Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just Because the latest codex is not as bad @ss as it was is no reason not to collect chaos marines, in the end all the old fluff is also still there.

when picking my next army I ask myself 2 questions.

First and most important: Do I likethe models, If the answer to this is no then I simply wont bother going any further, if its yes chances are i'll end upm going with them (It was the new shokk attak gun that got me playing orks)

the second question is can I make a playable army with the codex. Playable doesnot mean always winning, more 'not always getting trounced' for example the current (and soon te be replaced) IG codex, its very very hard to make a playable army with it, same with Tau (thanks 5th) daemonhunters, witchhunters and non nidzilla tyranids IMO. While the answer to this is not as Important to me it needs asking because always losing is never fun.(yet I play gaurd)

also, you dont want acodex where you have to go to extremes of the list to win. IMO the current chaos dex is competitive and the models are good so why not play em, sure you cant do pure legion lists properly but you can still give everyone mark of nurgle and its almost plague marines, or take some of everything and be black legion. In fact the only chaos legions that have really lost out are those such as night lords with no real god affiliate.

Ok. I see the arguments you all have presented, and most of them are valid. Thank you for the help.

I have been hearing a lot of "stick to your BA until you are satisfied with them first, before moving on."

I guess that is true enough. I have been meaning to get more vehicles so I guess that is what I will spend my money on, rather than CSM.

they're a fine army.

A: A fine fluffy army, fill 'er up with Cult troops and have fun!

B: Competitive: Run the Lash. Twice. Then get some Oblits. Laugh at those who see Chaos as "Space Marines, but worse"

ph34r wrote:There is no justification for removing death guard, thousand sons, world eaters, emperor's children, iron warriors, word bearers, night lords, and alpha legion.

The new codex is a steaming pile of bland crap that can make a powerful (and completely un-fluffy) list.

No, the new codex simply moves the responsibility of making a good list on the player, rather than letting them claim "theme" in lieu of "cheese".

As for theme, it simply depends on what the player takes:
DG = PMs and MoN support
TS = TS & MoT support
WE = KB & MoK support
EC = NM & MoS support
IW = Oblit-heavy & pie
NL = Raptors

or are you saying that CSM players are so lacking in imagination that they can't figure the about out by themseves?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ph34r wrote:There is no justification for removing death guard, thousand sons, world eaters, emperor's children, iron warriors, word bearers, night lords, and alpha legion.

The new codex is a steaming pile of bland crap that can make a powerful (and completely un-fluffy) list.

No, the new codex simply moves the responsibility of making a good list on the player, rather than letting them claim "theme" in lieu of "cheese".

As for theme, it simply depends on what the player takes:
DG = PMs and MoN support
TS = TS & MoT support
WE = KB & MoK support
EC = NM & MoS support
IW = Oblit-heavy & pie
NL = Raptors

or are you saying that CSM players are so lacking in imagination that they can't figure the about out by themseves?

QFT

DD could of not said it better...As you can see (just like all the new Codices: Eldar, Orks, SM, Daemons....) you have all the options to make any army combo you want, it is now up to the player to build a 'fluffy' list. CSM are *not* like the only codex that has done this.

Basically: These new codices have moved the responsibility of 'fluffy' from the codex to the player. Its up to the Chaos player (I'm a nurgle marines player myself) to shoot himself in the foot to make an army list that is 'self' restrictive instead of 'codex forced' restrictive.

Those aren't legion armies. The legion armies had special rules, special summoning bonuses, special force organization, special wargear, and free aspiring champions. Making an army that kinda looks like a legion army, but without any of the defining characteristics, does not cut it.

EDIT:
Here's an example to help you understand. Loyalist space marines have many different codexes for their chapters. Chaos space marines had one, but it had rules for every legion. Now it doesn't. Imagine you are a player of Blood Angels, or Space Wolves, or Black Templars, or any other chapter that has a codex. How would you feel if the latest space marine codex said that you couldn't use any of them any more? Would you say "hurr durr it's up to you to restrict yourself! Just use your imagination!". If you think about it that way then well gee, squats aren't dead, lost and the damned aren't dead, death guard aren't dead, just use your imagination and they all still have rules!

Oh, and @ "you have all the options to make any army combo you want"
Please direct me to the part of the chaos list that lets me use all of my obliterators, my 3 devastator squads, and my basilisk. While you're at it, you don't happen to know where the plague banners, plague swords, minor psychic powers, god specific daemon weapons, and fast attack death guard in rhinos went? I can't seem to find them anywhere.

ph34r wrote:Those aren't legion armies. The legion armies had special rules, special summoning bonuses, special force organization, special wargear, and free aspiring champions. Making an army that kinda looks like a legion army, but without any of the defining characteristics, does not cut it.

EDIT:
Here's an example to help you understand. Loyalist space marines have many different codexes for their chapters. Chaos space marines had one, but it had rules for every legion. Now it doesn't. Imagine you are a player of Blood Angels, or Space Wolves, or Black Templars, or any other chapter that has a codex. How would you feel if the latest space marine codex said that you couldn't use any of them any more? Would you say "hurr durr it's up to you to restrict yourself! Just use your imagination!". If you think about it that way then well gee, squats aren't dead, lost and the damned aren't dead, death guard aren't dead, just use your imagination and they all still have rules!

Oh, and @ "you have all the options to make any army combo you want"
Please direct me to the part of the chaos list that lets me use all of my obliterators, my 3 devastator squads, and my basilisk. While you're at it, you don't happen to know where the plague banners, plague swords, minor psychic powers, god specific daemon weapons, and fast attack death guard in rhinos went? I can't seem to find them anywhere.

Quoted For Truth. I had to write it out to emphasis it (except for the God specific Daemon weapons... those are still here). But anyways...

I miss playing Alpha Legion and having cultists in my army :(

Sorry, my bad about the daemon weapons thing. There are still god specific weapons, but they have been changed, there is only 1 per god instead of 2, and there is only 1 generic weapon instead of 4.
EDIT: to clarify, I'm counting the god specific lesser weapons as weapons that were removed. The new nurgle one is basically a plague sword anyway, and there is no more manreaper.

ph34r wrote:Here's an example to help you understand. Loyalist space marines have many different codexes for their chapters. Chaos space marines had one, but it had rules for every legion. Now it doesn't. Imagine you are a player of Blood Angels, or Space Wolves, or Black Templars, or any other chapter that has a codex. How would you feel if the latest space marine codex said that you couldn't use any of them any more? Would you say "hurr durr it's up to you to restrict yourself! Just use your imagination!".

You know what, If codex marines Had all of the army specific toys in It i'd be totally fine with this, add the special characters for each army and some army specific units to the marine codex and away we go (You know, just like in the chaos book), there are already too many codexes (16) for gw to update regularly and still make a profit, yet folks want more codexes? madness.

yeah,
Just don't think about it too much... just buy the book.. and models... then buy more books and more models...

Panic...

@phear, thanks for confirming that you're only about it for the powergaming / special rules.

In your little rant, where is your begging for the return of mindless Rage across the entire army? Why don't you want Khorne to return to being a wind-up army? Is it because it's weak?

And why are you only looking at one version of CSM in isolation? Is it because it's the most broken?

BTW, your Iron Warriors example is perfect, as that was unquestionably a broken list.

Anyhow, if you go back to the 2E Codex, where are the Legion lists? How about the 3E Codex, where are the Legion lists there? I mean, surely, the weight of history would prove you right...

JohnHwangDD wrote:@phear

This post is ridiculous. I will address every one of your "points".
First, you purposely misspell my name to be condescending.

, thanks for confirming that you're only about it for the powergaming / special rules.

Wow. So powergaming is now == special rules. I don't care if my army is a powergamey army or not. I want to be able to field my army in an interesting way, using unique rules and wargear that set it apart from other armies. I guess my Iron Warriors Warsmith with Kai Gun and Servo Arm was too broken to exist?

In your little rant, where is your begging for the return of mindless Rage across the entire army? Why don't you want Khorne to return to being a wind-up army? Is it because it's weak?

Now, you continue to act condescending by referring to my posting of factual information as "my little rant". I never talked about Khorne at all. You are pulling arguments out of your ass. Don't do that.

And why are you only looking at one version of CSM in isolation?

Because it is the one that has the most flexibility and rules for each legion.

Is it because it's the most broken?

Thanks for asking! The answer to your question is no, and the most broken version would be the current CSM or Codex Daemons!

BTW, your Iron Warriors example is perfect, as that was unquestionably a broken list.

I guess I'm just a damn dirty power gamer, what with my using servo arms, multiples of 3 (the IW prefered number) for squad sizes (no, not just 6 man squads). Basilisks are also clearly OP, judging by the number of imperial guard players that use them and the fact that chaos totally don't already have a unit called the defiler that does the exact same thing!

Anyhow, if you go back to the 2E Codex, where are the Legion lists? How about the 3E Codex, where are the Legion lists there? I mean, surely, the weight of history would prove you right...

Wow, did I ever say that the old codexes had legion lists? No, I did not. What I did say is that the 3.5e codex was the most fun and the most interesting and had the best support for variant armies.

You failed to make a single point that refers to things that I actually said.
Your post was bad and you should feel bad.


EDIT:

yeah,
Just don't think about it too much... just buy the book.. and models... then buy more books and more models...

Panic...

Indeed. If you want to play chaos space marines, this is your only option. Though I am sorry that you are stuck with the new book.

Anyhow, if you go back to the 2E Codex, where are the Legion lists? How about the 3E Codex, where are the Legion lists there? I mean, surely, the weight of history would prove you right...

Legion rules were included after the positive response towards the Index Astartes articles. And let's not forget the diversity of Daemons in 2nd and 3rd ed.

On the plus side, after they release imperial guard, dark eldar, space wolves, necrons, tyranids, inquisition, 40k 6th edition, and likely more space marines, they might release codexes for representing the legions appropriately. I just hope that they aren't years away.

explanation retracted.

per AC013's note, I'll stop here, as nothing further is gained.

All I'm reading is QQ from the both of yee, one of you be the better man and stop.

Having said that, I change my position on this matter... I do not think it's a good time to start CSM... or any army for that matter. I'm really beginning to dislike GW more and more which sucks because there aren't that many other sci-fi miniature games with the capacity as 40k... sigh.

solkan wrote:I have this suspicion that "fluffy" for some people is code for "Will it give me superpowers as a reward for this conversion, or ignoring that unit I didn't really want to use?" By that standard, the current codex isn't 'fluffy' because it returns to the 1999 style Chaos undivided army list, and doesn't give out superpowers.

Where, there's also that it gives little more than a color scheme and god allegiance for most of the actual Legions, and portrays CSM's more as renegade chapters and SM's who simply get sick of doing their standard stuff and take all their cool stuff and go renegade as opposed to the menacing, ancient enemy that nearly destroyed the Imperium ten millenia ago and continue to be that which makes Imperial authorities to fear the dark, the ancient veterans of the long war as they were portrayed as in the previous codex.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, no. I wrote "phear" because I assumed that's what your username would translate when written by an adult.

A username is a username. You don't have to be "1337" to write my username as it is spelled. Adultness has nothing to do with the (in)ability of you to write my username as it is written: saying that my user name is less adult than your interpretation is condescending.
I don't interpret people's user names in ways that I think would be more proper and inform them of how much more adult I am than them for it, but then again I am not lacking in actual facts to argue with rather than just attacking the person. I don't care if HBMC calls people names, that doesn't mean that you should attempt to belittle my user name once you have failed to argue your points on the topic.
I have said all that there is to say on the topic. You don't have to reply, in fact I would rather you didn't, because I don't think that you can in any seriousness excuse your arguments of "you are a power gamer and like the old book because you are a power gamer".

Yeah, I really like the idea of a crazed and mad dreadnought going berserk on the battlefield, but I don't like that you have a strong possibility of messing up your other plans. Maybe if it was much stronger or cheaper, then this weakness could be justified.

I voted yes for fluff - the Codex is (as has been pointed out above) more bland than the previous incarnation, however the point is that you should play a Chaos army if you like the look, feel and fluff of one. Armies will come and go in terms of effectiveness, as killer tactics are developed and counteracted, however it is the point of the CSM which sustains their role in the 40k Universe.

I have played CSM during my entire GW playing career because I love the fluff and visual impact of the Chaos models and armies. I have a Nurgle force which is very effective under 5th Ed but which more to the point provokes a reaction from opponents - and that is despite the fact that I am an average painter (and only then if you were being generous! ).

CSM are the bad guys supreme of the 40k Universe. Tyranids slaughter through instinct, Necrons through being unable to do anything else. CSM are deliberate in their actions, the fallen and corrupted versions of an ideal. That's why I have always played CSM and always will - the rules will come and go, and I will do my best to adapt to them.

@L4m3r: As I told you you before, I wasn't making fun of your username.

However, as you *insist* on being all whiny and butthurt over what was actually an innocent thing, screw it.

At this point, I'm going to refer to you as "l4m3r", assuming that I bother to interact with you at all anymore.

Vaktathi wrote:

That said, it lacks the soul, feel, and cool factor of the previous codex. The fluff is naff and incomplete, the army list is cookie cutter and there are very clear "takes" and "do not takes", it's basically Space Marines with spikes and an extra attack and Cult troops and that's about it, but make no mistake that CSM's are probably the best basic trooper in the game next to Ork boyz, and Oblits are amazing HS.

Amen!!

Just went to another tournament and I've yet to see a CSM army without oblits and a lash prince, usually in numbers... The CSM dex is the first GW codex that was in every way inferior to its predecessor, which had better art, better fluff and MUCH better, almost limitless variety of Chaos.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@L4m3r: As I told you you before, I wasn't making fun of your username.

However, as you *insist* on being all whiny and butthurt over what was actually an innocent thing, screw it.

At this point, I'm going to refer to you as "l4m3r", assuming that I bother to interact with you at all anymore.

If you are going to devolve to the level of a 10 year old by calling names, then I don't give a damn about you. Guess what? I replied to all your points, showing how you were wrong. You failed to do so in return. You lost the argument, entirely, and are now going on the offensive to cover it up.

Next time all of your points are rebuked in an argument, instead of making up horrible excuses and going on an ad-hominem rampage just step away from the keyboard.

EDIT: And to address your post, I accept that you accidentally wrote my name incorrectly. I only care that you insult my name by calling the spelling childish, and your misinterpretation more adult.
I honestly can't say that I care enough about you to call you by a nickname.