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.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Guardsman, Eldar, Orks, etc. could all use with some thematical rules to benefit a certain playstyle.

Or to distinguish the factions. I think if we're talking about codexes that lack variety in the different subfactions, Chaos Space Marines are almost at the bottom of the list. (With really only Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Daemons, and Codex: Space Marines ranking lower than them.)

Orks, Tau, IG, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons, Sisters, Grey Knights, and Tyranids each just one big homogenized lump in their respective codexes. (At least, more so than CSM are.)

But what real variety is there for CSM? How is it that armies that are restrictive as BA and DA be more variable than CSM which are even more variable than SM at least in terms or fluff? Sure, you can mark your forces but that really just means you can give them a few meaningless upgrades that are largely overpriced. There's no real big way to make a difference. Not to say they are the least diverse. They will certainly best several armies but at the same time it comes at a, but what can you really represent. The warbands? Frankly I don't much care for warbands all that much. Most care for legions like the founding chapters. People like playing those or a chapter inspired by one of them oftentimes and yet you can't really show it, there's nothing making them different than any others. So you end up having SM-1 with the illusion of choice.

And expansions? The supplements are wasted potential with useless random chaos warbands tossed a bone out of nowhere whilst SM get company special rules because ummm okay all the while so many possibilities are wasted upon overpriced 3 pages of rules. And, to nail the coffin forgeworld comes as a kick with SM getting so many additional options with IG getting even more diversity whilst others just rot along. Not to say that I don't like Forgeworld. I rather do and wouldn't disagree with playing against some forgeworld (nor would I mind getting some of my own) but it is still necessary to admit that there is a big disparity in favor.

And, I'll just toss in I still feel that Orks, Eldar, Necrons, and Nids certainly deserve more diversity with a few rules to spice things up and make it so you can play armies without having to just spam one unit and play make believe.

*edit- Apologies if somewhat blargh in typing. Somewhat sleepy*

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Honestly, I don't see it. The Chaos Legions still seem pretty distinct to me. Never been a super-duper fan of Chaos Marines until relatively recently, so maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention.

Really it's a problem with all the factions to varying extents. The closest to it working is SM and even then it has kinks. The problem is you can't really make the legions. Want to play KSons? Ummmm... I guess you can play Ahriman and just load yourself up with Ksons as troops? Want to play Word Bearers? I guess you can.... ummm bring an apostle that has few options and then just kinda grab some cultists and some standard csm that are still cowardly. Oh and toss some chaos daemons that have no synergy to your army. Just because you get a mark doesn't mean you become that warband. Being a mark of tzeentch doesn't make you a KSon just as much as the Mark of Khorne doesn't equate to you being a Berzerker. It's very good at representing recent warbands that have fallen to chaos that ally in a variety of forces but that's really where it reaches its peak. To add to that, a lot of the options are the illusion of choice with two of the icons being horrid (fear and soul blaze come to mind) and the marks are of varying qualities with one being almost always useless. It'd bland and really lacks flavor.

That said, this can be said for armies at large. Guardsman, Eldar, Orks, etc. could all use with some thematical rules to benefit a certain playstyle. The themes don't even necessarily need to mean one group. Instead, it can simply be a representation of a grand theme. Call the obviously designed for siege regiments "Lord of the Siege". You know that it's for CSM-Iron Warriors/IG-Blahblahblah but it's vague enough that it isn't as glaring.

This. And from a rules standpoint, I can see how the guard player feels. When it comes to representation in the rules, the Imperial Guard seem to have it the worst. However, aesthetically and unit-wise, the cult legions have it worst.

In an ideal world, there are only Cadians and Black Legion.

 Quarterdime wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Honestly, I don't see it. The Chaos Legions still seem pretty distinct to me. Never been a super-duper fan of Chaos Marines until relatively recently, so maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention.

Really it's a problem with all the factions to varying extents. The closest to it working is SM and even then it has kinks. The problem is you can't really make the legions. Want to play KSons? Ummmm... I guess you can play Ahriman and just load yourself up with Ksons as troops? Want to play Word Bearers? I guess you can.... ummm bring an apostle that has few options and then just kinda grab some cultists and some standard csm that are still cowardly. Oh and toss some chaos daemons that have no synergy to your army. Just because you get a mark doesn't mean you become that warband. Being a mark of tzeentch doesn't make you a KSon just as much as the Mark of Khorne doesn't equate to you being a Berzerker. It's very good at representing recent warbands that have fallen to chaos that ally in a variety of forces but that's really where it reaches its peak. To add to that, a lot of the options are the illusion of choice with two of the icons being horrid (fear and soul blaze come to mind) and the marks are of varying qualities with one being almost always useless. It'd bland and really lacks flavor.

That said, this can be said for armies at large. Guardsman, Eldar, Orks, etc. could all use with some thematical rules to benefit a certain playstyle. The themes don't even necessarily need to mean one group. Instead, it can simply be a representation of a grand theme. Call the obviously designed for siege regiments "Lord of the Siege". You know that it's for CSM-Iron Warriors/IG-Blahblahblah but it's vague enough that it isn't as glaring.

This. And from a rules standpoint, I can see how the guard player feels. When it comes to representation in the rules, the Imperial Guard seem to have it the worst. However, aesthetically and unit-wise, the cult legions have it worst.

In an ideal world, there are only Cadians and Black Legion.

Probably the most sadenning part was seeing how little fluff there was for the founding legions in CSM. Then flipping open IG and seeing how much the fluff for anybody not Cadian and (to a lesser extent) Catachan got crunched.

I was and still am shocked to see the Catachan Army Box repackaged and put on the shelf like a brand new release. Plastic. That's all it is to them. No sense in letting a plastic kit slip through the cracks when it's plastic! Seriously, a Vostroyan army box would have been nicer to see. And yes, I mean with the current models.

Quarterdime wrote:Uhm... Hello... You kind of ignored my post... the one I was aiming directly at you... even said your name....

And everything you said I already replied to. I just didn't say yours.

Swastakowey wrote:What matters is that each army should be rich with flavor and choices to mark your army unique both in units, play style and look.

You. Can. Still. Do. This.

Look I'll spell it out for you. Let's take a look at what 1,000 points could look like:


Lord - MoK, Juggernought, AoBF, merltabombs

Berzerkers (10) - IoW
Berzerkers (10) - IoW

Terminators (10) - MoK, IoW, 10x combi-meltas


And...


Sorcerer - MoS, lvl 2
Lucius

CSM (9) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino
CSM (9) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino
CSM (10) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino


And...


Abaddon

Chosen (5) 4x combi-flamers
Chosen (5) 4x meltaguns, flamer

Land Raider
Land Raider


And that's just three off the very top of my head. They are all very fluffy. They all play COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from each other. And these are just a few obvious options, and I'm not even including allies, or going with an unbound list. This is the kind of variety you can easily get from white-bread CSM lists.

No one is forcing you to make a list that looks like anybody else's. If you choose to do that, it's your fault. The CSM codex itself has no shortage of options.

Lord - MoK, Juggernought, AoBF, merltabombs

Berzerkers (10) - IoW
Berzerkers (10) - IoW

Terminators (10) - MoK, IoW, 10x combi-meltas

What is this? A Khornate army with some World Eater cult support

Sorcerer - MoS, lvl 2
Lucius

CSM (9) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino
CSM (9) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino
CSM (10) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino

And this is what? Why is Lucius here? It's just some random Slaaneshi warband.

Abaddon

Chosen (5) 4x combi-flamers
Chosen (5) 4x meltaguns, flamer

Land Raider
Land Raider

A very bad build but this one is certainly fitting.

The problem with claiming some army design is fluffy is that... well all armies work that way. The books are written in a way where you can really toss an army together as long as it's in a codex and claim its your own special army. As per allies, well the only BB is Daemons. Past that you don't really get any allies that fit with your standard theme until come the apoc with guardsman.

I want to build a Tzeentch army and that's my problem. I can't. It's like beating your head on a desk. Yeah, you can build it but it's purposefully crippling yourself. Thousand Sons? Absolute idiocy to even try. I tried to toss in Chaos Daemons to support but I ended up just building a Tzeentch daemon force and tossing aside CSM. And it still never adresses that CSM are simply SM-

 Ailaros wrote:

Quarterdime wrote:Uhm... Hello... You kind of ignored my post... the one I was aiming directly at you... even said your name....

And everything you said I already replied to. I just didn't say yours.

Swastakowey wrote:What matters is that each army should be rich with flavor and choices to mark your army unique both in units, play style and look.

You. Can. Still. Do. This.

Look I'll spell it out for you. Let's take a look at what 1,000 points could look like:


Lord - MoK, Juggernought, AoBF, merltabombs

Berzerkers (10) - IoW
Berzerkers (10) - IoW

Terminators (10) - MoK, IoW, 10x combi-meltas


And...


Sorcerer - MoS, lvl 2
Lucius

CSM (9) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino
CSM (9) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino
CSM (10) - MoS, IoE, power weapon, 2x meltaguns, rhino


And...


Abaddon

Chosen (5) 4x combi-flamers
Chosen (5) 4x meltaguns, flamer

Land Raider
Land Raider


And that's just three off the very top of my head. They are all very fluffy. They all play COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from each other. And these are just a few obvious options, and I'm not even including allies, or going with an unbound list. This is the kind of variety you can easily get from white-bread CSM lists.

No one is forcing you to make a list that looks like anybody else's. If you choose to do that, it's your fault. The CSM codex itself has no shortage of options.

You don't seem to notice that you just gave us a black legion army with allies.

Just ignore him, he feels that the 3.5 codex was just power gamers delight and nothing more, and that 4E and 6E gave chaos far more options as a result, and doesn't really understand chaos.

Quarterdime wrote:You don't seem to notice that you just gave us a black legion army with allies.

No I didn't.



You'll notice that in the regular codex, abaddon also makes chosen scoring.

StarTrotter wrote:What is this? A Khornate army with some World Eater cult support

An entire army with MoK, devoted solely to getting into close combat, with an axe of blind fury and a juggernought doesn't count as a fluffy khorne list?

I guess it's possible to come up with a definition of fluffy that excludes anything you can make with the CSM codex. I don't see how that definition would be particularly useful, though.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Just ignore him, he feels that the 3.5 codex was just power gamers delight and nothing more, and that 4E and 6E gave chaos far more options as a result, and doesn't really understand chaos.

Frankly, I feel that even 3.5 was flawed. Did I think it was the best of the lot? Most certainly but by no means did I think it was perfect. It had some horrid internal balance issues even, perhaps, more glaring than the SM chapter tactics even.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

Quarterdime wrote:You don't seem to notice that you just gave us a black legion army with allies.

No I didn't.



You'll notice that in the regular codex, abaddon also makes chosen scoring.

StarTrotter wrote:What is this? A Khornate army with some World Eater cult support

An entire army with MoK, devoted solely to getting into close combat, with an axe of blind fury and a juggernought doesn't count as a fluffy khorne list?

I guess it's possible to come up with a definition of fluffy that excludes anything you can make with the CSM codex. I don't see how that definition would be particularly useful, though.

But thing is it isn't World Eaters. World Eaters are Khorne but Khorne is not World Eaters. People that want to play World Eaters are stuck to solely playing 1 named character and tons of berzerkers. A recently fallen Khornate warband would be a unit all with a mark of khorne. Berzerkers are to represent an allied contingent of elites from World Eaters that are fighting, at the time, alongside your warband of Khorne. Add to that, it's still not even internally balanced by any means. But please find me a way to even try to play Tzeentch that isn't some terrible list that will be consistently curb stomped

 StarTrotter wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Just ignore him, he feels that the 3.5 codex was just power gamers delight and nothing more, and that 4E and 6E gave chaos far more options as a result, and doesn't really understand chaos.

Frankly, I feel that even 3.5 was flawed. Did I think it was the best of the lot? Most certainly but by no means did I think it was perfect. It had some horrid internal balance issues even, perhaps, more glaring than the SM chapter tactics even.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

Quarterdime wrote:You don't seem to notice that you just gave us a black legion army with allies.

No I didn't.



You'll notice that in the regular codex, abaddon also makes chosen scoring.

StarTrotter wrote:What is this? A Khornate army with some World Eater cult support

An entire army with MoK, devoted solely to getting into close combat, with an axe of blind fury and a juggernought doesn't count as a fluffy khorne list?

I guess it's possible to come up with a definition of fluffy that excludes anything you can make with the CSM codex. I don't see how that definition would be particularly useful, though.

But thing is it isn't World Eaters. World Eaters are Khorne but Khorne is not World Eaters. People that want to play World Eaters are stuck to solely playing 1 named character and tons of berzerkers. A recently fallen Khornate warband would be a unit all with a mark of khorne. Berzerkers are to represent an allied contingent of elites from World Eaters that are fighting, at the time, alongside your warband of Khorne. Add to that, it's still not even internally balanced by any means. But please find me a way to even try to play Tzeentch that isn't some terrible list that will be consistently curb stomped

Can the Aspiring Sorcerers use Malefic Daemonology? Together they could become a massive daemon factory. Start the game with nothing but 1k sons with Malefic Daemonology. Then let the real fun begin! (still that's both a pain and relying on an exploit I'm not really arguing with you on this)

Can the Aspiring Sorcerers use Malefic Daemonology? Together they could become a massive daemon factory. Start the game with nothing but 1k sons with Malefic Daemonology. Then let the real fun begin! (still that's both a pain and relying on an exploit I'm not really arguing with you on this)

They cannot, they have to take the School of Tzeentch.

Also it's far better done, cheaper, and overall better to do it with Chaos Daemons, you won't have the points or warp charges to actually make a daemon factory this way.

StarTrotter wrote:Berzerkers are to represent an allied contingent of elites from World Eaters that are fighting, at the time, alongside your warband of Khorne.

Other people are capable of doing the psycho-surgery. New berzerkers are created all the time that have nothing to do with the world-eater's legion. Meanwhile, there's absolutely nothing at all that says that world eaters won't use terminators, etc.

Like I said, it's possible to conjure up a certain definition of fluffy that discounts things, but you've got to torture the word pretty badly. Or be really lacking in creativity for how something could be justified, fluffwise.

StarTrotter wrote:Add to that, it's still not even internally balanced by any means. But please find me a way to even try to play Tzeentch that isn't some terrible list that will be consistently curb stomped

It's possible to make an all-tzeentch list that does fine. I doubt very much that it could possibly meet your particular definition of fluffy.

And if all you want to do is win games, then do what it takes to win games. Go pick the one strongest option, just like everybody else. That's your choice, though, not a problem with the codex.

The lack of an undivided mark kinds throws a big ol' bucket of cold water over the OP

 Ailaros wrote:

StarTrotter wrote:Berzerkers are to represent an allied contingent of elites from World Eaters that are fighting, at the time, alongside your warband of Khorne.

Other people are capable of doing the psycho-surgery. New berzerkers are created all the time that have nothing to do with the world-eater's legion. Meanwhile, there's absolutely nothing at all that says that world eaters won't use terminators, etc. Frankly I just didn't get why you threw in Berzerkers. When people see them they usually think of World Eaters instead of the other means of becoming them. That and mark of khorne hordes can do the job of zerkers better than zerkers themselves.

Like I said, it's possible to conjure up a certain definition of fluffy that discounts things, but you've got to torture the word pretty badly. Or be really lacking in creativity for how something could be justified, fluffwise.

StarTrotter wrote:Add to that, it's still not even internally balanced by any means. But please find me a way to even try to play Tzeentch that isn't some terrible list that will be consistently curb stomped

It's possible to make an all-tzeentch list that does fine. I doubt very much that it could possibly meet your particular definition of fluffy.

And if all you want to do is win games, then do what it takes to win games. Go pick the one strongest option, just like everybody else. That's your choice, though, not a problem with the codex.

And so too are the berzerkers always required to have veterans of the long war I do believe. And, if memory serves me, it isn't quite as widely used as you might claim. If memory serves me, it was impressive that Abaddon managed to make his own forces.

As per your latter argument. It's not that. The thing is... what makes a fluffy army? How do I build a fluffy Thousand Son army? Just use KSons as troops and bring Ahriman? Is that really all my choice comes down to? I s that really the end all be all of building a Thousand Son force?

And thing is, I don't want to win all my games. I really don't care to. But I'm not playing a fluffy army. I'm just playing a game where I'm crippling myself and being walked on without meaning to. My friend loves Tau and he loves Riptides. He didn't plan to, he's top tier. My friend loves Eldar and built a mech list with waveserpents. Guess what became cheese when their new codex came out And I love Tzeentch. But why pick the mark? Why ever touch it? What's it do? Give you a +1 to your invuln save? So what is it even worth thinking of putting on? Daemons, Terminators, and HQs with the sigil. Even then at best it can only ever become a 3+ invuln save as though it needed another drawback. The icon? Soul Blaze. A forgettable, insignificant spell that leads to just more bookwork. And what of the spells? Perhaps most insultingly, the god of magic's own spells are the worst and you are forced to take from them. The boon of mutation is worthless to harmful with the only real useful spell being DOOMBOLT. Every time I sit there, I ask, why pick Tzeentch? He isn't worth a single poitn despite often being second to most costly of all the upgrades. Why mark my sorcerers with it when leaving them unmarked makes them feel more mighty as a spell caster. Why is there no real way to work with summoning daemons? Why is it that marks are so useless on cultists? Why hand me options if you are just going to make me pause and ask... what's the point of a 6+ invuln save? It's the illusion of choice. I want a game where all options are good. Perhaps not in the same combo but always viable in some way or form. And to expect failure but them to be worked on. A way so that my friends and I don't have to worry about stomping matches ever really occuring. I like close matches, not ones where it's us just tabling one another turn 3.

So, let's say I want to create an Emperor's Children army. So, I take Lucius the Eternal, Noise Marines as troops and... uhm...?

Where are my options?

My generic Chaos Lord can't take a Doom Siren. Terminators don't have access to any sonic weapons and aren't Fearless. My Vehicles don't have access to sonic weapons either. Dreadnoughts can't get bonus to Initiative or Assault grenades. There are no units signature to ECs I could take except for the Noise Marines. No special abilities, no rules equivalent to Chapter Tactics that would make my army feel and play distinct.

All I get is +1 to Initiative.

Guess why my army is Children of Torment and not Emperor's Children? Because there's no way I could do justice to the latter with the current Codex. That's why I've chosen a "Black Legion + MoS" warband as a poor-man's substitute.

I ask again, where are my options?

While I would kill for more sonic weapons, playing Emperor's Children doesn't mean taking only Noisemarines and Sonic Weapons for all. Take marked units with CCWs in Rhinos. Terminators. Bikers. Helbrutes. Etc. the Legion would have plenty of these.






Or, and I hesitate to say this as I would desperately love an Emp Child supplement, don't play the main Legions? I am heavily centred around Slaanesh. But my army isn't Emperor's Children. Terrifying as it may seem, I invented my own Warband, centred around a warlord who was part of the Legion during the Heresy but that's all. Might I suggest people start using more imagination and not try to exactly mimic the one way an author presented an idea nice that they liked?

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Take marked units with CCWs in Rhinos. Terminators. Bikers. Helbrutes. Etc. the Legion would have plenty of these.

Of course they do, but MoS doesn't make them EC. It makes them Slaaneshi Chaos Marines + a generic Helbrute.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

Or, and I hesitate to say this as I would desperately love an Emp Child supplement, don't play the main Legions? I am heavily centred around Slaanesh. But my army isn't Emperor's Children. Terrifying as it may seem, I invented my own Warband, centred around a warlord who was part of the Legion during the Heresy but that's all.

That's more or less what I did. With Children of Torment I manage to have a Slaaneshi CSM army that is fluffy, since it's just Black Legion with NMs and MoS.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Might I suggest people start using more imagination and not try to exactly mimic the one way an author presented an idea nice that they liked?

It's not really nice, you know. But the saddest thing about this is that we have to do this.

In codex chaos marines where are the

Red butchers

Karkophoni

Rampagers

Palantine blades

Deathshroud terminators

Oh silly me I forgot, when you join chaos you have to trade in all your special rules and equipment, durp

Perhaps GW feel that there would be too much of a clash with FW's 30K range to focus on the original legions for now.

Just a theory, and probably wrong. I do find it bizarre that the Crimson Slaughter get their own codex when 8 out of 9 of the original traitor legions have not. Given the amount of attention the legions continue to get through the HH series you'd think they'd want to give them some 40K tabletop love.

And yet in the 7e fluffbook the Night Lords, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion don't even get individual entries.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah. I mean, tell me what fluffy list you used to be able to build, that you can't build anymore.

Can you build a fluffy alpha legion list with cultists and infiltrating space marines and no vehicles? Yes. Can you build a fluffy khorne list with just khorne berzerkers, MoK terminators and some allied bloodletters? Yes. Can you build a word bearers army with a dark apostle and a bunch of demon engines and allied demons? Yes.

You can do everything you could do before, it's just now you can also do more stuff. More stuff is only less creativity for people who rely on restrictions to be creative.

Nope, Can't do a Thousand Sons army because your Termies, Dreads and Havocs are all normal troops, when in the fluff every single non sorcerer marine is supposed to be dust. 3.5 let you do this, but 4th onwards has not allowed this.

Can't do a deathguard because no plague termies/havocs, just marked ones.

Can't do deathgaurd because we have no berserker bikers or Termies.

No options in the codex to give all vehicles sonic weaponry so there is no option to do an Emperor's Children army.

Chucking a mark (ie: a color scheme) on a unit and suddenly calling it different is exactly what the OP means by bland homogenization. The entirety of chaos can now be summed up with +1 attack, +Inv Sv +1Toughness or +1inititative. Chaos used to be way more diverse and interesting. Not to mention the one Allegiance that should be easy to portray, is near enough impossible because Undivided marks no longer exist. So now you can't do Word Bearers, which specifically ban marks to any one god over another, unless you do a boring army of CSM squads with no buffs (ie; You might as well play C:SM).

For me, I feel like the codex isn't awful, but at times can feel like SM with marks and dinobots. I feel like the supplements were more of a big 'screw you' from GW. I would rather have Iron Warriors and Night Lords than Black legion and Crimson Slaughter. Those two forces get hardly a look-in in the latest codex, which sucks because they're some of the most individualistic armies CSM have. Black Legion? Yeah, because the codex didn't have enough Black Legion in it already...And Crimson Slaughter? Who the hell are they? I get that they're there in order to entice newer players to the chaos side and try and keep it fresh, but I mean come on. And Obliterators and Raptors being able to take marks after always being described as part of 'obliterator cults' and raptors worshiping the 'raptor god' is just a merciless beating against the fluff.

 Toastaster wrote:
For me, I feel like the codex isn't awful, but at times can feel like SM with marks and dinobots. I feel like the supplements were more of a big 'screw you' from GW. I would rather have Iron Warriors and Night Lords than Black legion and Crimson Slaughter. Those two forces get hardly a look-in in the latest codex, which sucks because they're some of the most individualistic armies CSM have. Black Legion? Yeah, because the codex didn't have enough Black Legion in it already...And Crimson Slaughter? Who the hell are they? I get that they're there in order to entice newer players to the chaos side and try and keep it fresh, but I mean come on. And Obliterators and Raptors being able to take marks after always being described as part of 'obliterator cults' and raptors worshiping the 'raptor god' is just a merciless beating against the fluff.

Raptors have always been able to take marks, even in 3.5. Many of them also serve general chaos gods as well, ditto Obliterators.

Also however, for my Emperor's Children Army:

Can I take Combat Drugs to increase the Effectiveness of my Drug Addled Warriors?

Can I take A Chaos Lord kitted to the teeth in Slaaneshi Artifacts and blessed with Slaanesh's gifts?

Will my possessed be able to take rending talons and be blessed with super-natural speed without acting as if they were possessed by every single daemon at once. They are possessed by Daemonettes, not plaguebearers.

Will my elite chosen be blessed with gifts of slaanesh? Or maybe perhaps be gifted warriors skilled in weapon and blade? Or maybe even riding upon steeds of Slaanesh as having proven themselves worthy of riding with the Chaos Lord

Can my Helbrute's be equipped with Blastmasters? Or perhaps their screams can be amplified by Doom Sirens?

Will my Vehicles be upgraded with Sonic Weaponry? Or maybe perhaps equipped in a manner that will allow those who desire to take themselves in the melee to charge out on an assault ramp?

If not, then my army pretty much isn't fluff based at all.

SarisKhan, you and I see eye to eye.

Individual chapters, chaos and loyalist, had articles and rules in White Dwarf. No, GW don't care to do that any more.

GW care, hence why chaos arevstill around and have a fairly decent codex. We have got newer stuff lately amd are getting mor in the summer. The reason its mainly undivided is so people can create those undividef warbands. I mean its not hard to create/convert god specific marines. I play my daemons and marines as tzeentch and have no problem with the range. It gives us the chance to createvour own vision and views on what that god specific warband would look like. If they only did god specific options people would moan about there being no creativity aspects or freedom so yea.

 necronspurs2012 wrote:
GW care, hence why chaos arevstill around and have a fairly decent codex. We have got newer stuff lately amd are getting mor in the summer. The reason its mainly undivided is so people can create those undividef warbands. I mean its not hard to create/convert god specific marines. I play my daemons and marines as tzeentch and have no problem with the range. It gives us the chance to createvour own vision and views on what that god specific warband would look like. If they only did god specific options people would moan about there being no creativity aspects or freedom so yea.

You and I have a very different idea of what makes a "fairly decent codex."
Also, I barely understood your post. Use better grammar and spelling please. I don't see how giving players more options for god specific armies will limit people who want undivided armies. (Not that those get any love either.)
GW does not care enough to make chaos great.

You hit it on the head.

Chaos Space Marines and their Demon friends got more and more generic-looking as the rulesets ground on, and now they look comparatively bland. Chaos used to be used as a sort of free-for-all to let the sculptors do really cool and unusual things; now it doesn't seem like that anymore. I'm even more distressed about the models than the rules.

I think the word I would use to describe my thoughts after reading most of this thread is: baffled.

So you're telling me that chaos space marines have no identity, specialization, or anything that makes playing them different between armies?

Have you people ever looked at the Imperial Guard? An army that is totally different depending on the regiment you play as fluff wise, yet has ZERO differences between actual gameplay armies. With codex chaos marines, you at least get different marks to use. You guys are all complaining marks don't satisfy your desires to play differently and create an identity, but yet are ignoring the fact that almost on other codex allows players to differentiate between their average units.

I could create a thread about how good chaos has it compared to guard, what with their different marks, icons, cult troops, relics, war gear options, etc. What do guard get?

Go ahead I'll wait.

Since you won't be able to come up with anything I'll continue; this isn't about guard I know. But it's important to bring it up because GW gives chaos many more opportunities than most other factions. There is only so much rules writing can do. It's up to players to find identities for their own armies and fight that way.

I play chaos almost as much as my guard. With chaos, I get to use Berzerkers, juggernaught lords, and units I can be generally assaults with. With my Mordians I get to... Uhm... Hmm.

 Ignatius wrote:
I think the word I would use to describe my thoughts after reading most of this thread is: baffled.

So you're telling me that chaos space marines have no identity, specialization, or anything that makes playing them different between armies?

Have you people ever looked at the Imperial Guard? An army that is totally different depending on the regiment you play as fluff wise, yet has ZERO differences between actual gameplay armies. With codex chaos marines, you at least get different marks to use. You guys are all complaining marks don't satisfy your desires to play differently and create an identity, but yet are ignoring the fact that almost on other codex allows players to differentiate between their average units.

I could create a thread about how good chaos has it compared to guard, what with their different marks, icons, cult troops, relics, war gear options, etc. What do guard get?

Go ahead I'll wait.

Since you won't be able to come up with anything I'll continue; this isn't about guard I know. But it's important to bring it up because GW gives chaos many more opportunities than most other factions. There is only so much rules writing can do. It's up to players to find identities for their own armies and fight that way.

I play chaos almost as much as my guard. With chaos, I get to use Berzerkers, juggernaught lords, and units I can be generally assaults with. With my Mordians I get to... Uhm... Hmm.

Your berserkers are pretty nice, be they leftovers from 3rd edition. And your juggernaut lord... Is where, exactly? I'm not seeing a model. Nice of them to put rules in, and nice to see people desperate to turn the Fantasy chaos lord into a space marine, but really those legs are no space marine legs, and this has already been discussed. Guard are in the same situation, however not as badly due to the iconography issue. The star of chaos is a symbol of chaos undivided. Painting it red can't turn it into a Khorne icon. You can paint a Leman Russ in Vostroyan colors and that's something that they surely would have. While if I were to use a maulerfiend for Emperor's Children, well... I'd have to get to work converting, wouldn't I?