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.

Slarg232 wrote:Also, while I am thinking about it, I would like to add that the Chaos Dreadnaught would be perfectly fine with it's rage rule, with the following change: It starts out normal, but at the beginning of any of his turn, the Chaos Player may release the frenzy built up inside of the dreadnaught, causing it to be: 1-2: Blood Rage, 3-4: Act as Normal, 5-6 Fire Frenzy. This would keep it being flavorful and Chaos, and would make it one mean mother fether. Once you unleash the rage, it is like that for the rest of the game.

I agree, something like that makes more sense from the rules perspective. It switches the rules from one that is self destructive to one that is beneficial, but unpredictably so. Its chaotic without being a bad thing.

Slarg232 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Of course, what I *really* want for Chaos is Chaos Guardmen with Mutants and Traitors and Renegades.

And Chaos Sisters!

But seriously, I don't want them to make 20 different Codices for Chaos, I would much rather have one slightly larger one. I would rather have Legions, Renegades, and Cultists all have rules in one book, so that you can field a specific Legion with cultists one game, and then play a non legion force next game, without having to lug around 3-4 different books. Just my 2-cents about it.

I don't think anyone wants to see them do 20 different books. Without having separation of different concepts you fall back into the problem of it being too many flavors in one book. You would have to expect something like the special characters of the SM dex, where most only make minor changes. Separate books allows more drastic distinctions.

If you bring traitors and mutants into the main Chaos Marine book you're back to the problem of over redundancy different daemons brought to the previous book. I think there is also a distinction between the generic cultist entry of 4th edition and the Chaos Guardsmen and Mutants of the LatD. Using my three book break down as a basis, each could have a little bit of every thing and yet emphasize one facet. Daemons could have generic traitor guard and Marines but all the daemon options, Chaos Marines could have all the Marines but only generic traitor guard and generic daemons, and Renegades emphasize traitor guard and mutants with the generic daemons and basic marines. In that way they all carry commonality but remain distinctive.

Nitros14 wrote:The old legion rules weren't bad except someone really loved Iron Warriors and gave them much better rules than everyone else while the same person really hated Thousand Sons and gave them awful rules.

They could do something similar but not game breaking. Put all the rules in the same book and have them just be minor variations on the same basic list.

To support all of the legions in a single book would require they be so much more simplified. Its clear you realize that the distinctions could only be minor, but all the examples you gave would be too complex for the structure GW currently takes with the codices. Lets look at the Loyalist Marine codex, each chapter represented is effective covered by one or two changes to rules without modifying point costs and only minor instances of changing the force org chart. Restricting unit selection and changing costs is an inherently unbalanced rule structure.

Realize that what you're proposing is something even the Space Marine codex couldn't really do. That codex represented 6 chapters of marines, you'd want the chaos codex to cover 9 maybe 10 different flavors. The size demands would end up too prohibitive to be realistic. You'd be looking at 4 more special charcters and more to explain them all.

GW's point with the direction they took the current codex was to show there is more to chaos than the legions, that they are very fractured. It is a contradiction and major reversal to go back to that. By having a couple of books some of the flavors can be spread out and allow each codex to touch on different legions and aspects of chaos. For example why could Word Bearers fit into the Daemon codex? Or why couldn't Alpha Legion and pirate marines who rely on traitors and mutants be a part of that renegade list.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'd be very happy with 4 Chaos Codices:
(1)- Chaos Marines (Markable & Cult Marines, markable S3 T3 Daemons, generic Machines & Engines)
(2)- Chaos Daemons (S4 T4 Daemons with all the chrome)
(3)- Chaos Legions (4-in-1 book of Cult Marines, Cult Specialists, Cult Daemons, Cult Machines & Engines)
(4)- Chaos Traitors (Traitor Guard, Tanks, Cultists & Mutants; markable S3 T3 Daemons; Markable CSM as HQ only)

I think you could easily get away with (1) and (3) as a single book. The Codex Space Marine covered 6 flavors of marines, between your concept (1) and (3) you'd only need to expect 6 flavors of chaos with many fewer units. IF each chaos cult got 2 new units, say an elite form of its troop option and a daemon engine, you're looking at 8 new units. Adding that to the current codex still leaves it with less than codex space marine or even what chaos had before losing all the daemons.

For number (4) allowing groups like alpha legion who rely on traitors to be represented would be an easy way to go back to the fact LatD allowed allies. The list could just simply incorporate the basic chaos space marine troop entry from the chaos marine dex as an Elite option. Thus flavor and balance are maintained and while expanding the concept that are covered.

Slarg232 wrote:As for the 4 books, I highly doubt that there will be a Chaos Traitors codex. They are barely keeping up with the armies they have now,

there is no way they would be able to split it into 3 different codices and not piss people off.

Some of us don't care at all about "keeping up with the armies". We're in it for the long haul, so not having to shell out for a new book for 10 years is a GOOD thing!

I think you should take a good, long look at WFB Chaos now split into Beasts, Mortals, and Daemons.
____

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'd be very happy with 4 Chaos Codices:
(1)- Chaos Marines (Markable & Cult Marines, markable S3 T3 Daemons, generic Machines & Engines)
(2)- Chaos Daemons (S4 T4 Daemons with all the chrome)
(3)- Chaos Legions (4-in-1 book of Cult Marines, Cult Specialists, Cult Daemons, Cult Machines & Engines)
(4)- Chaos Traitors (Traitor Guard, Tanks, Cultists & Mutants; markable S3 T3 Daemons; Markable CSM as HQ only)

I think you could easily get away with (1) and (3) as a single book.

IF each chaos cult got 2 new units, say an elite form of its troop option and a daemon engine, you're looking at 8 new units. Adding that to the current codex still leaves it with less than codex space marine or even what chaos had before losing all the daemons.

For number (4) allowing groups like alpha legion who rely on traitors to be represented would be an easy way to go back to the fact LatD allowed allies. The list could just simply incorporate the basic chaos space marine troop entry from the chaos marine dex as an Elite option.

Could and should are two different things. The point of separating them into is so that Cult forces have ZERO access to Defilers and Obliterators, and are FORCED to make do with their Cult-specific units. In the same way general Marines would have ZERO access to Cult Terminators and "true" Daemons. Hard "cut-and-choose" army design forces stronger army themes and simplifies balancing.

With a proper 4-in-1 book, each Chaos Cult army could have 1 Special Character, 1 Elite, 1 Troop, 1 Fast, 2 Heavies, and 2 Daemons for a total of 8 distinct entries per Cult, tacked on to core generics (HQs, Rhino, Possessed) for a grand total of about 35-40 entries. That'd be pretty awesome, with no need for non-Cult stuff.

Alpha Legion Cult would be a single CSM Chosen squad (or two) as Army HQ leading a mass of non-CSM stuff, with no Allies needed. But they're not merely Elites - they're the HQ! No basic CSM at all, just the Chosen as the HQ. The hard limit of 2 CSM units forces the player to build around Traitors and Mutants for everything else, and keeps the design clean.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:As for the 4 books, I highly doubt that there will be a Chaos Traitors codex. They are barely keeping up with the armies they have now,

there is no way they would be able to split it into 3 different codices and not piss people off.

Some of us don't care at all about "keeping up with the armies". We're in it for the long haul, so not having to shell out for a new book for 10 years is a GOOD thing!

I think you should take a good, long look at WFB Chaos now split into Beasts, Mortals, and Daemons.

I have probably had a longer look at the three than you, since I play Chaos in WHFB and own all three books and units from each.

I seriously don't want to have to go through that again.

And you might not care about "keeping up with the armies", but how many Dark Eldar players can say the same?

I feel strongly that we will see THE return of Chaos in the future iteration. With the most recent loyalist dexes as precedent, GW is no longer afraid of OTT stats, USR combos, nor deployment limitations.

The next Chaos dex will include some way of allying with the Chaos Demons Codex (logic and consumer demand); Special Characters providing army wide buffs and FOC changes (Co:SM); magnificently fluffy cult representations (Co:BA, e.g. FNP terminators and Rage & Furious Charge Troops); as well as highly customizable HQ options (Co:SW).

It may be a few more years before it actually releases but I have faith that we will not be disappointed.

Curious.... i sometimes feel a disconnect between GW and it's customers, maybe people sign a petition? try and contact?

What will become of them?

Well I've heard some whispers that Chaos are not going to be as core to 40K (and possibly even Warhammer) as they once were, and to expect far fewer updates for them in the future.

A frightening whisper to be sure...

H.B.M.C. wrote:What will become of them?

Well I've heard some whispers that Chaos are not going to be as core to 40K (and possibly even Warhammer) as they once were, and to expect far fewer updates for them in the future.

A frightening whisper to be sure...

I doubt it. Space Marines are the main protagonists (or at least, thats what GW would have us beleive) and all Protagonists need an antagonist/rival, which would be the Chaos Space Marines. Besides, if they cut down on chaos, they would have to cut down on Grey Knights. Not that the grey knights have been helped much by the metal models, but still.

I highly doubt a petition would help, Alex. I would be willing to sign it/fill out a survey, but I doubt it would do anything, Chaos Space Marines aren't Space Marines.

Slarg232 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Some of us don't care at all about "keeping up with the armies". We're in it for the long haul, so not having to shell out for a new book for 10 years is a GOOD thing!

I think you should take a good, long look at WFB Chaos now split into Beasts, Mortals, and Daemons.

I have probably had a longer look at the three than you, since I play Chaos in WHFB and own all three books and units from each.

I seriously don't want to have to go through that again.

And you might not care about "keeping up with the armies", but how many Dark Eldar players can say the same?

I played as BA in 3E, so I waited longer for my update than either of the remaining DE players left in the world.

And really, if they're playing a niche, screw 'em. They simply don't matter in the slightest iota as far as the long term health of the game goes. In the mean time, they should be thanking their lucky stars that they're still an Official army. Squats, Chaos Dwarves, and Dogs of War can't even say that. No pity.

Having gone through the WFB sundering, and seen that GW obviously sees this as a path to long-term financial gain, why didn't you simply sell your 40k Chaos stuff when the writing on the wall became clear?

and Sm are who they throw in the face of 12 year olds and thier parents to grab the kid into the game.


All im saying is that if they find enough Chaos players or people who support the the hurry up of chaos chodcies then they might go huh... maybe we shouldnt redo black templars just yet or some other SM chapter and maybe come out with something different?

i know tau and crons need an update badly and i dont expect any new chaos till they do but still....


i hate walking into a GW and only seeing kids... and they are all playing SM vs. SM

JohnHwangDD wrote:And really, if they're playing a niche, screw 'em. They simply don't matter in the slightest iota as far as the long term health of the game goes. In the mean time, they should be thanking their lucky stars that they're still an Official army. Squats, Chaos Dwarves, and Dogs of War can't even say that. No pity.

Having gone through the WFB sundering, and seen that GW obviously sees this as a path to long-term financial gain, why didn't you simply sell your 40k Chaos stuff when the writing on the wall became clear?

To the deleted part, you seemingly have multiple armies, and that makes you exempt from one of yours not being updated in forever. Not all people have multiple armies, nor can they afford multiple armies.

To the first part, I don't see how they "don't matter". Hardcore fans who still play as the Dark Eldar and pay to have the models should matter. If they love the game and their army to play with it for so long without an update, they should get a bone thrown to them.... I don't know, thats just me... Squats, don't know enough to say anything on them, but Chaos Dwarves were just Dwarves with different artillery and then Hobgoblins. Dogs of War became units that everyone can use, so they still have that going for them.


Why don't people dump girlfriends when they do something stupid? Why do people buy twenty xboxes after the first one RROD's? People do stupid things all the time, and I love the hobby. But I will not buy twenty books in the same edition to keep my army competitive, that is where I draw the line.

Slarg232 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And really, if they're playing a niche, screw 'em. They simply don't matter in the slightest iota as far as the long term health of the game goes. In the mean time, they should be thanking their lucky stars that they're still an Official army. Squats, Chaos Dwarves, and Dogs of War can't even say that. No pity.

Having gone through the WFB sundering, and seen that GW obviously sees this as a path to long-term financial gain, why didn't you simply sell your 40k Chaos stuff when the writing on the wall became clear?

To the deleted part, you seemingly have multiple armies, and that makes you exempt from one of yours not being updated in forever.

To the first part, I don't see how they "don't matter".

Chaos Dwarves were just Dwarves with different artillery and then Hobgoblins.

Dogs of War became units that everyone can use, so they still have that going for them.

I will not buy twenty books in the same edition to keep my army competitive, that is where I draw the line.

If you see my signature, I can play at least a half-dozen armies for 40k alone, most with multiple options of playstyle. Ergo, it really is to my benefit when GW slows things down. Being properly selfish, all I care is that I have at least one competitive build amongst all of the stuff I own, and that GW remains in business. If others choose a niche, and then choose not to buy more, then that's their choice, and they should accept the realities of the consequences of their decision, rather than expect special treatment not justified by sales return.

If that's how you feel about Chaos Dwarves, then how are CSM anything other than SM with spikes and Daemons? How are Dark Eldar anything other than Eldar with spikes and uglier models?

Dogs of War are currently no longer official, so nobody can use them. If they're back on the GW site, I retract.


Methinks you exaggerate a tad. GW got you to buy 3 Army Books for WFB Chaos, they will get you to buy 3 or 4 for 40k, spread out over the next 5 years. Me? I'm nominally on hook for Eldar, IG, SM, CSM, BA, BT, SoB, and Inq. I don't think that to be excessive, as it's 1 or 2 books per year. If GW releases LatD & AdMech, I'll get those, too, probably even start an AM army. And really, if you don't get that the GW Hobby revolves around GW selling multiple armies to each player, perhaps you're in the wrong hobby...

H.B.M.C. wrote:What will become of them?

Well I've heard some whispers that Chaos are not going to be as core to 40K (and possibly even Warhammer) as they once were, and to expect far fewer updates for them in the future.

A frightening whisper to be sure...

This is troubling but it's also a good thing, and I'll tell you why.

Chaos should never have been a core component to WH40k, in my opinion at least. Hell it wasn't even originally part of Rogue Trader. There were just warp beasts and whatnot, and some sort of daemonic warp beings but it wasn't Chaos.
It is something that should play a role but it should never have been the Imperium vs. Chaos as the big matchup, it should always be Imperium v. Orks and Renegades as the big matchups.

The vibe I always got from RT is that Chaos was intensely powerful but it's just another threat. But hey, that's me.

I hope that Chaos has an overhaul. Sure maybe I'm being melancholic but I liked the old, creepy organic/twisted Chaos. Not the new "badass, spikes and evil hurrrr" Chaos. It's just a perversion of itself. Yes Chaos was evil but it was all very alien, in some ways more alien than the actual alien races! It was disturbing and off-putting. Not stereotypical evil.

I also think that you're being a drama llama but that's neither here nor there.

Regwon wrote:
To be fair the last codex was rediculously overpowered. Being able to take oblits as elites, basilisks, vindicators, infiltrate your whole army and have a demon prince that was nigh unkillable and could cut swathes through all of your opponents army was a little to much. They did the typical knee-jerk reaction and took out everything that made it too powerful, which was also the stuff that made it interesting.

The next one should at least be more interesting, demon engines would be nice, as would proper chosen, but since all the neew releases are booked up for the next few years, we'll have to wait a while.

Olits as elites [paying ridiculous amounts of points for insta-killable models], basilisks and vindicators, and all infiltrate with a daemon prince was broken?

How about BA taking 5 dreadnoughts as troops choices, 3 as elites, and filling HS and FA with 6 predators, led by Mephiston [better than a prince]?

Iron Warriors, typical: 9 obliterators, 2x 5-man troops choices with las/plas, a couple basilisks with a vindicator and an uber prince.

Let's think about that in 5th edition shall we? Where they need troops choices to win, Imperial Guard can take SQUADRONS of basilisks or demolishers, Dawn of War forces half their army off the board for a turn and their daemon prince can't consolidate into fresh units after combat. Do you really think they'd be that broken? Do you really think they'd continue to build armies with minimum troops choices that way? With the mechanized spam the way it is now, could they depend on only 9 models with lascannons to try and table their opponents?


5th edition would have solved a lot of the "problems" with the chaos codex by itself - unable to depend on just a couple troops to get things done, and knowing you need to capture objectives curbing just how much killy reaving that daemons could do, plus close combats not being able to lock you in [and being more decisive - most combats will see their opponents chased down into oblivion, meaning they'll be in the open] would have changed a LOT about the codex. Mechanized armies would have eliminated daemon bomb - bloodletters couldn't open tanks all too well. The change in rending would have toned down daemonettes. Later, codexes like basic marines with the Null Zone power would have spelled the doom of daemonbomb armies hands-down.

What has chaos lost instead of letting the edition change fix things, though?

Infiltrate on troops - given to regular SM if desired
Tank hunters - given to vulkan lists, essentially
Seige Specialists - given to techmarines in the form of bolster defenses
counterattack - space wolves
furious charge - space wolves and blood angels
Feel no Pain - once a khorne-only ability or Slaanesh banner ability, now given willy-nilly to command squads in SM codex and BA everything.
S5 power weapons - given to spacewolves
+2 S power weapon - given to basic SM
2+ save T6 S6 possibly S10 model with ridiculous initiative, high WS and lots of attacks with also psychic powers - given to Mephiston, but made better.
Deepstrike and assault daemons - deepstrike and assault vanguard veterans
Armor 13 dreadnoughts and defilers via mutated hull - AV 13 ironclads and furiosos


How exactly is the old chaos codex broken? I mean, broken apart and handed out to everyone else, maybe yeah but broken as in cheesy? Really?

Um, how many of those things you're complaining are tied to Special Characters or way expensive?

Infiltrate, "Tank hunters", and the T6 psychic guy are the only [the ONLY] things I mentioned tied to special characters. All the others are easily acquired from regular units in the army list.

While you've shown instances of SM having those different abilities unlike the old Chaos Codex, you can't take all or most in a single list.

What made it broken was that all those things were in a single book and could be min maxed and mixed and match so freely at a time few other lists could.

I think in the modern context a few of those being a part of Chaos is fine, but having all was a bit much.

GW really wants each codex to have a limited number of ways they can be played. Its a concept of limited diversity, where players playing against an army only need to expect a few different configurations.

I keep referring to the previous codex as the kitchen sink codex. It has everything in it. From GW's perspective, too much. There wasn't anything wrong with individual parts of the codex, its the sum total of having 9 different legions represented thus varying units, plus marks that could vary units, plus veteran upgrades to vary units and then their was all the redundancy of similar units to choose from.

A basic space marine squad at the time had 12 ways to be kit out based on weapon options, only some worth while. Chaos space marines, had just as many multiplied by marks, veteran upgrades, and the effects those 9 legions brought.... in the realm of 140+ possibilities. Now many more of those not worth while but the amount of variation allowed you to make them into almost anything. This is just an example of how there was no good way to characterize the old codex.

The current codex has the reverse problem and is as much a fault for it.

Going from 4th to 5th, after losing daemons, trimming either veteran skill upgrades or all the legion rules would have been enough, but just like GW always does with an either/or choice the choose both and go overboard.

You can actually take Vulkan and still have Shrike infiltrate with a squad of terminators and/or take Sicarius and have a tactical squad infiltrate.

(It's also worth noting that one of the restrictions on the 4th ed chaos infiltrate skill was no terminators - shrike apparently disagrees with such limiting factors)

As far as too many options before, not really. If you bought a mark, you could only buy one veteran skill - spacewolves can easily get furious charge added to any squad that comes with counterattack for free. The only way to combine veteran skills for chaos was to go unmarked - which was a significant tradeoff.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Um, how many of those things you're complaining are tied to Special Characters or way expensive?

Not many at all.

I think the current conceptual approach to CSMs is solid, it's just executed poorly in the latest book. With some tweaks we could have a really strong and interesting codex without having to split things out into half a dozen different books.

I'd prefer to see daemons nuked from the CSM dex entirely, and daemonishness permeate things more subtly through wargear and units like daemon princes, spawn and posessed, plus better and more specialsed vehicle posession rules. Any attempt to bring daemon units to a CSM dex is pointless while there's already a daemons book - i'd rather they dumped them and did better with the rest of the list rather than the half-hearted crap we have now.

As far as legions go, I think a decent fix would be to introduce, specialise or upgrade a particular unit depending on the legion focus. So:

Night Lords: Raptors
Alpha Legion: Cultists
Black Legion: Posessed
Iron Warriros: Vindicator
Word Bearers: Dark Apostles

Also, give chosen units (plus Lords and DPs) the ability to buy skills typical of the legion they represent - like the old veteran skills, but more specialised - positioning them (as well as the cult marines) as the marines that actually took part in the Heresy; and allow "normal" CSM units to represent the more renegade side of chaos, or those marines that have turned since the Heresy. Also, drop terminator units and just give chosen and cult marines the ability to upgrade to terminator armour.

That, plus a daemon engine or two, cult vehicle variants (even on just one vehicle type) and better marks - that is, the mark means something different depending on what kind of unit it's placed on - and I think the codex would be all set.

Anyway, just my tuppence.

Legion.

Slarg232 wrote:Space Marines are the main protagonists (or at least, thats what GW would have us beleive) and all Protagonists need an antagonist/rival, which would be the Chaos Space Marines.

Don't hold your fluff as sacred and untouchable. GW can, will and has changed things in the past.

Were they to decide tomorrow that the Orks were the greatest threat to mankind, and that Chaos was on the decline, it would be so.

Legion wrote:I think the current conceptual approach to CSMs is solid, it's just executed poorly in the latest book. With some tweaks we could have a really strong and interesting codex without having to split things out into half a dozen different books.

I'd prefer to see daemons nuked from the CSM dex entirely, and daemonishness permeate things more subtly through wargear and units like daemon princes, spawn and posessed, plus better and more specialsed vehicle posession rules. Any attempt to bring daemon units to a CSM dex is pointless while there's already a daemons book - i'd rather they dumped them and did better with the rest of the list rather than the half-hearted crap we have now.

As far as legions go, I think a decent fix would be to introduce, specialise or upgrade a particular unit depending on the legion focus. So:

Night Lords: Raptors
Alpha Legion: Cultists
Black Legion: Possessed
Iron Warriros: Vindicator
Word Bearers: Dark Apostles

Also, give chosen units (plus Lords and DPs) the ability to buy skills typical of the legion they represent - like the old veteran skills, but more specialised - positioning them (as well as the cult marines) as the marines that actually took part in the Heresy; and allow "normal" CSM units to represent the more renegade side of chaos, or those marines that have turned since the Heresy. Also, drop terminator units and just give chosen and cult marines the ability to upgrade to terminator armour.

That, plus a daemon engine or two, cult vehicle variants (even on just one vehicle type) and better marks - that is, the mark means something different depending on what kind of unit it's placed on - and I think the codex would be all set.

I agree with what you're concept is though I see problems with the examples of minimally representing the legions specific upgrades. For example, the vindicator for Iron Warriors, now that GW has given it to us all, I don't think they'd take it away just for the sake of giving one flavor a bonus with it. For example it seems if GW went this route they'd be more incline to put a unit like this in: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1040006&prodId=prod1170002 and make quantity limited to everyone but them.

The real thing is GW has moved away from restriciting any units appearing in a codex from the rest of the army. GW's stance is one of promoting certain units over others. Such as an Iron Warrior Warsmith special character granting squads siege specialists to a units of chosen as a bonus... or something like that. Raptors for night lords being scoring. Possessed as a troop choice. The dark apostle would likely be a special character rather than a new unit, though without daemons in the codex it makes the Word Bearers a lame duck.

Alpha legion with cultists would require they be in the book, it once again is a situation where your idea insists on GW including a unit that might be restricted from the rest of the list. I guess the simple realistic option would be if they were included a troop choice that cannot score, except when Alpha Legion is present, showing how Alpha can take an angry mob and turn them into an organized one.

Spellbound wrote:You can actually take Vulkan and still have Shrike infiltrate with a squad of terminators and/or take Sicarius and have a tactical squad infiltrate.
(It's also worth noting that one of the restrictions on the 4th ed chaos infiltrate skill was no terminators - shrike apparently disagrees with such limiting factors)

That's one army wide rule and then one squad. With the chaos codex you could have done that pluss two or three other combination on top of it. Also the fact SM can go beyond a rule CSM had has little to do with the volume of options.

Spellbound wrote:
As far as too many options before, not really. If you bought a mark, you could only buy one veteran skill - spacewolves can easily get furious charge added to any squad that comes with counterattack for free. The only way to combine veteran skills for chaos was to go unmarked - which was a significant tradeoff.

But a spacewolves is just a single option. Yes with the old codex you could approximate them, but its the fact that you could also approximate a blood angel, and some standard codex marine combos and some others all in one book and it was possible to do so within a single army list.

The fact that you have draw parallels to all the marine codices and not to just a single book, that is the inherent problem with the previous chaos codex. It was effectively 9 codices in one, which made it difficult to balance both with in the codex and with other armies. Any weakness CSM had versus the army it was about to fight could be washed out with options leaving the other player no idea what combination to expect.

Relative to other codices there were too many viable ways to play the list, this was GW's problem with the book. I accept the fact GW did too much tweaking back on the number of viable options, but I don't think its necessary to revisit old ground to bring additional play styles back into viability.

Slarg232 wrote:I know it's a pipe dream, but still, Jimminy Cricket keeps telling me to wish upon a star

As for the 4 books, I highly doubt that there will be a Chaos Traitors codex. They are barely keeping up with the armies they have now, it would be foolish to add another one. Of course, I said that with Daemons, too.


All I have to say is if they break my army up to the point where I can't use half of my models, I am going to be pissed. No other army, not even the space marines, have had to buy units and then not be able to use half of them in the next codex. They are pretty much going to have to do a mega-dex, because to me at least, there is no way they would be able to split it into 3 different codices and not piss people off.

he makes a good point. at worst a SM player only needs to really repaint his models.

What I really liked about the old chaos codex was that it had a short section covering every legion, & the 4 legions dedicated to specific gods had slightly larger sections.

It meant you could play an undivided legion & still have flavour, as well as one of the god specific legions.

The genericism in the new codex really annoys me. I dont want to play 'chaos space marines who happen to have Word Bearer colours', I want to play Word Bearers!

That said, I dont think chaos needs multiple codices, Id like to see it all in one book, with the ability to tailor your army to specific legions.

I loved the old codex, but I think GW's rationale was valid. This codex wanted to show the more fractured look at Chaos. With the old book the implication was that the chaos legions still largely follow the old organization of the pre-heresy era. That there was some sort of discipline. The new codex shows more of the concept that any despot with enough power and will can use the lures of chaos to to build a warband, that the chaos legions have fractured to varying degrees allowing offshoot groups of chaos marines; it also more thoroughly represents the loyalist marines that fall to the temptations of chaos. Those two things weren't covered by the old codex.

@somecallmejack: The difficulty is that if the old codex was too much, how does one expect GW to reconcile the quantity of variations the legions bring and the newer piratical slant without diluting one or the other and without giving so many options to chaos as to make them perceptively confusing or difficult to non-chaos players to interpret?

Chaos is more diverse than all the loyalist marines, but have to make due with less. It takes 6 books to represent about 11 flavors of loyalists; there are as many flavors of Chaos and seemingly people think they can be done justice in 1/6th the codex. I'm all for them being represented and even diluted to an acceptable level, but at some point the reality that something needs to fall to the way side, be diluted, or a separate book be done has to set in.

somecallmeJack wrote:What I really liked about the old chaos codex was that it had a short section covering every legion, & the 4 legions dedicated to specific gods had slightly larger sections.

It meant you could play an undivided legion & still have flavour, as well as one of the god specific legions.

The genericism in the new codex really annoys me. I dont want to play 'chaos space marines who happen to have Word Bearer colours', I want to play Word Bearers!

That said, I dont think chaos needs multiple codices, Id like to see it all in one book, with the ability to tailor your army to specific legions.

Dude GW is a company first and are looking for a profit. aside from everything mentioned previously of them not combining codexes they wanna get a buck out of you and me.

aka_mythos wrote:I loved the old codex, but I think GW's rationale was valid. This codex wanted to show the more fractured look at Chaos. With the old book the implication was that the chaos legions still largely follow the old organization of the pre-heresy era. That there was some sort of discipline. The new codex shows more of the concept that any despot with enough power and will can use the lures of chaos to to build a warband, that the chaos legions have fractured to varying degrees allowing offshoot groups of chaos marines; it also more thoroughly represents the loyalist marines that fall to the temptations of chaos. Those two things weren't covered by the old codex.

@somecallmejack: The difficulty is that if the old codex was too much, how does one expect GW to reconcile the quantity of variations the legions bring and the newer piratical slant without diluting one or the other and without giving so many options to chaos as to make them perceptively confusing or difficult to non-chaos players to interpret?

Chaos is more diverse than all the loyalist marines, but have to make due with less. It takes 6 books to represent about 11 flavors of loyalists; there are as many flavors of Chaos and seemingly people think they can be done justice in 1/6th the codex. I'm all for them being represented and even diluted to an acceptable level, but at some point the reality that something needs to fall to the way side, be diluted, or a separate book be done has to set in.

Well i get that C:CSM is more renegades ATM but you have to remember that the legions at least the big ones still use old legion organization. At least Word Bearers and the Black Legion absolutley do. And since all those chaos black library books are so popular why not being the legions back? renegades are cool and all but very very generic.

In the current slant GW has taken, the big 4 and black legion are the only ones that have really maintained a significant legion like structure the rest have become more fractured. Word Bearers may very well have as well but with Daemons divorced from CSM and not likely to return while Daemons have their own book, they don't have much place.

GW's stance on the legions is that there is more to chaos now than the legions. That the old means of representing all the legions was too much diversity for one list. So is it worth having to dilute them down so much to fit them in and force and restrict players into a then meaningless mold or is it better to have a generic list lets people be more open with how they conceptualize their army. GW believes the latter is more ideal.

While a lot of players will not be happy unless pure legion books were to be released, I think it is possible for an all in one book to be released assuming it follows the template of the current SM and SW books.

First of all, the think next chaos book should have some FOC modifiers attached to some ICs similar to SM (eg: bike lord = bike troops, Master of the Forge etc). This would allow certain legions to be played while not being broken.

Secondly I think that all units should not come with several USR like SM/BA/SW but rather be a blank slate that chaos players can pay extra points to customise (as long as this is balanced right it will be ok). Again this would allow certain legions/forces to be played while not being broken.

Lastly for fluff and gameplay reasons, chaos needs a cultist type unit (which would function like a cannon fodder type SM scout unit armed with las weapons and a weaker stat line) as well as some sort of customisable lesser daemons/lesser daemon differentiation. I think all of the above wouldn’t be ground breaking but allow most legions/chaos forces to be played but at the same time make chaos more equivalent to the other MEQs and less hodgepodge like it is now.

Realistically the above suggestions can be summarised via make C:CSM more similar to C:SM, as most of the legions can be represented very well using C:SM only (to a lesser extent certain legions such as world eaters and Night lords are better represented using C:BA/SW) so GW must be doing something right!

I don't think CSM should be more like the loyalists. CSM already suffer from not being as distinctive from the loyalists as they once were. CSM only lose out in the long run if they become more like the loyalists. If someone wants to play a more like loyalist CSM army, they should just use a loyalist codex. I know plenty of people who do. Making chaos less chaos isn't an ideal choice for improving them.

I like the idea of there being the 3 way split like in fantasy's Beasts, demons and mortals. In 40k we can have Traitor Legions, Demons and The lost and damned ( see what I did there! ).

Future Traitor Legion Codex's I think should try and focus on the fact that their organization and hierarchy come from a different age of how space marines did things. As well as reflect on how that chain of command and organization has been forced to change/warp either due to chaoses influence or the necessity/difficulties of not having access to the resources they once did. Meaning maybe having ornate/esoteric weapons that the loyalists no longer have access to/cant make any more. But have them be expensive/sometimes unpredictable due to time spent in the energies of the eye of terror. As well as new diabolical inventions that have been made to wage war in the Imperium.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you see my signature, I can play at least a half-dozen armies for 40k alone, most with multiple options of playstyle. Ergo, it really is to my benefit when GW slows things down. Being properly selfish, all I care is that I have at least one competitive build amongst all of the stuff I own, and that GW remains in business. If others choose a niche, and then choose not to buy more, then that's their choice, and they should accept the realities of the consequences of their decision, rather than expect special treatment not justified by sales return.

If that's how you feel about Chaos Dwarves, then how are CSM anything other than SM with spikes and Daemons? How are Dark Eldar anything other than Eldar with spikes and uglier models?

Methinks you exaggerate a tad. GW got you to buy 3 Army Books for WFB Chaos, they will get you to buy 3 or 4 for 40k, spread out over the next 5 years. Me? I'm nominally on hook for Eldar, IG, SM, CSM, BA, BT, SoB, and Inq. I don't think that to be excessive, as it's 1 or 2 books per year. If GW releases LatD & AdMech, I'll get those, too, probably even start an AM army. And really, if you don't get that the GW Hobby revolves around GW selling multiple armies to each player, perhaps you're in the wrong hobby...

It might be to your benefit that GW slows down, however, that is was your choice when you decided to play multiple armies. I don't want to say your opinion is less valid than mine because I play exclusive Chaos, and would be hit pretty hard with such a split, and that you play twenty some armies (Yes, I do have a tendancy to exaggerate), and such a drastic change to one army wouldn't affect you, but my voice should be heard a little more than yours, since you will still be walking around with your amount of armies, whereas my spin would be snapped. There is no way I would be willing to spend $1000 dollars on my army and then have it changed so drastically that I can't use half of that. People who own multiple armies are not exactly in the top purview of having to worry about any one single army.....

Also, think of it this way: If one army based on one thing doesn't sell well, how are three? If one army based on Chaos is not justified by sales returns, how can they expect three to do it? That's like saying they should have made Chaos Squats, Pirate Squats, and then regular Squats.....

As for that Dwarves/Chaos Dwarves comment, I don't. I have always thought that they should get rules that differentiate them from their lighter counterpart, but not to the point where they tear the army apart in the process.

Probably, but until I get my own hobby up and have that spread around a little, I am kinda stuck with WH40K, and besides, I like the fluff and the models. And I also have invested way too much into my Chaos army to want to invest in any others. I'm not made of money, and these toy soldiers ain't cheap....