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.

GMR wrote:Can I just point out, as a Chaos player, not all of us CSM players are whining , only satisfied if we receive a new codex every week, each more powerful than the last and able to effortlessly steamroll every other faction at the same time with our selection of 9000 units. It's just that you're going to notice the complainers more because, well, complainers tend to be highly vocal.

Yes, I know not all of them are, nor did I say such a thing.

Rather, the problem is that, moreso than every other forum I've read, Dakka has an inordinate amount of whiny CSM players, and they've only started to whine more as 5th edition goes along. Frankly it's getting obnoxious-- even I don't complain about Sisters being outdated as much as these people whine about CSMs, and given the age of the C:WH codex and the models I have to use to play it I have far more reason to do so than any CSM player.

And not so infrequently these are the same people that claimed that I should stop talking about Sisters so much, which is more than a little hypocritical.

I just want my chainaxes back I mean really

Melissia wrote:

GMR wrote:Can I just point out, as a Chaos player, not all of us CSM players are whining , only satisfied if we receive a new codex every week, each more powerful than the last and able to effortlessly steamroll every other faction at the same time with our selection of 9000 units. It's just that you're going to notice the complainers more because, well, complainers tend to be highly vocal.

Yes, I know not all of them are, nor did I say such a thing.

Rather, the problem is that, moreso than every other forum I've read, Dakka has an inordinate amount of whiny CSM players, and they've only started to whine more as 5th edition goes along. Frankly it's getting obnoxious-- even I don't complain about Sisters being outdated as much as these people whine about CSMs, and given the age of the C:WH codex and the models I have to use to play it I have far more reason to do so than any CSM player.

And not so infrequently these are the same people that claimed that I should stop talking about Sisters so much, which is more than a little hypocritical.

Apologies, I never meant to say you thought all Chaos players were like that, I just figured I should point out we aren't all that bad. I don't totally disagree with you, I think it's basically just a minor issue about the loss of the Legions that's snowballed into the massive whine fest you see across the forums.

All I can say to my fellow players is this: Yes, it sucks. No it's not the end of the world, we will get another codex. Be thankful you won't have to wait as long Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, Dark Eldar or Necrons.

And yes Sonofruss, Chainaxes were damn awesome.

Melissia wrote:And not so infrequently these are the same people that claimed that I should stop talking about Sisters so much, which is more than a little hypocritical.

I am not one of those people. But I still think you should quit the nonsense about how the CSM codex is fine, because it seems to me that it's just your hatred of the CSM talking.

CT GAMER wrote:

Melissia wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Whatever1 wrote:

Very true. The 4th edition CSM codex isn't bad. However,CSM players got completely spoiled with what was an overpowered codex around the Eye of Terror campaign,and are now complaining about being nerfed back in line with the rest of the pack.

I would agree except Blood Angel and Space Wolf cheese as of late makes their complaints valid again...

Chaos marines should be nasty, powerful and varied

You mean, just like every other army? The CSM players need to quit whining and wait on their codex. Emperor knows that other codices have waited far longer. Geeze, with all of the whining about the CSM codex you'd think it was an image of hte antichrist making out with a severely overweight Rosie O'donnel which had a zombie arm that was throwing poo at you.

I don't care how long they wait (I don't play chaos), but I think that the fluff demands that chaos be a powerful, varied codex that can accurately and appropriately represent the various chaos factions and powers and not just be "marines with spikes".

Heck I think the major chaos legions should have their own codexes, but whatever...

It's a one-dimensional codex,same as every other 4th edition codex except for Tyranids. The power level of the codices has gone up accross the board in 5th compared to 4th. You can't compare 3rd/4th to 5th when saying you need a buff and/or more variety. Every 3rd/4th 'dex left needs a buff and/or more variety compared to the 5th edition codexes. However,CSM still fares very well against other 3rd/4th edition codices and can be competitive against 5th edition codices with bland power builds,which is why they should be towards the back of the line when it comes to a redux.

As for seperate Chaos Legion books,I'm all for it,provided GW can at some point speed their 40k release schedule up to 4 armies/year.

AlexHolker wrote:

Melissia wrote:And not so infrequently these are the same people that claimed that I should stop talking about Sisters so much, which is more than a little hypocritical.

I am not one of those people. But I still think you should quit the nonsense about how the CSM codex is fine, because it seems to me that it's just your hatred of the CSM talking.

At the end of the day, there will always be an 'older' codex, unless GW decided to release brand new codex'es and models for every army all at the same time. So this arguement will just rotate around endlessly substituting one army for another as they are brought up to date and others not.

Unfortunately one of the universal constants is time, and so we all have just wait until our favourite army is redone. We can then be happy for a month or so until other armys get newer models and we become increasingly disgruntled and like the wonderful circle of life the whole process starts again.

[Insert Elton John clip here]

Melissia wrote:You mean, just like every other army? The CSM players need to quit whining and wait on their codex. Emperor knows that other codices have waited far longer. Geeze, with all of the whining about the CSM codex you'd think it was an image of hte antichrist making out with a severely overweight Rosie O'donnel which had a zombie arm that was throwing poo at you.

So that's all you've got Melissia? No argument of substance, just a hyperbolic strawman to paint all those who dislike the 'Chaos' Codex with the same brush? Because if that’s what you truly believe then it almost makes what I’m about to say pointless, but here goes...

One thing that I (and many here) have maintained since my original Chaos Codex Review is that I couldn’t care less about the power of the book and, in fact, I acknowledge that the list within the 'Chaos' Codex is perfectly serviceable and competitive. What the ‘Chaos’ Codex is though is flavourless. Look at the NetDeck competitive lists – Oblits, Plague Marines, add Lash to taste (if that’s your thing). They’re always the same, or have the same core. No one plays ‘World Eaters’ or ‘Night Lords’ anymore both because these armies do not exist (they’re ‘Counts As’ at best) and because they deviate from the competitive parts of the Chaos Codex. To those that just play Chaos and don’t care, that’s fine I suppose, but for those of us with distinct and separate Chaos armies (like my World Eater, Death Guard, Alpha Legion, Word Bearer and Iron Warrior armies), the ‘Chaos’ Codex was a steel-capped boot kick to the teeth. And that’s before we even look at what happened to our Daemons... *shakes head*

The other mistake you’re probably going to make (assuming you haven’t made it already) is the common assumption that those reminiscing about the 3.5 Chaos Codex are only doing so because they miss the ‘cheese’ of the 4 HS slot Iron Warriors. This is, of course, a load of bullgak, because it implies that the 4th Ed Codex is devoid of equally competitive or ‘broken’ choices, when it clearly has them. As I have said, the current ‘Chaos’ Codex – and yes, every time I write that it will be in quotes, right until the day we get a real Codex again – is perfectly powerful, it’s just boring, and a horrifically insulting book to anyone who enjoys playing the various facets of Chaos. Now there are no facets to Chaos – just a generic spiky Marine list. It’s shocking that you can do better Chaos Legion lists using the Marine and even the Woof/Blood Angel Codices. We want our interesting armies back, and we want playing to the fluff to mean something in-game (Fluff should always be congruous with power, the fact that this 'Chaos' Codex went the opposite route and just made the Legions naught but a paintjob is horrific).

So take your hyperbole elsewhere Melissia. Your own distaste for Chaos as a race in 40K is enough to make your views on their Codex erroneous if not outright suspicious, but please put that brush you wish to paint us all with away and learn that the complaints against the ‘Chaos’ Codex are not as black and white as you may think...

The Decapitator wrote:

Unfortunately one of the universal constants is time,

Einstein disagrees with you. But alas, we still have to wait for our codexes.

Skaven are, by all accounts, not going to be a "major release".

They'll be a supporting release, much like the recent High Elf releases.

Orcs & Goblins are supposed to be the next "major release" for WHFB.

Kanluwen wrote:Orcs & Goblins are supposed to be the next "major release" for WHFB.

Is it a major release (ie. a new Army Book), or just a big 'wave' release with some new plastic minis. If it's the former, I'm surprised O&G are getting a release before Tomb Kings. Are there a lot of really old metal (or metal hybrid) O&G models still in the range?

I kept hearing Tomb kings would be coming next year. I was hoping this was true because I'm waiting for an update of the army I'm interested in before I wade into WHFB waters.

H.B.M.C. wrote:So that's all you've got Melissia? No argument of substance, just a hyperbolic strawman to paint all those who dislike the 'Chaos' Codex with the same brush? Because if that’s what you truly believe then it almost makes what I’m about to say pointless, but here goes...

One thing that I (and many here) have maintained since my original Chaos Codex Review is that I couldn’t care less about the power of the book and, in fact, I acknowledge that the list within the 'Chaos' Codex is perfectly serviceable and competitive. What the ‘Chaos’ Codex is though is flavourless. Look at the NetDeck competitive lists – Oblits, Plague Marines, add Lash to taste (if that’s your thing). They’re always the same, or have the same core. No one plays ‘World Eaters’ or ‘Night Lords’ anymore both because these armies do not exist (they’re ‘Counts As’ at best) and because they deviate from the competitive parts of the Chaos Codex. To those that just play Chaos and don’t care, that’s fine I suppose, but for those of us with distinct and separate Chaos armies (like my World Eater, Death Guard, Alpha Legion, Word Bearer and Iron Warrior armies), the ‘Chaos’ Codex was a steel-capped boot kick to the teeth. And that’s before we even look at what happened to our Daemons... *shakes head*

The other mistake you’re probably going to make (assuming you haven’t made it already) is the common assumption that those reminiscing about the 3.5 Chaos Codex are only doing so because they miss the ‘cheese’ of the 4 HS slot Iron Warriors. This is, of course, a load of bullgak, because it implies that the 4th Ed Codex is devoid of equally competitive or ‘broken’ choices, when it clearly has them. As I have said, the current ‘Chaos’ Codex – and yes, every time I write that it will be in quotes, right until the day we get a real Codex again – is perfectly powerful, it’s just boring, and a horrifically insulting book to anyone who enjoys playing the various facets of Chaos. Now there are no facets to Chaos – just a generic spiky Marine list. It’s shocking that you can do better Chaos Legion lists using the Marine and even the Woof/Blood Angel Codices. We want our interesting armies back, and we want playing to the fluff to mean something in-game (Fluff should always be congruous with power, the fact that this 'Chaos' Codex went the opposite route and just made the Legions naught but a paintjob is horrific).

So take your hyperbole elsewhere Melissia. Your own distaste for Chaos as a race in 40K is enough to make your views on their Codex erroneous if not outright suspicious, but please put that brush you wish to paint us all with away and learn that the complaints against the ‘Chaos’ Codex are not as black and white as you may think...

+1 to this post. You've hit the nail on the head again H.B.M.C.

The logic of lumping all chaos players in one boat (despite claiming to not be doing so), is highly flawed, especially when personal preferences clouding opinions are highly apparent.

That being said and to direct the thread back on topic, I kinda wish GW released more PDF codices (with tweaked rules and point costs) for all of the outdated armies instead of releasing PDF codices for armies shortly due for an update. It would help in the long wait for an update. That being said, I think GW's stance of "both printed and web versions of rules are valid" is more than enough to counter any confusion that may occur.

micahaphone wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:

Unfortunately one of the universal constants is time,

Einstein disagrees with you. But alas, we still have to wait for our codexes.

Well believe me, there can't possibly be any means to travel in time - because if there was then someone would have surely been to find out the EXACT release date for the Grey Knights to stop everyone discussing the possibilities!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Melissia wrote:You mean, just like every other army? The CSM players need to quit whining and wait on their codex. Emperor knows that other codices have waited far longer. Geeze, with all of the whining about the CSM codex you'd think it was an image of hte antichrist making out with a severely overweight Rosie O'donnel which had a zombie arm that was throwing poo at you.

So that's all you've got Melissia? No argument of substance, just a hyperbolic strawman to paint all those who dislike the 'Chaos' Codex with the same brush? Because if that’s what you truly believe then it almost makes what I’m about to say pointless, but here goes...

One thing that I (and many here) have maintained since my original Chaos Codex Review is that I couldn’t care less about the power of the book and, in fact, I acknowledge that the list within the 'Chaos' Codex is perfectly serviceable and competitive. What the ‘Chaos’ Codex is though is flavourless. Look at the NetDeck competitive lists – Oblits, Plague Marines, add Lash to taste (if that’s your thing). They’re always the same, or have the same core. No one plays ‘World Eaters’ or ‘Night Lords’ anymore both because these armies do not exist (they’re ‘Counts As’ at best) and because they deviate from the competitive parts of the Chaos Codex. To those that just play Chaos and don’t care, that’s fine I suppose, but for those of us with distinct and separate Chaos armies (like my World Eater, Death Guard, Alpha Legion, Word Bearer and Iron Warrior armies), the ‘Chaos’ Codex was a steel-capped boot kick to the teeth. And that’s before we even look at what happened to our Daemons... *shakes head*

The other mistake you’re probably going to make (assuming you haven’t made it already) is the common assumption that those reminiscing about the 3.5 Chaos Codex are only doing so because they miss the ‘cheese’ of the 4 HS slot Iron Warriors. This is, of course, a load of bullgak, because it implies that the 4th Ed Codex is devoid of equally competitive or ‘broken’ choices, when it clearly has them. As I have said, the current ‘Chaos’ Codex – and yes, every time I write that it will be in quotes, right until the day we get a real Codex again – is perfectly powerful, it’s just boring, and a horrifically insulting book to anyone who enjoys playing the various facets of Chaos. Now there are no facets to Chaos – just a generic spiky Marine list. It’s shocking that you can do better Chaos Legion lists using the Marine and even the Woof/Blood Angel Codices. We want our interesting armies back, and we want playing to the fluff to mean something in-game (Fluff should always be congruous with power, the fact that this 'Chaos' Codex went the opposite route and just made the Legions naught but a paintjob is horrific).

So take your hyperbole elsewhere Melissia. Your own distaste for Chaos as a race in 40K is enough to make your views on their Codex erroneous if not outright suspicious, but please put that brush you wish to paint us all with away and learn that the complaints against the ‘Chaos’ Codex are not as black and white as you may think...

+1 from me as well, Exactly why I am discontent with the current CSM dex.

candy.man wrote:The logic of lumping all chaos players in one boat (despite claiming to not be doing so), is highly flawed, especially when personal preferences clouding opinions are highly apparent.

Kinda like how GW lumped all of the Choas Daemons into one boat?

I think it's pretty clear right now that GW's intentions are to keep the "all Chaos is one Chaos" approach that they introduced into both WH settings - most notably in the Daemons Codex and Army Book. Given that, when they do finally release the next CSM codex, I think it's safe to say that for the time being the legions aren't coming back.

candy.man wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:So that's all you've got Melissia? No argument of substance, just a hyperbolic strawman to paint all those who dislike the 'Chaos' Codex with the same brush? Because if that’s what you truly believe then it almost makes what I’m about to say pointless, but here goes...

One thing that I (and many here) have maintained since my original Chaos Codex Review is that I couldn’t care less about the power of the book and, in fact, I acknowledge that the list within the 'Chaos' Codex is perfectly serviceable and competitive. What the ‘Chaos’ Codex is though is flavourless. Look at the NetDeck competitive lists – Oblits, Plague Marines, add Lash to taste (if that’s your thing). They’re always the same, or have the same core. No one plays ‘World Eaters’ or ‘Night Lords’ anymore both because these armies do not exist (they’re ‘Counts As’ at best) and because they deviate from the competitive parts of the Chaos Codex. To those that just play Chaos and don’t care, that’s fine I suppose, but for those of us with distinct and separate Chaos armies (like my World Eater, Death Guard, Alpha Legion, Word Bearer and Iron Warrior armies), the ‘Chaos’ Codex was a steel-capped boot kick to the teeth. And that’s before we even look at what happened to our Daemons... *shakes head*

The other mistake you’re probably going to make (assuming you haven’t made it already) is the common assumption that those reminiscing about the 3.5 Chaos Codex are only doing so because they miss the ‘cheese’ of the 4 HS slot Iron Warriors. This is, of course, a load of bullgak, because it implies that the 4th Ed Codex is devoid of equally competitive or ‘broken’ choices, when it clearly has them. As I have said, the current ‘Chaos’ Codex – and yes, every time I write that it will be in quotes, right until the day we get a real Codex again – is perfectly powerful, it’s just boring, and a horrifically insulting book to anyone who enjoys playing the various facets of Chaos. Now there are no facets to Chaos – just a generic spiky Marine list. It’s shocking that you can do better Chaos Legion lists using the Marine and even the Woof/Blood Angel Codices. We want our interesting armies back, and we want playing to the fluff to mean something in-game (Fluff should always be congruous with power, the fact that this 'Chaos' Codex went the opposite route and just made the Legions naught but a paintjob is horrific).

So take your hyperbole elsewhere Melissia. Your own distaste for Chaos as a race in 40K is enough to make your views on their Codex erroneous if not outright suspicious, but please put that brush you wish to paint us all with away and learn that the complaints against the ‘Chaos’ Codex are not as black and white as you may think...

+1 to this post. You've hit the nail on the head again H.B.M.C.

The logic of lumping all chaos players in one boat (despite claiming to not be doing so), is highly flawed, especially when personal preferences clouding opinions are highly apparent.

That being said and to direct the thread back on topic, I kinda wish GW released more PDF codices (with tweaked rules and point costs) for all of the outdated armies instead of releasing PDF codices for armies shortly due for an update. It would help in the long wait for an update. That being said, I think GW's stance of "both printed and web versions of rules are valid" is more than enough to counter any confusion that may occur.

The issue with this approach is: GW doesn't make money from this. It would end up being a lot of work being slowly released, needing constant reworking and requiring consistent errata. It would be confusing for early players. Not to mention the pain of having to print and always carry around with them the most current edition of those adjusted values and erratas because not everyone will accept your word.

It would end up being a cumbersome system. Sure it would aid some players with their fluff armies if they wished to play them but it is unrealistic to expect this sort of charity from GW.

As a real example: I'd love to play a Farsight Enclave force, but all i'm getting is a character entry saying: you can't take X or Y, you are limited to max 1 of Z and you must take at least 1 unit of 'blah'. Playing O'Shovah contains no uniqueness from any other Tau list apart from that you'll be the only player in crutches because you've gone and shot yourself in the foot before the battle's even begun. A mini codex with adjusted point values would be fantastic, with new options and allowing for new strategies, however it's a pipe dream.

As for those believing this issue will be fixed with a new codex release next year...I am doubtful of any supreme revelation by GW on this matter...

Chaos should be 5 'Codexs, or one VERY big 'dex.

There should be 5 distinctive army lists.

1 each for the major Chaos gods, and a good, solid undivided list.

I'll take solace in the fact that it wasn't me who started the 'Chaos' Codex discussion this time. With that said...

Ehsteve wrote:The issue with this approach is: GW doesn't make money from this. It would end up being a lot of work being slowly released, needing constant reworking and requiring consistent errata. It would be confusing for early players. Not to mention the pain of having to print and always carry around with them the most current edition of those adjusted values and erratas because not everyone will accept your word.

False Dilemma.

Chaos requires no more than 2 books (ok, 3 if you must keep Daemons in their own little bubble). There are no issues with errata, no issues with carrying 'current' rules - certainly not any more than there is not with any Codex - a Vanilla and a Legions book (plus Daemons) would do fine. Using the 5th Ed design paradigm of "Special Character Uber Alles" you could easily represent the Undivided Legions via Special Characters and the army modifications they give, and the Legions book would provide rules for fielding the specific armies from the four Cult lists. It could even be as simple:

Chaos Unit X - Y Points Per Model
+A for Mark of Khorne
+B for Mark of Tzeentch
+C for Mark of Nurgle
+D for Mark of Slaanesh

And the unit has its generic rules, and then a list of what happens when given a Mark. There are many ways to take the 3.5 Ed Codex and streamline it. 'Icons' are not the option.

And it wouldn't 'make no money', it would expand the reasons to buy more models, and create new markets.

Ehsteve wrote:It would end up being a cumbersome system. Sure it would aid some players with their fluff armies if they wished to play them but it is unrealistic to expect this sort of charity from GW.

Hasty Generalisation.

There's nothing to suggest that it would be 'cumbersome'.

Ehsteve wrote:As a real example: I'd love to play a Farsight Enclave force, but all i'm getting is a character entry saying: you can't take X or Y, you are limited to max 1 of Z and you must take at least 1 unit of 'blah'. Playing O'Shovah contains no uniqueness from any other Tau list apart from that you'll be the only player in crutches because you've gone and shot yourself in the foot before the battle's even begun. A mini codex with adjusted point values would be fantastic, with new options and allowing for new strategies, however it's a pipe dream.

False Comparison (and certainly not 'real example').

The Tau Codex is a 4th Ed Codex. Were there ever to be a 5th Ed Codex (and it seems we're not far off in that regard), there is every possibility that Farsight would be re-worked to fit the 5th Ed paradigm, making him a fully fledged Special Character with his own set of beneficial army-altering rules. If you want a 'real' comparison, compare any Codex since 5th Ed Marines (hell, even Daemons, which was 4th, but written for 5th).

With a suite of Undivided Special Characters that add flavourful rules to your standard vanilla Chaos force, instantly you can play various different Undivided Legions without the need for ‘cumbersome’ sub-lists or additional Codices. It would be like the Marine Codex, where someone who wants to play White Scars can play a distinctly White Scar army using Khan’s special rules. The same could be done with any of the Undivided Legions (eg. if ‘Chaos Cultists’ were a cheap-but-pathetic non-scoring non-FOC unit for regular Chaos armies, an army that takes the Alpha Legion special character could count them as Scoring, and certain units could get Outflank/Infiltration, and so on). It’s not difficult.

Your problem ehsteve is that you’re Tau-centric. You keep trying to apply (and magnify) the problems with the current Tau Codex and apply its design philosophy to possible future Codices (and worse, use its deficiencies as a reason why modern Codices shouldn’t or can’t have things). This is a bad methodology because, as I have said, the Tau Codex is from a different time. Codices do not work that way now, and when the new Tau Codex is done you’ll see why. The only real comparisons that we can make are ones based upon the more recent Codices.

[Aside: I know that I’ve talked in the past about my disdain for the way GW handle’s special characters, and how I hate the idea that if you want to play a Salamander army that isn’t just ‘Counts As’ Ultramarines you have to bring Vulkan, and if you want to bring a Raven Guard army that isn’t ‘Counts As’ (etc.), you have to bring Shrike and so on. I would never make a Chaos Codex where Special Characters were required to alter your army – if you wanted to play Word Bearers or Iron Warriors you shouldn’t need to bring Wordy McDark Apostle Bearers or Smithy Ironwarriorson – you should just play Word Bearers or Iron Warriors. But that’s not the way GW does it these days, so making suggestions using the way I’d do the Codex is useless. Suggesting ways in which Chaos could be restored and revitalised using the design methods GW is using is far more helpful.]

Ehsteve wrote:As for those believing this issue will be fixed with a new codex release next year...I am doubtful of any supreme revelation by GW on this matter...

I doubt a new Chaos Codex is happening anytime soon either, which is why I’m surprised it even came up.

My argument was not regarding GW making new codecies for Chaos. The issue I might have with this now that it has been mentioned is that you're now coercing Choas players into purchasing 2 codecies instead of just 1 with all the rules, and each would have to be standalone or else your are FORCING players to buy both. What makes Chaos players so special in that they have to buy 2 codecies in order to have all the options?

Going back to my first point:

My argument was purely against .pdf versions being released, seeing as so far errata updates are sporadic in nature, and you would always have to be sure you have the latest edition of each pdf, both errata and Chaos divisions with points adjustments.

The easiest way to fix this would be to have a simple one page per division solution in the next codex after unit entries detailing the purely mechanical aspect.

Each page would detail what units can and cannot be taken if you choose to take a particular god and if needed, the points adjustments for each unit. if you choose that divison of Chaos. That way you maintain can the regular Khorne vs. Slaneesh and Nurgle vs. Tzeetch system as well as the points modifications.

I am not attempting to introduce a new system here, simply developing an idea which was presented with obvious flaws.

Again, I was not attacking any codex, I was arguing against a system which RELIED on purely .pdf documents. They work well for small things, but nothing of such a large scale. Releasing/producing them is no real benefit to GW as a company, maybe for players, but not GW.

@Ehsteve
To quote H.B.M.C. "False Dilemma".

The flaw in your opinion about PDF updates is that GW rarely does more than 1 PDF codex update per faction so there would be no confusion regarding a “latest update syndrome” scenario. Taking this into account with GW’s stance that both a PDF version and an original printed version are acceptable (example: C: DH), I doubt any issues would arise. There would be no more confusion than say using a codex with forge world add-on rules in IA and the PDF updates for their rules on the web (i.e. there is no confusion). As stated before, it is perfectly legal for one player to use a PDF updated rule set whilst another to use the original written content.

A PDF codex with tweaked rules and point costs simply exist as a way of extending the life and playability of an outdated ruleset during the extensive wait for a new codex. I’d much rather prefer GW release an interim, point cost adjusted PDF codex/errata than release nothing until 2012-2013 when a new Chaos Codex will most likely appear.

The counter claim of confusion caused and extra hassles in printing out a PDF codex is pretty weak in comparison to the benefits it would cause.

Well, the thread already started weak with a demand for general rumours, now it is completely off topic with wishlistings for a new CSM Codex. Maybe it is time to lay this thread to rest.

I agree, although I will reiterate once again that this time it's not my fault. I did not start the 'Chaos' Codex discussion this time.

Or for you guys to make a new thread about a chaos codex.

What's the point? I'm right.

candy.man wrote:@Ehsteve
To quote H.B.M.C. "False Dilemma".

The flaw in your opinion about PDF updates is that GW rarely does more than 1 PDF codex update per faction so there would be no confusion regarding a “latest update syndrome” scenario. Taking this into account with GW’s stance that both a PDF version and an original printed version are acceptable (example: C: DH), I doubt any issues would arise. There would be no more confusion than say using a codex with forge world add-on rules in IA and the PDF updates for their rules on the web (i.e. there is no confusion). As stated before, it is perfectly legal for one player to use a PDF updated rule set whilst another to use the original written content.

A PDF codex with tweaked rules and point costs simply exist as a way of extending the life and playability of an outdated ruleset during the extensive wait for a new codex. I’d much rather prefer GW release an interim, point cost adjusted PDF codex/errata than release nothing until 2012-2013 when a new Chaos Codex will most likely appear.

The counter claim of confusion caused and extra hassles in printing out a PDF codex is pretty weak in comparison to the benefits it would cause.

The problem is,GW is not "extending the life and playability of an outdated ruleset" by releasing a PDF tweak for CSM. CSM is not any more outdated than any other 4th edition codex. It certainly isn't as outdated or unplayable as DH is,and all the DH PDF did is remove allies to keep new players from purchasing models to ally with their other Imperium armies that they would soon be unable to use. While we're on the subject,CSM certainly isn't any more outdated or unplayable than Necrons,Dark Angels,Tau,Witch Hunters,orEldar,either. Nobody doubts that the current CSM 'dex is bland,especially compared to it's 3.5 codex. What other people are waiting on is for the CSM supporters to tell us why they are so much worse off than every other army still waiting on a 5th ed codex,and you guys can't. You can't,because you aren't worse off than everybody else. In fact,current CSM players are better off than everybody else waiting for a codex,except maybe Eldar.

As far as PDF "patches,"it sounds good in theory,but it would be a nightmare in practice. What do you do in games where your opponent's army has been PDF'd and they are unaware of it,and as a result have massively overspent or underspent on points and/or built their army around abilities that don't work the same anymore? For another,GW has to have people wasting time writing and playtesting the PDF's. The more time their codex writers spend on the PDF's is time taken away from new codices waiting to come out. This will mean either slower releases,meaning it will take even more time to get armies redone,and/or badly written and insufficiently playtested new codices being released. You could argue that GW can hire more writers,but what buisness hires in new people to work on something that they are giving away for free to "fix" something that is still perfectly usable? I'm sure their shareholders would love that,and everybody would be up in arms when GW does another price hike to offset the increased manpower cost. One of the main reasons GW has made new editions of 40k starting with 4th compatible with the old codices is so they won't have to do exactly what you're talking about.

Whatever1 wrote:CSM is not any more outdated than any other 4th edition codex... While we're on the subject,CSM certainly isn't any more outdated or unplayable than Necrons,Dark Angels,Tau,Witch Hunters,orEldar,either. Nobody doubts that the current CSM 'dex is bland,especially compared to it's 3.5 codex. What other people are waiting on is for the CSM supporters to tell us why they are so much worse off than every other army still waiting on a 5th ed codex,and you guys can't. You can't,because you aren't worse off than everybody else. In fact,current CSM players are better off than everybody else waiting for a codex,except maybe Eldar.

False Premise.

You’re making the claim that we cannot justify a new Chaos Codex on the basis of ours not being outdated ‘enough’ to warrant an update, either via a PDF or a new release. I believe I’ve said this already, but given what you said above, it bears repeating: I’ve never claimed that the current ‘Chaos’ Codex is ‘outdated’. It’s a bad Codex from the perspective of those who like playing the various facets of Chaos and beyond that it’s a bland flavourless optionless train wreck of a Codex... but it’s still a perfectly viable Codex within the context of the 5th Ed rule set. However boring, you can make a competitive army from the Codex that can win games quite well, and has held up well from the transition from 4th to 5th. It’s not outdated at all.

I also believe that Necrons, Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters ‘deserve’ a new Codex first, being the only remaining 3rd Ed Codices in the line.

Whatever1 wrote:As far as PDF "patches,"...

Ehsteve was the one who brought them up (the aforementioned ‘False Dilemma’). I wouldn’t waste your time arguing against them because no one is reallyv suggesting them (unless someone did a few pages back when this topic of discussion started).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Whatever1 wrote:CSM is not any more outdated than any other 4th edition codex... While we're on the subject,CSM certainly isn't any more outdated or unplayable than Necrons,Dark Angels,Tau,Witch Hunters,orEldar,either. Nobody doubts that the current CSM 'dex is bland,especially compared to it's 3.5 codex. What other people are waiting on is for the CSM supporters to tell us why they are so much worse off than every other army still waiting on a 5th ed codex,and you guys can't. You can't,because you aren't worse off than everybody else. In fact,current CSM players are better off than everybody else waiting for a codex,except maybe Eldar.

False Premise.

You’re making the claim that we cannot justify a new Chaos Codex on the basis of ours not being outdated ‘enough’ to warrant an update, either via a PDF or a new release. I believe I’ve said this already, but given what you said above, it bears repeating: I’ve never claimed that the current ‘Chaos’ Codex is ‘outdated’. It’s a bad Codex from the perspective of those who like playing the various facets of Chaos and beyond that it’s a bland flavourless optionless train wreck of a Codex... but it’s still a perfectly viable Codex within the context of the 5th Ed rule set. However boring, you can make a competitive army from the Codex that can win games quite well, and has held up well from the transition from 4th to 5th. It’s not outdated at all.

I also believe that Necrons, Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters ‘deserve’ a new Codex first, being the only remaining 3rd Ed Codices in the line.

Whatever1 wrote:As far as PDF "patches,"...

Ehsteve was the one who brought them up (the aforementioned ‘False Dilemma’). I wouldn’t waste your time arguing against them because no one is reallyv suggesting them (unless someone did a few pages back when this topic of discussion started).

Not really a false premise. My point is that yes,CSM DO need a new codex. Every army with a non-5th edition codex does in comparison to the power level and varied builds most of the 5th ed dex's provide. CSM just don't seem to need one as badly as the other 3rd/4th ed dexes,so it would seem that we're in agreement on this. Hopefully,GW will speed up production enough to make seperate Chaos Legion books viable,or at least do what they've done with the SM 'dex and have the SC's of the different legions provide the army different special rules.

Umm... and necrons dont need it more? They have no decent combat units...

Flayedones: just 2 attacks no power weapons or fleet

Wraiths: an exspensive flying gensteelersmurf [41pts 1w 3+ sv, 3 max epr squad]

Pariahs: ohh t5 s5 vs I 3 w 1 a 1 36pt non necron...

I mean if disruption fields gave them rending as a whole id be cool with it, same thing to guass, be a bit nerfy, for the ranged units, but at leats they'd be able to put up a fight in melee

As it stands you are fighting I2 boltgun smurfs in combat... and shooting... you just need to win combat by 5 to make them flee get caught and the remaining disapear with no WWBB :/ 10 necrons get pwned by any dedicated combat unit [heck 10 assult marines would take out 20 crons, prolly flayed flayed as well tbh]

I would like necrons to have something that does do nice incombat, bar the destroyer lord... [and now the tomb stalker if your opponent lets you use it]

Ohh yeah last thing: Only power weapons in a necron army: Necron Lord, Pariahs, so max 12 power weapon units in a game, at a hefty cost of 360 + 200~420 pts pending on upgrades...[anyone who takes a C'Tan will loose as you aim for EVERYTHING ELSE, same with pariahs tbh, its a scuicide game :/]

My main hate with my necrons however is trying NOT to get tabled by turn 4-5 let alone extra turns >.<*, most people actually make it table/phaze, where have like 4 men left, vs 15ish, table material let alone the annoying STOP-TOUCHING-MEEEE! rule [phaze out]

If necrons get it in 2011 I'll be happy, but sooner the better tbh...

Personally I'd think GK could last until the end of the year, as I know someone who rarly looses with his GK, I'm one of the few who beat him with my nids...

HBMC - O&G and Empire are the Ultramarines of fantasy - they are the original and best selling forces and as such get "special" treatment. WHile they dont have significant metal models, they do have loads of choices that are metal and really shouldnt be, and also lots of quite ugly old models in places.

It also really, really doesnt play as a FUN army to play, which O&G really should be -animosity currently screws them over too much (anything which gaks up movement in a game where movement plays such a vital role is gonna mess up an army)

I don't care about any and all of that... stuff in your TLDR post, HBMC, and I skipped over reading it at the first paragraph because it was obvious where you were going-- more of the same. You still won't stop incessantly whining about the CSM codex even as you complain when I occasionally even MENTION Sisters, no matter what context.

CSMs will get a new codex when they are scheduled to. They aren't on the schedule any time soon, they aren't going to be any time soon, they don't NEED to be any time soon. At the bare minimum, the third edition codices deserve a new one far more, and even then there's rumors of Tau afterwards, so that's four codices that are infinitely more likely to be released sooner than the CSM codex. And then there's BT and DA, both of which have codices which have fared the test of time far worse then the CSM one, and they can easily fulfill GW's "marine codex every near" hunger. The current CSM codex has, despite the complaints about it, a good deal of variety and competitiveness, options to add flavor to an army, and plenty of modeling options. IT's one of the best codices GW has released yet. Maybe the old one was better. I don't particularly care, I just know that the whining and the hypocrisy is tiresome.