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.

WayneTheGame wrote:
That's what Chaos is about. The fact that a spammy mono-Nurgle list is competitive isn't the point here, it's that for those of us who don't want to play Nurgle, the army choices suck and even people who do like Nurgle get shafted because the competitive Nurgle list is boring tripe. It's not even a Death Guard army.

And yet Codex: Space Marines is held up as a paragon of design when it's more or less Iron Hands/White Scars or go home. Chapter/Legion Tactics isn't a replacement for proper unit design.

Unfortunately, most C:SM players want the Heresy-era legions, not the current 41st Millenium legions (if they can even be called that now). The fluff has been pretty adamant that most of the old Legions are no more, having devolved into smaller warbands. Even the Black Legion is far from The Sons of Horus/Lunar Wolves, since basically they force every smaller warband to adopt the Black or die, or they take any scrap of geneseed they can steal to add whatever Fabius Bile can create.

I think from a fluff perspective, the only legions that tend to still operate in the same manner as a true Heresy-era Legion are Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, and Black Legion (and I already stated why they aren't the same anymore). Alpha Legion could also be included in this, but they operate as small warbands to spread discord over a larger area (sort of like they did originally). Deathguard have sort of been left out as to how they currently operate, with the fluff seeming to only focus on Typhus and his plague. Night Lords, 1000 Sons, Emperor's Children, and World Eaters seem to have all more or less broken apart into much smaller warbands with little to no legion structure left.

While not a C:SM player, I'd love to see something that focuses on the legions with more unique tactics, such as Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, or Night Lords. There really isn't much to support Deathguard ,Word Bearers, 1000 Sons, or World Eaters functioning that much differently from the units already presented in the codex (albeit I readily admit the costs on a few of them should be modified, Berzerkers are ridiculously priced). The Black Legion supplement was a waste of time.

I think one simple fix would be to allow C:SM to take 2 HQ for every available slot, much like Space Wolves and Daemon Heralds, and a Chapter Master level generic HQ option. This would play to the whole "Champions trying to get the attention of the Chaos gods" vibe that is currently the focus, and would better represent a gathering of different warbands.

Honestly, if units like Khorne Berserkers weren't absolutely terrible, that would probably quiet down a lot of the call for Legion tactics/codices. I know I would have been perfectly happy if my WE/Khorne army would be functionally playable regardless of whether I had a WE codex or just the generic CSM one. I think people are partially just looking at a legion specific codex as a solution to the problem.

We want to feel like we're playing our favorite legions. As it is, it feels generic and un-fluffy.
I'd accept the current power levels if it felt like I was actually playing a world eater army and not a "warband" with a few zerkers.
Having a bunch of plague marines, obliterators and forgefiends just doesn't capture the feel of my beloved Iron warriors.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Unfortunately, most C:SM players want the Heresy-era legions, not the current 41st Millenium legions (if they can even be called that now). The fluff has been pretty adamant that most of the old Legions are no more, having devolved into smaller warbands. Even the Black Legion is far from The Sons of Horus/Lunar Wolves, since basically they force every smaller warband to adopt the Black or die, or they take any scrap of geneseed they can steal to add whatever Fabius Bile can create.

I think from a fluff perspective, the only legions that tend to still operate in the same manner as a true Heresy-era Legion are Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, and Black Legion (and I already stated why they aren't the same anymore). Alpha Legion could also be included in this, but they operate as small warbands to spread discord over a larger area (sort of like they did originally). Deathguard have sort of been left out as to how they currently operate, with the fluff seeming to only focus on Typhus and his plague. Night Lords, 1000 Sons, Emperor's Children, and World Eaters seem to have all more or less broken apart into much smaller warbands with little to no legion structure left.

Really hope I don't come off as a jerk here, but this is so so wrong. We don't want the Heresy Legions at all, we want our 3.5 broken and reforged Legions, which are still canon. The Legions may not fight under one banner anymore, some may not even call themselves by their old names but they are bonded by traditions. The Night lords will always be creatures of terror, refusing to worship chaos, even when some are foolish enough to be corrupted by it, they do not worship it.

We want insane world eaters where even the Termies and the Dreads are fuelled by rage, carrying axes of Khorne, screaming devotion to the blood god.

We want Thousand Sons where every single member (not just one squad in the codex) is a husk of walking armour lead by a sorcerer.

We want Death Guard where every single Marine is a walking hive of plague, vehicles are impossibly rare but almost unnecessary to the virtually unkillable menace pacing forward slowly under a steady stream of fire.

We want Emperors Children where even the vehicles are shrines to excess, blaring doom sirens and sonic blasters at the foe.

Iron Warriors I would say can actually be done unit wise but we want rules to represent the most bitter legion's 10,000 years of pent up hatred and paranoia, not just space marines with lots of artillery.

We want choices of Veteran upgrades to represent 10,000 year old Warriors, not just spikey space marines. Varying degrees of mutations that can be bought for HQ or Squad leaders to show their progress on the path of worship.

We don't want to field armies from Codex Space Marines, because ATSKNF is not fluffy for us, hatred is our way, not noble stubborness.

We want Lords that are actually worthy of the gods favour, that are customisable and unique to our warbands.

We want a refined Chaos Codex 3.5, not a "At least it isn't 4th" 6th Ed codex. Before the tirade of hate from anyone who hated the IW spam from 3.5, notice I said a refined 3.5, not a carbon copy. 4th and 6th are almost totally different armies. Unless you played Chaos in third you have no idea how frustrating it was that our codex got ripped in half. The Daemon side got expanded with new fluff, new units and a new play style. The Traitor side got given sub-par marines with spikes. Then 6th ignored all of our frustrations, gave us none of our character back and just gave us robot dinosaurs and two Legion specific HQs that now everyone could use.

That is what we are upset about, not codex creep, or what tier we are. That our codex lost it's flavour. Go ask a Black Templar player, would they rather have a bottom tier codex or be a line of text in the space marine codex?

That's what I've been saying. CSM players haven't been happy about their codex since third edition, this is really no change. Hell, CSM players whined a lot about the 3rd edition codex, too, for that matter.

 Melissia wrote:
That's what I've been saying. CSM players haven't been happy about their codex since third edition, this is really no change. Hell, CSM players whined a lot about the 3rd edition codex, too, for that matter.

Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

 Melissia wrote:
That's what I've been saying. CSM players haven't been happy about their codex since third edition, this is really no change. Hell, CSM players whined a lot about the 3rd edition codex, too, for that matter.

Having played in the days of the original 3rd edition Codex written by Jervis Johnson, there was a lot of complaints then, mostly due to the fact that the new units we got (Obliterators and Raptors) sucked. Obliterators were so bad that not only did they have to get a Chapter Approved upping their toughness, but they also got new models sculpted because the original models were so awful as to not even have the word to describe them. IIRC Cult Terminators were also added in a CA article. It was so bad that arguably the "Black Codex" rules in the 3rd edition rulebook (the ones meant to tide you over from 2nd until a real codex was released) was better for Chaos than the 3rd edition codex.

The IA articles were the best thing to ever come in 40k if you ask me, because for that brief period of time every SM/CSM army could be fielded in a unique way suited to their backstory. Raven Guard and White Scars and Imperial Fists fought very differently, as did Word Bearers and Alpha Legion and Iron Warriors. It was beautiful.

 Kain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's what I've been saying. CSM players haven't been happy about their codex since third edition, this is really no change. Hell, CSM players whined a lot about the 3rd edition codex, too, for that matter.

Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

Last time i checked Black Templars are in a good book (If you count C:SM).

 ace101 wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's what I've been saying. CSM players haven't been happy about their codex since third edition, this is really no change. Hell, CSM players whined a lot about the 3rd edition codex, too, for that matter.

Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

Last time i checked Black Templars are in a good book (If you count C:SM).

I actually feel for the BT since they had their own codex and then were just lumped into C:SM despite being one of the few chapters that actually deserve their own codex due to their unorthodox combat doctrines. Much more so than, for example, Dark Angels that outside of Ravenwing/Deathwing (both of which should really be default allowed in any SM army as there is the 8th company which could be fielded as all bikers, and the 1st company which could be all Terminators) are basically Marines with more robes; they fight the same as any other chapter. Arguably Blood Angels don't deserve their own codex either although they've become more unique in later editions with the Furioso (which I remember being the *name* of the BA Dreadnought, not a type) and the Baal Predator and the like.

What they should really do is have one codex for the more codex-oriented chapters that don't differ a lot as they don't need more than a little bit of rules to allow them (e.g. Ultras, Fists, Dark Angels, possibly Raven Guard, possibly Salamanders), and one codex for the real fringe chapters like Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, possibly Scars and the like. Then the same thing for Chaos: One codex with the Big Four, and one with the Traitor Legions, and arguably one for Lost & the Damned stuff with lots of Cultists, Beastmen and other gribblies.

 ace101 wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's what I've been saying. CSM players haven't been happy about their codex since third edition, this is really no change. Hell, CSM players whined a lot about the 3rd edition codex, too, for that matter.

Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

Last time i checked Black Templars are in a good book (If you count C:SM).

Black Templars chapter tactics and special characters are terrible.

 Kain wrote:
Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

The first thought in my head when I read this post was "Still less reason to complain than Sisters of Battle players."

You've gotten new units. Last time we got a n6ew unit that wasn't just a rehashed old unit was third edition. Our rules have been watered down with two poorly thought out "codices" (neither of which actually had its own print book) since then-- only two, in spite of there having been four new editions released since then. At least you have plastic infantry models. We're still using metal models for our infantry that were released in second edition, and many of them are out of stock.

Don't act like I don't know what it's like to play a codex that's been ignored and hasn't been given the attention it deserves. You are a fool if you think that.

 Melissia wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

The first thought in my head when I read this post was "Still less reason to complain than Sisters of Battle players."

You've gotten new units. Last time we got a n6ew unit that wasn't just a rehashed old unit was third edition. Our rules have been watered down with two poorly thought out "codices" (neither of which actually had its own print book) since then-- only two, in spite of there having been four new editions released since then. At least you have plastic infantry models. We're still using metal models for our infantry that were released in second edition, and many of them are out of stock.

Don't act like I don't know what it's like to play a codex that's been ignored and hasn't been given the attention it deserves. You are a fool if you think that.

...But that argument is flawed. That it is worse elsewhere does not make it anywhere near good here.

 Melissia wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

The first thought in my head when I read this post was "Still less reason to complain than Sisters of Battle players."

You've gotten new units. Last time we got a n6ew unit that wasn't just a rehashed old unit was third edition. Our rules have been watered down with two poorly thought out "codices" (neither of which actually had its own print book) since then-- only two, in spite of there having been four new editions released since then. At least you have plastic infantry models. We're still using metal models for our infantry that were released in second edition, and many of them are out of stock.

Don't act like I don't know what it's like to play a codex that's been ignored and hasn't been given the attention it deserves. You are a fool if you think that.

I never implied that SoBs do not have reason to complain.

And "don't complain, there are starving kids in Africa" is a terrible method to try and dismiss other people's dissatisfaction.

Just because others have it worse does not make your problems any less valid.

The neglected and unloved armies of 40k should be banding with one another against the true enemy; GW which sticks us with writers who don't like or get our armies time after time, completely ignore our complaints, and all their apologists who insist that we should compromise on our army's character or that nothing is wrong.

We shouldn't be fighting each other.

Tyranid, Chaos Space Marine, SoB, and Black Templar in hand, standing side by side against all comers.

 Ashiraya wrote:
...But that argument is flawed. That it is worse elsewhere does not make it anywhere near good here.

I never said you had it good. Stop making gak up and claiming I said it.

It's very dishonest and is one of my biggest pet peeves.

 Melissia wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Are you for or against the dissatisfied Tyranid, Black Templar, and Chaos Space marine players who have gone through two, and now it seems it will be three; whole editions where they've had to play with bad books and had to have fun and win in spite of and not because of their codexes?

The first thought in my head when I read this post was "Still less reason to complain than Sisters of Battle players."

You've gotten new units. Last time we got a n6ew unit that wasn't just a rehashed old unit was third edition. Our rules have been watered down with two poorly thought out "codices" (neither of which actually had its own print book) since then-- only two, in spite of there having been four new editions released since then. At least you have plastic infantry models. We're still using metal models for our infantry that were released in second edition, and many of them are out of stock.

Don't act like I don't know what it's like to play a codex that's been ignored and hasn't been given the attention it deserves. You are a fool if you think that.

You know... while I sympathize in all honesty I doubt the SoB ever were meant to be a legit army, and I'm rather confused that they have such a devout cult following (irony?) as they never seemed to really be that well represented or supported from the start. I remember when they were first released at the end of 2nd and even then it seemed like they were intended more as an allied force to do some kind of themed combined arms Imperial army or for scenarios, never a full blown army like Eldar or Space Marines or Tyranids.

Of course, the same was intended for Necrons when they came out; they were never meant to be a full blown army either that I can remember and just kind of expanded into it.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know... while I sympathize in all honesty I doubt the SoB ever were meant to be a legit army, and I'm rather confused that they have such a devout cult following (irony?) as they never seemed to really be that well represented or supported from the start. I remember when they were first released at the end of 2nd and even then it seemed like they were intended more as an allied force to do some kind of themed combined arms Imperial army or for scenarios, never a full blown army like Eldar or Space Marines or Tyranids.

Why do CSM players still like the CSM concept even though it's almost universally agreed that CSMs have been poorly done in every single edition ever? And even though it's blatantly apparent that they're not the main force of Chaos, they're just one of many factions and most of the time Chaos isn't represented by them at all?

The answer is obvious. Because we like the lore.

 Melissia wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know... while I sympathize in all honesty I doubt the SoB ever were meant to be a legit army, and I'm rather confused that they have such a devout cult following (irony?) as they never seemed to really be that well represented or supported from the start. I remember when they were first released at the end of 2nd and even then it seemed like they were intended more as an allied force to do some kind of themed combined arms Imperial army or for scenarios, never a full blown army like Eldar or Space Marines or Tyranids.

Why do CSM players still like the CSM concept even though it's almost universally agreed that CSMs have been poorly done in every single edition ever?

Because Chaos are an integral part of what makes the setting 40k. With all due respect, you could take out a lot of things from 40k and the setting really wouldn't be any different. But Chaos has always been the overarching bad guy.

I'm not saying SoB don't deserve to be fleshed out, just that I don't think they ever were meant to be a complete army, ever, in the same vein as in 2nd edition you could have Adeptus Arbites but they were never intended as a complete army either. SoB always felt like they were in that category; better served alongside another army (Inquisitors and/or IG, likely) rather than an entire army of them.

Ah, it's been too long since we had one of these threads where everyone feels they should express their opinion as if everybody else shares it.

 Melissia wrote:
That's what I've been saying. CSM players haven't been happy about their codex since third edition, this is really no change. Hell, CSM players whined a lot about the 3rd edition codex, too, for that matter.

Except a lot of us aren't just whining. We stopped playing, along with Nid, Templar and Sisters players who loved the game for the background and when our preferred codices stopped representing that background for 2-3-4 editions, we gave up hoping for a return to the old days.

I'm not saying that people wouldn't complain, you can't please everyone. But look at Dark Eldar, they got the codex that they deserved, one that made the army fun to play in the way it was designed to be played, if albeit not a super powered codex. Competitive players will always find complaints when the meta shifts a codex down a tier but I talking about the soul and substance of what made these armies interesting. A new edition can save poor viability, but GW never seem to address the things that give us flavour.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Because Chaos are an integral part of what makes the setting 40k.

They're a minor faction that could disappear entirely from the setting without much impact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KorPhaeron77 wrote:
Except a lot of us aren't just whining. We stopped playing

I don't know why you think these two are mutually exclusive

 KorPhaeron77 wrote:
A new edition can save poor viability, but GW never seem to address the things that give us flavour.

Well yes, but that's not really a NEW problem...

 Melissia wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Because Chaos are an integral part of what makes the setting 40k.

They're a minor faction that could disappear fro mthe setting without much impact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KorPhaeron77 wrote:
Except a lot of us aren't just whining. We stopped playing

I don't know why you think these two are mutually exclusive

 KorPhaeron77 wrote:
A new edition can save poor viability, but GW never seem to address the things that give us flavour.

Well yes, but that's not really a NEW problem...

While I am critical of the idea that Chaos is the centre of the setting or even the central antagonist, I must object to the idea that you could remove or replace Chaos without changing a great deal of 40k.

 Kain wrote:
While I am critical of the idea that Chaos is the centre of the setting

What does that have to do with CSMs?

The overwhelming majority of Chaos lore has nothing to do with CSMs.

Also this conversation could probably do with being its own thread.

Chaos is massively important in the setting. CSM are just the poster boys at the moment.

They should make CSM weirder. Have less marines surrounded by cultists, mutants and daemons.

Well yes, but that's not really a NEW problem...

Fair point, but I didn't think that this was a list of new problems, but more of a list of what could make it better again. Seriously, it isn't a big ask. Get Chaos 3.5, go through, balance it better than it was, remove the Daemons...add the new units that weren't around then...voila...new codex. They can be middle tier for all I care but if we suddenly get back a list of different ways to play them fluffy and not shatteringly broken or terrible, then most of us would be happy and any unhappy comp players could still wait around for a new edition or faq to suddenly swing the power creep back our way.

GW are supposed to be all about "forge the narrative" well if nothing else, this would go along way to doing that.

 Melissia wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Because Chaos are an integral part of what makes the setting 40k.

They're a minor faction that could disappear entirely from the setting without much impact.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Chaos is massively important in the setting. CSM are just the poster boys at the moment.

They should make CSM weirder. Have less marines surrounded by cultists, mutants and daemons.

I would love to see CSMs become less CSM and more Lost and the Damned w/CSMs in them. I might even be tempted to play then, as long as I wasn't forced to use CSMs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SarisKhan wrote:
You are an extremely biased and malicious person

At least I'm not claiming people who have different opinions of me are cruel and mean trolls (IE, "malicious", full of malice and intent to harm). I've done nothing but express my opinion about plastic soldiers in a forum whereupon we talk about the plastic soldiers we love so much.

 SarisKhan wrote:
Just leave us alone, for the love of Gods.

No.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
...But that argument is flawed. That it is worse elsewhere does not make it anywhere near good here.

I never said you had it good. Stop making gak up and claiming I said it.

It's very dishonest and is one of my biggest pet peeves.

No, YOU are making gak up. You did not say it was good, but you implied that the complaining was unnecessary/excessive, which it would not be if it was bad.

 Melissia wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Chaos is massively important in the setting. CSM are just the poster boys at the moment.

They should make CSM weirder. Have less marines surrounded by cultists, mutants and daemons.

I would love to see CSMs become less CSM and more Lost and the Damned w/CSMs in them. I might even be tempted to play then, as long as I wasn't forced to use CSMs.

That's a LatD army though, not CSM. And while that should exist, it should be its own army not replace Chaos Space Marines. If you skipped over it go back and read my quotes from the 2nd edition and 3.5 Codex - there's always been technically three types of Chaos: Lost and the Damned (Cultists, mutants, some daemons), Daemons, and the Traitor Legions. These things used to have a bit of separation but allow for playing a mixed warband if you chose. The 6e codex threw them all back together, poorly, without any of the identity of any of them. Not that it'd ever happen but I'd rather have three Chaos codexes than four Space Marine codexes and umpteen supplements that aren't needed.

 Ashiraya wrote:
No, YOU are making gak up.

Citation please.

 Ashiraya wrote:
You did not say it was good, but you implied that the complaining was unnecessary/excessive, which it would not be if it was bad.

No I didn't. I merely offered historical perspective, because it appeared to me that people were acting like this was somehow a new problem that CSMs were facing.