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.

Palindrome wrote:But thats not nessicarily a bad thing if the reward is great enough, or if that x hundred point model is discounted due to the chance that it may kill itself.

That's ridiculously hard to balance. GW already has issues in this area.

Palindrome wrote:GW gamers seem to have an irrational dislike of randomness. This makes even less sense with chaos players.

\

Because Chaos players are bad players? In any game where variance is involved, the first thing a good player will do is lower the variance. I'd rather take reliable Plague Marines than chance on a good roll for Possessed.

Not to mention having a single dice roll having a huge impact on the game (like turning a 300p model or unit into a spawn) is just bad game design.

Really NOT liking the idea of some sort of mechanical dragon flyer thing. It sounds stupid and garish. If need be i will take old parts and some GS and make my own more fitting replacement.

Not happy about the release date either. I refuse to pay 70$ for a rule book so i am holding out for the starter. Nor do i really care for the idea that my HQ could roll poorly and get transformed into worthless gak. Lots of people dont like playing orks because of the randomness and making chaos more like Orks is a bad idea IMHO.

NO DEMONS. What is this GAK. This seems like a ploy to make you buy Codex Chaos Demons so that you can continue to use all the shiney demon models you own. There will be Lots of tooth nashing from the chaos players i know.

Otherwise the rumors sound good. I really would not mind that much if cult troops were unlocked by different HQ. This sounds like a great idea. It would help to define armies so that all those people who play one god would really be representing for that god instead of players using slannesh sorcerer with plague marines just to min max for the greatest efficiency.

Defilers getting tougher would be a huge plus. Warsmiths = Yes please. Dark Apostles, love the idea and its about time. Cultists and a new demon engine? I really like the idea of cultists and as long as the demon engine has decent rules (non pyrovore like rules) this sounds awesome.

Right now i am at a make it or break it point with GW. If Chaos is a well written dex which is not OP but not weak sauce i can see staying in the game. I have really enjoyed the game but for now all the price hikes, poorly written codex (nids) etc. have left a bad taste in my mouth. Hopefully they pull through or else i am going to Infinity or another cheaper system.

sennacherib wrote:

NO DEMONS. What is this GAK. This seems like a ploy to make you buy Codex Chaos Demons so that you can continue to use all the shiney demon models you own. There will be Lots of tooth nashing from the chaos players i know.

Sorry to sound Mr Negative, but who really used generic daemons anyways? I mean ok the odd Greater Daemon here and there but I doubt a massive amount of chaos players will gnash their teeth

sennacherib wrote:NO DEMONS. What is this GAK. This seems like a ploy to make you buy Codex Chaos Demons so that you can continue to use all the shiney demon models you own. There will be Lots of tooth nashing from the chaos players i know.

Well...yes. Is this a bad thing? So you need to buy one new codex. Yet all lesser and greater daemons in the daemon codex are better than the ones in the current CSM book.

kenshin620 wrote:

sennacherib wrote:

NO DEMONS. What is this GAK. This seems like a ploy to make you buy Codex Chaos Demons so that you can continue to use all the shiney demon models you own. There will be Lots of tooth nashing from the chaos players i know.

Sorry to sound Mr Negative, but who really used generic daemons anyways? I mean ok the odd Greater Daemon here and there but I doubt a massive amount of chaos players will gnash their teeth

Lets see. I have two demon prince, a greater demon and ten lesser demons in my army.
I play with a dozen or so dedicated chaos players. They all have substantial numbers of lesser demons and demon princes in their collections.
In fact i think i only know 1 chaos player who does not own a single demon model and since he has a small collection, and i am not sure i have seen it all i cant swear by this.
Just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cerebrium wrote:

sennacherib wrote:NO DEMONS. What is this GAK. This seems like a ploy to make you buy Codex Chaos Demons so that you can continue to use all the shiney demon models you own. There will be Lots of tooth nashing from the chaos players i know.

Well...yes. Is this a bad thing? So you need to buy one new codex. Yet all lesser and greater daemons in the daemon codex are better than the ones in the current CSM book.

This is true, but what if i want to use some other dex as an allie instead of always being forced to take codex demons.

Then, y'know, suck it up, basically. I'd love a ravenwing stormtalon while I ally with GKs, but I can't have my cake and eat it.

pretre wrote:'Cult' units are all Elites and are unlocked to Troops by appropriate HQ choices...

pretre wrote:...but there are no Cult Terminators which makes me sad.

pretre wrote:Obliterators are exclusively for shooting - so no powerfists. BUT there is a new unit which is basically a close combat Obliterator.

I wonder what they would be called... I can guess, but I don't think I'm allowed to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:GW gamers seem to have an irrational dislike of randomness. This makes even less sense with chaos players.

Chaos =/= Random.

Put it in a spoiler for us!

For those upset about the "Eye of the Gods" table, and wondering how it will work, I'd imagine it's a 2D6 system, just like fantasy, but with a few exceptions. A roll of snake-eyes will probably cause Spawn-dom, 7 will have no effect, 3-6 will have +1 to varying stat markers, and 8-12 will grant other bonuses, such as causing fear, becoming a prince, or getting an increased invul save and stubborn (together). It's 1 negative effect on the chart, one where nothing happens at all, and everything else is an improvement. Most people in fantasy also don't see more than 1 or 2 rolls on the chart, per model. May be different with monsters, walkers and all challenges granting it.

My rumours tend to come with attached NDA's, and no amount of spoiler tags can change that.

Boring...

Back OT: Aww, no terminator bezerks!

H.B.M.C. wrote:My rumours tend to come with attached NDA's, and no amount of spoiler tags can change that.

Tease

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Chaos =/= Random.

Chaos = lack of order which is best represented in game by random events or mechanics which give unpredicatable results.

I'd rather take reliable Plague Marines than chance on a good roll for Possessed.

So if people design their armies for fluff rather than some 'optimised' build they are bad players?

Palindrome wrote:So if people design their armies for fluff rather than some 'optimised' build they are bad players?

I have a nice fluffy Nurgle force; 7 CSM in each squad, all on foot. Doesn't mean that I should be forced to randomly roll effects for my army, or have random powers instead of the ones I buy for them, etc, just because someone thinks that chaos should be more random, and the game should be more "fun" than involve any kind of skill at all.

The gifts of chaos are earned over a lifetime of service, not handed out randomly.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:So if people design their armies for fluff rather than some 'optimised' build they are bad players?

I have a nice fluffy Nurgle force; 7 CSM in each squad, all on foot. Doesn't mean that I should be forced to randomly roll effects for my army, or have random powers instead of the ones I buy for them, etc, just because someone thinks that chaos should be more random, and the game should be more "fun" than involve any kind of skill at all.

Where did I say that everything should be random? I was responding to the suggestion that people who take options with random effects are somehow worse players than those that don't. They may be worse in a purely competative sense, but that is a very narrow perspective.

Palindrome wrote:So if people design their armies for fluff rather than some 'optimised' build they are bad players?

A player that does not play to win is not a good player. So in that sense, yes, they are bad players.

Thing is, being a bad player isn't a bad thing if winning is not your primary goal.

A short synopsis of this thread:
Page 1 - One post of rumors and some discussion about them
Page 2+ - Arguments about tangent topics

Actually, I could probably use that as a synopsis for more N&R threads.

His Master's Voice wrote:
A player that does not play to win is not a good player. So in that sense, yes, they are bad players.

No, they are not. A bad player is someone who cheats or in someway disrupts the game. A good player is one who fosters a good atmosphere; playing to win doesn't come into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:
Actually, I could probably use that as a synopsis for more N&R threads.

All threads actually, at at least most, given that there is little to actually discuss at the moment.

It is almost like the subjective terms 'good' and 'bad' are in themselves subjective. That's so weird...

You know what's not subjective though? Staying on topic. Take it somewhere else.

This warms my heart a little... been waiting for some more Chaos rumors... just wish there was any word on possible biker army builds for Chaos like you can do with the present C:SM

Palindrome wrote:Where did I say that everything should be random?

I didn't. However, GW are making more and more random effects in their rules.

I was responding to the suggestion that people who take options with random effects are somehow worse players than those that don't.

I was commenting on the fact that applying some super random factor to everything is great... for those who want random effects. I personally don't, and I suspect that the majority are not really that thrilled about it either.

They may be worse in a purely competative sense, but that is a very narrow perspective.

I am perhaps as far from competetive a player as you can get but I have little interest in playing a game where tactics and skill take a back seat to randomness... again, speculation on the random factor that will be applied

sennacherib wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:

sennacherib wrote:

NO DEMONS. What is this GAK. This seems like a ploy to make you buy Codex Chaos Demons so that you can continue to use all the shiney demon models you own. There will be Lots of tooth nashing from the chaos players i know.

Sorry to sound Mr Negative, but who really used generic daemons anyways? I mean ok the odd Greater Daemon here and there but I doubt a massive amount of chaos players will gnash their teeth

Lets see. I have two demon prince, a greater demon and ten lesser demons in my army.
I play with a dozen or so dedicated chaos players. They all have substantial numbers of lesser demons and demon princes in their collections.
In fact i think i only know 1 chaos player who does not own a single demon model and since he has a small collection, and i am not sure i have seen it all i cant swear by this.
Just saying.

Well my comment was mainly discluding Daemon Princes. I would think that the no daemons was in reference to the greater and lessers, Princes as HQ is more of a CSM thing so I would assume they would be there to stay.

And I guess it's just me, but I think I'd rather use the daemon codex stats instead of a base stat line and no mark daemon stats

SilverMK2 wrote:
I didn't. However, GW are making more and more random effects in their rules.

Did you ever play RT or 2nd ed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:
You know what's not subjective though? Staying on topic. Take it somewhere else.

As it happens that is also subjective given that a significant part of these new rumours concern a new(ish) mechanic which will have an unpredicatable effect. On topic or off topic, that is the question.

Palindrome wrote:Did you ever play RT or 2nd ed?

I started just as 3rd was coming in. But just because random used to be in, doesn't make it a good idea

Palindrome wrote:

His Master's Voice wrote:
A player that does not play to win is not a good player. So in that sense, yes, they are bad players.

No, they are not. A bad player is someone who cheats or in someway disrupts the game. A good player is one who fosters a good atmosphere; playing to win doesn't come into it.

No that is a bad sport. A good sport is a person who fosters a good atmospher and says GG at the end of a game. A bad sport says GG turn 2 when you role a 1 on your daemon sword even though the game isn't completely decided yet.

A bad player is someone who is bad at playing the game, this doesn't mean that a good player always wins. A good player can play a crappy list for fun or play a supper powered list and lose to another supper power list. He does however know tatics and if he wants to win he wont opt for a codex that wont often win.

Hence you are not actually argueing about skill of player you're discussing whether chaos will see play. Yes as purly casual a completely high risk high reward army can be fun, however it doesn't matter how nice of a guy you are, One will rarely see a good gamer field a HRHR army at a tournament if he wants to win.

protonhunter wrote: One will never rarely see a good gamer field a HRHR army at a tournament if he wants to win.

Tournaments are a tiny part of the game. I haven't played in a tournament for 6-7 years, and that was FoW.

I also didn't suggest that everything would be random, or even that critical events should be random, just that there should be sufficent unpredictability to make Chaos Marines more than Imperial Marines with spikes.

Granted, tourney play isn't everything, but idk about you guys but I have a friend who stopped playing because he never won. yes he'd dust off his Tau every once and a while to play but it wasn't as fun when he just got curb stomped every time by a supper broken list. Even casual games weren't as fun because he knew he was almost definitly going to loose. Simple fact is that HRHR type armies lead to a great deal of frustrating situations where a good player will say, wait why am I fielding this army when other armies will give me worlds more consistent results.

To the degree of randomness, I say that's what psychers are for. Why make our infantry recieve random buffs when they can get their own unique rules. Also I'm thinking about what we lose because of this randomness. Don't think for a second that they can just give us this role for free it's also reflected in our points cost and balancing for other rules given to the models. If we get this random buff/curse it muscles out other cool abilities because of lack of space on a unit.

What's a HRHR army?

High rist high reward, Ie, they will sometimes do great but at other times totally crap out. Think of lootas but to the extream like if you roled a 1 every one of your guys takes a Str 3 hit, but if you roled a 6 you got 5 shots (2 being nothing and so on up the later)

protonhunter wrote:

High rist high reward, Ie, they will sometimes do great but at other times totally crap out. Think of lootas but to the extream like if you roled a 1 every one of your guys takes a Str 3 hit, but if you roled a 6 you got 5 shots (2 being nothing and so on up the later)

Aha, you used it earlier in the post, I just didn't make the connection. I gotcha.