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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Relapse wrote:Chaos means anything is possible.

Except Legion armies and non-Generic Daemons in Chaos Marine armies.

If you have a restrictive gaming group that won't let you use such a mix for friendly games that's true. I've seen enough games played where people just mix codexes to know that yes, it is true, anything is possible in a 40k game.

Augustus wrote:

willydstyle wrote:...Back in the day it seemed like balanced, mixed lists were the norm (2nd ed, the gamestore that I played at being my only exposure to the game), and when someone wanted to make a "themed" list (mono-god, all aspect warriors, whatever) they did it for the "cool factor" and not because they had any specific bonuses for doing it.

Nowadays, it seems like many on the internet (thank goodness not in my local gaming community) expect all chaos lists to be single-god, or you're an utter cheddar-monger playing only to win and you're not doing it right.

I have a couple of problems with that idea....

It's happened because Chaos Elites became troop choices. Explain to me why Deathguard, Berzerkers, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are troops when Firedragons, Scorpions, Banshees, Dark Reapers and Swooping Hawks are not?

Of course it makes more sense to take fearless, FNP, blight grenades and T5 for 3 (I think) more points than regular Chaos Marines? Also Cult marines special powers don't magicly go away when the banner gets killed. It's a bad (poorly balanced) codex entry.

The Chaos dex is obviously written with a different permissive paradigm in mind, and there is a huge double standard in the game (from the player base and the creators' perspectives) caused by codexes witten in different contexts like this.

yea... this could have been fixed if they made the special chaos ones an elite... If you take a Chaos Lord (not prince or special character) with a mark you can take the same god specific ones as troops. Of course I didn't write the codex.... so yea

(I try not to whine about things that bug me... I like to offer solutions or ask for one)

I'm going to butcher the quote, probably, but it sums up the studio's new approach perfectly. It was in response to the Chaos Demons spearhead content thread:

Poster 1: Jesus Christ, Khorne and Slaanesh in the same box?

Poster 2: No, only Khorne and Slaanesh in the same box. Christ is going to be released in a blister pack.

Relapse wrote:If you have a restrictive gaming group that won't let you use such a mix for friendly games that's true. I've seen enough games played where people just mix codexes to know that yes, it is true, anything is possible in a 40k game.

Yes, the rules for Warhammer 40k aren't very restrictive when you don't follow them and instead make up your own.

Well the first and most important rule is to have fun, and if you have fun by mashing up the Army lists, then you are playing by the rules!

In your face Orkeosaurus!

(sorry, been ages since I was able to declare 'in your face' to someone!)

Just because the first rule is to have to fun doesn't mean you can do so in violation of the other rules. The rules are important.

Without rules we'd have chaos!

Wait. It's starting to come together now...

Outside of a Tournament type game, I look at the lists as a kind of guideline.

It soon becomes obvious when someone is blending purely for an advantage, and since you need your opponents permission, they will soon lose their gaming circle if they persist in doing so.

Essentially, the spirit of Apocalypse need not be limited to Apocalypse.

Anyways, enough of this, and back on topic!

Techboss wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Not so. Some of us go back to RoC: LatD and we find the new CSM to be just fine going back to the roots in the 40k3 Rulebook and initial 40k3 Codex.

The roots are 40K 2nd edition or earlier, not the crap that was put out for ALL armies at the start of 3rd edition.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Not if you're a MoCU player like me. Not having to sign up with one (or more) of the Greater Powers to field Daemons is a great advantage in theme.

Except for 2nd edition and maybe prior, you can summon any demon using an Undivided character/mark/icon.

However, you do have to pick which demons you want to use, but you had FOUR choices of demons with differing abilities and points costs. If you had to have a generic demon, you could use furies, which were available in the 3.5 codex. Now players are stuck with ONE generic demon, ONE.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Because the Chaos players complained that SM had so many Codices and they had only one, so GW split Chaos up in 40k following the WFB Mortals / Beasts / Daemons.

Chaos players wanted the armies split into god specific codeces, not unit type codices.

The roots for (current) 40k Chaos Codex is the original 40k3 Codex. And as I noted (and you quoted), 40k Chaos goes back before 2E to the RT-era tomes Lost and the Damned and Slaves to Darkness.

I'm not talking about the *ability* to summon, I'm talking about *what* you summon. For that, you have to summon a Marked Daemon. And while Furies aren't marked, they're not basic foot Infantry Daemons.

If players want Marked Daemons instead of Chaos Marines, they can play C: Daemons. But, as I've said earlier, the only way 40k could have Markable Summoned Daemons is if they were downgraded to GEQ stats before Marks, which would be an even more signficant nerf.

First, this shows, when dealing with the powers of Chaos, one should be very careful as to what one wishes for. Second, GW already set precedent with the split between Mortals & Beasts, so splitting Daemons off separately was a foregone conclusion.
____

Augustus wrote:It's happened because Chaos Elites became troop choices. Explain to me why Deathguard, Berzerkers, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are troops when Firedragons, Scorpions, Banshees, Dark Reapers and Swooping Hawks are not?

That would be because GW really loves Chaos a *lot* more than they love the Eldar.

As I've argued for a long time, Dragons, Scorpions, and Banshees should *all* be Troops for similar parity of Troops utility. Reapers and Hawks, I'm OK with them as Heavy / Fast, although I wouldn't be opposed to an option to also take them as Troops in a Biel-Tan army with the right SC HQ.
____

frgsinwntr wrote:this could have been fixed if they made the special chaos ones an elite... If you take a Chaos Lord (not prince or special character) with a mark you can take the same god specific ones as troops.

Actually, I'd have done this:

KB: If led by MoK, KB may be taken as Troops or Elites; if led by MoCU, KB may be taken as Troops.
PM: If led by MoN, PM may be taken as Troops or Elites; if led by MoCU, PM may be taken as Troops.
...

This means that a same-Marked army can take 9 Cult units instead of 3 or 6, whereas a MoCU army could take up to 6 Cult units, but they compete with each other. Ancient Enemies is in a limited fashion, as a MoS army would have KB, PM, and TS still competing for Elites.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Outside of a Tournament type game, I look at the lists as a kind of guideline.

I do as well, to an extent.

Mostly what I was getting at is it's kind of silly to say GW's rules are good because you can ignore them.

If the rules were good you wouldn't be better off changing them.

Im sure people would love to build their army around fluff or what they find cool.

But with the high amount of gloating and trash talk ( pretty evident from just the forum itself ) Who can blame the victims to not want to make a competitive list.

So ya... the people that have a big mouth... shame on you!
*points

Yeah, I think Luna's right.

This is the Wrecking Crew's fault.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Relapse wrote:If you have a restrictive gaming group that won't let you use such a mix for friendly games that's true. I've seen enough games played where people just mix codexes to know that yes, it is true, anything is possible in a 40k game.

Yes, the rules for Warhammer 40k aren't very restrictive when you don't follow them and instead make up your own.

I guess that's where I'm fortunate. I'm in a group that's fairly intellegent, can expand or change the rules as written, and doesn't get their panties all bunched up if someone wants to take some different directions with their armies now and then. Quite a few times, we've found ourselves doing things ahead of the curve, like experimenting with FOF for Orks about a year before the new codex came out. Don't be afraid to have some fun with the rules. Really, a GW hit squad isn't going to come breaking down your door.

Are you sure?

I spent all night on that booby trap and-

Oh, gak.

Hold on, I think I gotta take my friend to the ER.

I think the main reason they made the Chaos Elite choices in to troops choices is to give more flexibility to the codex, the more choices you can have the better the armies are going to be.

Also the elites section would be bloated while the troops section would be sparse. You would have like 8 elites choices, and only 1 troops choice, that's a VERY awkward codex. Perhaps they could have thrown in GEQ cultists, but I think you would see even cheesier lists as anyone will tell you a bunch of GEQ backed up with Chaos vehicles can be harder to beat than T5 FNP marines!

And since you say we can go back to RT roots, why not go so far back as D&D, or even biblical roots where Daemon Gods are aplenty and as long as there's corrupting and carnage no one gives a damn whether your daemons are red with horns or pink with 8 breasts, or rotting bloated zombies or a shimmering display of all those and more...

IMO, Cultists generally belong with Mutants and Traitor Guardsmen, not CSM.

Also, once upon a time, Chaos had lots of Gods. Why, there even used to be a black-and-white god who went to 11!

HAHA. After an awesome, winning chaos army from 2nd edition, my army got neutered in 3rd. After no wins in 3rd (none at all :( ), 4th was a refreshing change, and my army started to re-group with a few victories. After almost a decade of broken and/or missing rules, I gave in. Hey, if you can't beat them, join them! Right? Now, I play the best army I can with the models that i have (PAINTED!). Would you want me to not try to win? I believe a WAAC is more of a play-style and sportsmanship than army selection. I'll shake your hand, smile, and try to make sure that you have as much fun as I do. All while trying to win. And we can go out for beers after to discuss 40k and all other topics of geekdom.

Perturabo's Chosen wrote: Why does the space marine codex let you take any special character, paint him any way you want, with any painted (or even unpainted) space marine army, even "call" him a different name, but still use the SC rules?

And in response to KaloranSLC; My WIP army is Huron Blackheart's traitor marines. I'm using the imperial Space Marine codex with Huron's model "counting as" Vulkans rules (it's the heavy flamer and power weapon). Remember, he turned traitor recently as compared to his heresy brethren.

I'm curious, but what did you think of the 9-oblit + bassie iron warriors and rhino rush blood angels lists?

Was too busy painting the tactically useless but omfg overthemed Imperial Coast Guard to care... (and my Talaran with dark elf crossbowment =I= stormies, because the eldar probably left someone behind to watch the Cursus, and my Golden Compass inspired Fallen) Theme is pretty big to me, especally with a try as hard as you can paint job.. competiveness.. meh..

If you go back to the -orginal gripe- I think the thing that gets me is they guy saying "I play Nurgle too.." and coming up with a mixed force... In my mind he plays -Chaos- or mebbe "Nurgle,Univided, and Otherstuff" not -Nurgle- and saying he does just makes him a metoowananbe..

I agree with that.

Having an army led by two lash princes is mildly annoying. Calling it a Nurgle army is just stupid.

No, it's not a Nurgle army, it's led by two people who worship Slaanesh. It doesn't make any sense.

There's new fluff. If I tried to use old fluff it's the same as trying to use an old rule. Would you be fine with it if the powers didn't have to do with particular god alignment? I think you'd still complain.

corpsesarefun wrote: Nurgle likes to cause and create disease; Slaanesh likes intercourse, which spreads disease and creates new life

Fixed your Post

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:There's new fluff. If I tried to use old fluff it's the same as trying to use an old rule. Would you be fine with it if the powers didn't have to do with particular god alignment? I think you'd still complain.

Eh? Was that directed at me?

ihatehumans wrote:I think the main reason they made the Chaos Elite choices in to troops choices is to give more flexibility to the codex, the more choices you can have the better the armies are going to be.

I suspect the reason they did it was probably random, as there is little consistency in codex design. Assuming it wasn't, I suspect it was because of a new permissive design idea, allowing any of the marked armies to still be created, but ignorantly leaving the Barn door swinging wide open for mixed cult armies, which, historicly speaking at least, looks like a big accident.

Also for the record, more variety of troops choices does not improve a dex by itself, look at Eldar:

Guardians
Avengers
Jetbikes
Pathfinders
Scouts
Wraithguard

A mighty 6, and the Eldar codex is percieved as mediocre, see?

ihatehumans wrote:Also the elites section would be bloated while the troops section would be sparse. You would have like 8 elites choices, and only 1 troops choice, that's a VERY awkward codex.

Like the Necrons? At least chaos Marines can use the marks, squad size and transport options to make a wide variety of troop combinations, and for the record the reason it would be limited is NOT because the cult marines would be absent but because the other type of chaos troops got jerked out of the codex, THE DAEMONS! I say again, it's a bad list back to the OP, players ignore the history, theme and fluff, and the (new bad) rules encourage that.

ihatehumans wrote:You would have like 8 elites choices...

Say, like the Eldar? How many heavy support are there competeing for the same slot? and how many elites? Erm lots

ihatehumans wrote:And since you say we can go back to RT roots, why not go so far back as D&D, or even biblical roots where Daemon Gods are aplenty and as long as there's corrupting and carnage no one gives a damn whether your daemons are red with horns or pink with 8 breasts, or rotting bloated zombies or a shimmering display of all those and more...

Because that is completely OT and irrelevant, we are talking about GW cannon doing a 180 here, and that being a bad thing as it hurts the game play and theme.

It was aimed at the thread in general.

I like Cannerus point about new fluff. Trying to enforce old fluff on new rules is stupid. If I started using old rules because I felt they were better I don't think it would get a very good reception, the same way your enforcing old fluff seems... well... gay.

Now as a retort to Augustus:

Firstly lets address the Eldar codex. I find the codex to be quite nice, lots of viable choices (except perhaps swooping hawks, they seem pretty horrible in almost all situations), lots of creativity to work with, but it obviously lacks something... oh that's right, some kind of ridiculous win-all IMBA-list. Taking aspect warriors as troops was foolish, as was the seer council, the new codex allows you to have equiv army lists (dire avengers are aspect enough and 2 farseers, one with a warlock retinue) with out having the WAAC army.

The necron codex next. The necrons used to have like 4 units, if that, then came the codex and they went up to like what... 8 or something, I mean do you have any idea how much it costs in time and money to model whole new units with fluff and as balanced as possible rules. Everyone knows necrons aren't gonna have a great codex, not for at least 5-10 years I'd say.

Which brings us to CSM. The list does suffer in that lash of submission is a ridiculous power. I don't know what they were smoking when they thought mixing khorne berzerkers with 2 D6 move your enemy powers would be ok. Understandably people are upset about losing their daemons, but they gained a separate codex entirely devoted to daemons. It means that they are gimped in a tournament setting, but in friendly circles they are clearly gifted, take 2 detachments and you keep your same, slightly better balanced army.

The change in fluff, and the addition of a separate codex was heading in the right direction, clearly they want to nerf most of the units in the game, and it's sad that CSM got hammered first, but it was bound to come since they were clearly the most ridiculous before. It's just sad they screwed up and made lash, hopefully in some kind of mighty gift of insight they will realize their mistake and change it in some kind of errata.

As for taking multiple cults in the same army, I think that it gives CSM a more Fallen Marines feel rather than the old 'cult' feel where armies were more likely to be solely dedicated to a single power! You can still go cult if you want, but now you can have a just as viable non-cult army!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:There's new fluff. If I tried to use old fluff it's the same as trying to use an old rule.

Using old fluff, isn't the same thing as using old rules.. Rules are mandatory, because you have to be playing to the same standards. If you're -both- playing with old rules it's okay, (and given how nutz I'm going trying to shoehorn my EC in short of using Apoc rules, almost prefreable) but two diffrent rulesets is just incompatable. Fluff on the other hand is arbitrary, you don't have to follow it AT ALL if you don't want to, or you can make your own fluff up for your army. I've seen Hello Kitty, NHL and other armies.. that are completly unfluffy.. but they're great because someone took the time to build the army to their theme. What's more, the fluff -isn't- confined to the codexes and rulebooks, and that fluff is pretty much -eternal- which makes claims of "new fluff" overriding "old fluff" meaningless..

In short, folks get brownie points for building their armies to themes in my book, arguing that their theme doesn't fit the latest fiction that the theme is therefore somehow obselete, like old rulesets -looses- you brownie points.

ihatehumans wrote:I like Cannerus point about new fluff. Trying to enforce old fluff on new rules is stupid. If I started using old rules because I felt they were better I don't think it would get a very good reception, the same way your enforcing old fluff seems... well... gay.

You gave it six periods of consideration to come with "gay"?

As for taking multiple cults in the same army, I think that it gives CSM a more Fallen Marines feel rather than the old 'cult' feel where armies were more likely to be solely dedicated to a single power! You can still go cult if you want, but now you can have a just as viable non-cult army!

I disagree with this.

Yes, you can now make non-cult armies that are strong, but they weren't that bad in the last codex either. The thing is, non-cult armies aren't "just as viable" now, they are much more viable. Depending on which you try to use playing as a cult can be a slight hamstring or it can render you severely underpowered.

(Granted, Thousand Sons weren't great in the last codex either...)

Orkeosaurus wrote:(Granted, Thousand Sons weren't great in the last codex either...)

Any army with 2 wounds each has got a lot going for it!

ihatehumans wrote:Firstly lets address the Eldar codex. ... Taking aspect warriors as troops was foolish, as was the seer council, the new codex allows you to have equiv army lists with out having the WAAC army.

I mean do you have any idea how much it costs in time and money to model whole new units with fluff and as balanced as possible rules.

Everyone knows necrons aren't gonna have a great codex, not for at least 5-10 years I'd say.

Which brings us to CSM. The list does suffer in that lash of submission is a ridiculous power.

Eldar Aspects as Troops is fine and not broken at all. The only real problem with the Biel-Tan list was that they allowed Dark Reapers to be taken as Troops, a mistake as glaring as Obliterators as Elites. Similarly, Seer Council not having a maximum size was foolish, which GW corrected in the rewrite. Biel-Tan with Reapers staying as Heavy is in no way WAAC. The issue is in GW not recognizing the root problem and addressing it properly.

You mean, like the original Tau Codex, which had lots of new plastic (!!!) models, good fluff, and well-balanced rules? I see the Tau, and Ogre Kingdoms, are examples of introducing a new army with full investment and great sales afterwards.

Necrons definitely need more work, but the idea that it's going to take 2 more versions doesn't make sense. I think the next version should be quite a bit more playable for both sides of the table.

CSM Lash is about the only real problem in their Codex. And I think a lot of the issue is that it is worded badly. If Lash simply allowed the caster to specify an (unengaged) unit and desired direction then it would be fine. The opponent would do the actual moving. All regular movement restrictions would still apply. This stops the grubby mitts, wierd positioning, and so forth. But to damn the entire CSM book for one badly-worded option is overkill.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Why, there even used to be a black-and-white god who went to 11!

But was he black on his left or his right side?

Platuan4th wrote:But was he black on his left or his right side?

It's front and back. Black on the front, white on the back....