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.

You know, when I got done reading the new chaos codex I had it think about it for a while, and what I came up with was “Wow, the KILLED anything that came close to variety in that one” (I don’t play chaos myself but I always enjoyed watching my friend come up with crazy ideas, like a 16 juggernaut ridding unit) but after playing a few games against this new codex (I play orks if that matters) I have to say there’s still a lot you can do with it, sure nothing crazy and overpowered/useless but things like chaos assault terminators without having to spend 30 extra points a model is just great for chaos. (and seeing a chaos lord of khorne getting around 15ish attacks around is just awesome)

Anyways back the to whole killing variety, I really did hate what they did with deamons and takeing away the legions but after hearing about Codex: Deamons and finding out that soon CSM’s will be able to take LaTD ally’s it hit me “Its like chaos in fantasy” if you were to play a mortal army in fantasy you would have VERY little variety, but mix in deamons and beastmen and you have yourself a crazy army once more! Anyways I’m going to chill a while and see what they do with orks, apocalypse and codex: Deamons

Just my two cents

Posted By malfred on 08/13/2007 9:05 PM

Is that the line they gave when they were promoting WAR, or is
that a generic Chaos thing or from a rulebook somewhere?

It's me butchering the quote.

Mice for blood was the guy from Mythic's. Cheese and anvils is mine.

BYE

It's not a strawman. 

You yourself said the word "chaotic".  Chaotic is an adjective used to describe the state of disorder of something.  Chaos, in other words, is the exact opposite of order. 

In your own words, you said so yourself that the codex was not "chaotic" enough and was "bland." 

The possesed are a unit that ARE chaotic, randomness is in fact a form of disorder.  They are unusual and are not "bland".  You dismissed it because you considered them an unviable unit.

 

It's hardly a strawman.  If you say you want chaotic units, but you dismiss chaotic units that are unviable, what you really want are chaotic units that ARE viable.  In other words, special rules that are fluffy but are still powerful.  You claim power is not an issue, but it clearly is when you were talking about possessed. 

You said:  "It doesn't matter whether its better or worse than it was before, it's a matter of it becoming dull. Everything gets standardised and options dissapear. It doesn't matter if, overall, the unit is more powerful, it's a boring unit to use."

You missed the point of my argument.  Why is a special rule that does exactly the same thing as an extra close combat weapon more interesting?  Why is something like warp scream better and less bland than +1 initiative?  When you break it down, isn't it essentially the same thing written in a more concise and cleaner form?  Why are special rules that do nothing except confuse people superior to a simpler way of saying the exact same thing? 

Posted By scuddman on 08/13/2007 9:18 PM

If you say you want chaotic units, but you dismiss chaotic units that are unviable, what you really want are chaotic units that ARE viable.  In other words, special rules that are fluffy but are still powerful.  You claim power is not an issue, but it clearly is when you were talking about possessed. 

I dismiss Possessed because they suck.

As much as I want variety, I'm going to call a spade a spade, and Possessed are a broken, un-useable spade.

And, oddly enough, the one army in the last Codex that was more powerful the more fluffy you got was Iron Warriors. I know no one wants to hear that and wants to complain about 4 Heavy Support slots, but it really was one of the few armies in 40K that got more powerful as you got more fluffy.

If only every army could be like that...

BYE

This is almost another strawman. You are rebutting his counter-argument by defining chaos in the dictionary use, but we all know that, now follow me on this, we are talking about Warhammer's Chaos, which is not the same thing. It's like expecting a Tau Piranha to actually be a little grey alien sitting on a carnivorous fishy and that is just silly.

Posted By scuddman on 08/13/2007 9:18 PM

It's not a strawman. 

You yourself said the word "chaotic".  Chaotic is an adjective used to describe the state of disorder of something.  Chaos, in other words, is the exact opposite of order. 

In your own words, you said so yourself that the codex was not "chaotic" enough and was "bland." 

The possesed are a unit that ARE chaotic, randomness is in fact a form of disorder.  They are unusual and are not "bland".  You dismissed it because you considered them an unviable unit.

 

It's hardly a strawman.  If you say you want chaotic units, but you dismiss chaotic units that are unviable, what you really want are chaotic units that ARE viable.  In other words, special rules that are fluffy but are still powerful.  You claim power is not an issue, but it clearly is when you were talking about possessed. 

First off. Chaotic does not mean random in this chaos (although chaos never does mean random in any sense, utter confusion at best which is a reasonable term when applied to the logic used for this book). In GW's case chaos is part of  a battle between Order and Chaos, as in an eternal struggle. Chaos destroys while order builds. Nothing random in that.

Randomness is not disorder. Probability tells me what "random " should be over a system. Random is only random when you don't have the information required to understand it.

Chaotic units should be units which are capable of fulfilling thier purpose, not something that may or may not work. As HBMC pointed out if you rolled for it before you set up it would be okish. But you don't. That's not good, and it's why the unit wasn't taken during the second last codex.

Random = unpredictable
This game requires that for every point you spend youmust be capable of counting on it doing the task you have assigned. Random units don't  allow that sort of accounting, ever.

When we lament that loss of chaotic units what refer to are nuits which reflect the story background and character we have been playing with for 10+ years. Not d1000 charts fun as they may have been.

And it is a styarwman to accuse HBMC of  whining about loss of power. In particular if you want to use the possessed as an example.

Its funny that you say I made a strawman attack when nowhere in my post did I say you said anything (or mention you at all). So far, the only one making a strawman attack is you, putting words in my mouth.

If Chaos is corruption, then who cares if you need 10 marines to take a heavy, the two are unrelated to each other. I do think that Daemons could have been done better (hell, just adding marks would have worked for me), but overall, I still think that this is a better codex than the cheesefest that came before it.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Fun only lasts so long. It's balance that keeps people playing. The lack of balance killed off the game in our area. People just won't play because they don't perceive a level playing field. The fun is soon sucked away, and people drift away. A semblance of balance is needed.

In comparison, you should be comparing things to DA and BA, not the old and busted, soon to be changed Space Marine dex.

But I hold all real thoughts about the dex until it hits the field and people start playing. If it isn't a balanced dex in line with what they have recently done, then it doesn't matter what is in the dex. People still won't play.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/13/2007 9:50 PM
Its funny that you say I made a strawman attack when nowhere in my post did I say you said anything (or mention you at all). So far, the only one making a strawman attack is you, putting words in my mouth.

If Chaos is corruption, then who cares if you need 10 marines to take a heavy, the two are unrelated to each other. I do think that Daemons could have been done better (hell, just adding marks would have worked for me), but overall, I still think that this is a better codex than the cheesefest that came before it.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Let's go with "why the heck would veterans who are no longer bound to a stupid outdated dumb set of pointless rules (the index) continue to follow said rules?" in particular since those rules provide no tactical advantage and are insanity when applied to small rebel groups.  Chaos is about corrupting rules destroying them. Not following them. In particular not the dumb rules.  Your comments about daemons are spoken like someone who doesn't own 60 of them.

When it turns out that this book is far too powerful for your obviously spectacular tactical abilities what then will you do? Please note most chaos players aren't complaining about it's power...the complaints are about how it fits with everything that has come before.

Posted By scuddman on 08/13/2007 8:48 PM

That had to be the most biased review I had ever seen.  In theory when someone does a review, they do it with an open mind and try to point out both good and bad. 

Now that is a really dumb comment to make and really offends me. How dare you even suggest it - how the heck can you do a good amusing hatchet job if you approach something with an open mind. Blimey, next you will be suggesting that Warmachine miniatures suck (which by the way they do - why cannot anyone see that - I mean are you all blind - they suck salty balls - no, really - they suck - and they are over priced - no let go of me, stop it, that hurts, take that coat away, arrghh I cannot move my arms you mother.......)

Posted By Toreador on 08/13/2007 10:00 PM

But I hold all real thoughts about the dex until it hits the field and people start playing. If it isn't a balanced dex in line with what they have recently done, then it doesn't matter what is in the dex. People still won't play.

THe problem is without a global reset there can be no balance. Because there are so many armies and no planned total reset the game is stumbling along.  Creep is already returning so DA and BA armies will lose to Chaos. Chaos in turn will lose to Eldar and Tyranids. The others were never competive.

Though I do look forward to seeing how they eff up the Inquisition codex.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/13/2007 9:29 PM

Posted By scuddman on 08/13/2007 9:18 PM

If you say you want chaotic units, but you dismiss chaotic units that are unviable, what you really want are chaotic units that ARE viable.  In other words, special rules that are fluffy but are still powerful.  You claim power is not an issue, but it clearly is when you were talking about possessed. 

I dismiss Possessed because they suck.

As much as I want variety, I'm going to call a spade a spade, and Possessed are a broken, un-useable spade.

And, oddly enough, the one army in the last Codex that was more powerful the more fluffy you got was Iron Warriors. I know no one wants to hear that and wants to complain about 4 Heavy Support slots, but it really was one of the few armies in 40K that got more powerful as you got more fluffy.

If only every army could be like that...

BYE

I dismiss possessed because as pointed out the randomness doesn't make useless (sometimes a little bit of randomness is fun)-  it when the randomness that occurs that makes 26 point per model unit pointless.

Knowing what the unit does before you put it on the table makes you think and adapt your tactics. Having it change when it is on the table lumps you with it not adapt to it becuase all of a sudden it maybe in totally wrong place for several turns.

p.s I don't play chaos - never been my thing, but that possessed rule is strange.

Whether or not they are random is irrelevant to whether or not they are a chaotic unit.  What is true is that they are a chaotic unit according to his definition, but he disregards them because they are unviable.  He claimed power was not an issue.  Well, if it wasn't an issue, then possessed would be fine regardless if they were viable or not. 

 

Premise:  The Chaos Codex is bland and has no Chaotic units.

But possessed are a chaotic unit that is in the chaos codex. 

Therefore the premise is untrue. 

That's my point in the first place.  Power matters because balance matters.  My way of disproving his argument is clearly not a strawman. 

Okay, stupid talk about logic aside, let me talk about the variety of the codex.  Yes, there are a lot less options for sergeants and the like.  But take an army like Thousand sons, where their demons were unviable and all their basic troops were rubric.  THere are now a LOT more options in terms of viable units than there were before.  Tzeentch havocs, tzeentch raptors, tzeentch chosen with infiltrate, etc.  On top of that, if you just want to take rubric marines that is still viable too.  In my eyes, the legions of Tzeentch became a lot more viable, gained a lot more options, but had to trade a lot of their confusing special rules for them.  Is that bad?  I don't think so.  A more balanced army with a lot more variety in units but a lot less silly upgrades? 

On the flip side, the demons?  Goodness, they're certainly viable, but they are definitely bland there.  The flamers are exactly like the Daemonettes?  Yeah, that's pretty lame.  No doubt about that one. 

Posted By Toreador on 08/13/2007 10:00 PM
Fun only lasts so long. It's balance that keeps people playing. The lack of balance killed off the game in our area. People just won't play because they don't perceive a level playing field. The fun is soon sucked away, and people drift away. A semblance of balance is needed.

In comparison, you should be comparing things to DA and BA, not the old and busted, soon to be changed Space Marine dex.

But I hold all real thoughts about the dex until it hits the field and people start playing. If it isn't a balanced dex in line with what they have recently done, then it doesn't matter what is in the dex. People still won't play.

Usually I actually agree with what you say, but compare things to the new BA codex. Come on, man, that is the most boring narrow lack of choice piece of junk I have seen (ex 3rd edition BA - but no chaplin before people start frothing at the mouth and Salamander player). The DA and BA codex where the final straw that stopped me getting back into the game.

The DE is the last chance for me to consider starting again.

The change in the demons, well, hurt....a lot. I actually sold my Word Bearers months ago when I got a look at what was going on. Someone now has an army I put a lot of time and care into and truly enjoyed playing. However, change from GW comes as no surprise.

They've been doing this for nearly 20 years in WH40K. They are taking the same archetypes they've had and reinvent them with new models with every edition (sometimes two times in the same edition). Is it the end of the world, well, no. Will I quit 40K...no (although there have been times I wish I could get into painting Warmachine models).

The reality is for me is that I enjoy painting new models and getting a few games in a month with my buddies. For the fluff, I've been reading the HH novels which are fun reads (looking forward to reading Fulgrim BTW).

The Chaos Codex is a drastic change, as have been the last several codexes. It appears GW is actually looking for a semblance of game balance (shudder the thought). I think when played against other4th edition Codexes, sans the Space Marine Codex, there will be very good playability (with the exception of the horribly vague Lash of Submission).

Uninspiring... that remains to be seen. Some of the funnest most inspiring armies I've played against or have seen have not been because of the uber rules that they have. Rather, it was the fantastic army that has been laid out in front of me that fires up my imagination and creativity.

I've played since 1st edition and it looks like GW is finally starting to get a semblance of balance in their codexes.

Ironically, many will bemoan the new codex, but many more will most likely end up purchasing it....as well as the spiky Terminators.

HBMC: Your post is interesting and as always, befitting your history of posts: a total love/hate relationship with GW.

Posted By scuddman on 08/13/2007 10:15 PM

On the flip side, the demons?  Goodness, they're certainly viable, but they are definitely bland there.  

Do you play?

If so is the game warhammer 40K?

 

Personally, I am so very happy to see this new codex and I cannot wait until they get around to "blandizing" (tm) every single codex.

I don't feel that condensing deamons into a single troop type is an insult to me, especially since they will be getting a seperate codex in the future.

The insult to me was the last Chaos codex and the absolutely ridiculous armies that it allowed to be fielded. The insult to me was the fact that there were rules for every single legion when there ultimately doesn't need to me.

The real insult to me is the fact that there are (or will be) at least five separate codices for loyalist Space Marines, not the fact that Chaos doesn't get five separate books.

There needed to be at maximum two separate books on loyalist marines: codex marines & wacky marines. Unfortunately the die has long been cast on how many loyalist codices there would be, but suddenly giving Chaos equal treatment wouldn't make the game better, it would just flood the game with even more MEQ codices.

The simple truth is that less options in an army list means less chances for abuse. Anyone is free to disagree with that basic premise but I firmly believe it to be true.

When Jervis said they will be moving the codices towards more of a balanced tournament 1,500 point focus and leave more of the fun stuff to supplements (like Apocalypse) they clearly meant it, and I for one am very, very, very, very, very, very pleased.

So while some folks clearly feel the need to fetch their pitchforks and torches out to storm the GW castle. . .I for one have long been waiting for this day!

 

 

 

Actually I did read it and you did not directly say that it was losing power however losing its chaotic nature it is not. You did spend a lot of time comparing the chaos stuff to the space marine codex that is very recognized as too powered up. The legions can still be played just differently than in the last codex that is very different than saying they could not be played. People give their armies character not rules. For the record I love the daemons having a generic stat line now I can play my word bearers with a lot more daemons, and more variety of models. As a matter of fact since I built most of my Chaos legions using the 3.0 Codex  this one feels  it  is bringing back all the things liked and opening up even more options. The things it is doing is getting rid of all of the things that I hated about the 3.5 codex. And really saying that this is the worst thing written is a little harsh GW is trying to bring all of the codex lists into line for tournament play. Once again I say that I can't wait to see this done to the marine codex. It will mean that wherever I go I will have a much better chance of having a fun game against whoever I might play.  When I want to play games with tooled up lists and over the top combos  I can still play with my local group and  we can play whatever rules we want hell we will be playing a lot of apocalypse.

This is the most awesome thing I've ever read. I am optimistic and i generally like the new army books but seriously people, learn to laugh. =D

Here's something to ponder:

The current codices, call them bland, narrow, simple, or balanced, but in a few years are going to relatively balanced for tournament play. For a person starting 40k, or a person wanting a build an army from scratch, this new 'dex is ideal.

Here's my thing: the older books included tons of info that let a player build an army that not only looked a distinctive way, but played in a distinctive way. The old chaos codex allowed more options for building a unique force than anything else. Sure, IW needed a nerf. The current IG and SM codices are the same way: sharphooters or Cleanse and Purify alter how the list plays in terms of both power and fun.

That's the biggest loss of this book: not the power, because there's some sick stuff in it. Wordbearers can't daemonbomb. Alphas can't infiltrate. Iron Warriors are no shootier or less daemonic than the other legions. Emperor's children don't have hard hitting but incredibly fragile daemons. These are lists that are simply dead, like the squats.

Sure, with the removal of all comp restrictions you can build your own warband around whatever mix of units you like. The total diversity of units within an army will probobly go up. The overall diversity between armies will probobly go down.

My advice? If you really like your old list, than keep it! play it with friends, at the club. Build two daemon princes with wings for tournaements, but play what you enjoy with your friends.

Finally, is anybody actually surprised at the total upheaval of this codex? Has there been a book that would require the average player to buy more units than this one to maintain a legal/competitive list? As a tool to sell miniatures (which is all GW's rules are), this is a daring plan. Many players seem disgusted enough to shelve the army, but I wager that more will buckle and buy the new good units.

I guess that's the difference between you and I Yak. You're still having fun playing GW's version of 40K. Our group gave up long ago (4th Ed itself was the final straw, not any of the more recent Codices) and started playing our own rules.

Our interest in 4th Ed only remains for what good things we can steal for our own rules, as occasionally the Dev Team comes up with something we like (Cities of Death is a good example, we like playing that).

BYE

Posted By Razor Gator on 08/13/2007 6:53 PM

The 3.5 Codex was written by Haines and Hoare.
The 3.0 Codex was written by Jervis, who just happens to now be head of 40k, so he just went back and undid those changes.

Jervis doesn't much care for the opinions of others, something he's admitted.

Jervis doesn't much care for Chaos either, something he's admitted.  As for the 3.0 Chaos Codex he pretty much admitted to phoning it in.

Posted By Toreador on 08/13/2007 10:00 PM
In comparison, you should be comparing things to DA and BA, not the old and busted, soon to be changed Space Marine dex.

What is this pie-in-the-sky space marine dex you keep talking about?  The rumors of an imminent space marine redux have been debunked by studio members.  There is no SM dex coming "soon" - unless by "soon" you mean "in several years when they release 5th edition".

Posted By scuddman on 08/13/2007 10:15 PM
But take an army like Thousand sons, where their demons were unviable and all their basic troops were rubric.  THere are now a LOT more options in terms of viable units than there were before.  Tzeentch havocs, tzeentch raptors, tzeentch chosen with infiltrate, etc.

The only people who think that the space marine codex should be "very recognized as too powered up" (That's an absolutely marvelous trashing of the English language by the way), are people who aren't smart/competent enough to be playing the game in the first place.

I don't know why fanboys think that everyone wants to hear their opinion.  I know that I certainly don't.

As for my intelligence level I can not say (I have not had an IQ test in a long time) there are smarter people and people who don't understand things as easily as me. I will however stand on my record of the game for whether I am competent to play the game. I have played all kinds of lists and I tend to win about 80% of my games. I try not to play tooled up lists because they tend to not be fun for me or my opponent. I have taken tooled up lists to tournaments but never won overall with them I have won quite a few with my more balanced armies and have made good friends when I did it. And it has been stated by developers that when they get to re doing the space marine codex things like two heavy weapons (Assault Cannons) in terminator squads , Combat Squads  (no more 5 man las plas squads) and scouts as troops will be  addressed.

From what I'm reading it seems people are justifying the neutering of the flavor of 40k because of tournaments.  I've thought this for years, but tourney play is killing what makes 40k great.  Variety.  Style.  Character.  Armies should be built on theme and background, not what will get you the best place in the next tournament.  With all the new codecies we are losing that.  No more Craftworlds, strictly built DA and BA armies where you have to take a specific character to get anything other than a bog standard army, and now the loss of the legions and daemons.

And what? We have tourneys to blame?  How ridiculous and frivolous.  So they're killing the game so that groups of nerds can get together an compare codpiece sizes?  And here I though that the elimination of the GT circuit would be a good thing.  Guess not.  GW is only feeding into that need for hamfisted competition for what reason?  Anyone?  Bueller?

If that's the only reason you play the game, then I don't think we could ever agree on anything.  For me, 40k is already dead.  This is just a dead horse to beat on a little more.  No, it's digging up its dead corpse and hanging it, then cutting off its head and having a firing squad take their aim. 

<raises for="" pint="" a="">+++raises a pint for 40k+++

I used to think "maybe 5th edition."  Now I thinking more like 6th.</raises>

Posted By vhwolf on 08/14/2007 12:01 AM

And it has been stated by developers that when they get to re doing the space marine codex things like two heavy weapons (Assault Cannons) in terminator squads , Combat Squads  (no more 5 man las plas squads) and scouts as troops will be  addressed.

"...when they get to re doing the space marine codex..."

When, pray tell, do you imagine that will be?

HBMC, thank you for your excellent review, or as you referred to it, your "deconstruction." As someone who has never purchased a Chaos model, I laughed hysterically, particularly while reading such gems as, "Unlike Space Marine Librarians, Chaos Sorcerers have been working in the Eye of Terror for the Chaos Gods and therefore cannot get two ultra-cheap powers," and--you must forgive me for my weakness for vulgar jokes--"After reading pages 61-63 of the new Chaos Codex, I am left with only two words to say to Mr. Thorpe, Mr. Cavatore and Mr. Johnson: F#%k. You."

Splendid. Simply tremendous, old sport.

Having read that review, I feel better and better every time I think about WHFB.

That part of it no one can say except GW themselves.

Posted By yakface on 08/13/2007 11:15 PM
Unfortunately the die has long been cast on how many loyalist codices there would be, but suddenly giving Chaos equal treatment wouldn't make the game better, it would just flood the game with even more MEQ codices.

Not necessarily.  Instead of splitting Chaos into CSM and daemon codices, they could have split them into vanilla and cult.  The vanilla codex would cover all the undivided legions + their servants and followers (cultists, mutants, beastmen, etc).  The cult codex(es) would cover the 4 cult legions + their servants and followers.  None of these codices would have to be dedicated MEq codices.  Each would give you the option to make an all MEq army, an all GEq army, or a mix.

IMHO it makes a lot more sense to split the lists up by allegiance rather than armor save.  Afterall, where are Thousand Sons more likely to pop up?  At the head of a coven of Tzeentch-worshippers?  Or running around with Slaanesh-worshipping Black Legion Fzorgle Sorcerers?

The simple truth is that less options in an army list means less chances for abuse.