# Gav Thorpe talks about Codex: Chaos Space Marines



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I'm surprised I haven't seen a topic about this yet as it's all the rage on some other sites, so here we go.

Gav Thorpe recently wrote a post on his blog or whatever explaining his thoughts behind the current Codex: Chaos Space Marines and basically tried to defend himself from all the hate for the most current edition of the book.

The blog post can be found here: http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

I'd like to say now that Gav's getting enough crap from people commenting on his Blog, so we're not going to tolerate anybody insulting the man personally on our site. You can be as passionate as you want about what he's written, but anyone resorting to personal attacks will be dealt with as if they'd attacked another member of Heresy.

Please discuss. I'm eager to hear everyone's thoughts!

Katie D


----------



## Carnivore (Aug 4, 2009)

I might also be a bit too "old school-minded" and have way too much time to play and bother myself with precises and fun options given to me (what Gav Thorpe calls "over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army", but I don't think one of the chief responsible for the laughable and frustrating summer "Chaos Storm" campaign, or of the already won battle reports from WD, should complain too much about what he sown. In France, many see him as one of the direst enemy of the 40K fluff.
Hell, I rejoiced when I read he was leaving GW, but he did some really good stuff ("_Inquisitor_", "Dark Elf" codex or "_2nd Ed. Sisters of Battle_" codex. They were rare, but they still count among my favourite. I just wish, he would have stay far away from any 40K Chaos book...
By the way, if one thinks, a forum or a blog'll only get intelligent and non-belligerent comments , that one's a fool... You must listen to criticism and insults, fore they're always born from something you did/said. 

But it's only me.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

i can't get on to his blog right now, so i can't re-read what he's written, but i did look through it last night and spent time reading the replies (i was actually intending on starting an identicle thread had i not found this one).

having spent some time thinking about the post there are a few things that struck me:

- how personal he felt the work was. i realise as a games designer the project is most definitely _his_, but i would have expected that as an employee of GW he would have seen it more as a team effort and reflective of what the company wanted as a whole. but clearly he still feels that the book is the best of his work to his own ideals. this meant that he wasn't able to take an objective or critical view of the design. it was unexpected and kind of unhelpful, but not necessarily wrong.

- i felt that his arguments for justification of the design were flawed and i think that a number of the commentators picked up on that quite quickly. but to add my own voice, i think he really over egged the 'choice stifles diversity' argument. in fact, the majority of his examples of cool Chaos armies that would be crippled by prescriptive rules dated directly from RoC, 2nd and 3.5 eras. his premis made sense, but it simply did not match the facts. granted in 3.5 most IW armies looked very similar, but they looked and played very differently to WE armies. but these days the majority of CSM armies (IW and WE) look and play very similar (or at least in my experience they do).

- and possibly most importnantly i felt that he made a mistake in making no concession towards those people (myself included) who feel let down by the current codex. irrespective of your opinion of the book, you cannot deny that there has never been a book produced by GW that has been met with such long running protestation from the gamers themselves. even if you absolutely love the C: CSM and can't find it in yourself to find fault with it, we are forced to admit that if the book still creates this much ire amoungst players so long after its release, that to some extent those objections must be real (even if not vocalised well). Gav seemed to remain blind to this and continued along the company line that the book was the very best that it could be, which is a little insulting to those that do object, so whilst i don't agree with verbally attacking the man i don't find it wholly unexpected.

i would personally have rather read something along the lines of:

"i'm sorry you didn't like my book, i would have rather that you did or that i could have created something that would have pleased everyone, but here are some of the other good ideas we had and the reasons why that turned out to be unfeasable, and thus why we think that this is the very best idea..."

instead we seemed to get something more like:

"i don't know what you don't like about the book, i can't see anything wrong with it."

i think that this is a debate that is going to carry on until someone at GW or Gav legitamise the complaints against the book by saying, "its not perfect, we tried to do X, but for a lot of players that missed the mark. we're sorry for those players and we'll try to get a better middle ground in the future".

in conclusion, i'd really like to have heared Gav go a little bit deeper into the design process and the choices made, but the post remained quite shallow in that regard (i guess that's the nature of a blog though) and more about his thoughts and feelings. if i've seemed critical of Gav in this post its not intentional, i'm just trying to respond to what was written. i truely appreciate hearing directly from the games designer (and i doubly appreciate the fact that Gav pretty much been the only person in the GW pantheon who actually engaged with fans and let them into his thought processes), but i don't think that Gav has done much to eliviate tensions in this particular discussion. no agreement has ever truely been made over this book, people just stopped arguing because they were bored of fighting rather than because they found something to agree on. and i suspect that all Gav will have done here is pick at old wounds.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

To sum it up...My Word Bearer army collects dust. Its no fun playing with them any more.. So I made Orks, SM, and IG instead...I sometimes look at mt Chaos army and think... Hmm maybe I shall BLow the dust from them and.....Nah! Ill just play Orks again or Salamanders


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I disagree with his idea of the game (yes, Im a member of subclass 1), I buy the rulebook and codeces for them to tell me how to play the game... Im perfectly willing to play variants of rules that people cook up, but I want a fully defined core set of rules saying exactly how units should work (and scrubbing out those abuses- I dont use them, I dont even use rules that I see as an abuse but are clearly stated).

Having said that I think that each codex/BRB should have a 'fun' section in (as Gav hinted at), saying how you might like to use homebrew rules or custom game types/missions/objectives to set up fun friendlies with vastly different feel to normal games.
- the removal of alies rules to simplify the game is the biggest one of these for me... sure they may be too complicated for GW to want to write a full section of them, but it would take barely any ink/time to add a quite section saying "X armies can play with Y in friendly games where you agree to use allies.. 'be nice' and dont abuse alied combos"


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Bogg said:


> To sum it up...My Word Bearer army collects dust. Its no fun playing with them any more.. So I made Orks, SM, and IG instead...I sometimes look at mt Chaos army and think... Hmm maybe I shall BLow the dust from them and.....Nah! Ill just play Orks again or Salamanders


I think you have uncovered the conspiracy - make a codex duff and force people to invest in a new army! Clever......


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

admiraldick said:


> - i felt that his arguments for justification of the design were flawed and i think that a number of the commentators picked up on that quite quickly. but to add my own voice, i think he really over egged the 'choice stifles diversity' argument...


Firstly: I agree with almost everything Admiraldick has written, a really good post!



> Daemon Princes of Khorne have less options than Imperial Guard commanders. I think that really sums up the new CSM codex.


The quote is from the first comments, and is sadly accurate:cray:

The whole "we disliked that there were alot of unused upgrades, so we decided to remove almost all options instead" argument is so flawed in itself its sad. Sure most IW armies were quite similar in the last codex, as were many berzerker armies and so on, but atleast there were diffrent kinds of CSM armies back them. Nowdays *everyone* plays the same kind of CSM DP, DG, OBz army. Alot better, right? 
Honestly I expected some kind of admittance there. And that means more then "uhm we might have been a bit too puritan on the DPs options _only_"

They have already screwed the CSM codex over for real once, back in 3d when the first CSM codex was released. That one was almost as dull as the current one, and there was a rage back then too, since the 2nd ed book was varied and fun. Im suprized they did it again, and I really hope the up-down-up-down race can stop with next book. Its about time.

And most of all, seeing the SM codex about a year after, with lots and lots of options, SCs that unlocks certain chapter-specific rules and so forth, really nailed the coffin.

It is good to hear that there actually is, or atleast was, an idea of making real traitor legion specific codices in the future again though and talk about more daemon engines and stuff, the sad thing is that future can be a long time...


----------



## World Eater XII (Dec 12, 2008)

the future means after all gw staff members participate in a combat tour in afghan!


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

Warnings aside, I feel the need to attack his character. But not in the way people might think. I'll bullet point my thoughts...

* A work of any type is a direct reflection of the creator. You cannot critique a creation without discussing the creator in length. Without it, you cannot understand intentions, motivations, and every other intricate detail most people overlook. And his response to the criticisms allow us the oppertunity to understand those ideas a little clearer. All of which, either he misses the point or skirts the issue. 

* He's blaming the internet for uninformed formulated opinions from those that lacked information in the first place. A mechanic could chide you for commenting on his repair work when you don't fathom the reasons he decided to use after market parts in your car, but damned if you didn't want the manufactures in there instead. This is pretty poor form.

* He blames the previous incarnations of the Codex as game breaking and failing at the attempt to create a plethora of rules based on the background. The first point makes no sense given how each Codex has a "power biuld", the second, is a cheap shot at creativity and the fundemental requirements of a tournament based game. Or rather, he's upset that we're asking for specific rules which are sanctioned by GW. If you didn't want us to use your rules, then don't bother writing them down.

* His detailed response to the second issue leads me to believe he doesn't understand GWs permissive rule system. His quote; "I can't do this because the rules don't say I can" is exactly how the rules work and should continue to work. Arguing that more rules presented a narrower interpretation of the background over a system with doesn't cover any is about as backwards as you can get. As one response said, how the fudge are you justifying the idea one flavor of ice cream is better then several?

* Power specific biulds were not about restrictions, they were about streamlining an army to a single idea. If I wanted a Khornate army, I gave up certain things BUT gained others. This is not being restrictive. Not to mention the fact I could easily play a Black Legion army and say fudge off to the give/take options specific armies had. Secondly, just because people don't take certain options doesn't mean they shouldn't be available. How many people do you see running Sorcerers in their armies now? Not fudging many of them given your drastic change in power structure. 

* And no, there was no such thing as a "typical Chaos Space Marine army". Every single army had a specific niche and concept behind it, 9 of them to be precise. Can we just go ahead and lump SM armies the same way? They're all typical right? You don't need different rules for; Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Salamanders, Iron Warriors and any other loyalist army.

* It would be one thing to discuss the "possibility" of Legion Codecies. It's quite another for GW to come out and say; "Maybe in the future." You know, Dark Eldar have been waiting how long for their update? Maybe in the future I'll be GWs president. Empty promises are just that.

* Here's the difference in Allies between Chaos and Imperialists. Daemons were in the fudging Codex to begin with! It's one thing to complain about something everyone would want, like an Allies section in the Daemonhunter Codex. It's another can of worms to have them be in the same army from the get go, rip them out of the Codex completely (oops, you left the two types in; generic and common), give them their own codex and casually omit rules for allying the two forces. 

* We know we can do whatever the fudge we want when we're playing with friends and I'm not arguing the point of the game is to have fun with friends. But you are blatantly overlooking a massive issue when it comes to tournament play, in which you'd be lying if you ignore it's sales potential from a business stand point. Many players only play tournaments, and many players won't ever play tournaments, some for the reason they can no longer use their army which did have official rules for. 

* His argument against tournaments is pretty reaching. Army list mistakes? That's it? Could they have been cheaters? Or just bad at math? No, it's the fault of the codex right?

* It's not perfect, not by a long shot. Rules are overlooked, some have been made worse and bordeline useless, it's not internally balanced in several places, there's no logical progression of power and other things I don't feel like getting into right now. 

His explanations were poor, he avoided the specific problems the entire community brought up, and he was placing the majority of the blame back on the players themselves. It's really difficult not to comment on how I think he's being overly whiny that people take offense to his work for very valid reasons. 

But it boils down to this, if I call a mechanic to complain about the crappy repair job he did to my transmittion, I'll be even more pissed off when he chides me for not realizing what a super paint job my car has now. So Gav buddy, you let me down, again.


----------



## primeministersinsiter (May 31, 2009)

"* A work of any type is a direct reflection of the creator. You cannot critique a creation without discussing the creator in length"

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I dont think Gav should be blamed, i don't believe for a moment that a codex writer is given 100% control over its content, the contents and subsequent rules etc will always be driven by the model line an ultimately the heads of the company.Some one will have created a brief for the codex for him to follow based on what an accountant thinks,he will then hand back a work for their approval, and bish bash bosh a few month later the deamon army is born.
Not to mention how relived will you be(and of your wallet) when they pump out some legion codexes because this one is so bad.


----------



## Spot The Grot (Jul 15, 2008)

admiraldick said:


> - how personal he felt the work was. i realise as a games designer the project is most definitely _his_, but i would have expected that as an employee of GW he would have seen it more as a team effort and reflective of what the company wanted as a whole. but clearly he still feels that the book is the best of his work to his own ideals. this meant that he wasn't able to take an objective or critical view of the design. it was unexpected and kind of unhelpful, but not necessarily wrong.


Thats what i thought pretty much


----------



## exsulis (Jul 17, 2008)

admiraldick said:


> - and possibly most importnantly i felt that he made a mistake in making no concession towards those people (myself included) who feel let down by the current codex. irrespective of your opinion of the book, you cannot deny that there has never been a book produced by GW that has been met with such long running protestation from the gamers themselves. even if you absolutely love the C: CSM and can't find it in yourself to find fault with it, we are forced to admit that if the book still creates this much ire amoungst players so long after its release, that to some extent those objections must be real (even if not vocalised well). Gav seemed to remain blind to this and continued along the company line that the book was the very best that it could be, which is a little insulting to those that do object, so whilst i don't agree with verbally attacking the man i don't find it wholly unexpected.


That's just funny as Codex:CSM isn't reviled as the Current DA dex. That travesty was hated from before it was even released in Feburary of 2007. At least there are a decent number of people still playing the Chaos dex which goes to show it isn't as bad as the DA dex. Just a little number for you but my local store sold over 40 DA Army boxes when it first came out. You don't want to know the number of DA armies still around, or the complete lack of them. 

Wow, and I guess you missed all of the White Dwarf articles where J.J. went 20 steps past anything Gav did. Pretty much J.J. said every DA player played the game wrong, and to suck it up. Now that is a man that deserves some hate.



admiraldick said:


> i would personally have rather read something along the lines of:
> 
> "i'm sorry you didn't like my book, i would have rather that you did or that i could have created something that would have pleased everyone, but here are some of the other good ideas we had and the reasons why that turned out to be unfeasable, and thus why we think that this is the very best idea..."
> 
> ...


Personally, I would have prefered that to J.J.'s tough it out, you play wrong comments in the White Dwarf.



admiraldick said:


> in conclusion, i'd really like to have heared Gav go a little bit deeper into the design process and the choices made, but the post remained quite shallow in that regard (i guess that's the nature of a blog though) and more about his thoughts and feelings. if i've seemed critical of Gav in this post its not intentional, i'm just trying to respond to what was written. i truely appreciate hearing directly from the games designer (and i doubly appreciate the fact that Gav pretty much been the only person in the GW pantheon who actually engaged with fans and let them into his thought processes), but i don't think that Gav has done much to eliviate tensions in this particular discussion. no agreement has ever truely been made over this book, people just stopped arguing because they were bored of fighting rather than because they found something to agree on. and i suspect that all Gav will have done here is pick at old wounds.


Gav's design was based under J.J.'s template of suckiness. I'd say he didn't have as much wiggle room with the codex as some of the other authors. But the codex does allow for themed forces, and you've got a number of competitive builds, which aren't 99% overpriced. Seriously, I'd rather have scabs, and scars than the festering plague of hatred that the DA dex generates without any prodding. My god, the infernal thing(CA) has 20 redux projects going at any one time, and several have been ongoing since March of 2007.


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

primeministersinsiter said:


> "* A work of any type is a direct reflection of the creator. You cannot critique a creation without discussing the creator in length"
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author


Ugh... ok, I *may* have committed a tiny fallacy with that statement. What I probably should have said is that we attacked the work, then he decided to defend it. At that point, Gav opened the door for Intention. 

Or rather, if you prefer looking at Wiki, we performed a basic deconstruction of the text without regard to intentional fallacies which inexorably lead Gav to provide authorial intentionality. And the community found fault in all of it (at least those that say the book sucks).


----------



## maomolin (May 4, 2008)

On September 10, 2009 at 1:55 pm William Murray Said:

I’ll keep my commentary simple:

Playtest your Codex: Playtesting means you try to BREAK your design — you find ways the rules can be misused or misunderstood. The Design Studio suffers from a blatant, sometimes crippling case of groupthink. Get some outside playtesters. Vicious nasty ones, munchkins and minmaxers of the worst sort. Sign them up with the most draconian confidentiality agreements you can. They will let you know what’s wrong with the codex from how they abuse the rules.

Get an Editor: They exist for a reason. Repeat after me: a spellchecker is not an editor. Say that a thousand times — it will be your punishment for Codex: Blood Angels."

He summed up much of the problems with any codex really. He came off brackish, but he could have went farther.

It'd be nice if there was one set of points across the world by which to 'balance' the codexes to, if its 1750, 1850, 2k whatever, itd be nice if GW sanctioned ONE point value and then said that composition matters, leave double lash at home, you can sweep every game and lose.

I really wasn't against opening up room for more options, the problem became on how many armies suffered from this. Most of the 'generic' chapters lost more than anything. IW armies had a huge gimp! There was more variety in the previous codex than the current even with 'all of the restrictions' which should indicate something to intelligent designers at GW. Again, most of the complaints... most mind you, would have been settled by outside playtesting. God knows itd kill sales for players to have an idea what GW is going to try with beta-tested codexes.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Bogg said:


> To sum it up...My Word Bearer army collects dust. Its no fun playing with them any more.. So I made Orks, SM, and IG instead...I sometimes look at mt Chaos army and think... Hmm maybe I shall BLow the dust from them and.....Nah! Ill just play Orks again or Salamanders





slaaneshy said:


> I think you have uncovered the conspiracy - make a codex duff and force people to invest in a new army! Clever......



And so the lord said unto his people, "behold I give the new Chaos Space Marine Codex."
And the people, "behold it's a pile of crap!"

Yes what you just read was pretentious bull, as are some of the comments and posts that have been bandied round on this subject ever since the current Chaos Marine Codex came out. Okay the codex isn't perfect, the armies are perhaps a little to assault orientated, and no I don't have a clue why anyone would take Icon of Chaos Glory apart from the fact that it looks nice.

But so what? Other armies are geared towards one form of play, with the exception of regular Space Marines, nor going over the preceding Codex do I understand why people complain about a lack of choice. The new system provides you with far more choice about the units to be taken than was the case previously, allowing you to specialise or generalise your army as much as you like.

As someone who regularly plays Chaos Marines, and played against them today, I'll testify there are still an interesting army to play with, as well as wonderfully inspiring when it comes to modelling. Proof of that came today as five Chaos Terminators destroyed my entire army in a 1000 point game.

As to these criticisms of and attacks on Gav Thorpe, what purpose do they serve? He's not the only author of the current codex, and his Dark Elf Army book and black library fiction are amongst the best I've read.


----------



## Smrtubija (Sep 14, 2009)

i don't like the new codex because there aren't any special rules for any of the traitor legions ( ex. world eaters , word bearers) and i think that it's lame that the SM can have 4 or 5 specific chapter codeces and the CSM got none ( i hope that Gav is right and they will release them  ) When Gav said the codex is oriented more towards creating new renegade chapters it is ok , and he's right it gives you good options to customise them , but then again it kills the game fluff wise for the existing chapters. Well , sure you can still make you world eater army list as before but without any of the cool items ( chainaxes ), the deamons , and i think that its laughable to be given an option to field an sorcerer in such an army  , or even to field 2 DP's cos fluff wise they cant stand each other D
But then again the CSM are still a strong army and fun to play imho


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Smrtubija said:


> i think that its laughable to be given an option to field an sorcerer in such an army  , or even to field 2 DP's cos fluff wise they cant stand each other D
> But then again it still is a strong army and fun to play



Your right it is laughable to field a Sorcerer for Chaos Marines. In my second game my Slaneesh Daemon Prince kept moving my mate's unit back six inches. His turn he'd move them forward again, then I'd move them back and so on.


----------



## Carnivore (Aug 4, 2009)

World Eater XII said:


> the future means after all gw staff members participate in a combat tour in afghan!


Yep... as ablative armor... 

Well, let's not be too harsh, some of 'em just do what they're paid for and ordered to do...


----------



## Aldred (Aug 1, 2009)

primeministersinsiter said:


> "* A work of any type is a direct reflection of the creator. You cannot critique a creation without discussing the creator in length"
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author


Um....

I think you need to discover yourself. Nothing can be done without the desire to do it at some level. That desire is entirely intangible, unmeasurable and completely related to who the person is. Your experiences, attitudes, beliefs and prejudices define your work and your criticisms of others'.

If you think a work of any type is not a direct reflection of the creator, then why did you write your response in english? Could it be because you learned the language in the past? People do not spontaneously produce anything without some creative effort... even minimal.

It is the creative effort that defines the creation.


----------



## Carnivore (Aug 4, 2009)

Aldred said:


> It is the creative effort that defines the creation.


Well, one cannot dismiss the impulse and the basic idea fueling the desire to create or discuss it and let other people define it.

But I wholly agree with you.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

Revelations said:


> * He's blaming the internet [...]
> * He blames the previous incarnations of the Codex


i think you've touched on quite a lot of important points, but i think that these two might be the most salient. 



primeministersinsiter said:


> Wrong.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author


isn't that about interpretation of meaning rather than quality (which i believe is what Revelations was discussing)?

either way i think you mean "that's not strictly true" rather than the alternative which make you sound like a douche (as i'm sure you'd rather not be thought of as a douche).



bitsandkits said:


> I dont think Gav should be blamed, i don't believe for a moment that a codex writer is given 100% control over its content


i was inclined to agree with you, and it was my stance since before the codex came out. any fault surely must be brought about by interference from committees and management, where they shoudl have just let the creatives do what they do best.

Gav no longer works directly for the studio, he's effectively free to express his opinions as he sees fit. it would have been easy for him to distance himself from the work by saying "i would have rathered that it had been different, but pressure from the studio and management turned it into something i hadn't planned". sadly though, that is not what Gav says.

he remains adamant that that genuinely was his own intent. now there are a number of explinations that could still absolve Gav of a connection with the work, but its pushing the boundaries of plausiblity to ignore his own words and assume that he was brainwashed by the studio into thinking that he really wanted to do what they told him.



exsulis said:


> That's just funny as Codex:CSM isn't reviled as the Current DA dex. That travesty was hated from before it was even released in Feburary of 2007.


without wishing to be presumptuous, might i suggests that you might be a little biased?

i agree that the DA book is on some level less popular than the CSM book in that a greater percentage of players have dropped their DA armies. however, i believe that there are much larger number of CSM players than there are DA players, and as such, even if the percentages are different, i would have thought that there would have been a greater number of disgruntled CSM players than DA.

however, i totally agree that both books have generated bad press since before their release.



The Sullen One said:


> The new system provides you with far more choice about the units to be taken than was the case previously, allowing you to specialise or generalise your army as much as you like.


how do you figure that?

there were a greater number of units and a greater number of options for each of those units?

the only positive change in that regard was that you can now take all units and all options available in the book together, but that's still not as many options.

if you can demonstrate how i can create a specialised Noise Marine army like i had in 3.5, i will of course have to conceed.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

My Noise marine army changed in one aspect. My modded Noise Predator went to Apok only. Other than that, I play it identically. Ok, my Daemonettes are summoned daemons. Not too terrible a change. I enjoy the Army, I think it's still workable. I am sorry you can't merge Daemons and CSM other than in APOK games, but I don't think the Codex is bad. Just a little bland.


----------



## primeministersinsiter (May 31, 2009)

admiraldick: Good point. There's room for all sorts. However I won't edit my first post so people can see what we're talking about.
Aldred: I'm the means of production of a work sure, but to try and use me as a lense to explore my writing fails at a certain level that being that an audience does not interact with the author. They are interacting with the agency of the text. Indeed, the author is important. But not necessary for understanding a text.
And on the plus side, I got us all to read and dicuss about Barthes' ideas, so yay us.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

maomolin said:


> On September 10, 2009 at 1:55 pm William Murray Said:
> 
> I’ll keep my commentary simple:
> 
> ...


This is indeed very true. More or less all codices has atleast 1 real goof armylist wise that should have been realized in playtesting, and a few outsiders, or just folks hired full time for that purpose would do more then sufficiently:read:

Spelling is just sad, nothing else:scare:


----------



## exsulis (Jul 17, 2008)

admiraldick said:


> without wishing to be presumptuous, might i suggests that you might be a little biased?
> 
> i agree that the DA book is on some level less popular than the CSM book in that a greater percentage of players have dropped their DA armies. however, i believe that there are much larger number of CSM players than there are DA players, and as such, even if the percentages are different, i would have thought that there would have been a greater number of disgruntled CSM players than DA.
> 
> however, i totally agree that both books have generated bad press since before their release.


I will concur that I'm a little biased but there were more DA players in my area before the 4th DA dex came out, and we were about 1 to 1 with all the chaos players. That number swelled, and then sunk within 3 months of the DA dex release. Chaos at least locally stayed the same.

I'd say at least the CSM has more than two decent units in the whole codex, and she isn't full of terribly written rules that still don't work well.

Though one thing I do miss out of the CSM is cultists.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

Creon said:


> My Noise marine army changed in one aspect.


the near total lack of Noise Marines?

only kidding.



Creon said:


> My modded Noise Predator went to Apok only. Other than that, I play it identically. Ok, my Daemonettes are summoned daemons. Not too terrible a change.


My Noise marine army consisted almost entirely of Sonic Weapons and it was mainly built around two units of Noise Marine Havoks. i also had Dreadnoughts, Lords and regular units with sonic weapons and was working on other units.

i used to love the way it played as a mid-range, non-committal, counter-attack force. blasting away with Blastmasters and pwning people with daemonettes if they got too close or too stupid. as soon as the book changed i realised that not only had the unit choices in my army changed, but so had the tactics, the only thing the same was the appearance of the models (which was no longer WYSIWYG). i agree that there is still fun to be had with the C:CSM, but its only one kind of fun. i don't see the results of less options creating more choice.



Creon said:


> I am sorry you can't merge Daemons and CSM other than in APOK games, but I don't think the Codex is bad. Just a little bland.


i'm not sure whether i'm as upset as other people are about daemons moving out and getting a place of their own. i really do appreciate the space that gives them for further options. if i'm annoyed about anything its that there wasn't a more unified set of rules regarding Icons, allowing friendly daemons to deepstrike alongside Marines and vice versa. it seems like the most basic of basic ideas for making the two armies work together, and yet seems to have been over looked.

(i'm also not too impressed with how sparse the pages of the C: CD are considering the idea was that they were given space to express them in new ways and we ended up with a single new unit. but its their very first codex, so we'll cut them some slack, DE, Necrons and Tau didn't have it much better.)



primeministersinsiter said:


> admiraldick: Good point. There's room for all sorts. However I won't edit my first post so people can see what we're talking about.


fair enough. sounds reasonable.



exsulis said:


> Though one thing I do miss out of the CSM is cultists.


again, not that phased by the lack of cultists. however, the logic that said "Marks shouldn't be restricted to a limited number of builds" should really have applied to Dark Apostles, Warsmiths and Cultists if it was going to have any credibility.

in my own re-write of the C: CSM i've included them as a Heavy Support position as sole purpose is essentially ablative armour for other more important units.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Gav's responded to people's comments. Go get 'em!

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/the-glory-of-chaos/


----------



## exsulis (Jul 17, 2008)

"I like ice cream, so let’s run with it." I think this says it all.


----------



## primeministersinsiter (May 31, 2009)

I think Gav made some great points in the second post. It's what should have been said in the first place.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Yeah, I wasn't pleased that he decided to run with that particular metaphor as it allowed for a lot of weirdness, but meh.

Overall he did have some good points. It would literally be impossible to please everybody and his example with the 300+ page Codex was a decent one, though there are flaws in his argument as well.

I think one of the comments said it best - there was a way to please the vast majority of players by simply introducing things like, for example, a Master of the Forge equivalent to represent Iron Warrior Warsmiths, some sort of "Sneaky Marines" with Infiltrate (as Troops, not freaking Elites!).

If one good thing came out of Gav's blog posts though, it's that now more than ever I'm excited for the possibility of a Legions Codex. So excited that I might just have to start writing and playtesting one of my own...


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

*posting from work*

Codex: Death Guard would make me a very, very happy Great Unclean One.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

To be honest, I wish he would just admit the fact GW fucked up big time.

They took the CSM codex and ripped out all its juicy bits and put sawdust back in.

You want to win a tournement with CSM Gav? Ok, you'll need 9 obliterators, 2 squads of rhino mounted Khorne berzerkers, 2 squads of Rhino mounted Plague marines and 2 winged Lash princes.
But please bare in mind, every other CSM player will have exactly that.


----------



## Carnivore (Aug 4, 2009)

primeministersinsiter said:


> I think Gav made some great points in the second post. It's what should have been said in the first place.


Well, he just doesn't care anymore and answer what "we"'d like to hear the first time in fact.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

i've finally had a chance to sit down and read Gav's latest post. i'm glad that he's gone a little bit more along the lines of discussing actual decisions that had to be made when writing the latest codex (and they are very similar to discussions i've had on various forums since the books release), however, i'm a little sad that he didn't feel able to talk about more specific decisions that were involved in producing the codex (such as why generic daemons rather than nominally markable ones? why no cultists, Dark Apostles or Warsmiths or Basilisks? that would have cast a lot more light on the subject that has remained interminably murky for altogether too long.

however, my biggest disappointment is still the same as it was when the codex was released. i genuinely get what Gav is trying to say about divvying up the army into separate books to allow more space for greater diversity (even with the convoluted analogy of an ice cream parlour), and i genuinely think that (if done right) that is a good thing. i'd love to see codexes for all the factions of the game, Tau Septs, Tyranid Hive Fleets, Ork Clans and every other thing under the sun (though of course this could only ever be a dream because it implies an infinite number of books and a continuously expanding set of rules to learn, but the principle is not unadmirable).

however, for all this talk of extra diversity, greater choices and people imaginations being the limit, i don't see anything of this materialising on the gaming table. the book that we have been handed has categorically less choices in it than its predecessor. we're being told that the reason for this is to allow those removed choices greater room in their own books. but what about those unit choices that are left behind? presumably they would also get extra space to expand and multiply, creating new chaos unit choices that are better suited to generic middle ground CSM armies. but the promise is hollow. there are no new units, and those units that remain have fewer options. effectively we are being told to get excited about receiving something when we are in fact having something taken away from us. its akin to being told that your dog's gone to live on a farm.

so even after reading this latest post, i'm still left with the same questions i started with. its a nice little story, but what does it have to do with the current codex? and why does that make that current codex so bad?


----------



## World Eater XII (Dec 12, 2008)

Creon said:


> but I don't think the Codex is bad. Just a little bland.


that my friemd is half the problem, ive been reading over the old dex and weeping on its awesomness!


----------



## Carnivore (Aug 4, 2009)

World Eater XII said:


> that my friemd is half the problem, ive been reading over the old dex and weeping on its awesomness!


harr, fool! never look back at the "Realm of Chaos" or the 2nd Ed. 40K codex! You'll end up in tears and play Eldar... (Just a pun, folks!):mrgreen:


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Agreed. With Chaos, Never look back.

We, had it so good last codex....the golden days :/


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

I didn't even read the second post. The first was enough. Yeah, thats very childish of me, I know, but I just can't stand all the BS I'm being fed. Let me just quickly share my main problem; please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not saying that with the implication of "I know I won't be wrong so try proving it, ha-ha").

*Fact No.1:* 3rd Edition CSM Codex offered much more variety in terms of effective Legion-specific armies. Think of Dark Apostles then and now, Iron Warriors then and now, for instance. I too cried when I read it over and over again, unable to believe that we were so awesome in an age long past...
*
Fact No. 2:* 4th Edition CSM Codex narrows down your possibilities when it comes to Legion-specific armies, renders certain units useless (Dreads, Possessed, Lords, mainly), while it pushes you toward certain units that are in all honesty are a default win. I'm thinking of the Obliterators ruling the Heavy Support slots, Daemon Princes being the kings of the HQ and Plague Marines the champions of the Troops (Berserkers are great, but not as much when it comes to Mech IG for instance). 

Now comes the funny bit.

*Fact No. 3:* SMs have a general Codex that allows them a decent variety of choices without having to reach out (that much) of the book for the sake of playing a specific Chapter with specific preferances and special units.

*Fact No. 4:* Gav implied that while the 4th Edition CSM Codex blows away a great deal of Legion-specific love and joy, it allows future, more or maybe even explicitly Legion-specific Codices to be released.

*Fact No. 5:* SMs have several Chapter-specific Codices already, the newest Space Wolves Codex is coming out shortly.

*Conclusion:* I feel trolled. Seriously, 10/10. What am I supposed to say? Yes, it is childish of me to expect that we should get at least a fraction of the attention the glory-boy SPESS MUHREENZ get, but am I asking too much when I say that a company should feel responsible for what it does? Nothing even nearly as noble and admirable as "Ladies and gentlemen, we hereby admit that we fucked this up and we're going to fix it on the double", but something along the lines of "Your ridiculous little opinions are taken into consideration... once we bother to write a Codex for you ravenous CSM fans, which means sometime after we've made craploads of SM Chapter Codexes, screw them intentionally so we can release them again and again indiscriminately, knowing that the rabid fanboys are going to buy them regardless. Now go play with your exciting army of Lash Princes and Plague Marines because they provide you with a wide variety of possible armies."


----------



## Truthteller (Sep 2, 2009)

I started playing CSM only weeks before the new Codex. The few games I had I really enjoyed - the T5 Obis, the DP that could be customised in dozens of different ways etc.

The current Codex isn't bad. The army has some effective units and is competitive in most situations. It struggles against armies maxxed out on vehicles and against the green horde type Orks but otherwise it's still got teeth. SM for some reason, even with all the new characters, still struggle unless they go vehicle heavy. Most codexes have only 2 or 3 builds that really work. So our codex ain't out of the ordinary. What hurts is that the variety and complexity has been removed - the product has been dumbed down so 14 year olds (GW's target market?) with an IQ in the low 90s can work out how to use it unaided. Previously there was room for applying intelligence and invention to create something new and that's rare with GW's lists. Now that's gone.

Truthteller


----------



## dlakertor (Mar 18, 2008)

i think its best to stop criticising the current codex, yes it has alot of flaws and not a lot of options, but it is clear that he just wanted to make a codex that outlined the chaos space marines, and not going through to much depth into the other legions. If they did perhaps do that, then the book will be thicker and thus more expensive. Though thats just my opinion, dont eat me if you disagree :laugh:

Anyway, I do have to agree with a lot of you, having legions would be more fun:grin:


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Well, If we do enough complaining like imp guard boys did, they MAY do something.

Problem with them doing something is that DE, Necrons etc will be put back even further.

_And don't forget how much We'd all miss our monthly influx of new space marine models..._


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Well from what we've all been hearing it seems that al egions book will eventually come, though GW has alot on thier plate at the moment as they are wanting to try and update all the old codexs and they are getting there it just takes time as from what we've seen they are taking codexs and armies to a whole new level and from what we know of the current ones it means faster paced games and more than one winning army strategy unlike the old codexs where once you found that 'one trick horse' you were set. 

I'm fine with my old codex, the sheer joy of seeing peoples faces when you wipe the floor with them by turn 2/3 is priceless.


----------

