Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I disagree that an army list has to be specifically named as "Thousand Sons" to be a thousand sons (or whatever) army. The current codex does allow Death gaurd armies. Pretty damn easily actually.
What annoyed me was the ret conning of the fluff in the case of Vindicators and the various cult troops (you have to join the Death Gaurd to be a plague marine, cos Nurgle sez so. Unless your are in the Black Legion. You gotta get lobotomised to be a Berserker, unless you're in the Black Legion. Etc.)

The argument I was addressing was that the idea that it is impossible to play themed armies out of the new dex was ridiculous at best.

You and I would have to disagree on the usefulness of Lesser Deamons.

But I do agree that those that spent the money to get specific deamons because of their use in game, was really slapped in the face by the new codex. I am only glad I sold my Word Bearers when I did.

But what is this really a discussion of. I feel like three different agreements are floating around here, with a reasonable answer to one being met with a separate argument rather than an answer.

Is the argument over what Chaos lost with the new book?

Is the argument over the effectiveness of the new book?

Or is the argument over our own personal feelings about the book?

For my part, here is my whole argument. Sure Chaos lost a lot from one book to another. But the new book is still competitive, and does allow for a lot of diversity in balance competitive play. Personally, from strictly a CSM perspective, I like it. Some will disagree, and judging by the posters in this thread, opinions are varied to where there isn't an overtly majority opinion. The only thing I dislike the most about it, is that it favors players who are approaching the army anew over long time chaos players who where used to a particular way, you have that in every codex release, just more so with chaos because of the previous lists diversity.

I pretty much agree with that. In a vacuum, the codex isn't that bad. But a lot has been washed away. I would hope they bring back some of the legeions, and they seem to state that they want to. Only time will tell there.

Posted By Mahu on 10/24/2007 1:54 PM


For my part, here is my whole argument. Sure Chaos lost a lot from one book to another. But the new book is still competitive, and does allow for a lot of diversity in balance competitive play. Personally, from strictly a CSM perspective, I like it. Some will disagree, and judging by the posters in this thread, opinions are varied to where there isn't an overtly majority opinion. The only thing I dislike the most about it, is that it favors players who are approaching the army anew over long time chaos players who where used to a particular way, you have that in every codex release, just more so with chaos because of the previous lists diversity.

It doesn't do that.

It provides one highly competitve build and a large number of builds you can take to your local GW to lose games with. The lists you have suggested would be beat by a 12 year old with a good army.

Posted By Mahu on 10/24/2007 1:54 PM
The argument I was addressing was that the idea that it is impossible to play themed armies out of the new dex was ridiculous at best.

The new codex doesn't make it impossible to play themed armies.  It just makes it a lot more difficult for no good reason.

That is of course assuming your theme isn't "Chaos Rainbow Coalition with Random Assortment of Units from a Dozen Different Renegade Chapters (Plus Generic Daemons) Hooray!"

What I think Mahu is saying is that the design of the new dex is vastly different to what was previously designed,

Armies and build that people could take are now obsolete,
any one who owned a 1550 tornie build now will have to change there list not just because things no longer exist (What is a kai gun again) but because things shifted.

The dex as it is can be used very effectively,
but you have to build a new army from the floor up. Unless you have quite a bit of chaos (including all of the now obsolete builds because so many options IE peoples modelling efforts) you need to buy more models to be able to build them.

This is what I get annoyed at,
I understand that they are releasing a daemon codex (but who knows when) but the only real way I can think to explain this is the following.

The last codex wasn't a single codex, it was many.
All of the sublists were their own real army existance, Iron Warriors was an interal codex of itself, as were all of the other sects that were given rules and regulations (and restictions)

This has all been lost.

Now we have 1 codex that doesn't differentiate between sublists because all sublists not only do not exist (really) but they can be taken at the same time.

How often did you see noise marine armies led by a bloodthirster of genericness and a daemon prince of nurgle, you didn't because the sublists restricted you based on the feel of the fluff and the purpose of the list rather than chaos as a whole.

They have taken a new approach,
which is fine, that's their perogative.
What quite a few people are annoyed about is that we (including myself) preferred the old codex system and felt that units and legions needed balancing, and not starting from scratch.

I'm sure I have put words in to some people mouths (seemingly)
but I'm in agreement with Toreador, they washed far too much away (and made up for the crappy 1K Sons rules of the past!)

:-)

I think Abadabadoobaddon hit it on the head,

It is now 10 times easier to play the rainbow chaos list of naughtiness compared to actually trying to field a proper legion or marked army.

Man, the daemon princes have as many options as the troops. (but that's another issue)

Well, do you really need a list to make you field a fluffy army? Or does the powergamer in us all demand we make the ultra competitive rainbow warrior coalition? It's kind of like when the old USSR broke up. There were a lot of people that wanted and liked to be restricted. They need it. Now with nothing making you be fluffy, there is no reason to.

Posted By Toreador on 10/24/2007 6:26 PM
Well, do you really need a list to make you field a fluffy army?

No, but it certainly helps if I don't have to struggle against the army list every step of the way.  The new codex definitely doesn't make it easy.  And that's why I don't like it.  No sir, I don't like it one bit.

I appologize for jumping in here but I have been summoned once again into a thread concerning the new Chaos dex.

As I see it there are three seperate issues with the codex:

1. fluff
2. choices of army composition
3. competitiveness/strength of force

I've seen arguments similar to: "the new codex sucks because they took away all of our choices!" while someone else is arguing "no it doesn't, they can still make some really broken builds!" These are two seperate points. One could argue that the new codex DOES suck because of the limited choices, the counter to that would not have anything to do with the competitiveness of certain builds though nor would it have anything to do with the fluff. Here is where I stand on these issues:

The fluff has been pretty much destroyed. I'm not even a big chaos follower but even I can see it's pretty much gone the way of the freebooter. I guess we should just all be happy that demons haven't all become fungus or something. If they plan to go more in depth into demons in their own dex then I suppose this is forgiveable, but we've definately left flavor country. Personally, I don't care about fluff. All I need is a 3 page pamphlet of nothing but in-game rules for the units and stats. I can imagine my own fluff and make up backstories myself. Plus it avoids confusion when we have a passage like "Nurgle marines are awesome! They can never be killed by normal weapons so they have a Toughness of 5!" (NOTE: this is NOT an actual quote from the dex, merely an example) Is that fluff or a rule? Is it both? Where does the fluff end and the rule begin? We've all seen crazy stuff like this elsewhere and it just confuses the issue.

Another note on fluff: If fluff is the most important thing to a gamer then I would expect that gamers army to be completely painted and representative of his fluff. What do I historically see? Unprimed Imperial Space Marine bikes that are actually chaos bikers speeding ahead to unload demons into my ranks. Which one's the icon bearer? Oh, it's the one with no arms that's been primed black of course! If the fact that GW took away differences in demons annoys you then maybe you should take a good hard look at your unfinished minis and realize that it never made a difference to your opponents anyway.

The choices are significantly less. This cannot be argued. My feelings on this are positive though. I like the new Blood Angels dex and I like the new Chaos dex because of simplicity. Warmachine is about as simple as it gets but it is far more tactically challenging than 40K. So, taking away choice doesn't seem to be a factor in the tactical aspect. What is the issue then? I understand a player's problem with it if he constantly paints up new minis and changes his list from week to week because he can't stand to play the same list twice. In my experience though that is a rarity. I played against the same two lists when I played against chaos players and the game was fairly predictable. Even now, I've seen two very similar lists with the new dex. Even with less choices players still seem to gravitate toward one build and make sure everyone else knows that if they deviate from that their just kidding themselves.

As far as the strength of the new dex goes I suppose the jury's still out. For my own experience I have lost twice out of two games against it. I played stright up IG and lost both times to double lash lists. The funny part though is that Lash didn't do much of anything against IG. I lost to the same thing I always did before, which is demons popping out in my ranks and gaining the invaluable immunity to my fire by being in CC. So, from my point of view not alot has changed. I admitedly have had limited exposure to it though and I'm sure armies that swing the pendulum farther out like nids or Tau may have differing experiences. I haven't heard alot about chaos being nerfed though. It seems like people just focus on the lack of choices and leave it at that.

Posted By efarrer on 10/24/2007 4:45 PM

It doesn't do that.

It provides one highly competitve build and a large number of builds you can take to your local GW to lose games with. The lists you have suggested would be beat by a 12 year old with a good army.

You just described the Imperial Guard Codex in a nutshell. Why should Chaos be any better than them.

Posted By Agamemnon2 on 10/25/2007 2:43 AM

Posted By efarrer on 10/24/2007 4:45 PM

It doesn't do that.

It provides one highly competitve build and a large number of builds you can take to your local GW to lose games with. The lists you have suggested would be beat by a 12 year old with a good army.

You just described the Imperial Guard Codex in a nutshell. Why should Chaos be any better than them.

Judging by a lot of comments I see in the army list/tactics sections there must be a lot a players who think that describes any codex.  How often do I see not nidzilla = not competitive, no falcon/harlie spam = not competitive etc.

I do sort of agree with HBMCs lack of character comments though, although maybe for slightly different reasons.

I agree with toreador about demons, they are not crap (boring fluff wise maybe). There aren't many units that can beat harlies consistently, and beat them even if the harlies charge. Demons do that point for point. They also tie up and eventually beat 6man las/plas/PF squads. Yes they come in at a random time like most other deepstrikers, but they also come in with pin point precision and assault same turn unlike most other deepstrikers.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 10/24/2007 11:48 PM
I like the new Blood Angels dex and I like the new Chaos dex because of simplicity. Warmachine is about as simple as it gets but it is far more tactically challenging than 40K. So, taking away choice doesn't seem to be a factor in the tactical aspect. What is the issue then?

Making 40K simpler doesn't make it more tactically challenging.  It just makes it simpler.  Without all the bells and whistles there's less to distract one from the realization that the 40K ruleset really just isn't very good.

What makes a simpler rule set like 40k more tactically challenging is the diversification on units and forces on the table. Once players can no longer rely on the fact that they are going to be playing against MEQ's all the time, you will see a much more balanced challenging game. Hopefully with these newer codexes we will see that in the long run.

Have to agree with Aba here.

Warmachine is a superior game, tactically, because the ruleset makes it so, not because the unit selections cannot be customized to any great extent. GW simplifying its codecis will not improve the game until they tighten up their core rules.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 10/25/2007 7:35 AM

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 10/24/2007 11:48 PM
I like the new Blood Angels dex and I like the new Chaos dex because of simplicity. Warmachine is about as simple as it gets but it is far more tactically challenging than 40K. So, taking away choice doesn't seem to be a factor in the tactical aspect. What is the issue then?

Making 40K simpler doesn't make it more tactically challenging.  It just makes it simpler.  Without all the bells and whistles there's less to distract one from the realization that the 40K ruleset really just isn't very good.

Then what's the answer?  To make a poor ruleset worse by adding wargear that breaks the core rules?  If players had to both face each other using the same army list I would imagine that it would be up to the better tactician to win.  To say that it would be up to who gets the first turn or the dice rolls is sort of a cop out because that can be said about any other game system.  It has just been my experience that the simpler the rules the more tactically challenging the game.  Maybe it's just me.  The one thing I know though is that if the core rules are the problem having more wargear choices in a codex isn't going to help anything.

Posted By Toreador on 10/24/2007 6:26 PM
Well, do you really need a list to make you field a fluffy army? Or does the powergamer in us all demand we make the ultra competitive rainbow warrior coalition? It's kind of like when the old USSR broke up. There were a lot of people that wanted and liked to be restricted. They need it. Now with nothing making you be fluffy, there is no reason to.

I do if I want to play a demon heavy army or LATD.

Restricted?

*Vet skills are gone 

*the full panopoly of wargear is gone

*the full panopoly of demon options are gone.

Its the new list that is substantially more restrictive.  It can be configured in a1st tier competitive way, but there's minimal in the new book that black legion couldn't do in the old.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 10/24/2007 5:57 PM

Posted By Mahu on 10/24/2007 1:54 PM
The argument I was addressing was that the idea that it is impossible to play themed armies out of the new dex was ridiculous at best.

The new codex doesn't make it impossible to play themed armies.  It just makes it a lot more difficult for no good reason.

Could you please explain how? Because I see a list that allows you to mark every single unit except Obliterators. The only list that isn't really viable now are Plague Marines, due to the high cost of the icon. Khorne got better, Slaanesh stayed more or less the same, Tzeentch improved a hundredfold. The other heresy legions lost chaplains, stealth adepts, and cultists, but you can still pretty much make representative lists. And if you don't mind using different marks in the same army to represent different stuff, it's even easier to tailor-make your individual units to represent stuff - any demon can be summoned off any mark now, and there's no penalty for mixing marks, so why not?

Posted By Salvation122 on 10/25/2007 1:06 PM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 10/24/2007 5:57 PM

Posted By Mahu on 10/24/2007 1:54 PM
The argument I was addressing was that the idea that it is impossible to play themed armies out of the new dex was ridiculous at best.

The new codex doesn't make it impossible to play themed armies.  It just makes it a lot more difficult for no good reason.

Could you please explain how? Because I see a list that allows you to mark every single unit except Obliterators. The only list that isn't really viable now are Plague Marines, due to the high cost of the icon. Khorne got better, Slaanesh stayed more or less the same, Tzeentch improved a hundredfold. The other heresy legions lost chaplains, stealth adepts, and cultists, but you can still pretty much make representative lists. And if you don't mind using different marks in the same army to represent different stuff, it's even easier to tailor-make your individual units to represent stuff - any demon can be summoned off any mark now, and there's no penalty for mixing marks, so why not?

This is the way I see it. In the previous codex, you had rules that allowed you to field an army that was devoted to Nurgle, Khorne, etc. In the new dex, you don't. Sure, you can field armies that are similar to the last codex's incarnations, but they aren't the same. Now matter how much painting and modeling your figures to look like Death Guard or World Eaters or whatever, the entire army isn't necessarilly made up of models that are Death Guard, WE, etc.

Let's say I like lemons. Then let's say every store in my area stops selling lemons, and there is no way for me to get lemons in my area. Someone tells me to just dye a lime yellow, and I'll have a good substitue for a lemon. But it's not a lemon. It's a lime colored to look like a lemon, and I want the real thing.

Here's a thought probably thunked by others before.

What if Codex Space Marines was written like Codex Chaos?

Headquarter:
Sanguinary Chaplain
Deathwing Master
Ravenwing Master


Elites:
Deathwing
Wolfguard
Space Wolf Scouts

Troops:
Ultramarine Tactical Squad
Scout Marines

Fast Attack:
Blood Angel Assault Squad
Ravenwing Bike Squad

Heavy Support:
Devastator Squad

Nicely put, Malfred.

I think the new Chaos codex has taken the army back 2 editions of 40k. Remember 2nd ed Space Marines?

"To makes a Blood Angel Army paint all of your mans red. Blood Angles are CRAZY! To makes an Ultramarine army paint all of your mans blue. Ultramarines are BORING! etc"

The new codex seems more marketing then anything else. Release updated basic marines to promote sales. Make special units like Zerkers or Thousand Sons available to a wider range of armies to move some more boxed sets. New HQ sculpts, make the Vindicator available etc. For most folks who used to play a themed army, Chaos has turned into a big money sink. Not to mention the multitude of new armies the release of a new Codex always inspires. (Note also that the codex is now 80% pre-published fluff and they have actually managed to take the workable army list to 9 or 10 well spaced pages hidden in the back of the book)

I'm only disappointed that with all the new possibilities with no mark restrictions etc the only thing people can seem to focus on is the Twin Lash.