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 21:34:38
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.
Hahaha, the edition of the Blood Angels Rhino Rush. The Eldar Starcannon (Or Alaitoc neutering lists before the match even starts), and other things edition?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 21:35:12
2020/08/06 21:35:52
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.
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.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
2020/08/06 21:41:34
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Even as a csm player , i feel nightmares approaching me....
GOD i hated lashprinces....
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 21:42:05
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Yeah I think the comparison to the IH supplement is actually a really good one, because NOBODY looks back fondly on that. It was stupidly overpowered, but it wasn't good in other ways. Nobody is going to say 10 years from now "wow the 8th edition IH supplement was such a great book!"
3.5 Chaos was overpowered in some ways (not as bad as IH supplement, but pretty bad), but people loved it for reasons other than it being overpowered.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 21:42:34
2020/08/06 21:43:07
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Lash Princes were the 4th ed codex because they didn't get a 5th ed codex iirc.
And yeah, I already mentioned lashprinces as being far worse than the 3.5 dex, thusly disproving the claim that the problem was the quantity of fluffy options (since a book with many lamentably fewer fluffy options was still broken as feth).
2020/08/06 21:44:23
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Gw allways sucked at rules either accidentally or to Make money. Cough wraithknight Cough.
And for most factions it's often 1 specific builds that becomes oppressive .
Honestly gw should just hire some competent rulewriters....
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 21:45:58
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
20201/08/06 22:59:42
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lash Princes were the 4th ed codex because they didn't get a 5th ed codex iirc.
And yeah, I already mentioned lashprinces as being far worse than the 3.5 dex, thusly disproving the claim that the problem was the quantity of fluffy options (since a book with many lamentably fewer fluffy options was still broken as feth).
Tbf lashprinces were about the only thing good with obliterators in that dex Overall though.
And the opponents were also fething hillarious, considering we enter leafblower era and scatbikers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, and nobody remembers it fondly, whether they enjoyed the overpoweredness of lash princes or not, because it was junk.
People love 3.5 codex because it nailed the feeling of chaos.
That dex was horseshite, indeed.
It was simultaniously fubar , and so lackluster in the Same time.
The only dex ending up similar was funnily enough 8th Index r&h...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 21:51:22
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 21:51:37
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
*Waves hand*
Spoiler:
5500 pts 6500 pts 7000 pts 9000 pts 13.000 pts
2020/08/06 21:55:52
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
CSM's never actually got a 5E release, the book with Lash Princes came out in 2007 (sept I think?) at the tail end of 4E about 8 months before 5E dropped.
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.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
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 21:57:39
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Cool, so they did actually reprint it. First copy i've seen in print or pdf that isn't the old one.
Not Online!!! wrote: And the opponents were also fething hillarious, considering we enter leafblower era and scatbikers.
Scatbikes were waaaaay later. Eldar were at their weakest in 5th.
Things like leafblow though are why I wouldn't consider lash princes to be more powerful than the many flavours of 3.5 cheese. It isn't that they weren't powerful, but they couldn't do much against a parking lot list - and 5e featured a lot of parking lots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 22:09:50
2020/08/06 21:59:42
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
CSM's never actually got a 5E release, the book with Lash Princes came out in 2007 (sept I think?) at the tail end of 4E about 8 months before 5E dropped.
Yah yah, you are right. But the effect of the Lash Prince was during 5th Ed. Late 4th every Chaos player was in shell shock at the loss of 3.5
Technically there's a Lash of Torment in 3.5, it's just really, really lackluster. Lose one additional model at the end of the CC phase for a failed Ld test.
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.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Yeah, but we could take extra! So OP!
Kind of like 27 ppm warp talons now...
2020/08/06 22:06:39
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
CSM's never actually got a 5E release, the book with Lash Princes came out in 2007 (sept I think?) at the tail end of 4E about 8 months before 5E dropped.
Yah yah, you are right. But the effect of the Lash Prince was during 5th Ed. Late 4th every Chaos player was in shell shock at the loss of 3.5
Technically there's a Lash of Torment in 3.5, it's just really, really lackluster. Lose one additional model at the end of the CC phase for a failed Ld test.
Yeah the tail end of 4E was rough for CSM's, the book I think definitely worked better in 5E (especially with the vehicle changes making Rhino's so capable).
Cool, so they did actually reprint it. First copy i've seen in print or pdf that isn't the old one.
Yeah, and that book was also the reason they resolved not to update/correct subsequent printings of books and just leave all corrections for the FAQ docs because they didn't want to deal with different physical copies saying different things and having players not necessarily knowing which was which, especially back then when internet access and ubiquity wasn't what it is today.
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.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Yeah, but we could take extra! So OP!
Kind of like 27 ppm warp talons now...
I'm struggling to think of a time when Night Lords were ever OP
When I first started in on CSM's, I was torn between Iron Warriors and Night Lords. Between my IG army also being a siege & tank force and pairing nicely with the IW's and the IW rules being awesome next to the NL ones, it made the decision kind of obvious, but I somehow ended up with a huge grip of metal Raptors anyway...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 22:11:00
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 22:19:57
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.
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.
And I still loved it.
Best. Codex. Ever.
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Yeah, but we could take extra! So OP!
Kind of like 27 ppm warp talons now...
I'm struggling to think of a time when Night Lords were ever OP
When I first started in on CSM's, I was torn between Iron Warriors and Night Lords. Between my IG army also being a siege & tank force and pairing nicely with the IW's and the IW rules being awesome next to the NL ones, it made the decision kind of obvious, but I somehow ended up with a huge grip of metal Raptors anyway...
No, never OP, not that I would want them to be. But sometimes we were good. Like after Faith and Fury. Then came 9th, and new morale mechanics, cohesion, the loss of Host Raptorial, and new points. *sigh*
2020/08/06 22:20:44
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
I started playing right at the end of 4th ed. I had been reading the 3.5 Codex before I started buying models and stuff, and was super excited to make a Legion list. And more excited that a new codex update was coming. Then it came, and I spent the next few years either winning with lame lash lists, or losing with fluffier lists (but still not entirely lore accurate, as the codex was too bland.) A huge disappointment all around.
We are reaching similar levels of options coming around though. Loyalists now have amounts of options on par with 3.5 codex due to all their supplements and doctrines and stuff. If we get similar treatment for Chaos, we could return to having options on the level of the 3.5 codex. If they are good is another matter, of course.
The real point though is that everyone has always loved the 3.5 book (except for a few who dislike some of the broken choices, but those really aren't the point) and yet GW has stubbornly stuck with the 4th ed Codex's terrible, generic design choices for a good decade now. Chaos wanting something like the 3.5 codex again has been a meme since the day the 4th ed codex came out. There's no possible way GW hasn't known this. So it goes to show that they adhere to some whacky design philosophy over huge amounts of fan feedback. GW could have doubled their Chaos player base and sales practically any time by releasing a new book based on the 3.5 codex. All we can do is hope that they've finally realized this now.
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2020/08/06 22:24:21
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, there was a lot of stuff to like about it even for people that played some of the really poorly competitive factions. I'm remembering Raptors at like 29pts each
Yeah, but we could take extra! So OP!
23pts got you an assault marine with frag and krak. +2pts daemonic visage,+4pts for hit and run.
3e had big premiums on some types of units. If you think warp talons were expensive consider that their 4e counterparts - shrikes wing - were 51 points each!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 22:25:00
2020/08/06 22:24:49
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
Mine says 11.
Now I wonder what all the differences between the two printings are.
2020/08/06 22:26:01
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
It was outrageously overpowered, and people liked cheating other players. That's why.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/06 22:28:38
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
2020/08/06 22:30:25
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
DarknessEternal wrote: It was outrageously overpowered, and people liked cheating other players. That's why.
Whole thread full of people reminiscing about having lore accurate options, even if they weren't very good.
"They are just power gamers who wanted to win"
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2020/08/06 22:30:26
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
And cheap at that, even after the revision which nobody seems to have... and makes me wonder if GW actually got around to despite mentioning it in their errata.
Question - does anyone have an actual second revision 3.5 codex? (check the predator entry - if it is side armour 12 it is the first version)
*Waves hand*
Spoiler:
Also waves hand. I actually have both books on my shelf. The original, and the revised.
But I was a Word Bearers player since 2nd, so there wasn't anything as bad as Slannesh or Iron Warriors in the book for us. Of course, we didn't play it competitively, so didn't see the stuff you did in tournaments. It was there if you wanted it, but it was up to players to actually put them on the table.
"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns
2020/08/06 22:31:16
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
It's rich seeing Marine 2.0 players decrying 3rd editions version of their book.
Both Chaos 3.5 and SM 2.0 are examples of the way the rules should be. The fact they are outliers is the problem.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2020/08/06 22:33:42
Subject: Why exactly is CSM 3.5 Codex held in such high regard?
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
Legio Suturvora 2000 points (painted)
Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013
