Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM

The fact is that it is only a substandard list in your opinion. Someone else might think it is the best list to run and that yours is  the substandard one. These are opinions not facts. The facts are that there are plenty of choices in the new codex whether you want to admit it or not. The facts are that the Legions are represented in the codex, mabey not in the way some people want them but they are there. Therefore it is not a problem of choice just not the choices that some people want.

Behind door number one: Axe murderer.

Behind door number two: Terrorist.

Behind door number three: Nymphomaniac.

Wow your right, I have plenty of choices and all guarantee I'm screwed.

And almost all of us also have had at least a few basic statistic courses. It will show you things in too much of a vacuum, but gives you a good idea of how things stack up. We all use it, but like all the screaming in the past about Necrons being too powerful, and then Tau,.. we have eventually settled into things. Theory and application can have entirely different results. It's why you test the theories. I am not so soon to discount things before getting a bit of experience on the tabletop. At that time I can make a good judgment on things.

As I have said, if this codex turns out to be unbalanced compared to the other new books, then what GW is doing is pretty much pointless. If it is relatively balanced, then I am ok with it, and await to see what is next. Orks will be very interesting.....

26 pages in just a few days?

Legendary Thread.  Heh.  Cute pun.

There are a few people in this thread who continue to insult others instead of just disagreeing with their opinions. This needs to stop or your posts will be deleted and/or this thread will be locked (which would be a shame because it is ever so lively).

It doesn't matter who started insulting whom first, just stop it now.



Anyway, back to why I'm posting. @ Augustus:

There is clearly a difference between a game with less army choices and one with no choices. Obviously tastes differ (as this thread illustrates) and there are some people who like more choices above anything else and there are some who find streamlined rules to be more pleasant.


The thing about the new style of codices is that GW continues to try to make army lists that are versatile enough with the selection of unit types you can take that you can tailor an army to fit a particular style and it will fundamentally play differently then an army focused on a different style from the same codex.

A Chaos army maxed out in a particular cult type appears that it will play fundamentally different from a an army maxed out in a different cult type.

When a new Guard codex rolls around and they allow players to essentially take a mech heavy army, a carapace guard army, a light infantry army, etc all without doctrine rules then I will absolutely feel the game is moving in a positive direction even if ultimately a lot of the wonky little doctrines have been essentially eliminated.

Yak, when are you going to change your KKT from "King of Zoats [MOD]" to "King of Zoats [GOD]"?

The thing about the new style of codices is that GW continues to try to make army lists that are versatile enough with the selection of unit types you can take that you can tailor an army to fit a particular style and it will fundamentally play differently then an army focused on a different style from the same codex.

Yeah I think they have been trying to make every unit viable (from Codex Eldar onwards).  They figure if there are fewer options in each entry, it will be easier to balance the units and avoid no-brainer choices emerging to dominate.  That should lead to a greater variety of army styles.

Sadly, Gee Dubya is incapable of spotting no-brainer choices even in a slimmed-down Codex.   The  Falcons/Death Company/Deathwing/Dual Lash are quickly spotted by players, appear in almost every list, and tend to dictate the army selection and playing style.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/15/2007 8:22 PM

This is why I hated people whining endlessly about Iron Warriors. Name me one other army that was that powerful when it stuck to its fluff? Good luck with that.

BYE

That is no where near being true.  99% of IW players were not fluffy.  The power came from players taking the parts of the fluff that were really good and leaving the rest behind.  If IW players actually built a complete IW army that included all of the fluff items, then their power would have been reduced quite a bit.

It seems that most people on this thread are falling into two camps. Either they're not happy about the new codex because of the lack of variation, or they're looking forward to it because they couldn't stand a few broken aspects of the last codex and feel that the new codex will be more balanced. What I don't really get is why you can't have both.

I never really understood why GW has this incessant need to seemingly start from scratch when they make a new codex. Everyone seems to agree that there were a few broken choices in the last codex that all could have been repaired with a few tweeks rather than a completely redone everything.

Demon bomb armies- somehow limit the ability of bikes when they summon daemons, perhaps making summoning less accurate or requiring them to be stationary. Iron Warriors- make obliterators heavies. Thousand Sons- okay they would actually need a rewrite. And so on. Instead they tear up the old one, make up a new codex completely from scratch and somehow think that limiting options will solve the balance issue. The best way to achieve balance is revising what you already know rather that making up a whole new landscape.

My biggest disappointment with all of this is that GW missed a golden opportunity. They could have easily revised the old codex and still released the new one with the old one providing rules for the original traitor legions and the new one covering the more recent renegades. I probably would have bought both. As it stands I'm going to treat the new chaos codex like I do the Matrix sequels and feign ignorance to its existence.

Posted By Jay of Moore on 08/16/2007 4:53 AM


I never really understood why GW has this incessant need to seemingly start from scratch when they make a new codex. Everyone seems to agree that there were a few broken choices in the last codex that all could have been repaired with a few tweeks rather than a completely redone everything.

I was in this camp as well. However, I'm of the opinion it is apparent that the "starting from scratch" idea is a methodology to sell new miniatures. Their essential calculusis tighten up the existing codex or completely change everything-which one makes sells more?

 

Posted By yakface on 08/16/2007 12:29 AM
When a new Guard codex rolls around and they allow players to essentially take a mech heavy army, a carapace guard army, a light infantry army, etc all without doctrine rules...

That sounds a bit farfetched IMHO.  While they may allow IG to take mechanized, carapace, light infantry, and drop troop units, I really doubt they will allow them to make mechanized, carapace, light infantry, or drop troop armies.    I'm sure mechanized will be represented by armoured fist squads, carapace and drop troops will be represented by storm troopers, and light infantry will be represented by hardened vets, but I doubt they'll allow you to take an entire armies of them.  I really can't imagine them axing all-infiltrating Alpha Legion armies while keeping all-infiltrating light infantry armies.

I'd expect a new IG codex to follow the same route as the new Chaos codex - essentially a return to Codex: Imperial Guard 3.0.

Posted By Jay of Moore on 08/16/2007 4:53 AM
I never really understood why GW has this incessant need to seemingly start from scratch when they make a new codex. Everyone seems to agree that there were a few broken choices in the last codex that all could have been repaired with a few tweeks rather than a completely redone everything.

 

Yep.  It's kind of a formula, really. 

After years in the marketplace, everyone knows the problems with a codex are A, B, C and D.  So in the new codex, GW will address A, B and C, ignore D, and create new problems E and F. 

As jfrazell said, the explanation must relate to selling miniatures.  Doesn't mean there aren't unexplainable phenomena, though, such as the Lash...

Posted By Toreador on 08/14/2007 2:26 PM
They stated the want, to do that. But didn't know if they would be able to due to resources. So we have a bit of a wait.

It is confirmed that we have two codexes. What is in the second is up to speculation at this point. TLaTD is covered in apoc.

I don't think the Pro side is going to jump right in and write a review before it has been tested. If it tests well on the board, you will see some pros, if not, you get all the disgruntled reviews.

I could write a Pro review based off of just what H.B.M.C said, but would it be totally truthful or unbiased? No.

here's the thing about debates.  neither side is completely truthful, nor are the unbiased. Part of pro and con is the bias and the "white lies"  While I respect HBMC his opinions, I also realize they are heavily biased due to his play style and his groups outlook on the game and the company in general. 

Just as I would also realize that any pro comments would be heavily biased as well.  I guess I just can't seem to comprehend the total "I hate this crap, it's all crap, why don't they change it, I haven't played it their way in years." yet at the same time the person(s) take as much time as they do to get angry over it.  it just seems counter-productive to me. 

If you don't like lemons, I highly doubt you are going to spend money, time, effort on making lemonaide, just so you can have a reason to hate the growers, shippers and stockers of lemons.  (yes my point is a bit obtuse and quite frankly it is over the top, but I really see it the same.  )

Each time I've mentioned this people have just shrugged it off like it wouldn't be true. GW pays a lot more attention to tournament armies than people think. What did Space Marine armies look like before fourth edition and the latest vanilla SM codex? They were either Rhino rushes or stand and shoot armies with mostly las/plas squads and Dev squads. Aha! Let's make Rhinos absolutely useless and let's push another completely imbalanced upgrade forward, the assault cannon, in order to sell Land Speeders, Dreadnoughts and Terminators. What did Eldar armies look like? Masses of Guardians, Wraithlords, Seer Councils, Rangers. Aha! Let's nerf all of the previous completely and push Aspect Warriors and Grav-Tanks and make a new completely imbalanced unit, the Harlequins! What did Chaos Space Marine armies look like? Possessed Predators, Basilisks, las/plas squads, daemonbombs. Aha! Let's completely nerf the possessed Predator, remove the Basilisk and daemons, ban 5man las/plas squads, and start pushing Cult Troopers forward, in order to sell something. Let's also add something completely broken like the Lash of Submission to make sure people don't give up on Chaos. Let's rape the background material too and allow people to take two Daemon Princes so that the existing Chaos players have to buy another, and the new players two!

Does anyone really think this is a coincidence, or that this is GW attempting to balance their game? It was never about that. It's about selling models, and with each revision and each new edition most of your units are intended to suck so that you have to buy something again. If they can't outright ban or nerf your current army they'll just make sure that something you didn't have has become so outrageously underpriced and broken that you have to buy a new army.

Alright, I have another 2 centicreds to add.

 

It seems that after all these years, GW still has failed to grasp the fact that point values of stuff are inter related.

Having 10 Wounds on a T1 no save creature ain't all that valuable

The value of a bolter is proportional to the BS of the user and inversly proportional to the survivability of the user.

The value of a power weapon is proportional to the number of attacks, the WS, thie inititative

Everything is proportional to the unit type (assault sergeants should pay more for power fists then dev sergeants do)

etc. etc. etc.

Because they have failed to grasp this, they cannot write good options.  They simply do not realize that the value of an item in the hands of a Lord with 3 wounds, 2+/5+ armor and T 5 is more than the value of the same item in the hands of a 2 wound 3+ saving sorceror.

They are on the right path to getting there, since now every entry has the available options and point costs listed, but instead of asking how many points is OPTION A worth on this guy, they are saying OPTION A is worth 10 points, is that appropriate for this guy, if not, scratch it off the list.

This also needs to be done for armies!  If one squad has a special rule, it is worth something different then if every unit has it.  One unit with Feel no Pain is hard to kill, and generally very irritating.  A whole army with it is damn near pull your hair out aggravating.

---

Also, fluff is what makes 40k into 40k, otherwise i could play a game of chess for strategic wargaming

Eldar are incredibly concerend about every life they lose, they practice battle so they may preserve their race...  obviously BS3 and 5+ armor

Orks are deadly meaty creatures, nigh impossible to stop...  we don't need no stinking armor saves

Chaos is the stuff of corruption, the antithesis of the light of the emperor, man given to his basest desires and rewarded with power...  would you like to play yahtzee to see what your possessed and dreads do this battle?

 

Posted By Jay of Moore on 08/16/2007 4:53 AM
It seems that most people on this thread are falling into two camps. Either they're not happy about the new codex because of the lack of variation, or they're looking forward to it because they couldn't stand a few broken aspects of the last codex and feel that the new codex will be more balanced. What I don't really get is why you can't have both.

The new codex got rid of the old broken aspects and replaced them with new broken aspects.  Instead of Siren, Demonbomb and 9 Oblitz we have Lash, Terminatorbomb and erm, 9 Oblitz...

Not only have they invalidated a lot of existing armies and made the list more bland, they've also failed to fix the balance issues.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 7:38 AM

The value of a bolter is proportional to the BS of the user and inversly proportional to the survivability of the user.

The value of a power weapon is proportional to the number of attacks, the WS, thie inititative

Everything is proportional to the unit type (assault sergeants should pay more for power fists then dev sergeants do)

QTF.  Try explaining this to the genius of Codex design who thought Spirit Stones should cost the same on a Falcon, Vyper and Wave Serpent.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/15/2007 10:18 PM

Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM

The problem is one of choice.  The new Chaos Codex permits you little to no choice.  That is the problem; it is not the solution.

 

I can accept that other people don't feel this way, but really, what is the point of the whole list creation process if you will always end up (more or less) at the same few, tried and true ends (if you are facing someone else who is doing the same thing?).  Sure; you can choose to deliberately play with a substandard list; doesn't change the fact that it is substandard....

The fact is that it is only a substandard list in your opinion. Someone else might think it is the best list to run and that yours is  the substandard one.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/15/2007 9:12 PM

I want everything to be powerful. That's every army, every list, every unit. I'm not just out for myself. I'm not angry because my pet unit got depowered. I'll be annoyed if anything gets depowered. Every list should be powerful, and every powerful list should be fluffy. Then the game can be about two people playing against each other, rather than two people tweaking a list into oblivion.

BYE

That's a great sentiment.  What if the methodology in trying to accomplish this was to not only 'depower' some things, but all things(or all things outside a certain power curve)?

Therion (and all others who have said similarly) is right on. In fact, it's so self-evident it saddens me that he has to comment on it. GW revisions are ALWAYS about pushing new product. Yes, even in 3rd edition. Yes, even in 2nd ed. It used to be that every new codex was just more powerful than the last. Now it's every new codex undoes whatever was done the last time around. Remember the words of Wesley: Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

As to a new IG codex, it won't be 3.0. It'll be 2nd ed. But even if I'm wrong, be sure that special weapons squads, hellhounds, rough riders, and vets will be smacked with the nerfhammer, while stormtroopers, armored fist squads, sentinels, ogryn, tech priests,psykers, heavy weapon platoons, and priests will suddenly be the awesomesauce.

Well, maybe not tech priests...

Posted By Therion on 08/16/2007 7:22 AM

Yep. It's kind of a formula, really.

Each time I've mentioned this people have just shrugged it off like it wouldn't be true. GW pays a lot more attention to tournament armies than people think. What did Space Marine armies look like before fourth edition and the latest vanilla SM codex? They were either Rhino rushes or stand and shoot armies with mostly las/plas squads and Dev squads. Aha! Let's make Rhinos absolutely useless and let's push another completely imbalanced upgrade forward, the assault cannon, in order to sell Land Speeders, Dreadnoughts and Terminators. What did Eldar armies look like? Masses of Guardians, Wraithlords, Seer Councils, Rangers. Aha! Let's nerf all of the previous completely and push Aspect Warriors and Grav-Tanks and make a new completely imbalanced unit, the Harlequins! What did Chaos Space Marine armies look like? Possessed Predators, Basilisks, las/plas squads, daemonbombs. Aha! Let's completely nerf the possessed Predator, remove the Basilisk and daemons, ban 5man las/plas squads, and start pushing Cult Troopers forward, in order to sell something. Let's also add something completely broken like the Lash of Submission to make sure people don't give up on Chaos. Let's rape the background material too and allow people to take two Daemon Princes so that the existing Chaos players have to buy another, and the new players two!

Does anyone really think this is a coincidence, or that this is GW attempting to balance their game? It was never about that. It's about selling models, and with each revision and each new edition most of your units are intended to suck so that you have to buy something again. If they can't outright ban or nerf your current army they'll just make sure that something you didn't have has become so outrageously underpriced and broken that you have to buy a new army.

I see what you're saying, but they just released new plastic Possessed and Spawn models, both of which suck in the rules. You might even add the new plastic terminator lord, since Chaos lords arent a very good choice in the new dex either.

Sometimes it really is just incompetence.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence~ some dude

Also plastic stealth suits (yeah I bought 'em even though crisis suits are the new hotness), Piranhas, and Skyrays. But Therion considers Tau a scrub army anyway so I guess it doesn't count.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 7:38 AM

It seems that after all these years, GW still has failed to grasp the fact that point values of stuff are inter related.

Having 10 Wounds on a T1 no save creature ain't all that valuable

The value of a bolter is proportional to the BS of the user and inversly proportional to the survivability of the user.

The value of a power weapon is proportional to the number of attacks, the WS, thie inititative

Everything is proportional to the unit type (assault sergeants should pay more for power fists then dev sergeants do)

etc. etc. etc.

QFF.

Although GW has still not realised that everything is not inter-related but you need a set core and a specifically defined way of assigning points to stats, units, characters, etc.

A Lascannon costs 15 for a Tac Squad. It costs 25 for a Dev Squad. It costs 25 for an IG Squad. This is foolish. The Lascannon is exactly the same weapon for all three and thus should cost the same. The additional cost from any benefits should firstly be reflected in the stats (increased BS, increased survivability, none of which Space Marines truly pay for), then by unit availability and options.

It's simple, effective, and practically every historical wargame that allows options does it. GW don't.

Lascannon's are a great example, of where they sort of did it right.

 

For marines a tac squad pays 15, a dev 25.  Well, the Devs are about 10 times more likely to stand still and fire every turn while the Tacs may or may not do so, not to mention that the possibility of concentrated fire makes them more valuable for devs, because 4 lascannon shots is usually simply better than 1 (unless you KNOW that you will hit, pen, destroy, and if you do, what are tomorrow's lotto numbers please)

Then, you flip open IG, and discover that they are the same price for Las cannons there as for devs.  Well Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, I am not getting focused fire, I am not getting the same accuracy, and hell, when the shooting starts, the ablative armor on a IG squad lasts a lot less time then the same on marines.  hmm, maybe an anti-tank team could pay 20, and all othe guardsmen 10...

As it sits now, heavy weapons are so expensive for guard that you cannot afford to take them and not fire, so guard must stand still.  SMACK, 90% of scenarios involve the army taking ground/objectives/deployment zones, etc.

 

GW needs to sit down and figure out that there point values are based on:

Ballistic ability - BS + weapon carried

Assault Ability - Number of attacks, with some factor based on Initiative and WS + weapon

Survivability - Armor/Toughness/Wounds together

Morale - Leadership + squad size

Type - Assault squads pay less for stuff that hurts their assault ability...  etc

And - Miscelaneous - special rules

And if the rest of the rules were well written, it would be formulaic.  NOT SIMPLE mind you, but formulaic.  

Hm BS 4 uses column 4 on the weapons table

3 Attacks at WS3 I3 is worth less than 3 attacks as WS4 I4... how novel

In the 3rd ed BGB, marines and guard payed the same for heavies.

Then the 3.0 IG codex came out and Jervis(yes, him again) increased the weapon costs because of the "RSIGAFH" (maxing out on las/plas) and how it was too powerful.

Posted By vhwolf on 08/16/2007 7:51 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/15/2007 10:18 PM

Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM

The problem is one of choice.  The new Chaos Codex permits you little to no choice.  That is the problem; it is not the solution.

 

I can accept that other people don't feel this way, but really, what is the point of the whole list creation process if you will always end up (more or less) at the same few, tried and true ends (if you are facing someone else who is doing the same thing?).  Sure; you can choose to deliberately play with a substandard list; doesn't change the fact that it is substandard....

The fact is that it is only a substandard list in your opinion. Someone else might think it is the best list to run and that yours is  the substandard one.

Yes, but I think we're assuming that the goal of the list is to make winning less difficult rather than more difficult.  Of course if the goal is to make it easier for the opponent to win then a very powerful list would certainly be "substandard".  Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM
These are opinions not facts. The facts are that there are plenty of choices in the new codex whether you want to admit it or not. The facts are that the Legions are represented in the codex, mabey not in the way some people want them but they are there.

Well, that's just like... your opinion, man.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 9:55 AM

Lascannon's are a great example, of where they sort of did it right.

QFF... unless you meant to say the perfect example of how wrong their points system is. You yourself even use the IG example.

But a Lascannon is a Lascannon is a Lascannon. End of story. It should cost the same for whatever unit uses it.

If a model with it has a higher BS than another model, then that should be reflected in the model's points cost and not the cost of the weapon.

If a unit can get more of them, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

If a unit is more likely to survive longer and thus pump out more shots, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

Finally, if a unit has a particular place in an army and is worth more or less depending on that place, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

I'm going to sum up this thread with a simile.

This thread is like a teenage daughter* wanting a new car for her birthday:

Teenage Daughter (TD): But daddy, I wanted a BMW for my birthday and you only got me a VW!!

Dad: But honey, the VW is still German and it will get you from Point A to Point B just as easily.

TD: But daddy, the BMW has all these nice features! I can plug my iPod into it, has gps navigation, has satellite radio; and can change to all-wheel drive. The VW has regular radio, a place to put my maps, only a CD player, and is just 2-wheel drive.

Dad: Well honey, we gave you a BMW last time and you couldn't handle the responsibility and you totaled it. So this time we're giving you something that will still do what you need it to, without all the extra frills.

TD: Fine, then I'm just never going to drive again!

*Note: I'm not saying all the Chaos players are TD's, this is just an illustration.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 9:55 AM

GW needs to sit down and figure out that there point values are based on:

You...you don't want them to do that. Trust me. Don't make them sit down and figure anything out. It's really just safer that way.

Posted By Stu-Rat on 08/16/2007 10:50 AM

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 9:55 AM

Lascannon's are a great example, of where they sort of did it right.

QFF... unless you meant to say the perfect example of how wrong their points system is. You yourself even use the IG example.

But a Lascannon is a Lascannon is a Lascannon. End of story. It should cost the same for whatever unit uses it.

If a model with it has a higher BS than another model, then that should be reflected in the model's points cost and not the cost of the weapon.

If a unit can get more of them, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

If a unit is more likely to survive longer and thus pump out more shots, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

Finally, if a unit has a particular place in an army and is worth more or less depending on that place, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

Nope, nope said what I meant.

So your saying if for some bob damn reason, I want to field the 7th company of a space marine chapter, and put down 9 tactical squads, and a command squad, I should pay more for the 3 "devastator squads" that I take only 1 heavy weapon for because I COULD take more.  I should pay extra per man even thoughfully loaded 5 guys will be exactly the same as tactical marine.

Assuming it gets to shoot each turn, and mathhammer holds, a lascannon on a marine will hit 4 times, and on a guardsman will hit 3.  What is the value of 1 lascannon hit in a game?  It should be tacked on to the weapon, not the model who may or may not have it.

Hell, on the flip side, assume each is "hidden" in a unit of 10 men, and each turn the squad takes 10 wounds from (for the aske of argument) AP- weapons.  3 marines die, or 5 guardsmen die...  oops...  in 2 turns 3 at most the lascannon is gone, because the survivability of the unit is so low.

Oh, and don't forget on a marine, the lascannon is replacing a bolter, and on a guardsmen it is replacing a lasgun.  There should be some form of credit for basic kit being replaced... 

  I literally just signed up for dakkadakka and this is my first post, so be nice to me I read the codex a few days ago and have found it seriously seriously boring, much like most other people who have read it (and played chaos before) are finding as well. The big argument for this type of boring down options and variety is to balance everything out. However, if you read over the codex itself, it becomes very very apperent there are many things that are just wicked in terms of balance. Lash of Submission has to be the single most insane thing i've read in a while, two daemon princes, possessed vindicators, base marines with bolter/boltpistol/CCW (this will prove to be insane), thousand sons, berzerkers, plague marines, 30pt terms. This codex is a true power gamers dream, no joke...If you cant see it now, email me and i will throw at you a few lists and explain strategies and show you the pain that is to come.

In response before i get flammed, just wanted to point out that i did play a Word Bearer army, and have since second ed. even before we had rules. My basic list was one daemon prince, not very pimped out, and one daemon squad to represent each god, each in favored number (Plague Bearers x7, Daemonettes x6, Flamers x9, Bloodletters x8, furies x10) not exactly the best line up i could have, but i felt it improper to show any commitment to one god over another. The rest of the army was filler, and didnt really matter. For those of you who argue that the legions arnt gone, they are....I cannot play my list and i have 300 dollars wrapped up daemons that might as well have been nurglings as it would have saved me a few hundred

I can still run daemons, but sorry they are just so dull at this point i dont think i can grind out boring game after boring game with that list. Anyhow, just wanted to post my bit and thought to the situation, and wanted to warn ya about some the the harsher stuff in the new codex and the fact that no one has noticed how insane it truly is in the terms of power gaming.

Cheers
Smurfalypse

Stu-Rat: I think the standardization of the way points are allocated is great and I appreciate it when games actually have a formula. I agree that GW's methods are mystifying on this issue.

There is a flip side to that though. When a weak model is upgraded with a powerful weapon the ratio of balance begins to slip away. A Space Marine has a fixed point value of 15 points while a grot is 3. If they are both armed with a Lascannon then they both have the ability to do the same amount of damage. Because of the You Go I Go nature of this game the grot has now become more of a threat than it should be. To counteract this a Lascannon should cost 35 points for a grot, and 20 for a space marine to keep a certain amount of balance and not let such a powerful weapon be purchased so cheaply.

keep in mind the preceeding is just one way to argue the situation of arbitrary points values. The counter-argument would be more like yours: A grot is less surviveable than a space marine so a lascannon should only cost 20 points for a grot, and 35 points for a marine. This doesn't even take into account the accuracy of the firers which might affect the price even more.

Then we get into even stranger territory when GW sys that if we want to concentrate powerful weapons in the same squad we must pay a premium for them. It still comes out to cheaper because to get 4 Lascannons on the field the marine player would need at least 20 marines split in 4 different squads. The devs can do it with 5. Since a Devastator costs the same as a marine the only difference is the cost of the weapon. It doesn't sit well though with most people (me included) but the alterative would be to make devs cost 20 points each or something and I suspect that would go over even worse.

It's a tough one and again we are brought into the complexity of choice. I can't see another way other than an arbitrary point assignment method. Is aunit of devs armed with a Heavy Bolter, Multi-melta, Lascannon, and Plasma Cannon less effective than a unit of devs armed with 4 of the same weapon instead? I would say so, and I think most would agree. So, how should GW represent that in points? Should a Heavy Bolter cost X with the second HB costing X+5 and the third costing X+10? It would be much easier if the choice was simply a dev squad armed with either 4 LC's or 4 HB's or something instead of allowing the mix and match.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/16/2007 11:02 AM
I'm going to sum up this thread with a simile.

This thread is like a teenage daughter* wanting a new car for her birthday:

Teenage Daughter (TD): But daddy, I wanted a BMW for my birthday and you only got me a VW!!

Dad: But honey, the VW is still German and it will get you from Point A to Point B just as easily.

TD: But daddy, the BMW has all these nice features! I can plug my iPod into it, has gps navigation, has satellite radio; and can change to all-wheel drive. The VW has regular radio, a place to put my maps, only a CD player, and is just 2-wheel drive.

Dad: Well honey, we gave you a BMW last time and you couldn't handle the responsibility and you totaled it. So this time we're giving you something that will still do what you need it to, without all the extra frills.

TD: Fine, then I'm just never going to drive again!

*Note: I'm not saying all the Chaos players are TD's, this is just an illustration.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Now you're just trolling.

This thread is more like a teenage daughter wanting a new tire because she's been driving on a spare:

TD:  Uh, I asked you to fix the spare.

Dad:  I did!  See?  No more spare!

TD:  But now my car doesn't have any wheels.

Dad:  Well, when I took it in to the shop, your uncle, the mechanic, thought it would be best if he took them all off.  Now your car is balanced!

TD:  Dad, you and I both know that Uncle Dubya is slowed.

Dad:  Don't you speak about your uncle that way, young lady!

TD:  And it appears my car no longer has windows or doors.

Dad:  You wanted that scratch on the door fixed, didn't you?  Suck it up!  If you don't like it then make your own car!!!

 

LOL...Oh no, im playing Word Bearer's even if it kills me (and it probably will a lot) Im running 20 daemons on people's. I spent a lot of time and money on my stuff and i will be darned if i do not use it. I just may not be as competitive as i used to be


Smurfalypse

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/16/2007 11:55 AM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/16/2007 11:02 AM
I'm going to sum up this thread with a simile.

This thread is like a teenage daughter* wanting a new car for her birthday:

Teenage Daughter (TD): But daddy, I wanted a BMW for my birthday and you only got me a VW!!

Dad: But honey, the VW is still German and it will get you from Point A to Point B just as easily.

TD: But daddy, the BMW has all these nice features! I can plug my iPod into it, has gps navigation, has satellite radio; and can change to all-wheel drive. The VW has regular radio, a place to put my maps, only a CD player, and is just 2-wheel drive.

Dad: Well honey, we gave you a BMW last time and you couldn't handle the responsibility and you totaled it. So this time we're giving you something that will still do what you need it to, without all the extra frills.

TD: Fine, then I'm just never going to drive again!

*Note: I'm not saying all the Chaos players are TD's, this is just an illustration.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Now you're just trolling.

This thread is more like a teenage daughter wanting a new tire because she's been driving on a spare:

TD:  Uh, I asked you to fix the spare.

Dad:  I did!  See?  No more spare!

TD:  But now my car doesn't have any wheels.

Dad:  Well, when I took it in to the shop, your uncle, the mechanic, thought it would be best if he took them all off.  Now your car is balanced!

TD:  Dad, you and I both know that Uncle Dubya is slowed.

Dad:  Don't you speak about your uncle that way, young lady!

TD:  And it appears my car no longer has windows or doors.

Dad:  You wanted that scratch on the door fixed, didn't you?  Suck it up!  If you don't like it then make your car!!!

 

Have my babies.

Aba, I was gonna respond to that slowed post, but you did it so much better than I could have!

Smurfalypse has a great idea. If you want to field daemons, but don't have any yet; just buy a bunch of nurglings and field them individually as lesser daemons. If all lesser daemons are the same it should be legal, and it'll save you a huge amount of cash. Of course we who already have dozens of regular daemon models are screwed.

   Well first off I have to admit that HBMC wrote a pretty funny "review" (aka hatchet job).  I havent laughed that much reading a post in a while.  It sounds like they did make a more balanced list....... but at what cost.  I don't understand the logic of not having daemons in the book.  Can someone explain why this would have been too hard to include or how it makes the list more balanced?

   I am all for balance (and no I do not play chaos at all) but they could have achieved the same thing by changing a few rules (ie iron warriors).  And does moving dreadnoughts to elite and oblits to heavy really make a huge difference?  Sure it does a little but I would argue that it is relatively insignificant overall.  If this is meant to be renegade legions then why don't they have land speeders, razorbacks, and combat squads?  I just think it is a shame that they missed the chance to make a really good codex and instead gave us an ok product that is still missing stuff.  Am I just jaded or does it sound like they just did this to sell future codici?  So we are going to get a daemon codex that you will have to buy if you want to play with real daemons and will we be getting a cult codex for the major chaos gods?  I think so anyway.  Why sell one good book when you can sell six. 

   Anyway I just am a tad bit disappointed that this wasn't done just a little better.  Funny how you all complained about Pete Haines and now he looks pretty good to a lot of you

 

Ultimately an army with two fzorgle princes each has got plenty going for it.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/16/2007 11:02 AM
I'm going to sum up this thread with a simile.

This thread is like a teenage daughter* wanting a new car for her birthday:

Teenage Daughter (TD): But daddy, I wanted a BMW for my birthday and you only got me a VW!!

Dad: But honey, the VW is still German and it will get you from Point A to Point B just as easily.

TD: But daddy, the BMW has all these nice features! I can plug my iPod into it, has gps navigation, has satellite radio; and can change to all-wheel drive. The VW has regular radio, a place to put my maps, only a CD player, and is just 2-wheel drive.

Dad: Well honey, we gave you a BMW last time and you couldn't handle the responsibility and you totaled it. So this time we're giving you something that will still do what you need it to, without all the extra frills.

TD: Fine, then I'm just never going to drive again!

*Note: I'm not saying all the Chaos players are TD's, this is just an illustration.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

As spokes-person for my Charity for the Terminally Stupid, you are really earning your half-cup of sugar cubes a day with public statements like this.

Well done Ozzy. Not only is this quite possibly the single most stupid post I've ever seen on Dakka, but you've actually enacted a massive ad hominem attack. Furthermore, you are again again again again again again again again missing the point, trying to say that all we want is power (ie. more options in our car) and saying that we abused the last Codex.

BYE

In all fairness, I think Abadabadoobaddon's post in reply to "the King" was what he really meant to say...

Ozy,

how do you think we (the players) abused the last codex,
The purpose of this thread (HBMC's review or deconstruction if you will)

I do like your simile,
but there is agreement that is does seem to re-inforce the concept of 'you really don't get the point of the whole existance of this thread, post, codex, review, anvil etc"

As for the half cup of sugar cubes (I can't comment effectively on any deals you have outside this thread, but your getting a good deal here, this understanding is worth far less)

I mean,
Smurfocalyspe (I think that's his name) got it in one.
This codex just bites in terms of flavour (the army losts it's flavour and fun).

I am not implying that now bitzing marines with 1KSons with AP3 bolters isn't fun (but at what cost)

Daemon Princes are now colour by numbers,
Daemons may as well be cardboard cut outs (as detailed and diverse as the current rules),
Possessed have rules that mean that no-one can use tactics before the game (unless they use the tactic of I hope I don't roll scouts!!)
Bloodthirsters don't exist!!
They are marines without cool weapons and more expensive (yes more powerful, but too be honest I'd rather an army that is interesting rather than so bland)

This codex is bland,
balanced maybe (but is anyone saying the last codex was overpowered in all armies - Did any one read the 1KSon's rules!!)
But the pendulum swung again,

I'm just annoyed that they didn't try and keep the aspects that made this army one that was really interesting in army creation stage (I you can really put detail and effort into army creation to create something that you have envisaged)

In this codex,
you pick a prince (give him 100 times less options than the lord - Hmm, I thought princes used to be Lord in a way - Now they are just bigger and apparently dumber)
you take 2 or a Greater Generic Daemon.

You load up on troops
You don't take defilers at all (what do they do now? Well these guys are still fun and hilariously well modelled things, so well you do take them because they are cool)
and you pick a troops type and max.

Done.

As people have said,
this codex is about as balanced as the last one (the last one just had 1000 more options hence it was harder to balance - Where's the excuse for this one)

???

Posted By Da Boss on 08/16/2007 12:38 PM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/16/2007 11:55 AM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/16/2007 11:02 AM

Hurrr! *snork* Fart!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Have my babies.

Hey get in line, bub!

I have been trying for years and Abby's a tough one to trap.

One day, Abba-dabba-dooba-shamma-lama-ding-dong!

One day you will  be mine!

Ozy,

If we end up having a bunch of knocked up Dakkites running around, I'm blaming you.

Wow, what a time to join DakkaDakka. *lol*

My history in this game reads like the prologue to a Conan story -- high adventure from a long-lost age. I have the old Realms of Chaos books, as H.B.M.C. does, and I agree wholeheartedly with his issues with the new Chaos 'Dex. A while ago in this $#!+storm a few posters with contrary views likened it to a leveling of the playing field. I sort of agree, but in the wrong direction. Complexity doesn't make the game harder to play. It just adds layers that a gamer can delve into as they become more adept. One can still play a Space Marine Commander and two Tactical Squads right out of th ebox with Rogue Trader rules. The fun lies in learning all the complexity that lies beneath and rising to the challenge. Since I started playing I've learned a lot about painting, converting, and customizing.  Lack of options is... irritating.

The Tau have more flavour than when they started, thanks to the sept worlds, but there's no REAL difference. There used to be distinctiveness between Eldar Craftworlds. Much of that has been stricken from the new Codex. Now we're seeing the same treatment of the Chaos forces. Dæmons? Reduced from many, many types to two. Yes, theres potential for the Dæmon 'Dex, but I wouldn't hold out hope. Everything that made the Traitor Legions unique is missing. The analogy would be if GW got rid of all the Space Marine Chapter variants, and we just had Ultramarines. No Red Thirst, no Hunt for the Fallen, no Black Templars Doctrines, no Shrike's Wing, no Wolf Helm of Russ, no Gauntlets of Ultramar, no Red Grail... You get the idea.

It's that diversity that makes the game interesting for more than a day. The flavour and practices of one subgroup over another that makes that army appealing to a player. And the loss of that flavour that turns players off. I've been playing Grey Knights since 1990, and in that time watched them get nibbled away to almost nothing. It's been excruciating. I love that Chapter, and to see them treated this way... Well, I have an idea of how Squats players felt when their army got abandoned.

The only solution I can see is to have rules for generic troops from each faction in the main rulebook -- Guard units, Ork mobz, Craftworld Eldar, and so forth. Then supplement with Codexes for each of major variants -- Eldar Craftworlds, First Founding Space Marine Legions, famed ImpGuard recruiting worlds... And then in those have rules for creating further divergences and offshoots. This would require honest work to put in checks and balances to prevent the lists from being abused, but it would be far easier than trying to cover too many variant units under a single blanket Codex. That is where, I believe, 3rd Edition broke down. Trying to cram all the divergence between loyal and traitor Marines into just a coupe codexes is doomed to failure. THe only way it can work is to take away all that distinctiveness.

As far as Chaos goes, let's face it. Thousand Sons and Emperor's Children are nothing alike. Alpha Legion and Black Legion are night and day. In order to do the Triator Legions justice, each needs its own Codex. And then a half-dozen additional Codices to cover the four Major Powers and Undivided, as well as non-aligned Renegades. And unless and until that's done, I don't think Chaos will ever attain its potential in 40K.

Sorry if this is a little disjointed, but I had a tooth extracted yesterday and I'm a little fuzzy.

--Jonah

Posted By brettz123 on 08/16/2007 2:28 PM

 Funny how you all complained about Pete Haines and now he looks pretty good to a lot of you

I really really really hate to admit this, but  in some ways, youre right.

Actually, I still dislike most of his work, but with a few tweaks for balancing (i.e. not a total hatchet job like the new codex is), better editing, a spell checker for crying out loud, the older codex could have been made a decent piece of kit.

Ask for an inch, and they give you a mile...er...I think thats how it goes. Well, for GW, it certainly does.

Posted By Hellfury on 08/16/2007 5:06 PM

Posted By brettz123 on 08/16/2007 2:28 PM

 Funny how you all complained about Pete Haines and now he looks pretty good to a lot of you

I really really really hate to admit this, but  in some ways, youre right.

Actually, I still dislike most of his work, but with a few tweaks for balancing (i.e. not a total hatchet job like the new codex is), better editing, a spell checker for crying out loud, the older codex could have been made a decent piece of kit.

Ask for an inch, and they give you a mile...er...I think thats how it goes. Well, for GW, it certainly does.

That's the irony,

They didn't have to do as much work as they have actually put into this codex, adjusting and removing (and even adding, but really not necessary) a few things and properly balancing the rules and points was what they needed,

And Agreed, speel chcke wouldn't have gone awry?

Ozzy has kind of got a point. Rememebr when most thread were about balance 6 months back and people complained that the chaos codex was the most abused odex and so unbalanced with there snazzy rules? Demon bombs, siren etc? Well gues what GW has fixed that now. Ok so the flavour has gone from it but i am asure most people who played it can still find other codex they can abuse.

Am i upset i gant use plagbearers in my nurgle army? Yes i am, am i happy the plague marines get FNP, hell yeah. Will i still play, sure i have the models even though some will be redundent (well no they wont cos i can always use the plague bearers as generic demons and the great unclean one as a generic greater demon)

See no need to alter my army at all,

Posted By beef on 08/16/2007 6:29 PM
Ok so the flaovour [sic] has gone from it

That's no big deal to you?

Its a big loss but its only a game after all, Man up people its not the end of the world. Well not for me anyway.

Beef:

Agreed,
but we made a few changes and these ceased to be such an issue,

Eg,
Only one daemon can be summoned of an icon each turn,
Siren is a nightfight test (well actually we kinda just don't use it)
Make daemonettes cost a little more (then you have to think about mass daemonettes other than knowing they have cheap (for chaos) rending)

They didn't have to nerf it and start from a fragmented husk called the Chaos Lord.

yeah house rules and such, no good for tournies and people who dont agree with them as they are not GW legal. Just cos your gaming group tried to curb the abuse other tried to maximise the abisive list. I just hope they do the same to the nid and eldar armies.

Posted By beef on 08/16/2007 6:43 PM
Its a big loss but its only a game after all, Man up people its not the end of the world. Well not for me anyway.

Okay, but if, say, you went to whatever clothing store you shop at and everything was one color, wouldn't that be a little upsetting?  Or, if one was reasoning, a lot upsetting.  How about if all the websites out there had to use the same layout and color scheme.

Yes it's not life-threatening (and don't try to rope me in with all the doom-saying mouthbreathers), but the flavor of the game is 40k.  Without it, we are lost.

Not letting GW know that they screwed the pooch on this one will only make them think they've done the right thing.

Beef:

Well, everything is taken as a grain with a grain of salt,
yes it's just a game - But in terms of disscussion that shouldn't matter.

I mean,
for some people it's their job (staff friends of mine)

and for others it's their largest social engagement,
pretending that it means nothing (or little) to some people makes the assumption that it doesn't affect and influence other people, I mean people get angry (that seems that they are getting effected)

And while admittedly not the end of the world,
this is the exact forum to express and converse those feeling and disappointments whether rational, emotional or just plain nuisance.

:-)

Took a hatchet to it? You mean a chainsaw right? Balance is one thing and I am all for it but I think most peole will agree that they didnt need to be this radical. I am glad that 40k is getting a little more balanced but you do not need to destroy the different flavors of chaos. The point isn't that you can still make a nurgle army or a khorne army..... we know you can the point is that it plays like a vanilla chaos army (the irony of that huh? a vanilla chaos army). And that is the problem people who play chaos do not want vanilla it's the point of the list.

Posted By The Power Cosmic on 08/16/2007 6:50 PM

Yes it's not life-threatening (and don't try to rope me in with all the doom-saying mouthbreathers), but the flavor of the game is 40k.  Without it, we are lost.

Not letting GW know that they screwed the pooch on this one will only make them think they've done the right thing.

EXACTLY!!!!!

Well said!

:-)

Posted By brettz123 on 08/16/2007 6:52 PM
point isn't that you can still make a nurgle army or a khorne army..... we know you can the point is that it plays like a vanilla chaos army (the irony of that huh? a vanilla chaos army). And that is the problem people who play chaos do not want vanilla it's the point of the list.

Sadly according to GW that 'was' the point of the list,

the new list has naughty marines that forgot where they put their high tech gear (and some grew wings)

No more chocolate and mint, just vanilla

Posted By beef on 08/16/2007 6:43 PM
Its a big loss but its only a game after all, Man up people its not the end of the world. Well not for me anyway.

Man up? Man up?

Ok Beef. You go and drop a couple of K's on a new army, convert it heavily, paint it to your great standard, and then as soon as you're finished I'll invalidate the army list and make everything genereic.

After I've done that, I'll tell you to 'man up'.

BYE

The fact is, we can still play our "word bearers, world eaters, night lords, ect...", but they are just bland and cant do what their fluff says that their tactics would allow...IE no infiltrating with everyone, no worthwhile daemon bomb, well, i guess world eaters can still jump on it but you get my point Nothing can be done except some of it gets straightened out at some point, untill then all my pretty little daemons will still be coming at ya, just with very generic stats and a little slower. Im actually fielding more marines now though, I suppose thats a good thing. <3 bolter+bolt pistol+CCW, this is utterly insane....If you swarm, i dont get in my rhinos and i bolter ya, if you DAKKA me, i rush up in my rhinos and i hop in melee quick like. With a defiler, vindicator,, 4 rhinos with havoc's, a dreadnought (dont laugh i need peoples to shoot at something ) people pick their poison and die with whatevers left. Its very bland, but no more balanced then before.


Smurfalypse

<oops!>

Posted By Alpharius on 08/16/2007 8:05 PM

QFT

(sorry, had too)

Just a question, really. Were't cult marines only in power armour, never in terminator armour, in the 2nd edition codex?

EDIT:  To a certain extent this whole thing reminds me of the release of 3rd edition Epic (Epic 40,000).  They removed all of the chrome from the unit entries and invalidated a whole army (Squats).  They also changed the base sizes for infantry, which really threw us off (we were kids, and couldn't deal, it seems).  We never transitioned to the new version, as it apalled us, and eventually I dropped out of "The Hobby" for a good decade. 

I suppose we could have used our Squats as "counts as" Imperial Guard, just as people can use Plaguebearers as "counts as" Lesser Daemons, but it doesn't feel as vivid and interesting. 

>digs out 2nd ed. codex<

Nope, temis could be upgraded to cults.

Oh well. Space Marines are cool. Chaos Warriors are cool. Chaos Marines are stupid. Now your rules reflect it. Nyaa nyaa!

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/16/2007 4:13 PM
As spokes-person for my Charity for the Terminally Stupid, you are really earning your half-cup of sugar cubes a day with public statements like this.

Well done Ozzy. Not only is this quite possibly the single most stupid post I've ever seen on Dakka, but you've actually enacted a massive ad hominem attack. Furthermore, you are again again again again again again again again missing the point, trying to say that all we want is power (ie. more options in our car) and saying that we abused the last Codex.

BYE

Wow, you really don't like it when people disagree with you.  Rather than understand that what I wrote was light-hearted, you have continued to flame anyone who doesn't agree with you.  At least Abby's post in reference to mine was funny.

Again, it was light-hearted.

Geez, get a life/sense of humor.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Crimson Devil on 08/16/2007 4:58 PM
Ozy,

If we end up having a bunch of knocked up Dakkites running around, I'm blaming you.

Oh god... the brain drain... 

Ozymandias, King of Kings

All I know is that the new codex has completely sucked the soul out of my Emperor's Children army to the point that it is unplayable. As I have no desire to play the "counts as" game, GW has forced me to sell my Chaos army rather than encourage me to collect a new one. I built my EC army from scratch around a specific way of playing the game and tactics that I wanted to use. That way is no longer avalible to me under this new codex. So thats on more 40K army down. I've only got 2 left. With this new codex being what it is, I really wonder if I'll still want to have my Ork army after December.

Bad GW, your buisness is going in reverse.

Well,

Orks is being released in Jan i think (please correct me if I'm misinformed)
so Ork's may be the next codex to be nerfed,

Hmm,
killer kan's turn into generic 'waggh' or something

Nerfing Orks any further I think would be in violation of the Geneva Convention. At the very least it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment for the Ork players.

BYE

Posted By Jayden63 on 08/16/2007 10:00 PM
All I know is that the new codex has completely sucked the soul out of my Emperor's Children army to the point that it is unplayable. As I have no desire to play the "counts as" game, GW has forced me to sell my Chaos army rather than encourage me to collect a new one. I built my EC army from scratch around a specific way of playing the game and tactics that I wanted to use. That way is no longer avalible to me under this new codex. So thats on more 40K army down. I've only got 2 left. With this new codex being what it is, I really wonder if I'll still want to have my Ork army after December.

Bad GW, your buisness is going in reverse.

Did you sell it yet?? How much do you want for it?? Can you post some pictures?? I am only half way jokeing if you have seriously decided to sell it I am always on the look out for cool minis and good deals.

No, its not sold yet. I'll entertain serious offers though. Click my sig, it will take you to my wargaming page. Then just follow the chaos galleries.

Phil Kelly wrote the Ork book. All will be well in the land of green.

He wrote my Eldar dex and i was very, very happy.

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/16/2007 8:41 PM

EDIT:  To a certain extent this whole thing reminds me of the release of 3rd edition Epic (Epic 40,000).  They removed all of the chrome from the unit entries and invalidated a whole army (Squats).  They also changed the base sizes for infantry, which really threw us off (we were kids, and couldn't deal, it seems).  We never transitioned to the new version, as it apalled us, and eventually I dropped out of "The Hobby" for a good decade. 

I suppose we could have used our Squats as "counts as" Imperial Guard, just as people can use Plaguebearers as "counts as" Lesser Daemons, but it doesn't feel as vivid and interesting. 

Epic 40K was so bland and generic it completely killed the game.  And who wrote those rules? Why Andy Chambers and that man Jervis Johnson.
Wonder if Jervis can murder 40K in the same way. 

I like the sound of the new Chaos codex personally. I thought the last one was poorly thought out and too easily abusable.

The only gripes I agree with are the complete loss of some models, deamonettes don't count because they can be fielded as a lesser demon and it is not counts as, it just is. Terminators with sonic weapons invalidated I agree with being upset about.  Powerfists being removed from options for TS squad leaders (I have two). But most of the people are complaining that they are losing special rules (not even powerful rules), not fluff. Most of the people are saying "I don't have infiltrate which is fluffy" or "deamonettes are just regular demons" and crap like that. That isn't a loss of fluff, that is a loss of special rules and in my 16 years of various gaming and tabletop experience fluff/background/personality is often confused with having special rules. Well, it's not the same thing.

You can make a Thousand Sons army, just get the regular TS troops, put the mark on some Terminators and get the vehicles. Put the army's symbol on everything and you have Thousand Sons. You don't have to have special rules for your vehicles (I'm gonna miss the coruscanting (sp) flame). Only field the models for flamers and horrors for demons. You don't have to have a special rule for the other units, that's just arbitrary restrictions.

Blah blah blah, fluff and rules are not the same. Daemonettes are still daemonettes, they just lost rending and got a different stat line. No flavor was lost unless you believe that fluff=rules.

Uh, in that case why bother having a chaos codex at all? Surely you could just use scouts as lesser daemons, dreads could stand in for princes.
You don't need a whole codex in your philosophy.
The fact is fun rules for fun units make the game fun.
I really think they need two versions of the game- 40K for Tourneys and 40K for fun.

Posted By Da Boss on 08/17/2007 5:16 AM
The fact is fun rules for fun units make the game fun.
I really think they need two versions of the game- 40K for Tourneys and 40K for fun.

I don't disagree in the least.  In truth, they should have called this Codex: Chaos Renegades, and had it stand alongside Codex: Legions (the previous CSM).  Maybe that is what they are doing with Daemonic Legions (it would make sense to have the Cult Marines in there...at the very least).

I'd like to see the book, but as my local GW is only the second closest in the country to the GWHQ in Glen Burnie (White Marsh being the closest), they have yet to receive the preview copy for a book 3 weeks away.  That's awesome.

Why I absolutely decry the hyperbole of the thread, I do believe GW did a major disservice to the players with the Daemons in this book.  Poor form.  All units should have models.  A Nurgling should have different stats/rules than a Bloodletter.  That's pretty fundamental to the hobby.  I don't mind the concept of weaker Daemons in the renegade armies, but the execution seems lazy and short-sighted.  We'll see what Daemon Legions brings (besides plastic Daemons).

Posted By Makaleth on 08/16/2007 6:51 PM

And while admittedly not the end of the world,
this is the exact forum to express and converse those feeling and disappointments whether rational, emotional or just plain nuisance.

:-)

Not that GW listen to poster such as your self very often or any of us for that matter.  But least of all disdruntled vets who have not made a GW purchase for a few years.  they are nothing to GW.

You said "this is the exact forum to express and converse those feeling and disappointments whether rational, emotional or just plain nuisance."

Yes its seems this is one of Dakka's least favourble qualities.  A forum for people to complain.  what happenend to turn it into this?

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/16/2007 7:19 PM

Posted By beef on 08/16/2007 6:43 PM
Its a big loss but its only a game after all, Man up people its not the end of the world. Well not for me anyway.

Man up? Man up?

Ok Beef. You go and drop a couple of K's on a new army, convert it heavily, paint it to your great standard, and then as soon as you're finished I'll invalidate the army list and make everything genereic.

After I've done that, I'll tell you to 'man up'.

BYE

Look at my sig, I have a Plagumarine army painted to a very high standard that took along time to collect and model and paint/convert.  not to mention the money spent.  Now its affected by the new dex BUT you dont see me crying.

People just dont like change.  Fine find some like minded people and keep playing the version you like.  eventually you will be one of those guys that has a cassette walkman while every body else has Ipods.  I expect change so I try to keep up as best i can. 

I actually don't hate everything about the book. It's just that there are some really big headscratchers, generic daemons being a prime example. I think it's possible that they considered completely removing daemons, and this generic entry represents a teeny bone to let players get *some* use out of their models.

I dunno. There are controversial changes every time a new codex is released, but this is one of the weirdest I've seen in my many years in the hobby. Did they really completely give up on trying to balanced aligned daemons? How could they not think players would be apoplectic? It's bizarre.

The main problem I see with mixing generics and aligned daemons from the daemon books is how you tell which is which (assuming GW is going to tell us we can use the aligned models to represent generics). "These bloodletters are generic, but these bloodletters are actually bloodletters?" There are obviously ways to make the combos work, but it's just kinda awkward.

Posted By brettz123 on 08/16/2007 2:28 PM

Funny how you all complained about Pete Haines and now he looks pretty good to a lot of you

It is stupidly ironic, yes, and were Pete Haines to read this I would encourage him to laugh heartily at us for it.

BYE

Seconded, and it can still get worse.

The main thing that bugs me is that this codex was not made with the current chaos player in mind. Clearly we were the last people the devs were thinking of. It might have been made for the guy who is thinking about getting into Chaos, easier choices (Ie. fewer choices) and a more plays like normal marine feel. But most likely the people it was truly written for were all of the loudly complaining fools out there who still couldn't win with their assault cannons, uber effective librarians, and/or unkillable skimmers. This codex was written for them so they wouldn't have to think as much when playing against Chaos.

Posted By beef on 08/17/2007 6:29 AM
 A forum for people to complain.  what happenend to turn it into this?

Games Workshop brought out some terrible rules.

Y'know, this Codex is starting to feel like a "software" Codex.  As in, "oh, jeez, here comes the deadline and we're still not finished yet!  Better just throw some things together, slap a couple of quick solutions in (daemons, anyone), and we'll patch it as soon as we can! (Codex: Daemons Who Should Have Been in the Codex Before?)"

It feels like not only did GW throw out the baby with the bath water in this design, but they also gunned down the family and set fire to the neighborhood to cover their tracks. 

I'm going on vacation now, but please keep the thread going... it should be another 30 pages or so by the time I'm back.  In the meantime, for those of you wondering what happened to all the "cool" extras the Loyalist Chapters get (landspeeders, et. al.) and we don't, I shamelessly guide you to the Stories forum to read my simple (I mean simple, I don't credit myself with incredible writing skills) story about that: Going Renegade.

And one final note, on being patient:

Posted By Toreador on 08/14/2007 2:26 PM
They stated the want, to do that. But didn't know if they would be able to due to resources. So we have a bit of a wait.

Yes, yes we do, apparently... here is a great quote from the man hisself, Gav Thorpe, from WD 293, June 2004:

These Chaos Warriors are assembled from two sprues - the Body sprue and the Command sprue.  This first set provides bodies for Warriors armed with hand weapon and shield or two hand weapons, and a Command sprue for Chaos Undivided.  In the future we are planning to produce a new Body sprue to enable players to assemble warriors with great weapons and halberds.  After that, we'll be turning our attention to the Command sprue.  We'll produce sprues for each of the Chaos Gods in turn...

Still waiting... <holding breath, holiding breath... *whoomp!*  passes out from lack of oxygen to GW Dev's brains>

-Vilegrimm

Posted By Razor Gator on 08/17/2007 4:39 AM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/16/2007 8:41 PM

EDIT:  To a certain extent this whole thing reminds me of the release of 3rd edition Epic (Epic 40,000).  They removed all of the chrome from the unit entries and invalidated a whole army (Squats).  They also changed the base sizes for infantry, which really threw us off (we were kids, and couldn't deal, it seems).  We never transitioned to the new version, as it apalled us, and eventually I dropped out of "The Hobby" for a good decade. 

I suppose we could have used our Squats as "counts as" Imperial Guard, just as people can use Plaguebearers as "counts as" Lesser Daemons, but it doesn't feel as vivid and interesting. 

Epic 40K was so bland and generic it completely killed the game.  And who wrote those rules? Why Andy Chambers and that man Jervis Johnson.
Wonder if Jervis can murder 40K in the same way. 

Too, too true.

It was a sad, sad day when EPIC 40K was released. That version KILLED the game by draining all of the variety out of it.

Sounds a bit familiar to a current trend, actually...

Posted By Vilegrimm on 08/17/2007 8:14 AM

Yes, yes we do, apparently... here is a great quote from the man hisself, Gav Thorpe, from WD 293, June 2004:

These Chaos Warriors are assembled from two sprues - the Body sprue and the Command sprue.  This first set provides bodies for Warriors armed with hand weapon and shield or two hand weapons, and a Command sprue for Chaos Undivided.  In the future we are planning to produce a new Body sprue to enable players to assemble warriors with great weapons and halberds.  After that, we'll be turning our attention to the Command sprue.  We'll produce sprues for each of the Chaos Gods in turn...

Still waiting... <holding brains="" gw="" to="" oxygen="" of="" lack="" from="" out="" passes="" breath...="" holiding=""></holding>

-Vilegrimm

I'd swear I remember early 3rd edition Chambers saying in a WD articles there would be plastic battle sisters.

But maybe that's a mistaken memory.

Posted By Alpharius on 08/17/2007 8:38 AM

Posted By Razor Gator on 08/17/2007 4:39 AM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/16/2007 8:41 PM

EDIT:  To a certain extent this whole thing reminds me of the release of 3rd edition Epic (Epic 40,000).  They removed all of the chrome from the unit entries and invalidated a whole army (Squats).  They also changed the base sizes for infantry, which really threw us off (we were kids, and couldn't deal, it seems).  We never transitioned to the new version, as it apalled us, and eventually I dropped out of "The Hobby" for a good decade. 

I suppose we could have used our Squats as "counts as" Imperial Guard, just as people can use Plaguebearers as "counts as" Lesser Daemons, but it doesn't feel as vivid and interesting. 

Epic 40K was so bland and generic it completely killed the game.  And who wrote those rules? Why Andy Chambers and that man Jervis Johnson.
Wonder if Jervis can murder 40K in the same way. 

Too, too true.

It was a sad, sad day when EPIC 40K was released. That version KILLED the game by draining all of the variety out of it.

Sounds a bit familiar to a current trend, actually...

And continuing that theme there are about 1000 posters on Warseer who say how great the rules for Epic 40K are (even if they don't actually play it).

Posted By gorgon on 08/17/2007 6:38 AM

The main problem I see with mixing generics and aligned daemons from the daemon books is how you tell which is which (assuming GW is going to tell us we can use the aligned models to represent generics). "These bloodletters are generic, but these bloodletters are actually bloodletters?" There are obviously ways to make the combos work, but it's just kinda awkward.

Which points to the two books NOT being 100% compatible, if at all.

I really think that they will be 100% separate from each other.

There may be the option for a squad or two of CSMs, or maybe (please!) honest to goodness Traitor Legion rules too, but, signs are beginning to point towards no cross-over between the two books...

Posted By efarrer on 08/17/2007 8:41 AM

And continuing that theme there are about 1000 posters on Warseer who say how great the rules for Epic 40K are (even if they don't actually play it).

Are they talking about Epic 40k or are they talking about the newest incarnation Epic Armageddon?  Epic 40k is generic to the point of worthlessness but Epic Armageddon is really a great game.  And FYI, Jervis has claimed the blame for Epic 40k so don't dump on Andy C so much for that.

I think if they had called this book Codex: Renegades, then a lot of this argument would be moot.  They would keep nearly all references to the Traitor Legions out and make it solely focused on Huron and his ilk.  Then I can see how demons would be generic.  Any marine who's turned renegade recently wouldn't have the pull with the Chaos Gods to summon aligned daemons, just random warp creatures.  Hell, it's fluffy!

Plus, unlike the old school legions, none of their troops would be as devoted to one god enough  to become noise marines or berserkers.

This would then be followed up with Codex: Traitor Legions, focusing on the original 9.  It might be a little big, so it could be broken up between the 4 uber-aligned legions and the other 5.  There's two more books right there!  This could have aligned daemons in it for the big four, and something else for the rest.  Maybe just limited options to express their shifting allegiance.

Then you have Codex: Daemon Worlds, which features full-blown daemon armies and the Lost and the Damned who love them.

Of course, we would have to push back Codex Orks, but only for like a couple years or so.  Just deal with it.

Man this is easy, where's that GW job application....

Posted By The Power Cosmic on 08/17/2007 11:26 AM
I think if they had called this book Codex: Renegades, then a lot of this argument would be moot.  They would keep nearly all references to the Traitor Legions out and make it solely focused on Huron and his ilk.  Then I can see how demons would be generic.  Any marine who's turned renegade recently wouldn't have the pull with the Chaos Gods to summon aligned daemons, just random warp creatures.  Hell, it's fluffy!

Plus, unlike the old school legions, none of their troops would be as devoted to one god enough  to become noise marines or berserkers.

This would then be followed up with Codex: Traitor Legions, focusing on the original 9.  It might be a little big, so it could be broken up between the 4 uber-aligned legions and the other 5.  There's two more books right there!  This could have aligned daemons in it for the big four, and something else for the rest.  Maybe just limited options to express their shifting allegiance.

Then you have Codex: Daemon Worlds, which features full-blown daemon armies and the Lost and the Damned who love them.

Of course, we would have to push back Codex Orks, but only for like a couple years or so.  Just deal with it.

Man this is easy, where's that GW job application....

I like this plan, though I'd modify it to just have CODEX: Renegades (which should have included Lost and the Damned) and CODEX: Traitor Legions (to include "real daemons" .

CODEX:  DAEMON WORLDS I'd leave for a WD list or just forget about completely.

Fresh mango compote spooned into a rasberry vodka martini.

Snakeskin pattern patent leather slim-cut pants, 26” waist.

Framed, authentic The Wizard of Oz promotional poster (near mint).

Ministry of Sound 2003 compilation of Madonna dance remixes .

Replica black leather SS officers’ cap with chrome pyramid studs.

Double DVD set of Rimmer Charlie vs the Log Jam and Rimmer Charlie vs Buck Lumberjack.

This thread.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 08/17/2007 11:35 AM

Fresh mango compote spooned into a rasberry vodka martini.

Snakeskin pattern patent leather slim-cut pants, 26” waist.

Framed, authentic The Wizard of Oz promotional poster (near mint).

Ministry of Sound 2003 compilation of Madonna dance remixes .

Replica black leather SS officers’ cap with chrome pyramid studs.

Double DVD set of Rimmer Charlie vs the Log Jam and Rimmer Charlie vs Buck Lumberjack.

This thread.

Things you think about during your "alone time"???

You used to love me, Cosmic. Nothing you say will ever take that away.

Kiss kiss.

Posted By Jayden63 on 08/16/2007 11:16 PM
No, its not sold yet. I'll entertain serious offers though. Click my sig, it will take you to my wargaming page. Then just follow the chaos galleries.

I tried the link and the only thing I found was a World Eaters army with daemonetts added to it. Where is the emperors children one.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 08/17/2007 12:05 PM
You used to love me, Cosmic. Nothing you say will ever take that away.

Kiss kiss.

It's just that the alimony payments are finally getting to me.  Can we please renegotiate these?  I've come upon some difficult times recently.

This isn't about the money, is it, Cosmic? This is about Raymond again.

No... No! Look at me, Cosmic! Look me in the eyes!

Raymond meant nothing to me.

>shudders with rage<

Yes, yes, you say that now.  I just know that I cannot believe anything you've ever said to me.  I'm angry with myself that it took me so long to realize that, but I was blinded to your true self.

Umm, on topic: kaos are the suXX0r!!

Here's Warseer's review of the codex.  Pretty vanilla.  If this were the old days I'd call for an invasion.

warseer.com/forums/40k-general-discussion/98845-better-late-than-never-quick-review-new-csm-codex.html

Posted By The Power Cosmic on 08/17/2007 12:38 PM
Here's Warseer's review of the codex.  Pretty vanilla.  If this were the old days I'd call for an invasion.

warseer.com/forums/40k-general-discussion/98845-better-late-than-never-quick-review-new-csm-codex.html

Mind you comments like this make me wonder "why not?"

 

<!--StartFragment --> <td class="alt1" style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px" width="175"> </td>

<td class="alt2" id="td_post_1835523" style="BORDER-RIGHT: rgb(0,0,0) 1px solid"> </td> <!-- icon and title -->

---

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

Posted By The Power Cosmic on 08/17/2007 12:38 PM
Here's Warseer's review of the codex.  Pretty vanilla.  If this were the old days I'd call for an invasion.

warseer.com/forums/40k-general-discussion/98845-better-late-than-never-quick-review-new-csm-codex.html

I just waded through three pages of high-fiving over the new codex without seeing a single hint of sarcasm.

It's times like this that I'm glad to be here.

Well its a nice counterpoint. The truth lies in between.

Posted By jfrazell on 08/17/2007 2:23 PM
Well its a nice counterpoint. The truth lies in between.

Umm... no?

Posted By jfrazell on 08/17/2007 2:23 PM
Well its a nice counterpoint. The truth lies in between.

  It is entirely within the realm of possibility that HBMC is simply right.  In fact, I think it's quite likely. 

http://warseer.com/forums/40k-general-discussion/98845-better-late-than-never-quick-review-new-csm-codex.html

 

That's a pretty fair review.  He agrees on some points and disagrees on others.  It didn' t seem to have as many caps, exclamation points or insults as yours though . 

Terms look really good.  Combi-plasma...

Any review of the new Dex that doesn't at least make mention of Fzorgle is a bad review. It's like doing a car review, and forgetting to mention that it explodes if driven over 75 mph.

There's no accounting for taste. Some people want simpler rules, some don't. GW made the rules simpler. Some people are glad there will be a full Codex for daemons coming up, some aren't. All this stuff comes out in the wash...

The real issue, the real answer to "truthy lying in between" is that this Codex is an abysmal failure. It's a failure just like a car that works well under 75mph, and then kills all its occupants over 75mph would be. I think HBMC goes a bit overboard in all his criticisms. A lot of it is subjective, a lot of it not so bad. If he wanted to prove that this is the worst Codex currently available, all he needs to do is point to Fzorgle. It's the single most broken rule in the entire game, and by a very wide margin.

Honestly, I think that if they removed Fzorgle from the list, it'd be a decent Codex. Certainly better than DA or BA, not up to par with Eldar, but acceptable. Again, taste is a big factor here, if people want simpler rules, this is what we're gonna get. Given the obvious struggles GW has with keeping more than a half dozen rules in sync, I think simplification is the right idea for them. The fact that they allowed a trainwreck like Fzorgle to make it to print tho... It's unspeakable how stupid they are.

I really don't get how they operate as a company. They need to pull the design team aside, figure out who designed Fzorgle, why it wasn't caught, and fire the person responsible. I'm not trying to be overdramatic here, I really think Fzorgle is about as big a failure as one can have in GW's market. Obviously nobody died, but nobody dies from bad game rules. This is as bad as they can screw up, and somebody needs to pay for it. There are a lot of talented and enthusiastic people in the world who would be overjoyed to have Gav Thorpe's job. If he's going to fail this obviously, he needs to be out.

And, obviously, I'm presuming this lies on Gav Thorpe's shoulders. If it doesn't, it doesn't, and I apologize to Mr. Thorpe. But whomever is responsible needs to be fired, or at least permanently taken off of any serious design projects.

What is Fzorgle???

Fzorgle is the new Slaaneshi psychic power, "Lash of Slaanesh" (name?). It lets you move an enemy unit 2d6 inches.  You can thank Triggerbaby for the name (hell just thank Triggerbaby, its good for you).

Personally, I don't think that its the "most broken rule in the entire game," but it is pretty powerful. Holo-Falcons and Elite DakkaFex's take that prize for me (though I guess time will tell).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Considering the argument surrounding 2d6 movement, coherency, bunching up, yadda yadda this rule will either be banned from tournaments or faq'd.  If it's as bad as it seems, we won't run it in our group....or perhaps add something along the lines of (IF the unit fails its Ld test).  Not a biggy, certainly not something the designer should brag about but nothing to ruin the entire dex over.

 

Ultimately, it seems like the designers did some calculations and wanted to change the basic costs and way MEQ armies tended to function and now are importing that model into all Marine armies across the board even if it means disregarding the fluff to a certain degree.  The problem with this approach is that there are still unbalanced units, and the competitive army builds will be wonky (2 Slaaneshii DPs with Lash combined with Thousand Sons) and totally out of character.  Hopefully the Daemonic codex will fill this one out and give the bland Renegade Marines a few more options, and let all the LatD and Cult players get their share and inject more Chaos into the army.

I think that this approach could have some merit as long as the 5th ed changes are consistent and part of a coherant plan to discourage spam and emphasize tabletop tactics rather than army selection.  I really hope that they pull it off.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/17/2007 8:16 PM
Fzorgle is the new Slaaneshi psychic power, "Lash of Slaanesh" (name?). It lets you move an enemy unit 2d6 inches.  You can thank Triggerbaby for the name (hell just thank Triggerbaby, its good for you).

Personally, I don't think that its the "most broken rule in the entire game," but it is pretty powerful. Holo-Falcons and Elite DakkaFex's take that prize for me (though I guess time will tell).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

How do we go from Lash O'Submission to Fzorgle?  I assumed it was a nurgle thing.

To me it is obvious why Lash made it through playtesting. It is an ability that scales with your (or your opponent's) skill level. It is a no-brainer choice, but unlike Zilla bugs or Falcons, takes skill to use. So the better you are tactically, the more abusive the ability will become (and vice-versa). I also think this is why most at warseer are not as up in arms about it. I think typically more tactically-thinking people post here, so they better see the ways to abuse lash.

And the reason that one over-the-top ability can make a codex a failure should be obvious. Disregarding the other internal balance issues present (which there is a lot of), I personally do not see any competitive list coming from the codex that does not make extensive use of lash. And even then, I think it will only help against Zilla (not targetting vehicles downgrades its ability highly against mech Eldar). Most of the other things in the list are worse than what C:SM can do. So you will see lists that are build around 2 lashes, and things that will maximize what lash can do (probably a mix of vindicators/oblits for heavy, some vets, and cult troops). Lash defines the codex from a competitive standpoint. And that is bad.

As for the codex in general, I think the new philosophy of GW is bound to fail. I think the desire to balance things is very good, but they are going about it wrong (and have not shown the ability to balance in the first place). I personally think the best way to balance is to not release a codex for 6 months-1 year. Then usher in 5th edition, with a rule book similar to the 3rd edition book (partial lists for all armies). This would give them the time to balance the armies, and codexes could simply add onto what would hopefully be already competitive, balanced lists. It would also work as a global reset, which would be required to have true balance. Otherwise you have the current situation of: In the Grim Dark Future of the 41st Millenium, There is only Giant Bugs and Falcon-based Grav-tanks.

As for their philosopy for balance, I could just imagine in an alternate universe:

At the GW School of Medicine, Dr. Jervis Johnson questions a class of students.

Dr. JJ: A patient comes into the emergency room, bleeding from a puncture wound in his hand. What do you do?

Student: Remove the object from his hand if it is still there, and suture the wound?

Dr. JJ: No. You amputate both of his arms.

Student: But...that doesn't make sense. It's a minor wound in his hand. And why both? And why his arms, and not just his hand?

Dr. JJ: It is obvious that arms are the real problem. If he didn't have arms, he would not have the wound in his hand WHICH IS ATTACHED TO HIS ARMS! And you need to eliminate both arms, so he won't get hand wounds in the future.

Student: But isn't having the use of arms more important than the potential chance of getting minor hand wounds? I still think simply dealing directly with the problem would be better.

Dr. JJ: I am the professional here! If you're so smart, why don't YOU have a school?

Student (thinking to himself): I wish I would've studied harder, maybe I could have gotten into the PP med school.

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 08/17/2007 8:56 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/17/2007 8:16 PM
Fzorgle is the new Slaaneshi psychic power, "Lash of Slaanesh" (name?). It lets you move an enemy unit 2d6 inches.  You can thank Triggerbaby for the name (hell just thank Triggerbaby, its good for you).

Personally, I don't think that its the "most broken rule in the entire game," but it is pretty powerful. Holo-Falcons and Elite DakkaFex's take that prize for me (though I guess time will tell).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

How do we go from Lash O'Submission to Fzorgle?  I assumed it was a nurgle thing.

From the Lash tactics thread:

Posted By Triggerbaby on 08/07/2007 1:46 PM

The rules for the Lash aren't entirely clear, but it looks like one might be able to target enemy units in close combat. And naturally, once somebody asks the question, Gav will immediately pipe up and give an enthusiastic albeit unofficial yes. Because he is a goddam sped.

But the possibilities for abuse are both game breaking and amusing!

• Charged by my Beserkers? Fzorgle! You will be charged again next turn by my Furious Repeating Charge!
• My Oblits are stuck in combat with Scarabs? Fzorgle! Not when the Scarabs love the great taste of leaving combat to jump into dangerous terrain on the lava tables.
• I have been charged by your Slugga Boys? Fzorgle! I think you'll find they prefer to stand in a circle front of my Defiler.

And let's not forget that if normal targeting rules are superceded, you can always fzorgle independant characters out of attached units and into harm's way.

Even outside the balance issues, the lash is just a terrible idea. It adds more movement to the round, and movement is the most time-intensive aspect of game. Large units take a couple of minutes to move, particularly for players who are used to moving small units. Like Chaos players. And as mentioned before, it sanctions your opponent to put his greasy sausage fingers on your models. I don't want your Cheetos dust on my Talos, fatty, and I'm assuming the sentiment is mutual.

Oh, and I love how it forces a pinning test on top of the movement. It's like the designers weren't sure if anybody would want it. I envision the following: "All it does is move enemy units? Disgusted snort. Hey, stupid person, we're trying to get rid of the useless, fluffy wargear that so bothered everybody in the last edition. Fix it, post haste. Limpwristed dismissal accompanied by small fart."

Lastly, I vote for calling our new friend the Fzorgle Prince^TM. It sounds stupid and makes absolutely no sense, just like the Lash Of Fzorgling itself.

Triggerbaby gold.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

xie xie

that did make me laugh.

I think the Lash of Sick-staggaring will make a fine addition to the forces of Nurgle!

Posted By alansmithee on 08/17/2007 9:48 PM
To me it is obvious why Lash made it through playtesting.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/18/2007 2:45 AM

Posted By alansmithee on 08/17/2007 9:48 PM
To me it is obvious why Lash made it through playtesting.

Cause they didn't playtest it?

I'm not saying they would have necessarily caught it if they had playtested it.  I'm just saying that I have no confidence that they playtested it in the first place.

Well, I am sure they playtested the Psychic power "Allure of Slaanesh" in the previous codex.



This is basically a doubling of the power, even in points cost, with a few changes. With the exception that the Allure of slaanesh has coherent rules and makes sense (note the leadership check the enemy must make).

So, obviously it means they playtested Lash of Fzorgle ..*snicker*

Go go Gavin Thorpe originality!

110% Fail!

Every so often, I look at my nifty Space Marine, Tau, or Tyranid models and wonder why I don't play 40K.


Then I remember.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/17/2007 8:16 PM
Fzorgle is the new Slaaneshi psychic power, "Lash of Slaanesh" (name?). It lets you move an enemy unit 2d6 inches.  You can thank Triggerbaby for the name (hell just thank Triggerbaby, its good for you).

Personally, I don't think that its the "most broken rule in the entire game," but it is pretty powerful. Holo-Falcons and Elite DakkaFex's take that prize for me (though I guess time will tell).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I happen to be quite happy with it. Especially now that they've decided that the new Codex works for Legion armies "well enough".

I'm going to be quite happy with 2 Slaanesh Lords running around moving things out of cover and into range of my ap3 thousand sons marines...

Posted By Blackheart666 on 08/18/2007 1:48 PM

I'm going to be quite happy with 2 Slaanesh Lords running around moving things out of cover and into range of my ap3 thousand sons marines...

Zzzzzzzzzz..........

"I happen to be quite happy with it. Especially now that they've decided that the new Codex works for Legion armies "well enough".

I'm going to be quite happy with 2 Slaanesh Lords running around moving things out of cover and into range of my ap3 thousand sons marines..."

 

And after 3 or 4 games where this is the sole "competeitive" option open to you...how "happy" will you still be?

More importantly...how happy will your OPPONENT be (* you need one of them, remember, and you need them to keep coming back*) after 3 or 4 games of "Ho Hum, here's the CSM, here we go, it's lash time again"...?

Also, read the Warseer review...WTF? Much preferred HBMC's...a lot more entertaining!

Agreed,

It wont be as annoying as holo-fielded eldar (in terms of power)
But it will be as boring as anything thing else!!!

Scary but true!!

No, it'll be worse. Much, much worse.

I don't understand why people keep acting like Dakkafexes and Falcons are even remotely comparable to Fzorgle. Neither of these things are game breaking. Are they undercosted? Sure. Are they frustrating to deal with? Absolutely.

But come on.

It's not hard to keep a Falcon stunned all game, maybe get a lucky kill on one. Maybe it's harder that it should be for the points the Eldar player invests, but it's certainly doable. They might be a safe place to hide VPs, but they're hardly blowing a game open.

Same for a Dakkafex. Stick a Power Fist into CC with a Dakkafex and it's going to die, and it's not nearly going to get its points back. It moves 6". If you can't get a Fist stuck into it, you're a dope.

Fzorgle is a whole different ballgame. It's giving tons of options, both offensive and defensive, all game long, with mimimal chance of failure. I'm going to predict that a list built around Fzorgle will be virtually impossible to beat without a list specifically designed to combat it.

I think the fix for Fzorgle is to make it usable once per game. Then it'd be fair. That also puts it into context how broken it is right now: It's six times more powerful than it should be.

Mechanised armies have little to fear from it, do you think that's intentional? To make more money off those expensive transport vehicles? (Which normally suck)

Fzorgle is dumb alright, and it screws with the weakest armies the most, ironically.

Well,

at the moment Fzorgle needs to pass a Ld test and can get countered,
We will see how much it can be abused when we actually start playing with it,

It could be as simple as playing keep away with deamon princes (or just killing them asap) which is still possible.

I agree that I could possibly be one of the most unbalanced things in the game (IE setting up the opponent so that all you can see is their IC's or UC's is just not fair) or putting them in nice circles so that blast markers decimate them,

But you may fail,
it may be nullified (I assume that there are still a few things out there that can do this)
or you may just suck at using it.

In the hands of a good gamer (this is overpowered)
but in the hands of a crap gamer (falcons take the cake all the way home!)

Actually I don't, I don't believe that much of what GW does is intentional. You can ascribe greed motives to their rules writing, but I think that implies far too much awareness of what their rules actually do to be valid.

You're right that mech armies don't have as much to fear, nor do armies with good psychic protections, but it's game breakingly powerful against everyone else, and still very strong against armies that resist it.

This is especially true if you assume it allows you to move units that are locked in CC, which the RAW certainly do seem to allow. You can hide your troops in vehicles all day, but eventually they have to get out. If they can't even hide in CC, then what?

Hmmm. i hadn't consider that aspect of the fzorgle. It's bad enough having your footsloggers pushed back the whole way to combat, but then to have them knocked out of combat as soon as they arrive?
*shudders*

Yeah, to be honest this codex looks like an awful rush job to me, and Lash is caused by the rush.

Yup, psychic hoods and runes of warding are major, but still not foolproof.

First off, Ld10 has an 11/12 chance of succeeding, about 92%. Failure is barely even worth considering.

Psychic Hood will give you a 5/12 chance to stop the power, about 42%, assuming the opposing psyker is also Ld10. The Chaos player can still count on getting 1 Fzorgle per turn. He can also order his actions in the shooting phase to mitigate uncertainty over this.

Runes of Warding is better, in that it reduces the odds of success at Ld10 to only 1/2, and makes Perils of the Warp much more likely (3/8). While the success rate is still such that the Chaos player can count on one Fzorgle per turn, there's a much more realistic possibility of giving up a model to successive Perils wounds. Without the exact statlines in front of me, I can't say how likely it is to lose each of the ICs over the course of a game, but I think it's sufficiently unlikely to fully merit blasting away with Fzorgle.

It's also worth nothing that Fzorgle can do a lot to assist in killing off the Hood or Rune bearer.

Once again, wish I had bothered to pay more attention and abosrb more during my combinatorics class.

Also, as has been pointed out, it's also worth noting that this puts Eldar firmly into the Rocks - Paper - Scissor metagame lead, ahead of Godzilla and Fzorgle.

God only knows what the cause of Fzorgle is.  I don't care how much of a rush you're in, the first SECOND I heard Fzorgle described, I knew it was game destroying.  I watched the guys at the local store realize it as well.  For a few seconds the Chaos guy was psyched, then he sorta went "wait, what the F?"  People want to win, but they don't want to win like that.  It's like saying "hey Ork player!  Now you have the Fist of Gork!  Every enemy model must take an armor save or die!  Every round!"  The Ork player is going to say "wow, I'm gonna win every ga...  Hey, what the F?"

Anybody...  ANYBODY who has played this game at all, can see the problems.  They have Thorpe play Cavatore in the most recent WD batrep.  Despite seeing that happen, I still have to ask if either of them has ever even PLAYED the f-ing game.

I mean, seriously.  Have these jackasses ever played the game?

Man, I thought I'd never get tired of getting anal reamings by Tyranids and Eldar. Now I'm sure I'll never get tired when I get to play the occassional CSM player too! That'll teach those marine players. Who's gonna play your armies now, spaz mariners?

Posted By Phryxis on 08/19/2007 4:59 PM

I think the fix for Fzorgle is to make it usable once per game. Then it'd be fair. That also puts it into context how broken it is right now: It's six times more powerful than it should be.

Agreed. Other things that are usable once per game:

• Necron Solar Pulse (whoah! Slow down! This power is broken!)
• Banners when revealed in various imperial armies (nice, but nothing exciting)
• The second weapon of Combi-weapons
  
• Hunter killer missiles (Whoah! More brokeness!)
• Failsafe detonators (admittedly pretty snazzy)
• Ejection system (meh)
• Etc....

Yeah, Lash of Fzorgle needs to be tamed, with a quickness.

I thought we were just calling it "Fzorgle," as opposed to "Lash of Fzorgle."

Man, people visiting are going to have no idea what we are talking about...

Fzorgle and Fzorgle-Prince gets my vote. Although, I do like Lash of Fzorgling.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

NEW!: Fzorglorcerer for a Fzorgling Sorcerer.

what the hell are these frozell??

Posted By beef on 08/20/2007 5:47 PM
what the hell are these frozell??

This is a "Frozell"...

profile.myspace.com/index.cfm

...whatever that is.

We cant tell you what a Fzorgle is, however. You have to be "Cool" and "Hip" to know what the reference is to.

Though by reading the posts, I am sure you might be able to figure out the context and act like you know whats going on, thus you can think of yourself as "Cool" and "Hip" by proxy.

Kinda like this Joke:

One crisp October morning, while taking my usual morning constitution down the Kurfurstenstrasse, I spied my old friend Casimir Malevitch, the renowned Suprematist painter, sitting on a bench. Noting that he had a banana in his ear, I said to him, "Excuse me, Casimir, but I believe you have a banana in your ear."
"What?" he asked.
Moving closer and speaking quite distinctly, I repeated my previous observation, saying, "I said, 'You have a banana in your ear!' "
"What's that you say?" came the reply.
By now I was a trifle piqued at this awkward situation and, seeking to make myself plain, once and for all, I fairly screamed, "I SAID THAT YOU HAVE A BANANA IN YOUR EAR, YOU DOLT!!!"
Imagine my chagrin when Casimir looked at me blankly and quipped,



Oh, what a laugh we had over that one.

See? By pretending you know whats going on, you can be "Cool" and "Hip" as well.

Now laugh, damn you!

(Ah hah hah hah hah hah.)

Codex: Chaos Renegades.

If you were hoping for Codex: Chaos Legions, this isn't it. I was so shocked at how underwelmed I felt and predictable this book lays out.
Let me inform you that I am an Imperial Player - Witchhunters, Daemonhunters, Marines (Wolves and BT) Guard and owning a small Chaos force of models. NOT a Chaos army - I just have their models now. I was collecting daemons and converting possessed marines so opponents could Adversary my Grey Knights. I have stopped that collecting, and all the other armies are going on the shelf. Nothing in this new codex that I just read makes me feel... oh... scared?! Turning from the Emperor now means "Nerf Thyself". All the fans of the current Horus Heresy novels are not going to feel this book supports them. No more shall I worry about which flavor of Legion I'll be facing across a table... I'll just have to prepare for some specific configurations of Chaos. I tried, really really tried to read as much as I could in this dex looking for hope that Chaos playing will be a Psychological THREAT (on the table) to the stability of the Imperium. The Fluff supports some of this threat, but not how the rules are laid out, section by section. Overall the book feels like a WHFB book, with the core information that could have just been dropped into another White Dwarf. I call it Chaos Renegades as much for loss of Traitor Legion status, and also because the Red Corsairs are giving many more pages of fluff.

- Overcompensated rules from 3.5 abuse.
Yes there were very abusable rules in CSM 3.5. I actually tried to teach someone how to build a strong Chaos army, and they gave up. They used my IG army instead because CSM was too complex to make an army list with. The power gamers were easy to avoid - not just in their army lists, but in their playing style. I've played against some FUN chaos players with CSM 3.5 lists. Not anymore.
The Thousand Sons were very broken. And I saw a few 1k armies of 3.5 WORK and be scary! Now the 1k are the cheesiest (with AP3 everywhere) and Invulnerable Saves! Their Sorcs as squad leaders is like a whole world of Librarians and easy access to Force Weapons. Oh please... talk about overcompensating.
Yes, the Iron Warriors were relentless in all their choices of Heavy Support, to the point I wouldn't play against IW players because their lists had no variety! The Iron Warriors didn't just get nerfed.. their Vindicators got passed to everyone else. There are no real Legions anymore, just separate war bands of bland Renegades... a DIY Legion with no traits.
Nothing special about a Khornate Chainaxe now.. it's a CC weapon. Nothing like it's VERY old traditional self. And I like traditions! Couldn't have they just increased the point cost? Maximum per squad limit? Nope.. they eliminated it completely from the game. Talk about losing the flavor of a Legion and his patron god!
Yes, the Daemonbomb Word Bearers became very predictable army to see. So to fix it, GW castrated daemons. As in "made impotent by violent editorial means". (more later on that) I DON'T CARE nor Trust GW to support Daemons in a new codex when this is the rewriting they intend to do for CSM codex. I'm still very sympathetic to Ork players who've had NO support for their armies and Codex: Daemon-whatever would help Chaos? Nope.. I don't buy it, and I won't.
Death Guard well.. I admit to not really reading them because I lost momentum in caring about them. They are sickly, icky, gooey, and .. ummm... err.. Veteran Space Marines without a bath. Though I never did understand why CSM 3.5 didn't let them use Havocs, but they are back now.
Chosen used to be complex number crunching of what could be taken (especially when they are in Termie) That needed re-EDITTING, not restarted. Now, they just look like Vet Marines with Infiltrate and possible Mark. *yawn*
Terminators are cheap, but the don't seem to be the Legion Uber-Veterans anymore. Nothing really changed here but that they seem under appreciated in printing.
Does abolishing the Wargear list mean that AspChamps aren't much a threat to taking over the warband? And where are the Lightning Claw options for Asp. Champions?! Has the "simplification trend" of Eldar/DA/BA codices gotten THIS cookie cutter. These guys aren't aspiring for much anymore - just only to stand above their little friends with a fizzle sword or glove. No mutations that the fluff implied (very well, I may add) "My big mutant claw arm counts as a power fist" "my slaaneshi coke nail counts as a power sword"
As for Possessed.. I formerly saw some sick power gaming additions for them in CSM3.5.. but it always cost the CSM player many points to do it. There is your balance.. you want the cheese, you pay for it! Gez, they are just not anything plan able now. You get more stability with Fabius Bile's boys than these things. Wow, you can random up some fun abilities, but in a tournament setting when you NEED to minimize randomness (ask tourney Khorne Players), this unit will stay off the lists. Same for the Dreadnaughts now! You can't give it anything lethal for shooting.. it might shoot YOU.. and that's just because you are closest. (This is revision of last Fire Frenzy made worse.. it picks the closest unit anyways! Not enemy first, you second...) No smart buyer will support Dreads now.. GW ain't...they want you to buy....
Defilers. Couldn't they just removed the "Indirect Fire rule" and Stopped? Nope.. had to make them Fleet... All those juicy shooting weapons and BattleCannon, which you ignore to run-run-Run like the eldar! Just take a third CC weapon and charge things. It's the replacement, permanently, by implication, of the Dreadnaught for CSM now. Take two I guess.
A lot of overcompensating in this dex.. a rollback to CSM 3 without the character.

-No Veteran Skills
I don't understand this one. If my memory is correct, Veteran Skills were introduced to the game in the 3.5 CSM codex. I liked how it explained Chaos troopers who have been fighting for centuries! Like all the First Founding/Horus Heresy chapters that turned to chaos. So now Vanilla Marines and 1st Founding chapters get them.. but Chaos has lost them? Dumb, very dumb. Very over compensation of the rules. Again - could have Updated the codex instead of replacing it. (Example, more point per model cost to a Veteran Skill.) Play Chaos now as if you *JUST* turned Renegade last week of 41st millennium... from a SM scout.

-Daemons
Millions of daemons in the Warp, and you summon the generic ones every time. Sucks to be a renegade, huh? Someone mentioned in earlier post, and I thought the same thing completely. I see more flexibility and variety in daemon packs in the CH adversaries rules. Pre-deployment, one would role for some randomized stats and abilities. Yeah, even the Adversary rules are more PreBattle, plan able deployment, and random than the Possessed. So anyone who'll play Chaos daemon packs against me is gonna get my sympathy and use of my adversary rules. As I said, I don't trust GW anymore to "fix things" old codices needed. GW did revise the summoning a tad - you cannot move after summoned, but can assault. Gez.. give the Chaos players back their stat lines and uniqueness in daemon packs. This small adjustment to summoning is plenty to adjust the Daemonbomb effect. And it will only make daemon using players wiser and pre-plan their Icons better. Better players mean I have more fun defending the Imperium (even when I lose)
Alot of "count as" implied in the book for daemons (and the book in general) Daemonettes count as Khorne Bloodletters count as Nurglings. This book counts as weak attempt at multi book marketing system.
For the record, I've played all Grey Knights in a Daemonworld playtest years ago. THAT was scary... and this codex moves me not at all towards fear, but OUTRAGE that GW just nerfed my opponent's ability to handle MY cheesy armies! and Outraged enough to write this post!

-Murderous, abuseable AP 3 items.
The Anti 3+ armor save game continues...
I see many places for abuse. The Thousand Sons unit ALL having Inferno bolts (no point purchase needed, also abused use of Inferno Bolt naming compared to Deathwatch Marines) and the Doom Siren flame template for Noise Marines. Add in that ANY CSM army can take Vindicators now, and you've got abuseable force list.
(about 1400 points)
2 DP both with MoSlaanesh and Lash of Submission
9 Thousand Son marines, each Sorc having Doombolt
6 Noise Marines - Asp Champ (is one of 6) with Doomsiren, 5 sonic blasters.
3 Vindicators (extra armor, havoc launchers)
And if you don't want 2 DP's.. take a Chaos Lord with Tzeetch daemon weapon, Deathscreamer for more AP3 shooting. Or Chaos Sorc with more Doombolt.
Easy tactic. Use Fzorgle-Prince to pull units close to 1k Inferno Bolts, Doombolts, Vindicators, and Doomsiren (many AP3 deaths) Rinse and repeat. Keep repelling units from lines to keep them under guns. If Close Combat happens, use the Daemon Princes to do it. This is such a bland, no-imagination army list. Opponents will be hiding in cover all the time now! But it's gonna be frequently used for a period of time until people stop playing against it. I talked about new CSM not scaring me.. and I'm not. I'll lose the whole game (even with Sisters spending Faith Points like mad!) quickly, out of my control, and not feel my Player Opponent outplayed me. I'll be bored with their list, and not wish to play. Bland bland, no excitement game. Like going against armored company "How fast do I lose my army?" and "how many models do I have left?"

-Bad layout of Codex
Wow, I thought they would reorganize thing to be easier to find with minimum of page turning. This is a sad example of publishing layouts. If it were a newspaper, it would go out of business or the Editor would be fired. No, it only looks like that on the surface. Here is the problem with example of Icons of Chaos.... You look to squad and buy your Icon.. but what does it do? Oh, different page says it grants you the Mark of that god.. who's actual (weak) rules are on ANOTHER page. That's three pages of information that could have been condensed IN the Unit or Wargear Listing. Another is the redundancy of buyable gear INSIDE the unit entries. The Chaos Lord and the Chosen are both like this. They printed twice how Chosen can get plasmagun/melta/flamer. Actually, the way it reads you can get 5 total. The Marks for Chaos Lord are printed twice inside his entry - once for power armor, once more for Terminator Armor -- same point cost. And all these pages are so bland.. no artwork on the pages, nothing to "showcase" cool minis to differentiate the unit entries.

Summary
Sure, there is ALOT of fluff reading. First third of the book is fluff.. and some of it really reflects the theme of the ages: Traitors. The Raptors and Bikers seem capricious and cruel, the Havocs are murderously systematic shooters... and then I hit the list and think "oh.. it's Assault Marine template unit, or SM Bikers, or Devastators." with pointy parts. (Bikers really got nerfed too!) No extra attacking than a current SM, no customizing that eats points in an army list and makes things risky. Nothing says "Veteran of Thousand years" in the rules section... just newly converted Renegades. If you want that warband feeling of 10k year old veterans, roaming the Warp and Daemon Worlds, use the 13th Company Space Wolves (wait.. GW removed them... pity)
This still needs Editing! You could move stuff around, delete redundant text, use a smaller font, and add some fluffy pictures or character descriptions in sidebars. THIS, I feel, contributes to HBMC's view of "bland". The unit section looks like there was no attention to it - no pride, no care, just cut-n-paste layout. Same as SM codex, Black Templar, DA, Eldar, and BA, but with less extra sidebar graphics. The fluff builds suspense, the Characters are BACK, and then the book drones on like a reprinting of Codex: Space Marines without the chapter traits and love of the dark side of warrior power.
Newbies and Tournament players will enjoy this codex. It's simple, easy to learn, easy to not think too hard about.
Since I'm not like that, I'm putting my stuff on ebay. Prolly not just the Chaos stuff either! Last four Codices from GW shows me a trend of oversimplications in publishing, low playtesting, and general wish to role back the clock to un-special units and SpecialCharacterHammer. I have no faith that Codex: Apocalypse will help. So call me a renegade, call me traitor to a game I loved, and call me to give me your mailing address for all these minis and books.
If I do scare up a game against a chaos player, I'll give him the Space Marine codex with the Chapter Traits to use, 13th Company unit stats, and Adversaries of the Daemonhunters for daemons. Or not force them to change from CSM 3.5. I miss being scared of DaemonBomb and Slaaneshi close combat druggie army and non-psyker Nurgle Rot and all those Khornates rampaging... and the genius players who made them all WORK in game and in fluff. But I won't miss them enough to spend another dime at GW.

I feel your pain. I say find a small group of local gamers of like mind, and play with First Edition rules, revised and updated to suit. I'm currently writing a "best of" ruleset for my Grey Knights that encompasses all their rich history and keeps them a "fully effective fighting Chapter" as per fluff, with tanks and officers and Techmarines and Veteran Terminators and so forth. Sort of a "Codex: Grey Knights" to supplement Codex: Dæmonhunters. A friend of mine is working on two mini-dexes that capture both the Planet of Sorcerors 1K Sons and the Cabal of Ahriman, who have entirely different objectives and constituents. I've read over and over through the years where GW insist their rules are only "suggestions", and they encourage players to come up with their own. The only thing the Codices are bindng for is tournament play. But that's okay -- there hasn't been a Seattle GT since '05. *heh* But seriously. Just because the current crop of "games developers" have dropped the ball doesn't mean you should get rid of those minis you've spent so much time and money on.

In the meantime, I'm going to get back to writing a separate Codex for each First Founding Legion, with rules for successor Chapters, lists of generic and proprietary Wargear, and DIY Chapter Commanders. That last is something they had in Secodn Edition, but never got back to since. How wonderful it would be to not have a generic statline unless you're playing Blood Angels, Raven Guard, Dark Angels, Ultramarines, Black Templars, or Space Wolves. Or, to a lesser degree, for Captains, too. Unique abilities, custom wargear... You pay the points, you get the perks, and decide if its a worthwhile tradeoff.

I think my biggest problem with the new Chaos 'dex is that WYSIWYG seems to have been ignored. All the options have been stripped away, so all your careful conversions are useless. It's almost like the only players they want are the ones who will assemble somethign straight out of the box and never mix'n'match. For as much as it's nice to not penalise people who play stock armies, it shouldn't have swung to the other extreme of penalising those who convert. They used to publish rules for units that didn't evenhave models yet -- you had to convert.Back in First Edition I had a converted Spartan, a converted Whirlwind... all the way up to my converted Vindicator (I was impatient). Now they're not even doing full rulesets for the models they HAVE. So I say screw that noise. There are enough people out there writing and testing their own rules (who aren't power-gaming ass-monkeys) that I'll be playing with my 40K minis long after GW's gone bankrupt (I mean financially, not creatively).

--Jonah

Yes, that's another thing that was frustrating me and such an outrage... the neat conversions I've seen of peoples Chaos armies that made them so special, that were WYSIWYG, imaginative and reflected the rules in atmosphere and effect.

Khornate Rhino with claws, hammers, and bitz that really said "DAMAGE INCARNATE" when their boys ran out. The conversions reminded me, as opponent, that empty rhino was still dangerous!
Chaos Undivided Bike pack with many symbols of each major chaos god, properly used weapon options on their dashboards, and extra large bases to say "We Are Veterans!!"
Raptors kit bashed from SM beekies and metal Raptor's box into Possessed Marines with Daemonic Flight
Tzeetch Dreadnaught with blue flames around it in clear resin

There are prolly many more people who've seen and done such WYSIWYG conversions that communicated to opponents and friends what the unit was capable of - beyond what is in the basic unit boxes.

And I was so looking forward to using the Plastic Scouts for some tough as nails Blood Pact troops for Lost and the Damned as Adversaries.

It's a little sad,

I'm glad that we have developed our own rule set for pretty much this reason,
I hate not being able to use fiends (old slaanesh daemon)
I'm annoyed that the thousands of daemon princes that have been converted and now are ornamental (or counts as models) - I made a glaive prince!!!!

Just seems a bit of over kill,
If you have models (and current ones, unlike the completely illegal and crappy raging dreadnaught - Hmm, I wonder why there was no new model!) why remove the rules (Doesn't that mean you no can't really sell them!)

Sorry to be a whinger,
I just really don't like the direction (and the continued price hikes) that have been the norm lately.

I dont think the new codex is bad or unplayable, nor do i think its as bad as most people make it out to be...Now just referrence again, im a word bearer player and i used big time daemon bombs, so we probably got hit the hardest....You can still play a world eaters army and still be very viable, same with all the other legions. Right now my list is very daemonic to add the flavor of the word bearers to the list, and i have been doing very well with the new list (no marks other than icon of glory), its fluffy and has a nice flavor to it. Those of you who are putting down the new generic daemons should try them out, they actually act as a great counter attack force or a really nice clean up crew on the offensive.

The only issue that there should be with the new codex is the lack of diversity in daemons/greater daemons/fast attack choices...Other than that, the codex seems very viable and fun to play, tons of fluff in there (none about specific legions ) but its still very playable and if your incapable of playing your world eaters or plague bearers or whatever specific legion you play because lash of submission is so good....then YOU are the reason the codexs are being redone in this type of manner and should only point fingers or blame yourselves truthfully. I do miss my mixed daemons and my choices for upgrades ect, but lets not forget the fact that you can still make legion armies and play well.

Smurfalypse

lol meant to add possessed to the being upset about list of things i mentioned...they are just awful, i have tried them a few times and wow, sucks not knowing whether you will need a rhino or not ....ANYHOW, other than those few things i mentioned...Im actually enjoying the new codex.


Smurfalypse

A lot of the B&W art was by John Blanche (new, not recycled) and Dave Gallagher. It's a bit of a change from the Boyd/Kopinskis/Dainton, thought they have some new pieces as well (the Possessed picture giving the crab claw to a Tau is rather AWESOME). Gallagher's is less "polished" and more "gritty"...kind of leaning towards the 2000 and beyond GW art style. I haven't seen his art look like that. They also recycle a ton of the previous 3rd edition art.

The color section was also pretty cool. I enjoyed a lot of the paint schemes of the Renegade chapters.

This is based on about 5 minutes...I read no rules, judged no layout/structure and read no fluff.

But the art stuff interested me.

Posted By Makaleth on 08/22/2007 11:58 PM
It's a little sad,

I'm glad that we have developed our own rule set for pretty much this reason,
I hate not being able to use fiends (old slaanesh daemon)

I don't think fiends have existed since 2nd Ed.  AFAIK, they weren't in the 3.0 codex and definitely weren't in 3.5 codex.  They were dropped from Fantasy as well.

It's too bad, I liked the concepts behind them and the models had potential.  One guy I knew used them as Chaos Hounds in his Slaaneshi Marine army.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

After reading the summary of the new rules and the comments on the boards it seems like there is a certain degree to which players are complaining because their stuff got less powerful, which in my opinion needed to happen with the Chaos list.  This codex marginalized the Traitor Legions but still allows for them to be represented, but makes them play in less unique ways.  I can understand why a Word Bearers or Iron Warriors player might be mad, but those lists were some of the most abusable in the game.  People are upset that the Chaos list is so similar to the DA/BA lists, but in 3.5 Chaos troops could do much more (Vet skills, Marks, massively underpriced Daemonic gifts) for cheaper than their Space Marine counterparts.  I think that limiting player's customization options makes this list more tournament friendly.

The area where I feel like GW really dropped the ball with this codex is regarding LatD and Daemons.  If the Daemonic Codex that comes out in the far future is only usable as a stand alone force, I and many other Chaos players will be severely pissed.  In essence then GW is saying "Ha, if you want to use your Bloodletters as themselves, you have to start a whole new army.  Sucker."  What they are missing is that most Chaos players don't want an all daemon force, they want a few Daemons to support their marines or LatD. 

It isn't the nerfing or simplification of the codex that bugs me, its the bald faced moneymaking decisions behind the codex options.  They want to sell more Thousand Suns so they make them awesome, and since everyone already has Daemons, make them crappier, unless they want to spend a couple hundred bucks, then they will be good again.

This is why GW is in financial trouble right now.  I am afraid to buy anything from them, lest it become crappy overnight.  40k is in flux right now.  I just hope that it doesn't stay that way permanently.

I have the defense from Fzorgle!!!

IG conscripts...  nobody in their right mind wants to move a unit of 50 models, and so what if they do...

 

 

Other Fzorgle question...  do the rules say anything about being moved off the table?  With two lashes, and good rolls, anyone more than 12" from the center of the table is at risk of being pushed off the edge, no need to even bother shooting them then.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/23/2007 11:23 AM

I have the defense from Fzorgle!!!

IG conscripts...  nobody in their right mind wants to move a unit of 50 models, and so what if they do...

 

 

Other Fzorgle question...  do the rules say anything about being moved off the table?  With two lashes, and good rolls, anyone more than 12" from the center of the table is at risk of being pushed off the edge, no need to even bother shooting them then.

 

Yes, specifically in the rules for the power, it says that you cannot move a unit off the table or into impassable terrain, or even within 1" of an enemy model. The targeted unit will have to take a pin test though once moved.

It's more of a disruptive power, but I don't think it's that powerful as you still have to take a psychic test and depending on who you're facing, it may be smacked down anyways. The range is only 24" so it's not like you can just stand-off and just play Puppet-Master at extreme range....

I am not being sarcastic!!!!

Just wanted to ask all and sundry:

When, in your opinion, was the last/best publication released by GW?

That would be a very interesting list to see!

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/23/2007 9:11 AM

I don't think fiends have existed since 2nd Ed.  AFAIK, they weren't in the 3.0 codex and definitely weren't in 3.5 codex.  They were dropped from Fantasy as well.

  They aren't in Hordes of Chaos (or at least, not in their previous form) but they were re-introduced in the Daemonic Legion army list in Storm of Chaos.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/23/2007 11:23 AM

I have the defense from Fzorgle!!!

IG conscripts...  nobody in their right mind wants to move a unit of 50 models, and so what if they do..

If I was a person who had no scruples and used Lash of Fzorgle, I would be the happiest chaos player around to see my opponent deploy a unit of conscripts.

I move that unit (spreading them out very wide...very  very wide) so that I can assault them.

Now LOS is blocked for the rest of your IG and your hamstrung (as I use the conscripts to sling shot my way into the rest of your lines, while keeping the conscripts locked into combat with piddly things like...daemons).

Good game.

Damn, Hellfury...that's just plain evil thinking ! Very effective...

Also, just if anybody's interested, the lads over at Bell of Lost Souls have already posted "Tactica - Lash" and "Tactica - Anti - Lash", with what appeared to be some very valid information both how to use it and fight AGAINST it.

Not knowing too many Chaos players at this stage, I didn't study it that thoroughly, but both articles seemed very good.

Cheers,

Padre^.

Posted By akira5665 on 08/23/2007 9:40 PM
I am not being sarcastic!!!!

Just wanted to ask all and sundry:

When, in your opinion, was the last/best publication released by GW?

That would be a very interesting list to see!

Codex: Space Marines was pretty good.  Given the large variety of units and choices, its surprisingly well balanced.  It could benefit from a few minor tweaks (to things like assault cannons and We Stand Alone) but its basically sound.

Which is probably why Jervis wants to rip it all up and start again.  With diagrams of Bolters.

GW's best book?

Necromunda. Easy.

BYE

Umm, pretty much everybody liked the new Tau Codex, which made the list stronger but not OTT, it added a few new units, added options and upgrades for current units, but it kept the core of the army intact.

IG is tossed around as one of the best these days, it's highly adaptive but never broken or abusive.

If it weren't for Falcons, I think Eldar would go down as one of the better compromises between the sublists of 3rd edition and the streamlined nature of today.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/24/2007 6:18 AM
GW's best book?

Necromunda. Easy.

Which version? 

I've been meaning to pick it up...heard it has great skirmish rules.

Posted By dienekes96 on 08/24/2007 7:25 AM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/24/2007 6:18 AM
GW's best book?

Necromunda. Easy.

Which version? 

I've been meaning to pick it up...heard it has great skirmish rules.

You can download the rules for free here:

http://specialist-games.com/necromunda/default.asp

Best books?
Necromunda
Mordheim
Tau Empires Codex
2nd ed. Sisters of Battle Codex
Dark Millennium (only for the story about brother capt. Stern)
Rogue Trader

2nd Edition Codex: Chaos

Having now read the new C: CSM, I can now state that I won't be buying it, playing it or buiding any armies based on it.  If I desire to play my World Eaters, or finish (or start, for that matter) my 1K Sons, I'll play with friends and use the previous codex.  If that means I won't be running any of my Chaos armies at GT's and RTT's, then I'll use Space Marines until they get nerfed, then go with Necrons, Tyranids or whatever has the most life left in it before being subjected to GW-ism.

HBMC, you were too generous.  This new product (I hate to even dignify it with the term "Codex" ) is truly an insult to CSM players, and I'll go even further and call it an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of all veteran Chaos players.

GW seems firmly wedded to the business model of targeting 10-year-old brats with wealthy parents.  Well, if you don't want players whose IQ's are above room temperature, who are old enough to vote, or who have their own jobs, not to mention us veteran players, we can do quite well with the materials and models already on the market or in our garages.  You can take your Lesser Daemons, Greater Daemons, Lashes of Torment, Huron Blackheart, the Company of Misery and the rest of the mess that is the new C: CSM, compress all down to degenerate matter density, and use it as a suppository.  Out! 

Posted By LordOfTheSloths on 08/24/2007 7:00 PM

Having now read the new C: CSM, I can now state that I won't be buying it, playing it or buiding any armies based on it.  If I desire to play my World Eaters, or finish (or start, for that matter) my 1K Sons, I'll play with friends and use the previous codex. 

I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that.  Its a dinosaur thing to do.  And we all know what happenened to them. . .

 

I liked reading the War of Assassins stuff. But the 2nd edition Codex itself
was kind of...lean?

I love the Mordheim book.

But Tuomas Pirinen's Warhammer Fantasy Battles: 6th Edition runs a close second.

PS: He also co-wrote Mordheim, IIRC.

almost 40 pages of replies!!!

Think we'll get to 50?

Posted By bigchris1313 on 08/24/2007 7:28 PM
I love the Mordheim book.

But Tuomas Pirinen's Warhammer Fantasy Battles: 6th Edition runs a close second.

PS: He also co-wrote Mordheim, IIRC.

Judging by reading my old white dwarfs from around 1999, I think we can thank Toumas for being the originator and primary force behind Mordheim.

Those white dwarf articles were great. Oodles of ways to play skirmish Fantasy before the more refined Mordheim book came out.

Mordheim was Tuomas Pirinen's child.

In fact he got the Original Mordheim cover art as wedding present and it was hanging on his wall when I visited them 4 years ago.

I haven't played Mordheim, but my fave is Necromunda. They got so many things right for the most enjoyable GW game I've played.

Posted By beef on 08/24/2007 7:18 PM

I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that. Its a dinosaur thing to do. And we all know what happenened to them. . .

I say refuse to pay for shoddy workmanship, but if you really can't - and you know who you are - then good luck to you. It's a stupid thing to do. And we all know what happened to the dodo . . .

They ruled the earth for hundreds of millions of years?

Posted By Necros on 08/24/2007 9:25 PM
almost 40 pages of replies!!!

Think we'll get to 50?

I must
I must
I must increase my post count.

Isn't that how the song goes?

On topic: Beef, I think your attitude was more prevalent at the end of 3rd edition/beginning of 4th. We'd all only been through 1-2 codex changes (and one was predicated by 3rd edition). Then having your--in theory--fully supported lists get torn down and rendered inoperable (no, not just ineffective, but INOPERABLE) while still in the same edition really did away with the sentiment of "it's a new game/edition: just roll with it". Even more frustrating this time around as 4th was supposed to take previous codicies into account. Had 4th been accompanied by a "Ravening Hordes" type list and a more robust Codex release schedule (say, 4 a year), there might be fewer sour grapes.

In the meantime, I'm eating sour grapes.   

Vinegar's not for drinking, my son.

I'd like to hear an expose on how the many sackings/leavings of GW design team members in the past years affected the way things were done there. It'll never happen, but it would be interesting.

Beef sagaciously (is that a word?) wrote:

I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that.  Its a dinosaur thing to do.  And we all know what happenened to them. . .

Fast forward to 2011...

Warhammer 40K Core Rules!

1) Prove to your opponent that your Space Marine army cost you at least $1000.00 dollars.

2) Set up your table with GW Terrain.

3) Roll a d6 to see who deploys his entire army first.

4) After deployment, roll a d6 to see who rolls a d6 for the battle.

5) The winner of the d6 roll rolls the Warhammer 40K Battle Dice:  on a 1-3, your opponent's Space Marine army wins the battle; on a 4+  your Space Marine army wins the battle.  Congratulations!

F.A.Q.  Oops! we forgot to put in the main rule page that if your opponent is NOT using a Space Marine army, you automatically win the roll to roll the 40K Battle Dice, and get to add 6 to the result.  But remember, a 1 is always a failure!

Roll with the times, brother, roll with the times... or else you might get wiped out by a meteor and massive climate changes! You have been warned!

-Vilegrimm

Vilegrimm,

Surely by 2011, the rules will get sorted out! After all, Jervis's son will be

A) somewhat grown up and able to work out the rules

or

B)  distracted by girls

or

C) distracted by his Dad having been lynched by a mob of angry gamers at the release of 5th Edition  - "Warhammer 40k for dummies".

(Before anyone says it, I've got nothing against Jervis personally, but everything against the oversimplification of the rules and codices! He's just responsible, amongst others, for now...)

Padre^.

I can't understand why GW consistently is dropping the ball with their 40k rules and codii but WHFB has a fantastic base set of rules and each and every army book is great (almost every entry is worth taking).

I desperately want to get back to 40k gaming instead of just modeling but they are repeatedly letting me down.

With all the prehistoric analogies going around, does that make Rogue Trader the Permian Period?

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/26/2007 2:10 AM
With all the prehistoric analogies going around, does that make Rogue Trader the Permian Period?

BYE

and that would make the new chaos codex the meteor that wipes out almost all of the complex life forms on the planet leaving it to be dominated by a bunch of ratlike creatures.  It all makes sense now.

I play Alpha Legion. I don't have any cult troops. I have CSM, Daemons, and Cultists. I hate Jervis.

Time to ditch my army. I can't be bothered to re-paint them to the new scheme, nor can I be bothered to re-write their fluff now that they are more renegade than Chaos.

It was fun while it lasted though.

Hey...You see, GW did us Alpha Legion players a favor when they changed the color scheme so now we don't have to play them as Alpha Legion and can do what we want with them

Some favor, eh?

Don't give up yet though!

If there is enough of a "Traitor Legion" grass-roots campaign/complaints to GW/etc. we might get something out of it. A White Dwarf Index Astartes article?

Also, the rumored CODEX: DAEMON (Whatever) *might* allow us to get closer to what we used to be able to field.

I'm not ready to give up just yet...

Posted By beef on 08/24/2007 7:18 PM
I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that.  Its a dinosaur thing to do.  And we all know what happenened to them. . .

Do you like dinosaurs?  'Cause I like dinosaurs.  My favorite is triceratops.

Hey, Beef spelled dinosaur correctly in that post!

Posted By Alpharius on 08/26/2007 12:41 PM
Some favor, eh?

Actually, I kinda think it is...Well, it wasn't intended to be a favor for sure, but I've come to the conclusion that I need to have all my armies being of a custom background, not painted in any specific color that would indicate that they need to play a certain way.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/26/2007 4:50 PM

Posted By beef on 08/24/2007 7:18 PM
I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that.  Its a dinosaur thing to do.  And we all know what happenened to them. . .

Do you like dinosaurs?  'Cause I like dinosaurs.  My favorite is triceratops.

I like archaeopteryx.

Posted By Hellfury on 08/27/2007 12:44 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/26/2007 4:50 PM

Posted By beef on 08/24/2007 7:18 PM
I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that.  Its a dinosaur thing to do.  And we all know what happenened to them. . .

Do you like dinosaurs?  'Cause I like dinosaurs.  My favorite is triceratops.

I like archaeopteryx.

Unfortunately, that's not a dinosaur. Btw, I've always been fond of the stegasaurus

Posted By Jester on 08/25/2007 1:10 PM
I'd like to hear an expose on how the many sackings/leavings of GW design team members in the past years affected the way things were done there. It'll never happen, but it would be interesting.

Agreed.  It'd make for a good VH1 special.  I'd watch an hour on the rise, fall and "redemption" of Jervis Johnson. 

LordOfTheSloths, if I can also convince my friend to keep playing Death guard, and everyone else continue playing World Eaters and Thousand Sons, I will still have opponents to trounce completely with my orks and sisters... heh heh. Go ahead and keep using that old dex

(redundant to following post)

Posted By Toreador on 08/27/2007 9:33 AM
LordOfTheSloths, if I can also convince my friend to keep playing Death guard, and everyone else continue playing World Eaters and Thousand Sons, I will still have opponents to trounce completely with my orks and sisters... heh heh. Go ahead and keep using that old dex

I'd be glad to play against Orks, haven't done it in a long time.  As for sisters, last time my Eaters played them, Khorne's finest kicked their little hineys

But to the general point: I'm damn sure not going to stop playing an army I invested significant time and money in, not to mention using a perfectly good codex (a $20 dollar value!) just because GW has decided to water down, dumb down and infantilize their entire philosophy of army construction, with CSM being only the first victims of that idiocy. 

As far as I'm concerned, let the 10-year-olds play Yu-Gi-Oh, and DON'T F*** WITH MY ARMIES!!!

WE and TS are just horrible horrible lists in the last book. WE are too easy to lead around the table and or shoot to death, TS we won't even talk about. DG were in the same boat. Just odd that you would defend those lists and stick with the old book. My DG and WE friends are actually looking at what they get to do in the new book, which is be competitive. I understand those people that have had their lists just pulled apart, or downgraded in power, but those lists were just silly easy to play against.

And yes, things like checkers, chess, DBM, DBA are seriously for the young folks. Hardly to no army construction, watered down and simplistic. Horrible horrible stuff there. I only play the most complex and complicated games I can find because that is more "adult".

I've been plenty "competitive" with my WE.  If you play WE right you can minimize the "leading around the table" problem.  If you don't, well, "next time play better."

TS I didn't like much, which is why I had refrained from completing them in the hopes that GW would produce a more appropriate list for them.  One-wound 3+ invulnerable with inferno bolts (to say nothing of force weapon proliferation among sorcerers!) is a ridiculous overcompensation.  They should have gone back to two codices ago, when TS were 2 wound and couldn't be wounded by less than strength 5 firepower, and kept the "slow and purposeful" rule and let them assault as with the previous codex.   And given the sorcerers worthwhile psychic powers rather than raiding the loyalist librarian armory.  The new stat line has nothing to do with TS as I or anyone else knew them.

Posted By alansmithee on 08/27/2007 3:48 AM

Posted By Hellfury on 08/27/2007 12:44 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/26/2007 4:50 PM

Posted By beef on 08/24/2007 7:18 PM
I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that.  Its a dinosaur thing to do.  And we all know what happenened to them. . .

Do you like dinosaurs?  'Cause I like dinosaurs.  My favorite is triceratops.

I like archaeopteryx.

Unfortunately, that's not a dinosaur. Btw, I've always been fond of the stegasaurus

Archaeopteryx is most certainly a dinosaur.

Tyrannosaurus Rex is the king baby!

Certain armies just start on a bad footing, kind of like the new DA codex, Sisters or Orks vs a lot of the "top tier" codexes that are out at the moment. WE, and DG are doable, just start on horrible footing. TS don't have any saving grace. This is where I think the new codex is good in allowing these armies to finally start out on an even footing. DG, WE, and TS are not "pure" in any sense, but can make much more varied and competitive lists. The zerks are more useful now, the plague marines a little more deadly, and the rubric marines,.. um,.. well,... over the top. The rules aren't that bad for them now, it's just the ap3 that is over the top, and had never been heard of in the fluff before. I imagine it will be just as nasty on the table as it is in theory. But I think certain armies gain a lot in the new dex over the old, and it was only because in the old dex they were just horrible. Now they are just bad,... not horrible

Posted By alansmithee on 08/27/2007 3:48 AM

Posted By Hellfury on 08/27/2007 12:44 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/26/2007 4:50 PM

Posted By beef on 08/24/2007 7:18 PM
I say change with the times but if you really cant (and there is a few of you like this) Then Good luck with that.  Its a dinosaur thing to do.  And we all know what happenened to them. . .

Do you like dinosaurs?  'Cause I like dinosaurs.  My favorite is triceratops.

I like archaeopteryx.

Unfortunately, that's not a dinosaur. Btw, I've always been fond of the stegasaurus

It may not be a non-avian dinosaur, but it's still a dinosaur.

And also did you know that more time elapsed between the death of the last stegosaurus and the hatching of the first tyrannosaurus than between the death of the last tyrannosaurus and the hatching of the first Vin Diesel?  It's a fact!

Birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs are all Archosaurs.

Posted By Toreador on 08/27/2007 6:24 PM
My DG and WE friends are actually looking at what they get to do in the new book, which is be competitive.

I don't understand.  DG and WE armies do not exist in the new book. 

Posted By Toreador on 08/28/2007 11:16 AM
TS don't have any saving grace.

I wouldn't say that.  Sure they were horribly overpriced and their psychic powers should have been better, but at least their list was somewhat representative of their fluff.  But now their rubric terminators and sorcerer chosen have all been replaced by a bunch of punks with invulnerable saves?  WTF??

Posted By Toreador on 08/28/2007 11:16 AM
DG, WE, and TS are not "pure" in any sense, but can make much more varied and competitive lists.

Uh, what??  I suppose I could include some plague marines or berserkers or rubrics in my vanilla army and call it "Death Guard" or "World Eaters" or "Thousand Sons" - BUT I COULD ALREADY DO THAT WITH THE OLD CODEX.

So how exactly is a vanilla "Thousand Sons" list "much more varied" all of a sudden?  No more sorcerer chosen, sorcerer possessed, or rubric terminators.  No more Coruscating Warp Flame.  No more Tzeentch-specific wargear.  We've gone from 3 flavors of daemon down to 1.  But now our havocs can have a 5+ inv save.  Whoopty-freaking-doo.

I don't know how to make this any clearer.  DG, WE, and TS armies do not exist in the new book.

I keep hearing people go on about the power of Thousand Sons, but surely it's only versus MEQs that they are actually that powerful? They'll be over costed against orks, nids, eldar, gaurd and tau. And they'll really struggle to make their points back against those armies.
Do they have some sort of cool horde killing psychic power that i haven't heard of, or are they just the most retardedly narrow focus troops choice in the entire game?

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 1:03 PM
I don't understand.  DG and WE armies do not exist in the new book. 

And most won't want them either.  The new book has been referred to as Chaos Skittles, but I think a better title is Chaos Lucky Charms.  Armies will be mostly brown with a few colors sprinkled in. 

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 1:03 PM

I don't know how to make this any clearer.  DG, WE, and TS armies do not exist in the new book.

  Amazingly enough, we understand what you're saying.  Many of us simply think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than it is by its special rules.  It's really that simple.  We understand, but we disagree. 

Just the same that we disagree that Rubric marines are not represented as much by an inv save as they are by having two wounds. All the rules still say "rubric marine" to me....

Thank you for explaining that better than I ever could.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Toreador on 08/28/2007 3:24 PM
Just the same that we disagree that Rubric marines are not represented as much by an inv save as they are by having two wounds. All the rules still say "rubric marine" to me....

So which rules say "rubric marine terminator" to you?

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 1:36 PM
Many of us simply think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than it is by its special rules.  It's really that simple.

Is it really?  Then I guess you'd have no problem if I fielded a "counts as" Dustwing army using nidzilla rules?  Hive tyrant = daemon prince.  Carnifexes = rubric marines in terminator armor.  Termagaunts = horrors.  Zoanthropes = thrall wizards.

Hell, I could even rebase the rubric terminators.  4 rubric terminators on a single monster base = 1 dakkafex.  2 rubric terminators + a sorcerer on a single monster base = 1 gunfex.  So that's 3 x 4 rubric terminators for the dakkafexes + 2 x 2 rubric terminators and 2 sorcerers for the gunfexes = 16 rubric terminators + 2 sorcerers = sacred numbers!

Models?  Check.  Background?  Check.  Paint scheme?  Check.  Sounds like a Thousand Sons army to me.  Pretty simple.

This thread is 42 pages long so obviously I haven't read the whole thing, but wasn't there fairly solid rumor that a seperate codex was planned for each of the Legions? I was under the impression from things the developers had said that this codex, while able to somewhat represent the Legions until each received their own, was actually intended to explore those Marines who turned traitor after the Heresy.

So no worries, right?

With all the carrying-on about how rules don't make an army, why do we even need more than one codex? We can use the miracle of "counts-as" to represent everything, using C:SM as the base. I guess you eldar, ork, IG, nid, necron, DE, sisters, and tau players are just a bunch of power-gaming munchkiny cheeseheads. I mean the nerve of wanting separate rules just to represent your fluff! You should all be ashamed of yourselves, especially when there's a perfectly good codex that can represent all of your armies with minor "counts as" representation.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 5:58 PM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 1:36 PM
Many of us simply think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than it is by its special rules.  It's really that simple.

Is it really?  Then I guess you'd have no problem if I fielded a "counts as" Dustwing army using nidzilla rules? 

'nidzilla rules'?

Posted By Elusive71 on 08/28/2007 6:42 PM
This thread is 42 pages long so obviously I haven't read the whole thing, but wasn't there fairly solid rumor that a seperate codex was planned for each of the Legions? I was under the impression from things the developers had said that this codex, while able to somewhat represent the Legions until each received their own, was actually intended to explore those Marines who turned traitor after the Heresy.

 

The party line is that this codex allows "design room" if they choose to do Legion books at some later date.  And when you consider the codexes that are rumored to likely appear first -- Orks, Daemons, DE, Necrons, SMs -- a 5th edition and more supplements like CoD and Apoc...well, it's going to be quite a wait.  Years, probably.

I've defended the designers many times on this forum, but I really dislike how they're dangling that carrot in front of people when the reality is any such books are a long time away if they even happen.  It just seems awfully misleading.

CSM players thinking the Daemon book and/or Legion books are gonna "fix" things are setting themselves up for disappointment, if you ask me.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 5:58 PM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 1:36 PM
Many of us simply think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than it is by its special rules.  It's really that simple.

Is it really?  Then I guess you'd have no problem if I fielded a "counts as" Dustwing army using nidzilla rules? 

  Why would I have a problem with which army list you use? 

  Anyway, why are you so obsessed with Rubric Terminators?  Rubric Terminators, non-Rubric Terminators.  Maybe they just changed the Thousand Sons' fluff, and now none of the Terminators were effected (maybe they were all sorcerers or something).  Do you hear me gnashing my teeth because I can't field a Thudd Gun in my Ultramarines army any more?  (Yes, I've finally gotten over it.)

  As far as the "har har har, why don't they just release a single codex for all of the armies, and everyone can be counts as" statement from the poster above, leave your fallacies at the door, please. 

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 10:06 PM
Anyway, why are you so obsessed with Rubric Terminators?  Rubric Terminators, non-Rubric Terminators.  Maybe they just changed the Thousand Sons' fluff, and now none of the Terminators were effected (maybe they were all sorcerers or something).

Well that makes sense!  So I'll just use my unit of terminator sorcerers instead.  Oh wait, they don't exist anymore either.  For someone who's arguing that an army is defined by its background, your attitude towards wholesale elimination of units from the background seems remarkably blasé.

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 10:06 PM
Do you hear me gnashing my teeth because I can't field a Thudd Gun in my Ultramarines army any more?  (Yes, I've finally gotten over it.)

Bad analogy.  It's more along the lines of eliminating the SM codex and turning "Ultramarines" into a troops choice in Space Wolf armies.  But don't worry - you can still field your terminators using the rules for Wolf Guard!  Or maybe they just changed the Ultramarines fluff, and now Ultramarines are no longer able to field terminators (maybe they never recovered from their losses battling Hive Fleet Behemoth or something).

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 10:06 PM
As far as the "har har har, why don't they just release a single codex for all of the armies, and everyone can be counts as" statement from the poster above, leave your fallacies at the door, please. 

What fallacy?  Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy unless either 1) the "absurd" conclusion does not follow from your premise or 2) you accept the "absurd" conclusion as true.  You stated:

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 1:36 PM
Many of us simply think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than it is by its special rules.  It's really that simple.

Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your argument, but you are arguing that Chaos legions don't need their own rules because armies are defined by their models, background, and paint scheme, are you not?  Well by that logic why should any army get its own rules?  It should be perfectly acceptable to eliminate all army lists except for one and use "counts as."  This should be no cause for concern since an army is "defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme."

So which is it?  Either you agree with the conclusion or you disagree with my interpretation of your argument.  Maybe what you really meant was, "an army is defined by its models, background, and paint scheme so it doesn't need its own special rules (except when does)."

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 10:52 PM

You stated:

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/28/2007 1:36 PM
Many of us simply think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than it is by its special rules.  It's really that simple.

Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your argument, but you are arguing that Chaos legions don't need their own rules because armies are defined by their models, background, and paint scheme, are you not?  Well by that logic why should any army get its own rules?  It should be perfectly acceptable to eliminate all army lists except for one and use "counts as."  This should be no cause for concern since an army is "defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme."

So which is it?  Either you agree with the conclusion or you disagree with my interpretation of your argument.  Maybe what you really meant was, "an army is defined by its models, background, and paint scheme so it doesn't need its own special rules (except when does)."

You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules." 

You almost had me with the Wolf Guard terminators thing, but then I realized that Wolf Guard Terminators are practically the same thing as Ultramarines Terminators.  All space marines were basically the same once, during Rogue Trader, and no one complained. 

Special rules crop up like weeds, and must periodically be trimmed back, or the system bogs down.  I admit that they cut a little too close this time with the generic daemons, but how many different kinds of terminators do we need in this game?

I think to an extent that is true, but one has to keep in mind that armies are distinct and interesting to play against because of their differences and special rules. It is not just a matter of flavor, but real differences in how the armies work. Chaos is still different from Loyalists, but a great deal less, so much so that the distinction becomes a little vague. In general, there is a strong relationship between many, varied armies and continued and strong interest in games of this nature. There is not much money to be made producing chess sets, after all.
How that trades off with game balance, that is a trick, and the responsibility for maximizing diversity of armies and game balance lies with the designers. When one suffers too much it hurts the game, and the designers are those who need to answer for that. If they can not support both diverse and interestingly different armies and balance of the same, then they need to be replaced.

I think one side affect that we'll see as a result of this codex is a lot more creativity from gamers on creating their own unique Chaos warband. Before, everyone picked a legion and went with that. Now, not only can you still re-create the feel of the legions, (despite the loss of *gasp* rubric terminators) but you are also encouraged to create your own unique renegade force.

Just an observation.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Yes, because I commonly see my Space Marines running around summoning daemons, using defilers, obliterators, daemon weapons, being possessed, not fielding AC or speeders... I mean really, they are just the same,... right?

Just because the basic chaos marine is almost (without mark or that CC weapon) the same as a Loyalist Marine, doesn't make them less distinct as an army, there are still VAST differences in the forces. So many drama queens. I thought the eldar were bad.

The lash is bad.
The wiping out of a number of chaos armies is bad.
But overall the codex isn't that horrible. When compared to what some people had, is when it pales. It is still very unique in play style, and is what it is. Corrupted Space Marines.

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 8:46 AM

Chaos is still different from Loyalists, but a great deal less, so much so that the distinction becomes a little vague.

Yes, because I commonly see my Space Marines running around summoning daemons, using defilers, obliterators, daemon weapons, being possessed, not fielding AC or speeders... I mean really, they are just the same,... right?

Just because the basic chaos marine is almost (without mark or that CC weapon) the same as a Loyalist Marine, doesn't

I might be mistaken,but isnt a basic chaos marine almost the same as a loyalist marine.  I mean come on; power armor check, Bolter Check, Rhino check, Predator Check, Dreadnught check,! I think I made my point.  CSM are basically SM with Spikes and marks.  The new codex will still be very viable.  It will just take a different army list.  Now, for poor saps like me who have their IW nothing more then a paint job, then have a specific list and then become nothing more then a paint job again! is frustrating, it will be  challenge, but Im getting my basi back for Apocalypse x10 so its cool.

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 10:52 PM

Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your argument, but you are arguing that Chaos legions don't need their own rules because armies are defined by their models, background, and paint scheme, are you not?  Well by that logic why should any army get its own rules?  It should be perfectly acceptable to eliminate all army lists except for one and use "counts as."  This should be no cause for concern since an army is "defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme."

So which is it?  Either you agree with the conclusion or you disagree with my interpretation of your argument.  Maybe what you really meant was, "an army is defined by its models, background, and paint scheme so it doesn't need its own special rules (except when does)."

You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules." 

Special rules crop up like weeds, and must periodically be trimmed back, or the system bogs down.  I admit that they cut a little too close this time with the generic daemons, but how many different kinds of terminators do we need in this game?

Hear, Hear!

Ok - Abadabadoobaddon. Answer me this.

How much tougher IS a rubric terminator supposed to be than a "normal" terminator fluffwise - and did the previous rules capture that difference appropriately?

This brings us to the ultimate question that every game developer needs to ask themselves when reexaminaing their game. Do the rules make SENSE and do they add value. If the answer to either of those questions is no - then the rule needs to be tossed or changed.

Frankly - the difference between Rubric and non rubric terminators is not that large. Tzeentch marking the terminators increases their survivabilty about as much as the "rubric" did (and actually increases it versus the weapons that generally are used to kill termies - lascannons, meltaguns, Demolisher pieplates). So why have two unit entries, taking up space in the book, and potentially adding confusion, when one would work?

For all the complaining - my friend who plays Death Guard is perfectly happy with  the stuff he's heard about the new codex. For him - the artificial constraints placed on his "Death Guard" army in the 3.5 codex chafed a bit. Now that there aren't official "death guard" rules - he can make his Death Guard army what he wants.

To him - the "special rules" aspect of the Legion mattered less than the paint scheme, history, and theme of the army. Since *those* haven't changed  - he's happy. Now that Death Guard is no longer shackled by those special rules, he can have fun with nurgle marked bikers or raptors.  In the end - it's still billious green, it still worships Papa Nurgle, and it still absorbs hideous amounts of firepower as it stomps up hte battlefield. It's still as much a Death Guard army as it was when it had it's own Legion rules...

Well, except for the generic daemons.

I really get annoyed by people simply not caring about the fact that ALL 9 legions that were in the old codex now simply dont exist anymore as rules.

I really would like to see them eliminate the space wolves, blood angels, and dark angels codex's.  If that happened how many people would be crying about their wolf guard terminators or death company that gone?

Well my response would be: can't you just use the same paint scheme and use regular terminator rules for the wolf guard?  And can't you just use assault marines for death company?  What about using regular scout rules for space wolves scouts?  Oh gosh you don't want to do that because these chapters are soooo different from vanilla marines? 

Come on, dont look at this new codex as anything good, its a waste of paper because it doesn't address 90%+ of the existing chaos armies out there.

And dont tell me that apocalypse fixes the problem because a techmarine with servo arm is not an equal representation of an IW Warsmith with servo arm.  Also i cant use the apocalypse rules in tournaments so it dont help in that regard.

Face it, GW made an error by not having legion rules included.

Posted By WarsmithMorgoth on 08/29/2007 10:17 AM

Face it, GW made an error by not having legion rules included.

No, GW made an error by having SM Chapters with special rules (and I say this as a Dark Angels player).  If those didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By keichi246 on 08/29/2007 10:03 AM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 10:52 PM

Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your argument, but you are arguing that Chaos legions don't need their own rules because armies are defined by their models, background, and paint scheme, are you not?  Well by that logic why should any army get its own rules?  It should be perfectly acceptable to eliminate all army lists except for one and use "counts as."  This should be no cause for concern since an army is "defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme."

So which is it?  Either you agree with the conclusion or you disagree with my interpretation of your argument.  Maybe what you really meant was, "an army is defined by its models, background, and paint scheme so it doesn't need its own special rules (except when does)."

You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules." 

Special rules crop up like weeds, and must periodically be trimmed back, or the system bogs down.  I admit that they cut a little too close this time with the generic daemons, but how many different kinds of terminators do we need in this game?

Hear, Hear!

Ok - Abadabadoobaddon. Answer me this.

How much tougher IS a rubric terminator supposed to be than a "normal" terminator fluffwise - and did the previous rules capture that difference appropriately?

This brings us to the ultimate question that every game developer needs to ask themselves when reexaminaing their game. Do the rules make SENSE and do they add value. If the answer to either of those questions is no - then the rule needs to be tossed or changed.

Frankly - the difference between Rubric and non rubric terminators is not that large. Tzeentch marking the terminators increases their survivabilty about as much as the "rubric" did (and actually increases it versus the weapons that generally are used to kill termies - lascannons, meltaguns, Demolisher pieplates). So why have two unit entries, taking up space in the book, and potentially adding confusion, when one would work?

For all the complaining - my friend who plays Death Guard is perfectly happy with  the stuff he's heard about the new codex. For him - the artificial constraints placed on his "Death Guard" army in the 3.5 codex chafed a bit. Now that there aren't official "death guard" rules - he can make his Death Guard army what he wants.

To him - the "special rules" aspect of the Legion mattered less than the paint scheme, history, and theme of the army. Since *those* haven't changed  - he's happy. Now that Death Guard is no longer shackled by those special rules, he can have fun with nurgle marked bikers or raptors.  In the end - it's still billious green, it still worships Papa Nurgle, and it still absorbs hideous amounts of firepower as it stomps up hte battlefield. It's still as much a Death Guard army as it was when it had it's own Legion rules...

I think your friend is totally missing the point of a cult army then. Those "artificial constraints" were there to simulate how the death guard operate on the battlefield. If he just wanted a nurgle theme, he could've just done that. Not all nurgle worshipers are necessarily in the death guard. But for people who wanted to play a true death guard, and in that style, that option is no longer there.

And the special rules can matter less than the theme, history, paint scheme, etc to some people. But it is the actual playing of the army (and how it operates) that adds the variety. Otherwise, you could go to an omni-dex. You can argue about the effectiveness of representing cult armies in the old codex, but I don't think the idea itself was bad. And there is no more "Death Guard" army. There is only Chaos Space Marine armies.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 11:02 AM

Posted By WarsmithMorgoth on 08/29/2007 10:17 AM

Face it, GW made an error by not having legion rules included.

No, GW made an error by having SM Chapters with special rules (and I say this as a Dark Angels player).  If those didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I actually think that the way it was handled in the old codex was the best way. If they did that for all the army books, you could have the "main" core, and still allow players to have unique chapters/legions/craftworlds/kults/kabals/etc. I think the current codex design is a very big step backwards. Especially if (as been the pattern) the focus switches before all codexes (and I would include Eldar in that) are redone to the new standard.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous.

The new codex is great for a lot of reasons:
1) It encourages DIY warbands, and removes constraints on army comp.
2) The individual cults are better defined, balanced, and focused.
3) The most abusive aspects of the old list are all removed.
4) The codex is another in a move towards a trimming of cheap, static long range shooting.
5) Rhinos are usuable again!
6) Terminators have uses outside of simply holding ACs

the new Codex is awful for a lot of reasons:
1) Unlike the eldar codex, which threw a bone to each former sublist in the new book, this codex removes not just the sublists, but prevents any alteration of the FOC and does not include non-infantry troops. Eldar got jetbike troops, better avengers, pathfinders as troops, a kicking Eldrad, and even the option for wraithguard troops. Chaos got... nothing.
2) Entire army builds are invalidated. Daemonbomb, Chaos-wings, Uber-psykers, alpha legion.
3) Everybody with Daemons, or more than on Greater Daemon, got hosed.
4) Certain units lost a lot of flavourful rules and combat rules: Raptors, Chosen, all daemonic gifts, etc.
5) Some units changed role dramatically: dreads and defilers, raptors. people who bought an indirect fire unit now have a fast moving CC dreadnought.
6) Lash!

here's the difference, barring Lash, between the Pros and the cons: the Pros judge the codex as it is, while the cons judge the codex compared to the last one. Failing to judge the current codex on it's own merits shows little foresight, because this codex is going to be the base of some wonderful armies in the next five years. At the same time, failing to see how this current codex invalidates money, time, and effort spent on armies built under the last codex shows very little regard for fellow gamers and even a sense of history.

HBMC's review was built on the presumption that he liked the old codex, and merely wanted the new codex to tweak/tone down the worst parts of the old codex. Many of the supporters see this new codex as either not affecting them and their armies, or toning down a broken codex that was a byzantine dinosaur.

My proposal is that everybody who hates the new changes mourn their lost armies, but take a look at the new book as an opporuntity to build new armies, while those who love the new book acknowledge the losses suffered by many veteran gamers, and stop the relentless preaching, and show a little respect and courtesy.

And really, without knowing what things will come, we can't totally judge where this Chaos codex will lead. It may very well lead to legion specific books and a wider variety than before.

But, it also may not. I do agree with Polonius,... but it wouldn't be the internet without constant discussion, ranting and raving.

Oh.. and lastly....

Nazis! (though the word was already uttered forth in an earlier post)

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM
You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."

Ah, I thought so - you're hedging your argument.  "An army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."  The question then becomes: exactly how much is "more?"  Lemme guess - enough that an army doesn't need its own special rules (unless it does).

What I think is the most infuriating thing to Veterans is that the codex has become a color by numbers style exercise. While, superficially, all units which were available before are still available:

There are no bonuses for taking certain combinations of units.
There are no differing force organization charts.
There are no differences in demon models, nor is there any distinction between daemonic beasts, swarms or cavalry.

Certain things in the new codex are -obviously- inferior choices and certain things in the new codex are obviously very efficient or powerful... once you get through all the good stuff, take the mandatory stuff and ignore all the bad stuff - the amount of stuff left over to give your army some sort of flavour is -well- kinda limited...

For example: I don't really see how a V4 codex Chaos HTH army could work without lots of Fzorgle abuse. You can't infiltrate large portions of the army, daemon summoning is different, and the daemons themselves are kind of, uh... crap. The writers gifted us with random posessed and spawn (yay!), and fleeting Defilers (taken at the expense of AT firepower).

You don't see regular space marine assault squads trading their jump packs for Rhinos... why? Because it isn't a very good tactic. Chaos didn't use it much in pre-codex V4 because it isn't a good return on points, but now that the mini-firebases are gone, it's now at the top of the totem pole (for troops). Just because it is now at the top doesn't mean that it measures up though!

Posted By keichi246 on 08/29/2007 10:03 AM
Ok - Abadabadoobaddon. Answer me this.
How much tougher IS a rubric terminator supposed to be than a "normal" terminator fluffwise - and did the previous rules capture that difference appropriately?

How much tougher is a rubric in power armor supposed to be than a "normal" marine in power armor fluffwise?  Well, look at the rules we're given.  In the old codex a rubric marine was a "normal" marine with Slow & Purposeful, Fearless, and +1 Wound.  A rubric terminator was a "normal" terminator with Slow & Purposeful, Fearless, and +1 Wound.  Wow, that almost makes sense in a way!  So yes, the previous rules captured the difference appropriately.

Now look at the new rules.  A rubric marine is a "normal" marine with a 4+ inv save, Fearless, Slow & Purposeful, Inferno Bolts, The Sorcerer Commands special rule.  Ok, so far so good.  Now it stands to reason that a rubric terminator should have at least a 4+ inv save, Fearless, Slow & Purposeful, and The Sorcerer Commands special rule, right?  In fact, for the sake of consistency they should probably have Inferno Bolts, a sorcerer champ, and a 3+ inv save too (rubric marines have +1 inv save on top of the 5+ they'd get from the Mark of Tzeentch so rubric terminators should probably have +1 inv save on top of the 4+ they'd get from the Mark of Tzeentch).  Yet for some reason they're not Slow & Purposeful or Fearless and they can't be led by a sorcerer champ.

Posted By keichi246 on 08/29/2007 10:03 AM
This brings us to the ultimate question that every game developer needs to ask themselves when reexaminaing their game. Do the rules make SENSE and do they add value.

I dunno... maybe in Thousand Sons armies leading terminators is actually a punishment so they only assign them to the most cowardly inexperienced sorcerers?  Maybe the rubric interacted with the terminator armor's inertial damping systems in unpredictable ways, causing rubric terminators constantly to expel malodorous puffs of magical pink flatulence?  Yeah, that sounds about right.  This flatulence must also propel them across the battlefield at speeds higher than any mere power armored rubric could dream of achieving (if they could dream).  Unfortunately their flatulent fecundity adversely affects their utility as a stable firing platform - their incessant gaseous emanations jostle their otherwise sturdy frames with such violence that the accuracy of their bolter fire inevitably suffers.  I guess that makes sense.

Because they aren't rubric terminators. You can count them as or like if you wish, but the TS list as a whole is gone. Not that it was ever competitive, or used by anyone that didn't care to lose every game they played. I hope it comes back, but in a better combination. The funniest thing I find is people complaining about armies that were useless in the old Chaos Codex. All I heard was complaints about how much certain armies sucked (mostly the cult armies). TS were deemed as all but useless. Now you have to follow a more shall we say "open interpretation" about those legions if you wish to play them, but dare I say that now they are better on the table than they were in the old book?

Welcome to the world of armies that don't have infiltrate and still somehow have to make it into hand to hand.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 11:02 AM
And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Of course!  By cutting the legion specific rules, nerfing daemons to uselessness, and axing LatD altogether they can have the worst of both worlds!  Brilliant!

And again you belittle the legion rules.  As has been stated before, the cult legions had their own special rules back in RT, long before any Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, or *barf* Black Templars.  The 3.5 codex simply restored those rules after the godawful drek that was the 3.0 Chaos codex.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 8:32 AM
I think one side affect that we'll see as a result of this codex is a lot more creativity from gamers on creating their own unique Chaos warband. Before, everyone picked a legion and went with that. Now, not only can you still re-create the feel of the legions, (despite the loss of *gasp* rubric terminators) but you are also encouraged to create your own unique renegade force.

Yet strangely enough an apparently huge number of unique renegade forces seem to be led by twin slaaneshi psykers!  Must have been a bumper crop in the ol' Eye of Terror this year.  Yay creativity!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 12:32 PM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM
You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."

Ah, I thought so - you're hedging your argument.  "An army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."  The question then becomes: exactly how much is "more?"  Lemme guess - enough that an army doesn't need its own special rules (unless it does).

But a lot of the cult troops do still have special rules, just not as many as they used to.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I agree Ozy that they possibly made a mistake releasing rules for those legions in the first place, but the fact remains that they did and now damned themselves by invalidating those rules.

But i've been playing this game for 10 years now and i have seen this happen before to other armies so now i guess i am getting my taste of it, but it doesn't mean i have to like it.

I am too into this game to quit playing it anyways so I will have to carry on as always. 

I just have to vent sometimes.

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 1:32 PM
Because they aren't rubric terminators. You can count them as or like if you wish, but the TS list as a whole is gone. Not that it was ever competitive, or used by anyone that didn't care to lose every game they played. I hope it comes back, but in a better combination. The funniest thing I find is people complaining about armies that were useless in the old Chaos Codex. All I heard was complaints about how much certain armies sucked (mostly the cult armies). TS were deemed as all but useless. Now you have to follow a more shall we say "open interpretation" about those legions if you wish to play them, but dare I say that now they are better on the table than they were in the old book?

Welcome to the world of armies that don't have infiltrate and still somehow have to make it into hand to hand.

This post right here explains the difference between people who loved the old codex and hate the new one from those that love the new one.

Toreador simply doesn't understand why people would play a pure 1k sons list, since they weren't good.  Hundreds of people playing 1k sons could probably try to explain it, but I doubt it would ever really click.

People liked those lists not for power (that's what IW were for, or Black Legion), but because it was a framework of what GW said the army looked like.  When you played the 1ksons list, you weren't playing a Tzeentch heavy warband, you were playing what an actual remnant of the rubric marines would look like.

Why do people play all GK daemonhunters?  Or Orks?  because they have an amazing background, they play differently than any other army, and they force your opponent to think and play in a tactically different way.  More lists, even if they don't add power, add to the overall diversity of the game, and make everything more interesting for everybody.

The legion lists, except for IW, offered small bonuses for fairly substantial penalties, but those choices resulted in some of the most flavorful armies we'll ever see.  Sure, the same lists could nearly be created today, but without even the scintilla of bonus of the old list, with the added bonus of losing daemons.

Maybe gamers are too concerned about rules, but there simply is a large difference between painting a terminator boltgun, calling his AC a psycannon, and playing "grey knights" with your space codex, and actually playing with the Daemonhunters codex. 

As I've said before, the new codex is great for doing what it claims to do: represent renegade warbands.  Diversity is essential for health in any community, and the death of the legion armies is a loss to gaming as a whole, and while it's not a fatal one, dismissing this loss as minor is simpleminded.

So what special rules do my Thousand Sons Possessed, World Eater Terminators, Death Guard Bikers and Noise Marine Havocs get?

Oh wait... none of these units exist any more in the Codex, so when you say that they have 'less' special rules Ozzy, what you actually meant was 'no' special rules. Thanks for clarifying.

BYE

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 1:33 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 11:02 AM
And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Of course!  By cutting the legion specific rules, nerfing daemons to uselessness, and axing LatD altogether they can have the worst of both worlds!  Brilliant!

And again you belittle the legion rules.  As has been stated before, the cult legions had their own special rules back in RT, long before any Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, or *barf* Black Templars.  The 3.5 codex simply restored those rules after the godawful drek that was the 3.0 Chaos codex.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 8:32 AM
I think one side affect that we'll see as a result of this codex is a lot more creativity from gamers on creating their own unique Chaos warband. Before, everyone picked a legion and went with that. Now, not only can you still re-create the feel of the legions, (despite the loss of *gasp* rubric terminators) but you are also encouraged to create your own unique renegade force.

Yet strangely enough an apparently huge number of unique renegade forces seem to be led by twin slaaneshi psykers!  Must have been a bumper crop in the ol' Eye of Terror this year.  Yay creativity!

1. This is going around in circles and Polonius did a good job of explaining both sides.  The cult rules were either useless (TkSons, World Eaters to a degree) or waaaaaay  open to abuse (Siren Princes, Alpha Legion infiltrators, Word Bearer Daemon-Bomb, Iron Warriors, etc).  They needed to be trimmed back.
2. I've stated several times that I agree with you on the generic daemons, it would have been nice to be able to mark daemons like you can mark other units.
3. What did you really expect from LatD?  They were a sub-List in a campaign specific codex release, had no model range and never had any support.  GW said before Dark Angels that any release was going to be fully supported and if they couldn't do that, they wouldn't release the army.  What were you smoking to think that LatD would every get the same treatment as other codexes?

As to your second point.  Lash is bad, we all can agree.  But is it really any different that the cookie-cutter Siren Lists, IW pie-plate spam, or Daemon-Bomb armies we saw before?  They must have had bumper crops of Siren Princes too by your reckoning.

You're pissed, we get it.  I really do think that you are harping on the negatives and missing some of the new benefits of this codex.  (and please don't be predictably sarcastic and respond with, "Positives like generic daemons,  Lash, no legions, etc. ad nauseum...)

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Polonius, I wouldn't call it out if I ever saw those armies fielded on the tabletop. Other than myself I haven't seen an ork army show to our shop in over half a year. I have seen one Thousand sons army in the last year, and I play against a Deathguard army when he chooses to field it (well, because he hosts Deathguard.org, he has to play sometimes, but it is rare). If I actually saw those armies in the community I would change my attitude, but if you are only painting, and never fielding them, then why do you even care about the rules?

So many armies sit on shelves because they are not competitive against most of the armies on the tabletop. A few diehards are still around here and there (which is why I hear they complain), but overall if a list is no good on the table, it's not going to be fielded. In my opinion I would rather have something I can field on the table and have a chance of winning than having a painted force that is shelved. If it just sits on the shelf, it can be as fluffy as it wants.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/29/2007 1:49 PM
So what special rules do my Thousand Sons Possessed, World Eater Terminators, Death Guard Bikers and Noise Marine Havocs get?

Oh wait... none of these units exist any more in the Codex, so when you say that they have 'less' special rules Ozzy, what you actually meant was 'no' special rules. Thanks for clarifying.

BYE

Let's take Salamanders as an example.  You can use C:SM to approximate a Salamander's force, but outside of a couple traits and a paint scheme, there are no Salamander specific rules (like Initiative 3).

Does the Salamander's chapter no longer exist because the Armageddon codex rules are invalid? 

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 2:01 PM
Polonius, I wouldn't call it out if I ever saw those armies fielded on the tabletop. Other than myself I haven't seen an ork army show to our shop in over half a year. I have seen one Thousand sons army in the last year, and I play against a Deathguard army when he chooses to field it (well, because he hosts Deathguard.org, he has to play sometimes, but it is rare). If I actually saw those armies in the community I would change my attitude, but if you are only painting, and never fielding them, then why do you even care about the rules?

So many armies sit on shelves because they are not competitive against most of the armies on the tabletop. A few diehards are still around here and there (which is why I hear they complain), but overall if a list is no good on the table, it's not going to be fielded. In my opinion I would rather have something I can field on the table and have a chance of winning than having a painted force that is shelved. If it just sits on the shelf, it can be as fluffy as it wants.

We can debate endlessly about the actual popularity of the lists, and there's always the old joke about how there are more squat players since they were canceled than before.  What I find a little disturbing is your line of reasoning:
1) You like to play competitive lists, and don't pay any attention to weaker lists.
2) you don't see those lists at your shop.
3) therefore those armies don't exist much in the overall community
4) therefore it's ok to cancel those armies, because you and the guys at the shop don't mind.

It's a reduction of your line of reasoning, but it's frightening to me, because it shows that you're not trying to gain context or facts, but are rather content to allow a few observations and personal feelings determine your position.  And while you're entitled to your opinion, you've been acting more as an advocate for the new codex design than as a person with a personal opinion.

Of course there's a few things to consider:
1) Forum posters, especially long time posters, tend to be veteran hobbyists
2) Sub lists are most appealing to vets (how many noobs with LatD do you see?)
3) there's a bit of a self selecting sample on how many people/armies are affected.

While that props, to an extent, your point that popularity for those lists was less than we think, it ignores the disproportionate role vets play in the hobby.  In both shops and the internet, vets are key to getting new popel interested, having loaner armies, trying new things, etc.

Finally, I've always had a regular Ork player in my various gaming groups, I played Death Guard at a tournament two weeks ago, and another regular fields Dark Eldar.  Every shop is different.

And here is all that I and my complaint generator have to say about the Chaos Codex...

A few weeks ago, I wrote, "The Chaos Codex desperately wants to be fashionable". In this message, I'd like to follow up on that statement. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: I cringe at the thought of how the Chaos Codex might some day engulf the world in a dense miasma of propagandism. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that the Chaos Codex has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because one of the great mysteries of modern life is, How can the Chaos Codex be so impractical? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how it's easy for the Chaos Codex to declaim my proposals. But when is it going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why aren't our children being warned about it in school? Before you answer, let me point out that I am troubled by its constant exaggerations and half-truths. It follows from this that the Chaos Codex always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to it; nothing else matters -- except maybe to exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not snotty voluble-types. I tell you this because we must question the Chaos Codex's authority. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own horny, grotesque nostrums. The Chaos Codex's reinterpretations of historic events are designed to create a climate of intimidation. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. The Chaos Codex once tried convincing me that it has answers to everything. Does it think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that I plan to examine the social and cultural conditions that trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that many people are incredulous when I tell them that the Chaos Codex intends to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. "How could the Chaos Codex be so wrongheaded?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is definitely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how the Chaos Codex plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that its suggestions promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for the Chaos Codex's votaries because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to the Chaos Codex. I have reason to believe that the Chaos Codex is about to expose and neutralize its enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that the Chaos Codex will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "addlepated" or "mudslinging". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise.

Polonius, your line of reasoning would be fine except....

I do play DA, Orks, and SOB, which are not the most competitive lists. After 20 years of this game I play more for fun than competition, but I know where competition stands in a game with a winner and a loser. I have watched armies go up on ebay for such reasons.

Dark Eldar are rather competitive by the way, just not liked.

What I want is more diversity in forces played. The problem with this is that people tend to play what they perceive they have a chance with. If they perceive that they have no hope, most will quickly sell off their army and move onto something they can be more competitive with. Vets tend to be the people that play those lists that no one else plays, we like the challenge. We are also the ones that tell the new players what they should or should not buy. We usually recommend armies that do well. I have yet to see anyone recommend that someone starts a TS army.

The fact is I travel about quite a bit. I like to stop in the local shops where I am at. I watch, look and listen. I see a lot of the same thing wherever I go. I am not saying I don't see those things ever, but they are rare. I have seen Kroot merc lists at tournaments within the last 6 months, but what you have is a lot of people gravitating to what works, especially newer people to the game. So there is a tendency to see those things over and over across the country (I can't comment on Europe). So defending lists that don't contribute to this, is silly to me.

I also like sublists, and love the Thousand Sons background. There is just no reason to field them. It's just asking for torture. A playable list would be nice, and they have met you half way. Only time will tell if they come full circle.

What I want is a core that is more solid. You can work out from there.

They're just ugly. I'd play them, but for the models.



Who is this nebulous "they" of which you speak? I have never sold an army on ebay. The armies I've just lost, courtesy of the new codex, are: 1) my LatD (a fun army, but less competitive, as I played them, than stock Guard); 2) my Lustwing (much less competitive than most of what came to be called "daemon bomb" armies); and 3) an admittedly-nasty Siren-based gladiator tournament army. I don't lament the last one, btw.



The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." You wander into a foreign game store on a given night, and don't see a particular army. Could it be there, and you missed it? Could it be that one (or more) of the players present have multiple armies, and just didn't bring that one that night? What seems "silly" to me is to espouse a position on behalf of the ever-nebulous "they", based solely on a single individual's perspective.

Even sillier, is to hold to this position, in the face of obviious examples of members of the "they" that disagree with the position.



Simplified: I am a data point. I am BOTH a tournament gamer AND a fun gamer. I am not an especially strong modeller or painter. I have lost both fun armies and competitive armies to this change. I do not sell my armies on ebay, regardless of their current utility.

How do I fit your world view?



Nothing they did to the chaos codex achieves this end. A strong subset of units remain optimal, while others are (near-) useless.

Ok, I think I see your point, as shifting as it might be. You want to see more diversity in the armies played, even if it comes at the expense of diversity of armies possible. You contend that gamers will gravitate towards the lists that are competitive and that boutique lists that aren't strong simply aren't played in numbers enough to justify the complicated or arcane rules that enable them.

What you also do is say my point is good, except... and then you never say why my points aren't correct. In fact, you seem to agree with every I wrote, except you think that GW should focus more on the core of the army list and not do army lists. What you are saying, in effect, is that you want diversity of armies, you want a solid, balanced core, but for some reason you simply dislike the legion rules, or are simply commited to advocating the current codex at the expense of all other lines of argument.

GW has never written a perfectly balanced codex. Some are close, but saying you'd rather GW focus on the core rather than try to balance sub-lists doesn't hold up. Aside from IW, none of the legion lists were broken because of the legion rules. As I said, if you simply dislike the old legion rules, or if you simply want to oppose the majority of though in the hopes of fighting group-think, I wish you would say so.

Otherwise, I see no reason to argue that it would have been worse for the hobby if GW had included some sort of legion rules.

Posted By Janthkin on 08/29/2007 3:27 PM

Simplified: I am a data point. I am BOTH a tournament gamer AND a fun gamer. I am not an especially strong modeller or painter. I have lost both fun armies and competitive armies to this change. I do not sell my armies on ebay, regardless of their current utility.

How do I fit your world view?

you don't. therefore.. according to the laws of the internet, you can be summarily ignored. :thumbs up:

 

/ this concludes tonights demonstration in "debate via tubes".

Polonius, I have never really disagreed with you, I was just answering points. What I am saying is something hypothetical. I am not going to get into whether or not the new codex is balanced or not, as I have yet to truly see it take the field. We do all see problems already, but whether they play out that way is yet to be seen.

What I am saying is I don't lament the loss of unplayable lists in the past, such as Thousand sons. They are still playable as "TS" if you take liberties in the new list, and from what I see they are much better as that incarnation. I find it funny to defend a past list with either unplayable (yes, in my opinion) or overpowered armies.

But, being an optimist, I hope or foresee a Thousand Sons list in the future of some sort, along with the other cults. I would hope they would eventually cover more. Doing it all in one book could just be too much info. They have laid the groundwork for something better, but...... I don't see the same balance I saw with the Eldar dex though (barring holofield rules) , so those hopes may be dashed. We might just end up with the same mess we started with.

This is what I hope. They need to focus on a core. Balance that out. I don't care so much if we lose sub-lists for the meantime, we as gamers can always cope by using "as is" or playing with our own rules amongst friends. Then go back and add sublists. Define the core, then expand out.

I don't think I have ever seen anything perfectly balanced, even in such simple things as DBM/DBA. What I hope for is a modicum of competitiveness. That an army list CAN be competitive against the other lists. Right now there are a lot of lists that just aren't, and those fall by the wayside.

Janthkin, you are the norm, for the vet types. I think a lot of people are more like that around here than not. But yes, I have seen people swap out armies because they just can't compete against what is in their area.

It is hard to ever get a true sampling of everyone.

Posted By Polonius on 08/29/2007 11:18 AM

The new codex is great for a lot of reasons:
1) It encourages DIY warbands, and removes constraints on army comp.
2) The individual cults are better defined, balanced, and focused.
3) The most abusive aspects of the old list are all removed.
4) The codex is another in a move towards a trimming of cheap, static long range shooting.
5) Rhinos are usuable again!
6) Terminators have uses outside of simply holding ACs

the new Codex is awful for a lot of reasons:
1) Unlike the eldar codex, which threw a bone to each former sublist in the new book, this codex removes not just the sublists, but prevents any alteration of the FOC and does not include non-infantry troops. Eldar got jetbike troops, better avengers, pathfinders as troops, a kicking Eldrad, and even the option for wraithguard troops. Chaos got... nothing.
2) Entire army builds are invalidated. Daemonbomb, Chaos-wings, Uber-psykers, alpha legion.
3) Everybody with Daemons, or more than on Greater Daemon, got hosed.
4) Certain units lost a lot of flavourful rules and combat rules: Raptors, Chosen, all daemonic gifts, etc.
5) Some units changed role dramatically: dreads and defilers, raptors. people who bought an indirect fire unit now have a fast moving CC dreadnought.
6) Lash!

Does it bother anyone else that the 'advantages' are a joke compared to the disadvantages. 

Or the fact that Polonius had to come up with 3 filler answers in order to make the 'advantages' even with the disadvantages.
(I'm not attacking him there, its just bad when someone who has to sum up the advantages of the new codex, and can't come up with more than 3)

Or that the only people defending the codex have a proven track record of defending GW regardless of how badly they manage to screw up.

Edit:  I love how people are trying to argue that they removed the broken stuff from the chaos codex, yet choose to conveniently ignore the fzorgle. 

I don't think anyone is ignoring fzorgle. We all know how bad it is. But like holofields, it would be a really simple fix, and could just be a misprint like Oblits were in the old dex.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. If it isn't fixed, and the codex isn't somewhat balanced, then everything I have said is moot. I have always said it is a wait and see. Hard to see where things are going without a little more under our belts. They have to prove to us they can do it....

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 12:32 PM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM
You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."

Ah, I thought so - you're hedging your argument.  "An army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."  The question then becomes: exactly how much is "more?"  Lemme guess - enough that an army doesn't need its own special rules (unless it does).

(Kisses Abadabadoobaddon full on the lips.)

You talk too much! 

Let me see.  What the heck were we arguing about?  Oh, yes.  You said that Legions didn't exist any more, and I said that they still do.  I do think that they suck now.  Is that good enough?

Ok.  Does it make sense that while a "normal" marine in terminator armor is slower than one in power armor (terminators can only consolidate) a rubric marine in terminator armor is actually faster?  Does it make sense that while rubric marines in power armor are steady enough to provide stable firing platforms for their bolters, rubric marines in terminator armor are not (terminators don't count as stationary for firing rapid fire weapons)?  Does it make sense that while in "normal" armies terminators are elite troops who are less likely than their power armored comrades to flee in the face of danger (terminators have Ld10), in the Thousand Sons' army terminators are actually infinitely more likely to run away?  Does it make sense that they apparently only assign sorcerers with no psychic powers to lead their "elite" terminator units?

I dunno... maybe in Thousand Sons armies leading terminators is actually a punishment so they only assign them to the most cowardly inexperienced sorcerers?  Maybe the rubric interacted with the terminator armor's inertial damping systems in unpredictable ways, causing rubric terminators constantly to expel malodorous puffs of magical pink flatulence?  Yeah, that sounds about right.  This flatulence must also propel them across the battlefield at speeds higher than any mere power armored rubric could dream of achieving (if they could dream).  Unfortunately their flatulent fecundity adversely affects their utility as a stable firing platform - their incessant gaseous emanations jostle their otherwise sturdy frames with such violence that the accuracy of their bolter fire inevitably suffers.  I guess that makes sense.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 2:04 PM
Let's take Salamanders as an example.  You can use C:SM to approximate a Salamander's force, but outside of a couple traits and a paint scheme, there are no Salamander specific rules (like Initiative 3).

Does the Salamander's chapter no longer exist because the Armageddon codex rules are invalid?

The Salamander chapter still exists.  The Salamander army does not.

But more specifically, tac squads with the option for a multi-melta or a 2nd flamer still exist (for now).  Terminator squads with mixed sb/pf and th/ss terminators do not.  Artificer armor for non-ICs still exists (for now).  Signums for non-techmarines do not.  Salamanders (Adamantium) Mantle still exists.  Reinforced ceramite does not.  Assault squads with flamers still exist (for now).  Predators with heavy flamer sponsons do not.  Fury of the Salamander (Ancients) still exists.  Sturdy does not.  Never Give Up (Despair) still exists (for now).  Self-reliant does not.

Now look at, say, Thousand Sons.  Thousand Sons rubric squads still exist.  Everything else does not.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

3. What did you really expect from LatD?

Well, a cultist unit with the option to upgrade to mutants as a troops choice would have been nice.  You know, maybe just a single unit entry to represent the troops that comprise the overwhelming majority of Chaos forces in the 41st Millenium and that have been part of the Chaos list since 1st edition (with Chapter Approved rules for use with Chaos codex 3.0 and LatD for 3.5).  Of course I didn't really expect that, but that's just because I never expect GW to not disappoint.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

As to your second point.  Lash is bad, we all can agree.  But is it really any different that the cookie-cutter Siren Lists, IW pie-plate spam, or Daemon-Bomb armies we saw before?

Actually, yes.  Whereas before you had cookie-cutter Siren, IW, and Daemonbomb (3 lists), now you just have Fzorgle (1 list).  3 is bigger than 1.  I learned that in school!

Of course this is not surprising.  GW has demonstrated on numerous occasions their inability to internally balance a list - which inevitably results in a single optimal build for the list in question.  So naturally: 1 list + 0 sublists = only 1 optimal list.  I suppose the real anomaly was that they actually managed 3 optimal lists in the previous codex in first place.  That puts Pete Haines ahead of the curve in a way.  Wow.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

You're pissed, we get it.

You bet I'm pissed!  Just look at my avatar!  That's the face I made when I read the new Chaos codex!  

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

and please don't be predictably sarcastic and respond with, "Positives like generic daemons,  Lash, no legions, etc. ad nauseum...

I generally try to be unpredictably sarcastic.  I think it's more entertaining that way.

I've got news for you: there are a hell of a lot more non-GT/RTT players than there are tourney players.  The fact that certain formula army lists keep turning up at tournaments is hardly sufficient justification for emasculating the previous codex.  Dumbing down is ALWAYS a bad answer to ANY problem.

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 8:08 PM
I don't think anyone is ignoring fzorgle. We all know how bad it is. But like holofields, it would be a really simple fix, and could just be a "misprint" like Oblits were in the old dex.

Fixed your typo.

Only now do I realize how much I prefer Pete Haines' "misprints" to Gav Thorpe's "brainfarts."

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 8:08 PM
The proof is in the pudding as they say. If it isn't fixed, and the codex isn't somewhat balanced, then everything I have said is moot. I have always said it is a wait and see. Hard to see where things are going without a little more under our belts. They have to prove to us they can do it....

How long should we "wait and see" before declaring this codex crap?  1 year?  2 years?  Until the 5th edition Chaos codex?  Forever?  An incomplete is not a passing grade.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:30 PM
How long should we "wait and see" before declaring this codex crap?  1 year?  2 years?  Until the 5th edition Chaos codex?  Forever?  An incomplete is not a passing grade.

  I say give it a year.  It certainly appears to be crap compared to the 3.5 one, but maybe it will turn out to be fun once people get used to it. 

Polonius, great stuff.

Anyway.
The new codex has a few good points, but to me, it's not inspiring enough to make me keep spending time on my Chaos army.
(Deathgaurd by the way. And my other armies for 40K are Orks, Squats and Blood Angels...but I live in Europe and never play in shops anyway. I'm a local club starting kind of veteran, and this kind of crappy treatment makes me start clubs for other games. GW's loss.)
Generic Daemons = Poo nuggets. Like it or not, cool rules + cool models = cool game.
I'm sure chaos will continue to be popular.
Hell, I'm sure 40K will continue to be popular, despite the fact that it's fairly obviously a gak game.

I'm pretty annoyed at this attempt of a good new Chaos Space Marines codex. I collect world eaters and as much as people might disagree with me they no longer exist. I don't get my free asp champion and alot of that nifty khornate wargear, and as much as blood frenzy was ridiculously annoying at times i liked it when it got me that extra couple of inches that i needed.

Sure bezerkers maybe better but chain axes will be missed. I love the new weapon skill great idea but they just don't have that insane spark that i loved about them.

The lack of wargear is was annoys me the most absolute disgrace. Who wants some boring run of the mill daemon prince! I'm even angrier about the loss of Bloodthirster. How can GW just lose a character for a couple of years. Pretty hard to misplace a massive red winged daemon with a g-string.

And to all those players who want to play a "balanced game" you know what! Go play chess!

And to all those players who want to play a "balanced game" you know what! Go play chess!

Sorry but I just had to respond with to all those players who want to play an unbalanced game play Apocalypse.

Back to your regularly scheduled rants everyone.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:30 PM
 An incomplete is not a passing grade.

Abby, you actually used my line?

Cats and dogs living together...MASS HYSTERIA!

Chess isn't quite balanced either; meaning if both players have the same skill level and no mistakes are made then white will always win. They go first.

When I read a downloaded copy of the dex I thought it was a joke, till I came here and found otherwise....

So now I can say goodbye to my Chaos Lord with Daemonic Fire, Spikey Bits, and a Master Crafted Power Weapon.... :sigh:

What I really miss is the REAL chaos wargear list that made your stuff unique. Now... same same same...

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:04 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

As to your second point.  Lash is bad, we all can agree.  But is it really any different that the cookie-cutter Siren Lists, IW pie-plate spam, or Daemon-Bomb armies we saw before?

Actually, yes.  Whereas before you had cookie-cutter Siren, IW, and Daemonbomb (3 lists), now you just have Fzorgle (1 list).  3 is bigger than 1.  I learned that in school!

Of course this is not surprising.  GW has demonstrated on numerous occasions their inability to internally balance a list - which inevitably results in a single optimal build for the list in question.  So naturally: 1 list + 0 sublists = only 1 optimal list.  I suppose the real anomaly was that they actually managed 3 optimal lists in the previous codex in first place.  That puts Pete Haines ahead of the curve in a way.  Wow.

So, in other words, the old codex is 3x as broken as this one.  The old one had 3 broken list builds, this one has 1.  3 is 3x bigger than 1.  I learned that in school.

So Pete Haines is 3x as bad as Gav Thorpe in writing lists as he allowed for 3 broken lists and Gav only designed 1. 

A coin always has two sides.

Ozymandias, King of Kings