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.

cheapbuster wrote:ok, well it should say minimum also your warp mask needs to say "12 and 2" it say 12 and 1 ATM.

I don't represent Dave at all, and I do understand that Games Workshop makes a point to usually do so. Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save, let alone try and abuse it for a "ZOMG! 1++!!!!" moment.
Perhaps it's just the late night, but this is me trying to say "Hey dude, maybe you should try and phrase things a little nicer"
Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. Especially when your previous post was an accusation for bad rules (in essence). Just something to keep in mind.

Now, to defend Dave's wording. In the Warhammer 40k tabletop, armor values are actually better the number is. Therefor "Maximum" implying the greatest the number can be would be a lower number, such as a 2++
This mentality is backed up by the current official Chaos codex (Under the Mark of Tzeentch actually). I don't know if it is used elsewhere, but as the official version of this codex has been in print for awhile and hasn't really been complained about, I doubt it's an overall concern.
Back up to my initial point of it not even needing to be present, in my quick curious search in the Grey Knight codex to see if their Nemesis Force Swords used the "Minimum" and "Maximum" terminology (Aka, checking to see if Ward had canceled out my argument for Dave's wording) I actually discovered that the Nemesis Force Sword states that it does in fact increase the wearer's invulnerable save in close combat by 1, however it does not state that there is a limit to the improvements effect. I assume that is because there is no instance where its' effect would cause any problems (Such as a 1++ save). By this logic, the point is mute, and Dave could in all reality axe the line right out of his codex without concern!

Amanax wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:ok, well it should say minimum also your warp mask needs to say "12 and 2" it say 12 and 1 ATM.

I don't represent Dave at all, and I do understand that Games Workshop makes a point to usually do so. Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save, let alone try and abuse it for a "ZOMG! 1++!!!!" moment.
Perhaps it's just the late night, but this is me trying to say "Hey dude, maybe you should try and phrase things a little nicer"
Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. Especially when your previous post was an accusation for bad rules (in essence). Just something to keep in mind.

What are you on about?

He was saying that it's not possible to get a 1 on a 2 DICE PSYCHIC TEST so he should maybe rephrase things a little.

Perhaps it's just me being a bit hungover, but I think you are trying to troll his point here, it was a fair comment yet this does not make any reference to what he just said about rolling 1 on 2 dice, this is just talking about saves.

I'm not sure how you were taught maths but 2 is usualy less than 3,4,5 and 6.

Unless it is -2, where it is greater than -3, -4, -5 and -6

Amanax wrote: Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save,

Dave (just dave...no one else) wrote:Models with a Mark of Tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+).

Maybe you should read the codex first...

I believe Amanax's comment more refers to the way in which some feedback has been said, including in his mind, cheapbuster's.

As far as I could see - although even I'll admit Amanax, it was a bit incomprehensible! - he was commenting on how, rather than a suggestion or expression of an opinion, the feedback seemed to be phrased more as a demand or command.

--------------------------------------

The Maximum/minimum issue is subjective, in my mind, as 2++ is the maximum (in regards to quality of armour save), maximum is the correct phrasing. However, as 2++ is also the lowest number, minimum could also make sense.
However, the rule is self-explanatory, the player knows it's intention and meaning and it may even be 'correct', so I don't see the point in demanding a change or arguing over it; the intention is obvious.

Same goes for the Warp Mask; the intention and phrasing of the rule is obvious. The use of "12 or 1" is just to further clarify things, and whilst incorrect, it still does that, showing the essence of the rule. The rule and its example makes sense and anyone reading it should understand it, despite the "12 or 1" example being not entirely correct.
However, cheapbuster, you are correct and it will be changed, and it is a valid comment on your part to make.

-------------------------------------

I think in essence, Amanax was trying to say, and did say, "Perhaps it's just the late night, but this is me trying to say "Hey dude, maybe you should try and phrase things a little nicer"
Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. "

And frankly I agree.

This IS NOT directed at anyone in particular (including you, cheapbuster), however I agree with him. When I've created this Codex through my own time and effort, for other peoples use and enjoyment, it is frustrating when people either demand changes or don't show common courtesy.

If people want to make their own Codex, they're welcome to, and they're welcome to try and make it better than mine, as big-headed as that may sound. However, if people were to comment on my works, or someone else's works, then phrasing things as a suggestion or politely should be a pretty basic principle IMHO and hell, it is rule #1.

I admit, it is frustrating when people come along and demand a change, show rudeness or aggression, or make lines and lines of changes that they feel would be better, even if it goes against these established works or intentions, or wouldn't in actuality be a positive change.
Basically, I'd much rather people said "you could change" or "I'd suggest changing", rather "than should change" or "uhhhh, so my Defilers are now more expensive, REALLY?!".

It's a relatively minor point, but it's appreciated and as Amanax said "Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. "

That said, I've always [tried to] remained polite when responding to feedback, even if they were neither polite nor constructive, as an example (and that was one of my snarkier moments):



And again, I have done nothing but welcome feedback. Even if rudely phrased or poorly worded in some peoples opinions, feedback has been welcomed and incorporated.
I've repeatedly emphasised that all feedback is welcome, particularly if polite or constructive. Whether it's critical or positive doesn't bother me.

cheapbuster wrote:

Amanax wrote: Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save,

Dave (just dave...no one else) wrote:Models with a Mark of Tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+).

Maybe you should read the codex first...

However, as he said, I did say:

Just Dave wrote:please identify to me where in the Codex it is possible to make a 2+ invulnerable save*.


*hint: it's not possible

You don't think Rubric Sons with special ammo are a little too good? I know they have their weaknesses but you get a really durable platform for shooting that has an incredible success rate against all sorts of infantry, and packs options to help deal with anything else or disrupt shooting.

I really like some of what you've got going though. The costs of things raise my eye brows sometimes and the breadth feels a little overwhelming without obvious rationale but I think it's a move in an interesting direction. I'm a bigger fan of 5ths style chaos dex than the mess of 4ths though.

Just Dave wrote:However, as he said, I did say:

Just Dave wrote:please identify to me where in the Codex it is possible to make a 2+ invulnerable save*.


*hint: it's not possible

...what has this got to do with the fact that you put maximum?

cheapbuster wrote:

Just Dave wrote:However, as he said, I did say:

Just Dave wrote:please identify to me where in the Codex it is possible to make a 2+ invulnerable save*.


*hint: it's not possible

...what has this got to do with the fact that you put maximum?

It's simply to clarify things and prevent attempts to abuse the rules. Like with the warp mask, its simply to try and further clarify and precede people asking needless questions such as "so I could make a 1++ save?!" or "how does the warp mask work?"
Furthermore IIRC the wording is exactly the same as it is in the official Codex.

Lucre wrote:You don't think Rubric Sons with special ammo are a little too good? I know they have their weaknesses but you get a really durable platform for shooting that has an incredible success rate against all sorts of infantry, and packs options to help deal with anything else or disrupt shooting.

Honestly, I wonder that myself sometimes; that they may be a little too good, however I do think they remain balanced or close to balanced. They still remain the most expensive through the Sorcerer and the price of a 9-man squad, they are vulnerable to assault and still rely on a psyker to keep them going.
I think its quite hard for many to shake off the image of them as being a poor choice too.
Nonetheless, I'll look into them a bit more closely to double-check I'm happy with them.

I really like some of what you've got going though. The costs of things raise my eye brows sometimes and the breadth feels a little overwhelming without obvious rationale but I think it's a move in an interesting direction. I'm a bigger fan of 5ths style chaos dex than the mess of 4ths though.

Just to clarify, the Codex and army list is smaller than the Space Marine Codex.
I've tried throughout to keep the options and character people like with Chaos, but to keep it concise and balanced, such as limiting gifts to 1-per-person etc.

Gotta say that I love this fandex, it's an extremely well-thought out and useful set of rules. I love that all units seem to have a purpose somewhere, and there is a nearly endless set of combinations, even for mono-god lists like my World Eaters. That's a great achievement in itself!

I just have a couple of suggestions I'd like you to consider:

The Deathrain Drop Pod. The rules here seem a little convoluted, I know you wanted to distance it from the Imperial DP but what happens if you fail to kill all enemy models under the Havoc Charges blast marker (minor suggestion: change all references to "blast templates" to "blast markers") and you scatter, but land on the same enemy unit? I assume this is a mishap? It's just not covered explicitly by your rules.

My suggestion: just make it land more or less in the same way as an Imperial Drop Pod, but when it lands (and before troops disembark), it makes an automatic out-of-sequence S5 AP5 shooting attack against the closest enemy unit within 12" (or friendly unit if there are no enemies!) using a large blast marker that does not scatter. This might be a little quicker and easier to resolve in an actual game?

Dreadnoughts. Should they have access to Rhino transports? As cool as it is to think of a Dreadnought surfing on the back of a Rhino, and I know Dreadnoughts could ride in Rhinos back in 2nd edition, I don't know if this is strictly necessary with the Deathrain addition. Plus, there is no actual rule allowing non-infantry units to embark in a transport, and the Rhino gives no exception (unlike, say, the Storm Raven), so there is no way for the Dreadnought to embark on its own dedicated transport. And if they could, what then happens to the Crazed rule?

Warp Stalker. I LOVE this thing. It is an amazing representation of pure Chaos; this is exactly what Chaos should be like! It provides the army with some much-needed powerful ranged anti-tank, and can also lend support with the Summoned Daemons (last-minute objective grabs, anyone?).

My only concern is that it's perhaps a little *too* useful for its points - I mean, you get an average of 10 Daemons per shot, adding another 110pt scoring unit to your army for free. I would suggest adding an "instability" rule to these Daemons - they suffer D3 unsaved wounds at the end of each Chaos turn as the energy from the miniature warp rift starts seeping away. This allows them to be useful as desperate reinforcements/objective holders, but they can't just be spawned all over the place without risk.

Those are the only things that have jumped out at me so far, I'll provide more feedback as I read through the list in more detail and write some army lists with them With any luck, I may be able to convince my gaming group to let me try them out, too.

Cheexsta wrote:Gotta say that I love this fandex, it's an extremely well-thought out and useful set of rules. I love that all units seem to have a purpose somewhere, and there is a nearly endless set of combinations, even for mono-god lists like my World Eaters. That's a great achievement in itself!

Thanks a lot man, I appreciate it. Seriously, thanks.

My intentions have always been to create a balanced, 5th edition Codex with every unit being usable and customisable to a level between that of the 3.5 and 4th edition Codices.

I just have a couple of suggestions I'd like you to consider:

The Deathrain Drop Pod. The rules here seem a little convoluted, I know you wanted to distance it from the Imperial DP but what happens if you fail to kill all enemy models under the Havoc Charges blast marker (minor suggestion: change all references to "blast templates" to "blast markers") and you scatter, but land on the same enemy unit? I assume this is a mishap? It's just not covered explicitly by your rules.

At that point, you enact the "Should this cause the Drop Pod to scatter on top of impassable terrain or another unit (friend or foe), then reduce the distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." of the rule; so basically you've got lucky as you're Drop Pod makes it shooting attack and more or less lands where you wanted it to. Does that make sense?

My suggestion: just make it land more or less in the same way as an Imperial Drop Pod, but when it lands (and before troops disembark), it makes an automatic out-of-sequence S5 AP5 shooting attack against the closest enemy unit within 12" (or friendly unit if there are no enemies!) using a large blast marker that does not scatter. This might be a little quicker and easier to resolve in an actual game?

That's a neat suggestion man. If the current rules don't seem to work, I'll consider that. Thanks.

Dreadnoughts. Should they have access to Rhino transports? As cool as it is to think of a Dreadnought surfing on the back of a Rhino, and I know Dreadnoughts could ride in Rhinos back in 2nd edition, I don't know if this is strictly necessary with the Deathrain addition. Plus, there is no actual rule allowing non-infantry units to embark in a transport, and the Rhino gives no exception (unlike, say, the Storm Raven), so there is no way for the Dreadnought to embark on its own dedicated transport. And if they could, what then happens to the Crazed rule?

Whoops! No, that's not intentional. I'll edit that out; good spot, thanks.
Thankfully, that can't be abused because, as you said, Dread's can't embark on a rhino (or surf on the back! ) but still, I best edit that out...

Warp Stalker. I LOVE this thing. It is an amazing representation of pure Chaos; this is exactly what Chaos should be like! It provides the army with some much-needed powerful ranged anti-tank, and can also lend support with the Summoned Daemons (last-minute objective grabs, anyone?).

My only concern is that it's perhaps a little *too* useful for its points - I mean, you get an average of 10 Daemons per shot, adding another 110pt scoring unit to your army for free. I would suggest adding an "instability" rule to these Daemons - they suffer D3 unsaved wounds at the end of each Chaos turn as the energy from the miniature warp rift starts seeping away. This allows them to be useful as desperate reinforcements/objective holders, but they can't just be spawned all over the place without risk.

That's a fair point with the Daemons and a good idea with the instability, I'll have to give this another look.
My intentions were for the Warp Stalker to be balance by having 1 weapon at a high points cost, rendering it VERY vulnerable to a weapon destroyed result (and it's potential explosion), whilst the Daemonic-summoning aspect is still subject to a potentially high scatter or creating very little damage output. So you may get lucky and you summon 10 Daemons where you want them, or you may summon 5 Daemons in the middle of no-where, or you may land a very unimpressive Str4 AP- hit on an enemy unit; therefore, it's all about risk and reward. You can risk summoning the Daemons in a position to assault, but risk scattering onto the enemy, or you can place them further away but risk the Daemons being left stranded.
That was my intention anyway; I'll have another look at the Daemonic summoning/numbers part though, because you've raised a fair point man. Thanks.

Those are the only things that have jumped out at me so far, I'll provide more feedback as I read through the list in more detail and write some army lists with them With any luck, I may be able to convince my gaming group to let me try them out, too.

Thanks man.
If you do create any army lists or play any games with the Codex, then please by all means post the results in here.
Cheers for the feedback; it was polite and were all valid points that I'll look into.

Just Dave wrote:

I just have a couple of suggestions I'd like you to consider:

The Deathrain Drop Pod. The rules here seem a little convoluted, I know you wanted to distance it from the Imperial DP but what happens if you fail to kill all enemy models under the Havoc Charges blast marker (minor suggestion: change all references to "blast templates" to "blast markers" and you scatter, but land on the same enemy unit? I assume this is a mishap? It's just not covered explicitly by your rules.

At that point, you enact the "Should this cause the Drop Pod to scatter on top of impassable terrain or another unit (friend or foe), then reduce the distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." of the rule; so basically you've got lucky as you're Drop Pod makes it shooting attack and more or less lands where you wanted it to. Does that make sense?

That only works if "reducing" the scatter would leave you in a valid deep strike position. I'll do a quick picture to explain what I mean:



In this situation, I have a Deathrain that has landed on top of a few Space Marines. Their mighty power armour has managed to shrug off the S5 hits, and I roll a nice, average '3' on my resulting scatter, for a total of a 6" scatter. Unfortunately, I manage to scatter directly on top of the same unit. In theory, the same thing could happen if it was a different unit or impassable terrain that was right next to the target point. No amount of reducing the scatter distance will allow me to avoid a mishap.

This could be fixed by saying that the Deathrain simply moves the minimum distance possible to land >1" from enemy models, and not over impassable terrain, or by using the solution I already suggested.

[list]Warp Stalker. I LOVE this thing. It is an amazing representation of pure Chaos; this is exactly what Chaos should be like! It provides the army with some much-needed powerful ranged anti-tank, and can also lend support with the Summoned Daemons (last-minute objective grabs, anyone?).

My only concern is that it's perhaps a little *too* useful for its points - I mean, you get an average of 10 Daemons per shot, adding another 110pt scoring unit to your army for free. I would suggest adding an "instability" rule to these Daemons - they suffer D3 unsaved wounds at the end of each Chaos turn as the energy from the miniature warp rift starts seeping away. This allows them to be useful as desperate reinforcements/objective holders, but they can't just be spawned all over the place without risk.

That's a fair point with the Daemons and a good idea with the instability, I'll have to give this another look.
My intentions were for the Warp Stalker to be balance by having 1 weapon at a high points cost, rendering it VERY vulnerable to a weapon destroyed result (and it's potential explosion), whilst the Daemonic-summoning aspect is still subject to a potentially high scatter or creating very little damage output. So you may get lucky and you summon 10 Daemons where you want them, or you may summon 5 Daemons in the middle of no-where, or you may land a very unimpressive Str4 AP- hit on an enemy unit; therefore, it's all about risk and reward. You can risk summoning the Daemons in a position to assault, but risk scattering onto the enemy, or you can place them further away but risk the Daemons being left stranded.
That was my intention anyway; I'll have another look at the Daemonic summoning/numbers part though, because you've raised a fair point man. Thanks.

Very true, it does seem pretty strong on paper but those balancing factors may well make it quite reasonable. I'll play a couple of games with it and see how it goes.

Thanks man.
If you do create any army lists or play any games with the Codex, then please by all means post the results in here.
Cheers for the feedback; it was polite and were all valid points that I'll look into.

You're very welcome I have a game against one of my friends organised for next Saturday, he's agreed to give these rules a go. I'll let you know.

It's just an awful lot of options, and I think more things could be bundled together a little more. It's a bit overwhelming.

Your implementation of noise marines made me really happy though. The drug thing is pretty neat.

I also worry about the HQ choices. They've gotten pretty expensive, and it seems hard to make something efficient out of them.

Cheexsta wrote:That only works if "reducing" the scatter would leave you in a valid deep strike position. I'll do a quick picture to explain what I mean:

*handy picture*

In this situation, I have a Deathrain that has landed on top of a few Space Marines. Their mighty power armour has managed to shrug off the S5 hits, and I roll a nice, average '3' on my resulting scatter, for a total of a 6" scatter. Unfortunately, I manage to scatter directly on top of the same unit. In theory, the same thing could happen if it was a different unit or impassable terrain that was right next to the target point. No amount of reducing the scatter distance will allow me to avoid a mishap.

This could be fixed by saying that the Deathrain simply moves the minimum distance possible to land >1" from enemy models, and not over impassable terrain, or by using the solution I already suggested.

Very good point and well explained.
I'll change it to either move the minimum distance to land, or re-roll the scatter.

Very true, it does seem pretty strong on paper but those balancing factors may well make it quite reasonable. I'll play a couple of games with it and see how it goes.

Thanks man.
If you do create any army lists or play any games with the Codex, then please by all means post the results in here.
Cheers for the feedback; it was polite and were all valid points that I'll look into.

You're very welcome I have a game against one of my friends organised for next Saturday, he's agreed to give these rules a go. I'll let you know.

Excellent, I really look forward to hearing how it goes. Thanks again man. I'll probably think of an update for the Warp Stalker by then, so we'll see.

Lucre wrote:It's just an awful lot of options, and I think more things could be bundled together a little more. It's a bit overwhelming.

Could you please elaborate?
For HQ's the only real difference is the 'gifts' and Warband Icons, the latter of which isn't so much of an option, but a special rule.
As I've said before I created it to be "customisable to a level between that of the 3.5 and 4th edition Codices", hoping to achieve the right balance.
I think it may be worth stating that I've been working on doing a [loyalist] Space Marine Codex and have struggled to fit the Chapter Master on one page, unlike the Chaos Lord for example.

Your implementation of noise marines made me really happy though. The drug thing is pretty neat.

I'm not sure what the drug thing you refer to is, but thanks.

I also worry about the HQ choices. They've gotten pretty expensive, and it seems hard to make something efficient out of them.

Well, for the Chaos Lord, he's the same price as a Wolf Lord, but has Fearless and a 5++ as standard. The Sorcerer is 110pts due to Libby's etc. being so effective for 100pts, but lacking the BS5. The Daemon Prince needed a points increase, receiving a stat boost to justify this; this means he's more of an investment than before and no longer an automatic choice, but is still viable or freakin' powerful IMHO.
Those were my intentions and some of my reasoning at least. Thanks for the feedback.

I've made a silly mistake!

When i criticized and lauded this codex before, I was looking at the other chaos fandex I had downloaded that week.

I actually really like this. It's pretty bare as chaos fandexs and codexs go, but it looks like it has a lot of potential for fun. Some things feel more like nods than being really woven into the codex, but I really dig how well you attempted to cover bases and some of the creative solutions to problems.

The obliterator fix is really inspired. I'm not sure how exciting they are at 80 points a pop for what seems most efficiently used as a termicide unit, but it's damn cool.

Love the concept for terminator champions too. Again, the price seems a little steep for the +1 attack and the ability to take more expensive upgrades, but I like that it's there. I just hate how often taking the veteran/champion options for chaos often are expensive points traps.

I guess that's my problem with most Chaos'Dex, I got into them only half because of the awesome banners and the allegiance fun, what I really liked about them was how they were seasoned and individualistic and resourceful. Half of them have been fighting since the heresy, and have been getting more and more idiosyncratic. In game terms this usually equates to having a lot of ability to bloat your squads, and their running away half the time. Something I really hope will change.

Despite this, I'm also pretty impressed with your costing of things, most of the chaos fandexes I've seen have some incredibly overpowered options buried in them that really shout "you really like X don't you".

Y'know, I'm taking almost all of that as a complement, intended or not! Thanks.

I'm glad to know that you were referring to another 'dex, as some of the previous feedback didn't exactly make sense.

All of my Codices have been designed as if they were an actual GW Codex/follow-up to an existing Codex. I had seen some Chaos fandex's before and believed many of them were far too complicated, overloaded with options or imbalanced (no offence to anyone reading this), bearing more similarities to the 3.5 Codex than others.
Furthermore, as you said, many Chaos Fandex's seemed more orientated to a specific god, or god-specific armies in general (rather than undivided armies for example) and therefore 'unfair' in some cases.
Ultimately, these I believed were flaws and something I could not see in an official Codex. So ultimately, I tried to avoid these pitfalls and in all honesty believe I did for the most part.

I aimed to keep the Codex relatively simple, giving the player the options needed to make a characterful army of their choosing, but without over-doing or biasing it. I wanted it to be something that could be seen as an official Codex and wouldn't be too confusing for the player or their opponents. My intentions behind the Warbands rule is an example of this. As I stated in the 'Why' section:
"However, you may notice that the changes made by the Chaos Warbands rule isn’t actually that significant in most cases; this was intended to provide the player to make their own choices and their own army; giving them a nudge in the direction of their armies character but leaving the rest up to them. I avoided restrictions so the player has the freedom to create the army he wants to create. This is also part of the reason for the HQ-only Warband special rules; which are intended to allow the player to make their army even more like their background should they want to, but ultimately they don’t have to. Altogether this was intended to keep it simple, balanced and true to the background, providing themes for each Legion that can be capitalised upon with the purchase of special rules and/or specific units. These changes are hopefully subtle in-game but allow the player to be as inventive, true-to-background or as ‘vanilla’ as they want."

I don't deny it, if I were to do this Codex again (see below) then I would change some things. I would make Terminator Champions better (probably more like Paladins), give an option for more experienced Chaos Marines and fiddle with the special characters and HQ's a bit. And I may yet update the Codex again...


And this is the relevant part:

Providing the official, apparently soon-to-be-released official/6th-edition Chaos Space Marine Codex is any good, then I will NOT be updating this Codex for 6th Edition.

However, if people are vocal with a criticism of the new Chaos Dex and/or people ask me to update this Codex for 6th, to be used instead of that one, then I will update this Codex as required.
This would include some of the above changes and rules for newly-added GW units [in the new Codex].

So basically, the future of this Fandex will likely depend on the quality of the official Codex. So we shall see...


As ever, all C&C is welcome*. Thanks.
*Including if people want me to update this to use instead of the official one, when it is released.

Ha, no it was intended, I get a little tangential sometimes and throw in more criticism than I want to.
I think I'm inclined to agree with you on most fronts.
This is great work, I can see why some many folks have heaped on the praise.

I agree with the warband rules too. It gets really messy trying to weave everything into cult or legion armies in organic ways. It would have felt missing if not, but I think the nod you provided is really sufficient.

Here's hoping for a juicy CSM book in sixth. With all the fixins

The greater daemon is too strong with your buffs man, they are really cool, and youve made them more viable, but they are just to strong. normally he has 5 attacks. one of your addons allowed for +2 attacks and i think one to strength! thats eight attacks on the charge with a WS of 8.. What you did made them as good as they are in fluff, and thats awesome more things should be but even a chaos lover like myself has to admit thats really powerful. Have you thought of allowing a Greater Daemon with Tzeentch upgrade to possibly take wings? Another cool idea is the thought of making Greater daemons more powerful per marine you sacrifice to the dark gods persay.

Example your champion is sacrificed and you summon a greater daemon.

The chaos player has the option to add upgrades ontop of the Greater daemon per +1 marine he/she sacrifices to the Gods, Buffing the Daemon per soul.

The buffs per soul could give them something like, 1 soul = 5+ Armour save. When you give two souls he gets a 5+ Armour save and makes any chaos units 12" from him fearless?

I know i said that the + 2 attacks was Op then i say you should do all this lol, i got carried away but nice work i enjoyed it

Frecklesonfire wrote:The greater daemon is too strong with your buffs man, they are really cool, and youve made them more viable, but they are just to strong. normally he has 5 attacks. one of your addons allowed for +2 attacks and i think one to strength! thats eight attacks on the charge with a WS of 8.. What you did made them as good as they are in fluff, and thats awesome more things should be but even a chaos lover like myself has to admit thats really powerful. Have you thought of allowing a Greater Daemon with Tzeentch upgrade to possibly take wings? Another cool idea is the thought of making Greater daemons more powerful per marine you sacrifice to the dark gods persay.

Example your champion is sacrificed and you summon a greater daemon.

The chaos player has the option to add upgrades ontop of the Greater daemon per +1 marine he/she sacrifices to the Gods, Buffing the Daemon per soul.

The buffs per soul could give them something like, 1 soul = 5+ Armour save. When you give two souls he gets a 5+ Armour save and makes any chaos units 12" from him fearless?

I know i said that the + 2 attacks was Op then i say you should do all this lol, i got carried away but nice work i enjoyed it

I'm honestly not sure what '+2 attacks' or 'eight attacks on the charge you're referring to'?
I mean, I made the thing and I can't see where that's possible!
Is this another case of someone mistaking someone else's Codex for mine?

FWIW, I tried to use the Marks to buff the Greater Daemons whilst remaining similar to, but usually no-better-than, their Codex: Daemons counterparts...

Lucre wrote:Ha, no it was intended, I get a little tangential sometimes and throw in more criticism than I want to.
I think I'm inclined to agree with you on most fronts.
This is great work, I can see why some many folks have heaped on the praise.

I agree with the warband rules too. It gets really messy trying to weave everything into cult or legion armies in organic ways. It would have felt missing if not, but I think the nod you provided is really sufficient.

Here's hoping for a juicy CSM book in sixth. With all the fixins

Ha! Thanks man! Appreciate the kind words.

But yeah, I'm both apprehensive and looking forward to the new CSM Codex. Could be very interesting to see...

I've finally had a chance to go over your Chaos fandex. Most impressive. Our group has already changed the Space Marine dex and the Tyranids to our satisfaction, but I'm really glad you've tackled the Chaos dex so brilliantly and thoroughly. I don't agree with every detail... but it feels right.

Whatever 6th ed. brings you may be happy to know we'll be adopting your dex regardless of upcoming changes, because we've created our own WH 40K rules set. Most of the improvements that seem to be on the way we've already incorporated to some degree. I know not everybody is able to just play a fandex due to their situation, but WE can and we'll be using yours. Thank you for your efforts!

Thanks a lot for the kind words man, much appreciated! I'm glad you like it and will be using it; thanks! I'd love to know how it does in some of your games?

So will you guys not be using the 6th Edition Chaos Codex or rules? If not, if you let me know some of the details of your rules, I can try and edit a copy to be more in-line with your groups rules for you?

Thanks again.

I know you said you've adjusted the SM Codex, so won't be needing mine, but I've also made an Eldar fandex if any of your friends are interested...

I believe our Eldar players would be very interested! I'm flattered you'd consider tweaking your fine dex to suit our house rules, but off the top I don't think it'd be necessary. If you'd like though, I could PM our rules version to you. We're having a game this weekend to test a few things (no Chaos though, unfortunately!).

amanita wrote:I believe our Eldar players would be very interested! I'm flattered you'd consider tweaking your fine dex to suit our house rules, but off the top I don't think it'd be necessary. If you'd like though, I could PM our rules version to you. We're having a game this weekend to test a few things (no Chaos though, unfortunately!).

Ha! I'm not quite being that kind! I was offering to create a version of the 'dex more suited for your rules, rather than change the proper/published 'dex itself!
I look forward to hearing how the Codex goes though, thanks!
And yeah, if you want you can PM me a version of your rules, could be interesting to look at - thanks.