# Why GW screwed over the CSM codex



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Ok so I was talkin to a buddy and I think I figured it out.

I've heard that one of the reasons our codex lost all of its uniqueness was because it was too complicated for some people to handle. How many points of wargear a Champ could get vs a Lord and so on and so forth.

So I believe that Games Workshop must be punishing us for fucking up. They have taken away all our toys and now we have to sit here silently in time out until they feel we can have another chance at a good codex.


----------



## Dawnstar (Jan 21, 2010)

I think this codex is worth putting up with in order to get our 5th edition codex. The codex really isnt that bad if you know how to use the units as they were intended. Ive won many a game without using Lash or Obliterators, so there is more than one "solution"


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

You cant be serious can you? Your codex isnt that bad, its probably the best 4th edition book right now. You lost of a lot of options because GW was experimenting in streamlining the game, and a lot were just not needed. +1 attack/+1 strength power sword champions? Why did you need to have this. The loss of pure cult armies sucked, as did losing the legions, but you can still replicate those lists effectively enough. 

Besides most all books that came out about that time suffered the same fate. Eldar got it worse than you did.

If you really want you can call your chaos book counts as wolves or blood angels. 



> I think this codex is worth putting up with in order to get our 5th edition codex.


I dont know how long either of you guys have played, but this is not a conspiracy against chaos players. GW did not suddenly decide that chaos players were all insufferable assholes who must be punished for their horrible trespasses against humanity. When your book came out it was very, very strong. Same for the 3.5 chaos book. One of the best in the game. It became average, not horrible, average, when 5th edition came out, and more so now that we have a lot of books adapted to 5th edition. This is something that has happened to *gasp* every single other book that wasnt printed during 5th edition. 

And your 5th edition codex isnt going to be all that different than the current one. Itll probably include some kind of flier, a new infantry kit or two, and a few new options. 

Thats it, stop all the complaining. Necron, demonhunter, and eldar players all have worse books that have been less loved by gw, and those 3 player groups combined bitch about half as much as chaos guys do.


----------



## Medic Marine (Jun 28, 2009)

I like the new codex, you get arguably the best troops in the game and awesome fluff. So its stream lined and easier for ppl to use. Whats the problem?


----------



## Dawnstar (Jan 21, 2010)

ChugginDatHaterade, I'm not complaining at all. I like the 4th edition Chaos codex immensely. I'd probably be closer saying what I meant to say by saying that the 5th edition codex should be an improvement over the 4th, as we have seen before with other codex's.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Yeah, sorry, jumped the gun there. The boards have been one constant bitchfest of chaos players for the last month or so, sorry.


----------



## Dawnstar (Jan 21, 2010)

No worries. I do agree with you. Many other codex's got hit with the Nerf bat from 3rd to 4th edition, some much worse then Chaos. It would be nice if people realized that the Chaos 'dex was actually GOOD


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Ok ok ok ok ok. The CSM codex is good. I know this. It's easy to win games with the CSM codex. but at what cost? Our codex is so damn boring its not even all that fun to win anymore. Even though it didn't make much of a difference games-wise just being able to give your Khorne Champion of Axe of Khorne and Rage made it so much more fun and interesting.

Also you will notice that my original post stated that we lost our "uniqueness" not our ability to win

I'm talkin about the fact that CSMs are 10,000 years old and yet have nothing to reflect that. No more veteran skills. Also please don't spout how good our cult troops are. I know they are probably the best troops in the game (until the gks come out) but they still have no flavor. no special god only weapons, no special wargear. it's all the same crap that SMs get except we have less options and have to pay more for them.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Im not seeing how such a small loss had anything to do with the fun of the total game


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Im not seeing how such a small loss had anything to do with the fun of the total game


yeah maybe not you. look at your army lists. lash chaos, wolves, and leafblower

clearly you only play to win so for you winning is fun

that's not the same for everybody. if you just want to win play a powerlist against a newbie

sometimes people like flavor unfortunately they took all ours away


----------



## Dawnstar (Jan 21, 2010)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> yeah maybe not you. look at your army lists. lash chaos, wolves, and leafblower
> 
> clearly you only play to win so for you winning is fun


Last time I had a look, the BRB doesn't prohibit playing to win, or using lists that are good


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

What dawnstar said. I used to play an eldar list, it was footdar. Had an avatar with court of the young king, a falcon, and a squad of every type of aspect warrior 



> yeah maybe not you. look at your army lists. lash chaos, wolves, and leafblower
> 
> clearly you only play to win so for you winning is fun
> 
> ...


I think everyone plays to win. Its being able to have fun while losing thats important, and some of my most memorable games have been losses. The first 2-3 years I played I lost a good 3 out of 4 games I played, and had the most fun I have ever had playing. I wont play powerlists against noobies, as that is stupid and boring. Both for me as I get 0 competition, and for the n00bie as they get nothing out of it. 

I love flavor, I refuse to play some armies because I hate the models and fluff. But I can separate fluff from the army on the table top. A khornzerker skull champion is still a skull champion regardless of whether or not he has 40 points of unique wargear.

Also, check my W/L/D. The 12 year old using what sperglords typically cite as powergaming lists is just me baiting people, those are my actual armies.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Dawnstar said:


> Last time I had a look, the BRB doesn't prohibit playing to win, or using lists that are good


First of all that has nothing to do with what i said. I said judging by his lists he obviously plays to win. then i said not everyone plays that way. never did i say that is was wrong. and no where did i even come close to bringing the BRB into this discussion

second of all. the point of my thread was why GW took away our flavor not that CSM suck (i really hope that you could see that i wasn't being serious when i posted it, although i do believe they took away our flavor and everything that made CSM fun, i don't honestly believe they are putting us in time out)


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Every army back then has lost almost all of its flavor. Its part of streamlining the rules from what they were to something easier to understand. Its not a conspiracy, its just getting the fat out of the lists.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Every army back then has lost almost all of its flavor. Its part of streamlining the rules from what they were to something easier to understand. Its not a conspiracy, its just getting the fat out of the lists.


what armies are you talking about? 

Surely you are not referring to the SMs, the IG, the Wolves, the Nids, the Blood Angels, or the DE? All of which, IMO got more flavor, more customizability, and more just straight up units

We lost units!


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

I don't think the current CSM codex is crap at all, but I'm not satisified with it by any means; however it's important to note that I didn't _become_ dissatisfied with it until I saw the new Imperial Guard and Loyalist Marine codices appear, because it was only then that I realised how limited in choice the Chaos codex is. 

The CSM codex isn't weak by any means in terms of the power level of the lists that can be made up from it, but it's _severely_ lacking in terms of the variety and fluffiness of the lists that can be made up from it; the omission of Night Lords, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers and the pure-Cult armies was absolutely unforgivable. And while some things make more sense in the current CSM Codex - e.g. Obliterators using only energy weapons rather than ones that fire solid rounds, which would have depleted the Obliterator's body mass with every round that is fired - some things really don't when compared to design decisions made in other Codices. Lysander gets Eternal Warrior, but _Typhus_ doesn't? Crazy, and also significantly unbalanced. 

And I think it's that which bugs me the most - it's not what's there that's the problem, it's what's _not_ there. In WD 333 Gav Thorpe said "To include all twenty or so Daemonic troop types would have required loads more space in a Codex that's already 104 pages in length." Well, that's fine, until you see that Loyalist Marines proceeded to get 144 pages in their shiny new Codex and that covering the various types of Daemons only took up _three_ pages in the previous Chaos Marine Codex. So that excuse doesn't hold any water at all. What the next Codex: Chaos Space Marines needs isn't necessarily more power, but a hell of a lot more choice. When the dev who pretty much wrote it feels it necessary to *publicly defend the Codex* then it's clear somebody knows something's wrong.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

@Svartmetall thank you. that's what i'm trying to say. The new codex isn't weak or underpowered its just plain boring


----------



## ChaosSpaceMarineGuy (Jan 29, 2010)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> I'm talkin about the fact that CSMs are 10,000 years old and yet have nothing to reflect that. No more veteran skills. Also please don't spout how good our cult troops are. I know they are probably the best troops in the game (until the gks come out) but they still have no flavor. no special god only weapons, no special wargear. it's all the same crap that SMs get except we have less options and have to pay more for them.


I agree with what you said here and with what Svartmetall said in his. I started out playing CSM during 4th ed. and even felt that there was not enough there compared to the vanilla marine codex. e.g- SM has power of the machine spirit and CSM has Daemonic Possession. That is not the chaos equivalent to me. I like the current codex, but i would love to use cult armies and traitor guard armies as well. As a last tid bit, why can't we take Chaos Daemons as allies? It would make perfect sense to be able to do that.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Because the chaos demons in current form+chaos marines would be amazingly broken and good. Plague marines with icons advancing in rhinos to summon bloodcrushers, and melta tanks? no thank you sir.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> @Svartmetall thank you. that's what i'm trying to say. The new codex isn't weak or underpowered its just plain boring


I agree completely with this.


----------



## ChaosSpaceMarineGuy (Jan 29, 2010)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Because the chaos demons in current form+chaos marines would be amazingly broken and good. Plague marines with icons advancing in rhinos to summon bloodcrushers, and melta tanks? no thank you sir.


Like there are not other dexs that are op? To have the option to do that would be fun and provide more _options_ (which is what chaos ppl are looking for) to satisfy the urge.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

There arent really any dexs that are OP, no. The best ones, wolves, guard, and blood angels are good because of the options they give players. Not because of some silly combo of units that auto wins.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

this is a response to Gav Thorpe's defense of the codex. I believe all the points are valid. It basically reiterates the fact that CSM got pretty screwed over 

Hmm… where to start. Ok, simple disclaimer.

Gav, I own the following Chaos armies:
Word Bearers (loads of Marines & Daemons – my first Chaos army, started in 2nd Ed)
Alpha Legion (loads of Marines & Cultists)
World Eaters (follows the fluff to the letter with Sacred Number units and so on)
Death Guard (7 units of 7 troops, all modelled very nicely, using a mix of 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed and even Forge World models – I like my Death Guard army)
Iron Warriors (filled with Havocs and siege weapons and bands of fire-support warriors)
Lost & The Damned (a mass of Mutants and Traitors backed up by Night Lord infantry, tanks and Defilers – I /really/ like my LatD army)

Now, looking at what armies I play you can probably guess that I am one of those people who have a few issues with the current ‘Chaos’ Codex. And by a ‘few issues’ I mean ‘despise with a unyielding fury’. However, rather than spewing bile and personal attacks at you, I feel this discussion would be better served with an open look at exactly where my dislike of your Codex comes from (and I say ‘your’ because you are credited as the writer – I am well aware that there is much more that goes into a Codex than just what you write personally).

But before we do this, as in any great debate or discussion, I need to directly address a couple of areas in your words above where I disagree.

Daemons:

Specifically these words of yours – “They were only folded into the Chaos Space Marines in the previous version of the Codex.”

I’m sorry to say this Gav, but there are only three possible explanations for why you’d say what you said here:

A). You’re being forgetful.
B). You have a selective memory.
C). You’re lying.

Why? Well, your comment simply isn’t true.

What Chaos Codices/Army Books have included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Realms of Chaos – Slaves to Darkness
2. Realms of Chaos – The Lost & The Damned
3. Codex Army Lists – 2nd Ed (can’t find my copy, but as the specific Daemon profiles are in Codex Imperialis, I have to assume that they were included in the place-holder Codex that came with 2nd Ed)
4. Codex Chaos – 2nd Ed
5. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Jervis’ one)
6. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Pete Haines’ one)

What Chaos Codices/Army Books have NOT included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Your Codex.

So really, the inclusion of Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine list isn’t recent, or just something that happened in the last Codex (Pete Haines’ Codex). It’s all of them – except yours. Even in Jervis’ original very thin and very uninspired 3rd Ed Codex (a Codex that has bears several striking similarities to yours), where the Daemons were a single entry, there were rules that allowed you to modify their statline to show the different types of Daemons.

Now, yes, the 2nd Ed Codex – a glorious style of book that we can only wish GW would go back to – did have a Daemon World list in it, but it wasn’t the only list to have Daemons, it was simply the list you used to represent Daemons World Armies. The Codex also had a Chaos Cult army list. Can you imagine if, say, 4th Ed Tyranids had rolled around and Genestealers had been removed from the book, only to emerge in a Genestealer Cult Codex 8 months later, and the reason by the writer given was ‘Oh, they had their own list in another addition, so including Genestealers with the main ‘Nid list is more of a recent thing’? Tyranid players would have gone crazy. The same thing applies to Daemons.

To put it another way – you took something away from Chaos that they had always had. Think about that.

Restrictions vs Flexibility:

As someone who has been quite vocal about my distaste for the ‘Chaos’ Codex, I have often come across the argument that the previous Codex was too restrictive and that this new Codex removed those restrictions therefore giving us more flexibility. This line of thinking is /technically/ true, but is actually quite disingenuous.

How can I best explain this? I know: With ice cream!

Say rather being a book with different Legions, it’s actually an ice-cream store with many different flavours. Say the flavours are:

1. Chocolate ice cream.
2. Strawberry ice cream.
3. Honeycomb ice cream.
4. Rocky Road ice cream.

Mmm… sounds good, don’t it? And so much choice! But say that you could only have one flavour at a time. Aww! No fair. That’s so restrictive. But, at the very least, I can have all the different types, just not all at the same time.

Now let’s say your Codex is also an ice cream store. The flavours you have are:

1. Vanilla.

But there’s no limit on how much vanilla I can have. I can have a little bit of vanilla, I can have a lot, I can have two scoops in two different bowls, three in eight bowls – any combination of vanilla that I want.

But it’s still only vanilla.

If I want Chocolate I can’t, and while I might have been restricted to only having one flavour at a time, at least I had the choice. Now I only have one choice. And having only one choice is the same as having /no/ choice. To extend the metaphor, all the Legions are now are different coloured tubs for vanilla ice cream.

The idea that the old Chaos Codex was ‘restrictive’ and that the new one ‘frees up’ players and gets them away from proscribed gaming simply doesn’t hold water. I have always been of the opinion that fluff and rules should be congruous, and for the most part, Haines’ Codex got that right. It wasn’t balanced – not by any means, but what GW Codex is? – but the rules stuck to the fluff quite well, and so an army that followed the fluff made good use of the apparently ‘restrictive’ rules. Essentially I think you’re looking at it backwards. You’re trying to say that the old Codex forced you down a certain path – you play World Eaters hey, then you /must/ play this way and this way only!!!!! – but that wasn’t the case. It was often a case of I want to play World Eaters, what is their fluff, oh, they have that sort of formation do they, what do the rules say, oh, the rules are set up in such a way as to let you play as the fluff describes.

And then, at its core, the previous Chaos Codex had the standard list which had no restrictions on units other than the rivalries between the Chaos Gods. You could have an army that had Plague Marines, and Thousand Sons in it, or Noise Marines and Berzerkers just by playing the standard list. At no point where you ‘forced’ or ‘restricted’ to play a specific Legion – the Black Legion covered everything!!!

Your Codex doesn’t free anyone up or somehow release them from proscriptive or restrictive gaming. Why? Because it removed all the options. It’d be like being a star athlete who’s been confined in a small room and is finally let out, only to have his arms and legs cut off. In other words, what good is a lack of restrictions if there’s no choice to be had – you can have any flavour you like as long as it’s vanilla?

So with that out of the way, I want to look at a few specific items within the Codex (and I’ll leave Daemons alone as they’ve been covered already).

I’ve written ‘Chaos’ Codex a few times, rather than Chaos Codex, and the bunny-ears are intentional. The reason for that, as mentioned when I talked about Daemons, you have taken away things that Chaos has never or should never have lost.

Daemonic Gifts are a good example.

I know what you’re probably thinking – “Half the Daemonic Gifts weren’t even being used!” or perhaps “The system of limitations on gifts was too complex”.

But you took Daemonic Gifts away from Chaos. You made them into Loyalist Marines with a Wargear List and nothing to make them Chaos besides a generic Daemon weapon and Marks. This isn’t a case of “there’s no rules for that axe” it’s a case of “there’s no way to represent the corruption inherent in worshiping Chaos… I just have all the same options a Loyalist Marine Captain has – what about this makes me a Chaos Commander?”.

Daemonic Gifts, and the mutations/boons/curses given by the Chaos Gods has been part of Chaos since their inception – you know this, I don’t need to tell you. Realms of Chaos had D1000 – Dee-One-Thousand FFS – tables for mutations. Now I’m certainly not saying that we need or even should go back to such a level of granularity but consider Gav – you took one of the very things that makes Chaos /Chaos/ away! They’re not there any more. They’re gone. Hence ‘Chaos’.

Your argue that you should need rules for various mutations etc.. I argue that mutations etc. are part of the fluff, and the rules should follow the fluff, therefore there should be rules for mutations etc.

Marks vs Icons

Why do squads of Marines forget whom they worship when the guy with the Icon dies? Why are there no Cult Terminators/Havocs/Bikers/Chosen? Why, if your aim was to remove restrictions, did you remove the options that had been previously restricted? Why does a Deathguard army now consist of some actual Plague Marines, and some Marines who may or may not forget what God they’re dedicated to?

What was so bad about the Marks system? And is it too cynical to say that the reason it was changed to Icons was because the new Chaos Marine kit included a nice new plastic Icon and GW wanted people to buy said kit for said Icon ie. the models drove the rules in this instance?

Possessed

I very keenly remember Pete Haines’ designer notes in White Dwarf describing that the change to Possessed came about as people didn’t like the random nature. I thought it was a great idea – made Possessed instantly viable. Then we get the new one and they’re back to random again. Why?

And, while we’re on the subject of Possessed please, Gav, tell us all – why do you roll /after/ deployment? Did you not ever stop and think that maybe rolling before deployment might be the better option, y’know, let plays have an inkling of what their Possessed are going to be able to do before they set them down on the table? Yes, no, maybe?

Daemon Princes

Now I saw your comment above that maybe you went too far, but why are the glorious veterans of thousands of battles, the champions of the Gods who have ascended to Daemonhood through their vile acts of slaughter limited to… wings or not wings. They can’t even get Daemon Weapons for crying out loud! It goes back to my ‘taking the Chaos out of Chaos’ thing, and why it’s a ‘Chaos’ Codex.

I think a lot of people celebrated what could be done with Daemon Princes in Haines’ Codex, as it was such a big relief from the mono-dimensional boring choices from Jervis’ original 3rd Ed Codex. Then we get yours and it’s very similar to Jervis’ original entry. Was that by accident?

Defilers

WS3? They’re as skilled as Guardsmen in HTH are they? I’ve never understood this. Please explain it so I know.

Lash of Torment

I think you’ve probably heard enough on this subject, but really, how was the power of this… power… not caught in play testing?

I realise now that I’m nitpicking, but those last two were something I had to ask. Getting back to my main point:

The legacy of the current Chaos Codex is that it took the Chaos out of Chaos Space Marines. ‘Loyalists w/Spikes’ or ‘When Good Marines Go Bad’ is about the best way to describe the current Codex. You can better represent the various Legions using the current Loyalist Marine Codex than you can the ‘Chaos’ one, and that to me is a huge problem.

Daemons are gone. You have to play a different army to have them now. Having a group that allows the mixing of Codices isn’t a way to explain away this problem either – not all groups are flexible, some groups are very large and need the structure of proscribed rulebooks to avoid arguments, and tournaments and leagues certainly can’t have custom armies.

Daemonic Gifts and all those very Chaos-y upgrades and choices are gone.

Legions are gone, reduced to paint schemes and fluff.

/Chaos/ is gone.

Being restricted to one of four options is better than having unlimited choice with one option.

– HBMC


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Ugh. THIS old chestnut.

I will tell you what i told HBMC at the time - comparing it to 5e Codexes is ridiculous, and makes you look rather stupid.

Gav tells us about the change in design ethos, (as if we couldn't see it ourselves!) and comparing with 5e books is like comparing them to Fantasy - misleading and worthless.

Compare CSM to Orks, to Eldar, to Daemons, to Dark Angels. None of the others count.

And AS for LatD...they were a goddamn temporary Codex for the EoT. *SURELY *everyone knew it wouldn't last?

I genuinely feel bad for any who is so prescriptivist in their Hobby and their 'fun' that they cannot enjoy the wonders of 'Counts As' or do what MOST people who complain about this issue should like, and invent their own rules/use the old book...if you are a Casual Gamer, what excuse is there to complain? You feel let down? Ok, but it's been too long for you to say that more than once, now.

And - so, we're clear - I'm coming at this from a not dissimilar view. I think Chaos has actually NEVER been represented adequately, at least not after the 2e book...and I'm not 100% on it. I wouldn't be working on the region of FIFTY Homebrew units for TWO Chaos Fandexes if not...but you can't blame Gav and not Alessio, as they are co-authors...and Alessio was Gav's boss. Jervis was overall in charge of 40k, iirc, in this timeframe too. Blame Alessio, blame Jervis. Gav may not be 'blameless', but he doesn't deserve the rap he gets.


----------



## ChaosSpaceMarineGuy (Jan 29, 2010)

I would like to use LatD in some friendly games, but I don't know where to find the rules. Which book are they in?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Codex Eye of Terror, they were a pretty interesting army. Big guard squads with aspiring champions instead of sergeants.


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

ChaosSpaceMarineGuy said:


> I would like to use LatD in some friendly games, but I don't know where to find the rules. Which book are they in?


Or you could just download the RENEGADES AND HERETICS army list from Forgeworld and try that.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RH.pdf

I don't know why all the people that say they want to do Alpha Legion armys or have cultist with there CSM don't just use this list.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)




----------



## notsoevil (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm new, but see no problem with the current codex. I guess that is a blessing.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

They are simplifying all the codex's. It's something they started in 4th and are continuing in 5th. I wouldn't expect at all to see CSM codex go back to the way things were. Less options, more streamlined, that's the direction GW has been, and appears to be going. 

But look at the bright side. At least you don't have it as bad as the loyalist marines who pay more for a basic marine but get less. I mean there's always a silver lining right? At least Chaos has figured out how to equip their standard troops with a BP and a combat knife (and for less points than their loyalist counterparts too!). 

No wonder the Imperium of Man is in a state of decay. They can't even figure out how to equip their guys with two close combat weapons and a bolter. If I were those guys I'd sharpen some sticks or fashion a shiv out of standard issue toothbrush so I could fight with two close combat weapons. I think Roboute Guilliman could have learned a few things by reading the CSM codex before writing his own. Military genius... hmmph...


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

Maybe, rather than venting on the internet, people could let GW know what they want? I'm not talking hate-filled, invective-laden rants that castigate everyone who might have 'destroyed' the hobby. Rather, send them some emails/letters that let them know what it is you enjoy about Chaos, what it is you want to see and what inspires you about the traitor Marines. I mean, it can't hurt can it? And the only way GW are ever going to know what it is that we want and enjoy is if we take the time to let them know. It is the height of arrogance to imagine that anyone from GW is going to take the time to surf the hundreds of 40k/Fantasy websites to find out what our opinion is. 
As a community who enjoy the hobby, the only way we can take some ownership of it is by collaborating with GW by telling them what it is that we want to see, rather than putting the company in the position of our 'enemy' and regarding them as people who are actively trying to ruin things for us; after all, if we work together then we will get something better than if GW has to guess based purely on sales.

GFP


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Yeah.... Loyalists are 1 point more because they have ATSKNF (one of the best rules EVER!) and Combat Tactics. 

CSMs having Uber-grit is the reason it's only the one point.


----------



## BrainFreeze (Oct 9, 2008)

Capt.Al'rahhem said:


> Or you could just download the RENEGADES AND HERETICS army list from Forgeworld and try that.
> 
> http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RH.pdf
> 
> I don't know why all the people that say they want to do Alpha Legion armys or have cultist with there CSM don't just use this list.


Because it's the equalivant of a netbook and not legal in a tourny. I can understand that some people like the "new" Chaos Codex, and some people dont mind it much. Then I look at my shelf and see $300 in Alpha Legion cultist and think yea screw you GW.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

Will everyone please stop compaling about the CSM codex. It got old real fast. The codex works and thats what matters. All the Chaos people complaining that "our codex isn't any good....waaaaa!" Well look at Witch Hunters, Daemon Hunters, Dark Angels, Tau, Black Tempalrs...all of them have it alot harder than we do. Now granted my opion might have changed somewhat if i played back in 3rd edition but it's just stupid to keep complainign about something so old. Just let it lie and leave it alone and enjoy are codex.


----------



## BrainFreeze (Oct 9, 2008)

jaws900 said:


> Will everyone please stop compaling about the CSM codex. It got old real fast. The codex works and thats what matters. All the Chaos people complaining that "our codex isn't any good....waaaaa!" Well look at Witch Hunters, Daemon Hunters, Dark Angels, Tau, Black Tempalrs...all of them have it alot harder than we do. Now granted my opion might have changed somewhat if i played back in 3rd edition but it's just stupid to keep complainign about something so old. Just let it lie and leave it alone and enjoy are codex.



Also none of them had entire portions of their army removed from the codex so they couldnt use them anymore. How is this a complicated concept? At this point I could care less about power level of the book, people that bought baslisks to use with iron warriors, people that bought cultists to use in their armies.

For some people it isnt about the codex not being good, it's about buying the figs to use with their army then being told they cant use them anymore. Or in the case of Demons or the Baslisks that they can use them but they need to buy another codex and the rest of the models for the armies.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Plus there's no way CSM Players are gonna stop complainin about their codex. Its the one thing that makes us feel any better about what weve got XD

Also there IS a difference between just having an old codex that hasnt been updated yet and having your codex destroyed with its update


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

BrainFreeze said:


> For some people it isnt about the codex not being good, it's about buying the figs to use with their army then being told they cant use them anymore.


the First 3rd Edition IG codex to the second lost units include Exterminator, Griffon, Nork Deddog, Macharius etc

Second 3rd Edition IG codex to new (5E) loses Colonel Schaeffer and the penal legion, Gaunt, heavy weapon platoons.

Hell with the loss of doctrines in the 5th edition lists some IG armies became COMPLETELY redundant...

Warrior weapons... No
Drop Troops... Nope
Jungle Fighters... Gone
Light Infantry... No
Xenos fighter... Sorry
Decent vehicle upgrades... Nope, try again

Oh but we got to keep mechanised and carapace armour (on veterans) and veterans.

A lot of the fluffy lists and the individuality has gone, instead we got a strong codex with decent units.


----------



## Kastle (Feb 28, 2010)

:suicide: 

well there went some time i will want back

all i can add to this pile is....be patient....when they decide to visit csm again maybe they will fix some of your problems...


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> Maybe, rather than venting on the internet, people could let GW know what they want? I'm not talking hate-filled, invective-laden rants that castigate everyone who might have 'destroyed' the hobby. Rather, send them some emails/letters that let them know what it is you enjoy about Chaos, what it is you want to see and what inspires you about the traitor Marines. I mean, it can't hurt can it? And the only way GW are ever going to know what it is that we want and enjoy is if we take the time to let them know. It is the height of arrogance to imagine that anyone from GW is going to take the time to surf the hundreds of 40k/Fantasy websites to find out what our opinion is.
> As a community who enjoy the hobby, the only way we can take some ownership of it is by collaborating with GW by telling them what it is that we want to see, rather than putting the company in the position of our 'enemy' and regarding them as people who are actively trying to ruin things for us; after all, if we work together then we will get something better than if GW has to guess based purely on sales.
> 
> GFP


This. OR - tell ME, and it may get into my fandexes. Then we have a coherent vision of what we would like, instead of a disparate spread of opinions who are never going to be all satisfied?


----------



## Deathscythe4722 (Jul 18, 2010)

Easymode for fixing the CSM codex: Add the Lesser Daemon troops and Greater Daemon HQs from Codex: Daemons (possibly removing the named guys for balance reasons). DONE. FIXED. 50% of complaints GONE.

Hardmode: Also add back in legion-specific rules and keep it even slightly balanced.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Deathscythe4722 said:


> Easymode for fixing the CSM codex: Add the Lesser Daemon troops and Greater Daemon HQs from Codex: Daemons (possibly removing the named guys for balance reasons). DONE. FIXED. 50% of complaints GONE.
> 
> Hardmode: Also add back in legion-specific rules and keep it even slightly balanced.


I'd say it would be more like this:

Easy Mode for fixing CSM codex: GW does whatever the hell they want with the Dex as it is there IP.

Normal Mode: GW does whatever the hell they want with the Dex as it is there IP but they balance it internally.

Hard Mode: GW does whatever the hell they want with the Dex as it is there IP but they balance it both internally and externally.

Super Insane God Mode that can't be done without HAXS!!11!11!!!!!1?: Make an over 9000 page codex with stats for every Chaos dude ever listed in any fluff material they have ever printed or will print. EVER!!!!! :wild:

GW wish mode: Kill all the people who complain "My codex got broken with the new edition."

I'd put my money on GW going for Hard mode.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

DeathKlokk said:


> Yeah.... Loyalists are 1 point


Well the first 5 marines are 3 points more, but yes, after that it's only 1.

However, look at it like this. That one little difference means when you charge 10 loyalist marines Tac squad with 10 CSM's (no upgrades, no nothing for either) you'll be bringing 30 attacks to his 10. If he were to charge you, he'd get 20 to your 20. Hmmmm... :wink:




DeathKlokk said:


> ...ATSKNF (one of the best rules EVER!)


One of the best rules ever? I'm not sure I would go that far.  Besides, every marine player I know would gladly exchange And They Shall Know No Fear for 2 close combat weapons any day of the week. I won't even get into the weapons options for CSM over loyalists! 


I think CSM's aren't as bad as you think. I'm not saying loyalists are bad either. They do pretty well for themselves too.

Out of 37 GT's on the GT circuit for 2010, CSM placed in the top three 12 times. 6 first places, 3 seconds, and 3 thirds... 

Must not be too bad. :wink:


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> Well the first 5 marines are 3 points more, but yes, after that it's only 1.
> 
> However, look at it like this. That one little difference means when you charge 10 loyalist marines Tac squad with 10 CSM's (no upgrades, no nothing for either) you'll be bringing 30 attacks to his 10. If he were to charge you, he'd get 20 to your 20. Hmmmm... :wink:
> 
> ...


Marines get a free Sergeant, with his Ld boost and better options - significant difference.

Also, Marines get the option of a FREE Multi-Melta which is far and away better than anything the CSMs get, especially price-wise.

CSM do so well at US GTs because most players (in the world, not just the US) are crap, and the percentage of people still playing CSM and crap is lower than with, say, SM, IG, BA, SW or Orks. Composition scored events help them massively too.

And, frankly - any Space Marine player who would swap ATSKNF for CCWs is using the wrong Codex - that's not what that one is for. :laugh:

And surely you mean they would swap Combat Tactics? Which is a rule just as good, tbh.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

The CSM codex in its current form is fine for competitive or casual playing. Admittedly its lost some of the flavour of the old book, but then so have most of the recent codices compared to their predecessors. This is simply the result of GW streamlining their business in order to maximise profits.

That said there are things that do need changing, namely the rules surrounding Dreadnaughts. In the old codex you were rewarded for rolling a six, now you are penalised, so that's something I'd like to see change.

Apart from that though I'm happy with the book which I still think has lots of flavour, god-specific weapons (though why couldn't we have kept the Kai Gun?) and allows for monotheistic lists (Kharn, Lucius and so on).


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Space Marines don't get a Free Sergeant - they have to pay 10pts for it.

Free Multi-melta is fairly useless compared to a Free Missile Launcher. Twice the range, and 1 less on the penetration chart, but still capable at Anti-Infantry. Heavy Bolter sucks anyway. You might get 1 kill with the HB, but the MM at least ensures that hitting gets a kill.

CSM get Autocannons. They're awesome, simply. Yes, you have to pay for them, but I'm willing to bet that they become, if not free, a +5pt option for a 10 Man Squad. Havocs with Autocannons? Currently, Obliterators are the better options. Havocs strength over Obliterators is their 4 Special Weapons, then, mounted in a Rhino - which is something Chosen do better in any case (infiltrate and +1 Special Weapon, and all that jazz), and maybe 9 Oblits + 12 Autocannons/Missile Havocs could be open to abuse.

Personally, I'm not keen on Oblits, and if I could, I'd just go for a Autocannon heavy army with Terminators as assault troops. Go uncompetitive.


----------



## pringles978 (Dec 27, 2010)

how is a mm useless? if your using your tacs correctly, you get to roll up a couple of squads into midfield and create a massive no-go area for enemy mech from the top hatch of your rhino. the ml has range, but to make full use you have to skulk at the back of the battlefield, which is wasting the marine bodies that would be better off operating at 1-12". 

besides, the mm adds to the duality of the unit, allowing it to effectively take on heavy mech. bolters/flamers provide plenty of anti infantry.

most chaos players would kill for the mm option, as it would give them a half decent platform to include them in their army


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Ok ok ok ok ok. The CSM codex is good. I know this. It's easy to win games with the CSM codex. but at what cost? Our codex is so damn boring its not even all that fun to win anymore. Even though it didn't make much of a difference games-wise just being able to give your Khorne Champion of Axe of Khorne and Rage made it so much more fun and interesting.
> 
> Also you will notice that my original post stated that we lost our "uniqueness" not our ability to win
> 
> I'm talkin about the fact that CSMs are 10,000 years old and yet have nothing to reflect that. No more veteran skills. Also please don't spout how good our cult troops are. I know they are probably the best troops in the game (until the gks come out) but they still have no flavor. no special god only weapons, no special wargear. it's all the same crap that SMs get except we have less options and have to pay more for them.


Which is exactly the problem with the "streamlining".
Went from having several different armies to having... one cookie-cutter, albeit with a few different marks and no other variety.
They should have just put out a codex which kept the uniqueness and had a "Chaos for Dummies" book printed for the intelectually challenged.

And that's my problem with every codex since and including the latest Eldar codex.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Uber Ork said:


> Well the first 5 marines are 3 points more, but yes, after that it's only 1.


10 Tacs are base 170 pts.
10 CSMs with a AChamp are 165 pts. 

a five point difference. for:

CSMs: 

1 extra attack
Ld 10
No weapon upgrades
No defense against failed Morale checks

Tac Marines:
Weapon options (free!)
ATSKNF (will NEVER just break and run)
Combat Tactics (almost a better rule than ATSKNF)
Combat squad capabilities (much more flexible)



> However, look at it like this. That one little difference means when you charge 10 loyalist marines Tac squad with 10 CSM's (no upgrades, no nothing for either) you'll be bringing 30 attacks to his 10. If he were to charge you, he'd get 20 to your 20. Hmmmm... :wink:


Yes, they are slightly superior at assault, but that's not what Tacs are supposed to be doing!

Just so we're compairing apples to apples, here's the breakdown of the CSMs assaulting the Tacs and vice-versa:

CSMs with 31 attacks assaulting Tacs nets you 2.475 casualties.

Tacs with 21 attacks assaulting CSMs nets you 1.732 casualties.

A difference of only 0.743 casualties. So for less than one dead enemy you lose the above listed benefits.





> One of the best rules ever? I'm not sure I would go that far.  Besides, every marine player I know would gladly exchange And They Shall Know No Fear for 2 close combat weapons any day of the week.


 Then why don't they run Assault Marines? Oh right, because they suck.



> I won't even get into the weapons options for CSM over loyalists!


Good, refuting your points with logic and fact is getting so very tiring...lol





> Out of 37 GT's on the GT circuit for 2010, CSM placed in the top three 12 times. 6 first places, 3 seconds, and 3 thirds...
> 
> Must not be too bad. :wink:


Codex CSMs is not bad in a *competitive* sense, just boring. I'd hazard that the winning players in your example had about 80% of their lists exactly the same.

Fuck, even *Necrons* can be played competitively. That doesn't mean that half their codex isn't woefully underpowered or downright silly.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Space Marines don't get a Free Sergeant - they have to pay 10pts for it.
> 
> Free Multi-melta is fairly useless compared to a Free Missile Launcher. Twice the range, and 1 less on the penetration chart, but still capable at Anti-Infantry. Heavy Bolter sucks anyway. You might get 1 kill with the HB, but the MM at least ensures that hitting gets a kill.
> 
> ...


It *is *a free Sergeant, because you expand the unit at a discount price. 
Either way - one of those is at a discount, particularly for Devs, who get a Signum too.

A Multi-Melta is worth 1.5 MLs...you VASTLY underrate the power of AP1 weaponry. Being AP1 is the single most valuable rule or stat a weapon can have.

Massed Autcannons are INCREDIBLE. CSM don't get _massed _Autocannons. They get several overpriced Autocannons. Whoop. No way they will be 5 points for CSMs, not least because CSMs will not get free Heavies. They aren't structured that way.



pringles978 said:


> how is a mm useless? if your using your tacs correctly, you get to roll up a couple of squads into midfield and create a massive no-go area for enemy mech from the top hatch of your rhino. the ml has range, but to make full use you have to skulk at the back of the battlefield, which is wasting the marine bodies that would be better off operating at 1-12".
> 
> besides, the mm adds to the duality of the unit, allowing it to effectively take on heavy mech. bolters/flamers provide plenty of anti infantry.
> 
> most chaos players would kill for the mm option, as it would give them a half decent platform to include them in their army


Pringles, I would say at 7-24", actually. But YMMV. :laugh:

Chaos armies would be much stringer with more MM platforms, especially as three of the best options are mobile/ranged Melta weapons : Plague Marines, Oblits, Dreads.



Vrykolas2k said:


> Which is exactly the problem with the "streamlining".
> Went from having several different armies to having... one cookie-cutter, albeit with a few different marks and no other variety.
> They should have just put out a codex which kept the uniqueness and had a "Chaos for Dummies" book printed for the intelectually challenged.
> 
> And that's my problem with every codex since and including the latest Eldar codex.


Vrykolas - I want to make sure I don't misunderstand...you don't like ANY Codex since before Eldar? Even the 5e ones? Even the Dark Eldar one, for instance?

I happen to think this the fluffiest SW Codex yet, for instance.


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

Ok ive read enuff of this...

Yes CSM dex lost lots of flavor and i too miss the traitor legion specific rules as well and the actual dedicated daemons too.(believe me use to love running word bearers with lots of blood letters). This book is still quite solid like chosen and havocs being able to have 4 melta guns of 4 plasma guns man that is nasty. CSM are a better CC fight than SM just because of the dual weilding weapons. Sure I miss being able to make a lord a the embodiment of a Chaos God like back in 2nd ed or making cult termies, and my personal fav. 10 chosen aspiring champs with the mark of khorne, plasma pistol, and an axe of khorne or a power fist.(IG never liiked me for that)
I guess to summarize it i feel the dex isnt all that bad and is a very strong army still hell the only reason i started a CSM army was just prove that u can make them evil without making the a cult army.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> It *is *a free Sergeant, because you expand the unit at a discount price.
> Either way - one of those is at a discount, particularly for Devs, who get a Signum too.
> 
> A Multi-Melta is worth 1.5 MLs...you VASTLY underrate the power of AP1 weaponry. Being AP1 is the single most valuable rule or stat a weapon can have.
> ...


Ok, I'll give you the SW one.
But Dark Eldar, a pretty good codex, lacks the different Kabals being led by their own Archon. Kabal A = Kabal Z.
There's no difference between Craftworld A and Craftworlds B-Z. And all are apparently led by Eldrad. If he led all of the Craftworlds (from beyond the grave, I'd suppose, since he's dead) they'd no longer be fractious, and would no longer be in danger of being gone in a few more generations.
Space Marine Chaper A = Chapter Z.
All Chaos is pretty much Black Legion or Red Corsairs.
And so on.
It's crap.
Sorry if you don't agree, but I liked different Craftworlds being... different.
I liked different Chapters being led by different persons.
I liked the different Legions.
These added variety to the game. Variety is fun, fun is good.
Hell, I thought part of the fun also was decideding what wargear to give everyone, what upgrades to take... hell, what ARMY to play in general. 
And what made that last thing possible? The fluff. I've played Ulthwe' since 3rd due to the fluff.
I made my own Kabal in 3rd because doing so was fun, and I didn't like the special characters they had (except for Drazhar, who at the time was a bodyguard).
I made my own Legion for the same reason.
Same with Space Wolves, back in 3rd.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I played iron warriors for the fluff years before I ever knew there were 40k tournaments.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I would disagree on DE ability to form Kabals that are different...now you have more than 2 Troops, one of which is the same thing with a Raider to ride in. :/

I am putting differentiation in my CSM Homebrew (links in sig) so I *DO* understand what you mean - but the way the 5e books do it is, IMO, perfect.

Pick a SC that best reflects your 'faction' (eg, Pedro) and use his special rules to shape the army the way the fluff for your guys indicates.

Without fluff, I wouldn't play either - but it has no say on what happens on the tabletop.

I don't like the Armoury system in comparison to this streamlined one - and I am a guy who literally spent hundreds of hours growing up poring over Codexes trying to write lists just for coolness, not a thought of competitive play in my head.

There is a gulf between the quality of the "4.5 Dexes" - Orks, Eldar, CSM, DA - and the 5e ones - Nids, IG, BA, SW, SM, DE.

I have no doubt Eldar, if and when we get a 5e book, will use the same base mechanics to represent each Craftworld. Ieyanna Arienal may get a promotion to Bonesinger to make WG Troops, for instance. Or Nuadhu 'Fireheart' may be an Autarch that makes FD Troops, or whatever. That Saim-Hann chief who never got a model may make Jetbikes Troops from FA...or Vypers, if Jetbikes stay where they are.

Farseers may take 1 unit of Black Guardians, with Eldrad taking unlimited, whatever - the point is, this is the likely mechanism...and I'm very happy with that.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I thought naudu fireheart was that saim hann chief, and feugan is the fire dragons phoenix lord


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Was he? That was my first thought, that Fireheart was the Saim-Hann Wild rider Chieftain, but then I thought 'Wait, was he a guy from the CCG?' and got confused. lol

Yeah, Fuegan is the Phoenix Lord - but they are screwy. I'd remove them from the FoC. Not the book, just like TechPriest Enginseers.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

But if you remove phoenix lords I will have nothing to do with my collection of all of them


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

:/ Did you READ my post?

I said off the FoC, not out of the book. Twice. Stop trolling me, MCD. :grin:

I don't really want PL doing FoC manipulation, I want them unable to lead the army, because it isn't fluffy for them to. I want Solitaires making Harlies Troops. Fuck making them cheaper - that would be insane on it's own!


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I thought off the force org chart meant removing them from the army list, and you would just leave a little fluff bit of them in there. 100% wasnt trying to troll. 

However, I do not know who this MCD person you refer to is.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

First let me say I *am not* saying SM's are terrible. Far from it. They do quite well for themselves and with the assistance of special characters can produce some powerful builds (Vulkan anyone?).  

What *I am* saying is that CSM aren’t nearly as bad as is being portrayed on this thread. In an effort to show this, I am using a loyalist-vs-traitor comparison. I think both armies are fine, and do quite well for themselves in major competitions.

Ok… with that being said, I continue… :wink:





DeathKlokk said:


> Yes, they are slightly superior at assault,


I'm not sure I would use the word "slightly" to describe 30 attacks to 10 or 20 to 20. Honestly, that's a large difference. All I'm attempting to say here is, it's very cool that CSM's come standard with 2 CCW's. 




DeathKlokk said:


> Yes, they are slightly superior at assault, but that's not what Tacs are supposed to be doing!


I understand. Does it stand to reason though that those tactical squads will get charged in a game? When that happens, having essentially 2 base attacks comes in very handy. Again... *I am not* saying space marines stink. Far from it. I only mean to demonstrate that CSM's do not. In many ways are even superior to, loyalist SM's. Coming standard with 2 CCW is one of those ways. 




DeathKlokk said:


> Combat squad capabilities (much more flexible)


I don't follow you on this one. Are you saying that a combat squad (five marines with no access to special or heavy weapons) is more tactically flexible than an equal amount of CSM's who do have access to an assault weapon and who have 15 attacks to 5 on the charge, and 10 attacks to 10 if they get charged? If so, I guess I don't agree, and would point to the weapon options and CC potential as evidence to that end. 




DeathKlokk said:


> Then why don't they run Assault Marines? Oh right, because they suck.


The real advantage of 2 CCW is demonstrated here. SM's have to take assault marines to achieve this parity in CC, but they are FA, not troops and able to take objectives. If a SM player had one tac and one assault squad, while the CSM player had two CSM squads, the CSM's would not only be able to have more flexibility in both weapons options (can take 2 assault weapons, etc.) and CC than the SM player, but have two units that could take objectives to the SM players one. 




DeathKlokk said:


> Good, refuting your points with logic and fact is getting so very tiring...lol


 I shall endeavor to be polite, as (1) I don't want to assume anything and (2) I wish to show you the respect due you as a moderator. However, this line felt a bit like you were trying to provoke me. If I've offended you, you have my apologies. 





Vaz said:


> Space Marines don't get a Free Sergeant - they have to pay 10pts for it.


More importantly they don’t get a choice to pay for it. The SM codex forces you to take a sergeant whether you want one or not. That is even more streamlined (one of the complaints against the 4th ed -vs- 3rd ed. CSM codex). At least CSM's still get to choose if they want to take, and then pay for a vet. sergeant. This means the CSM offers a higher degree of flexibility -vs- their loyalist brothers.






TheKingElessar said:


> Marines get a free Sergeant, with his Ld boost and better options - significant difference.


Well, a SM sergeant boosts the normal LD8 SM's up to a very respectable 9. However… since CSM’s start out at LD9 I would say the SM's have to pay for what the CSM's already start out with. CSM's can take an aspiring champion and boost their leadership to 10 (if I recall). SM's get ATSKNF as an army wide special rule which is very nice. *...Flexibility of not having to purchase a squad leader + overall Leadership Advantage:* _Pretty equal when all things weighed._ 





TheKingElessar said:


> Also, Marines get the option of a FREE Multi-Melta which is far and away better than anything the CSMs get, especially price-wise.


I agree. Getting a free MM is very nice. Especially in a Vulkan build. However, to be fair, we’d need to take into account all the weapon upgrades available to the CSM’s verses their loyalist brothers. CSM’s have the options of taking one assault weapon when they number 5 and either (A) another assault weapon *or* (B) a heavy weapon when they reach 10. While it is insanely cool that SM's get the option of free weapons, I find the ability to get two assault weapons in a squad allows the CSM some amazing benefits and flexibility that the SM codex can't match. Add to that their two CCW's, access to icons, etc. and you have an amazingly flexible unit that can be used as static fire support *or* as a unit to move forward, fire two assault weapons and bolt pistols, and then use 30 some attacks to try and dislodge an opponent from an objective (that since the CSM's are troops), they can now take. A SM tactical squad just simply doesn't have that same kind and degree of flexibility. I won’t even get into how tactically flexible or desirable it is to be able to field certain CSM squads with 4 assault weapons, etc. So... both have BS4. Both can take a heavy and assault weapon. SM's can get certain types of special assault and heavy weapons for free. CSM's can take 2 assault weapons if they want, adding some serious flexibility in what you can do with that squad, etc. ...*Firepower advantage + flexibility:* _ Pretty equal when all things are weighed, *but IMO slight advantage CSM's.* 
_




TheKingElessar said:


> And, frankly - any Space Marine player who would swap ATSKNF for CCWs is using the wrong Codex - that's not what that one is for. :laugh:


I only mean to point out that (IMO anyway) having two CCW has a larger impact on a game than ATSKNF. Let's take a look at it from the perspective of an ork player like myself. At I2, 3 on the charge, I'll strike second against either SM's or CSM's. Charging 10 SM's with one of my trukk boy mobs, means I'll have to endure 10 attacks before I get to strike. Charging 10 CSM's means I'll have to endure 20. SM's will hit 5, and wound 2.5 orks (which with my shirt save... I'll probably loose 2.5 orks). CSM's will hit 10 and wound 5 (and again I'll probably loose all 5). 

To the SM's I just lost 10 attacks, to the CSM's I lost 20. With my trukk boy unit I'll only need to kill 2.5 SM's to make sure I at least remain locked in combat, not loose the battle, be forced to take and possibly fail a moral check (base LD7), and to avoid risking being caught/sweeping advanced. With the CSM player I need to kill 5 CSM's (now with 20 less attacks), to make sure I don't loose. If I wiff my PK attacks at all, I'm in deep trouble. With 7 orks (12-5) left in CC, I won't be able to substitute the number or orks in the mob for my LD to gain an advantage, and I'm below 11 orks so I'm no longer fearless. Regular orks running much larger mobs wont be hurt by this as much, but I wanted to give you an idea of how CSM's affect my army way more than loyalists with ATSKNF. 

Also. While CSM's don't have ATSKNF, they can get an aspiring champion and a chaos undivided icon to get LD10 and the ability to re-roll LD tests so they don't suffer too much. Granted, a LD10 re-roll isn't as desirous as knowing you'll never be sweeping advanced, but it's still a pretty decent situation. 

CC capability on the other hand is a big deal in 40K. You may not be planning on assaulting anyone with those tac marines, but it is precisely those units that are not very good in assault that other peoples CC units want to get into HtH with. So which unit would you rather have when charged? SM's or CSM's?

Not to mention the difference in the two armies basic troop choices when it comes to clearing and taking an objective. Let's take a look at a situation where a 10 man SM tac squad with an assault weapon and heavy weapon try to clear an objective near the end of a game -vs- a 10 man CSM with two assault weapons trying to do the same. Say it's near the end of the game and they each need to get an enemy unit to break and run off the objective so that they can claim it for the victory.

The 10 man tac squad moves up fires bolt pistols and their assault weapon (their heavy weapon is useless), then charge with 20 attacks.

The 10 man CSM squad moves up fires bolt pistols and 2 assault weapons, then charge with 30 attacks. 

You can upgrade the sergeant or aspiring champion's weapons if you want to mix things up, but assuming they're similarly armed, I'd say the CSM's stand a way better chance of getting the enemy to break in CC and run. ...*CC Advantage:* _CSM’s 
_




TheKingElessar said:


> CSM do so well at US GTs because most players (in the world, not just the US) are crap, and the percentage of people still playing CSM and crap is lower than with, say, SM, IG, BA, SW or Orks. Composition scored events help them massively too.


well as long as everything’s equal (i.e. crap) :laugh: then I’d say CSM’s showing up in the top three for 1/3 of the GT’s is pretty good. That means that all things being equal, CSM’s are getting in the top fairly often. I guess, when I look at that anyway, I'd say that's pretty competitive. 


Again… I’m not saying that SM’s are bad. They’re not. Only saying that CSM’s are far from bad, and even have a leg up on their loyalist brothers (especially where CC and clearing/taking objectives are concerned).


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

:laugh:

Ok. Quick CSM related Question - If Kharn was 8/5/5/4/3/6/7/10/2+, 4++ with Gorechild as is (and with Rending), Plasma Pistol, Hand Flamer, Frag, Krak, Eternal warrior, Rage, FC, Fearless and the ability to take up to 12 Zerk squads...would FnP be too much? lol


EDIT: I was Ninja'd by Uber Ork and so none of this is in reply to him, but to CDH.

Uber Ork - sometime it isn't 3:30am you'll get a response from me.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

uh yeah, fnp would be too much with that, and how many points we talking? like 250?


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> EDIT: I was Ninja'd by Uber Ork and so none of this is in reply to him, but to CDH.
> 
> Uber Ork - sometime it isn't 3:30am you'll get a response from me.


Yes! I ninja'd you! :laugh:

As always... I look forward to your well thought out and reasoned response. Now... *get to bed!*:grin:


----------



## moo (Aug 12, 2008)

I have to admit i agree with Svarmetal's opinion on the matter is that our selection dropped quite considerably, not that we aren't powerful but look at the fast attack options for example.
-CSM gets raptors, bikes and spawn (which i really don't consider a fast unit)
most other dexes get alot more choice in that respect. Sure we have alot of troops choices which are dead hard but they are the remnants of the cult lists. 

For me GW need to bring out (like they do marines) separate cult army books, extra sales for them and they appease use chaotic types. Similar to how they used to have a separate dex for eldar craftworlds. But i'm not really a gamer i prefer fluffy armies and painting them so having a cult army dex would be pure joy for me as i can do that properly again instead of this weird generic limitation.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

moo said:


> I have to admit i agree with Svarmetal's opinion on the matter is that our selection dropped quite considerably, not that we aren't powerful but look at the fast attack options for example.


Yeah... that's the case with everyone. Everyone is loosing their ability to customize, and has GW meddling with their armies in an effort to "shape" them into what they feel is the iconic army they've created. 

For example. SM players used to take a lot of 5-6 man las cannon/plasma gun squads. GW designers felt that wasn't iconic of SM's so they took it away. They said 10 man squads are how SM's are supposed to be, and so made it that you couldn't access to assault or heavy weapons until you reached the 10 men in the squad. In addition they're getting rid of the armories in each new codex, and are only giving the wargear choices for each unit they feel are, again, iconic, for that unit. 

We can see them doing this on a macro scale with the game as a whole as well. They felt people were taking too much liberty in how they shaped their armies and as a result were creating armies that were not iconic of how the armies they created (much less any real army) would function. Their answer? Take control and through game design, change the rule system, and force people to reshape their armies. What was the rule change you ask? They made it so you needed to take more troops, by making them the only units able to hold objectives. 

I hear your guys pain, but it isn't just you... this is everyone. It's the game as a whole. ...No one has the freedom they once had in 3rd ed. Once their armies 4th ed codex comes out they find those choices are gone. GK's will soon be next. They'll see their armory wiped, and their codex shaped, just like the rest of us. 

It's interesting to note, this all happened about the time Andy Chambers left GW. 

I don't have any proof, so this is purely conjecture, but I think there was a power struggle for the future direction of GW. I think Chambers represented the freedom camp and Jervis Johnson (+ others?) represented the control camp. Well... we know who won. Andy is gone, and the codex's and game system as a whole have been changing.

Looking at the EoT I remember reading articles about how there was disagreement on how it should be done. There again it was the "give the people freedom camp," and the "control" camp as well. The freedom camp won, and the EoT was hands down the best campaign ever. When Medusa V came out I had high hopes, but with the control camp firmly entrenched the campaign was junk compared to EoT. You couldn't choose where to place your victories, you couldn't choose your mission, etc. You were forced to one location with one mission for your race, etc. 


So while I don't agree with any of those saying the CSM codex is weak and uncompetitive, I do agree with the frustration you feel at GW's "streamlining" of the system which many feel is a dressed up word for control. I too, as well as many who played in those days, agree that freedom was a good thing for the game. 

I like the simplicity of the game system that's come out of GW's streamlining efforts (i.e. no longer needing to waste time guessing with guess weapons), and I even don't mind the 5th ed change in needing troops to take objectives (as new challenges keep the game from getting boring), but I do dislike the loss of freedom within the codex's.

This makes the codex's degenerate into a few power builds that everyone unimaginatively plays.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

> For me GW need to bring out (like they do marines) separate cult army books


They can just include rules for cult armies in the new book. Having codex templars, dark angels, blood angels, space wolves, regular marines, chaos marines, thousand sons, world eaters, emperors children, and death guard would be way tooo much put into marines. Its already a little excessive. 

Also, I dont think its been mentioned. But I believe gw was planning a codex chaos legions around the time of the release of the previous book. This would have given the actual legions more often, and the current book would be codex chaos pirate marines. I think it fell through though.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Uber Ork said:


> Yeah... that's the case with everyone. Everyone is loosing their ability to customize, and has GW meddling with their armies in an effort to "shape" them into what they feel is the iconic army they've created.


No, that's not what is wrong with. Codex:CSM. Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Dark Eldar don't have wargear lists anymore and myriad options nobody took anyway. Sure that's cool. Chaos Marines have vast swaths of totally USELESS units. All but one HQ choice, Half the Troops, ALL the Fast Attack.

This isn't about loss of customization, it's about making them Codex: Spikey Marines but then turning around and giving Loyalists all sorts of badass options. 

Seriously, look at how awesome the SM book is. There are at least 5 different hard as nails builds in that book. Chaos barely gets by with one.

I'd still like to kick Gavin in the nads.:ireful2:

Oh, and Chuggin, PULEEEEASE change that avatar.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Don't blame Gav - he was the monkey with the pen, not the orchestrator of Jervisness!


----------



## Jereko (Jan 12, 2011)

Isn't it a bit premature to complain about a 4th edition army in 5th edition that doesn't work as well as a 5th edition army in 5th edition? Although they are all suppose to be competative, there will be differences. WH for instance pay more for Grenade Launchers and Rhinos compared to the IG and SM.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Jereko said:


> Isn't it a bit premature to complain about a 4th edition army in 5th edition that doesn't work as well as a 5th edition army in 5th edition?


It's a bit silly, but I have been saying this since Day One.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

. . . and in summation, "streamlining" is bemoaned on all sides by all armies and chaos marines (and all other remaining 4th ed codices) need more variety in their useful units.



If ÜberOrk is right, then it is a sorry state of affairs. What started out as a system for building with variety and uniqueness where the goal was fun, is being reduced steadily until each possibly list is simply another shade or another hue of the same 'iconic' army.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

He's not. All of the current era of books are filled with fun and useful units. So much so it's very hard to make an army list, which is a sign of a good codex.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

DeathKlokk said:


> He's not. All of the current era of books are filled with fun and useful units. So much so it's very hard to make an army list, which is a sign of a good codex.


Then why are you complaining about the current CSM codex? :laugh:


I agree about adding new units though. GW has indeed done a splendid job at that. However, your comments lead me to believe that you didn't play the game during 2nd or 3rd editions. Did you? 

Anyone who would have played during those editions would back this up I'm sure, that there is less flexibility with wargear and options for each unit than players once had. 

2nd ed to 3rd ed lost a ton of crazy, imaginative, and unique weapons. In an effort to streamline they distilled special weapons into a few categories ("this acts as a power weapon, or a PF," etc.). They also removed an entire phase of the game to get things down to the three phases we currently use (move, shoot, assault). They got rid of strategy and wargear cards, and reduced the number of things you could do in a game like "overwatch," etc. 

They changed the game mechanics as well. They revamped and simplified close combat, vehicle damage, etc. They weren't necessarily bad moves mind you. They streamlined things to make the game less complicated and move faster. The time it took to play a game was reduced, and that... if anything, was a good thing.


3rd ed to 4th ed. The game mechanics didn't change too much, but the codex's did. The armories and freedom of how you could equip anyone from a veteran sergeant to a force commander (3rd ed equivalent to a SM captain) was lost. GW began to move the pendulum of "streamline" further away from player control to fitting what GW felt was iconic for a particular army.


4th ed to 5th ed has continued this trend. Less freedom and more restriction.



However, again, I do agree *DeathKlokk* that GW has done an excellent job of adding fun new units (and thus flavor) to each army. Even though the players are loosing freedom in wargear and options, sometimes the new and fun units are very useful. For example, 3rd ed. ork lootas were very different to those found in the 4th ed ork codex. The 3rd ed unit allowed you unprecedented control in how you wanted to equip it, however, the 4th ed lootas are considerably more popular, effective, and widely used than their previous 3rd ed. counterparts (not to mention GW finally made models for them  ). At other times the new units blow. In the 3rd ed ork codex orks could loot an I.G. Leman Russ or basilisk... now, the looted wagon is a cookie cutter piece of garbage compared to what orks used to have access to. At other times units have completely disappeared while fun new ones were introduced. For example the orks lost an incredibly cool and popular unit (cyborks), but picked up the very fun and entertaining (if not widely used) shokk attack gun (a hugely popular weapon back from the old 2nd ed days).

In the end though... GW adding fun and useful units to the codex *does nothing* to change the fact that streamlining individual unit entries (i.e. restricting what wargear and options they have access to) has diminished the freedom players once had in shaping their units. Yes, you have more units to choose from. So in some ways that adds options, but you also have way less freedom in how you outfit them. The result is each unit being somewhat cookie cutter, or as GW would describe it, iconic to how the army's supposed to be played.

I wish I had the design note quotes from Matt Ward when he described why he made the changes he did to the 5th ed SM codex. Maybe I'll try and locate them tomorrow so I can put this argument to rest.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Now we can have Cybork bodies on EVERYONE though. Even Grots. :laugh:

And *I* used Lootas, I have a squad converted up with Splinter Cannons. But the 'use this other Codex' mechanic is stupid and had to go.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> Now we can have Cybork bodies on EVERYONE though.


yeah, but not T5 anymore. And for some reason... I don't know (...can't really put my finger on it), it doesn't _*feel*_ like the same concept. I know 'technically' it's the same idea... Remember the sweet conversions people used to model and field? Maybe that's it... I miss T5 and the modeling that unit used to inspire...




TheKingElessar said:


> Even Grots. :laugh:


I wonder if anyone's ever tried this.  8 point grots... :laugh:




TheKingElessar said:


> And *I* used Lootas, I have a squad converted up with Splinter Cannons. But the 'use this other Codex' mechanic is stupid and had to go.


Yes I agree. I was using this unit to demonstrate how things got changed for the better. Went from a semi-useful unit that not very many ork players used, to a very popular, effective, unit that a lot of ork players used. 

I think every new codex release has a bit of this. Stuff that got junked (man I miss my looted leman russ) and cool new stuff that is a vast improvement over the previous incarnation.


----------



## Eliphas The Inheritor (Dec 29, 2010)

i dont think the codex is actually screwed up


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Kreuger said:


> . . . and in summation, "streamlining" is bemoaned on all sides by all armies and chaos marines (and all other remaining 4th ed codices) need more variety in their useful units.
> 
> 
> 
> If ÜberOrk is right, then it is a sorry state of affairs. What started out as a system for building with variety and uniqueness where the goal was fun, is being reduced steadily until each possibly list is simply another shade or another hue of the same 'iconic' army.


That is exactly what is happening.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

So after reading all 8 pages of this thread i have decided to revise my original post... 

Apparently everyone fucked up and we are all in time out. 

Goodnight everybody! And god bless!


----------



## darthw (Jan 7, 2011)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> So after reading all 8 pages of this thread i have decided to revise my original post...
> 
> Apparently everyone fucked up and we are all in time out.
> 
> Goodnight everybody! And god bless!


LOL I love this logic. Apparently the 10 DE players from 3rd edition are also in time out. No webway portals on Reavers, total nerf of Drazhar, and allowing Eldar units in our codex.:angry:

the only other dex I can compare is SMs, and I will say I am disappointed the chapter divergences are gone, that was one of my favorite aspects of the 4th ed.

Dexes get nerfed, such is life of a GW gamer.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Are they trying to turn it back into Space Hulk or something?
I bought the game for the coolness and variety, not because of how hard/easy it was to learn to play...


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

The CSM (and any other Codex for that matter) is only dull, unimaginative and same-y if you don't use any imagination in your use of it. 

For example, I have a Chaos Eldar army. The models are based around the fall of Ker Ys from the Daemon Codex. Eldar, all possessed or mutated by Slaanesh. I use the figures to represent both Daemon and CSM armies. Yes the Codex has a fairly standard issue choice system, but the army itself is fun as a result of the imagination put into it. 

Likewise my SoB army has dinosaurs for tanks, and I'm trying to find a way to mount my Seraphim of something that flies to add some visual flavour. The army list is the same almost every time, but that doesn't stop the army being _fun_. 

You get out what you put in.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Some of you think this DE Codex is *WORSE*?!?!?! :shok:


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

DE book is pretty disappointing, GW really needs to learn how to write xenos books. With that said, its not nearly as bad as the chaos book


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

I agree with Chug, the DE dex is fairly underwhelming, but not nearly as bad as the chaos codex or the old DE.... Which was pathetic. Really, for it's age, the chaos codex is holding up admirably. Sure, it isn't upper tier, or even upper middle tier, but did you really expect it to be when it was made for a different system?


----------



## .Kevin. (Jan 10, 2011)

I feel that it wouldnt be chaos space marines if you had just daemons and some marines, I like the idea of just marines now but shit needs to be fixed again


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

GW needs to do 3 things...

(1) Give people more freedom


(2) Extensively play test these codex's with people *not* in the employ of GW

and

(3) Open channels for proper feedback from their consumers




#1.....Not much to say here, but I think GW has let the pendulum swing a bit too far from lots of freedom, complexity, and because of it longer game times to less freedom, more streamlined, and simpler/quicker to learn and play. If I were to take an initial stab for how GW might improve this... I'd say keep the game system simple, but allow more freedom in the dexes. For instance, keep the direction of 5th ed, but reverse the dexes back towards 3rd ed but more detailed (3rd ed dexes were very naked -- no fluff, super basic descriptions, etc. because the change from 2nd - 3rd ed was so drastic. They just had to crank them out so that people could have playable armies.).



#2.....I get GW's need for secrecy, but they could get people to sign legally binding secrecy agreements and threaten to sue the pants off people who talk as TV networks do with reality TV show contestants, etc. They used to go outside of GW more, but even then it was more of an old boys club and only people who had connections to GW staffers, etc. Thats not what I'm talking about at all...

They need to get power gamers who are from the 'ard boyz top echelons (+ other appropriately competitive tournaments around the world) and turn them loose upon one another. Half with the new codex, half with the most power gamer abused dexes currently available and let them go at it. Then switch so the other half and let them have a chance with the new dex, etc. Let them go back and forth a while and you'll quickly found out how the codex can be abused. Make adjustments to the dex and repeat until you've got a solid dex.

Best part of this for GW is that a *ton* of people would do this *for free!* In the end it wouldn't cost GW much past the organizational aspect. They don't need to advertise, it would be invitation only from the best players who've proved themselves over a few years that they top flight generals.

This way they'd have a better chance of all the dexes (over time) becoming equally competitive. Don't you think those guys could have told you how ridiculously overpowered some of the current dexes are over other dexes? Having something like this would help GW predict the ways super competitive players will create powerful builds, and ether (A) make sure all the dexes can compete at that level, or (B) that no dex is super powered over another, etc. 

Fluff oriented people can still play that way, have fun, and be creative no matter how uncompetitive their respective codex is. They're more interested in having fun, a good background story for the battle their having, creating a fluffy list, etc. Power gamers however will either hang up their cleats if their new dex got neutered, or will only gravitate to the super competitive lists so they can crush. Working to make all the dexes equally 'ard would make everyone happy. Fluff, fun oriented players can play each other with any list that's imaginative (and GW has always, and is continuing to do, a great job at fluff). Power gamers, or competitive/fluff hybrids like myself, are the ones 
who get bummed in the current way GW does things. Probably more competitive/fluff hybrids than power gamers as PG's are (aside from financial aspects) just as fine playing whatever army is the most powerful. Hybrids like myself feel drawn to the fluff in the army(s) they like, but get left out in the cold when it ceases to be competitive against power builds. 

This is largely what's at issue with this thread. Hybrids who feel a love for CSM's are frustrated that their list (while competitive) struggles to compete with the power gamers who were either (A) lucky that the army they loved was blessed with a power dex, or (B) was happy to move over to the newest and latest power army out there. It is just simply clear that when looking at the dexes not all things are created equal. SW -vs- Vanilla SM's for example. Both are 5th ed dexes. Both are competitive, full of fluff, etc. But only one is an upper tier power army. 

*as a side note... they could do this with new editions as well to make sure everything is tight and well put together as well.




#3.....Lastly, have GW create a place for online customer feedback for marketing purposes. These would not be discussion format as that just degenerates into senseless banter (much like many forum threads on these types of subjects... this sucks, no it doesn't, yes it does, etc.). Instead they could be a multiple choice, click the issues you're concerned about, etc. format. This way a computer can process the results (no need to pay for an employee aside from initial web design set up). There could be a comment section limited to a word count of say 25-50 words or less that would force people to be more disciplined in their comments. In addition, they can have a drop down category select menu (i.e. my comment is about _______) to better help GW process the information. This way if they get 10,000 comments for one issue and 300 for another, they can focus their attention on the issue that 10,000 people care about. 

They could even log a computers IP address so that an individual can only make a comment from that machine once a month. Could also make you register with them so that you have to log on to comment, etc. It wouldn't completely eliminate abuse... but it would help, and in the end they could just factor a margin of multiple survey fraud, like most company's do. 

Taking the time to review comments would be a lot of work, but if enough people care about something that would potentially help their bottom line (sales), I would imagine it would be very much worth it. This is why so many companies create an avenue for feedback or due surveys, focus groups, etc. They could even purposely leave out the topic of "cost" in their drop down subject select menu for comments to avoid getting 200,000 comments about how they need to charge less. 

In the end, focus groups can be amazingly useful for determining what the people who buy your products to care about. While I'm not certain GW doesn't already do this, it is clear to us they aren't actively seeking our feedback (other than Jervis in his standard bearer article, but... well... no comment). I think attaching something like this to their website would only benefit them. (1) They're not obligated to do what we say, and (2) if they see something that they feel improve their bottom line, they could move on that.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

A) GW cant afford to drop prices right now.
B) Ard Boyz is the *least* competitive major event I can think of off the top of my head.
C) Vanilla SMs are NOT a Tier below Space Wolves, it's just a different style of army that most players are unable to achieve.
D) GW would need to pay people to read them. While I *like* the idea, I'd rather Phil Kelly et al continued as they have been for the past 24 months instead - Codex, Army Book, Codex, FAQ, Army Book, FAQ, Codex, etc etc.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> A) GW cant afford to drop prices right now.


said nothing about this...




TheKingElessar said:


> B) Ard Boyz is the *least* competitive major event I can think of off the top of my head.


and your reasoning is? ...Certainly didn't limit it to 'ard boys but said...


> from the 'ard boyz top echelons (+ other appropriately competitive tournaments around the world)


The part in parenthesis would cover whatever "competitive major event" you would be thinking of... 




TheKingElessar said:


> C) Vanilla SMs are NOT a Tier below Space Wolves, it's just a different style of army that most players are unable to achieve.


**sigh** (the sigh I actually uttered was much longer, but it's hard to convey these things via written text). 
Ok... place the codex you feel appropriately belongs a tier below SW's. 

I thus amend my earlier statement (as we often get sidetracked onto these unimportant issues and fail to keep focused on the central issue being discussed)...


> It is just simply clear that when looking at the dexes not all things are created equal. SW -vs- Vanilla SM's for example. Both are 5th ed dexes. Both are competitive, full of fluff, etc. But only one is an upper tier power army.


Should be changed to...

_"It is just simply clear that when looking at the dexes not all things are created equal. SW -vs- ________ (insert codex you feel is appropriate) for example. Both (may or may not be -- depending on the codex you feel is appropriate) competitive, full of fluff, etc. But only one is an upper tier power army."_ 




TheKingElessar said:


> D) GW would need to pay people to read them. While I *like* the idea, I'd rather Phil Kelly et al continued as they have been for the past 24 months instead - Codex, Army Book, Codex, FAQ, Army Book, FAQ, Codex, etc etc.


Excellent addition.  I move we add this to the advice already given. GW gets play testers _*and*_ quality rules control from outside their company... and we're all happy because of it!


Edit: Oh and I might add spell checkers!


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Yeah TKE you kinda missed the important points of uber orks post. I wish that some high up GW employees used heresy and read that post. Perhaps its ideological but its true.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Uber Ork said:


> GW needs to do 3 things...
> 
> (1) Give people more freedom


More freedom to do what? You asking for streamlined main rules but dexs full of things that modify them? It defeats the purpose of having a streamlined game.

One of the main issues that GW had with the CSM dex in 3rd edition was it was horrible for organized play. People were taking war gear and other options that weren't allowed, but the book had too much stuff in it so not every judge knew every detail of the book. This is what GW wanted to stop, they aren't going to do a huge step backwards now.



> (2) Extensively play test these codex's with people *not* in the employ of GW


I've got to agree here, myself and others have said this in a few different threads. Doing this is not as easy as it seems however. They can't/won't send out unpublished Codexs to stores/homes to be play tested, and organizing an event would cost big bucks for each codex/army book if they took winners from all over the world. Lastly people would only do it for free if GW was paying for the entire trip, no one will do it on their own dime.

Also for this to actually work, you would have to have a competition where there were no soft scores, run by GW. 



> and
> 
> (3) Open channels for proper feedback from their consumers


Online survey wouldn't do all that much. Most companies use them to check on problem stores. They would only do something at the company wide level if every single survey came back with "Dude, this sucks."

Good ideas, but poor implementation would make them all backfire.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Even though I know this is pipe dream, I wish GW would write all their codices for a given edition concurrently, then release them sequentially.

Developing them all at once and then releasing them all at once would be great, but I know they couldn'ty sustain the 'buzz' around new armies without sequential releases.

Even if they did a beta level draft for every army upon release of a new edition, it would help balance the playing field as the books change with the addition of new units before actual release.

In other words, the armies are all basically balanced before the new boxed edition is released. The new ed is released. The first new codex comes out, and will have some modifications over the basic dex but an eye towards the target power level. Then new dexs come out etc etc. 

*Shrug* balance seems something best achieved with 1 crop of books, not with a string of sequential ones.

cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Ard Boyz (briefly) rewards players who win big, as opposed to taking reliable lists. It has too many players in relation to games to give you anything like a half-decent sample of the field, which leads to match-up being the only important factor. Shit army lists run by average players win local Ard Boyz all the time, weakening the later stages by progressing and giving someone an easier ride than should be the case at any national level finals event.

Most Codexes, even the older ones, can actually fill their FoC under 1000 points (try it - I spent an evening doing this once, great fun!) and without a multiple FoC system in place as standard for 2500point games the FoC breaks down and proves inadequate.

Missions are usually very VERY badly designed and lopsided based on the personal biases of the person(s) involved...last year there was a triple KP mission that hugely advanteaged the army used at the event by the guy who wrote the missions (who shouldn't even be allowed to participate!)

Essentially, the use of Battle points, oversized armies and screwed up missions rewards shit players, who beat even shitter players by stupid margins while decent players scrape by each other.

That's a brief overview (something probably omitted) of why Ard Boys isn't competitive.

My point above (was very pressed for time, so wasn't clear enough - sorry. Sadly, this is all too common for me when posting...) - *ahem* - was that there are actually very few competitively evaluative events, and in fact winning a Tournament, or not, is no true indication of your ability to playtest thoroughly and adequately.

I would have to say the level of external GW playtesting doesn't seem to be the problem so much as the response to said playtesting. Just because they listen to all the feedback doesn't mean any of it is implemented...I spoke to a playtester from the CSM book, and he KNEW how things would go down, and told them as much.

I misread re prices, my apologies.  I was Russian, again.

Finally, re Codex Balance...I will never agree that the current crop of 5e Codexes aren't within the same 'tier' or 'bracket'. The ones from other Editions shouldn't be expected to be...the fact that Eldar, WH, Orks and CSM are still as good as they are is to be commended - I wish Games Designers ever got credit for their Codexes withstanding Edition Changes so well instead of just getting slated all the time.

(I wish someone from the Design Team would be on Heresy and read THIS post! )

I sincerely would love for GW to give me a job literally just writing FAQs. Part time, and with an NDA, but license to use Forums and my blog to collate data (and continue to act as now, :wink: ) Especially if it led to even better Codexes because of less division of labour.

EDIT:
@Kreuger - well, the BT and DA FAQs giving them new points costs and equipment seems someone at GW may agree with you.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> More freedom to do what? You asking for streamlined main rules but dexs full of things that modify them? It defeats the purpose of having a streamlined game.


*sigh* Covered this in the very post you're referring to already...



Uber Ork said:


> If I were to take an initial stab for how GW might improve this... I'd say keep the game system simple, but allow more freedom in the dexes. For instance, keep the direction of 5th ed, but reverse the dexes back towards 3rd ed but more detailed (3rd ed dexes were very naked -- no fluff, super basic descriptions, etc. because the change from 2nd - 3rd ed was so drastic. They just had to crank them out so that people could have playable armies.).






Wusword77 said:


> One of the main issues that GW had with the CSM dex in 3rd edition was it was horrible for organized play. People were taking war gear and other options that weren't allowed, but the book had too much stuff in it so not every judge knew every detail of the book. This is what GW wanted to stop, they aren't going to do a huge step backwards now.


:laugh: I think you're being a bit over dramatic, not to mention misinformed... 

For instance... guess how many wargear descriptions were found in the "Space Marine Wargear" & "Space Marine Vehicle Upgrade" sections found on pg. 34-35 of the 3rd ed. codex? No need to look it up, I'll tell you (although it's always good to check for yourself)  

...34


Now guess how many wargear descriptions are found in the sections of th 5th edition SM codex pg. 97-103?

...76


There's way more units (sternguard, vanguard, thunderfire cannon, land raider redeemer, ironclad dreadnought, etc. etc. etc.), way more types of weapons & ammo (auxiliary grenade launchers, astartes grenade launchers, conversion beamer, relic blades, digital weapons, combat shields, hellfire shells, kraken bolts, dragonfire bolts, etc. etc. etc.). :laugh: Your argument about over complexity of the 3rd ed codex's makes absolutely no sense... 

The issue has nothing to do with complexity.

What I'm driving at is you could have it like we did in 3rd ed where you could decide to, or not to, upgrade to a tac squad veteran sergeant (freedom), *OR* you could have it like we do in 5th ed where you have no choice and have to pay for and thus take vet. (GW control). You could have it like you did in 3rd ed where you could give your veteran tac sergeant (that is if you even chose to upgrade him to that) a certain amount of points worth of wargear from virtually anything in the wargear list (freedom), *OR* you could have GW tell you your veteran sergeant can only choose from a total of 8 items (GW control).

I'm saying, I like the 5th ed game system with it's streamlining the game mechanics and making the game play simpler/faster (i.e. no more guessing the ranges of guess weapons, etc. -- waste of time IMO), but I'd like to go back to the freedom we had in the 3rd edition dexes.





Wusword77 said:


> I've got to agree here, myself and others have said this in a few different threads. Doing this is not as easy as it seems however. They can't/won't send out unpublished Codexs to stores/homes to be play tested, and organizing an event would cost big bucks for each codex/army book if they took winners from all over the world. Lastly people would only do it for free if GW was paying for the entire trip, no one will do it on their own dime.


Wow... :laugh: you really do this the hard way. :biggrin: They don't need to fly them in. Just have individuals who check out, are willing to sign the legal gag forms, and have them download the dex over a secure website. Of course they'd have to change their policies, as they don't do that now, but that's the whole point of my post. For them to change what they're doing. :grin: I'm not talking about thousands of people, maybe 10-14 people who by invitation might be willing to do this and abide by the rules. They clearly would have to be people from similar areas, most likely in pairs. These two guys from the tourney that was held in this city, those two from the tourney over there, etc. They could even be pairs in different countries if GW so desired. That's 5-7 different groups play testing and 10-14 people to track. Clearly these gag orders are affective as it's kept way more people than this, over many many years from "spoiling" the shows before they come out. It appears to be a system that works. If it doesn't, then GW only has 10-14 people to look into. 





Wusword77 said:


> Also for this to actually work, you would have to have a competition where there were no soft scores, run by GW.


Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about a tournament. I'm talking about play testers who would be chosen (invited) to be a part of this because they are the winners of the most competitive tourneys (yes, those without soft scores). This group of people from outside of GW would test the games and give GW their feedback. With modern tech, this could be done in many different ways, but the end result is GW would get a better idea of what power gamers are going to do (or not be able to do) with the dex, and make changes accordingly . 





Wusword77 said:


> Online survey wouldn't do all that much. Most companies use them to check on problem stores. They would only do something at the company wide level if every single survey came back with "Dude, this sucks."


Boy... you're hard to please aren't you.  Clearly none of these things are infallible, but getting customer feedback can (and often does) lead to creating a better product. Creating a better product that the people are interested in (you know this cause they told you) can and often does lead to increased profits... not to mention happier customers. :grin:





Wusword77 said:


> Good ideas, but poor implementation would make them all backfire.


Well wouldn't that be the case in *every* area of life? :laugh:




Edit: *TheKingElessar*... heading out on a date with the Mrs. ...I'll get back to you later tonight. Well... tonight my time anyway.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Uber Ork said:


> *sigh* Covered this in the very post you're referring to already...
> 
> :laugh: I think you're being a bit over dramatic, not to mention misinformed...
> 
> ...


Except comparing the 3rd ed CSM dex to 4th ed, you find that 3rd edition had 121 options, including psy powers and demonic gifts, vs 70 (might have miss counted this one) in 4th edition.

The other side of the coin is that while the new SM dex has more wargear it can't be picked by anyone in the codex with the "ability to pick equipment from the Space Marine Armory." The different ammo for Sternguard are only usable by them (except Hellfire shells, some HQs can take just them), while other units are limited in what gear they can equip. Only HQ units have a wide choice of options, as it should be. Most armies wouldn't allow their best equipment to be assigned to random Sergeant of a squad. GW is trying to get away from the HeroHammer aspect this game used to have. Giving options like that would only bring us back to that.

I also counted 45 options for wargear for SM in the 3rd edition book, but that isn't the point.



> The issue has nothing to do with complexity.
> 
> What I'm driving at is you could have it like we did in 3rd ed where you could decide to, or not to, upgrade to a tac squad veteran sergeant (freedom), *OR* you could have it like we do in 5th ed where you have no choice and have to pay for and thus take vet. (GW control). You could have it like you did in 3rd ed where you could give your veteran tac sergeant (that is if you even chose to upgrade him to that) a certain amount of points worth of wargear from virtually anything in the wargear list (freedom), *OR* you could have GW tell you your veteran sergeant can only choose from a total of 8 items (GW control).
> 
> I'm saying, I like the 5th ed game system with it's streamlining the game mechanics and making the game play simpler/faster (i.e. no more guessing the ranges of guess weapons, etc. -- waste of time IMO), but I'd like to go back to the freedom we had in the 3rd edition dexes.


Giving more options is the exact opposite of streamlining though. Keeping the options on the army list limited makes it easier for judges, tournament officials and players to review the list and check it for problems. I get what you're saying, and there are times I wish they would add more role playing elements into the game, but GW seems to have 40k going in the direction of being a organized play focused game (imo). Adding in a ton of options for any character to take would hinder that direction.



> Wow... :laugh: you really do this the hard way. :biggrin: They don't need to fly them in. Just have individuals who check out, are willing to sign the legal gag forms, and have them download the dex over a secure website. Of course they'd have to change their policies, as they don't do that now, but that's the whole point of my post. For them to change what they're doing. :grin: I'm not talking about thousands of people, maybe 10-14 people who by invitation might be willing to do this and abide by the rules. They clearly would have to be people from similar areas, most likely in pairs. These two guys from the tourney that was held in this city, those two from the tourney over there, etc. They could even be pairs in different countries if GW so desired. That's 5-7 different groups play testing and 10-14 people to track. Clearly these gag orders are affective as it's kept way more people than this, over many many years from "spoiling" the shows before they come out. It appears to be a system that works. If it doesn't, then GW only has 10-14 people to look into.


10-14 people wouldn't be enough to really test/review a new rule set, GW would need quite a bit more then that. You would also have the problem of the new play test rules being leaked. The testers could simply claim "Oh I got hacked and someone must have posted it online," having the testers around in person would minimize the chances of a leak.



> Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about a tournament. I'm talking about play testers who would be chosen (invited) to be a part of this because they are the winners of the most competitive tourneys (yes, those without soft scores). This group of people from outside of GW would test the games and give GW their feedback. With modern tech, this could be done in many different ways, but the end result is GW would get a better idea of what power gamers are going to do (or not be able to do) with the dex, and make changes accordingly .


No, I don't think I was being clear with what I said. I didn't mean a single event, but rather many events that could be held all over the world that is run by GW. GW's rules, regulations, and supported by them. Third party events would be too local, and tougher to track. Having an online database of players in these events would allow GW to see rankings based on how players do in every event they play in, similar to how most TCGS are currently done.



> Boy... you're hard to please aren't you.  Clearly none of these things are infallible, but getting customer feedback can (and often does) lead to creating a better product. Creating a better product that the people are interested in (you know this cause they told you) can and often does lead to increased profits... not to mention happier customers. :grin:


Nah not hard to please, I've just worked in retail my whole life. I've seen these online surveys, and they tend to do jack shit for customers. One company I worked at had people putting in the comment box that they waited too long on the check out line due to lack of cashiers, corporate orders were to pull employees off the sales floor to ring them up. Next month complaints were customers couldn't find anyone on the sales floor, and the cycle continued until I left the company. I've had friends complain about this type of crap from a bunch of different retail chains.

God it's late, I should have left this for tomorrow. I know I'm missing something.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

I guess there really is a lot of different ways to look at/define competitive. I do understand what you're saying. For this situation though, I was looking for people who are power gamer types, who exploit the codex for all it has and go to a tournament with others just like them. No soft scores, just to power gamers going at it. The goal would be to get the power gamer's power gamer and invite him or her to be a part of play testing.

This way we can find out what the abuses are going to be, before the codex is printed and we have to wait years for it to be fixed, or if GW wanted they could make each codex equally exploitable so no one codex is considerably above another. 




TheKingElessar said:


> Ard Boyz (briefly) rewards players who win big, as opposed to taking reliable lists.


I think we're saying the same thing here. If not I apologize, but this is the abuse (or part of it anyway) I'm speaking of. 




TheKingElessar said:


> It has too many players in relation to games to give you anything like a half-decent sample of the field, which leads to match-up being the only important factor.


You're saying they don't play enough rounds? Or that they need to have more smaller tournaments where people get to play more people so that a champion is more accurately crowned before moving onto the next round? Or both?




TheKingElessar said:


> Shit army lists run by average players win local Ard Boyz all the time, weakening the later stages by progressing and giving someone an easier ride than should be the case at any national level finals event.


As long as the strongest make it through to the end, I don't see this being too much of a problem. It's like any playoff system. There's going to be a team that gets a fluke win, but as the playoffs progress (usually) their luck runs out and the teams that deserve to be there win out.





TheKingElessar said:


> Most Codexes, even the older ones, can actually fill their FoC under 1000 points (try it - I spent an evening doing this once, great fun!) and without a multiple FoC system in place as standard for 2500point games the FoC breaks down and proves inadequate.


I agree. This is simply a shameless effort to sell more models just like Apocalypse was. Don't blame GW. They are a business, but I can see what you're saying, it just allows people to buy and bring everything in their codex (or a good chunk of it anyway). Still, as long as it's an equal points match, there's no soft scores, and power gamers are present... they'll find _*some*_ way to power game. They just will. It's in their nature...





TheKingElessar said:


> Missions are usually very VERY badly designed and lopsided based on the personal biases of the person(s) involved...last year there was a triple KP mission that hugely advanteaged the army used at the event by the guy who wrote the missions (who shouldn't even be allowed to participate!)


Very lame. :nono: This not only gives the guy a bad name, but the store & GW as well.





TheKingElessar said:


> Essentially, the use of Battle points, oversized armies and screwed up missions rewards shit players, who beat even shitter players by stupid margins while decent players scrape by each other.


I understand the disdain for this system, but it's the predominate system. It's like taxes... what are you gonna do? Where there are games, there are power gamers. Where there are tournaments, there are power gamers. Where there are tourneys that take away soft scores and just allow you to power game if you want... there are definitely power gamers. My point isn't so much that 'ard boyz tourneys are amazing because I don't think that at all... only to say anywhere GW can find a power gamer's power gamer, that's where they should look. Find them. Recruit them. Use them to find out what abuses, or lack of abuses, are likely to come from this codex before the dex becomes official and you have to live with it for years before a replacement.





TheKingElessar said:


> That's a brief overview (something probably omitted) of why Ard Boys isn't competitive.


Thank you sir. 





TheKingElessar said:


> My point above (was very pressed for time, so wasn't clear enough - sorry. Sadly, this is all too common for me when posting...) - *ahem* - was that there are actually very few competitively evaluative events, and in fact winning a Tournament, or not, is no true indication of your ability to playtest thoroughly and adequately.


Any thoughts as to where a good place for GW to find the power gamer's power gamer?





TheKingElessar said:


> I would have to say the level of external GW playtesting doesn't seem to be the problem so much as the response to said playtesting. Just because they listen to all the feedback doesn't mean any of it is implemented...I spoke to a playtester from the CSM book, and he KNEW how things would go down, and told them as much.


Yes... this would fit loosely under point #3 of mine. Listen to your consumers GW! 





TheKingElessar said:


> Finally, re Codex Balance...I will never agree that the current crop of 5e Codexes aren't within the same 'tier' or 'bracket'. The ones from other Editions shouldn't be expected to be...


Possibly... but then it's not like 4th to 5th changed so much that 4th ed codex's should be terrible and 5th amazing. Changing to troop only objectives was huge, so if your troops choices sucked from 4th ed then truly that could be contributed. Run & outflank hurt the gun line armies, but other than that I can't think of too much that would really hurt a 4th ed army. Was there anything in particular that you were thinking of? 

If it wasn't about the edition change then it's simply about the codex's themselves. GW wrote the BA, SW, etc. codexs with more on board power. More outside play-testing, and (as you very correctly said) listening to their feedback, could really help here. Either way. Either by seeking to keep each codex toned down and as free from abuse as possible, or by working harder to assure that each one is more equally powerful. 





TheKingElessar said:


> the fact that Eldar, WH, Orks and CSM are still as good as they are is to be commended - I wish Games Designers ever got credit for their Codexes withstanding Edition Changes so well instead of just getting slated all the time.


 Excellent point... I'll start.  Thank you Phil Kelly for doing a great job with the 4th ed. Ork codex. Full of flavor (revamped mob & waaagh rules, fearless -- although with a 6+ shirt save I wish they were stubborn instead,  ramshackle, etc.) and great new units (SAG, Nob mobz, great special characters, re-vamped lootas, etc.)! Apart from the departed Andy Chambers... you've always been my favorite! :biggrin:





TheKingElessar said:


> (I wish someone from the Design Team would be on Heresy and read THIS post! )


You never know... When I spent more time over at The-Waaagh forum (back pre-4th ed codex), we compiled several things on a wish list. One, that I remember in particularly, was that we all felt the warboss should be T5. I was for sure GW would never go for it though.... He he _(*pg. 32, 97, & 104 of the ork codex)_ _*Huzzah!*_ :biggrin:


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> Except comparing the 3rd ed CSM dex to 4th ed, you find that 3rd edition had 121 options, including psy powers and demonic gifts, vs 70 (might have miss counted this one) in 4th edition.


Most of the newer codex's though are more complicated with increased wargear and unit options. I would guess part of that at least, has to do with the fact that they super simplified the daemon aspect of the CSM codex due to GW's siphoning off the majority of possible daemon goodies for Codex Chaos Daemons.





Wusword77 said:


> The other side of the coin is that while the new SM dex has more wargear it can't be picked by anyone in the codex with the "ability to pick equipment from the Space Marine Armory." The different ammo for Sternguard are only usable by them (except Hellfire shells, some HQs can take just them), while other units are limited in what gear they can equip. Only HQ units have a wide choice of options, as it should be. Most armies wouldn't allow their best equipment to be assigned to random Sergeant of a squad. GW is trying to get away from the HeroHammer aspect this game used to have. Giving options like that would only bring us back to that.


This actually goes to exactly what I was saying...

(1.) More wargear spread over more units, etc. = complexity. I was refering to your comment in your previous post where you said...


Wusword77 said:


> One of the main issues that GW had with the CSM dex in 3rd edition was it was horrible for organized play. People were taking war gear and other options that weren't allowed, but the book had too much stuff in it so not every judge knew every detail of the book. This is what GW wanted to stop, they aren't going to do a huge step backwards now.


I'm saying that if anything, the dexes have gotten more complicated with more diverse options, specific units with specific weapons options to keep track of that are only used for them, etc. In all there's way more to keep track of. I was simply pointing this out to show that in most cases (possibly CSM codex excluded) things have gotten more complex and so it couldn't be that GW was trying to avoid "too much stuff" in the dexes.


(2.) It could very well be that GW wanted to get rid of "hero hammer" but if that's the case, they haven't done a very good job. Some of the most powerful builds for many armies are totally contingent on the special powers/rules of hero's (Chaos Lash DP's, Vulkan, Epidemius, etc.). In addition a special hero like Skulltaker or Mephiston is still way more of a match than an old force commander "hero" could have ever been made into, etc. I don't think it's really about that. 

In fact in many ways, I think it's the IC's/HQ's the have been least affected by I the trend GW's been going with codex's. It's more the veteran sergeant and individual units that in some cases (as with SM tac squads) have been 
tightly controlled with what you can do or not do. 





Wusword77 said:


> Giving more options is the exact opposite of streamlining though.


I don't think I'm being clear enough here. What GW does with the codex's and what they do with the game rules can be different. They can continue streamlining the rules for 6th edition (whenever that comes) and bring back some freedom in the codex's at the same time. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

For instance, making the game rules about true line of sight had nothing to do at all with making a SM tac squad _*have *_to pay for a vet sergeant. 





Wusword77 said:


> Keeping the options on the army list limited makes it easier for judges, tournament officials and players to review the list and check it for problems. I get what you're saying, and there are times I wish they would add more role playing elements into the game, but GW seems to have 40k going in the direction of being a organized play focused game (imo). Adding in a ton of options for any character to take would hinder that direction.


Well, for instance a SM tac squad has to take a vet sergeant, a CSM squad can, or can choose not to, take a aspiring champion. I see this affecting the judges very little. I truly hope they don't make CSM players *have* to take (pay for) an aspiring champion for their 5th ed. dex. Let the player decide that. Let them have some freedom. I'm really not asking for very much, and I can't for the life of me see how that little bit of freedom makes any difference for a game that's already complex with more units and more wargear to keep track of and understand (i.e. know what they do, etc.). IF GW was really concerned about that they wouldn't have increased the types of units and total number of wargear in the codex. 

Take a look at the 5th ed. codexes so far... SM's, I.G., Tyranids, BA, and SW's all have way more units + wargear to keep track of. If what you're saying were GW's motives... this would *not* be the case. 





Wusword77 said:


> 10-14 people wouldn't be enough to really test/review a new rule set, GW would need quite a bit more then that. You would also have the problem of the new play test rules being leaked. The testers could simply claim "Oh I got hacked and someone must have posted it online," having the testers around in person would minimize the chances of a leak.


Anything's possible. GW could choose a hundred play testers and that would be cool. My point is more that, they need to do this, not in how it would specifically, exactly implement it. They could mail a hard copy through certified mail for all I care. As far as I'm concerned GW can implement it as they see fit. If the major U.S. networks have figured out how to keep people quite surely GW can do the same. 





Wusword77 said:


> No, I don't think I was being clear with what I said. I didn't mean a single event, but rather many events that could be held all over the world that is run by GW. GW's rules, regulations, and supported by them. Third party events would be too local, and tougher to track. Having an online database of players in these events would allow GW to see rankings based on how players do in every event they play in, similar to how most TCGS are currently done.


Yes, that is a very viable idea. GW could do this in coordination with local GW battle bunkers or other official stores. That would be great. Again, how GW administers it is up to them. I just want them to find out how broken a codex is going to be (either too powerful/not powerful enough). Find the most power gaming people you can, bind them legally, and let them find all the abuses, or lack thereof, for a new codex before it hits the shelves.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Uber Ork said:


> Most of the newer codex's though are more complicated with increased wargear and unit options. I would guess part of that at least, has to do with the fact that they super simplified the daemon aspect of the CSM codex due to GW's siphoning off the majority of possible daemon goodies for Codex Chaos Daemons.


Ok I think we're focusing too much on the Wargear as being the only viable options. Looking at the 3rd edition codex you also had Alpha Legion, Black Legion, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, World Eaters, Tsons, Death Guard, and Emperors Children. Among those you have:

Only AL can take cultists.

Iron Warriors can take Basilisks and servo arms and has their FoC adjusted.

Night Lords can only take Undivided Mark, only 1 type of deamon, only faction with Stealth Adept Skill

Word Bearers are the only legion with Chaplains, can take additional troops by sacrificing other FoC slots, can only take Undivided mark

Black Legion gets the Fail master himself.

God Specific Legions: Can only have units with mark of Khorne/Nurgle/Slanessh/Tzeenech. Each one has access to a god specific armory and abilities.

Now combine that with all of the Deamons that were available and you have one complicated codex. If I was streamlining the rules for a game that would be the first thing I'd look at the "cut the fat" from.



> (2.) It could very well be that GW wanted to get rid of "hero hammer" but if that's the case, they haven't done a very good job. Some of the most powerful builds for many armies are totally contingent on the special powers/rules of hero's (Chaos Lash DP's, Vulkan, Epidemius, etc.). In addition a special hero like Skulltaker or Mephiston is still way more of a match than an old force commander "hero" could have ever been made into, etc. I don't think it's really about that.
> 
> In fact in many ways, I think it's the IC's/HQ's the have been least affected by I the trend GW's been going with codex's. It's more the veteran sergeant and individual units that in some cases (as with SM tac squads) have been
> tightly controlled with what you can do or not do.


A hero like Mephiston is also a huge point sink for an army. Investing almost 300 point in a single model isn't a great idea when Saves can be made in bulk. Forcing things like only troops as scoring requires that bigger heroes take on a smaller roles in a general game (apoc is a totally different story).



> I don't think I'm being clear enough here. What GW does with the codex's and what they do with the game rules can be different. They can continue streamlining the rules for 6th edition (whenever that comes) and bring back some freedom in the codex's at the same time. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.


The codex and the main rules are different, in that the former is modified by the latter. However if you're going to have streamlined rules you shouldn't have a codex like the CSM dex were every other page details different limitations and changes to the army list. You also shouldn't have wargear that has requirements to equip and units that can only be used under certain circumstances. That is just way to complicated.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> If I was streamlining the rules for a game that would be the first thing I'd look at the "cut the fat" from.


It's interesting that they cut so much out of the 4th CSM codex, but added way more into each of the other 5th ed codexs so far. Maybe that's a good sign. 

Maybe with CSM 5th ed codex comes out they'll take a step back in the right direction. Clearly GW is not interested solely in simplicity (as they're adding a great deal of units and wargear diversity to the next generation codexes), and in this way, they're providing more freedom to the player.

Freedom in which units I can take (since there's more choices for me to choose from), etc. Maybe the freedom they took away from CSM's in 4th ed, will be restored in 5th. CSM players can hope anyway as that seems to be the pattern so far...

All I'm saying is I'd like to see them do this with the individual wargear and unit options as well. There, for SM's anyway, they took a step from freedom. I'm not talking anything too broad or overly complex, but as already said, letting people choose if they wanted to upgrade to a veteran sergeant or not, etc.

I hardly think that would be the straw that broke the complexity camel's back, but in the end, we may just have to agree to disagree. 





Wusword77 said:


> A hero like Mephiston is also a huge point sink for an army. Investing almost 300 point in a single model isn't a great idea when Saves can be made in bulk. Forcing things like only troops as scoring requires that bigger heroes take on a smaller roles in a general game (apoc is a totally different story).


Well, there's always been expensive models, and yes the 5th ed changes to troops has definitely changed the game. You'll get no argument from me there. Needing troops to hold objectives has not just changed the HQ area, but all areas. Points that would have been spent on other FOC slots are now diverted to troops.

However, that's a different point than the one you were making earlier about... 


Wusword77 said:


> The other side of the coin is that while the new SM dex has more wargear it can't be picked by anyone in the codex with the "ability to pick equipment from the Space Marine Armory." The different ammo for Sternguard are only usable by them (except Hellfire shells, some HQs can take just them), while other units are limited in what gear they can equip. Only HQ units have a wide choice of options, as it should be. Most armies wouldn't allow their best equipment to be assigned to random Sergeant of a squad. GW is trying to get away from the HeroHammer aspect this game used to have. Giving options like that would only bring us back to that.


Here you were talking about how GW was using dex adjustments to get rid of hero-hammer, not using 5th ed troops only to hold objectives, to accomplish this. If you hadn't been talking about GW using dex's and instead using 5th the troops only rule I might have agreed with you.

So, I do think GW is shifting things to focus more on troops using the game system.

I do not think GW is using the dex's to shift away from hero-hammer.





Wusword77 said:


> The codex and the main rules are different, in that the former is modified by the latter.


Yes and no. They could always write a codex to say something like this model has initiative 1 but always strikes first if the game your playing is on a Tuesday, or this elite unit can hold objectives, etc. and it would indeed modify the main game rules, however, most of the time this is not the case.

To do what I'm asking... simple things like let people decide to take or not to take a veteran sergeant, or for a space marine tac squad to be able to have one heavy or special weapon at 5 and a second at 10, etc. will not affect the game rules/mechanics/system at all. Or at least I fail to see how it will...

Again, maybe here we'll just have to agree to disagree. :biggrin:


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> Take a look at the 5th ed. codexes so far... SM's, I.G., Tyranids, BA, and SW's all have way more units + wargear to keep track of. If what you're saying were GW's motives... this would not be the case.


Yes, there are more items of wargear and more units, but those additional wargear items are limited to specific units, and those units _only_, which actually makes it easier to keep track of, and easier to find where the rules for them are. 
Before, you had dozens of options for wargear, and many units that could take it, in many different combinations, and you had to scour the books for their rules and how they interacted and that was before you added skills, etc...

I like the new set-up. Much easier to write lists, just as easy with a little imagination to make your army stand out ('counts as', anyone?) and so much easier to find a rule in the middle of a game...


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

SilverTabby said:


> Yes, there are more items of wargear and more units, but those additional wargear items are limited to specific units, and those units _only_, which actually makes it easier to keep track of


Well... I guess that's true if keeping track of way more things is easier than keeping track of way less things for you. 

I think, for some reason that escapes me, we keep missing the point. I'm talking about the overall GW motivation and direction in moving from 3rd ed to 4th and into 5th. Not just the CSM codex (which I think was an anomaly amongst 4th ed codexs). In the overall scope of all the codexes, simplicity was not GW's motive. If it had been, they would have reduced the overall options, units, etc. 

It's simple really.

If you add, increase, etc. the amount of units you could take and the overall amount of total options... you have created more things to keep track of total. Can we all agree with that?

If you have more things to keep track of... you've added, increased, (there's those words again), etc. the amount of complexity, not decreased it.




SilverTabby said:


> and easier to find where the rules for them are.


Interesting you should think this. The SM codex for instance, IMO is more of a pain. Nice that they have page numbers, but incredibly anoying that the wargear section is only half complete, with the rest having page numbers where you have to turn to get to the description for that particular piece of equipment. In the 3rd ed. codex for example... ALL the descriptions were in the same place.

Again... things must be different in your guys world.  For me easier is having things all on one location. For you it's having page numbers and 20 different locations to look up and find different things.

If that's the case with you as well as *Wusword77* (you guys seem to be in agreement on this) then perhaps, just as I said to Wusword, we'll have to agree to disagree. 





SilverTabby said:


> Before, you had dozens of options for wargear, and many units that could take it, in many different combinations, and you had to scour the books for their rules and how they interacted and that was before you added skills, etc...


The 4th ed CSM codex is different than most other 4th ed and 5th ed codexes. When talking about all the others and the overall general direction GW took in 4th moving into 5th all of the above discussion applies. When dealing with the 4th CSM codex it is different. GW didn't add, they took away. Some of that had to do with the, at the time, upcoming release of chaos daemons, the rest of it I'm not sure what GW was thinking. When talking about the CSM codex I agree with you.

My recent discussion with *Wusword77* was broader in scope as we were discussing the overall direction GW had taken from 3rd to 4th and now moving onto 5th.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

In a way, I think CSM *should* have to pay for Champions - their squads are LESS likely to not have someone in charge. in the same way Ork Mobs should really come with a Nob included.


----------



## Kastle (Feb 28, 2010)

wow 100+ posts and still going strong! 

I just want to point out that GW screwed us all. How much are we all paying for little plastic space things?


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> Well... I guess that's true if keeping track of way more things is easier than keeping track of way less things for you.


Actually, I find the current system means I have less 'keeping track' to do, as units are written down as (for example) "Sternguard x10, all their special gubbins, see page xx". Much easier than "10 Veterans, 3 different special skill sets chosen from a list on page xx, 3 special guns from pages xy, xz and xa, led by a character who's on page xb..."

Believe me, I don't mind doing that so much - I played 2nd Ed. I just like that now that it's simpler than it was. I play many different armies - it's simpler than it was in all of them in previous editions (and I'm looking forwards to the Sisters update, that Codex isn't too bad, but could be laid out better). 



Uber Ork said:


> If you add, increase, etc. the amount of units you could take and the overall amount of total options... you have created more things to keep track of total. Can we all agree with that?
> 
> If you have more things to keep track of... you've added, increased, (there's those words again), etc. the amount of complexity, not decreased it.


Adding things makes there more things to keep track of, sure. Doesn't necessarily mean it's more complex, if keeping track of those things is, in itself, easier. For example, I have a toddler. This has taught me that doing 5 simple things at once is by far easier than doing 2 really complicated ones, especially in the chaos that is her daily routine. Same thing applies in 40K: keeping track of 8 simple units (as described above) is much easier and promotes faster and smoother gameplay than keeping track of 4 really complex units with rules scattered across the entire book. 



> Interesting you should think this. The SM codex for instance, IMO is more of a pain. Nice that they have page numbers, but incredibly anoying that the wargear section is only half complete, with the rest having page numbers where you have to turn to get to the description for that particular piece of equipment. In the 3rd ed. codex for example... ALL the descriptions were in the same place.


Ah, but special rules were in another section, and veteran skills in another... hence having to look in 4 places for the rules for one unit. Now, the codexes tend to have a wargear section for the generic stuff that anyone can take, and ALL the specialist rules for the units in their page-numbered listing. I need to know what my Venomthropes' weapons and rules are? Straight to it's page. I know what the generic rules are, as I've learnt them beforehand as they apply to many different units, but if I forget: they're in one place, alaong with everything else non-unit specific....



> If that's the case with you as well as *Wusword77* (you guys seem to be in agreement on this) then perhaps, just as I said to Wusword, we'll have to agree to disagree.


I can do that. It's a free world, and to be honest life's too short to quibble over things that are meant to be fun.



> The 4th ed CSM codex is different than most other 4th ed and 5th ed codexes. When talking about all the others and the overall general direction GW took in 4th moving into 5th all of the above discussion applies. When dealing with the 4th CSM codex it is different. GW didn't add, they took away. Some of that had to do with the, at the time, upcoming release of chaos daemons, the rest of it I'm not sure what GW was thinking. When talking about the CSM codex I agree with you.


That taking away was necessary, for a number of reasons (again, in my opinion). I know what the thinking was, and that was "my god, this is a messy and horrible Codex, that too many people are abusing. People are taking 2 or 3 optimised picks, and ignoring the rest." So now, to make an interesting or fluffy army, you need to think about it and use some *gasp* imagination. 
Also, they opened the way for Legion books, same as the SM Codex was intended as "these are the basic guys who follow the rules". People complained it was Smurf-heavy: well, they are the ultimate Codex Chapter, so of course it will be based on them. Silly people. 



> My recent discussion with *Wusword77* was broader in scope as we were discussing the overall direction GW had taken from 3rd to 4th and now moving onto 5th.


Sorry if I veered a little from that, normal service can now be resumed  
For what it's worth, I like the direction. Not only can I make armies that are easier to maintain, but the sprues all come (for the most part) with every option included. And if they don't, well there's where that imagination and creativity bit comes in again...

I don't believe that 'simpler' and 'less complex' are the same thing. In this context, anyway. And whilst I know that sounds odd, I can't think of any other way to put it. Maybe it would be better to say that I don't think 'simple' equates to 'easier to understand'? Maybe I should use a different word for it...


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

wow this thread is still going....Oh well may as well through in another $0.02.

Firstly in defense of CSM's whining.
1- Realistically there will probably never be legion codex's anyone that says CSM players shouldn't be angry because they removed legion elements in favor of future legion codex's hasn't been paying very close attention to the hobby. (I really doubt loyalists will ever get other specific chapter codexes other then what they have either).
2- The relative simplicity, and dumbing down of the codex was a trend not shown in the code's that followed, hence making the CSM the testing ground for the precedent that was not strictly followed in other codex's (Think if imperial guard lost 2-3 tanks, but got a av10 heavy bolter that was over costed).
3- To all the minor army gamers out their (Seriously I know a lot of people play black Templar ect, but compared to the legions that play SM, CSM or hell even orks you are a minority) I will say get off the pot, we all know your codex's got the short side of the stick but use common sense, if you liked cheese flavored ice cream, and they discontinued the flavor would you really be dumb enough to compare that to if they discontinued chocolate? We all feel for your outdated codex woes, but it hardly compares to failing in patching up one of they most popular armies in the game.

Criticizing CSM whining.
1- Its been how many years already? Either accept our current state of affares or play another army already. 
2- Now is a stupid time to complain considering we only have to wait a 1-2 more years till we get a update, in other words its to far of to really to soon to speculate, and yet far enough in the past that the scars should have healed by now.
3- Honestly some out moded crap dex's really need to be reworked before people permanently stop playing those armies all together, no one should be left in 3rd-2nd edd in this age.
4- If they however do update a 4th edd codex before us feel free to flood forums with spam till they crash to punish the lap dogs of what ever army gets update before us. (Even if its Eldar). Also feel free to physically assault those individuals too....Yah angry mobs syndrome.


----------



## HatingYou (Oct 10, 2010)

Can't believe people are still bitching about this codex it's not that bad! take a moment to consider the poor inquisition or the even poorer necrons....those players deserve to bitch a little but CSM have some pretty nice units.

If everyones so tired of using lash DP and oblits...then just don't??


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

HatingYou said:


> Can't believe people are still bitching about this codex it's not that bad! take a moment to consider the poor inquisition or the even poorer necrons....those players deserve to bitch a little but CSM have some pretty nice units.
> 
> If everyones so tired of using lash DP and oblits...then just don't??


:laugh: Umm... you should read the thread all the way through before posting. 

The vast majority of the last few pages were barely about the CSM codex but discussing the direction GW has taken overall from 3rd ed to 4th and now onto 5th.



I am done with this thread though, as even with this it's now spinning in circles...


----------



## LordOwlingtonIII (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't understand how you complain about a lack of fluff when the first 24 pages of the codex are nothing but, including descriptions of various armies and gods.


----------



## Maugoth (Mar 23, 2010)

i have found this thread a little late as it looks like it's winding down but after reading for over an hour (yes i am a slow reader) i feel the need to put in my 2 cents so i don't feel like i completely wasted my time:russianroulette:

The main thing i dislike about the chaos dex is that i was iron warriors when i used to play alot, then i come back to the hobby a while ago, dust off my models with happy memorys flooding back, then i opened my new chaos dex to find i can only be iron warriors in name and paint scheme and that my basilisk is now worthless to me, kinda sucked ass tbh

anyway like i said just wanted to post something so my reading time wasn't wasted :yahoo:


----------

