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.

golly, this topic just won't go away will it? Personally I find this whole thing about 'power' in an army list a little silly, still, hey ho. I look at the chaos list and see a couple of things. I can build the list I had from Slaves to Darkness, and am very happy about that. I can build my E.C. and it not be a (IMHO) dumbass noize mahrinez list. Should I wish, I can build that World Bearers list I always meant to. That is what 'they' seem to have been aiming for, whilst accommodating as many different approaches to the game as possible. No, not everything has rules. Why does this have to be a problem? Perhaps it's even meant to encourage people to write their own, after all, where are the next generation of designers to come from? It's pretty clear that at the moment those in charge of GW policy don't want to go down the tournament route, you may not like it but such is life. The attitude I remember from gamers was that the material you were given was a starting point, to be adapted and played around with as you liked. Has that gone?

olympia wrote:This thread is remarkable for the sense of entitlement shown by the most vociferous CSM players. You never hear the poor Tau players whinge as much as this about having a piss poor codex.

False comparison. The tau codex, when released, was good. It also expanded the options of the old codex while making it highly competive in the meta game of it's time.

Fifth edition took a bat to the Tau book, but the Chaos book was problematic from the get go.

Many Chaos players dislike the current book, to a degree and extent far beyond what any other fan base feels about their codex. Now, you can assume one of two things: 1) that the Chaos Codex really does fail in some way to meet the reasonable expectations of fans, or 2) that clearly Chaos players are notably prolific whiners.

I'm glad to see you've picked the option that ignores all the arguments and evidence, and simply adds heat to an already testy discussion. Well done sir.

willydstyle wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:What I can't stand are people who have twin lash in an army which consists mostly of Khorne units. Something like that should not be allowed!

Hmmm... I remember being able to mix Khorne and Slannesh pretty freely in the 2nd ed book. Maybe you shouldn't base all of your ideas of fluff off of one codex.

So Slaneesh and Khorne were bff in 2nd edition

All I would like to see is at least some fluff mirrored in the rules. If you have a god-specific demonprince/lord/sorceror as HQ is it too much to ask for some restrictions in the troop department?

In 2nd ed, the fluff was there, but was not enforced by the rules. In 3.0 and 3.5 there was some restrictions based on the ancient enemies fluff. In 4.0 we have neither the fluff, nor the rules. You should stop basing your biases off of things that don't exist any more. The (current) fluff... or lack thereof... is reflected in the rules.

In the space marine book, and most other current codices, your HQ choices open up options, but almost never give restrictions. Why should chaos be held to a different standard?

If anything, it should just be something like "Characters with a Mark cannot join units with a different mark" or something.

endless wrote:golly, this topic just won't go away will it? Personally I find this whole thing about 'power' in an army list a little silly, still, hey ho. I look at the chaos list and see a couple of things. I can build the list I had from Slaves to Darkness, and am very happy about that.

Really? I find that fascinating. Because if I made a list from Slaves to Darkness, the only thing that would stay the same is that I have Chaos Legionnaires. That's the only thing that would stay the same. I mean, heck, if I wanted to I would've had a World Eaters Librarian and maybe a Medic too. (Of course, these were both quickly axed!)

willydstyle wrote:In 2nd ed, the fluff was there, but was not enforced by the rules. In 3.0 and 3.5 there was some restrictions based on the ancient enemies fluff. In 4.0 we have neither the fluff, nor the rules. You should stop basing your biases off of things that don't exist any more. The (current) fluff... or lack thereof... is reflected in the rules.

In the space marine book, and most other current codices, your HQ choices open up options, but almost never give restrictions. Why should chaos be held to a different standard?

To be fair I think there were rules which made it difficult to put two different types of daemons close to each other as of 2nd edition.

And most people wouldn't complain if it was just your HQ selections that opened up new paths for armies (ie Khorne Lord gives more Khorne options) but having to field special characters just seems dumb.

Daemons had animosity, but I think it was Rogue Trader. It's mostly the non-special characters that give armies their different options:

Bike captains for space marines.
Warbosses
Big Meks

Though with the DA and the new SW codex it definitely is the special characters that unlock the options. Personally, I think that special character hate is pretty silly. Just think of them as another option in the book.

willydstyle wrote:

In the space marine book, and most other current codices, your HQ choices open up options, but almost never give restrictions. Why should chaos be held to a different standard?

However,SM also have codices representing various chapters,SW,DA,BA and such,were as CSM have one bland codex from wich to build from.
For example,a SM player,wishing to play a Space Wolf army can build this army to include troops that are unique to space wolves,HQs that are unique to space wolves,elites that are unique to Space Wolves...etc.
As a Death Guard player,I am very limited in building my army,sure I still have Plauge Marines,but every thing else is gone...I have generic daemons (lesser and greater),boring daemon princes,Lords and Terminators with "MON" ,instead of representing battle hardened elite of a Death Guard army.
So yes,I suppose there does exist a different standard,one selection has the option to build armies that represent unique chapters,while the other is wandering about in a sea of bland, boring "counts as" builds.

Really? I find that fascinating. Because if I made a list from Slaves to Darkness, the only thing that would stay the same is that I have Chaos Legionnaires. That's the only thing that would stay the same. I mean, heck, if I wanted to I would've had a World Eaters Librarian and maybe a Medic too. (Of course, these were both quickly axed!)

Well, mine's an E.C. list so we're diametrically opposed
What from your W.E. list can you not have? Other than the medic, librarian and beastmen? If you want to say that the whole banner thing renders it impossible for you to field W.E. fair enough, for me it's just a game mechanic and not a big deal. Maybe it is for others, I'm not sure.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It's not fluff, it's viable army builds, it's 2xlash and maxxed oblits and plague marines as a premium build. Taking the same gak to the party every week gets old fast.

To use a colour analogy,

If it gets old, don't do it. Nothing forces a player to play the "premium" build every single game. There are other *viable* builds, but maybe they fall into the LRN2PLAY category. And maybe that's the real problem, that the other viable builds aren't stupidly-broken, require some playing skill. I mean, is anybody here actually saying that they don't have the chops to play a non-Lash, non-Oblit CSM list? If so, I want to see names of players that require crutches when playing.

To use a color analogy, all of the colors are there, and they can be mixed in combination, but for whatever reason, a small subset only likes to see brown, and whines that the current shade of red isn't quite the same as the previous shade of red, while the current green is a little darker than before, and the current pink is a bit more salmon-tinted. Just like every other current color palette that's been released in the past couple years.

I see wot you did thar1!!1!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It's not fluff, it's viable army builds, it's 2xlash and maxxed oblits and plague marines as a premium build. Taking the same gak to the party every week gets old fast.

To use a colour analogy,

If it gets old, don't do it. Nothing forces a player to play the "premium" build every single game. There are other *viable* builds, but maybe they fall into the LRN2PLAY category. And maybe that's the real problem, that the other viable builds aren't stupidly-broken, require some playing skill. I mean, is anybody here actually saying that they don't have the chops to play a non-Lash, non-Oblit CSM list? If so, I want to see names of players that require crutches when playing.

To use a color analogy, all of the colors are there, and they can be mixed in combination, but for whatever reason, a small subset only likes to see brown, and whines that the current shade of red isn't quite the same as the previous shade of red, while the current green is a little darker than before, and the current pink is a bit more salmon-tinted. Just like every other current color palette that's been released in the past couple years.

Well put John! I'm pissed at my ork dex! I mean I HAVE to play nob bikers in tournaments. My poor flash gitz army hasn't been taken off the shelf in two years. When CSM players complain about a lack of viable builds, they are, as johnhwang points out, complaining about a lack of multiple powerbuilds.

olympia wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It's not fluff, it's viable army builds, it's 2xlash and maxxed oblits and plague marines as a premium build. Taking the same gak to the party every week gets old fast.

To use a colour analogy,

If it gets old, don't do it. Nothing forces a player to play the "premium" build every single game. There are other *viable* builds, but maybe they fall into the LRN2PLAY category. And maybe that's the real problem, that the other viable builds aren't stupidly-broken, require some playing skill. I mean, is anybody here actually saying that they don't have the chops to play a non-Lash, non-Oblit CSM list? If so, I want to see names of players that require crutches when playing.

To use a color analogy, all of the colors are there, and they can be mixed in combination, but for whatever reason, a small subset only likes to see brown, and whines that the current shade of red isn't quite the same as the previous shade of red, while the current green is a little darker than before, and the current pink is a bit more salmon-tinted. Just like every other current color palette that's been released in the past couple years.

Well put John! I'm pissed at my ork dex! I mean I HAVE to play nob bikers in tournaments. My poor flash gitz army hasn't been taken off the shelf in two years. When CSM players complain about a lack of viable builds, they are, as johnhwang points out, complaining about a lack of multiple powerbuilds.

While I can't speak for every CSM player,I personaly couldn't give a gak about "power builds",I would simply like the option to build the army I wan't to build with out the limitations of "counts as",generic deamons and Lords & elites that do not reflect the nature of the army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly,for all of Mr. Thorpes rebudles about lifting limitations..the current codex sure seems limiting.

I never said anything about missing an effective army. My Death Guard usually got slaughtered just as often as my other armies

I want the rules to adequatly represent my army's theme and 4.0 fails miserably in that.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:What I can't stand are people who have twin lash in an army which consists mostly of Khorne units. Something like that should not be allowed!

Hmmm... I remember being able to mix Khorne and Slannesh pretty freely in the 2nd ed book. Maybe you shouldn't base all of your ideas of fluff off of one codex.

So Slaneesh and Khorne were bff in 2nd edition

All I would like to see is at least some fluff mirrored in the rules. If you have a god-specific demonprince/lord/sorceror as HQ is it too much to ask for some restrictions in the troop department?

BUt this is entirely Gav's point no? Rather than enforce restrictions on players, it is left to them to figure out how the view Chaos. Is your army a Black Crusade from a single Legion, or a force comprised of many smaller Warbands, each led by an Aspiring Champion, or something in between?

Whilst I get those who choose the former were miffed about losing some of the perks (Sacred Numbers, Daemons specific to their God etc) I feel the current book reflects Chaos pretty accurately. As an example (albeit slightly obtuse) I run a Savage Orc army in Fantasy. Everything is frenzied, and this is because I have taken a very narrow view of how Savage Orc's should be played. If I elect to take a Savage Orc Warboss, then I feel he should be leading nothing but fellow turbo-nutters. I reckon Black Orcs would be put out by their inability to take things seriously, the Gobbo's would have been smacked around far too much, and the other Orcs would have become enamoured with the endless opportunities for thumping things and 'gone native'. This is my interpretation of the fluff, and I wouldn't look down upon someone who feels a more mixed approach is appropriate.

Sure, with Chaos you have the background explaining the God's Rivalries, but to assume they only every possibly work together during a full on Black Crusade seems a little dull to me. I quite like the idea of my army being disparate groups gathering together for their own nefarious reasons, and would fully expect all manner of underhanded shenanigans to be going to ensure it is their God, and not the others, that reaps the most reward. Again, many people disagree with this and impose restrictions upon themselves in the way I have with my Savage Orcs. I don't think it's so much a concern of who is 'more right' in their view, as just accepting neither side is wrong.

This peculiar Hobby of ours is many things to many people. Some might like to collect a really hard army, pieceing it together with little concern for the background. Others might go the opposite, and create a heavily themed force with little concern for board effectiveness. Others still might prefer to simply procure whichever models they like, and form their army that way. In this respect the Chaos Codex works wonderfully. It caters to all kinds of Hobbyists.

endless wrote:

Really? I find that fascinating. Because if I made a list from Slaves to Darkness, the only thing that would stay the same is that I have Chaos Legionnaires. That's the only thing that would stay the same. I mean, heck, if I wanted to I would've had a World Eaters Librarian and maybe a Medic too. (Of course, these were both quickly axed!)

Well, mine's an E.C. list so we're diametrically opposed
What from your W.E. list can you not have? Other than the medic, librarian and beastmen? If you want to say that the whole banner thing renders it impossible for you to field W.E. fair enough, for me it's just a game mechanic and not a big deal. Maybe it is for others, I'm not sure.

Ah, my mortal enemy! We meet again. ; )

I may start nit-picking here.

First off, of course, is Daemons from the patron deity. For example, Bloodthirsters and Bloodletters for World Eaters, or a Keeper of Secrets and Daemonettes for Emperor's Children.

Commanders used to be able to take tons of stuff. I means tons. All those gifts and mutations? Gone. Really, the only "daemonic" thing that you can give a Chaos commander nowadays is a Daemonic weapon.

Even the tactical squads felt like Chaos, with random attributes. Now you just give them a mark.

Those 2 are the big ones to me, and I think that these are the 2 big ones to pretty much everyone.

To nit-pick, I think that it would have been freaking awesome to give a World Eaters tactical squad Chaos steeds.

There of course were also Chaplains and Techmarines.

I could say that Chaos lost a ton of equipment options but so did everyone else so to me that's not too valid of a complaint.

It's funny, just the World Eaters list in Slaves to Darkness has more options (imo) then the entire new Codex. Just one little army list. It had a ton more flavor to it, too.

So in reality if you nit-pick Chaos lost practically everything. If you don't, they just mostly lost a good amount of stuff, but they still keep some options.

Of course, then again Slaves to Darkness makes even the fabled and praised 3.5 codex look bland. That's just me though.


Anyway, here's my personal opinion the new Chaos codex. It's a good list. Don't get me wrong there. It's very powerful with the right stuff. So now that this is out of the way:

I just miss the options. I'm a casual (yet somewhat competitive) player. I love narrative battles and I absolutely hate playing kill-point missions. To me that wrecks the spirit of the game and hurts some armies more than others. Sure I post lists so that I can see how to make my list better, but I like being told "your army looks good but could use some fixing up in X, Y, or Z". Absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I feel like just making a random list with no thought is kind of lame. So that's why I'm pretty casual with a sort of competitive edge.

But back to my original point. I miss the myriad of options. I like making my heroes super awesome with tons of different weapons and really good armor. That's why Chaos appeals to me, because I sort of like the almost "hero hammer" aspect.

Losing all that is just a kick in the balls to me.

I like differentiation. It's easy for me to yell at Gav and Alessio. But they were just doing their job and unfortunately Chaos was made during the "dumb everything down" phase of GW. I'm hopeful for the future though, and Space Wolves seem to have a lot of options. Being powerful is just icing on the cake.

I could really care less if Chaos wasn't that good but you could make your army whatever you wanted.

That's just my 2 cents.

Ah, my mortal enemy! We meet again. ; )

Heh, have at ye!!!

I may start nit-picking here.

Typical, blood for the blood god, yadda yadda

OK, Daemons. In Slaves to Darkness Daemonettes were better in combat than Bloodletters, sacred numbers made it balance. Against the background, but if you want to go back to it, ok. TBH, I like generic daemons. We can field our models without complications, my Juan Diaz Daemonettes don't need explaining, old Khornate daemons can be used, it's all good, no?

Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Genestealer Magi, Ork Warlords, Inquisitors, Squat Living Ancestors, everyone could take loads of stuff. They can't now. Some of them can't take 'exist' as an option.

Gifts? Can you model uncontrollable flatulence? Or provide enough models to be able to represent YOUR unit with pin-head mutation to conform with WYSIWYG? Why can't I know if I get Fearsome Appearance or Stupid before the battle, so I can deploy to best effect?

As to the rest, well, TBH, 40k was an afterthought. Most of the tables from WFB were available as an option, but even then the two books were a halfway house between W.F.R.P. and a small scale skirmish system. Yes, I made my chaos 40k from those lists and I loved them. I can still use the same models now. I couldn't until this codex was released.

This is what I think Mr. Thorpe was getting at.

On the subject of options in the previous Codex.

Many were created, many were offered. Few were used. Seriously, beyond Stature, Wings, Strength, Resilience and Mutation, I hardly ever saw any Mutations fielded. So they took the option away and just gave what the majority fielded...

someone else said wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If it gets old, don't do it. Nothing forces a player to play the "premium" build every single game. There are other *viable* builds, but maybe they fall into the LRN2PLAY category. And maybe that's the real problem, that the other viable builds aren't stupidly-broken, require some playing skill. I mean, is anybody here actually saying that they don't have the chops to play a non-Lash, non-Oblit CSM list? If so, I want to see names of players that require crutches when playing.

To use a color analogy, all of the colors are there, and they can be mixed in combination, but for whatever reason, a small subset only likes to see brown, and whines that the current shade of red isn't quite the same as the previous shade of red, while the current green is a little darker than before, and the current pink is a bit more salmon-tinted. Just like every other current color palette that's been released in the past couple years.

Well put John! I'm pissed at my ork dex! I mean I HAVE to play nob bikers in tournaments. My poor flash gitz army hasn't been taken off the shelf in two years. When CSM players complain about a lack of viable builds, they are, as johnhwang points out, complaining about a lack of multiple powerbuilds.

Cool, since youre psychic and all, can you tell me tomorrow's lottery numbers as well?

"John" seems to be completely ignorant to the CSM codex. I can say Necrons are the most overpowered army and have 8 powerbuilds, but does that make it true? No. Please John, I would love to hear your other viable builds. I have been working hard to make a viable Night Lords fluffy list, and while Ive reached that point, it still deviates very very little from the main cookie cutter list.

I do not use Lash, I use warptime (still on a prince).
I do not use Oblits, I use Havocs & Preds (the preds probably being the furthest deviation from the list).
I do not use Plague Marines, I use CSM
I have a squad of Raptors (essentially CSM with jump packs for 5 points a model).
My Elites consist of Dreads (with CCWs, as theyre the only viable setup) and Termicide that are interchangeable.

Yet it plays almost exactly the same. We had this discussion in the tactics board and another member brought up his cookie cutter list, and comparing it side by side it was still almost the exact same. While it had all NL fluffy units, it doesnt play like NLs at all. Its still just black legion with restrictions and painted blue.

So it's not "LRN2PLY", its the fact that there are a few units that just simply outperform all the others, and then those few units have so few upgrade options that there generally is 1 obvious way to run them (such as 2x meltas, rhino, IoCG, champ, and fist w/ CSM). There is no reason to take possessed, bikes, spawn, etc.

Night Lords wrote:So it's not "LRN2PLY", its the fact that there are a few units that just simply outperform all the others, and then those few units have so few upgrade options that there generally is 1 obvious way to run them (such as 2x meltas, rhino, IoCG, champ, and fist w/ CSM). There is no reason to take possessed, bikes, spawn, etc.

This might be true if you limit your enjoyment of the Hobby to just winning games as easily as possible.

Possessed and Spawn are a modellers dream unit. They can look like whatever you want them to look like, and the book allows you to field them. Same with Bikes. I'm not a fan of the bike models, so perhaps I'll convert up something similarly sized I find more aesthetically pleasing purely for the sake of modelling. That I can then field them in a game is a bonus.

But hey, clearly anyone whose goals extend beyond simply winning games must be completely wrong, no? Not saying I'm better than you by any stretch of the imagination, but you are taking an extremely blinkered view. And said view is exactly what Gav meant by opinion dressed up as fact. You are of course entitled to your own opinon and views, but you have to appreciate there will be other views which differ from your own.

^+1

@ Night Lords: How would you make Night Lords 'fluffy'?

Some sort of static-grass should do the trick!

endless wrote:@ Night Lords: How would you make Night Lords 'fluffy'?

You could not take possessed, bikes, spawn, as none of them were part of the Night Lords fluff in the 3.5 codex.

Personally I think that they never recovered from having Khorne Berzerkers steal their logo for their helmets.

Khorne Berzerkers stole the Night Lord's logo for their helmets?

Why have people really moved onto builds here? The main issue is the fact that they have done away with legions now.
Of course, you can still play IW, AL, WB etc, but you now play them as a different coloured Black legion.
They managed to kill off all variety in lists.

Why do people keep popping in with a single post and saying that the complaint is about them being too weak?
they have some of the best units IMO.
Lash, as a power, is amazing, able to piss people off all game long and help out to no end.

Oblits are walking death machines. Good stats, mixed with being a walking armoury makes them able to take on multiple roles as quickly as needed, giving chaos a very flexible choice.

Plagu marines, They are just a pain in the ass, they refuse to die and are able to hold objectives with ease in or out of cover.



If i wasnt re-building my BA i would be tempted with an IW army, but due to lack of fluff army list wise, i dont really see any point.
Chaos has now become a single legion really, just with multiple colour schemes.

I think that if GW make changes to a book (especially one that was so popular) they should try and keep the force organization as close to the origional as possible.
How many people were pissed off when thier rather expensive and fully painted army suddenly became illegal to play simply because of a new book release?

George Spiggott wrote:

endless wrote:@ Night Lords: How would you make Night Lords 'fluffy'?

You could not take possessed, bikes, spawn, as none of them were part of the Night Lords fluff in the 3.5 codex.

Personally I think that they never recovered from having Khorne Berzerkers steal their logo for their helmets.

The 3.5 codex had lots of fluff. It even had lots of good fluff. However, it is not the be-all-end-all of chaos fluff.

@ Nurglitch: The Khorne Berzerker helmet is a stylised winged skull. It was one of the many Khornate icons back when the Nightlords were a Khornate legion and their logo was just another Khornate symbol.

The main objections to the chaos dex I have are that my regular troops ie Plague Marines, Khorne Berzerkers etc are better than my Elite and HQ units ie Terminator squads and my lord. If i want to take a lord yeah I can give him a mark but he does not get what my basic troop gets? Come on hows that. I wonder if I could justify to an opponent that my whole Khorne berzerker squad is my HQ as they are in actual fact far better than my "marked" lord

You could not take possessed, bikes, spawn, as none of them were part of the Night Lords fluff in the 3.5 codex.

If you play that way, you still can't. Where does the current codex say you have to?

The main objections to the chaos dex I have are that my regular troops ie Plague Marines, Khorne Berzerkers etc are better than my Elite and HQ units ie Terminator squads and my lord. If i want to take a lord yeah I can give him a mark but he does not get what my basic troop gets? Come on hows that. I wonder if I could justify to an opponent that my whole Khorne berzerker squad is my HQ as they are in actual fact far better than my "marked" lord

So your complaint consists of: 'I have the best Troops in the game, that sucks'. Well done you.