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.

GW's balancing passes after an edition reboot reminds me of getting a first aid kit in the aftermath of a nuclear detonation.

Like, ffs. Just fix the damn game, and then don't smash it with a hammer.

After all if the community was the same we would all still be playing 3rd/4th/5th, which was what happened in communities like the RTS and Grand Strategy Games in which the community has been playing the same 20 year old games (e.g. AoEII is still one of the most played RTS).

*Looks over at my huge battle tech collection that i play nearly every weekend with the same basic rules and core mechanics i was using when i started in 1987*

I also like to point out that the current community is often ignorant of what came before, and once i teach them a previous edition or a specialist game no longer supported i tend to get many positive responses.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nvm that the most data producing Set of tournament results is a format that has ... Issues as has been discussed.

I'm not sure I catch you meaning, sorry.

Meh the Format is so far removed from normal 40k that it hardly helps harvesting data solely from there.

 Gert wrote:
So your solution is to make people do paperwork after they do their hobby? Paperwork that is easily manipulated because it's an open-ended system where a few people could ruin the system with thousands of fake results?
Sounds like a great idea. /s

I assume you and most other people prepare their army list in some form before a game, so there would not be any additional "paperwork" to just use the official app for it. Pairing is as easy as scanning a QR code with your mobile phone. Fraud prevention comes from different trust tiers. Have you even read the whole post before you started typing your /s remark?

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

and then I compare that to a legendary old set of options:


And I think, yeah, there was a lot more 'soul' back then.

Battle Honours, Agendas and Campaign Goals are not something I've ever played with, as I don't play Crusade.

The veteran entry in horus heresy is where a veteran unit should stand. Above just proofs that once again.

Yeah, part of the reason I didn't reply to the total of PenitentJake's post is it misses the forest for the trees.

Like yes, every army is guaranteed to get Crusade rules, subtraction traits, relics, WLTs, etc...

...but those aren't *good* and they pale in comparison to the past. You didn't NEED subfaction traits, relics, or warlord traits to have your characters be different and unique.

You didn't NEED bespoke progression, because progression was a sideshow to the rest of the narrative (the whole 'progression systems are not the same as narrative systems' argument).

And nitpicking about whether or not a given codex did or did not get certain rules or entries, in a time when GW didn't even publish an army's CODEX for the whole edition (rip crons, imperial guard, and DE) is just hysterical. Like I am advocating a return to exactly that method without improvement or change, because the only options are: explode the game every 3 years and suck out the soul (but at least there's bespoke progression) or freeze it circa 2007 and do nothing ever.

It's such a chore to respond to a take that is listening to reply, not to understand.

The Chaos Lord options (or lack of options) are almost comical.
But I would not blame this fully onto the new edition. This is all due to GWs stupid 'no model, no rule' thing, that they cant even follow up on themselves (Chaos Marines still only come with a Heavy Bolter in their kit for example).
The Chaos Marine range has been severely cut down and as far as I can see the only Lord you can buy from GW at the moment is a push-fit dude with a hammer and no helmet, zero options. Amazing.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

and then I compare that to a legendary old set of options:


And I think, yeah, there was a lot more 'soul' back then.

Right, but as per the part of my post you quoted, look at all the other dexes from the same edition and tell me they had a consistent number of options. They didn't. If an edition has an option-rich dex for chaos, marines and guard, but every other dex screws the pooch or even just doesn't hold to the standard, that does not make it a good edition- it means the edition was good for those factions. There's a difference.

You have to remember, my primary army is sisters; they had good dexes in 2, 3, late 8, and 9. From a Sisters point of view, EVERY OTHER EDITION SUCKED. My secondary army is GSC... You see where I'm going with this?

Furthermore, your comparisons are disingenuous: your old ed list shows things that aren't equipment; your 9th list shows only equipment. In order to get a true comparison between your old ed list and 9th Crusade, you'd also have to list at least every subfaction trait, every battle honour, every requisition strat; and while only characters can take relics and WL traits, your old ed list is the options for Chaos Lords, which means you'd also have to add every WL Trait and Relic to the 9th ed list for a fair comparison too.

Non-requisition strats are single use, so I don't insist on them being added to the list for comparison sake, but in Crusade, Requisition strats grant permanent abilities. And some of them are abilities that undo your claims about relics and WL traits: some Req Strats allow additional characters to have relics or WL Traits; some allow squad sargeants to choose from a more limited selection of Relics as well.

And again, the primary point, which you yourself quoted, is that EVERY army in 9th has access to roughly the same number of options, not just the lucky few.

Did the edition from which you took your chaos list even have dexes for every faction? I mean, barring GSC, Custodes, and Votann, which wouldn't have even existed. What did a Harlequin list look like in your preferred edition? There was certainly little to no difference between a sister from the Sacred Rose and another from the Valorous Heart.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Battle Honours, Agendas and Campaign Goals are not something I've ever played with, as I don't play Crusade.

And that's fine, but you can't say options don't exist because you choose not to use them. And in your preferred edition, you wouldn't even have the option.

Ironically, you say sisters got a 3e codex and that was a good edition. I agree. I like 4th because it was 3e but improved.

The book he showed the options from was 3e.
The book I like for IG is 3e. I prefer 4e rules because the core rules are better, and the 3e books work just fine (and I argue are better than the 4e books).

I can show you the armory the Sororitas get from the exact same era - though a few of the options were Inquisitors Only (since at the time the Sorotitas were the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus as well as the military wing of the Ecclesiarchy).

And, as you yourself point out in the same post, you DO have the option
You just take it in raw points, rather than having it tied to a progression system - because for most military forces in the setting, a progression system that intricate makes very little sense!

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Gert wrote:
So your solution is to make people do paperwork after they do their hobby? Paperwork that is easily manipulated because it's an open-ended system where a few people could ruin the system with thousands of fake results?
Sounds like a great idea. /s

I assume you and most other people prepare their army list in some form before a game, so there would not be any additional "paperwork" to just use the official app for it. Pairing is as easy as scanning a QR code with your mobile phone. Fraud prevention comes from different trust tiers. Have you even read the whole post before you started typing your /s remark?

On top of the fact that usage of the app is essentially optional, so its not like anyone is being forced to use it. I'm willing to bet enough people would use it on a purely optional basis that GW would still be able to collect solid data from it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

and then I compare that to a legendary old set of options:


And I think, yeah, there was a lot more 'soul' back then.

Battle Honours, Agendas and Campaign Goals are not something I've ever played with, as I don't play Crusade.

Thing is, the vast majority of players never used more than a handful of upgrades taken from that list, and the vast majority of the upgrades that did get used were basically identical/consistent from player to player. There is such thing as too many options, and all the possible permutations of options that one could select from that list were impossible to effectively balance, which is why that book enabled 2 or 3 of the most OP builds of that era.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thing is, the vast majority of players never used more than a handful of upgrades taken from that list, and the vast majority of the upgrades that did get used were basically identical/consistent from player to player. There is such thing as too many options, and all the possible permutations of options that one could select from that list were impossible to effectively balance, which is why that book enabled 2 or 3 of the most OP builds of that era.

This is unprovable and all I have is anecdotes to counter:
My friend had 9 Chaos Lords every one kitted out differently back in the 3.5e dex.
Another friend had 6 space marine captains kitted out differently.
I had at least as many Warbosses / Nobs with different loadouts.

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

Were you loading up your characters with 4-5 items from the list?

Can you explain why bionics and spiky bits should be upgrades available to a Chaos Lord? I'm considering writing 9th edition fandexes and I'd be very minimalist. I think the relic and WL trait combination achieves so much in terms of customization potential with incredibly few broken or useless options and combos. I can see a bionics and spiky bits relic having a place, but those dinky 5 pt upgrades I don't see why we need, part of why I'm okay with free relics, it means that every relic is the same 25ish pts. I'd add smoke launchers, melta bombs and mounts but almost certainly not veteran skills.

9th edition also had marks if I recall correctly and tonnes of psychic powers, like the list for a Thousand Sons Sorcerer in 3,5 vs 9th should be an easy 9th ed win.

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

and then I compare that to a legendary old set of options:


And I think, yeah, there was a lot more 'soul' back then.

Battle Honours, Agendas and Campaign Goals are not something I've ever played with, as I don't play Crusade.

honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

It's 2023. They could have an online listbuilder where you pick your options, hit 'save', and it spits out a compiled datasheet including all the stat changes and wargear you've assigned. Fit multiple datasheets on each page, hit print, and now you have a hardcopy quick reference.

OPR has it and that's, like, two guys in a shed.

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

It's 2023. They could have an online listbuilder where you pick your options, hit 'save', and it spits out a compiled datasheet including all the stat changes and wargear you've assigned. Fit multiple datasheets on each page, hit print, and now you have a hardcopy quick reference.

OPR has it and that's, like, two guys in a shed.

I think you're both right? It is 2023 and in 40k that means there will be an "optimal" build that gets spammed and a lot of filler options that people say "never take those" when you ask them. Which you then need a detailed unit profile to have to monitor (since this also applies to every squad leader), which shouldn't be utter rocket science for the app.

I wouldn't mind going back to that level of sheer stuff for HQ's but the 3.5 chaos book is like the holy grail of character building. Nothing has been that broad or special since and I do agree that 9ths space marine layered sandwich probably covered the same volume of sheer stuff, but in a more restrictive manner.

The bits I miss are the "after X points become a daemon prince" type stuff, or the option for a random hound to accompany John Wick style. It's also nice to have multiple weapon relics alongside buff/game effect relics/items.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

and then I compare that to a legendary old set of options:


And I think, yeah, there was a lot more 'soul' back then.

Battle Honours, Agendas and Campaign Goals are not something I've ever played with, as I don't play Crusade.

honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

To be fair, a good chunk of these are primarily for the "build your own Daemon prince!" angle they went with for the dex. So In a way you were kinda building your own Chaos RPG character.

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

It's 2023. They could have an online listbuilder where you pick your options, hit 'save', and it spits out a compiled datasheet including all the stat changes and wargear you've assigned. Fit multiple datasheets on each page, hit print, and now you have a hardcopy quick reference.

OPR has it and that's, like, two guys in a shed.

OPR doesnt have nearly as many options as that tho. Thats my point.
It's not about the end result where you have a lord with 2-3 options selected, it's about listbuilding, where you need to be aware of all these options and all their interactions. This is the part i'm saying is like an RPG player sheet.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

That wargear list covered multiple different armies. I don't see how it's too many, and it's nothing at all like an RPG player sheet.

PenitentJake wrote:
Furthermore, your comparisons are disingenuous: your old ed list shows things that aren't equipment; your 9th list shows only equipment. In order to get a true comparison between your old ed list and 9th Crusade, you'd also have to list at least every subfaction trait, every battle honour, every requisition strat; and while only characters can take relics and WL traits, your old ed list is the options for Chaos Lords, which means you'd also have to add every WL Trait and Relic to the 9th ed list for a fair comparison too.

If you want a fair comparison then you shouldn't count anything in Crusade because many people don't play Crusade and are thus limited to the non-Crusade options.

Meanwhile, the options in the old codex are available regardless of whether you're playing a standard game or a campaign. That's a vast improvement.

 vipoid wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Furthermore, your comparisons are disingenuous: your old ed list shows things that aren't equipment; your 9th list shows only equipment. In order to get a true comparison between your old ed list and 9th Crusade, you'd also have to list at least every subfaction trait, every battle honour, every requisition strat; and while only characters can take relics and WL traits, your old ed list is the options for Chaos Lords, which means you'd also have to add every WL Trait and Relic to the 9th ed list for a fair comparison too.

If you want a fair comparison then you shouldn't count anything in Crusade because many people don't play Crusade and are thus limited to the non-Crusade options.

Meanwhile, the options in the old codex are available regardless of whether you're playing a standard game or a campaign. That's a vast improvement.

This. Very much this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

That wargear list covered multiple different armies. I don't see how it's too many, and it's nothing at all like an RPG player sheet.

Was there restrictions on how many things of each categories you could bring? And which armies did that cover? Because this all seems very CSM-specific

 vict0988 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

Were you loading up your characters with 4-5 items from the list?

Can you explain why bionics and spiky bits should be upgrades available to a Chaos Lord? I'm considering writing 9th edition fandexes and I'd be very minimalist. I think the relic and WL trait combination achieves so much in terms of customization potential with incredibly few broken or useless options and combos. I can see a bionics and spiky bits relic having a place, but those dinky 5 pt upgrades I don't see why we need, part of why I'm okay with free relics, it means that every relic is the same 25ish pts. I'd add smoke launchers, melta bombs and mounts but almost certainly not veteran skills.

9th edition also had marks if I recall correctly and tonnes of psychic powers, like the list for a Thousand Sons Sorcerer in 3,5 vs 9th should be an easy 9th ed win.

Bionics should be available because Iron Warriors exist, and if Bionics are available to a random IG sergeant, then they absolutely should be available to a Chaos Lord.

Spikey Bits are a way to make your Chaos Lord better at combat than other Chaos Lords - it's +1 attack, the rough equivalent (though not identical) to loyalist SM with Terminator Honors. Flavor wise, not all Chaos forces were of the "spikey bit" variety (e.g., again, Iron Warriors who actively despise Chaos).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

That wargear list covered multiple different armies. I don't see how it's too many, and it's nothing at all like an RPG player sheet.

Was there restrictions on how many things of each categories you could bring? And which armies did that cover? Because this all seems very CSM-specific

Just a points limit you can see in the bottom left and I seem to think there was a limit on number of 1h and 2h weapons although that maybe came later? My memory from 20 years ago isn't great. It looks very CSM-Specific because it is really. The book served to cover all chaos legions, marked and undivided warbands and daemons. But the upgrades shown there were only for the characters and champions iirc. So 1 army that can be played many ways with no loss of character is the best way to look at it and that's the reason this book is considered the peak of codex design for chaos.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
And which armies did that cover?

Black Legion, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, Deathguard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters and Emperor's Children.

Other than Black Legion, each of these armies had their own organisational structure, restrictions, rules changes, and in the case of the four God-specific armies, unique Wargear lists. This book had to cover for each type of Chaos army one could play (outside of Lost & The Damned, which would come later in the Eye of Terror Codex). It was flexible as the rules covered pretty much all eventualities.

Even Red Corsairs got a look in.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

That wargear list covered multiple different armies. I don't see how it's too many, and it's nothing at all like an RPG player sheet.

Was there restrictions on how many things of each categories you could bring? And which armies did that cover? Because this all seems very CSM-specific

Just a points limit you can see in the bottom left and I seem to think there was a limit on number of 1h and 2h weapons although that maybe came later? My memory from 20 years ago isn't great. It looks very CSM-Specific because it is really. The book served to cover all chaos legions, marked and undivided warbands and daemons. But the upgrades shown there were only for the characters and champions iirc. So 1 army that can be played many ways with no loss of character is the best way to look at it and that's the reason this book is considered the peak of codex design for chaos.

Amen. What made the 3.5 book so great was that it let you completely customize your force. Word Bearers played differently to Night Lords who played differently to Alpha Legion who played differently to Your Dudes Renegades. Nothing before or since has ever captured that feeling.

Wayniac wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

That wargear list covered multiple different armies. I don't see how it's too many, and it's nothing at all like an RPG player sheet.

Was there restrictions on how many things of each categories you could bring? And which armies did that cover? Because this all seems very CSM-specific

Just a points limit you can see in the bottom left and I seem to think there was a limit on number of 1h and 2h weapons although that maybe came later? My memory from 20 years ago isn't great. It looks very CSM-Specific because it is really. The book served to cover all chaos legions, marked and undivided warbands and daemons. But the upgrades shown there were only for the characters and champions iirc. So 1 army that can be played many ways with no loss of character is the best way to look at it and that's the reason this book is considered the peak of codex design for chaos.

Amen. What made the 3.5 book so great was that it let you completely customize your force. Word Bearers played differently to Night Lords who played differently to Alpha Legion who played differently to Your Dudes Renegades. Nothing before or since has ever captured that feeling.

Which I'd probably add is why it's such a bs example to use to contrast against a 9th ed wargear section, you won't find a bigger contrast and it shouldn't be played off that this is a normal comparison as was the case. Whilst options have been reduced, they've not been hit as heavily for other armies as a whole in comparison. That's ignoring that codex is now actually 5 fully fledged separate books now.

That was all down to what was basically a prototype for the current detachment system though, except more far reaching because it modified what you could take as troops choices (and in some cases added additional choices to your army list, like Iron Warriors being able to field basilisks).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

Were you loading up your characters with 4-5 items from the list?

Can you explain why bionics and spiky bits should be upgrades available to a Chaos Lord? I'm considering writing 9th edition fandexes and I'd be very minimalist. I think the relic and WL trait combination achieves so much in terms of customization potential with incredibly few broken or useless options and combos. I can see a bionics and spiky bits relic having a place, but those dinky 5 pt upgrades I don't see why we need, part of why I'm okay with free relics, it means that every relic is the same 25ish pts. I'd add smoke launchers, melta bombs and mounts but almost certainly not veteran skills.

9th edition also had marks if I recall correctly and tonnes of psychic powers, like the list for a Thousand Sons Sorcerer in 3,5 vs 9th should be an easy 9th ed win.

Bionics should be available because Iron Warriors exist, and if Bionics are available to a random IG sergeant, then they absolutely should be available to a Chaos Lord.

Spikey Bits are a way to make your Chaos Lord better at combat than other Chaos Lords - it's +1 attack, the rough equivalent (though not identical) to loyalist SM with Terminator Honors. Flavor wise, not all Chaos forces were of the "spikey bit" variety (e.g., again, Iron Warriors who actively despise Chaos).

I'm still not understanding about the spikes and I'm not sure what will make me understand. Would you take an Iron Warriors Chaos Lord with a lightning claw and then not give him spikes because you felt it out was out of flavour to add it despite it making mathematical sense to add the upgrade when you're already spending 25 on the claw? Would you add the spikes to a World Eaters Chaos Lord with a chainsword even though the extra attack with the chainsword didn't add much?

 vict0988 wrote:

I'm still not understanding about the spikes and I'm not sure what will make me understand. Would you take an Iron Warriors Chaos Lord with a lightning claw and then not give him spikes because you felt it out was out of flavour to add it despite it making mathematical sense to add the upgrade when you're already spending 25 on the claw? Would you add the spikes to a World Eaters Chaos Lord with a chainsword even though the extra attack with the chainsword didn't add much?

according to the overall tone of this thread, yes and yes. I think the main issue with 10th people on here have is the loss of fluff support in options, they're not the kind of player that focuses on making the "mathematically correct" choice