New chaos rumours

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.

**efarrer**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 9:36 AM
Da Boss,

I do agree that I hope that the generic daemons will be able to be marked and get some sort of bonus. That would make sense and go back to the way that daemons used to be. I do think though that your Death Guard army will be more effective and just as characterful as it was before.

This is what I have been seeing in this and other threads:

"I said it in another thread, but I'll repeat it here:
Hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of work have been relegated to the "counts as" category. I have literally dozens of models who are not WYSIWYG under the new codex. My creativity in conversion and army selection has been "rewarded" by complete invalidation of my collection." (emphasis mine)

Creativity should not be in the rules in my opinion. What did people do during Rogue Trader and 2nd Ed??

I'm sorry, but there is a lot of chicken-littling going on in this thread and in the other Chaos rumors threads. Despite the fact that the studio has said that they are releasing a Daemon codex next year (which will give you back your daemons, cultists, and other things). Plus, with the BA codex in WD, why don't you think we'll see Legion specific rules in the future. The reason they were able to do the BA codex in WD was that the groundwork was already done w/ Codex: DA.

And finally, I would have been happy if they had included rules to represent Dark Angels in C:SM. It would have been much better than using the crappy 3rd Ed codex for 2 years. Though I will say again that DA had their own codex (shared with BA) before Chaos had theirs. .

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Unless I'm very wrong Slaves to Darkness and the Lost and the damned substainitally predate the Angels of death book.

In Rogue Trader and 2nd edition there were amzing rules for modifying and converting vehicles as well as (in the chaos book) rules for including all manner of chaos critters in a chaos spacemarine army, along with conversion suggestions and other neat ideas. The studio has not confirmed this. And it's use with chaos marine armies is currently speculative, outside of the apocolypse environment which appears to be bring any and all of your toy soldiers and have a Gi joe vs Beasties style mash up. Not exactly what I'm looking for with my 1700 point Emperor's Chlidren army, thanks.

**Ozymandias**

Lost and Damned and Slaves to Darkness are not codex's.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Da Boss**

If you can't understand why it is so galling to non marine players that DA/BA/SW/whatever have gotten their codices before chaos/orks/eldar/whatever over the years, and continue to do so, you must be fairly unimaginative. But i reckon you're just throwing in some tongue in cheek humour there.

**efarrer**

07/10/2007 12:01 PM Quote Reply Alert
Lost and Damned and Slaves to Darkness are not codex's.

Ozymandias

They contained a mixture of fluff and armylists. They may not have been titled Codex: Beancounter's wet dream, but in a nutshell what else is a codex other than the rules to play an army in 40K.

**Frazzled**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 9:36 AM
Da Boss,

And finally, I would have been happy if they had included rules to represent Dark Angels in C:SM. It would have been much better than using the crappy 3rd Ed codex for 2 years. Though I will say again that DA had their own codex (shared with BA) before Chaos had theirs. .

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I do believe Chaos had 2 separate books back in RT era whereas marines did not, but I could be wrong.

**Frazzled**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 10:01 AM
Lost and Damned and Slaves to Darkness are not codex's.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

In that case neither was anything else in RT.

**efarrer**

07/10/2007 11:36 AM Quote Reply Alert
Da Boss,

I do agree that I hope that the generic daemons will be able to be marked and get some sort of bonus. That would make sense and go back to the way that daemons used to be. I do think though that your Death Guard army will be more effective and just as characterful as it was before.

This is what I have been seeing in this and other threads:

"I said it in another thread, but I'll repeat it here:
Hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of work have been relegated to the "counts as" category. I have literally dozens of models who are not WYSIWYG under the new codex. My creativity in conversion and army selection has been "rewarded" by complete invalidation of my collection." (emphasis mine)

Creativity should not be in the rules in my opinion. What did people do during Rogue Trader and 2nd Ed??

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Actually, Upon further review it appears that you could make your own races in Rogue Trader. So inaddition to making units with ANYTHING in them you were not shackled by the in universe restraints. Ergo the rules allowed the ultimate in expressions of creativity in the basic rule book. This was scaled back to vehicles in the 2nd edition of the game, but it was in one of the primary rules expansions for 2nd edition 40K.

**Ozymandias**

Posted By Da Boss on 07/10/2007 10:08 AM
If you can't understand why it is so galling to non marine players that DA/BA/SW/whatever have gotten their codices before chaos/orks/eldar/whatever over the years, and continue to do so, you must be fairly unimaginative. But i reckon you're just throwing in some tongue in cheek humour there.

I guess the

was lost on everyone else... But what I said was that Codex; Angels of Death came out before Codex: Chaos. That is 100% correct.

I do find it interesting that people are saying Chaos should get the same treatment as Space Marines, but wouldn't that mean more Marine codices? If each legion got their own book (even if it was just the 4 cult legions) that would be 13 MEQ books (I didn't anything in Codex:Armageddon or Codex:EoT) and 6 Non-MEQ books.

I think everyone is forgetting supply and demand. There is enough demand for a separate Dark Angels codex, there is not the same demand for a separate Death Guard codex. If there was, you bet GW would be producing one! It has nothing to do with "styles of combat" or fluff or anything else. GW makes more money producing C: DA than it would C: Death Guard or C:TkSons.

Also, BTW I also play Dark Eldar (and Vampire Counts in Fantasy), so I know what it feels like to have an old codex and old, crappy models.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Da Boss**

I don't really buy the "People want to play Space Marines!" argument. I think it's hard to say one way or the other. Perhaps people just want to play the army that they see advertised the most, and talked about the most, given the best support, continually updated with new options and garaunteed never to be dropped.
I really think the focus on marines is the worst thing about 40K, and has been since the start of Second Edition. I remember the White Dwarf articke where they declared this new focus. Looking back, it's one of the worst decisions they ever made, and they made it when they were still a free company.

And yeah, Vampire Counts character models SUCK.

And you're damn right, I don't want multiple books! One sourcebook per army please!

**Abadabadoobaddon**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 8:36 AM
You missed the gain of Nurgle marked havocs, bikers, marked raptors, and all of the other things that are new.

What good does that do a Thousand Sons player? Has it ever occured to you that maybe some people don't want Nurgle havocs, bikers, and raptors? Maybe they want sorcerers and rubric terminators and horrors and flamers and screamers?

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 8:36 AM
And when you lose a no-brainer option, or an option that is terrible, you haven't really lost anything.

By that logic, they might as well remove Orks from the game. Since Orks are terrible we wouldn't really be losing anything, right?

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 8:49 AM
See we've been getting mixed signals on that. JJ says that the studio believes the SM codex is a failure at bringing new gamers into the hobby yet they aren't planning on redoing it for a long time, if at all?

Of course they're planning on redoing it. It will almost certainly get redone after 5th edition is released. However they've said absolutely nothing to indicate that it will be redone sooner than that. That the studio thinks the SM codex is a failure merely implies that they will try to correct its perceived shortcomings when it gets redone. It does NOT imply that a redux is coming out any time soon.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 8:49 AM
Also, we have heard talk that the studio is debating about whether or not a new SM codex would be Codex: Ultramarines (i.e. Codex: Codex Marines), or Codex: Space Marines (i.e. with traits and the like). That also doesn't gel with the above.

Sure it does. Just because the studio is considering something doesn't mean its release is imminent. They're debating what the focus of the SM codex will be when it gets redone. Again, that doesn't imply that it's getting redone any time soon. They may just be planning ahead so that any new codices will be consistent with the 5th ed SM codex when it's released.

And when the next SM codex finally rolls around (probably right after the release of 5th edition) my money is on it being Codex: Ultramarines. No traits, no vet skills, no nothing. Just look at the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines (a.k.a. Codex: Black Legion) and it's pretty apparent which way they're leaning.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 9:36 AM
Creativity should not be in the rules in my opinion.

Well, lately they've been doing a damn good job at making rules that are completely devoid of creativity. But I don't think that's a good thing.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 9:36 AM
What did people do during Rogue Trader and 2nd Ed??

I don't know about 2nd ed, but during rogue trader people used to be able to field Fiends of Slaanesh, Steeds of Slaanesh, Daemonettes, Keepers of Secrets, Fleshhounds, Juggernauts, Bloodletters, Bloodthirsters, Beasts of Nurgle, Nurglings, Plaguebearers, Great Unclean Ones, Flamers, Discs of Tzeentch, Horrors, and Lords of Change. And they did all of this with 5 separate army lists - one for each god and 1 for undivided (EC, WE, DG, TD, BL). And there were cultists and beastmen too.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 9:36 AM
Despite the fact that the studio has said that they are releasing a Daemon codex next year (which will give you back your daemons, cultists, and other things).

There is absolutely zero indication that you will be able to include these daemons in your CSM army. Furthermore Jervis has stated that the daemon codex would not include cultists. LatD is dead.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 9:36 AM
Plus, with the BA codex in WD, why don't you think we'll see Legion specific rules in the future.

No. Jervis has stated that the BA list in WD is a one-off deal and we shouldn't expect rules in WD in the future.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 10:01 AM
Lost and Damned and Slaves to Darkness are not codex's.

What the hell is your point then? The Chaos legions had their own rules long before Blood Angels and Dark Angels did. What difference does it make whose 2nd ed book came out first? In 4th ed Codex: Tau came out before Codex: Dark Angels. Do you know what that means? I'm not sure but my first thought would be... JACK SQUAT. Are you trying to be funny or are you really that daft?

**standgale**

There is absolutely zero indication that you will be able to include these daemons in your CSM army. Furthermore Jervis has stated that the daemon codex would not include cultists. LatD is dead.

awwh

LatD is my favourite. Will the demon codex have mutants? They're not demons, so i'm guessing not. But what is life without mutants?

**Ozymandias**

My Replies are in italics

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"What good does that do a Thousand Sons player? Has it ever occured to you that maybe some people don't want Nurgle havocs, bikers, and raptors? Maybe they want sorcerers and rubric terminators and horrors and flamers and screamers?"

***********

So you are saying that only some diversity is ok. You lost some diversity in some areas and made it up in others. You lost Plaguebearers but gained Nurgle marked raptors, havocs, etc. That means just as many if not more net options. And are you really saying that the changes to TkSons are bad? They took one of the worst armies and are making them competitive! That's what people have been complaining about!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"By that logic, they might as well remove Orks from the game. Since Orks are terrible we wouldn't really be losing anything, right?"

********

That is just a stupid analogy. One is an option w/in a codex and the other is a whole new race. Furthermore, lots of people don't think Orks are terrible and do quite well with them. How many times have you taken bionics on a veteran sgt? Please try to make your counter posts intelligent.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"Of course they're planning on redoing it. It will almost certainly get redone after 5th edition is released. However they've said absolutely nothing to indicate that it will be redone sooner than that. That the studio thinks the SM codex is a failure merely implies that they will try to correct its perceived shortcomings when it gets redone. It does NOT imply that a redux is coming out any time soon."

*****************

I disagree. If your flagship product is a failure, you fix it as soon as you possibly can.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"I don't know about 2nd ed, but during rogue trader people used to be able to field Fiends of Slaanesh, Steeds of Slaanesh, Daemonettes, Keepers of Secrets, Fleshhounds, Juggernauts, Bloodletters, Bloodthirsters, Beasts of Nurgle, Nurglings, Plaguebearers, Great Unclean Ones, Flamers, Discs of Tzeentch, Horrors, and Lords of Change. And they did all of this with 5 separate army lists - one for each god and 1 for undivided (EC, WE, DG, TD, BL). And there were cultists and beastmen too."

*******************

I never played RT, but in 2nd ed there was one codex. No one had legion-specific rules and everyone got along just fine. If you wanted a Death Guard army, you only took Nurgle-marked troops and Nurgle-marked Daemons (and I've said I hope that they will allow you to mark daemons in the new dex). Voila, you have a Death Guard army. People didn't need Death Guard only rules to be creative.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"There is absolutely zero indication that you will be able to include these daemons in your CSM army. Furthermore Jervis has stated that the daemon codex would not include cultists. LatD is dead."

******************

This is news to me. I don't remember seeing any rumors or quotes that support what you claim. I'm not going to say it didn't happen, but I'd like to see where you heard that from. Do you have a quote?

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"No. Jervis has stated that the BA list in WD is a one-off deal and we shouldn't expect rules in WD in the future."

*********************

And they said they weren't going to release rules in WD anymore. The BA codex is proof that wasn't true either. You seem to have a selective capabilitiy to believe what GW says.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"What the hell is your point then? The Chaos legions had their own rules long before Blood Angels and Dark Angels did. What difference does it make whose 2nd ed book came out first? In 4th ed Codex: Tau came out before Codex: Dark Angels. Do you know what that means? I'm not sure but my first thought would be... JACK SQUAT. Are you trying to be funny or are you really that daft?"

*************

Apparently Da Boss is still the only one who caught the . And I will say again that Codex: Angels of Death came out before Codex: Chaos. Before 2nd ed, there were no "Codex" books. There were army lists for sure, but my comment was regarding Codex's. This forum is so bent on RAW but you sure like to disregard what I wrote.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Ozymandias**

Posted By Da Boss on 07/10/2007 11:51 AM
I don't really buy the "People want to play Space Marines!" argument. I think it's hard to say one way or the other. Perhaps people just want to play the army that they see advertised the most, and talked about the most, given the best support, continually updated with new options and garaunteed never to be dropped.
I really think the focus on marines is the worst thing about 40K, and has been since the start of Second Edition. I remember the White Dwarf articke where they declared this new focus. Looking back, it's one of the worst decisions they ever made, and they made it when they were still a free company.

And yeah, Vampire Counts character models SUCK.

And you're damn right, I don't want multiple books! One sourcebook per army please!

Yes and no. But you can't create demand from nothing. My guess is they saw how popular Marines were and decided to capitalize on it. It does create a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it has to start somewhere.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**efarrer**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 2:27 PM
Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"What good does that do a Thousand Sons player? Has it ever occured to you that maybe some people don't want Nurgle havocs, bikers, and raptors? Maybe they want sorcerers and rubric terminators and horrors and flamers and screamers?"

***********

So you are saying that only some diversity is ok. You lost some diversity in some areas and made it up in others. You lost Plaguebearers but gained Nurgle marked raptors, havocs, etc. That means just as many if not more net options. And are you really saying that the changes to TkSons are bad? They took one of the worst armies and are making them competitive! That's what people have been complaining about!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"Of course they're planning on redoing it. It will almost certainly get redone after 5th edition is released. However they've said absolutely nothing to indicate that it will be redone sooner than that. That the studio thinks the SM codex is a failure merely implies that they will try to correct its perceived shortcomings when it gets redone. It does NOT imply that a redux is coming out any time soon."

*****************

I disagree. If your flagship product is a failure, you fix it as soon as you possibly can.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"I don't know about 2nd ed, but during rogue trader people used to be able to field Fiends of Slaanesh, Steeds of Slaanesh, Daemonettes, Keepers of Secrets, Fleshhounds, Juggernauts, Bloodletters, Bloodthirsters, Beasts of Nurgle, Nurglings, Plaguebearers, Great Unclean Ones, Flamers, Discs of Tzeentch, Horrors, and Lords of Change. And they did all of this with 5 separate army lists - one for each god and 1 for undivided (EC, WE, DG, TD, BL). And there were cultists and beastmen too."

*******************

I never played RT, but in 2nd ed there was one codex. No one had legion-specific rules and everyone got along just fine. If you wanted a Death Guard army, you only took Nurgle-marked troops and Nurgle-marked Daemons (and I've said I hope that they will allow you to mark daemons in the new dex). Voila, you have a Death Guard army. People didn't need Death Guard only rules to be creative.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"There is absolutely zero indication that you will be able to include these daemons in your CSM army. Furthermore Jervis has stated that the daemon codex would not include cultists. LatD is dead."

******************

This is news to me. I don't remember seeing any rumors or quotes that support what you claim. I'm not going to say it didn't happen, but I'd like to see where you heard that from. Do you have a quote?

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"What the hell is your point then? The Chaos legions had their own rules long before Blood Angels and Dark Angels did. What difference does it make whose 2nd ed book came out first? In 4th ed Codex: Tau came out before Codex: Dark Angels. Do you know what that means? I'm not sure but my first thought would be... JACK SQUAT. Are you trying to be funny or are you really that daft?"

*************

Apparently Da Boss is still the only one who caught the . And I will say again that Codex: Angels of Death came out before Codex: Chaos. Before 2nd ed, there were no "Codex" books. There were army lists for sure, but my comment was regarding Codex's. This forum is so bent on RAW but you sure like to disregard what I wrote.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I hesitate to ask this question because if you were to confirm yourself as such I would have to raise my opinion of GW's online strategy.

Are you a GW sock puppet?

Regardless of critism you are insanely incapable of accepting that others may have valid concerns. It doesn't matter what anyone says be they grizzled veteran or new posters. When confronted with reality you engage in sophistry rather than admit your point was wrong.

To address what you have said.

Chaos players have long been proud of the fact that they can make unique armies out of thier single book which represented unique styles of play. If this book is similar to the Eldar there will be many clone armies built, and the best of those will be black legion style. Which is fine if you are a Black legion playeer. I'm not. Nor are many other chao players. We choose to build thematic armies which were generally pretty competitve, even the ones which weren't broken. The Eldar book, as well as the Blood Angels and Dark Angels are a poor signal for people who wish to play without special characters. THe current rumours for the Chaos book are telling many people that the armies they had are going to be rendered obsolete in a manner unseen since the 2nd to 3rd edition transition. It is depressing to have put the effort into making a neatly themed force to find units rendered obsolete at a whim. Had I had any idea that this would occur I wouldn't have bought some 60 deamons for use in my three god aligned armies Iwould have simply gotten 20 generic daemons (possibly from my dnd playing friends). Now from warseer:

<table width="659" height="232" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" border="0" align="center" class="tborder" id="post1707673"> <tbody> <tr> <td id="currentPost" style="border-style: solid none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) -moz-use-text-color rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-width: 1px 0px 1px 1px; font-weight: normal;" class="thead">  </td> <td align="right" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(0, 0, 0) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 0px; font-weight: normal;" class="thead"> #110 </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td width="175" style="border-style: none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(0, 0, 0); border-width: 0px 1px;" class="alt1">

BDJV <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1707673", true); </script>

Veteran Sergeant

Join Date: Apr 2005

Location: in crazy California

Posts: 119

</td> <td style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" id="td_post_1707673" class="alt2">

Re: Codex CSM: Daemons

I'd like to point out again that so far Jervis has said that you'll be able to use Codex CSM and Codex Daemon (or whatever they call it) together in big games. I am assuming from this statement it will be a stand alone codex; otherwise why would he make the comment.

We need to write letters and send them to the design staff and let them know the two codexes need to be interchangeable like the WFB chaos dexes. We need to do this and be polite and push the point without being rude or disrespectful.

__________________

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Which tends to indicate Apocolpyse or 2 force org use only.

For further evidence of the time lapse on the marine codex look to the thread with the scan of the release scehdule. Codex marines has been safe for at least hald a year and there is evidence it is safe until at least summer summer 08.

As to the Codex Angels of death. Pure sophistry.

**Asmodai**

Posted By standgale on 07/10/2007 2:18 PM

There is absolutely zero indication that you will be able to include these daemons in your CSM army. Furthermore Jervis has stated that the daemon codex would not include cultists. LatD is dead.

awwh LatD is my favourite. Will the demon codex have mutants? They're not demons, so i'm guessing not. But what is life without mutants?

What's ironic about this is the Gaunt's Ghosts novels are their most popular fiction, and they depict almost no enemies aside from LatD Chaos Cultists.

Seems silly to cut them out from the game.

**Ozymandias**

Efarrer:

Yep, you caught me. I'm a GW sock puppet. I'm actually JJ in disguise here to praise the almighty GW!

And you accuse me of sophistry! *rollseyes*

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**efarrer**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 3:13 PM
Efarrer:

Yep, you caught me. I'm a GW sock puppet. I'm actually JJ in disguise here to praise the almighty GW!

And you accuse me of sophistry! *rollseyes*

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Rhetoric on my side perhaps, sarcasm sure, sophistry no. There was no attempt to play word games or to decieve. You on the other hand have tried to play all sorts of things to avoid flat out admitting that the Chaos has a much longer history of armylists than the Dark Angels and more diversity to boot. You seem to want to tell Chaos players that they are getting the sun and the moon. They aren't. This book is stripping many units from the army (including 13 types of daemon, specialized havocs as well as delisting amny unique characterful choices). People do not appear to be generally rejoicing here about those changes. Of the people I have seen no indication you play any Chaos armies, nor any indication you have ever played one. Your distaste for "broken" Chaos armies is thus probably based on your experience playing against them. I look forward with anticipation to reading your posts as you praise GW's creative minds for nerfing future codexes. I on the other hand have played chaos for 10 years now. The list got steadily more diverse and that was a good thing. It encouraged looking for new options. The current book has a multitude of highly playble lists. The new one is quickly looking like there will be 2-3 builds worth discussing, not 15-20.

**Ozymandias**

You realize that the Sophists invented Rhetoric, right? You claim sarcasm, but apparently you do not recognize it. Again, here was what I posted:

"Though I will say again that DA had their own codex (shared with BA) before Chaos had theirs.

."

What did you think I was implying there?

means I'm winking, i.e. that comment is not serious. Geez, is Da Boss the only one who caught that? But, btw, saying Codex in reference to Codex's as opposed to army lists is not really "word games." Get a life.

Again, I ask you to actually read my posts instead of generalizing what I am saying. I am saying that the world is not coming to an end with the new Chaos dex. There are a lot of really good things in there, especially for TkSons and Death Guard players. I am saying that pissing and moaning isn't going to change the codex at this point and you should be focusing on the new positives rather than harping on the negatives.

I've been playing 40k for a long time, over 10 years, and Dark Angels for most of that and I have to say that I am happy with the change in direction. Do I wish it happened before C:SM, Nidzillas, and Mech Eldar, hell yeah, but better late than never! I like simple 40k rules with more advanced expansions like CoD and Apocalypse, I think that satisfies both the newbies, tournament players, and veterans. While I do not play Chaos, I have been itching to start a force for a long time, just waiting to see the final direction before I really start investing in another army.

Call me a fanboy, call me a GW sock puppet (whatever that means), but I actually do enjoy playing this game and don't feel the need to speak up when I am the 50th person to not like something. That's why I usually post when I have something to disagree about. On Dakka, that means I end up posting quite a bit...

(someone has to be the anti- doom and gloom other than Toreador.) I would like to see someone have a meaningful discussion with me as to why they dislike the new Chaos dex without resorting to sarcasm to make a point or calling me a fanboy when they can't make one. Da Boss and Asmodai seem to be the only ones capable of doing that.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**winterman**

I am saying that pissing and moaning isn't going to change the codex at this point and you should be focusing on the new positives rather than harping on the negatives.

You apparently don't even play chaos yet you think you can single handedly blow sunshine up the asses of jaded chaos players. Just let them be pissed. What does it matter to you?

**efarrer**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 4:21 PM
You realize that the Sophists invented Rhetoric, right?
Ozymandias, King of Kings

And yet in the English language both mean distinct things.

Conversing with you while entertaining is not promoting any further movement on this topic thus I will refrain from further comment on your remarkable optimism about an how the models in an army you do not play will remain viable.

**Abadabadoobaddon**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 2:27 PM
So you are saying that only some diversity is ok.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Why do you think people play cult armies? For diversity? If the goal was to have maximum diversity then they'd be playing vanilla Chaos. No, people play cult armies because they don't want to play vanilla Chaos. But with this new codex you don't have a choice - you have to play vanilla Chaos. Sure, you can field a Tzeentch-themed vanilla army with some Thousand Sons, but you could already do that with the old codex and now you can't field a Thousand Sons army anymore.

So now here you come telling us that we have all these new options. Well, thank you Captain Obvious. And congratulations for completely missing the point. We don't want options for vanilla Chaos. We want options for cult legions. You know, stuff like rubric terminators. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 2:27 PM
And are you really saying that the changes to TkSons are bad? They took one of the worst armies and are making them competitive!

No, they took one of the worst armies and are making them not exist anymore. There is no longer such a thing as a Thousand Sons army. Thousand Sons are just a unit type in the vanilla Chaos list. This makes many people Very Unhappy.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 2:27 PM
Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"By that logic, they might as well remove Orks from the game. Since Orks are terrible we wouldn't really be losing anything, right?"

********

That is just a stupid analogy. One is an option w/in a codex and the other is a whole new race.

Not really. If the solution to terrible options is to remove them, then what happens if your codex consists entirely of terrible options?

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 2:27 PM
Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"Of course they're planning on redoing it. It will almost certainly get redone after 5th edition is released. However they've said absolutely nothing to indicate that it will be redone sooner than that. That the studio thinks the SM codex is a failure merely implies that they will try to correct its perceived shortcomings when it gets redone. It does NOT imply that a redux is coming out any time soon."

*****************

I disagree. If your flagship product is a failure, you fix it as soon as you possibly can.

Well, it sounds like the folks at GW don't agree with you. Gav Thorpe has stated that there are no plans for a SM codex redux. Either he's lying or we're going to have to wait until 5th ed.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 2:27 PM
Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 07/10/2007 1:17 PM

"No. Jervis has stated that the BA list in WD is a one-off deal and we shouldn't expect rules in WD in the future."

*********************

And they said they weren't going to release rules in WD anymore. The BA codex is proof that wasn't true either. You seem to have a selective capabilitiy to believe what GW says.

Yes, they said they wouldn't release rules in WD anymore and then they did. After that they then said that this was a one-time exception to their "no rules in WD" policy and that they have no plans for continuing this in the future. Of course maybe they're lying and they're really planning to release some legion rules in WD. You're certainly welcome to disregard what the studio says in favor of wild speculation and wishful thinking.

**Ozymandias**

Apparently my request for someone to disagree with me without resorting to sarcasm or name-calling was just too much to ask.

This isn't going anywhere and will only get worse and then get locked. I will remove myself so you all can go back to lamenting your new Codex.

Have fun.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Frazzled**

Let me quote Homer Simpson-

"Sock Puppets!!!"

**Frazzled**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 6:12 PM
Apparently my request for someone to disagree with me without resorting to sarcasm or name-calling was just too much to ask.

This isn't going anywhere and will only get worse and then get locked. I will remove myself so you all can go back to lamenting your new Codex.

Have fun.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I guess you missed the post right above yours.

**Buoyancy**

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/10/2007 4:21 PM
On Dakka, that means I end up posting quite a bit... (someone has to be the anti- doom and gloom other than Toreador.)

Do you know what the golden mean fallacy is?

**thehod**

My biggest complaint about the codex was the killing off of the character of the codex. Sure the codex was very potent and Open to abuse 8 times over (and I mean by 8 different types of armies). But it had flavor and Chaos Marines were veterans of 1000 wars but now with the new codex they have just become regular Space Marines with spiky bits. One other thing that perplexes me is who is the group of people that cried cheese to the extent to allow only 1 reaper autocannon/heavy flamer per Chaos Terminator squad? It was not like they were that much better than loyalist terminators.

**efarrer**

The more I review the rumours, the more I am reminded of the first 3rd edition codex.

It is that reason alone that I feel a strong sense of dismay. The first codex was bland as velvetta. The second 3rd edition codex brought a great deal of character to the sub armies and encouraged most of the chaos players I knew to choose a legion and work on it. This codex appears set to reverse that, like a three year old Balderson Cheddar. I expect to see thousand sons laying down suppressive fire for beserkers as plague marine bikers swoop along the flank. It looks like a return to spreadable semi edible cheese is being planned.

What upsets me is that it feels like many of these changes are simply to force existing players to buy models which were no good under previous rules, while removing choices that existed. Though I don't think I'll ever be as irratated as I was when I had to remove some 36 plasma pistols and buy enough terminators to fill out my three man two reapers 2nd edition squads, the current rumours are leaving me pretty cold.

**Playa**

Hey,

Posted By efarrer on 07/11/2007 10:33 AM
The more I review the rumours, the more I am reminded of the first 3rd edition codex

The greatest danger of Codex: Rainbow Coalition may prove to be Mathhammer CSM Optibuilds. Let me give an example (if anyone can suggest more effective Units, please share). Let's start with the minimum standard FOC options:

@750pts:
HQ -
Flying Prince
(Why bother taking anything less?)
Troops -
2x Rubric Units in Rhinos
(Rush + 24in AP3 RFing backed by Magic Missile/ Force Weapon)

@1000pts, just add:
Elites -
1x MoT Chosen Unit w/ AWs
(A must-have for Infiltration)

Above 1000pts, add:
HQ -
2nd Flying Prince
(Hey, it worked the first time...) Elites -
2nd/ 3rd Chosen Unit
Heavy -
Obliterators
(Walking Lascannon/ Multimelta)
Fast -
MoT Bikers
(Tri-flamer Turbo Cav w/ Inv Sv)

Playa

**Reecius**

Why not take 2 princes, 2 greater deamons and then whatever else you want as those 4 units will be retardedly good.

Maybe some makred nurgle bikers that are toughness 6 to deliver the deamons?

**Voodoo Boyz**

I've done some thinking about what's best for the new dex build wise and it really revolves around 3 units:

Flying DP (x2)

Raptors (x2 w/ Fists and possibly Flamers for horde control)

Oblits (x6 or x9)

Troops are arguable to go one way or the other, but I think the above style config would go best with Sonic Marines since everything else is so anti-MEQ they give you a decent set of move and fire troops and you still can take a 6 man squad and get an AP3 heavy weapon if you want for more anti-MEQ goodness.

I know if I was going to start Chaos with this book, that's probably what I would run.

Oh and BTW, this stuff is probably better list wise than the new Blood Angels, who were in turn more powerful than the Dark Angels. So much for the end of "Codex Creep". I can only hope that the trend continues with the Ork release.