Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
The 3.5 codex had a wealth of character and options that just haven't been seen since. Units were very customizeable, and aligning a unit to a Chaos Power was more meaningful.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
Simply put, it made your dudes, your dudes.
to an extreme degree you could customize everything, from daemonic powers, to equipment, to marking (even unaligned) to sorcerery etc.
The issue with it was,, whilest it allowed for such an extreme customization there were some that were massively OP at the same time depending upon certain combinations and options.
For R&H you have a similar experience, because IA13, which allowed for the first time a non Vraks renegade list to be made, was in a way quite similar. Granted it was a lot more balanced then what 3.5 CSM had, but it also showed to a degree to be an issue mostly because GW couldn't keep it's gak in in 7th edition and formations showed up ruining everything.
Both armies also share a history of bad rules support.
F.e. the next dex for csm, was a dumpster fire, units just vanished, specialisation was non existent, customisation also.
Basically for csm 3.5 it boils down to : The best csm dex to represent CSM at the same time one of the most annoyingly broken OP written dex ever.
For R&H it boils down to a faction with a history of such lack luster rulessupport that the first propper non specific dex they had, after the eye of terror booklet for lost and the damned, is the one that has the most lasting impact, because it existed in the first place, that bar was and is that low.
Insectum7 wrote: The 3.5 codex had a wealth of character and options that just haven't been seen since. Units were very customizeable, and aligning a unit to a Chaos Power was more meaningful.
How was this character integrated into the codex? Was it through legion traits and doctrine-esque special rules?
As for marks irc they used to give a bonus to the unit rather than unlocking a stratagem as they do now but was this balanced with points? Was it possible to even a relatively well balanced Codex if that's the case?
Sorry for the bombardment of questions, I'm just really curious what this Codex was like and how it performed during that edition.
Edit: Not Online answered a most of these questions.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
It had a lot of options. Like a lot of them.
Some of them were extremely powerful and tend to get glossed over by the rose colored glasses crowd.
One of the big things that was such a draw were things like the variant FOCs. Iron Warriors for example could trade Fast Attack slots for Heavy Support...while also being able to take artillery units from Codex: Imperial Guard.
How was this character integrated into the codex? Was it through legion traits and doctrine-esque special rules?
Mostly special rules. Each Legion could make certain trade-offs in order to get certain buffs. Like IW gave up some Fast Attack slots (keeping in mind there was only ONE available force org chart back then, so being able to manipulate it was huge) in order to take additional heavy slots, etc.
It was definitely OP for it's time, but it was a master class in creating a codex that rewarded the player for "playing to the fluff". You could build a truly fluffy list that could legitimately kick serious arse if you wanted it to. All books should be that well written IMO.
Yeah, it's not so much about the power level (though to be clear, some of the options were OP), it's about the way it made you feel like you were actually playing chaos, not just marines with some spikey bits tacked on.
Also, to be clear I'm not advocating piracy, but it is readily available online to read; it will come straight up on a google search if you want to read it for yourself and see. GW doesn't seem to care much about the availability of older edition codexes.
Put simply: it was insanely customizable. Legions didn't actually get more options in those days than they do now, but your decisions felt far more meaningful in the days of smaller armies, no detachments, etc. It had its balance issues but was still easily the best codex CSM have ever received. The art & the lore was also fantastic. Doing things like being able to layer daemonic upgrades on your Lord/Lieutenant to represent them progressing down the path to glory was so damn cool.
Basically what Not Online!! said. 3.5 offered extreme levels of customization, which made it possible to make each legion feel and play like it should. Unfortunately it could also be abused in order to create some seriously OP stuff. Most csm players want the customization and feel back, not the OP stuff (or at least that's what I want).
IA 13 was similar. It offered ways to build the army you wanted, with tons of options. It was also more balanced thanks to the awesome Forge World rules team of 7th. Unfortunately gw ruined that with formations.
I never played Chaos in 3rd, but I had a friend who did and I was genuinely envious of the options available to him.
Just through the codex rules, you could choose to build a force that was:
-Just-turned Marine renegades with no real connection to Chaos daemons yet
-10,000 year old veterans of the Horus Heresy
-Devotees of a particular god, vying for its favor
-Members of a specific legion
...And whichever way you wanted to build the army, there were rules to support it.
Balance was so-so. Some options were OP. Some were crap. But you had options.
As a Guard player, I'll throw out that a lot of us fondly look back to the 4th Ed codex for much the same reason- you could pick five 'doctrines' from a list, which dictated what units you had available and modified core stats to your units. You could make drop troops, or grenadiers (letting you take stormtroopers as basic infantry), or feral low-tech fighters, or high-tech elites, or fearless die-hards, or stealthy light infantry.
For people who are invested in Your Dudes moreso than the tournament side of the game, these editions that allowed players the freedom to customize are regarded more fondly than ones that stripped out those options in the name of general game balance.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
It had a lot of options. Like a lot of them.
Some of them were extremely powerful and tend to get glossed over by the rose colored glasses crowd.
One of the big things that was such a draw were things like the variant FOCs. Iron Warriors for example could trade Fast Attack slots for Heavy Support...while also being able to take artillery units from Codex: Imperial Guard.
IW could get one extra Heavy Support, and they could take one Basilisk that remained at BS3. They could also take one Vindicator, which wan't in the Chaos army yet. It wasn't really that powerful.
Insectum7 wrote: The 3.5 codex had a wealth of character and options that just haven't been seen since. Units were very customizeable, and aligning a unit to a Chaos Power was more meaningful.
How was this character integrated into the codex? Was it through legion traits and doctrine-esque special rules?
As for marks irc they used to give a bonus to the unit rather than unlocking a stratagem as they do now but was this balanced with points? Was it possible to even a relatively well balanced Codex if that's the case?
There were a lot of opportunities to stack bonuses, but you did have to pay for most of them. The ones you didn't pay for were generally Legion traits, which instead removed options. If you wanted to play Alpha Legions, Iron Warriors, etc, you couldn't include any model with a Mark devoted to a god anymore, for example. But if you remained unaligned to a legion, you could make a Tank Hunters, Nurgle Havoc Squad if you wanted. Giving them extra toughness and an extra bonus to Penetrate vehicle armor. With the World Eaters Legion, everything had to have the Mark of Khorne, which meant you missed out on some things, but you gained things like Berzerker Terminators with Feel No Pain, which were just cool. There was a lot of exciting stuff to do with the book.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Depends on the player.
On the one hand it did have lots of character. On the other hand the last time this came up (a couple of weeks back) things like freebies were considered to be 'character'.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I'm just really curious what this Codex was like and how it performed during that edition.
At its core you had a relatively modest number of units covering both the chaos marines and chaos daemons lists, most of which were not inherently any more powerful than comparable units elsewhere.
On top of that though you had the most extreme example of wargear charts and other bonuses ever to grace a 40k book. You could hand out all of the games various special rules to units on a case by case basis, stat upgrades for characters (all the way down to squad leaders), relic weapons, and so on. There were more pages of add-on rules and wargear than there were pages of units.
Now chaos weren't the only codex to have a huge set of wargear - the inquisition for instance had a pile - and most of the options weren't taken. However amongst the pile were the various things that made the codex infamous including the options to field significantly heavier firepower than everyone else (when the game tried to limit gunlines through FoC restrictions) and of course siren - a psychic power that required the chaos player to roll 10 or less on 2d6 to make their unit completely untargetable for an entire round (usually while they were summoning daemons directly into combat).
I didn't play chaos at the time, but I did play the near-simultaneous IG codex. I think the issue was severalfold:
1) The lore wasn't quite so strictly defined, so there was more space in the galaxy to feel special playing Your Dudes and writing your own narrative.
2) The rules actually supported "real life" army narratives - to use an example from Codex, Imperial Guard, you could take Xeno Hunters, which cost points but gave you Preferred Enemy against a certain Xenos codex. If your best friend IRL played, say, Tyranids, then you could fluff your army to specialize in their ongoing struggle. GW was very clever with this, though, and at the time Preferred Enemy only worked in Close Combat, so it wasn't a super powerful buff to guard but rather came off as a flavorful touching of your army - and it encouraged using Tyranid bits to convert trophies for your dudes, bases, etc. Essentially, it didn't overbuff you against Tyranids, but still made it feel like Your Dudes were more experienced at fighting against them, and allowed for the "heroic, epic moments" that people loved playing for to occur slightly more often against your preferred foe.
3) Narrativeness and conversions were much more encouraged than they were today, meaning not only were Your Dudes reflected well in the rules and setting, but also in modeling. Any given Chaos Lord (or Imperial Guard officer) could look totally different from any other, and still be WYSIWYG because of the vast array of options and narrative suggestions from the Armory section. For example, I know a Guard player who took the "Trademark Item" on their officer (which represented Patton's swagger stick or the like, something that would lionize the officer to the men - in game it provided a morale reroll just like a commissar did) and modelled his Company Commander with a cigar. When he got upgraded to Carapace Armor, he made a new model - but that new model STILL had the same damn cigar. It was glorious.
4) Competition, at least in my personal experience, was a lower priority than the above. Your Dudes could fight Your Friend's Dudes outside of a tournament and have loads of fun. 'Ard Boyz still existed, of course, but the game wasn't totally obsessed with competitive play.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
It had a lot of options. Like a lot of them.
Some of them were extremely powerful and tend to get glossed over by the rose colored glasses crowd.
One of the big things that was such a draw were things like the variant FOCs. Iron Warriors for example could trade Fast Attack slots for Heavy Support...while also being able to take artillery units from Codex: Imperial Guard.
IW could get one extra Heavy Support, and they could take one Basilisk that remained at BS3. They could also take one Vindicator, which wan't in the Chaos army yet. It wasn't really that powerful.
That Vindicator was pretty much untouchable though, if you gave it Daemonic Possession and the rest of the package so it was hard to crack, didn't care about little hindrances like Shaken and regenerated broken weapon systems faster than most could blow them off
I'll join the choir in saying it's among the best books GW has ever made for any army, because it exemplifies the idea of Your Dudes.
Where nowadays you mostly see a handful of weapon options on select few models, pretty much everything in that book had access to a smorgasbord of choices that could range from armaments to obscure defense systems to terrifying daemonic visages to bound greater daemons to extra skills to bolted on equipment upgrades. You could play a fresh renegade or an age old legion force. Marks and god-specific weapons were meaningfully different from the regular and it wasn't all distilled down to mortal wounds or better invulnerable saves. A choice of legion brought both advantages and restrictions, like Death Guard not using heavy weapons on their infantrymen. The art and presentation of various short snippets were on the ball with conjuring the idea that these were terrible, horrifying monsters and not just spiky marines on an edgy bender.
From the modeling side of things it was also a lot more welcoming in the crazy inventor fair style, because most of the options weren't just weapon swaps. This guy has bionics, this guy has daemonic strength, this guy is an expert infiltrator, this guy a dueling champion from a daemon world, this Rhino has something killy and horrible attached to it... None of this was handed out and the whole package said "go nuts, start converting!" and it was glorious. Codex: Eye of Terror carried on in the same spirit a while later, as did some 4th edition codexes (mmmh, Tyranids with the 20+ option Carnifex~). In 5th edition, the trend changed dramatically for the stymied style we now know.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
A lot of us who were thusly mangled though wished we were twelves, rather than wishing it was an 8. Having our armies be equally fun and customizable would've balanced the game while preserving options. But GW didn't know how to do that, so instead they made everything crap.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
I'm sure some people liked it because of the power of certain combinations, but as a general statement, this is simply wrong. The reason most people look back on it fondly isn't that it was powerful, it's the enormous amount of options it gave that really made you feel like you were playing chaos.
You're welcome to your own opinion, but saying people are lying and talking "rubbish" when they give a different reason than you do is, well, kinda rubbish itself.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Having our armies be equally fun and customizable would've balanced the game while preserving options. But GW didn't know how to do that, so instead they made everything crap.
Other factions did have aspects of that though. The inquisition for instance had a huge wargear list and personalisable retinues, marines and guard had veteran skills and doctrines, tyranid creatures were literally built from the ground up.
The problem with 3.5 wasn't that it had a lot of options, it was a problem with some of the options that it had.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Having our armies be equally fun and customizable would've balanced the game while preserving options. But GW didn't know how to do that, so instead they made everything crap.
Other factions did have aspects of that though. The inquisition for instance had a huge wargear list and personalisable retinues, marines and guard had veteran skills and doctrines, tyranid creatures were literally built from the ground up.
The problem with 3.5 wasn't that it had a lot of options, it was a problem with some of the options that it had.
Right, you'll see even in my post that I played Guard, not CSM. But I also didn't feel that CSM was oppressive, though some of the posters here claim it was absolutely filthy (despite having an EC player, a TS player, and a WE player that I regularly played against, I never saw it). The dominion of Lash Princes was much much worse and I think that was 4th or 5th, I forget.
1) The lore wasn't quite so strictly defined, so there was more space in the galaxy to feel special playing Your Dudes and writing your own narrative.
Honestly, this doesn't really have a bearing on the 3.5 CSM dex. If you played with that codex right now, TODAY, all these years later, you would still be able to present a more true-to-life version of CSM than anything out of the last 4 CSM books combined. It was just that good. IW, EC, Word Bearers etc etc really haven't changed that much since then.
On top of that, one of the things that always gets brought up when players are unhappy w/a CSM book is that people will say "Well you CAN'T have a book that represents Legions, AND renegade warbands at the same time. It just isn't possible", and yet, the 3.5 book allowed you to play Legions, small piratical raiding forces, CSM with a smattering of "renegade IG" (in some cases) etc, etc, and it wasn't even that big of a book. It was just that well written and thought out.
Personally I think with Traitor Legions and all the other supplements and stuff at the end of 7th CSM reached a similar state as with the 3.5 Codex. The 8th Edition codex with Vigilus and Psychic Awakening also is similar. What made the 3.5 codex special were its very flavorful rules, which were also very restrictive though. Compared to today there were actually very few units in the codex, but each of these units could be upgraded with legion specific marks and equipment.
On few pages 3.5 basically had 9 Codizes with Legions that were nearly as different as DG and TS are today.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Shhh. You're aren't supposed to allude to the fact that it was Pete Haines' personal power codex for his Iron Warriors.
Get those nostalgia goggles back on. Free sergeant upgrades based on god numbers = character.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, you'll see even in my post that I played Guard, not CSM. But I also didn't feel that CSM was oppressive, though some of the posters here claim it was absolutely filthy (despite having an EC player, a TS player, and a WE player that I regularly played against, I never saw it). The dominion of Lash Princes was much much worse and I think that was 4th or 5th, I forget.
4e codex and all through 5e. A nice trick but effectively a novelty by the latter part of 5th and fairly powerless against early 5e builds like leafblower as well as 4e power builds like falcon abuse and DE lance spam.
On the other hand what do you do as a 3e guard player if you opponent declares their HQ untargetable and starts spawning daemons into sweeping combat with all of you key units? As arguably not even the strongest of their options.
But it was a big codex, lots of ways to play it that weren't abusive. A bit like the 6e taudar I suppose - you could pick weaker options if you wanted.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, you'll see even in my post that I played Guard, not CSM. But I also didn't feel that CSM was oppressive, though some of the posters here claim it was absolutely filthy (despite having an EC player, a TS player, and a WE player that I regularly played against, I never saw it). The dominion of Lash Princes was much much worse and I think that was 4th or 5th, I forget.
4e codex and all through 5e. A nice trick but effectively a novelty by the latter part of 5th and fairly powerless against early 5e builds like leafblower as well as 4e power builds like falcon abuse and DE lance spam.
On the other hand what do you do as a 3e guard player if you opponent declares their HQ untargetable and starts spawning daemons into sweeping combat with all of you key units? As arguably not even the strongest of their options.
But it was a big codex, lots of ways to play it that weren't abusive. A bit like the 6e taudar I suppose - you could pick weaker options if you wanted.
Shoot them with tanks? I played Armored Company at the time (the 3.5ed list is still available on the internet) so being swept in combat wasn't a problem typically. Front 14 Side 13 (with the right doctrines) LRBTs were mostly immune to daemons in combat, unless they got behind me (my rear was in trouble) or had some other shenanigan ( 'nettes with Rending). So my opponents looked elsewhere in their book for options.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
To parrot what others have said already - the customization and character of the book. Quite a few of the books back then were like that.
Guard had the option of going vanilla, picking a regiment, or building your own regiment. The costs were a shrinking of available units (I believe most auxilia were locked away unless you spent a regiment point to unlock it again), and in exchange you could buy certain abilities.
Daemonhunters had a toned down version of allies - you could either take a small selection of Space Marines or Imperial Guard, depending on what units you used.
Chaos had options for picking gods, legions, and so on. You could build your force as one of the Legions, or be a band of Chaos Marines dedicated to a specific god, or could build as more recent renegades, etc. Also if memory serves you didn't so much take a Daemon Prince as its own unit, instead you built up your chaos lord and if you spent more than 50 or 60 points on wargear, you can just say "this here is a Daemon Prince."
Basically all of the codices from the time had huge wargear charts that were fairly open to everything. There would be an entire page of wargear and with a few exceptions, you could mix and match things as you wanted. Looking at my old Daemonhunters book and with Stormtroopers, their basic (non Grey Knight) troop unit, you could upgrade one member of the squad into a veteran and then give it any wargear on the table that doesn't explicitly state you cannot take it. So you could deck out your even the jobbers of your army in artificer armor, thunderhammer, and stormshield if you wanted (not saying it would be any good, but that you could customize to that extent). And the Chaos codex offered even more customization options than that, letting you go full ham with Your Guys.
The one big problem with all this customization is that you just as you could make a custom unit of Your Guys, that end up being only so-so at best, you could also just min max yourself to hell and back and end up breaking the game if you aren't careful. Most anything from those books would be laughable by today's standards, but from what I understand, it caused some problems back in the day.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Everyone that's not competitive still wants it then too (exhibit A: this thread).
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
considering starcannons also existed....
truth is, the book would've needed finetuning balancewise, as did a lot of things back then, but the juxstaposition with the dex folloing 3.5 chaos dex up, yeah, that hurt.
And csm never recovered from that in regards to options and faction feel.
As for R&h basically the same but that wound is figuratively fresher, and considering the squatting incoming probably even worse.
truth is, the book would've needed finetuning balancewise, as did a lot of things back then, but the juxstaposition with the dex folloing 3.5 chaos dex up, yeah, that hurt.
And csm never recovered from that in regards to options and faction feel.
The one thing off the top of my head that I would take from the 5th Ed paradigm is the re-giving all units their primary weapons, sidearms, and grenades by default again. That actually was a big improvement, design wise. Otherwise, I'd basically take 3.5 as is.
truth is, the book would've needed finetuning balancewise, as did a lot of things back then, but the juxstaposition with the dex folloing 3.5 chaos dex up, yeah, that hurt.
And csm never recovered from that in regards to options and faction feel.
The one thing off the top of my head that I would take from the 5th Ed paradigm is the re-giving all units their primary weapons, sidearms, and grenades by default again. That actually was a big improvement, design wise. Otherwise, I'd basically take 3.5 as is.
honestly, that way you could appropriately price CSM again with tacs. and not scouts. but alas, that train has gone.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's not so much about the power level (though to be clear, some of the options were OP), it's about the way it made you feel like you were actually playing chaos, not just marines with some spikey bits tacked on.
Also, to be clear I'm not advocating piracy, but it is readily available online to read; it will come straight up on a google search if you want to read it for yourself and see. GW doesn't seem to care much about the availability of older edition codexes.
Sweet, I'll scrounge around online and see if I can read it for myself. Generally speaking everyone hear is really echoing the level of immersion that 3.5 brought to the table, something completely lost on me as I'm a Necron player
It was a combination of good rules and great fluff, a combination that GW (probably purposefully) avoids hitting these days. It actually gave attention to all the legions and let you play them in ways that felt fluffy (even if some of them were crazy overpowered). It let you custom-build a demon prince, which was pretty cool. It had an immense about of flexibility, flavor, and verisimilitude.
The WAAC types probably liked it because of its power level, too.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's not so much about the power level (though to be clear, some of the options were OP), it's about the way it made you feel like you were actually playing chaos, not just marines with some spikey bits tacked on.
Also, to be clear I'm not advocating piracy, but it is readily available online to read; it will come straight up on a google search if you want to read it for yourself and see. GW doesn't seem to care much about the availability of older edition codexes.
Sweet, I'll scrounge around online and see if I can read it for myself. Generally speaking everyone hear is really echoing the level of immersion that 3.5 brought to the table, something completely lost on me as I'm a Necron player
Haha, well. . . if you're a Necron player then I very heavily suggest you get a hold of the 3rd ed Necron book too. It is likewise of superior breed in terms of flavor. A lot fewer options though.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Everyone that's not competitive still wants it then too (exhibit A: this thread).
And quite frankly I would not trust any of those people with helping in balancing ideas, let alone game design itself. "Oh this is cool to add so just do it" has always been a gak way to do things. Guess how GW likes to do things?
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
And people won against Gladius and Scatterbikes 2 editions ago. What's your point?
3.5 Chaos codex had as many options and combos as if we mashed all the 8th edition Marine Codex options (including Grey Knights) into one book. It was, by far, the funnest codex (for players, not opponents) in the game.
This was underscored by how you made a Chaos lord/ daemon Prince (same unit back then, but depending on how much you kitted them out decided on if it was a daemon or not). You could go any between a bare-bones guy, to a mega sorcerer, to a truly massive monster that wrecked everything.
Sticking to the God's favorite numbers (in size of units) gave you bonuses. It's why 8-man Berserker units were common.
This book is also the reason people to this day often mock the phrase "models with two wounds have a lot going for them". This was the Thousand sons buff back then, and it wasn't totally great.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And quite frankly I would not trust any of those people with helping in balancing ideas, let alone game design itself. "Oh this is cool to add so just do it" has always been a gak way to do things. Guess how GW likes to do things?
GW has seemed actively antagonistic towards fun, fluffy options for CSM for a while.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
This is a bit silly IMO. Somehow everyone who wants that level of detail back is just being revisionist and just "glossing over" a perceived "power gamers nervana"?
It was nowhere near that level of strong. Truthfully, there were definitely things in that book that needed to be toned down, but, IMO, there were other things in that edition at similar or worse levels of broken, and we've seen plenty of things since that are even MORE broken that don't draw the ire of that book. IMO, I think a lot of people remember it as being significantly stronger than it actually was. People talk about it like it was 7th ed CWE levels pf broken - I.E. - Write your list, show it to your opponent, skip game because you already won. It wasn't even close to that.
It DID have some problems, but nothing so extreme. We always joke about the Grey Knights and the "global Apology Tour" they went on after 5th ed - IMO, CSM are the OGs of the "Global Apology Tour". We went from that 3.5 codex that could represent legions, renegades, have ig in them, etc etc, to one that was almost more vanilla than the vanilla marine codex. From there we went to the 6th ed book that had a bunch of new units that had clearly been designed in 4th ed and with rules that actively punished you for playing CSM .... lol
Really, I would even be ok with rolling my DG and Tsons back into the main CSM book if it had the ability to customize like the 3.5 book had. You could make almost literally any army you wanted. Which is the halmark of Chaos ...
GW has seems actively antagonistic towards fun, fluffy options for CSM for a while.
Yeah, it really has felt like the main CSM book kind of lost its way after 3.5. The one thing I've missed for a while now (PA somewhat addressed this to be fair, and the Traitor Legions book from 7th was great, but these need to be IN the darn codex) are rules that reward you for playing CSM. GW has no issue rewarding Imperial Marine players for playing their armies like Imperial Marines, but 9 times out of 10, their CSM rules end up forcing you to play an unfluffy list at best, OR actively punish you for playing them at all at worst. The 3.5 codex was just amazing at letting you play a fluffy CSM army that could also be really competitive.
Yeah one of the greatest things about the book was the spectrums it offered. You could go from a barely-touched space marine captain to a daemon prince, or from 10,000 year old veterans of the Heresy to a band of space marines that just turned rogue last year. It really nailed the idea of chaos being a creeping force rather than a binary on/off switch.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
This is a bit silly IMO. Somehow everyone who wants that level of detail back is just being revisionist and just "glossing over" a perceived "power gamers nervana"?
It was nowhere near that level of strong. Truthfully, there were definitely things in that book that needed to be toned down, but, IMO, there were other things in that edition at similar or worse levels of broken, and we've seen plenty of things since that are even MORE broken that don't draw the ire of that book. IMO, I think a lot of people remember it as being significantly stronger than it actually was. People talk about it like it was 7th ed CWE levels pf broken - I.E. - Write your list, show it to your opponent, skip game because you already won. It wasn't even close to that.
It DID have some problems, but nothing so extreme. We always joke about the Grey Knights and the "global Apology Tour" they went on after 5th ed - IMO, CSM are the OGs of the "Global Apology Tour". We went from that 3.5 codex that could represent legions, renegades, have ig in them, etc etc, to one that was almost more vanilla than the vanilla marine codex. From there we went to the 6th ed book that had a bunch of new units that had clearly been designed in 4th ed and with rules that actively punished you for playing CSM .... lol
Really, I would even be ok with rolling my DG and Tsons back into the main CSM book if it had the ability to customize like the 3.5 book had. You could make almost literally any army you wanted. Which is the halmark of Chaos ...
I think that book was also legitimately too fun/complete for GW these days. Selling a complete codex is no longer their business model; now they want to nickel and dime you through supplements, and it's never in their interests to give you a codex you're 100% comfortable with using.
As people say, the blend of options for people who love fluff, and power for people who love power. (And, in reality, most people prefer winning games to being tabled.)
Much like Marines now. I think its great that the 5 White Scars and Salamanders players are enjoying their time in the sun with lots of fluffy rules and options. The fact that the tournament scene went mad for IH and to a degree RG doesn't really matter to them - although, unfortunately, the subsequent nerfs might. (Ah, who are we kidding, GW still loves Primaris. For now.)
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's not so much about the power level (though to be clear, some of the options were OP), it's about the way it made you feel like you were actually playing chaos, not just marines with some spikey bits tacked on.
Also, to be clear I'm not advocating piracy, but it is readily available online to read; it will come straight up on a google search if you want to read it for yourself and see. GW doesn't seem to care much about the availability of older edition codexes.
Sweet, I'll scrounge around online and see if I can read it for myself. Generally speaking everyone hear is really echoing the level of immersion that 3.5 brought to the table, something completely lost on me as I'm a Necron player
Haha, well. . . if you're a Necron player then I very heavily suggest you get a hold of the 3rd ed Necron book too. It is likewise of superior breed in terms of flavor. A lot fewer options though.
I've actually managed to backtrack and get all the Necron codexes that have been released. While I do envy the options in 5th, reading 3rd I noticed it had a special cosmic horror note that it's able to succinctly hit. Something missing from all the other books, I guess that was sacrificed for options...which were promptly taken away in 8th...
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Humour me for a moment cause I know this is gonna be an apples to oranges comparison but, compared to 8th SM 2.0 (more specifically the broken IH on release) which was more powerful/broken/oppressive during its time?
It was probably about equal with SM 2.0 itself. Nowhere near as broken as the IH supplement on release, however. I stopped playing after the end of 4th until 8th, but I can't recall anything in the time I did play that was anywhere near as broken as the IH supplement.
I would say each Codex must be judged in the light of its era, but Chaos 3.5, Grey Knights 5 and the 8th Edition Iron Hands Supplement all belong in the conversation for most broken/having broken their Edition. They could also all be defended as being "fluffy." That's part of the problem.
I think the way the gaming community works now means that brokenness gets transmitted very quickly.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I've actually managed to backtrack and get all the Necron codexes that have been released. While I do envy the options in 5th, reading 3rd I noticed it had a special cosmic horror note that it's able to succinctly hit. Something missing from all the other books, I guess that was sacrificed for options...which were promptly taken away in 8th...
Yup, the cosmic horror of 3e Necrons was special, but it doesn't jerk off Astartes enough, so it had to be gotten rid of. Plus it implies the orks and eldar have some kind of heroic past and destiny... not allowed when they're trying to sell little Timmy his power fantasy marines.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I've actually managed to backtrack and get all the Necron codexes that have been released. While I do envy the options in 5th, reading 3rd I noticed it had a special cosmic horror note that it's able to succinctly hit. Something missing from all the other books, I guess that was sacrificed for options...which were promptly taken away in 8th...
Yup, the cosmic horror of 3e Necrons was special, but it doesn't jerk off Astartes enough, so it had to be gotten rid of. Plus it implies the orks and eldar have some kind of heroic past and destiny... not allowed when they're trying to sell little Timmy his power fantasy marines.
Not sure I'm following this. Nothing about the ork/eldar past was changed by the later necron codex (5th or 8th). They're still Old One slaves designed to fight the necron/c'tan.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah one of the greatest things about the book was the spectrums it offered. You could go from a barely-touched space marine captain to a daemon prince, or from 10,000 year old veterans of the Heresy to a band of space marines that just turned rogue last year. It really nailed the idea of chaos being a creeping force rather than a binary on/off switch.
Yeah exactly. I loved that there wasn't a "Daemon Prince". You took a Lord and you gave him gifts until he went over the threshold and was able to count as a DP. Was gutted when that system was removed.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I would say each Codex must be judged in the light of its era, but Chaos 3.5, Grey Knights 5 and the 8th Edition Iron Hands Supplement all belong in the conversation for most broken/having broken their Edition. They could also all be defended as being "fluffy." That's part of the problem.
I think the way the gaming community works now means that brokenness gets transmitted very quickly.
The IH supplement was unreal levels of broken at its actual release. I think people sometimes forget it was nerfed almost immediately - just a month after its release - and then it was STILL so broken it had to be seriously nerfed AGAIN in the February 2020 Space Marines FAQ. But that initial month was just bonkers level of broken.
Voss wrote: Yeah exactly. I loved that there wasn't a "Daemon Prince". You took a Lord and you gave him gifts until he went over the threshold and was able to count as a DP. Was gutted when that system was removed.
Tycho wrote: IMO, there were other things in that edition at similar or worse levels of broken, and we've seen plenty of things since that are even MORE broken that don't draw the ire of that book.
I think the reason for that is that when the question of past power-lists come up you never seen a group of eldar players endorsing the characterful nature of invunlerable falcons or taudar. Nobody chimes in on the immense flavour of how overpowered the 5e GK book was.
Nobody posts asking about why the Iron Hands were held is such high regard as a fluffy, best ever made codex, and people don't reply to that with 'yes, it was, and not at all overpowered'.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
And people won against Gladius and Scatterbikes 2 editions ago. What's your point?
That you don't know what you're talking about.
Lots of books that era had lots of options, the Chaos 3.5 in general wasn't a standout in terms of power. There were a couple combos that looked really good, but in practice were either too skew-heavy to be reliable, cost too much, or were relegated to individual models that could still be played against. The most popular "power build" build I saw was Iron Warriors, and a 4th Heavy Support option isn't breaking the bank when loyalist Marines could take Veteran Devastators as an Elites choice.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
The art, layout, feel, and lore writing was just all....super spot on. It was a book of ancient bitter traitors, willingly accepting damnation to feed their hatred against an Imperium they saw as built on lies, who had fought the Emperor and his lackeys through the millenia.
The rules also allowed for an insane amount of character customization, and lots of cool army construction options.
Unfortunately it also was *really* poorly balanced, with lots of totally worthless stuff and some hilariously overpowered options and builds.
A big reason why it's also so well regarded is that it was the last "Legion" book, they played 2nd fiddle to renegades for a while after that and increasingly just became twirling-moustache bad guys, and the 4E and 6E books in particular were substantially less interesting and fun to play with, much more just "spiky marines" with substantially fewer toys than Loyalists, and created lots of new lore/fluff problems (why were there no proper Plague or Rubric Terminators for example? Only basic Termi's that could take an icon of a god, and then lost all benefits if the icon died, why did we suddenly have Plague Marines and Chaos Marines with a Mark of Nurgle being different things that functioned differently on a table?).
Insectum7 wrote: The most popular "power build" build I saw was Iron Warriors, and a 4th Heavy Support option isn't breaking the bank when loyalist Marines could take Veteran Devastators as an Elites choice.
You say that as if the Iron Warriors build had nothing to do with the three elite slots of obliterators.
Vaktathi wrote: A big reason why it's also so well regarded is that it was the last "Legion" book, they played 2nd fiddle to renegades for a while after that and increasingly just became twirling-moustache bad guys, and the 4E and 6E books in particular were substantially less interesting and fun to play with, much more just "spiky marines" with substantially fewer toys than Loyalists, and created lots of new lore/fluff problems (why were there no proper Plague or Rubric Terminators for example? Only basic Termi's that could take an icon of a god, and then lost all benefits if the icon died, why did we suddenly have Plague Marines and Chaos Marines with a Mark of Nurgle being different things that functioned differently on a table?).
Yup, and they've just been lazy about supporting them since then.
Insectum7 wrote: The most popular "power build" build I saw was Iron Warriors, and a 4th Heavy Support option isn't breaking the bank when loyalist Marines could take Veteran Devastators as an Elites choice.
You say that as if the Iron Warriors build had nothing to do with the three elite slots of obliterators.
Sure, but 7 destructive shooty options vs. 6 is not that big a deal, at that point you're starting to worry about points anyway.
Vaktathi wrote: A big reason why it's also so well regarded is that it was the last "Legion" book, they played 2nd fiddle to renegades for a while after that and increasingly just became twirling-moustache bad guys, and the 4E and 6E books in particular were substantially less interesting and fun to play with, much more just "spiky marines" with substantially fewer toys than Loyalists, and created lots of new lore/fluff problems (why were there no proper Plague or Rubric Terminators for example? Only basic Termi's that could take an icon of a god, and then lost all benefits if the icon died, why did we suddenly have Plague Marines and Chaos Marines with a Mark of Nurgle being different things that functioned differently on a table?).
Yup, and they've just been lazy about supporting them since then.
Yeah, the highlighting of recent Renegades (who all somehow found a bunch of Heresy era Legion equipment and armor and lost all their Mk VII and VIII armor, Land Speeders and Assault Cannons ) and poor Legion support since then hasn't helped.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
While it absolutely was turned up to 12 in some ways (and down to -3 in others, lol@night lords), lets not forget that the 4E book wasn't exactly without its busted builds either, Lash Princes still give some people nightmares, and accurate no-scatter Deep Strike off an Icon (in an era where mishaps were actually a thing and dangerous) without needing a 50pt Drop Pod or that could be used to bring in Obliterators or large Terminators squads could be put to devastating effect.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Hahaha, the edition of the Blood Angels Rhino Rush. The Eldar Starcannon (Or Alaitoc neutering lists before the match even starts), and other things edition?
Insectum7 wrote: The most popular "power build" build I saw was Iron Warriors, and a 4th Heavy Support option isn't breaking the bank when loyalist Marines could take Veteran Devastators as an Elites choice.
You say that as if the Iron Warriors build had nothing to do with the three elite slots of obliterators.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
While it absolutely was turned up to 12 in some ways (and down to -3 in others, lol@night lords), lets not forget that the 4E book wasn't exactly without its busted builds either, Lash Princes still give some people nightmares, and accurate no-scatter Deep Strike off an Icon (in an era where mishaps were actually a thing and dangerous) without needing a 50pt Drop Pod or that could be used to bring in Obliterators or large Terminators squads could be put to devastating effect.
Yeah I think the comparison to the IH supplement is actually a really good one, because NOBODY looks back fondly on that. It was stupidly overpowered, but it wasn't good in other ways. Nobody is going to say 10 years from now "wow the 8th edition IH supplement was such a great book!"
3.5 Chaos was overpowered in some ways (not as bad as IH supplement, but pretty bad), but people loved it for reasons other than it being overpowered.
Lash Princes were the 4th ed codex because they didn't get a 5th ed codex iirc.
And yeah, I already mentioned lashprinces as being far worse than the 3.5 dex, thusly disproving the claim that the problem was the quantity of fluffy options (since a book with many lamentably fewer fluffy options was still broken as feth).
Gw allways sucked at rules either accidentally or to Make money. Cough wraithknight Cough.
And for most factions it's often 1 specific builds that becomes oppressive .
Honestly gw should just hire some competent rulewriters....
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lash Princes were the 4th ed codex because they didn't get a 5th ed codex iirc.
And yeah, I already mentioned lashprinces as being far worse than the 3.5 dex, thusly disproving the claim that the problem was the quantity of fluffy options (since a book with many lamentably fewer fluffy options was still broken as feth).
Tbf lashprinces were about the only thing good with obliterators in that dex Overall though.
And the opponents were also fething hillarious, considering we enter leafblower era and scatbikers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, and nobody remembers it fondly, whether they enjoyed the overpoweredness of lash princes or not, because it was junk.
People love 3.5 codex because it nailed the feeling of chaos.
That dex was horseshite, indeed.
It was simultaniously fubar , and so lackluster in the Same time.
The only dex ending up similar was funnily enough 8th Index r&h...
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
CSM's never actually got a 5E release, the book with Lash Princes came out in 2007 (sept I think?) at the tail end of 4E about 8 months before 5E dropped.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
While it absolutely was turned up to 12 in some ways (and down to -3 in others, lol@night lords), lets not forget that the 4E book wasn't exactly without its busted builds either, Lash Princes still give some people nightmares, and accurate no-scatter Deep Strike off an Icon (in an era where mishaps were actually a thing and dangerous) without needing a 50pt Drop Pod or that could be used to bring in Obliterators or large Terminators squads could be put to devastating effect.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Cool, so they did actually reprint it. First copy i've seen in print or pdf that isn't the old one.
Not Online!!! wrote: And the opponents were also fething hillarious, considering we enter leafblower era and scatbikers.
Scatbikes were waaaaay later. Eldar were at their weakest in 5th.
Things like leafblow though are why I wouldn't consider lash princes to be more powerful than the many flavours of 3.5 cheese. It isn't that they weren't powerful, but they couldn't do much against a parking lot list - and 5e featured a lot of parking lots.
CSM's never actually got a 5E release, the book with Lash Princes came out in 2007 (sept I think?) at the tail end of 4E about 8 months before 5E dropped.
Yah yah, you are right. But the effect of the Lash Prince was during 5th Ed. Late 4th every Chaos player was in shell shock at the loss of 3.5
Technically there's a Lash of Torment in 3.5, it's just really, really lackluster. Lose one additional model at the end of the CC phase for a failed Ld test.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
While it absolutely was turned up to 12 in some ways (and down to -3 in others, lol@night lords), lets not forget that the 4E book wasn't exactly without its busted builds either, Lash Princes still give some people nightmares, and accurate no-scatter Deep Strike off an Icon (in an era where mishaps were actually a thing and dangerous) without needing a 50pt Drop Pod or that could be used to bring in Obliterators or large Terminators squads could be put to devastating effect.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
CSM's never actually got a 5E release, the book with Lash Princes came out in 2007 (sept I think?) at the tail end of 4E about 8 months before 5E dropped.
Yah yah, you are right. But the effect of the Lash Prince was during 5th Ed. Late 4th every Chaos player was in shell shock at the loss of 3.5
Technically there's a Lash of Torment in 3.5, it's just really, really lackluster. Lose one additional model at the end of the CC phase for a failed Ld test.
Yeah the tail end of 4E was rough for CSM's, the book I think definitely worked better in 5E (especially with the vehicle changes making Rhino's so capable).
Cool, so they did actually reprint it. First copy i've seen in print or pdf that isn't the old one.
Yeah, and that book was also the reason they resolved not to update/correct subsequent printings of books and just leave all corrections for the FAQ docs because they didn't want to deal with different physical copies saying different things and having players not necessarily knowing which was which, especially back then when internet access and ubiquity wasn't what it is today.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
While it absolutely was turned up to 12 in some ways (and down to -3 in others, lol@night lords), lets not forget that the 4E book wasn't exactly without its busted builds either, Lash Princes still give some people nightmares, and accurate no-scatter Deep Strike off an Icon (in an era where mishaps were actually a thing and dangerous) without needing a 50pt Drop Pod or that could be used to bring in Obliterators or large Terminators squads could be put to devastating effect.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Yeah, but we could take extra! So OP!
Kind of like 27 ppm warp talons now...
I'm struggling to think of a time when Night Lords were ever OP
When I first started in on CSM's, I was torn between Iron Warriors and Night Lords. Between my IG army also being a siege & tank force and pairing nicely with the IW's and the IW rules being awesome next to the NL ones, it made the decision kind of obvious, but I somehow ended up with a huge grip of metal Raptors anyway...
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
While it absolutely was turned up to 12 in some ways (and down to -3 in others, lol@night lords), lets not forget that the 4E book wasn't exactly without its busted builds either, Lash Princes still give some people nightmares, and accurate no-scatter Deep Strike off an Icon (in an era where mishaps were actually a thing and dangerous) without needing a 50pt Drop Pod or that could be used to bring in Obliterators or large Terminators squads could be put to devastating effect.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Yeah, but we could take extra! So OP!
Kind of like 27 ppm warp talons now...
I'm struggling to think of a time when Night Lords were ever OP
When I first started in on CSM's, I was torn between Iron Warriors and Night Lords. Between my IG army also being a siege & tank force and pairing nicely with the IW's and the IW rules being awesome next to the NL ones, it made the decision kind of obvious, but I somehow ended up with a huge grip of metal Raptors anyway...
No, never OP, not that I would want them to be. But sometimes we were good. Like after Faith and Fury. Then came 9th, and new morale mechanics, cohesion, the loss of Host Raptorial, and new points. *sigh*
I started playing right at the end of 4th ed. I had been reading the 3.5 Codex before I started buying models and stuff, and was super excited to make a Legion list. And more excited that a new codex update was coming. Then it came, and I spent the next few years either winning with lame lash lists, or losing with fluffier lists (but still not entirely lore accurate, as the codex was too bland.) A huge disappointment all around.
We are reaching similar levels of options coming around though. Loyalists now have amounts of options on par with 3.5 codex due to all their supplements and doctrines and stuff. If we get similar treatment for Chaos, we could return to having options on the level of the 3.5 codex. If they are good is another matter, of course.
The real point though is that everyone has always loved the 3.5 book (except for a few who dislike some of the broken choices, but those really aren't the point) and yet GW has stubbornly stuck with the 4th ed Codex's terrible, generic design choices for a good decade now. Chaos wanting something like the 3.5 codex again has been a meme since the day the 4th ed codex came out. There's no possible way GW hasn't known this. So it goes to show that they adhere to some whacky design philosophy over huge amounts of fan feedback. GW could have doubled their Chaos player base and sales practically any time by releasing a new book based on the 3.5 codex. All we can do is hope that they've finally realized this now.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Yeah, but we could take extra! So OP!
23pts got you an assault marine with frag and krak. +2pts daemonic visage,+4pts for hit and run.
3e had big premiums on some types of units. If you think warp talons were expensive consider that their 4e counterparts - shrikes wing - were 51 points each!
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
Mine says 11.
Now I wonder what all the differences between the two printings are.
DarknessEternal wrote: It was outrageously overpowered, and people liked cheating other players. That's why.
Whole thread full of people reminiscing about having lore accurate options, even if they weren't very good.
"They are just power gamers who wanted to win"
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
*Waves hand*
Spoiler:
Also waves hand. I actually have both books on my shelf. The original, and the revised.
But I was a Word Bearers player since 2nd, so there wasn't anything as bad as Slannesh or Iron Warriors in the book for us. Of course, we didn't play it competitively, so didn't see the stuff you did in tournaments. It was there if you wanted it, but it was up to players to actually put them on the table.
DarknessEternal wrote: It was outrageously overpowered, and people liked cheating other players. That's why.
I'm not understanding? Cheating by playing the game by the rules provided by the game company? Or not following every forum post (did GW still have their forum by 3.5/4th edition?), White Dwarf, website, or index astartes to track down the most recent FAQ - which were not as nicely collated and dated/marked like they are now?
Oh right, it was using the book that you had purchased, that had ZERO markings on it to indicate a new version - so, basically, a stealth reprint - and people "cheated" because they may or may not have known about updated rules. Please.
My two covers are identical. Unless I knew to check the print date inside, you'd never know.
Eldarain wrote: It's rich seeing Marine 2.0 players decrying 3rd editions version of their book.
Both Chaos 3.5 and SM 2.0 are examples of the way the rules should be. The fact they are outliers is the problem.
Nononono, for as much Fun it was, truth is , it would've needed some severe balance patching.
The options should be there but on an ACCEPTABLE BANDWIDTH so basically the Designers and rules Team would've had To actually earn their wages via work
And yes sm players complaining now about something overpowered in the past should really Start checking their own books for abit and compare to other books.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Loyalists now have amounts of options on par with 3.5 codex due to all their supplements and doctrines and stuff.
You know it's not a bad comparison. On the one hand lots of options, on the other hand Iron Hands.
3.5 was the same. Lots of options, some of them Iron Hands.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Loyalists now have amounts of options on par with 3.5 codex due to all their supplements and doctrines and stuff.
You know it's not a bad comparison. On the one hand lots of options, on the other hand Iron Hands.
3.5 was the same. Lots of options, some of them Iron Hands.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Gw just has something for Legions/chapters with "Iron" in their names.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Loyalists now have amounts of options on par with 3.5 codex due to all their supplements and doctrines and stuff.
You know it's not a bad comparison. On the one hand lots of options, on the other hand Iron Hands.
3.5 was the same. Lots of options, some of them Iron Hands.
I feel his Argument missed the point entirely in the first part about the not my job guv...
No seriously condesecending Way to start Off but sure let's roll with it.
Basically what he misses is the fact that a middle Way existed, has existed and does exist , however that would've been his former job to realise and work out especially if that is expected from him.
If i have to prop up my vanille icecream into a coup Romanov i need the Rest Of the ingredients not to mention that the vanilla flavour he Sold me is badly mixed in some cases to strong in other to weak so even if he specialises in vannila he failed through his own specialisation. Hence why the 4th es dex was an abomination.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Loyalists now have amounts of options on par with 3.5 codex due to all their supplements and doctrines and stuff.
You know it's not a bad comparison. On the one hand lots of options, on the other hand Iron Hands.
3.5 was the same. Lots of options, some of them Iron Hands.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Gw just has something for Legions/chapters with "Iron" in their names.
Well they missed a great opportunity to name a Sororitas group/house? the Iron Maidens.
Wow, that is some mind bending stuff right there.
TL;DR:
"All those options were too specific, and that constrained people, so we removed all the options to give you more choices."
"We didn't want to take away people's creativity to decide what the army meant for them, so now everything is just the same."
"Chaos is super diverse and has too much variety to represent, so we'll just not represent any of it."
"If we let you mix CSM and daemons in the same army, people might think there are no pure daemon forces, so we're removing it. But i'd still play you if you wanted to mix them in friendly games."
Wow, that is some mind bending stuff right there.
TL;DR:
"All those options were too specific, and that constrained people, so we removed all the options to give you more choices."
"We didn't want to take away people's creativity to decide what the army meant for them, so now everything is just the same."
"Chaos is super diverse and has too much variety to represent, so we'll just not represent any of it."
"If we let you mix CSM and daemons in the same army, people might think there are no pure daemon forces, so we're removing it. But i'd still play you if you wanted to mix them in friendly games."
Honestly, I'm blown away.
So i wasn't the only one thinking about gab winning Gold in the Olympics of mental gymnastics and acrobatics?
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Loyalists now have amounts of options on par with 3.5 codex due to all their supplements and doctrines and stuff.
You know it's not a bad comparison. On the one hand lots of options, on the other hand Iron Hands.
3.5 was the same. Lots of options, some of them Iron Hands.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Gw just has something for Legions/chapters with "Iron" in their names.
Well they missed a great opportunity to name a Sororitas group/house? the Iron Maidens.
Edit: Order is the word I'm looking for.
Order of the Iron Maidens
Order of the Iron Lady
I can see the strategems now. "Run To the Hills": fallback from anything, even when tri pointed, no downside. "Hallowed Be Thy Name": gain three miracle dice when target model is destroyed. Not sure about Aces High or Number of The Beast.
Wow, that is some mind bending stuff right there.
TL;DR:
"All those options were too specific, and that constrained people, so we removed all the options to give you more choices."
"We didn't want to take away people's creativity to decide what the army meant for them, so now everything is just the same."
"Chaos is super diverse and has too much variety to represent, so we'll just not represent any of it."
"If we let you mix CSM and daemons in the same army, people might think there are no pure daemon forces, so we're removing it. But i'd still play you if you wanted to mix them in friendly games."
Honestly, I'm blown away.
So i wasn't the only one thinking about gab winning Gold in the Olympics of mental gymnastics and acrobatics?
The biggest take away is that, overall, he's essentially arguing that there is no way to write a true codex for Chaos, and that what 3.5 did both didn't work, and would be impossible. Even though it did work, was possible, and was well liked. "Do we represent X as an upgrade, or its own data sheet? We don't know, so we just won't represent anything!" No Gav, you could have done either. You could have done literally any of the options other than what you chose to do and it would have been okay. 3.5 just needed some more play testing. Its not this great epistemic problem to represent Chaos >_<
Wow, that is some mind bending stuff right there.
TL;DR:
"All those options were too specific, and that constrained people, so we removed all the options to give you more choices."
"We didn't want to take away people's creativity to decide what the army meant for them, so now everything is just the same."
"Chaos is super diverse and has too much variety to represent, so we'll just not represent any of it."
"If we let you mix CSM and daemons in the same army, people might think there are no pure daemon forces, so we're removing it. But i'd still play you if you wanted to mix them in friendly games."
Honestly, I'm blown away.
So i wasn't the only one thinking about gab winning Gold in the Olympics of mental gymnastics and acrobatics?
Definitely not.
I remember reading that years ago, and I had also PM'd him through Warseer to ask about the changes. He was reasonable enough, but seemed to be coming from a place that was entirely divorced from the way the game was actually played by people, and the ultimate product introduced as many problems as he ostensibly sought to solve (such as the aforementioned weird issues with non-troop Cult units disappearing, Marks not being the same as Cult status, renegades using HH era equipment, Lash, etc ad nauseum). I think he genuinely just never really understood Chaos Space Marines, and never understood that not everyone plays only with their besties in their basement where anything goes.
Likewise, while there's a point to be made that often unit selection and paint scheme will cover a lot that special faction rules don't necessarily need to (especially looking at you modern Space Marine books), gutting pretty much all the customization and glossing over the Legion fluff was a very poor way to handle that book.
Wow, that is some mind bending stuff right there.
TL;DR:
"All those options were too specific, and that constrained people, so we removed all the options to give you more choices."
"We didn't want to take away people's creativity to decide what the army meant for them, so now everything is just the same."
"Chaos is super diverse and has too much variety to represent, so we'll just not represent any of it."
"If we let you mix CSM and daemons in the same army, people might think there are no pure daemon forces, so we're removing it. But i'd still play you if you wanted to mix them in friendly games."
Honestly, I'm blown away.
So i wasn't the only one thinking about gab winning Gold in the Olympics of mental gymnastics and acrobatics?
The biggest take away is that, overall, he's essentially arguing that there is no way to write a true codex for Chaos, and that what 3.5 did both didn't work, and would be impossible. Even though it did work, was possible, and was well liked. "Do we represent X as an upgrade, or its own data sheet? We don't know, so we just won't represent anything!" No Gav, you could have done either. You could have done literally any of the options other than what you chose to do and it would have been okay. 3.5 just needed some more play testing. Its not this great epistemic problem to represent Chaos >_<
So my assumption of him not putting in the work he got payed for was accurate and i didn't read that wrong.
Thank god he is gone.
But the playtesting remains an issue considering ih, scatbikers , wraithknights, taudar, FORMATIONS, skimmers , leafblower, deathstar.....
Ffs
I remember reading that years ago, and I had also PM'd him through Warseer to ask about the changes. He was reasonable enough, but seemed to be coming from a place that was entirely divorced from the way the game was actually played by people, and the ultimate product introduced as many problems as he ostensibly sought to solve (such as the aforementioned weird issues with non-troop Cult units disappearing, Marks not being the same as Cult status, renegades using HH era equipment, Lash, etc ad nauseum). I think he genuinely just never really understood Chaos Space Marines, and never understood that not everyone plays only with their besties in their basement where anything goes.
Likewise, while there's a point to be made that often unit selection and paint scheme will cover a lot that special faction rules don't necessarily need to (especially looking at you modern Space Marine books), gutting pretty much all the customization and glossing over the Legion fluff was a very poor way to handle that book.
I missed that Post at the time i Started around that time and remember the Day i bought the 4th ed dex afterwards just to basically Stop playing for 2 editions more or less respectively switching to orkz which then Ended in well that disaster train so i switched to renegades because lost and the damned were epic, well only for that to End again in a dumpster fire.
....feth me i guess
Eldarain wrote: It's rich seeing Marine 2.0 players decrying 3rd editions version of their book.
Both Chaos 3.5 and SM 2.0 are examples of the way the rules should be. The fact they are outliers is the problem.
The key difference is Space Marines 2.0 made every Chapter playable and Chaos 3.5 did not whatsoever and specifically favored a few Legions. It's garbage writing whether you want to admit it or not.
Not Online!!! wrote: So my assumption of him not putting in the work he got payed for was accurate
He just didn't write what you hoped he would have.
It is still a start to finish re-write in the style of codex releases of the era, particularly Jervis Johnson and Andy Hoare's prior Dark Angels book. No matter who the author was things like the veteran skill lists and custom organisation rules were never going to survive - they were being cut from every faction.
Not Online!!! wrote: So my assumption of him not putting in the work he got payed for was accurate
He just didn't write what you hoped he would have.
It is still a start to finish re-write in the style of codex releases of the era, particularly Jervis Johnson and Andy Hoare's prior Dark Angels book. No matter who the author was things like the veteran skill lists and custom organisation rules were never going to survive - they were being cut from every faction.
and yet for the Cut and balance it got worse.
Tell me if you hire a plumber to fix your toilet but the lad shows up half an hour too Late and when you come back your fridge is empty , your lavabo is destroyed now aswell and the toilet still doesn't work what else is it but lazyness and shoddyness?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The key difference is Space Marines 2.0 made every Chapter playable and Chaos 3.5 did not whatsoever and specifically favored a few Legions. It's garbage writing whether you want to admit it or not.
Excepting Siren it was all at least playable and functional and felt like it was rewarding you for being fluffy. 8.5/2.0 Space Marines feels like a marketing gimmick more than a rules supplement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: ]and yet for the Cut and balance it got worse.
Tell me if you hire a plumber to fix your toilet but the lad shows up half an hour too Late and when you come back your fridge is empty , your lavabo is destroyed now aswell and the toilet still doesn't work what else is it but lazyness and shoddyness?
You have to understand, there's a certain kind of player who hates CSM and hates that they had a codex they enjoyed. For them, an underpowered, un-fluffy codex is an improvement.
I know but idc , because it is inherently Bad longterm for the whole game and community because it becomes blander more samey and less differing people get brought in through specific aesthetics and backgrounds.
Not Online!!! wrote: So my assumption of him not putting in the work he got payed for was accurate
He just didn't write what you hoped he would have.
It is still a start to finish re-write in the style of codex releases of the era, particularly Jervis Johnson and Andy Hoare's prior Dark Angels book. No matter who the author was things like the veteran skill lists and custom organisation rules were never going to survive - they were being cut from every faction.
Yes, it matched the style of other terrible books of the era, much of which we've been stuck with for a long time.
Not Online!!! wrote: Tell me if you hire a plumber to fix your toilet but the lad shows up half an hour too Late and when you come back your fridge is empty , your lavabo is destroyed now aswell and the toilet still doesn't work what else is it but lazyness and shoddyness?
Is there something beyond a strawman, where an arguement is so far removed from the original topic that it cannot be considered even superficially similar in nature?
Not Online!!! wrote: So my assumption of him not putting in the work he got payed for was accurate
He just didn't write what you hoped he would have.
It is still a start to finish re-write in the style of codex releases of the era, particularly Jervis Johnson and Andy Hoare's prior Dark Angels book. No matter who the author was things like the veteran skill lists and custom organisation rules were never going to survive - they were being cut from every faction.
Yes, it matched the style of other terrible books of the era, much of which we've been stuck with for a long time.
Which doesn't really make it any better does it? "Please sir, don't take it personally that I spat in your sandwich. I spit in all the sandwiches ".
Not Online!!! wrote: Tell me if you hire a plumber to fix your toilet but the lad shows up half an hour too Late and when you come back your fridge is empty , your lavabo is destroyed now aswell and the toilet still doesn't work what else is it but lazyness and shoddyness?
Is there something beyond a strawman, where an arguement is so far removed from the original topic that it cannot be considered even superficially similar in nature?
Calling a metaphor an strawman got to be new heights of integrity and capability of discussion.
Not Online!!! wrote: So my assumption of him not putting in the work he got payed for was accurate
He just didn't write what you hoped he would have.
It is still a start to finish re-write in the style of codex releases of the era, particularly Jervis Johnson and Andy Hoare's prior Dark Angels book. No matter who the author was things like the veteran skill lists and custom organisation rules were never going to survive - they were being cut from every faction.
Yes, it matched the style of other terrible books of the era, much of which we've been stuck with for a long time.
Which doesn't really make it any better does it? "Please sir, don't take it personally that I spat in your sandwich. I spit in all the sandwiches ".
no that's perfectly fine and dandy. Because it's equal..
Remind me when showed kirby up?
Mixzremixzd wrote: Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
Put simply: the 3.5 Codex is what got me back into 40k. I had been away from the game for a long time, and finally found a way back in when I was at university.
I bought the big Chaos Army Box that had just been released. It had the 3.5 Codex and tons of new minis (3 of the big new metal Oblits, the new Raptors, etc.). The amount of different forces you could represent with that book was amazing. You could do everything (not everything well, mind you... some of the units just sucked), and never play the same list twice if you wanted to. So much variety, such a great way of repping all the Legions as well as Renegade Marine forces. And then we added the Lost & The Damned list from the EoT book and it got even better (Hordes of Mutants, plague Zombies, traitor guard, etc.).
Golden age of Chaos, IMO. You could play it as you wanted.
Then came the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex, with "Generic Daemons" and no Legions and... those days were dark. Very dark.
Insectum7 wrote: IW could get one extra Heavy Support, and they could take one Basilisk that remained at BS3. They could also take one Vindicator, which wan't in the Chaos army yet. It wasn't really that powerful.
The Vindi and Basilisk? Yes, they weren't that powerful. Basilisks were nice, but not the be-all and end-all unit. But Iron Warriors were very powerful, giving up a FA slot you were never going to use for another HS slot was immensely unbalanced. Fun though.
Not Online!!! wrote: ... but the juxstaposition with the dex folloing 3.5 chaos dex up, yeah, that hurt. And csm never recovered from that in regards to options and faction feel.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah one of the greatest things about the book was the spectrums it offered. You could go from a barely-touched space marine captain to a daemon prince, or from 10,000 year old veterans of the Heresy to a band of space marines that just turned rogue last year. It really nailed the idea of chaos being a creeping force rather than a binary on/off switch.
And then to that you could add the Lost & The Damned list from the Eye of Terror Codex, and you could basically represent any type of Chaos force in the fluff in game. It was a truly majestic time to be a Chaos player, as finally the game represented the fluff and vice versa.
Unless, y'know, you played Thousand Sons. Poor Thousand Sons...
I fell all the good and bad points of 3.5 have been brought up but I still miss rolling an enemy with my siren (psychic power) EC biker sorc.
I feel like the 7th traitor legions supplement was the closest they've come to really making chaos feel unique since the 3.5 dex. But that got nearly no play as it was at the tail end of 7th and was replaced entirely by 8th a few months later.
PA didn't give me much hope that they've nailed how they want CSMs to be. Are the veterans of the long war? Are they renegades with crappier equipment? Are they a bunch of daemon hybrids? Etc etc etc.
buddha wrote: I feel like the 7th traitor legions supplement was the closest they've come to really making chaos feel unique since the 3.5 dex. But that got nearly no play as it was at the tail end of 7th and was replaced entirely by 8th a few months later.
buddha wrote: PA didn't give me much hope that they've nailed how they want CSMs to be. Are the veterans of the long war? Are they renegades with crappier equipment? Are they a bunch of daemon hybrids? Etc etc etc.
It seems like GW wants them to be renegade marines, just worse versions of loyalists, and players want them to be traitor legions.
buddha wrote: I feel like the 7th traitor legions supplement was the closest they've come to really making chaos feel unique since the 3.5 dex. But that got nearly no play as it was at the tail end of 7th and was replaced entirely by 8th a few months later.
The book didn't even last 9 months.
Yeah, they're was some really great stuff in that book, like actual Legion traits, and making certain units specialist troops for some of the Legions.
It also had formations (I feel dirty just typing it). Maybe we'll get something like that again. Faith and Fury was good, maybe there's more where that came from.
Liked the old review of the 4th ed codex H.B.M.C., funny in retrospect, but I didn't find that book funny at the time.
Yup, that reads true even all these years later. All your unit balance predictions didn't quite come true (vanilla CSM were pretty decent, and plague marines were the stars, not noise marines. And Oblits were broken with lash). And a bunch of things that were out of step with Loyalists changed when loyalists got made more bland too. But overall you were able to tell what was going on based on an initial reading, something the authors were not able to do.
Insectum7 wrote: IW could get one extra Heavy Support, and they could take one Basilisk that remained at BS3. They could also take one Vindicator, which wan't in the Chaos army yet. It wasn't really that powerful.
The Vindi and Basilisk? Yes, they weren't that powerful. Basilisks were nice, but not the be-all and end-all unit. But Iron Warriors were very powerful, giving up a FA slot you were never going to use for another HS slot was immensely unbalanced. Fun though.
hey man, you had to give up TWO fast attack slots for that extra HS slot.
But as I mentioned earlier, as I was taking veteran Devastators as an Elites choice with loyalists, the IW bonus HS didn't look veey OP.
Now I'm trying to remember my 3.5E Iron Warrior's list. I think it was a squad of 5 terminators, 3 squads of 2 Oblits each, 3 TLLC/HB Predators, 3 or 4 squads of CSM's with a heavy bolter and plasma gun with Pfist champion, and a hilariously kitted out Terminator Lord with something like seven strength 8 power weapon attacks at I5 on a charge.
Vaktathi wrote: Now I'm trying to remember my 3.5E Iron Warrior's list. I think it was a squad of 5 terminators, 3 squads of 2 Oblits each, 3 TLLC/HB Predators, 3 or 4 squads of CSM's with a heavy bolter and plasma gun with Pfist champion, and a hilariously kitted out Terminator Lord with something like seven strength 8 power weapon attacks at I5 on a charge.
I remember the one I eventually settled on:
Lord w/Flight & Dark Blade
3x1 Oblits
4x 6-man CSM Squads w/Lascannons + Plasma Guns (regular CSMs had BP/Chainsword, so they could fight if when things got close)
2x 6-man Havoc Squds w/2 Missile Launchers + 2 Autocannons + Tank Hunters (S8 Autocannons + S9 Kraks rocked!)
2x Defilers
Some variants had 2 Lts rather than a Lord, and one version even had a Basilisk in place of a Defiler, but that list seemed to work well.
Lord flew around trouble-shooting, the CSM squads screened the Havocs, the Defilers killed everything, the Oblits did what was needed either as gunline or DS'ing. And if things got too close, the entire formation could hold its own in HTH combat.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Gav Thorpe for his terrible defense of the 4.0 Codex. It's his own book, of course he's not going to be able to talk about it with a reasonable level of detachment. It's expecting too much of the vast majority of people in the world to expect them to be able to look objectively at their own work and admit "yeah, I tried hard, but I failed." Especially not of the creative types who GW has traditionally relied on to write its rules (the folly of which is its own topic for another thread).
Vaktathi wrote: Now I'm trying to remember my 3.5E Iron Warrior's list. I think it was a squad of 5 terminators, 3 squads of 2 Oblits each, 3 TLLC/HB Predators, 3 or 4 squads of CSM's with a heavy bolter and plasma gun with Pfist champion, and a hilariously kitted out Terminator Lord with something like seven strength 8 power weapon attacks at I5 on a charge.
I remember the one I eventually settled on:
Lord w/Flight & Dark Blade
3x1 Oblits
4x 6-man CSM Squads w/Lascannons + Plasma Guns (regular CSMs had BP/Chainsword, so they could fight if when things got close)
2x 6-man Havoc Squds w/2 Missile Launchers + 2 Autocannons + Tank Hunters (S8 Autocannons + S9 Kraks rocked!)
2x Defilers
Some variants had 2 Lts rather than a Lord, and one version even had a Basilisk in place of a Defiler, but that list seemed to work well.
Lord flew around trouble-shooting, the CSM squads screened the Havocs, the Defilers killed everything, the Oblits did what was needed either as gunline or DS'ing. And if things got too close, the entire formation could hold its own in HTH combat.
What's this? A CSM list that actually uses a lot of Chaos Marines? By the Dark Gods! How novel!
yukishiro1 wrote: I wouldn't be too harsh on Gav Thorpe for his terrible defense of the 4.0 Codex. It's his own book, of course he's not going to be able to talk about it with a reasonable level of detachment. It's expecting too much of the vast majority of people in the world to expect them to be able to look objectively at their own work and admit "yeah, I tried hard, but I failed." Especially not of the creative types who GW has traditionally relied on to write its rules (the folly of which is its own topic for another thread).
I'm not harsh on him for the poor defense of the book so much as I'm harsh on him for the book in the first place
Vaktathi wrote: I think he genuinely just never really understood Chaos Space Marines, and never understood that not everyone plays only with their besties in their basement where anything goes.
This was pretty much thee issue with GW for a long time, too. Like, from probably ~4th edition all the way to 7th it was an issue.
As much as people hate on 8th/9th edition now, they need to remember that things were a lot worse insofar as GW's general attitude. The whole idea of "balancing" the game was a completely foreign concept- 40K was designed to be played fast and loose with The Boys over a couple beers and if a unit was too strong then just don't take it and if it was too weak who cares you're playing to forge a narrative. It's actually mind blowing, after the past 3 years or so, how arrogant and aloof GW was in regards to their rules writing up until 2017.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's expecting too much of the vast majority of people in the world to expect them to be able to look objectively at their own work and admit "yeah, I tried hard, but I failed."
Enough people have done so that it really isn't, and in any case this thread could be 400 pages of yelling that Gav Thorpe is incompetent and should have been fired and it's not like it could actually hurt him any. Opinions on dakka are a fart on the wind.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wouldn't be too harsh on Gav Thorpe for his terrible defense of the 4.0 Codex.
But his defence is otherworldly in its blindness to the issues.
Ultimately I don't blame him for the horrific "Generic Daemons" that showed up in the next book, because that wasn't his decision. It was an edict from on high when they were told that Chaos Daemons would be split off into their own book. The "Lesser" and "Greater" Daemons in that book were the best compromise he could get.
Oh, I'm not saying it makes any sense. It's downright delusional. But in my experience, that's how most people are when their work is criticized. It's the rare person who is comfortable enough in their own skin to admit "yeah, I screwed the pooch on that one." If you meet that person great, you're in the presence of one of the rare few. But you're setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect most people to be that way. Especially people who think of themselves as "creatives."
As it so happens a regular player at our FLGS just got into 40K a little less than a year ago. having only experienced 8th ed i bought him a copy of the 3.5 dex so he could experience what real 40K felt like to play chaos as he is a dedicated khorne/berserker/world eater player.
We use the core 5th ed rules (all 3rd-7th ed codexes are back compatible) with a few rules from other editions(like snap fire, overwatch and grenade throwing for examples) "house ruled" in to make the edition even better. as casual players who do not go to tournaments the lore based rules really bring out the game experience. including silly things like having his berserkers carrying the moveable single objective in the match be overcome by the butchers nails (blood frenzy rule for units with the mark of khorne) and be forced to move d6 inches closer to the nearest enemy unit...with said objective.
I have more on the topic here on dakka in my "old editions" thread where i post the battle reports and such.
When you play 40K with the right mind set it is a fantastic and enjoyable social experience. the 3.5 dex for chaos gives you that, just like the 3rd ed mini dex for dark angels (deathwing/ravenwing unique army lists) and the armageddon codex did for black templars and salamanders.
If you are looking at the game from a purely tournament mind set it is one of the worst game systems to play. every edition had broken rules and any veteran gamer could break pretty much every codex no matter the edition in about 30 minutes. which is why you kept seeing the same cookie cutter tourney lists show up.
On the side subject of the 3.5 iron warriors
My buddy still has his army. i remember it well
back then it was normal to play 1,750 points his list was
.war smith
.X2 las/plas chaos marine squads
.X9 obliterators
.X3 las/heavy bolter predators
X1 basalisk (we was mostly a guard player so that was a no brainer)
It was a tough list to fight back in the day, but that didn't mean it always won. i remember taking a melta themed ravenwing against it and beating it pretty hard. (well between attack bikes and land speeders rocking 10 assault cannons, 11 multimeltas, 4 melta guns and various bolters it was kind of a frightening counter army)
Yup, that reads true even all these years later. All your unit balance predictions didn't quite come true (vanilla CSM were pretty decent, and plague marines were the stars, not noise marines. And Oblits were broken with lash). And a bunch of things that were out of step with Loyalists changed when loyalists got made more bland too. But overall you were able to tell what was going on based on an initial reading, something the authors were not able to do.
The best part about the 3.5 codex was how customizable it was. IIRC you could buy additional abilities for your Chaos Veterans (what Chosen became later) so they could, you know, actually, behave like 10,000-year-old veterans who had special roles in the Heresy.
Not only that but every legion felt different and unique. If you played Night Lords, you didn't play a thing like a Word Bearers, Iron Warriors or Alpha Legion player played. Every legion felt different.
Was the greater demon possession in the 3.5 codex? i remember that was a pretty cool mechanic where the model got to use its strength but if they died before summoning the demon then the greater demon starting hemorrhaging wounds like crazy.
I loved how customization characters and chosen were, oblits were great with their weapon choices, god how i miss 3rd edition.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Mostly because Chaos 3.5 was the most broken book in 40K history (though 8th Edition Space Marines 2.0 might be close).
People fondly remembering stomping all over everyone else thanks to the ridiculous power-disparity.
Yeah, no. I played tyranids against it and had fun, as did the guard players in the area and so on. It is remembered for a host of other reasons, which far outweigh anything to do with power level.
What's this? A CSM list that actually uses a lot of Chaos Marines? By the Dark Gods! How novel!
Given modern Chaos, it is funny to consider that at the time many opponents really did not want a few dozen power armored Alpha Legion bodies infiltrating right on top of them.
Alpharius Walks wrote: Given modern Chaos, it is funny to consider that at the time many opponents really did not want a few dozen power armored Alpha Legion bodies infiltrating right on top of them.
When I played Alpha Legion with that book I'd sometimes take big units of infiltrating Marines (like 12-15 bodies). Surprised people how quickly the units were on top of them.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Gav Thorpe for his terrible defense of the 4.0 Codex. It's his own book, of course he's not going to be able to talk about it with a reasonable level of detachment. It's expecting too much of the vast majority of people in the world to expect them to be able to look objectively at their own work and admit "yeah, I tried hard, but I failed." Especially not of the creative types who GW has traditionally relied on to write its rules (the folly of which is its own topic for another thread).
In point of fact, I've seen him deliver really great critiques of his own work in the past. Really solid ones. Most creative professionals thrive on being able to self-critique. It's one of the baseline factors you need for success. I think what happened with this book is that he truly thought it was what it needed to be, and could NOT understand the vitriol. Especially not when most of it came in the form of verbal abuse rather than constructive criticism. I think it's a case where a designer really thought they nailed it, but in reality, missed the mark by so wide a measure, that they literally can't see what went wrong. Gav was on a different planet at the time from all the actual CSM players.
For me, this was the first time I remember thinking that maybe, just maybe, the GW team don't look at, or play their game in the same way a good chunk of their customers do. A theory that has borne itself out many more times since.
You see something similar happening with the Phil Kelly 6th ed book where he gives somewhat similar justifications, but can't seem to understand why a character like Kharn becoming a Demon Prince and getting WORSE is not fun, or why the 7th ed Demon book was just a nightmare of random, dice, more random, and ALL THE BOOK-KEEPING ...
You also see it a lot when they say "Chaos is so big! As big or BIGGER than the Imperium! There's no way anyone could ever represent something that large!" and you can almost see them looking you in the eye while surreptitiously trying to shut the door behind them that leads to the room where they've literally done just that with all the Imperium stuff.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Mostly because Chaos 3.5 was the most broken book in 40K history (though 8th Edition Space Marines 2.0 might be close).
It's almost like you haven't read the thread...
It's funny how every 20 posts or so someone stumbles into the thread, says this, promptly walks into a telephone poll, then scampers. You'd think they'd learn from seeing the previous four people do the same thing...
Sunny Side Up wrote: Mostly because Chaos 3.5 was the most broken book in 40K history (though 8th Edition Space Marines 2.0 might be close).
It's almost like you haven't read the thread...
It's funny how every 20 posts or so someone stumbles into the thread, says this, promptly walks into a telephone poll, then scampers. You'd think they'd learn from seeing the previous four people do the same thing...
IMHO it's drive-by sniping; the idea that a codex could both be fluffy and competitive with lots of options disproves the notion that you have to reduce options to achieve balance, so there's incentive to shut down the discussion before that conclusion (that everyone knows already imo) is reached.
Sunny Side Up wrote:Mostly because Chaos 3.5 was the most broken book in 40K history (though 8th Edition Space Marines 2.0 might be close).
People fondly remembering stomping all over everyone else thanks to the ridiculous power-disparity.
I never played with it (I got in to Chaos Marines in the 4th Ed Blue Codex, and left just prior to the 6th), but I owned it one point. I remember it because of its customizability, which became more marked by what replaced it.
Sherrypie wrote:Yeah, no. I played tyranids against it and had fun, as did the guard players in the area and so on. It is remembered for a host of other reasons, which far outweigh anything to do with power level.
I remember Tyranids having similar power of customization around that time, though it was far more restrictive in many ways. As the codices progressed, that dropped faster than a lead ball on Jupiter. It wasn't as drastic or as bad as what happened to the CSM, but it still has been quite bad.
Tycho wrote:
I wouldn't be too harsh on Gav Thorpe for his terrible defense of the 4.0 Codex. It's his own book, of course he's not going to be able to talk about it with a reasonable level of detachment. It's expecting too much of the vast majority of people in the world to expect them to be able to look objectively at their own work and admit "yeah, I tried hard, but I failed." Especially not of the creative types who GW has traditionally relied on to write its rules (the folly of which is its own topic for another thread).
In point of fact, I've seen him deliver really great critiques of his own work in the past. Really solid ones. Most creative professionals thrive on being able to self-critique. It's one of the baseline factors you need for success. I think what happened with this book is that he truly thought it was what it needed to be, and could NOT understand the vitriol. Especially not when most of it came in the form of verbal abuse rather than constructive criticism. I think it's a case where a designer really thought they nailed it, but in reality, missed the mark by so wide a measure, that they literally can't see what went wrong. Gav was on a different planet at the time from all the actual CSM players.
Maybe it is a matter of perspective? We only have the end product, not a list of everything they wanted to address with the book. This was in the beginning of the Blue Period where Dark Angels could have only 5 or 10 models in their squads, not 6 or 9, so it may have been more about how much he could keep in the codex with all these concepts and restrictions put on him rather than making a truly creative piece like the previous codex was. Add on to that, Chaos Daemons were to be separated in to their own codex at some future point as well.
It was probably about equal with SM 2.0 itself. Nowhere near as broken as the IH supplement on release, however. I stopped playing after the end of 4th until 8th, but I can't recall anything in the time I did play that was anywhere near as broken as the IH supplement.
I would say it was actually weaker than Marines 2.0. By a long shot. Marines 2.0 essentially allows marines to ignore any weaknesses they might have, and any rules which might hurt them. It's actually surprisingly hard to create a truly "bad" list, and even then, you still have a fighting chance in most cases. While the CSM 3.5 book had some really strong builds (and one actually broken build), it also had a lot of trap choices and really terrible builds. A poor list builder could sit down with Marines 2.0 and still cobble together something decent pretty easily. CSM 3.5 was always a learning experience if you weren't as good at the list part. CSM 3.5 also still pretty much played by the same rules of the edition as everyone else. Marines 2.0 were playing 10ed at the end of 8th. lol
I think the reason for that is that when the question of past power-lists come up you never seen a group of eldar players endorsing the characterful nature of invunlerable falcons or taudar. Nobody chimes in on the immense flavour of how overpowered the 5e GK book was.
Nobody posts asking about why the Iron Hands were held is such high regard as a fluffy, best ever made codex, and people don't reply to that with 'yes, it was, and not at all overpowered'.
That's largely because A. "Invulnerable Falcons and Taudar" actually AREN'T fluffy, and also because B., CWE get a shiny new broke book almost every edition. It's also utterly silly to compare the 3.5 book to Iron Hands - They're not even close to one another. IH may be the most broken thing GW ever made. Plus, the rules in that book could actually reward you for playing in an "unfluffy" manner, where as the 3.5 book was a really good example of playing your army the way it runs in the fluff and actually being rewarded for that. Always shocks me how hard a concept that is to grasp for some people. It's like ... did 3.5 kick your mom or something? lol
CSM players talk about fluffy that book was because it's literally the one and only codex we ever got that actually represented our army. There have been supplements like Traitor Legions that approached it, but by and large, every single one of our books has completely and utterly failed at representing the army well. 2nd ed wasn't bad as a first try though, so there's that I guess, but yeah, if you're trying to suggest that the 3.5 book was on par with IH then ... pretty much ... lol
As long as people are listing their 3.5 Chaos armies, my 1000 sons army was something like this:
Daemon prince (flight, mutation, spiky bits, ccw, master crafted CCW, stature, Mark of Tzeench, winds of chaos) modeled as a giant CSM on a 60mm disc of Tzeench.
9 Rubric Terminators (Champion with power fist and winds of chaos)
9 Flamers
9 Rubric marines (champion with powerfist, pistol, winds of chaos, thrall) Rhino
9 Rubric marines (champion with powerfist, pistol, winds of chaos, thrall) Rhino
9 Rubric marines (champion with power sword, pistol, bolt of change, 4 thralls)
H.B.M.C. wrote: It was fun when the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex took away your fists, was't it?
Especially with Powerfists being so essential to functional marine lists in 5th ed. The fist champ/sarge hiding behind 9 ablative wounds usually did most of the squad's damage.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It was fun when the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex took away your fists, was't it?
Especially with Powerfists being so essential to functional marine lists in 5th ed. The fist champ/sarge hiding behind 9 ablative wounds usually did most of the squad's damage.
just as much fun when gw decided to reintroduce these factions as seperate dexes which suddendly lacked lovingly converted options invalidating another slew of armies or forcing people to buy even more seperate books.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It was fun when the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex took away your fists, was't it?
Especially with Powerfists being so essential to functional marine lists in 5th ed. The fist champ/sarge hiding behind 9 ablative wounds usually did most of the squad's damage.
just as much fun when gw decided to reintroduce these factions as seperate dexes which suddendly lacked lovingly converted options invalidating another slew of armies or forcing people to buy even more seperate books.
And then they invalidated most of those converted models for the rest of us when they took away all of our mounted characters. And now they're giving the loyalists theirs back. No model no rules needs to die.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It was fun when the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex took away your fists, was't it?
Especially with Powerfists being so essential to functional marine lists in 5th ed. The fist champ/sarge hiding behind 9 ablative wounds usually did most of the squad's damage.
just as much fun when gw decided to reintroduce these factions as seperate dexes which suddendly lacked lovingly converted options invalidating another slew of armies or forcing people to buy even more seperate books.
And then they invalidated most of those converted models for the rest of us when they took away all of our mounted characters. And now they're giving the loyalists theirs back. No model no rules needs to die.
Like i said, it's no wonder CSM players often slowly transform into iron warriors with very specific mining equipment
I got into 40k proper right before the 3.5 CSM got invalidated by the Book of Blandness. I had started a Word Bearers force. Unfortunately neither that late 4th ed book or any that followed allowed me to build it out the way I wanted. It was reduced to just a paint scheme and consequently it never got finished and never saw much table time.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It was fun when the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex took away your fists, was't it?
Especially with Powerfists being so essential to functional marine lists in 5th ed. The fist champ/sarge hiding behind 9 ablative wounds usually did most of the squad's damage.
In the case of my 3.5 Thousand Sons, my Aspiring Champion hid behind 16 other wounds. Using my list from before, my general tactics were to rhino rush the mounted squads, pop out, Sacrifice a Thrall to double tap Winds of Chaos (decent AP, no cover, flamer template, wounds on a 4+ was nice), then assault whatever was left. Predator and Bolt of Change unit (sacrifice a thrall every turn for the double tap) would do long-range anti-tank duty. The Daemon prince, Terminators, and flamers would be my fast response/ emergency reinforcements.
Biggest slaughter I ever had was against a Deathwing player trying to run 7-5 man units of terminators hiding in cover and a Land Raider. On the second turn I managed to get off Winds of Chaos 6 times, and charged with powerfists and the Prince. He lost his Landraider and 20 terminators, at that point I had only lost 3 Rubric marines and my sacrificed thralls.
Too bad this army has since been converted into a "generic Chaos warband" as it had too many incompatible models with newer rules.
