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.

Posted By The Power Cosmic on 08/14/2007 12:04 AM
From what I'm reading it seems people are justifying the neutering of the flavor of 40k because of tournaments.  I've thought this for years, but tourney play is killing what makes 40k great.  Variety.  Style.  Character.  Armies should be built on theme and background, not what will get you the best place in the next tournament.  With all the new codecies we are losing that.  No more Craftworlds, strictly built DA and BA armies where you have to take a specific character to get anything other than a bog standard army, and now the loss of the legions and daemons.

And what? We have tourneys to blame?  How ridiculous and frivolous.  So they're killing the game so that groups of nerds can get together an compare codpiece sizes?  And here I though that the elimination of the GT circuit would be a good thing.  Guess not.  GW is only feeding into that need for hamfisted competition for what reason?  Anyone?  Bueller?

If that's the only reason you play the game, then I don't think we could ever agree on anything.  For me, 40k is already dead.  This is just a dead horse to beat on a little more.  No, it's digging up its dead corpse and hanging it, then cutting off its head and having a firing squad take their aim. 

<raises a="" for="" pint=""></raises>

I used to think "maybe 5th edition."  Now I thinking more like 6th.

The thing is, in individual gaming groups players can always easily create and modify rules to suit their tastes. You and your buddies want to make a detailed Legion army list (or use the old rules)? You will!

What is much, much harder is to get a balanced game in a tournament setting. Many players *female dog* about comp scores being used in tournaments but they've been the stop-gap method to try to get players to play an army more closely resembling what the fluff portrays.

This is because all the older codices were purposely left wider open to allow themed players to build forces they liked but also supposedly to cater to tournament players as well.

Trying to cater to every type of player in a single army list is never every going to properly work, especially when the pressure remains to cram something new and exciting into each new iteration of the game.

To me, having a base set of army lists for tournament play and then branching out more into the fun side of things in supplements is ultimately the best idea GW has had in a long time.

Sure the birthing pains of waiting the 5 years for every codex to become streamlined is going to be a little bit odd, but I believe the payoff will indeed be a situation where you can enter a tournament or play a pick-up game and the GAME itself will matter just as much as the army lists being used.

 

 

Posted By The Power Cosmic on 08/14/2007 12:04 AM
From what I'm reading it seems people are justifying the neutering of the flavor of 40k because of tournaments.  I've thought this for years, but tourney play is killing what makes 40k great.  Variety.  Style.  Character.  Armies should be built on theme and background, not what will get you the best place in the next tournament.  With all the new codecies we are losing that.  No more Craftworlds, strictly built DA and BA armies where you have to take a specific character to get anything other than a bog standard army, and now the loss of the legions and daemons.

And what? We have tourneys to blame?  How ridiculous and frivolous.  So they're killing the game so that groups of nerds can get together an compare codpiece sizes?  And here I though that the elimination of the GT circuit would be a good thing.  Guess not.  GW is only feeding into that need for hamfisted competition for what reason?  Anyone?  Bueller?

If that's the only reason you play the game, then I don't think we could ever agree on anything.  For me, 40k is already dead.  This is just a dead horse to beat on a little more.  No, it's digging up its dead corpse and hanging it, then cutting off its head and having a firing squad take their aim. 

<raises a="" pint="" for="">+++raises a pint for 40k+++

I used to think "maybe 5th edition."  Now I thinking more like 6th.</raises>

Actually even though GW is working on balancing the game for tournament play they are also doing more to support playing outside of that format. (Cities if Death, Apocalypse)
Craftworlds aren't  gone
Legions aren't gone
Daemons aren't gone
DA and BA are specific chapters of Marines with Specific rules and  they can still have very different builds.
None of these things have disappeared they just work differently.
GW has finally recognized that a lot of their business comes from people who play in tournaments and from new players, as long as they continue to do supplements for vets players them I am glad that they are balancing things for tournaments it will make them more fun for the general players.

Haven't played a game of 40k in 2 years crew checkin in'.

How's it going guys? I stopped playing immediately after the 'synapse only protects against exactly double toughness' ruling. Even though they rapidly changed it, I realized that at any moment GW would make similarly terrible rulings that would continue to destroy their product. This latest chaos codex is yet another vindication of my decision.

Posted By vhwolf on 08/14/2007 12:25 AM

Craftworlds aren't  gone
Legions aren't gone
Daemons aren't gone
 
None of these things have disappeared they just work differently.

You're right.  Your Beil-Tan always take 3 Falcons because they are piloted by Guardians who have not yet begun to walk the Path of the Warrior, while my Iyanden always take 3 Falcons because they are piloted by elder spirits in Waystones, who appear to have Guardian BS but actually don't shoot as well as their Wraithguard and Wraithlord brethren because they have to concentrate on piloting the tank while shooting.   I'm also happy that the two Demon Princes in your Deathguard army can take the Lash of Affliction, and the two Demon Princes in my 1K Sons army can take the Lash of Metamorphosis.  All four have higher intitative because they're all really fast--hey, they're demons!  And most importantly, I understand that your Nuglings have T4 because they are small and hard to hit, while my Flamers have T4 because they are larger and bulkier.

You're right.  Craftworlds, Legions, and Demons do still exist: they just play differently.  Hooray for the new Codex!

Craftworlds, legions and demons are now color schemes.  So what's the point?  I don't want my blue chaos marines to play the same as my friend's red ones.  Might as well just leave them grey so you can change what they are every game.
Maybe I've just been spoiled with a really awesome gaming group.  Yes, some have been in tourneys, but most of the time when we played it was with fluffy, interesting armies that did more than just capitalize on rulebook loopholes.  And it's not like there won't be rules loopholes now anyway!  This is GW we're talking about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 3rd edition was perfect, but they're taking this game in the wrong direction.  Squeezing out all the in-game customization and leaving different colored marines and spikey marines is a horrible idea.  The richness of 40k fluff deserves to be recognized in-game.  And not just by what color your marines are.

And Lord Yak, I'm well acquainted with custom rules.  Under 3rd edition I wrote 2 versions of a codex for my DIY chapter, made complete Primarch rules, wrote a Rebel Grotz codex, played with converting 40k into a Mordheim style, and ran two Necromunda campaigns.  Plus I game with one of the guys who did a lot of work on the General's Compendium.  Needless to say, he came up with a few things too.  Thing is, it's a lot of work and I never really got to play them much inside my group, let alone outside of it.  I don't know.  Feeling like the professionals are doing a worse job than us amateurs is a disturbing thought.

The thing I'm working on now is a direct answer to my problems with 40k.  They'll be out soon enough.

Edit: Exalt BigChris!

Posted By bigchris1313 on 08/14/2007 12:43 AM

Posted By vhwolf on 08/14/2007 12:25 AM

Craftworlds aren't  gone
Legions aren't gone
Daemons aren't gone
 
None of these things have disappeared they just work differently.

You're right.  Your Beil-Tan always take 3 Falcons because they are piloted by Guardians who have not yet begun to walk the Path of the Warrior, while my Iyanden always take 3 Falcons because they are piloted by elder spirits in Waystones, who appear to have Guardian BS but actually don't shoot as well as their Wraithguard and Wraithlord brethren because they have to concentrate on piloting the tank while shooting.   I'm also happy that the two Demon Princes in your Deathguard army can take the Lash of Afflication, and the two Demon Princes in my 1K Sons army can take the Lash of Metamorphosis.  All four have higher intitative because they're all really fast--hey, they're demons!  And most importantly, I understand that your Nuglings have T4 because they are small and hard to hit, while my Flamers have T4 because they are larger and bulkier.

You're right.  Craftworlds, Legions, and Demons do still exist: they just play differently.  Hooray for the new Codex!

Actually my Beil-Tan don't have falcon grave tanks and neither do my Iyanden my Uthwee does have Fire Prisms and My Sam -Haim uses mostly Vipers, The only Chaos army I have with a Daemon prince is my Word Bearers and he is the Belakor model. My Death Gaurd do have a Terminator lord that sometimes is Typhus, My 1000 sons Have a sorcerr that sometimes is Arihman. My World Eaters are led by a Lord on a Juggernaut or by A lord who looks like Karn and sometimes is Karn. What I am saying is that My Craftworlds, and Legions aren't defined by rules they are defined by the models I play with and the time I have put into collecting and painting them.  Oh  and my  White Scars  are all on bikes  with BP  CCW   played as Regular bike troops  with Three Land Speeders added to the mix (no matter what people might think I have only lost two games with them since the new codex came out and I completly changed my tactics)

Posted By vhwolf on 08/14/2007 1:02 AM

Actually my Beil-Tan don't have falcon grave tanks and neither do my Iyanden my Uthwee does have Fire Prisms and My Sam -Haim uses mostly Vipers...

But you're not playing Beil-Tan or Ulthwe as these army lists don't exist any more. You're playing Codex: Eldar. That's all you're playing. There are no Seer Councils, Courts of the Young King or Wild Rider Chieftans. There are Farseers, Avatars and Autarch's on Bikes.

There are no Death Guard Daemon Princes, Emperor's Children Sorcerers or Berzerker Bikers. There are Daemon Princes with the Mark of Nurgle, Sorcerers with the Mark of Slaanesh and Bikes with the Mark of Khorne.

There are no Screamers, no Nurglings, no Bloodletters and no Daemonette Cavalry. There are generic Daemons with one staline to rule them all and a different paintjob/model.

Stop trying to say that Craftworlds, Legions and Daemons still exist in these new Codices. Stop trying to say you can still play Word Bearers or Iyanden. You can't. What you can do is play Codex: Eldar and paint them like an Iyanden army. You can also play Codex: Chaos and paint them like Word Bearers. But they're not those armies any more. They don't exist in the rules anymore. Please stop pretending they do.

BYE

I found this post over in the general forum, and I thought I'd share it with you:

I'm starting to think that my review/deconstruction might actually be bang on the money.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/14/2007 1:39 AM
Stop trying to say that Craftworlds, Legions and Daemons still exist in these new Codices. Stop trying to say you can still play Word Bearers or Iyanden. You can't. What you can do is play Codex: Eldar and paint them like an Iyanden army. You can also play Codex: Chaos and paint them like Word Bearers. But they're not those armies any more. They don't exist in the rules anymore. Please stop pretending they do.

BYE

  I play Ultramarines.  We haven't had our own Codex since second edition, but we're still the Ultramarines. 

Frankly, I don't much care about the Legion special rules, but I (as an owner of both Realm of Chaos books) agree that they went too far with the daemons. 

Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what I meant by that.

And right now the Ultramarines have more special rules, units and characters than all the Word Beaers, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, Biel-Tan, Iyanden and Alaitoc rolled into one.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/14/2007 1:39 AM

Posted By vhwolf on 08/14/2007 1:02 AM

Actually my Beil-Tan don't have falcon grave tanks and neither do my Iyanden my Uthwee does have Fire Prisms and My Sam -Haim uses mostly Vipers...

But you're not playing Beil-Tan or Ulthwe as these army lists don't exist any more. You're playing Codex: Eldar. That's all you're playing. There are no Seer Councils, Courts of the Young King or Wild Rider Chieftans. There are Farseers, Avatars and Autarch's on Bikes.

There are no Death Guard Daemon Princes, Emperor's Children Sorcerers or Berzerker Bikers. There are Daemon Princes with the Mark of Nurgle, Sorcerers with the Mark of Slaanesh and Bikes with the Mark of Khorne.

There are no Screamers, no Nurglings, no Bloodletters and no Daemonette Cavalry. There are generic Daemons with one staline to rule them all and a different paintjob/model.

Stop trying to say that Craftworlds, Legions and Daemons still exist in these new Codices. Stop trying to say you can still play Word Bearers or Iyanden. You can't. What you can do is play Codex: Eldar and paint them like an Iyanden army. You can also play Codex: Chaos and paint them like Word Bearers. But they're not those armies any more. They don't exist in the rules anymore. Please stop pretending they do.

BYE

And there aren't and have never have been specialized rules for most of the variant army types mentioned in GW fluff over the years, but that doesn't mean the ideas don't exist, just that they don't have their own particular rules to represent them.

Any time you make a game you can decide what scale you want to focus on. I'm sure that if you are creating a historical wargame and you pick a country in the world and focus deeply enough you will find that the organization and customs of each individual town were different enough. You could then go and make a game with a thousand different Italian army lists (and I'm sure there are games out there that do it), but you don't have to. If your game covers many countries then you can just have a generic "Italian" army list.

Sure your game doesn't have the ability to play as each individual tribe but do you really need it to?

 

I will say again: The crime here is not that each individual legion doesn't have its own army list it's that they ever did and that the loyalist marine variants always will. For the core version of the game we really only should have a loyalist marine list and a Chaos list that are both generally malleable to represent most types of marine armies found on both sides.

Again, that's just my opinion of what would make 40K a better game playing experience (for me).

 

I think the review was spot on. Although I mainly collect GW miniatures for the enjoyment of modelling and painting, I do still play, and of course what I collect and paint mostly only has relevance if they follow the army rules they were intended to represent.

It is soul destroying to spend time and effort creating and army only to have the company that sold said army to you, to abandon you and crap over your efforts.

All that being said....GW is doing badly, we've seen the reports, we've seen the advertisments on their website ( Battle Brothers & Do you want to sell GW products )
this is not a company that can afford to ignore their customer base anymore......and yet, it seems they are still up to their old elitist tricks.

Vote with your wallet. Its the only way these companies understand their mistakes...when it hits them in the profit area!

Lets face it, GW fluff is generally ok, but the miniatures and the rules have been lacking for some time and can't keep up with the competition.

Its time to stop arguing amongst ourselves. There will be two types of future gamer, those who play WH40k and those that don't. I belive the group that doesn't play will soon be in the majority........

What we need to do now, is to spend our efforts finding and supporting an alternative system. Stop buying GW minis, rules, and stop giving them our time and attention.

Thankyou H.B.M.C. at last someone could be bothered to review the Codex for us.

Thats your defense of the new chaos book? One unit is chaotic therefore the book is ok?

Thats the dumbest arguement I've seen yet.

Sure, the old book had some broken units. And sure the new book is balanced.

But its SO boring to play it looks like, and has sucked all the life out of chaos. Its not worth my time to convert and build were I to play chaos. Its just not.

and no matter how balanced it is.....as someone said, without the global reset, its not worth playing with a handful of balanced books with 2-4 other armies are not.

Yakface has some very good points, and frankly, they echo the complaints from the end of 3rd ed. A number of the codicies were out of control, Chaos being the worst offender, and there were numerous complaints about Marines.

4th edition began to reemphasize the problem: the Black Tome was great, but you had at least two 'dexes that ignored most of the emphasis on leadership etc.

I'm not saying it's good for Chaos--in large measure they threw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. They could have made them, as was suggested above, mixed 'dexes of daemons, marines and cultists/renegades (sort of the ancillary to the Daemon/Witchhunter books), with crazy but balanced units. On the other hand, Jervis & Co. is clearly responding to the complaints that have come down the pike about over the top lists.

Oh, and while the SM: Redux has been dropped as a 'release' per se, I wouldn't be surprised if the next printing of Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars have a few 'modifications' in them, a la 3.5 Chaos Codex printings...

Posted By yakface on 08/13/2007 11:15 PM

 

Personally, I am so very happy to see this new codex and I cannot wait until they get around to "blandizing" (tm) every single codex.

I don't feel that condensing deamons into a single troop type is an insult to me, especially since they will be getting a seperate codex in the future.

The insult to me was the last Chaos codex and the absolutely ridiculous armies that it allowed to be fielded. The insult to me was the fact that there were rules for every single legion when there ultimately doesn't need to me.

The real insult to me is the fact that there are (or will be) at least five separate codices for loyalist Space Marines, not the fact that Chaos doesn't get five separate books.

There needed to be at maximum two separate books on loyalist marines: codex marines & wacky marines. Unfortunately the die has long been cast on how many loyalist codices there would be, but suddenly giving Chaos equal treatment wouldn't make the game better, it would just flood the game with even more MEQ codices.

The simple truth is that less options in an army list means less chances for abuse. Anyone is free to disagree with that basic premise but I firmly believe it to be true.

When Jervis said they will be moving the codices towards more of a balanced tournament 1,500 point focus and leave more of the fun stuff to supplements (like Apocalypse) they clearly meant it, and I for one am very, very, very, very, very, very pleased.

So while some folks clearly feel the need to fetch their pitchforks and torches out to storm the GW castle. . .I for one have long been waiting for this day!

 

 

 

 

Good post (And I'm not saying that because you're the new owner)

I never understood why people allow new rules to raise their blood pressure.  The only sense I can make out of it is that they are tournament players only? 

I just want to say the Half Brother of Marneus Calgar is my hero.

I don't agree with everything he said, I think the last Chaos book was too full of persnikity rules and poorly balanced but I like his style and darn it he has passion for his cause.

I gave up on GW a long time ago, it's so nice to see someone who does care and does want them to do better.

Excellent work HBMC. Your review was fun, informative and opinionated. I wouldn't paint the walls so dark however, as there's been plenty of turnarounds like this in army book design through the years and we're all still playing. Anyone remember the first C:CSM of the third edition? Talk about bland and uninspired.

Personally I'm very disappointed that the daemons turned out like this and GW may yet turn this daemon debacle into a complete disaster if the upcoming Daemon Codex doesn't include LaTD but is indeed simply some poor version of the Warhammer Fantasy Daemon Legions. I'm not sure this bothers everyone as much as it does me because a lot of people refused to use daemons even in their previous incarnations, and almost noone plays LaTD. I'm just sad to see so much squandered potential.

Posted By AgeOfEgos on 08/14/2007 6:01 AM

I never understood why people allow new rules to raise their blood pressure.  The only sense I can make out of it is that they are tournament players only? 

You really haven't been paying any attention, have you?  Tournament players love, I mean absolutey love this new codex, assuming they didn't already have a well painted and converted IW army.  Double DP, 9 oblit or 3 vindy armies bulked out with cheap termies, raptors, and enough marines to summon the cheap greater daemon will make for a powerful, flexible list.

It's the lose of rules to match background, the loss of legion specific lists, the complete and unneccesary change in daemons, and a host of other problems.

HBMC has been saying this for days, but people complain about armies for reason other than power!  We really do!  This codex has killed builds, like daemonbomb (which was a ton of fun to play with, btw.), like Alpha Legion, like a Night Lord biker horde, etc.

Don't feel bad for tournament players.  Feel bad for guys with expensively converted armies that now "count as" a generic unit. 

Thanks for the review HBMC, funny and right on in a lot of places, IMO.

I was gonna respond more directly to some of your comments, but this thread is already a monster approaching Warseer proportions

I agree on the fluff in the new book being the better part of it (HA), but I was struck by the art as well. I like the b&w sketches in the wargear section well enough, but the loss of all that wonderful Adrian Smith art is pretty emblematic of the loss of all the army options rules-wise. Sure, there are 2 full-page Smith panels from the last book, but that's like the small kernel of kaos that still lingers in the armylist. Just not enough.

When I told my brother the art of Abaddon's Chosen was still in there (p. 103), he got to musing about where the hell those guys are. The veterans of 10,000 wars, hardened marines forged in the heat of the heresy itself, bringing mayhem and carnage in the names of their weird and wonderful chaos deities. Wherever they are, it isn't here.

A galaxy slightly singed, indeed.

- Salvage

Posted By syr8766 on 08/13/2007 6:21 PM
Great review HBMC. Much thanks.

since all of the Xenos armies so far are competitive, one wonders if this is not just the elimination of choices, but an actual attempt to de-emphasize Space Marines (without saying that, as it would just peeve off everyone)?

Thanks for taking the time to post this review H.M.B.C

I recall before the new Da and BA codex's people were complaining about chaos and normal marine armies being unbalanced.  Demon bombs and AC heavy marine lists.  Now thats they have toned that  down people are complaing about that. 

IMO i am fine with them doing this.  Its makes no difference to me.   I will still play marines/chaos.  I just want them to do the same to the xenos codexs as Eldar,tau and nidzilla lists are to good at the moment.

As stated by Yakface

"The simple truth is that less options in an army list means less chances for abuse. Anyone is free to disagree with that basic premise but I firmly believe it to be trueI

 

I actually find myself in total agreement with Yak on this. My how things have changed.  Judgement day must be near or something.  Me actualy agreeing 100% on something with Yak.  Get my medication.

Posted By Polonius on 08/14/2007 6:10 AM

Posted By AgeOfEgos on 08/14/2007 6:01 AM

I never understood why people allow new rules to raise their blood pressure.  The only sense I can make out of it is that they are tournament players only? 

You really haven't been paying any attention, have you?  Tournament players love, I mean absolutey love this new codex, assuming they didn't already have a well painted and converted IW army.  Double DP, 9 oblit or 3 vindy armies bulked out with cheap termies, raptors, and enough marines to summon the cheap greater daemon will make for a powerful, flexible list.

It's the lose of rules to match background, the loss of legion specific lists, the complete and unneccesary change in daemons, and a host of other problems.

HBMC has been saying this for days, but people complain about armies for reason other than power!  We really do!  This codex has killed builds, like daemonbomb (which was a ton of fun to play with, btw.), like Alpha Legion, like a Night Lord biker horde, etc.

Don't feel bad for tournament players.  Feel bad for guys with expensively converted armies that now "count as" a generic unit. 

Then keep playing the old dex?  Or make up whatever you thinks fitting with the fluff?  As I stated before, the only reason I care about rules is how it will effect new model releases.  When I play a tournament, meh to how a power list plays...we all go mainly to see other painted armies and meet new players. 

I would state it's extremely early to decide how competitive this list will be in tournaments.  Very early ^^.

Thanks for this H. I have to disagree with you quite strongly on one thing (not "I'll send you my faeces through the mail" strong, but "you fool!" strength) I know that Gav gets a lot of abuse over his rules, but as a non-player I don't really give a toss about rules. What I do hate about Gav (even more than Graham McNiel, and almost as much C S Goto) is his amatuer, childlike scribblings that BL has the cheek to call literature. It sucks, so much suck. I'm surprised to have found someone (outside the BL forums) that likes it. ALso, there's some repeated spelling mistakes in your post, if that hasn't been mentioned yet. 8/10.

Options for character customization is fun, I don't see why they had to get rid of it. Don't claim it has anything to do with game balance when we've got monsters like Abaddon in the same list.
A Chaos Lord with +1S or +1W by comparison is hardly game-breaking.
Yes, the old system was abusable, but why does that mean we have to go from that to no options at all?

Or maybe all those options were taking up too much space, pages that needed to be devoted to printing troops statlines twice or the color scheme of the "Brothers of Emo" or some other regenade chapter no one will ever play.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/14/2007 1:47 AM

I'm starting to think that my review/deconstruction might actually be bang on the money.

H,

I'm sure you thought that before you even posted it.  And even though your review, tainted as it was by your consistent and negative outlook on the company, probably was comprehensive and often correct, it still misses the point of the 4.5 (as it were).  GW is building a response to the powergamer "revolution" that Dakka itself championed just a while back, with pride I might add.

When the 2002 edition was released, we worked through a very different argument.  Why was there so much room for abuse?  My argument (over and over) was that the push towards tourney lists and the emphasis of the powergamer was going to be a deathknell to the "catch-all" randomness of the army lists.  I argued, from a fluff and fun perspective, that the huge variety within the Codex was a boon, *if* you could play for fun and not merely min-max lists.  In a perfect world, I agree, GW could perfectly balance such a huge variety of bits and bobs.  But there is no fiscal incentive for them to do so.  In the past, they pushed that burden onto their players, and over time the players became less and less willing to police themselves.  They merely derided GW for not doing so. 

And here we are.  GW is self-policing.  I even agree with you that it's depressing to see the sameness among the lists, but as JJ said at GD (whether you agree or not), the lists they saw at tourneys were the same things as well.  My problem is: why respond to the tourneys?  Because they were vocal, through sites just like this.

This would be a bigger deal for me without Apocalypse around the corner, which will hopefully loosen up the sphincters of Rules Only as Written gamers.  In short, I agree with your postulation, except with the caveat that the players are reaping what they have sown.

As for me, as long as the new art is good and the models are sharp (and they are), I'm happy.  I'm not married to the ROAW philosophy.  And I have the longer view that also realizes that some of those lists people are lamenting losing were also complained about just as vociferously 5 years ago, and didn't exist before them.  It's a dynamic environment.

Semper Gumby,

Chuck

Glad to see you joining in Chuck.

I must say however that I'm not blind to what GW is doing, and I know Jervis' opinions on tournaments and the styles of lists (he's been making comments about this for years, and for as long as I've been reading the stuff he writes, like a decade ago in White Dwarf, back when the magazine still had content). I know what and why they're doing what they're doing - I just hate it, and will say as much.

What Brother Kyoto said about me is correct - I actually do want GW to do well and make this into an excellent game. Removing options and bland-a-fying everything so everyone's on an equal footing in the tournament scene is not how I envisioned it though.

BYE

Oh, I just wanted to say I told you (the royal "you", not the actual YOU, HBMC) so!

I prefer the older lists and variety myself. I don't like the vanilla direction either, but I understand it, and why GW is leaning that way. My army of choice (the only one that consistently interests me) is the 13th Company, and you know they are GONE with the next SW Codex. But I'll simply find a way to keep playing them.

I've long thought that flavor is what made GW special...removing that for tourney purposes is a mistake, because there are better rulesets out there. Focus on the crazy madness and great models. Like I said, I hold out hope for Apocalypse. A little free-wheeling energy is what the game needs to work.

Reading comprehension for the win.  I was showing logical fallacies in his argument.  How did that become defense of the chaos book?  And I like how no one addressed my argument. 

HBMC said:

"There are no Death Guard Daemon Princes, Emperor's Children Sorcerers or Berzerker Bikers. There are Daemon Princes with the Mark of Nurgle, Sorcerers with the Mark of Slaanesh and Bikes with the Mark of Khorne."

I don't see why that is a problem.  It's the same thing I said about warp scream just being +1 initiative.  Instead of a billion words about a death guard daemon prince, you give him the mark of nurgle.  It is essentially the same thing.  Ruleswise they are essentially equivalent.  Almost everyone I talk to agrees, for instance, that warp scream being +1 initiative is a cleaner way of doing warp scream.  Why does there have to be a big fat special section only on Nurgle?  Especially since said big fat section referred to chaos units in the main portion anyways.  

People are jumping up and down about how it's boring, and you can't do this and that.  Actually, you still can.  You guys would have a legitimate argument if death guard, emperor's children, etc. weren't in the codex.  But they are!  Plus, it sounds like to me no matter what GW did you guys would be complaining.  If they left special rules for iron warriors and what not in, you really think people wouldn't argue that GW was slowed and didn't fix the problems of the old codex? 

Are the possessed different and unique?  Yes.  Are they viable?  No.  So they get ignored in the full context of the codex. 

You guys want different and unique and a billion special rules for each legion.  Unfortunately, it would be impossible to balance.  If something is unviable, it gets ignored.  With extra armies, would making everything viable even be possible?

Have you guys even thought about why things like seer council, alaitoc, and sam haim went away?  Essentially they were separate rules that ignored the force org chart, and allowed abuse.  18 Vipers?  100 unkillable warlocks and a farseer?  You claim you want interesting and fluffy, but all anyone ever did with those lists was max out on what could be abused.  The posts here decrying the codex as bland seem to want to return to those days. 

But that is what everyone has been pushing. Like was stated earlier people wouldn't self police. You would constantly hear cries of "it is in the list, I am using it!". This was both in tournament and friendly play. GW stated over and over how they had made "fun" lists that have a wide variety of options, and they were loath to make pure tournament lists for this reason. The only way around it was to house rule things, but this would have to be agreed upon by everyone, and often they would not. So the screams and cries that GW should do something to remedy this did not go unheard. There is a change in the wind to balance things out more across the board. Everyone had to be able to see this coming, we pushed for it.

I agree with Yak on a lot of this, and only because of what has become of the game. In this area people only play with who they know. If they play at all. People aren't having "fun" playing. Will the new lists change this? I hope so.

I am not going to say much about BA, as I am still undecided about that dex, and it is a "test". But the DA codex in a vacuum, is a really damn good dex. Almost every option competes with every other option. The only musts havs are what you need to fulfill your criteria for the list like anti tank and assault troops, and there are various competing choices for this. I have seen more styles of DA army on the board than I have ever seen with past lists. I don't have the same opinion of the BA dex. There are some obviously good choices in the dex.

People make their own flavor in the game. It is as "bland" as you choose to make it. So I don't really see an issue with the new codex. It does hurt that certain army lists are now wiped away, but as usual we will change and adapt to it. It sucks, but life goes on.

The Chaos dex does represent what it is suppose to, corrupt marines. To say it is any less representative of this fact is kind of silly. Marks, oblits, cult marines, daemons, princes, possession... all of this represents Chaos. I don't see how it therefore cannot be representative of the chaos forces. It just isn't the "same" as before.

The proof is going to be whether Chaos and DA are somewhat evenly matched. Until games are played we aren't going to see how good or bad this list really is, and a lot of you are making presumptions before this army even hits the tabletop. In the past this has usually proven to be wrong. Only time will tell.

No one addressed this when I posted it.  It was about Nurgle "losing" true grit:

You missed the point of my argument.  Why is a special rule that does exactly the same thing as an extra close combat weapon more interesting?  Why is something like warp scream better and less bland than +1 initiative?  When you break it down, isn't it essentially the same thing written in a more concise and cleaner form?  Why are special rules that do nothing except confuse people superior to a simpler way of saying the exact same thing?