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.

Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.

According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).

Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.

So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.

IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"

Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.

Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.

According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).

Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.

So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?

OT but I like this!

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.

No, that's exactly what you said. This is a discussion of how someone else's models are painted (and what rules they use), now how you choose to paint your own.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.

I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.

@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?

You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!

 Talizvar wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.

I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.

@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?

You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!

Yep I remember having a basilisk, a war altar representing a defiler, an angel with sword for demonlord, and converted grey knight terminators as oblits. Ah the good old days.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
When did I say paint schemes mattered?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Yeah but they're space wolves painted black with a bunch of cybernetic implants.

just stop trolling

Let me clarify.

I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.

Actually, not end of. Pre-heresy Space Wolves were black and red and according to the Lone Wolves novel so are a few companies of current Space Wolves.

Talizvar wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.

I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.

@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?

You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!

I see the perspective, but I don't like it. A codex is made for that faction to be used.

Frazzled wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.

IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"

Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.

Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.

According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).

Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.

So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?

OT but I like this!

Yes, they're acceptable. You didn't just swap codices.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Talizvar wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.

I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.

@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?

You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!

I see the perspective, but I don't like it. A codex is made for that faction to be used.

Frazzled wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.

IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"

Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.

Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.

According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).

Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.

So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?

OT but I like this!

Yes, they're acceptable. You didn't just swap codices.

Well I guess I should also mention that a couple of the dreadnought models are the old 2E chaos models (with a plasma arm) as well as some of the models use chaos terminator models - still using WSYIWYG SM rules. I hadn't thought of it until this thread, but I could use cultist models for my Imp Guard platoons. I'm sure I could make other model substitutions as well (Heldrake carrying a roboegg and call it a Stormraven? - but that's stretching things) I am, in many ways doing the exact opposite of the OP - using chaos models to represent a loyalist legion - you have been arguing I should use the Chaos Marine codex because my models are "Chaos". Why then is it so wrong to use SM rules for an all CSM model army?

SB, you should really try to sit down and think about what exactly it is you take offense at. You're incredibly inconsistent. Now I'm gonna go paint my Tech Priest Dominus without any red on it. Heresy.

This is remarkably inconsistent.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?

Which would mean that all of my plague marines are unacceptable as they are converted or OOP, so none of the minis I use are displayed in the codex entries. I'm also using the pre-heresy scheme, would that be as unacceptable as painting my Space Wolves army like Iron Hands -- since the pre-heresy and post-heresy Death Guard are very different entities with different colour schemes? What if I decided to use my army with the Horus Heresy rules to represent them during the Heresy?

As for the codex swapping aspect, I have a friend who is building a traitor guard army, converting the cultist minis and using the IG codex, should I tell him that he should be using the Chaos Space Marine Codex they're from instead?

Purifier wrote:SB, you should really try to sit down and think about what exactly it is you take offense at. You're incredibly inconsistent. Now I'm gonna go paint my Tech Priest Dominus without any red on it. Heresy.

No, I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I get bored of the red in 40k sometimes, which other forgeworld are you doing? And I'm not taking offence to any of this. It's 40k for God's sake.

Stormonu wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Talizvar wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.

I remember around 3rd edition CSM I was allowed to take Basilisks for my Iron Warriors.
Things change, not always to our liking.
Many times I would wrack my brains on how to get my army to reflect "properly" the fluff of those guys.
Now there is no better to time to mix and match what you want to "better" reflect what your army "should" be.

@SB: Do you at least see this perspective that the "jumping codex's" is another means to get your army to behave the way you think better reflects them?
Needing the models to be the ones pictured in the codex is being pretty hard on those who like to convert to make a single model (or bunch) "better" reflect how they want them to look.
Are we totally assuming anyone wanting to mix and match are completely playing for advantage?

You are a fine example of someone who would be disagreeable to what the OP proposes to field as his army and I genuinely want to understand.
Thanks!

I see the perspective, but I don't like it. A codex is made for that faction to be used.

Frazzled wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Everyone calm down, he asked for people's opinions and I gave them. I don't like people swapping codices and I don't like people using ridiculous colours for their faction. And @kodos, no, all SW are the same colour. Where'd you get the idea different companies are different colours? And iron hands and iron hand successors are 2 different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I meant paint schemes didn't matter in his scenario "yellow tau aren't tau" however, changing 2 pre established chapters is a very different thing. Space wolves are grey, iron hands are black. End of.

IOW: "PAINT YOUR MODELS LIKE I WANT YOU TO PAINT THEM OR YOU ARE TFG"

Never said it like that. Do you prefer your models a certain way? Realistic? Stylized? I like mine as how they're depicted in the books. It's simply my preference.

Please answer my question (no this isn't an attack, I am interested in your response and you may have missed my follow up). Would my white marines be acceptable if they are WYSIWYG?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Just to throw some kreoscene on this whole thing, back in 2E I started work on my own custom chapter - The Avengers (of Horus) [no relation to the comic book group]. It was a loyalist legion, built from renegades/traitors who had quit their ways to return back into the arms of the Empire*. I initially made this legion because I liked the looks of many of the Chaos models, but didn't want to play the bad guys.

According to the old fluff, the legion was (secretly) sanctioned by the Grey Knights (back when the only models were in terminator armor with halbards and they didn't exist as an army), consisting of primarily former chaos marines. They were not allowed to use their own geneseed (which was secretly pulled from Ultramarine tithes so it would be uncorrupted), and new recruits came from either renegade marines seeking redemption or from guardsmen forces that had battled chaos forces (the Master of the order seeing it a waste to destroy such guardsmen troops, and instead putting them to good use on the battlefield; the marines being taken in [after extensive re-education and testing] with their absolution to only be granted on the battlefield dying for their Emperor).

Fast forward to today; I use the SM codex, with Grey Knight allies (to represent the 1st company) and Imperial guard allies (to represent the 6th-10th "reserve" companies) [all something I couldn't contemplate doing until the Allies matrix in 6E]. My veteran SM minis are actually thousand son marine minis, and known as Terror Guard - using the chaos armor to sow confusion among the enemies.

So am I breaking the game with my fluff army too? Is using Thousand Sons minis for my Veteran troops something that would drive you away from playing me?

OT but I like this!

Yes, they're acceptable. You didn't just swap codices.

Well I guess I should also mention that a couple of the dreadnought models are the old 2E chaos models (with a plasma arm) as well as some of the models use chaos terminator models - still using WSYIWYG SM rules. I hadn't thought of it until this thread, but I could use cultist models for my Imp Guard platoons. I'm sure I could make other model substitutions as well (Heldrake carrying a roboegg and call it a Stormraven? - but that's stretching things) I am, in many ways doing the exact opposite of the OP - using chaos models to represent a loyalist legion - you have been arguing I should use the Chaos Marine codex because my models are "Chaos". Why then is it so wrong to use SM rules for an all CSM model army?

I would argue the same point against OP as I would against you. Those models are for a different codex and should be treated as such.

nurgle5 wrote:This is remarkably inconsistent.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?

Which would mean that all of my plague marines are unacceptable as they are converted or OOP, so none of the minis I use are displayed in the codex entries. I'm also using the pre-heresy scheme, would that be as unacceptable as painting my Space Wolves army like Iron Hands -- since the pre-heresy and post-heresy Death Guard are very different entities with different colour schemes? What if I decided to use my army with the Horus Heresy rules to represent them during the Heresy?

As for the codex swapping aspect, I have a friend who is building a traitor guard army, converting the cultist minis and using the IG codex, should I tell him that he should be using the Chaos Space Marine Codex they're from instead?

No, he shouldn't use the chaos space marine codex, he should use the lost and the damned one from forge world. (Or whatever it's called)

My criteria for an acceptable model: Did you buy those models for the intended codex? (In this case, plague marines, so yes, even if they are oop.) Are you using the correct codex from which the models came from? Are they wysiwyg? If all your answers are yes then you are fine.

And honestly, sure, paint them hh colours. It could be an army straight after the heresy. Like I said, as long as you don't paint ultramarines pink, I'm alright with it. However, don't use HH rules. If you came to a HH game with bloated up 40k plague marines that'd be just lazy.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Purifier wrote:SB, you should really try to sit down and think about what exactly it is you take offense at. You're incredibly inconsistent. Now I'm gonna go paint my Tech Priest Dominus without any red on it. Heresy.

No, I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I get bored of the red in 40k sometimes, which other forgeworld are you doing?

None, the scheme is Blue with lighter blue on it, with orange details. It doesn't match anything from the fluff.

And in the entry for the Tech Priest Dominus, it states that they *always,* not matter what forgeworld, have something red on them to show their allegiance to Mars.

Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want. (Remember I dont hold anything against you for the way you spend your money and paint your models) And I didn't know that about the priest, guess you learn something every day. And 3 of the anti air versions? How many flyers do you play against? Lol.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want. (Remember I dont hold anything against you for the way you spend your money and paint your models) And I didn't know that about the priest, guess you learn something every day. And 3 of the anti air versions? How many flyers do you play against? Lol.

Magnetised, so I can swap those weapons.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want.

Just no pink Ultramarines


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And honestly, sure, paint them hh colours. It could be an army straight after the heresy. Like I said, as long as you don't paint ultramarines pink, I'm alright with it. However, don't use HH rules. If you came to a HH game with bloated up 40k plague marines that'd be just lazy.

Call it a just-post-heresy army, they're all bloated up because they're devoted to Nurgle, but you use the 30k rules because that's the time-frame the army is from.

It's not "just lazy." It's also a way to play multiple different formats without having to spend several hundred extra dollars and hours just so someone can say "Wow, nice" once in a while, IMO.

The bloating started near the beggining of the Heresy and got well under way about half way into it.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Never said it like that.

Yeeeees you did.

@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?

Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...

Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.

And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)

Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!

But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?


Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?

If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."

And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.

Experiment 626 wrote:
@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?

Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...

Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.

And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)

Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!

But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?


Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?

If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."

And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.

Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).

(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)

 King Amroth wrote:
The bloating started near the beggining of the Heresy and got well under way about half way into it.

Even better then. It's perfectly fluffy!

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Spoiler:

Experiment 626 wrote:
@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?

Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...

Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.

And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)

Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!

But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?


Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?

If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."

And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.

Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).

(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)

Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.

I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!

CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Spoiler:

Experiment 626 wrote:
@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?

Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...

Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.

And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)

Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!

But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?


Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?

If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."

And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.

Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).

(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)

Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.

I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!

CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.

Oh yeah, I know it. There is a reason I started losing motivation to work on my CSM until gradually they just came to sit in a closet. Even 4th felt like it had more going for it that the recent book.

I totally hear you with the DW, its one of the reasons Im gonna go for a DW army, the chance to build to the back ground (and go for a Specialized Force, which I've wanted for a long time).

As much as I want the CSM to come back stronger, I wont hold my breath, we will be cartoon villains for life.

Maybe someone payed too much attention back in the early days of Apoc when I said I wanted to make the Doomsday Device and have a Snidely Whiplash Chaos Lord with a Bomb Plunger on top of it.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Spoiler:

Experiment 626 wrote:
@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?

Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...

Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.

And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)

Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!

But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?


Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?

If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."

And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.

Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).

(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)

Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.

I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!

CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.

Oh yeah, I know it. There is a reason I started losing motivation to work on my CSM until gradually they just came to sit in a closet. Even 4th felt like it had more going for it that the recent book.

I totally hear you with the DW, its one of the reasons Im gonna go for a DW army, the chance to build to the back ground (and go for a Specialized Force, which I've wanted for a long time).

As much as I want the CSM to come back stronger, I wont hold my breath, we will be cartoon villains for life.

Maybe someone payed too much attention back in the early days of Apoc when I said I wanted to make the Doomsday Device and have a Snidely Whiplash Chaos Lord with a Bomb Plunger on top of it.

Nah, we screwed ourselves for life when we had the sheer audacity to actually 'win' the EoT campaign when Jervis didn't want us to.

This is our punishment for such a crime against Jervis' delicate sensibilities... To be nothing more than a worthless trope, and relegated to watch half our model soon up and vanish since Finecast is officially on death row.

I know we have a rumored new "book" coming, supposedly called 'Traitors Hate', but really, let's be honest about it... The only model that's rumored to be coming with it is a new plastic Kharn the Betrayer. Hence, no new wargear options for us.

The expanded psychic lores will be done in the exact same manner as the Daemon ones, so Tzeentch for example will keep all 4 of our currently laughably abysmal spells.

Supposedly we do get the dataslate for the Renegade Knight. (which is still a lesser version of the true FW Chaos Knight)
Maybe, (hopefully?!), we might also get Cypher's dataslate as well, for those of us who don't own an e-device?

We'll get a handful of 'new' formations, none of which will even remotely outweigh the overall crappiness of the units themselves.
We might get a proper Decurion, but odds are, it'll be completely unwieldy due to requiring obnoxiously over-sized Core + Auxiliary formations. (think 'Tzeentch Daemon formations' from CotW in unit requirements, but costing twice as much pts-wise!)

Probably the only bright spot will be maybe some new relics that will make Chaos Lords roughly on par with Loyalist Captains, though still on a level well below Chapter Masters.


At least, that's about where I'm setting my personal expectations bar! The lower we set it, the less overall disappointment when inevitably, we still remain Loyalists -10.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Spoiler:

Experiment 626 wrote:
@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?

Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...

Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.

And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)

Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!

But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?


Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?

If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."

And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.

Not that I dont agree with the point you are making, but it was the 4th Edition Codex that made CSM Bland. 3.5 had Legion Specific rules (but was still a hot mess, nicely themed, but a hot mess).

(I had said disagree when I ment agree, I should read before I post)

Oh I know! The 3.5ed codex had it's issues for sure, and could very easily be abused like no other book short of Kraftworld chEldar at the time. The 4th ed book was inflicted upon us in Oct. 2007. And ever since, we've been the laughing stock of 40k.

I'd much rather a hot mess, (look at what we know about the new DW codex!), that's at least chalk full of flavour and awesome themes, even if it's still literally a near auto-lose codex. The vast majority of the fun after all comes from being able to evoke the background stories & seeing the fluff take shape on the gaming table!

CSM's currently are nothing more than a hollow shell that have been reduced to nothing more than gormless NPC cartoon villains who's only reason for existing is to act as bolter fodder for our Imperial betters.

Oh yeah, I know it. There is a reason I started losing motivation to work on my CSM until gradually they just came to sit in a closet. Even 4th felt like it had more going for it that the recent book.

I totally hear you with the DW, its one of the reasons Im gonna go for a DW army, the chance to build to the back ground (and go for a Specialized Force, which I've wanted for a long time).

As much as I want the CSM to come back stronger, I wont hold my breath, we will be cartoon villains for life.

Maybe someone payed too much attention back in the early days of Apoc when I said I wanted to make the Doomsday Device and have a Snidely Whiplash Chaos Lord with a Bomb Plunger on top of it.

Nah, we screwed ourselves for life when we had the sheer audacity to actually 'win' the EoT campaign when Jervis didn't want us to.

This is our punishment for such a crime against Jervis' delicate sensibilities... To be nothing more than a worthless trope, and relegated to watch half our model soon up and vanish since Finecast is officially on death row.

I know we have a rumored new "book" coming, supposedly called 'Traitors Hate', but really, let's be honest about it... The only model that's rumored to be coming with it is a new plastic Kharn the Betrayer. Hence, no new wargear options for us.

The expanded psychic lores will be done in the exact same manner as the Daemon ones, so Tzeentch for example will keep all 4 of our currently laughably abysmal spells.

Supposedly we do get the dataslate for the Renegade Knight. (which is still a lesser version of the true FW Chaos Knight)
Maybe, (hopefully?!), we might also get Cypher's dataslate as well, for those of us who don't own an e-device?

We'll get a handful of 'new' formations, none of which will even remotely outweigh the overall crappiness of the units themselves.
We might get a proper Decurion, but odds are, it'll be completely unwieldy due to requiring obnoxiously over-sized Core + Auxiliary formations. (think 'Tzeentch Daemon formations' from CotW in unit requirements, but costing twice as much pts-wise!)

Probably the only bright spot will be maybe some new relics that will make Chaos Lords roughly on par with Loyalist Captains, though still on a level well below Chapter Masters.


At least, that's about where I'm setting my personal expectations bar! The lower we set it, the less overall disappointment when inevitably, we still remain Loyalists -10.

Maybe we'll also get to be the one of the first codex of a new Edition again, add another -10 to it.

I have enough CSM's for them to fight amongst themselves for each chaos god.
I think this was my favorite codex:

The 3rd edition.
That had so much choice it was almost confusing.
It has been rather bland / useless ever since.

To think my original intentions for fielding Inquisition Daemon Hunters was to have an army to fight CSM for fun.
Now they are my go-to army... oh wait... Inquisition is one codex, grey knights another.
Any people who tried to tell me they were "cheese" can heft my mainly metal figures.

Then to field Black Templar since I guess my CSM's needed a similarly gimped SM army to play against.

Bah, anyone saying that they "prefer / demand / require" I use a CSM codex over a chosen "close enough" SM codex I could say is looking for a win rather than a fair match.

Just got back from my first game in about a year. My CSM vs a Deathwing army. It was game over in turn 3. Even my opponent took pity on me and felt bad.

Been playing this game for 20 years and I've never wanted to just bin the lot, as much as I do right now.

Demoralised is an understatement...

 Talizvar wrote:
I have enough CSM's for them to fight amongst themselves for each chaos god.
I think this was my favorite codex:

The 3rd edition.
That had so much choice it was almost confusing.
It has been rather bland / useless ever since.

Yep.

 Talizvar wrote:

Proposed "mix and match" troops that do not fit in a specific codex "but you want it anyway" then becomes an unbound list... simple as that (as outlined by the BA article: using all space marines) or you find a way to fit them in as allied troops.
.

What make you think he's playing his Blood Angel Centurions and Stormwolves as Unbound?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?

What models should CSM players use for Chosen? Or an Ork player who wants to field a warboss in Mega-Armour?

You're obviously pretty new to the game if you cannot remember when units didn't always have official models, which makes this kind of metric to determine whether someone is using the "correct model" useless.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want.

Just no pink Ultramarines


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And honestly, sure, paint them hh colours. It could be an army straight after the heresy. Like I said, as long as you don't paint ultramarines pink, I'm alright with it. However, don't use HH rules. If you came to a HH game with bloated up 40k plague marines that'd be just lazy.

Call it a just-post-heresy army, they're all bloated up because they're devoted to Nurgle, but you use the 30k rules because that's the time-frame the army is from.

It's not "just lazy." It's also a way to play multiple different formats without having to spend several hundred extra dollars and hours just so someone can say "Wow, nice" once in a while, IMO.

I know DG fell pretty quickly but taking 40k models and plopping them in 40k makes little sense. Their armour marks and general aesthetic would be far off, hence why they have 2 separate model lines and game systems.

Purifier wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Looks pretty cool, you paint your models how you want. (Remember I dont hold anything against you for the way you spend your money and paint your models) And I didn't know that about the priest, guess you learn something every day. And 3 of the anti air versions? How many flyers do you play against? Lol.

Magnetised, so I can swap those weapons.

Experiment 626 wrote:@ShieldBrother:
So by your almighty decree, I'd be a loathsome, power gaming, WaaC's TFG because I use 'Counts As', (which btw, was originally GW itself coming out and doing entire WD articles on why you should do 'counts as' for various armies/themes!), to better represent my Tzeentch warband?

Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem entirely ignorant of just why so many Chaos players especially are jumping on board the 'counts as' train...

Our codex is utter gak. No wait, let's be real about it, our codex is literally the exact same copy/paste pile of a raging dumpster fire from its original 3rd edition iteration, with the only big changes being a handful of new units and a handful of 'relics'! (Daemon engines of all sorts, Muties, Talons, Cultists, Vindicators, Apostles & Warpsmiths + a couple added SC's being "new".)
Not only are we still left with what is basically the same stagnant mess of 3rd edition, we also have not been blessed with any new wargear or weapon upgrades.

And as for 'fluffy rules', well, we don't deserve them apparently, because we have none, except for a handful of random tables & the game's single worst army-wide rule that is the Champions of Chaos clusterfeth! Our army actively works against us most of the time, especially if you want to play anything other than Nurgle & friends with an occasional AoBF Lord for lols.
Want to play Alpha Legion? Sorry, but you either need to pray for a 1/6 shot at landing the Infiltration Warlord trait, or take ****ing Ahriman/Huron to get D3 Infiltrating units! (and btw, neither of those boys are remotely fluffy for any Alpha Legion army!)
Want Night Lords and their terror tactics? Oh wait, you gotta go to Crimson Slaughter for army-wide 'Fear', but then can't take the VotLW ability which would again, be a core fluffy rule for the majority of Night Lords marines, because... "reasons". And don't even think you can get Stealth/Night Fighting, which Night Lords used to have as one of their defining traits, because again, thanks to Jervis being a complete & utter toolbag when it comes to CSM's, every single Marine, from siege master IW's, to zealous WB's, to sneaky Alpha Legionnaires, to World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and recent Renegades of the Red Corsairs are 100% the exact same thing! (because as we all know, only Loyalist Marines deserve special snowflake status)

Hell, we're so out of touch with reality, that our entire army's basic strategy is still based entirely around putting our numerous dedicated assault units into Rhinos and rushing forwards to assault out of them!

But yet, if I wanted to do say a fluffy Tzeentchian Alpha Legion warband, (ie: like the one from CotW), and instead of using the useless excuse of a codex that CSM's are saddled with, I choose to use say C:SM's w/Ravenguard tactics + some allied IG infantry to represent their Chaos Cultist underlings, I'm automatically TFG?


Or to put it in simpler terms;
I've been a dedicated Chaos player since mid 3rd edition. Since Oct. 2007, I've been forced to use a flavourless, dull as rodent gak turd of a book, which has routinely had all of maybe 3-5 actual decent choices to field. (and most of them being Nurgle marked to boot!)
So, despite taking it strait up the poop chute from everyone and their mother for the better part of a whole decade, you'd refuse to play me & consider me TFG if I wanted to make my army more fluffy & fun to use, just because I use the rules for Vanilla Marines + allied IG?

If you say yes, then basically you need to admit that what you're really saying is, "I don't think Chaos players should be allowed to have fun, and they should be forced to lose 90+% of the games they'll ever play."

And then Loyalist players wonder why Chaos players especially look at them as a bunch of whiney elitists.

Loathsome, TFG, waac, Power gamer seems like a bit much, let's not get carried away. I know exactly why chaos players change codices. It's a bad dex. They don't want a bad dex, so they resort to their loyalist counter parts. I find this distasteful because it's akin to me trading all my dark eldar for craft world eldar. It's not sticking to your guns and it's mixing rules, models, and codices. That's why I have a problem with it. And may I ask how old is that WD? I know they promote conversions and the such (there'd be no reason for green stuff otherwise) but with the way they act now I doubt they'd care about the community that much. (Sheer curiosity) and if your for conversion so much, it wouldn't be too hard to make your own custom alpha legion lord with axe, claw, and flamer?

And I'm not calling anyone TFG. I am stating what I consider to be correct. (Yes I know I said trading codices for power is WAAC behaviour, but I was mirroring what someone else had said, and to be fair WAAC isn't even TFG) I wouldn't even refuse to play you either, even if you did what OP is doing.

And what's with all the loyalist talk? I play chaos too. Or is it just that rabid jealousy of GWs favourite lap dogs setting in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


We're the models displayed in the codex entries the model you're putting on the tabletop?

What models should CSM players use for Chosen? Or an Ork player who wants to field a warboss in Mega-Armour?

You're obviously pretty new to the game if you cannot remember when units didn't always have official models, which makes this kind of metric to determine whether someone is using the "correct model" useless.

From my knowledge chosen are csm with extra rules. And yes, I know stuff doesn't have models. I should have clarified that in a situation like this (where you have no other choice) it would be perfectly acceptable to me to use unnoficial models. And yes, I may be only a year in but stuff still doesn't have models. As far as GW is concerned there is no wolf priest model. Its still not completely unheard of.