24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Hi,
BolS just posted a small set of rumours, basically repeating what ghost21 said several weeks ago, but with a new release date for Chaos Legions:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/07/40k-rumors-chaos-is-coming.html
Bigred wrote:40K Rumors: Chaos is Coming...
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Oh, the birds are a tweet tweeting... Here's the latest scuttlebutt out there on what's coming down the pipe for Warhammer 40000...
So we all know this summer is Sisters of Battle in White Dwarf.
Next up is Necrons said to be in the November time slot (same as Dark Eldar last year)
Then Chaos Legions in the March 2012 time slot (same as the Grey Knights slot). This is said to not be a replacement for the current Chaos Space Marines book which may get some retconing and erratas to make it effectively the Chaos Renegade book come 6th Edition.
Yes I did mention 6th Edition - said to be hot on the heels of the Chaos Legion book, taking up next summer with the standard multi-month new edition release slot.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Kroothawk wrote:BolS just posted a small set of rumours, basically repeating what ghost21 said several weeks ago
Dear BoLS,
Never change.
- Your Fans
3720
Post by: brettz123
Thats cool. Should be a good year for 40k.
36
Post by: Moopy
This makes sense to me. Marine should be in the main box (they always are) and if Chaos is the first 6th ed codex out of the gate, it will be a strong contender for the marines to fight.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Angry Marines vs Evil Angry Marines! FIGHT!
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
March would make me happy, since it's my birth month.
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the content of this rumored CSM release... so anyone got some knowledge that they shouldn't have?
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
If Chaos Legions gives a heap of Legion specific rules and units, then yeah, it is a damn replacement for the shameful attempt at a Codex that was Codex : Chaos Space Marine 4th ed for those who play a Legion army.
21462
Post by: Ehsteve
You're saying I will soon be able to play competitive 750/1000 point games with my CSM? Sick of having to write 2000pts so I can fit in 25 meltas. That and 50pt lascannon havocs, they're doing nothing but gathering dust on the shelves atm. Not to mention I have a tonne of lascannons left over from all the Iron Warrior conversion kits, be good to have a use for them.
For some reason havocs are only useable as suicide melta squads. They're havocs, not fire dragons! 
33172
Post by: ChiliPowderKeg
Tau get dumped further into the backburner...
Wellp, it's a good thing I have a two years old force of poorly painted Chaos Marines lying around or else I'd still be on my full year losing streak for when 6th edition comes out.
46376
Post by: darkPrince010
Tau? What about Tau? Any new codex for the Tau?... Tau?.... Tau?TAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUU.... 
Forever a drone...
32907
Post by: Nvs
With the rumors of the starter boxes being Chaos and Dark Angels it's reasonable to think that chaos could be out early for 6th.
5773
Post by: Rbb
Man, I hope this is true. Is it too much to ask for to wish that Phil Kelley write it?
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Meh.
If there really is a Chaos Legions book I reserve judgement until I see it. GW has a lot to make up for.
22802
Post by: MadCowCrazy
Hmm, so what happened to the Tau we have been hearing about? What of a proper release for the Sisters?
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
MadCowCrazy wrote:Hmm, so what happened to the Tau we have been hearing about? What of a proper release for the Sisters?
Silly Tau, new books are for marines.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
My tau, so sad...
But my chaos... MUWHAAHHAHAHA
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
*looks at current 'Chaos' Codex*
Well... it certainly can't get any worse can it?
Wait... who would be writing it? Not... him...
9079
Post by: FITZZ
H.B.M.C. wrote:*looks at current 'Chaos' Codex*
Well... it certainly can't get any worse can it?
Wait... who would be writing it? Not... him...
...Oh come on, maybe Draigo will end up with something carved into his heart... 
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Nah, he'll write it that Aby and his crew get together for a 14th Black Crusade, a Black Crusade that's specific target is Draigo himself - he's just that destructive! Think about it, he puts togther a Chaos 'Dream Team', of Aby, Kharn, Lucius, Ahriman, Typhus, the Planet Killer and a fully activated Blackstone Fortress. I'd still put money on Draigo though. The guy is armageddon incarnate!
34976
Post by: CajunMan
Or that abby got into the Golden Throne room somehow and carved his name into the Emperor's heart, which is why the Golden Throne is failing.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
H.B.M.C. wrote:Nah, he'll write it that Aby and his crew get together for a 14th Black Crusade, a Black Crusade that's specific target is Draigo himself - he's just that destructive! Think about it, he puts togther a Chaos 'Dream Team', of Aby, Kharn, Lucius, Ahriman, Typhus, the Planet Killer and a fully activated Blackstone Fortress. I'd still put money on Draigo though. The guy is armageddon incarnate!
...And the saddest thing is..I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to open the codex and read something like that.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Maybe Abbadon will finally accept Marneus Calgar as his spiritual liege.
23395
Post by: Gavo
If he writes the book......well, I can't wait to see how ridiculous Arhiman and Abbadon become
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ok, thread derailed. My job here is done.
Sorry Kroot - I turn the thread back over to you. 
9079
Post by: FITZZ
Noisy_Marine wrote:Maybe Abbadon will finally accept Marneus Calgar as his spiritual liege.
...I suppose anything could happen..
Oddly enough, I've hoped for a Legions Codex for years ( ever since the unveiling of that 4th ed abomination), and now I'm actually worried that somehow...things might get worse.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
FITZZ wrote:Noisy_Marine wrote:Maybe Abbadon will finally accept Marneus Calgar as his spiritual liege.
...I suppose anything could happen..
Oddly enough, I've hoped for a Legions Codex for years ( ever since the unveiling of that 4th ed abomination), and now I'm actually worried that somehow...things might get worse.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
You should be careful what you wish for ... because you might get it.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
Hey, maybe Iron Warriors will get the 4 Heavy slot shenanigans back. Would be cool, as I started chaos on the current codex, but that old book sounded GREAT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroot, do we know anything of content?
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
darkPrince010 wrote:Forever a drone...
ROFL!
Someone put a trollface on a drone and then Demotivate it please...
Tau dont need a new 'dex, they already got enough in 3rd Ed to last them say... 13 years? (How long did DE wait?)
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Always a drone, never a battle suit.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
*does a happy dance*
I've been saying for awhile that a "Chaos Legions" book is necessary. Fingers crossed that it happens.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
Wouldn't it be cool if GW brought back the old campaign thing with a new EoT. I mean, I am too young to have played the first one, but it sounded fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In celebration of the legions book.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
If you want to play "The Eye of Terror", I can dig up the campaign rules from White Dwarf.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
I think it would be cool if we could do chaos warbands vs. each other and slowly work our champions up to demon princes ... or spawns. Small scale stuff with tables to roll on to see what happens to your guys after the battle. Kind of like Necromunda with more spiky bits.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
Kanluwen wrote:If you want to play "The Eye of Terror", I can dig up the campaign rules from White Dwarf.
Could you? That would be great.  Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, let us just hope Mr.Ward is not allowed near the fluff and that it has ALL PLASTIC CULT TROOPS!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Happygrunt wrote:Kanluwen wrote:If you want to play "The Eye of Terror", I can dig up the campaign rules from White Dwarf.
Could you? That would be great.
Which parts do you want?
The event cards, the 'special units'(including one made by Mauleed no less!), etc?
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
Kanluwen wrote:Happygrunt wrote:Kanluwen wrote:If you want to play "The Eye of Terror", I can dig up the campaign rules from White Dwarf.
Could you? That would be great.
Which parts do you want?
The event cards, the 'special units'(including one made by Mauleed no less!), etc?
Let us take this to PMs, don't want to derail the thread.
44369
Post by: Ralin Givens
Depending on what they do for my darling Word Bearers it could get me back into 40k...I doubt it but yah never know
36143
Post by: snake
I am not sure I understand. What will the difference between the Legion book and the current codex be?
9079
Post by: FITZZ
snake wrote:I am not sure I understand. What will the difference between the Legion book and the current codex be?
Well , primarily ...the Legion book will have actual Legions in it...
In other words, you'll be able to build characterful Legion armies, which you really can't do with the current...mess.
32410
Post by: Azure
I think what I'm most excited about is that when Necrons finally get a new codex 6th edition is literally one codex away...
But really, super pumped for the Chaos Legions stuff, gonna be amazing! Or at least I pray it will be, vast swaths of (semi) uniformed chaos marines running headlong into combat chanting their war-cries and praises to the Chaos gods. Here's hoping for good fluff, good units, and more daemonic machines like the Blight Drone and Soulgrinder!
39502
Post by: Slayer le boucher
Just hope that they will stop with this 3Ed nonesense about World Eatersbeing only psychotic maniacs who does'nt know how to use an assault weapons other then Plasma pistols...
And also hope that we get a new Zerker plastique sprue,the one we actually have is more then 15 years old!
Oh and a Plastic Dread also...
And the return of the Collars,Axes and all the other good stuff we had back in the day,where it was fun to play chaos!
36143
Post by: snake
FITZZ wrote:snake wrote:I am not sure I understand. What will the difference between the Legion book and the current codex be?
Well , primarily ...the Legion book will have actual Legions in it...
In other words, you'll be able to build characterful Legion armies, which you really can't do with the current...mess.
As in a dedicated Khorne list, a Night Lords list, etc.?
What will happen to all of the Khorne, etc., options in the old codex then?
9079
Post by: FITZZ
snake wrote:FITZZ wrote:snake wrote:I am not sure I understand. What will the difference between the Legion book and the current codex be?
Well , primarily ...the Legion book will have actual Legions in it...
In other words, you'll be able to build characterful Legion armies, which you really can't do with the current...mess.
As in a dedicated Khorne list, a Night Lords list, etc.?
What will happen to all of the Khorne, etc., options in the old codex then?
Well, if I read the OP correctly, the 4th ed codex and rules there in will be used for Chaos renegades....so I'd imagine they'd still be useable for "warbands" dedicated to Khorne, whereas actual " World Eaters" would be found in the Legions book.
...I assume.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Sigh...
Please, for the love of the Space Emperor let them include some mutant and cultist units besides the obigatory MOAR MARINEZ
36143
Post by: snake
FITZZ wrote:snake wrote:FITZZ wrote:snake wrote:I am not sure I understand. What will the difference between the Legion book and the current codex be?
Well , primarily ...the Legion book will have actual Legions in it...
In other words, you'll be able to build characterful Legion armies, which you really can't do with the current...mess.
As in a dedicated Khorne list, a Night Lords list, etc.?
What will happen to all of the Khorne, etc., options in the old codex then?
Well, if I read the OP correctly, the 4th ed codex and rules there in will be used for Chaos renegades....so I'd imagine they'd still be useable for "warbands" dedicated to Khorne, whereas actual " World Eaters" would be found in the Legions book.
...I assume.
Ahh I see. This makes more sense. Seems a tad redundant, imo, even if there is a difference. I wish GW would just put all of the like codices into one book...
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Sigh...
Please, for the love of the Space Emperor let them include some mutant and cultist units besides the obigatory MOAR MARINEZ
But, but... that would take up the page with all of the pictures of the guns n stuff! How will Jervis' kid know the difference between a bolter and a lascannon?
22761
Post by: Kurgash
Well this is going to hurt my wallet if it comes to fruition. New Chaos toys and being able to tear people apart as a full legion? Sign me up if the Necron update falls through.
437
Post by: Sgt.Roadkill
why does chaos now end up getting a new codex on the cusp of new editions..... Which means the last codex was well half baked........
really not happy with that....
24443
Post by: Blitza da warboy
Tbh, I feel like im the only one who thinks that this rumor is false...I really do hope its not though. Plus, the way it would work might be interesting.
EDIT: nvm didnt read the first post correctly (thank god )
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
I hope that Chaos Legions doesn't get fethed over because it is written "with 6th edition in mind" but still has to be compatible for 5th edition. I think that's part of the reason I have reservations with the current ork codex.
5046
Post by: Orock
Freaking gw I knew they would do another damn power armor army. This is total bs.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
To be fair, this is the power armour codex a good chunk of the player base has been screaming for and is well overdue. It's also the power armour codex with the greatest potential to actually be different to the other power armour codices.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
Noisy_Marine wrote:I hope that Chaos Legions doesn't get fethed over because it is written "with 6th edition in mind" but still has to be compatible for 5th edition. I think that's part of the reason I have reservations with the current ork codex.
Why are you concerned about the Orks? They made the transition to 5th in grand style- nob bikers were the froth of the tourney gamers' rage.
Now, they're a middle of the road codex with a few playable builds. Not OP, not Necron/Tau bad... no real complaints from me.
-----------
BOT: Hoping the Legions book turns out well- I know my friends Iron Warriors would love to get dusted off...
39195
Post by: Asuron
H.B.M.C. wrote:*looks at current 'Chaos' Codex*
Well... it certainly can't get any worse can it?
Wait... who would be writing it? Not... him...
It seems he is the equivalent of Lord Voldemort now, in that if you say his name everyone starts having panic attacks
My only hope for this codex is that Tzeentch and the Thousand Sons get awesome new psychic abilities for the sorcerers and that they pass psychic tests automatically, with the Thousand son units being cheaper and more effective
Also who wants to start taking bets on people using Chaos Counts- As for their Space Wolves or Grey Knight army because it "fits their background better"
22761
Post by: Kurgash
Asuron wrote:
Also who wants to start taking bets on people using Chaos Counts- As for their Space Wolves or Grey Knight army because it "fits their background better"
The great circle of Irony would be complete with that act.
28059
Post by: WarsmithFerrus
I'm willing to place a bet on that. As long as there are legion specific rules, that is a must. Plus, a return to the 4th edition codex in terms of customization. A few new vehicles would be a big bonus.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Asuron wrote:Also who wants to start taking bets on people using Chaos Counts- As for their Space Wolves or Grey Knight army because it "fits their background better"
Band-Wagoners gonna Band... wagon... no... that one doesn't work. You can't make that a verb and sound witty at the same time. Automatically Appended Next Post: WarsmithFerrus wrote:I'm willing to place a bet on that. As long as there are legion specific rules, that is a must. Plus, a return to the 4th edition codex in terms of customization. A few new vehicles would be a big bonus.
Yeah where are the Chaos variants of, say, the Land Raider. I mean, have they been sitting in the Warp for 10,000 years going " Oh! Look at all the cool toys that the False Emperor's dogs get! Why don't we ever make our own?"
Eithey way, a new Chaos Codex will probably mean a new plastic Chaos Dread, and that's good for everyone.
5566
Post by: studderingdave
just gimme the previous chaos codex.
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
On the vehicle side of things, I would be pretty happy if Chaos Space Marines could have looted Imperial vehicles, similar to how the Iron Warriors were once allowed to have a Basilisk.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
H.B.M.C. wrote:Asuron wrote:Also who wants to start taking bets on people using Chaos Counts- As for their Space Wolves or Grey Knight army because it "fits their background better"
Band-Wagoners gonna Band... wagon... no... that one doesn't work. You can't make that a verb and sound witty at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarsmithFerrus wrote:I'm willing to place a bet on that. As long as there are legion specific rules, that is a must. Plus, a return to the 4th edition codex in terms of customization. A few new vehicles would be a big bonus.
Yeah where are the Chaos variants of, say, the Land Raider. I mean, have they been sitting in the Warp for 10,000 years going " Oh! Look at all the cool toys that the False Emperor's dogs get! Why don't we ever make our own?"
Eithey way, a new Chaos Codex will probably mean a new plastic Chaos Dread, and that's good for everyone.
How about better dread rules? Then we can talk about plastic kits.
11
Post by: ph34r
H.B.M.C. wrote:*looks at current 'Chaos' Codex*
Well... it certainly can't get any worse can it?
Wait... who would be writing it? Not... him...
Who gives a flying feth? As long as the book is playable, I'm cool with the iron warriors building a planet sized robot that warps around the galaxy or the alpha legion subjugating another 6 chapters of loyalists.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
H.B.M.C. wrote:Nah, he'll write it that Aby and his crew get together for a 14th Black Crusade, a Black Crusade that's specific target is Draigo himself - he's just that destructive! Think about it, he puts togther a Chaos 'Dream Team', of Aby, Kharn, Lucius, Ahriman, Typhus, the Planet Killer and a fully activated Blackstone Fortress. I'd still put money on Draigo though. The guy is armageddon incarnate!
You forgot the obligatory unlikely alliance.
Say... Abaddon + Harlequins? That sounds about right.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
ph34r wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:*looks at current 'Chaos' Codex*
Well... it certainly can't get any worse can it?
Wait... who would be writing it? Not... him...
Who gives a flying feth? As long as the book is playable, I'm cool with the iron warriors building a planet sized robot that warps around the galaxy or the alpha legion subjugating another 6 chapters of loyalists.
Lot's of people give a flying feth, "playability" isn't the only thing to look for in a codex...course maybe your the type of guy that would be cool with Batman's backstory being altered so he was bitten by a radioactive bat and failed to save his Grandmother...so long as he still had all the cool " bat-gadgets".
37431
Post by: Aspiring Champion
Slayer le boucher wrote:
And also hope that we get a new Zerker plastique sprue,the one we actually have is more then 15 years old!
And as ugly as Nurgle's rear end. I haven't liked the current Berserkers for 15 years (has it really been that long?). The running one looks like he's tap dancing. The toothy "snarl" looks more like a dunce that's been caught with the fly down on his power armour.
Anyway, I may buy the book/s, but until GW rescind the trade embargo, they won't be seeing any model purchases from me.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ph34r wrote:Who gives a flying feth?
A lot of people.
But you knew that already.
13664
Post by: Illumini
Noisy_Marine wrote:MadCowCrazy wrote:Hmm, so what happened to the Tau we have been hearing about? What of a proper release for the Sisters?
Silly Tau, new books are for marines.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Spaghetti Chef wrote:'Bloode foar tha Bloode Goad! Skools foar that Skool throon!' - Spaghetti Chef during the Skalathrax Pastry Hoedown
Excellent News! I wonder what new and shiny kits we will get...
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Gah! Warseer doesn't tolerate any relevant news&rumour threads in their 40k news&rumour forum! Makes it difficult to find the relevant info there, as rumour posters have no thread to post in over there.
This was part of the 6th edition leak:
first real 6th edition codex: Codex Chaos Legions, really big release in three waves, doesn’t invalidate Codex Chaos Space Marines which gets extensive White Dwarf update as Codex Renegade Space Marines
This is what ghost21 posted in that thread:
ghost21 wrote:urm (you do know theres going to be 2 new "armies" right to add to that list?)
BramGaunt wrote:As far as I know "Traitor Legions" and "Holy Inquisition", that is.
to clarify there is a traitor legion dex (...)
i can asure you the legion dex will have alot of varation
Some speculation by magnum12 when he posted BoLS stuff in the (now closed) Warseer thread:
Does fit with rumors about Renegades getting a WD codex to tide them over. Huron Black Heart would most likely be moved to the Renegades codex.
Things in favor of rumor being true:
1. IIRC some major GW employee said something way back about really wanting to do Chaos Legions to better represent the original traitor legions. Also might of said something about if it were to be done it would be shortly before 6th edition.
2. Whenever GW adds in a new faction, it is ALWAYS either the last or second to last codex/army book before a new edition comes out. Precedent: Ogre Kingdoms (WFB) and Chaos Daemons (40k)
Note: Does not seem to conflict with rumors about the Tau release since current intel said something about them being Q2 2012 IIRC. This could mean that Black Templar will be the token Space Marine first codex for 6th.
Speculation ahead: If my theory about fine casts and soon to be codicies is true, then we can rule out plastic Plague Marines and Raptors as well as a new Abbadon. Somehow I get the feeling this is going to be a BIG project so we may get lots of models for it. If this rumor is true, then IMO, the most likely units to get new plastic kits are Thousand Sons (hybrid IIRC), Noise Marines (hybrid IIRC), Dreadnaught (super ancient model), Havoks (hybrid), and a new unit. My money's on the Hell Blade as its both a new flyer and IIRC in the fluff, one of Abbadon's ideas.
Author is currently unknown. If this rumor is true, I'm going to predict it will be Phil Kelly.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Holy Inquisition? Let's delve into that one a little deeper.
17376
Post by: Zid
if kelly writes it.... I'm down At least its not.... he-who-shall-not-be-named.... >.> <.<
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
I wouldn't be surprised if Codex: Chaos Space Marines became the (long overdue) successor to the Lost and the Damned list. If they're going to pull some of the more Legion specific stuff out of C:CSM they'll need to replace it with something, and adding mutants/cultists as a prominent part of the CSM book would immediately differentiate it from an all Power Armored Renegade Legions book.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
If Phil Kelly writes the new codex then I will wet myself with chaotic glee.
9892
Post by: Flashman
I think you'd want this post 6th Edition. Not only to avoid it being diluted by 5th Edition, but also because you won't get the full colour hardback version which I expect will be the Codex format post 6th.
Unless of course you'd prefer not remortgage your house to buy a codex.
13664
Post by: Illumini
SkaerKrow wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Codex: Chaos Space Marines became the (long overdue) successor to the Lost and the Damned list. If they're going to pull some of the more Legion specific stuff out of C:CSM they'll need to replace it with something, and adding mutants/cultists as a prominent part of the CSM book would immediately differentiate it from an all Power Armored Renegade Legions book.
That would be absolutely awesome
12313
Post by: Ouze
H.B.M.C. wrote:Wait... who would be writing it? Not... him...
Crack of lighting....
DUN DUN DUN!!!!
26212
Post by: Snickerdoodle
I miss mixing in useful demons with the marines.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Snickerdoodle wrote:I miss mixing in useful demons with the marines.
Maybe they'll bring it back for the four Chaos God specific Legions (and Word Bearers). It would shift more plastic after all.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Brother SRM wrote:If Phil Kelly writes the new codex then I will wet myself with chaotic glee.
Personally, I'd be hesitant, for a couple of reasons. First is that it may end up like Space Wolves, tacky naming conventions and becoming *the* bandwagon power-gamer army for years. Second is that he ends up trying to make up for the SW fiasco, and then it ends up being too much like the current book.
Though that said, I'm not thrilled about any of the current choices for authors
22639
Post by: Baragash
Well Cruddance IMO would be the worst of the three by a noticeable margin.
Aside from being Sir Wolfalot, I prefer the style of fluff in Kelly's but I think Ward writes the best balance of the three even if the technical rule writing leaves a lot to be desired - plus it being Chaos makes me more disposed to handle the over-the-top fluff style than most other races.
181
Post by: gorgon
I don't even play CSMs, but I'm hoping Phil Kelly is on the job. What do CSM need?
Better balance across the army list and more build diversity? Check, Phil's the best in the studio at that.
Flavor throughout the army list that fits the fluff? Check, Phil's the best in the studio at that too.
Better overall conceptual approach to Chaos (ie. Renegades vs. Legions vs. Daemons)? Check again.
Nothing against the other designers, but I think it'd be very good for the game for Phil to be in charge of this one (and maybe even Chaos in general like he was with CE and DE).
I dunno if anyone remembers the marketing mantra that GW had before the v3.5 codex, but it was all about "restoring Chaos as the main threat to the Imperium." Think we're gonna see a replay of that with this one. Gonna be a big release.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:Brother SRM wrote:If Phil Kelly writes the new codex then I will wet myself with chaotic glee.
Personally, I'd be hesitant, for a couple of reasons. First is that it may end up like Space Wolves, tacky naming conventions and becoming *the* bandwagon power-gamer army for years. Second is that he ends up trying to make up for the SW fiasco, and then it ends up being too much like the current book.
Though that said, I'm not thrilled about any of the current choices for authors
Pft.
It could be Cavatore, Thorpe, Haines, or Chambers. They were just as bad as the current choices for authors. 
22639
Post by: Baragash
gorgon wrote:Better balance across the army list and more build diversity? Check, Phil's the best in the studio at that.
SM, GK and BA are all better than SW at that.
181
Post by: gorgon
SkaerKrow wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Codex: Chaos Space Marines became the (long overdue) successor to the Lost and the Damned list. If they're going to pull some of the more Legion specific stuff out of C:CSM they'll need to replace it with something, and adding mutants/cultists as a prominent part of the CSM book would immediately differentiate it from an all Power Armored Renegade Legions book.
Would be nice, although I'm not holding my breath. Still, if the GK army list can get =I= henchmen units, there's no reason why a Traitors unit can't be added. And certainly the marching orders in the studio seem a little different now compared to when LatD were axed. Old and whacky stuff is coming back into the game now. So who knows?
Personally I'd like to see Mutants (and more Daemon engines) added to a new Daemons book to make it a proper Daemonworld codex. None of this would be the same as a real LatD codex, but some of the bases would be covered...
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Given how everyone and their warphound has gone Horus Heresy crazy (forgeworld, black library.. lots of players doing pre-heresy stuff) i'd think it likely that they redo Chaos marines to be a b it more threatening/cool.
There's far less bragging rights in announcing that your (fill in loyalist chapter here) beat Chaos Marines, as it stands.
The Chaos legions handed the loyalists their asses (until the final showdown), and the codex needs to reflect that.
New models would also be good !
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
Ascalam wrote:The Chaos legions handed the loyalists their asses (until the final showdown), and the codex needs to reflect that.
Oh dear, I hope that you're not advocating an overpowered Chaos Codex based upon Horus pulling off a semi-successful sneak attack 10,000 years ago . We need a balanced, interesting Codex that gives players a wealth of options to assemble a characterful Legion based army, one that competes well with the current field without dominating it. We don't need Codex: "CHAOS SMASH!" .
25543
Post by: TyraelVladinhurst
as long as my iron warriors get all the nice imperial guard artillery and thudd guns i'll be happy
207
Post by: Balance
snake wrote:FITZZ wrote:snake wrote:I am not sure I understand. What will the difference between the Legion book and the current codex be?
Well , primarily ...the Legion book will have actual Legions in it...
In other words, you'll be able to build characterful Legion armies, which you really can't do with the current...mess.
As in a dedicated Khorne list, a Night Lords list, etc.?
What will happen to all of the Khorne, etc., options in the old codex then?
The old Codex, as I understand, was focused on "Chaos Renegades" or to put it another way, J. Random Space Marine unit that suddenly decides Chaos isn't so bad after all, let's try it, and hey where did that tentacle come from?!?
Basically, The idea that small groups of Space Marines occasionally fall under the influence of the dark powers.
They could still be in all sorts of builds as far as dedication to various Chaos gods: A groupthat wants to be the best warriors is ultimately opening itself up to Khorne, while a group that specialized in looking into ancient secrets and psychic abilities might fall to Tzeentch.
Done right it shows the insidious nature of Chaos. It's not always millenias-old nightmares returning from the Eye of Terror. It could be the Heroes of the Imperium who just last year did some amazing act of heroism on Planet XYZ, who went a little too far and now they've broken from the strain and started enjoying going out into that howling plague-ridden wasteland.
And, ultimately, if the Adeptus Astartes are corruptible, who could be immune to the influence of Chaos?
The Legions are a bit different, to me. They've sold their souls so long ago they're barely even human in the best of cases. They're fueled by anger, hatred, and a need for revenge against the Imperium they feel wronged them. They're also a bit more regimented: The Thousand Sons are very unique due to the Rubric of Ahriman: they're not just a bunch of Space marines with a sorcerous bent, but a very messed-up force of automatons and masters of the dark arts.
Ideally the "Chaos Renegades" and "Chaos Legions" should probably have been developed together and have some interconnections, but GW went a different route. Doing them together would have opened up a chance to fit some Lost and the Damned in: I still feel the 'ideal' basic Chaos force should be traitor Guard with Chaos Space Marines as elites and possibly commanders to show that they're more of a mob than the loyalists.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kanluwen wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Brother SRM wrote:If Phil Kelly writes the new codex then I will wet myself with chaotic glee.
Personally, I'd be hesitant, for a couple of reasons. First is that it may end up like Space Wolves, tacky naming conventions and becoming *the* bandwagon power-gamer army for years. Second is that he ends up trying to make up for the SW fiasco, and then it ends up being too much like the current book.
Though that said, I'm not thrilled about any of the current choices for authors
Pft.
It could be Cavatore, Thorpe, Haines, or Chambers. They were just as bad as the current choices for authors.
Haines at least got the feel right, if not the balance. Haines' book was excellent in it's portrayal of the Chaos Space Marines, even if the balance was silly.
To me, the portrayal of the army and expressing that in the army book is more important than raw power, so if they can put out an "ok/mediocre" list in terms of power that feels like a proper Chaos Space Marine army, I'll live with it easier than if it ends up like the Space Wolf book where it's powerful as hell but often plays more like IG gunlines, Eldar psyker lists, or Iron Warriors armies than Space Wolves, the fluff is increasingly atrocious, and everyone and their dead mother has rushed out to play them as a power-list.
If the author can do the former, I'll be happy, however I'm not entirely sure of any of the current author's abilities to do this well. Ward's fluff has been atrocious, and while Phil Kelly often puts out great work, the SW fluff, as his last SM book, was beyond painful. Cruddace's fluff has been merely so-so and his armies have significant internal balance issues.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Cruddace is, in my opinion, terrible.
The man brought back hot-shot lasguns, created the Vendetta Valkyrie variant(WHY?! WHY DID YOU DO THIS? Just use the freaking Vulture!), and removed lasguns from sergeants.
I hates him. I hates him much.
3250
Post by: Prodigalson
I've read where these rumors originated, and nowhere did I see anything about March of next year. All the comments seemed to be that there were going to be two new codex's next edtion.
Just wondering where the date came from?
123
Post by: Alpharius
Wishful thinking?
I hope that we get options for cultists, real daemons and actual rules for the Traitors (and the maybe not so traitorous Traitors too!).
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
Kanluwen wrote:Cruddace is, in my opinion, terrible.
The man brought back hot-shot lasguns, created the Vendetta Valkyrie variant(WHY?! WHY DID YOU DO THIS? Just use the freaking Vulture!), and removed lasguns from sergeants.
I hates him. I hates him much.
On the other hand, he also released a book with lots of characterful options and a variety of effective builds. Oversights on Veteran and Mech Spam notwithstanding, the Guard book is actually pretty well designed, especially when you account for the sheer volume of units/options found therein.
Sorry, not trying to pull this off topic, but I just wanted to point out that having Cruddance write a Codex isn't a bad thing. Given the amount of content that he had to juggle with the Imperial Guard book, he might actually be the right choice to write a book that's as diverse as a proper Legions Codex would be.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
SkaerKrow wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Cruddace is, in my opinion, terrible.
The man brought back hot-shot lasguns, created the Vendetta Valkyrie variant(WHY?! WHY DID YOU DO THIS? Just use the freaking Vulture!), and removed lasguns from sergeants.
I hates him. I hates him much.
On the other hand, he also released a book with lots of characterful options and a variety of effective builds. Oversights on Veteran and Mech Spam notwithstanding, the Guard book is actually pretty well designed, especially when you account for the sheer volume of units/options found therein.
Meh. It's got a lot of units sure, but when the "sheer volume of units/options found therein" is countered by "If you want to be effective, throw out half the options available to you" that point becomes kind of moot.
That's not what I want to see if/when Legions is released. As much as people dislike Ward's fluff, he and Kelly at least understand the idea of 'all options should be effective, and while one thing can be superior to another in one role--balance can be maintained by doing it in such a way that it's not so completely overshadowing the other option that it's silly.'
8926
Post by: BladeWalker
I'm just hoping I can use all my Daemons and all my Black Legion in the same army with this book (no generics).  Also looking forward to 1000 points of each Legion to add to what I have, all I have been waiting for is a new book... I have remained firm with Black Legion (no cult troops) hoping to have something to define my army expansion better than the current book allows.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
TyraelVladinhurst wrote:as long as my iron warriors get all the nice imperial guard artillery and thudd guns i'll be happy
Like Lost and the Damned... the game developers at GW will never respect or appreciate armies that become so dependent on a unit from another army for their thematic center. That said, if Iron Warriors have an artillery piece it really should be something more unique.
The Chaos codex suffers from being just a spiky version of the loyalists. They are a concept bigger then the loyalist codex, but represented by a codex less distinct and distinguished than the variant loyalist codices. For the longest time daemons were the main distinguishing units... yes we have the "big 4" god specific units... but they're just a different flavor of uber-marine by a different name and only go to distinguish them as a marine army and not as a distinct army. Chaos is more than that and its certainly more than the defficient units where it seemingly costs extra points for rules that hurt more often than they help.
I'm looking forward to any codex willing to do more with Chaos. That said I want to see the new Chaos codex bring out the distinctive flavors of Chaos emphasizing all the stuff that isn't similar to what's in another codex.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
TyraelVladinhurst wrote:as long as my iron warriors get all the nice imperial guard artillery and thudd guns i'll be happy
If we want a balanced book I can't see Iron Warriors gaining access to IG artillery. Think about it, what would the IG dex be like if you could take CSMs instead of IG Vets? Way Overpowered. Survivable, powerful, well rounded Troops choice and incredibly powerful artillery would be too much I think. Automatically Appended Next Post: aka_mythos wrote:TyraelVladinhurst wrote:as long as my iron warriors get all the nice imperial guard artillery and thudd guns i'll be happy
Like Lost and the Damned... the game developers at GW will never respect or appreciate armies that become so dependent on a unit from another army for their thematic center. That said, if Iron Warriors have an artillery piece it really should be something more unique.
The Chaos codex suffers from being just a spiky version of the loyalists. They are a concept bigger then the loyalist codex, but represented by a codex less distinct and distinguished than the variant loyalist codices. For the longest time daemons were the main distinguishing units... yes we have the "big 4" god specific units... but they're just a different flavor of uber-marine by a different name and only go to distinguish them as a marine army and not as a distinct army. Chaos is more than that and its certainly more than the defficient units where it seemingly costs extra points for rules that hurt more often than they help.
I'm looking forward to any codex willing to do more with Chaos. That said I want to see the new Chaos codex bring out the distinctive flavors of Chaos emphasizing all the stuff that isn't similar to what's in another codex.
The super heavies the Lion gave to Perturabo at the end of the second HH DA book would be awesome for Iron Warriors, but again, that would make them way too OP. Unless the other 6th ed rumor I heard is true and we get Super Heavies as a 0-1 on the Force Org and the plastic Warhound Titan... Automatically Appended Next Post: SkaerKrow wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Cruddace is, in my opinion, terrible.
The man brought back hot-shot lasguns, created the Vendetta Valkyrie variant(WHY?! WHY DID YOU DO THIS? Just use the freaking Vulture!), and removed lasguns from sergeants.
I hates him. I hates him much.
On the other hand, he also released a book with lots of characterful options and a variety of effective builds. Oversights on Veteran and Mech Spam notwithstanding, the Guard book is actually pretty well designed, especially when you account for the sheer volume of units/options found therein.
Sorry, not trying to pull this off topic, but I just wanted to point out that having Cruddance write a Codex isn't a bad thing. Given the amount of content that he had to juggle with the Imperial Guard book, he might actually be the right choice to write a book that's as diverse as a proper Legions Codex would be.
I have to disagree here. While he did a good job handling the diverse units for IG he completely took out the actual diversity of the Imperial Guard. There is no point in playing Vostroyan, Vallhallans, Mordians, Catachans, Tallarns etc. They are all just Cadians. I don't want a Chaos Legions book with everyone being Black Legion but you can take a character who makes your list sort of like one of the Legions, in a minimal way. That's what the current book is.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
SkaerKrow wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Cruddace is, in my opinion, terrible.
The man brought back hot-shot lasguns, created the Vendetta Valkyrie variant(WHY?! WHY DID YOU DO THIS? Just use the freaking Vulture!), and removed lasguns from sergeants.
I hates him. I hates him much.
On the other hand, he also released a book with lots of characterful options and a variety of effective builds. Oversights on Veteran and Mech Spam notwithstanding, the Guard book is actually pretty well designed, especially when you account for the sheer volume of units/options found therein.
Sorry, not trying to pull this off topic, but I just wanted to point out that having Cruddance write a Codex isn't a bad thing. Given the amount of content that he had to juggle with the Imperial Guard book, he might actually be the right choice to write a book that's as diverse as a proper Legions Codex would be.
The problem is there's a ton of stinkers. Almost the entire elites section, most Leman Russ variants, the Death strike, sentinels, penal troopers, Yarrick, etc.
28094
Post by: Creeping Dementia
I'm really glad Chaos players seem to be getting the Legion dex they've always wanted, that current Dex is a pile.
I still can't help but get a tiny bit depressed every time I hear of more Marines getting released , even if they are the evil angry Marines. Especially when my Sisters seem to be getting a half @ ss deal and the Tau are, well... maybe an early 6th Dex will be better than a late 5th Dex.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
OverwatchCNC wrote:I have to disagree here. While he did a good job handling the diverse units for IG he completely took out the actual diversity of the Imperial Guard.
I think it's just lack of oversight. A game like that should be made by a team of people, all of them with a deep understanding of how the core rules and specific army books work, not by individuals given projects in a completely random manner. At the very least the position of Overlord should be reinstated so that there's someone who could look over the designer's shoulder and ask questions like "oi, how is that supposed to work against Dark Eldar?" or "what the hell are you smoking?"
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
Chaos players seem to be getting the Legion dex they've always wanted
It's amazing how much credence one regurgitated rumor copied by the same person who always does that kind of thing with absolutely no substantiating information is already receiving this far out. Remember, until a week ago everyone thought Necrons were being released in August and that's less than 2 weeks away. How is that one working out? Seriously.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Awsome. I was down south at a Con in LA. An aquaintance there who knows people passed this same info along. He said that they have been working towards this for a while. I had hoped that it was more than a rumore. we shall all see in the end.
And as a side note. Cruddace is a crapy writter. what he did to the nids codex is inexusable. what a waste of skin that pathetic piece of grox dung he is. PLEASE dont let him touch the chaos dex or any other dex except eldar .
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
BrassScorpion wrote: Remember, until a week ago everyone thought Necrons were being released in August and that's less than 2 weeks away.
Well, my rumour roundup says November for more than a month.
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
OverwatchCNC wrote:I have to disagree here. While he did a good job handling the diverse units for IG he completely took out the actual diversity of the Imperial Guard. There is no point in playing Vostroyan, Vallhallans, Mordians, Catachans, Tallarns etc. They are all just Cadians. I don't want a Chaos Legions book with everyone being Black Legion but you can take a character who makes your list sort of like one of the Legions, in a minimal way. That's what the current book is.
I see what you're saying here, but to be fair, has Games Workshop ever done a good job of differentiating the various Imperial Guard regiments? The MO of the Guard mostly seems to be "no matter what world you come from, you're in the Imperial Guard now, and this is how we do things..." Your specializations are largely dictated by what cross-section of units that you take from all of the options available to you.
As for the IG book being loaded with bad units, that I disagree with. There are plenty of options in the book that are viable and competitive, that people haven't tried because it's easier to load up with MechVets or Vendettas and blast your way to victory. Considering how much people gripe about both of those things, I would wager to say that the IG codex has a bigger problem with a couple of top end options than it does with a wealth of low tier ones.
I don't want to threadjack this into a Guard discussion, so I'm going to leave this point be. Feel free to disagree with me, though. 
34172
Post by: Magister187
SkaerKrow wrote:OverwatchCNC wrote:I have to disagree here. While he did a good job handling the diverse units for IG he completely took out the actual diversity of the Imperial Guard. There is no point in playing Vostroyan, Vallhallans, Mordians, Catachans, Tallarns etc. They are all just Cadians. I don't want a Chaos Legions book with everyone being Black Legion but you can take a character who makes your list sort of like one of the Legions, in a minimal way. That's what the current book is.
I see what you're saying here, but to be fair, has Games Workshop ever done a good job of differentiating the various Imperial Guard regiments? The MO of the Guard mostly seems to be "no matter what world you come from, you're in the Imperial Guard now, and this is how we do things..." Your specializations are largely dictated by what cross-section of units that you take from all of the options available to you.
As for the IG book being loaded with bad units, that I disagree with. There are plenty of options in the book that are viable and competitive, that people haven't tried because it's easier to load up with MechVets or Vendettas and blast your way to victory. Considering how much people gripe about both of those things, I would wager to say that the IG codex has a bigger problem with a couple of top end options than it does with a wealth of low tier ones.
I don't want to threadjack this into a Guard discussion, so I'm going to leave this point be. Feel free to disagree with me, though.
I disagree with every point you made. I am reasonably sure Kelly or Ward could have found a way to differentiate at least a few of the major IG persuasions. This partially ties in with the second point you make, which I also dispute. At least 1/2 the choices in any part of the FOC are significantly lower in effectiveness then the other 1/2. Besides, arguing "a couple of top end options" fails to address that IG is reasonably competitive only spamming those options, and if you take a significant portion of non top tier options, your army will not be competitive. How is that the fault of the good units and not the fault of the bad units? Should it just be a bad codex?
Instead of garbage like Vet doctrines and Penal Legionaire random rules and useless conscripts, how much better would it have been to have those recognize Catachan/Valhallan/Tallarn/Elysians, etc. specialization in certain areas. FFS, one of the upgrade characters in the book even makes his unit worse... horrible internal balance.
Anyway, sorry for sidetrack but I wanted to respond to Cruddance having given diversity to the IG codex; that is blatantly false imo.
Legion Codex sounds exciting, but I will believe it when we see it. I hope for my Chaos playing friends that it is true though, as the current chaos codex is really limited and bland (not uncompetitive, but bland).
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
I can but pray to the Dark Gods of Chaos.
I also don't mind who does the book, Phil Kelly would be my ideal choice, then Ward.
I can just about live with some bad fluff, but I can't live with units that are so belittled and useless compared to their newer cousins, or other options in the list, it isn't even funny.
25668
Post by: ChaosxVoid
darkPrince010 wrote:Tau? What about Tau? Any new codex for the Tau?... Tau?.... Tau?TAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUU....
Forever a drone...
haha that was funny (:
I never really got into chaos guard i guess n my mind chaos belongs with the space marines it only makes sense, unless chaos expands itself (again), next will be chaos tau, chaos SOB hell whos to say chaos wont corrupt grey knights, im personally waiting for chaos orks :\
Ah well i suppose chaos cant stay space marine forever
45994
Post by: $pider
My Black Legion force would love to see the table again........but will I still be able to field those Khorne Berzerkers that I painted in Black and Gold? It's really a crap shoot at this point.
I agree with others that say it is an exciting thing to hear about a Legions Codex but I am very skeptical. Guess we'll have to wait until March.
12508
Post by: Baalirock
ChaosxVoid wrote: I never really got into chaos guard i guess n my mind chaos belongs with the space marines it only makes sense, unless chaos expands itself (again), next will be chaos tau, chaos SOB hell whos to say chaos wont corrupt grey knights, im personally waiting for chaos orks :\
Ah well i suppose chaos cant stay space marine forever
Because surely, normal humans would have more resistance to the corrupting influence of chaos than a genetically altered, mentally conditioned super soldier?
I can see what you're saying about the other entires, though. I've seen people make some sweet Chaos Sisters models, but I don't think any of them need to be represented in a codex. Tau could fall to Chaos, but see above. Orks... well, Khorne would be the only deity that would make sense, and fighting is what the Orks already do, so that would be kind of silly.
I have noticed a lack of Legion models on GW's website, so I could certainly see some validity to this rumor. Lord knows that Chaos could certainly stand to get some personality again!
25774
Post by: Pael
Noisy_Marine wrote:MadCowCrazy wrote:Hmm, so what happened to the Tau we have been hearing about? What of a proper release for the Sisters?
Silly Tau, new books are for marines.
Thred Winner right here
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
$pider wrote:I agree with others that say it is an exciting thing to hear about a Legions Codex but I am very skeptical. Guess we'll have to wait until March.
I just hope that they're actually getting this new Codex. I'm a bit dubious on the validity of this rumor at the moment, but it's one of those few wishlisty type things that would actually be good for the game, in my opinion.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Here's a Q+A with Jervis Johnson from early 2008:
http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5076
It mentions that they wanted to do Chaos Legions, and that they were (at the time) a long way out. "If we're going to do it we're going to do it right" so that lends at least a little credence to this rumor, even though it was three and a half years ago. I wouldn't rule it out, but it seems like it's always been more or less a pie in the sky idea. Considering he was absolutely silent on the Necron front and really enthusiastic on IG, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar, he knew at least a few things that were in the tubes.
46126
Post by: shoggoth
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I can but pray to the Dark Gods of Chaos.
I also don't mind who does the book, Phil Kelly would be my ideal choice, then Ward.
I can just about live with some bad fluff, but I can't live with units that are so belittled and useless compared to their newer cousins, or other options in the list, it isn't even funny.
i agree 
181
Post by: gorgon
I think one thing we don't know is exactly how each creative brief dictates the designer's work. Was it really Cruddace's decision to do away with regiment differentiation, or was that a marching order he was given? Without knowing his design parameters, it's hard to fully judge his work, or indeed the work of any particular designer in isolation.
And bringing this more on topic, I used to be critical of Gav for the current CSM codex until I was told by someone much more knowledgeable than me that he wasn't to blame for the overall approach in that book. He did what he was told. Clearly execution is an important part of this too, and a gifted creative individual can sometimes make lemonade out of a lemon of a creative brief. And getting the albatross hung around your neck is probably the price you pay for getting your name on the book. Still, it probably isn't 100% fair or accurate, especially at times in which we've seen large shifts in design philosophy.
The thing that gives me hope about the future is that the studio seems to be either more willing or more able to explore old and new ideas now. An example is Jokaero being a playable unit for the first time since RT. I could be wrong, but it sure seems like Jokaero in a codex would have been a non-starter at the studio even just five years ago.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
gorgon wrote:The thing that gives me hope about the future is that the studio seems to be either more willing or more able to explore old and new ideas now. An example is Jokaero being a playable unit for the first time since RT. I could be wrong, but it sure seems like Jokaero in a codex would have been a non-starter at the studio even just five years ago.
This has been going on subtly since the Ork codex with the return of the Shokk Attack Gun. The Conversion Beamer and Thunderfire Cannon (really just a Thudd Gun) in the Marine codex, Griffon in the IG codex, and the aforementioned Jokearo are a cool trend.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Brother SRM wrote:gorgon wrote:The thing that gives me hope about the future is that the studio seems to be either more willing or more able to explore old and new ideas now. An example is Jokaero being a playable unit for the first time since RT. I could be wrong, but it sure seems like Jokaero in a codex would have been a non-starter at the studio even just five years ago.
This has been going on subtly since the Ork codex with the return of the Shokk Attack Gun. The Conversion Beamer and Thunderfire Cannon (really just a Thudd Gun) in the Marine codex, Griffon in the IG codex, and the aforementioned Jokearo are a cool trend.
To be fair, the Griffon never left the background of the Imperial Guard(or if you had IA1...fieldability) like the Conversion Beamer or Thudd Gun did.
Jokaero are kind of in the same boat as the SAG and Griffon in that they may not have been generally fieldable, but they weren't completely ignored. Jokaero were mentioned a few times, notably in Daemonhunters about being renowned for their manufacture of digital weapons.
34172
Post by: Magister187
gorgon wrote:I think one thing we don't know is exactly how each creative brief dictates the designer's work. Was it really Cruddace's decision to do away with regiment differentiation, or was that a marching order he was given? Without knowing his design parameters, it's hard to fully judge his work, or indeed the work of any particular designer in isolation.
And bringing this more on topic, I used to be critical of Gav for the current CSM codex until I was told by someone much more knowledgeable than me that he wasn't to blame for the overall approach in that book. He did what he was told. Clearly execution is an important part of this too, and a gifted creative individual can sometimes make lemonade out of a lemon of a creative brief. And getting the albatross hung around your neck is probably the price you pay for getting your name on the book. Still, it probably isn't 100% fair or accurate, especially at times in which we've seen large shifts in design philosophy.
The thing that gives me hope about the future is that the studio seems to be either more willing or more able to explore old and new ideas now. An example is Jokaero being a playable unit for the first time since RT. I could be wrong, but it sure seems like Jokaero in a codex would have been a non-starter at the studio even just five years ago.
While I absolutely agree with the sentiment that outside pressures can destroy an otherwise brilliant designers work (my Girlfriend is a Graphic Designer so I have her experiences to draw from), I also have to put it into the context of both the other designers work, as well as the fact that Cruddance screwed up the Nid codex even more then the IG codex, and I just can't really support his work at all.
Agreed about the willingness to bring back oddball units/weapons. Shows they are really starting to wake up from the 3rd/4th doldrums.
25774
Post by: Pael
I am actually pretty aprhensive about the Chaos Legions as they may be to undefined at the moment. Meaning that no matter what GW does or who writes it they are not going to get it correct at all.
For example how would anyone make Alpha Legion clearly distinct from the Night Lords? Icongraphy, cultists, and fast attack choices? Really GW has a big shoe to fill that was perpetrated by themselves.
Is Gw going to come out with a new units for every legion?
Lots of questions and it will be interesting to see what actually occurs in the next few years.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Magister187 wrote:
I also have to put it into the context of both the other designers work, as well as the fact that Cruddance screwed up the Nid codex even more then the IG codex, and I just can't really support his work at all.
Agreed about the willingness to bring back oddball units/weapons. Shows they are really starting to wake up from the 3rd/4th doldrums.
I don't understand why people think Cruddace (Not Crudda nce, I have no idea why people get this wrong) screwed up the Imperial Guard. The codex is fantastic, characterful, and well written. It has some obvious builds and Vendettas are undercosted, but I have no other issues with it. A buddy of mine who has been playing Guard since early 4th ed adores it. The orders system is innovative and cool, and the amount of options in the book are staggering. Yes, you can build a mechvet melta spam army, but people will do heavy/special weapon spam regardless of what codex they use. I'll agree he scrwed up the Tyranid codex in a lot of ways, many of which would be fixed by proofreading. There's this whole reserves mechanic that should have been fleshed out but was abandoned, leaving lots of loose ends. The codex isn't irredeemable like the Dark Angels codex or anything though.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
BrassScorpion wrote:Remember, until a week ago everyone thought Necrons were being released in August and that's less than 2 weeks away. How is that one working out?
Well we wouldn't know with the whole black out and so on. GW could be on the cusp of the biggest shake-up in their entire history, but we won't know about it until a week before because they're afraid of *makes mumbling noises*. And they and we don't want that!
27727
Post by: Bonde
Although I am a fluff man myself, I have to agree with people saying that the rules section of a codex is the most important. Fluff can be expanded on or otherwise fixed by the FW IA books, BL novels or even the players themselves. On the other hand, the rules can't, as most tournaments only allow standard codexes and not anything else, so you are stuck with what you get for another four years or so.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Brother SRM wrote:I don't understand why people think Cruddace (Not Cruddance, I have no idea why people get this wrong) screwed up the Imperial Guard. The codex is fantastic, characterful, and well written.
It's dull, and killed my interest in Guard for about a year. I bought so much of the new Guard stuff when it hit, including the Codex... and the Codex itself was enough to make me lose all interest in the Guard. And this is me, the guy who would dispense Guard information to everyone, wrote long tactica articles and received PM's all the time from members asking for IG advice. I went from being the most enthusiastic Guard player here to utterly disillusions with them in less than 200 pages.
All the current Guard Codex is good at is sending you to sleep. Arby (which is easier to type than both Cruddace and Cruddance) created a book that changed virtually every rule in the entire book, and replaced it with a stale one-note army list filled with all sorts of crazy crap that doesn't work (random ability Penal troopers), pointless units that just fill up space (half the Russ variants) or stuff that simple should not be in standard 40K (Deathstrikes). And then he went and added the Vendetta, which had to have been added at the last minute given the kit includes no parts for it.
I don't blame Arby completely, just like I don't blame Gav for what happened to the Daemons in the current 'Chaos' Codex. He was no doubt getting his orders from a higher source (" Everyone owns three Sanctioned Psykers, so to increase sales you're going to make them a unit of 10!", " We're getting rid of the hybrid Hellhound kit - make rules for different versions so there's a reason for people who already own Hellhounds to buy MOAR!!!!", " Make it so you can have big blocks of Guard infantry in one unit, and then we'll reduce the contents of the infantry box and in a year we'll be charging the same amount for 10 as we did for 20! Ahahaha! We're geniuses!"), but that doesn't stop the Codex from being dull and just... grey.
The Doctrine system of the previous Codex was a joke - it didn't work as intended and was open to abuse (not as much as the Trait system, but it's still pretty similar) - but at least your army could have character beyond MechVets.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
ChaosxVoid wrote: im personally waiting for chaos orks :\
You're a bit late to the party. Stormboys worshiped Khorne in Rogue Trader.
34172
Post by: Magister187
Brother SRM wrote:Magister187 wrote:
I also have to put it into the context of both the other designers work, as well as the fact that Cruddance screwed up the Nid codex even more then the IG codex, and I just can't really support his work at all.
Agreed about the willingness to bring back oddball units/weapons. Shows they are really starting to wake up from the 3rd/4th doldrums.
I don't understand why people think Cruddace (Not Crudda nce, I have no idea why people get this wrong) screwed up the Imperial Guard. The codex is fantastic, characterful, and well written. It has some obvious builds and Vendettas are undercosted, but I have no other issues with it. A buddy of mine who has been playing Guard since early 4th ed adores it. The orders system is innovative and cool, and the amount of options in the book are staggering. Yes, you can build a mechvet melta spam army, but people will do heavy/special weapon spam regardless of what codex they use. I'll agree he scrwed up the Tyranid codex in a lot of ways, many of which would be fixed by proofreading. There's this whole reserves mechanic that should have been fleshed out but was abandoned, leaving lots of loose ends. The codex isn't irredeemable like the Dark Angels codex or anything though.
Sorry, for the misspelling, just a muscle memory thing. I will agree it is well written, but I don't think its characterful at all and I have big issues with its internal balance. As I mentioned, 1/2 the units in the codex (in EVERY FOC slot) are completely overshadowed by another entry, even at the role they are supposed to fill. I would say the HS slot may be the sole one where more then half the choices are worth taking (and that is being nice to the Griffon and Medusa). As for characterful, besides the orders system (which still leaves some serious holes, most notably reliability with most of the units you really want to use them with), the special characters seem uninspired and poorly balanced, there is almost no thought towards specializing an army in a meaningful way (no rules for any unique planet, or units, besides a smattering of underpowered characters who at best give you one differentiated unit )and almost every unit ends up so bland and spammy (due again, to the inconsistent power balance across the codex) that the only thing that feels "Imperial Guard" to me is the large amount of tanks or guys that you can field (very rarely both nowadays).
It is not a terrible codex, but it is not the kind of codex I would like to see become standard. 1-2 best in slot choices in each FOC section and rubbish the rest of the way.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Pael wrote:For example how would anyone make Alpha Legion clearly distinct from the Night Lords?
Alpha Legion get Infiltration, Night Lords get Scout
Put Flashman on the design team now
38762
Post by: Mantle
Im just hoping for cool new thousand son models (of corse after the codex has been sorted out) I loved the old dex with the different "Books of chaos" in it..... back when demon princes were something to fear and a HQ choice.....
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
Mantle wrote:Im just hoping for cool new thousand son models (of corse after the codex has been sorted out) I loved the old dex with the different "Books of chaos" in it..... back when demon princes were something to fear and a HQ choice.....
Yeah... the current Daemon Prince rules don't allow for custom setups at all, just different psychic powers. Definitely doesn't encourage conversions of the minis either.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Daemon Princes can't even get Daemon Weapons. WTF is up with that?
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
Thanks H.M.B.C. that's exactly what I was talking about.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And the current ‘Chaos’ Codex also took away the ability for characters to take Daemonic Gifts. Daemonic Gifts have been part of Chaos since the Realms of Chaos book... and this one took that away. Spikey Loyalists indeed... Oh, and one of these days I'm gonna catch that rascally H.M.B.C. and tell him to stop taking credit for my posts!
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
H.B.M.C. wrote: Oh, and one of these days I'm gonna catch that rascally H.M.B.C. and tell him to stop taking credit for my posts!
Sorry about that H.B.M.C. I guess my dyslexia was kicking in a little there....
Back on topic... If they make the next CSM Codex more like the v3.5 one, I'll be quite happy. The current codex is useable.... but gutted.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JoeyHeadwounds wrote:Sorry about that H.B.M.C. I guess my dyslexia was kicking in a little there....
It’s no problem. Everyone does it, which is why I make a joke out it, pretending that H.M.B.C. is this wily doppelganger whom I can never catch. JoeyHeadwounds wrote:Back on topic... If they make the next CSM Codex more like the v3.5 one, I'll be quite happy. The current codex is useable.... but gutted.
The 3.5 Codex, also known as the real Chaos Codex, was a sort of a gaming renaissance wake up call for me, as it’s what got me back into 40K after a lengthy hiatus. To see it taken and trashed and torn down to such a degree with the current ‘Chaos’ Codex was horrific, and my multiple Chaos armies (World Eaters, Death Guard, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors) were just as devastated. :’( I was even so incensed by it, that I put this together, which you might find amusing.
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
Noisy_Marine wrote:Meh.
If there really is a Chaos Legions book I reserve judgement until I see it. GW has a lot to make up for.
THIS. I also wont ger excited over a new edition until I see some rules, and some significant rules changes at that.
36213
Post by: Earthbeard
What sounds the alarm bells for me is if it's rumoured time frame is correct, that it's another chaos dex in whatever format that'll straddle editions, and we all know how well edition straddling codex/army books do!
:(
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Orks?
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Pael wrote:I am actually pretty apprehensive about the Chaos Legions as they may be to undefined at the moment. Meaning that no matter what GW does or who writes it they are not going to get it correct at all.
For example how would anyone make Alpha Legion clearly distinct from the Night Lords? Icongraphy, cultists, and fast attack choices? Really GW has a big shoe to fill that was perpetrated by themselves.
I agree with your sentiment it is a bit of a double edged sword... but on the other side by divorcing the renegade marines from the chaos legions they have the opportunity to be more thematic and characterful.
What ever the course GW chooses it needs to be one that visibly distinguishes Chaos... bringing more visual organic elements back into the army... emphasizing the daemonic weapons and vessels the legions have made are perfect examples of that. As to distinguishing between the legions represented in the codex... given the way codices are trending the books would likely be filled with new units, with legion preference allowing greater access or scoring ability. Visually I doubt GW will do anything to distinguish Night Lords, Alpha Legion, and Word Bearers.
I'm interested in the implications on the Renegade codex... will they be losing special characters or will this codex have all new ones? or will the characters exist in parallel in both codices? I hope they take the fluff-ish approach and only carry over the characters that make sense to this codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote:And the current ‘Chaos’ Codex also took away the ability for characters to take Daemonic Gifts. Daemonic Gifts have been part of Chaos since the Realms of Chaos book... and this one took that away. Spikey Loyalists indeed...
...I've even seen people mistake a Chaos Army for a loyalist one, just because it had no daemon prince, obliterators, possessed, or Defiler. If someone doesn't field these or any of the generic daemons people really can't tell its a chaos army till they prick their fingers on something. For me that's the greater shame. I might forgive weak rules if the models were distinctively awesome, but they aren't. The last few editions, Chaos is the army they let the new guys sculpt... we got daemon prince and chaos spawn... GW just has no heart for chaos and has done every aspect of them half halfheartedly. They've had every opportunity to update the Chaos Dreadnought in the mean time loyalist have had 3 or 4 distinct kits... We don't even really have our own tank kit... blood angels and sisters of battle have more to toss on to their vehicles to distinguish them than these guys who desecrate everything... Don't get me wrong its fine to share the rhino, but for the sake of distinction it makes those add-on bits that much more important.
45977
Post by: MittinsKittens
I don't know what to think about this. I'm just started to get back INTO the game and I've JUST started a Chaos army.
I don't want to build an army only to have to chuck it out because some dudes said I can't use my army any more D:
Does anyone any advice what I should do :x? Should I just take this at a pinch and carry on doing my own thing regardless? Or should I start being careful about what I buy?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Not to mention, Mythos, the way people use the Space Wolf, Blood Angel and even the Grey Knight Codex to represent Chaos Legions. I hate the Grey Knight Codex, but it makes a better Alpha Legion army than the current ‘Chaos’ Codex ever could. Automatically Appended Next Post: MittinsKittens wrote:Does anyone any advice what I should do :x? Should I just take this at a pinch and carry on doing my own thing regardless? Or should I start being careful about what I buy?
At the end of the day Chaos is still Chaos* (from a modelling perspective at least). So your models will be safe, you’ll probably just have to re-jig them slightly if/when the new book comes out. I can’t imagine them taking Cult Troops away from ‘Renegade Marine’ players, even if they required a Leader with a specific Mark (or, worse, a Special fething Character), so the things you have won’t suddenly become invalidated.
*Unless you played Lost & The Damned, that is...
686
Post by: aka_mythos
H.B.M.C. wrote:Not to mention, Mythos, the way people use the Space Wolf, Blood Angel and even the Grey Knight Codex to represent Chaos Legions. I hate the Grey Knight Codex, but it makes a better Alpha Legion army than the current ‘Chaos’ Codex ever could.
Really sad when the closest thing to representing Chaos are what are suppose to be the most pure of the Imperium. I almost think it would have been less dishonest if they had done Chaos as one of the old add-on mini-codex of 3rd edition, but for these current codices. "Oh you want to play Khorne, you need this plus Blood Angels." I got so tired of seeing people playing that I converted up a corrupt band of legion era Blood Angels to use as Khorne Bezerkers...
H.B.M.C. wrote:
*Unless you played Lost & The Damned, that is...
I did.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Brother SRM wrote:I don't understand why people think Cruddace (Not Cruddance, I have no idea why people get this wrong) screwed up the Imperial Guard.
This is a pass along insult:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruddance
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Huh. I had no idea. I still don't think most people who type it have that in mind though.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Those who started it, had.
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
H.B.M.C. wrote:I was even so incensed by it, that I put this together, which you might find amusing.
Pretty much somes up my total disappointment with the current Codex perfectly... and it's exactly why I'm slowly building, converting and painting my Iron Warriors.
I'm hoping that if I take my time with them, that by the time I am finished, CSMs will have a new AND improved Codex worth playing... which is why I have Dreadnoughts and am considering other things to acquire for my chosen army...
I will probably give a Basilisk the IW treatment for apocalypse or the shelf (as a representation of what the Chaos forces would realistically be doing).... and hope for better rules to come.
Of course, if the next editions rules suck, I might just get a old v3.5 dex since I play at home against my nephew and girlfriend...
But if there are new units released that I WANT to use, I'll have to use whatever crap dex gets shat out by GW... or right my own....
9598
Post by: Quintinus
aka_mythos wrote:... GW just has no heart for chaos and has done every aspect of them half halfheartedly.
Amen to that. I should also mention that, from time to time, I'll read HBMC's review of the current "Chaos" "codex", just because it's so damned funny and right on the spot. It's a shame that no-one on the design team really has a liking for Chaotic stuff. Phil Kelly is a big proponent of the Eldar, Mat Ward of Marines. Chaos doesn't have that, nor do a lot of the armies really. And we all know what happens when no-one is a proponent of the army. (Tyranids, Squats, need I say more...) Which in a way is pretty funny, considering that Bryan Ansell (the owner of GW during its "Golden Age" imo) was a huge fan of all of the Chaos elements. Heck, he has a picture of him and his army in the WHFB 3rd edition army books. Plus, let's not forget TWO tomes devoted to Chaos and all of its zaniness. It's pathetic when you see, almost literally every week, a new "5th edition Chaos fandex" on the proposed rules section. That oughta be a wake-up call. Even the worst fandex is still better than the bile that was spewed forth by GW and its minions.
6515
Post by: Starfarer
I really want to be excited for a Chaos Legions codex. A good chaos codex is probably the only thing that will get me back into 40k. I'm really concerned, especially if it is released right before an edition change, it's going to be lackluster.
The main thing for me that I think they need to do to set it apart from CSMs is bring a heavy daemonic elements, both the daemons currently available from the Daemons codex, as well as new daemon engines and those from Forgeworld. Make daemonic possession for standard CSM vehicles something tangible, with weapons not available to other Chaos forces. This, however, presents the problem eating into both the CSMs and Chaos Daemons sales, so I don't see it happening.
I'm not normally cynical as far as GW is concerned, but after trying my hardest to make a positive run with the last CSM codex, and being pretty disappointed with the lack of effort to make Chaos Daemons a truly unique army, I don't have much faith that GW will get Chaos Legions right. I really hope I am way off the mark, though.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Noisy_Marine wrote:Always a drone, never a battle suit.
With apologies to Nchamp1991.
39502
Post by: Slayer le boucher
I had a discussion about the current dex with a few friends of mine and what everybody agreed with me,is not that the units in the dex are bad(well there is some exceptions...,Possesed,Spawns and a few more),but what the CSM really lack is the wargear...
We did plummeted from more then 100 options to...what?...20?
It was a drastical cut in what maked the book different from a regular SM book.
Yeah we have a D weapon who can give you 2D6 attacks...when your not stabbing yourself like a moron...
And whats infuriating is not that the D weapons are badly designed,but that they are the only choice you have!!!
If at least there was 2-3 alternatives options to go with,but no...
Also in the more traditional wargear,we completly lost the only mean of re-throw a dice we had in the Dex;the Ornamental Spikes!
Now every freaking HQ choice as an option that enables them to re-throw failed to hit dices,but we are the only ones who does not...
Same goes for the Deamon Prince,like said above,in the past he was the BOSS,the most meanest and bad ass dude of the army,he could be taken down,but it was not before a uter gore and bloody mess!
Now if like me you play World Eaters...he's useless!
He gets shot down in one turn...,and even if he manage to stay alive the impact of a Khorne Deamon Prince isn't really that great...
Yes he has 6 attacks on the charge with the mark...,but he isn't more effective for this...
No special ability or gear...
At least even the Deamon codex version as a few options,even if it cost a leg and a arm...
Possesed are rather useless if you pick the wrong mutation,if they still had their SM wargear,like bolt pistols or could have acces to spacial weapons,that would be a different story,but...
While its true Zerkers are better,stats wise,the lack of options is just dumb..., a melta bomb, a power weapon or PF, and a Plasma...seriously?,4 options?...
While those marines get grenade launchers,Relic Blades and what not?...
The way Icons work is just wrong...
They are overpriced for something that if it falls on the ground,the unit forget how to use it...
Yeah the 30pts is cheap when you take a large squad...,but if you take say 3 bikes...its a realy steep price for a unit who isn't even stubborn or don't get furious charge...,10 points per mini the extra A...bah!
Marks should have stayed as is,Marks, and icons should have stayed Icons,5pts DS beacons,nothing more.
And don't get me started over cultist Termies...
I really hope that the next dex will correct those issues...
11
Post by: ph34r
H.B.M.C. wrote:ph34r wrote:Who gives a flying feth?
A lot of people.
But you knew that already.
A lot of people think Mat Ward's fluff isn't dumb.
H.B.M.C. wrote:But you knew that already.
Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:It's dull, and killed my interest in Guard for about a year. I bought so much of the new Guard stuff when it hit, including the Codex... and the Codex itself was enough to make me lose all interest in the Guard. And this is me, the guy who would dispense Guard information to everyone, wrote long tactica articles and received PM's all the time from members asking for IG advice. I went from being the most enthusiastic Guard player here to utterly disillusions with them in less than 200 pages.
All the current Guard Codex is good at is sending you to sleep. Arby (which is easier to type than both Cruddace and Cruddance) created a book that changed virtually every rule in the entire book, and replaced it with a stale one-note army list filled with all sorts of crazy crap that doesn't work (random ability Penal troopers), pointless units that just fill up space (half the Russ variants) or stuff that simple should not be in standard 40K (Deathstrikes). And then he went and added the Vendetta, which had to have been added at the last minute given the kit includes no parts for it.
I don't blame Arby completely, just like I don't blame Gav for what happened to the Daemons in the current 'Chaos' Codex. He was no doubt getting his orders from a higher source ("Everyone owns three Sanctioned Psykers, so to increase sales you're going to make them a unit of 10!", "We're getting rid of the hybrid Hellhound kit - make rules for different versions so there's a reason for people who already own Hellhounds to buy MOAR!!!!", "Make it so you can have big blocks of Guard infantry in one unit, and then we'll reduce the contents of the infantry box and in a year we'll be charging the same amount for 10 as we did for 20! Ahahaha! We're geniuses!"), but that doesn't stop the Codex from being dull and just... grey.
The Doctrine system of the previous Codex was a joke - it didn't work as intended and was open to abuse (not as much as the Trait system, but it's still pretty similar) - but at least your army could have character beyond MechVets.
I am utterly mystified by the fact that you can dislike the new IG codex for a reason other than doctrines being gone. It seems like some time during 4th edition you arbitrarily flipped a switch between liking and extreme hating GW's new codexes.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
God, finally.
Been waiting a while, and I really think that chaos deserves it.
Now if only they'll ensure that the summoned daemons become actual daemons in the books. (I.E. Emperor's Children get Daemonettes, World Eaters get Bloodletters, etc.)
9389
Post by: lord marcus
H.B.M.C. wrote:Brother SRM wrote:I don't understand why people think Cruddace (Not Cruddance, I have no idea why people get this wrong) screwed up the Imperial Guard. The codex is fantastic, characterful, and well written.
It's dull, and killed my interest in Guard for about a year. I bought so much of the new Guard stuff when it hit, including the Codex... and the Codex itself was enough to make me lose all interest in the Guard. And this is me, the guy who would dispense Guard information to everyone, wrote long tactica articles and received PM's all the time from members asking for IG advice. I went from being the most enthusiastic Guard player here to utterly disillusions with them in less than 200 pages.
All the current Guard Codex is good at is sending you to sleep. Arby (which is easier to type than both Cruddace and Cruddance) created a book that changed virtually every rule in the entire book, and replaced it with a stale one-note army list filled with all sorts of crazy crap that doesn't work (random ability Penal troopers), pointless units that just fill up space (half the Russ variants) or stuff that simple should not be in standard 40K (Deathstrikes). And then he went and added the Vendetta, which had to have been added at the last minute given the kit includes no parts for it.
I don't blame Arby completely, just like I don't blame Gav for what happened to the Daemons in the current 'Chaos' Codex. He was no doubt getting his orders from a higher source (" Everyone owns three Sanctioned Psykers, so to increase sales you're going to make them a unit of 10!", " We're getting rid of the hybrid Hellhound kit - make rules for different versions so there's a reason for people who already own Hellhounds to buy MOAR!!!!", " Make it so you can have big blocks of Guard infantry in one unit, and then we'll reduce the contents of the infantry box and in a year we'll be charging the same amount for 10 as we did for 20! Ahahaha! We're geniuses!"), but that doesn't stop the Codex from being dull and just... grey.
The Doctrine system of the previous Codex was a joke - it didn't work as intended and was open to abuse (not as much as the Trait system, but it's still pretty similar) - but at least your army could have character beyond MechVets.
I agree with all points, however, I think the doctrine system could have worked if they had playtested it more. Then again, all rules could do with more playtesting.
nowadays, its like all the army books are sent straight from alpha to print.....
off topic note = 1000th post! woot!
28942
Post by: Stormrider
FITZZ wrote:ph34r wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:*looks at current 'Chaos' Codex*
Well... it certainly can't get any worse can it?
Wait... who would be writing it? Not... him...
Who gives a flying feth? As long as the book is playable, I'm cool with the iron warriors building a planet sized robot that warps around the galaxy or the alpha legion subjugating another 6 chapters of loyalists.
Lot's of people give a flying feth, "playability" isn't the only thing to look for in a codex...course maybe your the type of guy that would be cool with Batman's backstory being altered so he was bitten by a radioactive bat and failed to save his Grandmother...so long as he still had all the cool " bat-gadgets".
Don't forget your Bat Sunscreen, Bat Tampons, Bat Ladder, Bat Air Freshener, Bat Dental Floss and Bat Floor Mats! All at Batman's All Bat emporium!
Turns out Batman ran a haberdasher and didn't fight criminals.
Glad to see Chaos will get a well deserved upgrade to their Codex.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Platuan4th wrote:
You're a bit late to the party. Stormboys worshiped Khorne in Rogue Trader.
Stormboyz didn't worship knorne, A few select stormboyz followed the Bloog Dod. I know that sounds a little finicky but orks for the most part are very resiliant to chaos. I think the khorne stormboy entry in Freebooterz mentions this.
Also on chaos what i would like is for tzeentch to get some love. His demon is the Lord of Change, yet tzeentch gets psychic powers and bolter marines, mutations and other fun stuff anyone?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ph34r wrote:A lot of people think Mat Ward's fluff isn't dumb.
Not really a reply there ph34. You: Who cares about the fluff as long as the book works! Me: Some people care about the fluff. You: Some people like Mat Ward’s stuff. See the disconnect? Your reply does not follow. Now I’ll admit that my ire towards the GK Codex is mostly directed towards the fluff (although the sheer complication of every unit having its own special rule or psychic power is another problem... and the Dread Knight... my God the Dread Knight...), but I wasn’t responding to Ward fluff, I was responding to your assertion that we shouldn’t give, to quote you, a ‘flying feth’ about the fluff – y’know, as long as the book works. I disagree. Fluff and rules should be congruent. Each one should be as important as the other, and to ignore one in favour of the other just leads to a failed Codex. ph34r wrote:I am utterly mystified by the fact that you can dislike the new IG codex for a reason other than doctrines being gone.
The Doctrine system was a lot of fun. The Doctrine system was also a terrible set of rules. The Marine Trait system was worse. There are a lot of reasons to dislike the current Guard Codex that aren’t related to the Doctrines. If I’ve misunderstood what you’ve said above, please elaborate and I’ll try again. ph34r wrote:It seems like some time during 4th edition you arbitrarily flipped a switch between liking and extreme hating GW's new codexes.
Believe what you want to believe. I think the Guard Codex is pants because it’s dull and it killed virtually everything I love about the Guard and Arby somehow managed to change just about every rule in the whole book (which was an amazing feat). I think the Tyranid Codex is pathetic because it’s a bad example of pendulum swinging (from ‘Zilla to non-‘Zilla in one edition!) and because it’s written by Arby, the most boring Codex writer in the world outside of Jervis “Codex: Dark Angels” Johnson. I think Codex aemons is a hilariously bad Codex that further insults Chaos players. I think the current Marine Codex is awesome (my problems with that Codex stem from the over-reliance on special characters, but that’s more a current 40K design philosophy problem than a problem specific to the Marine Codex). I think the Blood Angel Codex is fine (it’s the fluff & the Mary Sueguinor that I hate from that book). I think the Space Wolf Codex suffers from the over-reliance on special characters that the Marine book suffers from, only its special characters are more obnoxiously bad (Loki and Thor being actual characters, and the less said about Wolfy McWolferson and his Thunderwolf brethren the better), but otherwise I think the Space Wolf Codex was a well realised update of the old mini-dex. I think the Dark Eldar are great and the model’s are gorgeous – the most successful re-release of a race since the Orks. The Ork Codex is fantastic and is easily my fav current Codex because of how much fun it is – a real return to form after the abysmally stale 3rd Ed Codex (Codex: Goff Clan!). I want to go back in time and murder Mat Ward for the Grey Knight Codex (but apparently the line to do that is rather long). And y’all know what I think about the Boring Angel and ‘Chaos’ Codices... So, as I said, believe what you want to believe. Attempting to say that I did one thing before X-date and then suddenly have the complete opposite view is completely fantasy.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
Stormboyz didn't worship knorne,
Except when they did. Stormboyz of Khorne were a GW creation and a relatively common thing in days of yore (i.e., Rogue Trader to early 2nd Edition era).
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
lord marcus wrote:I think the doctrine system could have worked if they had playtested it more. Then again, all rules could do with more playtesting.
No amount of play testing will fix a systemic error in the actual execution of a perfectly sound concept. What do I mean by that? The Doctrine system, and this applies to the Marine Trait system from the 4th Ed Marine Codex as well, was a fantastic concept. Pick the parts that make your army flavourful and give it certain advantages for the sacrifice of either points, choices on the FOC, and with a built in hard-limit of 5. Perfect. Where it fell apart is the ‘trade off’ area. Points are not the great leveller, and by that I mean that you can’t always balance something just by changing how much it costs. For the Doctrines, what you gave up or lost when you decided to play a Doctrine army wasn’t a big enough deterrent or trade off to taking the Doctrines. You lost: Storm Troopers Ratlings Priests Sanctioned Psykers Rough Riders Ogryn There might have been one or two others. Either way, no competitive or reasonably effective army used any of the above with the exception of Rough Riders. So you could get Drop Troops and Close Order Drill for free in your army by ‘ giving up’ things you were never going to use anyway. If a rule set ever gives you something by making you give something else up, and that ‘ something’ is something you never intended to use in the first place, then you’re not really giving anything up. That was the problem with the Doctrine system, and it was only further magnified with the Marine Trait system. With the Marine Trait system you had to take a down side for every good side you took. The problem is, one of those downsides was ‘Cannot take allies’. If you were never intending to take allied units this one was the one you chose, as you weren’t really losing anything by taking it. Those weren’t the only problems with the Doctrine System of course – the special equipment Doctrines were a load of nonsense and the fact that you had to apply them to your entire army (rather than on a much more sensible platoon-by-platoon basis) made them mostly useless, and there was little point in ‘ buying back’ things like Sanctioned Psykers or Storm Troopers because they were hopeless – but that big one, the idea of giving something up when in reality you weren’t losing anything, that was the problem that caused the Doctrine/Trait systems to fail. Automatically Appended Next Post: BrassScorpion wrote:Except when they did. Stormboyz of Khorne were a GW creation and a relatively common thing in days of yore (i.e., Rogue Trader to early 2nd Edition era).
Early 2nd Ed? You sure about that? Khornate Orks went away about the same time as Khornate Genestealer Cults (get your head around that folks – Genestealers fuelled by the power of Khorne!!!), didn't they?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Khornate Genestealers??? What is, I don't even.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
I miss my slaanesh-possessed wierdboys and the pastel madboy mob
11
Post by: ph34r
H.B.M.C. wrote:ph34r wrote:A lot of people think Mat Ward's fluff isn't dumb.
Not really a reply there ph34.
You: Who cares about the fluff as long as the book works!
Me: Some people care about the fluff.
You: Some people like Mat Ward’s stuff.
See the disconnect? Your reply does not follow. Now I’ll admit that my ire towards the GK Codex is mostly directed towards the fluff (although the sheer complication of every unit having its own special rule or psychic power is another problem... and the Dread Knight... my God the Dread Knight...), but I wasn’t responding to Ward fluff, I was responding to your assertion that we shouldn’t give, to quote you, a ‘flying feth’ about the fluff – y’know, as long as the book works.
I disagree. Fluff and rules should be congruent. Each one should be as important as the other, and to ignore one in favour of the other just leads to a failed Codex.
Actually, it does follow. The examples I gave I do not consider to be horrible fluff butcheries. You do, but I don't.
As for codex chaos's fluff, as long as it isn't somehow magnitudes worse than every other codex's fluff recently, I don't care. Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:Believe what you want to believe. I think the Guard Codex is pants because it’s dull and it killed virtually everything I love about the Guard and Arby somehow managed to change just about every rule in the whole book (which was an amazing feat). I think the Tyranid Codex is pathetic because it’s a bad example of pendulum swinging (from ‘Zilla to non-‘Zilla in one edition!) and because it’s written by Arby, the most boring Codex writer in the world outside of Jervis “Codex: Dark Angels” Johnson. I think Codex aemons is a hilariously bad Codex that further insults Chaos players. I think the current Marine Codex is awesome (my problems with that Codex stem from the over-reliance on special characters, but that’s more a current 40K design philosophy problem than a problem specific to the Marine Codex). I think the Blood Angel Codex is fine (it’s the fluff & the Mary Sueguinor that I hate from that book). I think the Space Wolf Codex suffers from the over-reliance on special characters that the Marine book suffers from, only its special characters are more obnoxiously bad (Loki and Thor being actual characters, and the less said about Wolfy McWolferson and his Thunderwolf brethren the better), but otherwise I think the Space Wolf Codex was a well realised update of the old mini-dex. I think the Dark Eldar are great and the model’s are gorgeous – the most successful re-release of a race since the Orks. The Ork Codex is fantastic and is easily my fav current Codex because of how much fun it is – a real return to form after the abysmally stale 3rd Ed Codex (Codex: Goff Clan!). I want to go back in time and murder Mat Ward for the Grey Knight Codex (but apparently the line to do that is rather long). And y’all know what I think about the Boring Angel and ‘Chaos’ Codices...
So, as I said, believe what you want to believe. Attempting to say that I did one thing before X-date and then suddenly have the complete opposite view is completely fantasy.
Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, and Dark Angels were all terrible and bland codexes cooked up in the old days when they thought streamlining everything and trying to double chaos sales would somehow be a good idea. They are awful.
They also are nothing like the modern GW codexes. The only "failure" of a codex is considered to be Tyranids, and I even disagree with this. Though tyranids aren't as braindead easymode as most spess maren tournament armies you see, they can still be competitive. As for carnifexes being nerfed into the ground? Slightly excessive, but after their being literally 50% of the competitive lists in every tournament in 4th edition, I'm glad to not see them any more.
Also, in case you didn't know, Codex: SW very rarely uses named characters in moderately serious lists.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ph34r wrote:You do, but I don't.
A lot of us do. I’ve said this at other times, but was it just me raging against the night, then maybe I’d take a time out to consider that maybe – just maybe – I was looking at it wrong. In the case of the GK fluff, and what Mat Ward does in general, this clearly is not the case. It’s not hard to see the effect he’s had, and the sheer reaction the man created when he destroys the soul of an army (like he did with the GK’s), or when he adds things that are just silly (Sanguinor, Necron/Blood Angel BFFs, etc.). Using 4Chan as a benchmark for community response isn’t always the best of ideas (in fact it’s often a bad idea), but if threads about Ward’s GK Codex are actually banned for a time for the sheer frequency, then something significant has happened.
And while you mightn’t have a problem with it, enough people do; enough that it stands as a high example of what happens when someone is allowed to take the fluff an army deep into the woods and have their way with it. *plays Deliverance theme*
ph34r wrote:As for codex chaos's fluff, as long as it isn't somehow magnitudes worse than every other codex's fluff recently, I don't care.
And that’s great for you – I have no issue with you holding this viewpoint – but some of us are more invested in the fluff than we are in the rules. For instance, I know that the current ‘Chaos’ Codex is a perfectly serviceable Codex from which you can make competitive builds (or build), but it doesn’t matter how balanced or how powerful it is if it is dull and missing the flavour of the (completely imbalanced and 1/3rd useless) 3.5 Codex.
If you only care (or mostly care) about how effective a Codex is then great, more power to you. Some of us, though, don’t see it quite that way.
And I just used ‘ it is if it is’ in a sentence and it made sense. Surely I win something for that? @ me!
ph34r wrote:Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, and Dark Angels were all terrible and bland codexes cooked up in the old days when they thought streamlining everything and trying to double chaos sales would somehow be a good idea. They are awful.
Oh I know that. They’re from what I comically refer to as the ‘Jervis Era’, or the ‘Dark Times’ if I’m parodying Jervis to Darth Vader. A period of Codex design where all flavour and life and colour was drained from the team and we were left with two husks of a Codex and once Codex that simply shouldn’t exist at all. This was thankfully ended when Ward’s Marine Codex – which I love both because of and in spite of its absurdities – but not everything since then has been a winner.
ph34r wrote:The only "failure" of a codex is considered to be Tyranids, and I even disagree with this. Though tyranids aren't as braindead easymode as most spess maren tournament armies you see, they can still be competitive. As for carnifexes being nerfed into the ground? Slightly excessive, but after their being literally 50% of the competitive lists in every tournament in 4th edition, I'm glad to not see them any more.
Couldn’t agree more as far as the ‘Fexes are concerned. The Tyranids are a great example to use whenever you want to point out that GW is a miniatures company first and a rules writing company last. Tyranid 4th Ed – ‘Fex is the new hotness kit, so of course the rules allow millions of them. ‘Zilla lists dominate (and I hated that – Tyranids are a swarm, not an army with 8 Monstrous fething Creatures). Along comes 5th and we’ve got our new Trygon, so we want people to use them... so we’ll just nerf the ‘Fex. Of course, people now have all these ‘Fexes... so we’ll allow them to be in broods. But then Arby got a bout of the ‘Arbitraries’ and decided to force people to arm their ‘Fexes with the same weapons across broods. Uhhh...
ph34r wrote:Also, in case you didn't know, Codex:SW very rarely uses named characters in moderately serious lists.
As I think I’ve made clear, I’m none too fussed about what ‘serious’ lists do. My issue with the Woof’s special chars is to do with the concepts behind them. Bastardised Norse mythology making up part of the Space Wolves back story? Cool, I can live with that. We get Space Vikings. No problems. Actual Norse Gods (with different names) as special characters? And then there’s the whole Thunderwolf thing, but let’s not get into that...
Your criteria for a successful Codex appears to be how it plays on the table. I can respect that view – some people truly don’t give that much of a damn, or, to quote you again, a ‘ flying feth’ – but not everyone is like that and I’m certainly like that. I’m willing to overlook a lot of fluff inconsistencies as long as the universe remains mostly internally consistent. The more Ward writes, the more cracks begin to appear in that facade. With the Blood Angels Codex we got a few hammer-blows to the fluff, but the wall was fine. With Grey Knights, the man drove a fething rocket-powered bulldozer at the wall... and then once he was through he came back for another run at it...
12313
Post by: Ouze
For me, at least, I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK when they were released. Then I actually looked at the codex and I could not. I know my experience, just one guy, is anecdotal, but it is true. The writing turned me off in a major way. I guess I care more about having compelling fluff then necessarily being competitive, rule wise.
So! That being said, I'm pretty stoked about the Chaos Legions book! My understanding is 4th was awesome, and 5th ruined it. If that were accurate, it can only get better, right?
11
Post by: ph34r
H.B.M.C. wrote:ph34r wrote:As for codex chaos's fluff, as long as it isn't somehow magnitudes worse than every other codex's fluff recently, I don't care.
And that’s great for you – I have no issue with you holding this viewpoint – but some of us are more invested in the fluff than we are in the rules. For instance, I know that the current ‘Chaos’ Codex is a perfectly serviceable Codex from which you can make competitive builds (or build), but it doesn’t matter how balanced or how powerful it is if it is dull and missing the flavour of the (completely imbalanced and 1/3rd useless) 3.5 Codex.
If you only care (or mostly care) about how effective a Codex is then great, more power to you. Some of us, though, don’t see it quite that way.
And I just used ‘ it is if it is’ in a sentence and it made sense. Surely I win something for that? @ me!
That's the thing, I don't care if the codex is super competitive or not, I just want it to have options. I think the fluff in the recent codexes is decent stuff, on par with the 3rd-4th edition codexes. In fact, the 3rd-4th edition codexes had tiny amounts of fluff, so I enjoy the fact that the new books use their extra 30-40 pages over the old one to give us more fluff.
I am in fact very invested in Chaos's fluff, as I am with IG's fluff. I think the recent IG book had good fluff. I think the recent GK book had good fluff other than a very select few things that people blew way out of proportion. I think that if the new Chaos book's fluff is somewhere around the level of recent books, then it will be just fine. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:My understanding is 4th was awesome, and 5th ruined it. If that were accurate, it can only get better, right?
Never say that!
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Ouze wrote:For me, at least, I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK when they were released.
Ouze wrote:I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK when they were released.
Ouze wrote:I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK
Ouze wrote:90/10 leaning towards starting GK
Ouze wrote:90/10
I don't think your ability to evaluate your own decision-making process is very developed.
12313
Post by: Ouze
90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Ouze wrote:90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?
Yeah, I don't believe you.
11
Post by: ph34r
Ouze wrote:90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?
Yeah, if you were 90% inclined to start GK, there is legit no way you would let the few minor fluff-sillies in codex: GK stop you. The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ph34r wrote:The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.
Except they're not the only ridiculous thing to us. How is this so difficult to understand?
11
Post by: ph34r
H.B.M.C. wrote:ph34r wrote:The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.
Except they're not the only ridiculous thing to us. How is this so difficult to understand?
It might be hard for me because I am actually able to remember fluff that was created more than 6 months in the past, and in fact remember that it was equally good/bad back then. Most everyone nowadays seems to be so far up their own asses with ward-hate that they have no perspective.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Finally is what i have to say.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Fetterkey wrote:Ouze wrote:90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?
Yeah, I don't believe you.
Well, I'm glad to know you know more about my plans, feelings and motivations then I do. In all fairness, you have had many opportunities to gain insights into me, with having never met me once, and all.
Wait, you could have insight into my thoughts from posts on Dakka! Like the things I said previously about Grey Knights here. Like when I said, naively in January, " Grey Knights, I'm excited about but I don't think GW will screw them up. Wasn't that months before they were actually released, where I was describing them as my second biggest hope for 2011? Or when I said in March " OK, the models are all terrific, and I think that I'm just about ready for yet another army to build half of and then abandon anyway, so perhaps the ghostbusters are it."That was also about a month before the codex was released, right?
Oh, wait. All of my postings on this topic have consistently indicated, pre-release, that I planned to get them and then decided not to once the book came out ebcause I didn't like the lore.
I guess you don't know a damn thing about me after all.
11
Post by: ph34r
Ouze wrote:I guess you don't know a damn thing about me after all.
I guess he just found such a course of action so out of touch with what a normal/logical/informed person would do that he found it implausible to believe.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I rarely agree with HBMC about anything, but the current chaos dex is....beyond dull.
Part of the issue is it was rushed out ahead of schedule to make up for delayed orks (modelling issue) so they chopped anything out of it that didnt meet the new deadline.
As for GK - I love the options you get in the book, the fact ive yet to see 2 identical GK armies (UK) and that noone has settled on a "power build" unlike with SW and IG (such dull armies to face...) as yet - and hopefully there wont be just one. The internal balance in the book, especially how the HQ slots compete (cheap, effective hq? Inq with rad nades. Change your strategy as you face each mission? GKGM. Awesome psychic powers? Libby) is far far better than either the SW or IG dexes. Yes, there is some trash in there - but it seems lot lower than in previous books.
I can live with poor instances of fluff (crowe, mainly) but i cant live with a poor rulebook, as I like to travel to play games at tournaments (i dont travel to win, as i've never managed more than 2nd and that was a complete fluke, I travel to play new people / people i rarely see and shoot sh*t / get drunk for 2 days) and like to play with armies I at least have a chance with, and where Im not bored stiff playing them - like I got with my unconventional chaos khorne list (2 dp,khorne, wings, 3 x 8 zerkers, rhinos, oblits, FW WE dreadnoughts) after a while.
46094
Post by: KingmanHighborn
6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*
Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.
40K went through 3 in 10 years....by the gods I miss the rulebook that had the awesome Black Templars artwork on it...best 40K rule book..ever...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
KingmanHighborn wrote:6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*
Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.
Remember, GW priorities are: 1. Dividends to the share-holders (ie. mainly Kirby & Wells). 2. Short-term profits. 3. Making models to sell. 4. Secrecy. ... ... ... 97783994. Writing a good set of rules. 6th Ed is an excuse to push more minis, not to improve the game.
11
Post by: ph34r
KingmanHighborn wrote:6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*
Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.
40K went through 3 in 10 years....by the gods I miss the rulebook that had the awesome Black Templars artwork on it...best 40K rule book..ever...
3rd edition had some problems. Like rhino rush.
I for one am happy with the rate that 40k is progressing through editions.
12313
Post by: Ouze
ph34r wrote:Ouze wrote:I guess you don't know a damn thing about me after all.
I guess he just found such a course of action so out of touch with what a normal/logical/informed person would do that he found it implausible to believe.
So, I'm a liar, or abnormal, illogical, and stupid because I didn't like the Grey Knight backstory and that stopped my plans for collecting them? This is now the default stance of reasonable people like you and Fetterkey?
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Ouze wrote:So, I'm a liar, or abnormal, illogical, and stupid because I didn't like the Grey Knight backstory and that stopped my plans for collecting them? This is now the default stance of reasonable people like you and Fetterkey?
Nah, you're reading too much into it. I just thought you were being goofy and hyperbolic with your original post.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Fetterkey wrote:Nah, you're reading too much into it. I just thought you were being goofy and hyperbolic with your original post.
I'm not sure what I'm reading too much into, exactly, by stating I had intended to collect GK and summarily being branded a liar who doesn't understand my own thought process, but sure, ok, whatever. The fact is, I did not like the codex and this was, far above all other considerations, the reason I did not collect Grey Knights as planned.
ph34r wrote:The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.
That seems like a rather self-serving summation, in it's rather conspicuous omission of certain elements of the codex.
39195
Post by: Asuron
Fetterkey wrote:Ouze wrote:So, I'm a liar, or abnormal, illogical, and stupid because I didn't like the Grey Knight backstory and that stopped my plans for collecting them? This is now the default stance of reasonable people like you and Fetterkey?
Nah, you're reading too much into it. I just thought you were being goofy and hyperbolic with your original post.
That he was almost certainly going to get GK until he read the background and decided not to?
Yeah that was hyperbolic alright.
Anyways if you two only think those things are what we( I use we here, because i've seen these guys post similar complaints to mine in threads about the GK fluff) have problems with and are trivial, by all means feel that way.
My personal issues with the background extend to far more issues in the book than just bloody Castellan Crowe however.
Besides if you take away the background, you only have a set of shoddy rules to lean on and honestly I feel if thats all your in for, you might as well go play better balanced games
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yeah, Ouze, even I kinda got that Fetterkey was kidding around. Just sayin'. That's all. And, apropos, the 1d4Chan article has been updated with this: Why the Hate?
Hating Matt Ward on /tg/ is almost so universal it's painful these days. Although his fluff writing skills are beyond terrible, he has been improving as far as writing balanced codices go (arguably). Hence, one begs the question, why all the unfettered rage? Can't /tg/ just ignore his fluff and play the game for what it is? Why not just make up your own fluff and ignore the guy?
The problem with Matt Ward is a touch complicated, but the biggest issue is the way he writes the fluff. For many, as can be seen by the plethora of /tg/ made chapters here on 1d4chan, the true appeal of 40k is designing a unique, colorful army with a rich history and engaging heroes. A good player of 40k likes to put a certain amount of himself in his lovingly assembled and painted armies, and he likes his army to reflect his own sensibilities and his own ideals. That's what makes an army truly belong to a player – that's what makes them special.
Matt Ward takes those elements away from the player. The biggest rage-inducing codex he has made thus far is the Ultramarines codex, which explicitly stated that all chapters, excluding a few "abhorrent" (Black Templars, Space Wolves...etc), behave and think in exactly the same manner as his army – Ultramarines, his chosen faction. He spelled out the organization patterns, the ideologies, who they revere and why, and then proceeded to tell the community at large that if they don't do it that way, then they're making their army wrong.
Players can still make their own marine factions, but with Ward's fluff, they'll always be bearing a black mark: the flaw of being unlike Ward's army. The flaw of being unique and of following a set of ideals that don't match Ward's. The flaw is canonized and inescapable, and Ward enforces it in all his writing with sincerity and vigor.
Even this would not be so much of a problem if it weren't for the fact that Ward just doesn't appear to be, well, very smart or insightful. Either that, or he doesn't seem that well educated in what he writes. His ideas on what makes good warfare and tactics seem based around the idea that might is right and strength is victory. His grasp of the subtle nuances of conflict and managing people revolve around things far displaced from reality. Ward's heroes lead head first, sacrificing all in frontal assaults that could be circumvented with more ingenuity.
And while there is such a thing as a front line general, the fact is that all his heroes are like that, and ones that aren't seem vague and unfocused. Furthermore, Matt does a lot of telling rather than showing. He tells us that Calgar is a patient tactical genius who considers the danger of an incoming projectile before taking cover. The image painted in the average person's mind in that case is one of Calgar analyzing a falling bomb until it strikes him in the head and explodes, at which point he decides, “Yes, that one was dangerous, I should have taken cover from that one.”
The biggest offender of Matt's “tell not show” policy is Kaldor Draigo, the Grey Knights' supreme grand master who's main personality trait is “badass”. Without rhyme, reason, or feasible explanation, Draigo simply exists as this whirlwind of enemy-destroying fiction in his codex. He pops in and out of the Warp, wrecking everything without so much a minute of exposition, and all the while the reader is never really told how or why. Draigo is a concept – a meaningless one without any emotional impact. He's not a person or anything to which the average man can relate. Ward has simply declared him the best ever, and in canon, so it is true.
So Ward is hated for this among other reasons. He yanks the floorboards out from underneath your army, telling you that you're playing the game wrong and giving your army the wrong characteristics, and then shoves a handful of nothing against your chest, insisting that, yes, this is what you've been missing all along. He's that jerk in your wargaming club that leans over your shoulder while playing, breathing heavily and telling you where to move your guys. He's that sweaty donkey-cave in those fun games that cheats on his dice rolls because he's not there to drink beer and chat with you. He's that complete moron in the room that everyone pegs as a sucker, and he's the only one who doesn't realize he's not a genius. Matt Ward is that guy. Yes, that guy.
And this is why I'm dreading Necrons, Black Templars and anything else he gets his grubby little mitts on...
12313
Post by: Ouze
As an aside, I had never even heard of Matt Ward previous to the codex being released, so it's not like I was set to hate it. The only write in all of GW's stable whose work I know is Dan Abnett, and I don't think he writes codexes (right?).
Was the word actually "abhorrent"? I think I remember it as "abberrant".
11
Post by: ph34r
Asuron wrote:That he was almost certainly going to get GK until he read the background and decided not to?
Yeah that was hyperbolic alright.
Anyways if you two only think those things are what we( I use we here, because i've seen these guys post similar complaints to mine in threads about the GK fluff) have problems with and are trivial, by all means feel that way.
My personal issues with the background extend to far more issues in the book than just bloody Castellan Crowe however.
Besides if you take away the background, you only have a set of shoddy rules to lean on and honestly I feel if thats all your in for, you might as well go play better balanced games
You actually think that the rules of Codex: GK have significant problems?
Lol, ok.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think his thrust was that, in general, 40k has a shoddy set of rules and the rich universe© holds it all together as one good experience - not specifically anything wrong with the GK rules.
11
Post by: ph34r
Ouze wrote:That seems like a rather self-serving summation, in it's rather conspicuous omission of certain elements of the codex.
Sorcery, psychic powers, emperor-lazers, they're all the same thing on a basic level. Sure, it may be a bit crazy to imaging GK killing SoB, but you have to remember. Grey Knights aren't shining knights in armor that come save that day and give all the children candy after they save the planet from daemons. They kill the daemons, and then they kill the witnesses, and are so thorough that they are essentially unknown to 99.99999% of the Imperium. If the blood of the faithful is a component in some ritual that staves off a dark age of technology super-daemon-virus, they will use it.
And Draigo's fluff? It is some of the most 40k appropriate fluff out there. He's an immensely strong guy, but cursed to forever walk the warp. Nothing he does in there is of any permanent value, everything that he destroys is rebuilt every day by the nightmarish laws of warp space. He never accomplishes anything in the end. Every once in a while he is spat out in the middle of a daemonic incursion, fights for a while, and then gets sucked right back into the warp. It's a real parallel with the Imperium's fight against chaos, malevolent aliens, and itself. Full of heroic deeds, doomed to stagnation and slowly failing.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
H.B.M.C. wrote:And, apropos, the 1d4Chan article has been updated with this:
1d4chan is a good source for getting the pulse of general Internet opinions. That said, the writers really missed the mark on a lot of that analysis. The bit in the Grey Knights codex about Draigo is actually one of the best, most " 40k" pieces of fluff in any modern book, despite the rather silly impression it might give at first glance. You see, despite all of Draigo's might, purity, and skill, nothing he does ever matters. He achieves massive feats of arms, toppling entire cities of dæmons and monsters, but none of this means anything at all, since they just come back. Thus, Draigo's eternal struggle is doomed to meaninglessness in the long run, and his actions are actually less significant than those of most ordinary Grey Knights, since when they banish a Dæmon they at least remove it from the physical world for a time.. Draigo, in short, embodies one of the most central principles of 40k-- despite all the stalwart heroism of the Space Marines and other Imperial forces, the harsh forces of the galaxy press in from all sides, and the best the "good guys" can hope to do is to stem back the tide for a little while longer.
EDIT: I wrote this before I saw ph34r's above post. Guess we both "get it."
11
Post by: ph34r
H.B.M.C. wrote:And, apropos, the 1d4Chan article has been updated with this:
4chan is very good at hating on things. /tg/, while much more sane than the majority of the boards there, really likes to hate on Matt Ward. You get more good jokes out of making fun of him than saying "eh, he's actually not that bad".
12313
Post by: Ouze
1D4Chan wrote:Matt Ward takes those elements away from the player. The biggest rage-inducing codex he has made thus far is the Ultramarines codex, which explicitly stated that all chapters, excluding a few "abhorrent" (Black Templars, Space Wolves...etc), behave and think in exactly the same manner as his army – Ultramarines, his chosen faction. He spelled out the organization patterns, the ideologies, who they revere and why, and then proceeded to tell the community at large that if they don't do it that way, then they're making their army wrong.
I was curious, so I checked, and I was right. The word used was abberant, not abhorrent.
Codex: Space Marines 5th Edition wrote:The third and final group are aberrants; Chapters who,through quirk of gene-seed, mutation or stubbornness, eschew the Codex Astartes in favour of other structural and combat doctrines. Some, such as the Blood Angels and their successors, strive to be worthy of Guilliman's legacy, but their recalcitrant gene-seed drives them ever further from it. Others, such as the Space Wolves and the Black Templars, remain stubbornly independent, looking to their own founder's ways of war and caring little of how they fare in the eyes of others. These aberrant Chapters were always few in number and their presence diminishes further with each passing decade, for their gene-seed is no longer the source of fresh Chapters. Such divergent Chapters play little part in this volume, for this is the tale of the Ultramarines, and all those who follow their example.
Those words are not interchangeable, and, if the vast majority of Space Marine chapters are Codex chapters, that would indeed make the Space Wolves, Templars, et al, aberrant - but not abhorrent. The fact that they put the wrong word in quotes as if that was what Matt Ward had said, but wasn't what he said, is sloppy at best and lying at worst.
Side note, that last sentence must feel pretty good to read for all non-Ultramarines players, huh?
11
Post by: ph34r
Codex:SM 5th edition did have that little fiasco with Matt Ward blatantly inserting his favorite army as super-best-awesome-time. Other than that though, it's a good book.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
ph34r wrote:Codex:SM 5th edition did have that little fiasco with Matt Ward blatantly inserting his favorite army as super-best-awesome-time. Other than that though, it's a good book.
Hey, better Matt Ward making his pet army the best in fluff than Pete Haines making his pet army the best in rules...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Haines was quite balanced. Think about it:
1. He wanted to make his personal army, the Iron Warriors, into total awesomesauce.
2. He understood that awesomesauce is a finite resource.
3. Understanding this, he took all the awesomesauce the 1Ksons had, and gave it to the Iron Warriors.
So technically speaking, there's still the same amount of awesomesauce that had always been there, just that the Iron Warriors have twice their share, and the 1KSons were left with nothing.
Now that's balance!
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
H.B.M.C. wrote:Haines was quite balanced. Think about it:
1. He wanted to make his personal army, the Iron Warriors, into total awesomesauce.
2. He understood that awesomesauce is a finite resource.
3. Understanding this, he took all the awesomesauce the 1Ksons had, and gave it to the Iron Warriors.
So technically speaking, there's still the same amount of awesomesauce that had always been there, just that the Iron Warriors have twice their share, and the 1KSons were left with nothing.
Now that's balance!
Eh, any army that has troops with two wounds has a lot going for it.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
nosferatu1001 wrote:I rarely agree with HBMC about anything, but the current chaos dex is....beyond dull.
Part of the issue is it was rushed out ahead of schedule to make up for delayed orks (modelling issue) so they chopped anything out of it that didnt meet the new deadline.
The other part is that they deliberately sought to remove restrictions on army building found in the old codex. Gav and Alessio have both commented publicly about how they wanted to give players the freedom to build their armies however they wanted. They succeeded in that and reduced the cherished legions to paintschemes in the process. What they didn't count on was how many disciples of chaos craved the order and structure of the old book. People wanted a set of standards to conform to in order to validate their armies as legitimate and make them something more substantial than a paint scheme.
I look forward to a Legions codex because I think GW have figured out what went wrong with the current codex and they've rediscovered the Horus Heresy as the defining element in the 40k background. The Horus Heresy novels have been selling well, some of them getting on the NY Times bestsellers lists. I think it will be good to give the Great Enemy another book to work from.
9892
Post by: Flashman
The flexibility in Codexes and Army books is more to do with shifting plastic than it is with giving us "freedom" to what we want.
It reminds me of that moment in the Simpsons when Homer is put in charge of designing a new model for his brother's car company. "You know those ping pong balls they put on aerials so you can find your car again? ALL cars should have one of those!".
To paraphrase therefore... "You know those cool Vindicator tanks (RRP £31.00) that Iron Warriors have? ALL Chaos Legions should have one of those!"
43962
Post by: metalboxes
lord_blackfang wrote:
Eh, any army that has troops with two wounds has a lot going for it.
Well, that's not really the case when 2 wound rubics are literally all the army had going for it, and that didn't really matter because you'd have half the model count of your opponent anyways. Pure Thousand sons in the 3.5 codex were the most restricted and weakest of any of the chaos variant lists, because you couldn't take any of the options that were good. No veteran skills for anybody and no unit that couldn't take the mark of Tzeetch or was associated with Tzeentch, which was pretty much everything. Pretty much the only good thing unique to Thousand sons back then was the rhino-rush-double-wind-of-chaos-with-a-thrall-wizard-and-rapid-fire-bolters move.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Quick, someone call Pete Haines a Nazi!!!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Arschbombe wrote:The other part is that they deliberately sought to remove restrictions on army building found in the old codex.
And what restrictions did they remove exactly? I can see a lot of armies I can't play now... I can see very few things that I couldn't do previously. Yay... I can field a leader with the MoK and still take an army full of Slaaneshi units. And this was worth losing all the Legions and all Daemonic Gifts and all the God-specific Daemons???
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Alpharius wrote:Quick, someone call Pete Haines a Nazi!!!
If you go into a dark room with a mirror, say "Iron Warriors are broken, Iron Warriors are broken, Iron Warriors are broken" that Pete Haines appears and brains you with a hammer.
True story. It happened to me once.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Alpharius wrote:Quick, someone call Pete Haines a Nazi!!!
Pete Haines is a Nazi.
15317
Post by: thesearmsarerob
If this does get released I would do a little happy dance. My death guard have been inactive for too long. (As long as they don't screw it up)
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
H.B.M.C. wrote:Arschbombe wrote:The other part is that they deliberately sought to remove restrictions on army building found in the old codex.
And what restrictions did they remove exactly? I can see a lot of armies I can't play now... I can see very few things that I couldn't do previously. Yay... I can field a leader with the MoK and still take an army full of Slaaneshi units.
And this was worth losing all the Legions and all Daemonic Gifts and all the God-specific Daemons???
Fully agree H.B.M.C, and not only that, but this glorious thing they apparently gave us was poor anyways, instead of doing the wise thing and granting marks, they go with Icons with some half bogus excuse so folks could tell which unit is which during a battle.
Well if a person needs an icon so folks can figure out which Chaos power their unit follows, they are doing their models wrong.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Cadaver wrote:...
The main thing for me that I think they need to do to set it apart from CSMs is bring a heavy daemonic elements, both the daemons currently available from the Daemons codex, as well as new daemon engines and those from Forgeworld. Make daemonic possession for standard CSM vehicles something tangible, with weapons not available to other Chaos forces. This, however, presents the problem eating into both the CSMs and Chaos Daemons sales, so I don't see it happening...
Agreed, from a visual, rules, and fluff perspective daemons and daemon based technology are what sets chaos apart from any loyalists. Visually, it gives them a more organic and textured look than any loyalists. Rules, it gives unique units and weapons that aren't just borrowed from Loyalists. Fluffwise, it shows that the half of the Adeptus Mechanicus who fled into the Eye of Terror are doing more than sitting on their hands; Loyal AdMech in the last 10 millenia came up with how many different weapons?-a lot... untethered from Imperial dogma and free to desecrate rituals their chaos counterparts have created only a single unique design.
Even if greater and lesser daemons were left out, the daemonic influences can and should take many more forms throughout the codex. Everything from the daemonic weapons to daemon engines to Obliterators should show what these Chaos Marines have gained in sacrificing to their gods.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
Platuan4th wrote:Alpharius wrote:Quick, someone call Pete Haines a Nazi!!!
Pete Haines is a Communist.
All fixed now.
181
Post by: gorgon
Honestly, I thought IW were a bit overrated. IIRC, they seemed to do better in UK tournaments than in the US, perhaps because of the typical points levels involved.
Regarding the 4th ed book, I think GW's "macro" approach to the existing CSM book wouldn't have been too bad if the Legions book would have happened. Mind you, I still think there's quite a few issues with its execution. But strictly speaking, a three-book breakdown of Renegades/Legions/Daemons is solid enough. Obviously, problems resulted when one book never happened, one book was a bit uninspired and IMO lacked an actual "renegade" feel, and the third book was focused but kinda limited.
I'd still love to see a proper LatD book. But if we had a Renegades book that felt more ragtag and motley, a Daemons book with more Daemonic Engines and Mutants, and a really badazz Legions book...well, I think that'd be a pretty good treatment of Chaos for 40K. And I think it's well within the studio's reach if they want to do it.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
Noisy_Marine wrote:MadCowCrazy wrote:Hmm, so what happened to the Tau we have been hearing about? What of a proper release for the Sisters?
Silly Tau, new books are for marines.
YOU SHARE!!
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
H.B.M.C. wrote:
And what restrictions did they remove exactly? I can see a lot of armies I can't play now... I can see very few things that I couldn't do previously. Yay... I can field a leader with the MoK and still take an army full of Slaaneshi units.
And this was worth losing all the Legions and all Daemonic Gifts and all the God-specific Daemons???
"Alpha Legionaries can only bear the Mark of Chaos Undivided.."
"Iron Warriors armies may not include any Daemons apart from Daemon Princes and Possessed Chaos Space Marines..."
"The only Mark that may be assigned to a model in a Word Bearers army is the mark of Chaos Undivided. "
"If you want to use a pure World Eaters army you must adhere to the following limitations.
- All characters and units must have the Mark of Khorne. Characters and units that cannot have the Mark cannot be used..."
"If you want to use a pure Death Guard army you must adhere to the following limitations.
- All characters and units must have the Mark of Nurgle. Characters or units that cannot have the Mark cannot be used...."
That's the kind of stuff that Gav and Alessio took out as being too restrictive. I never said that it was worth it. Clearly for many chaos players it wasn't. Like I posted above, Gav and Alessio completely failed to understand that it was precisely those restrictions (and attendant bonuses) that set the armies apart and gave them flavor. They thought they were freeing the chaos players from conforming to those rules. Now anyone could have as many daemons as they wanted in their Iron Warriors armies. They never thought no one would want Iron Warriors that way in the first place.
4566
Post by: catharsix
All of these rumors and suppostitions are very exciting and all, but in light of the recent lockdown on the part of GW on ANY rumors or hints or anything at all, how reliable can we really believe that this information is? I'd love to believe it, but it seems like so much wishful thinking when we haven't even seen the tiniest, blurry pic of anything from even the next codex in the pipeline (supposedly).
Though, on the other hand, this new policy of GW's is so recent that we haven't seen enough releases under it to be sure how effective it is in restricting information, and how reliable rumors and leaks about upcoming stuff might be...
34419
Post by: 4oursword
What we will end up with--
LORD VOLDEMAT!!!!!!
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Arschbombe wrote:"Alpha Legionaries can only bear the Mark of Chaos Undivided.."
"Iron Warriors armies may not include any Daemons apart from Daemon Princes and Possessed Chaos Space Marines..."
"The only Mark that may be assigned to a model in a Word Bearers army is the mark of Chaos Undivided. "
"If you want to use a pure World Eaters army you must adhere to the following limitations.
- All characters and units must have the Mark of Khorne. Characters and units that cannot have the Mark cannot be used..."
"If you want to use a pure Death Guard army you must adhere to the following limitations.
- All characters and units must have the Mark of Nurgle. Characters or units that cannot have the Mark cannot be used...."
The current trend is rather than insisting on restrictions this edition the game developers instead have opted to promote the use of particular units by paticular sub-factions. For this book this might translate as Thousand Sons, Plague Marines, Bezerkers, and Noise Marines being elite choices for all legions but those known for the unit... while say lesser daemons or a hypothetical unit like cultists are only scoring for Word Bearers and Alpha Legion respectively... all those promote particular combinations without being to inhibitive. At the same time these subfactions are character driven and while that might not be best it works better than the previous attempts at representing subfactions. If GW stick with existing special characters for the big 4 and black legion its fairly straight forward to tie such characters to promoting those legions' modus operandi. That only leaves Iron Warriors, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, and Word Bearers to be characterized... something I'm far more interested in than the "big 4" who constantly get the limelight. And while I want to see those four undivided legions get special characters, I wouldn't be surprise if chaos finally got generic versions of the Warsmith and Dark Apostle as HQ choices to act as counter points to techmarines and chaplains.
46094
Post by: KingmanHighborn
ph34r wrote:KingmanHighborn wrote:6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*
Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.
40K went through 3 in 10 years....by the gods I miss the rulebook that had the awesome Black Templars artwork on it...best 40K rule book..ever...
3rd edition had some problems. Like rhino rush.
I for one am happy with the rate that 40k is progressing through editions.
Yeah rushes were one issue. but it was still better balanced on the overall.
20867
Post by: Just Dave
I've got mixed feelings about this actually.
Of course I'm happy Chaos will be put back into the face of things and their current Codex updated, but...
Chiefly, for me it would render my fandex (signature) useless, particularly as it's now really starting to pick up; although there's still several months yet...
Also, I'm pessimistic about 6th edition as I feel 5th still has a lot of life in it, I'm also pessimistic about how the 'dex itself will turn out; partially because I don't think they need 2 'dexs and partially because they may do a pretty poor job of it.
I'll wait and see I guess...
703
Post by: Dice Monkey
H.B.M.C. wrote:Haines was quite balanced. Think about it:
1. He wanted to make his personal army, the Iron Warriors, into total awesomesauce.
2. He understood that awesomesauce is a finite resource.
3. Understanding this, he took all the awesomesauce the 1Ksons had, and gave it to the Iron Warriors.
So technically speaking, there's still the same amount of awesomesauce that had always been there, just that the Iron Warriors have twice their share, and the 1KSons were left with nothing.
Now that's balance!
I always looked at it as gaming karma for 2nd edition Tzeentch terminators with power fields, graviton guns and vortex grenades flying around on disk of Tzeetch.
25668
Post by: ChaosxVoid
Tau of slaanesh YAHOO!!
Anyways, i dont think orks would follow chaos i mean they have gork and mork.
And theres some suspicion of chaos in this my FLGS, it is getting really..khorny (<--get it) with chaos in the display cases as well as some sob although they were all covered in some dust.
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
KingmanHighborn wrote:6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*
Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.
40K went through 3 in 10 years....by the gods I miss the rulebook that had the awesome Black Templars artwork on it...best 40K rule book..ever...
Apples and oranges. D&D, being a roleplaying game, is far more concerned with building a richer, deeper universe for play. They make their money from expansions, books, etc. D&D has also benefited from the fact that for most of its life its publisher wasnt obsessed with maximizing profits.
GW lives solely for making larger and larger profits. Have you noticed that 40k doesnt get better with every release, usually it gets worse. GW knows that all they have to do is promise a better game with the new release and people will rush out and buy it. Thats GWs downfall...they rely on rabid fanboys who absolutely must have the newest thing...along with those who believe GW is the end-all be-all of mini gaming.
39666
Post by: GiraffeX
I really hope to see a Legions codex, I really liked playing when Legion of the damned was around. In fact it was the last time I played.
I'm now back into 40k with 5th Edition and Chaos. The chance of a new more interesting codex has kind of put me on hold from buying anything else in case I buy a load of minis I wont be able to use after March.
hmm what to do
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Mad4Minis wrote:KingmanHighborn wrote:6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*
Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.
40K went through 3 in 10 years....by the gods I miss the rulebook that had the awesome Black Templars artwork on it...best 40K rule book..ever...
Apples and oranges. D&D, being a roleplaying game, is far more concerned with building a richer, deeper universe for play. They make their money from expansions, books, etc. D&D has also benefited from the fact that for most of its life its publisher wasnt obsessed with maximizing profits.
I'm not sure it's fair to say it's only had 4 incarnations, either. oD&D, AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th. Even if you take 3rd and 3.5 as the same incarnation, that's still at least 5.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
ChaosxVoid wrote:Tau of slaanesh YAHOO!!
Anyways, i dont think orks would follow chaos i mean they have gork and mork.
And theres some suspicion of chaos in this my FLGS, it is getting really..khorny (<--get it) with chaos in the display cases as well as some sob although they were all covered in some dust.
The Stormboyz of Khorne disagree with you.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Arschbombe wrote:"Alpha Legionaries can only bear the Mark of Chaos Undivided.."
Which makes sense. The Alpha Legion are not a 'Chaos' force like the World Eaters or the Death Guard.
Arschbombe wrote:"Iron Warriors armies may not include any Daemons apart from Daemon Princes and Possessed Chaos Space Marines..."
Which was explained in context.
Arschbombe wrote:"The only Mark that may be assigned to a model in a Word Bearers army is the mark of Chaos Undivided. "
Which makes even more sense given their whole shtick is worshipping Chaos in all its forms.
Arschbombe wrote:"If you want to use a pure World Eaters army you must adhere to the following limitations.
- All characters and units must have the Mark of Khorne. Characters and units that cannot have the Mark cannot be used..."
So only Khornate units can be used in a Khornate army. Right. Not seeing a problem here.
Arschbombe wrote:"If you want to use a pure Death Guard army you must adhere to the following limitations.
- All characters and units must have the Mark of Nurgle. Characters or units that cannot have the Mark cannot be used...."
Ditto.
And all of these could be ignored by playing a Black Legion/Vanilla Chaos army which the book also allowed.
Conclusion: Not restrictions.
Claiming that these are 'restrictions' would be like a Blood Angel player complaining because he can't field Deathwing.
11
Post by: ph34r
H.B.M.C. wrote:Claiming that these are 'restrictions' would be like a Blood Angel player complaining because he can't field Deathwing.
Exactly this.
18806
Post by: Volkov
Claiming that these are 'restrictions' would be like a Blood Angel player complaining because he can't field Deathwing.
I guess its a good thing I field blood angels with ravenwing...:-)
39502
Post by: Slayer le boucher
ph34r wrote:Ouze wrote:That seems like a rather self-serving summation, in it's rather conspicuous omission of certain elements of the codex.
Sorcery, psychic powers, emperor-lazers, they're all the same thing on a basic level. Sure, it may be a bit crazy to imaging GK killing SoB, but you have to remember. Grey Knights aren't shining knights in armor that come save that day and give all the children candy after they save the planet from daemons. They kill the daemons, and then they kill the witnesses, and are so thorough that they are essentially unknown to 99.99999% of the Imperium. If the blood of the faithful is a component in some ritual that staves off a dark age of technology super-daemon-virus, they will use it.
And Draigo's fluff? It is some of the most 40k appropriate fluff out there. He's an immensely strong guy, but cursed to forever walk the warp. Nothing he does in there is of any permanent value, everything that he destroys is rebuilt every day by the nightmarish laws of warp space. He never accomplishes anything in the end. Every once in a while he is spat out in the middle of a daemonic incursion, fights for a while, and then gets sucked right back into the warp. It's a real parallel with the Imperium's fight against chaos, malevolent aliens, and itself. Full of heroic deeds, doomed to stagnation and slowly failing.
Well you summed in a few lines,all the bs that there is in the GK codex!
No need to buy the dex anymore to read the fluff.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Anyone knows where my rumour thread on Chaos Legions is?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
1. You started a thread about a Chaos Codex. 2. I exist. The results of such a combination should have been considered.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
H.B.M.C. wrote:Arschbombe wrote:"Iron Warriors armies may not include any Daemons apart from Daemon Princes and Possessed Chaos Space Marines..."
Which was explained in context.
Actually, given the post- GK FAQ, this means that Obliterators are now daemons, but are not listed above...
Does that mean that Iron Warriors now lose these?
5723
Post by: Dez
Kroothawk wrote:Anyone knows where my rumour thread on Chaos Legions is?
Nothing to see here, please stay on topic.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Dez wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Anyone knows where my rumour thread on Chaos Legions is?
Nothing to see here, please stay on topic.
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Now that's scary
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
AvatarForm wrote:Actually, given the post-GK FAQ, this means that Obliterators are now daemons, but are not listed above...
Does that mean that Iron Warriors now lose these?
Oblits only became Tech-Marines in the 'Chaos' Codex. Before that, whilst not Daemons, they were listed as 'Daemonkin'. And given that Iron Warriors could get possessed, I see no reason why Oblits would be suddenly out of line.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
Cadaver wrote:I really want to be excited for a Chaos Legions codex. A good chaos codex is probably the only thing that will get me back into 40k. I'm really concerned, especially if it is released right before an edition change, it's going to be lackluster.
Orks
Orks
Orks
Good codex still powerful. so shush about this before the edition change stuff
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I said that a page or two back. No one seemed to notice.
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
In the v3.5 CSM Codex, it stated that the Iron warriors had a "special association" with the Obliterators, and that the first Obliterators were seen with the Iron Warriors.
This is why the IW was able to field three squads of three, when the rest of the Chaos Legions were only able to field one squad of three...
40741
Post by: Worglock
SkaerKrow wrote:Ascalam wrote:The Chaos legions handed the loyalists their asses (until the final showdown), and the codex needs to reflect that.
Oh dear, I hope that you're not advocating an overpowered Chaos Codex based upon Horus pulling off a semi-successful sneak attack 10,000 years ago . We need a balanced, interesting Codex that gives players a wealth of options to assemble a characterful Legion based army, one that competes well with the current field without dominating it. We don't need Codex: "CHAOS SMASH!" .
Yes we do.
We need an entire edition of Spedz Mahreens players getting the Warhammer kicked out of them.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Oh good. You found the thread.
10842
Post by: djphranq
I'd love to see a Chaos Legions codex. I don't think Chaos is explored enough. Would be cool to see some 40k versions of marauders.
40741
Post by: Worglock
H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh good. You found the thread.
Yeah. I found a thread where I got to skim several pages of off topic crying about Imperial Guard.
And this "rumor" is 8+ months out. Which means there will be 8+ months of crying about it, mostly from people that have "given up on" Games Workshop.
Wake me up when there's something concrete.
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
True it is eight plus months out, but that just means more time to speculate, wishlist, remember the good from past Codices, and bitch about the bad.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
djphranq wrote:I'd love to see a Chaos Legions codex. I don't think Chaos is explored enough. Would be cool to see some 40k versions of marauders.
Fluff-wise, Chaos is one of the most deeply-delved, fully fleshed out subjects in the 40k universe - heck, two of the games' first major tomes 'Slaves to Darkness' and 'The Lost and the Damned' were dedicated to it. And rules-wise, Chaos has received a wide range of rules over the years. It's just that the current ruleset we have for Chaos is, well, less than crap.
40741
Post by: Worglock
Death By Monkeys wrote:djphranq wrote:I'd love to see a Chaos Legions codex. I don't think Chaos is explored enough. Would be cool to see some 40k versions of marauders.
Fluff-wise, Chaos is one of the most deeply-delved, fully fleshed out subjects in the 40k universe - heck, two of the games' first major tomes 'Slaves to Darkness' and 'The Lost and the Damned' were dedicated to it. And rules-wise, Chaos has received a wide range of rules over the years. It's just that the current ruleset we have for Chaos is, well, less than crap.
Yes, and it's also had the most material thrown out, retconned and ruined due to Spedz Mahreen* whining.
*We can't beat it, it's overpowered. No, Thunderfire Cannons are OK. We need those. And Land Raider Crusaders. And blue marines should get fast Baal Predators.
6515
Post by: Starfarer
ChocolateGork wrote:Cadaver wrote:I really want to be excited for a Chaos Legions codex. A good chaos codex is probably the only thing that will get me back into 40k. I'm really concerned, especially if it is released right before an edition change, it's going to be lackluster.
Orks
Orks
Orks
Good codex still powerful. so shush about this before the edition change stuff
Orks were not the last 4th edition codex, Daemons were, and they are pretty bland, and didn't carry over well, in my opinion. The Ork codex is a testament to Phil Kelly knowing how to design a good codex that can stand the test of time, not a basis for comparison to any future codex that comes out before 6th edition.
40741
Post by: Worglock
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Worglock wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh good. You found the thread.
Yeah. I found a thread where I got to skim several pages of off topic crying about Imperial Guard.
And this "rumor" is 8+ months out. Which means there will be 8+ months of crying about it, mostly from people that have "given up on" Games Workshop.
Wake me up when there's something concrete.
Pro tip: many players that "gave up on" GW did so because of the atrocity that the latest Codex:Chaos was.
Pro-tip: I play CSM and have approximately 7 armies of them. I know all about the latest Codex.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
You're hilarious(ly stupid).
10143
Post by: Slipstream
The only thing that concerns me about a Chaos legions codex is the amount of information that would need to be included in it to make all the legions different in style of play and army makeup. The only problem is it could be a huge book on a par with the main rulebook! Would GW evencontemplate releasing such a thing?What I will say is that the Chaos Legions at the moment seem 'vanilla', there seems to be no real difference between my Black Legion and my ongoing project(second hand and cheap deals allowing) Nightlords armies. Take the Iron Warriors and then consider the Word Bearers. Now we know that they have very different methods yet the codex does not rise above the vanilla to allow for this. Chaos should allow for probably the most interesting force in 40k yet it is far from it.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
You could get away with a Codex: SM length book - 120 odd pages
27114
Post by: blackclaw1
Slipstream wrote:The only thing that concerns me about a Chaos legions codex is the amount of information that would need to be included in it to make all the legions different in style of play and army makeup. The only problem is it could be a huge book on a par with the main rulebook! Would GW evencontemplate releasing such a thing?What I will say is that the Chaos Legions at the moment seem 'vanilla', there seems to be no real difference between my Black Legion and my ongoing project(second hand and cheap deals allowing) Nightlords armies. Take the Iron Warriors and then consider the Word Bearers. Now we know that they have very different methods yet the codex does not rise above the vanilla to allow for this. Chaos should allow for probably the most interesting force in 40k yet it is far from it.
They might just focus on the 4 god legions (thousand sons , world eaters ,death guard and emperors children) and the black legion i would personaly dislike this as i think that alpha legion and world eaters could get some interesting rule but doing the "big 5 " would make sense to me.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
blackclaw1 wrote:Slipstream wrote:The only thing that concerns me about a Chaos legions codex is the amount of information that would need to be included in it to make all the legions different in style of play and army makeup. The only problem is it could be a huge book on a par with the main rulebook! Would GW evencontemplate releasing such a thing?What I will say is that the Chaos Legions at the moment seem 'vanilla', there seems to be no real difference between my Black Legion and my ongoing project(second hand and cheap deals allowing) Nightlords armies. Take the Iron Warriors and then consider the Word Bearers. Now we know that they have very different methods yet the codex does not rise above the vanilla to allow for this. Chaos should allow for probably the most interesting force in 40k yet it is far from it.
They might just focus on the 4 god legions (thousand sons , world eaters ,death guard and emperors children) and the black legion i would personaly dislike this as i think that alpha legion and world eaters could get some interesting rule but doing the "big 5 " would make sense to me.
That would nearly defeat the purpose of the book, doing only the four 'god' Legions. As it stands currently, you can make all those Legions, although not as well as would be liked.
43962
Post by: metalboxes
IMO following the same basic format as the 3.5 chaos codex, but updated in the style of the most recent books would make the most sense for a Legions book that covered all 9 traitor legions in a reasonable number of pages. The basic unit entries would be for a black legion army and include entries for every unit. However, units more specific to other legions, such as cult marines or cultists, would be absent or limited in this black legion default, either by taking up elites slots or being 0-1 or something to that effect.
I am speculating that taking a specialized HQ choice would then let you build an army for the legions, given that that seems to be the recent trend in making sub-lists. Whether GW makes special characters for all 9 legions, or gives options so that say a normal chaos lord could be upgraded to be an alpha legion lord, a death guard lord, etc. only time will tell. So if you took the death guard HQ choice, you could then take as many plague marines as you want in addition to whatever special units that would come with the death guard, like plague terminators, plague havocs, and what have you. In return for making a death guard army, you would then be unable to take non-death guard/nurgle units, such as other cult units or undivided/unmarked units.
TL,DR: have a default black legion list with every unit, taking a legion specific HQ removes restrictions on appropriate units and gives you any corresponding abilities, but removes access to non-legion associated units.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
No thanks. I rather not have to take the same HQ every time to make my preferred army. Take a look at JustDave's fandex for the ideal solution, although I would like more warband specific units.
43962
Post by: metalboxes
iproxtaco wrote:No thanks. I rather not have to take the same HQ every time to make my preferred army. Take a look at JustDave's fandex for the ideal solution, although I would like more warband specific units.
I agree with you, I was thinking about it, and no I don't want to run Typhus every time for my death guard, or Ahriman every time with my thousand sons. I'm just spitballing ideas about how such a book could be organized and set up. I haven't read JustDave's fandex, but I'm assuming that the best solution would be to give the basic HQ entries options to become legion specific, which would then lead to all the legion specific stuff.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/340878.page
Basically, you can elect an HQ choice with a Warband rule. Then each unit carries the warband rule. It unlocks units and adds special rules. I'd prefer it if it were a bit more in depth, adding more units for each Legion, but JustDave did a fantastic job with this.
39195
Post by: Asuron
metalboxes wrote:IMO following the same basic format as the 3.5 chaos codex, but updated in the style of the most recent books would make the most sense for a Legions book that covered all 9 traitor legions in a reasonable number of pages. The basic unit entries would be for a black legion army and include entries for every unit. However, units more specific to other legions, such as cult marines or cultists, would be absent or limited in this black legion default, either by taking up elites slots or being 0-1 or something to that effect.
I am speculating that taking a specialized HQ choice would then let you build an army for the legions, given that that seems to be the recent trend in making sub-lists. Whether GW makes special characters for all 9 legions, or gives options so that say a normal chaos lord could be upgraded to be an alpha legion lord, a death guard lord, etc. only time will tell. So if you took the death guard HQ choice, you could then take as many plague marines as you want in addition to whatever special units that would come with the death guard, like plague terminators, plague havocs, and what have you. In return for making a death guard army, you would then be unable to take non-death guard/nurgle units, such as other cult units or undivided/unmarked units.
TL,DR: have a default black legion list with every unit, taking a legion specific HQ removes restrictions on appropriate units and gives you any corresponding abilities, but removes access to non-legion associated units.
If they do this for Chaos I'll just give em up.
I will not be forced into taking a SC to play a specific legion, I don't like it in the current codexes and I sure as hell won't like it if they implement it in Chaos Legions
Its a terrible idea and I hate it in the current codexes we have. It takes away the customisation in your army and forces you to play a unit you may not like at all.
What happens if the HQ we're stuck with ends up crap as well? We end up having to field a liability just to get a chance to use the legion we like
Although your probably correct in assuming thats exactly what they will do.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I'm sure we'll see a return of Kharn, Typhus, Ahriman, Abaddon and Lucius, with the option for the DP, Lord and Sorcerer that we are used to. Perhaps the amount of special characters will rival the SM book, who knows.
I'd just like an increased level of customisation and restrictions on mixing marks. Khorne and Tzeentch teaming up... *vomits*
I'm thinking Nightlords and Alpha Legion may well be put into the Renegade (Irony?) codex to fill it out. Other than the Red Corsairs, I can't think of another chapter that could warrant a prominent place in the book?
27114
Post by: blackclaw1
iproxtaco wrote:blackclaw1 wrote:Slipstream wrote:The only thing that concerns me about a Chaos legions codex is the amount of information that would need to be included in it to make all the legions different in style of play and army makeup. The only problem is it could be a huge book on a par with the main rulebook! Would GW evencontemplate releasing such a thing?What I will say is that the Chaos Legions at the moment seem 'vanilla', there seems to be no real difference between my Black Legion and my ongoing project(second hand and cheap deals allowing) Nightlords armies. Take the Iron Warriors and then consider the Word Bearers. Now we know that they have very different methods yet the codex does not rise above the vanilla to allow for this. Chaos should allow for probably the most interesting force in 40k yet it is far from it.
They might just focus on the 4 god legions (thousand sons , world eaters ,death guard and emperors children) and the black legion i would personaly dislike this as i think that alpha legion and world eaters could get some interesting rule but doing the "big 5 " would make sense to me.
That would nearly defeat the purpose of the book, doing only the four 'god' Legions. As it stands currently, you can make all those Legions, although not as well as would be liked.
so gw are probably going to do that?
9892
Post by: Flashman
Regarding the fear that SCs will be required to unlock a specific Legion (ala Codex Space Marines), I think GW's inability to adopt a consistent approach to Codex writing will work in your favour here
Personally, I think they almost had the right idea with Chapter Tactics, but fluffed it by linking it to Special Characters.
34258
Post by: Pilau Rice
Medium of Death wrote:
I'm thinking Nightlords and Alpha Legion may well be put into the Renegade (Irony?) codex to fill it out. Other than the Red Corsairs, I can't think of another chapter that could warrant a prominent place in the book?
I don't think this will happen, if this is the way forward then they would be a bit stupid to put Legions in the Renegade book. We might see some more characters and a bit more fleshing out of the Pyre, Sons of Malice and the like.
I don't have much gripe with the existing codex, just that it's showing its age a bit and there's not many competitive builds, so a bit of a tweak and the ability to take your unique legion would be great to me. I just hope they don't go rewriting to much of the fluff.
By the by, JustDaves codex is great and strongly recommend a look. I helped him a bit with it and one of the hardest things to do is to get a decent way of combining Renegades and Legions into one book as such. In the end we decided to leave it out entirely.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
blackclaw1 wrote:iproxtaco wrote:blackclaw1 wrote:Slipstream wrote:The only thing that concerns me about a Chaos legions codex is the amount of information that would need to be included in it to make all the legions different in style of play and army makeup. The only problem is it could be a huge book on a par with the main rulebook! Would GW evencontemplate releasing such a thing?What I will say is that the Chaos Legions at the moment seem 'vanilla', there seems to be no real difference between my Black Legion and my ongoing project(second hand and cheap deals allowing) Nightlords armies. Take the Iron Warriors and then consider the Word Bearers. Now we know that they have very different methods yet the codex does not rise above the vanilla to allow for this. Chaos should allow for probably the most interesting force in 40k yet it is far from it.
They might just focus on the 4 god legions (thousand sons , world eaters ,death guard and emperors children) and the black legion i would personaly dislike this as i think that alpha legion and world eaters could get some interesting rule but doing the "big 5 " would make sense to me.
That would nearly defeat the purpose of the book, doing only the four 'god' Legions. As it stands currently, you can make all those Legions, although not as well as would be liked.
so gw are probably going to do that?
Why would you think that? The Development team aren't all a bunch of morons. They have a book where you can feasibly make armies that are themed around those four Legions, and you now assume they're going to make an entirely new book just to flesh those out? No, not likely. Legions implies special rules and units for all the Legions, not just the four that have dedicated themselves to a God.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Uhh... can we please not tie everything to HQ characters.
34824
Post by: Incurus
Pfft just release a "Codex : Slaanesh" none of the other gods worshippers matter!
But on a serious note, would be good to see some new characters too - Like the Fallen SoB you can see in the card games (Mariel) I'd also really like to see flavoured HQ's, not neccecarily named but good bases with good customisation to allow people to make there own armies.
To be fair, i have a billion dreams but at the end of the day this is going to be much better than my feeble attempt to have a army of 90% noise marines and be fairly competitive
25774
Post by: Pael
GW is going to mess it up you know they are.
What are thier options?
Release one book to cover material that would never fit in one book. Kudos to that fandex that tried but does that really do justice for what chaos is? Does it give Alpha legion its flavor and even Black Legions theirs?
or
Do what they have currently done with the loyalist and release 15 new dexes over the next 250 years and never update them?
Again GW has perpetrated its own downfall, they will not be able to do Chaos in any good way. We will either have to ignore Chaos Legions or make do with it like the last one.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Pael wrote:GW is going to mess it up you know they are.
What are thier options?
Release one book to cover material that would never fit in one book. Kudos to that fandex that tried but does that really do justice for what chaos is? Does it give Alpha legion its flavor and even Black Legions theirs?
or
Do what they have currently done with the loyalist and release 15 new dexes over the next 250 years and never update them?
Again GW has perpetrated its own downfall, they will not be able to do Chaos in any good way. We will either have to ignore Chaos Legions or make do with it like the last one.
I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
Also, as somebody who is 'out of the GW hobby', as per your thread, why does this concern you?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Just Dave wrote:I've got mixed feelings about this actually.
Of course I'm happy Chaos will be put back into the face of things and their current Codex updated, but...
Chiefly, for me it would render my fandex (signature) useless, particularly as it's now really starting to pick up; although there's still several months yet...
The Land Raider Marauder will always hold a special place in my heart, for what it's worth.
25774
Post by: Pael
Medium of Death wrote:I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
Also, as somebody who is 'out of the GW hobby', as per your thread, why does this concern you?
Just my lack of faith? I thought I cited some pretty specific examples of actuality nothing to do with faithfulness.
Does GW have the ability to release more codexs per year? From their past release schedules it is obvious that they can not.
Can GW put all of the material that constitues what is Chaos in one book? They can try, oh how they can, but in actuality, in reality? What do you honestly think they will accomplish?
Other questions, what will GW do about new miniatures/codex entries? Will they bother? Will they ignore older units for the new ones?
To your last question, How doesn't it? It is gaming and if I want to discuss then I will discuss. I don't mean to put anyone off but I am just bringing up points I feel are valid to the current discussion.
Let me add what I have left unsaid. GW does have the potential to do something AWESOME, but I find it near impossible. IF they do I honestly will not start playing again but I will humbly eat my words and applaud GW for accomplishing such a feat.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
I too fear GW would screw up Chaos Legions. Their past history indicates this is likely.
10143
Post by: Slipstream
Perhaps the answer might be this; remember when they grouped the Dark Angels and Blood Angels into one codex? It may make sense to consider this approach as two armies would get more space for their own specific rules and fluff. Then they could release a codex for the next two Chaos legions. The only downside is the amount of time this may take and more importantly, what legions go in which codex?
8745
Post by: Llamahead
Personally I'm kind of hoping it isn't Chaos Marines at all but Lost & the Damned instead......
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Slipstream wrote:Perhaps the answer might be this; remember when they grouped the Dark Angels and Blood Angels into one codex? It may make sense to consider this approach as two armies would get more space for their own specific rules and fluff. Then they could release a codex for the next two Chaos legions. The only downside is the amount of time this may take and more importantly, what legions go in which codex?
I don't see most of the Legions being that different to tell you the truth. They were all easily covered in the 3.5 Chaos codex, they can be covered in the next one.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
I was mulling over why there seems to be more worry with GW/Matt Ward screwing up this codex over other codices and I wrote an article about it on Capture and Control, follow the link in my sig if you're interested.
I have to disagree with one thing said here though. I see the Legions as being quite different from one another (a point I discuss in my article) just from reading the HH books you can see that EVERY legion not just the traitor ones had very distinct characteristics prior to the heresy and the blaspehmy that was Guillimans codex. I hope the book does each Legions distinct nature justice but I have serious doubts. It will more than likely be based upon HQ choice whether you are playing World Eaters or Word Bearers etc. With this dex using HQs as the catalyst for build types seems ungainly and implausible but I doubt we are going to get a codex that breaks away from that mechanic. It has just worked too well for GW in the past 3+ years.
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
I think I'm gonna pick up a copy of the old 3.5 Chaos Codex... just in case the next new one is a load of crap.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Conclusion: Not restrictions.
Claiming that these are 'restrictions' would be like a Blood Angel player complaining because he can't field Deathwing.
Sigh. I'm not here to debate you on the merits of the individual restrictions in the old chaos codex. I was trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the changes made in the current book, not defend them. Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.
18410
Post by: filbert
Arschbombe wrote:
Sigh. I'm not here to debate you on the merits of the individual restrictions in the old chaos codex. I was trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the changes made in the current book, not defend them. Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.
That's highly ironic. H.B.M.C. did take it up with Gav Thorpe on the blog.
9892
Post by: Flashman
filbert wrote:Arschbombe wrote:
Sigh. I'm not here to debate you on the merits of the individual restrictions in the old chaos codex. I was trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the changes made in the current book, not defend them. Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.
That's highly ironic. H.B.M.C. did take it up with Gav Thorpe on the blog.
Yes, I believe ice cream was involved
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
filbert wrote:Arschbombe wrote:
Sigh. I'm not here to debate you on the merits of the individual restrictions in the old chaos codex. I was trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the changes made in the current book, not defend them. Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.
That's highly ironic. H.B.M.C. did take it up with Gav Thorpe on the blog.
Made him cry too is what I heard.
18410
Post by: filbert
Flashman wrote:filbert wrote:Arschbombe wrote:
Sigh. I'm not here to debate you on the merits of the individual restrictions in the old chaos codex. I was trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the changes made in the current book, not defend them. Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.
That's highly ironic. H.B.M.C. did take it up with Gav Thorpe on the blog.
Yes, I believe ice cream was involved
That's the one - I couldn't be bothered scrolling through Gav's blog to find the exact quotes; there's 300+ odd comments, but I remember reading it at the time. Not only that, if you can wrangle the Dakka search engine you may well find the Dakka thread referencing it.
45831
Post by: happygolucky
H.B.M.C. wrote:Nah, he'll write it that Aby and his crew get together for a 14th Black Crusade, a Black Crusade that's specific target is Draigo himself - he's just that destructive! Think about it, he puts togther a Chaos 'Dream Team', of Aby, Kharn, Lucius, Ahriman, Typhus, the Planet Killer and a fully activated Blackstone Fortress. I'd still put money on Draigo though. The guy is armageddon incarnate!
no.... this guy is the Chuck Norris of the 41St millennium
36646
Post by: DrK36
Noisy_Marine wrote:Meh.
If there really is a Chaos Legions book I reserve judgement until I see it. GW has a lot to make up for.
Seconded
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
filbert wrote:Flashman wrote:filbert wrote:Arschbombe wrote: Sigh. I'm not here to debate you on the merits of the individual restrictions in the old chaos codex. I was trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the changes made in the current book, not defend them. Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.
That's highly ironic. H.B.M.C. did take it up with Gav Thorpe on the blog.
Yes, I believe ice cream was involved
That's the one - I couldn't be bothered scrolling through Gav's blog to find the exact quotes; there's 300+ odd comments, but I remember reading it at the time. Not only that, if you can wrangle the Dakka search engine you may well find the Dakka thread referencing it.
Found it. Yes, indeed, Ice Cream is a prime feature of the criticism, I wholeheartedly agree with it all. It's about a third of the way down, it's very long, should be fairly obvious. There's obviously a thread already on Dakka, so I wont copy and past any of it.
181
Post by: gorgon
Personally, I think by trying to cover all the Legions in one book, it'd run the risk of looking unfocused and similar to the current CSM book, albeit with more options and detail. So then what's the point of keeping Renegades?
Assuming this rumor has some truth to it (including the part about a WD update to the current CSM book), I'll put my bet on a Legions book covering the Black Legion and big four (and any other CSM group devoted to a particular god), with the CSM/Renegade book covering the rest. Just seems like the path of least resistance to me.
The CSM update would lose Kharne, Abaddon, Ahriman, etc. but gain SCs for the AL, WB, NL and IW. Org chart manipulation gets you most of the way there with NL and IW, while adding a Traitor unit to the list helps get you there with AL and WB. Then figure some points rebalancing, rules changes and new options here and there.
I know not everyone would be happy with that approach, but I think it might be more workable than a 9-Legion Legions book. Then again, if Phil K. is on the job, all bets are off...
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
If you can cover four Legions and the most generic one, the one that's already covered in the current codex, the rest is simply extra pages needed.
181
Post by: gorgon
I hear what you're saying, but then we're back to there being no point to updating the existing CSM book. I know people are speculating about the book becoming LatD, but to me that's less of an update and more of a wholesale change in focus. Again, assuming the rumor has truth as written.
I suppose the big question is where the Black Legion fits. Do they fit in more with the cult Legions or with the rest? While not mono-god, my initial reaction is that they're more exalted/blessed/etc. than the non-cult Legions. I mean, you can argue whether AL are even Chaos worshippers.
*shrug* I dunno. I guess I just think it's tricky to cover everything in a satisfying way in one book, and that there has to be a reason why Renegades will stick around.
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
Seems to me that Chaos Legions would be focused on the nine Traitor Legions, while Chaos Renegades would be more suited to the home-brew traitors, with focus on the Red Corsairs (as an example) and other ex Imperials.
As it stands now, the current Chaos Codex is a good starting point for either new book, even if it is dull and almost lifeless in regards to Chaos Legion fluff and options.
If they were to build on it character wise, expand on some of the example armies, and fix some of the rules, it could approach a good Renegades book.
If they inject it with the best parts of the 3.5 Codex and improve upon it, you get a great Chaos Legions book.
Will they do either of these? We'll just have to see when it happens...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Arschbombe wrote:Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.
As others have pointed out, I did take it up with him. Here is what I wrote (just to save you time):
me wrote:Hmm… where to start. Ok, simple disclaimer.
Gav, I own the following Chaos armies:
Word Bearers (loads of Marines & Daemons – my first Chaos army, started in 2nd Ed)
Alpha Legion (loads of Marines & Cultists)
World Eaters (follows the fluff to the letter with Sacred Number units and so on)
Death Guard (7 units of 7 troops, all modelled very nicely, using a mix of 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed and even Forge World models – I like my Death Guard army)
Iron Warriors (filled with Havocs and siege weapons and bands of fire-support warriors)
Lost & The Damned (a mass of Mutants and Traitors backed up by Night Lord infantry, tanks and Defilers – I /really/ like my LatD army)
Now, looking at what armies I play you can probably guess that I am one of those people who have a few issues with the current ‘Chaos’ Codex. And by a ‘few issues’ I mean ‘despise with a unyielding fury’. However, rather than spewing bile and personal attacks at you, I feel this discussion would be better served with an open look at exactly where my dislike of your Codex comes from (and I say ‘your’ because you are credited as the writer – I am well aware that there is much more that goes into a Codex than just what you write personally).
But before we do this, as in any great debate or discussion, I need to directly address a couple of areas in your words above where I disagree.
Daemons:
Specifically these words of yours – “They were only folded into the Chaos Space Marines in the previous version of the Codex.”
I’m sorry to say this Gav, but there are only three possible explanations for why you’d say what you said here:
A). You’re being forgetful.
B). You have a selective memory.
C). You’re lying.
Why? Well, your comment simply isn’t true.
What Chaos Codices/Army Books have included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Realms of Chaos – Slaves to Darkness
2. Realms of Chaos – The Lost & The Damned
3. Codex Army Lists – 2nd Ed (can’t find my copy, but as the specific Daemon profiles are in Codex Imperialis, I have to assume that they were included in the place-holder Codex that came with 2nd Ed)
4. Codex Chaos – 2nd Ed
5. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Jervis’ one)
6. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Pete Haines’ one)
What Chaos Codices/Army Books have NOT included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Your Codex.
So really, the inclusion of Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine list isn’t recent, or just something that happened in the last Codex (Pete Haines’ Codex). It’s all of them – except yours. Even in Jervis’ original very thin and very uninspired 3rd Ed Codex (a Codex that has bears several striking similarities to yours), where the Daemons were a single entry, there were rules that allowed you to modify their statline to show the different types of Daemons.
Now, yes, the 2nd Ed Codex – a glorious style of book that we can only wish GW would go back to – did have a Daemon World list in it, but it wasn’t the only list to have Daemons, it was simply the list you used to represent Daemons World Armies. The Codex also had a Chaos Cult army list. Can you imagine if, say, 4th Ed Tyranids had rolled around and Genestealers had been removed from the book, only to emerge in a Genestealer Cult Codex 8 months later, and the reason by the writer given was ‘Oh, they had their own list in another addition, so including Genestealers with the main ‘Nid list is more of a recent thing’? Tyranid players would have gone crazy. The same thing applies to Daemons.
To put it another way – you took something away from Chaos that they had always had. Think about that.
Restrictions vs Flexibility:
As someone who has been quite vocal about my distaste for the ‘Chaos’ Codex, I have often come across the argument that the previous Codex was too restrictive and that this new Codex removed those restrictions therefore giving us more flexibility. This line of thinking is /technically/ true, but is actually quite disingenuous.
How can I best explain this? I know: With ice cream!
Say rather being a book with different Legions, it’s actually an ice-cream store with many different flavours. Say the flavours are:
1. Chocolate ice cream.
2. Strawberry ice cream.
3. Honeycomb ice cream.
4. Rocky Road ice cream.
Mmm… sounds good, don’t it? And so much choice! But say that you could only have one flavour at a time. Aww! No fair. That’s so restrictive. But, at the very least, I can have all the different types, just not all at the same time.
Now let’s say your Codex is also an ice cream store. The flavours you have are:
1. Vanilla.
But there’s no limit on how much vanilla I can have. I can have a little bit of vanilla, I can have a lot, I can have two scoops in two different bowls, three in eight bowls – any combination of vanilla that I want.
But it’s still only vanilla.
If I want Chocolate I can’t, and while I might have been restricted to only having one flavour at a time, at least I had the choice. Now I only have one choice. And having only one choice is the same as having /no/ choice. To extend the metaphor, all the Legions are now are different coloured tubs for vanilla ice cream.
The idea that the old Chaos Codex was ‘restrictive’ and that the new one ‘frees up’ players and gets them away from proscribed gaming simply doesn’t hold water. I have always been of the opinion that fluff and rules should be congruous, and for the most part, Haines’ Codex got that right. It wasn’t balanced – not by any means, but what GW Codex is? – but the rules stuck to the fluff quite well, and so an army that followed the fluff made good use of the apparently ‘restrictive’ rules. Essentially I think you’re looking at it backwards. You’re trying to say that the old Codex forced you down a certain path – you play World Eaters hey, then you /must/ play this way and this way only!!!!! – but that wasn’t the case. It was often a case of I want to play World Eaters, what is their fluff, oh, they have that sort of formation do they, what do the rules say, oh, the rules are set up in such a way as to let you play as the fluff describes.
And then, at its core, the previous Chaos Codex had the standard list which had no restrictions on units other than the rivalries between the Chaos Gods. You could have an army that had Plague Marines, and Thousand Sons in it, or Noise Marines and Berzerkers just by playing the standard list. At no point where you ‘forced’ or ‘restricted’ to play a specific Legion – the Black Legion covered everything!!!
Your Codex doesn’t free anyone up or somehow release them from proscriptive or restrictive gaming. Why? Because it removed all the options. It’d be like being a star athlete who’s been confined in a small room and is finally let out, only to have his arms and legs cut off. In other words, what good is a lack of restrictions if there’s no choice to be had – you can have any flavour you like as long as it’s vanilla?
So with that out of the way, I want to look at a few specific items within the Codex (and I’ll leave Daemons alone as they’ve been covered already).
I’ve written ‘Chaos’ Codex a few times, rather than Chaos Codex, and the bunny-ears are intentional. The reason for that, as mentioned when I talked about Daemons, you have taken away things that Chaos has never or should never have lost.
Daemonic Gifts are a good example.
I know what you’re probably thinking – “Half the Daemonic Gifts weren’t even being used!” or perhaps “The system of limitations on gifts was too complex”.
But you took Daemonic Gifts away from Chaos. You made them into Loyalist Marines with a Wargear List and nothing to make them Chaos besides a generic Daemon weapon and Marks. This isn’t a case of “there’s no rules for that axe” it’s a case of “there’s no way to represent the corruption inherent in worshiping Chaos… I just have all the same options a Loyalist Marine Captain has – what about this makes me a Chaos Commander?”.
Daemonic Gifts, and the mutations/boons/curses given by the Chaos Gods has been part of Chaos since their inception – you know this, I don’t need to tell you. Realms of Chaos had D1000 – Dee-One-Thousand FFS – tables for mutations. Now I’m certainly not saying that we need or even should go back to such a level of granularity but consider Gav – you took one of the very things that makes Chaos /Chaos/ away! They’re not there any more. They’re gone. Hence ‘Chaos’.
Your argue that you should need rules for various mutations etc.. I argue that mutations etc. are part of the fluff, and the rules should follow the fluff, therefore there should be rules for mutations etc.
Marks vs Icons
Why do squads of Marines forget whom they worship when the guy with the Icon dies? Why are there no Cult Terminators/Havocs/Bikers/Chosen? Why, if your aim was to remove restrictions, did you remove the options that had been previously restricted? Why does a Deathguard army now consist of some actual Plague Marines, and some Marines who may or may not forget what God they’re dedicated to?
What was so bad about the Marks system? And is it too cynical to say that the reason it was changed to Icons was because the new Chaos Marine kit included a nice new plastic Icon and GW wanted people to buy said kit for said Icon ie. the models drove the rules in this instance?
Possessed
I very keenly remember Pete Haines’ designer notes in White Dwarf describing that the change to Possessed came about as people didn’t like the random nature. I thought it was a great idea – made Possessed instantly viable. Then we get the new one and they’re back to random again. Why?
And, while we’re on the subject of Possessed please, Gav, tell us all – why do you roll /after/ deployment? Did you not ever stop and think that maybe rolling before deployment might be the better option, y’know, let plays have an inkling of what their Possessed are going to be able to do before they set them down on the table? Yes, no, maybe?
Daemon Princes
Now I saw your comment above that maybe you went too far, but why are the glorious veterans of thousands of battles, the champions of the Gods who have ascended to Daemonhood through their vile acts of slaughter limited to… wings or not wings. They can’t even get Daemon Weapons for crying out loud! It goes back to my ‘taking the Chaos out of Chaos’ thing, and why it’s a ‘Chaos’ Codex.
I think a lot of people celebrated what could be done with Daemon Princes in Haines’ Codex, as it was such a big relief from the mono-dimensional boring choices from Jervis’ original 3rd Ed Codex. Then we get yours and it’s very similar to Jervis’ original entry. Was that by accident?
Defilers
WS3? They’re as skilled as Guardsmen in HTH are they? I’ve never understood this. Please explain it so I know.
Lash of Torment
I think you’ve probably heard enough on this subject, but really, how was the power of this… power… not caught in play testing?
I realise now that I’m nitpicking, but those last two were something I had to ask. Getting back to my main point:
The legacy of the current Chaos Codex is that it took the Chaos out of Chaos Space Marines. ‘Loyalists w/Spikes’ or ‘When Good Marines Go Bad’ is about the best way to describe the current Codex. You can better represent the various Legions using the current Loyalist Marine Codex than you can the ‘Chaos’ one, and that to me is a huge problem.
Daemons are gone. You have to play a different army to have them now. Having a group that allows the mixing of Codices isn’t a way to explain away this problem either – not all groups are flexible, some groups are very large and need the structure of proscribed rulebooks to avoid arguments, and tournaments and leagues certainly can’t have custom armies.
Daemonic Gifts and all those very Chaos-y upgrades and choices are gone.
Legions are gone, reduced to paint schemes and fluff.
/Chaos/ is gone.
Being restricted to one of four options is better than having unlimited choice with one option.
Gav's response was... less than coherent. He completely missed the meaning of the ice cream metaphor and blathered on for quite some time in a way that no way explained how this new Codex was ' less restrictive'.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Hm, I was looking for Gav's response, but couldn't find it. Oh well, sounds like it's not worth finding.
Anyway, I *hope* that a legion book would cover all the legions. Since that is the point of a book about legions, right? Alpha Legion aren't just sneaky chaos marines. They the fething Alpha legion. One of the original nine. They may or may not worship Chaos, I don't really care.
As for the current CSM book becoming a renegade book ... I think they should just scrap the damn thing. If you want to play renegades, use the space marine codex. Model your tactical squads with chaos symbols and deface their armor. Renegades don't have cult troops, defilers, or obliterators. They have imperial stuff with chaos symbols on it.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
One thing I will concede from my original review is that the Generic Daemons thing wasn't Gav's fault. That's one of those 'on high' decisions, made by people who want to sell more models via a new army rather than make a good set of rules, and therefore totally not Gav's fault.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
H.B.M.C. wrote:One thing I will concede from my original review is that the Generic Daemons thing wasn't Gav's fault. That's one of those 'on high' decisions, made by people who want to sell more models via a new army rather than make a good set of rules, and therefore totally not Gav's fault.
But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
H.B.M.C. wrote:Uhh... can we please not tie everything to HQ characters.
With the release of Draigo, I had assumed next edition would return to HeroHammer...
Noisy_Marine wrote:But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?
Which is why we have 1000 chapters of space marines... and 20 pre-Heresy foundings...
Please refer ro HBMC's sig for Jervis' theory...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Noisy_Marine wrote:But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?
You're not thinking short term enough! Option 1: Bloodletters in both armies. People who own Chaos armies now have Daemon armies and don't need to buy any more! They also might be happy with what they have, but could replace some older models or branch out later. Either way, there's certainly no rush. Option 2: Bloodletters only in one army. People who own Chaos now have two armies, and their Daemonic contingent - always a small-yet-vital part of a Chaos force - isn't anywhere near being a fully fledged army yet, so they need more bits to finish them off, so they go and buy stuff. Option 1 gives you long term growth (over time people will collect both armies as players of one or the other will decide to branch out, and the model ranges are available to both armies, giving better sales across two lines over a longer period of time). Option2 gives you immediate sales, as people rush out to make their small Daemonic contingents into full armies so they'll actually have a use for them. GW neither understands nor desires long-term growth. They're all about the instant gratification.
43791
Post by: Achaylus72
H.M.B.C
Hits the nail on the head.
GW is not interested in long term player retention. It is not in their overall business plan and it is reflected in their market stategy.
They (GW) have always been focussed on getting kids into the hobby and wring as much out of the parents as possible until the parents say enough is enough.
Not only that but GW is Space Marinecentric. Space Marines is the Flagship Range, they (GW) must make sure that all other Armies in relative terms can't be as powerful as Space Marines.
GW support for other armies have been traditionally poor, i mean Tau, Necrons have not had an update for over 5 years, Chaos has not had one additional IC or unit since September 2007.
Eldar has been ignored.
I have heard many rumours that are these and the month released
Imperial/Chaos Warhound Titan (September)
Chaos v Dark Eldar Box Set (September)
Summer of Flyers (September)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (September) Rumour version 1
Necron Codex and complete overhaul (September)
Tau Codex and complete overhaul (November)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (January) Rumour version 2
Space Hulk IV (September)
Bloodbowl (September)
Necromunda (October)
Chaos Legions Codex (September)
These are only the tip of the Iceberg. No one exept the top guys at GW knows what is scheduled to be released, the rest of us know jack crap.
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
Achaylus72 wrote:H.M.B.C
Hits the nail on the head.
GW is not interested in long term player retention. It is not in their overall business plan and it is reflected in their market stategy.
They (GW) have always been focussed on getting kids into the hobby and wring as much out of the parents as possible until the parents say enough is enough.
Not only that but GW is Space Marinecentric. Space Marines is the Flagship Range, they (GW) must make sure that all other Armies in relative terms can't be as powerful as Space Marines.
GW support for other armies have been traditionally poor, i mean Tau, Necrons have not had an update for over 5 years, Chaos has not had one additional IC or unit since September 2007.
Eldar has been ignored.
I have heard many rumours that are these and the month released
Imperial/Chaos Warhound Titan (September)
Chaos v Dark Eldar Box Set (September)
Summer of Flyers (September)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (September) Rumour version 1
Necron Codex and complete overhaul (September)
Tau Codex and complete overhaul (November)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (January) Rumour version 2
Space Hulk IV (September)
Bloodbowl (September)
Necromunda (October)
Chaos Legions Codex (September)
These are only the tip of the Iceberg. No one exept the top guys at GW knows what is scheduled to be released, the rest of us know jack crap.
That's a wholelottarumors for September there. Eight out of eleven, or seven out of eleven if you double up the Sisters rumors. As with all things GW though, it's all wait and see...
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Basically I think its a matter of people having a vague idea of what being works on but not enough info to know when anythings really happening and with a September shaped hole in the schedule people are perhaps inserting their rumor into that time frame.
gorgon wrote:Personally, I think by trying to cover all the Legions in one book, it'd run the risk of looking unfocused and similar to the current CSM book, albeit with more options and detail. So then what's the point of keeping Renegades?
This is why I think for it to really work, it can't be just in the context of solely the Legion codex, but that the Renegade codex would eventually need to be update and brought in line thematically. Minor changes like changing special characters might be enough, or something more comprehensive for the Renegades like incorporating more or making some units more like the Loyalist counterparts.
gorgon wrote:
The CSM update would lose Kharne, Abaddon, Ahriman, etc. but gain SCs for the AL, WB, NL and IW. Org chart manipulation gets you most of the way there with NL and IW, while adding a Traitor unit to the list helps get you there with AL and WB. Then figure some points rebalancing, rules changes and new options here and there.
I think it easy to take for granted that not all of those special character who exemplify a particular legion are necessarily still part of their legion... and depending on where the game designers decide to draw the conceptual lines that could make the difference. In general I do agree with you and I particularly like the idea of pulling those characters from the Renegade list because the Renegade concept is a good concept that was poorly executed because that codex tried to do too many things without really trying to do any of them well. A comprehensive overhaul of Chaos with a distinct Renegade and a distinct legion book... I think its a good thing, by removing the legions a renegade chaos book could focus in on a couple of specific renegade factions like the Red Corsairs, such as the Relictors... and also allow room for a special Character like Cypher to make a reappearance.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
H.B.M.C. wrote:Noisy_Marine wrote:But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?
You're not thinking short term enough!
Option 1: Bloodletters in both armies.
People who own Chaos armies now have Daemon armies and don't need to buy any more! They also might be happy with what they have, but could replace some older models or branch out later. Either way, there's certainly no rush.
Option 2: Bloodletters only in one army.
People who own Chaos now have two armies, and their Daemonic contingent - always a small-yet-vital part of a Chaos force - isn't anywhere near being a fully fledged army yet, so they need more bits to finish them off, so they go and buy stuff.
Option 1 gives you long term growth (over time people will collect both armies as players of one or the other will decide to branch out, and the model ranges are available to both armies, giving better sales across two lines over a longer period of time). Option2 gives you immediate sales, as people rush out to make their small Daemonic contingents into full armies so they'll actually have a use for them.
GW neither understands nor desires long-term growth. They're all about the instant gratification.
Mate, you forgot one thing...
Short Term means that GW can make immediate changes and hope players rush to buy a new army... every Quarter!
Im not saying they will, but the market is global and a proportion of gamers will as they wish to power through the next tourney with the latest codex (most likely Marine).
38789
Post by: Deathly Angel
Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...
What I would like the most however is some good, interesting, detailed models (Chaos has infinite potential for this and the current CSM range, unconverted at least, looks a bit outdated and bland IMHO) and is it too much to ask for Jes Goodwin to have some involvement??? Some people are rather pessimistic about how GW will do the rules, but given the standard of the DE releases, the WHFB Warriors of Chaos HQs and most importantly the recent Storm of Magic sorcerors (most relevant the Undivided and Tzeentch sorcerors and the manticore mount) I think that we have something great to look forward to in the painting/modelling department.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Deathly Angel wrote:Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...
As much as I REALLY want this to be true, have we really seen any 'evidence' that GW is in fact working on a Legions Codex?
38789
Post by: Deathly Angel
Alpharius wrote:Deathly Angel wrote:Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...
As much as I REALLY want this to be true, have we really seen any 'evidence' that GW is in fact working on a Legions Codex?
Oops sorry, wrong word, I meant rumours 
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
Alpharius wrote:Deathly Angel wrote:Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...
As much as I REALLY want this to be true, have we really seen any 'evidence' that GW is in fact working on a Legions Codex?
Stomping on our collective hopes and dreams!!!
OT: Daemon Engines would be an amazing addition to the CSM dex. I also hope Codex Daemons gets a new book in late 2012 early 2013 after 6th ed hits, having 3 playable chaos codices in a new edition would be really nice. Has GW ever done a major WD overhaul of a codex and then changed the printed codex to match in later runs of the book? That would be nice rather than having to carry around a magazine or PDF print out.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Deathly Angel wrote:
Oops sorry, wrong word, I meant rumours
OverwatchCNC wrote:
Stomping on our collective hopes and dreams!!!
I didn't mean it like that guys!
I want it to be true too, as I believe that when GW does release Codex: Traitor Legions it will be fantastic!
Just not sure when that will be...
41743
Post by: JoeyHeadwounds
This thread needs a serious injection of leaked information...
3330
Post by: Kirasu
The new chaos space marine book will have 25% more spiky bits
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Noisy_Marine wrote:
As for the current CSM book becoming a renegade book ... I think they should just scrap the damn thing. If you want to play renegades, use the space marine codex. Model your tactical squads with chaos symbols and deface their armor. Renegades don't have cult troops, defilers, or obliterators. They have imperial stuff with chaos symbols on it.
Chaos renegades could encompass a lot more than just renegade CSM, it could also cover things such as traitor guard, dark mechanicus, etc. I.E. Lost and the Damned. It stands to reason that renegade CSM do in fact have access to gear that loyalist marines would not. For example, in the book Blood Gorgons, the renegade chapter the book is named for comes into an alliance with Plague Marines, not Marines dedicated to Nurgle, but real honest to goodness Legionary Plague Marines. Okay, the alliance was unwanted on the part of the majority of the chapter, and was only accomplished through trickery and deceit on the part of the wannabe leader of said faction, but it shows that these things happen.
IMO, the current CSM book should stay, but change the name to Chaos Renegades, add in mutants, traitor guard, and other such undesirables and turn it into an up to date version of Lost and the Damned. Add Chaos Legions in and make it a purist CSM book, with associated Legion specific units out the wazoo, and then add more variety to the Chaos Daemons book. Speaking of Daemons, i actually like the distinction was made between daemon armies and armies with daemons, but I think it went too far. The 5 or 6 different loyalist marine books all have some level of overlap, there is no reason why that same overlap cant exist for three chaos books, in the form of basic cult troops (plague marines, thousand sons, noise marines, berserkers) being present in both Chaos Legions and Chaos Renegades, and basic daemons (bloodletters, daemonettes, horrors, plaguebearers) being present in both Chaos Daemons and Chaos Renegades. With things such as Daemon Princes, engines and spawn/possessed units being everywhere.
I feel Chaos Legions should focus primarily on the marines side of the house, limiting daemons to the exalted daemon princes leading the way and the daemon engines used to support the battle. The CSM legions are veterans of 10,000 years (not absolutely true, but true enough) with a proud history and distinctive fighting style. While it stands to reason that they will utilize daemons as allies, they have a certain amount of pride in themselves as their own distinct organizations and their ability to fight without the aid of warpspawn.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Medium of Death wrote:I'd just like an increased level of customisation and restrictions on mixing marks. Khorne and Tzeentch teaming up... *vomits*
While Khorne may believe Tzeentch to be weak due to his reliance on magic, there has never been the animosity that there is between Khorne and Slaanesh.
43962
Post by: metalboxes
Tastytaste has posted some interesting speculation (wink) (his words) about how legion customization may work in an article over on Blood of kittens. I've quoted the relevant section below.
Perhaps GW could take a page from RPGs or MMOs to design armies that look a lot like skill trees. Envision (wink) say the next CSM codex looking something like this…
Start with a Chaos Lord and depending on how you kit him, he unlocks certain ways you can play your army. Image an Iron Warriors Lord that gives you cheaper Predators and Vindicators or special abilities for your tanks. At the same time that Iron Warrior Lord can only get certain units because of the track he is on. More so the lieutenants (chosen) are customized to lead basic troopers in different ways as well. This is (of course) highly speculative, but it would be new and fun way for players to design armies. It would be a win-win for most players. Fluffy players could make unique armies based on a personal vision and competitive list builders would dive right in, finding the most killy combinations.
I find this a cool concept, as while customization is determined by HQ choice, in such a system you aren't stuck with running the same special character all the time, and it could allow for very fluffy and characterful customizations.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Yeah... no. That sounds unfeasibly complex for GW's target audience. And I'm not just talking about the 12 year olds.
43962
Post by: metalboxes
Yeah... no. That sounds unfeasibly complex for GW's target audience. And I'm not just talking about the 12 year olds.
Well if the leaked 6th edition rumours are to be believed, GW seems to be adding some complexity back into 40k, which I view as a good thing.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Kirasu wrote:The new chaos space marine book will have 25% more spiky bits
I DEMAND to see a source on this, and refuse to believe it until the codex is in my hands
36213
Post by: Earthbeard
Kirasu wrote:The new chaos space marine book will have 25% more spiky bits
Only 25%? I'm out, it's 40% or nothing
|
|
