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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.

From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:

"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"

"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"

etc, etc.

What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.

I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.

This is kind of hypocritical considering what you were a part of advocating for in the consolidating datasheets thread... When people were upset and insulted at the suggestion that their unique playstyle/datasheets get removed or merged into something else... I don't want to rehash anything. I just find it interesting that you are so understanding of how upsetting this recommendation is here but not when it came to other players unique rules identity/datasheets... I thought the argument was that a generic representational datasheet is good enough to represent any unit regardless of paintjob / what the model actually is / and fluff.

I wonder, if they made Gaurd units and datasheets more customizable and have all the options that your R&H could take using generic representational datasheets instead of giving either unique datasheets, would that be an acceptable solution to you ?

I don't mean to be edgy with this post, I am just honestly curious why you feel differently about this army v.s. what the unique SW and Etc units datasheets/lists represent on the battlefield.

@type, can you stop bringing it up?

yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)

Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.

I think telling someone to just use "Counts As" is insulting.

I'm ok with most of the changes to FW legends except for contemptors. They got crushed pretty hard with the cp tax. CSM do not have analogues like loyalists do if they did they wouldn't lean so heavily on FW to begin with. On that note many armies need to lean on FW to increase the depth of their books.

Locally we don't discriminate against legends outside of tournament play, but that even seems like more a principal than a real issue. From my experience none of the legends units are OP at this point. Maybe in the future some could be, but then maybe we should wait to declare them that until it's actually the case.

I would prefer a more inclusive approach such as if an army has an updated entry of the same type then use that. Example: new updated sm bike character. If not use the legends version.
As it stands space marines legends tend to mean temporary placeholder for a new upcoming unit. Most other armies legends means terminated entry.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@type, can you stop bringing it up?

yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)

Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.

Actually R&H operate similar to a supplement now. They used to be a codex and now they are clearly somewhere inbetween. They have mostly overlapping datasheets as well as unique ones and some unique rules/abilties/gear (less then SWs mind you).
Kind of like how SWs used to be a distinct codex and are now in a similar state ...

Anyways, I really don't want to re-dive into this. I just wanted to point out that it can feel insulting and it feels like people have a lack of understanding of an army, its tabletop play identity and, what it represents when making arguments for 'counts as', removal, or mergers. I can relate to @Not Online feeling on this and can empathize with why he feels this way.

Anyways, I am not going to push this topic, its been discussed to death and we know each others feelings and stance on it. .

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think telling someone to just use "Counts As" is insulting.

I don't see how trying to help is insulting...
Its a crappy situation and one can emphasise, as well as try help the situation in some sort of email writing drive to get the situation amended, However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.

Could always play older editions as well maybe?

Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@type, can you stop bringing it up?

yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)

Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.

Actually R&H operate similar to a supplement now. They used to be a codex now they are clearly somewhere inbetween. They have overlapping datasheets as well as unique ones and some unique rules/abilties/gear (less then SWs mind you).
Kind of like how SWs used to be a distinct codex and are now in a similar state ...

Anyways, I really don't want to re-dive into this. I just wanted to point out that it can feel insulting and it feels like people have a lack of understanding of an army, its tabletop play identity and, what it represents when making arguments for 'counts as', removal, or mergers. I can relate to @Not Online feeling on this and can empathize with why he feels this way.

Anyways, I am not going to push this topic, its been discussed to death and we know each others feelings and stance on it. .

Right, just like you don't understand what made the R&H list in IA 13 great. It was how customizable it was. You could have anything from a bunch of poorly trained renegade militia, to hardened veteran mercenaries, to chaos cults, to a bit of Dark Mechanicus to everything in between, with just a few datasheets. It was the most customizable army list since csm 3.5. Customization is exactly what R&H players miss about them.

I understand why you don't want a generic datasheet that would allow any chapter to have the equivalent of TWC and other SW units. It's because if everyone can have something it isn't special anymore, and sometimes what an army can't have is as important as what it can. But just let it go dude.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I think telling someone to just use "Counts As" is insulting.

Ditto.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@type, can you stop bringing it up?

yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)

Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.

Actually R&H operate similar to a supplement now. They used to be a codex now they are clearly somewhere inbetween. They have overlapping datasheets as well as unique ones and some unique rules/abilties/gear (less then SWs mind you).
Kind of like how SWs used to be a distinct codex and are now in a similar state ...

Anyways, I really don't want to re-dive into this. I just wanted to point out that it can feel insulting and it feels like people have a lack of understanding of an army, its tabletop play identity and, what it represents when making arguments for 'counts as', removal, or mergers. I can relate to @Not Online feeling on this and can empathize with why he feels this way.

Anyways, I am not going to push this topic, its been discussed to death and we know each others feelings and stance on it. .

Right, just like you don't understand what made the R&H list in IA 13 great. It was how customizable it was. You could have anything from a bunch of poorly trained renegade militia, to hardened veteran mercenaries, to chaos cults, to a bit of Dark Mechanicus to everything in between, with just a few datasheets. It was the most customizable army list since csm 3.5. Customization is exactly what R&H players miss about them.

I understand why you don't want a generic datasheet that would allow any chapter to have the equivalent of TWC and other SW units. It's because if everyone can have something it isn't special anymore, and sometimes what an army can't have is as important as what it can. But just let it go dude.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I think telling someone to just use "Counts As" is insulting.

Ditto.

Yes, lets all let it go .

 Argive wrote:
However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.

Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.

Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.

Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.

Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.

Yeah tell me about it.
Lost all the autarch options this edition which sucks.

 Argive wrote:
...Sorry but I have no idea what models/list you have man... I assumed you were using the OOP FW corsair conversion kits or something.. Did FW sell other stuff apart from that ?
I assumed 25mm infantry man with fancy backpack...
If they are scourges then play them as DE scourges?

There are people out there with t-rex converted up to be exodite falcon grav tanks...
Obviously if what you have doesn't work in any capacity as count as anything else, then that sucks indeed.
I think Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem.

The problem is that while every single model in the list has an eminently suitable proxy there is no way for me to play it as an army without either getting wiped turn one every game because I'm trying to play a squishy force that doesn't interact with any stratagems, or buying a bunch of new stuff. "But all the model configurations still exist in some Eldar book somewhere, right?" doesn't help much in 8e or 9e. Ten years ago I'd be able to go "all right, fine, I'll twist counts-as a bit and figure out how to keep using my models", but GW's decided that the tournament players really want an incredibly lethal card game where you can't use three quarters of the minis and need to netlist to not get wiped on turn one in a casual pick-up game, which means that solution doesn't really work anymore.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Argive wrote:
...Sorry but I have no idea what models/list you have man... I assumed you were using the OOP FW corsair conversion kits or something.. Did FW sell other stuff apart from that ?
I assumed 25mm infantry man with fancy backpack...
If they are scourges then play them as DE scourges?

There are people out there with t-rex converted up to be exodite falcon grav tanks...
Obviously if what you have doesn't work in any capacity as count as anything else, then that sucks indeed.
I think Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem.

The problem is that while every single model in the list has an eminently suitable proxy there is no way for me to play it as an army without either getting wiped turn one every game because I'm trying to play a squishy force that doesn't interact with any stratagems, or buying a bunch of new stuff. "But all the model configurations still exist in some Eldar book somewhere, right?" doesn't help much in 8e or 9e. Ten years ago I'd be able to go "all right, fine, I'll twist counts-as a bit and figure out how to keep using my models", but GW's decided that the tournament players really want an incredibly lethal card game where you can't use three quarters of the minis and need to netlist to not get wiped on turn one in a casual pick-up game, which means that solution doesn't really work anymore.

Eh? I'm afraid I don't get what you are trying to say.
No army list has ever transitioned from one edition to the next really without changes/nerfs, so its everybody's problem.
Thats just the nature of how GW runs things. Its is what it is... No all units and models are equal on the table top..remotely.. that's always been abundantly clear. So I don't see how this change is any different to any of the other shifts.

If you are looking to use just the same models every time for ever, unfortunately it means the army wont be very good outside of the edition/time when it actually worked and was good...

 Argive wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Argive wrote:
...Sorry but I have no idea what models/list you have man... I assumed you were using the OOP FW corsair conversion kits or something.. Did FW sell other stuff apart from that ?
I assumed 25mm infantry man with fancy backpack...
If they are scourges then play them as DE scourges?

There are people out there with t-rex converted up to be exodite falcon grav tanks...
Obviously if what you have doesn't work in any capacity as count as anything else, then that sucks indeed.
I think Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem.

The problem is that while every single model in the list has an eminently suitable proxy there is no way for me to play it as an army without either getting wiped turn one every game because I'm trying to play a squishy force that doesn't interact with any stratagems, or buying a bunch of new stuff. "But all the model configurations still exist in some Eldar book somewhere, right?" doesn't help much in 8e or 9e. Ten years ago I'd be able to go "all right, fine, I'll twist counts-as a bit and figure out how to keep using my models", but GW's decided that the tournament players really want an incredibly lethal card game where you can't use three quarters of the minis and need to netlist to not get wiped on turn one in a casual pick-up game, which means that solution doesn't really work anymore.

Eh? I'm afraid I don't get what you are trying to say.
No army list has ever transitioned from one edition to the next really without changes/nerfs, so its everybody's problem.
Thats just the nature of how GW runs things. Its is what it is... No all units and models are equal on the table top..remotely.. that's always been abundantly clear. So I don't see how this change is any different to any of the other shifts.

If you are looking to use just the same models every time for ever, unfortunately it means the army wont be very good outside of the edition/time when it actually worked and was good...

I had an army book. Now I don't. Saying "but you could make an unplayably s*** army out of other peoples' books!" over and over again isn't going to solve anything for anyone.

 Type40 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.

From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:

"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"

"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"

etc, etc.

What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.

I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.

This is kind of hypocritical considering what you were a part of advocating for in the consolidating datasheets thread... When people were upset and insulted at the suggestion that their unique playstyle/datasheets get removed or merged into something else... I don't want to rehash anything. I just find it interesting that you are so understanding of how upsetting this recommendation is here but not when it came to other players unique rules identity/datasheets... I thought the argument was that a generic representational datasheet is good enough to represent any unit regardless of paintjob / what the model actually is / and fluff.

I wonder, if they made Gaurd units and datasheets more customizable and have all the options that your R&H could take using generic representational datasheets instead of giving either unique datasheets, would that be an acceptable solution to you ?

I don't mean to be edgy with this post, I am just honestly curious why you feel differently about this army v.s. what the unique SW and Etc units datasheets/lists represent on the battlefield.

no, it was not hypocritical if you would have actually bothered to read and understand, it is just you failing again to actually fething get a point i made several times you choose to ignore. Sorry to say this but it had to be said.

The rulessupport to differentiate out a subfaction to allow for a specific playstye should never be completely fethed up, as was done to the R&H list, whilest a consolidation of datasheets with the modifiability of said datasheet would maintain the playstyle. what is NOT necessary is the gak ammount of needlessly differentiated out Leutnants, specific to chapters f.e., if it could be one Leutnant entry with unlockable equipment and rules depending upon subfaction choice. This would minimize RO3 Issues automatically aswell as skew, something the SM codexes as of right now can the most easily circumvent for no reason other than shoddy ruleswriting and unequal standards applied to limitations.

i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.

i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.

While I only collect guard I would find that really cool. I mean the idea of specific, flavorfull customizability options to reflect a Renegade Regiment (ranging from mere desertes over real rebels to chaos cultists and everything in between) within our Codex. I don't know if I'm alone in that but I always found the thought interesting to have an easily accessible option to let my regiment "turn renegade" and would quite appreciate it to have a flavour- and characterful rulesset for that within the IG Codex.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.

While I only collect guard I would find that really cool. I mean the idea of specific, flavorfull customizability options to reflect a Renegade Regiment (ranging from mere desertes over real rebels to chaos cultists and everything in between) within our Codex. I don't know if I'm alone in that but I always found the thought interesting to have an easily accessible option to let my regiment "turn renegade" and would quite appreciate it to have a flavour- and characterful rulesset for that within the IG Codex.

i don't think in such a limited way, actually, i think more along the lines of modifications torwards specific units aswell as limitations (no guardsmen, conscripts become militia, separate entry for muties though, etc) if you choose to R&H and THEN go into the meat of R&H as sub doctrine tree..
(it would even be piss easy because GW could just use the IA13 system and apply the corresponding options to the corresponding units but then again that would also require minimal braincells and customer friendlyness aswell as getting their heads out of their primaris leutnants backsides for once, which ain't going to happen. Aswell as getting rid of the chapter house lawsuits fallout, aka no models no rules. or in this case we don't produce it anymore so feck you for having bought them)

@ NotOnline: I understood you that way, I just did a poor job formulating it. But the main point stands: I think that's a pretty cool idea and by far better then the status quo

Minions of Chaos: If your army is Battle-forged and every model in this unit’s Detachment has either the CHAOS AND RENEGADES or UNALIGNED keywords, this unit gains the Objective Secured ability (this ability is described in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book).

Like, I know the bar of expectation was set low, what with it being the combined incompetence of FW, GW, and the Legends intern, but by the Man-Emperor Himself this bar is somewhere in the lower mantle.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Minions of Chaos: If your army is Battle-forged and every model in this unit’s Detachment has either the CHAOS AND RENEGADES or UNALIGNED keywords, this unit gains the Objective Secured ability (this ability is described in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book).

Like, I know the bar of expectation was set low, what with it being the combined incompetence of FW, GW, and the Legends intern, but by the Man-Emperor Himself this bar is somewhere in the lower mantle.

i can't quite put my finger on the issue but i assume the detachment stipulation is redudant with the battleforged bit, well beyond the obvious failure to associate the keywords propperly to the corresponding keywords carried by "Renegades and heretics". well beeing "CHAOS", "RENEGADES AND HERETICS" and not beeing "CHAOS AND RENEGADES"...

ergo the whole obsec doesn't work..

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.

From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:

"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"

"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"

etc, etc.

What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.

I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.

This is kind of hypocritical considering what you were a part of advocating for in the consolidating datasheets thread... When people were upset and insulted at the suggestion that their unique playstyle/datasheets get removed or merged into something else... I don't want to rehash anything. I just find it interesting that you are so understanding of how upsetting this recommendation is here but not when it came to other players unique rules identity/datasheets... I thought the argument was that a generic representational datasheet is good enough to represent any unit regardless of paintjob / what the model actually is / and fluff.

I wonder, if they made Gaurd units and datasheets more customizable and have all the options that your R&H could take using generic representational datasheets instead of giving either unique datasheets, would that be an acceptable solution to you ?

I don't mean to be edgy with this post, I am just honestly curious why you feel differently about this army v.s. what the unique SW and Etc units datasheets/lists represent on the battlefield.

no, it was not hypocritical if you would have actually bothered to read and understand, it is just you failing again to actually fething get a point i made several times you choose to ignore. Sorry to say this but it had to be said.

The rulessupport to differentiate out a subfaction to allow for a specific playstye should never be completely fethed up, as was done to the R&H list, whilest a consolidation of datasheets with the modifiability of said datasheet would maintain the playstyle. what is NOT necessary is the gak ammount of needlessly differentiated out Leutnants, specific to chapters f.e., if it could be one Leutnant entry with unlockable equipment and rules depending upon subfaction choice. This would minimize RO3 Issues automatically aswell as skew, something the SM codexes as of right now can the most easily circumvent for no reason other than shoddy ruleswriting and unequal standards applied to limitations.

i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.

No, I got your point every single time you made it. Where I agree that the supplements could have been implemented in a better way. one LT with different unlock-able equipment depending subfaction choice could totally work. I guess that does change the RO3 problem a bit (LTs and Cpts have limitations outside of the RO3 but I see the problem, I just think it would be easier to fix this with another line of text on the existing restrictions). It just doesn't seem like much would change much, in terms of design space, if you go from many datasheets to representing the same amount of restrictions and choices on a single datasheet.

To me it still seems like your drawing an arbitrary line of difference between the state of these two armies, what their current states are, and what should be done about it... but that's ok, lets agree to disagree on this one. Anyways, we arn't changing any minds on this one, so I think we can leave it.

I do 100% agree with you that it is insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army and as to what the list is representing when people advocate that it can just "count as" something else. I think we agree on that and I think you understand that this is the attitude I my self get upset with (and I get this isn't your attitude). So you have my support .

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.

Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.

Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.

LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written. Consolidation didn't stop the Codex from being garbage on the next iteration.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.

Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.

Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.

LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written. Consolidation didn't stop the Codex from being garbage on the next iteration.

I'm morbidly curious, Slayer - what definition of garbage are you using here?

People playing Chaos at the time claim it was the best Chaos 'dex ever.

Of course, those who weren't playing Chaos at the time generally acknowledge that the attempt to theme the Legions was a decent touch, the power level was way out of whack with the rest of the game at the time.

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.

Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.

Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.

LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written. Consolidation didn't stop the Codex from being garbage on the next iteration.

I'm morbidly curious, Slayer - what definition of garbage are you using here?

People playing Chaos at the time claim it was the best Chaos 'dex ever.

Of course, those who weren't playing Chaos at the time generally acknowledge that the attempt to theme the Legions was a decent touch, the power level was way out of whack with the rest of the game at the time.

The codex is if anything the epitome of GW rules writing:
1. Tons of false options for Characters and various units that won't be taken
2. Extreme power builds with a lot of others being made useless

And GW does this a lot, and is always defended for it. GW hardly ever makes a good codex EVER too to go with their core rules. The audacity to price gouge it as is several years later is an insult to the players.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written.

No rose tinted glasses here, pal.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Tons of false options for Characters and various units that won't be taken

That doesn't make the Codex garbage. There there will be some options for characters that are worse than others is pretty normal.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. Extreme power builds with a lot of others being made useless

That doesn't make the Codex garbage either.

Your criteria for why 3.5 was "garbage" are pretty flimsy.

 Argive wrote:

If you are looking to use just the same models every time for ever, unfortunately it means the army wont be very good outside of the edition/time when it actually worked and was good...

(shrugs) My Space Wolves have been working just fine as is since 2e. Same units, same models. The only reason I added a third min. squad of Grey Hunters in 8th was to have the 3 troops for a battalion. Should I choose to run a Battalion....

Yeah, 3.5 definitely had some power issues, and some dumb options, and I'm not even going to argue that these weren't related to what was experienced positively, but as far as I'm concerned 3.5 and the Lost and the Damned variant was the golden age of chaos gaming, where you really were able to do a ton of different things, most of which seemed designed around allowing unique subfaction identities and modeling options.

I'm not going to say that the last several editions of 40k aren't more sophisticated, nor am I going to say that I prefer old vehicle rules, but that era did manage to let your army feel like yours, and it did so suprisingly succinctly vs. what I feel is an increasingly bloated game/faction design.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. Extreme power builds with a lot of others being made useless

That doesn't make the Codex garbage either.

Your criteria for why 3.5 was "garbage" are pretty flimsy.

I don't know the codex, but if external and internal balance was gak, those seem like very valid criteria.

nekooni wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. Extreme power builds with a lot of others being made useless

That doesn't make the Codex garbage either.

Your criteria for why 3.5 was "garbage" are pretty flimsy.

I don't know the codex, but if external and internal balance was gak, those seem like very valid criteria.

Well, it had quite a bit of internal issues and less but mor devastating external ones, funny thing is though the 4th edition one was even WORSE in both so...
And it didn't allow anymore for customization which still makes 3.5 better then any CSM dex afterwards.

Customization and balance are not mutually exclusive.

 Jidmah wrote:
Customization and balance are not mutually exclusive.

I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game