Switch Theme:

Mr. Thorpe and the chaos codex redux :  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Nurglitch wrote:BRING ON THE GREASE!


Yeah, I'mma fry me up some Cal-a-maree!


Tombworld El'Lahaun 2500pts
Hive Fleet Vestis 5000pts
Disciples of Caliban 2000pts
Crimson Fist 2000pts
World Eaters 1850pts
Angels Encarmine 1850pts
Iron Hospitalers 1850 pts (Black Templar Successor)
Sons of Medusa 1850pts
Tartarus IXth Renegade Legion 2500pts
 
   
Made in ca
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!






Soviet Kanukistan

JohnHwangDD wrote:1. CSM have Raptors at a not totally unreasonable price, but you're completely right that there's no way to take JPs as Elite nor Troops. That is what makes BA unique.

I was more refering to Bikes, which have been made troops in several codecies, though I concede that BAs have set precedence by making jump pack infantry troops.

JohnHwangDD wrote:2. The lack of Heavy weapons is also designed in to show how CSM are fighty, not shooty. It's also why there are no Razorbacks... However, small Noise Marine squads with Blastmasters break the 10:1 at the cost of using premium, I5 Troops this way.


I did forget about the Noisemarines. In my mind, of more concern is the complete lack of heavy weapons in the fast attack slot. Most other codecies have methods of taking -mobile- heavy guns in this slot (as support), be it landspeeders/attackbikes, vypers, destroyers, sentinels, deffkoptas etc. Chaos has none. The only configurable moving heavy weapon platform they have outside heavy support is on the dreadnought - making it unreliable at best, and downright useless at times. (I'm deliberately ignoring the reaper autocannon on Chaos terminators, as it falls into the same category as the blastmaster - which is a weapon option where the function is somewhat contrary to the squads normal mode of opperation.)

While we may conjecture all we want about the designer's intentions regarding "fightyness" vs "shootyness", regardless of intention - the reality is that due to the way they have distributed heavy weapons options, deployment options and movement options, the most sucessful variants are all mechanized out of necessity, and not by choice.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

RxGhost wrote:I disagree, Polonius. This seems less smoke and fire, and more squeeky wheel and grease (well, no grease yet).

It certainly seems that (on the internet) this book has attracted a loud following of hate but most people I know have found alternatives or, like myself, really enjoy the current edition.


So you're comfortable just filing this under "well, the internet needs to hate something"? So it's just a weird coincidence that a bunch of people all decided to hate the same thing on the interent? Maybe anonymous is behind it.

Of course chaos players find alternatives. They either shelf the army, sell it, or play out of the new codex. That doesn't mean they're happy with it.

It's like people after a bad breakup: they eventually stop talking about her because frankly the people in their lives dont' care. But we all have that friend that get's drunk once a year and get's wistful over a girl from his past. My point is that yeah, IRL people move on.

Also, to be fair, this was brought up not by people that hate the codex but by Gav, who decided to weigh in. That prompted the usual tit for tat you see.
   
Made in ca
Devious Space Marine dedicated to Tzeentch






Creston, BC

Polonius wrote:I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think one reason people dislike the new codex so much is because it's not more powerful than the previous one. Yes, yes, I've argued for years that it's not about power, and arguably the best army build for the last two years has been Twin lash, but hear me out.

When a new codex comes out, most of the time it replaces a book that has faded dramatically in power, such that while it may have a few fun lists, it has one or maybe two punchy power builds left in in. You know that when a codex is redone some of the small little options are going to be re-shuffled, that some army archtypes might be eliminated, but they'll be replaced with new ones, that are fun and powerful. With the chaos book, it had huge options, many of which were quite strong. The new codex adds one really strong new build, eliminates a bunch of power, elminates a bunch of options, and then walks away.

In short, you can get people excited about a codex in two ways: by making it strong, or by allowing interesting new army builds. It's not that the chaos book doesn't have strong lists, or interesting lists, it's just that it has fewer of each compared to what it replaced. Sure, many people find the lists playable now more interesting than under 3.5, and good for them.

Now, the 3.5 codex was oven OTT, and certainly didn't need to become more powerful. Maybe there really was no way to balance it back to the pack while retaining options; but I contend that they could have done a better job with it. This was the only time we've ever seen a codex struck down while still in it's prime, and I think that's a bigger factor than most people acknowledge, myself included.

Even worse, paradoxically, the current book didn't weather the switch to 5th particularly well. Only one unit can outflank, thousand sons were good until the new cover rules made them inferior pound for pound to noise marines, KPs make spawn even worse, etc. The old 3.5 book could make some really interesting and killer 5th edition lists: all outflanking alpha legion, Word bearers demon bombs, etc.


I don't always agree with you, Polonius, but do appreciate the way you write.

BTW I think you summed it up nicely here and I am in the "mostly happy with the streamlined Codex" crowd

Cheers!

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






I don't think we need to get all conspiratorial, internet hate machine all up in here. I'm just saying that in the real world I live in, people do not usually go to the internet to talk about the things they love.

Besides, let's look at the reality that most of us are casual players who play with people we know or in places we know and are comfortable with. Just keep playing your old army with the old rules, no one is going to care. I'm sorry if the new codex doesn't fit the perfect vision of what you're army was, but maybe it shouldn't.

Look at Magic The Gathering. They've been around for years longer than they should have, and do you know why? Type 2 tournament format. That's the deck construction rule where you can only use the most current cards in your deck. (As an aside, it should be known that magic handles casual players like 40k handles hardcore tournament styles) This forces players to buy new cards to play in the current formats, this propels sales of cards as the old ones are out-moded. But what it also does, is slowly rotates and eventually kicks out deck construction types. This is what keeps the game from stagnating, this is what keeps the game alive.

I know warhammer armies cost a lot of time and money, but so do magic decks. I've seen people spend as much or more on a tweaked deck as some others will spend on an army...and they don't know it, but they're being forced to play in new and novel ways because that's what keeps it worth playing.

Tombworld El'Lahaun 2500pts
Hive Fleet Vestis 5000pts
Disciples of Caliban 2000pts
Crimson Fist 2000pts
World Eaters 1850pts
Angels Encarmine 1850pts
Iron Hospitalers 1850 pts (Black Templar Successor)
Sons of Medusa 1850pts
Tartarus IXth Renegade Legion 2500pts
 
   
Made in us
Phanobi





Paso Robles, CA, USA

Polonius wrote:
However, first I meant that you can build interesting builds that are pretty similar to the old ones in the current ig book, something that isn't always possible with chaos. Secondly I think that number of interesting, viable builds out of the chaos book pale in comparion to eldar, SM, or IG. As has been stated, all essentially revolve around dudes in rhinos. The fixin's are many and varied (if not always tasty), but meat and potatoes of the chaos book is surprising inflexible.


And this is where I disagree with you in two ways:

1. You keep saying that Chaos is boring and at least Eldar and IG still have interesting builds and so that somehow invalidates JHDD's points. I disagree with you. Yes it is a difference of opinion but it seems you are taking that all Rhino rushes are the same as fact (see "As has been stated") and I don't agree. I think that WE in Rhinos requires different tactics than NM's in Rhino's or 1kSons in Rhinos or even basic CSM in Rhinos. And additionally I do believe that other play styles can still be done with the CSM dex.

2. That somehow IG and Eldar can field approximations of the old lists but Chaos can't. Except for a few specific examples in all three codices, I believe that just about all the old lists can get close. Chaos isn't somehow more special in that regard.

So yes, your statement was correct, but inaccurate. It read as snotty because it seemed like you were ignoring all of the arguments that have been made, and seemed to focus on the fact that, yes, you can actually build an army or two out of the Chaos book that isn't boring, as if that solved everything.

Maybe I was a little touchy, but you had to know that it would provoke a response and rebuttal, if you thought about it. If not, well, I didn't mean to jump at you for posting sloppy.


Calling me snotty is a great way to avoid having a real discussion. I don't think my tone has been anything but open with you.

It also gets back to something that I've been saying for a while now, and nobody seems to respond to: There are only two reason for this controversy. One is that the Chaos Book is actually unusually flawed, the other is that chaos players are unusually petulant. At some point, where there is smoke (a large amount of anger at a codex) there might actually be fire (something wrong with the damn book).


I am not arguing that there is nothing wrong with the book. In fact I have said I've agreed with many of the criticisms several times. What I don't agree with is the degree of things wrong, that this book is somehow the worst evar. It gets old and tiresome to see the same arguments and the same hyperbole coming from basically the same people every time the Chaos dex is brought up (or every time a new codex comes out like the new SW codex).

Speaking of not responding, I asked the question earlier to HBMC, what could Gav had said that would have satisfied you? Seems to me his answers explain his reasoning and why they made the decisions they made (on a macro level, not on individual items, which Gav said he wouldn't answer). Whether or not you agree that it was good reasoning is a different discussion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/17 22:11:47


My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Look on My works, Ye Mighty, and despair.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:Holy Space Marine on a Stick.

This conversation has even begun to boggle my internet-hardened mind.

A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

keezus wrote:1. I was more refering to Bikes, which have been made troops in several codecies, though I concede that BAs have set precedence by making jump pack infantry troops.

2. In my mind, of more concern is the complete lack of heavy weapons in the fast attack slot. The only configurable moving heavy weapon platform they have outside heavy support is on the dreadnought - making it unreliable at best, and downright useless at times.

While we may conjecture all we want about the designer's intentions regarding "fightyness" vs "shootyness", regardless of intention - the reality is that due to the way they have distributed heavy weapons options, deployment options and movement options, the most sucessful variants are all mechanized out of necessity, and not by choice.

1. On the Bikes, I forgot about them entirely - they're a bit too shooty for my tastes.

2. You know, being Raptor-focused, I never even noticed that. OTOH, Chaos has pure fight as Fast (via Spawn). Also note that Dread is best taken as a dual CCW unit.

SM are mech, too, just mech shooty using Pods & Razors; CSM are clearly mech fighty, as you clearly help explain. And there's nothing wrong with GW forcing the Codices down these particular roads, as it does show that CSM have a different MO compared to regular SM.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Not content with the mud-slinging here, KillKrazy has started a poll on the subject.

Ozy - What answer could he give to satisfy me? I suspect there's no answer he could give me that would satisfy me, but not because I'd simply disagree with him, but because he simply wouldn't answer the question. Just look at his response. He fethed up the ice-cream analogy to the point of absurdity - his response does not make any logical sense - and then spent the next 10 paragraphs harping on with a straw-filled false dilemma to prove a non-existent point.

If someone wants to disagree with me about the Chaos Codex (or anything), fine, but I operate under the assumption that someone backs up what they say with some sort of tangible or logical reasoning. This is why I often get into hissy fits with John, as that man is devoid of all logic and is incapable of mounting a structured argument. Gav did the same thing here - he answered criticism with hollow, empty and meaningless babble. I'm not satisfied because I wanted an answer - whatever that answer may turn out to be is largely irrelevant - but I got no answer. I got crap.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/17 23:37:25


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Revving Ravenwing Biker






Sydney, Australia

As I said before,
And hopefully this poll will show,

That in general people think the codex was a big step back and MOST people that play chaos or otherwise would agree,

But let us use the stats for that call and stop the name calling please!
   
Made in us
Phanobi





Paso Robles, CA, USA

HBMC: An answer to what? What was your question? If it was "Why is the Chaos codex crappy?" His answer is, "I don't think it is." If your question was, "Why did you do the things you did to the Chaos codex," then I think he did give you an answer, albeit an answer you disagree with.

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Look on My works, Ye Mighty, and despair.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:Holy Space Marine on a Stick.

This conversation has even begun to boggle my internet-hardened mind.

A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Ozymandias wrote:
And this is where I disagree with you in two ways:

1. You keep saying that Chaos is boring and at least Eldar and IG still have interesting builds and so that somehow invalidates JHDD's points. I disagree with you. Yes it is a difference of opinion but it seems you are taking that all Rhino rushes are the same as fact (see "As has been stated") and I don't agree. I think that WE in Rhinos requires different tactics than NM's in Rhino's or 1kSons in Rhinos or even basic CSM in Rhinos. And additionally I do believe that other play styles can still be done with the CSM dex.


Not all rhino rushes are the same, of course not. I just think that compared to the options that, say, IG has, the distinctions blur and become subtle. Berzerkers and 1k sons play differently, but the still use many of the same tactics, and can be countered with the same tactics. Now, the difference between mechanzied vets and all foot sloggers is very large. Throw in the ability of one platoon to outflank, and I think you have strongly distinct play styles.


2. That somehow IG and Eldar can field approximations of the old lists but Chaos can't. Except for a few specific examples in all three codices, I believe that just about all the old lists can get close. Chaos isn't somehow more special in that regard.


We can go round around about this, but here's the real thing: the new chaos book didn't add anything, it only took away. Now, it added some stuff (Icons for bikes/raptors, the vindicator and spawn, and all cults as troops), but compare that to the Eldar book (which added the autarch, Harliquins, jetbike warlocks as an army build, wraithguard spam as a build, jetbikes as troops) or Space Marines (Sternguard, vanguard, Ironclads, Storms, the redeemer) or IG (Valk/vendetta, tons of tanks and artillery, Sly Marbo, pyschic battle squads, orders, advisors, vets as troops, and armored sentinels).

So yes, your statement was correct, but inaccurate. It read as snotty because it seemed like you were ignoring all of the arguments that have been made, and seemed to focus on the fact that, yes, you can actually build an army or two out of the Chaos book that isn't boring, as if that solved everything.

Maybe I was a little touchy, but you had to know that it would provoke a response and rebuttal, if you thought about it. If not, well, I didn't mean to jump at you for posting sloppy.


Calling me snotty is a great way to avoid having a real discussion. I don't think my tone has been anything but open with you.


Dude, I said I was being overly touchy, and I explained why I said what I said. I'm sorry I called you snotty, but you're not new to the internet. You posted a one line response to a cherry picked quote that invited a rebuttal.

It also gets back to something that I've been saying for a while now, and nobody seems to respond to: There are only two reason for this controversy. One is that the Chaos Book is actually unusually flawed, the other is that chaos players are unusually petulant. At some point, where there is smoke (a large amount of anger at a codex) there might actually be fire (something wrong with the damn book).


I am not arguing that there is nothing wrong with the book. In fact I have said I've agreed with many of the criticisms several times. What I don't agree with is the degree of things wrong, that this book is somehow the worst evar. It gets old and tiresome to see the same arguments and the same hyperbole coming from basically the same people every time the Chaos dex is brought up (or every time a new codex comes out like the new SW codex).


There have been, what, Seven codices since and including eldar? One of them is going to be the worst. So, saying that Chaos screwed up more armies than any other new codex isn't necessarily hyperbole. It's true of one codex, and there is ample evidence to think it was Chaos. I think DA is pretty widely seen as the weakest and blandest, but for all it's faults it did a pretty good job of replicating what people had. I also don't think this book is awful, but I think that too many of it's supporters simply assume that all codices have changeover flaws and that chaos isn't different. I think that the chaos switch is not only different, it's demonstrably different.

Speaking of not responding, I asked the question earlier to HBMC, what could Gav had said that would have satisfied you? Seems to me his answers explain his reasoning and why they made the decisions they made (on a macro level, not on individual items, which Gav said he wouldn't answer). Whether or not you agree that it was good reasoning is a different discussion.


Well, I'm not HBMC. I've posted what I would have liked Gav to say.
   
Made in us
Phanobi





Paso Robles, CA, USA

We can go on and on so I'll limit my replies to one thing. When I refer to hyperbole I am specifically referring to posts like this (from HBMC):

The book is worse than bad - it's a travesty.


We've had 2 years worth of quotes like that. It's gotten really tiresome and restricts meaningful discussion.

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Look on My works, Ye Mighty, and despair.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:Holy Space Marine on a Stick.

This conversation has even begun to boggle my internet-hardened mind.

A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander




The home of the Alamo, TX

Ozymandias wrote:We can go on and on so I'll limit my replies to one thing. When I refer to hyperbole I am specifically referring to posts like this (from HBMC):

The book is worse than bad - it's a travesty.


We've had 2 years worth of quotes like that. It's gotten really tiresome and restricts meaningful discussion.


Agreed and I've only been actively posting since May.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/17 23:58:42




 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Polonius wrote:Eldar book (which added the autarch, Harliquins, jetbike warlocks as an army build, wraithguard spam as a build, jetbikes as troops)

I dunno, Polonius. The Autarch is little more than a revamp of the old 2E Exarch Character entry. Harlequins tie back to the CJ list, which was more-or-less legal if not overreaching for the revisited version with Harlequin Wraithlords. I can't recall about Jetlocks (I don't own any such models), but I know for a fact that CWE had Ulthwe Seer Council, Iyanden Wraithguard spam, and Saim-Haan Jetbike troops. Taken in perspective from an Eldar player, those really aren't what I'd call "adds".

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Polonius wrote:Eldar book (which added the autarch, Harliquins, jetbike warlocks as an army build, wraithguard spam as a build, jetbikes as troops)

I dunno, Polonius. The Autarch is little more than a revamp of the old 2E Exarch Character entry. Harlequins tie back to the CJ list, which was more-or-less legal if not overreaching for the revisited version with Harlequin Wraithlords. I can't recall about Jetlocks (I don't own any such models), but I know for a fact that CWE had Ulthwe Seer Council, Iyanden Wraithguard spam, and Saim-Haan Jetbike troops. Taken in perspective from an Eldar player, those really aren't what I'd call "adds".


The jetbikes and the wraithguard could be taken as troops in CWE, but at the cost of losing Guardians, Rangers, and DAs as troops. Now you can have them and you're other troops as well.

So, because a codex in 2005 added a unit that was last usable in 1998, that's not an add? It wasn't in the codex that it replaced.

Likewise, Harlequins were sort of legal as their own list that was sort of available. They weren't in the codex, they weren't in CA, and they are in the new codex.

If anything, this proves the larger point, which is that aside from multi-farseer seer councils and aspects as troops, nearly all the rules from the old eldar stuff found their way into the new eldar book, plus more. Oh, I suppose the court of the young king and the disruption table are gone as well. And the wild riders retinue, if you don't like shining spears or basic bikes.
   
Made in au
Revving Ravenwing Biker






Sydney, Australia

This is the interweb,
hyperbole is the norm.

To say that the new Chaos book is a travesty is warranted if you believe so.

I wouldn't use such strong emotions (But I do know that is exactly how HBMC feels to the core).

I also agree that this is a great example,
of a new dex that does nothing but take stuff away (A great way of looking at it).

No new units,
just dropping units, diversity, items, characters and what many gamers felt was the best part about what the old codex (leaving people with a bad taste in their mouth)
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

CWE was a series of restrictive reshuffles, and if you didn't want to play that way, then you didn't. But if you're calling those as "adds", then you need to call Cult Troops "adds". And that is a very significant change to the army.

Quite frankly, restoring stuff that got cut doesn't much seem cause for celebration. To me, losing Biel Tan that I actually played for an Autarch I could care less about isn't an exciting change. And I'm not about to be patting Robbie C. on the back for restoring the Griffon or Vanquisher when he pulled Camo, Carapace, Light Infantry and Drop Troops to do it.

Harlies were in the 2E Codex, so again, nothing to get wound up over.

Actually, losing the Disruption table is somewhat significant, as it was a nearly auto-win against certain opponents. Of course, it would be nigh-useless in 5E's mech metagame.

And CotYK is back in Apoc, I believe.

   
Made in kr
Roarin' Runtherd




South Korea

Fitz

made an excellent point. He said that the veteran Chaos player discontent problem could be resolved by the publishing of legions.

Fritz was also right to say that designing Legions was made difficult (impossible?) By the new truths in the present codexes.

This sums up the problem. Chaos players feel the rule set lost its heart. They want it back, but its not gonna happen this decade.

Thus we complain in the hope that GW notices and moves Legions up the design timetable somewhat so that we can get it within five years, not fifteen.

IMO Legions holds the key to the Chaos culture as it has developed over the years. So the design process should have started there.

As it is, the Legion dimension of Chaos has been thrown out the window, and despite some pretence of getting to it sometime, there is no sign they ever will.

I guess the reason is that business trumps art.

It may be true that the present CSM and Daemon codex are viable. Players have to accept that this is the way its going to be!

So it may be that the design of Chaos armies indeed has been (as we keep claimin) SCREWED, for probably the next ten years by the decisions they made last time around.

We can still play Chaos! We do! The army most broadly has its ruleset, blah de blah blah. It has its power builds, it can win games and tournaments! We know that!

The bottom line is whether the game is better for the latest codexes, and streamlining, and re-writing. Is it more interesting? More fun? More varied? More inspiring?

NO. NO. NO. NO!

On each count is is less attractive than it was,

So when a company of design experts with thirty odd years of expertise in designing things, goes and takes a good and lauded product and creates a lemon!

Don't be surprised when the all knowing customers actually notice it!

As for complaining I think the Chaos horde should do a hell of a lot more.

That might force their hand into committing to some kind of Legions rennaisance before 2020.

OTG.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
John Hwang,

You really gotta post your "tears for the Eldar and IG" somewhere in a new thread. This is the Chaos crying room brother, we aren't arguing with you. Most of us damn well play IG AND Eldar anyway!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/18 00:31:52


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Orc Town Grot wrote:The bottom line is whether the game is better for the latest codexes, and streamlining, and re-writing.

I think that GW accelerating the process of giving the various MEQ-related armies distinct personalities is a good thing. SM are mech Bolters. BA are Jump Packs. SW are Heroes. DA are Termies & Bikes. CSM are mech BP&CCWs. And so on.

I find this much better than everybody being largely indistinguishable Bolter Marines. Particularly galling is the old RT/2E Fluff about how BA/DA/SW are all Codex Chapters.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: An answer to what? What was your question? If it was "Why is the Chaos codex crappy?" His answer is, "I don't think it is." If your question was, "Why did you do the things you did to the Chaos codex," then I think he did give you an answer, albeit an answer you disagree with.


No, I am going to side with Polonius here. You are being 'snotty', and by that I mean needlessly confrontational and hot-headed. Come back to me when you've got a more reasoned approach.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Phanobi





Paso Robles, CA, USA

Wow, way to respond. I wasn't hot-headed but I'm starting to be now. Geez, I have the gall to ask you a simple question and you respond by calling me snotty and hot-headed? Coming from one of the snottiest and most hot-headed poster on Dakka no less.

Now, how about answering the fething question?

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Look on My works, Ye Mighty, and despair.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:Holy Space Marine on a Stick.

This conversation has even begun to boggle my internet-hardened mind.

A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





Georgia,just outside Atlanta

I'm going to have to throw my hat in the ring for H.B.M.C as well.
After reading,rereading and yet again reading Gavs responce to H.B.M.Cs inquery/statements (among others),it seemed Mr. Thorpe missed and/or avoided the point entirely.


"I'll tell you one thing that every good soldier knows! The only thing that counts in the end is power! Naked merciless force!" .-Ursus.

I am Red/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
 
   
Made in gb
Hellacious Havoc





Wales

Gotta say, H.B.M.C. I'm right there with ya. My opinion of the this 'dex is about as low as it could possibly be. There's not much could change that, and illogical excuses from the credited creator just makes it worse. As does having the fringe 4th ed supoorters constantly trying to shout down its detractors.
Fact is, if the majority of Chaos players feel there is a problem with this book, then there IS a problem with the book. To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong. Because there are only a limited number of ways to evaluate a codex objectively - popularity, expansiveness, flexibility, balance, competitiveness, fluffiness - and it seems that in most cases C:CSM 4th edition fails on all fronts. The fact that it is tolerable by some and actually pleased a few by chance doesn't change that.

Also, I wanna mention that if I ever have to 'go 4th' (which might happen if my regular gaming buddy drops out of the hobby), or ever decide to so I can play in stores again (which I'd really like to) the addition of a legions book will not help me. I play Black Legion mostly, and the 4th edition codex isnt even suitable for something as generic as that. I want to be able to customize my Lords and Daemon Princes and Chosen and Tactical Squads - turn them into unique and legendary warriors and killers and conquerors. Without skills, marks, wargear, gifts etc I can't. Plus, I refuse to use generic daemons - I'd get no satisfaction from playing those rules at all.
   
Made in us
Phanobi





Paso Robles, CA, USA

Let me put it another way, HBMC's argument boils down to this (the last line of his blog comment):

Being restricted to one of four options is better than having unlimited choice with one option.


Which is a completely valid criticism. It oversimplifies a bit but I get it.

So what could Gav have said to that criticism to satisfy HBMC? I think Gav lays out his reasoning behind the codex and whether you agree or not depends largely on your pre-existing opinions of the codex.

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Look on My works, Ye Mighty, and despair.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:Holy Space Marine on a Stick.

This conversation has even begun to boggle my internet-hardened mind.

A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Meh,

The haters will still hate, the ones who like it will still like it. We aren't going to change one an others minds. It is not the worst codex ever, that award goes to 3.5 Chaos codex for the reasons I laid out. People like H have the exact opposite view.

I just find it laughable that in 2nd ed. NL and IW and WE's was a paint job. The worst thing GW did was to give CSM armies other than the big 4 their own rules.

SM's have 5 army lists or codeciies but CSM players feel that Chaos should have 9? How is 9 vs 5 fair. We can have 5 as well you know? 1 BL/non-cult in one book (using named characters to unlock IW or NL or WE archetypes and then 4 Cult codeciies but for some reason all I see is that all 9 Legions should have their own codex. Meh, I'm sorry. The day all 9 Legions get a codex is the day I want to see CF/IF/RG/Sals/WS get their own codeciies as well.

Yeesh, talk about wanting the whole fething Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory instead of more than 3 flavors of ice cream.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus666 wrote:Gotta say, H.B.M.C. I'm right there with ya. My opinion of the this 'dex is about as low as it could possibly be. There's not much could change that, and illogical excuses from the credited creator just makes it worse. As does having the fringe 4th ed supoorters constantly trying to shout down its detractors.
Fact is, if the majority of Chaos players feel there is a problem with this book, then there IS a problem with the book. To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong. Because there are only a limited number of ways to evaluate a codex objectively - popularity, expansiveness, flexibility, balance, competitiveness, fluffiness - and it seems that in most cases C:CSM 4th edition fails on all fronts. The fact that it is tolerable by some and actually pleased a few by chance doesn't change that.

Also, I wanna mention that if I ever have to 'go 4th' (which might happen if my regular gaming buddy drops out of the hobby), or ever decide to so I can play in stores again (which I'd really like to) the addition of a legions book will not help me. I play Black Legion mostly, and the 4th edition codex isnt even suitable for something as generic as that. I want to be able to customize my Lords and Daemon Princes and Chosen and Tactical Squads - turn them into unique and legendary warriors and killers and conquerors. Without skills, marks, wargear, gifts etc I can't. Plus, I refuse to use generic daemons - I'd get no satisfaction from playing those rules at all.


This...because somehow you KNOW that 51% of Chaos players in the world HATE the 4.5 codex. Being part of the vocal majority doesn't put you in the OVERALL majority. If you can't prove you have talked to each and every Chaos player in the known world and gotten their opinion on the codex than you have no ground to stand on. Saying "but all the Chaos players in my group" hate the codex does not make your group the majority.

Unless somehow your group happens to contain every 40k CSM player in the known world which I know very much is not true.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/18 01:19:03


--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Ozymandias wrote:Now, how about answering the fething question?


I answered your damned question already:

What answer could he give to satisfy me? I suspect there's no answer he could give me that would satisfy me, but not because I'd simply disagree with him, but because he simply wouldn't answer the question. Just look at his response. He fethed up the ice-cream analogy to the point of absurdity - his response does not make any logical sense - and then spent the next 10 paragraphs harping on with a straw-filled false dilemma to prove a non-existent point.

If someone wants to disagree with me about the Chaos Codex (or anything), fine, but I operate under the assumption that someone backs up what they say with some sort of tangible or logical reasoning. This is why I often get into hissy fits with John, as that man is devoid of all logic and is incapable of mounting a structured argument. Gav did the same thing here - he answered criticism with hollow, empty and meaningless babble. I'm not satisfied because I wanted an answer - whatever that answer may turn out to be is largely irrelevant - but I got no answer. I got crap.


Did you miss that?

As to your follow-up, I'd say 'my question' was a bad way to phrase it. Answer my argument would be more accurate. I didn't actually ask a 'question' (or, I don't think I did). I more stated why I thought he was wrong as well as the flaws in his reasoning. I didn't get a rebuttal to that though, I got straw and bull-gak and he proved his own intelligence by completely butchering the ice-cream analogy to the point where several people here responded to Gav with 'Huh?', myself included. And that's my problem. Someone can disagree with me all they like, but if they cannot back up their assertions with something more than ''Cause I said so', then I'll consider them fools and not give them the time of day (hence my issue with John - he just says things and expects everyone to take them at face value, then cries 'ad hominem!' or runs off to the mods whenever you challenge him back).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus666 wrote:To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong.


This.

Got it in one.

Well said Samus.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/18 01:42:15


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




NV

Fateweaver wrote:Meh,

The haters will still hate, the ones who like it will still like it. We aren't going to change one an others minds. It is not the worst codex ever, that award goes to 3.5 Chaos codex for the reasons I laid out. People like H have the exact opposite view.

I just find it laughable that in 2nd ed. NL and IW and WE's was a paint job. The worst thing GW did was to give CSM armies other than the big 4 their own rules.

SM's have 5 army lists or codeciies but CSM players feel that Chaos should have 9? How is 9 vs 5 fair. We can have 5 as well you know? 1 BL/non-cult in one book (using named characters to unlock IW or NL or WE archetypes and then 4 Cult codeciies but for some reason all I see is that all 9 Legions should have their own codex. Meh, I'm sorry. The day all 9 Legions get a codex is the day I want to see CF/IF/RG/Sals/WS get their own codeciies as well.

Yeesh, talk about wanting the whole fething Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory instead of more than 3 flavors of ice cream.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus666 wrote:Gotta say, H.B.M.C. I'm right there with ya. My opinion of the this 'dex is about as low as it could possibly be. There's not much could change that, and illogical excuses from the credited creator just makes it worse. As does having the fringe 4th ed supoorters constantly trying to shout down its detractors.
Fact is, if the majority of Chaos players feel there is a problem with this book, then there IS a problem with the book. To those who do not have problems with this book, I'm happy for you. But please don't keep telling us we're wrong. Because there are only a limited number of ways to evaluate a codex objectively - popularity, expansiveness, flexibility, balance, competitiveness, fluffiness - and it seems that in most cases C:CSM 4th edition fails on all fronts. The fact that it is tolerable by some and actually pleased a few by chance doesn't change that.

Also, I wanna mention that if I ever have to 'go 4th' (which might happen if my regular gaming buddy drops out of the hobby), or ever decide to so I can play in stores again (which I'd really like to) the addition of a legions book will not help me. I play Black Legion mostly, and the 4th edition codex isnt even suitable for something as generic as that. I want to be able to customize my Lords and Daemon Princes and Chosen and Tactical Squads - turn them into unique and legendary warriors and killers and conquerors. Without skills, marks, wargear, gifts etc I can't. Plus, I refuse to use generic daemons - I'd get no satisfaction from playing those rules at all.


This...because somehow you KNOW that 51% of Chaos players in the world HATE the 4.5 codex. Being part of the vocal majority doesn't put you in the OVERALL majority. If you can't prove you have talked to each and every Chaos player in the known world and gotten their opinion on the codex than you have no ground to stand on. Saying "but all the Chaos players in my group" hate the codex does not make your group the majority.

Unless somehow your group happens to contain every 40k CSM player in the known world which I know very much is not true.


B.S. At some point, overwhelming observational evidence has got to be taken into account. All the chaos armies in my area have been shelved. Once you know someones only real build is dual lash, they tend to be countered fairly easily, they have less fun playing, and they move on. This is a theme I see repeated over and over. Drink the kool aid all you want, Chaos was gutted almost as badly as the Dark Angels were.



History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Rygoth wrote:B.S. At some point, overwhelming observational evidence has got to be taken into account.


Or, as was said above, if there's smoke, sometimes there really is a fire.

Rygoth wrote:Drink the kool aid all you want, Chaos was gutted almost as badly as the Dark Angels were.


Oh I wouldn't say that. DA players can at least still field Deathwing and Ravenwing forces (albeit with mandatory non-special Special Characters). My Bloodletters, Cultists and Mutants have all taken up pottery and knitting as they have nothing else to do in thier Codex.

That said I do feel sorry for all Dark Angel players. They were Jervisified almost as bad as Chaos was.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/18 01:52:21


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Revving Ravenwing Biker






Sydney, Australia

I have been officially hosed.

My 2 largest armies are Dark Angels and Chaos (Orks and Eldar nipping on their heals).

But at least my Dark Angels Characters can have some options, Yes they suck - But I can choose how they suck (which I find inherently entertaining)
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rygoth wrote:B.S. At some point, overwhelming observational evidence has got to be taken into account.


Or, as was said above, if there's smoke, sometimes there really is a fire.


I guess I don't understand the mentality that the Chaos update was no different than any other update, when a solid chunk of the chaos army was split off into it's own codex, while sublists were removed without the attempts to reproduce them that every other codex got. Eldar got Jetbikes and WG as troops along with good enough DAs to build viable biel tan, Orks can take nobs, mega nobs, trukk boys, and bikes as troops. IG have flexible veterans with many of the old doctrines, plus new orders, plus tons of new toys. SM got Chapter Tactics, and bikes as troops. Chaos got... all cults as troops.

I mean, we get that stuff changes with new codexes, but usally the exchange goes like this:

GW: hey, you know that wacky list you've been working on, that was either very good in the old book or involved Chapter approved, doctirnes, triats, etc.? Yeah, that's going to be removed.
Player: Oh, that really sucks.
GW: Yeah, but to make up for it we're introducing something that will get you by, as well as a bunch of new units and a few new army archtypes to mess around with. Plus pretty much everything got plussed up to make it more competitive.
Player: Wow, what a completely devious way to get me to spend more money replacing half of an army that's already built and painted.
GW: yeah, but the new stuff is too cool to not like.
Player: Damn you GW!
Player's Wife: Damn you GW!

Now, this is the exchange with Chaos:
GW: hey, you know all those legions rules? They're gone now.
Player: Oh, that really sucks.
GW: But to make up for it we made demons simpler. Now instead of 12 different demons, you simply have lesser demons and greater demons.
Player: Wow, that's really wierd. Are they still a good unit?
GW: They sure are! They're basically space marine scouts, instead they have a 5++ and can assault when they deepstrike!
Player: But why would you want to assault with a unit thats S4, has only 2 attacks and no power weapons?
GW: Because they're demons! And we have to save all the good rules for the actual Demon codex.
Player: Huh. Well, do we at least get a whole bunch of cool new units?
GW: You sure do! We have a vindicator and Spawn!
Player: Oh, spawn as separate unit? What are the rules for that... oh that's a shame. And I could already take a vindicator.
GW: Yeah, but now everybody can take as many as they want.
Player: So we get a new tank, which we could already get, and terrible unit as our only new stuff?
GW: But that's not all! We also took away pretty much all the wargear options, demonic gifts, veteran skills, and stuff like mutated hull.
Player: Well, I suppose that makes some sense, you've been moving away from giant armories and heavily tooled up characters for a while now. Man, I can't wait to see how boring the weapon options for regular marines are going to be.
GW: Oh no, they'll get all kinds of cool new stuff, like Relic Blades and3++ storm shields. However we did finally move the dreadnought to the elites section, only 9 years after the loyalists figured that one out.
Player: Oh, cool! Is there a new model for that, because frankly it's a bit dated.
GW: Nope, but to make you feel better we're going to make it crazy! So you can't rely on it ever! It's chaotic!
Player. Oh. Umm, well, than what kind of cool new armies can we build now?
GW: Have you ever wanted to field Plague Marines and Thousand Sons at the same time?
Player: sure, I guess that was kind of a silly rule.
GW: Well now you can!
Player: well, neat. what else?
GW: you can also field Khorne and Slaneesh together.
Player: Is that it?
GW: I don't' think you understand. You have the option of five different power armored units as troops. Five!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/18 03:04:41


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: