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.
2020/08/06 20:00:36
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
considering starcannons also existed....
truth is, the book would've needed finetuning balancewise, as did a lot of things back then, but the juxstaposition with the dex folloing 3.5 chaos dex up, yeah, that hurt.
And csm never recovered from that in regards to options and faction feel.
As for R&h basically the same but that wound is figuratively fresher, and considering the squatting incoming probably even worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 20:09:19
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/08/06 20:11:44
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
truth is, the book would've needed finetuning balancewise, as did a lot of things back then, but the juxstaposition with the dex folloing 3.5 chaos dex up, yeah, that hurt.
And csm never recovered from that in regards to options and faction feel.
The one thing off the top of my head that I would take from the 5th Ed paradigm is the re-giving all units their primary weapons, sidearms, and grenades by default again. That actually was a big improvement, design wise. Otherwise, I'd basically take 3.5 as is.
truth is, the book would've needed finetuning balancewise, as did a lot of things back then, but the juxstaposition with the dex folloing 3.5 chaos dex up, yeah, that hurt.
And csm never recovered from that in regards to options and faction feel.
The one thing off the top of my head that I would take from the 5th Ed paradigm is the re-giving all units their primary weapons, sidearms, and grenades by default again. That actually was a big improvement, design wise. Otherwise, I'd basically take 3.5 as is.
honestly, that way you could appropriately price CSM again with tacs. and not scouts. but alas, that train has gone.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/08/06 20:13:29
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's not so much about the power level (though to be clear, some of the options were OP), it's about the way it made you feel like you were actually playing chaos, not just marines with some spikey bits tacked on.
Also, to be clear I'm not advocating piracy, but it is readily available online to read; it will come straight up on a google search if you want to read it for yourself and see. GW doesn't seem to care much about the availability of older edition codexes.
Sweet, I'll scrounge around online and see if I can read it for myself. Generally speaking everyone hear is really echoing the level of immersion that 3.5 brought to the table, something completely lost on me as I'm a Necron player
The Qarnakh Dynasty - Starting Again From scratch...Once again
kirotheavenger wrote: People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.
2020/08/06 20:16:47
Subject: Re:Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
It was a combination of good rules and great fluff, a combination that GW (probably purposefully) avoids hitting these days. It actually gave attention to all the legions and let you play them in ways that felt fluffy (even if some of them were crazy overpowered). It let you custom-build a demon prince, which was pretty cool. It had an immense about of flexibility, flavor, and verisimilitude.
The WAAC types probably liked it because of its power level, too.
2020/08/06 20:17:00
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's not so much about the power level (though to be clear, some of the options were OP), it's about the way it made you feel like you were actually playing chaos, not just marines with some spikey bits tacked on.
Also, to be clear I'm not advocating piracy, but it is readily available online to read; it will come straight up on a google search if you want to read it for yourself and see. GW doesn't seem to care much about the availability of older edition codexes.
Sweet, I'll scrounge around online and see if I can read it for myself. Generally speaking everyone hear is really echoing the level of immersion that 3.5 brought to the table, something completely lost on me as I'm a Necron player
Haha, well. . . if you're a Necron player then I very heavily suggest you get a hold of the 3rd ed Necron book too. It is likewise of superior breed in terms of flavor. A lot fewer options though.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Everyone that's not competitive still wants it then too (exhibit A: this thread).
And quite frankly I would not trust any of those people with helping in balancing ideas, let alone game design itself. "Oh this is cool to add so just do it" has always been a gak way to do things. Guess how GW likes to do things?
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
And people won against Gladius and Scatterbikes 2 editions ago. What's your point?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 20:19:17
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/06 20:20:45
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
3.5 Chaos codex had as many options and combos as if we mashed all the 8th edition Marine Codex options (including Grey Knights) into one book. It was, by far, the funnest codex (for players, not opponents) in the game.
This was underscored by how you made a Chaos lord/ daemon Prince (same unit back then, but depending on how much you kitted them out decided on if it was a daemon or not). You could go any between a bare-bones guy, to a mega sorcerer, to a truly massive monster that wrecked everything.
Sticking to the God's favorite numbers (in size of units) gave you bonuses. It's why 8-man Berserker units were common.
This book is also the reason people to this day often mock the phrase "models with two wounds have a lot going for them". This was the Thousand sons buff back then, and it wasn't totally great.
2020/08/06 20:21:08
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And quite frankly I would not trust any of those people with helping in balancing ideas, let alone game design itself. "Oh this is cool to add so just do it" has always been a gak way to do things. Guess how GW likes to do things?
GW has seemed actively antagonistic towards fun, fluffy options for CSM for a while.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 20:27:23
2020/08/06 20:23:21
Subject: Re:Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
This is a bit silly IMO. Somehow everyone who wants that level of detail back is just being revisionist and just "glossing over" a perceived "power gamers nervana"?
It was nowhere near that level of strong. Truthfully, there were definitely things in that book that needed to be toned down, but, IMO, there were other things in that edition at similar or worse levels of broken, and we've seen plenty of things since that are even MORE broken that don't draw the ire of that book. IMO, I think a lot of people remember it as being significantly stronger than it actually was. People talk about it like it was 7th ed CWE levels pf broken - I.E. - Write your list, show it to your opponent, skip game because you already won. It wasn't even close to that.
It DID have some problems, but nothing so extreme. We always joke about the Grey Knights and the "global Apology Tour" they went on after 5th ed - IMO, CSM are the OGs of the "Global Apology Tour". We went from that 3.5 codex that could represent legions, renegades, have ig in them, etc etc, to one that was almost more vanilla than the vanilla marine codex. From there we went to the 6th ed book that had a bunch of new units that had clearly been designed in 4th ed and with rules that actively punished you for playing CSM .... lol
Really, I would even be ok with rolling my DG and Tsons back into the main CSM book if it had the ability to customize like the 3.5 book had. You could make almost literally any army you wanted. Which is the halmark of Chaos ...
GW has seems actively antagonistic towards fun, fluffy options for CSM for a while.
Yeah, it really has felt like the main CSM book kind of lost its way after 3.5. The one thing I've missed for a while now (PA somewhat addressed this to be fair, and the Traitor Legions book from 7th was great, but these need to be IN the darn codex) are rules that reward you for playing CSM. GW has no issue rewarding Imperial Marine players for playing their armies like Imperial Marines, but 9 times out of 10, their CSM rules end up forcing you to play an unfluffy list at best, OR actively punish you for playing them at all at worst. The 3.5 codex was just amazing at letting you play a fluffy CSM army that could also be really competitive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 20:29:32
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
2020/08/06 20:24:04
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Yeah one of the greatest things about the book was the spectrums it offered. You could go from a barely-touched space marine captain to a daemon prince, or from 10,000 year old veterans of the Heresy to a band of space marines that just turned rogue last year. It really nailed the idea of chaos being a creeping force rather than a binary on/off switch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 20:25:17
2020/08/06 20:29:17
Subject: Re:Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
This is a bit silly IMO. Somehow everyone who wants that level of detail back is just being revisionist and just "glossing over" a perceived "power gamers nervana"?
It was nowhere near that level of strong. Truthfully, there were definitely things in that book that needed to be toned down, but, IMO, there were other things in that edition at similar or worse levels of broken, and we've seen plenty of things since that are even MORE broken that don't draw the ire of that book. IMO, I think a lot of people remember it as being significantly stronger than it actually was. People talk about it like it was 7th ed CWE levels pf broken - I.E. - Write your list, show it to your opponent, skip game because you already won. It wasn't even close to that.
It DID have some problems, but nothing so extreme. We always joke about the Grey Knights and the "global Apology Tour" they went on after 5th ed - IMO, CSM are the OGs of the "Global Apology Tour". We went from that 3.5 codex that could represent legions, renegades, have ig in them, etc etc, to one that was almost more vanilla than the vanilla marine codex. From there we went to the 6th ed book that had a bunch of new units that had clearly been designed in 4th ed and with rules that actively punished you for playing CSM .... lol
Really, I would even be ok with rolling my DG and Tsons back into the main CSM book if it had the ability to customize like the 3.5 book had. You could make almost literally any army you wanted. Which is the halmark of Chaos ...
I think that book was also legitimately too fun/complete for GW these days. Selling a complete codex is no longer their business model; now they want to nickel and dime you through supplements, and it's never in their interests to give you a codex you're 100% comfortable with using.
2020/08/06 20:34:53
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
As people say, the blend of options for people who love fluff, and power for people who love power. (And, in reality, most people prefer winning games to being tabled.)
Much like Marines now. I think its great that the 5 White Scars and Salamanders players are enjoying their time in the sun with lots of fluffy rules and options. The fact that the tournament scene went mad for IH and to a degree RG doesn't really matter to them - although, unfortunately, the subsequent nerfs might. (Ah, who are we kidding, GW still loves Primaris. For now.)
2020/08/06 20:40:18
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's not so much about the power level (though to be clear, some of the options were OP), it's about the way it made you feel like you were actually playing chaos, not just marines with some spikey bits tacked on.
Also, to be clear I'm not advocating piracy, but it is readily available online to read; it will come straight up on a google search if you want to read it for yourself and see. GW doesn't seem to care much about the availability of older edition codexes.
Sweet, I'll scrounge around online and see if I can read it for myself. Generally speaking everyone hear is really echoing the level of immersion that 3.5 brought to the table, something completely lost on me as I'm a Necron player
Haha, well. . . if you're a Necron player then I very heavily suggest you get a hold of the 3rd ed Necron book too. It is likewise of superior breed in terms of flavor. A lot fewer options though.
I've actually managed to backtrack and get all the Necron codexes that have been released. While I do envy the options in 5th, reading 3rd I noticed it had a special cosmic horror note that it's able to succinctly hit. Something missing from all the other books, I guess that was sacrificed for options...which were promptly taken away in 8th...
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Humour me for a moment cause I know this is gonna be an apples to oranges comparison but, compared to 8th SM 2.0 (more specifically the broken IH on release) which was more powerful/broken/oppressive during its time?
The Qarnakh Dynasty - Starting Again From scratch...Once again
kirotheavenger wrote: People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.
2020/08/06 20:46:08
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
It was probably about equal with SM 2.0 itself. Nowhere near as broken as the IH supplement on release, however. I stopped playing after the end of 4th until 8th, but I can't recall anything in the time I did play that was anywhere near as broken as the IH supplement.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/08/06 20:53:27
2020/08/06 20:50:07
Subject: Re:Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
I would say each Codex must be judged in the light of its era, but Chaos 3.5, Grey Knights 5 and the 8th Edition Iron Hands Supplement all belong in the conversation for most broken/having broken their Edition. They could also all be defended as being "fluffy." That's part of the problem.
I think the way the gaming community works now means that brokenness gets transmitted very quickly.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2020/08/06 20:51:22
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Mixzremixzd wrote: I've actually managed to backtrack and get all the Necron codexes that have been released. While I do envy the options in 5th, reading 3rd I noticed it had a special cosmic horror note that it's able to succinctly hit. Something missing from all the other books, I guess that was sacrificed for options...which were promptly taken away in 8th...
Yup, the cosmic horror of 3e Necrons was special, but it doesn't jerk off Astartes enough, so it had to be gotten rid of. Plus it implies the orks and eldar have some kind of heroic past and destiny... not allowed when they're trying to sell little Timmy his power fantasy marines.
2020/08/06 20:56:53
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Mixzremixzd wrote: I've actually managed to backtrack and get all the Necron codexes that have been released. While I do envy the options in 5th, reading 3rd I noticed it had a special cosmic horror note that it's able to succinctly hit. Something missing from all the other books, I guess that was sacrificed for options...which were promptly taken away in 8th...
Yup, the cosmic horror of 3e Necrons was special, but it doesn't jerk off Astartes enough, so it had to be gotten rid of. Plus it implies the orks and eldar have some kind of heroic past and destiny... not allowed when they're trying to sell little Timmy his power fantasy marines.
Not sure I'm following this. Nothing about the ork/eldar past was changed by the later necron codex (5th or 8th). They're still Old One slaves designed to fight the necron/c'tan.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/08/06 20:59:21
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah one of the greatest things about the book was the spectrums it offered. You could go from a barely-touched space marine captain to a daemon prince, or from 10,000 year old veterans of the Heresy to a band of space marines that just turned rogue last year. It really nailed the idea of chaos being a creeping force rather than a binary on/off switch.
Yeah exactly. I loved that there wasn't a "Daemon Prince". You took a Lord and you gave him gifts until he went over the threshold and was able to count as a DP. Was gutted when that system was removed.
The Circle of Iniquity The Fourth Seal
2020/08/06 20:59:23
Subject: Re:Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I would say each Codex must be judged in the light of its era, but Chaos 3.5, Grey Knights 5 and the 8th Edition Iron Hands Supplement all belong in the conversation for most broken/having broken their Edition. They could also all be defended as being "fluffy." That's part of the problem.
I think the way the gaming community works now means that brokenness gets transmitted very quickly.
The IH supplement was unreal levels of broken at its actual release. I think people sometimes forget it was nerfed almost immediately - just a month after its release - and then it was STILL so broken it had to be seriously nerfed AGAIN in the February 2020 Space Marines FAQ. But that initial month was just bonkers level of broken.
2020/08/06 21:00:31
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Voss wrote: Yeah exactly. I loved that there wasn't a "Daemon Prince". You took a Lord and you gave him gifts until he went over the threshold and was able to count as a DP. Was gutted when that system was removed.
Far too much fun for CSM, it had to be removed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/06 21:01:21
2020/08/06 21:03:28
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Tycho wrote: IMO, there were other things in that edition at similar or worse levels of broken, and we've seen plenty of things since that are even MORE broken that don't draw the ire of that book.
I think the reason for that is that when the question of past power-lists come up you never seen a group of eldar players endorsing the characterful nature of invunlerable falcons or taudar. Nobody chimes in on the immense flavour of how overpowered the 5e GK book was.
Nobody posts asking about why the Iron Hands were held is such high regard as a fluffy, best ever made codex, and people don't reply to that with 'yes, it was, and not at all overpowered'.
2020/08/06 21:05:52
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
Nailed it. A disastrously powerful Codex that broke its edition.
Exactly. Everyone wants 1000% customization until it gets too over the top.
Chaos 3.5 didn't "break the edition", what hyperbolic nonsense. I clobbered armies out of that book throughout the edition.
And people won against Gladius and Scatterbikes 2 editions ago. What's your point?
That you don't know what you're talking about.
Lots of books that era had lots of options, the Chaos 3.5 in general wasn't a standout in terms of power. There were a couple combos that looked really good, but in practice were either too skew-heavy to be reliable, cost too much, or were relegated to individual models that could still be played against. The most popular "power build" build I saw was Iron Warriors, and a 4th Heavy Support option isn't breaking the bank when loyalist Marines could take Veteran Devastators as an Elites choice.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Just a pretty curious and harmless question because I have started to notice a pattern of many CSM players and R&H(?) on this sub always quoting 3rd or 3.5 as a mythical time for the chaos faction and wanting GW to emulate what happened then.
I started playing earnestly in 6th so I was wondering if someone could give me a comprehensive guide on whether it's just nostalgia coloured glasses, an oppressive meta or GW really did something amazing with CSM to be held in such high regard till this day.
The art, layout, feel, and lore writing was just all....super spot on. It was a book of ancient bitter traitors, willingly accepting damnation to feed their hatred against an Imperium they saw as built on lies, who had fought the Emperor and his lackeys through the millenia.
The rules also allowed for an insane amount of character customization, and lots of cool army construction options.
Unfortunately it also was *really* poorly balanced, with lots of totally worthless stuff and some hilariously overpowered options and builds.
A big reason why it's also so well regarded is that it was the last "Legion" book, they played 2nd fiddle to renegades for a while after that and increasingly just became twirling-moustache bad guys, and the 4E and 6E books in particular were substantially less interesting and fun to play with, much more just "spiky marines" with substantially fewer toys than Loyalists, and created lots of new lore/fluff problems (why were there no proper Plague or Rubric Terminators for example? Only basic Termi's that could take an icon of a god, and then lost all benefits if the icon died, why did we suddenly have Plague Marines and Chaos Marines with a Mark of Nurgle being different things that functioned differently on a table?).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 21:16:36
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2020/08/06 21:19:30
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Insectum7 wrote: The most popular "power build" build I saw was Iron Warriors, and a 4th Heavy Support option isn't breaking the bank when loyalist Marines could take Veteran Devastators as an Elites choice.
You say that as if the Iron Warriors build had nothing to do with the three elite slots of obliterators.
2020/08/06 21:21:56
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Vaktathi wrote: A big reason why it's also so well regarded is that it was the last "Legion" book, they played 2nd fiddle to renegades for a while after that and increasingly just became twirling-moustache bad guys, and the 4E and 6E books in particular were substantially less interesting and fun to play with, much more just "spiky marines" with substantially fewer toys than Loyalists, and created lots of new lore/fluff problems (why were there no proper Plague or Rubric Terminators for example? Only basic Termi's that could take an icon of a god, and then lost all benefits if the icon died, why did we suddenly have Plague Marines and Chaos Marines with a Mark of Nurgle being different things that functioned differently on a table?).
Yup, and they've just been lazy about supporting them since then.
Insectum7 wrote: The most popular "power build" build I saw was Iron Warriors, and a 4th Heavy Support option isn't breaking the bank when loyalist Marines could take Veteran Devastators as an Elites choice.
You say that as if the Iron Warriors build had nothing to do with the three elite slots of obliterators.
Sure, but 7 destructive shooty options vs. 6 is not that big a deal, at that point you're starting to worry about points anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 21:22:34
2020/08/06 21:31:23
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Vaktathi wrote: A big reason why it's also so well regarded is that it was the last "Legion" book, they played 2nd fiddle to renegades for a while after that and increasingly just became twirling-moustache bad guys, and the 4E and 6E books in particular were substantially less interesting and fun to play with, much more just "spiky marines" with substantially fewer toys than Loyalists, and created lots of new lore/fluff problems (why were there no proper Plague or Rubric Terminators for example? Only basic Termi's that could take an icon of a god, and then lost all benefits if the icon died, why did we suddenly have Plague Marines and Chaos Marines with a Mark of Nurgle being different things that functioned differently on a table?).
Yup, and they've just been lazy about supporting them since then.
Yeah, the highlighting of recent Renegades (who all somehow found a bunch of Heresy era Legion equipment and armor and lost all their Mk VII and VIII armor, Land Speeders and Assault Cannons ) and poor Legion support since then hasn't helped.
Chaos v3.5 broke 3rd edition, and mangled the start of 4th.
There are a lot of revisionists on here who claim it was all about the "character of the Legions", or some such rubbish, but it was a book tuned to 12 when everyone else was operating at best on an 8.
While it absolutely was turned up to 12 in some ways (and down to -3 in others, lol@night lords), lets not forget that the 4E book wasn't exactly without its busted builds either, Lash Princes still give some people nightmares, and accurate no-scatter Deep Strike off an Icon (in an era where mishaps were actually a thing and dangerous) without needing a 50pt Drop Pod or that could be used to bring in Obliterators or large Terminators squads could be put to devastating effect.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
