Probably for the reason given in the post you refer to: people have to ask why the iquisitors dont go after the wolves, or what would happen if they did. The answer have to be over the top.
So the most fiercely loyal Chapter would outright attack the Inquisitors? Sounds like some heresy to me
Moving past the Space Wolves nonsense (which has been around for some time and I don't think debating how silly it is will change that), I do wonder how balanced a book that covers all the legions and renegades could be. I mean the last one lead to the spamming of Iron Warriors everywhere.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I almost think it'd require a seperate FOC, relics and warlord traits list for each (possibly even some of the wargear options too) and that'd likely end up being relegated to supplement instead of a book that big.
I think that's the best way, ClockworkZion. One codex with all the units, then minidexes full of formations, traits, relics, etc like the Dark Eldar covens book.
Problem being, GW would never do 8 of these. Not even for Imperial marines (Current total of dexes and sub dexes is 7 i think)
Leggy wrote: I think that's the best way, ClockworkZion. One codex with all the units, then minidexes full of formations, traits, relics, etc like the Dark Eldar covens book.
Problem being, GW would never do 8 of these. Not even for Imperial marines (Current total of dexes and sub dexes is 7 i think)
C:SM Sup: Clan Raukaan
Sup: Sentinels of Terra
DA BA Sup: not yet, but I bet my arse one is coming
SW Sup: Champions of Fenris
GK LotD
Those are 8 (9) codices and sups and at least 12 unit/formation/character dataslates among the various marine subtypes. That's more than Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Orks and Necrons combined.
Wyzilla wrote: Before we get back on track, I need to post this for the dick waving contest.
Wot dah feth 'id you just fething sayz 'bout me, 'ou little grot? I’ll 'ave you roight know I gradujated top of dah Klan in the WHAAAGH! Deff Skulls, 'n I’ve 'in involed 'n lotz sekret WHAAGHS! on dah 'Umies, 'n I 'ave oer' tree hundred gits on mah pole. I kopeed beakie warfare 'n I’m dah top krumper n' dah entire Klan. Youz ar nuttin to me but just 'nother git dat needz krumpin'. I'll stomp you dah gak out 'ith strength dah 'ikes o which ad nevah 'een seen before on dah Gorkin' planet, mark my fething words. You think you ken git away with saying that gak to me over da' warp? Think again, fether. As we speak I am kallin all me kommando an' mek boyz an' dey are trakkin' yur signal all ova' da oonivers, so you betta prepare for dah WAAAGH!, yeh stupid 'umie grit. Dah krumpin' and shootin' storm dat wipes out dah pathetik 'ittle ting you call yer yerself. Yer Morkin dead, git, I kan be anywere, anytime (kuz I'm sneeky like dat), 'n I can krump or shoot yah n 'oer seven 'undred wayz, and dats just 'ith mah bear hands. Not on' am I ektsenseevely trained in choppa-less krumpin', but I 'ave akess to dah entire gear of dah WHAAAAAGH!, 'n I'll yuse it to dah full ektent tah krump yer stoopid teef off dah face of dah land, yeh 'ittle squig. If onlee yeh kud 'ave known wut unorky krumpin yer ittle “klever” coment wuz 'bout tah bring down 'pon yeh, yuh wud 'ave held yer Morkin grot tongue. But ye kudn't, yu didn’t, 'n now yer paying dah price, 'ou squig-herdin idiot. I'll shed spores 'o fury all oer' you 'n you'll drown in et. Yer roight n bloody dead, yeh git.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving past the Space Wolves nonsense (which has been around for some time and I don't think debating how silly it is will change that), I do wonder how balanced a book that covers all the legions and renegades could be. I mean the last one lead to the spamming of Iron Warriors everywhere.
I love that comment,...never gets old.
because nowadays its better hey?, i mean you don't even have to be an Iron Warrior player to have 9 Oblits and Vindicators( the stuff that people was complaining about IW at the time).
So yeah they need to bring back the old Chaos style, because it was ahead of its time, now it would be mildly fun or even with the weakest of the stronger codexes, but it would be stimm better then the drivel we have to put up.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving past the Space Wolves nonsense (which has been around for some time and I don't think debating how silly it is will change that), I do wonder how balanced a book that covers all the legions and renegades could be. I mean the last one lead to the spamming of Iron Warriors everywhere.
I love that comment,...never gets old.
because nowadays its better hey?, i mean you don't even have to be an Iron Warrior player to have 9 Oblits and Vindicators( the stuff that people was complaining about IW at the time).
So yeah they need to bring back the old Chaos style, because it was ahead of its time, now it would be mildly fun or even with the weakest of the stronger codexes, but it would be stimm better then the drivel we have to put up.
Truth. Tho the 3.5 IW army usually brought the IG Bassie as the 4th Heavy for the S9 AP3 Large Blast.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving past the Space Wolves nonsense (which has been around for some time and I don't think debating how silly it is will change that), I do wonder how balanced a book that covers all the legions and renegades could be. I mean the last one lead to the spamming of Iron Warriors everywhere.
I love that comment,...never gets old.
because nowadays its better hey?, i mean you don't even have to be an Iron Warrior player to have 9 Oblits and Vindicators( the stuff that people was complaining about IW at the time).
So yeah they need to bring back the old Chaos style, because it was ahead of its time, now it would be mildly fun or even with the weakest of the stronger codexes, but it would be stimm better then the drivel we have to put up.
Nowadays you're not playing with 3rd edition rules so your point is pointless. Back then in the rules and 40k meta that was present at the time, it absolutely was an issue even if you didn't use the broken daemon prince rules.
Winged Daemon Prince with Dreadaxe from 3.5 wasn't broken. Powerful? Yes, but broken? Heck no. There was plenty of scary things in 3.5 but nothing really broken. (expect Necrons...but Necrons have always been OP as hell.)
KingmanHighborn wrote: Winged Daemon Prince with Dreadaxe from 3.5 wasn't broken. Powerful? Yes, but broken? Heck no. There was plenty of scary things in 3.5 but nothing really broken. (expect Necrons...but Necrons have always been OP as hell.)
IDK.... my winged Manreaper DP was pretty gross. In retrospect, if it wasn't broken, it was at least OP. I think you could really easily game that huge versatility in gear.
Well Nurgle not withstanding as I refuse to use anything he touches, the DP is an easy model to single out, you had to dink and dunk him behind terrain until the moment came to drop him on your opponent's line along with the daemonettes (my primary choice for daemon bomb.) that show up with his banner.
Plus things like the Nightbringer, could wreck him.
Having a few terrible units doesn't matter when the good units are really good.
For example, suppose I doubled the costs of everything in the CSM book that wasn't a CSM or Rhino, so we were looking 100-pt Terminators, etc. but I added a Chaos Ammunition option that made all Bolters S6 AP3 and & Heavy Bolters S8 AP2 for the cost of +20 pts/unit. The book would have terrible internal balance, and the overwhelming majority of units would be absolutely terrible due to ridiculous points costs. However, those CSM with Chaos Ammo would be ridiculously overpowered.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Having a few terrible units doesn't matter when the good units are really good.
For example, suppose I doubled the costs of everything in the CSM book that wasn't a CSM or Rhino, so we were looking 100-pt Terminators, etc. but I added a Chaos Ammunition option that made all Bolters S6 AP3 and & Heavy Bolters S8 AP2 for the cost of +20 pts/unit. The book would have terrible internal balance, and the overwhelming majority of units would be absolutely terrible due to ridiculous points costs. However, those CSM with Chaos Ammo would be ridiculously overpowered.
Internal balance does not define competitiveness.
No but it does define the army. I'd rather have a codex where everything was 'good' and nothing was 'really good'. Then, while i'm wishing for things that'll never be attempted, i'd like every other codex be 'good' at the same level.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving past the Space Wolves nonsense (which has been around for some time and I don't think debating how silly it is will change that), I do wonder how balanced a book that covers all the legions and renegades could be. I mean the last one lead to the spamming of Iron Warriors everywhere.
I love that comment,...never gets old.
because nowadays its better hey?, i mean you don't even have to be an Iron Warrior player to have 9 Oblits and Vindicators( the stuff that people was complaining about IW at the time).
So yeah they need to bring back the old Chaos style, because it was ahead of its time, now it would be mildly fun or even with the weakest of the stronger codexes, but it would be stimm better then the drivel we have to put up.
The point, that you missed, was that the book wasn't balanced and I wasn't sure how good the balance of such a book made a these days would be because of how bad the old one was.
I'm not against a book designed that way, just concerned that it might not be done well and result in us being right back to the same sort of "you need to play X or lose" we've had since 3.5.
Kirasu wrote: 3.5 wasn't overpowered. It was very good but also had tons of absolutely terrible units. Siren was the only main issue with that book.
Codex: Eldar has some rather terrible units in it right now. Still a nasty book.
The problem with the 3.5 ed Chaos codex was that relative to all the other codices at the time it could do too many things. That imposed a different sort of imbalance. It was perfectly fine and representative, but the problem was with everything else GW wrote at the time. Unfortunately GW took the most expedient and easy course of action and "fixed" the outlier instead of making it the standard.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving past the Space Wolves nonsense (which has been around for some time and I don't think debating how silly it is will change that), I do wonder how balanced a book that covers all the legions and renegades could be. I mean the last one lead to the spamming of Iron Warriors everywhere.
I love that comment,...never gets old.
because nowadays its better hey?, i mean you don't even have to be an Iron Warrior player to have 9 Oblits and Vindicators( the stuff that people was complaining about IW at the time).
So yeah they need to bring back the old Chaos style, because it was ahead of its time, now it would be mildly fun or even with the weakest of the stronger codexes, but it would be stimm better then the drivel we have to put up.
The point, that you missed, was that the book wasn't balanced and I wasn't sure how good the balance of such a book made a these days would be because of how bad the old one was.
I'm not against a book designed that way, just concerned that it might not be done well and result in us being right back to the same sort of "you need to play X or lose" we've had since 3.5.
i don't see how ONE of the NINE lists of the book did it make unbalanced..., but that was 10 years ago anyway.
But yeah you're mostly right, chances are that we will again end up with something bunked...
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving past the Space Wolves nonsense (which has been around for some time and I don't think debating how silly it is will change that), I do wonder how balanced a book that covers all the legions and renegades could be. I mean the last one lead to the spamming of Iron Warriors everywhere.
I love that comment,...never gets old.
because nowadays its better hey?, i mean you don't even have to be an Iron Warrior player to have 9 Oblits and Vindicators( the stuff that people was complaining about IW at the time).
So yeah they need to bring back the old Chaos style, because it was ahead of its time, now it would be mildly fun or even with the weakest of the stronger codexes, but it would be stimm better then the drivel we have to put up.
The point, that you missed, was that the book wasn't balanced and I wasn't sure how good the balance of such a book made a these days would be because of how bad the old one was.
I'm not against a book designed that way, just concerned that it might not be done well and result in us being right back to the same sort of "you need to play X or lose" we've had since 3.5.
i don't see how ONE of the NINE lists of the book did it make unbalanced..., but that was 10 years ago anyway.
But yeah you're mostly right, chances are that we will again end up with something bunked...
The issue is that the book was bloated and so full of dead weight with one list that was so outstanding that it became a serious no-brainer to play, to the point that people band-wagoned onto it hardcore. I'm not saying we don't have that issue now, but I doubt the studio's ability to make 9+ different lists inside of the same book balanced enough to not put the book in the same place all over again.
Honestly from what I've seen a generic book with a supplement has been a better avenue for creating interesting, flavorful armies that were more balanced. They aren't all perfect, but they seem to do a better job that the codex alone.
ClockworkZion wrote: The issue is that the book was bloated and so full of dead weight with one list that was so outstanding that it became a serious no-brainer to play, to the point that people band-wagoned onto it hardcore.
Sorry, but you level that criticism at just about every book before 3.5, and since 3.5. "It was unbalanced!!!", so is everything else. "It has too many overpowered/useless units!", so does everything else (and, c'mon, have you read the current Eldar Codex?). The criticisms levelled at 3.5 are in no way unique to 3.5.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly from what I've seen a generic book with a supplement has been a better avenue for creating interesting, flavorful armies that were more balanced. They aren't all perfect, but they seem to do a better job that the codex alone.
Yes, you're right. The loyalist Marine Codex (+ supplements) does a better job of making Chaos armies than the current Chaos Codex.
ClockworkZion wrote: The issue is that the book was bloated and so full of dead weight with one list that was so outstanding that it became a serious no-brainer to play, to the point that people band-wagoned onto it hardcore.
Sorry, but you level that criticism at just about every book before 3.5, and since 3.5. "It was unbalanced!!!", so is everything else. "It has too many overpowered/useless units!", so does everything else (and, c'mon, have you read the current Eldar Codex?). The criticisms levelled at 3.5 are in no way unique to 3.5.
I'm not saying that the books aren't a mess, I'm saying that because the books are a mess I'm not sure if the book will ever be done right.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly from what I've seen a generic book with a supplement has been a better avenue for creating interesting, flavorful armies that were more balanced. They aren't all perfect, but they seem to do a better job that the codex alone.
Yes, you're right. The loyalist Marine Codex (+ supplements) does a better job of making Chaos armies than the current Chaos Codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yes, you're right. The loyalist Marine Codex (+ supplements) does a better job of making Chaos armies than the current Chaos Codex.
I thought for a while now that the best way to represent Alpha Legion would be a C:SM army (Raven Guard got you infiltration, didn't it?) with Stormtrooper allies.
I think the problem is that some people are wanting rules to represent something that doesn't exist anymore. The fluff has changed since 3.5. Now ALL chaos space marine warbands, from your Heresy Era veterans to your most recently turned renegade chapter, ALL fight the same. They are ALL represented by the CSM codex. If you don't think the CSM codex properly represents your legion the problem is not with the codex but rather your outdated vision. The old fluff is gone. The studio wants ALL CSM to be essentially Black Legion with different color schemes. You might not like what the army has become but that's the way GW wants Chaos to work and it's their IP.
CSM are the badguys - that's the role they play in the narrative and faceless mooks work better for that than special snowflakes. If you want special snowflakes go play loyalists. If you wanted an army with their own special story you shouldn't have chosen one whose sole reason for existing is to serve as the badguys in someone else's story.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: I think the problem is that some people are wanting rules to represent something that doesn't exist anymore. The fluff has changed since 3.5. Now ALL chaos space marine warbands, from your Heresy Era veterans to your most recently turned renegade chapter, ALL fight the same. They are ALL represented by the CSM codex. If you don't think the CSM codex properly represents your legion the problem is not with the codex but rather your outdated vision. The old fluff is gone. The studio wants ALL CSM to be essentially Black Legion with different color schemes. You might not like what the army has become but that's the way GW wants Chaos to work and it's their IP.
CSM are the badguys - that's the role they play in the narrative and faceless mooks work better for that than special snowflakes. If you want special snowflakes go play loyalists. If you wanted an army with their own special story you shouldn't have chosen one whose sole reason for existing is to serve as the badguys in someone else's story.
The only thing I don't like about this approach is it works great for the current point of 40k, but it means we end up lacking on representation between 30k and what's considered to be "now". So if you want to recreate a historical point in the universe you end up with an army that isn't as correct as it should be.
Also even if you argue the warbands things, the warbands still carry specific ways of waging war. A World Eaters warband doesn't do the same things in war as a Death Guard one and the book should at least represent that with tactics rules of some kind.
The book asserts to represent all types of Chaos marines but doesn't; that's its fatal flaw. Renegades as described are closer to the loyalist codex in what they should have and how they work than to the old Legionaries. Meanwhile the Legionaries are either adherent or not to their old Legions; the ones that are should have something resembling their old modus operandi. After all that we have those legionaries who want nothing to do with their old legions and that intermix with renegades more but this is maybe a quarter of Chaos marines. Then you have the fact that Black Legion are the exemplars of this type but even they require a dataslate or supplement to do so. If they want us to play not-legions they have to give us a reason not to, instead they just ignore the demand.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: I think the problem is that some people are wanting rules to represent something that doesn't exist anymore. The fluff has changed since 3.5. Now ALL chaos space marine warbands, from your Heresy Era veterans to your most recently turned renegade chapter, ALL fight the same. They are ALL represented by the CSM codex. If you don't think the CSM codex properly represents your legion the problem is not with the codex but rather your outdated vision. The old fluff is gone. The studio wants ALL CSM to be essentially Black Legion with different color schemes. You might not like what the army has become but that's the way GW wants Chaos to work and it's their IP.
CSM are the badguys - that's the role they play in the narrative and faceless mooks work better for that than special snowflakes. If you want special snowflakes go play loyalists. If you wanted an army with their own special story you shouldn't have chosen one whose sole reason for existing is to serve as the badguys in someone else's story.
This isn't true though - it's obviously not true to the bulk of the fluff, but it's also not even a true statement about GW's recent handling of their IP. Sure, they have emphasized mixed warbands and recent renegades who have become fully corrupted and somehow lost all their loyalist equipment and gained autocannons. But nothing they have done, to my knowledge, specifically invalidates a lot of things they've said before.
Namely: that a good number of the old legions either still operate as relatively unified forces (Word Bearers and Iron Warriors come to mind in particular as maintaining a good deal of cohesion), or are still represented in the fluff through small mono-legion warbands that would deserve to have a set of rules (take ADB's Night Lords trilogy as an example of a completely fractured legion that still exists in "modern" times in the form of 40k-army-sized elements using the old legion tactics).
GW can try to shove crap like the Crimson Slaughter down our throats as much as they want, but they haven't specifically invalidated the old fluff yet (and if they have I'd like to see examples, so I can finally sever any ties to caring about 40k).
Edit: my apologies for helping take this on a tangent, I think this is a topic for 40k Discussion. To try to bring it back around a bit, I think CSM could be served quite well by one slightly broad codex with no specific representation for the legions (hopefully one with better internal balance and less obviously crappy rules than the current dex), and then a series of supplements for warbands, legion-specific or otherwise.
I also think one possible way to handle renegades and recent traitors would be a supplement that specifically allowed you to ally the loyalist and chaos/daemon codexes, with reasonable limitations on the units you could use and a new "chapter tactic" to represent the loyalists' fall. That lets recent traitors keep some of their equipment, but gain access to some more appropriate allied units.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: I also think one possible way to handle renegades and recent traitors would be a supplement that specifically allowed you to ally the loyalist and chaos/daemon codexes, with reasonable limitations on the units you could use and a new "chapter tactic" to represent the loyalists' fall. That lets recent traitors keep some of their equipment, but gain access to some more appropriate allied units.
That's an idea I can get behind. Basically make a supplement called "Traitors and Renegades" and make it cover all the Marine books and the Imperial Guard. I'd even be okay with it being several books if they had enough fluff material to fully flesh it out.
You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?
Really? With all the various races and threats to humanity, GW still refers to Chaos as the "Great Enemy". I think that simply dismissing them as unimportant becuase they are the badguys and are therefore able to be left as bland and uninteresting as possible because then you can focus on the good guys more completely misses the point.
A protaganist is defined most by the quality of their antagonist. As someone who has played 40k since second edition, in my opinion GW undestands that. I think that the issue is just that its hard for them to decide how to properly emphasis Chaos Marines without going to big, or too small. I have high hopes for the next codex. Wishful thinking? Definately. But I sill have high hopes.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?
That maybe GW's perspective but its dismissive, condescending, and insincere. I don't demand perfection and I don't expect every thing "I want"; I just expect GW to do what they say they're doing and not just pay lip service to their own concepts for the sake of being lazy.
In my years of buying chaos space marines I have spent thousands of dollars and many more when you consider present value of past investments. The past C:CSM were more representative and they've only made them less so. Some would say bait and switch. Others would say the diminishing quality of a product. It is insincere to want us to buy into their hobby for as much as people do and then expect us to not care and just accept anything and everything. Its old fashioned for them to "tell us what we want" and proven as a flawed long term marketing strategy. I enjoy my Chaos army alot and even still I'm willing to accept major changes when there is a truly sincere effort to create something interesting and new. I think renegades are interesting, but everything else is old not new and not thought out.
GW's product stretches across different media and the more integrated and cohesive the presentation the happier fans are, even if it changes previous concepts. At the heart of that multi-media product is the codex; it is where hobby, game, and fiction come together. The Chaos marine codex has the greatest dissonance between those three components. GW might not want us to care about them in game, but their fiction tells us otherwise, the hobby tells us otherwise and so players demand a reconciliation. That's what its about. GW's attempts to reconcile things in the past codices was to emphasize the fiction of Renegades over Legionaries to make us rethink Chaos Marines, but they themselves did not rethink Chaos Marines beyond that. Its at that moment that they're lip service to their own concept was made most apparent. It is a tipping point in perception when fans feel they they're more invested than a multi-million dollar company.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?
Yeah, that would make sense if they weren't a playable faction.
I think its even worse to say that we are not supposed to care, specially when on the other hand you have FW and BL that have expanded the HH arc on the last decade, wich did give the Traitors(or even loyalist) much more depth and less 2-dimensional or you know "Bad guy Vs Good Guy" treatement.
Also the "CSM Legions are gone, the new warbands don't have anything to do with them", ok..., then its the same with SM right?
I mean there is no more White Scars on bikes, no more infiltration and guerilla specialists raven guards, No more Siege specialists IF...Oh wait...
And even in the instance where it would be true, why can't we then have "Warbands rules/traits"?
i mean if there is as much difference between Imperial Fists First and 3rd Companies, then there is between Alpha Legion and Word Bearers, so why don't we have a right to be a Word Bearer or Alpha Legion player and be proud of it?
Right now, take 2 CSM players that play two different Legions or even Warbands, aside units composition, there is no differences, its the exact same thing, while on the other hand you have codexes where by simply adding/taking a character/particular paintjob/name, they get World aparts differences?
Explain to me why?
isn't it better to take advantage of the large CSM player base?
And don't tell me that some of the Legions have so few players that its not worht the time.
Before the supplement came out, i din't knew a single persone who played or was even interrested in Iron Hands Before!.
I knew of only ONE guy in 15years who played Raven guards.
Imperial Fists?, a pair of brothers, and they where sharing the same army.
On the Other hand i know dozens of people that collects and plays Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, or even Night Lords ffs.
Watch the Paint and Modelling boards all around the web, there is as much if not more players of certains CSM legions, compared to SM Chapters.
And for some reasons people keep saying that they are unrelevant...
All'a y'all are missin' what Doobie's saying. He's saying GW's prevailing attitude is that adversary races - that being the bad guys - are more akin to NPC's in the hero's journey and that it would be foolish to wish for any more attention than that. That is to say, if you're attempting to make Chaos into more than just the bad guys then you are forging the wrong narrative.
So, Slayer le boucher, to answer your question, "isn't it better to take advantage of the large CSM player base?", there are two answers:
1. The GW Answer - No. Every Chapter gets rules. Chaos get Chaos. 2. The common sense answer - Yes. Expand to give rules to all Legions (as FW have done so successfully).
We don't live in a world where that second answer is plausible. Why? Because GW.
H.B.M.C. wrote: All'a y'all are missin' what Doobie's saying. He's saying GW's prevailing attitude is that adversary races - that being the bad guys - are more akin to NPC's in the hero's journey and that it would be foolish to wish for any more attention than that. That is to say, if you're attempting to make Chaos into more than just the bad guys then you are forging the wrong narrative.
Thank you. That is exactly what I'm saying. And the funny part is that this attitude seems to be confined to the GW design studio proper. You don't see it in the FW and BL products that focus on CSM.
So yeah, the reason why Imperial Fists get special rules is because they are siege specialists and this is one of their defining characteristics. The reason why Iron Warriors do not is because they are the badguys and that is their only defining characteristic. Or the only one that matters at least as far as the GW design studio is concerned.
And I believe that this is one the primary reasons the last 2 codices have really tried to downplay the traitor legions. In the studio's conception the traitor legions are a 30k thing, not a 40k thing. Why? Because they are the main characters of 30k. The story of the Horus Heresy is the story of the traitor legions. In 30k they are Anakin Skywalker. In 40k they're just a bunch of faceless stormtroopers. Giving them their own individual character brings them too close to becoming anti-heroes rather than NPCs.
Wish they did a new version of those old books realm of chaos the lost and the damned and slave to darkness because those books talked about the legions as well as the renegade war-bands. Had ton of fluff and rules.
Yep, that would be top of my list too. Beastmen, cultists, CSM, Daemons, traitor guard etc.. all together in a pair of God-themed, epically ponderous tomes.
My folks helped finance the building of my own home last Easter, that still hasn't completely erased the debt they accrued by throwing out my copies "by mistake."
Just put the gun to head and pull the trigger already. The new CSM codex will be bad no matter what. I expect the units that where worth taking will be increased in cost in order to make new models look better and worth taking. I expect the units that where shelved will just be out right sold for beer money. The units in the FWIA13 are the only bandaids that can make CSM remotely competitive worse yet, pass as playable. There would be no reason to buy any marine models as you can not convert them and run them as plague marines anymore. Say good bye to the blastmaster noise marines. I have 60 kb and they were only ever used as proxies for other units.
Filch wrote: Just put the gun to head and pull the trigger already. The new CSM codex will be bad no matter what. I expect the units that where worth taking will be increased in cost. I expect the units that where shelved will just be out right sold for beer money. There would be no reason to buy any marine models as you can not convert them and run them as plague marines anymore. Say good bye to the blastmaster noise marines.
Everytime you show up, it's bitter nonsense. Little funny to be honest.
Thinking about it more. GW has been too nice to Chaos so I should not be too bitter. They put in the effort to cash in on Black Legion, Crimson Slaughter, the Hellbrute formations, Cypher data slate, does IA13 count?
Chaos has been getting too much special attention.
If they get rid of cult marines then they should also take away Lucius, Typhus, Kharn, Ahriman. Oh and I forgot about Abaddon.
People only take Typhus for the plague zombies and the occasional plague marines.
People only take Ahriman to field TS in a theme army.
I really cant say the same for Lucius or Kharn. Most people would take a Juggerlord and not even use KB. I use to see people take a MoS Sorc to get Symphony of Pain and think it unlocks Noise Marines too but it doesn't.
TheMisterBold wrote: No they're gonna get rid of the mark on lord = cult marine troop
That's a given based on 7th Edition design philosophy (along with DTs becoming FA choices instead). I think the rumors that they'll be upgrades (buy the mark, become the thing) seems the most plausible so far and would solve the issue of how to make them troops without the problem of needing them to be moved from one slot to the other.
ClockworkZion wrote: That's a given based on 7th Edition design philosophy (along with DTs becoming FA choices instead). I think the rumors that they'll be upgrades (buy the mark, become the thing) seems the most plausible so far and would solve the issue of how to make them troops without the problem of needing them to be moved from one slot to the other.
We can only hope.
But I suspect that it'll be Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/1KSons all moving to Elites, no Marks of any type, and vanilla Marines as Troops. And no Cultists.
ClockworkZion wrote: That's a given based on 7th Edition design philosophy (along with DTs becoming FA choices instead). I think the rumors that they'll be upgrades (buy the mark, become the thing) seems the most plausible so far and would solve the issue of how to make them troops without the problem of needing them to be moved from one slot to the other.
We can only hope.
But I suspect that it'll be Berzerkers/Noise Marines/Plague Marines/1KSons all moving to Elites, no Marks of any type, and vanilla Marines as Troops. And no Cultists.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?
That maybe GW's perspective but its dismissive, condescending, and insincere. I don't demand perfection and I don't expect every thing "I want"; I just expect GW to do what they say they're doing and not just pay lip service to their own concepts for the sake of being lazy.
......
Fair enough, but this is where the disconnect happens. You expect GW to do what they say they're doing, and they're not going to do that. I'm not sure its laziness so much as apathy - people give them money while complaining bitterly, so in the end who really cares?
GW can try to shove crap like the Crimson Slaughter down our throats as much as they want, but they haven't specifically invalidated the old fluff yet (and if they have I'd like to see examples, so I can finally sever any ties to caring about 40k).
*snip*
I also think one possible way to handle renegades and recent traitors would be a supplement that specifically allowed you to ally the loyalist and chaos/daemon codexes, with reasonable limitations on the units you could use and a new "chapter tactic" to represent the loyalists' fall. That lets recent traitors keep some of their equipment, but gain access to some more appropriate allied units.
Well, actually the Crimson Slaughter sup is not bad I think. It conveys that whole "voices in my head tell me to kill someone"-feeling of the chapter quite nicely methinks. If demon-posessed, half-crazed maniaks are your thing, this is the army list to go for. Much more flavour than the vanilla dex or the black legion supplement (aka "supplement: nothing special").
I think GW should give chapter tactics to the CSM. Hell, 50% of the Black Legion supplement can summarized as "give veterans of the long war to all who can take it". Make that free - bam, one chapter tactic done.
There should be at least some ways to represent the more prominent factions...
It's extremely obvious at this point that there are armies GW cares about, and their are armies GW emphatically does not care about, at least not in this generation.
Loyalist SM, Orks and Eldar have always received a fair amount of love. Consistent releases, generally have stronger rules and a strong fluff presence. Even the current Ork 'dex cut a lot of previously viable builds, it created several new ones, layered on the formation thick and provided a fair number of good rules. No Klan customization, but really, only vanilla Marines have customization anymore, and they stand a decent chance of losing it next book, mark my words.
Those three armies, and Tyranids to a point (but they got tossed around so much with their core codex it's almost hilarious) see consistent attention and releases from GW.
And then you've got everyone else.
Guard, Chaos, Sisters, Necrons to a lesser extent, they follow the "one and done" approach. Shove a few models out, right a rulebook which could be either good or bad, give as little customization as possible, 2 dimensional fluff and call it a day.
More broadly speaking though, I think you lot have hit on something with the "NPC" races. I'd argue, however, that everyone BUT Loyalist Space Marines are the NPCs in GW's eyes. Loyalist marines generate the revenue, or so they claim, make up half the players, so they claim (and is probably true more broadly; my club has few marines, but boy does the one GW have a lot of them) so they get the customization, supplements on top of the customization, the most thought-out and internally balanced rules, most consistent releases, largest model selection, fewest old, outdated models, etc.
Even Eldar have plenty of 2nd and 3rd edition models in their main line up, and they're still ridiculously overpowered to make it not even funny. Yet every colour of the rainbow of Power Armour is well taken care of, provided you are loyal to the Immortal God Emperor.
Chaos? They're an afterthought. Some of the sculptors clearly still care about them, going by the Dark Vengeance marines and new Raptors (and some less so, Dinobots and Helturkey ahoy) as does Forgeworld, but GW prime? Throw them on the pyre with the Imperialum Spacicus Redshirtsicus.
I would say that Guard are among the best loved, while Orks are not. Guard consistently get new stuff and a fairly-competitive book every edition. Orks consistently get goofy stuff with things moved around for no real reason - more like Chaos.
MajorStoffer wrote: It's extremely obvious at this point that there are armies GW cares about, and their are armies GW emphatically does not care about, at least not in this generation.
Loyalist SM, Orks and Eldar have always received a fair amount of love. Consistent releases, generally have stronger rules and a strong fluff presence. Even the current Ork 'dex cut a lot of previously viable builds, it created several new ones, layered on the formation thick and provided a fair number of good rules. No Klan customization, but really, only vanilla Marines have customization anymore, and they stand a decent chance of losing it next book, mark my words.
Those three armies, and Tyranids to a point (but they got tossed around so much with their core codex it's almost hilarious) see consistent attention and releases from GW.
And then you've got everyone else.
Guard, Chaos, Sisters, Necrons to a lesser extent, they follow the "one and done" approach. Shove a few models out, right a rulebook which could be either good or bad, give as little customization as possible, 2 dimensional fluff and call it a day.
More broadly speaking though, I think you lot have hit on something with the "NPC" races. I'd argue, however, that everyone BUT Loyalist Space Marines are the NPCs in GW's eyes. Loyalist marines generate the revenue, or so they claim, make up half the players, so they claim (and is probably true more broadly; my club has few marines, but boy does the one GW have a lot of them) so they get the customization, supplements on top of the customization, the most thought-out and internally balanced rules, most consistent releases, largest model selection, fewest old, outdated models, etc.
Even Eldar have plenty of 2nd and 3rd edition models in their main line up, and they're still ridiculously overpowered to make it not even funny. Yet every colour of the rainbow of Power Armour is well taken care of, provided you are loyal to the Immortal God Emperor.
Chaos? They're an afterthought. Some of the sculptors clearly still care about them, going by the Dark Vengeance marines and new Raptors (and some less so, Dinobots and Helturkey ahoy) as does Forgeworld, but GW prime? Throw them on the pyre with the Imperialum Spacicus Redshirtsicus.
The Hellturkey is a nice model for what it's worth. Rules aside, the sculpt as such is detailed and nice. Does it fit the rest of the product line? rather no. Does it look good as a standalone display piece? Aye.
Also, I think the SoB deserve their own very special category of negligence by GW. But I wouldn't have pinned the guards down as a neglected faction. With the effective loss of any other troops but cadians they sure took a beating, but I think they maintain quite a nice line still.
I considered having a section of "once loved," which I'd put Chaos and Guard.
Gauging development of the Guard line, we went from 4th edition ultra-customization, but mediocre codex strength to good codex strength, little customization, and godawful internal balance (but a bunch of new plastic kits for 5th). 6th rolls around, lose what little customization is left, maintain awful internal balance, leaves most powerful builds alone, nerfs other builds, new models range from atrocious (Taurox) to lazy (Wyvern/Hydra "dual-kit") and they remove one of the most loved Guard models, the Kasrkin, for super-expensive alright looking, but monopose plastics (Scions).
Guard keeps on trucking through inertia and huge presence with aftermarket produces, from Mad Robot, Maximini, Victoria and many others, and consistent Forgeworld love. The Guard is still loved by many, but GW's handling of them certainly doesn't indicate it.
Orks at least got the awesome, but silly-expensive Flash Gitz kit, the 'Naughts and the Kannons; super overpriced like everything else (remember, the Taurox is smaller than a Chimera but more expensive), and the codex certainly changed dramatically, with running an elite army kicked in the teeth, hard, but Orks remain Orks; they didn't go super-random like Daemons, nor did they lose the aesthetic strengths we all know and love, and got plenty of good rules. Locally at least, Orks have been performing quite well; placing well in tournaments, but also being fun in more relaxed settings, with the Ork players continuing to terrify with the Magic players with enthusiastic "WAAAAAAGH!"s.
Guard is now about as present as Chaos, with both players sharing a distinct kind of ennui regarding their armies; "Yeah, I could make a decent list around Leman Russes+mechvets/Plague marines + Helturkeys, but that's not what I want to do with my x thousands of points worth of stuff, I guess I'll just play something else..."
MajorStoffer wrote: I considered having a section of "once loved," which I'd put Chaos and Guard.
Gauging development of the Guard line, we went from 4th edition ultra-customization, but mediocre codex strength to good codex strength, little customization, and godawful internal balance (but a bunch of new plastic kits for 5th). 6th rolls around, lose what little customization is left, maintain awful internal balance, leaves most powerful builds alone, nerfs other builds, new models range from atrocious (Taurox) to lazy (Wyvern/Hydra "dual-kit") and they remove one of the most loved Guard models, the Kasrkin, for super-expensive alright looking, but monopose plastics (Scions).
Guard keeps on trucking through inertia and huge presence with aftermarket produces, from Mad Robot, Maximini, Victoria and many others, and consistent Forgeworld love. The Guard is still loved by many, but GW's handling of them certainly doesn't indicate it.
Orks at least got the awesome, but silly-expensive Flash Gitz kit, the 'Naughts and the Kannons; super overpriced like everything else (remember, the Taurox is smaller than a Chimera but more expensive), and the codex certainly changed dramatically, with running an elite army kicked in the teeth, hard, but Orks remain Orks; they didn't go super-random like Daemons, nor did they lose the aesthetic strengths we all know and love, and got plenty of good rules. Locally at least, Orks have been performing quite well; placing well in tournaments, but also being fun in more relaxed settings, with the Ork players continuing to terrify with the Magic players with enthusiastic "WAAAAAAGH!"s.
Guard is now about as present as Chaos, with both players sharing a distinct kind of ennui regarding their armies; "Yeah, I could make a decent list around Leman Russes+mechvets/Plague marines + Helturkeys, but that's not what I want to do with my x thousands of points worth of stuff, I guess I'll just play something else..."
Good analysis, have an exalt.
But can you blame the people for wanting to build their desired faction and still be able to at least make a decent build instead of using the 3,5 units that are worth their points regardless of fluff and aesthetics?
And yeah, those damn flash gitz. I've been looking forward to see good models for them and I really do like the approach (10 out of 10) and the model aesthetics (8 out of 10, but that's just my personal opinion) but they cost more for 5 inf units than lots of armor for other factions. It's ridiculous.
Of course not, I'm completely fed up with GW's handling of Guard and Chaos. I'm a guard player primarily, and I have to remind myself to not look at the 4th ed codex, as I always get depressed seeing what was, and I've at least got Forgeworld in my corner for my Death Korps. And as Chaos was once my primary adversary, I bemoan their continual decline. Every single Chaos player I know, save on who's too stubborn (and is an amazing painter and naturally wants to keep putting stuff on the table) have all got different armies. They still call and identify themselves as Chaos players, but they don't want to even think about their, in some cases, 37,000 points worth of Chaos.
As everyone's favourite spinning Commissar pointed out (for fear of getting the letters mixed up) pointed out, the army lost it's soul. Chaos and Guard in particular really don't have a soul to their armies anymore, just a few key units which are effective, and can make a decent army around, but you can never really make the army you want and even pretend to have fun. I honestly don't mind losing with a subpar army if it's a)the army I want it to be and b) there's at least a reasonable chance of winning beyond the enemy rolling 1s for the entire game, and if you avoid the common wisdom with Chaos, that is what happens (unless you're playing against me, common wisdom be damned, I run individual squads of normal bloody guardsmen!).
The current string of codexes don't make me confident in another Chaos book, or any other book for that matter; if you're lucky they'll be a random smattering of nonsensical nerfs and buffs and you'll lose all force-org modifications. If you're unlucky, they'll nerf everything that made the army unique or the core, iconic playstyle in favour of something completely different and maybe drip-feed you some super-expensive compartmentalized DLC rules to make the army pseudo-competitive but still not give you the flavour of the army back, ala Dark Eldar, Tyranids and now Blood Angels.
Necrons will tell whether or not that trend will continue.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?
That maybe GW's perspective but its dismissive, condescending, and insincere. I don't demand perfection and I don't expect every thing "I want"; I just expect GW to do what they say they're doing and not just pay lip service to their own concepts for the sake of being lazy.
......
Fair enough, but this is where the disconnect happens. You expect GW to do what they say they're doing, and they're not going to do that. I'm not sure its laziness so much as apathy - people give them money while complaining bitterly, so in the end who really cares?
Well you can spin it both ways, showing how disingenuous it is:
"If they give us money we shouldn't listen. They're happy even if they complain."
Or
"If they don't give us money they're not our customer so why should we listen."
What should our expectations for a company be? -You seem to think we shouldn't have any expectations but there has to be some reasonable standard they are held.
What should our expectations for a company be? -You seem to think we shouldn't have any expectations but there has to be some reasonable standard they are held.
Maybe its because i've watched too much of Gordon Ramsey's Nightmare Kitchens lately, but now each time i see or hear the word Standards, i imagine Gordon barging in a feth gak up until people open their eyes and see the truth...
Darm, makes me want that their would be an equivalant for Gordon Ramsey but with GW..., would be epic.
ClockworkZion wrote: I thought assuming the worse about releases was the job of Sisters players.
No, hijacking other threads and trying to steal the spotlight is the job of sisters players
Pft, I wasn't making this a Sisters derail but was instead participating in some self-depreciating humor to try and defuse the building tension.
Frankly GW already broke some of the units I had (I own multiple Defilers that are constructed to have an extra set of combat arms) so I've got nothing to really lose on an update at this point. I really just want to see the book come out feeling balanced. It doesn't have to be perfect, or even packed full of Legion rules if the book doesn't feel like you MUST take X to win and can instead build what you like instead.
Sure those other things would be fething fantastic but I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.
Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.
And don't start trying to talk down to me about the book being unbalanced on purpose. It's poorly balanced even compared to the toned down 7th books and needs a serious rework. A better book would have more diverse builds that are equally viable, not one or two good builds and a crap load of ones that are just a waste of time to build, and money to buy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Please don't tell me you're so naive that you believe perfect internal balance can, or should, be achieved.
Please don't tell me you're going to argue "perfect imbalance" in a game that can't update as fast as a computer game or card game, and has shown that doesn't even achieve that core concept well.
And yeah, I know that it can be achieved. It's not easy, but it's possible to balance a book completely internally so it can support a wide range of options with different sets of strengths and weaknesses. As for "should", I'd love to see the argument on why it shouldn't happen. What does the game gain by having books that have at most two good builds and easilly a dozen bad ones?
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?
That maybe GW's perspective but its dismissive, condescending, and insincere. I don't demand perfection and I don't expect every thing "I want"; I just expect GW to do what they say they're doing and not just pay lip service to their own concepts for the sake of being lazy.
......
Fair enough, but this is where the disconnect happens. You expect GW to do what they say they're doing, and they're not going to do that. I'm not sure its laziness so much as apathy - people give them money while complaining bitterly, so in the end who really cares?
Well you can spin it both ways, showing how disingenuous it is:
"If they give us money we shouldn't listen. They're happy even if they complain."
Or
"If they don't give us money they're not our customer so why should we listen."
What should our expectations for a company be? -You seem to think we shouldn't have any expectations but there has to be some reasonable standard they are held.
This is why people often compare gw to an abusive partner. How they operate is how they operate, they're not going to change. You can talk about standards till the cows come home, as long as you're giving them money that's all that matters. Ultimately it becomes a choice of: are you going to continue giving them any money or not? Myself, i no longer purchase or play gw products. If others prefer to complain and pay, well that's their choice. No spin is necessary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Please don't tell me you're so naive that you believe perfect internal balance can, or should, be achieved.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.
Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.
That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.
You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.
Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.
That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.
You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.
He meant hardcore mode as in, by using TS you're handicapping yourself, not that they're too powerful.
And again, like everytime this comes up, no ones arguing for perfect balance. GW could get much much closer than they currently are, however. Relatively easily, if they put a modicum of effort in.
Yep, it's pretty easy to tell if a game's decently balanced: put yourself in a competitive situation and try to figure out if something would be shooting yourself in the foot if you spent points on it or if it's an auto-include regardless of context. If those are the case, it's not balanced well enough. If something's weak or strong, but in the right list or due to your preference/playstyle/niche it fills it becomes an option/less valuable respectively, then it's balanced enough.
That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. .
Weaker picks with thousand sons? For some reason I suspect you of not playing Chaos Marines
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.
Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.
That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.
You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.
When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".
You missed the point so hard you landed in another country where it's apparently opposite day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
spiralingcadaver wrote: If something's weak or strong, but in the right list or due to your preference/playstyle/niche it fills it becomes an option/less valuable respectively, then it's balanced enough.
Which is what I really want from the game right now. If we get that then supplements can be added in to handle putting more variants/flavor into the game and I wouldn't complain because at least the game would finally be completely fair.
That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. .
Weaker picks with thousand sons? For some reason I suspect you of not playing Chaos Marines
Or know someone who has played Chaos Marines, or have ever looked at the codex.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.
Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.
That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.
You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.
When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".
When I play "Nightmare" mode, I break out the S-Tier Skylanders, not the F-Tier guys.
My point was that the F-Tier guys make it Nightmare mode. As it it's a Nightmare for the person who is using them because they're getting ROFL-stomped all over the board.
ClockworkZion wrote: When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".
You missed the point so hard you landed in another country where it's apparently opposite day.
Yeah, I though the reference was obvious. 1KSons = Harcore Mode, implying that taking 1KSons makes life more difficult for you because you're taking a terrible unit.
ClockworkZion wrote: When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".
You missed the point so hard you landed in another country where it's apparently opposite day.
Yeah, I though the reference was obvious. 1KSons = Harcore Mode, implying that taking 1KSons makes life more difficult for you because you're taking a terrible unit.
I did too, but it seems some people missed that.
Thinking about things, assuming that we are looking at a CSM release and it's not just WFB leakage from Archaon's book, I am hopefully optimistic for the CSM book. The internal and external balance of the 7th edition books is feeling more consistent and even though they're not as powerful as some of the 6th edition ones they look like the rules team is really going a long way to balance the game more. I don't know if it'll result in maybe seeing tournaments come back (though that'd be pretty neat), but at least it should make the game more interesting to play since armies will be less shoehorned into monobuilds if they want a fair chance at winning.
Honestly I don't know if we'll see new models for this release (and kind of don't expect them to be honest), but if Nids have given us any clue (not to mention rumors we had from before 7th launched) we may instead see small releases with the rules for free that eventually get rolled into the next codex (which may or may not get new models with it's release depending on timing and all).
I kind of think GW main is starting to adopt an update method like FW's where they do releases of things outside of when the book drops, and when they update the book they add in those releases and update them if needed.
I mean it's just speculation, but it fits some of the rumors we were originally hearing about 7th being a long term edition with a lot of smaller releases (which would allow GW to monetize armies more consistently and over longer periods of time by releasing 1-2 kits now and then instead of a whole bunch of kits at once). Ideally it'd even out their cash flow (making it less 1x a month, and even a bit less seasonal. Assuming they spread the releases to 2x a month every month that is) from players and require less money to go into building up for releases each month since 2 kits would cost less to stockpile up than 3+ kits.
Mind you that's just my speculation and a gut feeling right now, but I don't think it's an unreasonable guess to make right now.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?
The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.
Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.
That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.
You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.
When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".
When I play "Nightmare" mode, I break out the S-Tier Skylanders, not the F-Tier guys.
Its so hard to argue with TitsMaggie, when i look at what he wrote and the avatar he chose I cant help but smile and think of the bimbo pointing at her perky tits.
JohnHwang, let me explain this in the most sincere way to your Double D tits, 1kson are over costed and utterly useless compared to plague marines that cost 1 pt more. 1kson have an aspiring sorcerer tax that is stuck at lvl 1 psyker lvl. The rubric marines have inferno bolters with ap3 shots but need to be 24" or 12" to shoot. There 4++ save is not so good. By taking 1ksons, you have less points to make a proper army thus making it hardcore mode for the CSM player.
BTW, whats her name in your avatar? I want to google her.
Aside from that, I really wish GW would drop this whole crap with their overpriced books and the digital version costing just as much. I understand the business model of publishing books and earning money on a physical medium but we now live in the modern age where you can easily torrent/piratebay pdf.
If it was DND, which is a company that survives on book publishing and earning supplement revenue from selling minis, dice, terrain, etc... then I think they are justified for pricing their books. Their books are written well and are somewhat balanced in each of their edition with exception to the 3.5 having so much 3rd party publishing. There is no such thing as power creep and undercosted and overpowered because it does not have army codex to regularly update.
I think GW needs to make their rule free and easy to access on their main site. Eliminate books and publish it all on their website so it is easily errata or price fixed to resolve so much imbalance. GW should be earning sales from their models not gouge us on their books that get outdated within years or not even accepted in tournaments. They wont ever do this because they will lose so much profit. but the only way to get them to do this is for us to STOP BUYING their books.
ClockworkZion wrote: My point was that the F-Tier guys make it Nightmare mode. As it it's a Nightmare for the person who is using them because they're getting ROFL-stomped all over the board.
I understand that now; however the strange way of phrasing it suggested you were getting a lot more mileage out of your kSons in your local meta than what the conventional wisdom would say. For example, I personally get a lot of mileage out of the Axe of Blind Fury, even though the CW says you should take something else.
In Skylanders, "Nightmare mode" is something you choose before you pick your guys. The enemies don't know whether you're bringing maxed-out S-tier Drobot or an OOTB F-tier Zap. They're buffed with extra damage and extra health regardless of what you bring.
Normally, when we talk about Hardcore play, the expectation is that both players will bring their "A" game, not that someone will gimp themselves by brining bad stuff.
Hence, my comment that you could bring things down with other conventionally weak units.
If you had written "fielding kSons without the expectation of auto-losing to a competitive list", that would have been a lot clearer.
ClockworkZion wrote: I thought assuming the worse about releases was the job of Sisters players.
No, hijacking other threads and trying to steal the spotlight is the job of sisters players
Pft, I wasn't making this a Sisters derail but was instead participating in some self-depreciating humor to try and defuse the building tension.
Frankly GW already broke some of the units I had (I own multiple Defilers that are constructed to have an extra set of combat arms) so I've got nothing to really lose on an update at this point. I really just want to see the book come out feeling balanced. It doesn't have to be perfect, or even packed full of Legion rules if the book doesn't feel like you MUST take X to win and can instead build what you like instead.
Sure those other things would be fething fantastic but I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.
Ha ha yea I agree with you 100%
I couldn't resist that ribbing though
Automatically Appended Next Post: Holy crap I should have scrolled down first and witnessed the awesome sauce posting. Holy Shat this thread is great.... TitsMacgee....lol
ClockworkZion wrote: My point was that the F-Tier guys make it Nightmare mode. As it it's a Nightmare for the person who is using them because they're getting ROFL-stomped all over the board.
I understand that now; however the strange way of phrasing it suggested you were getting a lot more mileage out of your kSons in your local meta than what the conventional wisdom would say. For example, I personally get a lot of mileage out of the Axe of Blind Fury, even though the CW says you should take something else.
In Skylanders, "Nightmare mode" is something you choose before you pick your guys. The enemies don't know whether you're bringing maxed-out S-tier Drobot or an OOTB F-tier Zap. They're buffed with extra damage and extra health regardless of what you bring.
Normally, when we talk about Hardcore play, the expectation is that both players will bring their "A" game, not that someone will gimp themselves by brining bad stuff.
Hence, my comment that you could bring things down with other conventionally weak units.
If you had written "fielding kSons without the expectation of auto-losing to a competitive list", that would have been a lot clearer.
So it's my fault for referring to a difficulty from shooters instead of Skylanders?
Seriously, you're the only one who seems to not have gotten it so I don't know how I was the one who is wrong in this.
This is magical. A whole new generation of Dakkanauts get to experience the magic of trying to argue with DD. Brings a tear to this old warrior's heart.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For example, I personally get a lot of mileage out of the Axe of Blind Fury, even though the CW says you should take something else.
Wait?,...what?...
did i read it right?, someone told you to take something else then the Axe?...
Whats better then a +2S, AP2 +D6 A weapon?..., the down side ?, The "misfire" is but a minor set back, at worst you'll be hitting on 5's, and you still would have enough Attacks to it something anyway, and its even better if you fight marines with the Hatred, the -1 in WS?, yeah like there is a huge difference in WS 5 or 6 anyway, its not like with BS where you get a free reroll..., and ennemy models with a WS higher then 5 arn't that widespread, just a few (more like one or two) per codex...
The Axe is wonderfull, the Axe is Good, the Axe is Life!!!
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is magical. A whole new generation of Dakkanauts get to experience the magic of trying to argue with DD. Brings a tear to this old warrior's heart.
Sadly I've seen worse arguments and logic. But then again I've seen tumblr so that's a given.
ClockworkZion wrote: My point was that the F-Tier guys make it Nightmare mode. As it it's a Nightmare for the person who is using them because they're getting ROFL-stomped all over the board.
I understand that now; however the strange way of phrasing it suggested you were getting a lot more mileage out of your kSons in your local meta than what the conventional wisdom would say. For example, I personally get a lot of mileage out of the Axe of Blind Fury, even though the CW says you should take something else.
In Skylanders, "Nightmare mode" is something you choose before you pick your guys. The enemies don't know whether you're bringing maxed-out S-tier Drobot or an OOTB F-tier Zap. They're buffed with extra damage and extra health regardless of what you bring.
Normally, when we talk about Hardcore play, the expectation is that both players will bring their "A" game, not that someone will gimp themselves by brining bad stuff.
Hence, my comment that you could bring things down with other conventionally weak units.
If you had written "fielding kSons without the expectation of auto-losing to a competitive list", that would have been a lot clearer.
So it's my fault for referring to a difficulty from shooters instead of Skylanders?
Seriously, you're the only one who seems to not have gotten it so I don't know how I was the one who is wrong in this.
I didn't say you were wrong. I said I didn't understand what you were originally saying.
I simply used Skylanders as it is the game that I understand best.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For example, I personally get a lot of mileage out of the Axe of Blind Fury, even though the CW says you should take something else.
Wait?,...what?...
did i read it right?, someone told you to take something else then the Axe?...
I have seen models using the Axe dismissed in favor of "top tier" HQs that don't use the Axe.
Maybe the others are better? I dunno. I think the Axe is a great pick, and well-suited to the way I play.
The only relic weapon from C:CSM I'm aware of that saw more play was the Black Mace. Now that a FMC can't assault the same turn it switches to Gliding it's a subpar option when compared to the Axe.
And when it comes to "top tier" things the choices they make don't always follow conventional wisdom, and sometimes go far enough outside of the expected meta to win by just being the match up no one was prepped for. You really have to look more at how the list is organized and what it's trying to do to determine if the Axe would help or hurt it honestly.
That still does not answer who's on your avatar though!
As for the rumors, there's a whole ton of rumors around now...
Harlequins, Skitarii, fantasy getting squatted, new base geometries... so much stuff, it's hard to follow up on it. And sadly, except for the initial input, no follow-up info on any of it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That implies that Slaaneshi Termiantors will still be a thing.
Too true. We all know GW, they'll halfass it. They'll do nurgle and khorne with this sort of treatment and then they'll tell us they'll eventually get around to Slaanesh and Tzneetch but they won't, at least not before the next redo of the codex. It'll be one of those things they'll "plan to do" but then they'll forget about or change their plan.
This has got to be a first, a thread about CSM devolving into an argument going noowhere leading to pictures of half naked Asian models. Not that I'm complaining.
As for the topic of the thread, I started playing 40k in later 2007 so i didn't live throught 3rd edition CSM but I've heard stories such as a DP with a powerfist that goes at Initiative and can't be targeted. If this is all true then it seems to me GW is going out of its way to keep CSM rather low on the food chain out of fear they will repeat 3.5. Hell they likely retconned the Helldrake because they thought it was too much and God forbid they start a power creep on chaos making it like 3.5 again. In the process they made CSM rather meh at best. Maybe I give GW too much credit as far as their motives but as they say to road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But most likely the inmates are running the asylum at GW.
While its true that for a long time you could have a DP with Powerfist that would strike at init( because MC's and Walkers ignores de unwieldy rule).
That Untargetable part...i don't see where its coming from...
there was a rule in 3rd/4th that if an Indenpendant Char, was on his own and in 6" of a friendly unit, you couldn't take it for target, because of the Primary Target rule( wich was basicaly, "Shoot the closest thing to you, or do a LD test if you wanna shoot something else").
But none of the MC's of the game where IC's so it din't apply to them( or the rule specified that MC's where'nt affected by this, can't remember).
But yea i see your point.
Also the nerf on the Drake is ridiculous, ok 360* AoF, whas waaaaaayyyyy too much, i fully agree with that, but i mean the thing has a long enough neck to be able to shoot at 180* or even 90*!
Here 45* is waaaaayyyy too short, GW probleme is that they don't have a clue when it comes to balancing, its either OP or useless, no in-between...
H.B.M.C. wrote: That implies that Slaaneshi Termiantors will still be a thing.
Too true. We all know GW, they'll halfass it. They'll do nurgle and khorne with this sort of treatment and then they'll tell us they'll eventually get around to Slaanesh and Tzneetch but they won't, at least not before the next redo of the codex. It'll be one of those things they'll "plan to do" but then they'll forget about or change their plan.
Well, FW allready has Khorne Terminator conversion kits (or World Eaters I think, but hey, they are pretty well interchangeable at this point). Nurgle would be my assumption to be done first as well. That leaves Slaanesh and Tzeench. I think rubrik terminators would be awesome, but there would be some merit in sonic terminators as well methinks. The Slaaneshi version could either go the way of ini-buffed assault troops or a relentless sonic artillery platform (come on gw, are some extra arm bits for both in the same kits too much to ask for?).
For Tzeench I'd love to see something like TL-Heavy Bolters with inferno bolts...
Slayer le boucher wrote: While its true that for a long time you could have a DP with Powerfist that would strike at init( because MC's and Walkers ignores de unwieldy rule).
That Untargetable part...i don't see where its coming from...
there was a rule in 3rd/4th that if an Indenpendant Char, was on his own and in 6" of a friendly unit, you couldn't take it for target, because of the Primary Target rule( wich was basicaly, "Shoot the closest thing to you, or do a LD test if you wanna shoot something else").
But none of the MC's of the game where IC's so it din't apply to them( or the rule specified that MC's where'nt affected by this, can't remember).
But yea i see your point.
Also the nerf on the Drake is ridiculous, ok 360* AoF, whas waaaaaayyyyy too much, i fully agree with that, but i mean the thing has a long enough neck to be able to shoot at 180* or even 90*!
Here 45* is waaaaayyyy too short, GW probleme is that they don't have a clue when it comes to balancing, its either OP or useless, no in-between...
The untargetable bit came from a power called "Siren" that was available to Slaaneshi marked psykers. The model that uses that power could not be charged and was untargetable by ranged weapons.
Its so hard to argue with TitsMaggie, when i look at what he wrote and the avatar he chose I cant help but smile and think of the bimbo pointing at her perky tits.
This is perhaps the greatest thing I have ever read on this site. One Internet for you, Mr. Filch.
people need to stop vilifying 3.5 chaos, they were cool and fluffy, some D bags ran D bag lists but the vast majority of us ran ACTUAL fluff lists because it allowed us to, the current abortion of a codex barely allows us to do even a tiny amount of the things we could do with 3.5.
it wasn't all siren princes and iron warriors, if that codex came out now with all the restrictions and changes to rules from 7th, it would be ok ish not broken in the slightest.
nobody wrote: I'd probably be fine with a retread of the 3.5 dex that removed the MPP like Siren and added the new units (like the dinobots) in.
I don't think a 3.5 style IW list would be nearly as bad in 7th as it was in its time.
It wouldn't be as bad because the rules have changed since then both in combat as well as army building. The "d bag" stuff that formosa refers to was unique to them and abused the game rules at the time that allowed for things like rolling into assault from consolidation and no follow up moves. I'm also glad that formosa took a detailed poll of every chaos player to determine that those using powerful and completely legal rules were just a tiny minority and that the "vast majority" of players were just fluff bunnies caught up in the affair. Thank god he isn't just extrapolating his own biased personal experience while at the same time trying to criticize those doing the same even though his anecdotal experience conflicts with my own where over half the chaos players used the rules to full legal and OP effect (and the ones that thought it was unfair simply stopped playing their chaos armies instead due to the backlash). In any case, it only takes one single "d bag" in a group to ruin the perception of a codex in that group.
Formosa wrote: people need to stop vilifying 3.5 chaos, they were cool and fluffy, some D bags ran D bag lists but the vast majority of us ran ACTUAL fluff lists because it allowed us to, the current abortion of a codex barely allows us to do even a tiny amount of the things we could do with 3.5.
it wasn't all siren princes and iron warriors, if that codex came out now with all the restrictions and changes to rules from 7th, it would be ok ish not broken in the slightest.
I don't vilify the book as much as point out that more options =/= better balance and won't fix the issues the current book has alone.
nobody wrote: I'd probably be fine with a retread of the 3.5 dex that removed the MPP like Siren and added the new units (like the dinobots) in.
I don't think a 3.5 style IW list would be nearly as bad in 7th as it was in its time.
It wouldn't be as bad because the rules have changed since then both in combat as well as army building. The "d bag" stuff that formosa refers to was unique to them and abused the game rules at the time that allowed for things like rolling into assault from consolidation and no follow up moves. I'm also glad that formosa took a detailed poll of every chaos player to determine that those using powerful and completely legal rules were just a tiny minority and that the "vast majority" of players were just fluff bunnies caught up in the affair. Thank god he isn't just extrapolating his own biased personal experience while at the same time trying to criticize those doing the same even though his anecdotal experience conflicts with my own where over half the chaos players used the rules to full legal and OP effect (and the ones that thought it was unfair simply stopped playing their chaos armies instead due to the backlash). In any case, it only takes one single "d bag" in a group to ruin the perception of a codex in that group.
As snarky as this was, you did bring up a valid point.
The 3.5 Chaos Codex list functioned on exploiting some obscure core rules that weren't very clear - consolidation into combat being the prime example.
But guess what? 7th edition came and happened!
I wonder....anyone ever decide to play using the 3.5 codex (perhaps straight up copy-pasting Vindicators, Maulerfiends, Forgefiends and Heldrakes across) and see how that fares in the current environment? Perhaps going as far as treating the Minor Psychic Powers as their own distinct lores as well (You can have the core Slaanesh, Nurgle, Tzeentch and call the Minor ones something like Pleasure, Decay, Change).
In the current light, this may be spot on. However, the thing is that I think that CSM should have a basic vanilla dex that covers non legion related CSM and bring out legion specific related supplemental dexes and their related warbands. But salt may be required.
If the Khorne book tied to the Bloodthirster release appears I think we will get a good idea of what to expect going forward.
I'd anticipate all cult stuff being in supplements, campaign or warband specific.
It still will be a 6T 5W model with a crappy 5++ and an AMAZING 6S, even though the guy has an axe...
And it will likely cost the same price as all the lastest GW large monsters, for no upgrades.
Still waiting for GW to have some common sens before that, like giving a Deny the Witch die in your pool for each unit with the mark of khorne, tired of been dependant of my foe Warp Charge roll to have some way to deny him...(got squated by Tzeentch deamons with Nurgle Sorcerors lv3 allies, was not amused to only have 3 dices to DtW while he had 14 dice per turn to throw his powers...)
I'd say so. It'll probably come out in the standard "Daemons of Chaos" box. I can't imagine they'd put it in an End Times box, as it's not specific to Warhammer. Maybe during its initial release, but it would then revert to a regular box.
My 40k heart has been with CSM since my day 1 of 3.5, but sadly dropped interest in subsequent dull codices. GW is lucky that I still pay attention and lurk to get back in, unlike a lot of people who leave a game.
This rumour(s), is it actually saying anything beyond a Khorne Daemon supplement (purposed to introduce multiple BT variants), with haphazard Berzerker dataslate rules tacked on (yet naturally no update to the models)? Because this thread, while fun, hasn't been much more than us all saying bon mots and reminiscing between bros.
I wouldn't expect GW to publish quality dataslates on any of the legions, or any of the gods save Khorne. I also wouldn't expect a CSM codex with Chapter Tactic equivalents.
Prove me wrong GW.
[I just wish a community edited 3.5 update would be released and generally accepted. Chop the worst offenders, & leave the tourney boys to use their lobotomydex for whatever optimized play CSM can squeeze out.]
IA:13 is brilliant stuff btw. Absolutely recommended.
Achaylus72 wrote: In the current light, this may be spot on. However, the thing is that I think that CSM should have a basic vanilla dex that covers non legion related CSM and bring out legion specific related supplemental dexes and their related warbands. But salt may be required.
I want to applaud. Right here.
Because this is how I feel. The problem with the past two incarnations of the Chaos 'dex is the fact that it's been trying to wedge the Legions with the Renegades, leading to a mish mash of mediocre which doesn't really reflect upon either side that well.
We all would love for there to be a base codex, a Legion codex and a Renegade codex...but somehow I think this is way beyond GW's train of thought at times...
I don't think GW is that stupid to erase Cult Marines from existence. They would be there in some form even if its under a different rule. It could be marines with a mark that makes them cult troops in all but name. If someone is going to get that butthurt that plague marines aren't called Plague marines even if they had all the rules that came with it, then they probably are too into the hobby. You could rename Kharn to Captain Sunshine for all I care, just make the rules good and the price reasonable.
Victory wrote: Because this thread, while fun, hasn't been much more than us all saying bon mots and reminiscing between bros.
Classy way to describe something including a discussion of cute asian girl pictures, old chap.
As for GWs train of thought, if the whole 6th edition and what we've seen of 7th is any indication, there is no sure way to know how exactly GW will screw us over. Loss of characters? I think anything that does not have a model (and some things that do) have allready been purged from the dexes. Stupid rules? We allready have them. Random tables? There's allready a random table to roll on to determine how many random tables you have to roll on (something about ammount and type of mysterious terrain/objects iirc).
Bloat? Maybe in the SM codex where you can't decide which of the 6 types of Land Raider you want or the IG dex with like 10 different Leman Russ tanks, but a) this is not a kit-heavy bloat in these cases and b) it does not apply to CSM who are allready at their bare necessities. I don't know what to expect of 7th CSM. There's potential there if they decide to open some of their SM-kits up for CSM use (why in Slaanesh's name can't I have Razorbacks?) that it will grow larger, even reaching C:SM proportions if they add Legion tactics or somesuch. On the other hand, they can roll it in with demons, split into 4 parts and tell anyone who wants a non-demonic chaos force to go play Lost and the Damned or something.
Achaylus72 wrote: In the current light, this may be spot on. However, the thing is that I think that CSM should have a basic vanilla dex that covers non legion related CSM and bring out legion specific related supplemental dexes and their related warbands. But salt may be required.
I want to applaud. Right here.
Because this is how I feel. The problem with the past two incarnations of the Chaos 'dex is the fact that it's been trying to wedge the Legions with the Renegades, leading to a mish mash of mediocre which doesn't really reflect upon either side that well.
We all would love for there to be a base codex, a Legion codex and a Renegade codex...but somehow I think this is way beyond GW's train of thought at times...
They have been trying to do too much but it's not the volume of things they're trying to do that ruins it. It's the lack of thought they're willing to give to the elements they try to emphasize.
My problem is that even if they left legions out of these books the books don't represent Renegades at all. There are 3 basic types of chaos marines and while Renegades are the largest they are also the type most like loyalists and should in theory be equipped with more of the loyalist equipment. They're more pirates than the warp twisted legionaries that camp the eye of terror. It doesn't make sense that they have this same gambit of warp twisted chaos units equipped with ancient tech of abominable history. Consider how the first two codices way back when allowed Chaos to take loyalist units at a premium to allow the player to represent the renegade factions. I'm not saying they go back to that, just that its an element that's been left out despite the greater emphasis on that type of Chaos marine. The perfect example of this lack of thought are the Renegades described as specializing in drop pod assaults as a holdover from their loyalist days.
Achaylus72 wrote: In the current light, this may be spot on. However, the thing is that I think that CSM should have a basic vanilla dex that covers non legion related CSM and bring out legion specific related supplemental dexes and their related warbands. But salt may be required.
I want to applaud. Right here.
Because this is how I feel. The problem with the past two incarnations of the Chaos 'dex is the fact that it's been trying to wedge the Legions with the Renegades, leading to a mish mash of mediocre which doesn't really reflect upon either side that well.
We all would love for there to be a base codex, a Legion codex and a Renegade codex...but somehow I think this is way beyond GW's train of thought at times...
They have been trying to do too much but it's not the volume of things they're trying to do that ruins it. It's the lack of thought they're willing to give to the elements they try to emphasize.
My problem is that even if they left legions out of these books the books don't represent Renegades at all. There are 3 basic types of chaos marines and while Renegades are the largest they are also the type most like loyalists and should in theory be equipped with more of the loyalist equipment. They're more pirates than the warp twisted legionaries that camp the eye of terror. It doesn't make sense that they have this same gambit of warp twisted chaos units equipped with ancient tech of abominable history. Consider how the first two codices way back when allowed Chaos to take loyalist units at a premium to allow the player to represent the renegade factions. I'm not saying they go back to that, just that its an element that's been left out despite the greater emphasis on that type of Chaos marine. The perfect example of this lack of thought are the Renegades described as specializing in drop pod assaults as a holdover from their loyalist days.
To be fair, this is a point too. Renegades should...you know...have more Imperial elements to them in a sense. I'm pretty sure every 'renegade' chapter didn't have a stockpile of Reaper Autocannons just in case. I'm also pretty certain that they don't spontaneously forget how to use Land Speeders, Drop Pods, Multimeltas etc.
Really, we have...what...3 ideal books?
The generic blah.
Renegades - with added Imperial Equipment but less of the daemon machines and 'chaos' factor.
Legions - Veteran specialists for everyone!
I mean, really, we want the following...
Chaos Space Marines
Chaos Renegades
Lost and the Damned
Chaos Legions
Book of Nurgle
Book of Khorne
Book of Slaanesh
Book of Tzeentch
Which seems a lot I know...wait...let's step back here.
Space Marines
Dark Angels
Blood Angels
Space Wolves
Grey Knights
Astra Militarum
Bonus supplement lists!
Sentinels of Terra
Clan Raukan
Legion of the Damned
.....yeah. Right. Ok, so perhaps not too much to ask for.
Meh, we'll have to see though. I still feel like CSM are basically being crapped on for the events of 3.5. We still bear the sins of Haines. We still bear the shame of Siren.
But yeah, back on topic - I highly doubt we're 'losing' Cult troops. If what someone else has suggested - a return to the 3.5 style of X Mark makes this Chaos Marine into a Blah then huzzah!
Now let's hope they do a Greater and Lesser Mark system...
That'd be nice...
Lesser Mark being the stat increase etc.
Greater Mark being the stat increase and special rules to turn X into a Cult version of it.
So you can have your Nurgle Dedicated part timers and your true Nurglite hardcore elites....
By which you mean more expensive right? Maybe with harder backs? Bigger font?
How about a Tzeentch book whose contents is always changing? A Khorne book with razor sharp pages? A Slannesh book with it's own safe word? A Nurgle book that everyone in the studio sneezed on?
I can think of so many ways to improve books without touching those silly 'rules'.
Realistically though, we're looking at supplements. Codex supplements and Campaign supplements. I like the trend honestly, I'm just wondering if/how it changes the overall edition cycle.
On one hand, it sounds just completely ridiculous - CSM without Cult Marines is about the same as Blood Angels without Death Company, or Orks without Lootas.
But on the other hand... GW is just screwing as much as they can for the last two years - things like Eldar 6th ed release (aka Half of Dire Avengers for the same price!), dropping down almost every battleforce and somewhat profitable pack and giving us in some cases VERY pricey bundles, new codex releases being mostly lettdowns, forcing us to purchase damn expensive Titans or another Monstrouses... Hey, why not take one step further and start cutting content from Rulebooks and sell them in WD's and Supplements?
But, again, I'd rather be optimistic and treat those as fraud - because this would be just a step too far.
Veskern wrote: On one hand, it sounds just completely ridiculous - CSM without Cult Marines is about the same as Blood Angels without Death Company....
Unfortunately GW sees it as Ultramarines without Death Company. "You guys don't need this; you're playing this army all wrong"
Veskern wrote: On one hand, it sounds just completely ridiculous - CSM without Cult Marines is about the same as Blood Angels without Death Company, or Orks without Lootas.
But on the other hand... GW is just screwing as much as they can for the last two years - things like Eldar 6th ed release (aka Half of Dire Avengers for the same price!), dropping down almost every battleforce and somewhat profitable pack and giving us in some cases VERY pricey bundles, new codex releases being mostly lettdowns, forcing us to purchase damn expensive Titans or another Monstrouses... Hey, why not take one step further and start cutting content from Rulebooks and sell them in WD's and Supplements?
But, again, I'd rather be optimistic and treat those as fraud - because this would be just a step too far.
Which codex releases forced us to purchase titans and monstrous creatures? All the recent boxed armies have been decent deals, the 'web bundles' have only ever been provided for that one guy somewhere who likes to buy at full retail but only has web access for 30 seconds every month.
You could also see it as CSM without Cult Marines is the same as a Space Marine codex without Blood Angels.
Which codex releases forced us to purchase titans and monstrous creatures? All the recent boxed armies have been decent deals, the 'web bundles' have only ever been provided for that one guy somewhere who likes to buy at full retail but only has web access for 30 seconds every month.
You could also see it as CSM without Cult Marines is the same as a Space Marine codex without Blood Angels.
Uhm - new Orks with mandatory Naut, which price is little lower than Apo's Stompa? Space Marines which, in Tournaments, are rather expected to work with Imperial Knight? Or Wraithknight in Eldars which is ruling every table ?
Decent deals - holy hell, saying that, for example, recent Adaptus Astartes Strikeforce (NOT previous SM Strikeforce!) is decent deal - *BLAM!* HERESY! But on serious - as I said before, new Strikeforces/deals/packages are just, mostly, WEAK (maybe except Dark Eldar one, which is just good, same as Astra Militarium one) - Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels (which is just big weirdo), or Orks - it is truly mixed bag, as compared to old, and unavailable sets like NEMESIS VANGUARD? Like even old CSM Attack Force?
You got a point here, because CSM stripped off from Cult Marines would bring this codex A LOT closer to generic Space Marines - but with spikes and Doggie-walkers. And it is not the same, because on one hand, GW would try to make tricks like that, smuggling rules to WD and making it mandatory purchase even for those who got little care about this paper, and, on the other, ignoring HUGE fanbases, and, for example, cutting Black Templars into Generic SM, making them not only lose their unique character and some units, but also throwing them into oblivion of these non-competetive army lists.
I wouldn't mind, of course (especially as ex-CSM player) some CULT SUPPLEMENTS containing Detachements and some advanced rules exclusive only for those who vow one Chaos God, but if it would be done WITHOUT cutting CONTENT from the Core Codex, which is 100% dickish and cash-grabbing move - am I right ?
I know it's not the crux of your point, but I don't think anybody considers Gork/Morkanaughts mandatory for Orks...or even desirable.
Anyway. There's no reason that you couldn't have a diverse Chaos Marine book, even with Marks and then still have cult/legion supplements.
If anything is supplement based they are going to be accused of cash grabbing. I don't care how it's parsed out, I just want it to be interesting to build/play.
plastictrees wrote: By which you mean more expensive right? Maybe with harder backs? Bigger font?
How about a Tzeentch book whose contents is always changing? A Khorne book with razor sharp pages? A Slannesh book with it's own safe word? A Nurgle book that everyone in the studio sneezed on?
I can think of so many ways to improve books without touching those silly 'rules'.
Realistically though, we're looking at supplements. Codex supplements and Campaign supplements. I like the trend honestly, I'm just wondering if/how it changes the overall edition cycle.
Actually when I was speaking about needing better books I was talking rules. But I think you knew that and were just being insufferable for the lulz.
Anyway. There's no reason that you couldn't have a diverse Chaos Marine book, even with Marks and then still have cult/legion supplements.
If anything is supplement based they are going to be accused of cash grabbing. I don't care how it's parsed out, I just want it to be interesting to build/play.
I think part of GW's issue with a diverse codex is that when you look at how they sell the game now, they want you to pay for each little different experience. A diverse army allows a player a range of gaming experience without necessarily spending money and at this point they'd rather coax people into buying whole new armies than just a new unit or two. They've killed about a quarter of their sales volume over the last 3 years with price hikes, so each remaining customer has to buy 25% more stuff for them to do as well as they were three years ago. That difference just about means a whole new army every two years, beyond what people are already spending.When they subdivide books a player now has two half armies and then it doesn't take as much to coax them into "completing" one and then the other. The real backfire is hen people decide its too much to buy to keep up and instead drop out of the hobby.
Wraithknights are good, but they are by no means mandatory. The same goes for RIptides. Tau and Eldar can do just fine without them. Literally nothing forces you to buy an Imperial Knight and no army is "expected" to have one. Orkanauts kind of suck and Stompas are better, around the same price, and legal outside of Apocalypse, but still not a very common sight.
GW releasing big models means people can get big models if they want big models. That is all. The only thing your point might apply to would be the Tyrannocyte.
Supplements that are actually worthwhile are what we need. The concept of Supplements is great, but the execution so far has been pretty terrible, especially for Chaos. The idea of having expansion packs to diversify a Codex in distinct ways is good, and is the perfect formula for 40k's myriad sub-factions. There should be a Codex: Space Marines and a Supplement: Blood Angels and so on. The same format could be wonderful for Chaos, but it's not what we'll get.
Anyway. There's no reason that you couldn't have a diverse Chaos Marine book, even with Marks and then still have cult/legion supplements.
If anything is supplement based they are going to be accused of cash grabbing. I don't care how it's parsed out, I just want it to be interesting to build/play.
I think part of GW's issue with a diverse codex is that when you look at how they sell the game now, they want you to pay for each little different experience. A diverse army allows a player a range of gaming experience without necessarily spending money and at this point they'd rather coax people into buying whole new armies than just a new unit or two. They've killed about a quarter of their sales volume over the last 3 years with price hikes, so each remaining customer has to buy 25% more stuff for them to do as well as they were three years ago. That difference just about means a whole new army every two years, beyond what people are already spending.When they subdivide books a player now has two half armies and then it doesn't take as much to coax them into "completing" one and then the other. The real backfire is hen people decide its too much to buy to keep up and instead drop out of the hobby.
I don't see the evidence for what you're describing, unless by "pay for each little experience" you just mean the cost of the book(s)?
When has the "two half armies" thing occured?
plastictrees wrote: By which you mean more expensive right? Maybe with harder backs? Bigger font?
How about a Tzeentch book whose contents is always changing? A Khorne book with razor sharp pages? A Slannesh book with it's own safe word? A Nurgle book that everyone in the studio sneezed on?
I can think of so many ways to improve books without touching those silly 'rules'.
Realistically though, we're looking at supplements. Codex supplements and Campaign supplements. I like the trend honestly, I'm just wondering if/how it changes the overall edition cycle.
Actually when I was speaking about needing better books I was talking rules. But I think you knew that and were just being insufferable for the lulz.
I was going for adorable rapscallion, I can work with insufferable though.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For the benefit of those few posters who might wonder why I'm not responding to HMBC's provocations, he is being ignored.
I love you too buddy!
And of course you're ignoring me. To engage with me would require you to come up with cogent arguments for the weird and whacky things you post, and we all know that's beyond you.
But we've known each other for so long now, so even if you are going to pretend I'm not there - just hiding in the shadows of your mind - then the least you could do is spell my name right.
Anyway. There's no reason that you couldn't have a diverse Chaos Marine book, even with Marks and then still have cult/legion supplements.
If anything is supplement based they are going to be accused of cash grabbing. I don't care how it's parsed out, I just want it to be interesting to build/play.
I think part of GW's issue with a diverse codex is that when you look at how they sell the game now, they want you to pay for each little different experience. A diverse army allows a player a range of gaming experience without necessarily spending money and at this point they'd rather coax people into buying whole new armies than just a new unit or two. They've killed about a quarter of their sales volume over the last 3 years with price hikes, so each remaining customer has to buy 25% more stuff for them to do as well as they were three years ago. That difference just about means a whole new army every two years, beyond what people are already spending.When they subdivide books a player now has two half armies and then it doesn't take as much to coax them into "completing" one and then the other. The real backfire is hen people decide its too much to buy to keep up and instead drop out of the hobby.
I don't see the evidence for what you're describing, unless by "pay for each little experience" you just mean the cost of the book(s)?
When has the "two half armies" thing occured?
When people had Grey Knights and Inquisitors. Or when Daemons and Chaos Marines were split.
The cost of the books is the most apparent form of what I mean. GW is pretty much out to give as little variation in play experience as possible with each codex, because they want to commoditize the flexibility of their game system. I don't think GW is successful with what they're doing but its pretty plain that they are doing what they can to get a fewer number of people to build more armies and spend more money.
Watching the playful banter between DD and H.B.M.C. gave me an idea. The two of them should get their own show where they run a FLGS. It would be the odd couple of the gaming world.
"What happens when you get two gamers together that do not agree on anything and have them run a gaming store? Hijinks, thats what. Weeknights at 8pm, 7pm central."
pepsuber wrote: Watching the playful banter between DD and H.B.M.C. gave me an idea. The two of them should get their own show where they run a FLGS. It would be the odd couple of the gaming world.
"What happens when you get two gamers together that do not agree on anything and have them run a gaming store? Hijinks, thats what. Weeknights at 8pm, 7pm central."
Running a gaming store? Ha! Things were sorta plausible up to that point, but everybody knows that starting a gaming store involves a cut in your lifestyle, big cut in your pay, and a bigger cut in your personal net worth. It's quite possibly the worst business decision one could make as any sort of gamer. HMBC is goofy, but I doubt he's foolish enough to mix business with pleasure. Sorry, not realistic.
It's called suspension of disbelief. Exaggerations and even flat out falsehoods are used to achieve comedic effect all the time.
@CthulusSpy: Black templars had their own codex, until they got demoted to a mere chapter trait. Yes it was serverely outdated but if GW can reduce an entire codex to a mere few pages in a codex then reducing it to a supplement is not that hard to believe. Hell, Blood Angles use to have its rules in a WD which i beleive is even worse since those can be harder to obtain.
pepsuber wrote: It's called suspension of disbelief. Exaggerations and even flat out falsehoods are used to achieve comedic effect all the time.
@CthulusSpy: Black templars had their own codex, until they got demoted to a mere chapter trait. Yes it was serverely outdated but if GW can reduce an entire codex to a mere few pages in a codex then reducing it to a supplement is not that hard to believe. Hell, Blood Angles use to have its rules in a WD which i beleive is even worse since those can be harder to obtain.
Yeah, but the BT were demoted 3-4 editions after their codex.
I find it unlikely that GW would release a codex for an army, and then demote that army to a supplement in the same edition.
Seriously though, unless every faction is going to get something like 10 different books we don't need more books. We need better books.
You're not Space Marines.
And AM were listed as our resident Lost and the Damned counterparts. Which really, perhaps shouldn't be since Lost and the Damned is a FW list.
And a damn fine one at that. Let's me use these 30 traitor Kasrkin in my CSM army as dirt cheap scoring allies. (Seriously, 1 HQ and 3 troops for around 350 points is super valuable to a Death Guard army!)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe GW will grow some stones and give a big beastie in 40K that doesn't have the world "Wraith" in it a Toughness value of 8.
In fact, screw it, give the Bloodthirster 2nd Ed stats:
WS10
BS10
S10
T10
W10
A10
Everything10
(I can't remember if it was T10... probably not... )
Ah, the good old days...when the only things that could stand up to a Bloodthirster on the field were Eldar Avatars, Hive Tyrants and if you believed in longshots...Lictors
Which codex releases forced us to purchase titans and monstrous creatures? All the recent boxed armies have been decent deals, the 'web bundles' have only ever been provided for that one guy somewhere who likes to buy at full retail but only has web access for 30 seconds every month.
You could also see it as CSM without Cult Marines is the same as a Space Marine codex without Blood Angels.
Uhm - new Orks with mandatory Naut, which price is little lower than Apo's Stompa? Space Marines which, in Tournaments, are rather expected to work with Imperial Knight? Or Wraithknight in Eldars which is ruling every table ?
Decent deals - holy hell, saying that, for example, recent Adaptus Astartes Strikeforce (NOT previous SM Strikeforce!) is decent deal - *BLAM!* HERESY!
But on serious - as I said before, new Strikeforces/deals/packages are just, mostly, WEAK (maybe except Dark Eldar one, which is just good, same as Astra Militarium one) - Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels (which is just big weirdo), or Orks - it is truly mixed bag, as compared to old, and unavailable sets like NEMESIS VANGUARD? Like even old CSM Attack Force?
You got a point here, because CSM stripped off from Cult Marines would bring this codex A LOT closer to generic Space Marines - but with spikes and Doggie-walkers. And it is not the same, because on one hand, GW would try to make tricks like that, smuggling rules to WD and making it mandatory purchase even for those who got little care about this paper, and, on the other, ignoring HUGE fanbases, and, for example, cutting Black Templars into Generic SM, making them not only lose their unique character and some units, but also throwing them into oblivion of these non-competetive army lists.
I wouldn't mind, of course (especially as ex-CSM player) some CULT SUPPLEMENTS containing Detachements and some advanced rules exclusive only for those who vow one Chaos God, but if it would be done WITHOUT cutting CONTENT from the Core Codex, which is 100% dickish and cash-grabbing move - am I right ?
To be fair, Black Templars sort of didn't lose much. The Emperor's Champion and Crusader squads moved to the new codex as well.
I think you lost the ability to stick Storm Shields in basic assault squads? But in return gained everything else. Including Storm Pidgeys.
For some reason I suspect you of not playing Chaos Marines
