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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think GW has a very clear roadmap of what they want Chaos to be: CSM, Daemons, Legions, and LatD. Each in it's own self-contained book, and in that order.

I think the problem is a lack of patience among the players. GW said very clearly that they were doing Legions, and I have no reason to doubt them. The question is how and when. 5 or 6 years from now, this won't be a problem. However, as the GW gamers has a collective memory of about 1 month, if it doesn't appear immediately, exactly as each individual gamer envisioned, GW *must* have lied! And this is why GW Marketing holds the community in utter contempt.

Please post where GW has definitely said they are doing a Legions book. And the last comment that I recall, was that GW felt that IG was a suitable 'count as' for LatD, so I don't think they've announced that book either. Unless it's in the 6 month look ahead, they won't. Oh, they've hinted that eventually, they'd like to do one, but that's it. Again, if they'd relelase more than 2 codexes a year, it'd be less of an issue and people would think it's coming to come out someday. I think it's more likely we see 40k 7ed (and, yes I know we are on 5ed) before either Legions or LatD.

Chaos is popular. Space Marines are popular. And they're both deep in the fluff. They're deeper than Orks, Eldar, Necrons, Nids, etc. That's why people want more Chaos, they're popular and deep. If Space Marines can support 5 unique armies, Chaos can easily support two.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...

We were doing good until you said that, having a polite discussion on the merits. The hyperbole destroys the discussion.

@dietrich:

Please feel free to use the Dakka search - it's in there, shortly after the current Codex was released.

But good job of proving my point about the gamer collective mind.
____

Frazzled wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...

We were doing good until you said that, having a polite discussion on the merits. The hyperbole destroys the discussion.

And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.

Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.

I mean, if that isn't the case, and I've completely missed the mark, then I apologize. But it sure seems like that...

The point of the different legions/etc was that there was a different 'feel' to them. Same as the different 'feel' the different (still supported) Marine chapters have.

Now, Chaos doesn't have lists that have a different feel to them. That is the issue.

And that "different feel" is accomplished, how?

Via Legion-specific Special Rules, right?

Polonius wrote:So, there was one rule you didn't like, and coupled with the fourth edition transport rules (which were nearly universally disliked) you decided that you hated the entire codex?

Interesting.

So it's okay for people to hate the new Chaos codex because they lost the ability to take Death Guard termies, which under the new codex Termies are the best unit in the game for the points but I had an entire army made worthless (oh and I had to sell a bunch of Juggernaughts at a loss as they went from full on units in 3.0 dex to the 3.5) in the 3.5 codex and yet somehow my argument is less valid.

The vast majority of the whines about the new chaos codex is in fact cult terminators and some special rules that made some armies OTT (and it can't be argued there wasn't) which as far as I know the terminator models themselves can still be used as terminators. Wow, shock and awe. So a fancy conversion job doesn't count for much other than to make them stand out as being devoted to a particular god.

Interesting.

The point of the different legions/etc was that there was a different 'feel' to them. Same as the different 'feel' the different (still supported) Marine chapters have.

Now, Chaos doesn't have lists that have a different feel to them. That is the issue.

So, you are telling me that under the new codex an army with a Khorne marked DP/lord leading a squad of chosen with 5 specials with Khorne Icon and 6x8 Berserkers in Rhinos backed up by 3x8 Khorne Icon'd Raptors support by 3x8 Havocs with IoK feels the same as a Nurgle army lead by a Nurgle DP/lord supported by 7 Chosen with IoN and 6x7 Plaguemarines in Rhinos backed up by 3x7 Raptors with IoN and supported by 3x7 Havocs with IoN.

Interesting.

[quote=JohnHwangDD

Frazzled wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, it's so sad to have lost Legion rules, because Chaos players deserve more than IG, Eldar, or SM players under Doctrines, Craftworlds, and Traits...

We were doing good until you said that, having a polite discussion on the merits. The hyperbole destroys the discussion.

And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.

Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.

I mean, if that isn't the case, and I've completely missed the mark, then I apologize. But it sure seems like that...

JohnHwangDD wrote:@dietrich:

Please feel free to use the Dakka search - it's in there, shortly after the current Codex was released.

But good job of proving my point about the gamer collective mind.

So both Legions and LatD are in the six month window? Based on JJ's 'the mystery box isn't Space Hulk' comments from Chicago Games Day, unless it's a known entity on the schedule, anything they say doesn't count. It's like the joke, "how do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving." They'd like to do Legions. It doesn't mean it'll happen.

Frazzled wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.

Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.

Not at all. What is being argued is that Chaos guys want what they had.

And how is that more specially deserving than Guard or Eldar guys wanting what they had?
- my entire Guard army could Deep Strike for FREE
- my Biel-Tan could field a whole variety of Aspects as Troops
- my 3.0 CSM army could field nothing but 5-CSM double-Heavy Veterans as Troops
Why can't I have now what I had then?

Why should I have to give up these bonuses, but CSM get their special rules?

____

dietrich wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@dietrich:

Please feel free to use the Dakka search - it's in there, shortly after the current Codex was released.

But good job of proving my point about the gamer collective mind.

So both Legions and LatD are in the six month window?

GW never said that it was within 6 months. It was announced as a project. Just search for it.

Thank god all the cullinary metaphors have stopped. That stuff was confusing, especially to those of us who live in the land where the only ice cream flavours are vanilla, chocolate and strawberry.

I enjoy the new chaos codex, but that's because I play Renegade Plague Marines, and the book is very good at building that army in particular.
The book has serious problems though.
Lash being so overpowered is one, the general lameness of Tzeentch is another, and the blandness of the Daemons another. Oh, and never let us forget the random Possessed and Dreadnaughts. Repeat after me GW: No one likes random units.
I liked the 3.5 dex too, but it really wasn't that balanced.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And yet, when you get right down to it, that's precisely what's generally being argued by the 3.5 crowd.

Somehow, their armies are more deserving of extra rules than Guard or Eldar or other players who built variant armies. Somehow, they're more special and deserve more rules than the others get.

Not at all. What is being argued is that Chaos guys want what they had.

And how is that more specially deserving than Guard or Eldar guys wanting what they had?
- my entire Guard army could Deep Strike for FREE
- my Biel-Tan could field a whole variety of Aspects as Troops
- my 3.0 CSM army could field nothing but 5-CSM double-Heavy Veterans as Troops
Why can't I have now what I had then?

Why should I have to give up these bonuses, but CSM get their special rules?

____

You didn't address the point. Marine players have access to 5 codexes or mini codexes for MEQ choices. Chaos went from 1 with sublists to 1. Period, end of story.

John, you're burning cred at a dangerous rate here.

Legions have been less guaranteed than Dark Eldar, and I think we all know how much faith you put into that release. They'd like to do a legions codex, right after Alienhunters, neo-squats, and the other battlezone codexes we were sort of promised after cityfight (the one back in 3rd).

Hell, even Daeomon's wasn't hard confirmed until it's normal confirmation about three months before release.

In addition, if you read my posts, you'll see that I've shown, I think fair convincingly, that the other armies have kept their sublists alive. Eldar can build the craftworlds, Marines can replicate some of the traits, etc. Chaos has nothing like that, aside from the four cults as troops. All Chaos players want is exactly what the Eldar, IG, ork, and SM players got, which was a way to build something pretty close to their old armies.

As I've said before, either the Chaos book did a worse job of shifting from the wild design of 3rd to the more structured nature of 5th than the other codices, or Chaos players are inherently far more vocal in their annoyance than Ork, IG, Eldar, or SM players. Do you really think that one army attracts all the jerks, or do you think it's just maybe possible that this book wasn't built quite right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, there was one rule you didn't like, and coupled with the fourth edition transport rules (which were nearly universally disliked) you decided that you hated the entire codex?

Interesting.

So it's okay for people to hate the new Chaos codex because they lost the ability to take Death Guard termies, which under the new codex Termies are the best unit in the game for the points but I had an entire army made worthless (oh and I had to sell a bunch of Juggernaughts at a loss as they went from full on units in 3.0 dex to the 3.5) in the 3.5 codex and yet somehow my argument is less valid.

The vast majority of the whines about the new chaos codex is in fact cult terminators and some special rules that made some armies OTT (and it can't be argued there wasn't) which as far as I know the terminator models themselves can still be used as terminators. Wow, shock and awe. So a fancy conversion job doesn't count for much other than to make them stand out as being devoted to a particular god.

Interesting.

Well, I suppose it would be helpful to seperate how a person feels about a codex, as a holistic unit, and how they feel about how it impacts their army. You're right, in that if your army no longer plays the way you want to play it, you're going to pretty hearitly dislike the new codex. Which, incidentally, is the core of most genuine arguments, and certainly the bulk of mine. So, in that regard, you're correct in that you have the right to a strong dislike of 3.5.

That said, I've never been a huge supporter of those that argue that their army is worthless and they have to sell it. I still think that the switch to 4th edition did more to hurt your army than the 3.5 codex did, as I'm pretty sure Berzerkers in rhinos were a pretty hot build in late 3rd edition. I could be wrong on that.

I'm not sure if the vast majority of the whining is centered on cult terminators and the OTT stuff, but some is. A lot has to do with viable and distinct builds. Were Iron Warriors OTT? Of course, and they needed a tone down, but now you can't really build any sort of gunline out of Chaos. That's an army style gone. So are all infiltrating armies. Or demonbombs. Were those armies too good? Maybe. Is there an option other than removal? I think so.

So, I'll concede that what I did was mistake your very real emotion for a petty annoyance. What you need to do is realize that many players feel the exact same way about the 4.5 codex as you did about the 3.5 codex, and maybe feel a little empathy. Then, realize no Ork, SM, IG, or Eldar players feel the way either of you did, and realize that maybe GW needs to figure out how to write a damn Chaos book without pissing everybody off.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And that "different feel" is accomplished, how?

Via Legion-specific Special Rules, right?

Eldar, DA, BA, Orks, IG, and Space Marines all accomplished having armies with different feels. Chaos does not. Granted, Space Marines have Legion-specific rules (5 Different codexes, and the army-modifying special characters in the C:SM).

Eldar has: Guardian Horde, Aspect-based, Mech, Bike, Seer council, Infiltrating, and Wraith-based.

DA has standard, mech, Ravenwing, Deathwing, and mixed-wing

BA has standard, Mech, and jump pack

Orks have Green horde, Biker-based, Nob bikers, Cult of Speed, Battlewagon based, Dreadmob, Massed-Loota

Guard have Mech, Footslogger horde, Vet-based, Valkrie based

Space Marines have Standard, Infiltrating, Mech, Drop Podding, Salamanders, Ravenguard, Dread horde, Biker-based.

All these have different feels to them. Chaos doesn't have this variety of viable list options in thier codex.

Skyth, I've tried this approach. Apparently there is no more difference in feel between Jetlock council and Grav tank aspect swordwind than between berzerkers and plague marines to John.

C'mon Polonius, you're being disingenuous there. Just as much as he's minimizing your opinion, you're minimizing his. Do you really think that an all Berzerker army plays the same as an all Plague Marine or all 1k Sons army plays?

Polonius,

I'm glad you finally see it my way. I did not like the way that MY army functioned in the 3.5 'dex. I do like how it would play out now if I had it as Rhinos are alot harder to pop/knock out than they were in 4th* and how Berserkers with the WS5, S5 and I5 on the charge make a mockery of most units, even terminators have to fear Berskers. They showed better combat prowess in 2nd and 3rd than any other unit, got toned down in 3.5 along with getting a rule that made them worthless IMO and now in 4.5 are worth their weight in gold points wise.

*Some argue Rhinos still suck but not as bad as in 4th ed.

My friend just picked up a Chaos army from a guy. I might see if it has any 'Zerkers in it, if it does I may just resurrect my World Eater army. I bought Lord Zufor off ebay a month ago cheap and so may use him as an HQ (once I obtain the IA book with his rules in it of course).

So yeah, my complaints for why I hated 3.5 are as legitimate as anyone hating 4.5

At this point, the debate has devolved into nit-picking. You've forgotten the primary thrust of the thread, and that's that Gav Thorpe assembled lots of words but really didn't say anything. So Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned together total 575 pages? Okay. No more stupid slap-fights about whether or not Chaos deserves a codex that you could beat somebody to death with (YES!!!). The question is pointless because it will never be made. His response was like a crackhead trying to explain to a cop how the pants that drugs were just found in were not his despite the fact that he was wearing them.

@ ozy: I do think so. I"m not sure where I said I didn't. What I"m saying is that those differences are less in practice than the differences offered by other codexes.

The cults fight differently, but all move the same, and have roughly the same threat range, and play in a fairly similar manner. Yes, the Berserkers will simply win combats that the Plague marines outlast, but they're still built around going to where the action is in a rhino and assaulting or shooting. What's more, the methods your opponent has for dealing with your armies aren't going to change too much, except to add more S8 or SP2 against plague marines and more high impact stuff against 1ksons.

Compare to marines, where the abilities and counters to, say, a Sicarious led Razorback horde are very different than a pedro led sternguard drop pod force.

I have to love that somehow I'm the guy in this argument accused of being disingenuous.

Yeah, but of those 575 pages how many are about 40k, nevermind CSM? Not bloody many.

Wow... what a load of hypothetical nonsense. It's like the world's greatest strawman attack mixed in with a healthy dose of leaps of logics, style-over-substance fallacies, false dilemas, false conclusions and slippery slope arguments - find a conclusion you don't think is workable and shoot that down rather than addressing anything anyone actually said. Awe inspiring really.

And way to completely miss the point of my ice cream analogy Gav - just spout random crap about different flavours with no actual substance.

I'll be going over this in detail later on today.

Oh, and I haven't read the whole text yet, just skimmed it as I'm at work, but if he says "Why can't we all get along" or "Can't we just agree to disagree" at any point then add a Golden Mean fallacy to the list.

I understood what H meant when he talked about ice cream but I have no idea what Gav was trying to tell me.

Icons still suck.

Yes. Gav's ice cream spiel just really confused me.

I was a bit confused by the extension of Gav's Ice cream analogy.

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that those other speciality ice cream shops are closed...permanently.

That's because he wrote a whole paragraph of without managing to say anything.

It was a nonsense fluff answer, one I will relish dissecting...

Way to harass someone not even working for the company anymore who did answer.

You don't like his answer, that is your problem, not his.

I've already discussed with Polonius the finer points of my hate for the 3.5 codex so again, not everyone has on rose colored glasses when looking at the previous codex H.

Fateweaver wrote:Way to harass someone not even working for the company anymore who did answer.

You don't like his answer, that is your problem, not his.

I've already discussed with Polonius the finer points of my hate for the 3.5 codex so again, not everyone has on rose colored glasses when looking at the previous codex H.

Look, you can like what you like, and dislike what you dislike. But as I've pointed out, there are serious flaws with the current book that not only did the the 3.5 codex not have, but no other 4.5 or 5th codex has.

Polonius wrote:@ ozy: I do think so. I"m not sure where I said I didn't. What I"m saying is that those differences are less in practice than the differences offered by other codexes.

The cults fight differently, but all move the same, and have roughly the same threat range, and play in a fairly similar manner. Yes, the Berserkers will simply win combats that the Plague marines outlast, but they're still built around going to where the action is in a rhino and assaulting or shooting. What's more, the methods your opponent has for dealing with your armies aren't going to change too much, except to add more S8 or SP2 against plague marines and more high impact stuff against 1ksons.

Compare to marines, where the abilities and counters to, say, a Sicarious led Razorback horde are very different than a pedro led sternguard drop pod force.

I have to love that somehow I'm the guy in this argument accused of being disingenuous.

I never said you were the only one being disingenuous.

Frankly, if we're going by what you say, having cult lists wouldn't change the fact that a World Eaters Berzerker list would play similar to a Death Guard Plaguemarine list. If that's the case, your argument doesn't matter if people were using the 3.5 or the 4.0 codex. Granted, there would be a couple different options (daemon bomb, IW gunline) but you can get close to some of those with the current list (now everyone can have vindies and multiple units of Obits).

Fateweaver wrote:Way to harass someone not even working for the company anymore who did answer.

You don't like his answer, that is your problem, not his.

Harrass? What are you blathering about. I'm going to respond, as in take what (little) he said, and explain where I think he got it wrong. That's not 'harrassing' that's 'rebuttal'.

Fateweaver wrote:I've already discussed with Polonius the finer points of my hate for the 3.5 codex so again, not everyone has on rose colored glasses when looking at the previous codex H.

No rose-coloured glasses here. I know the 3.5's flaws (starting with the disparity between 1KSons and Iron Warriors, the pointless options, the silly rulings in FAQ's etc.) but it is a superior Codex than the current load of nonsense for all the reasons I have detailed on many occasions.

You 'hate' the 3.5 Codex? I haven't read all the posts in this thread, only Gav's responce and then the few after mine, but summarise why you 'hate' it, especially when you consider that just about everything you can do now you could do with the old Codex (+ more).

H.B.M.C. wrote:That's because he wrote a whole paragraph of without managing to say anything.

It was a nonsense fluff answer, one I will relish dissecting...

Out of curiousity, what could he have said that made you happy? He obviously disagrees with you and he laid out why they made the choices they made, what else are you looking for? I wouldn't expect an apology, nor would I expect him to comment on specific rules or units as he already said a lot of it was written by Alessio and he can't speak for him.

Ozymandias wrote:Frankly, if we're going by what you say, having cult lists wouldn't change the fact that a World Eaters Berzerker list would play similar to a Death Guard Plaguemarine list. If that's the case, your argument doesn't matter if people were using the 3.5 or the 4.0 codex. Granted, there would be a couple different options (daemon bomb, IW gunline) but you can get close to some of those with the current list (now everyone can have vindies and multiple units of Obits).

Just off the top of my head:

There is no equivalent to the all-infiltrating Vet army.
There is no equivalent to the Lust-/Dust-/Blood-/Plauge-wing (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops).
There is no equivalent to the true Daemonbomb lists (because lesser daemons don't count as mandatory troops, and suck anyway).
There is no equivalent to the IW (because there is zero indirect-firing ordnance left in the list).
There is no equivalent to the Alpha Legion (because there are no cultists).

I'm fairly sure those each offered a different play style. The only one even a little similar to a current CSM list is the IW, but only if you consider all gunlines the same.