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.

 kronk wrote:
<--- Chaos player.

<--- Enjoys the Chaos codex.

<---- Also enjoys bourbon, so clearly has good taste.

<---Enjoys both of the Chaos rule books he uses.

<--- Enjoys them so much that he will bet anything that 10 times out of 10 Archaon, Valkia, Vilich, Festus, and Sigvald can beat the gak out of Abaddon, Kharn, Arhiman, Typhus, and Lucius.

Funny, I played Iron Warriors since 3ed.... best one was 3.5 and now, with HH, I can do again my 3.5 army in 30k.... I only have foot soldiers and tanks. All other editions, updates and faqs change nothing for me, even in a competitive way.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
I think everyone who has owned a nerfed/crappy codex, and who also has any desire to be competitive, has a rather simple time doing it.

Nope. Those other games don't have the lore that GW's stuff has.

Interesting point. That being said, do people that follow the lore find this edition to be a little outside of the lore? Eldar summoning Slaanesh Daemons? Daemons being able to ally with Grey Knights? Tyranids being able to ally with anyone? Blood Angels being able to ally with CSM, including with Abaddon?

Lore is cool, but only when it is consistent. Lore went out the door when GW needed to make money. Remember that.

Gameplay isn't lore. Also, for a lot of people, lore is the only reason they play to begin with.

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
I think everyone who has owned a nerfed/crappy codex, and who also has any desire to be competitive, has a rather simple time doing it.

Nope. Those other games don't have the lore that GW's stuff has.

Interesting point. That being said, do people that follow the lore find this edition to be a little outside of the lore? Eldar summoning Slaanesh Daemons? Daemons being able to ally with Grey Knights? Tyranids being able to ally with anyone? Blood Angels being able to ally with CSM, including with Abaddon?

Lore is cool, but only when it is consistent. Lore went out the door when GW needed to make money. Remember that.

Gameplay isn't lore. Also, for a lot of people, lore is the only reason they play to begin with.

If gameplay isn't lore, then why play a game for the lore, especially when the lore doesn't match the gameplay? You make no sense.

I don't see why it doesn't make sense.

The gameplay and lore are certainly tied together (sometimes quite loosely), but that doesn't make them the same.

In the Starcraft series, it takes forever for a single marine to kill a single Zerg, even while in cutscenes, they klil them by the dozens quite quickly. Segregation of gameplay and story is not an unheard of concept.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:


If gameplay isn't lore, then why play a game for the lore, especially when the lore doesn't match the gameplay? You make no sense.

Assuming you read a bunch of books that you absolutely loved, and there was a game for it that deviated from the story for gameplay and balancing purposes, but yet still allowed you to play all your favourite characters and units in the game, would you not do so? And would it be really unjustified to express disappointments that the gameplay representation for your faction is at times grossly and unnecessarily different from the stories, and in a negative way?


Not everyone is all about strategic list building and balancing. I personally mostly am, but it's ridiculous to question someone else's reasoning for playing the game as if telling them not to is the only alternative, rather than taking the good with the bad and playing it anyway all the while encouraging and suggesting positive change.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:


If gameplay isn't lore, then why play a game for the lore, especially when the lore doesn't match the gameplay? You make no sense.

Assuming you read a bunch of books that you absolutely loved, and there was a game for it that deviated from the story for gameplay and balancing purposes, but yet still allowed you to play all your favourite characters and units in the game, would you not do so? And would it be really unjustified to express disappointments that the gameplay representation for your faction is at times grossly and unnecessarily different from the stories, and in a negative way?


Not everyone is all about strategic list building and balancing. I personally mostly am, but it's ridiculous to question someone else's reasoning for playing the game as if telling them not to is the only alternative as opposed to taking the good with the bad while encouraging and suggesting positive change.

^ this is what we like to call a strawman. In reality, she/he said that lore is not a part of gameplay. I argued in relation to that assumption. Your argument incorrectly characterizes my argument as being about someone who believes the lore is somehow connected. If you want to address the argument that lore is not connected to gameplay, at all, please do it. Don't misstate an argument, in a weaker way, and then proceed to trash it.

I didn't say "lore is not a part of gameplay" (you did, not I). I said gameplay isn't lore.

I then clarified my statement, saying "The gameplay and lore are certainly tied together (sometimes quite loosely), but that doesn't make them the same."

No, the statement made was that lore isn't gameplay. This doesn't mean they share nothing and are completely different, it means that they are not exactly the same as shouldn't be classified as such, as was done when you said the LORE was currently lax because of GAMEPLAY elements.

She never once said that lore is not part of the gameplay. It is you who has misunderstood, and this is coming from someone who just reported Melissia for her antics earlier on in this thread. Whether or not I dislike her, you are definitely off the mark here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There, she beat me to it ^ it's ironic now because that "strawman" rant now only applies to your own post.

What are we supposed to as Chaos players?

Well, I for one am going to continue spamming Thousand Sons to represent my Sorceresses-binding-horrors-into-suits-of-power-armour. Don't see how an expanded psychic presence in the game and a minor nerf to one of our daemon engines is going to change that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
No, the statement made was that lore isn't gameplay. This doesn't mean they share nothing and are completely different, it means that they are not exactly the same as shouldn't be classified as such, as was done when you said the LORE was currently lax because of GAMEPLAY elements.

She never once said that lore is not part of the gameplay. It is you who has misunderstood, and this is coming from someone who just reported Melissia for her antics earlier on in this thread. Whether or not I dislike her, you are definitely off the mark here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There, she beat me to it ^ it's ironic now because that "strawman" rant now only applies to your own post.

I see no difference, in the context of this conversation, between "lore is not a part of gameplay" and "gameplay isn't lore." You have to read the entire thread, which apparently you haven't. Nice try. Troll elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
What are we supposed to as Chaos players?

Well, I for one am going to continue spamming Thousand Sons to represent my Sorceresses-binding-horrors-into-suits-of-power-armour. Don't see how an expanded psychic presence in the game and a minor nerf to one of our daemon engines is going to change that.

Read the thread. In short, you can either: 1) quite playing CSM and play a different army; 2) keep playing CSM, and suck; or 3) quit playing 40k and play a game where balance is important.

We can do without all the accusations and name calling.

I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

 reds8n wrote:
We can do without all the accusations and name calling.

I see no name calling. To what are you referring?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

People really love to exaggerate how bad things are, competitively. There's a power gap, but the possibility of winning with the right tactics is always there, for every codex...

 Melissia wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

People really love to exaggerate how bad things are, competitively. There's a power gap, but the possibility of winning with the right tactics is always there, for every codex...

Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

You have failed to see the distinction but it isn't less grounds for complaints that the army is Inaccurately represented in it's it's codex options from a lore perspective, just because there is outlandish elements of gameplay added with 7th. There is not enough correlation there to question someone's reason for playing the game and using it as logic that there argument is nonsensical. Which it wasn't.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

People really love to exaggerate how bad things are, competitively. There's a power gap, but the possibility of winning with the right tactics is always there, for every codex...

Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

I'll be blunt.

IDGAF about tournaments.

I don't see how they are mandatory to 'not suck'

The Chaos codex is non-ideally written and leaves a lot to be asked.

It is not the end of the world. It does not make me suck for using it.

... So annoying that people can't focus on the subject being discussed by expressing one's own point of view and instead talk about how people's logic are failing or arguments are invalid... The subject at hand are sometimes only mentioned in a single post and then it's about undermining people's intelligence and arguments.

I can see that when some are talking about making a good list and they jump straight into supplements and mix Marks and units whatever they like without explaining, they certainly aren't guided by lore, but some of us are and we have of course accepted the fact the lore and background aren't reflected 100 % in any game - I thought that this was common knowledge...

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

Define "major tournament".

I recall one of the LVO top 8 spots being CSM/Daemons, but you'd probably claim that wasn't "pure". Only half of the spots included Eldar (two "pure", two Eldar/Dark Eldar). Two of the spots included CSMs (CSM/Daemons and Necrons/Black Legion). Only one spot included Space Marines (Space Marines/Red Hunters), and only one included Necrons (Necrons/Black Legion, as above). None included Tau, Orks, or Sisters.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

We are supposed to stop with the accusations, and name calling. Please stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

Define "major tournament".

I recall one of the LVO top 8 spots being CSM/Daemons, but you'd probably claim that wasn't "pure". Only half of the spots included Eldar. Two of the spots included CSMs. Only one spot included Space Marines, and only one included Necrons. None included Tau, Orks, or Sisters.

That was a primary, but it was not top 4.

Irrelevant.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

We are supposed to stop with the accusations, and name calling. Please stop.

Wow.

Yeah, Serious provocative posting there lol. All good, ignore button has a purpose.


Anyway back on topic, can we all agree that IW is the one legion that is actually fairly well represented in the codex? You have all the options for a very fluffy Iron Warriors composition (even if it isn't A-tier ). Fair to say?

Nah, IW could use basilisks and other artillery as well as more expanded LATD. Just cultists is not really enough.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

You have failed to see the distinction but it isn't less grounds for complaints that the army is Inaccurately represented in it's it's codex options from a lore perspective, just because there is outlandish elements of gameplay added with 7th. There is not enough correlation there to question someone's reason for playing the game and using it as logic that there argument is nonsensical. Which it wasn't.

I don't know, man. Seems like you were a little harsh. The guy was only pointing out that when you say gameplay and lore are not the same, that lore and gameplay are not connected. Just tone it down a bit, no reason to get upset.

They are better off than some Legions but there is still a fair bit that is missing, and a lot that could be done better.

The Warsmith is supposed to be in command of Grand Companies, each of which is Chapter-sized and so you'd expect him to be roughly equivalent with a Chapter Master. Instead, we get a WS4, W2, A2 model who operates as a glorified Techmarine. This is assuming that the Warpsmith is an attempt at the Warsmith, because otherwise we get nothing at all to represent one beyond a Lord without notable armour or tech-abilities.

Similarly, the closest the book offers to artillery is a 200pt AV12 Battlecannon. There is nothing to represent siege guns, no emplaced weaponry or artillery units, and the 2 pieces of ordnance the book possesses are both Imperial weapons.
Your Legionnaires have nothing to distinguish themselves as siege veterans and by the rules, are as proficient at taking down walls as the Dark Angels are. It seems minor but we have special considerations given to the Fists but the Warriors get a 'paint it and deal' attitude.

They are better, but it's still far from the ideal and there is no real reason for that to be missing out. It probably comes across as petty jealousy for all the not-CSM players but it is tiring to be the 'evil twin' of the most pampered, most extensive faction who gets special treatment to represent every single subfaction. Meanwhile we sit with just as many subfactions but are expected to make do with a single list, a lack of special rules to distinguish them and absolutely no incentive not to run with the standard Nurgle + Cultists because there is no reward for playing otherwise.

For reference, why not use Sentinels as a counts-as? You get your siege specialists right there and you get the firepower to storm a breach. You get Thunderfires and AM Battle Brothers, so the Thudds and Medusae come out to play. Whirlwinds and Deathstorms, indentured Conscripts and if you really miss them, ally the Maulerfiends and Forgefiends back in.
What does the standard Chaos Space Marine actually offer you as an Iron Warrior, and why can you not replace him with the Tactical of choice if all the theme is coming from the units that aren't in Power Armour?

I think this thread has gone way off of the OP's initial argument. That our army does not have enough rules to give it the character and unique flavour that we had in previous editions. What was originally supposed to be wish listing on what we would like changed to bring us back to the army we loved, has turned into a thread of people ripping into each other's opinions and tangents about bigotry.

Lost in the vortex were some good points though, so in summary.

Chaos players- Lament the loss of flavour, whether it is the lack of representation of LATD or Legions.

Lack of options to differentiate us from our loyalist counterparts without just remaining C:SM-

To improve the codex we would like:
More Legion Specific Veteran upgrades
More dark tech, daemonic weaponry.
Daemon engines that feel more like Chaos and not just big robots (more aesthetic than a rules gripe)
Better Allies rules to represent our allegiance to Traitor Guard/Newly turned loyal Marines
Greater variety of Troops delivery systems (drop pods or something similar for the love of the gods!)
Codex LATD so we have another fluffy army to ally with.

There, no need to debate who's codex is worse, a lot of us are suffering right now (in the plastic soldier suffering way, not the dying of hunger way) but let's admit what this was. A chance to vent some frustration and day dream of something better. The venting is turning into unrelated arguments so I think this list nicely sums up what people felt we lost and what some people suggested would remedy it.

cuddle_nuts wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

You have failed to see the distinction but it isn't less grounds for complaints that the army is Inaccurately represented in it's it's codex options from a lore perspective, just because there is outlandish elements of gameplay added with 7th. There is not enough correlation there to question someone's reason for playing the game and using it as logic that there argument is nonsensical. Which it wasn't.

I don't know, man. Seems like you were a little harsh. The guy was only pointing out that when you say gameplay and lore are not the same, that lore and gameplay are not connected. Just tone it down a bit, no reason to get upset.

Is this satire?

Just because lore and gameplay aren't the same doesn't mean they aren't connected at all lol that was my point

He also was name calling for no reason other than someone disagreeing with his provocative posts, and managed to attract the attention of a moderator, before I had even made that post. How was my response at all harsh to that?

Why is this still being debated, let the mods sort it out, he's done now so what's it matter.


Again, back on topic:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Nah, IW could use basilisks and other artillery as well as more expanded LATD. Just cultists is not really enough.

Sure but by this standard Space Wolves should have Leman Russ, and Orks should have everything since they can loot it, etc. there's a lot of other better examples too. You have a LOT of options for fluffy IW. The same cannot be said about say TSons

Well yes, true, but adding something like Traitor Guardsmen and Basilisks to the Codex is only 2 units but would add a lot thematically.