# It sickens me



## Rixnor (Dec 23, 2007)

I swear, every time I see a chaos space marine list where they minmax with different chaos aspects I get so angry. Demon princes with marks of Slaanesh and an army list of berserkers, Thousand Sons and Plague Marines together, god help me Khorne lord and a Tzeetch sorcerer. I don't even know if I can blame the players any more since GW completely whitewashed over the chaos fluff.

I can't even go over to the Chaos Demons army lists where you physically CAN'T build a list that suits any kind of fluff, it just makes me ill.

Thanks GW for ruining a great storyline through stupidity.

Elysian


----------



## EndangeredHuman (Feb 20, 2008)

You could call it a Black Crusade list. Then it'd be fluffy, so they still have a right. But I'm guessing it is quite annoying.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

This is what happens with the shareholders have more influence over the company than the customers. Kinda turned me off, too.


----------



## Rixnor (Dec 23, 2007)

Even old school Black Legion had some fluff. They were mostly undivided with a smattering of some of the marks and some of the cult marines that they combined for the crusades. Not what you see today.


----------



## EndangeredHuman (Feb 20, 2008)

They will probably get an overhaul in a couple of years. Till then nothing stops players converting the crap out of them.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

My Chaos Space Marines-- both my Sons of Horus and my Thousand Sons-- are biding their time in the Eye (or, my bedroom closet, if you prefer) until the time for the next Black Crusade comes, when the gods no longer are buddies, and you can't have a daemon prince of a god leading the cult troops of his patron's bitter rival. 

Pick a god. Your men (all of them, or none of them at all) follow that god. Every time I see Bloodletters (oh, I mean 'lesser daemons') being summoned off of an Icon of Slaanesh, or Daemonettes (again, 'lesser daemons') being summoned from a personal icon from an Aspiring Champion in an Berserker squad, I'm going to hit you in the junk with a small plank of wood. Every time I see a Daemon Prince of Slaanesh lashing troops into charge range of a squad of World Eaters, I shall hit you in the junk with a small plank of wood. Every time I see Chaos Renegades equalling the power and favor of the Traitor Legionnaires who form a god's cult troops, I shall shun you, and call you a silly ninny and other equally awkward things-- it's slightly more forgivable than mixing the ancient enemies within the ether! The Chaos gods will thank me for it, and in time, you will too. 

For those of you who have gotten into the hobby after the release of these little atrocities that are called the Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marine codecies, I'll spell it out.

Khorne and Slaanesh are the antithesis of one another, and are bitter, hated rivals. Same goes for Nurgle and Tzeentch. Undivided does not mean "mix and match" your marks-- it means the gods are worshipped as a pantheon, and the army is totally undivided-- the rules refer to that particular icon as "Chaos Glory." In a Black Legion/Sons of Horus army AND ONLY in a Black Legion/Sons of Horus army, it's acceptable to have a cult unit belonging to the Sons of Horus Legion alongside an otherwise undivided army. Basically, if you're going to include a god's devoted troops in an army, your entire army should ideally be aligned with that god, or at worst, include a couple undivided units. If you choose to include a unit of Berserkers, they are either World Eaters (most likely) or Black Legionnaires (which is far less likely), and the army should NOT include any model even remotely associated with Slaanesh. 

I don't know who came up with this "the Black Legion is a coalition" crap... the Black Legion and the Sons of Horus are one and the same. The Black Legion is the name taken when the Legion painted its armour black upon the destruction of the Warmaster's body. Every Black Legionnaire is a Son of Horus-- the Codex shows a Thousand Son wearing the markings of Horus, which is outrageous. Of all the Traitor Legions, the Thousand Sons are most bitter towards the Warmaster's own-- for if Horus did not betray the Emperor, Prospero would not have burned. While a Rubric Marine may be a suit of armour filled with a soul and ash, it is still very much capable of conscious thought, and would be far more likely to shoot a Son of Horus than fight alongside him.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

I dont think theres a problem with say an undived lord with besekers and a tzeentchian sorcerer, but a slannesh prince leading _only_ beserkers is another thing entirly. It shouldn't be totaly one god only, but i should DEFINETLY not be unrestricted. But this is just my opinion.


----------



## Rixnor (Dec 23, 2007)

Bravo,

Its nice to see someone who feels passionate about this hobby. And for those of you who discard the fluff, take notice, playing this game without fluff is like playing this game with unpainted miniatures: you might as well just be rolling dice for all its worth.

As a small voice of moderation I will admit that I play an Alpha Legion cohort that is struggling with its descent into chaos. So I play with undivided marines and noise marines. But before I ever took to the field with this army I sat down and wrote a backstory explaining the internal strife between the undivided squads and the squads that followed an usurper lord who ascended to daemonhood and became a daemon prince.

The game is awesome because it allows you to find your own niche in a vast universe, but please people at least understand that there is a written record of the universe with undeniable facts. Khorne hates Slaanesh and Tzeentch hates Nurgle, and generally they dislike everyone besides themselves.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

My Word Bearers are collecting dust..... 

-Only moderators can close a thread, and this one is actually worth keeping open, Bogg. -TSoH


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Elysian said:


> As a small voice of moderation I will admit that I play an Alpha Legion cohort that is struggling with its descent into chaos. So I play with undivided marines and noise marines. But before I ever took to the field with this army I sat down and wrote a backstory explaining the internal strife between the undivided squads and the squads that followed an usurper lord who ascended to daemonhood and became a daemon prince.
> 
> The game is awesome because it allows you to find your own niche in a vast universe, but please people at least understand that there is a written record of the universe with undeniable facts. Khorne hates Slaanesh and Tzeentch hates Nurgle, and generally they dislike everyone besides themselves.


That's the thing, though-- you've kept to established fluff when making your own army's background, rather than just throwing it totally out the window and making something totally in violation of everything that's been established. The Alpha Legion was always very secretive, and all sorts of wacky stuff happened during each Legion's fall from grace. Who knows what happened with some of the Grand Companies of the 20th Legion? They'll eventually end up Undivided, most likely... or dead, and replaced by operatives who are initiated, and don't follow the path of their predecessors, since very few of the Alpha Legionnaires in service in the 41st millenium are veterans of ten thousand years.


----------



## cool_conoly (Mar 29, 2008)

I tend to agree heavily. Although I can see the allure of mixing and matching with the army lists, A Slaneesh Daemon prince a khorne lord with Daemon Weapon? terminators with and icon of Tzeentch and Bikers with the Mark of Nurgle? all absolutely dominating on the battlefield. But I still field in my armies the numbers of the gods, if my lord has mark of khorne I use berserkers, and units with icons of Khorne only. now it could be fluffier but hey im sticking to the new rules and keeping some sanctity about the Gods. Please dont plank me in the Gonads......


----------



## angels of fire (Dec 4, 2007)

I think fluff is important, when I asked what an all khorne daemon army would be like he said that it just wouldn't work. So its sort of a mess at the moment, but live with it. Its not going to kill you and if you don't like it that much don't play chaos. I like fluffy armys but its not everyones cup of tea so take it or leave it.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

I play a pure khorne army and don't see any point in mixing the gods. yeh its stupid that you can have a tzeentch sorcerer leading an army of beserkers.


----------



## koosbeer (Feb 25, 2008)

Im interested in this discussion. I only started 40k just after the new chaos codex was released and I went for chaos because I like spikey bits! Now, I decided to play the Black Legion because I absolutely love the paint scheme BUT I also have a squad of Berserkers, buying a squad of Thousands sons and have a squad of raptors (which I will be painting then with the Blood Disciples color scheme). Here is my question:

My whole army is led by a Black Legion deamon prince. Chaos undivided and all that. My bulk of the army is Black Legion marines (2 squads of 10 and 1 havoc squad) with all black legion vehicles. I do want to paint my other squads from the other legions in their legions color and not mix and match the schemes. Can I still use the individual squads of the traitor legions with the rest of my Black Legion (obviosuly not mixing khorne and slaneesh and so on) and still have a fluffy army? I ask because I really do love the fluff as well...


----------



## Pseudo (Nov 5, 2007)

See, it's not just me who thinks the new Chaos Codex is terrible, right? And yet, every time I suggest we hunt down Gav Thorpe, decapitate him and display his head on a pike in front of the GW headquarters as a warning to the others, people think I'm going too far!

Those people obviously haven't read the new Chaos Codex. >:<


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Well I have always loved Chaos in all inits forms. Ithink it was in WFB where if daemons form other gods where nearby there was a chance they would fight. 
Right now my Chaos army is all slaanesh- I have lucious the ethernal with Noise marines I do have some CSM in there and them plus the heavy support are painted as Iron warriors. I am repainting them into EC but its taking time, so I just use the excuss that Lucious has paid them to help him as right now its only the Oblit, Vind and the CSM squad with the missle launcher that are IW, so they sort of count as siege experts.

I am about to start a Daemon army and right anyway i started making monogod lists and you can play all slaanesh or all khorne if you like, its abit harder but it can be done. If i had to use two gods it would be Khorne-Nurgle, Slaanesh-Tzeentch, Slaanesh-Nurgle


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

I don't understand why a khornate daemon army wouldn't work... I think it would be at a disadvantage, but that much cc power is a force to be reckonned with. I don't like the idea of fielding partheon daemons together either, though all I own are the spearhead box set and some old daemonettes,
so it isn't really practical for me to split them up to play...


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes, the new codex is an abomination, and opens the door to munchkins like a friend of mine who, 'ere the new codex came out, played Black Legion... as per how Black Legion was made according to fluff.
Now, he uses two Daemon Princes with Lash of Submission with a bunch of berzerkers.


----------



## vorbis (Nov 20, 2007)

i do agree with you in general and can see your side of the argument however i just want to put forward the opposing argument of chill they are only plastic spacemen


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Have an Undivided force lead by an Undivided leader.


----------



## denden321 (Jul 11, 2008)

vorbis said:


> i do agree with you in general and can see your side of the argument however i just want to put forward the opposing argument of chill they are only plastic spacemen


HAH. That just made me laugh so hard my I scared my dogs.

But I am also in agreement with the general consensus with the new Chaos codex. I just got back into 40k (from 3rd edition) and they seem to have changed completely. Now I am fielding a Khornate army, but only berzerkers and a DP with MoK. I find it silly to have nurgling bikers with berzerkers. Pisses me off, actually.


----------



## Orc Town Grot (Jun 28, 2008)

Hail Son of Horus!

Absolutely right you are! The aesthetics of the different chaos gods were an awesome design element in the game! There were five major forces that could be made, and many other themed chaos chapters to offer players plenty of ways to make interesting and unique themed forces. There was the possibility to have hundreds of variations within that framework. I think the number of amazing armies made by chaos players that you could see around the place was testiment to how cool the original ideas were.

And that has been replaced by a hodge-podge stew of visually clashing and thematically incoherent possibilities that makes it very hard to assemble a decent list that has any sensible theme at all. Mixing patron gods is like taking forces of allies in every battle, and the models just don't look coherant and good together if they are a mixture of different patron gods.....Two Daemon princes one Nurgle, one Slannesh. obliterator cult and then some Khorne berserkers.....Yegads! HORRIBLE! all best mates and working together like clockwork!

Don't blame GW corporate for it though! You gotta blame the game designers and the codex writers for losing the thread of their own conceptions. The previous codex drifted too far down the path of powerplay, I know I had a Khorne force with the Daemon Prince and a Bloodthirster, it was really out of balance! And ripped the innocent to shreds. So they "balanced" and "reformed" it, by stripping it of any character and aesthetic balance.

Then to throw out a Chaos Daemon Codex which is even worse and now excludes the interesting Daemons from fighting alongside the chaos marines was just POOR design. The Daemon Codex has a horrible range of incredibly limited and themeless army choices, which if mish-mashed together look stupid and make no sense whatso-ever. I guess it is supposed to be ok, because there are so many overpowering units HAHAHA. But then they realised, "OH NO! IT is overpowered, so lets balance it by only letting them bring on half the army! that makes lots of sense! HAHAHA! What kind of bucking idiots does it take to design something that stupid? about twenty years gaming experience HOHOHO! Never mind, if you are having troubles with any of this we are offering you new "Aplocalyspse" options in case you forgot to take your medication this year, and the data sheets let you play like 18 Bloodthirsters now, if you have the models HeeHeeHee! Yeah I really want to go and spend my next $900 on stupid shit like that!

I think some of these designers really have been in Lala land a bit too long and should get themselves jobs back in the real world for a few years to regain what mental bearings they have left!

Imagine they made such a horrible mess of space marines, putting all the famous chapters in a single codex, so that in one army the balanced force will do better to have a little of this and that, you can have Black Templars, and Dark Angels and a few squads of Blood angels too! Just for good measure! But the book was too long so they didn't have space for all the new overpowering vehicles they want to sell, you, so HAHAHA, they made another codex called "Codex Mechanicus, and that is where you have a seperate army lists for dreadnaughts and Landraiders and FINGS! But they are really overpowering, so you can only bring half the army on, and the rest doesn't land by drop pod exactly, they just dump them out of the space craft with parachutes and they fall on the enemy in the form of orbital bombarments (but you gotta buy the models already!, Cos you can't use it if it ain't a GW model!) Big templates, strength 10 AP 1 and pinning hahaha! But you just gotta get the codex and the "raining landraider" list, cos its the newest best and most overpowering fing HUH HUH HUH! Now you can have 6 landraiders in a mechanicus codex including three that fall on the enemy and crush them to powder! Of course I'm being a nit, but at least its just joking, not actually publishing shit like that!

GW is ignoring the simple fact that the existing chaos patron gods had such a wealth of fluff and units choices and themeable material that they were already well fleshed-out and ready for their own codexs (five of them) as they were! One for each God, and another that details all the other lists like Nightlords, Alpha Legion, Lost and Damned and other cool stuff! But suddenly all the coolness is gone, there are two totally crap codexes. Sure you can make armies out of them, but they look stupid and the theming is incoherent.What was aesthetically great has devolved into "balanced" bullshit of the last two codexes, stuffed full of things that don't make any sense being together with another truck load of overpowered bullshit mish-mashed together with wierd rule changes.

It would not be absolutely terrible if it were a new company or a new game, and they were doing this, but it is a system that is over twenty. In all the re-writing to try and find ways to get people to buy more models or re-invest in the hobby, they are ripping up some of the best of their own literature and making confetti and pastiche of it!

Thanks for your comments Horus! Right you are! If I play Chaos again, I'm definitely sticking to one mark and using painting and modeling to make sense of the force! Or otherwise, If its Nurgle and I want Beserkers, they can use the Khorne profile, but the models will be nurgle themed and "slime berserkers". The incoherence of the written design suggests we are going to have to intervene, and fluff out our own lists so that the armies can look as good as they should!

The way around bad design by the "pros" in their asylum is for the amateurs to show them how to do it!

Isn't that the way of it!


----------



## Orc Town Grot (Jun 28, 2008)

My whole post is a bit tongue-in-cheek! No one get upset about nothing now, it isn't really serious. The codexes do suck, but not that badly! And of course we CAN really paint and write a way around things we don't like!


----------



## cooldudeskillz (Jun 7, 2008)

i agree with whats said here but i collect black legion so new codex didn't really effect me much. But i would like to say that for everyone who say the gods would never ally in battle that not true. Under the right circumstances they all ally to defeat what they think is a threat. And actully the gods don't hate each other, there all brothers infact they more love eachother more than hate eachother. The conflict between them is known as the "great game", where they fight each other for power and dominance, but there still friends, as it's just a game too them.


----------



## rokassan (Jan 24, 2007)

I agree. Ill mix until I have other options. I do try to have my HQ undivided or Use Fabius Bile or Ahriman...they are on their own. Fabius sells his services and Ahriman is exiled and doing what he wants. So you can kinda justify a mud army. Im still a Deathguard guy and Im working on an Emperors Children army as well, but until then let the unfluffyness commence.

I really argued the unfluffyness when the that horrid codex was released and got bombarded with "quit whining or stop playing"...so I adapted, but I hate it.


----------



## Zorenthewise (Aug 7, 2008)

Well, as I play a Renegade Chapter, I created my own fluff to go along with it. I use berserkers and tsons with a mostly undivided force. The berserkers actually follow Khorne (a part of the chapter switched over to Khorne. They are mistrusted by their fellow marines and quarantined in a seperate ship during space travel, which they keep all their guns locked onto.) They are let loose in combat, but are hurridly forced back onto their ship. They generally agree, as they seem to be given lots of blood to spill wherever they are taken.

As for tsons, they are led by a sorceror who is of Tzeetch, but the rest of the chapter doesn't know of his secret worship. He is in charge of the men that run from combat and he binds their souls in their armor with an elaborate ritual. This means that my tsons still have bodies, so they are tsons that still feel pain, but are forced to keep fighting through sorcery. 

The rest of my chapter isn't really undivded. They worship my leader, who they believe to be a Chaos god in his own right ever since his Daemonic ascention.

Its my belief, that if you can come up with sutible fluff to support the gods' animosity towards each other, then you can use whichever make sense. Because of my backstory, I won't be using any Noise or Plague marines, no matter how much I want to. If you play one of the main legions, you better follow its fluff properly!


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

I'd like to offer a bit of perspective as a newer player who has never played under the 3rd edition chaos with all it's animosity of the gods and whatnot.

I think the codex is great. It provides a very solid base of generic SM units, then expands upon that with a great variety of troop types, dirt cheap deep striking objective grabbers, the ability to pop up an MC exactly where it's needed on the field, and some very powerful psyking powers. 

I don't look to a codex to provide fluff, for that you can write your own and express it in your paint job and modeling. I look for a codex to provide me with a balanced army list that will provide fun and fair games with other armies. By that measure I feel the new CSM codex is a success. Certainly it is an improvement over some of the crazy power lists I've heard of from the 3rd edition. CSM with IG tanks, FNP terminators, bikers with noise weps, these do not sound fun and fluffy to me, they sound broken and overpowered. 

Maybe GW totally broke the CSM from 3rd to 4th edition codex, I am not qualified to say. However as a newer CSM player, I think the codex is pretty damn good. 

On the issue of some people wishing they would have instead split the cult armies into their own books ala Space Marines, I'm really glad they didn't. In my opinion 40k as a whole needs fewer armies that are balanced and updated regularly, not more SM chapters that are splitting hairs. Until GW manages to actually get every army updated for the newest rules BEFORE they ship yet another new version of the rules (hi there IG, necron, inquisition, DE....) they should be consolidating armies, not expanding them. After all, what's the good of having 10+ different armies when half of them are obnoxious due to out of date rules.


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

I have to agree with the fluff about the chaos gods being more brotherly than not. I can see it being more the case that when they feud it's more of a brotherly sort of feud as they're all in the same boat really when it comes down to it. As was said, they'll unite if a threat is seen as important enough to be addressed and again, the chaos gods do have influence, and the marines are tools to some extent of the chaos gods but keep in mind that these are still marines with free will. The heirarchy still exists and if two commanders see it fit that allying their forces will eliminate an enemy than that's what they will do. Look at the heresy series. The massacre at Istavaan V was a combined effort of all sorts of chaos warped marines. The emperor's children were already warped into noise marines. World eaters were already khorne beserkers. 

Besides, what choice do we really have. One of the things that added a bit of character to keeping armies segregated to a single god was the daemons you summoned. Death Guard would undoubtedly summon nurglings. Now we just get generic chaos spawn because of a devoted army of chaos daemons. The way I see it, the chaos gods know the CSM are fighting for them and leave the actual mechanics of war to the commanders, imbuing some powers here and there while they now go command daemon hordes of their own.


----------



## Catachan55th (Aug 4, 2008)

Yep, lets back to the old realms of chaos stuff... Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other but will both fight alongside Nurgle or Tzeentch if it suits them. Nurgle and Tzeentch Hate eachother but would fight alongsode either Khorne or Slaanesh if it suits them.
I used to have a 20,000point chaos marine army made up of four detachments each of 5,000points of each god.
I could use them seperatly or allied together as a single force but following rules for hatred. If anyone bearing a mark of a god came within 12" of anyone wearing a rival gods mark they had to pass a LD test or attack their rival instead.


----------



## rokassan (Jan 24, 2007)

Catachan55th said:


> Yep, lets back to the old realms of chaos stuff... Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other but will both fight alongside Nurgle or Tzeentch if it suits them. Nurgle and Tzeentch Hate eachother but would fight alongsode either Khorne or Slaanesh if it suits them.
> I used to have a 20,000point chaos marine army made up of four detachments each of 5,000points of each god.
> I could use them seperatly or allied together as a single force but following rules for hatred. If anyone bearing a mark of a god came within 12" of anyone wearing a rival gods mark they had to pass a LD test or attack their rival instead.


I like it.


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

Sounds cool, in practice it'd be a disaster. Look at O&G's animosity in WFB. It's a great rule that perfectly reflects the fluff of greenskins as a giant mess of violence, yet at the same time it singlehandedly breaks the army. Why should CSM be punished for actually using all the units in their army? From a gameplay perspective it makes as much sense as punishing SM's for running terminators and assault marines in the same list, aka none at all.


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Othiem said:


> Sounds cool, in practice it'd be a disaster. Look at O&G's animosity in WFB. It's a great rule that perfectly reflects the fluff of greenskins as a giant mess of violence, yet at the same time it singlehandedly breaks the army. Why should CSM be punished for actually using all the units in their army? From a gameplay perspective it makes as much sense as punishing SM's for running terminators and assault marines in the same list, aka none at all.


Well, for the same reason that necrons get punished by only ever being able to use 75% of any army they field. Besides, CSM are inherently well chaotic. Look at the possessed space marines, Fabius Bile, and the ability to summon daemons anywhere onto the battlefield. It all creates unpredictability within a CSM army or against a CSM player's opponent.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

You say in practice it would not work , but it worked fine in WFB when they had it. Its just GW seem to be great rid of all the great rules and dumbing the game down.


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

BloodAngelZeros said:


> Well, for the same reason that necrons get punished by only ever being able to use 75% of any army they field. Besides, CSM are inherently well chaotic. Look at the possessed space marines, Fabius Bile, and the ability to summon daemons anywhere onto the battlefield. It all creates unpredictability within a CSM army or against a CSM player's opponent.


It's all about risk/reward. Phase out is there to counter WBB. It's not like they can't use 25% of the army, it's as if your models count as dead, but still get the bonus of fighting on. Likewise with possesed, a PSM is far cheaper than a unit with equivalent stats and rending or power wep, so you trade a little chaos for a lower point cost. Where's the overpowered benefit for mixing khorn bezerkers and noise marines that must be balanced by hatred? They're simply fairly priced variations of specialized troops. It's not like CSMs are dominating all comers, why do people feel the need to nerf them with silly rules?


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Othiem said:


> It's all about risk/reward. Phase out is there to counter WBB. It's not like they can't use 25% of the army, it's as if your models count as dead, but still get the bonus of fighting on. Likewise with possesed, a PSM is far cheaper than a unit with equivalent stats and rending or power wep, so you trade a little chaos for a lower point cost. Where's the overpowered benefit for mixing khorn bezerkers and noise marines that must be balanced by hatred? They're simply fairly priced variations of specialized troops. It's not like CSMs are dominating all comers, why do people feel the need to nerf them with silly rules?


I personally don't mind the bit of chaos mixed in. It adds quite a bit of flavor and character to the army and I'm probably one of the few here that like PSM in 5th ed. Well, they are all specialized units but their chaotic component is probably one of the reasons why that hatred was used. It filled a fluff role and it justified the chaos and rendered it somewhat manageable by an opponent who's looking at troop choices that can either be toughness 5, have weapons with an AP 3 and Invulnerable of 4+, an I5 plus weapons that fire multiple long ranged assault or heavy weapon shots, or a unit that gets not only an additional attack, but an additional attack, strength and initiative when they charge. Yes, it can be fought against and strategies for every army exist against it, but I can take a unit of each of those and confuse the hell out of my enemy. I personally don't see the need for rules like hatred because I have yet to see an army list that's regularly fielded that includes one of each said units. People mostly stick with one or two of the cults.


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

Talos said:


> You say in practice it would not work , but it worked fine in WFB when they had it. Its just GW seem to be great rid of all the great rules and dumbing the game down.


Never played hordes in WFB, so I can't comment on that. Lets say hypothetically intergod hatred worked as a rule....I would still pose the question WHY?! What good comes of a rule that limits my army composition options and limits tactical options on the field. How does a rule that forces me into only 4 basic lists as opposed to 10x more variations make the game less dumb? Where's my payoff for being punished for using the whole army book where every other army can mix and match at will? Why do people want to hamstring an army that is actually balanced?


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Othiem said:


> Never played hordes in WFB, so I can't comment on that. Lets say hypothetically intergod hatred worked as a rule....I would still pose the question WHY?! What good comes of a rule that limits my army composition options and limits tactical options on the field. How does a rule that forces me into only 4 basic lists as opposed to 10x more variations make the game less dumb? Where's my payoff for being punished for using the whole army book where every other army can mix and match at will? Why do people want to hamstring an army that is actually balanced?


I'd have to say that necrons are limited by what they can do much more than if you were to impose hatred on a CSM army. Based on the current codex, you'd be losing out on a total of 3 different squads. Everything else you could still field. Granted, you'd be limited to 1 type of mark/icon. But there's still plenty of flexibility within that. Now that daemons for CSM are generic, there's really no loss by limiting to just one chaos god. Now, look at necrons. To begin with, they have 1 troop choice so already they're much more limited than CSM especially with how objectives can only be captured by troop choices. As a necron player you have to take into account the phase out, which means that scarabs, pariahs, monliths and tomb spyders don't add to your phase out and will make you a bit more reluctant to take them. So that's a big limitation placed on over 1/3 of your unit choices. Necrons have 1 HQ unit they can take, CSM have 3. All of this combined allows for very limited freedom in coming up with tactics to use necrons. Phase out is always in the back of a player's mind and is usually the most important thing taken into consideration when compiling an army list.


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

BloodAngelZeros said:


> I'd have to say that necrons are limited by what they can do much more than if you were to impose hatred on a CSM army. Based on the current codex, you'd be losing out on a total of 3 different squads. Everything else you could still field. Granted, you'd be limited to 1 type of mark/icon. But there's still plenty of flexibility within that. Now that daemons for CSM are generic, there's really no loss by limiting to just one chaos god. Now, look at necrons. To begin with, they have 1 troop choice so already they're much more limited than CSM especially with how objectives can only be captured by troop choices. As a necron player you have to take into account the phase out, which means that scarabs, pariahs, monliths and tomb spyders don't add to your phase out and will make you a bit more reluctant to take them. So that's a big limitation placed on over 1/3 of your unit choices. Necrons have 1 HQ unit they can take, CSM have 3. All of this combined allows for very limited freedom in coming up with tactics to use necrons. Phase out is always in the back of a player's mind and is usually the most important thing taken into consideration when compiling an army list.


Remember it's not just troop types people seem to want limited, it's marks of chaos, icons, psyker powers, demonic weps, etc. 

As for the necrons, yeah, they're hozed hard. That's why it makes more sense for GW to focus on things like updating 3rd edition codices instead of dicing up a perfectly fine army into 4 separate forces.


----------



## BlackApostleVilhelm (May 14, 2008)

i play an Iron Warriors Grand Company and a small Word Bearers force so the immediate effect of the change did not apply to me until i went up against someone who had tampered with their army in this way. he had troop choices from all four gods, he used the plague and thousand sons marines to soak up fire and put it out, and the noise marines and berserkers as cc oriented. i couldnt wrap my head around how this could actually happen and so i voiced my concer to the player who replyed "They are all Black Legion." that was my first encounter and since then it has been getting worse and it really pisses me off. i dont remember who posted this but they were right you might as well be just rolling the dice and not give a damn what units you have. both my armies are strictly undivided.....dont know why i just said that last bit


----------



## BlackApostleVilhelm (May 14, 2008)

as to othiem's question as to why the intergod hatred rule would be a "good" thing would be because:

1. it follows fluff



2. ITS CHAOS! the chaos marines are not meant to be able to be played by some nose picking ten year old. the gods offered diversity and allowed you to find a perfect niche for yourself while what we have now is basically saying that a thousand son is the same as a world eater berserker?! it just doesnt make sense and takes the taste and tactical shit out of the entire race.

and 

3. the chaos gods are each an aspect of war in case anybody noticed, the armies that follow are not meant to be balanced because they follow that god's style of war.. do the world eaters look balanced to you? no! if you want a balanced chaos army then use chaos undivided thats what it is there for guys and thats why i use it, it works! the gods were there for anyone who wanted to have a shit load of cc units(khorne) or loads of sorcerors(thousand sons) and so on, they were never meant to be balanced and i dont understand why people find this so hard to see! IT PISSES ME OFF!!!! basically what the gods were was breaking down the entire chaos race so you can play one faction of it. for example you could play as the whole U.S. Armed Forces (Undivided) OR you could play just as the Marines (Khorne) and so on. now playing undivided leaves out the option for berserkers or plague marines but that's the point its supposed to be balanced. so if you wanted a really good cc army you had to go with khorne.


hope you guys understand this is a really touchy subject for me as i've been playing chaos since i entered the 40k universe and have seen the changes. it really ticks me off what GW has done with the Chaos Marines


----------



## DarKKKKK (Feb 22, 2008)

I'm probably the only one that will say this, but I don't care as much mixing and matching up different gods in one army. I will never have all 4, but thats just because I won't ever use all 4 anyway. The most I would ever have is 3. I honestly love the fluff of the Chaos, but I want to be able to use the Chaos at its full potential fluff or no fluff. I'd rather have a better chance at winning my matches than making sure that the fluff was perfect for my match, even though I may have a much bigger chance of loosing. Until they make a rule again against using different gods in one army, I will continue to mix and match to better my chances against my opponent. 

:fuck:


----------



## Canadish (Jun 17, 2008)

DarKKKKK said:


> Until they make a rule again against using different gods in one army, I will continue to mix and match to better my chances against my opponent.
> 
> :fuck:


So....Why do you play this game then? Why push around plastic men and roll dice?

To win? To laugh in the face of some poor sod because your army is better then his? I dont find that fun. 

The reason I play this game and not...say...chess, is because of the fluff. Because in my head the little plastic men actually run around murdering each other! :grin:
If I want a game about 100% tactics and winnning, I'll play chess. Its fair then. And WAY cheaper! :laugh:
If I want a escape real life for a bit, chill out and watch some Space Marines butcher each other, unfolding a story, I'll play 40K.

I dont understand people who dont incorporate the fluff. I mean...without the fluff, what IS this game? :shok:

Just my thoughts

Canadish


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

BlackApostleVilhelm said:


> as to othiem's question as to why the intergod hatred rule would be a "good" thing would be because:
> 
> 1. it follows fluff
> 
> ...


1) Fluff
Somebody above said that if you're not playing by the fluff, you may as well just roll random dice against each other. I'd argue the opposite, if you are going to be a slave to fluff, you may as well stick to modeling and painting. Fluff is great for motivating new rules and units, setting up campaigns, and creating themed armies. However if we were going to live by the fluff, IG would not deploy, they'd just shell everybody from 6 boards away; Orks would get to bring 6000 points to a 2000 point game; and Space Marines would win every time (oh wait that one's true...). At the end of a day it's a table top game, and where balanced fun games and fluff conflict, the fluff should get tossed out the window.

2) IT'S CHAOS!
Well.....far as I can tell a Tson and a Bezerker are still radically different units. As far as diversity, yeah you are right. Old chaos was closer to 4 unique armies. Instead of taking on the giant task of updating and balancing 4 armies, GW decided to slash them out and create a new force that combined aspects of the previous ones. While it was a dick move to existing chaos players, I can't really fault GW for going after an obtainable goal and executing it well instead of trying to take on a giant project and fail hardcore. 

3) Gods as play styles
Nothing in the new rules prevents you from rolling up your pure khorn heavy CC army. No it's not as "khorny" as it used to be, but that ties back into the difficulties balancing out 4 armies. Monogod armies are not uncommon, the majority seem to be dual god, three god armies are rare and four god armies are pretty much unheard of. If you want to focus yourself on a specific play style you can, why force everybody else to make the same decision as you, especial where the idea of army synergy already works to force people into more focused armies without any additional rules?

You're pissed off and justifiably so, GW basically cut your army out of the game and replaced it with something completely different. However it needed to be done, from everybody I've talked to old chaos was overpowered and needed to be brought back into line. Applying old rules to the new codex and complaining when it doesn't work is not productive.


----------



## DarknessDawns (Oct 21, 2007)

what annoys me is ( i know ill get slightly yelled at) that you guys all say that everyone should follow the fluff and such.
in daemons- if a warp rift opened, the daemons wouldnt jump out, look at each other and then fight one another, they would jump out and slaughter as many mortals as possible for their respective gods.
And even if a chaos marine army doesnt follow fluff, who would want to play a totally fluffy army just because all their opponents used to whine that their army was cheesy because it didnt follow the fluff, when they actually just wanted to have more of a chance to win once and a while instead of being contantly creamed when only taking and all god army, 
yes, khorne hates psykers, yes gods do hate others, its a game that runs not on fluff, but mechanics, if you want a game that runs on fluff, play a role playing game. how would a guard stand a chance agianst a space marine, but in the GAME iv seen one guard take down a space marine in cc and at range, i specify its a game that runs on mechanics that dont always reflect fluff, so dont chuck a hissie fit, just make your preferance of armies your own, only cry cheese when you play a double lash army lol.
my two cents


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

Othiem said:


> Somebody above said that if you're not playing by the fluff, you may as well just roll random dice against each other. I'd argue the opposite, if you are going to be a slave to fluff, you may as well stick to modeling and painting.


Perhaps a valid point under the current codex, but not under the old one.



Othiem said:


> it needed to be done, from everybody I've talked to old chaos was overpowered and needed to be brought back into line.


Getting rid of options doesn't create balance.




DarknessDawns said:


> its a game that runs not on fluff, but mechanics, if you want a game that runs on fluff, play a role playing game.


Fluff and mechanics do not exclude each other, nor do you achieve one at the expense of another.
LatD armies for example were far from overpowered and perfectly fluffy.


----------



## Orc Town Grot (Jun 28, 2008)

Othiem,

You are a sensible guy, and everything you say is true enough. But you obviously have different priorities in your gaming. So, I respectfully disagree with you that the new codex design is anywhere near as good as it could have been. 

It is true that the 4th edition chaos codex was broken, I used it and agree. the two things that unbalanced it were the ability to over-equip the Daemon Lord and the ability to take a Greater Daemon. Each was tough enough but the two of them was just too much! The solution would have been to really boost the Daemon's point cost, or just calm down a bit and limit the ultimate power of the Daemon Lord. It was not a major operation to fix it. Nor would they really have needed five codexes. that one was GREAT and plenty rich enough. That is the point of our screaming in here!

The previous codex, and the Lost and the Damned lists created a sound basis to make strong themed armies for any of the four gods, or all of them if you liked undivided, and the basis for plenty of other. Have you seen the codex, with seperate army list rules for Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, Word Bearers, Black Legion, World Eaters, Death Guard, Emperor's Children, and Thousand sons.....It was an amazing tome of themed possibilities. And it all was in one codex, not to mention the fabulous art!

Have a look at the codex! IT WAS GREAT! and players could have made their mixed undivided forces if they wanted too. The codex provided vast fluff and theme basis for gaming, and encouraged inventiveness too.

The new codex is a pale and pathetic disgrace in comparison. To go and make really horrible Chaos daemon Codex as some kind of new alternative is not compensating the players for having the rules kicked out from under their armies.

Of course you are right and the new codex still offers viable forces. But the codex has not only been stripped of amazing good fluff, it encourages lists that are also stripped of fluff, and in terms of playability tend to lead to monotonous variations of a few classic "winning-combos", the lash Daemon prince, 1000 sons for shooting Marines, plague Marines to take damage, deep striking obliterators,...yawn! People can still take all Khorne armies.... but do they? Those rules and lists have actually disappeared. We hear they will eventually get around to re-writing them? That is a pathetic excuse for a codex design! Replace something amazing with something much less interesting and then promise to do something else compensatory and great about two years later.....Oh yes, the armies that just lost their rules will be geeting new rules in 2010! Is this a viable or quality way of doing things?

We are whining because there was a codex that had a lot in it. It has dimished greatly! In being redesigned the company had an excellent chance to reflect upon errors and weaknesses in the previous codex and FIX them! But they didn't did they! They went backwards and simply removed and ignored and failed to publish ANY of the amazing stuff that they ALREADY had. The rule support for all those lists I mentioned above has now OFFICIALLY been replaced with the present codex! They didn't even re-use the great art. It all became mementos of an older codex....

Do you grasp how asinine and messed up this is?

Lost color!

Where are the interesting things like the rules that allowed cultists, and corrupted Leman Russes? They weren't all overpowering, a lot of them were simply fun, and supported players in making really different forces with real reverence for patron gods! 

Aren't religious fanatics actually fanatical about their dieties in real life! Sure! in the previous Chaos codex you could really get going on a theme.

But not now.

It is not that we hate the new codex because it is so so bad! You are right! Its not that bad! It was just a huge step backwards in terms of supporting lists and themes that players were investing in. The GW design mentality is really irritating because it appears to have no real intelligence behind it. We all understand that they plan to re-issue everything every few years forever to keep the tills working. But we hope that when they actually get something right they refine that rather than smash it Without the fluff 40K is just plastic toys. If you think this is not important consider that without the fluff Harry Potter wouldn't exist at all! Harry Potter is ONLY FLUFF! You would be looking at blank paper if you read Potter without fluff! That's how important it is really! All of us are living within the narratives of our lives. And it is the narratives of the game that bring us here, whether we realise it or not. The fluff is the bit we actually need!

OTG


----------



## Canadish (Jun 17, 2008)

Orc Town Grot said:


> OTG


Bravo! That post is everything I wanted to say in so many words. Always glad to see smart, passionate people who care for this hobby.

+rep

Regards
Canadish


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

OTG,

You're right, time to get my hands on the old codex and actual read what everybody is talking about before trying to figure out why people are upset. Until then, still having a fun time with the current book.


----------



## CGall10 (Nov 4, 2007)

i aggree with the people who play this game for fun thats why i mostly play games with myself, because all of my friends are super competitive and drivin to win its fun to sit back and let your imaginations take flight if your friends are driven to win than try playing a few games with yourself it will take the competitive edge off of the competitive games that you play with your friends


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Chaos were broken and over powered but that doesn't mean every codex was.... I mean old BA could have had 6 dreadnoughts and a ten man power weapon wielding jump pack unit that wasn't that pricey.... with broken armies there was always a way to beat them because they were usually only one god(khorne mostly for me) and that meant that they lacked in other aspects of an army.... Now they get the best of every aspect without losing anything.... and they're way cheaper compared to the equivelant in other armies...


----------



## Haraldrr (Jan 29, 2008)

I play renegade marines using chaos codex and models , no daemons what so ever or sorcerers , is that ok?


----------



## Canadish (Jun 17, 2008)

Brother Wulox said:


> I play renegade marines using chaos codex and models , no daemons what so ever or sorcerers , is that ok?


Do you mean is it in with the fluff? Yeah, thats a perfectly fine army mate.

Its only when you start mixing the troops from the diffrent gods that things get cheesy 
If your new to the hobby, dont worry to much, just get what you like. Once your...um...settled in I guess, then you can start aiming for a theme.

I feel bad for any younguns starting up a Chaos army. Their gonna have these horrid cheesey looking money sinks, which further antogonises the younger players from the older ones, splinttering the hobby. And the only ones to blame are GW for not encouraging theme to the younger players. We normal hobbists can only do so much!

Canadish


----------



## Haraldrr (Jan 29, 2008)

..... im not new! i may be 12 but i was introduced to the hobby at the age of 5! And btw its alpha legion :biggrin: lol sorry if that was a bit offensive


----------



## Zorenthewise (Aug 7, 2008)

I have to agree with OTG's latest rant. Chaos is still a fun army, but it is a step backwards in terms of fluff. While I never really had to worry about this, being a renegade undivided chapter with detailed fluff explaining why I have berserkers and tsons in the same army (and I'm thinking about dropping the berserkers to make it fit more with fluff), this is a kick to the face of 3rd Ed Fluff-heads.

Being partially obsessed with fluff myself, I can vouch for how important it is for my army and how I play. It sucks that crazy polygod armies can now make a space marine army with better special units. While veteran players can still make their armies how they want to, newer players are taking advantage of ridiculous forces with Khorne led by psykers and other anti-fluff combos (look at the CSM army list section of this forum! I know I saw a Slaanesh DP leading Plague Marines in there).

However, I have to say most of the other changes between these last two codexes I liked. For instance, the simplification of HQ choices. No, it wasn't needed per se, but it made creating an army a simpler process, which is nice for the casual gamer as well as anyone else who doesn't want to spend many hours composing the perfect Chaos Lord for their army. I think at the very least, the codex should have a section detailing how the gods don't get along, and to make some good fluff explaining why you have opposing gods in your force.

Regardless, I think the Chaos "god hatred" rules mentioned earlier were completely stupid. Sorry guys, while it might make sense, what about someone who honestly sits down and explains why these armies are fighting alongside each other? Also, if GW says Abbadon is favored by all four gods, I have no problem with his army having all four in it! 

Before and after the battle there would likely be numerous confrontations amongst different marines, but during, I think they would all set aside their differences for a chance of destroying the bastion of Imperial defense! Kill each other now, or let the Imperial fools kill them and then be able to loot and ravage the galaxy beyond the Cadian gate?


----------



## DarKKKKK (Feb 22, 2008)

Canadish said:


> So....Why do you play this game then? Why push around plastic men and roll dice?
> 
> To win? To laugh in the face of some poor sod because your army is better then his? I dont find that fun.
> 
> ...


So you would rather have your army look cool or have perfect fluff than win? It is a game and games are ment to be won to the best of the players abilities. Just because I think that doesn't mean that I should just start playing chess. I love building the models and painting them. So don't you ever come to that conclusion about me or anyone else that just doesn't go by fluff in their armies. There is more to Warhammer 40k than its fluff perfect armies and how they "should" be played by the point of view of the popular crowd. Trust me, I tried a fluff perfect army (Ravenwing) and I didn't like it because I only won once with it. I'm not going to be so narrow minded anymore when I make my armies. I can admit that I am a competitive person, but again, don't EVER give that anaylsis of Warhammer armies without fluff being chess to anyone or me ever again because that is just an insult to our love for this game and everything else there is to love about it beyond the fluff.

-rant


----------



## hurt-wm (Jun 8, 2008)

Whoa there guys, both of you make perfectly valid points. It is quite satisfying to beat the crap out of somebody, but its even better to look pretty while you do it. I am personally opposed to the mixture of khorne/slaanesh, nurgle/tzeentch, but IT COULD BE justified. Chaos is chaos after all, and I don't think there should be any real, concrete rules to limit them. Anything can happen. Doesn't mean it will though. 
WH
PS-the thing about 2 lash armies is that its fun to watch your enemies face when both of his psyker DPs go down. Which they will.


----------



## Canadish (Jun 17, 2008)

Brother Wulox said:


> ..... im not new! i may be 12 but i was introduced to the hobby at the age of 5! And btw its alpha legion :biggrin: lol sorry if that was a bit offensive


Hey no problem buddy! You were justified to be a bit miffed there, I dont know why I assumed you were new. Anyway, all the best.




DarKKKKK said:


> I can admit that I am a competitive person, but again, don't EVER give that anaylsis of Warhammer armies without fluff being chess to anyone or me ever again because that is just an insult to our love for this game and everything else there is to love about it beyond the fluff.
> 
> -rant


Woah there! Lets not turn this into a heated debate mate, I didnt want to upset anyone. Hell...I'm shocked what I said did...:shok:

I'm not trying to insult your love for the hobby by comparing it to other board games, but Warhammer IS like chess. There are an even number of units that move around a board, each unit has specific rules, the goal is (genrally) to take (or kill) the enemy counters or models.

The diffrence between the two is that one has wonderful hand painted models, assembled by the respective players along with a rich history behind it, the other is rather bland (Sorry to you chess lovers out there :grin.

Now thats all I'm gonna say. I said my bit, clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so. Clearly there are differing opinions on the matter.

GW is aiming at the young market, giving a big ":fuck:" to all the older fans who brought them to where they are. That annoys me FAR more then actual degeneration of the fluff. (On a side note GW's business reports have been awful for the last few years and the man who wrote the Chaos codex was shown the door :biggrin

Good luck and all the best for the future
Canadish


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

About the chess comment, I have to say that in order to explain the major premise of W40k to people that don't play it, I first say that it plays like chess in that the major focus is on strategy and then say something along the lines of, "though it is more involved as it's also a hobby due to the painting and modeling and that there are more rules than chess." Both are strategy based games that involve manipulating different units with different abilities to achieve victory, and that's what I think Canadish was getting at. At the very basic level you can draw similarities but W40k goes wayyyyy deeper and way more complex. It's said that you can play chess in more ways than there are grains of sand in the world. So if you carry that thinking over to 40k, then you could probably play it in more ways than the number of grains of sand in a thousand worlds. 

As far as the chaos aspect goes, it is chaos after all. Random things are bound to happen. I personally field a nurgle/slaanesh army which makes for one rather horrible STD. If you've read Fulgrim then you'll remember some of the scenes where the artist uses crap and bodily fluids to paint the pictures. I can see it now, slaanesh worshipers swiping their brushes in the rotting bodies of a plague marine to get that perfect shade of "rotting corpse". Given the infinite number of singular events that go on in a day to day basis within the galaxy in the 41st millenium, it's really not far fetched to say that somewhere some death guard are fighting alongside some thousand sons or some emperor's children are fighting alongside some World Eaters. As was said, it's not to say they'll try murdering each other after the battle but for the duration of the battle they're working together. Some world bearers are going at it with the emperor's children when drop pods of SM or some Eldar open up on them. As the saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."


----------



## Wraithian (Jul 23, 2008)

Fluff armies are fine and well, if that is the popular thing in your gaming group. Competetive, "cheese," lists are fine and well also, if that is the popular thing in your gaming group. :biggrin:

If you're running a fluffy list in a cheese factory, chances are good your going to be fed your tail in most games. Sure, you get props for your, "fluff," but at the same time... This game is defined by one side wins, one side loses. Not, "one side won, but the other has kick-ass fluff." Just my experience with the game.

If your playing in more of a story driven group, then yeah, fluff all the way. "Powergamers," if that is the term you wish to use, will win when they play, but will find the amount of opponents growing slimmer and slimmer as people simply stop playing with that person.

Niether side is right, niether side is wrong. It depends on your environment, and what is expected, and acceptable, in your group.

Happy gaming. :grin:


----------



## Corporal Chaos (Nov 27, 2007)

You know the hostility is unwarrented. CHAOS is CHAOS and will do what ever it wants. CHAOS means NO RULES. Silly. But you have your opinions and are allowed to them. I do see your points here as far as fluff but when the bad guys need to hold hands for a common purpose then they will. If only for a battle or two. Then they will undoubtedly shoot each other up on the way back to the hotel.:laugh:


----------



## cooldudeskillz (Jun 7, 2008)

i think that if you want an army thats good to the old fluff and refuse to mix diffierent gods then fine. If you want an army that mixes gods then thats fine too, no need to have a go at people who want to do that, i do, and i also like fluff and if any of you have ever read the daemons codex then you would know that the gods *DON'T HATE *each other, there conflict is nothing to do with hatred, so if you want an army that mixes gods then your still in line with fluff.


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

Corporal Chaos said:


> You know the hostility is unwarrented. CHAOS is CHAOS and will do what ever it wants. CHAOS means NO RULES. Silly. But you have your opinions and are allowed to them. I do see your points here as far as fluff but when the bad guys need to hold hands for a common purpose then they will. If only for a battle or two. Then they will undoubtedly shoot each other up on the way back to the hotel.:laugh:



What he said!
Chaos is Chaos. The Gods can bicker and war for eternity but when a threat to them rears its head, don't you think they'd all gang up and grab an axe?


----------



## stormshroud (Apr 27, 2007)

I can see both sides of the argument in the *ETERNAL DEBATE* of 'Fluffy Lists' versus 'Competitive Lists' and there is nothing wrong with either side. As has already been said it depend on the group you are a part of. 

In every edition of every codex (for any race) there will be players who retreat into a corner to study it with a calculator and concoct the ultimate powered lists of doom, whilst there will be people who read all the background material and try to match the 40K fluff as closely as they can.

Is it wrong to play a chaos force that is pure Khorne Berserker led by Tzeetchian DP’s? To a competitive player no; to a fluff player it is tantamount to high treason. This is a game that we all play for fun, whether we find that enjoyment in winning at all costs or in creating a fantastic backstory and paint scheme and sticking to it no matter how often it loses.

Do bear in mind that the chaos codex is not the only one that allowed chasms to be created in fluff when fielding armies. Take Eldar for example I have seen an Iyanden army which consisted of Pathfinders, Jetbikes, and Aspect Warriors not a Wraithguard or Wraithlord in sight. Whilst the Eldar codex allows you to create fluff-accurate armies for the major craftworlds it also opened the door to create powered armies that shared a paint scheme and nothing more. 

There is no right or wrong just different ways to enjoy a diverse and fantastic hobby; it is your game play it how you want to. :good:


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

DarKKKKK said:


> So you would rather have your army look cool or have perfect fluff than win? It is a game and games are ment to be won to the best of the players abilities. Just because I think that doesn't mean that I should just start playing chess. I love building the models and painting them. So don't you ever come to that conclusion about me or anyone else that just doesn't go by fluff in their armies. There is more to Warhammer 40k than its fluff perfect armies and how they "should" be played by the point of view of the popular crowd. Trust me, I tried a fluff perfect army (Ravenwing) and I didn't like it because I only won once with it. I'm not going to be so narrow minded anymore when I make my armies. I can admit that I am a competitive person, but again, don't EVER give that anaylsis of Warhammer armies without fluff being chess to anyone or me ever again because that is just an insult to our love for this game and everything else there is to love about it beyond the fluff.
> 
> -rant




Strange that you say that.
I'm used to destroying "cheese-lists" with my fluff-heavy armies.
I only rub it in if my opponent is a cheese-dick.
:victory:


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

> Chaos is Chaos. The Gods can bicker and war for eternity but when a threat to them rears its head, don't you think they'd all gang up and grab an axe?


Nothing can threaten any of the Chaos Gods.
So any threat is always to their followers.
I would be very surprised if the Chaos Gods, malevolent and evil as they are, would have 1 ounce of empathy in them. They would therefor not condone any collaboration between their followers. Even if it is out of dire need.

Where hate is concerned... Khorne HATES Slaanesh (as the slavering barabrian he is/as the pimpin' sissy he is). Tzeentch HATES Nurgle (as the conniving manipulator that likes the game more then the end he is/as the spoilsport that has no appreciation for any of the game's delicacies he is)
They don't mildly dislike each other. They hate easch other.

What do you think the eye of terror is? A paradise where all the chaos legions sit around brotherly preparing for their next war on the normal galaxy? An organized barracks?
No.
It isn't.
It's a permanent warzone where their followers wage war on each other. Permanently.
Why? Who knows. They're Chaos Gods so who understands their reasons?

Daemons are little pieces of the respective Gods. This means that they too HATE their rivals. It is therefor unreasonable to assume that they would fight beside each other. Betray each other? Yes. Support? No.

If I had my way no daemons/followers of opposing gods would be permitted in 1 army. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## DarknessDawns (Oct 21, 2007)

to a chaos god the only threat would be all thier followers dying at once and all thought and knowledge of them being destroyed, because the chaos gods cannot survive without followers, "worshiping" them
or some sort of explanation like that
to my knowledge


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

Where were the times/edition that had demonic animosity rules?
It could have been WHFB a few ed. ago...
Now that made a point.


----------



## Pseudo (Nov 5, 2007)

Some people have a weird definition of 'game'.

The definition of game isn't _something you 'win' at_. A game is a set of rules derived for the purpose of entertainment. Often that entertainment is acheived via competition, but one look at the 40k rules dispels that - the rules aren't even vaguely competitive! Different armies and army lists are inherently better against certain other armies/army lists and vice versa. It isn't balanced, it never will be, and playing the game competitively is stupid.

Unforunately, 12 year olds think games are about winning, and GW think they can make the most money via 12 year olds, thus the current state of the game and general player mindset.

Also - the Chaos Codex sucks because it isn't fun, not because it lacks fluff. The fluff changes all the time, there is no 'right' fluff. The Chaos Codex is crap because it lacks options, and the units it has are one-trick ponies that *always* do the *same damn thing* _every_ game, without variation. That isn't fun.


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Camaris said:


> Daemons are little pieces of the respective Gods. This means that they too HATE their rivals. It is therefor unreasonable to assume that they would fight beside each other. Betray each other? Yes. Support? No.


Yes, this is true of chaos daemons. Hence the Daemonic Rivalry rule for chaos daemons. This discussion is in regards to CSM though. As they CSM, they have more free will than daemons. Also, they're not like little bits and pieces broken off of the chaos god but rather worshipers. They ask to be embued with powers and adore a certain chaos god. Does this mean that they can't change their mind? No, but it is unlikely that the entire Emperor's children chapter will suddenly decide that tactless bloodlust is the way to go. But I'm sure some units do. After all, if these chapters could turn from the Emperor to one of the chaos gods, then they can surely turn from one chaos god to another.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Well there are certain legions that in fluff would never work together at all like Emperors Children and World Eaters. But that does not really stop you using Noise marines and zerkers as stated not every NM is a EC and not every zerker is a WE.
But I feel people should try and paint there cult troops to fit in with there armies so they have th same scheme and not paint all zerkers like world eaters


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Well, I was reading the Chaos Daemons codex a bit and at one paragraph suggested to me that it is much more common than everyone is making it out to be to find even chaos daemons of different gods working together if only for the battle. 

"All this means that at any given time, a daemon army may contain creatures created by one, several, or all of the gods, and it will fight against any and all opponents. Such is the nature of chaos."

In the paragraph leading up to that bit it gives the respective reasons why each god's daemons would fight alongside even the god's most hated rival. It all makes sense as far as fluff goes as well. The number one thing that each god is going to like above all else is anything that pertains to what the god represents. So this means that if some bloodletters have to team up with some daemonettes to get some battle and blood then they will and is most likely to happen.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

It never use to be, that is just newer fluff to make the Daemon codex work . But I do agree with you.

I really liked that fluff where the Daemons attack a BA squad and you have the daemonettes laughing at the Bloodletters and the bloodthirster shouting at the Hearld of Nurgle.
It did make me think that even though they fight its not very serious and I mean even if they die in the warp they just come back again unless there God kills them.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

BloodAngelZeros said:


> Well, I was reading the Chaos Daemons codex a bit and at one paragraph suggested to me that it is much more common than everyone is making it out to be to find even chaos daemons of different gods working together if only for the battle.





Talos said:


> It never use to be, that is just newer fluff to make the Daemon codex work


And the same goes for the CSM Codex which emphasises that the Legions have fragmented and mingle with each other.

But honestly the new Chaos fluff strikes me as uninspired and lazy.


----------



## Haraldrr (Jan 29, 2008)

Pseudo said:


> Some people have a weird definition of 'game'.
> 
> The definition of game isn't _something you 'win' at_. A game is a set of rules derived for the purpose of entertainment. Often that entertainment is acheived via competition, but one look at the 40k rules dispels that - the rules aren't even vaguely competitive! Different armies and army lists are inherently better against certain other armies/army lists and vice versa. It isn't balanced, it never will be, and playing the game competitively is stupid.
> 
> ...


hey im 12! And i dont even know how to play it!I collect em for the fluff and the mini's,cool little men killing things,all i think about all day!


----------



## Canadish (Jun 17, 2008)

Brother Wulox said:


> hey im 12! And i dont even know how to play it!I collect em for the fluff and the mini's,cool little men killing things,all i think about all day!


Sadly, alot of stores have snot-nosed little twelve year olds that run about causing mess, breaking things and being genrally unpleasent. If you are a respectable young gamer reading comments about "The 12 year olds", most of that does not apply to you, your the type of folks that we hope will keep the hobby alive in the future. But your gonna have to put up with the steryotype for now, you'll understand when your older and your the one looking down on the 12 year olds! :grin:

Regards
Canadish


----------



## gravitation (Aug 12, 2008)

i've been saying the exact same thing since the chaos codex released. I still run a PURELY A: Iron Warriors with no demons B: World Eaters with berserkers and khorne marked lords/daemon princes all in units of 8 where possible C: Death Guard with all plague marines no rhinos nurgle marked lords/daemon princes(non winged daemon princes)all in units of 7 where possible.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

My problem with all of this is simple: those who go on and on about fluff never stop to think about the fact that the fluff and story of the universe has absolutely NOTHING in common with the actual game. If it did a 2000pt Marine list would have a grand total of 10 models and there would be nothing they couldn't defeat. Seriously guys get a grip. Read the fluff, enjoy the fluff, but don't try to impose the fluff on the rules of the game that the fluff is loosely based on.

The fluff is the fluff and the rules are the rules and they are NOT the same thing in any way, shape or form. I get pissed off when someone gives me grief because I have a Slaanesh sorcerer as one of my two hq's in my Thousand Sons list. There is no supposed hatred between the gods there, they are all sorcerers and yet I continually hear the bullshit about how I shouldn't be mixing marks, and taking a non Tzeentch unit in my Tsons army is not fluffy. Sorry but my reply to that is fuck off (not actually saying it to anyone here, just making a point ). The RULES of the game allow it, therefore it is legal and acceptable and you are just going to have to deal with it until it changes.

I absolutely despise the way psychic hoods work right now yet I have to deal with it because those are the rules. You don't see me whining about fluff trying to say that because of something I read in a 40K book somewhere hoods shouldn't work like they do because the fact remains that they DO work that way and that is all there is to it.

Personally, I think that the fact that the chaos codex allows people to mix and match units that they like and want to use IN THE ARMY THEY WANT TO BUILD is fantastic. Now all that is limiting players is their imagination and the army choices that they make. We are no longer told "you can't do this" for reasons that make no real sense and that deny us the ability to make the army we would really like to make.


----------



## gravitation (Aug 12, 2008)

Considering the former rules of the CSM had to do with how a list was made, you can't say its purely fluff. In pure fluff 5 GK terminators could kill 100 last edition blood letters, but thats not the way it really works. Theres a difference in ignoring fluff and making a fluffy list. Fluffy lists are functional lists that make sense. Players running every thing thats supposed to be at odds with other things in 1 lists for the sake of trying to win at all costs. Those are the players that piss me off. The fact its promoted by terrible GW writers, mostly due to the fact they A: don't care and B: want to sell more expensive models. Thats a problem as much at fault as the moron trying to win at all costs by running the most powerful things he can find.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

People don't ask for 'Movie Marines' when they talk about fluffy rules. 
Ever wondered why the Mark of Tzeench has become so popular among Word Bearer players?


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Not at all. It is because their new rules make them incredibly bad ass. Of course people are going to take them. However, why should I be sneered at if I want to take Tsons and Plague Marines in the same list? Not that I do but hypothetically what if I wanted to? The rules allow me to do so just like they allow other armies to do what they do. If I come across a chaos opponent who has a Slaanesh Prince leading Khorne Berzerkers backed up by Nurgle Marines and Tsonss, I am going to think I am in for a damn cool game and most likely ohh and ahh the, hopefully, nicely painted models. Castigating someone for taking the force that THEY want to take for whatever reason is just not right.

I am not a win at all costs player. In fact, I find that the best games almost always end up as a draw because they are hard fought and furious the entire time. But I do take a Slaanesh sorc in my otherwise all Tzeentch list and have lately considered adding in some Plague Marines just to see how it would play. Does that make me a bad person or give others the right to look down on me and treat me poorly? No. It makes me a person who loves this game, loves the models, and wants to play it in whatever manner makes me happy, no more or less. The idea of Tsons and Plague Marines together in a single army intrigues me to no end because I can't imagine a tougher, longer lasting army (henceforth dubbed the Energizer Army by yours truly, use the name at your own peril lol).

I also don't sit there across the table and give the fluffy player a hard time for the choices made in their army list. If they want to adhere to an ENTIRELY PERSONAL OPINION on how the game SHOULD work, despite that obviously not being the case, that is THEIR RIGHT and I have no reason to disparage their choice. That is how they want to play the game. 

Just don't expect others to play how you feel it should be played and certainly don't ostracize them for not adhering to your ideas of how the game should work. As I pointed out in my previous post, that is not how the game works. Fluff is fluff and the rules are the rules. Enjoy the fluff by all means but play the game by the rules.


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Hit the nail on the head. I play a mix of mostly nurgle with a couple noise marine squads mixed in. I really don't think it's fair that I should be looked down upon for doing so. There's no cheese or anything of the sort in my army otherwise and I like the play of my army. Why should my army be limited by what it could do just for some fluff? Especially while other armies can field extremely cheesy stuff. Of course in a tournament you're going to find the cheesiest stuff being played. Every army is going to do that and every army has the capability of fielding cheesy goodness. In a tourney everybody wants to win, especially if there is a prize at stake.


----------



## cooldudeskillz (Jun 7, 2008)

i play with all 4 cult marines  but then i collect black legion so i can, but if didn't i would anyway, as i really don't care about you old fluff players complaing that thats not "fluffy" to have all 4 cult marines, and if you were to stop complaing and rejoin us people in the new fluff then you would know that having diffierent cults marines is alright now.

Yes i can understand why you are angry with GW by destroying the old chaos fluff, i was, i was like what the hell i want my daemons back with chaos and i want to feild a pure khrone army with all their cool upgrades. But i got over it as there no point in moning about it, theres nothing we can do about it and im alright with new fluff now since they released the daemon codex, maybe you "old fluff" people should pick up a copy and read it, you might actully like the new fluff.


----------



## Pseudo (Nov 5, 2007)

All fine points - fluff changes, deal. Personally, I agree. But how do you counter arguments like '_the Chaos codex is dumbed down to ridiculous new levels even by the standards of the new codexs, and is about as much fun as invasive dental surgery_'?

The main point of contention about the new codex isn't that it isn't fluffy, but that it changed what most Chaos players liked about the last codex. If you played the last codex, chances are you did so because you liked having lots of unit choices and lots of upgrade choices for those units (and lots of upgrade choices for the entire army list, ala legion rules).

GW took all those choices away. Those choices were what made the Chaos codex the Chaos codex. It'd be the same as if they took away Tyranid's swarms, or the Necron's FNP/WBB rules, or the Eldar's cheese.

Now all the Chaos codex is is just spiky Space Marines with no scouts, land speeders, whirlwinds, assault cannons, assault terminators, dreadnought variants, apothecaries, techmarines, land raider variants, allied WHs/DHs or variant lists such as Dark Angels or Space Wolves.

But they get generic lesser daemons instead!


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

> Ever wondered why the Mark of Tzeench has become so popular among Word Bearer players?





The Wraithlord said:


> Not at all. It is because their new rules make them incredibly bad ass. Of course people are going to take them.


Of course not. There'd be less tzeench lords in WB lists if there were still rules for Dark Apostles.
Many players are trying to emulate the options that were taken away from them since there is little space for customization in themed armies outside a vanilla list.




The Wraithlord said:


> why should I be sneered at if I want to take Tsons and Plague Marines in the same list? Not that I do but hypothetically what if I wanted to?


And what would other players say about that army? That it's unfluffy?
You stated yourself that Fluff ≠ Rules.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's also fluffy.




The Wraithlord said:


> if they want to adhere to an ENTIRELY PERSONAL OPINION on how the game SHOULD work, despite that obviously not being the case


Except that noone's asking for something that hasn't been done before and that is still done by GW.



The Wraithlord said:


> As I pointed out in my previous post, that is not how the game works.


And yet it's how the last Chaos Codex worked. 
It's how the new Space Marines Codex will work due to interchangable combat doctrines.
It's how the current Chaos Codex fails to work.


----------



## thepicto (Aug 13, 2008)

I think some of you people are over reacting. Really, how often does fluff come into it when you are actually playing the game? Do you get equally pissed off if you see two ultramarine armies fighting? If you are going to strictly adhere to fluff when building your list then perhaps you should do the same when picking opponents.

Secondly, the fluff is flexible enough that you can come up with reasons for just about any set up. At least by the daemon codex, the gods don't pay enough attention to the real world to notice if a few berzerkers are fighting along side a few noise marines. Bloodletters and daemonettes could be competing and taking advantage of a rare oppertunity to leave the warp and will get back to killing each other when they get home. Etc.

Is it the rule combinations that's the problem or just the fluff? I could model a daemon prince as a lithe and dextrous khorne follower and refer to his lash of submission as some kind of blood rage enducing effect, where by he causes the enemy to go charging off somewhere briefly. The fluff is satisfied, the rules are followed and I have a lash prince leading berzerkers. Huzzah!

And while we're here, the old codex let you have at least 3 cult units in an army. I forget whether oppossing god units could be together, but you could certainly have the other three in there. Plus mixed daemons and undivided. It's not changed that much in that respect.

Lighten up. It's just a game.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Its not the fluff that is the main problem its now that the Chaos codex is one of the boring when it use to be the most varied.
I think they should take away BA, DA, BT, SW so SM peoples can see how it feels and then we can say to them oh it does not matter just paint them that way.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Fluff'Ead: no real disagreements with you on any of those points but you are talking about the rules of the codex and how they do/don't work and not the fluff and how taking units together that you couldn't before is a bunch of crap (which is what this thread started as)

Talos: as I said to FE, the discussion is not about if the codex is boring, great, limited, etc. It is about how we all feel about people taking units in a single army that traditionally couldn't/wouldn't work together because of the fluff.

GW themselves said that they felt that was a mistake on their part and was one of the first things they wanted changed with the new codex. As GW actually controls and makes the fluff.... 


Modly note: keep this discussion on topic folks. Let's not deviate into a codex bash regarding the actual rules of the book and if they suck or not as the original topic is a very interesting one.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

the codes is fine for apocalypse as then you can have black crusades with every cult in it and that would be going with fluff.... I think they made it too much for apocalypse instead of for basioc games.... But they said theyy're going to fix it because they were unhappy with it so I suppose it's just waiting for that..... As they are the antiposter boys it should be pretty soon.... Probably before a lot of other codices....


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

BloodAngelZeros said:


> I really don't think it's fair that I should be looked down upon for doing so. There's no cheese or anything of the sort in my army otherwise and I like the play of my army. Why should my army be limited by what it could do just for some fluff?


It's perfectly fair that you're looked down upon for fielding an army of followers of Nurgle, but include units devoted to Slaanesh. Because without the fluff, you might as well play a card game. Miniatures games are, by definition, supposed to be story-driven, with the pieces acting as a visual for what is taking place. 40k and Fantasy are a bit more game-driven than most, but the fluff is still clearly the most important aspect of the game. If it weren't, then we wouldn't be seeing a 144-page Space Marine Codex-- it'd be about fifteen or twenty, tops, because that's all that there actually is in a Codex in way of rules. 

There's a difference between "cheese" and things that just disregard the fluff. In a lot of cases, cheesy things are quite fluffy. "cheese" is a label applied to something that you can't figure out how to beat, or is a combination that takes advantage of game mechanics rather than any real strategy or tactics to carry itself through. Both unfluffy things and things that are fundamentally broken are annoying to play against, but one just disregards the spirit of the game, while the other just shows that you can't win without taking advantage of the rules.


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> It's perfectly fair that you're looked down upon for fielding an army of followers of Nurgle, but include units devoted to Slaanesh. Because without the fluff, you might as well play a card game. Miniatures games are, by definition, supposed to be story-driven, with the pieces acting as a visual for what is taking place. 40k and Fantasy are a bit more game-driven than most, but the fluff is still clearly the most important aspect of the game. If it weren't, then we wouldn't be seeing a 144-page Space Marine Codex-- it'd be about fifteen or twenty, tops, because that's all that there actually is in a Codex in way of rules.
> 
> There's a difference between "cheese" and things that just disregard the fluff. In a lot of cases, cheesy things are quite fluffy. "cheese" is a label applied to something that you can't figure out how to beat, or is a combination that takes advantage of game mechanics rather than any real strategy or tactics to carry itself through. Both unfluffy things and things that are fundamentally broken are annoying to play against, but one just disregards the spirit of the game, while the other just shows that you can't win without taking advantage of the rules.


I don't think it's fair still that I'm looked down upon in such a manner when as you say, the miniatures are supposed to represent what's occuring on the battlefield and for this particular battle two cults are fighting alongside one another for the general purpose of chaos. Especially when the fluff that's written both allows fielding mixed units and justifies specifically why said units would be fighting together. Yes, you're entitled to be a die hard, "chaos gods want to destroy each other and want nothing to do with each other", CSM player, and that's perfectly fine, but those that choose to do otherwise shouldn't be chastized for choosing to do something that again, is backed up by current fluff. 

As far as cheese goes, most players would see a T'sons army as cheese because all your the troops get 4+ invul saves and have marine killer type waepons, and that's just basic troops. Or taking abaddon is seen to be just as cheesy as taking a nightbringer most of the time.


----------



## Corporal Chaos (Nov 27, 2007)

One word. CHAOS


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

Also, I just wanted to add, that the more fluff I read about CSM (fluff that existed before the latest CSM codex) the more evidence there is that there is no reason why CSM forces wouldn't work together. For example, in Omnibus the Word Bearers used the aid of some plague marines to take a planet rather quickly. And then when the blood angels make an assault to take back the planet, there's both furies and bloodletters fighting "alongside" one another. The thing is though, that before the battle, all these daemons have to be kept in cages and contained until they're unleashed. So it just shows that for the battle when they have a common enemy they work together but as soon as that enemy's gone, they'll turn on each other.


----------



## LeeHarvey (Jul 25, 2008)

In my opinion, Chaos Space Marines were at their peak with the last codex. Part of the definition of Chaos was that all of the gods were at odds, creating the chaotic nature of the warp by continually warring for supremacy. With that gone, Chaos just isn't as colorful and interesting. I mean, the codexes state that Khorne has a special hatred for sorcery and magic, yet they make no bones about allowing you to mix Khornate and Tzeenchian units in the same list. They choose to ignore their own fluff so that they can make more options available to players in hopes of getting them spending their money on models they would otherwise be unable to use in their army.
Also, I'm not too keen on the fact that Codex Chaos Demons can't be used as allies for Chaos Space Marines in the same way as Demonhunters and any other Imperial army can be combined. It just seems to be unnecessarily limiting. CSM having 'lesser demons' and 'greater demons' is a poor replacement for the actual named demons that were available to a CSM player in the previous codex. If Chaos Space Marines are the most favored servants of their chosen patron God, why wouldn't that God gift them with the service of their best minions?
"You are my best soldier so, I'm going to give you mediocre equipment/assistance and hopefully you can make do"-Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Finally, it occurs to me that the reason for removing the limitations on the mixing of specific chaos powers, and releasing Demons as their own army list, was because GW wanted to make the codex easier for younger kids to use and hopefully draw more people into the hobby. Basically, the reason is greed.

This is all just my (paranoid?) opinion though.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

My girlfriend takes Abaddon. And I play _Guard_, baby, and that means my IG run away like little girls if Abaddon even sneers at them. Anything can be rationalized. T'Sons fighting alongside Khornate Berserkers? I can see it, if there's a charismatic Chaos Lord to unite them (who better than Abaddon?). I do, however, imagine the Khorne 'Zerkers giving the T'Sons the finger, and the T'Sons whispering a ghostly 'yo momma...' in response.

-Edit

Hey LeeHarvey


----------



## LeeHarvey (Jul 25, 2008)

---Off Topic---

Your girlfriend plays 40k? Man, you've got a cool girlfriend. Mine just gets a far away glassy look in her eyes when I start talking about the game.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

Yeah, she does. She plays a united CSM force. She's only got T'Sons unit though, and Havocs, and a couple of standard CSM squads. And Abaddon. I can't remember off the bat. Still, she needs to paint them. They be black and gold (including T'Sons) because she simply likes the colour.


----------



## gblai6 (Feb 20, 2008)

I hate the idea of mixing chaos but then I'm a little old school about fluff stuff (hurts me worse in heroclix where I'm forced to field "comic-accurate" teams that are no match for Superman and Lex banded together for instance).

I'm going along the ideas for 5th ed rules helping this issue out. According to the rule book only troops can claim objectives since the better troops are off clearing other objectives. To me this means that if you lose to a chaos mixed list then the game will be a draw since the chaos troops (mixed) will turn on each other and wipe each other off the objective markers!


----------

