Beasts of Chaos in Warhammer (not to mention ongoing issues with the Dogs of War), I can safely say that multi-volume armies are a pain in the arse. The purpose of a Codex is to contain everything you need to collect and game with the toy soldiers it covers. Imagine you’ve been collecting your Chaos army for a few months and then go to your first club night or tournament, only to find out the guy or gal on the other side of the table has got Daemons in their army.
‘How do you get those?’
‘They’re in this book.’
‘Another book?’
‘Actually, three other books, and there’s another one coming out in a few months’ time.’
‘Wah?’
So all the books have to be planned at once, because the first book in the series has to make reference to the future books (which I did in the Hordes of Chaos intro). Which is a commitment. Commitments are fine right until circumstances changes, or you have a better idea, and then they become a binding oath. What if the books are so great and so successful, there’s scope to do another one? You have to change all the references in the ones already published to make it clear there are now seven books tied together, not six.
Another problem is simple finances. Without getting into a discussion about pricing, nobody wants to feel that they have to buy all six books to keep their edge. With self-contained books buying more than one Codex is a choice players can make, out of interest, to collect mutiple armies or to get the lowdown on the opposition. Little Johnny walks into his gaming store of choice, says he likes the look of the Marines with spikes on and then is promptly told by the learned staff member that he has to read this, and this, and this, etc. Urk. Maybe those pointy ears with the flying tanks are cooler…
Lastly, there’s the time factor. You can’t release them all as a block (because all the non-Chaos players want some love now and then) so it would take years for the set to be complete. At least if each book is self-contained, it lives and dies by its own merits rather than simply being seen as part of an as-yet incomplete work.
In Summary
There ain’t no single foolproof answer to the questions posed. No easy-fix. Compromises will always have to be made due to the diversity of demands placed on a Codex by the many different hobbyists that will use it. Make it a cornucopia of Chaosness and the competitive players will complain that Chaos is broken; make it too restrictive and the more hobby-driven players will feel that they’re vision and creativity is being compromised. Put it in one book and depth and detail will suffer; spread it over a lot of books and it becomes complicated and hard to access.
The developers cannot legislate for every eventuality, though Pete made a valiant effort with his Codex on the rules front. This is where the choice and responsibility passes over to the players. Remember that for every player who sees 40K as a tactical challenge, there’s a collector who wants to theme an army around an obscure reference in the timeline. For every ‘fluff nazi’ (miaow-splat!) there’s the ‘what if?’ creator dreaming about the time Angron asked Fulgrim to repay that favour he did during the Flange IX Burning.
Wargaming isn’t ice cream; we get to make up whatever flavours we like; some of them follow specific recipes, others just throw a bunch of stuff into the freezer to see if it works. It’s usually worth giving them a taste to see what they’re like, because otherwise we might miss out on a great new flavour.
And Finally…
Again, thanks for the comments and discussion. However, this is a blog not a forum and isn’t really set up for ongoing debates between commentators. Please post your comments and your thoughts, I enjoy reading them (even the negative ones). Please also use the many fantastic community discussion boards for responding to each other, they are a far better place for it (incidentally, Bell of Lost Souls is winning with the redirects at the moment, with Warseer and Dakkadakka trailing in their dust).
Rules questions and debate. As with the Dark Elves Q&A, I’m not going to enter into detailed rules discussions or provide answers to specific questions. With the first, Codex: Chaos Space Marines was jointly written with Alessio and I’m not going to do him a disservice by second-guessing decisions he made whilst writing the rules or put words in his mouth. On the second point, I am not a games developer any more and answers I give may well end up being different to the FAQs issued by Games Workshop. Let’s not even get into the manbane thing again!
Thank you all for lasting this long. Have fun and happy gaming.
[Addendum - Daemons in the 2nd edition Codex. This was my poor memory playing tricks on me, but the point stands that not everything in the Daemonworld army list (including Trolls and beastmen! ) was also available to the Chaos Space Marines. Sorry for the confusion.]
linky
19177
Post by: Thorheim
=( I stoped trusting Gav with 40k since the fiasco of Dark Eldar. "Oh dear I can do... 2 diferent army lists now! Both working allmost the same way! YAAAY!". Same goes for the recent Chaos and Chaos Daemon Codex, they are so "oh you can do that list and that list, but they wont be as effective as LashPrince+nurgle marines+obliterators" :(
A Codex is usually 80 pages long, sometimes 96 and for a few special cases more than that.
Wonder why they ever did 48 pages once? And "special cases" = MOAR SPEEJS MAREEENS!
Gav should never be let onto the 40k scene, ever again.
16689
Post by: notprop
Seems like quite a concise measured response to me, addressed most of the general issues raised; this should diffuse this whole kerfuffle quite nicely I think.
Whats that Thorheim? Still not happy, oh dear! [puts flak jacket and helmet on, ducks]...... INCOMING!!
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Looks like the Devs really do ask themselves all the right questions... just a shame they come to a different answer every 6 months.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If it looks like BS
If it smells like BS
Then is must be BS.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Gav Thorpe wrote:[Addendum - Daemons in the 2nd edition Codex. This was my poor memory playing tricks on me, but the point stands that not everything in the Daemonworld army list (including Trolls and beastmen! ) was also available to the Chaos Space Marines. Sorry for the confusion.]
My book's at home so I can't check but IIRC the only thing you couldn't field in a 2nd CSM army field were the daemon princes, everything else was legit. He'as also conveniently forgotten (again) the Rogue Trader books.
Strangely this impossible book he describes existed, it was the 3.5 book. The new one just needed to be the same thing, minus the daemons and a bunch of Iron Warriors special rules. It didn't even manage that.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I think he made some good points in there. Of course, other codices face the same problems and questions and some might be better than C: CSM, but to blame all and everything on Gav and Gav alone... 
18471
Post by: Lord-Loss
I feel cheated.
Just make two different codexs, CODEX: Renegades and
CODEX: Legions and LATD.
C:Renegades would basically be an improvement of the current codex, helping players making lists like the Night Lords, Berzerker force that he described.
C: Legions and LATD would be Demons, Legions and LATD. Be packed with fluff and chaosy goodness!
8021
Post by: JD21290
His reasoning wasnt bad, and credit for him actually answering it rather than ignoring it.
but i just feel that if they can go to such lengths for space marines to give then such diversity, why can they not do the same with Codex: black legion .... i mean Chaos?
Lets look at this for a minute.
How the feth did templars get thier own dex? Correct me if im wrong, but there are just as many if not more iron warriors players out there than templars.
So by popularity it seems to make no difference.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Can someone do the math and tell me how many pages the combined Realm of Chaos books came to? Slaves to Darkness and The Lost and the Damned combined.
752
Post by: Polonius
It was a well written and well reasoned response. It's hard to argue with the main points he raises, and he lays out a really compelling argument for why he didn't remake Realms of Darkness.
If only that was the debate.
As far as strawmen rebuttals go, this was a very, very good one.
The real question isn't "why can't I field cultists in a dedicated Alpha Legion army anymore?" Nobody expects that, not in the brave new world. The real question is "why can every other army still build for flavor and flexibility while Chaos can't?" Knowing that sublists and doctrines and traits were going is a given to the discussion, what matters now is how well what remains allows for interesting and effective armies. Other codices have simply done much better than Chaos, IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OTOH, we should give him credit for explaining his reasoning. The poor guy has nothing to gain from talking about it, and only opens himself up to further flaming.
And never forget that the broad brush strokes were probably dictated from on high, and Gav simply did the best he could within those confines. GW staffers are known to be loyal to a fault, falling on swords rather than point out that the higher ups were idiots.
On an interesting side note, apparently some level of gamer dissatisfaction filters back to the Studio. In his comments, he specifically points to Spawn, Dreadnoughts, and Possessed as three units the community finds worthless. Interesting.
411
Post by: whitedragon
He makes good points, but the greater issue is why they can only release things very slowly, and why they got rid of Chapter Approved to take care of the things we lost or interesting fluff things.
For example, using the new Chaos dex as a guide, it works as Gav describes. Then a quick WD article could have made unofficial Chapter Approved detailing a Legion a month, or so, giving us a bone, and yet leaving the codex the way it is for people that want the full Chaos skittles list.
Just a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think we all can see the White Dwarf designers notes in 4 years when they interview the designer of the next Chaos Codex, and he says something along the lines of "Well want to return the focus in this Codex back to the Chaos, and back to the purest form of that Chaos, the Legions."
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Can someone do the math and tell me how many pages the combined Realm of Chaos books came to? Slaves to Darkness and The Lost and the Damned combined.
roughly 575
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Not a bad response at all.
____
@Lord-Loss:
In all likelihood, one day, we will see Codex: Chaos Legions for the Big 4, just not immediately.
____
@Polonius:
Given that Chaos has the best Troops in the game, by far, and are really spoiled for choice, the comment that "other Codices have done better" appears to be false, at least if you look at the Codices on an individual basis. You have far more viable CSM options than, say, Tau Empire or Eldar or Dark Angels or Blood Angels. IMO, the only thing that the needs to be done is to remove Lash entirely - or errata it into nothingness (i.e. range 6"). That would force Chaos players to look at non-Lash-Oblit-PM builds.
But more to the point, why is it that Imperials are split across SM, BA, DA, BT, SW, SoB, Inq, & IG and that becomes a valid comparison point for a single book of Chaos? Limit the comparison between CSM and SM books only, with Daemons offsetting IG. Yes, Legions would be a hole to fill in lieu of BA, BT, DA, SW, & Inq (GK). And actually, that would be a possibility.
19178
Post by: voidfiend
First of all, let me just disclose the fact that as a chaos player since the Rogue Trader Days, I hate the new CSM codex. Just want to get that out in the air.
Now as for Gav’s comments, chaos is indeed a large and diverse subject for a codex. In fact, I would say that of all the 40k army rules, chaos is by far the most difficult to write. It’s good to see Gav acknowledging that. Chaos encompasses renegade marines, demon armies, famous traitor legions and LATD/mutants.
Here’s the rub though. I would argue that every single codex prior to the current one has touched on most of these areas relatively effectively. I think Pete Haines did a fantastic job of meeting a nearly insurmountable challenge of bringing a lot of the fantastic background from the original Chaos hard cover books. In v3.5 we had generic CSM rules, daemon rules and a nice sprinkling of traitor legion rules. Yes, there were complex options, yes Thousand Sons sucked, yes Iron Warriors were broken but overall it was a fantastic product. I mean, people in my area actually started to care about a chaos god’s sacred number again.
Now in the new CSM codex, we have Space Marines with spikes. No traitor legions, minimal options and half a page on generic daemons. Raptors have the same rules as loyalist jump squads. We have vindicators. All we need are speeders, whirlwinds and drop pods and it’s basically loyalists with obliterators/defilers. It’s a good codex if you want to play loyalists that have turned from the Emperor but it pretty much ignores all the other areas of chaos background. From Gav’s comments, I get the feeling that they looked at this difficult codex, saw how hard it would be to do and just gave up by ignoring all these other areas.
Now I know we have a separate codex for daemons but I don’t see how this can ‘legally’ gel well with the CSM rules. It would have been a lot better if something in the daemon codex stated how it could be used with the CSM codex. Kind of like what they did with Grey Knights.
So I’m sorry gav, but IMO you (or who ever was responsible) failed. Sorry, it was a tough job, but the current codex just doesn’t cut it.
Help us Pete Haines, you’re our only hope…
2700
Post by: dietrich
It's a good response. The problem is that there are five flavor stores for loyalist marines (OT - if Black Templars were an ice cream, what flavor would they be?), and only vanilla for Chaos. Combined with a loss of CA and a slowing release schedule, if you want Rocky Road, you're never going to see it.
I'm surprised that GW has not used APOC to try to fill some of the gap. For example,
Night Lords Terror Raid
250 points + models (I have no idea if 250 is right, but it sounds like a good start!)
1 Chaos Lord
2+ Chosen
2+ CSM
2+ Raptors
Models in the terror raid may only take MoCU.
Terror Raid: Any enemy models are at -1 Ld in the First Turn. All ranged weapons in the Terror Raid cause pinning in the First Turn.
Dawn Raid: First Turn is fought using Nightfighting rules
Acute Senses: Due to Nocturne's perpetual night, all models in the Terror Raid get Acute Senses.
Eliminate Communications: Night Lords are renowned for disabling enemy communications. Any 'off board' Ordnance weapons (MoO, Inquistor lance strikes, Chapter Master's ability, etc.)roll twice for scatter and take the worst result.
It requires even less playtesting than GW normally does, gives the fluff players something, and adds a bit of character back into the game.
Some of the other Legions could even be easier:
Iron Warriors
May select Techmarines as per C:SM, but are +1 Leadership and lose Combat Tactics and ATSKNF.
May select Artillery Batteries from C:IG. These remaining BS 3 since they are crewed by slave labor.
Word Bearers
May replace Summoned Daemons with suitable entries from C: Daemons.
I'm sure that both could be more fleshed out, but if I can invent this on the fly, I dont' understand why the Dev Team hasn't adopted it. APOC seems to be the great compromise of 40k. It doesn't have to be well balanced, because it's 'just for fun'. It doesn't require GW to produce or create any models. It doesn't require any long-term support. And they don't even have to print the things - just put 'em on their website!
editted for some typos!
14826
Post by: niceas
On the whole, I think that his response sums up for the most part the situation in which he found himself - constrained by the bean counters, and required to produce a list that would adequately cover CSM.
To the person who stated that they should have included the alternate army lists: GW has been staying away from the sublists for a while now, likely since Armybook: Skaven IIRC. The reason for this is that the sub-lists aren't as thoroughly playtested, and as such tend to be broken. For reference, see SAD lists.
To the person who suggested that they should have released two codices: that is not something that was within his control. Likely he was told something to the effect of: You have xx pages for Codex: CSM. Jam all this stuff in, and get rid of the sub-lists. As a company we are moving away from cross-codices, so you won't be able to rely on Codex: DoC, and because we want that list to be truly and fully separate, you can't use the traditional Daemons - instead we want generic daemons so that they are well and truly separate from DoC.
Whether we like the direction that Games Workshop is going with their Armybooks/Codices or not, there has been a clear move to eliminate access to other lists and to make each one purely self contained. Likewise, GW is clearly moving to eliminate sublists contained within a given codex/armybook, likely in an effort to improve game balance ( YMMV though).
GW has had a few successes in list design of late, and my honest hope is that they will build upon them. As I don't play 40k, I can't come up with an example on that side of the pond, but from my own gaming experience Armybook: Dark Elves is something they should strive towards as a goal - in the local metagame, there are a number of Dark Elf players, all of whom have different playstyles and different lists, all of which (thus far) are proving to be viable.
Anyways, I'm going to get off the  before I get myself in trouble.
18045
Post by: Snord
Whatever you think about the codex or his reasoning, it's a pretty good example of how to deal with criticism (and I bet he got some very hostile messages). There should be more of that here. Instead of this kind of comment:
Frazzled wrote:If it looks like BS
If it smells like BS
Then is must be BS.
An ex-Studio person goes to the trouble of trying to explain why he did what he did (and remember he can only say so much without breaching his confidentiality clauses), fields a huge number of responses, posts many of them (including very critical comments) on his site, then goes to the trouble of writing a long and reasonably thoughtful response for no apparent personal gain. Or so it seemed to me - obviously I don't see things as clearly as you do
whitedragon wrote:He makes good points, but the greater issue is why they can only release things very slowly, and why they got rid of Chapter Approved to take care of the things we lost or interesting fluff things.
Because they got as much flak for CA as they do now for not having it. There were endless arguments about it here, as well as complaints about having to look through multiple WD's for rules and clarifications. As for why they release 'things' (by which you presumably mean codexes) slowly, I think it's clear that their rules writing resources are stretched. It seems to be easier for them to crank out high quality plastic models than it is to produce army lists. But they they've always been a miniatures company first and rules writers second (or third).
Polonius wrote:As far as strawmen rebuttals go, this was a very, very good one.
The real question isn't "why can't I field cultists in a dedicated Alpha Legion army anymore?" Nobody expects that, not in the brave new world. The real question is "why can every other army still build for flavor and flexibility while Chaos can't?" Knowing that sublists and doctrines and traits were going is a given to the discussion, what matters now is how well what remains allows for interesting and effective armies. Other codices have simply done much better than Chaos, IMO.
Nice use of the back-handed compliment! Although 'strawman' has become one of the most hackneyed expressions on Dakka - and doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.
Why are Orks, for example, more flexible than Chaos? You can build an army around any of the clans' fluff, or use other themes, but there's nothing inherently different about the composition of the codex, is there? Note the point Thorpe made about painting the models to give them the character you want them to have, as distinct from giving them special rules. This seems to get overlooked in all the arguments about 'lost flavour', and it's not just ' BS' as Frazzled so eloquently put it. You can add all the special rules you like, but it it's a bunch of indifferently painted models chosen to maximise those rules then you're not going to convince anyone that it's true to the spirit of anything. Also, the history of special rules for variant lists hasn't been a happy one, because one variant list's rules are always more powerful than the others and then that's all you see on the table. Meanwhile, someone who wants to field a particular chapter/clan/craftworld can't use a particular unit because the special rules forbid it, even though he's probably got a good fluff reason/modelling angle that makes it work. Or he's stuck with a unit he hates because it's compulsory under the special rules.
I'm not disagreeing that other codexes have been done better than Chaos, incidentally. But then we only have 2 true 5th Edition codexes, Marines and Guard. Even the Ork codex (released shortly before 5th Edition) is partially inconsistent with the 5th Edition rules. Personally, I think that's a much bigger issue than any flaws in the Chaos codex.
221
Post by: Frazzled
People going into detail to cover their keisters are, at the end of the day, still just covering their keisters.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
dietrich wrote:I'm surprised that GW has not used APOC to try to fill some of the gap.
The reason that GW hasn't pushed Legions to Datasheets is because GW probably has a Legions Codex in the works. If GW releases Datasheets for FREE, then there is less incentive to buy a $35+ Chaos Legions Codex to get the special rules for one's particular pre-made flavor of ice cream.
If one looks at the timing, with CSM out, Daemons out, it is timing-wise a good time to release Legions as the next Chaos book. Legions can pickup the Big 4 Special Characters and Marked Daemons, while removing non-Cult things like Chosen, CSM, Raptors, and Obliterators, with 4 distinct lists that don't mix.
Then the next CSM book can focus on the MoCU units, with Abbadon and Blackheart.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Excuse me, Frazzled, but first you and everybody scream at Gav Thorpe, curse him over the internet and now that he gives a polite, friendly answer to that you insult him for it? Is he not allowed to talk back or what? I mean, he did it definitely more polite than you are at the moment.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
JohnHwangDD wrote:dietrich wrote:I'm surprised that GW has not used APOC to try to fill some of the gap.
The reason that GW hasn't pushed Legions to Datasheets is because GW probably has a Legions Codex in the works. If GW releases Datasheets for FREE, then there is less incentive to buy a $35+ Chaos Legions Codex to get the special rules for one's particular pre-made flavor of ice cream.
They did kind of do it with 1(2 if you count the TS War Coven) Legion: Emperor's Children.
752
Post by: Polonius
Tailgunner wrote:
Polonius wrote:As far as strawmen rebuttals go, this was a very, very good one.
The real question isn't "why can't I field cultists in a dedicated Alpha Legion army anymore?" Nobody expects that, not in the brave new world. The real question is "why can every other army still build for flavor and flexibility while Chaos can't?" Knowing that sublists and doctrines and traits were going is a given to the discussion, what matters now is how well what remains allows for interesting and effective armies. Other codices have simply done much better than Chaos, IMO.
Nice use of the back-handed compliment! Although 'strawman' has become one of the most hackneyed expressions on Dakka - and doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.
Strawman wasn't the best term, but he's clearly cherry picking his response to deal with the weaker criticism. There are, IMO, two main lines of criticism against the chaos book. The first is that this got rid of demons and legions and untold options and that should not have happened. The second is that even in an environment with streamlined and integrated archtypes, the chaos book does a poor job. The first is the more fun argument, but as Gav showed is actually pretty readily argued. I think that GW should have done a massive CSM book, with a Demon book and a LatD book to follow, but that's just me.
Why are Orks, for example, more flexible than Chaos? You can build an army around any of the clans' fluff, or use other themes, but there's nothing inherently different about the composition of the codex, is there? Note the point Thorpe made about painting the models to give them the character you want them to have, as distinct from giving them special rules. This seems to get overlooked in all the arguments about 'lost flavour', and it's not just 'BS' as Frazzled so eloquently put it. You can add all the special rules you like, but it it's a bunch of indifferently painted models chosen to maximise those rules then you're not going to convince anyone that it's true to the spirit of anything. Also, the history of special rules for variant lists hasn't been a happy one, because one variant list's rules are always more powerful than the others and then that's all you see on the table. Meanwhile, someone who wants to field a particular chapter/clan/craftworld can't use a particular unit because the special rules forbid it, even though he's probably got a good fluff reason/modelling angle that makes it work. Or he's stuck with a unit he hates because it's compulsory under the special rules.
The legion lists (and the Craftworld eldar lists, and the clan lists, and doctrines and traits) allowed more than just flavor, they allowed genuinely differenty army archtypes. A saim hain army wasn't just a different paint scheme: it was built around jet bikes and vypers. A Kult of Speed had more bikes, trukks, and buggies than another army.
In the modern Ork book, you can build many different army archtypes that play very differently based on the core troops chosen. Green Tide, Kult of Speed, Battlewagon Spam, Biker Horde, Kan Wall, and loota spam are all very different builds, and they play very differently.
There is plenty of options in the Chaos book, but find me a list that isn't "Marines in rhinos plus stuff." There's plenty of different marines, and lots of extra stuff, but it's a pretty narrow range of army builds. So, yeah, I think there are some differences.
I'm not disagreeing that other codexes have been done better than Chaos, incidentally. But then we only have 2 true 5th Edition codexes, Marines and Guard. Even the Ork codex (released shortly before 5th Edition) is partially inconsistent with the 5th Edition rules. Personally, I think that's a much bigger issue than any flaws in the Chaos codex.
I'm not sure what you mean, but let me put my opinion of the Chaos book out there: as a variant Marine book, it's interesting and reasonably well executed. For Renegades, it does a yeoman's job. As the sole non-daemon chaos book available? It's far too limited. Automatically Appended Next Post: Witzkatz wrote:Excuse me, Frazzled, but first you and everybody scream at Gav Thorpe, curse him over the internet and now that he gives a polite, friendly answer to that you insult him for it? Is he not allowed to talk back or what? I mean, he did it definitely more polite than you are at the moment.
When a person is polite and friendly in explaining why they screwed something up while taking no real responsibility or admitting any possibility of error it's ok to point out that it's still just spin.
When the emperor is naked, the fact that he's a nice guy does not change the rights of fools and children to point out that he is, indeed, wearing no clothes.
Of course, as they say, the emperor remains an emperor and the fool remains a fool.
14828
Post by: Cane
Great response by Gav. On another note I'm one of those creative "what-if" people that was mentioned with the Night Lord Khorne Beserker example; I'm all for making my own fluff and paint schemes since thats one of the biggest things I love about this hobby.
19693
Post by: Haunted_Undead
Never read so much kak in my entire life as that
221
Post by: Frazzled
Witzkatz wrote:Excuse me, Frazzled, but first you and everybody scream at Gav Thorpe, curse him over the internet and now that he gives a polite, friendly answer to that you insult him for it? Is he not allowed to talk back or what? I mean, he did it definitely more polite than you are at the moment.
1. I don't give a  if he's polite or not.
2. he can talk back
3. He's still covering his butt
4. I'd be ok if he just said "yea they told me to do this. I'm just doing what I was told." It doesn't cover that even looking at the marine portion only, the dex is flavorless tripe.
5. He could be honest and said that this one was meant to be generic as GW was contemplating breaking chaos into 3-4 dexes (legions, demons etc). I'd but freaking way ok with that.
CYA CYA CYA.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:There is plenty of options in the Chaos book, but find me a list that isn't "Marines in rhinos plus stuff." There's plenty of different marines, and lots of extra stuff, but it's a pretty narrow range of army builds. So, yeah, I think there are some differences.
And yet, isn't that the defining nature of a Marine list of any flavor?
19693
Post by: Haunted_Undead
Lastly, there’s the time factor. You can’t release them all as a block (because all the non-Chaos players want some love now and then) so it would take years for the set to be complete. At least if each book is self-contained, it lives and dies by its own merits rather than simply being seen as part of an as-yet incomplete work.
This made me laugh very loud considering what Imperial Space Marines get
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:Polonius wrote:There is plenty of options in the Chaos book, but find me a list that isn't "Marines in rhinos plus stuff." There's plenty of different marines, and lots of extra stuff, but it's a pretty narrow range of army builds. So, yeah, I think there are some differences.
And yet, isn't that the defining nature of a Marine list of any flavor?
Less than you'd think. Ignoring the sublists (Which actually add options to any marine army, now that GW dropped the color=rules law of 3rd edition), Codex: Space Marines can drop a pretty interesting range of lists. You've got your basic codex rhinos and stuff (with the spice of having razorbacks), Pedro's Sternguard, all bikers, all outflanking, dreadnought heavy, whatever. The addition of Crusaders and 3++ storm sheilds make both terminator heavy and landraider spam more viable.
Finally, I think the fact that many of the legions can be better built out of the SM book than the CSM book illustrates that the potential is there, it was just not utilized. Iron Warriors as a Master of forge with ironclads, Nightlords as either biker horde and/or shrike led assault force, Alpha legion as outflanking Khan force. It doesn't take much.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
You're focusing on sublists, IMO. And really, I've never seen IW as Dread-focused, nor NL as Biker-based, nor AL as Biker outflankers. I go back to 2E, and they're just spiky silver, spiky navy (with lightning decoration) and spiky blue & green. Nothing more than a paint job.
752
Post by: Polonius
It doesn't change the fact that Codex: Space Marines can build a lot of different army types, while Chaos can build fewer. Ditto Orks, Eldar, and IG.
I guess I like it when armies can do more than one thing. Maybe I'm alone in that, but being able to play the same core army in different ways seems like a good thing. You can do that with SM, Orks, and Eldar. Not so much Chaos.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I don't see it. SM can take 3 units of 10 vanilla AM, max 30 JP models. CSM can take 3 units of 20 Markable Raptors, max 60 JP models. CSM seem to be able to do more than SM. SM can take 3 units of vanilla Bikers, vs CSM units of Markable Bikers. SM take units of 5 Termies; CSM can Termicide 3 models or blob 20, Markable and Combi-gun, mixing Assault & shooty.
How is the CSM unit not more distinctive than the SM version?
752
Post by: Polonius
You're fixated on unit variety, which I acknowledge Chaos has plenty of, even if Marines have made huge strides in some areas.
I'm saying you can field dramitically different armies with SM, compared to each other, than you can CSM. An all biker army compared to scouts and terminators compared to sternguard heavy compared to pods compared to razorback spam are a large variety of armies, not just units.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I think this issue can be cut two ways. The chaos codex good or bad as a rule book (bad); the chaos codex good or bad as a means of representing a variety of flavors (bad).
I agree with Gav. There will always be a dispute on how you slice it. Any time some one says "they should have just done...", as far how its split up, there will be someone who disagrees.
If you want to break it down to every distinctive army, you have:
Renegade Marines
Chaos Demons
Renegade guard
Cultist
Thousand Sons
Emperors Children
Death Guard
World Eaters
Alpha Legion
Night Lords
Word Bearers
Iron Warriors
Black Legion
(Non world eaters) Worshipers of Khorne
(Non Death Guard) Worshipers of Nurgle
(Non Thousand Sons) Worshipers of Tzeentch
(Non Emperors Children) Worshipers of Slannesh
and probably some more. Not really deserving of as many separate rule books, but neither are Imperial Space Marines.
The reason I think people are ticked isn't because the new rules book sucks (which is does) and people will generally accept mediocrity if its atleast interesting. Its that the previous Codex did cover most of that... and the other elements were well represented. It was cramped and open to some cheese but it represented all of those things. In an attempt to make a better rule book (which they failed at) they attempted to represent things more generally with less diversity. We gave up the best 90% to focus on the less cared about 10%.
All the armies, not just chaos have been trimmed back. I think most everyone is generally dissatisfied.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Marines have more Transports, and can take Bikers as Troops.
CSM have more Troops in the first place.
They're equal in my eyes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Not counting the coming puppies of love (go furrballs!)
Marines can drop pod
Marines can have FA as troops (BA)
Marines can run all termie/bike forces (DA).
Marines can run effectively landraider mechanized (vanilla, DA, GK)
Marines can use the heavy rhino mechanized variant with multiple vindicators.
Having said that, I'll admit I haven't seen much outside of the multiple landraider type or drop pod heavy type in some time, but thats likely local metagame. However, I've not even heard of anyone playing chaos marines outside of a multilash type.
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:Marines have more Transports, and can take Bikers as Troops.
CSM have more Troops in the first place.
They're equal in my eyes.
Really? You don't see any difference in play style between bikes as troops and more kinds of marines as troops? None at all? You can't think of any way that armies can be built differently, no way there are more ways to play the same codex?
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I really don't see how he can say if we did this it would be 400 pages when if I remember correctly 3.5 did do this and uh it wasn't 400 pages.
How many pages is the Imperial Guard Codex?
What about the Space Marine Codex?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Frazzled wrote:Not counting the coming puppies of love (go furrballs!)
Marines can drop pod
Marines can have FA as troops (BA)
Marines can run all termie/bike forces (DA).
Marines can run effectively landraider mechanized (vanilla, DA, GK)
Marines can use the heavy rhino mechanized variant with multiple vindicators.
Having said that, I'll admit I haven't seen much outside of the multiple landraider type or drop pod heavy type in some time, but thats likely local metagame. However, I've not even heard of anyone playing chaos marines outside of a multilash type.
I played World Eaters up until 3.5 so had I kept my army for the current 'dex I wouldn't have multi-lash as it's unfluffy and unthemed for my army I used to own. I sold my Chaos army 4 months into 3.5 'dex because it, to put it bluntly, sucked my ball sack. The new codex makes taking 6x8 zerkers in Rhinos viable again. Rhinos were way too easy to pop in 4th and there was also a 1 in 6 chance (2 in 6 chance if you took that gift for the champion which you almost always had to do since if they frenzied out of the rhino odds are they'd be on foot the rest of the game so might as well increase the chance they have of getting the extra d6) of hopping out of their ride and running at stuff. Let's just say fast vehicles leading 1/2 my army in a game of "chase the landspeeder/bike/transport alll day was not what I would call fun or fluffy or any such nonsense. 3.5 1k sons army sucked less than a World Eater army from the same codex.
If I hadn't sold my Chaos army it would have sat on the shelf waiting for a new book, similiar to how some Chaos players have done it under this new codex. For my army the previous codex was an abomination so not all Chaos players love the previous and hate the new.
I guess I'm the only player out there that likes the new Codex. Ah well, with no army to play anymore and no time or funds to build a new one maybe by the time they do legion 'dex (and damnit World Eaters had better be first) I might be able to afford to start one.
752
Post by: Polonius
So, there was one rule you didn't like, and coupled with the fourth edition transport rules (which were nearly universally disliked) you decided that you hated the entire codex?
Interesting.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Frazzled wrote:Marines can drop pod
Marines can have FA as troops (BA)
Marines can run all termie/bike forces (DA).
Marines can run effectively landraider mechanized (vanilla, DA, GK)
Marines can use the heavy rhino mechanized variant with multiple vindicators.
The only thing that is unique to SM are the Drop Pods and Razorbacks. The rest is pretty meh, as you're talking about variants that might as well be spiky. Also, CSM can run Land Raiders and Vinidcators, too, so nothing special there.
____
Polonius wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Marines have more Transports, and can take Bikers as Troops.
CSM have more Troops in the first place.
They're equal in my eyes.
Really? You don't see any difference in play style between bikes as troops and more kinds of marines as troops? None at all? You can't think of any way that armies can be built differently, no way there are more ways to play the same codex?
AFAIC, no, there's no significant difference in the amount of *variety* between having a Bikes / (mech) SM / Scouts vs (mech) CSM / NM / KB / PM / TS & LDs. It's like picking at the play style between KB as Troops vs TS as Troops. It's simply not significant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Polonius wrote:So, there was one rule you didn't like, and coupled with the fourth edition transport rules (which were nearly universally disliked) you decided that you hated the entire codex?
Interesting.
Eh, it's no different from the people who hate the current Codex for whatever particular reason.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:Frazzled wrote:Marines can drop pod
Marines can have FA as troops (BA)
Marines can run all termie/bike forces (DA).
Marines can run effectively landraider mechanized (vanilla, DA, GK)
Marines can use the heavy rhino mechanized variant with multiple vindicators.
The only thing that is unique to SM are the Drop Pods and Razorbacks. The rest is pretty meh, as you're talking about variants that might as well be spiky. Also, CSM can run Land Raiders and Vinidcators, too, so nothing special there.
And more of them and better ones, and skimmers. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe Chaos can pack 5+ like most marine lists can.
752
Post by: Polonius
Well, once you make the argument that there's no real difference between an all biker army and an all mechanzied army, I think we've stopped really having any common ground here.
2855
Post by: asmith
What Mr. Thorpe argues could never be done was already accomplished in the 3.5 codex + LATD. It did not take 300+ pages. His arguement might be at least believable if he was starting from scratch, but his starting point already demonstrated it could be done, all he had to do was fix up the problems. Hell it would have been easy with only a few pages of content added to 3.5 to represent a hell of a lot more different ways to play chaos in addition to fixing up the problems.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Polonius: Please re-read. I didn't say there was no difference between the armies. I said there was no difference in the range of variety covered by the one book vs the other.
That is, I said [-200 .. 0] covers the same range as [-100 .. 100], not that -175 == 25.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Hmmm. No mention of the lameness of generic demons?
Shockin'!
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: Please re-read. I didn't say there was no difference between the armies. I said there was no difference in the range of variety covered by the one book vs the other.
That is, I said [-200 .. 0] covers the same range as [-100 .. 100], not that -175 == 25.
It might cover the same range, but if you enjoy the breadth over depth, having large extremes is a good thing.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
CSM are more extreme than SM, but SM have more tech.
Personally, I despise the SM book, and see no good there, so arguing that it's good doesn't help sway me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Don't confuse arguing that the SM is "good." Its being argued that the current SM panopoly have several more viable alternative builds vs. substantially less viable builds on the chaos side. It is symptomatic of the destruction of options, variants, and choices that has befallen the chaos marine codex.
Thorpe's excuses on the subject are just that, excuses. better to have said nothing.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Yeah pretty much I mean his whole argument of if I had done this then it would have taken 400 pages and you don't want a 400 page codex!!!
Uh, what no the CSM 3.5 was not 400 pages and included rules.
All they had to do was do some balancing acts to the 3.5 instead Gav made it and was well this is just easier.
He took the easy way out and just made it Space Marine Codex + MARKS and some foot troops.
752
Post by: Polonius
The eldar book is an even better example. Every build from Craftworld can be built in that book, with some new restrictions, admittedly. Aside from Biel Tan (because who had dire avengers?), most lists could seamlessly transition.
The ork book might be the best GW has ever done, with tons of options for units and builds. You see more variety today than you did before the new book.
And as for extremes, I'm not sure which is more extreme. You seem to saying that the Chaos Troops are like five different fillings for burritos, while I think the basic beef and chicken of the SM troops, served as tacos or enchilladas, provide more truly interesting variety. At the end of the day, you're still eating a burrito every time you play chaos, while you can hide the fact that you're eating chicken again pretty well.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If we're talking Mexican:
SM have only plain chicken (SM) burritos, but they can also have their bland chicken as soft tacos (Razors), enchiladas (Pods), or quesadillas (Bikes). No matter what, SM are always plain chicken, no sauce.
CSM have the choice of chicken with Salsas (Marks); along with Carne Asada, Carnitas, Machaca & Chorizo (Cults) burritos, and a side of dirty rice (lesser Daemons). CSM are pretty much always burritos.
Either way, you need to decide if you only want to eat chicken, or if only burritos are prefereable. But the idea that you can have beef Fajitas simply isn't valid under either book (it's Necrons).
And with that, I'm breaking for lunch to grab a burrito...
1523
Post by: Saldiven
JohnHwangDD wrote:Frazzled wrote:Marines can drop pod
Marines can have FA as troops (BA)
Marines can run all termie/bike forces (DA).
Marines can run effectively landraider mechanized (vanilla, DA, GK)
Marines can use the heavy rhino mechanized variant with multiple vindicators.
The only thing that is unique to SM are the Drop Pods and Razorbacks. The rest is pretty meh, as you're talking about variants that might as well be spiky. Also, CSM can run Land Raiders and Vinidcators, too, so nothing special there.
____
Ah, so you've finally joined us in agreeing that C: CSM is merely Codex: Spiky Space Marines.
7811
Post by: Iboshi2
Hollismason wrote:
All they had to do was do some balancing acts to the 3.5 instead Gav made it and was well this is just easier.
I agree. I felt that systems like Doctrines, Traits, and the Books of Chaos made the game more interesting and fun. Now my IG could have my standby Creed in command, while Marbo and Straken blow things up. Not to say this couldn't happen, but a little rule supported fluff respect would be nice.
On a side note, 2 out of 6 of my local opponents are users of this 'dex. Both play extremely different armies, and have fluff within arms reach. The dex is doable, but there's nothing stopping them from pulling out 2 Lashes any given game. I hate seeing lash bull people into 'Zerkers more than any other use. That is a easy thing to fix imo.
I pine for the days of the Fluff dominated codex...
19177
Post by: Thorheim
Even though there is lots of diversity in the Chaos Codex, they don't work the same way anymore. Everything is more expensive, cult armies doesn't work as good anymore, the elite choices are rather rubbish... nah...*whine*
Maybe I was just to used to the candy jar that was the last Chaos Codex. HQ is nerfed, priced up and doesn't really get anything special, atleast before they had veteran skills and all kind of twinks. Infilitrating Chaos Chosen are propobly the only usefull one in the elite, always fun to infiltrate 30 marines with special weapons  . Cult marines priced up and less usefull... *smells somthing* oh the overuse of Nurgle marines. Never seen one use fast attack as chaos, except daemon bombs. Aaaand obliterators obliterators and Obliterators. Everyhing is so slimed down to Vanilla. :S
notprop wrote:Seems like quite a concise measured response to me, addressed most of the general issues raised; this should diffuse this whole kerfuffle quite nicely I think.
Whats that Thorheim? Still not happy, oh dear! [puts flak jacket and helmet on, ducks]...... INCOMING!!
I am never happy, Rage fills me day in and day out! >:C!
NNFFFFHGHGHHGFFFFNNNGGHH!!
16159
Post by: lord of corn
man all this talk of Burritos and Ice cream is making me hungry, what kind of mushrooms are orks? portabello perhaps? and i think eldar have a distinct smell of escargot.
In all seriousness i think Gav just missed the mark when it came to creating a chaos codex that people wanted to to play, i don't think he truly understood what the majority of the chaos players expected and wanted. he created the codex the way he and a certain segment of chaos players would want but the problem was it did not gel with the majority of his audience.
its something that all designers must struggle with, creating something that is true to your vision and that excites you or something that excites your customer base, when both of these things align everyone is happy but when they do not you must defer to the customer.
2700
Post by: dietrich
JohnHwangDD wrote:You're focusing on sublists, IMO. And really, I've never seen IW as Dread-focused, nor NL as Biker-based, nor AL as Biker outflankers. I go back to 2E, and they're just spiky silver, spiky navy (with lightning decoration) and spiky blue & green. Nothing more than a paint job.
But, in 2ed, you could have beastman, mutants, daemons, allied IG, etc. So while all the Marines were nearly the same, there was a larger slate of Chaos to choose from.
GW hasn't figured out what they want Chaos to be. Splitting it up into multiple self-contained books is, imho, a good thing. Now, if they'd just figure out how to release more than 2 codexes a year, it would fix it.
C: Daemons => Fine
current C: CSM => I'm confused. Are these guys recently renegade or heresy vets? If they're new, why do they have archaic tech? If they're old, why aren't they more skilled?
C: IG => Fine as traitor PDF, etc.
So, where's LatD? Can you make a C: Renegade Marines (Astal Claws, etc.), a C: Heresy Marines? Astral Claws should have assault cannons, etc. And if their lack of ACs is due to a lack of ammo, where are they getting ammo for the reaper autocannons? (and as someone once said, where do they get water? Just because they're chaos doesn't mean they don't need to drink water.)
GW's not figured out what they want a Chaos army to be, or at least have been slow to. As Gav pointed out, why aren't people complaining that they can't take IG with SM? In 2ed you could! The problem is they made up the Legion rules, and then took them away. If they had done something to fill that gap, it'd be a lot less painful. That they've compounded it by publishing a CSM book with far less 'effective fluff builds' is really bad.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I'm confused, why is Chaos a vanilla flavored burrito?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Saldiven wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:The only thing that is unique to SM are the Drop Pods and Razorbacks. The rest is pretty meh, as you're talking about variants that might as well be spiky.
Ah, so you've finally joined us in agreeing that C: CSM is merely Codex: Spiky Space Marines.
What do you mean "finally"? CSM have always been spiky SM. ____ dietrich wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:I go back to 2E, and they're just spiky silver, spiky navy (with lightning decoration) and spiky blue & green. Nothing more than a paint job.
But, in 2ed, you could have beastman, mutants, daemons, allied IG, etc. GW hasn't figured out what they want Chaos to be. Splitting it up into multiple self-contained books is, imho, a good thing. GW's not figured out what they want a Chaos army to be, or at least have been slow to. The problem is they made up the Legion rules, and then took them away.
Yeah, in 2nd you could mix anything together, carryover from RT. I think GW has a very clear roadmap of what they want Chaos to be: CSM, Daemons, Legions, and LatD. Each in it's own self-contained book, and in that order. I think the problem is a lack of patience among the players. GW said very clearly that they were doing Legions, and I have no reason to doubt them. The question is how and when. 5 or 6 years from now, this won't be a problem. However, as the GW gamers has a collective memory of about 1 month, if it doesn't appear immediately, exactly as each individual gamer envisioned, GW *must* have lied! And this is why GW Marketing holds the community in utter contempt. Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...
2700
Post by: dietrich
JohnHwangDD wrote:I think GW has a very clear roadmap of what they want Chaos to be: CSM, Daemons, Legions, and LatD. Each in it's own self-contained book, and in that order.
I think the problem is a lack of patience among the players. GW said very clearly that they were doing Legions, and I have no reason to doubt them. The question is how and when. 5 or 6 years from now, this won't be a problem. However, as the GW gamers has a collective memory of about 1 month, if it doesn't appear immediately, exactly as each individual gamer envisioned, GW *must* have lied! And this is why GW Marketing holds the community in utter contempt.
Please post where GW has definitely said they are doing a Legions book. And the last comment that I recall, was that GW felt that IG was a suitable 'count as' for LatD, so I don't think they've announced that book either. Unless it's in the 6 month look ahead, they won't. Oh, they've hinted that eventually, they'd like to do one, but that's it. Again, if they'd relelase more than 2 codexes a year, it'd be less of an issue and people would think it's coming to come out someday. I think it's more likely we see 40k 7ed (and, yes I know we are on 5ed) before either Legions or LatD.
Chaos is popular. Space Marines are popular. And they're both deep in the fluff. They're deeper than Orks, Eldar, Necrons, Nids, etc. That's why people want more Chaos, they're popular and deep. If Space Marines can support 5 unique armies, Chaos can easily support two.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...
We were doing good until you said that, having a polite discussion on the merits. The hyperbole destroys the discussion.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@dietrich: Please feel free to use the Dakka search - it's in there, shortly after the current Codex was released. But good job of proving my point about the gamer collective mind.  ____ Frazzled wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...
We were doing good until you said that, having a polite discussion on the merits. The hyperbole destroys the discussion.
And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd. Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get. I mean, if that isn't the case, and I've completely missed the mark, then I apologize. But it sure seems like that...
443
Post by: skyth
The point of the different legions/etc was that there was a different 'feel' to them. Same as the different 'feel' the different (still supported) Marine chapters have.
Now, Chaos doesn't have lists that have a different feel to them. That is the issue.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
And that "different feel" is accomplished, how?
Via Legion-specific Special Rules, right?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Polonius wrote:So, there was one rule you didn't like, and coupled with the fourth edition transport rules (which were nearly universally disliked) you decided that you hated the entire codex?
Interesting.
So it's okay for people to hate the new Chaos codex because they lost the ability to take Death Guard termies, which under the new codex Termies are the best unit in the game for the points but I had an entire army made worthless (oh and I had to sell a bunch of Juggernaughts at a loss as they went from full on units in 3.0 dex to the 3.5) in the 3.5 codex and yet somehow my argument is less valid.
The vast majority of the whines about the new chaos codex is in fact cult terminators and some special rules that made some armies OTT (and it can't be argued there wasn't) which as far as I know the terminator models themselves can still be used as terminators. Wow, shock and awe. So a fancy conversion job doesn't count for much other than to make them stand out as being devoted to a particular god.
Interesting.
The point of the different legions/etc was that there was a different 'feel' to them. Same as the different 'feel' the different (still supported) Marine chapters have.
Now, Chaos doesn't have lists that have a different feel to them. That is the issue.
So, you are telling me that under the new codex an army with a Khorne marked DP/lord leading a squad of chosen with 5 specials with Khorne Icon and 6x8 Berserkers in Rhinos backed up by 3x8 Khorne Icon'd Raptors support by 3x8 Havocs with IoK feels the same as a Nurgle army lead by a Nurgle DP/lord supported by 7 Chosen with IoN and 6x7 Plaguemarines in Rhinos backed up by 3x7 Raptors with IoN and supported by 3x7 Havocs with IoN.
Interesting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
[quote=JohnHwangDD
Frazzled wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...
We were doing good until you said that, having a polite discussion on the merits. The hyperbole destroys the discussion.
And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.
Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.
I mean, if that isn't the case, and I've completely missed the mark, then I apologize. But it sure seems like that... Not at all. What is being argued is that Chaos guys want what they had. Just ona amarines vs. spiky marine basis: Marines have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 wait 6 separate full codexes or mini codexes. That does not count multiple viable lists within each codex. Chaos marines had 1 general and 4 -8 variant lists by legion. Now they have one with some extra units, and its a pretty freaking limited option one at that.
That doesn't count that GW didn't even do the nicety of taking 10 minutes to tweak the LATD list to conform and gave a fat big off to the LATD players.
2700
Post by: dietrich
JohnHwangDD wrote:@dietrich:
Please feel free to use the Dakka search - it's in there, shortly after the current Codex was released.
But good job of proving my point about the gamer collective mind.
So both Legions and LatD are in the six month window? Based on JJ's 'the mystery box isn't Space Hulk' comments from Chicago Games Day, unless it's a known entity on the schedule, anything they say doesn't count. It's like the joke, "how do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving." They'd like to do Legions. It doesn't mean it'll happen.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Frazzled wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.
Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.
Not at all. What is being argued is that Chaos guys want what they had.
And how is that more specially deserving than Guard or Eldar guys wanting what they had? - my entire Guard army could Deep Strike for FREE - my Biel-Tan could field a whole variety of Aspects as Troops - my 3.0 CSM army could field nothing but 5- CSM double-Heavy Veterans as Troops Why can't I have now what I had then? Why should I have to give up these bonuses, but CSM get their special rules? ____ dietrich wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:@dietrich: Please feel free to use the Dakka search - it's in there, shortly after the current Codex was released. But good job of proving my point about the gamer collective mind.
So both Legions and LatD are in the six month window?
GW never said that it was within 6 months. It was announced as a project. Just search for it.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Thank god all the cullinary metaphors have stopped. That stuff was confusing, especially to those of us who live in the land where the only ice cream flavours are vanilla, chocolate and strawberry.
I enjoy the new chaos codex, but that's because I play Renegade Plague Marines, and the book is very good at building that army in particular.
The book has serious problems though.
Lash being so overpowered is one, the general lameness of Tzeentch is another, and the blandness of the Daemons another. Oh, and never let us forget the random Possessed and Dreadnaughts. Repeat after me GW: No one likes random units.
I liked the 3.5 dex too, but it really wasn't that balanced.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:Frazzled wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.
Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.
Not at all. What is being argued is that Chaos guys want what they had.
And how is that more specially deserving than Guard or Eldar guys wanting what they had?
- my entire Guard army could Deep Strike for FREE
- my Biel-Tan could field a whole variety of Aspects as Troops
- my 3.0 CSM army could field nothing but 5- CSM double-Heavy Veterans as Troops
Why can't I have now what I had then?
Why should I have to give up these bonuses, but CSM get their special rules?
____
You didn't address the point. Marine players have access to 5 codexes or mini codexes for MEQ choices. Chaos went from 1 with sublists to 1. Period, end of story.
752
Post by: Polonius
John, you're burning cred at a dangerous rate here.
Legions have been less guaranteed than Dark Eldar, and I think we all know how much faith you put into that release. They'd like to do a legions codex, right after Alienhunters, neo-squats, and the other battlezone codexes we were sort of promised after cityfight (the one back in 3rd).
Hell, even Daeomon's wasn't hard confirmed until it's normal confirmation about three months before release.
In addition, if you read my posts, you'll see that I've shown, I think fair convincingly, that the other armies have kept their sublists alive. Eldar can build the craftworlds, Marines can replicate some of the traits, etc. Chaos has nothing like that, aside from the four cults as troops. All Chaos players want is exactly what the Eldar, IG, ork, and SM players got, which was a way to build something pretty close to their old armies.
As I've said before, either the Chaos book did a worse job of shifting from the wild design of 3rd to the more structured nature of 5th than the other codices, or Chaos players are inherently far more vocal in their annoyance than Ork, IG, Eldar, or SM players. Do you really think that one army attracts all the jerks, or do you think it's just maybe possible that this book wasn't built quite right? Automatically Appended Next Post: Fateweaver wrote:Polonius wrote:So, there was one rule you didn't like, and coupled with the fourth edition transport rules (which were nearly universally disliked) you decided that you hated the entire codex?
Interesting.
So it's okay for people to hate the new Chaos codex because they lost the ability to take Death Guard termies, which under the new codex Termies are the best unit in the game for the points but I had an entire army made worthless (oh and I had to sell a bunch of Juggernaughts at a loss as they went from full on units in 3.0 dex to the 3.5) in the 3.5 codex and yet somehow my argument is less valid.
The vast majority of the whines about the new chaos codex is in fact cult terminators and some special rules that made some armies OTT (and it can't be argued there wasn't) which as far as I know the terminator models themselves can still be used as terminators. Wow, shock and awe. So a fancy conversion job doesn't count for much other than to make them stand out as being devoted to a particular god.
Interesting.
Well, I suppose it would be helpful to seperate how a person feels about a codex, as a holistic unit, and how they feel about how it impacts their army. You're right, in that if your army no longer plays the way you want to play it, you're going to pretty hearitly dislike the new codex. Which, incidentally, is the core of most genuine arguments, and certainly the bulk of mine. So, in that regard, you're correct in that you have the right to a strong dislike of 3.5.
That said, I've never been a huge supporter of those that argue that their army is worthless and they have to sell it. I still think that the switch to 4th edition did more to hurt your army than the 3.5 codex did, as I'm pretty sure Berzerkers in rhinos were a pretty hot build in late 3rd edition. I could be wrong on that.
I'm not sure if the vast majority of the whining is centered on cult terminators and the OTT stuff, but some is. A lot has to do with viable and distinct builds. Were Iron Warriors OTT? Of course, and they needed a tone down, but now you can't really build any sort of gunline out of Chaos. That's an army style gone. So are all infiltrating armies. Or demonbombs. Were those armies too good? Maybe. Is there an option other than removal? I think so.
So, I'll concede that what I did was mistake your very real emotion for a petty annoyance. What you need to do is realize that many players feel the exact same way about the 4.5 codex as you did about the 3.5 codex, and maybe feel a little empathy. Then, realize no Ork, SM, IG, or Eldar players feel the way either of you did, and realize that maybe GW needs to figure out how to write a damn Chaos book without pissing everybody off.
443
Post by: skyth
JohnHwangDD wrote:And that "different feel" is accomplished, how?
Via Legion-specific Special Rules, right?
Eldar, DA, BA, Orks, IG, and Space Marines all accomplished having armies with different feels. Chaos does not. Granted, Space Marines have Legion-specific rules (5 Different codexes, and the army-modifying special characters in the C: SM).
Eldar has: Guardian Horde, Aspect-based, Mech, Bike, Seer council, Infiltrating, and Wraith-based.
DA has standard, mech, Ravenwing, Deathwing, and mixed-wing
BA has standard, Mech, and jump pack
Orks have Green horde, Biker-based, Nob bikers, Cult of Speed, Battlewagon based, Dreadmob, Massed-Loota
Guard have Mech, Footslogger horde, Vet-based, Valkrie based
Space Marines have Standard, Infiltrating, Mech, Drop Podding, Salamanders, Ravenguard, Dread horde, Biker-based.
All these have different feels to them. Chaos doesn't have this variety of viable list options in thier codex.
752
Post by: Polonius
Skyth, I've tried this approach. Apparently there is no more difference in feel between Jetlock council and Grav tank aspect swordwind than between berzerkers and plague marines to John.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
C'mon Polonius, you're being disingenuous there. Just as much as he's minimizing your opinion, you're minimizing his. Do you really think that an all Berzerker army plays the same as an all Plague Marine or all 1k Sons army plays?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Polonius,
I'm glad you finally see it my way. I did not like the way that MY army functioned in the 3.5 'dex. I do like how it would play out now if I had it as Rhinos are alot harder to pop/knock out than they were in 4th* and how Berserkers with the WS5, S5 and I5 on the charge make a mockery of most units, even terminators have to fear Berskers. They showed better combat prowess in 2nd and 3rd than any other unit, got toned down in 3.5 along with getting a rule that made them worthless IMO and now in 4.5 are worth their weight in gold points wise.
*Some argue Rhinos still suck but not as bad as in 4th ed.
My friend just picked up a Chaos army from a guy. I might see if it has any 'Zerkers in it, if it does I may just resurrect my World Eater army. I bought Lord Zufor off ebay a month ago cheap and so may use him as an HQ (once I obtain the IA book with his rules in it of course).
So yeah, my complaints for why I hated 3.5 are as legitimate as anyone hating 4.5
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
At this point, the debate has devolved into nit-picking. You've forgotten the primary thrust of the thread, and that's that Gav Thorpe assembled lots of words but really didn't say anything. So Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned together total 575 pages? Okay. No more stupid slap-fights about whether or not Chaos deserves a codex that you could beat somebody to death with (YES!!!). The question is pointless because it will never be made. His response was like a crackhead trying to explain to a cop how the pants that drugs were just found in were not his despite the fact that he was wearing them.
752
Post by: Polonius
@ ozy: I do think so. I"m not sure where I said I didn't. What I"m saying is that those differences are less in practice than the differences offered by other codexes.
The cults fight differently, but all move the same, and have roughly the same threat range, and play in a fairly similar manner. Yes, the Berserkers will simply win combats that the Plague marines outlast, but they're still built around going to where the action is in a rhino and assaulting or shooting. What's more, the methods your opponent has for dealing with your armies aren't going to change too much, except to add more S8 or SP2 against plague marines and more high impact stuff against 1ksons.
Compare to marines, where the abilities and counters to, say, a Sicarious led Razorback horde are very different than a pedro led sternguard drop pod force.
I have to love that somehow I'm the guy in this argument accused of being disingenuous.
12004
Post by: endless
Yeah, but of those 575 pages how many are about 40k, nevermind CSM? Not bloody many.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Wow... what a load of hypothetical nonsense. It's like the world's greatest strawman attack mixed in with a healthy dose of leaps of logics, style-over-substance fallacies, false dilemas, false conclusions and slippery slope arguments - find a conclusion you don't think is workable and shoot that down rather than addressing anything anyone actually said. Awe inspiring really.
And way to completely miss the point of my ice cream analogy Gav - just spout random crap about different flavours with no actual substance.
I'll be going over this in detail later on today.
Oh, and I haven't read the whole text yet, just skimmed it as I'm at work, but if he says "Why can't we all get along" or "Can't we just agree to disagree" at any point then add a Golden Mean fallacy to the list.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
I understood what H meant when he talked about ice cream but I have no idea what Gav was trying to tell me. Icons still suck. 
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yes. Gav's ice cream spiel just really confused me.
17867
Post by: grimz
I was a bit confused by the extension of Gav's Ice cream analogy.
Wouldn't it be more fair to say that those other speciality ice cream shops are closed...permanently.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
That's because he wrote a whole paragraph of without managing to say anything.
It was a nonsense fluff answer, one I will relish dissecting...
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Way to harass someone not even working for the company anymore who did answer.
You don't like his answer, that is your problem, not his.
I've already discussed with Polonius the finer points of my hate for the 3.5 codex so again, not everyone has on rose colored glasses when looking at the previous codex H.
752
Post by: Polonius
Fateweaver wrote:Way to harass someone not even working for the company anymore who did answer.
You don't like his answer, that is your problem, not his.
I've already discussed with Polonius the finer points of my hate for the 3.5 codex so again, not everyone has on rose colored glasses when looking at the previous codex H.
Look, you can like what you like, and dislike what you dislike. But as I've pointed out, there are serious flaws with the current book that not only did the the 3.5 codex not have, but no other 4.5 or 5th codex has.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Polonius wrote:@ ozy: I do think so. I"m not sure where I said I didn't. What I"m saying is that those differences are less in practice than the differences offered by other codexes.
The cults fight differently, but all move the same, and have roughly the same threat range, and play in a fairly similar manner. Yes, the Berserkers will simply win combats that the Plague marines outlast, but they're still built around going to where the action is in a rhino and assaulting or shooting. What's more, the methods your opponent has for dealing with your armies aren't going to change too much, except to add more S8 or SP2 against plague marines and more high impact stuff against 1ksons.
Compare to marines, where the abilities and counters to, say, a Sicarious led Razorback horde are very different than a pedro led sternguard drop pod force.
I have to love that somehow I'm the guy in this argument accused of being disingenuous.
I never said you were the only one being disingenuous.
Frankly, if we're going by what you say, having cult lists wouldn't change the fact that a World Eaters Berzerker list would play similar to a Death Guard Plaguemarine list. If that's the case, your argument doesn't matter if people were using the 3.5 or the 4.0 codex. Granted, there would be a couple different options (daemon bomb, IW gunline) but you can get close to some of those with the current list (now everyone can have vindies and multiple units of Obits).
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Fateweaver wrote:Way to harass someone not even working for the company anymore who did answer.
You don't like his answer, that is your problem, not his.
Harrass? What are you blathering about. I'm going to respond, as in take what (little) he said, and explain where I think he got it wrong. That's not 'harrassing' that's 'rebuttal'.
Fateweaver wrote:I've already discussed with Polonius the finer points of my hate for the 3.5 codex so again, not everyone has on rose colored glasses when looking at the previous codex H.
No rose-coloured glasses here. I know the 3.5's flaws (starting with the disparity between 1KSons and Iron Warriors, the pointless options, the silly rulings in FAQ's etc.) but it is a superior Codex than the current load of nonsense for all the reasons I have detailed on many occasions.
You 'hate' the 3.5 Codex? I haven't read all the posts in this thread, only Gav's responce and then the few after mine, but summarise why you 'hate' it, especially when you consider that just about everything you can do now you could do with the old Codex (+ more).
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
H.B.M.C. wrote:That's because he wrote a whole paragraph of without managing to say anything.
It was a nonsense fluff answer, one I will relish dissecting...
Out of curiousity, what could he have said that made you happy? He obviously disagrees with you and he laid out why they made the choices they made, what else are you looking for? I wouldn't expect an apology, nor would I expect him to comment on specific rules or units as he already said a lot of it was written by Alessio and he can't speak for him.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Ozymandias wrote:Frankly, if we're going by what you say, having cult lists wouldn't change the fact that a World Eaters Berzerker list would play similar to a Death Guard Plaguemarine list. If that's the case, your argument doesn't matter if people were using the 3.5 or the 4.0 codex. Granted, there would be a couple different options (daemon bomb, IW gunline) but you can get close to some of those with the current list (now everyone can have vindies and multiple units of Obits).
Just off the top of my head:
There is no equivalent to the all-infiltrating Vet army.
There is no equivalent to the Lust-/Dust-/Blood-/Plauge-wing (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops).
There is no equivalent to the true Daemonbomb lists (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops, and suck anyway).
There is no equivalent to the IW (because there is zero indirect-firing ordnance left in the list).
There is no equivalent to the Alpha Legion (because there are no cultists).
I'm fairly sure those each offered a different play style. The only one even a little similar to a current CSM list is the IW, but only if you consider all gunlines the same.
5333
Post by: BeefyG
lord of corn wrote:man all this talk of Burritos and Ice cream is making me hungry, what kind of mushrooms are orks? portabello perhaps? and i think eldar have a distinct smell of escargot.
In all seriousness i think Gav just missed the mark when it came to creating a chaos codex that people wanted to to play, i don't think he truly understood what the majority of the chaos players expected and wanted. he created the codex the way he and a certain segment of chaos players would want but the problem was it did not gel with the majority of his audience.
its something that all designers must struggle with, creating something that is true to your vision and that excites you or something that excites your customer base, when both of these things align everyone is happy but when they do not you must defer to the customer.
This is a very good post and sums the situation up nicely. I think rather than analysing the specific parts that everyone hates about it ad infinitum that simple posts to the point of "This is not what I wanted as a consumer" are more effective and to the point.
All of the stalwarts would have to agree to the simple point that there are a lot of unsatisified customers out there in the real world as well as on the internetz. Volume speaks volumes and in my time I have not seen a larger point of customer dissatisfaction other than rules ambiguity.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Janthkin wrote:
Just off the top of my head:
There is no equivalent to the all-infiltrating Vet army.
You can still have 3 squads of infiltrators so you can partially get this list back.
There is no equivalent to the Lust-/Dust-/Blood-/Plauge-wing (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops).
Again, take 3 squads of Termies and min troops.
There is no equivalent to the true Daemonbomb lists (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops, and suck anyway).
Agreed.
There is no equivalent to the IW (because there is zero indirect-firing ordnance left in the list).
That was only one style of IW. The mass Obits is still there. Indeed, now other lists can make a similar force so some restrictions were removed.
There is no equivalent to the Alpha Legion (because there are no cultists).
Well with "counts as".... nah, ok, you're right, this one won't work. The idea I had was to use the SM dex with INQ allies (after all, the AL are really loyalists...).
I guess I just don't understand the need for special rules to make a force unique. Here's and example I gave on our local boards having this exact same discussion:
After reading the Soul Drinkers novels I thought, "Wouldn't it be cool to start a Soul Drinkers SM army." It didn't matter that there weren't any rules for the Soul Drinkers, with some imagination and "counts as" (like using Sarpedon, a Librarian with spiders legs, as counting as on a bike) I could make a good approximation of a Soul Drinkers force using existing SM or CSM rules.
6035
Post by: Techboss
I stopped reading once I got to:
Let’s start by combining the contents of Codex: Chaos Space Marines and Codex: Daemons. 192 pages of cool Chaos stuff. But we don’t have any god- or Legion-specific stuff yet. This is where any potential developer faces the first big decision, and there’s no right or wrong answer. The background of Chaos is divided along two separate yet overlapping themes.
Even though I probably took it completely out of context, the guy still fails to get the point.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ozymandias wrote:
I never said you were the only one being disingenuous.
But I was the one you called out. You know what I meant.
Frankly, if we're going by what you say, having cult lists wouldn't change the fact that a World Eaters Berzerker list would play similar to a Death Guard Plaguemarine list. If that's the case, your argument doesn't matter if people were using the 3.5 or the 4.0 codex. Granted, there would be a couple different options (daemon bomb, IW gunline) but you can get close to some of those with the current list (now everyone can have vindies and multiple units of Obits).
Well, the cult lists won't change too much. The icons, while a poor stop gap, really do allow the cult lists to be built. I'd prefer genuine cult terminators and/or bikers, but you take what you get. I still think adding a "retinue" option to each cult special character wouldn't be out line. Something like:
Kharne: One Unit of bikes or Terminators may be upgraded to berzerker status for +10 points a model. The models gain fearless, +1WS, and furious charge.
Asurman: May take a retinue of Aspiring Sorcerers at 40pts a peice plus psychic powers.
Typhus: One unit of Terminators maybe be upgraded to plauge terminators for +10pts a model. The models gain +1T, FnP, blight grenades, and Fearless, but lose -1 I.
lucius: One unit of Bikes or terminators may be upgraded to Noise havoks for +10pts a model. The models gain +1 I, Fearless, and replace all combi-bolters with sonic blasters, but may take no other ranged weapons.
Add the following special characters:
Alpha Legion sneaky guy: May take one squad of Chosen as troops. Lesser demons may be deployed normally rather than summoned. One squad of Chaos Marines without a transport may ambush: deepstrike the squad as normal, re-rolling scatter if wished. The squad get's +1 save, or a 5+ cover save if in the open, for the next turn.
Night Lords Biker dude: Bikers count as troops.
Word Bearers Dark Apostle: Demons may purchase Icons. In addition, all Demons with 12" of the Dark Apostle gain fleet.
Iron Warriors Warsmith: One Defiler may be taken as a troops choice. All models in the army may re-roll close combat attacks against vehicles.
That adds a bit of variety.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
Let us all agree,
Chocolate is the best ice-cream though,
There is a reason why vanilla is also known as plain.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ozymandias wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:That's because he wrote a whole paragraph of without managing to say anything.
It was a nonsense fluff answer, one I will relish dissecting...
Out of curiousity, what could he have said that made you happy? He obviously disagrees with you and he laid out why they made the choices they made, what else are you looking for? I wouldn't expect an apology, nor would I expect him to comment on specific rules or units as he already said a lot of it was written by Alessio and he can't speak for him.
I think there could have been some recognition that not everything GW does is the best ever. Saying that they did their best, and they're sorry people are upset, but that they're going to learn and avoid doing so again.
You can acknowledge that people are upset without really admitting to do anything wrong.
6035
Post by: Techboss
Janthkin wrote:
Just off the top of my head:
There is no equivalent to the all-infiltrating Vet army.
There is no equivalent to the Lust-/Dust-/Blood-/Plauge-wing (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops).
There is no equivalent to the true Daemonbomb lists (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops, and suck anyway).
There is no equivalent to the IW (because there is zero indirect-firing ordnance left in the list).
There is no equivalent to the Alpha Legion (because there are no cultists).
I'm fairly sure those each offered a different play style. The only one even a little similar to a current CSM list is the IW, but only if you consider all gunlines the same.
The thing that always annoyed me, in addition to the above, is that a Worldeater Berserker looses Furious Charge upon becoming a champion, terminator or any other more "veteran" troop choice.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Polonius wrote:Ozymandias wrote:
I never said you were the only one being disingenuous.
But I was the one you called out. You know what I meant.
I called you out cause I know you usually hold yourself to a higher standard than the people you are arguing with.
Frankly, if we're going by what you say, having cult lists wouldn't change the fact that a World Eaters Berzerker list would play similar to a Death Guard Plaguemarine list. If that's the case, your argument doesn't matter if people were using the 3.5 or the 4.0 codex. Granted, there would be a couple different options (daemon bomb, IW gunline) but you can get close to some of those with the current list (now everyone can have vindies and multiple units of Obits).
Well, the cult lists won't change too much. The icons, while a poor stop gap, really do allow the cult lists to be built. I'd prefer genuine cult terminators and/or bikers, but you take what you get. I still think adding a "retinue" option to each cult special character wouldn't be out line. Something like:
Kharne: One Unit of bikes or Terminators may be upgraded to berzerker status for +10 points a model. The models gain fearless, +1WS, and furious charge.
Asurman: May take a retinue of Aspiring Sorcerers at 40pts a peice plus psychic powers.
Typhus: One unit of Terminators maybe be upgraded to plauge terminators for +10pts a model. The models gain +1T, FnP, blight grenades, and Fearless, but lose -1 I.
lucius: One unit of Bikes or terminators may be upgraded to Noise havoks for +10pts a model. The models gain +1 I, Fearless, and replace all combi-bolters with sonic blasters, but may take no other ranged weapons.
Add the following special characters:
Alpha Legion sneaky guy: May take one squad of Chosen as troops. Lesser demons may be deployed normally rather than summoned. One squad of Chaos Marines without a transport may ambush: deepstrike the squad as normal, re-rolling scatter if wished. The squad get's +1 save, or a 5+ cover save if in the open, for the next turn.
Night Lords Biker dude: Bikers count as troops.
Word Bearers Dark Apostle: Demons may purchase Icons. In addition, all Demons with 12" of the Dark Apostle gain fleet.
Iron Warriors Warsmith: One Defiler may be taken as a troops choice. All models in the army may re-roll close combat attacks against vehicles.
That adds a bit of variety.
I agree with the above and I think that had Chaos been written later in the development cycle this is how it would have been. I expect the 5th ed Chaos dex to use the "Special Character Unlocking Mechanic" tm You take a Warsmith, you get defilers as Fast Attack or elite, take Lord McNight and you get scout, etc. I also expect some return of some of the Chaos wargear like cool weapons, armor, and gifts, but in the style of SM as opposed to the atrocity that was the 3.5 wargear options.
That being said, it doesn't mean that the current dex is as horrible as most make it out to be.
752
Post by: Polonius
The current book is actually a pretty amazing compromise, in that they came pretty close to allowing some half assed counts as for most things in the old book without a bunch of special characters, special rules, or wacky wargear.
I just think they cut a little too deep, and could have plussed up the codex a little more, and made it bigger and badder.
And I don't want to sound overly tetchy, but I really don't think I was arguing in bad faith. So, not only was I the only one you called out, I still don't think I deserved it.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I agree. I guess what tends to irk me is the complete hyperbole that comes out when people discuss this codex. I agree there are things they could do better, but to call it the worst codex ever or completely soulless or whatever is just silly. Then again, this is the internet...
EDIT: Polonius added this after I posted my response:
And I don't want to sound overly tetchy, but I really don't think I was arguing in bad faith. So, not only was I the only one you called out, I still don't think I deserved it.
I disagree. You are usually more than happy to call out someone for making statements that are overblown or disingenuous, all I was doing was calling out one post that you made (you can see it above) for the what I believe was the same.
4001
Post by: Compel
Well, I'm going to start off by saying, I'm not a chaos player. Imperial Guard, to be honest and one that is really very happy with the new codex.
I wasn't entirely clued up on Chaos 3.5, although I did have chaos 3, not that I can remember much of it.
However, I have been playing against the most recent chaos codex against one of my mates fairly often recently.
And, I've got to say, standing from an outsiders viewpoint the chaos codex doesn't seem to be that bad.
Honestly, going from the internet talk alone (both here and warseer), I actually honestly did think that there were no aligned chaos marines.
Then, last night, a chaos marine squad, painted in the colours of the Emperors Children charged Marbo and I found out they were the same initiative as him (5). Poor Marbo crapped himself and I was a little confused.
"I thought they weren't noise marines."
"They're not, they're chaos marines with the icon of slaanesh, which increases their initiative."
"Ah... So they're Slaanesh Chaos Marines."
"Yeah, though they lose the bonus if the icon bearer dies"
"That's what all the complainings about? Bleepity beep."
Is it that Terminators aren't allowed icons or something? Is that one of the complaints?
I mean, honestly, looking across the board at a Chaos Marine army, you see 1000 sons, Berserkers, some normal (IE black ) chaos marines, then the marked pink slaanesh chaos marines. You look at it and say, ok, 4 different units with different loyalties, that's as much a chaos army as I'd recognise it.
Now, even I, as an outsider have noticed some failings with the list. And, I'll be honest, one is a pretty dang big failing, the whole demons fiasco. But, it just seems to me to basically be a GW brain fart not to have extended the 'icon' rules to the demons. Yes, it's sucky, yes, it's not as good as it could have been, but it's not the end of the world(eaters) as it seems the interwebs would have me believe.
Now, moving on to what Gav said in his response, yeah I think he missed the point of the ice cream analogy, then again, I'm fairly sure by the end of it, I had missed it too.
However, I think he's said the best things he could have said, in a roundabout way admittedly, without criticising his/Alessio's works.
This might be very much wishful thinking on my part, but it seemed almost, that reading between the lines, the codex was very much being written along the lines of Codex Space Marines and he almost seemed to be saying, without actually outright saying it, that at the time, he was proceeding along the belief that there would be 'Legion' codices in the not-too-distant future, with the self/company arse covering of, "but I don't know what the plan is now."
It's also worth pointing out that in his big breakdown of all the options, he didn't actually say once that having multiple self-contained legion codices spread out over time was a bad idea, or a bad thing. To be honest, it seemed to me that he was saying that every other option was undesirable to that 'ideal.'
You know, if I was an optimist and a conspiracy nut at the same time, I would actually be thinking there was a bit of a plan in writing this blog. Gav has said "I am not a member of the studio anymore and therefore can't speak for them." Not being a member of the studio probably means he can't directly influence their course either. But, think, if he's actually 'campaigning' internally for the legion codices, just some words in their ears or whatever, this is a pretty good way of getting support. If he tells *us* why all the other options are crap, and why his codex isn't the be-all-and-end-all, but still fills a specific niche, he is able to go point at the bean counters as say, "although I no longer work for the studio, you may wish to look here and see there is a business case for writing a(t least one) Legions codex."
In essence, the Codex Chaos Marines was designed as a prototype for the relationship 5th edition Codex Space Marines has with (for example) Space Wolves and others, but, for whatever reason, the accountants may have decided 'chaos is done' (after all, multiple imperial marines codices have a stronger business case in their eyes) and under the guise of defending Codex Chaos Marines, Gav has also (re)laid the groundwork for the why Legions codices are well, worthwhile, compared to the other alternatives.
If I were an optimist and conspiracy theorist...
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
H.B.M.C. wrote:Fateweaver wrote:Way to harass someone not even working for the company anymore who did answer.
You don't like his answer, that is your problem, not his.
Harrass? What are you blathering about. I'm going to respond, as in take what (little) he said, and explain where I think he got it wrong. That's not 'harrassing' that's 'rebuttal'.
Fateweaver wrote:I've already discussed with Polonius the finer points of my hate for the 3.5 codex so again, not everyone has on rose colored glasses when looking at the previous codex H.
No rose-coloured glasses here. I know the 3.5's flaws (starting with the disparity between 1KSons and Iron Warriors, the pointless options, the silly rulings in FAQ's etc.) but it is a superior Codex than the current load of nonsense for all the reasons I have detailed on many occasions.
You 'hate' the 3.5 Codex? I haven't read all the posts in this thread, only Gav's responce and then the few after mine, but summarise why you 'hate' it, especially when you consider that just about everything you can do now you could do with the old Codex (+ more).
Why I hate? Well, the whiners;ahem protesters, hate that the new codex made their army LESS fun or took away pointless options like Daemonic Fire and other gifts I hardly saw used or took away rules that were either overpowered (Siren, IWOD) and instead left IW's and NL's as just spiky Marines or took away cult terminators.
Point. Cult terminators. Okay, maybe a big deal to some but at least you can use the models for the most part. Might have to counts as Sonic weapons but thems the breaks. Other armies have had to replace guys/weapon options.
Point. In 3.0 I could and did field 2 squads of Juggers. As it is now it was expensive back in the days of 3.0 to buy 16 Juggers; Hell I saved up money for 2 months from my part time job to buy those models. In 3.5 "Oh we are sorry, even though you can play a World Eaters force using the Book of Khorne and gain it's bonuses and restrictions only Champions and Lords can have Juggernaughts now. Well, seeing as how I could not field 16 Champions in my army anymore the best I could do was 8 but only if I put them on foot. Yeah, not a huge problem except for.
Point. I did not see ONE benefit to taking and playing a World Eaters (Book of Khorne) army. Some cool wargear and the free champ for units of 8 was kind of nice but in order to mitigate the effects of my dudes running after vehicles they can't catch I had to put them in Rhinos, hope my squads wouldn't frenzy turn 1 which would allow me to maybe get them close through rhino delivery so that IF I rolled a 1 (or 1-2 as I took the gift that made them frenzy on a 1 or 2 seeing as how if my dudes decided to get out on foot and run I was at least going to increase the odds of getting somewhere) that the frenzy might mean them assaulting someone.
Last point and the one many haters can't seem to realize. Me, myself and I cannot stand the 3.5 codex because it brought my army to it's knees as far as playability and FUN. My army was loads of fun in 2nd ed, great fun in 3rd ed (despite the hate of that codex too) and lost that fun with 3.5, forcing me to play an army I didn't enjoy or selling it or shelving it until the next codex. I sold my Chaos to a friend who ended up going from a WE army to BL as it was a lot more fun for him and less frustrating. My beloved army I enjoyed so much ceased to exist and got lobotomized into something NOT FUN and something NOT World Eaters.
I might start a Khornate army again, not because World Eaters MAY get a codex of their own in 3-10 or 15 years but because I can do damn near everything I did with the 3.0 codex. My troops won't suck, their transports are harder to kill than they were when 3.5 came out and I can get some of the resin Zerker terminator bits to make some Khornate terminators. So they won't be TRUE Berserker terminators. I'll give them IoK, make them all Champions and UNTIL the Icon carrier dies they'll be as good as they were in 3rd (or nearly as the only thing I remember is them being Fearless and that's a double-edged sword.
So, what was fun for the 4.5 haters was not fun for me. I get insulted when the haters say "Chaos Players". I'm a Chaos player but please do not insult me by lumping me in with your kind. I never played RT but have played World Eaters since 2nd edition when all they were was CSM's who took ONLY Berserkers as troops and a marked lord. The restrictions and the insult that was the supposed benefits to playing a WE army in 3.5 made my army UNFUN.
Wow, lots to say but that is how I feel H. So my reason for not liking the 3.5 was the same as your reason currently is for 4.5. Your army is apparently bland and boring and you feel it's unusable. We think alike, I got over it and don't feel the need to berate a developer over it, especially one not even working for GW anymore. THAT is our difference.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
Compel: Thanks for that, I appreciated the stream of consciousness.
I suppose the issue that people have with the current way the legions are catered for is so much less... what's the word... interesting and fun (Not less powerful as this codex is indeed very powerful) than the last one.
It's not that the codex doesn't have them.
It's that it is bland in comparison to everything else that they have created as of late (and woefully compared to the much more diverse previous codex).
I am not of the opinion that I don't like this codex.
But there are some bits that just irk me (because of the streamlining).
Daemon Princes - They have so few options that it really is a joke.
Greater Daemons - You couldn't have made these more generic than this, I mean just boring. For me this was worse than removing them (but I think I might be in the minority on this point).
Daemons - enough has been said on this
Legions - Suddenly the flavour has been condensed into single units that are controlled by icons. I understand what they have done, I just don't like it (fun wise) compared to before. To say I forget I am a nurgle warrior because my flag went oops is just a little too much for me to bear really.
As for Gav's answer,
I am really thankful that he did this,
I just hope that he understands that most of us want fun not just streamlined.
I play chaos because it was fun, this codex just doesn't seem to allow you to go nuts in the same way as before (but doesn't give you much option other than Lashes!!)
The space wolves dex is fun (totally overpowered, but that is a different and really not something that I care too much about),
Same thing with the current marine book,
they are diverse and unique, with... flavour... to get your teeth into.
Just some rambling thoughts... Automatically Appended Next Post: Fate:
I feel your pain, I too have quite a few Juggers from back in 2nd ed (I think...)
I agree that some options were silly (daemonic fire is a great example).
But the wargear list was something that I felt worked,
all of a sudden it's gone... why???? I just don't get it, there is no real need to do that.
And now we are left with such minimal characters and bosses where marines (the closest equivalent) have 100 options, chaos has 5.
That's where I (not yourself I suppose) feel disappointed.
You're right in saying that you felt the same way when you lost an option of playing you juggernaughts, well, people lost the option to play entire armies that now no longer remotely can be put on the table because of the streamlining.
It's the same sort of thing that irked you before,
but on a bigger scale.
Just it seems now that it wasn't as personal (which is a healthy way to treat it, just not so much fun ranting on the net )
752
Post by: Polonius
Just a quick note: you could field Chosen on Juggernauts if you wanted to back in 3.5. Admittedly they were 68pts a piece with chain axes, but that got you a marine with two wounds, 5 attacks, Strength5, and they can still buy more wargear. So, they weren't eliminated, just made very pricey.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Ah yes, but as everything else deemed overpriced, not worth it in the least and it's too bad doing so would have disallowed me to take all my termies.
GW giveth and taketh away. I lost stuff and they gave me stuff in return (like a non useless army), the shoe is on the same foot my friend.
268
Post by: Mosg
I read through Gav's reply twice... I can't see where he directly confronted any of H's points.
I don't understand any of his ice cream analogies.
I don't understand how he can claim there is no room for all the fluff and rules for a 4 Legion plus Daemons codex when... That's what we had! It wasn't perfect, but jeebus...
He had some great points... None of which were actually related to the discussion at hand.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Mosg wrote:
I don't understand how he can claim there is no room for all the fluff and rules for a 4 Legion plus Daemons codex when... That's what we had! It wasn't perfect, but jeebus...
I had the same problem with his response...
Mosg wrote:
He had some great points... None of which were actually related to the discussion at hand.
Sad, but true!
The old bait and switch/smoke and mirrors defense then?
9598
Post by: Quintinus
I don't care what Gav says.
He's covering his own butt.
That's fine, I don't mind. If I wrote such a pointless rag of drivel that people have had the misfortune to read, I'd want to cover my own ass too. Unfortunately of course I am insulting "pointless rags of drivel that people have the misfortune to read", even those may have some merit to it. This book has none.
Do I want Slaves to Darkness/Lost and Damned II? Yes. 3.5 has nothing on these books. You could do whatever the crud you wanted in those books. (Well okay, not ANYTHING. But that's just nitpicking. There are more daemon weapon abilities than weapon options! Come on!)
There were more options in just the World Eaters, or Emperor's Children, then pretty much in this entire book. That's pathetic.
It's completely pathetic that I can make a more background-worthy Khornate army with fething Space Wolves. That's right, Space Wolves.
Many Legions are better represented by a Spess Mehreenz Hurr codex, and to me that's a fething shame.
Chaos Space Marines were Chaos Space Marines. Not "Space Marines Gone Bad!"
They weren't Spiky Marines. Very few of the original Traitors even had spikes. I'm still in the process of making my Chaos army, but spikes are few and far inbetween, let me tell you that.
Rant over.
18471
Post by: Lord-Loss
He still hasnt told us why there is only one valid Competitive chaos build...
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Lord-Loss wrote:He still hasnt told us why there is only one valid Competitive chaos build...
Counts-as! Durr!
No more restrictions!
Legions is coming out in 20 years! That's why this book is like is! Hurr!
Uh...uh...potatoes!
6084
Post by: theHandofGork
Lord-Loss wrote:He still hasnt told us why there is only one valid Competitive chaos build...
It's because only tourney players care about competitive builds and tourney players are bad.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
theHandofGork wrote:Lord-Loss wrote:He still hasnt told us why there is only one valid Competitive chaos build...
It's because only tourney players care about competitive builds and tourney players are bad.
They also kill babies and drink their blood. For fun.
-This brought to you by the Casual Gaming Mafia. If you play to win, you're a babykiller.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:I really don't think I was arguing in bad faith.
Neither do I think that that you argued in bad faith per se, though I do believe that you grossly overstate the situation moving from 3.0 to 3.5.
From a pure design standpoint, the 3.5 CSM book has a certain elegance and economy that hasn't been seen in a very long while, and I really admire that. Could it be "better", sure, if we all could agree on what "better" meant.
I don't much like the insinuation that simple, argued disagreement or non-majority-conformant POVs are somehow disingenuous. There is room for disagreement in the perception of the army book, and it is certainly good enough for a large number of players. That it may be popular on Dakka to lambaste Gav for writing the book, and others for liking it, seems rather unsporting.
Finally, this notion that 3.5 players have somehow lost more than 3.0 players or Eldar or IG (for those that are counting, that's 3 of my major, active armies) is very irritating.
Regardless, within 3 or 4 years, we'll have a new CSM book, and go through the whole process all over again...
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
"Better to say nothing and have people think you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."
In the army, my old platoon sergeant said "at night, you should pray for war, to that in the morning, you can go to work." Now, I pray for Any Chambers, so that I can play good 40K (and other GW games).
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:Polonius wrote:I really don't think I was arguing in bad faith.
Neither do I think that that you argued in bad faith per se, though I do believe that you grossly overstate the situation moving from 3.0 to 3.5.
From a pure design standpoint, the 3.5 CSM book has a certain elegance and economy that hasn't been seen in a very long while, and I really admire that. Could it be "better", sure, if we all could agree on what "better" meant.
I don't much like the insinuation that simple, argued disagreement or non-majority-conformant POVs are somehow disingenuous. There is room for disagreement in the perception of the army book, and it is certainly good enough for a large number of players. That it may be popular on Dakka to lambaste Gav for writing the book, and others for liking it, seems rather unsporting.
Finally, this notion that 3.5 players have somehow lost more than 3.0 players or Eldar or IG (for those that are counting, that's 3 of my major, active armies) is very irritating.
Regardless, within 3 or 4 years, we'll have a new CSM book, and go through the whole process all over again...
And here's the crux of the thing. 3.5 players did lose more than 3.0 players or eldar players or IG players. It's been demonstrated. If you find it irritating, show how eldar players lost more. Or IG players. Go ahead and do it. But since you simply cannot do so, it might be time to admit that this was the most radical shift in codex design since the switch to 3rd edition.
So yes, I think it's a little disingenuous to ignore my evidence and facts, and then claim to be irritated by my conclusions. Like I've said a few times, there are two reasons for the amount of controversy involved in this codex: either the codex was particularly jarring, or chaos players are inherently prone to drama. the latter simply seems unlikely, while the former has some really good evidence (loss of LatD, sweeping consolidation of demons, loss of cultists and basilisks, loss of legions with no replacement, and a dramatic shift in tone from the legions to renegades). Show me how the new Eldar book was as sweeping a change, and we can talk.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
Compel wrote:
Then, last night, a chaos marine squad, painted in the colours of the Emperors Children charged Marbo and I found out they were the same initiative as him (5). Poor Marbo crapped himself and I was a little confused.
"I thought they weren't noise marines."
"They're not, they're chaos marines with the icon of slaanesh, which increases their initiative."
"Ah... So they're Slaanesh Chaos Marines."
"Yeah, though they lose the bonus if the icon bearer dies"
"That's what all the complainings about? Bleepity beep."
Is it that Terminators aren't allowed icons or something? Is that one of the complaints?
No. The thing about the icons is that there - for some reason nobody unterstands - is a major difference between the actual cult troop choice and anything wearing an icon.
e.g. Plague Marines (troop choice) have T4(5), I3, blight grenades, FnP and are fearless. Any other unit, even HQ, who get an icon have T4(5).
I could actually live without the Demons in smaller battles. But not with what I described above.
It has been said before. 3.5. wasn't perfect, but it did a pretty good job in covering pretty much every kind of Chaos army without violating the fluff.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Ozymandias wrote:
I agree with the above and I think that had Chaos been written later in the development cycle this is how it would have been. I expect the 5th ed Chaos dex to use the "Special Character Unlocking Mechanic"tm You take a Warsmith, you get defilers as Fast Attack or elite, take Lord McNight and you get scout, etc. I also expect some return of some of the Chaos wargear like cool weapons, armor, and gifts, but in the style of SM as opposed to the atrocity that was the 3.5 wargear options.
I agree entirely. It's awkward for GW here I think. They do streamlined codices and, generally, people aren't all that impressed and prefer more complex and option rich codices. GW start to do that ( with the orks, marines and guard ) and people complain that their book doesn't have that yet would complain if the chaos book and others jumped the line and were done again befroe other longer serving books.
Course IF you get it right straight off the bat you avoid this problem.
I just think they cut a little too deep, and could have plussed up the codex a little more, and made it bigger and badder.
Agreed. I actually think if you were to remove the current special characters and add reworked/new ones along the lines of what we can now get in the later codices (ie these would unlock options or alter the force org chart) then you'd actually have a pretty good book. Is there really that much wrong with a chaos lord on a bike leading a unit of bikers ? Hell rework Doomrider and...hmm.... actually scratch that idea, some things are best left behind.
I'm a bit irked that they didn't bother folding in any of the newer HH fluff, but arguing over whether or not you like the fluff is fairly pointless..even ON THE INTERNET.
With regards to the legions, whilst I'm sure they'd love to do them I really don't see it happening anytime soon or even in this edition. Next years pretty much tied down to fantasy AFAIU ( cough "henry" cough) and purely reworking the still OOD codices will take a while.
I think the best option for extra stuff is to fold in and use the units from the FW books, at least the Nurgle and Khorne guys got some cool stuff in the last book.
9779
Post by: Tarondor
Gw seem very confused with themselves. They say the codexs are for gamers, not tournament players. Then say codexs can't intermingle because of slight slight disbalance.
They should just have a note in the army selection saying 'If you're playing with friends, here's how you mix Codex: CSM and Codex aemons'
Why's that so hard? Seems the best of both worlds, no mixing in tournaments, mixing with friends being told how you can go about it.
We need to bring back the Hobby as a hobby, not a tournament game.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
More anti-tournament nonsense.
Why must the two be separate? Why can't people enjoy the aspects of the hobby that they enjoy the most without being talked down to by someone who things that what they like is what the real 'hobby' is.
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Makaleth wrote:Let us all agree,
Chocolate is the best ice-cream though,
There is a reason why vanilla is also known as plain.
I humbly submit Butter Pecan. Go forth, and try it....
9779
Post by: Tarondor
I didn't mean to say Tournaments aren't part of the 'real' hobby.
I'm a tournament player, I write army lists as Tournament lists, it's hard not to without thinking the list will lose all the time. When you write a tournament list it's completely different to a normal army list, I write normal army lists for 100% fun whereas tournament lists are always going to be competitive. You cant have army lists that cater to both properlly and even if you can I was adressing the point of Chaos.
If GW insist on not mixing Daemons, Chaos Space Marines and what might be Chaos Renegades to keep games more balanced then they should cater for those (unlike me) who don't write lists competitively and just for fun by having a section on how to mix the both.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Vladsimpaler wrote:Lord-Loss wrote:He still hasnt told us why there is only one valid Competitive chaos build...
Counts-as! Durr!
No more restrictions!
Legions is coming out in 20 years! That's why this book is like is! Hurr!
Uh...uh...potatoes!
Modquisition on. Every will remember Rule #1. Further posts of this nature by anyone will result in a review for potential disciplinary proceedings. Thank you for your bidness.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Why warn Vlad? I can't even see what he did wrong.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
Janthkin wrote:
Just off the top of my head:
There is no equivalent to the all-infiltrating Vet army.
There is no equivalent to the Lust-/Dust-/Blood-/Plauge-wing (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops).
There is no equivalent to the true Daemonbomb lists (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops, and suck anyway).
There is no equivalent to the IW (because there is zero indirect-firing ordnance left in the list).
There is no equivalent to the Alpha Legion (because there are no cultists).
I'm fairly sure those each offered a different play style. The only one even a little similar to a current CSM list is the IW, but only if you consider all gunlines the same.
I apologize if this is not what you meant, but I want to use this quote as more a general feeling I get from some of the posts on this topic.
I get the feeling that some of the gripes on here are from people who can't spam a unit through 1850pts and play. This version of the chaos dex won't allow spamming of good units and players are forced to diversify their armies. An IW army is not defined as 9 Oblits and 4 indirect fire ordanance templates, just as one example. This version of the chaos dex is very playable and very competitive in tournament formats. IMO there are several possible top builds and no one build template that can be copied over and over again. In that regard I say the current chaos codex is a success.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
This version won't allow spamming?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
2xLash Prince
3x Plague Marine Squads
9xObliterators/Defilers/Vindicators
with seasoning.
That is the No. 1 most played chaos list, and it is built entirely around spamming good units.
1795
Post by: keezus
Ozymandias wrote:Janthkin wrote:
Just off the top of my head:
There is no equivalent to the all-infiltrating Vet army.
You can still have 3 squads of infiltrators so you can partially get this list back.
There is no equivalent to the Lust-/Dust-/Blood-/Plauge-wing (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops).
Again, take 3 squads of Termies and min troops.
There is no equivalent to the true Daemonbomb lists (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops, and suck anyway).
Agreed.
There is no equivalent to the IW (because there is zero indirect-firing ordnance left in the list).
That was only one style of IW. The mass Obits is still there. Indeed, now other lists can make a similar force so some restrictions were removed.
Ozy: IMO, this is where GW presents players with "choice" that is no choice...
Nobody uses the 3 infiltrating chosen squad army. It is bad because:
1. They can't score.
2. They have no daemon support - in particular now that the army is reduced to three static points, the loss of flying daemons hurts!
3. They have no infiltrating character support. Even if characters could still infiltrate, they are vastly reduced in power due to the revised armory.
Nobody uses the 3 terminator / min troops army due to the fact that:
1. There is no good daemon support - which negates the purpose of the chaoswing armies. Now that the cult rules are gone, even if the player is using generic daemons, the loss of the +1 to summon "numbered" sized units vastly reduces the consistency of reserve rolls.
2. Character support is incredibly limited due to the immensely reduced armory.
3. Generally exhibits utter helplessness in missions requiring scoring units.
The real reason gunlines are gone from Chaos is threefold:
1. 10 men to get a heavy weapon instead of 5. (1/2 reduction in heavy weapons from troops slots)
2. Obliterators moved to heavy support (1/2 reduction in heavy weapons from the slots with premium heavy weapon density)
3. Supporting indirect fire is gone.
As an aside, now that AV14 vindicators are gone, they have somewhat lost their lustre, especially when directly competing with Obliterators for the "support" slot.
Trying to convince those players that their builds are still (edit) viable (/edit) is wishful thinking at best, and insulting to their inteligence at worst.
443
Post by: skyth
DarthDiggler wrote:
I get the feeling that some of the gripes on here are from people who can't spam a unit through 1850pts and play. This version of the chaos dex won't allow spamming of good units and players are forced to diversify their armies. .
As the poster before says, you can still spam units. The difference is that the different armies mentioned before had a different feel/playstyle, partially backed up by the variety you had in the troops before that you don't now.
Before you had Cult Troops(With Vet skills), CSM (With Vet Skills), and/or Daemons. Now you have cult troops and/or CSM w/Icons. All the CSM's with Icons have about the same feel. A list built with only daemons as troops has an entirely different playstyle. A list built around infiltrating troops has a different playstyle. A list built on long-range firepower has a different playstyle. A list built around Mechanized troops has a different playstyle. The different playstyles are what is missed.
If your army had one of the playstyles that is no longer supported in the new 'dex (Anything but Mech builds) then the new 'dex effectively took away your army. Yes, you have the building blocks of a new one if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that if you built a type of list, it was a style of list that you enjoyed playing and can't play any more. That is the biggest problem with the new Chaos Codex.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
JohnHwangDD wrote:@dietrich:
Please feel free to use the Dakka search - it's in there, shortly after the current Codex was released.
But good job of proving my point about the gamer collective mind.
____
Frazzled wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...
We were doing good until you said that, having a polite discussion on the merits. The hyperbole destroys the discussion.
And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.
Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.
I mean, if that isn't the case, and I've completely missed the mark, then I apologize. But it sure seems like that...
Actually, that's not my argument at all.
I felt the C: CSM 3.5 was one of the most interesting, flexible, fluff-filled and fun codices ever. I admit that some things needed some tweaking, but I loved it over all.
I wanted GW to bring all the other codices up to par with the C: CSM 3.5 in regards to how much fun and flexible it was to play with.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
Comment from the Blog:
Sorry Gav, but you dropped the ball here so hard it went through the starship’s deck plating, ruptured the Geller field and sucked us all into the warp.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
skyth wrote:
If your army had one of the playstyles that is no longer supported in the new 'dex (Anything but Mech builds) then the new 'dex effectively took away your army. Yes, you have the building blocks of a new one if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that if you built a type of list, it was a style of list that you enjoyed playing and can't play any more. That is the biggest problem with the new Chaos Codex.
Agreed with this. My C: CSM 3.5 list was an all infiltrating Alpha Legion list. It was fairly competitive, but hardly game breaking. I enjoyed the fluff aspect of having the sneaky fore-running renegade marines (only about 150 points of mutations in my 2000 point list) setting the stage on a new planet for the incursions of the chaos hordes.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not any single codex that I can even re-create this army even using the "counts as" rules. I guess I could possibly approximate it with tons of Scouts or maybe a Kroot Mercenaries list, but the units are so very different that the play style wouldn't come close to what my old Alpha Legion was like.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:3.5 players did lose more than 3.0 players or eldar players or IG players. It's been demonstrated. If you find it irritating, show how eldar players lost more. Or IG players.
Go ahead and do it. But since you simply cannot do so, it might be time to admit that this was the most radical shift in codex design since the switch to 3rd edition.
chaos players are inherently prone to drama. the latter simply seems unlikely,
In my case, as I've stated before, I lost the following: - all dual-Heavy 5-Veteran MoCU 3.0 CSM - all- DS / Light Infantry Camo with massed Plasma Guard - all-Aspect (Reaper & Scorpion) Troop Biel-Tan Eldar Further, under 3.5, there simply wasn't a way to make a Raptor-heavy, Defiler-heavy force with varied Cult Marine Troops, but I gained that option under the new CSM. But since you're big on "proof", go ahead and "prove" how my losses pale compared to the typical 3.5 CSM player. Go on. I can piss up a wall, so why can't you? This wasn't a radical shift at all. If you break out your 3.0 CSM book, or your 3E Rulebook, it's practically the same. So if anything it's not a "radical shift", but a return to its roots. A radical shift would be something like pigeon-holing every CSM player into one of a dozen or so little boxes, or perhaps removing Marks or Cult units altogether. From the sheer amount of whining and crying over this topic, it seems that the facts support such a conclusion. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Um, Fraz... Are you sure you quoted the right guy? Or the right post? I don't see the word "everyone" anywhere in what you quoted. Very confused.
Also, chainaxes simply count as CCWs now...
18045
Post by: Snord
Anung Un Rama wrote:Comment from the Blog:
Sorry Gav, but you dropped the ball here so hard it went through the starship’s deck plating, ruptured the Geller field and sucked us all into the warp.
I bet even Thorpe got a giggle out of that one.
Guys, isn't this all rather old now? From all the sound and fury, you'd think the latest Chaos codex had come out within the last 6 months, and not years ago. Surely by now most Chaos players (as distinct from Chaos whiners) have replaced what needed to be replaced, adapted their tactics and moved on - or started a different army? Quite a few Ork players felt they'd been stiffed in some respects by the new Ork codex last year (and it was riddled with typoes), but only the real diehards can summon up the energy to rant through multiple threads about it.
17748
Post by: Dark Lord Seanron
I must admit, as an ex-Chaos player, the older Codices really did allow you to taylor your force.
As with everything GW related, everything from the Hobby, to the Video Games and even the books and comics have become Space Marine-centric. I mean sure, Space Marines are cool, but they appear to be pumping support into the old SM at the detrement of other forces.
It's fairly black & white for myself, if forces such as the Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Black Templars (who aren't even one of the original legions) deserve their own codexes, then why don't the infinately more interesting and fun World Eaters, Death Guard and Thousand Sons?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think the fact that there is still vocal dissent is probably a pretty good indicator that the codex was a failure in terms of pleasing the existing customer base.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
JohnHwangDD wrote:In my case, as I've stated before, I lost the following:
- all dual-Heavy 5-Veteran MoCU 3.0 CSM
- all-DS / Light Infantry Camo with massed Plasma Guard
- all-Aspect (Reaper & Scorpion) Troop Biel-Tan Eldar
Further, under 3.5, there simply wasn't a way to make a Raptor-heavy, Defiler-heavy force with varied Cult Marine Troops, but I gained that option under the new CSM. But since you're big on "proof", go ahead and "prove" how my losses pale compared to the typical 3.5 CSM player. Go on. I can piss up a wall, so why can't you?
I believe they call this 'misery poker' but you have a point, I'll match my Imperial Guard armies screwed against any Chaos player. That doesn't make the Chaos codex good though.
A turd is still a turd no matter how much better it is than other turds.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think I see the problem here. You got hurt by random chance on three switches. Now, the dual heavy veteran thing is just a normal rebalancing, I mean most five man squads can't take a single heavy in 5th. The drop troops were a big loss, and Biel-tan simply required you buying 20 dire avengers to make that list legal. Now, that's roughly equivilent to what a lot of chaos players went through, but the key here is that you were nailed by two books (three if you really want to belabor the veterans point), while a single book nailed a lot of people. And often worse than you.
I'm not saying that having to buy Dire Avengers (and then 2 years later watching your other aspects stop scoring) isn't a bummer, but that's pretty much the absolute worst shift in the eldar codexes. Not counting Lost and the Damned, anybody with only Demons for troops is in the same boat as you.
The deep striking IG were mostly hamstrung by 5th and KPs, but the new book did kill them dead. Now, all the models are still usable, as are models with camo cloaks, demo charges, etc. Look at Alpha legion, who lost a similar play style. Look at Emperor's Children, who often did as much modeling for in game rules.
So, what's the point? I'm not trying to be mean, but I think John has a habit of confusing "how things affect me" with "how things are." In this case, he got screwed by three codexes, and so doesn't see why Chaos is different. The key, and the reason there is such a breadth and depth of complaint, is that the new chaos book, as a single entity and at one time, did more than those three combined.
Add in the fact that at no time did any of John's models become obsolete (like Basilsks and cultists did) or only usable as very broad counts-as (demons), and I think it's safe to say that the overall impact of the chaos book was greater than most codexes in terms of how it affects armies.
1795
Post by: keezus
Interesting reply by Gav today:
On September 15, 2009 at 11:00 pm Deuce Said:
Oh Gav you somehow are still missing the point. Either that or you are not great at making analogies.
“[HMBC] described [Co: CSM as] … vanilla ice cream…You can have it on its own, you can put sprinkles on it, or many flavoured syrups, or serve it with pie, or with cake.” Gav quoting HMBC.
The Co: CSM IS vanilla (because all unit choices are able to be utilized in any army build, in other words there are no legion specific lists, which is not the #1 gripe) but Gav, you haven’t provided any toppings (options for customization) unless you are considering inedible options like pretty cups and spoons (aesthetics like paint schemes and converting options with no gaming effect).
Come on man.
Reply
On September 16, 2009 at 11:04 am gavthorpe Said:
One of us is missing the point, and it isn’t me. The ‘toppings’ are the things that you – the gamer, collector, painter, modeller – want to add to the mix, not a set of prescribed rules upgrades laid out by the Codex writer. Something gets called ‘vanilla’ because it lacks rules options. I’m saying that rules are no substitute for player creativity.
Cheers.
This clearly indicates that his gamer mindset has diverged greatly from those that he is writing for.
19129
Post by: Chickenlegs!
I'm just gonna say a few things:
- I didnt read all of what Gav said - too long!
- I chose not 2 read all 5 pages of complaints/comments I only read the 1st page... (yes I have very bad attention)
My personal feeling towards the current Chaos codex issue is this:
I personally feel that the previous codex could allow some ridiculous power builds or specifically rock hard units, such as 200pts+ DP's that would rip everything a new one and possess every kind of "daemonic _____" upgrade possible and would also allow regenerating tanks and the like filled with all kinds of upgrades, regenerating tanks?!
I reckon that the new Codex caters for all sorts of different legion builds, not quite so powerful however for those that are super-competitive, you can still build World Eaters, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors or whatever builds! the only one i feel that isnt massively catered for is the Alpha Legion, but then again guerilla tactics could be a hard thing 2 fit into the game...
I am very confident I could design an army list for every legion and several renegades, although yes they may not be the best army lists ever (tournament wise) but they would still be very capable of winning, so many tournament armies have 2 forget the fluff altogether (grav-tank laden Eldar, MC heavy Tyranids etc.), why shouldnt Chaos?
just a personal opinion, say or think what you like but consider it...
752
Post by: Polonius
so it's good old fashioned "maybe you're in the wrong hobby" stuff.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
For the people claiming chaos isn't as uber powerful anymore- Dual Lash + Blast template shooting. Check it out. It does really really well at tournaments.
Chaos are still up there in terms of power, this new book is no less broken. The thing is, it's one kind of broken, and it doesn't even make a lot of fluff sense. At least the old broken builds were varied and exciting and made sense, and looked fantastic on the table, a lot of the time.
Dual Lash + Oblits and Plague Marines is unfluffy, boring, and frustrating to play against unless you mechanise.
Edit:
And Gav is missing an essential point too- we can be creative with our models, fluff and all that WITH ANY KIND OF CODEX.
But as a codex writer, it's his job to make sure THE CODEX isn't vanilla. He's not responsible for what we do with our armies, and his job as codex writer isn't to do with that. It's to make an army list that fits the background and that hopefully can be played in a variety of ways that allows all the units to be used in some capacity.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Polonius - it goes deeper than that.
As you blithely say, "just add 20 Avengers", we'll take the Eldar army as an example, as I played it far longer than the rest, and it was my touranment (winning) army.
old CWE (Biel-Tan)
2 Farseers (Fortune on Sv3+ line troops)
2x 6 Guardians w/ Starcannon (Heavy 3 AP2 support fire)
2x 8 Scorpions w/ full-kit Exach (strong HtH with Fortune Saves)
2x 5 Reapers w/ full-kit Exach (enemy Troops shredder)
2x 6 Warp Spiders w/ full-kit Exach (fast reinforcement)
3x Wraithlord w/ Starcannon (shock troops)
This forms a Sv3+ wall of Scorps & Wraithlords with Spiders for close support, Reapers & Guardians for ranged support. Army is largely invulnerable to a lot of enemy fire for heavy VP denial. Wraithlords, Scorps and Spiders are wicked in HtH. Long range Reapers with moving Guardians & Wraithlords provide dominance. And it's a full 6 Troops.
new, generic Eldar
2 Farseers (need to babysit Wraithlods)
2x 8 Scorpions (non-Scoring)
2x 10 Guardians w/ Starcannon (cost more, shoot less)
2x 10 Avengers (crap guns, short range, crap save)
2x 6 Warp Spiders (non-Scoring)
3x Wraithlord w/ Starcannon (pay more, require babysitter, shoot less, fight less)
The new list has the synergy way off. Losing the Reapers means I don't have anywhere near the same ability to reduce enemy forces preemptively, and I cannot move out under strong cover fire. Dropping 4 Starcannon shots trims this back even further. Not being able safely to blitz or solo the Wraithlords limits tactical freedom considerably, especially with their reduced statline. Avengers are good against very light infantry, but otherwise don't fit the army. And I had to buy new models, while dumping the Reapers (or Wraithlords, as I only have 3 Heavy slots)
So overall, I lose big in terms of what the army can do, so I might as well start over with a new army concept. Perhaps the new Eldar Codex will pull a page from the CSM and make Aspect Troops, and Wraithlords Elite. Or something. But I can tell you that once CWE was pulled my army went on the shelf.
Same as how my 3.0 CSM army went on the shelf when 3.5 came out.
Same as how my drop Plasma Guard were sidelined when the current IG book came out.
And of course, my min-max SM ended up being taken in a totally new direction (BA) when the new SM book came out.
The point is that every Codex creates changes that the player has to deal with one way, or another. Chaos is NOT different here.
If one can blithely say, eh, just buy some Avengers and don't sweat not being able to play all of your previously-allowed Reapers and Wraithlords, then one should just as easily demand AL to suck it up over the Cultists, and IW to suck it up over the Bassies, and so on. If you trivialize the Eldar, IG and 3.0 impacts, then just be consistent and ignore the 3.5 "losses".
752
Post by: Polonius
John, if you're not going to read and respond to my actual points, don't waste my time by posting.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Da Boss wrote:For the people claiming chaos isn't as uber powerful anymore- Dual Lash + Blast template shooting. Check it out. It does really really well at tournaments.
Right. but according to Gav, and GW as a whole, that is on the player(s), not the codex.
I play Wordbearers (from 2nd edition, when they were just a paint scheme) up till now. I never went for the tons 'o daemons that some did, and therefore, the only thing I lost were the Dark Apostles (which I can use a lame counts as with a marked tzeentch lord). So, for me, the codex is a wash.
Would I like more options? Sure, I loved the armory. Is it terrible? No. I play it differently.
My biggest complaint about the whole thing is that GW keeps changing their 'codex design' mid-stream, so we end up with situations like this, where chaos is the last of the 'old stream' codexes, while SM, Guard, and SW are the 'new stream'. That's the frustrating part for me.
4431
Post by: kid_happy
Vladsimpaler wrote:I don't care what Gav says.
Do I want Slaves to Darkness/Lost and Damned II? Yes. 3.5 has nothing on these books. You could do whatever the crud you wanted in those books. (Well okay, not ANYTHING. But that's just nitpicking. There are more daemon weapon abilities than weapon options! Come on!)
There were more options in just the World Eaters, or Emperor's Children, then pretty much in this entire book. That's pathetic.
I've got my LatD here and I think most 40k players would be livid if they had to shell out for a 290+ page hardcover that is mostly fluff, dedicates one page to Thousand Sons, one to Plague Marines.
Knock out most of the fluff, the WFB stuff, random mutations (people hate 6 variably usable ones, forget selling a d1000 chart where a lot suck), Random Gifts, Minotaurs, Dragon Ogres, Senseis, and the 40k content comes down considerably. Nurgle Chaos Renegades got nine pages, Tzeentch got eleven, both have duplicate entries so both list could probably fit in fifteen pages with wargear. Daemons would add another ten or so. LatD added *tons* of flavour but not much in the way of rules, except to give us our first defined army lists for Nurgle and Tzeentch, both of which would not be close to being acceptable by most players standard today.
People talk these books up a lot and they are great reads. They describe the Pantheon excellently but a decent codex they are not.
443
Post by: skyth
Chickenlegs! wrote:
I am very confident I could design an army list for every legion and several renegades, although yes they may not be the best army lists ever (tournament wise) but they would still be very capable of winning, so many tournament armies have 2 forget the fluff altogether (grav-tank laden Eldar, MC heavy Tyranids etc.), why shouldnt Chaos?
As an aside, grav-laden Eldar and MC heavy nids ARE fluffy armies...
9777
Post by: A-P
keezus wrote:This clearly indicates that his gamer mindset has diverged greatly from those that he is writing for.
Yes, truly. I can´t avoid the feeling that he lives in a parallel reality. In his world rules are not important or even necessary. All players are understanding, flexible and only interested in telling larger-than-life stories. Any possible problems are resolved by talking. And at the end of the day everyone gets a hug.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I'm reminded of an article he wrote about storytelling for Inquisitor for Fanatic. "It's all about the fights!"
Compared storytelling in Inquisitor to WWF wrestling if I'm not remembering it wrong.
2700
Post by: dietrich
The people that bash the current Codex CSM are the same people (and this includes me) that bashed Alien 3 when it was first released. On it's own merits, Alien 3 is fine, just as on its own merits, C: CSM is fine. But, compared to a previous version, the new release is a big letdown.
If they ever do Legions, I'll do a happy dance and probably build an army. I don't think they'll ever do Legions. Or LatD. I think the best hope is for the player base to continue to bash GW and hope they get the hint and put CSM on the shortlist of "needing revision". They're after Nids, Necrons, and DE, but I would put them ahead of BA and Inquisitors.
16487
Post by: Samus666
Well, Gav's comments are once again very carefully worded and polite. But once again, I feel like he's trying desperately to convince us that the Codex is actually good in its own way. Since we have our own minds and preferences this is simply not going to happen, even if his arguments were logical (which they aren't) and, really, I wish he'd just have the guts to say 'sorry guys, I had good intentions but I guess I messed up'. Instead, he's doggedly sticking to his conviction that this was the best that could be done - which clearly it isn't as previous books have done much better using much less space than Gav claims is needed.
I miss god-specific daemons - which were robbed from us to form a new army, I miss Marks of Chaos (so much better than Icons), I miss the special rules for units like Raptors, and the legion rules. Most of all I miss the extremely fluffy wargear items and gifts, that allowed for a huge amount of customisation.
Sorry Gav, your analogy that your codex is vanilla icecream and its up to us to add the sprinkles just doesn't make sense and isn't fair. It basically amounts to 'I only have to do the basics, make up the rest yourselves'. Gaming is a shared experience, often between strangers. We need interesting rules written by a third party to use as common ground. When we have the luxury of making up rules ourselves we do so, but this usually isn't viable. You need adequate free time and like-minded gaming buddies. I argue this for those less fortunate, not for myself - I have both these things and have made up many rules for my chaos army. But I used the 3.5 codex as my basis because its just a much more varied and interesting foundation.
It is not up to us to make these rules up for ourselves if we want them to be interesting. No matter how polite Gav is, that opinion is dismissive and insulting. Writing the rules is the job of the person who is paid to write the rules. Writing our own rules is a luxury that gamers can sometimes indulge, but we shouldn't have to just to have an enjoyable game when we pay good money for rulebooks.
I cannot understand why he's going to such lengths to defend this book. Himself, sure, of course he'll want to stand up for himself given all the criticism thrown his way. But the Codex let down almost it's entire audience and he's not going to convince anyone to feel differently about it. 'Look everyone, I've revamped the vanilla icecream shop, and knocked down the shops that sell the different flavours. I've also stopped stocking toppings and sauces and sprinkles, you have to make them yourselves. Isn't that great!' You're not winning me over Gav.
6084
Post by: theHandofGork
I don't play chaos, nor plan to, but I was interested in Gav's posts because GW designers seem to rarely actually explain their design process. The one exception may be Alessio's design notes on 5th edition which at least gave some reasons behind the design changes (whether you agreed with them or not). The WD designer notes may seem to be an exception as well, but nothing is every really explained there besides it's cool, go buy one. Unfortunately Gav did little to answer the questions and concerns posted to him. I read his answer as basically saying, it's the players job to provide or create rules if he or she is unsatisfied with the rules we have created. I have two points on this.
Point 1:
I believe this response makes little sense. Within its industry GW charges a premium price for its rules . I believe that premium prices should correlate with superior product quality. But what Gav says inherently goes against this idea. GW may charge more for its rules than other companies, but they aren't even designed to be "complete," rather a jumping off point for a player to get their hobby on. This seems to be based on the idea that players have a responsibility for making up where the designers leave gaps or errors, that this is some part of "the hobby." But, of course, a complete tight ruleset would not preclude players (who are so inclined) from going and altering them to their heart's content. But poorly tested and incomplete rules do prevent those who don't want to (or cannot) alter the rules from playing a satisfying game.
Point 2:
I may be totally wrong on this, but I think there is some transatlantic miscommunication going on. The UK has a old network of wargaming clubs. Belonging to this sot of club would guarantee playing a limited number (the club members) weekly/monthly etc. It is easy to see how, in this environment, house rules would be easier to create and manage. Many US players, bereft of this gaming history and culture, and geographically more disperse, play at a variety of stores with a more open group of possible opponents. This environment does not engender house rules as freely. So, for me at least, Gav's "do it yourself" approach does not work.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
@JHDD: You have to admit that at least some of reformatting of that Eldar build you posted was due to them being over powerful, these elements (Starcannons & Wraithlords) were rightly weakened. Ask yourself why there are no other heavy weapons or heavy support units in that build. I also think that Dark Reapers should always have been Heavy Support because when they weren't 'pure aspect' armies had no options in Heavy Support.
@ Polonius: You seem to have ignored the model based options that were removed from the Imperial Guard list, options like army wide Carapace Armour, lasgun armed sergeants or having six squads of Stormtroopers.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Following on the ice cream analogy. I have my vanilla ice cream. Hey, GW, can I have hot fudge?
"No. It was unbalanced."
Can I have nuts?
"No, we thought people focused too much on them. We want this to be about the ice cream."
Can I have sprinkles?
"Sure. But not any orange ones. We hate orange. Do you want blue or red or pink or green or yellow sprinkles?"
Can I have all those colors mixed together?
"Lousy powergamer! Get out of here!"
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:John, if you're not going to read and respond to my actual points, don't waste my time by posting.
Excuse me, but what the hell are you on about??? I read and responded to the points that I thought were relevant. The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't make it a waste of time at all. Similarly, if we have a different opinion as to what's relevant, that's not my fault either. ____ George Spiggott wrote:@JHDD: You have to admit that at least some of reformatting of that Eldar build you posted was due to them being over powerful, these elements (Starcannons & Wraithlords) were rightly weakened.
Ask yourself why there are no other heavy weapons or heavy support units in that build.
I also think that Dark Reapers should always have been Heavy Support because when they weren't 'pure aspect' armies had no options in Heavy Support.
Some adjustments (10-man Guardian AGPs) were well-warranted to match the rest of the newer Codex templates, and I have no real complaint about that. Wraithlords were only problematic in 3E, and even then they were only a little too good. When 4th came out, Wraithlords were not any more unfair than any other "good" unit. Heavy 3 Starcannons were optimal in 3rd, but wouldn't raise an eyebrow in 5th - as it is now, Eldar Heavy Weapons are pretty limp. The reason there aren't non-Starcannons or non-Wraithlords is because it's a min-max build that goes for high redundancy and disposability. As above, the choices were optimal for 3rd, but in 4th, they served more of a "terror" role, where the Wraithlords and such were primarily of psychological value against inexperienced opponents. They allowed me to take the initiative and control the game flow against most opponents. If you know what you're doing, it's easy to get around - I played the mirror enough to know how to win against them. Reapers probably should have been HS and Wraithlords Elite (following the SM/ CSM model), but it requires quite a bit of a reshuffle from the current Codex to fix things. Reapers really were the most dangerous unit in the army, and a lot of players never figured that out until too late.
16487
Post by: Samus666
A few more thoughts.
Gav wrote: "just how flexible do we want players’ armies to be? Do we say that the Night Lords can’t have Khorne Berzerkers and leave it up to players to ‘break the rules’ if they want to represent a combined force of Night Lords and World Eaters? If the army list functionally allows you to represent forces from different Legions and Chapters, there’s nothing to stop someone (by the rules) painting their Khorne Berzerkers in Night Lords colours. At what point do the Codexes force players to adhere to the background and when do they inform them of that background and leave it to their discretion? I prefer the approach of informed freedom, the encompassing of many 'what if?' situations, since the purpose of the Codex is to allow players to collect a load of toy soldiers, paint them however they see fit, and then play a game with them if they want to."
I see his reasoning here, but still claim that it's faulty. He sees less rules as permissive - here's your basis, do as you wish. In reality it's restrictive, because many players need ready-written rules and can't do anything without them.
The present codex doesn't tell you not to combine Night Lords with World Eaters, but it doesn't really allow you to field Night Lords at all. You can paint marines blue with lightning bolts, but the rules will be the same as for any other marines. You can field lots of Raptors but their rules are just the same as loyalist Assault Squads. There are no Night Lords, so you cannot field them alongside Khorne Bezerkers or anything else, unless you make the rules up yourself and find someone willing to let you use them.
Gav did at least acknowledge that the previous codex did a good job. Kudos.
P.S. I lol'd at some of the previous posters comments about how GW have dropped variant lists because they dont get platested and so have varying power levels. Simple solution would be to playtest them.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Samus666 wrote:P.S. I lol'd at some of the previous posters comments about how GW have dropped variant lists because they dont get platested and so have varying power levels. Simple solution would be to playtest them.
Good point, but that would require them to:
1. Stop painting and converting models and actually play some games,
2. Attempt to play the rules as they wrote them rather than coming up with on the fly house rules that they don't bother to convey to anyone outside the studio, and
3. Put down their own pet army of the day/year/decade and play multiple different builds from armies they don't usually use.
You know, the sad part is that there are literally tens of thousands of people world wide who would be more than happy to play-test the crap out of any rules set or codex they might want to create.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Samus666 wrote:P.S. I lol'd at some of the previous posters comments about how GW have dropped variant lists because they dont get platested and so have varying power levels. Simple solution would be to playtest them.
I lol'd at the notion that GW playtests.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
GW is too good for playtesting. Their mandate dictates that their rules are infallible. Playtesting merely tests their gaming god's will. This is frowned upon.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Blah blah blah, computer modelling of playtests, blah.
My idea, rejected long ago by GW despite that they have a couple of computer games available in which to model new armies.
7961
Post by: Orc Town Grot
Sadly Gav is full of it.
He is creating straw arguments for why it "can't be done", which are total toal BS.
It was done by Pete Haines in the previous codex. End of argument.
I don't think people understand the reason that the CSM codex was disemboweled.
The reason was the writing of the Chaos Demon codex.
A book which is total garbage in its own right.
This created the messed up logic of why an entire tradition of CSM rules was suddenly dispupted, and why entire chapters were effectively deprived of rules and nullified.
So to call Gav's long winded "explanation" reasonable only hints that one so convinced doesn't actually understand the problem at all. Just because a guy is willing to bullet point a thousand words of rationale doesn't make any of it TRUE.
I personally think that Chaos would be best served by five codexes, just as the various imperial armies are. Its possible obviously because Imperial players have theirs: SM, IG, WH, Templars, SW, Dark Angels, DH.
Any argument that it ain't possible is total garbage as the level of codex support for Imperial forces amply proves.
Perhaps Chaos as a smaller market share, may appear to not be worth such an investment.
If that is the true argument just make it!
Even so, it could still be done with two or three codexes: Chaos legions, Chaos undivided, and Chaos Demons (if they must). Personally I would take a blow torch to the present Demon's book and try to find a better way to utilise the cult summoning angle of Demon culture to get more of a set of Lost and Damned style armies with Demons. Hey that's me, but I like interesting armies and creative options, not irritating exercises in model selling cheese icecream!
Gav's defense was not IMHO reasonable at all.
The guy is in serious denial, and its sad to think that after more than 20 years in the industry and after a thousand lucid rants on the subject by dissatisfied chos players, he doesn't even seem to understand the issues.
They axed him decades too late!
OTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The most important point, which no one is making is that it was the creation of the Demon Codex more than anything else that lead to the CSM becoming an abortion.
The Demon codex is the sorce of the problem.
The Demon Codex is also a horrible codex in its own right.
Think I better start a topic on this one.
OTG
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
To the extent that I understand the subject at all, it seems to me that the CSM/Daemons codexes must have been prompted by the concept that it would be better for Chaos players to buy two books instead of one.
If so, your idea to make three books may get traction, and people can hope for three good books to be done -- the opportunity will be there at any rate.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Kilkrazy wrote:If so, your idea to make three books may get traction, and people can hope for three good books to be done -- the opportunity will be there at any rate.
Aha! Inquisition syndrome. There are three branches of the Inquisition, covered by a trilogy of two books... 
752
Post by: Polonius
George Spiggott wrote:
@ Polonius: You seem to have ignored the model based options that were removed from the Imperial Guard list, options like army wide Carapace Armour, lasgun armed sergeants or having six squads of Stormtroopers.
Were they really removed? Or were they simply reshuffled? It's not the same, but you can take six veteran squads plus two CCS's with carapace armor. The lasgun armed sgts was simply an odd omission, and again, Veterans with carapace can be taken with stormtrooper models.
Every codex is going to have changes. Each new codex will reshuffle what's good, it'll change a few weapons options, squad sizes, etc. all to get us to buy more models. That's simply the cost of doing business. Most of the time, people accept that because 1) they can still mostly play their old armies, and 2) they're getting a more robust, and often more powerful new codex.
Most codexes do a pretty good job of walking that line. IMO Chaos went too far.
7961
Post by: Orc Town Grot
John Hwang
Needs to start a new thread on how they nerfed the Eldar. The debate with Polonious is interesting but its drifted way off topic.
OTG.
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:Polonius wrote:John, if you're not going to read and respond to my actual points, don't waste my time by posting.
Excuse me, but what the hell are you on about???
I read and responded to the points that I thought were relevant. The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't make it a waste of time at all. Similarly, if we have a different opinion as to what's relevant, that's not my fault either.
RE-read my post. It was about the cumulative impact to you of having three armies nerfed by three different codices affecting your judgement towards the new chaos, which nerfs just as many combined armies. Your response was a break down of how your eldar army was shafted, which while illuminating, I conceded in my post.
I think you see codex changeover from your own perspective, where it wrecks your army every time. For most gamers, that doesn't happen that way. You had a string of bad luck with picking the wrong builds that didn't carry over, and that's not your fault, but for nearly everybody else, the changeovers were far smoother. For most gamers, when a new codex comes out it would be like going from your beloved Chaos 3.0 to the new Chaos 4.5. A smooth, mostly painless transition.
I'm simply trying to point out that while your experience sucks, and I understand more why you have no sympathy, I think it help if you realize that you got boned far worse than most people. The problem is, the chaos book still boned a lot more people. It's not that Chaos players suffered worst than you, it's that, in the average, chaos players suffer worse than other players.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kilkrazy wrote:To the extent that I understand the subject at all, it seems to me that the CSM/Daemons codexes must have been prompted by the concept that it would be better for Chaos players to buy two books instead of one.
If so, your idea to make three books may get traction, and people can hope for three good books to be done -- the opportunity will be there at any rate.
This worked beautifully for WFB: - Chaos (mortals, daemons & beasts)) - Hordes (mortals & daemons) & Beasts - Warriors, Daemons & Beasts Beasts were huge when they came out, now Daemons is the top dog, and GW is laughing all the way to the bank. Best of all, old-time Chaos players have to buy *3* Army Books to play all of their stuff. With any luck, GW will split 40k even further: - CSM - CSM & Daemons - CSM, Daemons, & Legions - CSM ( MoCU), Daemons, Legions (big 4) & Traitors ( LatD) If GW could get 40k Chaos players to buy *4* "deluxe" (i.e. extra pricey) Codices, that'd be great for GW's bottom line and everybody would be happy. What GW has rent asunder, let no man join together! ____ Orc Town Grot wrote:John Hwang
Needs to start a new thread on how they nerfed the Eldar.
No, thanks. It's just too much negative energy for me. ____ @Polonius: OK, I understand much better, thank you. I probably overstate the personal impact somewhat, as I'm not totally ruined to put something on the shelf for years if need be - I simply switch out to another army and move on. It's part of the reason why my minis are hardcased for long-term storage. In the interim, I'll poke away at varous new armies or non- GW games (gasp!) and see what I like. Eventually, something will come together, and I'll play that for a while. I assume that most players have (multiple) other armies, so it's just not any sort of big deal to put something on the back burner. At least, that's typical for my playgroup, and appears to be the case from looking at the various army sigs. But if it's not the case, then I'm sorry for having such an atypical perspective.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Polonius wrote:Were they really removed? Or were they simply reshuffled... ...The lasgun armed sgts was simply an odd omission
If by reshuffled you mean vastly reduced in availability then I'd agree but I suspect that you don't. 'Odd omission'? How Orwellian. They're gone however you want to phrase it.
Polonius wrote:IMO Chaos went too far.
IMO Imperial Guard went too far and my guess is that the Inquisition books will go too far. Codex Chaos isn't a blip.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
I think the book is OK but it could have been better. And it is disapointing that it was not.
HQ needs options at least for mutations, upgrades etc. Dude it's chaos. And Lords should be able to Mastercraft their weapons. I could go on.
I mean I understand what they tried to do with it. (besides make it suck).
752
Post by: Polonius
George Spiggott wrote:Polonius wrote:Were they really removed? Or were they simply reshuffled... ...The lasgun armed sgts was simply an odd omission
If by reshuffled you mean vastly reduced in availability then I'd agree but I suspect that you don't. 'Odd omission'? How Orwellian. They're gone however you want to phrase it.
In the old codex Grenadiers were guardsmen with BS4, hellguns, access to two specials, had targeters, have frag and krak, and are 5-10 models for 10pts a piece. In the new codex Grenadiers are guardsmen with BS4, access to three specials and a heavy, can take lasguns or shotguns, have frag and krak, and are 10 models for 100pts. This isn't even an eye squinting "counts as" type re-shuffle, it's damn near the exact same thing. It may not be exactly the way it used to be, but you can still take lots of grenadiers.
The lasguns on sgts is odd. I assume it was a combination of trying to sell more models (to people that need to replace them), sheer carelessness, and some high minded concept of making all imperial squads the same (with built in vet sarges w/ ccw and pistol).
Polonius wrote:IMO Chaos went too far.
IMO Imperial Guard went too far and my guess is that the Inquisition books will go too far. Codex Chaos isn't a blip.
Well, the big difference is that there are legitimate attempts to keep all the old options. Veterans can be grenadiers or heavy infantry or stealthy light infantry. Al raheem allows for outflanking goodness. Valks allow air mobile, if not airborne.
I mean, if your army was hosed, I'm sorry and obviously I'm not going to change your mind. But I think if you spend some time with the codex, you'll see that there are ways to really build some interesting armies.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:I mean, if your army was hosed, I'm sorry and obviously I'm not going to change your mind. But I think if you spend some time with the codex, you'll see that there are ways to really build some interesting armies.
Are you talking about C: CSM, or C: IG? 
4727
Post by: Makaleth
I think the sentiment of
"If people are still complaining so much that an ex-gw designer is dedicating posts which become the most read and posted one ever that something has hit a nerve"
For all the people that think that other army got as badly treated, in the court of public opinion you are wrong. It's fairly simple.
If Eldar and IG and anything else was treated in the same way they would also have other threads dedicated to this months after the event (yet this seems to be a running theme for this Chaos book).
Also,
HandofGork is right in saying that we should expect high quality product for the premium that we pay for this. If they want a superior quality product then make it!!!
It just seems a shame that all is needed is a little more effort and proper focus.
Oh,
and as an Eldar and Chaos player,
Chaos got hosed way worse.
No doubt
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
@ Polonius: Grenadiers were Stormtroopers in all but name. Playing them as Veterans is 'counts as' they have totally different guns and there are no 'Stormtrooper' heavy weapon models. There are also the infantry platoons and heavy and special weapon squads that had access to carapace. The difficulty of reworking armies is the same as for Codex Chaos, the difference is that none of the builds in the Imperial Guard codex were overpowered like they were in the Chaos codex and needed bringing down a peg i.e. Iron Warriors. Surely nobody is suggesting that they should have remained unmodified squad for squad?
Polonius wrote:The lasguns on sgts is odd. I assume it was a combination of trying to sell more models (to people that need to replace them), sheer carelessness, and some high minded concept of making all imperial squads the same (with built in vet sarges w/ ccw and pistol).
I'm going to pull you up on this again because you keep squirming for some reason. It's not an 'odd omission' and with the greatest respect I have no interest in why you think they did it. It's just a valid option (that can be built with the current models) removed from the codex. I don't understand why you can't say that straight.
752
Post by: Polonius
George Spiggott wrote:@ Polonius: Grenadiers were Stormtroopers in all but name. Playing them as Veterans is 'counts as' they have totally different guns and there are no 'Stormtrooper' heavy weapon models. There are also the infantry platoons and heavy and special weapon squads that had access to carapace. The difficulty of reworking armies is the same as for Codex Chaos, the difference is that none of the builds in the Imperial Guard codex were overpowered like they were in the Chaos codex and needed bringing down a peg i.e. Iron Warriors. Surely nobody is suggesting that they should have remained unmodified squad for squad?
Polonius wrote:The lasguns on sgts is odd. I assume it was a combination of trying to sell more models (to people that need to replace them), sheer carelessness, and some high minded concept of making all imperial squads the same (with built in vet sarges w/ ccw and pistol).
I'm going to pull you up on this again because you keep squirming for some reason. It's not an 'odd omission' and with the greatest respect I have no interest in why you think they did it. It's just a valid option (that can be built with the current models) removed from the codex. I don't understand why you can't say that straight.
Well, admittedly you can't take anything close to current stormtroopers as troops, but you can take something very close to the old stormtroopers as troops. Which is the difference between IG and the current chaos book: they worked a lot harder to include options to allow usage of old units and tactics. Look at Slaanesh noise weaponry outside of noise marines troops: there is not real rule. Now, look at carapace, camelioline, etc from IG: there is a way to include it somewhere.
I'm not squirming on sgt lasguns. It was stupid to not include, but Robin has shown that he changes things just to change them. So, I'll say whatever you want me to say about the issue.
19976
Post by: ARRRGH
Re-reading the 3.5 codex and feeling massive nostalgia.
Granted there was some balancing and streamlining that needed to happen but the fact is nobody likes it when you cut down the customization scale of ANYTHING by that much. I don't know where the 'now people are more free to do what they want' argument comes from because, as has been said, all you can sort of play now are vanilla chaos, and even that seems to get hemmed into the same unit combos.
I mean, you used to be able to do all kinds of awesome stuff with chosen. If you wanted to you could have an 8 man chosen squad, a champion with daemonic gifts, three guys in terminator armor, a melta dude, diff weapon combos, and a mark, which could further their customization. That was the best, fluffwise. I really felt like my Chosen escorting my Lord around were some seriously epic, villainous reavers, with their own stories.
Now you're basically stuck with 8 bland chosen, with a combo of like, 5 weapons, in a rhino.
Or the daemon prince being reduced to a basic statline. You're telling me I can't have my awesome modeled iron warriors prince with his kai gun and 2+ armour save, and horrendous warpfire shooting from his eyes anymore? Nope.
Now a Mark is a basic stat upgrade, and all the units are dulled down and bland. Nobody liked playing Black Legion, GW. I think the #1 issue people have with the new codex is that it severely cut down the options for chaos players more than any balancing or streamlining concerns.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
@Polonius: We're going round in circles here and I'm the one with useless guardsmen on my desk. Let's just say that if I could have reworked my army in a satisfactory manner I would have. It's hardly in my interest not to.
We aren't disagreeing on the chaos front, Gav's excuses don't cut it.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
@ ARRRGH:
Agreed. Daemon princes with basic upgrades for a mark, and nothing more (Wait, I can get wings, WOW!) was terrible.
The most powerful and diverse immortals in the universe turned into a single statline and give almost no options, maybe we should just use the carnifex options and be over with it!
4926
Post by: Neil
Disclaimer: I really like the 4th ed Chaos codex and didn't like the 3.5 one.
I have "lost" an army in the past, when PDF militia were phased out (serves my right for taking a back of the book army list from a bolt on minidex!). Chaos diehards really are not the only ones, but they seem to complain loudest!
GW do in fact have playtesters. I once had the pleasure of a long conversation with a playtester over a few beers. You should hear what some of the stuff looked like when it first got to playtest!
I reckon there are at least two competitive builds out of the new dex. One is Twin Lash, of course. The other is Mechanised Berserkers. Of course the same codex in 4th edition had different good builds (like armies with lots of chosen) - edition has as much to to with build viability as the codex.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
That sounds like one build to me 'Twin lash with Mechanised Berzerkers'.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
I was thinking the same thing spigg.
But oblits and nurgle marines are also close
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Sounds to me like "Mechanized Berserker", not "Twin Lash with Mechanized Berserkers" but then we all know the only way to win with the new CSM codex is dual lash prince.
/facepalm
752
Post by: Polonius
Neil wrote:
I have "lost" an army in the past, when PDF militia were phased out (serves my right for taking a back of the book army list from a bolt on minidex!). Chaos diehards really are not the only ones, but they seem to complain loudest!
And you didn't feel like fielding them as hardened veterans, basic infantry squads, conscripts, last chancers, or even kroot mercenaries in the IG 4th ed book? Or Penal legion, veterans, conscripts, or standard infantry squads in the current book?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Forgive me, I'm a bit lost here.
The people arguing that the 4th Ed Chaos Codex is a good Codex, what exactly are you arguing?
Are you arguing that Chaos players didn't lose their lists?
That they didn't lose variety/options/choice?
That they didn't have armies invalidated?
That the Earth is indeed flat?
That you understood Gav when he spent a whole paragraph crapping on about icecream, completely missing the point of my analogy whilst simultaneously not responding to it at all?
Help me out here.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
I'm arguing why it's a good codex for ME. You feel it's a horrid codex in general. It is not HORRID in general as that would imply it's a negative codex for EVERYONE who plays Chaos.
Those of us who like it do not feel it hurt US any. Just as loudly as you can yell "4.5 CSM CODEX IS GAK" I can yell "THE 3.5 CSM CODEX IS GAK". Neither one of us is right as not everyone shares similar views.
Polonius, are you saying Neil could use "counts as" for his army? Funny how when those of us, like JHDD and I say "use counts as for your old cult terminators and call them NORMAL terminators or "counts as" bolt weapons for those with Sonic terminators" we get shouted down and told we are drinking the kool-aid that GW is passing out.
How is it that one set of players are expected to use counts as but another set say "we shouldn't have to, GW should just make a codex with all of our models in it?"
This baffles me.
5333
Post by: BeefyG
Both points are fair, it isn't the worst codex to ever be written (sucky dreadnoughts aside). It is also far, far from the best codex ever to be written, but in your "counts as" line of thinking you must concede that an awful lot of stuff was made "counts as" in one go with a few strokes of the pen?
My Night Lords army now "counts as" Black legion with stupid helmets, have an extra fast attack unit to swap around with some more black legion CSM and my furies lost their wings.
Not too much to cry about really...but combined with all the other people simultaneously having their little chaos flame's extinguished? This is a whinge of galactic proportions!
19976
Post by: ARRRGH
Yeah but still my chief complaint which is exactly what HMBC was saying, and I still think he has a really strong analogy.
With the except of the Prince, the Obliterators, the Possessed, the Defiler, and the really mediocre demons, you might as well be looking at a separate loyalist chapter codex. Hell, even the space wolves look like they have more flavor and variety than Chaos. Which is just wrong.
Chaos is CHAOS! It's all about customization to a ridiculous degree. You are the immortal reavers of a dark and burning galaxy! Every soldier in your army is a living nightmare.
The fact that my Demon armored, kai gun toting, demonic visaged, winged, monstrous demon prince got mashed into a simple 'monstrous creature' with the options - wings or no wings, mark or no mark, psychic power? (y/n) is an obvious and legitimate cause for complaint. It doesn't really matter that a lot of the stat options/gifts have been mashed into the Prince profile already - the fact is that the option has been completely taken away from you, and you are presented with a demon prince which is IDENTICAL to the other 50,000 demon princes out there. In fact, since you'd be stupid to take anything but a lash or warptime prince, he's pretty much going to AUTOMATICALLY be identical to almost 100% of the other princes out there. That's not what chaos is about. That's not why I started playing Iron warriors.
Used to run with two rhino squads (with mutated hull) with furious charge, a lord with a darkblade and demonic strength, kai gun prince, chosen, all ridiculously customized with infiltrate, 2 x havocs with tank hunters, predator, basilisk (unusuble now), obliterators.
Now it's just 3 x bland rhino squads with meltas, obligatory fist champ, bland demon prince, bland Lash sorceror, obliterators, defiler.
Blah.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I just wanted to say...I'm kind of a moron and can't really hold up well at all in a debate. But even I think "We couldn't write a good Chaos codex because it would be 300+ pages long!" is pretty damn weak.
Hell, the new one is thicker than 3.5. And 3.5 had both Legion rules and god-specific daemons in it.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And that, Sid, is why Gav's answer was a load of nonsense - nothing but one GIANT false dilemma.
123
Post by: Alpharius
In this particular debate, it confuses me how people who like the current Chaos Space Marine Codex miss/ignore why people who like the previous editions' versions are a bit miffed with it.
It wasn't all about power gaming and Iron Warriors people...
6902
Post by: skrulnik
Big thread, lots of tangents, gave me something to say.
Polonius, it seems GW decided they wanted IG sgts to go back to being like the old British way of fighting. Leader has a pistol and sword, directs the troops. Just like all of the 2nd ed IG unit boxes.
Also, this could have come from the writers bosses, that they didn't want to see sgts contributing to the rapid firing.
@CSM subject. The reason for the loss of infiltrate as a troop option is obvious. Now that all infiltrators can outflank, they didn't want to give an entire army the ability to do so.
Most of the rest can be covered by what could have been Gav's design brief. This is what I think could have been what Gav was given to work with.
The new Codex:CSM must:
1. Have no sub-lists. Cannot be supported by the minis line at this time.
2. No cross codex references. loss of trackable sales (?)
3. No marked Daemons. We have a Daemon Codex in the works and we can't have differing stats between books. (Already an issue).
4. No cults outside of a single Troop choice. We need that design room for Legion books in 5-10 years. (Pessimistic view).
5. Keep the wargear choices stripped down because that is how Jervis did DA and that is the current direction. (Which changed after C:CSM, of course).
Plus, Gav was leaving of his own accord before the book was even released. (I believe Dark Elves was his last project).
Now if these were the parameters most of us were given, I bet the book would have come out nearly the same.
Also keep in mind, Jervis seemed to be pushing to get the game back to early 3rd ed levels of complexity in the Codices.
I base this on his comments in WD and the results of the DA, Eldar, and Chaos book. Eldar is deeper, just because Phil Kelly seems a bit more creative than Gav or Jervis when it comes to Codices/Armybooks.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
skrulnik wrote:Polonius, it seems GW decided they wanted IG sgts to go back to being like the old British way of fighting. Leader has a pistol and sword, directs the troops. Just like all of the 2nd ed IG unit boxes.
Also, this could have come from the writers bosses, that they didn't want to see sgts contributing to the rapid firing.
I very much doubt that. It is far more likely that it was simply an oversight on Arby's part. I do not think that any conscious choice or thought went into stopping Sergeants from having Lasguns as I don't think it ever entered Arby's mind at any stage - were you to bring it up with him it is likely he would say something along the lines of " Oh really? Could they get them in the last Codex? I just thought Sergeants always had the Pistol/CCW combo.". He saw Sergeants, and armed them with what the studio models had. And I certainly cannot imagine the 'bosses' having even the slightest bit of interest in whether a single Lasgun contributes to rapid fire, or even remembered/know that the previous Codex allowed for the option.
330
Post by: Mahu
I like and played the previous codex.
I like and played the current codex.
I think Chaos got out of control with 3.5. Sure all the crazy customizations where there, but really only fell down a few lines when it came to competitive gaming. I for one was tired of Deamon Princes that I couldn't tell what they had until I beat it out of my opponent and by then it was in my lines.
The current codex goes along way to make most of the choices as viable as possible in a list with so many units. Hell, I have seen more TS and KB in armies this edition then the last, which is a win in my eyes.
The only real complaint, and I think is the source for much of the complaint is that the codex feels 90% done. Especially in light of the current codexs.
Would people really feel robbed if:
1. Terminators and Chosen had access to Marks and Icons?
2. Greater and Lesser Deamons had a Mark system?
3. There where a few special characters the modified the FOC.
Really, I feel those are the only things that are sorely needed to maintain the feel of Chaos and match it with the current system.
But I will still contend that the current codex is not bad. A hard pill to swallow, maybe. But not horrid, as HBMC claims.
It could be worse, Gav could be defending the previous Eldar codex.
14828
Post by: Cane
H.B.M.C. wrote:skrulnik wrote:Polonius, it seems GW decided they wanted IG sgts to go back to being like the old British way of fighting. Leader has a pistol and sword, directs the troops. Just like all of the 2nd ed IG unit boxes.
Also, this could have come from the writers bosses, that they didn't want to see sgts contributing to the rapid firing.
I very much doubt that.
It is far more likely that this is simply an oversight on Arby's part. I do not think that any conscious choice went into stopping Sergeants having Lasguns because I don't think it ever entered Arby's mind at any stage. He saw Sergeants, and armed them with what the studio models had. I cannot imagine the 'bosses' having even the slightest interest in whether a single Lasgun contributes to rapid fire, or even remembered/know that the previous Codex allowed for the option.
I think skrulnik's reason is definitely possible and I don't think its an 'oversight' since there isn't a single IG leader that can be equipped with a lasgun IIRC from platoon commanders to commissars so its not just sergeants. Here's some more possible reasons why sergeants/leaders don't have lasguns:
1. Minor balance/gameplay issue due to orders like 'first rank fire second rank fire'; there's potentially a lot of lasgun fire already so the author/development process might have made this change for this reason in addition to others. Worthy to note that commanders and the like can still purchase rapid-firing bolters so they seem aware of the two handed weapon option. I wasn't a big fan of this change but 'meh' its pretty minor and orders make it worth it - I'm thinking they made this change specifically for huge combined platoon squads since 100 shots is siginficantly larger than 90 in an all lasgun scenario.
2. Fluff like mentioned earlier, this might be the author's and GW's new approach to IG leaders since they also added in the 'orders' system which goes with this designer flow
3. Get people to buy new command squad boxes for leader bitz
752
Post by: Polonius
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think one reason people dislike the new codex so much is because it's not more powerful than the previous one. Yes, yes, I've argued for years that it's not about power, and arguably the best army build for the last two years has been Twin lash, but hear me out.
When a new codex comes out, most of the time it replaces a book that has faded dramatically in power, such that while it may have a few fun lists, it has one or maybe two punchy power builds left in in. You know that when a codex is redone some of the small little options are going to be re-shuffled, that some army archtypes might be eliminated, but they'll be replaced with new ones, that are fun and powerful. With the chaos book, it had huge options, many of which were quite strong. The new codex adds one really strong new build, eliminates a bunch of power, elminates a bunch of options, and then walks away.
In short, you can get people excited about a codex in two ways: by making it strong, or by allowing interesting new army builds. It's not that the chaos book doesn't have strong lists, or interesting lists, it's just that it has fewer of each compared to what it replaced. Sure, many people find the lists playable now more interesting than under 3.5, and good for them.
Now, the 3.5 codex was oven OTT, and certainly didn't need to become more powerful. Maybe there really was no way to balance it back to the pack while retaining options; but I contend that they could have done a better job with it. This was the only time we've ever seen a codex struck down while still in it's prime, and I think that's a bigger factor than most people acknowledge, myself included.
Even worse, paradoxically, the current book didn't weather the switch to 5th particularly well. Only one unit can outflank, thousand sons were good until the new cover rules made them inferior pound for pound to noise marines, KPs make spawn even worse, etc. The old 3.5 book could make some really interesting and killer 5th edition lists: all outflanking alpha legion, Word bearers demon bombs, etc.
330
Post by: Mahu
I agree Polonus.
Chaos and Eldar are in the same boat, I think. They both have decent codexes but really suffered in balance between editions. Leaving them with the "few good builds" syndrome.
I really wish GW could acknowledge that with light releases for them, fix up their rules a little. Come up with a new Plastic Kit and/or unit, and they have a cheap release that generates revenue.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
OTOH, the new IG aren't any more powerful than before. Also, IG are more expensive, as you need to buy Chimeras, where Drop was FREE.
For Apoc use (my primary game), the new IG are clearly *worse*. Massed Drop Plasma & Drop Melta & Drop Scoring is quite useful in Apoc, and Vehicle Squadrons aren't needed due to the Apoc removal of the FOC.
So there should be easily as much whining over IG.
17748
Post by: Dark Lord Seanron
I like the Ork Codex...I'm going back there... :p
4977
Post by: jp400
Not really, cause most IG players are used to being shafted every edition. It comes with the army.
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, the new IG aren't any more powerful than before. Also, IG are more expensive, as you need to buy Chimeras, where Drop was FREE.
For Apoc use (my primary game), the new IG are clearly *worse*. Massed Drop Plasma & Drop Melta & Drop Scoring is quite useful in Apoc, and Vehicle Squadrons aren't needed due to the Apoc removal of the FOC.
So there should be easily as much whining over IG.
But for the way most people play, the IG book is clearly better. Man spam, mechanized, armor heavy, tournaments, campaigns, city fight, planetstrike: all are more powerful with the new book. Outside of a few builds, IG are far more powerful than before.
I'm bummed because my beloved all infantry simply aren't very good, although that has as much to do with 5th as the codex. But I'm happy because mechanized vets are super good.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Polonius wrote:
I mean, if your army was hosed, I'm sorry and obviously I'm not going to change your mind. But I think if you spend some time with the codex, you'll see that there are ways to really build some interesting armies.
I can use this same argument for C: CSM.
752
Post by: Polonius
It's reassuring to see that any attempt at being conciliatory is meet with a cheap shot.
For a guy that went on a soap box about my being disingenuous, you're being really snotty.
1795
Post by: keezus
Ozy: I agree that many different lists can be made with C:CSM - but few of those will be as effective as the Rhino Burrito rush (add filling and sauce to taste). This is because the choices given in the codex have a few glaring issues:
1. All the troops operate in the 'close to mid' range, be it shooting or hth. They have no option for fast moving troops outside of rhinos, nor do they have any differing deployment modes for their core units.
2. The above is exacerbated by their inability to get any sort of heavy weapon density due to the new 10men:1 heavy weapons in troops and the relocation of all their heavy weapons dense units to heavy support. The only other places to get (non autocannon) heavy weapons outside of those two areas are on the ever unstable Dreadnought or on chosen - neither of which are efficient choices (the latter due to it largely filling the same role (and having the same durability) as basic CSM, except more expensive and not scoring) This further reinforces the "up close" playstyle of Chaos.
Long story short - Chaos can't outmaneuver its opponents as its scoring units must rely on rhinos for transport - lacking options for deepstrike / infiltrate / outflank. They can't stay static and outshoot them either, due to the above problem with being unable to assemble enough firepower due to codex limitiations. This leaves the "dudes in rhinos" tactic that most Chaos lists fall back on.
It certainly isn't the be-all and end-all for Chaos, but it is by far the playstyle best suited for the units provided.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Polonius wrote:It's reassuring to see that any attempt at being conciliatory is meet with a cheap shot.
For a guy that went on a soap box about my being disingenuous, you're being really snotty.
How was that a cheap shot? In a thread with most people saying how much they hate the new Chaos dex, when people say the same about the IG codex you reply with what I quoted. Frankly I agree with you, I just want to know why it is ok to say that to Eldar and IG players and not ok to say that to Chaos players? Is it because there are more of them and therefore they are louder?
I was not trying to be snotty, if that's how I came off I apologize.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
Despite the many opinions on both sides of this issue,what,if anything,can GW do to rectify the situation?
The current Chaos codex ( for good or for bad) exist,as does the daemon codex,so does GW "sqaut"both codices and start fresh?,keep both and add a single Legions book?
I meen,ultamitly,what,if any thing can solve this particulare situation?
I'm of the opinion that the easiest fix would be to simply release a Legions codex,however even that seems like it has the potential to become muddled in designs problems.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
@Keezus:
Most codices these days boil down to one optimal list, but doesn't mean that the others aren't somewhat competitive (to borrow Polonius' phrase) or aren't useful for fun games.
Also, many of your complaints are with a 5th ed frame of mind. Scoring units weren't the same in 4th when the codex was written (and indeed, then you could use DS'ing termis/obits or infiltrating Vet squads to score objectives). Automatically Appended Next Post: FITZZ wrote: Despite the many opinions on both sides of this issue,what,if anything,can GW do to rectify the situation?
The current Chaos codex ( for good or for bad) exist,as does the daemon codex,so does GW "sqaut"both codices and start fresh?,keep both and add a single Legions book?
I meen,ultamitly,what,if any thing can solve this particulare situation?
I'm of the opinion that the easiest fix would be to simply release a Legions codex,however even that seems like it has the potential to become muddled in designs problems.
I think that we may only be a couple years away from a 5th ed chaos codex and I would expect it to be similar to the SM dex in that you will have Legion archetypes (read Special Characters) that will unlock many of the abilities of the old Legion sub-lists. It won't have the wargear options that 3.5 had but it won't have the restrictions either.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
keezus wrote:Ozy: I agree that many different lists can be made with C:CSM - but few of those will be as effective as the Rhino Burrito rush (add filling and sauce to taste).
This is because the choices given in the codex have a few glaring issues:
1. All the troops operate in the 'close to mid' range, be it shooting or hth. They have no option for fast moving troops outside of rhinos, nor do they have any differing deployment modes for their core units.
2. The above is exacerbated by their inability to get any sort of heavy weapon density due to the new 10men:1 heavy weapons in troops and the relocation of all their heavy weapons dense units to heavy support.
This further reinforces the "up close" playstyle of Chaos.
"Rhino Burrito rush"  Also, they're not "issues", but deliberately designed-in "differentiators" to distinguish CSM from SM. 1. CSM have Raptors at a not totally unreasonable price, but you're completely right that there's no way to take JPs as Elite nor Troops. That is what makes BA unique. 2. The lack of Heavy weapons is also designed in to show how CSM are fighty, not shooty. It's also why there are no Razorbacks... However, small Noise Marine squads with Blastmasters break the 10:1 at the cost of using premium, I5 Troops this way. Going forward, it's looking like my CSM won't have Heavies at all, aside from the Defilers. ____ FITZZ wrote: I'm of the opinion that the easiest fix would be to simply release a Legions codex,however even that seems like it has the potential to become muddled in designs problems.
I agree a Legions Codex is indeed "the easiest fix", even though it will likely focus only on the Big 4. As far as design problems go, it's no worse than anything else out of GW.
14424
Post by: RxGhost
It's only as flavorless as your imagination won't allow, I think most of these issues are all in your head.
As wiser men once said:
"Purely psychosomatic,
that boy needs therapy.
Lie down on the couch! What does that mean?
Youre a nut! You're crazy in the coconut!
What does that mean? that boy needs therapy."
752
Post by: Polonius
Ozymandias wrote:Polonius wrote:It's reassuring to see that any attempt at being conciliatory is meet with a cheap shot.
For a guy that went on a soap box about my being disingenuous, you're being really snotty.
How was that a cheap shot? In a thread with most people saying how much they hate the new Chaos dex, when people say the same about the IG codex you reply with what I quoted. Frankly I agree with you, I just want to know why it is ok to say that to Eldar and IG players and not ok to say that to Chaos players? Is it because there are more of them and therefore they are louder?
I was not trying to be snotty, if that's how I came off I apologize.
It was, because how did you expect me to respond? I've already pointed out ad nauseum that the builds offered by the Chaos book are relatively limited when compared to the others (the whole chicken/burrito exchange). So, all it did was open the door to rehashing something that had already been discussed.
I also think that if you read all of my posts, my tone isn't one of complete dismissal towards the Chaos book. I simply think that they did the worst job of any 4.5 or beyond codices of boiling down the wooly 3rd ed stuff into a single whole. So, I agree that you can build some interesting stuff out of the book. However, first I meant that you can build interesting builds that are pretty similar to the old ones in the current ig book, something that isn't always possible with chaos. Secondly I think that number of interesting, viable builds out of the chaos book pale in comparion to eldar, SM, or IG. As has been stated, all essentially revolve around dudes in rhinos. The fixin's are many and varied (if not always tasty), but meat and potatoes of the chaos book is surprising inflexible.
So yes, your statement was correct, but inaccurate. It read as snotty because it seemed like you were ignoring all of the arguments that have been made, and seemed to focus on the fact that, yes, you can actually build an army or two out of the Chaos book that isn't boring, as if that solved everything.
Maybe I was a little touchy, but you had to know that it would provoke a response and rebuttal, if you thought about it. If not, well, I didn't mean to jump at you for posting sloppy.
It also gets back to something that I've been saying for a while now, and nobody seems to respond to: There are only two reason for this controversy. One is that the Chaos Book is actually unusually flawed, the other is that chaos players are unusually petulant. At some point, where there is smoke (a large amount of anger at a codex) there might actually be fire (something wrong with the damn book).
14424
Post by: RxGhost
I disagree, Polonius. This seems less smoke and fire, and more squeeky wheel and grease (well, no grease yet).
It certainly seems that (on the internet) this book has attracted a loud following of hate but most people I know have found alternatives or, like myself, really enjoy the current edition.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
BRING ON THE GREASE!
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Night Lords with Khorne Berzerkers?? What the Fudge??
Those are not Night Lords. Those are marines painted blue and gold. Those blue berzerkers are not Berzerkers, they just play under their rules.
Honestly, I couldnt read anymore after this "what if?" BS. If I want to play "what if?" and make up my own rules, I just wont buy the codex. I dont need to pay 30 bucks to play an imaginary army. If I want to play blue and gold marines with blue zerkers, I would have made a black legion army.
14424
Post by: RxGhost
Nurglitch wrote:BRING ON THE GREASE!
Yeah, I'mma fry me up some Cal-a-maree!
1795
Post by: keezus
JohnHwangDD wrote:1. CSM have Raptors at a not totally unreasonable price, but you're completely right that there's no way to take JPs as Elite nor Troops. That is what makes BA unique.
I was more refering to Bikes, which have been made troops in several codecies, though I concede that BAs have set precedence by making jump pack infantry troops.
JohnHwangDD wrote:2. The lack of Heavy weapons is also designed in to show how CSM are fighty, not shooty. It's also why there are no Razorbacks... However, small Noise Marine squads with Blastmasters break the 10:1 at the cost of using premium, I5 Troops this way.
I did forget about the Noisemarines. In my mind, of more concern is the complete lack of heavy weapons in the fast attack slot. Most other codecies have methods of taking -mobile- heavy guns in this slot (as support), be it landspeeders/attackbikes, vypers, destroyers, sentinels, deffkoptas etc. Chaos has none. The only configurable moving heavy weapon platform they have outside heavy support is on the dreadnought - making it unreliable at best, and downright useless at times. (I'm deliberately ignoring the reaper autocannon on Chaos terminators, as it falls into the same category as the blastmaster - which is a weapon option where the function is somewhat contrary to the squads normal mode of opperation.)
While we may conjecture all we want about the designer's intentions regarding "fightyness" vs "shootyness", regardless of intention - the reality is that due to the way they have distributed heavy weapons options, deployment options and movement options, the most sucessful variants are all mechanized out of necessity, and not by choice.
752
Post by: Polonius
RxGhost wrote:I disagree, Polonius. This seems less smoke and fire, and more squeeky wheel and grease (well, no grease yet).
It certainly seems that (on the internet) this book has attracted a loud following of hate but most people I know have found alternatives or, like myself, really enjoy the current edition.
So you're comfortable just filing this under "well, the internet needs to hate something"? So it's just a weird coincidence that a bunch of people all decided to hate the same thing on the interent? Maybe anonymous is behind it.
Of course chaos players find alternatives. They either shelf the army, sell it, or play out of the new codex. That doesn't mean they're happy with it.
It's like people after a bad breakup: they eventually stop talking about her because frankly the people in their lives dont' care. But we all have that friend that get's drunk once a year and get's wistful over a girl from his past. My point is that yeah, IRL people move on.
Also, to be fair, this was brought up not by people that hate the codex but by Gav, who decided to weigh in. That prompted the usual tit for tat you see.
4431
Post by: kid_happy
Polonius wrote:I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think one reason people dislike the new codex so much is because it's not more powerful than the previous one. Yes, yes, I've argued for years that it's not about power, and arguably the best army build for the last two years has been Twin lash, but hear me out.
When a new codex comes out, most of the time it replaces a book that has faded dramatically in power, such that while it may have a few fun lists, it has one or maybe two punchy power builds left in in. You know that when a codex is redone some of the small little options are going to be re-shuffled, that some army archtypes might be eliminated, but they'll be replaced with new ones, that are fun and powerful. With the chaos book, it had huge options, many of which were quite strong. The new codex adds one really strong new build, eliminates a bunch of power, elminates a bunch of options, and then walks away.
In short, you can get people excited about a codex in two ways: by making it strong, or by allowing interesting new army builds. It's not that the chaos book doesn't have strong lists, or interesting lists, it's just that it has fewer of each compared to what it replaced. Sure, many people find the lists playable now more interesting than under 3.5, and good for them.
Now, the 3.5 codex was oven OTT, and certainly didn't need to become more powerful. Maybe there really was no way to balance it back to the pack while retaining options; but I contend that they could have done a better job with it. This was the only time we've ever seen a codex struck down while still in it's prime, and I think that's a bigger factor than most people acknowledge, myself included.
Even worse, paradoxically, the current book didn't weather the switch to 5th particularly well. Only one unit can outflank, thousand sons were good until the new cover rules made them inferior pound for pound to noise marines, KPs make spawn even worse, etc. The old 3.5 book could make some really interesting and killer 5th edition lists: all outflanking alpha legion, Word bearers demon bombs, etc.
I don't always agree with you, Polonius, but do appreciate the way you write.
BTW I think you summed it up nicely here and I am in the "mostly happy with the streamlined Codex" crowd
Cheers!
14424
Post by: RxGhost
I don't think we need to get all conspiratorial, internet hate machine all up in here. I'm just saying that in the real world I live in, people do not usually go to the internet to talk about the things they love.
Besides, let's look at the reality that most of us are casual players who play with people we know or in places we know and are comfortable with. Just keep playing your old army with the old rules, no one is going to care. I'm sorry if the new codex doesn't fit the perfect vision of what you're army was, but maybe it shouldn't.
Look at Magic The Gathering. They've been around for years longer than they should have, and do you know why? Type 2 tournament format. That's the deck construction rule where you can only use the most current cards in your deck. (As an aside, it should be known that magic handles casual players like 40k handles hardcore tournament styles) This forces players to buy new cards to play in the current formats, this propels sales of cards as the old ones are out-moded. But what it also does, is slowly rotates and eventually kicks out deck construction types. This is what keeps the game from stagnating, this is what keeps the game alive.
I know warhammer armies cost a lot of time and money, but so do magic decks. I've seen people spend as much or more on a tweaked deck as some others will spend on an army...and they don't know it, but they're being forced to play in new and novel ways because that's what keeps it worth playing.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Polonius wrote:
However, first I meant that you can build interesting builds that are pretty similar to the old ones in the current ig book, something that isn't always possible with chaos. Secondly I think that number of interesting, viable builds out of the chaos book pale in comparion to eldar, SM, or IG. As has been stated, all essentially revolve around dudes in rhinos. The fixin's are many and varied (if not always tasty), but meat and potatoes of the chaos book is surprising inflexible.
And this is where I disagree with you in two ways:
1. You keep saying that Chaos is boring and at least Eldar and IG still have interesting builds and so that somehow invalidates JHDD's points. I disagree with you. Yes it is a difference of opinion but it seems you are taking that all Rhino rushes are the same as fact (see "As has been stated") and I don't agree. I think that WE in Rhinos requires different tactics than NM's in Rhino's or 1kSons in Rhinos or even basic CSM in Rhinos. And additionally I do believe that other play styles can still be done with the CSM dex.
2. That somehow IG and Eldar can field approximations of the old lists but Chaos can't. Except for a few specific examples in all three codices, I believe that just about all the old lists can get close. Chaos isn't somehow more special in that regard.
So yes, your statement was correct, but inaccurate. It read as snotty because it seemed like you were ignoring all of the arguments that have been made, and seemed to focus on the fact that, yes, you can actually build an army or two out of the Chaos book that isn't boring, as if that solved everything.
Maybe I was a little touchy, but you had to know that it would provoke a response and rebuttal, if you thought about it. If not, well, I didn't mean to jump at you for posting sloppy.
Calling me snotty is a great way to avoid having a real discussion. I don't think my tone has been anything but open with you.
It also gets back to something that I've been saying for a while now, and nobody seems to respond to: There are only two reason for this controversy. One is that the Chaos Book is actually unusually flawed, the other is that chaos players are unusually petulant. At some point, where there is smoke (a large amount of anger at a codex) there might actually be fire (something wrong with the damn book).
I am not arguing that there is nothing wrong with the book. In fact I have said I've agreed with many of the criticisms several times. What I don't agree with is the degree of things wrong, that this book is somehow the worst evar. It gets old and tiresome to see the same arguments and the same hyperbole coming from basically the same people every time the Chaos dex is brought up (or every time a new codex comes out like the new SW codex).
Speaking of not responding, I asked the question earlier to HBMC, what could Gav had said that would have satisfied you? Seems to me his answers explain his reasoning and why they made the decisions they made (on a macro level, not on individual items, which Gav said he wouldn't answer). Whether or not you agree that it was good reasoning is a different discussion.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
keezus wrote:1. I was more refering to Bikes, which have been made troops in several codecies, though I concede that BAs have set precedence by making jump pack infantry troops.
2. In my mind, of more concern is the complete lack of heavy weapons in the fast attack slot. The only configurable moving heavy weapon platform they have outside heavy support is on the dreadnought - making it unreliable at best, and downright useless at times.
While we may conjecture all we want about the designer's intentions regarding "fightyness" vs "shootyness", regardless of intention - the reality is that due to the way they have distributed heavy weapons options, deployment options and movement options, the most sucessful variants are all mechanized out of necessity, and not by choice.
1. On the Bikes, I forgot about them entirely - they're a bit too shooty for my tastes.
2. You know, being Raptor-focused, I never even noticed that. OTOH, Chaos has pure fight as Fast (via Spawn). Also note that Dread is best taken as a dual CCW unit.
SM are mech, too, just mech shooty using Pods & Razors; CSM are clearly mech fighty, as you clearly help explain. And there's nothing wrong with GW forcing the Codices down these particular roads, as it does show that CSM have a different MO compared to regular SM.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Not content with the mud-slinging here, KillKrazy has started a poll on the subject. Ozy - What answer could he give to satisfy me? I suspect there's no answer he could give me that would satisfy me, but not because I'd simply disagree with him, but because he simply wouldn't answer the question. Just look at his response. He fethed up the ice-cream analogy to the point of absurdity - his response does not make any logical sense - and then spent the next 10 paragraphs harping on with a straw-filled false dilemma to prove a non-existent point. If someone wants to disagree with me about the Chaos Codex (or anything), fine, but I operate under the assumption that someone backs up what they say with some sort of tangible or logical reasoning. This is why I often get into hissy fits with John, as that man is devoid of all logic and is incapable of mounting a structured argument. Gav did the same thing here - he answered criticism with hollow, empty and meaningless babble. I'm not satisfied because I wanted an answer - whatever that answer may turn out to be is largely irrelevant - but I got no answer. I got crap.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
As I said before,
And hopefully this poll will show,
That in general people think the codex was a big step back and MOST people that play chaos or otherwise would agree,
But let us use the stats for that call and stop the name calling please!
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
HBMC: An answer to what? What was your question? If it was "Why is the Chaos codex crappy?" His answer is, "I don't think it is." If your question was, "Why did you do the things you did to the Chaos codex," then I think he did give you an answer, albeit an answer you disagree with.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ozymandias wrote:
And this is where I disagree with you in two ways:
1. You keep saying that Chaos is boring and at least Eldar and IG still have interesting builds and so that somehow invalidates JHDD's points. I disagree with you. Yes it is a difference of opinion but it seems you are taking that all Rhino rushes are the same as fact (see "As has been stated") and I don't agree. I think that WE in Rhinos requires different tactics than NM's in Rhino's or 1kSons in Rhinos or even basic CSM in Rhinos. And additionally I do believe that other play styles can still be done with the CSM dex.
Not all rhino rushes are the same, of course not. I just think that compared to the options that, say, IG has, the distinctions blur and become subtle. Berzerkers and 1k sons play differently, but the still use many of the same tactics, and can be countered with the same tactics. Now, the difference between mechanzied vets and all foot sloggers is very large. Throw in the ability of one platoon to outflank, and I think you have strongly distinct play styles.
2. That somehow IG and Eldar can field approximations of the old lists but Chaos can't. Except for a few specific examples in all three codices, I believe that just about all the old lists can get close. Chaos isn't somehow more special in that regard.
We can go round around about this, but here's the real thing: the new chaos book didn't add anything, it only took away. Now, it added some stuff (Icons for bikes/raptors, the vindicator and spawn, and all cults as troops), but compare that to the Eldar book (which added the autarch, Harliquins, jetbike warlocks as an army build, wraithguard spam as a build, jetbikes as troops) or Space Marines (Sternguard, vanguard, Ironclads, Storms, the redeemer) or IG (Valk/vendetta, tons of tanks and artillery, Sly Marbo, pyschic battle squads, orders, advisors, vets as troops, and armored sentinels).
So yes, your statement was correct, but inaccurate. It read as snotty because it seemed like you were ignoring all of the arguments that have been made, and seemed to focus on the fact that, yes, you can actually build an army or two out of the Chaos book that isn't boring, as if that solved everything.
Maybe I was a little touchy, but you had to know that it would provoke a response and rebuttal, if you thought about it. If not, well, I didn't mean to jump at you for posting sloppy.
Calling me snotty is a great way to avoid having a real discussion. I don't think my tone has been anything but open with you.
Dude, I said I was being overly touchy, and I explained why I said what I said. I'm sorry I called you snotty, but you're not new to the internet. You posted a one line response to a cherry picked quote that invited a rebuttal.
It also gets back to something that I've been saying for a while now, and nobody seems to respond to: There are only two reason for this controversy. One is that the Chaos Book is actually unusually flawed, the other is that chaos players are unusually petulant. At some point, where there is smoke (a large amount of anger at a codex) there might actually be fire (something wrong with the damn book).
I am not arguing that there is nothing wrong with the book. In fact I have said I've agreed with many of the criticisms several times. What I don't agree with is the degree of things wrong, that this book is somehow the worst evar. It gets old and tiresome to see the same arguments and the same hyperbole coming from basically the same people every time the Chaos dex is brought up (or every time a new codex comes out like the new SW codex).
There have been, what, Seven codices since and including eldar? One of them is going to be the worst. So, saying that Chaos screwed up more armies than any other new codex isn't necessarily hyperbole. It's true of one codex, and there is ample evidence to think it was Chaos. I think DA is pretty widely seen as the weakest and blandest, but for all it's faults it did a pretty good job of replicating what people had. I also don't think this book is awful, but I think that too many of it's supporters simply assume that all codices have changeover flaws and that chaos isn't different. I think that the chaos switch is not only different, it's demonstrably different.
Speaking of not responding, I asked the question earlier to HBMC, what could Gav had said that would have satisfied you? Seems to me his answers explain his reasoning and why they made the decisions they made (on a macro level, not on individual items, which Gav said he wouldn't answer). Whether or not you agree that it was good reasoning is a different discussion.
Well, I'm not HBMC. I've posted what I would have liked Gav to say.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
We can go on and on so I'll limit my replies to one thing. When I refer to hyperbole I am specifically referring to posts like this (from HBMC):
The book is worse than bad - it's a travesty.
We've had 2 years worth of quotes like that. It's gotten really tiresome and restricts meaningful discussion.
14828
Post by: Cane
Ozymandias wrote:We can go on and on so I'll limit my replies to one thing. When I refer to hyperbole I am specifically referring to posts like this (from HBMC):
The book is worse than bad - it's a travesty.
We've had 2 years worth of quotes like that. It's gotten really tiresome and restricts meaningful discussion.
Agreed and I've only been actively posting since May.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:Eldar book (which added the autarch, Harliquins, jetbike warlocks as an army build, wraithguard spam as a build, jetbikes as troops)
I dunno, Polonius. The Autarch is little more than a revamp of the old 2E Exarch Character entry. Harlequins tie back to the CJ list, which was more-or-less legal if not overreaching for the revisited version with Harlequin Wraithlords. I can't recall about Jetlocks (I don't own any such models), but I know for a fact that CWE had Ulthwe Seer Council, Iyanden Wraithguard spam, and Saim-Haan Jetbike troops. Taken in perspective from an Eldar player, those really aren't what I'd call "adds".
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:Polonius wrote:Eldar book (which added the autarch, Harliquins, jetbike warlocks as an army build, wraithguard spam as a build, jetbikes as troops)
I dunno, Polonius. The Autarch is little more than a revamp of the old 2E Exarch Character entry. Harlequins tie back to the CJ list, which was more-or-less legal if not overreaching for the revisited version with Harlequin Wraithlords. I can't recall about Jetlocks (I don't own any such models), but I know for a fact that CWE had Ulthwe Seer Council, Iyanden Wraithguard spam, and Saim-Haan Jetbike troops. Taken in perspective from an Eldar player, those really aren't what I'd call "adds".
The jetbikes and the wraithguard could be taken as troops in CWE, but at the cost of losing Guardians, Rangers, and DAs as troops. Now you can have them and you're other troops as well.
So, because a codex in 2005 added a unit that was last usable in 1998, that's not an add? It wasn't in the codex that it replaced.
Likewise, Harlequins were sort of legal as their own list that was sort of available. They weren't in the codex, they weren't in CA, and they are in the new codex.
If anything, this proves the larger point, which is that aside from multi-farseer seer councils and aspects as troops, nearly all the rules from the old eldar stuff found their way into the new eldar book, plus more. Oh, I suppose the court of the young king and the disruption table are gone as well. And the wild riders retinue, if you don't like shining spears or basic bikes.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
This is the interweb,
hyperbole is the norm.
To say that the new Chaos book is a travesty is warranted if you believe so.
I wouldn't use such strong emotions (But I do know that is exactly how HBMC feels to the core).
I also agree that this is a great example,
of a new dex that does nothing but take stuff away (A great way of looking at it).
No new units,
just dropping units, diversity, items, characters and what many gamers felt was the best part about what the old codex (leaving people with a bad taste in their mouth)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
CWE was a series of restrictive reshuffles, and if you didn't want to play that way, then you didn't. But if you're calling those as "adds", then you need to call Cult Troops "adds". And that is a very significant change to the army.
Quite frankly, restoring stuff that got cut doesn't much seem cause for celebration. To me, losing Biel Tan that I actually played for an Autarch I could care less about isn't an exciting change. And I'm not about to be patting Robbie C. on the back for restoring the Griffon or Vanquisher when he pulled Camo, Carapace, Light Infantry and Drop Troops to do it.
Harlies were in the 2E Codex, so again, nothing to get wound up over.
Actually, losing the Disruption table is somewhat significant, as it was a nearly auto-win against certain opponents. Of course, it would be nigh-useless in 5E's mech metagame.
And CotYK is back in Apoc, I believe.
7961
Post by: Orc Town Grot
Fitz
made an excellent point. He said that the veteran Chaos player discontent problem could be resolved by the publishing of legions.
Fritz was also right to say that designing Legions was made difficult (impossible?) By the new truths in the present codexes.
This sums up the problem. Chaos players feel the rule set lost its heart. They want it back, but its not gonna happen this decade.
Thus we complain in the hope that GW notices and moves Legions up the design timetable somewhat so that we can get it within five years, not fifteen.
IMO Legions holds the key to the Chaos culture as it has developed over the years. So the design process should have started there.
As it is, the Legion dimension of Chaos has been thrown out the window, and despite some pretence of getting to it sometime, there is no sign they ever will.
I guess the reason is that business trumps art.
It may be true that the present CSM and Daemon codex are viable. Players have to accept that this is the way its going to be!
So it may be that the design of Chaos armies indeed has been (as we keep claimin) SCREWED, for probably the next ten years by the decisions they made last time around.
We can still play Chaos! We do! The army most broadly has its ruleset, blah de blah blah. It has its power builds, it can win games and tournaments! We know that!
The bottom line is whether the game is better for the latest codexes, and streamlining, and re-writing. Is it more interesting? More fun? More varied? More inspiring?
NO. NO. NO. NO!
On each count is is less attractive than it was,
So when a company of design experts with thirty odd years of expertise in designing things, goes and takes a good and lauded product and creates a lemon!
Don't be surprised when the all knowing customers actually notice it!
As for complaining I think the Chaos horde should do a hell of a lot more.
That might force their hand into committing to some kind of Legions rennaisance before 2020.
OTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
John Hwang,
You really gotta post your "tears for the Eldar and IG" somewhere in a new thread. This is the Chaos crying room brother, we aren't arguing with you. Most of us damn well play IG AND Eldar anyway!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Orc Town Grot wrote:The bottom line is whether the game is better for the latest codexes, and streamlining, and re-writing.
I think that GW accelerating the process of giving the various MEQ-related armies distinct personalities is a good thing. SM are mech Bolters. BA are Jump Packs. SW are Heroes. DA are Termies & Bikes. CSM are mech BP& CCWs. And so on.
I find this much better than everybody being largely indistinguishable Bolter Marines. Particularly galling is the old RT/2E Fluff about how BA/ DA/ SW are all Codex Chapters.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: An answer to what? What was your question? If it was "Why is the Chaos codex crappy?" His answer is, "I don't think it is." If your question was, "Why did you do the things you did to the Chaos codex," then I think he did give you an answer, albeit an answer you disagree with.
No, I am going to side with Polonius here. You are being 'snotty', and by that I mean needlessly confrontational and hot-headed. Come back to me when you've got a more reasoned approach.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Wow, way to respond. I wasn't hot-headed but I'm starting to be now. Geez, I have the gall to ask you a simple question and you respond by calling me snotty and hot-headed? Coming from one of the snottiest and most hot-headed poster on Dakka no less.
Now, how about answering the fething question?
9079
Post by: FITZZ
I'm going to have to throw my hat in the ring for H.B.M.C as well.
After reading,rereading and yet again reading Gavs responce to H.B.M.Cs inquery/statements (among others),it seemed Mr. Thorpe missed and/or avoided the point entirely.
16487
Post by: Samus666
Gotta say, H.B.M.C. I'm right there with ya. My opinion of the this 'dex is about as low as it could possibly be. There's not much could change that, and illogical excuses from the credited creator just makes it worse. As does having the fringe 4th ed supoorters constantly trying to shout down its detractors.
Fact is, if the majority of Chaos players feel there is a problem with this book, then there IS a problem with the book. To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong. Because there are only a limited number of ways to evaluate a codex objectively - popularity, expansiveness, flexibility, balance, competitiveness, fluffiness - and it seems that in most cases C:CSM 4th edition fails on all fronts. The fact that it is tolerable by some and actually pleased a few by chance doesn't change that.
Also, I wanna mention that if I ever have to 'go 4th' (which might happen if my regular gaming buddy drops out of the hobby), or ever decide to so I can play in stores again (which I'd really like to) the addition of a legions book will not help me. I play Black Legion mostly, and the 4th edition codex isnt even suitable for something as generic as that. I want to be able to customize my Lords and Daemon Princes and Chosen and Tactical Squads - turn them into unique and legendary warriors and killers and conquerors. Without skills, marks, wargear, gifts etc I can't. Plus, I refuse to use generic daemons - I'd get no satisfaction from playing those rules at all.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Let me put it another way, HBMC's argument boils down to this (the last line of his blog comment):
Being restricted to one of four options is better than having unlimited choice with one option.
Which is a completely valid criticism. It oversimplifies a bit but I get it.
So what could Gav have said to that criticism to satisfy HBMC? I think Gav lays out his reasoning behind the codex and whether you agree or not depends largely on your pre-existing opinions of the codex.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Meh,
The haters will still hate, the ones who like it will still like it. We aren't going to change one an others minds. It is not the worst codex ever, that award goes to 3.5 Chaos codex for the reasons I laid out. People like H have the exact opposite view.
I just find it laughable that in 2nd ed. NL and IW and WE's was a paint job. The worst thing GW did was to give CSM armies other than the big 4 their own rules.
SM's have 5 army lists or codeciies but CSM players feel that Chaos should have 9? How is 9 vs 5 fair. We can have 5 as well you know? 1 BL/non-cult in one book (using named characters to unlock IW or NL or WE archetypes and then 4 Cult codeciies but for some reason all I see is that all 9 Legions should have their own codex. Meh, I'm sorry. The day all 9 Legions get a codex is the day I want to see CF/IF/ RG/Sals/ WS get their own codeciies as well.
Yeesh, talk about wanting the whole fething Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory instead of more than 3 flavors of ice cream. Automatically Appended Next Post: Samus666 wrote:Gotta say, H.B.M.C. I'm right there with ya. My opinion of the this 'dex is about as low as it could possibly be. There's not much could change that, and illogical excuses from the credited creator just makes it worse. As does having the fringe 4th ed supoorters constantly trying to shout down its detractors.
Fact is, if the majority of Chaos players feel there is a problem with this book, then there IS a problem with the book. To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong. Because there are only a limited number of ways to evaluate a codex objectively - popularity, expansiveness, flexibility, balance, competitiveness, fluffiness - and it seems that in most cases C:CSM 4th edition fails on all fronts. The fact that it is tolerable by some and actually pleased a few by chance doesn't change that.
Also, I wanna mention that if I ever have to 'go 4th' (which might happen if my regular gaming buddy drops out of the hobby), or ever decide to so I can play in stores again (which I'd really like to) the addition of a legions book will not help me. I play Black Legion mostly, and the 4th edition codex isnt even suitable for something as generic as that. I want to be able to customize my Lords and Daemon Princes and Chosen and Tactical Squads - turn them into unique and legendary warriors and killers and conquerors. Without skills, marks, wargear, gifts etc I can't. Plus, I refuse to use generic daemons - I'd get no satisfaction from playing those rules at all.
This...because somehow you KNOW that 51% of Chaos players in the world HATE the 4.5 codex. Being part of the vocal majority doesn't put you in the OVERALL majority. If you can't prove you have talked to each and every Chaos player in the known world and gotten their opinion on the codex than you have no ground to stand on. Saying "but all the Chaos players in my group" hate the codex does not make your group the majority.
Unless somehow your group happens to contain every 40k CSM player in the known world which I know very much is not true.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ozymandias wrote:Now, how about answering the fething question?
I answered your damned question already:
What answer could he give to satisfy me? I suspect there's no answer he could give me that would satisfy me, but not because I'd simply disagree with him, but because he simply wouldn't answer the question. Just look at his response. He fethed up the ice-cream analogy to the point of absurdity - his response does not make any logical sense - and then spent the next 10 paragraphs harping on with a straw-filled false dilemma to prove a non-existent point.
If someone wants to disagree with me about the Chaos Codex (or anything), fine, but I operate under the assumption that someone backs up what they say with some sort of tangible or logical reasoning. This is why I often get into hissy fits with John, as that man is devoid of all logic and is incapable of mounting a structured argument. Gav did the same thing here - he answered criticism with hollow, empty and meaningless babble. I'm not satisfied because I wanted an answer - whatever that answer may turn out to be is largely irrelevant - but I got no answer. I got crap.
Did you miss that?
As to your follow-up, I'd say 'my question' was a bad way to phrase it. Answer my argument would be more accurate. I didn't actually ask a 'question' (or, I don't think I did). I more stated why I thought he was wrong as well as the flaws in his reasoning. I didn't get a rebuttal to that though, I got straw and bull-gak and he proved his own intelligence by completely butchering the ice-cream analogy to the point where several people here responded to Gav with ' Huh?', myself included. And that's my problem. Someone can disagree with me all they like, but if they cannot back up their assertions with something more than ' 'Cause I said so', then I'll consider them fools and not give them the time of day (hence my issue with John - he just says things and expects everyone to take them at face value, then cries ' ad hominem!' or runs off to the mods whenever you challenge him back). Automatically Appended Next Post: Samus666 wrote:To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong.
This.
Got it in one.
Well said Samus.
522
Post by: Rygoth
Fateweaver wrote:Meh,
The haters will still hate, the ones who like it will still like it. We aren't going to change one an others minds. It is not the worst codex ever, that award goes to 3.5 Chaos codex for the reasons I laid out. People like H have the exact opposite view.
I just find it laughable that in 2nd ed. NL and IW and WE's was a paint job. The worst thing GW did was to give CSM armies other than the big 4 their own rules.
SM's have 5 army lists or codeciies but CSM players feel that Chaos should have 9? How is 9 vs 5 fair. We can have 5 as well you know? 1 BL/non-cult in one book (using named characters to unlock IW or NL or WE archetypes and then 4 Cult codeciies but for some reason all I see is that all 9 Legions should have their own codex. Meh, I'm sorry. The day all 9 Legions get a codex is the day I want to see CF/IF/ RG/Sals/ WS get their own codeciies as well.
Yeesh, talk about wanting the whole fething Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory instead of more than 3 flavors of ice cream.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus666 wrote:Gotta say, H.B.M.C. I'm right there with ya. My opinion of the this 'dex is about as low as it could possibly be. There's not much could change that, and illogical excuses from the credited creator just makes it worse. As does having the fringe 4th ed supoorters constantly trying to shout down its detractors.
Fact is, if the majority of Chaos players feel there is a problem with this book, then there IS a problem with the book. To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong. Because there are only a limited number of ways to evaluate a codex objectively - popularity, expansiveness, flexibility, balance, competitiveness, fluffiness - and it seems that in most cases C:CSM 4th edition fails on all fronts. The fact that it is tolerable by some and actually pleased a few by chance doesn't change that.
Also, I wanna mention that if I ever have to 'go 4th' (which might happen if my regular gaming buddy drops out of the hobby), or ever decide to so I can play in stores again (which I'd really like to) the addition of a legions book will not help me. I play Black Legion mostly, and the 4th edition codex isnt even suitable for something as generic as that. I want to be able to customize my Lords and Daemon Princes and Chosen and Tactical Squads - turn them into unique and legendary warriors and killers and conquerors. Without skills, marks, wargear, gifts etc I can't. Plus, I refuse to use generic daemons - I'd get no satisfaction from playing those rules at all.
This...because somehow you KNOW that 51% of Chaos players in the world HATE the 4.5 codex. Being part of the vocal majority doesn't put you in the OVERALL majority. If you can't prove you have talked to each and every Chaos player in the known world and gotten their opinion on the codex than you have no ground to stand on. Saying "but all the Chaos players in my group" hate the codex does not make your group the majority.
Unless somehow your group happens to contain every 40k CSM player in the known world which I know very much is not true.
B.S. At some point, overwhelming observational evidence has got to be taken into account. All the chaos armies in my area have been shelved. Once you know someones only real build is dual lash, they tend to be countered fairly easily, they have less fun playing, and they move on. This is a theme I see repeated over and over. Drink the kool aid all you want, Chaos was gutted almost as badly as the Dark Angels were.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Rygoth wrote:B.S. At some point, overwhelming observational evidence has got to be taken into account.
Or, as was said above, if there's smoke, sometimes there really is a fire. Rygoth wrote:Drink the kool aid all you want, Chaos was gutted almost as badly as the Dark Angels were.
Oh I wouldn't say that. DA players can at least still field Deathwing and Ravenwing forces (albeit with mandatory non-special Special Characters). My Bloodletters, Cultists and Mutants have all taken up pottery and knitting as they have nothing else to do in thier Codex. That said I do feel sorry for all Dark Angel players. They were Jervisified almost as bad as Chaos was.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
I have been officially hosed.
My 2 largest armies are Dark Angels and Chaos (Orks and Eldar nipping on their heals).
But at least my Dark Angels Characters can have some options, Yes they suck - But I can choose how they suck (which I find inherently entertaining)
752
Post by: Polonius
H.B.M.C. wrote:Rygoth wrote:B.S. At some point, overwhelming observational evidence has got to be taken into account.
Or, as was said above, if there's smoke, sometimes there really is a fire.
I guess I don't understand the mentality that the Chaos update was no different than any other update, when a solid chunk of the chaos army was split off into it's own codex, while sublists were removed without the attempts to reproduce them that every other codex got. Eldar got Jetbikes and WG as troops along with good enough DAs to build viable biel tan, Orks can take nobs, mega nobs, trukk boys, and bikes as troops. IG have flexible veterans with many of the old doctrines, plus new orders, plus tons of new toys. SM got Chapter Tactics, and bikes as troops. Chaos got... all cults as troops.
I mean, we get that stuff changes with new codexes, but usally the exchange goes like this:
GW: hey, you know that wacky list you've been working on, that was either very good in the old book or involved Chapter approved, doctirnes, triats, etc.? Yeah, that's going to be removed.
Player: Oh, that really sucks.
GW: Yeah, but to make up for it we're introducing something that will get you by, as well as a bunch of new units and a few new army archtypes to mess around with. Plus pretty much everything got plussed up to make it more competitive.
Player: Wow, what a completely devious way to get me to spend more money replacing half of an army that's already built and painted.
GW: yeah, but the new stuff is too cool to not like.
Player: Damn you GW!
Player's Wife: Damn you GW!
Now, this is the exchange with Chaos:
GW: hey, you know all those legions rules? They're gone now.
Player: Oh, that really sucks.
GW: But to make up for it we made demons simpler. Now instead of 12 different demons, you simply have lesser demons and greater demons.
Player: Wow, that's really wierd. Are they still a good unit?
GW: They sure are! They're basically space marine scouts, instead they have a 5++ and can assault when they deepstrike!
Player: But why would you want to assault with a unit thats S4, has only 2 attacks and no power weapons?
GW: Because they're demons! And we have to save all the good rules for the actual Demon codex.
Player: Huh. Well, do we at least get a whole bunch of cool new units?
GW: You sure do! We have a vindicator and Spawn!
Player: Oh, spawn as separate unit? What are the rules for that... oh that's a shame. And I could already take a vindicator.
GW: Yeah, but now everybody can take as many as they want.
Player: So we get a new tank, which we could already get, and terrible unit as our only new stuff?
GW: But that's not all! We also took away pretty much all the wargear options, demonic gifts, veteran skills, and stuff like mutated hull.
Player: Well, I suppose that makes some sense, you've been moving away from giant armories and heavily tooled up characters for a while now. Man, I can't wait to see how boring the weapon options for regular marines are going to be.
GW: Oh no, they'll get all kinds of cool new stuff, like Relic Blades and3++ storm shields. However we did finally move the dreadnought to the elites section, only 9 years after the loyalists figured that one out.
Player: Oh, cool! Is there a new model for that, because frankly it's a bit dated.
GW: Nope, but to make you feel better we're going to make it crazy! So you can't rely on it ever! It's chaotic!
Player. Oh. Umm, well, than what kind of cool new armies can we build now?
GW: Have you ever wanted to field Plague Marines and Thousand Sons at the same time?
Player: sure, I guess that was kind of a silly rule.
GW: Well now you can!
Player: well, neat. what else?
GW: you can also field Khorne and Slaneesh together.
Player: Is that it?
GW: I don't' think you understand. You have the option of five different power armored units as troops. Five!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And yet a certain member, and a few others, still claim the new Codex is more flexible.
I just don't get it.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
Polonius:
I salute you,
that captures a lot of what goes unsaid about this codex, really does
4926
Post by: Neil
Polonius wrote:And you didn't feel like fielding them as hardened veterans, basic infantry squads, conscripts, last chancers, or even kroot mercenaries in the IG 4th ed book? Or Penal legion, veterans, conscripts, or standard infantry squads in the current book?
I tried to make them work in the 3.5 book, but at the end of the day it was too complicated for opponents. I had lots of models with laspistol/ CCW and shotguns, and things like heavy stubbers and heavy plasma guns.
In the new book it would work alot better, sadly I've sold off much of the army now.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Rygoth wrote:Fateweaver wrote:Meh,
The haters will still hate, the ones who like it will still like it. We aren't going to change one an others minds. It is not the worst codex ever, that award goes to 3.5 Chaos codex for the reasons I laid out. People like H have the exact opposite view.
I just find it laughable that in 2nd ed. NL and IW and WE's was a paint job. The worst thing GW did was to give CSM armies other than the big 4 their own rules.
SM's have 5 army lists or codeciies but CSM players feel that Chaos should have 9? How is 9 vs 5 fair. We can have 5 as well you know? 1 BL/non-cult in one book (using named characters to unlock IW or NL or WE archetypes and then 4 Cult codeciies but for some reason all I see is that all 9 Legions should have their own codex. Meh, I'm sorry. The day all 9 Legions get a codex is the day I want to see CF/IF/ RG/Sals/ WS get their own codeciies as well.
Yeesh, talk about wanting the whole fething Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory instead of more than 3 flavors of ice cream.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus666 wrote:Gotta say, H.B.M.C. I'm right there with ya. My opinion of the this 'dex is about as low as it could possibly be. There's not much could change that, and illogical excuses from the credited creator just makes it worse. As does having the fringe 4th ed supoorters constantly trying to shout down its detractors.
Fact is, if the majority of Chaos players feel there is a problem with this book, then there IS a problem with the book. To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong. Because there are only a limited number of ways to evaluate a codex objectively - popularity, expansiveness, flexibility, balance, competitiveness, fluffiness - and it seems that in most cases C:CSM 4th edition fails on all fronts. The fact that it is tolerable by some and actually pleased a few by chance doesn't change that.
Also, I wanna mention that if I ever have to 'go 4th' (which might happen if my regular gaming buddy drops out of the hobby), or ever decide to so I can play in stores again (which I'd really like to) the addition of a legions book will not help me. I play Black Legion mostly, and the 4th edition codex isnt even suitable for something as generic as that. I want to be able to customize my Lords and Daemon Princes and Chosen and Tactical Squads - turn them into unique and legendary warriors and killers and conquerors. Without skills, marks, wargear, gifts etc I can't. Plus, I refuse to use generic daemons - I'd get no satisfaction from playing those rules at all.
This...because somehow you KNOW that 51% of Chaos players in the world HATE the 4.5 codex. Being part of the vocal majority doesn't put you in the OVERALL majority. If you can't prove you have talked to each and every Chaos player in the known world and gotten their opinion on the codex than you have no ground to stand on. Saying "but all the Chaos players in my group" hate the codex does not make your group the majority.
Unless somehow your group happens to contain every 40k CSM player in the known world which I know very much is not true.
B.S. At some point, overwhelming observational evidence has got to be taken into account. All the chaos armies in my area have been shelved. Once you know someones only real build is dual lash, they tend to be countered fairly easily, they have less fun playing, and they move on. This is a theme I see repeated over and over. Drink the kool aid all you want, Chaos was gutted almost as badly as the Dark Angels were.
Again, PROVE to me that 51% of the Chaos Space Marine players ON THIS PLANET hate the 4.5 codex and I will personally come to your house and kiss your feet. I'll even allow you the courtesy of a 3% margin of error. You can't do it so I call BS on your claim that ALL CSM players hate the 4.5 codex. Can you prove to me that all CSM armies in your area have been shelved? What is your area? Your local FLGS? Your 'hood? Your city? Your state? You do realize that maybe not everyone who plays 40k in whatever city you happen to live in plays at your FLGS? Maybe there are as many people who play 40k in their basement that play CSM's as do at the FLGS you play at.
Your "evidence" is no more concrete than mine that say's most CSM players "like" the new CSM 'dex. 2 CSM players in my group, I and another guy. Both of us like it. He has my army because I sold it to him BECAUSE of the atrocity that was the 3.5 (see what I did there all you 4.5 haters, I can use words like atrocity as well?) CSM codex. If I decide to rebuild my WE army it will be a feth load better than it was in 3.5. In MY area, from what I know, every CSM players "likes" the 4.5 codex. Hmm, I can get anecdotal too, does not mean I'm anymore right than you.
But go on and keep standing on your soapbox. I'll even provide you with a bulletproof shield on wheels and a wireless mic so you can keep preaching to the choir and maybe at the same time travel the world, going door to door to prove me wrong. Not that you can so I'm not worried.
I'm not saying older CSM armies did NOT lose something. I realize you lost Cult Terminators and special rules. I'm not a fethwit but to try to tell those of us who like the 4.5 codex that "we don't know what it's like because we are new or drinking the koolaid GW gives us is an insult." and an attack at the same time. I lost stuff from the supposed garbage 3.0 codex to 3.5 so don't belittle me by saying I don't know what it's like.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Fateweaver wrote:Again, PROVE to me that 51% of the Chaos Space Marine players ON THIS PLANET hate the 4.5 codex and I will personally come to your house and kiss your feet.
Oh give it a rest Fateweaver! Of course he can't 'prove' that, but he doesn't have to prove your red-herring either.
Honestly...
4727
Post by: Makaleth
Well,
I could prove it statistically if we had enough traffic, just need enough of a sample on the poll and you can extrapolate based on estimated sizes for the gaming population.
I do this all the time in marketing and econometrics,
not very tough stats people,
just need the numbers...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NB: This is all margin of error type thinking, I think that the empirical evidence really is all that is needed.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
H.B.M.C. wrote:Fateweaver wrote:Again, PROVE to me that 51% of the Chaos Space Marine players ON THIS PLANET hate the 4.5 codex and I will personally come to your house and kiss your feet.
Oh give it a rest Fateweaver! Of course he can't 'prove' that, but he doesn't have to prove your red-herring either.
Honestly...
I'll give it a rest when you give it a rest in spouting your BS about how the 4.5 codex is the worst ever because you cannot prove it anymore than I can prove it isn't.
You might have been a member here longer so I'm sure your cut-to-the-chase rhetoric and thinly veiled attacks will fly by most of the mods compared to if I posted in the same manner as you but whatever.
Again, just to make it clear to you since apparently your eyes are so red from 4.5 codex rage that you can't see what I'm posting I'll repeat it.
Not everyone, and that has been shown with this poll, hates the 4.5 CSM codex. In YOUR opinion it is the worst codex to have been released ever by GW. Your opinion is NOT fact. As much as you like to pretend it is, it isn't. You are not the only person who feels a codex has made their army not fun or that the codex in general is NOT fun. You say the 4.5 codex did this, I say the 3.5 codex did it for me and I am not the only one who has said this.
I will not concede to you as consent means I accept defeat. None of the haters can prove to me that the majority of Chaos players hate it. I can pull numbers out of my donkey-cave and say "look everyone, 74% of the CSM players in the world love 4.5" but it's not possible to prove so should not even be taken into consideration.
If I get a warning for this post, so be it. I and JHDD get thinly veiled (and I mean thinly as it's obvious they are personal and ad hominem) attacks made against us for not agreeing. So be it. Slinging mud back will only result in me getting a warning and would bring me down to the level of those attacking me. Go on thinking GW a bunch of fethwits and I'll go on drinking the hypothetical kool-aid as you so elegantly pointed out I am doing. Oh, fyi HBMC, the kool-aid is Cherry. OH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14062
Post by: darkkt
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Fateweaver wrote:I'll give it a rest when you give it a rest in spouting your BS about how the 4.5 codex is the worst ever because you cannot prove it anymore than I can prove it isn't.
Do you practice sounding like a 6-year-old?
Fateweaver wrote:Oh, fyi HBMC, the kool-aid is Cherry. OH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh. That'd be a 'yes' then.
When you've levelled up a bit and invested from skill points in 'coherent argument construction' and 'logic', rather than pumping them into 'internet troll powers', get back to me...
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I'm only on my phone so I can't respond as in depth as I'd like, that'll come tomorrow. I will say that fateweaver accuses HBMC of attacking him personally and HBMC responds by attacking him personally. Nice.
10086
Post by: Neconilis
Ozymandias wrote:Wow, way to respond. I wasn't hot-headed but I'm starting to be now. Geez, I have the gall to ask you a simple question and you respond by calling me snotty and hot-headed? Coming from one of the snottiest and most hot-headed poster on Dakka no less.
Now, how about answering the fething question?
I most definitely have to agree with this. H.B.M.C., while you are interesting, post good reads, and are generally in the right place with your opinions... For you to call someone else snotty and hot-headed, that has got to me one of the most hypocritical posts I have ever seen from you. Step back and take a look at yourself and what you've been saying in its entirety, or ask someone else to if you can't. Otherwise you're no better than any of the other posters you traditionally label as hypocrites yourself.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Personal attack because I don't buy into your BS. I won't report it as it won't do any good.
What do you want me to say to you? That yes I agree with your logic? I'd rather go emo and slit my own wrist with an electric shaver.
How does telling me to give it a rest make your posts logical but when I do it you call me a 6yo with no logic skills? 2 personal attacks in one post. Wow, I'd be banned if I did that.
I replied with logic and thought. You just reply to anyone who disagrees with you about the 4.5 codex with insults and attacks.
What don't you understand H? I know you don't like the 4.5 codex and I respect your opinion on why you don't like it but that is just it, it's your opinion. Fact: It is a WH40k codex. Opinion: It is the worst one ever. Opinion =/= Fact. You seem to think your Opinion = Fact.
You asked those of us earlier who like it WHY we like it? Why the hell did you ask us if you are apparently going to ignore us or insult and attack us for "drinking the kool-aid?"
I have read your codex rewrites and I'm not all that impressed. You and your group might find them colorful and fun but I don't care for them. I say that not with prejudice because I read them before I found out just how acidic your personality is. Does the fact I don't like them make them the worst codeciies ever? No because you and others like them so therefore my opinion =/= fact. Why is it so damn hard for you and others like you to understand?
I'm on my 2nd glass of GW Kool-aid. I'm also sitting in my lawn chair looking at my CSM 4.5 codex with GW's new Rose-colored glasses. Hmmm, I just flipped open the 3.5 Chaos codex. Ah yes, it is all so clear to me now with my new glasses how good the 3.5 codex actually was. Goddamn, I'm sorry H. I apologize profusely for doubting your wisdom.
See what I did there? Ad hominem or personal on my part? Your pick H but right now you are leading me in insults and attacks.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
How else should I respond Ozy? Besides, you should know by now that my incredulity (and the method in which I have expressed that) is direct towards Fateweaver's manner and his strange need to post nonsense rather than actual well-formed arguments (as a lot of people in this thread who disagree with me have managed to do quite well) as opposed to just attacking him directly (as he has done). So, please, spare me the 'pot/kettle/black' speech. It doesn't apply. Neconilis wrote:For you to call someone else snotty and hot-headed, that has got to me one of the most hypocritical posts I have ever seen from you.
Then you clearly haven't read that many of my posts.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
it's at least 20%,
but that's last weeks figs.
Fate, dude. If you are going to swear, at least do so with feth like the rest of us, your just asking for a butt whipping by doing that.
And no,
HBMC argument is based on HEAPS of empirical evidence and the fact that this thread even exists, yours is not. And the poll continues to show that Automatically Appended Next Post: Hmm,
this has gone from the ivory tower to the street,
come on, pick up the level of thought guys (and maybe gals )
752
Post by: Polonius
HBMC's opinion is extreme, and it's not one that I really agree with, but he does understand that what happened to Chaos was different than other books.
He's not going to convince anybody of his viewpoint, because it's a very personal dislike. What his personal dislike is grounded in is an understanding of not only how this chaos book was dissimilar from previous chaos books, but as time has shown how it is dissimilar from the other 4.5 and 5th ed books that have come since.
As long as people keep claiming that the 4.5 chaos book was no different than any other change, you're going to provoke the reaction.
I'm not saying the s4.5 is a travesty or anything, but find me another codex switch that turned 13 units into 2, made no effort to reproduce old sublists, and added as few new units as Chaos, and we can talk.
You can argue that the changes were good, and I'd hear that out, but the extent of the changes were unprecedented.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
Polonius:
That's kinda the point, and well said.
But put that statement in a vacuum
(I'm not saying the s4.5 is a travesty or anything, but find me another codex switch that turned 13 units into 2, made no effort to reproduce old sublists, and added as few new units as Chaos, and we can talk. )
And I think you would get a very high proportion of "Why would they be so dumb" type repsonses
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Fateweaver wrote:I know you don't like the 4.5 codex and I respect your opinion on why you don't like it but that is just it, it's your opinion.
Do you though?
See, when I say that I dislike the Chaos Codex, I provide reasons for it. Lengthy, detailed reasons that I put a lot of thought into because I don't like saying things without backing myself up. I provide examples. Analogies. Metaphors. Anything to make it easier for people to understand where I'm coming from. When my opinions are challenged I expect the person challenging them to be able to come up with valid reasons why they disagree with me. It's not as simple as saying " Everyone can have an opinion" because frankly that's a load of horsesh!t. I can claim that it's my opinion that the sky is orange but unless I can back up my opinion with something, I'm just going to get laughed at. " It is because I think it is" isn't a valid opinion or argument.
So far, I've heard a lot of " You haven't lost flexibility because you just haven't" and " The new Codex is more flexible/allows more variety than the old because it just does" or perhaps the classic " There were too many options that nobody used", in other words, a lot of faith-based assertions that are supposed to exist on their own without any form of supporting statement or, worse, exist as reasons why the new is better than the old. The problem here is that these statements aren't opinions, they're questioning facts (flexibility and lost options aren't opinions, they're absolutes) and, as I said, they have no form of supporting or qualifying statement to accompany them beyond " Well it's just my opinion" or " Because I said so!".
You cited your World Eaters, specifically the Blood Rage rule which ruined how you used the army between 3 to 3.5. I say that's a remarkably petty reason to hate a Codex, especially when the World Eaters were simply one of 9 different parts of that book. Now the World Eaters aren't even a part of the book - sure, they don't have Blood Rage, but they don't have an army either. I'd call that a loss. I play World Eaters as well, and Death Guard. Neither were very good. I didn't hate the Codex for it.
I don't care if you (and this is the general 'you', not you) disagree with me as long as you can back what you say. Even if you hated the old Codex and love the new one, claiming that the new one is more flexible/has greater variety, or that Chaos players haven't 'lost' anything is false.
Fateweaver wrote:You asked those of us earlier who like it WHY we like it? Why the hell did you ask us if you are apparently going to ignore us or insult and attack us for "drinking the kool-aid?"
You're the one who brought kool-aid into this, or someone else replying to you. Don't get your Dakka posters confused.
As to why you like it, that's fine. You like it. That's great. Some people dislike the Witch Hunter Codex for sidelining or shoe-horning Sisters into another army, whereas I love the Witch Hunter Codex. Some people hate the Marine Codex for bringing Vulkan-Spam to the game, I love the book even with its faults. And that's fine we can all have those opinions. My issue isn't that you like it, it's that you ('you' being the general 'you', not you you) seem to want to tell me that I'm wrong for not liking it, and the asinine reasons behind that.
Fateweaver wrote:I have read your codex rewrites and I'm not all that impressed.
And what's that got to do with anything?
Fateweaver wrote:I'm on my 2nd glass of GW Kool-aid.
And I just drank a 5th of Vodka. Dare me to drive?
Fateweaver wrote:I'm also sitting in my lawn chair looking at my CSM 4.5 codex with GW's new Rose-colored glasses. Hmmm, I just flipped open the 3.5 Chaos codex. Ah yes, it is all so clear to me now with my new glasses how good the 3.5 codex actually was. Goddamn, I'm sorry H. I apologize profusely for doubting your wisdom.
Spare me... Automatically Appended Next Post: Polonius wrote:As long as people keep claiming that the 4.5 chaos book was no different than any other change, you're going to provoke the reaction.
There we are. Polonius got it in one.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Makaleth wrote:it's at least 20%,
but that's last weeks figs.
Fate, dude. If you are going to swear, at least do so with feth like the rest of us, your just asking for a butt whipping by doing that.
And no,
HBMC argument is based on HEAPS of empirical evidence and the fact that this thread even exists, yours is not. And the poll continues to show that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm,
this has gone from the ivory tower to the street,
come on, pick up the level of thought guys (and maybe gals )
I'll edit in a minute as the filter didn't pick it up.
To any mods, I'll edit in a few mins.
Did you not read what I posted? Did they not teach reading comp. in school? HBMC does not have FACTS to go on but OPINIONS. I don't give a damn if 999 out of 1,000 people BELIEVE the csm 4.5 codex is garbage. 1 person saying otherwise does not make it so. Opinion =/= Fact. End of story. I say 3.5 CSM codex was garbage. It is not fact because not everyone agrees with me obviously.
It is my opinion that some posters on Dakka and Warseer and BoLS (or Taco Bell in H's world) do not know how to read and comprehend words put in front of them. That does not mean it is FACT (although I am beginning to wonder if it is indeed factual).
It is really funny that HBMC calls Ozy a hot head when so far he has gone on for at least 4 pages since Gav replied to him doing nothing but insult GW and Gav personally and anyone else who is not looking at the 3.5 codex with rose colored glasses.
Gav did not have to answer to anyone about why the 4.5 codex is the way it is. Had the codex caused the death of someones infant child due to a safety defect than he would have to answer to that infants family. The fact he even acknowledged Dakkas biggest cynic and pessimist when it comes to anything GW does should be good enough for that person (and he knows who he is).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay H, I'll bite the hook this time.
I can't speak for others about why they don't like the 3.5 CSM codex.
Assuming I had kept my army I agree I would not have gotten my juggernaughts back or Cult terminators. WE's were fun in 2nd back when CSM's were basically what CSM's are now. Black Legion with access to Cult Marines. In 3.0 it got some flavor with Jugger units and vets with marks that did more than just +1 attack, not sure what else as I don't have the 3.0 dex anymore.
Than 3.5 rolls around. I lost some stuff and gained others. Zerkers gained Chainaxes, although frankly they were OTT and I didn't feel like ripping a bunch of weapons off to make things WYSIWYG so never actually paid points for them. Lost juggernaughts and had to put all Zerkers on foot instead of Rhinos (which 4th didn't alleviate the problem of them being death traps) had I wanted to keep my Juggers and reglue the champs back onto them (yeah I actually kept the champs for later use just in case) but I still had 8 too many so best case scenario I would have had to sell some or shelve them.
Khornate cult terminators. Okay, cool but pricy. Hmm, lost the option for Havocs so those got made into Chosen meaning I had no reliable HS outside of Defilers and they sucked IMO so didn't want any in my army.
Then when I got the army list made, rejigged stuff I actually played a game. Wow, to say I have more fun getting my teeth drilled is an understatement. As boring and lame as you say the 4.5 codex is I say the same about the 3.5 codex.
Let's be civil. I just laid out why I don't like the 3.5 codex, in a simple and constructive manner. 4.5 is not fun to you, 3.5 was not fun for me. To say that I lost less than you might be fact or your opinion but please don't insinuate I'm a fanboi of anything GW does because I happen to like something of theirs you don't like. I have issues with the current Eldar codex (and no it is not because of the CWE loss either).
I threw in the part about your Codeciies because your insults toward GW not knowing how to write a codex are opinion as in my opinion you aren't much of a codex designer either. Not trying to be an ass, I'm just stating my opinion.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
Wow,
Ok, fact would have to be overwhelming majority in this sense.
It's like saying someone landed on the moon,
there are detractors, but doesn't make it less fact that 100% of people do not agree that this is true.
In terms of an internet rant,
I don't think we ever discuss anything that is 100% on way or the other very long, but the majority rules (or at least that's how it usually works)
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Whatever Mak. I'm done arguing with you and H and the other haters.
You think 4.5 is an atrocity, I don't think it is and you won't change my mind.
Let it go man, let it go.
Majority opinion does not make something FACT but whatever.
752
Post by: Polonius
Fateweaver wrote:Whatever Mak. I'm done arguing with you and H and the other haters.
You think 4.5 is an atrocity, I don't think it is and you won't change my mind.
Let it go man, let it go.
Majority opinion does not make something FACT but whatever.
The thing that needs to be kept in mind is the difference between personal feelings about a codex, and an over all appraisal. When the 3.5 codex came out, your army got nerfed. It wasn't illegal or completely unusuable, but Juggernauts were really bad and the berzerkers didn't play the way you wanted them to. that happens pretty fairly frequently with codex changes.
What I'm arguing is that if you look past your own experience, you'll see that the change to Chaos 4.5 did what Chaos 3.5 did to you, and worse, and to more people than most codexes.
You made a single demon type a big part of your army in 3.0. Anybody that made demons a big part of their army in 3.5 got screwed. You had a bunch of Berzerkers stop playing the way you wanted them too. Anybody with Alpha Legion infiltrators, stealthy Night lords, a word bearer demon bomb, or anything with veteran skills feels the same way.
So the point I'm trying to make is that this change was rougher than most. It really did screw more people, and harder, than most other new codexes. It doesn't change your experience, or mean their suffering is some how more valid than yours, but it there is a reason there's more vitriol pointed at this book than most.
4727
Post by: Makaleth
Again, Polonius is on the money. "What I'm arguing is that if you look past your own experience, you'll see that the change to Chaos 4.5 did what Chaos 3.5 did to you, and worse, and to more people than most codexes." I would also be of the opinion that this was the biggest one of the codecies that I had experience with. Also, I don't think that I am a hater (I could be wrong). Fate. No issues I love codex in terms of art and reading. But I thought the rules and design of the legion were the worst so far, with some bright spots.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Finally we have agreed to disagree.
I'm done. I like the new codex enough to build an army around it (although I'm gonna start Tau so who knows if I'll get one done before the next Chaos codex).
Adios.
No hard feelings guys. Sometimes it's fun to exercise a little brain power in a debate, even against people who sometimes act like fethwits.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Fateweaver wrote:(or Taco Bell in H's world)
Oh pfft! I'm not the first person to call BoLS 'Taco Bell' and I certainly won't be the last. That's not a judgement of them either - I visit BoLS almost every other day to see what they've got cooking up. Fateweaver wrote:It is really funny that HBMC calls Ozy a hot head
He was being a hot-head, and I wasn't the first to see that. Polonius was. It was actually odd, as Ozy is usually more level-headed. Fateweaver wrote:...when so far he has gone on for at least 4 pages since Gav replied to him doing nothing but insult GW and Gav personally and anyone else who is not looking at the 3.5 codex with rose colored glasses.
Except I haven't. Stating that Gav's answer was a load of crap is very different to calling Gav a load of crap. Learn the difference. Fateweaver wrote:Gav did not have to answer to anyone about why the 4.5 codex is the way it is.
And, what? I should be thankful that he did? Fateweaver wrote: Had the codex caused the death of someones infant child due to a safety defect than he would have to answer to that infants family.
Hyperbolic nonsense won't score you any points. Neither will meaningless red herrings. Fateweaver wrote: The fact he even acknowledged Dakkas biggest cynic and pessimist when it comes to anything GW does should be good enough for that person (and he knows who he is).
Again, so... what, exactly... should I be thankful? And I'm not Dakka's biggest pessimist - Aggy has that one down - I'm an eternal optimist, but I'm also a realist. I'm also very blunt, something you seem to have mistaken for acidity. Fateweaver wrote:Okay H, I'll bite the hook this time.
You don't have to do me an favours... Fateweaver wrote:Assuming I had kept my army I agree I would not have gotten my juggernaughts back or Cult terminators. WE's were fun in 2nd back when CSM's were basically what CSM's are now. Black Legion with access to Cult Marines. In 3.0 it got some flavor with Jugger units and vets with marks that did more than just +1 attack, not sure what else as I don't have the 3.0 dex anymore.
Than 3.5 rolls around. I lost some stuff and gained others. Zerkers gained Chainaxes, although frankly they were OTT and I didn't feel like ripping a bunch of weapons off to make things WYSIWYG so never actually paid points for them. Lost juggernaughts and had to put all Zerkers on foot instead of Rhinos (which 4th didn't alleviate the problem of them being death traps) had I wanted to keep my Juggers and reglue the champs back onto them (yeah I actually kept the champs for later use just in case) but I still had 8 too many so best case scenario I would have had to sell some or shelve them.
Khornate cult terminators. Okay, cool but pricy. Hmm, lost the option for Havocs so those got made into Chosen meaning I had no reliable HS outside of Defilers and they sucked IMO so didn't want any in my army.
Then when I got the army list made, rejigged stuff I actually played a game. Wow, to say I have more fun getting my teeth drilled is an understatement. As boring and lame as you say the 4.5 codex is I say the same about the 3.5 codex.
Ok. Fine. I can accept that. You have explained your reasoning (which is all I wanted) and to be perfectly honest I thought the way Khorne was handled in the in the previous Codex quite clumsy, resulting in serious flaws in the way World Eaters and Berzerkers in general played. Fateweaver wrote: Let's be civil. I just laid out why I don't like the 3.5 codex, in a simple and constructive manner. 4.5 is not fun to you, 3.5 was not fun for me. To say that I lost less than you might be fact or your opinion but please don't insinuate I'm a fanboi of anything GW does because I happen to like something of theirs you don't like. I have issues with the current Eldar codex (and no it is not because of the CWE loss either).
And I have issues with the current Guard Codex, and it's not because of the loss of Doctrines (something I'm actually glad to see the back of). Fateweaver wrote:... in my opinion you aren't much of a codex designer either. Not trying to be an ass, I'm just stating my opinion.
And this, right here, is my You think I'm 'not much of a Codex designer'. Ok... based on what? Because of why? This is my issue - it's not having the opinion (whatever the opinion may be) that bothers me, it's the stating of said opinion without any sort of qualifying statement. I could just as easily say " I think Polonius' username is dumb", and that would be my opinion (it isn't my opinion, but I'm making an example). The problem lies in the way I delivered that opinion. I haven't stated why I hold that opinion or or my chain of (hopefully logical) thought that led me to have that opinion, I've just stated it. How does anyone learn anything when I do such a thing? How does anyone respond to that with anything other than " Well... no it isn't!". I haven't explained why I hold the opinion, only that I hold it, so there's no further constructive conversation. Now I'm not asking you to go into the reasons behind your statement above as this thread isn't about me (as much as some people have tried to make it about me), but I would ask that when you or anyone presents an opinion, explain why you hold the opinion (as you just did with your WE explanations). " I think the sky is orange" doesn't help anyone, it's an illogical statement of opinion. " I think the sky is orange because XYZ reasons..." is far more useful, as, right or wrong, it can be looked and and analysed. I hope you can see what I'm getting at here. Automatically Appended Next Post: Polonius wrote:HBMC's opinion is extreme
Really? Is it? Cut out all my snarkiness and my usual blowing-it-out-of-proportion-on-purpose shtick and look at what I'm saying... the same thing as you. And given the overwhelming negative responce in threads such as this one, the ones that pop-up the proposed rules forum every now and again, the discussions we've had time and time again here, the recent poll KK posted with 50+ people voting 'bad' at last count, and do I really hold that extreme a view?
Sure, the way I present the view could be toned down - but that's half the fun, and as half my job here is to entertain people, and I seem to be doing that quite well, I don't see any reason to stop being who I am - but is the actual view itself 'extreme'? I'd use the word 'common' to describe my view of the Chaos Codex,
Honestly I think that there are three groups in this 'debate', the pro-Codex side, the anti-Codex side, and then the the overwhelming majority. Who are the overwhelming majority? They are the players (and opponents) that simply don't care. It's not a case of thinking that more people agree with me or more people agree with Fateweaver, but more a case of most people actually don't give a damn.
And that makes us special.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
H.B.M.C. wrote:Ozy - What answer could he give to satisfy me? I suspect there's no answer he could give me that would satisfy me, but not because I'd simply disagree with him, but because he simply wouldn't answer the question. Just look at his response. He fethed up the ice-cream analogy to the point of absurdity - his response does not make any logical sense - and then spent the next 10 paragraphs harping on with a straw-filled false dilemma to prove a non-existent point.
If someone wants to disagree with me about the Chaos Codex (or anything), fine, but I operate under the assumption that someone backs up what they say with some sort of tangible or logical reasoning. This is why I often get into hissy fits with John, as that man is devoid of all logic and is incapable of mounting a structured argument. Gav did the same thing here - he answered criticism with hollow, empty and meaningless babble. I'm not satisfied because I wanted an answer - whatever that answer may turn out to be is largely irrelevant - but I got no answer. I got crap.
Obviously, you've never tried to talk to a German politician
And to be honest, I don't like the way this thread is drifting into hostility.
123
Post by: Alpharius
It is early, and I have to leave to go to work soon, so...
Actual Individual Warnings will not be sent out.
For now.
However, EVERYONE is strongly encouraged to take a deep breath, calm down, and follow the rules of Dakka.
In short, STOP the personal attacks (passive aggressive or not, thinly veiled or not, etc.).
Debate the point, and leave it at that.
If you CANNOT do that, DON'T post in this thread.
Consider this the "After this point, the hammer be will dropped" point of this thread.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
What's the point Alpha? People aren't even listening to Polonius, and he's put things in the simplest terms possible that anyone could understand. The Pro-Chaos Codex crowd here are just like the militant casual gamer crowd - you can't have a differing opinion to them, even with lengthy explanations as to why you hold that opinion, as just having an opinion that differs not only makes you wrong, but a bad person. And who's got time for that, honestly? Alpharius wrote:Actual Individual Warnings will not be sent out.
Heh. Too late for that I'm afraid Alpha.
1795
Post by: keezus
To sum up:
V3.5 Eldar: Sandwiches, Wraps and Burritos with Different fillings.
V4 Eldar: Sandwiches, Wraps and Burritos with x1/2 fillings. (in the way that Swordwind can only be built in an inefficient roundabout way and craftworld archetypes lost all their special rules)
V3.5 Chaos: Sandwiches, Wraps and Burritos with different fillings.
V4 Chaos: Burritos. All the fillings previously available are still mostly available... you can only put them in burritos though, whether it makes sense or not. (in the way that daemonbomb, infiltrators, cultists, firebase and super character chaos lists are not options in the new codex AND the cult armies lost all their special rules)
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Im deffinetly in the "The current CSM codex is junk" crowd. Ive played Chaos since I was 15 (now 25) they were my first army, I loved being the bad guys, and they looked awesome to boot. Ive spent LOADS of money on them for GW. Then this codex came out, and I felt completely and totally let down. I never used demons, as personally i hated them, but they were even worse then before. Everything in this dex was just hogwash.
So you can add my name to the list of Chaos players that shelved the army instead of playing.
752
Post by: Polonius
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Polonius wrote:HBMC's opinion is extreme
Really? Is it? Cut out all my snarkiness and my usual blowing-it-out-of-proportion-on-purpose shtick and look at what I'm saying... the same thing as you. And given the overwhelming negative responce in threads such as this one, the ones that pop-up the proposed rules forum every now and again, the discussions we've had time and time again here, the recent poll KK posted with 50+ people voting 'bad' at last count, and do I really hold that extreme a view?
Extreme may have been the wrong word. I meant "hard line", in that you seem to carry the banner for the most complete dislike for the current book. Though, you have posted that you consider it decent for new players and for renegades, so your position is still nuanced.
Honestly, the comment was made with the hope that I could reach some people that were in full flame mode responding to you. The results were predictably bad.
Fateweaver wrote:Finally we have agreed to disagree.
I'm done. I like the new codex enough to build an army around it (although I'm gonna start Tau so who knows if I'll get one done before the next Chaos codex).
Adios.
No hard feelings guys. Sometimes it's fun to exercise a little brain power in a debate, even against people who sometimes act like fethwits.
Not be horribly snarky, but you seem to have simply agreed to not read or process my arguments. Even here, your statement centers around how you feel, and not anything larger.
keezus wrote:To sum up:
V3.5 Eldar: Sandwiches, Wraps and Burritos with Different fillings.
V4 Eldar: Sandwiches, Wraps and Burritos with x1/2 fillings. (in the way that Swordwind can only be built in an inefficient roundabout way and craftworld archetypes lost all their special rules)
V3.5 Chaos: Sandwiches, Wraps and Burritos with different fillings.
V4 Chaos: Burritos. All the fillings previously available are still mostly available... you can only put them in burritos though, whether it makes sense or not. (in the way that daemonbomb, infiltrators, cultists, firebase and super character chaos lists are not options in the new codex AND the cult armies lost all their special rules)
That's a really good way to put it. To be pedantic I'd point out that the Eldar also gained Quesadellias (autarchs and harlies). and you could now buy any entree with any side dish (eliminating the restrictions of CWE).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
All Chaos Codex discussion threads are being locked while Mods wade through a heap of complaints and decide what action should be taken.
|
|
