# General whining



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

I know that the 4th Ed. Chaos Codex has been around for awhile, but I just picked it up last weekend, cementing my return to the hobby. After reading through it the first time, I am resoundingly disappointed.

All the uniqueness to build a themed army is gone. There is no incentive to build an army around a single legion. No bonuses like in 3rd Ed. For example, I was really pumped in doing Iron Warriors, but that dream was squashed when I learned that none have bonuses, like getting a looted Basilisk.


----------



## Chumbalaya (May 17, 2010)

The CSM does indeed suck eggs. A lot of players have migrated over to the SM, BA or SW Codices to get those characterful and fun themed armies back.


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

Chumbalaya said:


> The CSM does indeed suck eggs. A lot of players have migrated over to the SM, BA or SW Codices to get those characterful and fun themed armies back.


I am going to keep on truckin', and hope a 5th Ed. will see a return to that. I thought that was the neatest part about 3rd Ed. Chaos. It had the flair the SM have.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

Yes, it blows. It's hard to use all those nice fluffy Legions. Really, "Chaos Space Marines: Renegades" would be a better codex title.
It's very hard to make an army that can do anything without resorting to the standard dual lash prince, which is a very unfluffy choice.
My Word Bearers suffered greatly as I was building my army before the new codex using old codex rules only to purchase the new codex and say WTF.
Here's to waiting on CSM: Legions which probably won't even be looked at for another 2-3 years.


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

That was how I was building my army as well. I had plans for a Basilisk. Good thing I bought the Codex first. Sadly, you are probably right... Curses.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

GW had a phase of extreme cusomtisation during 4th edition (see old CSM, SM and IG) but with the release of Eldar I think, they moved away from this (no more craftworld codex) and the same trends continued for a time but GW realised they were limiting options for players too severely in an attempt to make their armies 'easier' to navigate. So whilst we haven't gone back to the customisation possible in older editions, 5th offers books which have a lot of options built into them (i.e. FoC changes) which we will hopefully see more of. Chaos though are a long way down on the list but then we haven't seen DE updated in quite a while now so CSM may happen "soon."


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

The problem with 3rd ed. Chaos was that you needed a friggin' Ph.D to get through it all. 
"So, you can take this mark, see? But when you do all your heavy support choices change to troops but there points cost is multiplied by the average number of marines per squad divided by 3 and oh yeah these troops now become elites and can take this special new weapon, but aren't allowed to have bolt pistols or krak grenades, but you can upgrade every 6th marine to an icon bearer for free as long as you have at least one heavy bolter per squad..."

I kind of felt that the 3rd. ed. was forcing to play one of the Legions, like with the Mark of Tzeentch. I'm more the kind of guy who makes up his own fluff. But the books of chaos, the sheer size of the armory, the massive flavor your army could have, I really do miss that. Now, the only customization you can get is what mark you choose :/

Gone are the days...


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I think the codex was diluted on purpose, I think Chaos will be back in legion form in the future but i think you will have stand alone codex in the same way as SM, possibly we will also see more legion unique units again like the SM chapter codex. Chaos marines are a huge part of 40k and the chaos powers i think are still humanities major enemy in GW's eyes,but i think they have weakened the codex to allow for a much more impressive set of legion codex and possibly traitor guard in the future. I have no evidence of this, i just feel that is the way they will go and seeing how popular the legion items are from forgeworld i cant see it being long before GW look to tap the chaos marines market again


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Kirby said:


> GW had a phase of extreme cusomtisation during 4th edition (see old CSM, SM and IG) but with the release of Eldar I think, they moved away from this (no more craftworld codex) and the same trends continued for a time but GW realised they were limiting options for players too severely in an attempt to make their armies 'easier' to navigate. So whilst we haven't gone back to the customisation possible in older editions, 5th offers books which have a lot of options built into them (i.e. FoC changes) which we will hopefully see more of. Chaos though are a long way down on the list but then we haven't seen DE updated in quite a while now so CSM may happen "soon."


Considering the trend to Power Armore armies getting a new Codex every year, CSM has a chance? Right? Oh wait they dont scream for the Emperor. Oh well.



daxxglax said:


> The problem with 3rd ed. Chaos was that you needed a friggin' Ph.D to get through it all.
> "So, you can take this mark, see? But when you do all your heavy support choices change to troops but there points cost is multiplied by the average number of marines per squad divided by 3 and oh yeah these troops now become elites and can take this special new weapon, but aren't allowed to have bolt pistols or krak grenades, but you can upgrade every 6th marine to an icon bearer for free as long as you have at least one heavy bolter per squad..."
> 
> I kind of felt that the 3rd. ed. was forcing to play one of the Legions, like with the Mark of Tzeentch. I'm more the kind of guy who makes up his own fluff. But the books of chaos, the sheer size of the armory, the massive flavor your army could have, I really do miss that. Now, the only customization you can get is what mark you choose :/
> ...



With Daemons having their own Dex, those days may stay gone forever.


----------



## hungryugolino (Sep 12, 2009)

4th edition chaos dex was violated more than if a Keeper of secrets had gotten it's hands on it.

If you want decent Alpha Legion or something interesting, no chance.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

I really enjoyed the 3rd ed codex. But sadly I sold all my chaos back then. 

But yes, I think It does suck, I used to really enjoy the favoured number etc.

Maybe GW will actually listen to us for once?


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Marneus Calgar said:


> Maybe GW will actually listen to us for once?


I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I'd like to see a traitor guard codex and a codex for all of the legions so that you could play actual night lords rather that blue chaosy looking blood angels


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

daxxglax said:


> The problem with 3rd ed. Chaos was that you needed a friggin' Ph.D to get through it all.
> "So, you can take this mark, see? But when you do all your heavy support choices change to troops but there points cost is multiplied by the average number of marines per squad divided by 3 and oh yeah these troops now become elites and can take this special new weapon, but aren't allowed to have bolt pistols or krak grenades, but you can upgrade every 6th marine to an icon bearer for free as long as you have at least one heavy bolter per squad..."
> 
> I kind of felt that the 3rd. ed. was forcing to play one of the Legions, like with the Mark of Tzeentch. I'm more the kind of guy who makes up his own fluff. But the books of chaos, the sheer size of the armory, the massive flavor your army could have, I really do miss that. Now, the only customization you can get is what mark you choose :/
> ...


They certainly could make it simpler in those terms, but that was the reason it was made in the first place. In the foreward, it talked about how the Codex was written to encourage one legion armies, while, it also allowed you to create your own warband and gave you the rules to do that. It was a novel of information, but it was cool.

I just don't like that they streamlined everything. Wargear customization ended. I mean, they even were putting different renegade chapters/Traitor Legions together in the artwork. How heartbreaking. It changed from being the Iron Warriors to just being Chaos Space Marines. I thought it was a real downer.

I think there is a lot of potential for Chaos. They could do the Legions, renegade Chapters, Traitor Guard, cults, etc. Obviously that would take away from Space Marines so that will never happen.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I would sound more enraged, but to me this is like the 7th time I have read a post like this in the last 2 years. Still I have been playing CSM for 6 years now so I may as well chip in my two cents.

Firstly I agree that the old codex was one of the most complicated ones from GW in years, and had more possibility for blatant abuse then any of the codexes of the period. Now true we lost much of the potential to customize our forces, but keep in mind it was a general consensus that for every 1 person that made a fluffy colorful army 10 ass holes would just skim the codex for the most broken (Boring) builds they could find.

Also most people including my self have come to the grim conclusion that its incredibly unlikely that they will make any legion specific codex or reintegrate any of the cool daemon units back into the book.

Still I do agree that the new codex took it way to far way to fast in removing the uniqueness (Chotic) nature of chaos forces. I mean sure I understand why they streamlined the armies, but they left the unplayable stuff unplayable, and made all the HQ's (With the exception of bile) so generic in that they only exist to directly kill enemy models and even then their really never is a valid reason to use any HQ but the DP. 

Still there is always the chance that the new CSM codex will return somewhat to its routes in 5th. After all CSM has never been closer to the old joke that they are just spiky SM then now.

Furthermore what really pisses me off is the fact that GW admitted the fact that the current edition was supposed to feel like codex CSM pirates/renegades. That's like going up to a SM player, and saying guess what the next SM codex will be codex Ultramarines, and all the other chapters will be sorta represented in it sorta. Oh also you can kinda build some of your favorite chapters just not like you use to. WON"T IT BE GREAT!


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

LukeValantine said:


> Firstly I agree that the old codex was one of the most complicated ones from GW in years, and had more possibility for blatant abuse then any of the codexes of the period. Now true we lost much of the potential to customize our forces, but keep in mind it was a general consensus that for every 1 person that made a fluffy colorful army 10 ass holes would just skim the codex for the most broken (Boring) builds they could find.


That right there is the reason the codex needed changing, and is one of the major problems in a game like 40k. You've got all this bad ass fluff running around, which would be great to base army lists on, but once you bring it into a competive setting it has to maintain some form of balance.

Fluffy armies are fantastic but it is also unrealistic to expect GW to come up with rule sets for every gamer to play every Fluff army they want, and have them somewhat balanced. The current codex does allow for a measure of fluff to be used to make armies, it just doesn't give bonuses for them. 

Want to make a nurgle army where all troops are at a unit count of 7? Go Ahead.

Want an Iron Warriors army that'll focus on heavy support? Go ahead.

Just don't expect GW to include everything that was stated at one point or another in the Fluff for your army.

Basalisks would be over powered in a CSM list anyway.


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

I agree with LukeValentine on the 'broken' point.



hungryugolino said:


> 4th edition chaos dex was violated more than if a Keeper of secrets had gotten it's hands on it.
> 
> If you want decent Alpha Legion or something interesting, no chance.


Let's face it, every Alpha Legion army was basically 6 20-man squads of infiltrating, melta-bombing, furious charging/besieging/moving through cover cultists.

The problem is really represented in the tone of the 2 codices. In 3rd edition, it was all about the big guys, "not the petty, run-of-the-mill villains, but the big villains, the ones that plot universal domination and have the ability to see it through. These villains are just as resourceful, just as determined, and just as capable as any hero, but they also have faults and weaknesses that make them far more interesting. This, I believe, is the attraction of the Chaos Space Marines. There is a certain tragedy about them, but also a grim, uncompromising ferocity that drives them on."

Whereas in the 4th ed. codex, they're basically a bunch of piratical warbands under petty leaders.

Actually, one guy I miss from way back when was Cypher. He's one of my favorite special characters, and, as the most dangerous of the Fallen, one of the most enigmatic and significant characters in the canon. Sure he was pretty OP back in the first 3rd ed. codex (BS 6? I 8?), but then with the second 3rd. ed. codex, they just forgot about him. The only thing he got was a set of rules in White Dwarf (of course, being the Cypherite I am, I got it). And then... nothing. For a faction that is so heavily interwoven in the lore of one of the major armies of 40k, I'd expect they at least get a mention outside the DA codex.


----------



## hungryugolino (Sep 12, 2009)

Thing is, a broken, fluffy codex with lots of choices is better than a shite codex that lets you play Black Legion/Red Corsairs and not a whole lot else. Besides, making a broken dex lets you compete with the Space Marine variants! :grin:

Honestly, bring on the broken builds if it lets you use Alpha Legion cultists, Iron Warrior Basilisks, and whatnot.

Luke: Funnily enough, that seems to have been exactly what they did with the 5th edition Codex Space Marines. Is it any wonder people hate the Ultras?


----------



## Ghost792 (Jan 6, 2010)

I never played with the 3rd Ed codex, though I own a copy, and I must say I do think the new codex is lacking in terms of its wargear, mostly the god specific stuff. As far as playing the legions goes, most of them splintered into warbands, so unless you play black legion or make your own fluff and use a group affiliated with the black legion (like I have) you are basically playing pirates. But thats just the nature of the chaos marines, they are selfish and are all trying to win the favour of their patron gods for their own personal glory. Im not saying they're mindless, but theyre motives are mostly personal. On the other hand, I would like to be able to give my squads Warp Scream or give my vehicles blastmasters, or make possessed reliable or give my squads daemonic gifts or use an actual Keeper of Secrets or Daemonettes, but I cant so I just make the most with what I can. Thats just the way I see the whole Codex CSM mess, although Im probably missing some perspective having never actually played with the 3rd Ed codex, maybe it was more fun. Anyway thats my fairly long winded opinion on the matter.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Having played mono-Tzeentch under both I find 4th edition to actually be better overall for Tzeentch as you can now have models that are neither Sorcerers nor Rubric Marines.

The nixing to the Possessed is annoying but irritates me less than many people as under 3rd edition all my Possessed were forced to be Sorcerers, which either got expensive or left them without any benefit from the expense of the Mark.

For playing pure Thousand Sons I find the codicies equal overall.

That said, I do sometimes miss Rubric Terminators.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Having played mono-Tzeentch under both I find 4th edition to actually be better overall for Tzeentch as you can now have models that are neither Sorcerers nor Rubric Marines.
> 
> The nixing to the Possessed is annoying but irritates me less than many people as under 3rd edition all my Possessed were forced to be Sorcerers, which either got expensive or left them without any benefit from the expense of the Mark.
> 
> ...


If I was Tzeentch Player I be piss at the lack of using Big Bird, Tzeench wargear, and most important of all the auto pass on Psy Test. I cant even see where the two are equal. 

As a Red Corsair player I can field a fluffy cultist pirate army "thank god", as a Slannesh lover my fluffy EC are missing the Daemonetts, Warp Scream, Sirnes on my vehicles, and option for Blastmasters on everything. No my artard dread has a Blast master and Doom Siren for what? Heavy Flamer and Plasma cannon? Well theres no point in playing EC force, might as well as paint a single coat of black and say "hey, there shadow legion." 

How is it the SM codex can field unique HQs to make a semi useful/fluffy list, and there is 4 other fluffy unique SM dexes? But Chaos players get one lame straight foward dex for Black Legion. WTF! It bothers me more that some people try to say "you can still build a half ass fluffy version, IWs stack on HS, NLs take raptors, so on ect." yet those ar piss poor fluffy builds. Our dex requires Slannesh DPs, Nurgle PMs, and Oblits for any army. Real fukin fluffy and different. Every competent Chaos list is the cut and paste of this build. But whatever.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Warlock in Training said:


> If I was Tzeentch Player I be piss at the lack of... most important of all the auto pass on Psy Test


As I always play Tzeentch, my usual opponents always build for anti-psyker, so I am so used to rolling after every use to see if the psychic hood or other thing stops it that I never really notice the difference.

I agree that having a Lord of Change would be a nice option; however, Horrors are worse in close combat than Lesser Daemons so I found them less useful as a Troops choice, so it is a trade off.


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

3.5 Ed was great. I loved it dearly. It was fluffy. I think it made collecting a CSM army worth it. But now it just plain sucks. It pisses me off to no end. I feel at such a disadvantage.

I mean, I just want a 'Dex that supports my continual burning of the Imperium.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

General feel toward the current CSM codex:

'Gav fucked that one up'


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Orochi said:


> General feel toward the current CSM codex:
> 
> 'Gav fucked that one up'


Pretty much. In fact, he even made a couple entries on his blog about it which can be found here and here. Naturally he refuses to admit it though.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> ...he even made a couple entries on his blog about it which can be found here and here


Having read those I am now less certain he got it as wrong as people allege.

Without evidence top the contrary I have to accept that he was writing the codex within the framework of making it simpler.

However much we miss the previous codex his argument that there is a division between fluffy games with friends and the specialism of tournaments does carry some weight. The rules have to be written with the majority of focus on the possibility of misuse rather than how much fun they are.

Even his argument on not being able to summon power specific Daemons makes sense within the framework of not wanting to make the rules more complex; as Horrors &c. would be odd without the same stats in each Codex balance issues would almost certainly require extra rules on which CSM could summon which daemons under which circumstances.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Without evidence top the contrary I have to accept that he was writing the codex within the framework of making it simpler.
> 
> However much we miss the previous codex his argument that there is a division between fluffy games with friends and the specialism of tournaments does carry some weight. The rules have to be written with the majority of focus on the possibility of misuse rather than how much fun they are.


Sure, but I don't think it's the fault of those of us that enjoyed the wealth of option the older Chaos Space Marine Codex provided that your average gamer has an IQ somewhere in the vicinity of 12. Yes, I realize that he's actually talking about casual gamers vs. tournament gamers, but in my mind nothing stopped a casual gamer from using the old Codex other than a matter of smart vs. not smart. It wasn't *that* hard to write a legal army. The basic rules were as follows:

1) Pick a Legion. Make sure none of the units or Marks of Chaos are restricted by that Legion.

2) Pick which model will be your General. Give him a Mark of Chaos, or don't.

3) Write your army list. Follow the basic rules included in every other Codex at the time and make sure you don't spend over 100 points on wargear for your Chaos Lord and 50 points on your unit champions. The same applies to Daemonic Gifts. Don't do anything moronic like give a Khornate Lord Slaaneshi wargear and read (gasp, I know. Actually *read*) the entries of the Veteran Skills you assign your models. No Infiltrating Khornate units, please.

4) Make sure you haven't gone and taken Tzeentchian units when you have a Nurgle-aligned General. Common fluff-sense should tell you this, but just in case, check anyway.

5) Remember that if you take units with the same Mark of Chaos as your General, they stay in their normal slot. Otherwise they become Elites.

In my mind that's really not *that* hard to remember, especially when using a program like Army Builder that does all the thinking for you, or with the Codex in your lap to remind you of these rules. If someone finds this too complex at age 12, they need to find another hobby.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> ...the wealth of option the older Chaos Space Marine Codex....It wasn't *that* hard to write a legal army.
> 
> In my mind that's really not *that* hard to remember, especially when using a program like Army Builder that does all the thinking for you, or with the Codex in your lap to remind you of these rules....


Sadly it did also trip up clever and careful people.

Two of my friends ( who both have good jobs and win games) entered a doubles tournament.

They generated their lists on paper then entered them into Imperial Armies so they could pull off the list in a generally accepted layout: no problems noted.

They practised with their list against my usual group: no problems noted.

They played day one of the tournament: no problems noticed.

Only after game three of day two did anyone notice that the Chaos Lord had 5 points to many Daemonic Gifts.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

In response to what the OP said I can only agree. Originally my army had a Word Bearer core with allied units from other Legions, but now I have little splinters that have trouble mixing from a gaming perspective. I have World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children, Iron Warriors... but my Codex says they're just Berzerkers, Terminators, Rubrics, Noise Marines, Lords, Deamon Princes, Bikers, Dreads and Oblits. It hurts my pride as a CSM player that out of these colourful and fluffy units (considering their names) only 3 are useful, because the rest are rendered useless by the sweeping advance of "lets make it simple". Yeah, so simple that I can't help but do the one thing I'm expected to.
The only relieving thing is that both of the creators of our current codex have left GW one way or the other, so even though we're unlikely to get a new codex before 6th ed it can only be better than this crap.

Regarding the other posts, I agree with what Luke, Katie and Warlock said (so I don't repeat everything they said in a tl;dr fashion ).


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Sadly it did also trip up clever and careful people.
> 
> Two of my friends ( who both have good jobs and win games) entered a doubles tournament.
> 
> ...


Haha :laugh: I apologize. I was feeling kinda testy when I posted that and it's really not quite what I mean. You're right, there were perhaps one or two too many hoops to jump through but I don't think Gav needed to take all the hoops and set them on fire like some sort of pyromaniac.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Haha :laugh: I apologize. I was feeling kinda testy when I posted that and it's really not quite what I mean.


No problem.



Katie Drake said:


> ...I don't think Gav needed to take all the hoops and set them on fire like some sort of pyromaniac.


I do not disagree that the 4th Edition codex has lost many of the personal flavour options; my point was more that, having read his blog, it might have been orders from on high and not Gav who nixed it. After all this time I do not think we will even know for sure.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

He wet completly the other direction. Lets look at the facts for a sec. Gav Thorpe talks this big game about simpleness. However look at some optionsin the dex. 
Possess, how do you right rules for these guys and not look at it and say "fuck my Beserkers are way better pt for pt, why bother?" or Chaos Lords. 
The DP praticaly at first, second, third glance is way better than any Chaos Lord. So why bother putting him in there Gav? 
Dreads without Dreadclaws are Crap to the tenth power when Loyatist get 50 kinds of useful Dreads, Gav worked hard there. 
Thank God Oblits are good, Defileres and Vindis okay, Lrs can be still good, Dakka Preds are alright. Wow, too bad I cant 6 HS slots. thats the only thing Gav got right.,
Mark of Teentch. Use to be the Psyker dream. Now its a sad joke when you have to take Psy Test with all the Shadow in the Warps, Rune of Warding, and Psy hoods out there. 
Raptors lost there Hit and Run, Daemonic Visage, and thus usefulness. Thanks Gav, NL players are thanking you everywhere.
SCs? What SCs. Oh you mean Kharn, and thats it. 
Sigh.... still no cultist, none now at all with this current dex. Sry Alpha Legion. 
LDs, hahaha, C: Daemons laugh at ours. For a little more points you get a FC PW totting daemon in C: Daemons. WTF GAV?

Oh well. Im just ranting, I got beaten by Daemons last night, very sore about it. Its like "Hey, I use to use you in my list." Seriously though, if he was told to make it simpler, fine do that, but dont make only a handful of unit s usefule and the rest shit, this just shows Gavs shitty ability as a dex writer.


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

Warlock in Training said:


> Seriously though, if he was told to make it simpler, fine do that, but dont make only a handful of unit s usefule and the rest shit, this just shows Gavs shitty ability as a dex writer.


Do you think he was asked to make it simpler, but left up to make the desicions, and was just a *tad* overzealous?


----------



## hungryugolino (Sep 12, 2009)

Zeal may be its own excuse, but Gav still made a pig's ear of things. No excuses for that kind of ineptitude.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Warlock in Training said:


> ...Possess, how do you right rules for these guys and not look at it and say "fuck my Beserkers are way better pt for pt, why bother?"....


Any pure legion force apart from Word Bearers would not have Berserkers.

I cannot think of any armies where a part of the FoC does not have one option that - ignoring fluff - is more points efficient in an all comers list than another.



Warlock in Training said:


> ...Chaos Lords.
> The DP praticaly at first, second, third glance is way better than any Chaos Lord. So why bother putting him in there Gav?....


Again fluff; it is unlikely that a Daemon Prince will take the field, so this let people have an all marine army.



Warlock in Training said:


> ...Dreads without Dreadclaws are Crap to the tenth power when Loyatist get 50 kinds of useful Dreads, Gav worked hard there....


The 3rd Edition codex only gave us one, drop-pod-less, Dreadnought; in fact the 4th Edition moved it to Elites, so if you were going to take a Dreadnought under 3rd Edition then Gav gave you a Heavy slot back.



Warlock in Training said:


> ...Mark of Teentch. Use to be the Psyker dream. Now its a sad joke when you have to take Psy Test with all the Shadow in the Warps, Rune of Warding, and Psy hoods out there....


The Mark of Tzeentch used to make characters into sorcerers who automatically passed their psychic test, whereas now they get an increased invulnerable save (5+ to 4+ is a big jump) and to use two psychic powers per turn; depending on circumstances both are great.

The Mark of Tzeentch used to make Chosen into sorcerers whereas now it gives them an invulnerable save; as these address the close combat gap of Rubric Marines I rate increased survival over having a large unit of Psykers.



Warlock in Training said:


> Raptors lost there Hit and Run, Daemonic Visage, and thus usefulness. Thanks Gav, NL players are thanking you everywhere.
> SCs? What SCs. Oh you mean Kharn, and thats it.
> Sigh.... still no cultist, none now at all with this current dex. Sry Alpha Legion.


Whilst I agree fully that the 4th Edition Codex has reduced the number of very competitive builds, and that some Legions did lose out quite badly, it actually made some things better for me.

The previous codex allowed Rubric Terminators; however, in exchange for those I gain access to Havocs, Raptors, Bikes, non-Rubric troops, and Terminators with an increased invulnerable save if I wish.

The loss of a wound on Rubric Marines has been counterbalanced by the improved save; so with inferno bolts they can do better as a sole troops type than they were.


----------

