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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They absolutely DO have restrictions, what are you babbling about?

Holy gak. Let me retrack your argument for you: the fact that you can still use all special and heavy weapons in chaos marine units, albeit in different combinations, is a poor defense of the codex. They are like this because you can only build the unit with what is in the box. This is why terminators can't have the balefire tome. The Exalted champion is oop like the autocannon model but is still in the book. It has a fixed loadout.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
I can see why many here picked chaos as their faction, just angry at the world!

Tell me about it, tzeentch is at work the with the utter incoherence of these arguments.

Right, right.....

Mind going over how many of each Combi-Weapon Terminators can take real quick?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:



chaos: I don't know if anyone's told you this yet, but you can't dig up!

I have no idea what this is supposed to imply?

It's almost like the 4th Ed book all over again.

Yes, that was a functional Codex.
Yes, it had a lot of power.

And, yes, it took away the fun of Chaos.

It was functional, but I never really thought of it as powerful (certainly no moreso than the book that it replaced). How much of the hate for that codex was due to it being the book that removed daemons from CSM and made them their own faction, as well as the loss of having extremely distinct legions that came with custom force orgs and custom units that weren't available to the other legions, etc? Also lets take a brief trip down memory lane here, CSM squads in that book were limited to just 1 special weapon - if you scaled up to 10-20 models in the unit could get a second special weapon OR a single heavy weapon. The other option they had was no Mark-Icon/yes Mark-Icon (Icons back then gave the unit the mark and served no other purpose). The ACs options were bolter/twin-linked bolter/combi-bolter, ccw/power weapon/power fist, bolt pistol/plasma pistol, no meltabombs/yes meltabombs. By comparison, the new Legionnaires datasheet is a fair bit more customizable than it was back then - which in terms of the arguments being used by some in this thread should translate to the units being more "chaotic" and fluffy.

30K Liber Traitor book says otherwise.

They eviscerated what Chaos in 40K has. All I needed to see was that nearly every Chaos player in my local meta posted their armies for sale since Friday. Only three out of 12 are keeping their army. Actions speak louder than words.

Its a bit of a different situation when 90% of the units in 80% of the armies being played are pretty much the same and have access to all the same stuff.

And who said anything about excessive options?

Take the Exalted Champion. He no longer has options!!! Just one set loadout that cannot be changed. At all.

And that's just one example or so many, none of which were 'excessive'.

Yes, that one hurts because all three of my Exalteds are now not WYSIWYG, but it won't stop me from continuing to use them.

Chaos doesn't mean randumb or outright short on brainhalfes, people that accept this are half the reason why GW keeps getting away with such gak.. And the darkmech exists, as does slave labour. And what does it matter if i can mark and icon a squad of legionaires as i should, when i can't do so for possessed? Why can't i strap a balefire book ontop of a chosen champion?
oh and lets not kid ourselves the limit on not doubling up on heavies is because GW fethed up with a certain weapon that comes with havocs 1 / 5, and gw insiting that double shooting is a acceptable stratagem. its not.

Missed the point entirely.

Good for you, i am sure that you are happy since you have shown repeatedly that stupid nonsense is acceptable to you as long as Daddy GW tells you to say yes.

No, I have shown repeatedly that I'm not chicken little throwing an internet temper tantrum because some things changed. I think I've been pretty clear in saying I was unhappy with a number of changes over the course of this thread. Its only at the point that supposedly grown-ass adults started saying "this book is an irredeemable dumpster fire and so GW must have bought off any influencer or content creator that utters a single positive thought about the book" that I broke ranks with the forum malcontent bandwagon. Grow up, move on.

So even your example of a "positive reviewer" recognizes the problem.

Sure, but my argument is not and has not been that the book is perfect, I have on multiple occasions pointed out I don't like things about it. My argument essentially is that the world is not black and white and that the presence of some negatives doesn't make the entire book negative.

And it's very subjective. Everyone isn't looking for the same things. Some of us would much rather have actual options and customization rather than shoot/fight twice stratagems. It especially makes a difference whether or not you play the "dud subfaction".

Its really not subjective at all. The statement you are claiming to be subjective is: "While it brought some negative changes with it, those negative changes do not make the entire thing bad." I know that seems like a subjective statement because things involving good/bad are typically thought of in terms of subjectivity, but this is actually an objective statement. Lets rewrite it in maybe clearer terms: "While some people may find the new book to have bad aspects to it, those bad aspects/the perception that some aspects are bad do not make all things in the book bad to all people." Thats an objective statement of fact - your subjective perception of the book (in part or in full) does not make the book objectively bad. This is why others have positive opinions of the book. Its not that complex or complicated.

By claiming that my previous statement is subjective, you are essentially arguing that nobody is allowed to like the book as a whole if they dislike any aspect of the book in part, and more broadly that nobody is allowed to like the book if one person dislikes any aspect of it. As you said, not everyone is looking for the same things. The fact that what you are looking for is bad (in your eyes) does not make the entire book bad, which is why other people looking for things different from you (or even the same thing) can find the book good - hence why there are reviewers giving the book positive accolades. Your subjective dislike of the book does not render the entire book bad to others, which is a concept that some of here seem to be struggling with based on how people have reacted to positive reviews.

Oh yeah let me look at the fewer options the Legionaries have than Imperial Marines, or the Sternguard, or the 3 types of Terminator unit Imperials have *in the base Codex*. Wow that's really excessive that CSM had options for their units.

You will note that all these things are different datasheets though. I wouldn't be opposed to Chaos Legionnaires and Terminators being split up into a half dozen different datasheets to enable better balance correction for all the potential builds you could make, but I'd actually much rather the datasheets in the SM codex be consolidated down because I think most of the differences there are fairly trivial and very few of the options they have are actually being made use of.

I'm sure we all rememeber when Chosen were OP when they had access to duplicate weapons, or when the Codex was broken because we had Exalted Champions with options or Chaos Lords with Jump Packs. Multiple choices for wargear is not "layered rules".

No, but in the case of the person I was actually responding to, veteran tactics, marks, icons, and legion bonuses are all layers of rules. Stop conflating different arguments together and pay attention to what is actually being discussed in each different quote reply.

Legionaries now have the same limitations on Special and Heavy weapons as Imperial Astartes who literally follow a rulebook telling them how to work. You're making the mistake of thinking that being a CSM means utter insanity with no thought for tactics or viable weaponry and you couldn't be more wrong.

I'm not making that mistake - the people arguing that CSM Legionnaires should be able to be fielded where every model in the squad basically has a different weapon loadout are the ones making that mistake.

I am curious as to what older players really find to be a significant issue rather than just an annoyance.
Legionaries now look decent, but no longer can be taken up to 20 strong and the duplicate special and heavy weapon change seemed arbitrary. However, does the unit still offer enough out the gate for players?

As I said previously, some people are just complaining because things changed. A more generous take is that they are complaining because they had options that were taken away from them, but if you go back far enough you find many of the options that were taken away didn't exist in the books they hold up as examples of what the book should be like. The loss of 20 man units sucks, I'm not happy about it (even though I can count on one hand the number of times I ever took more than 10 marines in a squad in my 20 years playing the game), but the weapon restriction is less than its being made out to be. While it is more restrictive than the immediately preceding codex, its not much different than the way the 3.5 ed and 4th ed codex worked (as I illustrated previously). In the past you could get 1 special and 1 heavy weapon, or 2 special weapons (in which case both special weapons could be the same). Now you can get 2 special, 2 heavy or 1 special 1 heavy, with the restriction that the weapons selected can't be duplicated. That gives the unit way more flexibility than it had in those codexes, any way you slice it, but significantly less flexibility than they had in the immediately preceding edition (which is a book that everyone hated, ironically enough). No, you can't have 2 of the same special weapon like you could in the past, nor can you have 2 of the same heavy weapon (which you couldn't do at all until more recently), but you at least have the option of having a second heavy weapon if you want it.

2 types of cultists now, plus a new HQ, so that’s a step forward.

But no traitor guard and the cultists have limitations relative to the number of CSM squads in the book, so its all bad, apparently.

HQ options being removed is probably the biggest issue IMHO but I don’t recall seeing many take Aspiring Champions at all. What HQ are people really thinking of using? Lords, DPs, discos, MoP, warpsmith. In todays limited spots for characters I’m not sure the champ would have been taken anyway. Will probably use mine in a chosen squad.

The primary complaint here is loss of jump pack options and loss of flexible wargear loadouts for several of the character options (EXALTED champions being locked into one specific build rather than having a few weapon swaps they could choose from).

My full chainfist Terminator squad, and the other one that's all double lightning claws.

If you mix and match a bit here (and maybe squint a little) you might be able to get one usable unit out of these.

See, I’m not buying all of the “my models can no longer be used” line. I have older chaos marines too, and they just need to be retasked. Multiple aspiring champions? Guess what leads each legionaries squad? Or put them in a chosen squad if you don’t want them to do that. Legionary aspiring champs can take daemon blades (great name for a lightning claw if you’ve modeled one), as well as your typical mix of fist, mail, sword etc. Have a pair of claws on one, stick him in a chosen squad, or two of them if you go 10 strong.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently. It’s not like we don’t just have extra models sat around as options and expect to use all the models all the time.

Agreed. It really seems like if you are using marines from 3rd through 5th (maybe 6th/7th too, took a break round that time don't have the codex for reference) era your collection generally shouldn't be too badly effected (you might have some extra special weapons though). It wasn't really until more recently that many of the options currently being discussed came into being.

Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.

Amen.

Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.

To be fair, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, the fact that its *not* in the kit makes me reluctant to make use of that option, lest it be removed in the future for not being in the kit.

Shadowspear came with a Chaos Space Marine lugging around an Autocannon in your regular CSM squad.

That covers one of two options available, but the shadowspear kit is OOP and no longer available, so its still not in the kit that CSM players can go out and buy today.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Right, right.....

Mind going over how many of each Combi-Weapon Terminators can take real quick?

What has that got to do with the special/heavy weapons in chaos marine squads?

chaos0xomega wrote:


No, I have shown repeatedly that I'm not chicken little throwing an internet temper tantrum.

Grow up, move on.

Why do you care so much? lol, take your own advice and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Right, right.....

Mind going over how many of each Combi-Weapon Terminators can take real quick?

What has that got to do with the special/heavy weapons in chaos marine squads?

Im not sure that has anything to do with it, but its a good question.

I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

BrianDavion wrote:
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

Yeah, I could see that happening. But, they could add rules for Xenos factions. They're up to the Siege, so, Scouring is next, right? Eldar, Orks, etc would be coming back, what with the Imperium in shambles and everything. I could definitely see that happening as well. All it would take is gw seeing some $$$$ in it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

Yeah, I could see that happening. But, they could add rules for Xenos factions. They're up to the Siege, so, Scouring is next, right? Eldar, Orks, etc would be coming back, what with the Imperium in shambles and everything. I could definitely see that happening as well. All it would take is gw seeing some $$$$ in it.

War of the beast could have some great ork content

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
War of the beast could have some great ork content

And it isn't HH, in fact, it's two thousand years after the Scouring let alone the Heresy. People seem to forget an awful lot that the Legions were turned into Chapters only 4 years post-Heresy and even during the Scouring they were very much not Legions anymore.
I don't mind if people want to use HH as a way to play the Great Crusade, I always wanted to try it with the old ruleset but anything post-Heresy just isn't on the cards.

 Gert wrote:

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
War of the beast could have some great ork content

And it isn't HH, in fact, it's two thousand years after the Scouring let alone the Heresy. People seem to forget an awful lot that the Legions were turned into Chapters only 4 years post-Heresy and even during the Scouring they were very much not Legions anymore.
I don't mind if people want to use HH as a way to play the Great Crusade, I always wanted to try it with the old ruleset but anything post-Heresy just isn't on the cards.

Fair enough, I dont know that much about the lore post heresy, pre 40k.

Essentially, anything after the Heresy (i.e. after the Emperor gets throned and Horus dies) is 40k.
From the Betrayal at Isstvan and the Burning of Prospero until the end of the Siege of Terra is HH.
Pre-Isstvan and Prospero is the Great Crusade.

It's a common misconception due to the fact that a lot of people refer to HH as 30k as it is related to 40k which makes it easier for 40k people to have a brief understanding of what it is. The issue is that 30k is technically every single event from 01.M31 until 999.M40 which encompasses more of the events in 40k than in the years of 001.M41 onwards.

 thepowerfulwill wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


No, I have shown repeatedly that I'm not chicken little throwing an internet temper tantrum.

Grow up, move on.

Why do you care so much? lol, take your own advice and move on.

Because when I say I like the codex, I get called a shill, etc. by mouthbreathers and neckbears with zero perspective beyond their own small minds.

I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

Yeah, I could see that happening. But, they could add rules for Xenos factions. They're up to the Siege, so, Scouring is next, right? Eldar, Orks, etc would be coming back, what with the Imperium in shambles and everything. I could definitely see that happening as well. All it would take is gw seeing some $$$$ in it.

In addition to what Gert said, you need to separate the novels from the game - the novels are up to the siege, but the game is nowhere close to that yet. We don't have daemon primarchs or any of the hallmarks of the late Heresy era yet (other than arguably Mk6 armor, but even Mk6 armor wasn't as "late war" as its made out to be). Rumors indicate that GW is going to spend quite some time releasing campaign books for 30k covering different campaigns and conflicts running the length and breadth of the heresy (with an Istvaan book being among those rumored), so Siege doesn't appear to be coming soon, nor does Scouring for that matter. On that note, the game may not be configured for the Scouring as some sources indicate that the adoption of the Codex Astartes occurred during the scouring itself, which would mean the legion based faction structure that the game currently has wouldn't entirely work for that period. The Great Crusade is a more likely candidate for expansion, I think, as it allows for the inclusion of new and existing xenos factions with limited inclusion of some of the existing ones, but even that might not happen because why compete a side project against your flagship?

chaos0xomega wrote:
... by mouthbreathers and neckbears with zero perspective beyond their own small minds.

You are really not doing yourself any favours here. Denial of stark reality is making you crazy.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.

Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.

DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.

40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.

Simplification only works if you simplify everything.

If you cut down on unique weaponry for a unit by reducing all its unique melee weapons into a single generic profile, but then at the same time go and put weird sprue-based limitations on all the combi-weapons and non-generic melee weapons, then you haven't simplified anything, you've just created a new complicated inconsistency.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Simplification only works if you simplify everything.

If you cut down on unique weaponry for a unit by reducing all its unique melee weapons into a single generic profile, but then at the same time go and put weird sprue-based limitations on all the combi-weapons and non-generic melee weapons, then you haven't simplified anything, you've just created a new complicated inconsistency.

This.

I was watching WintersSEO stream earlier and he was talking about WYSIWYG, and how that's effectively gone in 40k 9th ed as it stands. One Leman Russ tank may be a regular tank, but another, built the same way and with the same loadout and with no particular painting to set it differently, might be a Tank Commander, or Tank Ace. One squad of Kabalites are just Warriors. The other are Trueborn. One squad of Chaos Marines has the Icon of Wrath. The other has the Icon of Despair. There's no god-specific icons in the base kit. You just declare which one is which.

And of course we can apparently apply that to melee weapons on Terminators and Chosen, but only sometimes, and a Chosen Power Fist is an Accursed weapon, but not a Terminator Power fist or a Raptor Power Fist. It spits in the face of WYSIWYG, so why not just go all the way and apply it to ranged weapons as well?

It's really weird that GW would do this half-measure, going against one of their oldest held concepts to take modeling and apply rules to it. Without WYSIWYG, a lot of things simply cease being important.

But then, I'm 100% for simplifying the entire game. Get rid of all the ridiculous ways that one thing could count as A, B, or C. Bring back WYSIWYG so you don't run into more of those 'feels bad' or 'gotcha' moments.

Also, whenever chaos0x posts, I just skip past the entire thing and save myself a lot of time.

I'm a fan of converting every model to have every weapon, then they can never say you're wrong!

Gert wrote:

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
War of the beast could have some great ork content

And it isn't HH, in fact, it's two thousand years after the Scouring let alone the Heresy. People seem to forget an awful lot that the Legions were turned into Chapters only 4 years post-Heresy and even during the Scouring they were very much not Legions anymore.
I don't mind if people want to use HH as a way to play the Great Crusade, I always wanted to try it with the old ruleset but anything post-Heresy just isn't on the cards.

Ok. I was just trying to think of a way that Xenos players could get to play their armies in what is, IMHO, a far better ruleset. But I'm sure they'll be fanmade stuff for that. But gw could put them in a Crusade era book, or a "Xenos Hordes" style book. Just because the Orks and Eldar are a bit "suppressed" in the Crusade/Heresy era doesn't mean that they can't still be kicking about and causing trouble.

JNAProductions wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.

Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.

DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.

40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.

Aye. "Complex" doesn't necessarily mean "Deep". Right now 40k is very complex, but it isn't deep.

I think 40k's fairly deep right now - certainly the deepest its ever been. The problem is its sufficiently deep its hard to have a conversation about it.

For example (with a nod to Reddit), "should you take a sorcerer?" Well you can say "nah, Dark Hereticus is inferior to Malefic, MoP 4 Life", the sorcerer therefore sucks.

Which seems a legitimate response. Although some additional ranged mortal wound output may supplement heavily melee skewed lists. You'd probably want to look at the meta and decide how valuable Death Hex is. Warptime may also be useful because of how objectives and secondaries work etc.

Which is where a lot of the depth is. If you want someone to do Warpcraft Secondaries, you probably don't want it to be your Master of Possession. You want them free to be doing their powers rather than losing them on psychic actions - so an additional sorcerer is potentially of interest. But this requires a judgement of whether Warpcraft Secondaries are worth it (and therefore whether you should build your list to achieve them). Is this an absolute judgement - or do you consider your opponent, how easily they can deny you etc (which I feel is what you should do)?

And if they are worth going for, do you instead want a Daemon Prince, or the Dark Commune (when its out) to stand in for this job? The Daemon Prince after all only gives up one cast when it does an action rather than 2. But then a tricked out daemon prince is getting pricy - approaching double the points of the Sorcerer.

All of this is complexity - and I think depth - but its also hard to offer a view on without lots of experience (which I don't think anyone has yet, due to new rules, new book, etc).

Its certainly deeper than "take the best mathhammer units, throw them at each other, see what the dice decide, last model standing by turn 5-7 wins."

You're confusing depth with breadth.

Tyel wrote:
I think 40k's fairly deep right now - certainly the deepest its ever been. The problem is its sufficiently deep its hard to have a conversation about it.

For example (with a nod to Reddit), "should you take a sorcerer?" Well you can say "nah, Dark Hereticus is inferior to Malefic, MoP 4 Life", the sorcerer therefore sucks.

Which seems a legitimate response. Although some additional ranged mortal wound output may supplement heavily melee skewed lists. You'd probably want to look at the meta and decide how valuable Death Hex is. Warptime may also be useful because of how objectives and secondaries work etc.

I mean yeah it does suck - out of six powers maybe two are usable, so you just bring a second MoP.

Death Hex is great but it's a difficult to cast power which will necessitate either a re-roll (or the use of the WB autocast strat). A single model purely to cast one power is a terrible deal.

Likewise Warptime is indeed now a 'may be useful' power (because it was massively nerfed into the ground, and is no longer always useful, it is now sometimes useful).

Compare this with a MoP where nearly every power is useful.

There's very little 'depth' because you can just take a second MoP. You're paying a total of 10 points more to get a figure which is just outright better in every conceivable way.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.

DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.

40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.

Conversations might be more constructive if we could remove the judgement words.

Chess and Go are remarkable games, and I agree with your point that depth is something to strive for.

But Complexity also has it's place. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it's bad, just because something is simple doesn't mean it's good. While that may not have been the precise point you were looking to make, it can certainly come across that way.

Personally, I'm with HMBC about the new Codex. It's incoherent. The simple / complex paradigm doesn't apply, GW didn't move the book in one direction or the other. It feels like they tried to improve over 8th edition with stat boosts while handicapping lists with restrictions on loadouts.

If anything, it's uneven. That doesn't mean it's a terrible book, or that it's unplayable. It just doesn't succeed on all levels.

 JNAProductions wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.

I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.

Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.

DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.

40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.

I didn't say it was a good thing, nor did I praise it? Like, what would make you think that I was doing so? Other dude said that he thought 40k was being simplified, I pointed out that the game is more complex now than its ever been. Thats not a value judgement about whether or not complexity, etc. is a good thing, merely a statement that the game isn't simple and theres no indication of it being simplified.

(That being said, there is a difference between complexity and complication - complexity can be good if its implemented in the right places using the right means, complication is never good)

Also, whenever chaos0x posts, I just skip past the entire thing and save myself a lot of time.

Your loss. You can just put me on ignore and save yourself the trouble though.

I wonder what new units will the World Eaters have. Im obsessed with this particular paragraph:

That’s not all – the codex will contain old favourites, dark legends, and some things that you’ve never seen before…

I supose Angron counts as an old favorite, but, what will the dark legends be? Will we finally see khornegors?

(sorry, I mistook the subforum)

 blood reaper wrote:
I mean yeah it does suck - out of six powers maybe two are usable, so you just bring a second MoP.

Death Hex is great but it's a difficult to cast power which will necessitate either a re-roll (or the use of the WB autocast strat). A single model purely to cast one power is a terrible deal.

Likewise Warptime is indeed now a 'may be useful' power (because it was massively nerfed into the ground, and is no longer always useful, it is now sometimes useful).

Compare this with a MoP where nearly every power is useful.

There's very little 'depth' because you can just take a second MoP. You're paying a total of 10 points more to get a figure which is just outright better in every conceivable way.

That's a fair argument. The sorcerer could have probably done with some special rules to make him stand out. I guess I could switch to the Sorcerer in Terminator armour, as you can get a combi weapon and familiar.

But I was really trying to make the point that secondary selection, and its implications on list building, isn't that shallow.

Tyel wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
I mean yeah it does suck - out of six powers maybe two are usable, so you just bring a second MoP.

Death Hex is great but it's a difficult to cast power which will necessitate either a re-roll (or the use of the WB autocast strat). A single model purely to cast one power is a terrible deal.

Likewise Warptime is indeed now a 'may be useful' power (because it was massively nerfed into the ground, and is no longer always useful, it is now sometimes useful).

Compare this with a MoP where nearly every power is useful.

There's very little 'depth' because you can just take a second MoP. You're paying a total of 10 points more to get a figure which is just outright better in every conceivable way.

That's a fair argument. The sorcerer could have probably done with some special rules to make him stand out. I guess I could switch to the Sorcerer in Terminator armour, as you can get a combi weapon and familiar.

But I was really trying to make the point that secondary selection, and its implications on list building, isn't that shallow.

Honestly though, that last sentence IS part of the issue, when you can just solve that issue in the list building stage then, well we aren't looking at a mechanically deep game.
Further it just highlights the 10/10 GW design, last edition Sorcerers > MoP, this time around MoP > sorcerer.
meanwhile the decision should rest within the rest of the army, if i field daemonkin i should expect the MoP being superior to a sorcerer, if i don't field daemonkin i should expect the sorcerer to be superior.
On the field that should be then decided in the specific situation, not by merely checking the lists of the spells and pts and what i field.

Also, MoP not having the option to buy wings and removed jumppack is still annoying. but that is a whole other debate, but i think if players wanted to not merely run possessed but rather a big flock of Warp talons then the later would be a welcome addition. Alas options are for suckers, here do you want another warlord trait instead?

Garrac wrote:
I wonder what new units will the World Eaters have. Im obsessed with this particular paragraph:

That’s not all – the codex will contain old favourites, dark legends, and some things that you’ve never seen before…

I supose Angron counts as an old favorite, but, what will the dark legends be? Will we finally see khornegors?

(sorry, I mistook the subforum)

Heh. We don't really have a WE thread yet. Want me to rename this one to "Chaos News and Rumours" ?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ok. I was just trying to think of a way that Xenos players could get to play their armies in what is, IMHO, a far better ruleset. But I'm sure they'll be fanmade stuff for that. But gw could put them in a Crusade era book, or a "Xenos Hordes" style book. Just because the Orks and Eldar are a bit "suppressed" in the Crusade/Heresy era doesn't mean that they can't still be kicking about and causing trouble.

It always sounds really pretentious when I say it and I really don't mean it that way. It's more just down to the fact that while absolutely during the Great Crusade mankind was fighting Xenos and human enclaves by the dozen, the reason the Heresy was important was the "brother vs brother" idea of the conflict. Humanity was able to have this monumental civil war because the various Xenos were beaten and not a threat.
Even the Scouring was about getting rid of those who sided with Horus and the only direct conflict with Xenos mentioned in the period is when the Khan goes missing chasing some Drukhari into the Webway.
I'm opposed to Xenos in HH from a background perspective and just tend to get a bit irritated when people say Xenos were involved when they very clearly weren't.

Garrac wrote:
I wonder what new units will the World Eaters have. Im obsessed with this particular paragraph:

That’s not all – the codex will contain old favourites, dark legends, and some things that you’ve never seen before…

I supose Angron counts as an old favorite, but, what will the dark legends be? Will we finally see khornegors?

I'd expect "old favorites" would refer to units we've already had miniatures and rules for, like Berzerkers and Juggernaut cavalry. "Dark legends" would be more fitting for Angron, or perhaps one of the Khorne daemon engines like the Blood Slaughterer, Brass Scorpion, or Cauldron of Blood. And the final third is for completely newly-invented units without prior appearances in the spinoff games or backstory.

 Gert wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ok. I was just trying to think of a way that Xenos players could get to play their armies in what is, IMHO, a far better ruleset. But I'm sure they'll be fanmade stuff for that. But gw could put them in a Crusade era book, or a "Xenos Hordes" style book. Just because the Orks and Eldar are a bit "suppressed" in the Crusade/Heresy era doesn't mean that they can't still be kicking about and causing trouble.

It always sounds really pretentious when I say it and I really don't mean it that way. It's more just down to the fact that while absolutely during the Great Crusade mankind was fighting Xenos and human enclaves by the dozen, the reason the Heresy was important was the "brother vs brother" idea of the conflict. Humanity was able to have this monumental civil war because the various Xenos were beaten and not a threat.
Even the Scouring was about getting rid of those who sided with Horus and the only direct conflict with Xenos mentioned in the period is when the Khan goes missing chasing some Drukhari into the Webway.
I'm opposed to Xenos in HH from a background perspective and just tend to get a bit irritated when people say Xenos were involved when they very clearly weren't.

I completely understand your position. I just want as many people to get to play with the HH rules as possible, and everyone doesn't dig marines. So, maybe early Crusade rules?