Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 12:32 PM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM
You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."

Ah, I thought so - you're hedging your argument.  "An army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."  The question then becomes: exactly how much is "more?"  Lemme guess - enough that an army doesn't need its own special rules (unless it does).

Ok.  Does it make sense that while a "normal" marine in terminator armor is slower than one in power armor (terminators can only consolidate) a rubric marine in terminator armor is actually faster?  Does it make sense that while rubric marines in power armor are steady enough to provide stable firing platforms for their bolters, rubric marines in terminator armor are not (terminators don't count as stationary for firing rapid fire weapons)?  Does it make sense that while in "normal" armies terminators are elite troops who are less likely than their power armored comrades to flee in the face of danger (terminators have Ld10), in the Thousand Sons' army terminators are actually infinitely more likely to run away?  Does it make sense that they apparently only assign sorcerers with no psychic powers to lead their "elite" terminator units?

I dunno... maybe in Thousand Sons armies leading terminators is actually a punishment so they only assign them to the most cowardly inexperienced sorcerers?  Maybe the rubric interacted with the terminator armor's inertial damping systems in unpredictable ways, causing rubric terminators constantly to expel malodorous puffs of magical pink flatulence?  Yeah, that sounds about right.  This flatulence must also propel them across the battlefield at speeds higher than any mere power armored rubric could dream of achieving (if they could dream).  Unfortunately their flatulent fecundity adversely affects their utility as a stable firing platform - their incessant gaseous emanations jostle their otherwise sturdy frames with such violence that the accuracy of their bolter fire inevitably suffers.  I guess that makes sense.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 2:04 PM
Let's take Salamanders as an example.  You can use C:SM to approximate a Salamander's force, but outside of a couple traits and a paint scheme, there are no Salamander specific rules (like Initiative 3).

Does the Salamander's chapter no longer exist because the Armageddon codex rules are invalid?

The Salamander chapter still exists.  The Salamander army does not.

But more specifically, tac squads with the option for a multi-melta or a 2nd flamer still exist (for now).  Terminator squads with mixed sb/pf and th/ss terminators do not.  Artificer armor for non-ICs still exists (for now).  Signums for non-techmarines do not.  Salamanders (Adamantium) Mantle still exists.  Reinforced ceramite does not.  Assault squads with flamers still exist (for now).  Predators with heavy flamer sponsons do not.  Fury of the Salamander (Ancients) still exists.  Sturdy does not.  Never Give Up (Despair) still exists (for now).  Self-reliant does not.

Now look at, say, Thousand Sons.  Thousand Sons rubric squads still exist.  Everything else does not.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

3. What did you really expect from LatD?

Well, a cultist unit with the option to upgrade to mutants as a troops choice would have been nice.  You know, maybe just a single unit entry to represent the troops that comprise the overwhelming majority of Chaos forces in the 41st Millenium and that have been part of the Chaos list since 1st edition (with Chapter Approved rules for use with Chaos codex 3.0 and LatD for 3.5).  Of course I didn't really expect that, but that's just because I never expect GW to not disappoint.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

As to your second point.  Lash is bad, we all can agree.  But is it really any different that the cookie-cutter Siren Lists, IW pie-plate spam, or Daemon-Bomb armies we saw before?

Actually, yes.  Whereas before you had cookie-cutter Siren, IW, and Daemonbomb (3 lists), now you just have Fzorgle (1 list).  3 is bigger than 1.  I learned that in school!

Of course this is not surprising.  GW has demonstrated on numerous occasions their inability to internally balance a list - which inevitably results in a single optimal build for the list in question.  So naturally: 1 list + 0 sublists = only 1 optimal list.  I suppose the real anomaly was that they actually managed 3 optimal lists in the previous codex in first place.  That puts Pete Haines ahead of the curve in a way.  Wow.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

You're pissed, we get it.

You bet I'm pissed!  Just look at my avatar!  That's the face I made when I read the new Chaos codex!  

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

and please don't be predictably sarcastic and respond with, "Positives like generic daemons,  Lash, no legions, etc. ad nauseum...

I generally try to be unpredictably sarcastic.  I think it's more entertaining that way.

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 8:08 PM
I don't think anyone is ignoring fzorgle. We all know how bad it is. But like holofields, it would be a really simple fix, and could just be a "misprint" like Oblits were in the old dex.

Fixed your typo.

Only now do I realize how much I prefer Pete Haines' "misprints" to Gav Thorpe's "brainfarts."

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 8:08 PM
The proof is in the pudding as they say. If it isn't fixed, and the codex isn't somewhat balanced, then everything I have said is moot. I have always said it is a wait and see. Hard to see where things are going without a little more under our belts. They have to prove to us they can do it....

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:30 PM
How long should we "wait and see" before declaring this codex crap?  1 year?  2 years?  Until the 5th edition Chaos codex?  Forever?  An incomplete is not a passing grade.

And to all those players who want to play a "balanced game" you know what! Go play chess!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:30 PM
 An incomplete is not a passing grade.

Abby, you actually used my line?

Cats and dogs living together...MASS HYSTERIA!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:04 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

As to your second point.  Lash is bad, we all can agree.  But is it really any different that the cookie-cutter Siren Lists, IW pie-plate spam, or Daemon-Bomb armies we saw before?

Actually, yes.  Whereas before you had cookie-cutter Siren, IW, and Daemonbomb (3 lists), now you just have Fzorgle (1 list).  3 is bigger than 1.  I learned that in school!

Of course this is not surprising.  GW has demonstrated on numerous occasions their inability to internally balance a list - which inevitably results in a single optimal build for the list in question.  So naturally: 1 list + 0 sublists = only 1 optimal list.  I suppose the real anomaly was that they actually managed 3 optimal lists in the previous codex in first place.  That puts Pete Haines ahead of the curve in a way.  Wow.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/30/2007 11:57 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:04 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 1:55 PM

As to your second point.  Lash is bad, we all can agree.  But is it really any different that the cookie-cutter Siren Lists, IW pie-plate spam, or Daemon-Bomb armies we saw before?

Actually, yes.  Whereas before you had cookie-cutter Siren, IW, and Daemonbomb (3 lists), now you just have Fzorgle (1 list).  3 is bigger than 1.  I learned that in school!

Of course this is not surprising.  GW has demonstrated on numerous occasions their inability to internally balance a list - which inevitably results in a single optimal build for the list in question.  So naturally: 1 list + 0 sublists = only 1 optimal list.  I suppose the real anomaly was that they actually managed 3 optimal lists in the previous codex in first place.  That puts Pete Haines ahead of the curve in a way.  Wow.

So, in other words, the old codex is 3x as broken as this one.  The old one had 3 broken list builds, this one has 1.  3 is 3x bigger than 1.  I learned that in school.

So Pete Haines is 3x as bad as Gav Thorpe in writing lists as he allowed for 3 broken lists and Gav only designed 1. 

A coin always has two sides.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/30/2007 11:57 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 11:04 PM

Actually, yes.  Whereas before you had cookie-cutter Siren, IW, and Daemonbomb (3 lists), now you just have Fzorgle (1 list).  3 is bigger than 1.  I learned that in school!

Of course this is not surprising.  GW has demonstrated on numerous occasions their inability to internally balance a list - which inevitably results in a single optimal build for the list in question.  So naturally: 1 list + 0 sublists = only 1 optimal list.  I suppose the real anomaly was that they actually managed 3 optimal lists in the previous codex in first place.  That puts Pete Haines ahead of the curve in a way.  Wow.

So, in other words, the old codex is 3x as broken as this one.  The old one had 3 broken list builds, this one has 1.  3 is 3x bigger than 1.  I learned that in school.

So Pete Haines is 3x as bad as Gav Thorpe in writing lists as he allowed for 3 broken lists and Gav only designed 1. 

A coin always has two sides.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I think you have accomplished something I didn't believe would ever occur.

In 15 years of exploring the internet's gaming forum, this may be quite possibly the dumbest forum post I have ever read and may have even managed to surpase the intellectual failures of usenet on rec.gaming.mecha.

Why do you insist on trying to top every bad post you make with something that is worse?The new book fails to give longterm players anything they wanted, which was choice. It replaces that with a single worthwhile list with less deviation then any of the above choices. Daemon bomb had at least three variants that could work and could be tooled as a secondary portion of a larger force.  Even the Iron warriors had more variation then we can expect to see in the near future.

Posted By Polonius on 08/30/2007 12:30 PM
I think it's pretty clear that the relentless defenders of the new chaos codex have simply become advocates, and plan on relentlessly responding to any criticism of it with vigor, if not precision.

Personally, I'm not even convinced they even like, or care about the new codex, some people just enjoy advocacy.

Posted By Polonius on 08/30/2007 12:30 PM
I think it's pretty clear that the relentless defenders of the new chaos codex have simply become advocates, and plan on relentlessly responding to any criticism of it with vigor, if not precision.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/30/2007 1:32 PM
Wow, I repeat Abby's words back to him and suddenly I am the stupidest person on the interwebs and my opinion is meaningless. I thought this was a discussion, not everyone patting themselves on the back for making fun of GW.

You are right that I don't play Chaos, I've never pretended I did. My main intent is to get people to "move on" cause *female dog*in ain't changing anything and its getting rather tiresome to hear the same old, same old. There is some nice stuff in the new codex and as a whole, is a lot more internally balanced than the last (not perfect, but I've come not to expect perfection from mainstream 40k).

Dakkites love to make fun of B&C because of the uniformity of opinion there but if someone dares to disagree in this thread they get hogtied and flamed. Seems a bit of a double-standard and many of you are guilty of the same crap that happens at B&C. If you all want to sit around for 45 pages and *female dog* and moan, fine, I'll leave you to wallow and pass the hanky around.

Yes I like GW for the most part. I'm self-confident enough to know that not everything they do they did just to screw me over. Do they have their problems, of course, and I point it out when I see it (like Fzorgle). What I can't accept is that the majority of Dakka isn't considerate enough to disagree with me without the ad hominem attacks. It shows your own lack of maturity (efarrer and HBMC, I'm looking at you both mostly on this one, at least Abby is somewhat funny) and quite frankly doesn't add anything to Dakka's reputation as a bunch of bitter a-holes.

This will be my last post on this thread. Apparently having a different opinion of the Chaos codex isn't allowed.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I'd like to apoligize. I slipped on the most recent post and left in one sentence, which I removed immediatly after posting.

Nothin else in that post was a personal attack. Your post was dumb. I commented on how I felt about the post, and pointed out the way in which I felt the loss of options affect the codex.

Am I bitter? Perhaps. It happens from time to time. I ssupect I'll play Confrontation for the next while and see how I feel about GW in the spring. For the first time I can recall I won't be buying this book when it comes out.

Have I played Chaos?  Yes. I have four chaos armies every power but one and a Word Bearers legion. I was very happy when the Index Astartes came out and modelled my army atround that (including 12 man squads). This new list will just be a return to the minmxing of the first book in 3rd ed. My thousand sons stand in front of my Juggernaut mounted Chaos lord, fear the wrath of Lord Minmax). There is one good list, and I loathe that. It feels like the high elf book in fantasy, where there is literally a single good 2000 point list.

Did I spend a lot of money on my Chaos armies? Yes.

Does it bother me that they changed the whole thing, and eliminated 5 years worth of work on my Word Bearers? Yes I am. I was irked 7 years ago when the Index Asartes article came out for the Word bearers (who until then simply worshipped all the chaos powers, and I had an army similar to the new book). I spent the money required after I removed the cult units and gradually built up a daemon force for the army, daemonettes horrors and blood letters. So I could use them as my mood hit me, as well as adding them onto my other chaos armies. Now, the daemons are crap, and an expense that was really uneeded, the best army is immediatly obvious to most players, and I really really don't like people saying that I should suck it up. And the word eliminated is correct. The daemons are unplayable.

Am I immature? Well, sometimes maybe I do not always react as well as I might.  I'll grant you that. I lose my temper from time to time. It's easier online where no one can see you smile. . Most of the time I stop and review my post. Sometimes I only notice a line I thought I'd removed after words have been submitted. I try to edit those as quickly as I can.

Posted By Toreador on 08/30/2007 2:42 PM
Have played, play against, and plan on playing TS in the new. I just dumped off the chaos stuff because everyone in the area was playing Chaos. Been wanting/planning TS for a very very long time. Didn't do it last dex because of how poor it all was.

I never really understood that. There were some different and oddly comptetive,  lists you could make with Thousand Sons in the last book, just no one ever chose to.

You just needed to approach it a bit differently. It wasn't the most competitive list but it was fun, just to be clear.

Cetainly it was more competive then a Thousand sons themed army in the 3.0 book or the 2ed codex (still have nightmares about Drain Warp or whatever that card was).