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.

Crimson wrote:

I'm still not getting this. Being a renegade is just background. What sort of rule support you'd expect for it? If you take all chaos stuff (boons, marks, demonic units, chaos artefacts and rewards) out of Chaos Space Marines, what is left? Not much. I fail to see how you cannot adequately represent renegade Space Marines with one of the many loyalist marine codices; hell, some of those chapters are borderline renegade anyway.

There are lots of organizational and wargear differences. Huron's forces for example, have no reason to be sporting Heresy era Reaper Autocannons and terminator armaments, and would likely still follow a codex-esque unit organization and would likely have access to stuff like Land Raider Crusaders and Land Speeders, and aren't suddenly going to be fielding Defilers and the like.

I am honestly sick of hearing things like this on the internet...

Dakka should have a "filter negative threads that annoy you" option.

Personally, I love the narrative of a Chaos Lord turning into a Daemon Prince just as he's about to lose!

Or even turning into spawn as he's just about to win... heh.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Crimson wrote:

I'm still not getting this. Being a renegade is just background. What sort of rule support you'd expect for it? If you take all chaos stuff (boons, marks, demonic units, chaos artefacts and rewards) out of Chaos Space Marines, what is left? Not much. I fail to see how you cannot adequately represent renegade Space Marines with one of the many loyalist marine codices; hell, some of those chapters are borderline renegade anyway.

There are lots of organizational and wargear differences. Huron's forces for example, have no reason to be sporting Heresy era Reaper Autocannons and terminator armaments, and would likely still follow a codex-esque unit organization and would likely have access to stuff like Land Raider Crusaders and Land Speeders, and aren't suddenly going to be fielding Defilers and the like.

Yes, and there is a way to play a force just like that; it is called Codex Space Marines!

You know what makes Mutilators truly sad? S&P. Pure melee unit that can't run. At least when the Warp Talons show up, they can scatter about to not get murdered by two plasma cannon shots. Unlike Mutilators.

I'd sum up my complaint with the codex thusly. All the variety present isn't meaningful variety. All the options are pretty much the same for everyone, a concept reinforced by everyone drawing from the wargear list. It doesn't significantly alter the behaviour profile of the army.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Crimson wrote:

I'm still not getting this. Being a renegade is just background. What sort of rule support you'd expect for it? If you take all chaos stuff (boons, marks, demonic units, chaos artefacts and rewards) out of Chaos Space Marines, what is left? Not much. I fail to see how you cannot adequately represent renegade Space Marines with one of the many loyalist marine codices; hell, some of those chapters are borderline renegade anyway.

There are lots of organizational and wargear differences. Huron's forces for example, have no reason to be sporting Heresy era Reaper Autocannons and terminator armaments, and would likely still follow a codex-esque unit organization and would likely have access to stuff like Land Raider Crusaders and Land Speeders, and aren't suddenly going to be fielding Defilers and the like.

Yes, and there is a way to play a force just like that; it is called Codex Space Marines!

But what then is Huron and all these post-heresy renegades doing in Codex: Chaos Space Marines?

 Vaktathi wrote:
But what then is Huron and all these post-heresy renegades doing in Codex: Chaos Space Marines?

Duh, you are supposed to use counts-as-Huron to represent an Alpha Legion lord!
(Yeah, good point, actually.)

But in general, if one wants to represent non-chaotic renegade marines on tabletop, then there probably are better options than Codex Chaos Space Marines.

 Redbeard wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
... I think Warp Talons were a good new concept that grew the raptor cults into something that actually carried forms of corruption and mutation. It grew the Raptor's concept in a way that just giving terminator armor to every god-cult fails.

See, here, I cannot agree with you. First of all, Warp Talons add very very little to the game that simply allowing raptors to buy Lightning Claws wouldn't have added.

Second, they're a crap unit that's wasting space in the codex...

Let me just stop you here in this instance I was being pretty specific with my wording... I used them as an example of a good "concept", I wasn't speaking of them from a unit or rule perspective. I agree they're poor execution, but I'm was trying to point out that cult terminators are conceptually weak notion. Cult terminators might end up the best in the codex, but in addition to cluttering it, if they're conceptually weak they're only furthering the rules and not "chaos" as a fictional element. Ideally you want both.

 Redbeard wrote:

You think mutilators are widely salable? You're the first person I've met who doesn't see them as crappy overpriced models for a crappy overpriced unit. All they are is a new head and arm on the horribly outdated (and still finecast-only) obliterator, suffering the same problem as warp talons: they're a costly sub-par assault unit in a shooting game.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I agree they're a waste which is why I used them as a example for opportunity cost... What I'm saying is that even if they were worthwhile if GW had both them and then 4 different chaos terminator kits, they'd displace sales while presenting a similar total volume of sales. You're demanding GW make 4 times the investment for 6-7 mutually competing products.

 aka_mythos wrote:

Let me just stop you here in this instance I was being pretty specific with my wording... I used them as an example of a good "concept", I wasn't speaking of them from a unit or rule perspective. I agree they're poor execution, but I'm was trying to point out that cult terminators are conceptually weak notion. Cult terminators might end up the best in the codex, but in addition to cluttering it, if they're conceptually weak they're only furthering the rules and not "chaos" as a fictional element. Ideally you want both.

I don't see how adding one line allowing marked terminators to take specific wargear is conceptually poor. It's something that can be thrown in without needing any extra pages to explain it. You know what's conceptually poor? When you have this disconnect between different parts of your army. It's such a low-cost addition, that its omission is notable.

...What I'm saying is that even if they were worthwhile if GW had both (mutilators) and then 4 different chaos terminator kits, they'd displace sales while presenting a similar total volume of sales. You're demanding GW make 4 times the investment for 6-7 mutually competing products.

Hardly. Because you don't need different kits. It's a conversion opportunity. Noise Weapons - they make an extra sale of a pack of finecast noise weapons and people convert them onto terminators. Plague Termies - Sell a little green stuff, done. Tzeentch termies - maybe they sell an extra finecast KSon's upgrade pack to get the helmets. They're good to go. Khorne termies - they're not going to be trading down for chainaxes if they come with power weapons, so again, people can convert world eater helmets onto the kits, or just leave them and paint them red. There's no extra investment needed here at all.

Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
But what then is Huron and all these post-heresy renegades doing in Codex: Chaos Space Marines?

Duh, you are supposed to use counts-as-Huron to represent an Alpha Legion lord!
(Yeah, good point, actually.)

But in general, if one wants to represent non-chaotic renegade marines on tabletop, then there probably are better options than Codex Chaos Space Marines.

You could also want to, perhaps, run a chapter that is currently being seduced away from the IoM by some full on Chaosy nasties. Some basic non-mutating Space Marines along with, say, a TSon sorc and a retinue of rubrics might represent that nicely. You can't do that anymore. Is it a huge problem (relative to any other problem you might be having with 40k, to avoid anyone going off on the 'have some perspective' tangent)? Nah. I'm sure people can come up with some explanation or another codex to use that'd fit most backgrounds. It is, however, something that the codex used to be able to do but now can't. If you liked shades of grey for Chaos, the new codex does not provide.

aka_mythos wrote: What I'm saying is that even if they were worthwhile if GW had both them and then 4 different chaos terminator kits, they'd displace sales while presenting a similar total volume of sales. You're demanding GW make 4 times the investment for 6-7 mutually competing products.

There's no need for GW to release 4 different chaos terminator kits. They could create an upgrade box (like they did for BT and DA) for each god. Each cult troop already has a box or upgrade pack, so we're not really even talking about increasing the number of products GW puts out. Of course, there isn't even a requirement that GW puts out a special box anyways. Nothing says you couldn't go about taking a box of Chaos Terminators and painting them in legion colors; all GW would have needed to do was put the rules back in. To make room for it, they could have printed a 108 page codex instead of a 104 page codex.

...I think it is a good codex. I think It can represent a Legionarie chaos army.

I agree with this statement 100%, I think can indeed represent the Black Legion perfectly too.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Crimson wrote:

I'm still not getting this. Being a renegade is just background. What sort of rule support you'd expect for it? If you take all chaos stuff (boons, marks, demonic units, chaos artefacts and rewards) out of Chaos Space Marines, what is left? Not much. I fail to see how you cannot adequately represent renegade Space Marines with one of the many loyalist marine codices; hell, some of those chapters are borderline renegade anyway.

There are lots of organizational and wargear differences. Huron's forces for example, have no reason to be sporting Heresy era Reaper Autocannons and terminator armaments, and would likely still follow a codex-esque unit organization and would likely have access to stuff like Land Raider Crusaders and Land Speeders, and aren't suddenly going to be fielding Defilers and the like.

Yes, and there is a way to play a force just like that; it is called Codex Space Marines!

But what then is Huron and all these post-heresy renegades doing in Codex: Chaos Space Marines?

I have no clue but they should leave. Yes this is a game but seriously, feth Renegades. They ruined the last Codex and now they're hamfisted into this one. I laugh at all of the players who hate that their "renegades" have to roll on a boon table. Sucks for you, you deserve it.

Honestly after reading this review I'm gonna stick with Imperial Guard.

For how much everybody wants Chaos to NOT BE Space Marines with spikey bits, I felt like that is all you focused on. My stuff isn't as cheap as their stuff!! As a Black Templars player....yes...I know your pain. I don't have an issue with it though, my stuff should be more expensive. I am a Crusading chapter without real ties to the industrial infrastructure of the Imperium. Chaos is quite possibly EVEN MORE that way. So yes, some of your stuff can be a little more expensive because I think it's a bit harder to make a Vindicator in the warp than it is at a Forge World. You sound like you WANT Space Marines with spikey bits.

Second, I would suggest before being so upset about the prices not matching up waiting for the new SM Codex. We get one every Edition AFAIK and knowing GW, they want to give you the Space Marines with Spikes even more than you want it to happen. Maybe you will see all the prices line up in the next Codex (because in all seriousness, some things COULD use a point hike for balance sake).

I'm honestly enjoying it.. you have to take into account what an army is capable of when point costs go up and down. Most of the CSM army is very good at CC, especially vs SM. So they NEED their cheaper vehicles just to stay in the game. I don't want to have razorbacks, rifle dreads or 3 different kinds of landraider.. I have cult troops, what a SM have again? just a different SM holding a different gun? a jetpack? We have a big variety.. and if i wanted to have all the SM options I'd go play SM.

Warp Talons have crushed face every game so far I've used them, i kitted out a 300+pt demon prince and he was untouchable (Nurgle). Very hard to kill, the Maledictions from nurgle can drop a anyone by -1S/-1T or -1S or -1A.. I slapped 2 maledictions and Enfeeble on a squad of lightning claw terminators who now couldnt wound me.

Yeah lets see a loyalist so that.

 Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:
For how much everybody wants Chaos to NOT BE Space Marines with spikey bits, I felt like that is all you focused on. My stuff isn't as cheap as their stuff!! As a Black Templars player....yes...I know your pain. I don't have an issue with it though, my stuff should be more expensive. I am a Crusading chapter without real ties to the industrial infrastructure of the Imperium. Chaos is quite possibly EVEN MORE that way. So yes, some of your stuff can be a little more expensive because I think it's a bit harder to make a Vindicator in the warp than it is at a Forge World. You sound like you WANT Space Marines with spikey bits.

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. Everything you said is correct, in regard to the background. Sure, maybe it's harder to make something in the warp. But that's irrelevant in terms of the game. The game doesn't know where the different marines get equipped from.

The game is predicated on the idea that if two players put the same amount of points on the table, they'll have a fair game. This is a promise that GW has continually failed to deliver on, even in the easiest of cases - where different codexes field the same model. There is NO justification that one army can get a model for 15 points less than another codex gets an identical model with an identical profile. Because we're playing a game, we're not building these vehicles in the warp.

 KplKeegan wrote:
Is it me or are you guys comparing the Chaos Marine and the Space Marine codecies getting a bit over-critical?

I think having them as an Allies detatchment isn't too bad. Was really thinking about making a Blood Pact army with the Cultists as the Sons of Sek and the Dark Apostle as Pater Sin or Pater Pain, and have him slinking around with some Possessed as his Ascendants?

I just think you're being a bit too critical when comparing them to the established Space Marines or (in case of the Forgefiend) Grey Knights and it makes you seem like you're ranting rather than making an observation.

Thank you random person. We had a CSM Vs GK game in out club last week and CSM ran the table. Seems the Mark or Nurgle is still the way to go unless your playing a Thousand Sons army of course. The Maulerfiend is scary in combat and has little trouble getting there as our GK played found out the harsh way. I see nothing wrong with the new dex people just want to complain that they didn't get the unbeatable army they wanted.

 Redbeard wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

Let me just stop you here in this instance I was being pretty specific with my wording... I used them as an example of a good "concept", I wasn't speaking of them from a unit or rule perspective. I agree they're poor execution, but I'm was trying to point out that cult terminators are conceptually weak notion. Cult terminators might end up the best in the codex, but in addition to cluttering it, if they're conceptually weak they're only furthering the rules and not "chaos" as a fictional element. Ideally you want both.

I don't see how adding one line allowing marked terminators to take specific wargear is conceptually poor. It's something that can be thrown in without needing any extra pages to explain it. You know what's conceptually poor? When you have this disconnect between different parts of your army. It's such a low-cost addition, that its omission is notable.

Discontinuity isn't conceptually poor... The concept is that chaos warbands aren't generally as organized and are comprised of loose alliances of individuals leading squad sized groups of followers. Such a condition would make it generally difficult for elite forms of a unit type to emerge in any significant numbers.

Cult Terminators are conceptually poor because they are just more of the same. They do nothing but allow players to forgoe including non-cult units that effectively do the same roles.

Lets consider cult terminators. To remain consistent with the rest of the book it would pretty much need to be an option to cultify the unit outside of just marks. Even then nothing is a simple as just throwing in one line.... Your talking a minimum 5 in the unit entry and more than that in the unit description. I find it bewildering that in the same assertion of how critical they are that you'd assert the trivialness of their treatment.

The real issue with that formatting is the degree with which it would fundamentally alter the units role. If you can justify cult terminators in that way, havoc marines might as well just be a unit upgrade for basic squads, since it as fundamental a change.

 Redbeard wrote:

...What I'm saying is that even if they were worthwhile if GW had both (mutilators) and then 4 different chaos terminator kits, they'd displace sales while presenting a similar total volume of sales. You're demanding GW make 4 times the investment for 6-7 mutually competing products.

Hardly. Because you don't need different kits. It's a conversion opportunity. Noise Weapons - they make an extra sale of a pack of finecast noise weapons and people convert them onto terminators. Plague Termies - Sell a little green stuff, done. Tzeentch termies - maybe they sell an extra finecast KSon's upgrade pack to get the helmets. They're good to go. Khorne termies - they're not going to be trading down for chainaxes if they come with power weapons, so again, people can convert world eater helmets onto the kits, or just leave them and paint them red. There's no extra investment needed here at all.

Whether its kits or "upgrade kits" it's a diminishment of sales of another product. Maybe it's just self imposed by GW, but you may have noticed GW is trying to move away from conversion opportunities of that sort.

You complain about things being ham-fisted but that's effectively what you're asking GW to do with the elite cultist concept when you demand something to be a line or two of rules and slapped together bits that don't really look right together. To have more conceptual merit and be worthwhile the elite cult units really should be unique and flavorful to the individual god. They should be Tzneetch sorcerer covens, Slaanesh sonic bikers, etc.

 Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:
For how much everybody wants Chaos to NOT BE Space Marines with spikey bits, I felt like that is all you focused on. My stuff isn't as cheap as their stuff!! As a Black Templars player....yes...I know your pain. I don't have an issue with it though, my stuff should be more expensive. I am a Crusading chapter without real ties to the industrial infrastructure of the Imperium. Chaos is quite possibly EVEN MORE that way. So yes, some of your stuff can be a little more expensive because I think it's a bit harder to make a Vindicator in the warp than it is at a Forge World.

Great observation. I suppose this is why a Grey Hunter cost 16,000 pts - because they are 1000 times rarer than Ultramarine successors.

 Redbeard wrote:


The game is predicated on the idea that if two players put the same amount of points on the table, they'll have a fair game. This is a promise that GW has continually failed to deliver on, even in the easiest of cases - where different codexes field the same model. There is NO justification that one army can get a model for 15 points less than another codex gets an identical model with an identical profile. Because we're playing a game, we're not building these vehicles in the warp.

This is a little premature. I agree with most of what you've said Redbeard, and I really don't think GW will balance out its costs. But shouldn't new codices balance with future 6th edition releases, not reach back and adjust costs to fit prior editions? When the 6th edition DA and SM codices have cheaper costs for parellel units, then you can cry foul (maybe, see my second paragraph), but not balancing a new 6th edition with an older 5th edition codex is neither here nor there.

While I agree that same points should yield a balanced game, I don't feel that different armies should pay the same for the same unit. Blood angels should have cheaper assualt troops, Ultras should have cheaper tacticals, DA should have cheaper Terminators and Bikes, Space Wolves should have cheaper IC buffs, (or at least something along those lines). The total points should yield equal power, but IMO certain factions should do their thing cheaper/better than others. It should happen that different MEQ can do things differently/better/cheaper than others... otherwise we should just have a single MEQ codex if we think they should all cost/operate the same.

 Redbeard wrote:


The game is predicated on the idea that if two players put the same amount of points on the table, they'll have a fair game. This is a promise that GW has continually failed to deliver on, even in the easiest of cases - where different codexes field the same model. There is NO justification that one army can get a model for 15 points less than another codex gets an identical model with an identical profile. Because we're playing a game, we're not building these vehicles in the warp.

Not sure where you find that promise?

In any case, any game design with even a minimal eye to creating hobby/metagame/collectables will make sure that this is not the case.

Game design (PC games, Card Games like Magic the Gathering, etc.. presumably 40K too) will usually allow "power-level" fluctuate around +/- 10% or +/- 15% of "perfect balance" minimum to stimulate an engaging meta-game.

Applying this (in an abstract simplification of just one unit) to the Vindicator, point costs hovering +/- 10 pts. to +/- 18 pts around the "perfectly balanced cost" would be good game design for a hobby game.




And in turn, if you can link these fluctuations around the "perfect balance" that you need to have anyways to make an engaging game to some of the background ("fluff") in one form or another (e.g. they build it in the Warp), even better, no?

 Lansirill wrote:
... tentacles vs. spikes, urotsukudoji vs pinhead. Meh. Whatevs.

The Chaos Boon table is just a pain in my side too. Want to play renegades that aren't all warp tainted yet? Tough, no such thing. Don't have any Spawn or DP models? Welp, you better go out and buy a few of each just in case the dice say you need to use one.

So, yeah, there's nothing terribly *wrong* with the codex. It's no more bland than C:SM. I'm sure there are some solid lists in there; maybe nothing that's going to win major tournaments but that's a whole different can of worms that I have no desire to open up. The new C:CSM is hardly giving us the full panoply of the traitor legions though.

Loving that first quoted line!

As for playing renegades that aren't all warp tainted yet why not just pick a Space Marine codex flavor book and use that? If they aren't all warp tainted they probably won't be relying on too many daemon engines yet either. I am ambivilent about the Chaos Boons table to be honest. I like the feel of the old school randomness of chaos that before a battle could turn your force into a terror on the table or a joke just based on the dice, but I also don't like the added book keeping aspects of it. Just seems like keeping track of the stuff might slow down the game somewhat.

What others term as bland, I term as flexible. Through varied marks and counts as I can play my forces as I choose. No my terminators are not berserkers, but with the mark of khorne I can still run them that way. I can still charge in with them recklessly and use them solely as hard assault troops. They don't *need* the label berserker to act like them. I think people are just lazy. They want everything spoon fed to them in the format that *they* want and don't want to have to do any of the thinking or leg work on their own, so they complain about counts as and how X unit doesn't exist specifically as a listing in the book. Tzeentch terminators are not *official* rubric marines, but they are tougher to kill than regular terminators with their increased invulnerable save, so you can call them whatever you want. They just don't have a specific entry for "Thousand sons terminators". Include them in the list and imagine them to be rubric marines in terminator armor. It is that simple.

Skriker

As for playing renegades that aren't all warp tainted yet why not just pick a Space Marine codex flavor book and use that? If they aren't all warp tainted they probably won't be relying on too many daemon engines yet either.

Actually it could represent that the Renegade has found favor with a Dark Mechanicus forge and has brought forth a few chaos monstrosities to back them up in combat.

Lobukia wrote:
While I agree that same points should yield a balanced game, I don't feel that different armies should pay the same for the same unit. Blood angels should have cheaper assualt troops, Ultras should have cheaper tacticals, DA should have cheaper Terminators and Bikes, Space Wolves should have cheaper IC buffs, (or at least something along those lines). The total points should yield equal power, but IMO certain factions should do their thing cheaper/better than others. It should happen that different MEQ can do things differently/better/cheaper than others... otherwise we should just have a single MEQ codex if we think they should all cost/operate the same.

Wait...why should these armies get *cheaper* units? Where is that balancing out and where are they paying more? This just means they gorge on the undercosted stuff, and they need to be balanced against more than just other marine books as we do have armies that don't fit that paradigm

 Lansirill wrote:
You could also want to, perhaps, run a chapter that is currently being seduced away from the IoM by some full on Chaosy nasties. Some basic non-mutating Space Marines along with, say, a TSon sorc and a retinue of rubrics might represent that nicely. You can't do that anymore. Is it a huge problem (relative to any other problem you might be having with 40k, to avoid anyone going off on the 'have some perspective' tangent)? Nah. I'm sure people can come up with some explanation or another codex to use that'd fit most backgrounds. It is, however, something that the codex used to be able to do but now can't. If you liked shades of grey for Chaos, the new codex does not provide.

I am at a loss for why you can't do this anymore. Focus on regular chaos marines, use less chaosy looking minis from the space marines range, add in your cult troops and sorcerer and you are ready to go. Load up on Land raiders, vindicators and/or predators for your heavy slots instead of daemon engines. How is that not possible at all? And if the chapter is being seduced away from the Imperium of Man, why wouldn't the powers of chaos reward them when they defeat enemy characters just like their full on followers? It is those rewards and the power they bring that lead to full on seduction to the powers of chaos. There is NOTHING stopping you from playing renegades in this current book except yourself.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:
The game is predicated on the idea that if two players put the same amount of points on the table, they'll have a fair game. This is a promise that GW has continually failed to deliver on, even in the easiest of cases - where different codexes field the same model. There is NO justification that one army can get a model for 15 points less than another codex gets an identical model with an identical profile. Because we're playing a game, we're not building these vehicles in the warp.

Definitely agree here. After so many years GW should have point costs in codecies down to a perfect science, but it all seems to continue to be randomly determined based on the whim of whomever is writting the latest codex. Of all the things they do this is the most irritating aspect of GWs games to me. This should be so easy, especially across all of the different space marine books. How can a weapon cost 6 different amounts across 6 different marine codecies? That is just stupid...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:
While I agree that same points should yield a balanced game, I don't feel that different armies should pay the same for the same unit. Blood angels should have cheaper assualt troops, Ultras should have cheaper tacticals, DA should have cheaper Terminators and Bikes, Space Wolves should have cheaper IC buffs, (or at least something along those lines). The total points should yield equal power, but IMO certain factions should do their thing cheaper/better than others. It should happen that different MEQ can do things differently/better/cheaper than others... otherwise we should just have a single MEQ codex if we think they should all cost/operate the same.

Why should the units that are pretty much the same be cheaper? The bonus for Blood Angels is getting assault units as troops, not that they should be cheaper. Same with Dark Angels betting access to Terminators or bikes for troops depending on their build. The unit is exactly the same as that seen in other books, so should be costed the same. It is the ability to build your force differently that denotes the different chapters. These armies can already do their thing better than others because they go from being limited to 3 Elite or Fast Attack slots to 6 Troop slots for those units. That enables them to do it MUCH better by doubling its presence on the table in their force if they so choose. Also their specialized structure can be taken advantage of to capture and hold objectives and table quarters as well. Isn't that bonus enough without also having to make them dirt cheap in cost as well?

Of course arguing that we should just have a single MEQ codex doesn't work with me because I think we should specifically to avoid these stupid differences in pricing across different books.

Skriker

Lobukia wrote:
This is a little premature. I agree with most of what you've said Redbeard, and I really don't think GW will balance out its costs. But shouldn't new codices balance with future 6th edition releases, not reach back and adjust costs to fit prior editions?

And yet, they've shown a consistent failure to do this. At best, they get halfway through a version cycle and then change things up, while two-version-old codexes are still 'active'.

When the 6th edition DA and SM codices have cheaper costs for parellel units, then you can cry foul (maybe, see my second paragraph), but not balancing a new 6th edition with an older 5th edition codex is neither here nor there.

Sure it is. What incentive do I have to use the new codex if the old ones are better?

While I agree that same points should yield a balanced game, I don't feel that different armies should pay the same for the same unit. Blood angels should have cheaper assualt troops, Ultras should have cheaper tacticals, DA should have cheaper Terminators and Bikes, Space Wolves should have cheaper IC buffs, (or at least something along those lines). The total points should yield equal power, but IMO certain factions should do their thing cheaper/better than others. It should happen that different MEQ can do things differently/better/cheaper than others... otherwise we should just have a single MEQ codex if we think they should all cost/operate the same.

This doesn't work in practice. It's a nice theory, but what you see is that only the good things get taken, and the not-good things are left on the sidelines. An example of this is easy to find in the Space Wolf codex. If I had to take Blood Claws then maybe the fact that I got long fangs for cheap would be balanced out. But I don't have to. I can ignore the overpriced/under-useful units and only take the good ones. What we end up doing, as a result, is comparing the good and mandatory units from one codex to the good and mandatory units from another, ignoring all the bad units from each. If one codex's Good and Mandatory are better, the other codex won't see play. See Dark Angels....

Zweischneid wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:


The game is predicated on the idea that if two players put the same amount of points on the table, they'll have a fair game. This is a promise that GW has continually failed to deliver on, even in the easiest of cases - where different codexes field the same model. There is NO justification that one army can get a model for 15 points less than another codex gets an identical model with an identical profile. Because we're playing a game, we're not building these vehicles in the warp.

Not sure where you find that promise?

It was stated explicitly on page viii of the 5th ed rulebook. It's implied on page 108 of the 6th ed book.

In any case, any game design with even a minimal eye to creating hobby/metagame/collectables will make sure that this is not the case.

Game design (PC games, Card Games like Magic the Gathering, etc.. presumably 40K too) will usually allow "power-level" fluctuate around +/- 10% or +/- 15% of "perfect balance" minimum to stimulate an engaging meta-game.

I've seen that video before, and I've got two responses to it.

First, I don't believe that perfect imbalance, as described in the video, really applies to a game where it takes several months to bring an army to a playable state (i.e. painted, based, etc). If the goal of perfect imbalance is to create a shifting metagame, then that metagame needs to be more fully flowing. MtG doesn't have factions. You're free to mix and match whatever you want, and can do so simply by swapping out a few cards. (Colors are not factions - you're not limited to blue cards only). MtG's update cycle tweaks the metagame for everyone every 3 months or so. Comparing that to a system where any given faction goes 5 years or more between updates, and you'll start to see how perfect imbalance for meta reasons doesn't work. Video Games, such as the referenced Age of Empires, can have even shorter update cycles.

But, perhaps more importantly, even if 'perfect imbalance' is the goal, doing so by making identical things cost different points is not the way to go about it. There are multiple ways to balance a game. In a miniature wargame, the two primary ones are cost and availability. In crafting the meta-experience, you also have to consider the actual game impact. This means that the imbalances need to be found in availability, not in cost, and I'll attempt to show why.

Let's say two codexes both allow you to take a certain archetype HQ and Troop unit. Call them a Chaos Lord and Chaos Marines or a Marine Captain and Space Marines. They also allow you other choices, but those choices are not what the players in our example choose to field. For the purposes of our example, these units are identical, but one side gets them at a 10% discount. When these two players get together to play a game, Player A has a clear advantage over his opponent - enough so that at their chosen point limit, they get an entire extra unit.

Is this game going to be fun? I don't think so. They've got the same models, the only difference is which book they picked to represent those models. If the 'correct' metagame choice here is for Player B to switch codexes, then that seems like a problem to me. A faction is ruled out. If, on the other hand, the correct metagame choice is for player B to take different units, then why even put those inferior units in the codex? And, perhaps more importantly, this seems like the wrong way to tell a player not to use certain units. If fails the smell test. If a unit is in a codex, if it's a legal choice, it should be playable.

Instead, for a miniature wargame, especially one with factions, and doubly-so one that has factions that go five years between updates, availability should be the tool that's used to create the imbalance that's used to craft the metagame. Chaos Space Marines cannot take plasma cannons, Codex Space Marines cannot take autocannons. This gives Chaos Space Marines an advantage versus flyers and light vehicles, and gives Space Marines an advantage against terminators and other infantry.

Why can't Chaos Space Marines figure out how to bolt a lascannon to the roof of a rhino? Is this rocket science? Surely any more-recent renegade chapters should have a handful or razorbacks, landspeeders and drop pods available to them? These background deficiencies are examples of balance through availability. Chaos Space Marines get Daemon Engines, and Loyalist Space Marines get vehicle refinements. This sort of imbalance is what's going to craft an interesting metagame. If flyers are too good, people will look to the autocannons of Chaos Marines and you'll see fewer plasma cannons. With fewer plasma cannons out there, you might see more terminators in the meta.


Finally, as MtG was referenced in the video, it's probably worth mentioning the impact that changing a cost can have in a setting that lasts for years. The standard Red Burn spell is either Shock (1 red, 2 damage) or Lightning Bolt (1 red, 3 damage). Lightning Bolt is a card that's unquestionably better than Shock. For years, Lightning Bolt was 'too good', and shock was the standard priced burn. Then they reprinted Lightning Bolt. It's a decision still reviled by many players, because tweaking the effectiveness of the default burn spell changes waht toughness creatures can survive the spell, and also means that every new possible burn spell has to compete with Lightning Bolt to make it into a deck. They added it back as a very conscious decision for what it would mean to the meta, and knowing that it would be in the meta for several years before they had the opportunity to take it back out.

That's an example of a game company that knows what they're doing, and how their actions impact the meta, and in spite of it being a very deliberate change, if you look around MtG forums, you'll find that it's still a controversial change.

Compare that to the Space Wolf codex. Cheaper marines with better base equipment, with cheaper, better devastators. This codex has the same effect as Lightning Bolt over Shock. Every new codex has to compete with the power level set by the Space Wolf codex. Yet, at GW, it's pretty clear this wasn't well-thought out. It wasn't a reasoned change designed to challenge the metagame, it was a mistake that they're unwilling to correct with errata. Sure, codexes that followed it went back to more expensive devs. That's a mistake, and its impact is still felt, and will be until that codex is redone. Gw doesn't practice perfect imbalance, they stumble into imperfect imbalance.

Good post Redbeard, and that's really an excellent point. A lot of these things ascribed to "game design" really aren't applicable where factions span 3 editions between updates routinely and time between updates routinely takes 4-10 years. It's also worth noting a lot of these changes are basically ****-up's, we have several notable examples, Ward's changing to SM transport capacity not getting noticed before the 5E SM release and getting changed back in other books, costs after SW's came out not following them, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Good post Redbeard, and that's really an excellent point. A lot of these things ascribed to "game design" really aren't applicable where factions span 3 editions between updates routinely and time between updates routinely takes 4-10 years. It's also worth noting a lot of these changes are basically ****-up's, we have several notable examples, Ward's changing to SM transport capacity not getting noticed before the 5E SM release and getting changed back in other books, costs after SW's came out not following them, etc.

Indeed. You can't just post a video that has feth-all to do with how WH40k works and expect it to work as an argument. My biggest problem with the codex is that it feels "timid" so to speak.
The Chaos Boon Table is cool and if it wasn't for that then I would honestly never even play Chaos again because of how disappointing that would be. It's the small light in the darkness for me. But why couldn't more of that design philosophy be in the rest of the codex? Very few things were actually changed. Kharne who has lived for a thousand years has worse stats than the Sanguinor? Abaddon can get instantly killed but some random scrub from a different codex can survive a Demolisher shell?

Huron who survived a melta bomb is only T4 while Cassius is T6? At least other designers are willing to go out of the mold a little bit.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:


The game is predicated on the idea that if two players put the same amount of points on the table, they'll have a fair game. This is a promise that GW has continually failed to deliver on, even in the easiest of cases - where different codexes field the same model. There is NO justification that one army can get a model for 15 points less than another codex gets an identical model with an identical profile. Because we're playing a game, we're not building these vehicles in the warp.

This is a little premature. I agree with most of what you've said Redbeard, and I really don't think GW will balance out its costs. But shouldn't new codices balance with future 6th edition releases, not reach back and adjust costs to fit prior editions? When the 6th edition DA and SM codices have cheaper costs for parellel units, then you can cry foul (maybe, see my second paragraph), but not balancing a new 6th edition with an older 5th edition codex is neither here nor there.

While I agree that same points should yield a balanced game, I don't feel that different armies should pay the same for the same unit. Blood angels should have cheaper assualt troops, Ultras should have cheaper tacticals, DA should have cheaper Terminators and Bikes, Space Wolves should have cheaper IC buffs, (or at least something along those lines). The total points should yield equal power, but IMO certain factions should do their thing cheaper/better than others. It should happen that different MEQ can do things differently/better/cheaper than others... otherwise we should just have a single MEQ codex if we think they should all cost/operate the same.

Pretty much everything you said, is what I was going to say back. So thanks, QFT.

A very good summary here. Make sure to send it to the FAQ of dev mail at GW. Normally I wouldn't bother, but the last round of FAQs they did changing DP wings and Incubi weapons hints that they may be growing a little less pig-headed about adjusting books.

As someone who plays CC Dark Eldar and Khorne CSM, you can guess how happy 6th edition has made me so far.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Indeed. You can't just post a video that has feth-all to do with how WH40k works and expect it to work as an argument. My biggest problem with the codex is that it feels "timid" so to speak.
The Chaos Boon Table is cool and if it wasn't for that then I would honestly never even play Chaos again because of how disappointing that would be. It's the small light in the darkness for me. But why couldn't more of that design philosophy be in the rest of the codex? Very few things were actually changed. Kharne who has lived for a thousand years has worse stats than the Sanguinor? Abaddon can get instantly killed but some random scrub from a different codex can survive a Demolisher shell?

Huron who survived a melta bomb is only T4 while Cassius is T6? At least other designers are willing to go out of the mold a little bit.

Abaddon is still Eternal Warrior.

Yes, I do think this Codex was a wasted opportunity.

Well, I just got back into 40k after being away for nearly 2 years as I heard the new Chaos book came out. Chaos is what pulled me into 40k away from fantasy a decade ago, and i was hoping that it had the flavour of the 3.5 dex. Overall, while better than the last one (couldnt be any worse tbh), it is extremely bland. I cant help but wonder if Chaos is, once again, the guinea pig for a new direction GW wants to head in, and is suffering because of it.

My biggest question is - What is the point of the book? What is CSM's "thing" that separates it from the other 5 space marine books, that gives it its identity? Blood Angels are fast with scoring jump infantry, DA have terminators, etc. These armies are still space marines, part of the same faction, and they feel distinct with their own advantages and disadvantages...yet CSM, who are a completely different faction, feels closer to Vanilla marines more than anything, to me at least. I think their identity is supposed to be in the daemon units, except theyre all bad. Seriously, take a look:

-Daemon Prince: Over priced, no where near as good as the Chaos Lord (SM Captain)
-Mutilator: Awful
-Possessed: Same over priced cost as the last book
-Thousand Sons: Still in opinion the most unique marine with the most chaos like rules, but still awfully overpriced
-Warp Talons: Over priced
-Obliterators: I hated them in 5th when havocs we're so much better against the mech meta (no idea why they were so popular), and now the price difference + ld problems make havocs an even better choice. Foot armies make their swiss army knife better, but potentially losing 240 points after only taking two wounds to ld tests...that's brutal.
-Defiler: Really expensive
-Forgefiend and Maulerfiend: Look to be easy targets with only av12 and high point costs, but Forgefiends might be okay (not sure)

The exception are Chaos Spawn and the Heldrake. I would imagine most tournament lists will be investing in both. Otherwise popular choices seem to be just Chaos Marines (Tactical Marines), Havocs (Devastators), Chaos Lord (SM Captain), Chaos Sorceror (Librarian), Chaos Bikes (SM Bikes), Raptors (Assault Marines), Chaos Terminators (Terminators).......yawn.

The army special rules are not terribly exciting. Forced to challenge with no benefit for doing so is not good, Veterans is just more points to give the units their ld back with a small beneficial rule. Boon table, Daemon weapons, Artifacts, etc. are ok, just not enough to really get me excited. Really, the thing that makes CSM the most unique to me is the fact you can take Ork and Daemon allies. So basically relying on two other books and nothing within the actual CSM codex itself.



I dont even know who this book is supposed to cater to. The fluff rules are pitiful for Khorne, Tzeentch and anyone who is undivided (being forced to take a mark on the daemon prince for example) - I know Night Lords and Alpha get nothing. The FOTM players dont really have anything here. There doesnt seem to be any really unique playstyles similar to 3.5. I guess people who are casual players (nothing wrong with that) that dont mind paying for overpriced or poor daemon type units, and maybe Nurgle and Slaneesh (who still dont have noise weapons on vehicles)?

Overall, I dont have much hope for Chaos going back to its 3.5 state where they felt really unique and could be a lot of fun with experimentation. I wouldnt mind paying more for basic CSM, even if they were worse than tact marines, provided there were major benefits in the other slots that made them unique and worth ponying up for (the best 1v1 HQs in the game for example). Doesnt seem to be that way though. Im going back to Eldar and Tyranids as playing another copy of Space Marines doesnt interest me unfortunately.