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.

HBMC:

I'd say to put your objections straight to GW, but we all know how well they listen.

Frankly, that's why I'd say just adapt the old codex with the new, make Daemons similar to Grey Knights/Witch Hunters, etc.

But then again, I'm not a tournament player.

Nurglitch wrote:Use multiple Force Organization Charts to represent legions.

Word Bearers: Chaos Space Marines & Chaos Daemons
Alpha Legion: Chaos Space Marines & Imperial Guard
Death Guard: Chaos Space Marines & Chaos Daemons

You may as well just play Apocalypse if you're getting to the points values multiple Force Orgs are generally used at. Why not just introduce an Allies system like DH/WH to your club?

Just a general comment.

Why is it that the old players seem to always hate "the new codex" with burning fire from the bottom of hell and from the deepest corner of their heart...while the new players don't seem to have that problem?

starbomber109 wrote:Just a general comment.

Why is it that the old players seem to always hate "the new codex" with burning fire from the bottom of hell and from the deepest corner of their heart...while the new players don't seem to have that problem?

Because often the old players spent the time and money to buy, assemble, paint and play with an army which worked under the old codex but under the new codex some or all of the models are either unusable or have changed immensely.

Platuan4th:

I'm saying use multiple Force Organization Charts at regular points values (1000-2500pts). I'd avoid the allies rules precisely for reasons given, because trying to implement them is a cause of disagreements. By using multiple Force Organization Charts, you don't need to modify or otherwise suss out the rules, and you take the sportsmanlike route of taking the least advantage of the rules.

starbomber109 wrote:Just a general comment.

Why is it that the old players seem to always hate "the new codex" with burning fire from the bottom of hell and from the deepest corner of their heart...while the new players don't seem to have that problem?

Probably because the newer codexes reduce options and someone who never experienced those options would not mourn the loss of them.

I've been playing since Rogue Trader days and I think that the latest Codex is a big improvement on the previous one. So no, the newer Codex doesn't reduce options, and having experienced the previous options, I say "Good riddance".

Kanluwen wrote:But then again, I'm not a tournament player.

Neither am I, but I don't see how that makes any. Fething. Difference.

If someone's army was made invalid by the current Chaos Codex, then it doesn't matter if they're a fluff-gamer who loves his Night Lords or one of John's pet WAAC players playing his tweaked-out ultra-tuned Iron Warrior army - both their armies are just as invalidated as one another, and I'd say that the guy who follows the fluff rigidly would be just as annoyed as the guy who loved stomping on people at tournaments.

Look at Nurgy's list of FOC amendments. Because he and his group have those, they're essentially confirming what is wrong with the Chaos Codex. I've heard Gav's "all the last Codex did was present lists of restrictions" argument before - mostly from JohnHwangDD - and it holds as much water when Gav says it as it does when DD says it. The current Chaos didn't remove restrictions, it just removed all options. I used the example of ice cream a few threads back, so I'll do it again:

The 3.5 Chaos Codex was:
Chocolate Ice cream
Strawberry Ice cream
Rocky Road
Honey Comb

But say you can have any of those three, but you could never combine rocky road and chocolate, or take more than any two flavours at a time. That was 3.5.

The current Chaos Codex is:
Vanilla

Sure, you can take as much vanilla as you like, eat it in whatever method you see fit... but you've only got one flavour.

Compare that to, say, the current 5th Ed marine vs 4th Ed Marine.

As much as the Traits system was a joke, 4th Ed Marines gave you:
Chocolate Ice cream
Strawberry Ice cream
Rocky Road
Honey Comb

And the 5th Ed Codex gives you:
Chocolate Ice cream
Strawberry Ice cream
Rocky Road
Honey Comb

The difference? With 5th Ed you have to use a specific spoon (Special Character) to eat each flavour. So if you want Chocolate, you're going to have use the chocolate ice cream spoon to eat it with. You can still have Chocolate though, or Strawberry but Chaos... no. Doesn't matter what spoon I pick up, I've only got Vanilla. For Marines I can still play White Scars or Imperial Fists or Raven Guard using the rules provided, but for Chaos I've got Generic Daemons, Possessed I can't plan to use and Chaos Marines that forget what God they serve when the guy with the Icon dies. The Legions are now just different coloured ice cream tubs for my vanilla ice cream.

Now I've said that I hate the fact that special characters are such a big deal in current 40K, but given the alternative (current Chaos), I'd gladly stomach the need to bring Kharn or Lucius to every game if it meant I could have my Noise Marine Terminators/Marines/Havocs/Bikers and my fething Daemonettes back. Hell I'd even accept a Daemonhunter-esque allies system for Chaos Daemons. But right now the option isn't there. I am restricted by a lack of options. Sure, the previous options had restrictions, but the Codex itself wasn't restrictive.

But that's not the only fault of the Chaos Codex. It goes beyond that. I mentioned the Possessed that you cannot plan to use (and the all-too-ironic designer notes from Pete Haines that explained the reason they got rid of random Possessed was because you couldn't plan to use them and they weren't fun). I've mentioned Chaos Marines who forget what God they serve when the Icon dies (a cynical attempt by GW to make everyone buy new Icon models). But it's deeper than even that.

Daemons. I said in my post above that Daemons not being part of the Chaos Marine list is alien to Chaos. It's never been that way. Since their inception into 40K Daemons have been an intrinsic part of the Chaos Marine list (NB: I don't own any of the RT-era Compendiums or Compilations, only the Realms of Chaos books, so if this has ever been different anywhere, please let me know). Gav removed Daemons from Chaos for the first time. This is a major strike.

People comment on how the Chaos Codex is just 'spiky Marines' or 'Good Marines Gone Bad' and how the 'Chaos-y' aspects of the list had been removed. How is this best represented? Daemonic Gifts. Again, Daemon Gifts have been a part of Chaos since the very start. The RT books had D1000 tables for mutations and gifts. This Codex removed Daemonic Gifts - all the Chaos character options are the same as their Marine counter-parts, just more 'evil'. Daemon Princes get to choose Wings or no Wings and that's it!

Someone will no doubt chirp on about how people didn't use most of the options, but that has less to do with the fact that these options existed and more to do with the fact that Pete Haines et al. didn't write them very well in the first place. Removing them completely - and being the first writer to remove Daemon Gifts and Daemons from a (non-place holder) Codex - will be Gav's legacy.

He took the 'Chaos' out of Chaos Space Marines. That is why I hate it.

warpcrafter wrote:The part of his argument where he says that if you don't like something, just modify it doesn't fly either. The group I play with is so large and diverse that trying to use anything that is not in the official rules and codexes would require hours of argument and explanation, and that's if it would not be met with an automatic response of "Well no, it's not official so of course not." Most people, gamers or not just are not that flexible or imaginative. They want everything laid out for them in a rigid framework. I blame video games for this.

Are there no people at all in your group that would agree to modifications? In my own group and from I've read, in H.B.M.C's group, modification is the order of the day.
If you have a large group, I'd think there would be at least a few people that would modify the rules. Then again, I'm just going off my own experience.

As a player of Chaos, but also others, this Chaos Dex is better balanced internally. Daemons had to go to get a Daemons Codex. Good? Not really. Bad? Not that bothered myself. Sure, I loved Plaguebearers with Plague Swords, and Plague Knives on my PMs (yeah, I played Death Guard LONG before it was cool) but I'm happier with Oblits as they are. Troops rock. CSM need a land Speeder equivalent, need the return of the Infernal Device, and need a better mid-range supporting fire unit than the Chaos Predator. That's IT, and they're top tier, in the way SM and IG are. Well...Dreadclaws too. That'd be a lot better.

Nurglitch wrote:I've been playing since Rogue Trader days and I think that the latest Codex is a big improvement on the previous one. So no, the newer Codex doesn't reduce options, and having experienced the previous options, I say "Good riddance".

I'd like to hear your thoughts behind this. In what way does the newer codex not remove options? I could name a laundry list of options that are no longer available. Sure, you could represent some things passably with liberal use of counts-as... but then again you can do anything with counts-as. Oh sure, this isn't actually a tzeentch daemon weapon, it's a kai gun. My terminators with icon aren't really just marines with a banner that has 3 circles on it, they are plague marine terminators. Pay no attention to the fact that they do not get the same effects of being plague marines as my power armor plague marines.

Well said, H'. There have been suggestions flying around that Chaos characters should 'unlock' options for your army that let you emulate the Legions, but how does this make sense? I mean, how many Abbadons, Kharns, or Ahrimans are there? How many Chaos Lords wear Horus' lightning claw, how many Berzerkers are as skilled as Kharn, and how many Sorcerers have the same mastery of magic as Ahriman?

It's the same problem I have with the Space Marines codex; I like the codex itself, and the fun and varied options, but why should I have to take Vulkan for my Salamanders to play like Salamanders? Why do I need to take Pedro Kantor for my Crimson Fist veterans to be so powerful when that's always been their thing?

Elessar wrote:As a player of Chaos, but also others, this Chaos Dex is better balanced internally. Daemons had to go to get a Daemons Codex. Good? Not really. Bad? Not that bothered myself. Sure, I loved Plaguebearers with Plague Swords, and Plague Knives on my PMs (yeah, I played Death Guard LONG before it was cool) but I'm happier with Oblits as they are. Troops rock. CSM need a land Speeder equivalent, need the return of the Infernal Device, and need a better mid-range supporting fire unit than the Chaos Predator. That's IT, and they're top tier, in the way SM and IG are. Well...Dreadclaws too. That'd be a lot better.

The arguments against the CSM codex have nothing to do with its competitiveness.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

The Legions are now just different coloured ice cream tubs for my vanilla ice cream.

Eloquently explained. I agree completely as a night lords player who now has vanilla ass cream taste that won't go away.

Chaos being top tier has NOTHING to do with the codex taking away all its flavour, actually it does the opposite. Options (in a real sense) are making many viable choices to achieve the somewhat same result.

Nowadays those options simply aren't there and the person who gave us the choices that we now have must be able to accept criticism for it, or you can expect the same efforts in all projects they will be later involved in.

H.B.M.C. wrote:ice cream

And with this one example, you've explained why you hate the Guard Codex as well

I think I see your point now, but this seems to be the trend, to push for generically in armies rather than flavor (but I'm not sure if the new Wolf codex supports that theory or not...anyways) Something another member posted earlier holds true as well, Gav can't be the only person responsible for that codex. He just can't, that's not how game design works. The mistakes may or may not be his fault granted, but he wasn't the only one working on that rulebook.

starbomber109 wrote:Something another member posted earlier holds true as well, Gav can't be the only person responsible for that codex.

Of course not, and don't get me wrong, I don't think for a second that he was the only person working on the Codex (or even that it was just him an Alessio). There are obviously a lot of behind the scenes stuff that goes into making a Codex. Liken it to the way most American TV shows are written - there will be a writing team, and although one person will write the script and get the credit (and very occasionally you'll see a separate story and teleplay credit), all the writers are involved in some level, and often go uncredited for that work.

But at the end of the day his name is on it, so if we are to direct our criticisms (valid or otherwise) somewhere, then it might as well be the person at the end of the 'Written by...' credit.

ph34r:

Let me put it this way: I get my Khornate Devastators (okay, "Havocs") back. Sure, they're only Havocs with Berzerkers helmets and an Icon of Chaos Glory, but I like that tabula rasa that the Codex presents.

I mean, if your problem is that Terminators of Nurgle are "just marines with a banner that has 3 circles on it", then I'm not sure what to say. They're also plastic (or metal) toy soldiers, rather than crazed devotees of the Lord of Pestilence. Some imagination required, I guess.

I think that the abstraction of some unit types, rather than giving each and every element of the fluff it's own rules and trying to balance them, is a strategy that pays off better. Well, to be honest it seems to have failed given that the equalities between various Elite choices seem opaque to some players, but in the previous Codex there actually were simply better units and if you didn't take them you were handicapping yourself.


It's something to remember the distinction between all options and live options here. Contra H.B.M.C, I think that the current Codex gives more live options, options that are equally competitive, than the previous Codex despite the previous one having more possible permutations. But part of the problem is one of legacy, of popular attitudes to the previous Codex, and the timing of the change-over - the latest Chaos Codex was designed with 5th edition in mind, and didn't really succeed in its design parameters in combination with the 4th edition rules. The community, in general, has this attitude that there's a particular unit in each FOC slot that's the best unit, and that unit has a best configuration, and that there's a best army composed of these units, and as mentioned that was true to a degree with the previous codex.

I think that the current Codex, with the edition change, ameliorates this, but gamers are slow to change. Look how long it took people to adapt to 5th edition, or to the Lash of Submission: People are still playing Chaos Dreadnoughts according to the 4th edition rules where they had a 360 line of sight.

I think that they were right to go with a more abstract approach because of the threat that the community would go with the "One True Way" approach to armies that attempts to represent irrelevant differences create: you don't need a rule to differentiate all the different types of Chaos Space Marine, for example, but you do need some rules so that players have variety. It's a question of fitting the background to the rules, or the rules to the background, and since players are anal about using official rules, but make up their own background all the time, I think that the new direction is the right one.

Speaking of representing Plague Terminators:

A while ago I estimated some points values for Possessed Marines, and found a system that could be used for estimating the points values of stuff like the Terminators you want to play with. Basically it's +/- one point for each stat increase/wargear option/special rule, +1 for each other stats and rules it interacts with, and on top of a base line.

For example, Chaos Space Marines are xpts. Noise Marines are x+5pts. The 5 points breaks down as Fearless, +1I. Fearless is 3pts, the Initiative bonus is 2pts. Fearless prevents pinning for 1, prevents morale tests for 1, and interacts with the initiative bonus for 1. The Initiative bonus is 1 and interacts with Fearless for 1.

A Chaos Terminator with Fearless, Feel No Pain, Blight Grenades, Mark of Nurgle, and -1I would have a minimum of +5pts.

Starting with Fearless, same as above (+1 vs pinning, +1 vs morale, +3 for combination), for a total of +5
Feel No Pain (+1, +3 for combination), total of +4
Mark of Nurgle (+1, +3 for combination), total of +4
Initiative (-1, +3 for combination), total of +2

This would mean that your Plague Terminators would start at 45pts.

Last night I fielded an army I allways wanted to field with the old Chaos Codex, but couldn't.

Black Legion 1500 points

Chaos Terminator Lord
5 Chaos Terminators
6 Noise Marines
7 Plague Marines
8 Khorne Berserkers
9 Thousand Sons
10 Chaos Space Marines

Personally I think the new CSM codex is perfect. It got rid of all the overpowered Daemon bombs and the players that stuck around afterwards were the true chaos fans. Ppl kept hiding behind fluff. Well if you liked Korn, then just use the models and summon damons that look like Korn. You do not need all these other abilities. He basically made it so that the REAL fluff fans stuck around and everyone that left after the new DEX was just a poser that bandwagon hops to whatever they perceive is the stongest army at the time. Before it was CSM was revised they were clearly the stongest army. Unless you fought a built-to fight marine army. He weeded out the posers and only the true chaos players were left.

They still are a strong army just not as strong as they were.

As for my I will always PLay IG and orks. I did since either of there more recent dexes came out because I love the models and fluff. The other army I have been toying with the idea of is Necrons. Also space wolves. Just because I think they are cool. ALthough I have problems enough going to bed that I do not need the thought of me, a grown man playing a space marine variant keeping me up at night.

You're a brave man smart_alex, may you weather the incoming assault well my friend.

Neconilis wrote:You're a brave man smart_alex, may you weather the incoming assault well my friend.

He plays guard orks and skaven, he can take anything

starbomber109 wrote:

Neconilis wrote:You're a brave man smart_alex, may you weather the incoming assault well my friend.

He plays guard orks and skaven, he can take anything

Neconilis wrote:You're a brave man smart_alex, may you weather the incoming assault well my friend.

No what he is is someone who continues to highlight just how inaccurate his user-title is.

And I don't respond well to ad hominems and strawman's such as Alex's, therefore I won't respond at all...

Eh, well they did say they were working on a Legion's Codex right?.....Right?.
If worse comes to worse Ill gave the EC a break and play some fantasy.

In all honesty I don't hate the guy that wrote it, I just really want to use a flavorful EC or atleast Slannesh army.
However I will totally argue he should of given the Legion player's what WE want.

Relapse wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The part of his argument where he says that if you don't like something, just modify it doesn't fly either. The group I play with is so large and diverse that trying to use anything that is not in the official rules and codexes would require hours of argument and explanation, and that's if it would not be met with an automatic response of "Well no, it's not official so of course not." Most people, gamers or not just are not that flexible or imaginative. They want everything laid out for them in a rigid framework. I blame video games for this.

Are there no people at all in your group that would agree to modifications? In my own group and from I've read, in H.B.M.C's group, modification is the order of the day.
If you have a large group, I'd think there would be at least a few people that would modify the rules. Then again, I'm just going off my own experience.

I haven't tried with all three dozen or so players, but that's because I eventually got fed up and started an Ork army.

Nurglitch wrote:ph34r:

Let me put it this way: I get my Khornate Devastators (okay, "Havocs") back. Sure, they're only Havocs with Berzerkers helmets and an Icon of Chaos Glory, but I like that tabula rasa that the Codex presents.

You could mark havocs in the old book.

I mean, if your problem is that Terminators of Nurgle are "just marines with a banner that has 3 circles on it", then I'm not sure what to say. They're also plastic (or metal) toy soldiers, rather than crazed devotees of the Lord of Pestilence. Some imagination required, I guess.

The thing is, they don't have the same rules as plague marines. They're wannabes. If the icon bearer dies, then suddenly their diseased toughness vanishes and they become random renegades.

I think that they were right to go with a more abstract approach because of the threat that the community would go with the "One True Way" approach to armies that attempts to represent irrelevant differences create: you don't need a rule to differentiate all the different types of Chaos Space Marine, for example, but you do need some rules so that players have variety. It's a question of fitting the background to the rules, or the rules to the background, and since players are anal about using official rules, but make up their own background all the time, I think that the new direction is the right one.

Oh, so because some people on the internet might have been persuaded into using a particular type of good unit/strategy/list it is better to remove most options... so that there are less unused options! brilliant! Without a cornucopia of options to choose from, there will be far fewer options that don't get used because of those damn internet people. And the people who actually liked having fluffy, non-counts as armies? Acceptable losses.

I've taken on chaos players before. Singlehandedly. I've never swayed from my position, look at my posting history. Its no secret I do not like chaos in here. THey are the worst. THey claim they like fluff but then complain by saying the new codex nerf's fluff.

Fluff and rules are two separate things. Fluff is in your head and imagination.

No person has been able to tell me how the new dex affects fluff.

Keep in mind now that doctrines are gone, I have yet to observe IG players complaining about fluff. Tallern players still play tallern, Cadian players still play Cadians, Steel Legion still play SL, and Catachan players still play catachan. etc.. This shows the difference. The players who actually have skill and like chaos for the fluff still play them. What do rules have to do with fluff? Nothing.

People are just upset since the new CSm dex that they actually have to learn to play. The Chaos players that KNOW how to play are still kicking butt all over the place.

Get a clue and stop complaining. That new dex was the event that made people question why they would want to play an army that is stupid, and looks like a circus. It brought balance and got rid of the most broken army in the game. I even thought about starting a korne army after the new dex came out just because I LIKE THE FLUFF. All red models, out for blood. I would probably lose a lot but it would be highly themed.

Die Chaos scum in the name of the emperor!

Hmm, it's a shame I sold my World Eaters army as this codex makes them better than the ass wipe that was the 3.5 'dex.

So I'm sorry if I don't pity people for losing a unit or TWO, my entire army went from pretty cool in 2nd to better in 3rd to collecting dust on the shelf with 3.5 until I was able to sucker someone into buying them. LOL

Egads, maybe someday I'll do a Khornate army again JUST on the off chance they do release Legion codeciies but the new codex actually makes an all Khornate army viable again and not a joke. Although, IMO if it happens I only expect it to be the big 4. I don't really want to see 9 codeciies for Chaos.

The 3.5 codex had tons of restrictions... it was more restrictive than any other Chaos book, but it also helped shape many people's idea of what a Chaos army should look like. After the 4th ed codex was released, how many times did you hear someone bitching about "I can't believe he's running X unit with Y unit, it's totally against the fluff!!" Which actually kind of pissed me off, because I would run Black Legion with lots of berzerkers... and get comp hits because of it.

However... the 3.5 codex still had tons of options within the restrictions it presented. The 4th ed codex got rid of all the restrictions... but then destroyed all of the options as well.

Despite it's quickly declining competitiveness, the Eldar codex is a thing of beauty because it removed restrictions while maintaining options.

The CSM codex is an example of piss-poor game design because it removed restrictions while removing options.

@Ellesar: I actually agree with you that the Chaos Codex is not competitive against 5th ed lists designed from 5th ed codices... but you'll find little agreement here.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
People comment on how the Chaos Codex is just 'spiky Marines' or 'Good Marines Gone Bad' and how the 'Chaos-y' aspects of the list had been removed. How is this best represented? Daemonic Gifts. Again, Daemon Gifts have been a part of Chaos since the very start. The RT books had D1000 tables for mutations and gifts. This Codex removed Daemonic Gifts - all the Chaos character options are the same as their Marine counter-parts, just more 'evil'. Daemon Princes get to choose Wings or no Wings and that's it!

Someone will no doubt chirp on about how people didn't use most of the options, but that has less to do with the fact that these options existed and more to do with the fact that Pete Haines et al. didn't write them very well in the first place. Removing them completely - and being the first writer to remove Daemon Gifts and Daemons from a (non-place holder) Codex - will be Gav's legacy.

I might be VERY wrong here, and I could be misconstrued to be nitpicking, but I believe that the Chaos Marine Codex that was released just after the 3rd edition (the one with the head of a CSM on the front) failed to have daemonic gift options. Just wargear, with perhaps the odd option (wings instead of a jumppack; ala the current codex). I don't have the codex handy, but that is how I remember it.

It was as vanilla as the current one.
Which is why they released the IA articles in WD which, in conjunction with the 3rd ed. CSM codex, could be used to create god/legion specific forces.
These were the basis for the CSM codex that Pete Haines wrote.
Which was great and arguably the best codex GW has produced (although the T5 oblits that went to T4(5) was a knock). It had broken builds, but only as bad as the current one.
Correct