# New Chaos Codex



## snuggles (Apr 29, 2008)

has anyone else heard that chaos is getting a new codex that focuses on the individual chaos warbands. iron warriors, death gaurd, thousand sons...ect.


----------



## Da Red Paintjob Grot (May 6, 2008)

no, but i hope so.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

That would be like all my christmasses come at once.

I really preferred the old codex, although the new one allows you to field competitive armies etc to my mind it just lacks soul.


----------



## mercer (Jun 6, 2008)

Do you really think they'll be a new Chaos codex seems one come out last year? I really doubt it, but more focus on the warbands would be cool. Especially for someone new to Chaos like myself as the main ones I.E Black Legion, Emperor's Children you hear about all the time but would like more history and new information 

Mercer


----------



## mgtymouze (Dec 7, 2007)

Haven't heard this but it would piss me off if they did. Even though my primary army is chaos, other armies need updating first. Dark Eldar are dated as are Space Wolves. The current Chaos codex is barely a year old, so if this is true then GW's release schedule is even more broke than I thought.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

You know if only they had a monthly magazine where they could publish friendly lists etc!

Hmmmmmm!!!!!


----------



## Drax (Sep 19, 2007)

they _have_ released warbands as datasheets for apoc though...


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Jervis Johnson has said that they will do the Cults in their own books in the future for sure but that it is still a long way off as other codices need attention first.


----------



## pyroanarchist (Feb 29, 2008)

Beat me to it Wraith. I've heard the same thing. There will eventually be some Chaos Legion specific codices. Most speculation puts Death Guard as the first one to release, but that's entirely unconfirmed. Most people think Death Guard will be first because of all of the hype about them right now. There have been lots of stories written about DG and FW made DG termies and Plague Marines before any other legion troops.

We can only wait and hope that they don't shelve the idea.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> Jervis Johnson has said that they will do the Cults in their own books in the future for sure but that it is still a long way off as other codices need attention first.


Agreed. Jervis spoke to us at the UKGT. Although he feels that at some point it would be enjoyable to visit the "Legions" again. Perhaps GW resources could be better focused in other areas. This is not to mean that they wont do a legions book. However it might not be a high priority.


MarzM


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

i'd love to see a legions book, i miss the variety that chaos used to have


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

I'd buy it.


Psst...That's all they need to hear to make it sooner...


----------



## cooldudeskillz (Jun 7, 2008)

helpful if they put all legions in one book


----------



## Judas Masias (Jun 5, 2008)

From what i have herd there will be 4 books. Death Guard, Emperor's Childern, Thousand Sons and World Eaters. If these rumors are true then all of our prayers will be ancered.


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

if they dont do them all why do any. Black legion better be front line. They cant leave out the largest CSM force in 40k.


----------



## pyroanarchist (Feb 29, 2008)

The current 'renegade' codex was meant for Black Legion IMO, why would BL need a separate codex. They didn't lose any fluff, gear, or selection.

I think what was destroyed by the current Chaos codex were the non god specific legions (except BL). Word Bearers lost the most. They are a Legion based around Daemons and the control of Daemons for their own means. They can't even summon real Daemons anymore. Alpha Legion lost a lot too. They were all about taking down a city from the inside out. They used cultists to do so. Under troops in the new Chaos dex there isn't an entry for Cultists. Alpha Legion doesn't play like Alpha Legion anymore.

Night Lords and Iron Warriors armies will never be the same either. NL used to get an extra fast attack choice at the cost of heavy slots. IW used to get an extra heavy choice at the cost of fast attack slots. This made both of these armies unique and made them play on the table like the fluff suggests they fight in action.

I can play my World Eaters army fine right now. I may not like it near as much as I did in the previous codex, but I can play an effective World Eaters list that feels pretty much like a WE army. I know DG, TS, and EC can still play their armies fine. They may not be the same, and there are some things I really miss about them from the old codex, but they are still effective, playable armies.

Now, if anything, GW is going to release codices to get DG, WE, TS, and EC back in full swing. The armies that lost the most will never recover. I really can't wait to see a WE codex, but I would rather see AL and WB because I feel that the players of those armies lost the most with the new codex.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I figure the easiest thing to do is release one book with the Death Guard, Emperor's Children, Thousand Sons and World Eaters in one book and then the Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors and Word Bearers in the other. That way it doesn't take 100 years for them to all come out (because releasing different books would take ages).


----------



## Judas Masias (Jun 5, 2008)

I would not hold my breath wateing for a Alpha Legion or Iron warriors Codex any time soon imho.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

pyroanarchist said:


> The current 'renegade' codex was meant for Black Legion IMO, why would BL need a separate codex. They didn't lose any fluff, gear, or selection.




Just to back up the point made by Pyro. I agreed that the Black Legion do not need a new book. The current incantation of the Chaos codex is more than sufficient to create and play that particular Legion. I would however offer the idea that perhaps even the Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion and Night Lords cant still be effectively created under the current rules. For example;-

Iron Warriors - don't use daemons, lots of heavy stuff, 10man undivided with Lcannons etc. Perhaps the odd possessed or combat prince. The odd dread would be nice.

Alpha Legion - Ok so they have lost cultist, how about lots of vets used for flanking etc, No real daemons. Deep striking Obliterators, small undivided squads and Preds 


Night Lords - Vets being stealthy, Perhaps lots of small marine squads
(like alpha) Lots of Raptor or Bike units with homers to bring in terminators etc. Not so many tanks, but rhinos to scoot and shoot with.

Word Bearers. - Lord with daemon weapon (MoT for the 4+ invulnerable), Big big big squads of marines (above 12 anyway) Lots of rubbishy little daemon units to throw at you opponent and not care if they die. All backed up by tanks!

So with that, i don't think that a new codex for most of the legions will be on the cards per say. However i feel they might still at some point do a "cults" book. Realistically there's a better chance


MarzM


----------



## freepizza (May 23, 2008)

Just an observation with GW generic and streamlining everything in 5th edition what makes you think chaos will be immune? They are doing it marines right now so we all can enjoy the balanced game so get ready for the hit between the nuts guys.


----------



## your master (Jun 14, 2008)

cant see them bringing out new books you can create the armies well enough with the current codex


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

At the end of the day GW is a business, and the business sense would be to release Chaos specific books asap as they would sell, sell, sell! This could put them as priority over Dark Eldar etc, which while badly in need of an update, would sell less IMO.
Basically the new Chaos Codex was just about getting the Black Legion and renegades sorted out, and is only half donein my view. 
The demon issue need sorting out properly (the seperation from the codex was just daft) as do the legions and human cultist/traitors. As a personal view, this would be my priority for GW.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

slaaneshy said:


> This could put them as priority over Dark Eldar etc, which while badly in need of an update, would sell less IMO.


DE sell less _because_ they are in need of an update.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

I would still argue Chaos would always sell more than DE.
But the point is, Legion specific codex should be done asap!


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Fluff'Ead said:


> DE sell less _because_ they are in need of an update.


they sell less because they are a weak concept. Who wants to play space elves with spikes. If GW put as much work into DE fluff as other armies, they might sell more. Right now, they are a Take one army, add spikes and a bad attitude, makes new army. It is sad, because they have potential to be more than "the spiky eldar," if only GW would pull them out of their goth kid phase.


----------



## pyroanarchist (Feb 29, 2008)

I don't even think Legion specific codices are a necessity. Don't get me wrong, if a WE codex came out today I'd call off work and run to my nearest GW. The fluff, storyline, and Khorney goodness would draw me there quicker than anything GW has ever released. That said, I think all of the Chaos armies could be brought back into full swing with a small supplement codex. All it would need to outline are a few whitelisted and blacklisted options for each Legion and maybe a bonus rule or weapon for each of them. Give WB access to certain Daemons and a stat line for Dark Apostles, throw in cultists for AL, toss everyone else special rules and restrictions, and call it a day.

The previous codex did fine with this type of set up. Each Legion had a couple pages in the back with a few bonuses and a few negatives and everyone was taken care of. I really don't see why they don't take the simple route, get it released, and take care of the backed up release schedule they've already got going.

Don't get me wrong, I like the current codex we have. There are a lot of great units and more options than I even dreamed of when it was scheduled for release. I just think a few Legions got destroyed in the process and I feel bad for anyone who had one of those armies.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

If this is true then they are complete bitches. They would make options to have so many varieties of chaos armies out there yet imperial SM are all going to be the same apart from 4 seperate codices.... the trait system, broken as it was, is going to be scrappped and that was what gave SM custom armies their variety. With that gone you are going to see Basicallly the same army all the time.....

What would probably work best but would be the most expensive idea would be to make a Codex for every original legion there. That way you have all the non renegade chaos legions taken care of plus you have lots of cool new SM styles like white scars, salamanders and iron hands.


----------



## chris b (Jun 26, 2008)

All armes have lost traints ,craftwords, legions ect on the table top, most armeis will be codex based.I played Iron Warriors and was guted when they were dropt .The problem is to many players pick lists to win at any cost even if it means a bad game instead of picking a cool list of fluf based models that thay like.Go to any tournament or club and you will see a hardcore of players with stupid armies that other player hate . I think GW got fedup of this typ of lists (9 OBLITERATORS IN A 1000pts LIST) (an army of farseeres ) do i need go on you no who you are.This is why no specific legon codex will be made untill gamers rember the golden rule is to have fun


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

So Black legion should just be a nilla renegade space marine chapter? or should it be the damning legion that Horus lead to the gates of terra? I understand that they can be portayed in the current list but so can every legion except maybe the use of cultists for alpha legion.


----------



## pyroanarchist (Feb 29, 2008)

Black Legion is beyond being portrayed in this codex. What have they lost from their lists? What special rules have they lost in the new codex? What would you like to see from a Black Legion codex? I can't think of anything that could be given to Black Legion that isn't already included in the current codex. Black Legion is to Chaos what Ultramarines are to Space Marines.

chris b, I have to disagree. I think you're completely right about the fact that GW has taken away most customizability from most codices, but I don't agree with your reasoning at all. Any game will have power gamers, from TCG's to TT's to MMOG's. Power gamers are to be expected and can be countered. No matter how cheesy a list gets there will always be weaknesses to be exploited, you just have to look harder to find them against some lists.

I think the reason GW has streamlined so much is to make the game simpler. They are trying to open up 40k to a wider market. I think anyone will admit that the first time they went through the doctrines list's they were a bit confused. It's really not hard to figure out, but its definately a bit baffling upon the first read through. I don't think GW is trying to eliminate power gamers, I think they are trying to encourage new players by simplifying the army lists a bit. They've already done this with wargear.

I will say that if GW keeps purging their codices of options and customizability that this game will be a lot less fun to play down the road. I don't think GW would take it that far, but it could easily end up that way.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Death 0F Angels said:


> So Black legion should just be a nilla renegade space marine chapter? or should it be the damning legion that Horus lead to the gates of terra? I understand that they can be portayed in the current list but so can every legion except maybe the use of cultists for alpha legion.


the differences between the black legion and the other chaos legions is like the difference between the ultra smurfs and the other chapters. Some are more or less as described in the codex, while others diverge enough to need their own.


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

hmm.... i see your point. What is going to be so different about the other lists that they deserve a codex though. With marks and cult troops the cults are covered. Take extra heavy options for iron warriors daemons for word bearers(I know they are woefully lame, in my opinion having a certailed amount of troop choices from codex daemon would solve that) Black Legion take extra HQ or Elite choices. Alpha legin take fast attack or infiltrators. im just wondering what kind of ideas are bieng talked about that they should have there won supplement over BL. Is it just be because some of the lists are barely playable? My opinions may come from the fact that im more into the fluff/modeling aspects of the hobby(althought i do play, just not often). If so plz open my eyes.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Death 0F Angels said:


> hmm.... i see your point. What is going to be so different about the other lists that they deserve a codex though. With marks and cult troops the cults are covered. Take extra heavy options for iron warriors daemons for word bearers(I know they are woefully lame, in my opinion having a certailed amount of troop choices from codex daemon would solve that) Black Legion take extra HQ or Elite choices. Alpha legin take fast attack or infiltrators. im just wondering what kind of ideas are bieng talked about that they should have there won supplement over BL. Is it just be because some of the lists are barely playable? My opinions may come from the fact that im more into the fluff/modeling aspects of the hobby(althought i do play, just not often). If so plz open my eyes.


again, from the fluff, the black legion are the vanilla legion, they encompass the sum of chaos, they are not necessarily any more elite, just the "poster child" legion. The death guard do not use fast attack at all, the night lords use fast attack extensively. The word bearers still have chaplains, the alpha legion makes extensive use of cultists. The Iron warriors use extensive heavy weapons, where the world eaters and death guard do not use many, if at all.

The reason that the legions deserve a seperate codex, while the black legion does not is two fold. The codex IS for black legion and renegads. The other legions are significantly different in their approach to warfare, so an army list that reflects this is appropriate.

This is not meant to disparage the black legion, I started with them, and still like them. I just understand that they are the dark reflection of the ultra smurfs, as the other chaos legions have loyalist counterparts.


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

Maybe im just under the wrong impresion. From what im to understand BL is very elitist and make extensive use of teleporting terminators to kil hq and control vital strategic points. The only thing that took the flavor out of these armies is the nerfing of daemons for csm. now you have to relly on all cult troops for a cult army. word bearers are better off taking nilla marines ( a demagogue can be modeled from a csm lord, although i know it is not exactly the same). Night lords can take fast attack choices and rhinos enough for their army to be ALL fast attack. Iron warriors maybe need a basilisk choice back. So if i was to concede that BL does not deserve a supplement. What makes the other legions so needy.

when i said fast attack in my last post i meant night lords not alpha legion just to clear that up if anyone notices. I often get those 2 mixed up.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Death 0F Angels said:


> Maybe im just under the wrong impresion. From what im to understand BL is very elitist and make extensive use of teleporting terminators to kil hq and control vital strategic points. The only thing that took the flavor out of these armies is the nerfing of daemons for csm. now you have to relly on all cult troops for a cult army. word bearers are better off taking nilla marines ( a demagogue can be modeled from a csm lord, although i know it is not exactly the same). Night lords can take fast attack choices and rhinos enough for their army to be ALL fast attack. Iron warriors maybe need a basilisk choice back. So if i was to concede that BL does not deserve a supplement. What makes the other legions so needy.
> 
> when i said fast attack in my last post i meant night lords not alpha legion just to clear that up if anyone notices. I often get those 2 mixed up.


READ the other posts.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Look at it this way DoA.

Black Legion/Ultramarines
Access to all options in the codex
No limits beyond force org.
Can be taken in ANY configuration etc

Basically they are the first Legion/Chapter from which all others diverge. Now if you look at the Marine codex you will see that there are a large number of chapters within it that are named, famous chapters (such as Imp Fists, Crimson Fists, etc) that are really only different from the UM's in paint only. This also applies to the Black Legion and several of the other legions and now the renegade DIY warbands, ie they are no different than the BL in any way but paint (or can be easily approximated with the current rules a la Night Lords).

Now for the Cults. Look at Black Templars, or better yet look at the Space Wolves. The SW's are still marines just like the Ultramarines and other chapters from the main SM codex but their rules and organization, etc, make them into a far different type of marine and thus need a separate codex in order to do them justice. This applies to the Templars, and the Dark/Blood Angels as well and by extension also applies to the 4 Cult Legions. Just the fact that they are devoted to a single god sets them apart from the BL and its equivalents and how they play and the rules to support that diverge enough from the main Chaos codex that they require books of their own to properly represent them.


----------



## Mr Flibble (Jun 17, 2008)

Naah, the codexes for the legions are way off yet, Forge world tends to hit first, they'er working on the next IA which is based around chaos forces, so it'll be a foog few years before we see any specialist codexes.


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

ehhhh... maybe i just like to bitch about bieng left out  Im still irritated about current codex and the whole daemon thing, so dont mind me


----------



## Jase (Nov 4, 2007)

i believe that the entirety of 4th ed, and it's following codices, are some of the most complicated piece of work ever.

traits, doctrines, the old chaos list, eldar craftworlds, ork speed freaks. there were so many 'differing' lists that we all lost sight of what the army was meant to be about in the first place.

Everytime a codex comes out, someone will cry that they can't do a massive fluff list (eg. exodites) from the rules, they will cry that they can't do their specific army lists (eg iron warriors), BUT YOU CAN! you can't do them as powerfully as before, but it's still there.

i don't agree with seperate lists off on their own, i do agree with the way the ork list has done it, certain HQ's and characters allow you to take certain things to make your fluff lists:
speed freaks?
a) take wazdakka, bikes are troops
b) take 2 warbosses, and take two nob biker units as troops

eldar craftworlds?
iyanden are still possible, saim hann are possible, ulthwe are possible, alaitoc are still possible, and so are the other ones that i can't remember...

chaos lists?
word bearers still have access to daemons
iron warriors have vindicators now and can take their 9 obliterators
alpha legion can take 3 squads of infiltrating chosen with shed loads of special weapons, and contrary to popular belief they never used cultists, they used auxiliaries, guardsmen/militia that fought with them and helped them out (my big problem with the last dex was it said they were cultists, cultists are more likely to help word bearers)
night lords nothing stopping you taking 3 units of raptors, marines in rhinos, chosen infiltrating. it's all in there.

traits?
from what i hear there may be certain units that become troops depending on the wargear of the commander like the ork army, may turn out to be a rumour but we'll have to wait and see

doctrines?
i can't wait to see what they do with this massively stupid, and complicated system. couple it in with the guard stupid force organisation and it becomes ridiculous.



the point i'm trying to make is that we've been SPOILT with these massively complicated lists, and now that GW are trying to streamline it and make Codices more accessible and easier to pick up and play, lots of people are spitting their dummies out and crying.


get used to it, it could be a while before Legions codex comes out, if it does at all. it was only ever a possibility.


----------



## hurt-wm (Jun 8, 2008)

the complexity of the game was the great thing about it. it actually took some time and thought to come up with a fluffy, characterful list list. now, everything is being generalized in the name of ease of access. you could still field a simple army capable of victory from the old codices; but you were given the freedom of choice so that you could make some truly individual (and fluffy) lists. before, things were limited, but they always had a balancing rule, or wargear, or what have you. now, things are just limited.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

i think the idea of going back and doing the chapters such as iron warriors and the like would be good or just putting out like they have in the past a different force organisation and rules in the white dwarfs for them. from what ive heard this would mean syaing that iron warriors can use basalisks and they can sacrifice whatever it was for more heavy support. I am however totally against the idea of the marines getting done again they already have a new codex and because they bring a new rules set out means they have to winge and make the UltraSmurfs better. they need to focus more on the older codexes such as : Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Space Wolves and Necrons. But you know how they are probably wont listen.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

hurt-wm said:


> the complexity of the game was the great thing about it. it actually took some time and thought to come up with a fluffy, characterful list list. now, everything is being generalized in the name of ease of access. you could still field a simple army capable of victory from the old codices; but you were given the freedom of choice so that you could make some truly individual (and fluffy) lists. before, things were limited, but they always had a balancing rule, or wargear, or what have you. now, things are just limited.


Agreed! Just because some people cannot understand traits etc does not mean everything should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. If someone does not understand how something works, exercise your brain and figure it out. Anything else is a backward step. Like throwing away your MP3 and using a tape deck.


----------



## Jase (Nov 4, 2007)

slaaneshy said:


> Agreed! Just because some people cannot understand traits etc does not mean everything should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. If someone does not understand how something works, exercise your brain and figure it out. Anything else is a backward step. Like throwing away your MP3 and using a tape deck.



no. that's not gunna sell to beginners, not gunna get educated gamers into the hobby, just gunna get idiots who cannot be bothered to understand the complicated rules system.

then that leads to a stale gaming system, where the hobby is full of old gamers who understand, new gamers who don't understand, and inbetween gamers who can't be bothered. then the game stagnates, nobody joins cause they hear it's stupidly complex to get into and all of a sudden BAM! it's the d&d syndrome.

i don't know if you noticed but D&D recently released a new edition of their rules that simplified things, and made them a lot easier, everyone has spat their dummies out and cried about it, but from what i hear it makes the game easier and a lot more enjoyable.

it seems to me that companies like games workshop and the guys who produce D&D etc. have realised that the only way they are going to get new blood into the hobby is to not segregate themselves and become a small niche. hence simplifying things. 


simple things = more interesting.

massively complicated = can't be bothered.

at the end of the day i'd rather have a simple game if it meant there was always new competition than having a complex game that only a small group of friends can play.

i play this game to be social, it's fun and i like it. if you're gunna put it into that section where you have to be Uber nerd to play then i'm sorry sir but i'm gunna take a step back now and step out of here.

my 2 cents.


----------



## hurt-wm (Jun 8, 2008)

simple things= simple people. In my experience (i have played since i was 10) the rules werent that hard to pick up. sure, i made mistakes, but i am proud to say that the veteran players i came into contact with cared enough about the game too steer me in the right direction. that is a very important dynamic in the W40k community; the players who know what they are doing help those who do not. i did not get into this hobby for the rules; i got into it for the rich backstory and the ability to make something truly unique. i dont think i would like to play against some kid who got into the hobby because it was easy and he didnt have anything else to blow his money on.
and i dont mean to sound like a jerk. just like discussing stuff like this :grin:

PS i dont agree with GWs marketing strategy either.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Once again I agree with Hurt. Myself and my mates understood the game when we picked up rules 15 years or so ago and we are not brain surgeons, just average joes. I know kids are supposed to be dumber nowadays, but once again, if they can't understand something and can't be bothered to learn it, I wouldn't want them in the hobby anyhow.
GW is a business of course and needs fresh blood, and dumbing down could help with that BUT so could many other strategies, such as lowering prices (the biggest barrier to getting new people in), actually advertising the product in a more generic way and so on.

Perhaps there could be two versions of the game, baby 40k and 40k for those who passed their GSCE exam? But seriously, the system it aint that hard to learn!

Little off topic here so to keep it real - BRING ON THE LEGIONS!!!


----------



## hurt-wm (Jun 8, 2008)

Yeah, it was getting off topic. Does anyone know when the dex is slated for?lord knows I would turn to chaos if they brought out a legions dex...


----------



## Drax (Sep 19, 2007)

don't hold your breath - it _may_ not happen at all.

best bet if you really want to do a legion is paint and play under the current rules, and if legion dexes appear, see that as a bonus


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

If i could play a game of second ed. at 15 without any problems i dont think anyone should have any problems understanding anything past third ed.. As far as im concerned the dumbing down has been going on since then and they have taken it a bit far.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

i asked a redshirt at my local GW about it and he said "i cant confirm or deny that." 
we all know what that usually means :grin:


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Captain Galus said:


> i asked a redshirt at my local GW about it and he said "i cant confirm or deny that."
> we all know what that usually means :grin:


yep that means he hasn't got a bloody clue but he'll be damned if he's going to let you know that!


----------



## hurt-wm (Jun 8, 2008)

hear hear!


----------



## effigy22 (Jun 29, 2008)

I gotta say, nothing is churning out of my manager on a stick. Maybe i need to poke him more.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Jase said:


> simple things = more interesting.
> 
> massively complicated = can't be bothered.
> 
> ...


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

I think bringing out a Legions codex would be great but I cant see GW doing it any time soon.
Arguments about bringing in new blood are valid to a point, but I fail to see why the dumbing down has to affect the whole range. The starter boxes are a great idea, whats stopping GW from releasing more of them, they are a massively simplified route into gaming and IMO great stand alone games.
Pricing is another factor, GW happily proclaims itself the biggest table top gaming company in the world, well drop your prices and you could be even better.
40k has always been about a learning curve. The more you study the game the more it gives you, by breaking the games down too much and making them too generic you lose what the game is about.


----------



## Usaal (Apr 9, 2008)

I agree that some armys are fine now, and for the most part you can still make your army of choice.
Altho, what about us poor Emperor's Children players? I can no longer feild a Havoc squad with Blastmasters (not that I would with the point cost of them now), I also have a nice Forge world Dread that has a Blastmaster that I have to pretend is a Lascannon now. or on my predators who have no blastmaster or sonic blaster sponsons.
I now have 14 guys, 2 Dreads and 2 preds that I can not play as WYSIWYG unless I want to play Apoc.
that and my Daemonettes lost Rending, so whats the point of using them now?

Oh well, thats my rant, I just hope the do the 4 chaos gods as more indepth books.


----------



## quietviper (Jun 9, 2008)

I read in a White Dwarf (sorry, I can't remember which actual issue :headbutt some way back that even Jervis Johnson was not thrilled the way the Chaos codex turned out and that "some time in the future" they would release some kinda codex to cover cult legions. 

I agree that simplifying the core rules could create a more spontanious and fluid game but I still don't under stand why they had to butcher some of the codexes. What they needed to do was clarify obscure rules, rebalance the "killer" rules, and do away with redundant and double redundant rules. I really don't believe an Alpha Legion, Thousand Sons, or a Word Bearers list SHOULD or could, for that matter, play the same way.:ireful2: I think, tactically, they should be different.

Anyways that's my two cents. Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.:thank_you:


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

first off, I still am not convinced that any "butchering" of codices has occurred.
Second, I like the simplification of the rules, simple rules make foe less loopholes.
When rules are made more complicated, there is the problem of how they interact. Since 4e, GW has been working on rule sets that eliminate the need for special rules that "break," or "bend" the basic rules of the game. Yes, those rules did a good job in the past of representing fluff, but that caused two major problems. They caused some armies to be broken, and they caused arguments. Since those special abilities are now universal rules, there are no rule conflicts, and the abilities are in line with the points cost of the units that have them. It also eliminates the need to play-test new rules when a new codex is released, thus speeding the process without compromising the quality, and eliminates the need to explain the special abilities with anything more than a page reference in the main rulebook, eliominating coonfusion about what the ability can do.

It is a true step forward, not dumbing down. Complexity is great when it serves a purpose, is is foolishness when it is there for the complexity.


----------



## Canadish (Jun 17, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> It also eliminates the need to play-test new rules when a new codex is released, thus speeding the process without compromising the quality, and eliminates the need to explain the special abilities with anything more than a page reference in the main rulebook, eliominating coonfusion about what the ability can do.
> 
> It is a true step forward, not dumbing down. Complexity is great when it serves a purpose, is is foolishness when it is there for the complexity.


Wait.....are you saying that Games Workshop being lazy and not play testing the rules is a step forward!? :shok:

Anyway, While I have to agree that the codex's arent as deep as they used to be, they look cleaner now and its easy to firgure things out, never a bad thing.
Where the problem lays however is that armies are now cookie cutter. Chaos lost the options for all the cool daemons, the diffrences between the major legions and alot of the character that has been build up over the years. While the Eldar and Ork codex's did remove the options for the diffrent craftworlds/clans, they still managed to balence this out by keeping and adding some of the more obscure troops and allowing freedom of choice for the army without forcing you to take a certain type of commander with a certain Lashes of torment power if you want to stand a chance 

Now we look to the future and Space marines are about to lose their traits, leaving all other armies other then a select few chapters without any character. Even those armies are forced to take a special character if they want these traits ! :angry:
After that the guard will probably lose all of their variations of doctrains. Then we carry on with our soulless Smurfs into the future....

Thats my take on it


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Canadish said:


> Wait.....are you saying that Games Workshop being lazy and not play testing the rules is a step forward!? :shok:
> 
> Anyway, While I have to agree that the codex's arent as deep as they used to be, they look cleaner now and its easy to firgure things out, never a bad thing.
> Where the problem lays however is that armies are now cookie cutter. Chaos lost the options for all the cool daemons, the diffrences between the major legions and alot of the character that has been build up over the years. While the Eldar and Ork codex's did remove the options for the diffrent craftworlds/clans, they still managed to balence this out by keeping and adding some of the more obscure troops and allowing freedom of choice for the army without forcing you to take a certain type of commander with a certain Lashes of torment power if you want to stand a chance
> ...


What I said was not having to test the "speshul roolz" that dominated 3e, almost all of which were broken in one way or another, and did not necessarily add to fluff was a step forward. It is not lazy to realize that the poorly thought out rules are unnecessarily complicating the game are creating arguments instead of improving the experience.

As for the "cookie cutter" argument, I think it is bunk. The orks still have clans, the eldar still have craftworlds. It is now a matter of building a Goff warband, or builidng a Saim Hann warhost, as opposed to having special rules to make them so. The space marine argument is a bigger fallacy.According to fluff, ninety percent of space marine chapters are "Codex" chapters. This means that they do not significantly deviate from the codex astartes. The argument regarding doctrines for IG, and traits for space marines is a power game argument masquerading as a "Fluff" argument. Neither had, or needed those special rules to make them cool. 

That having been said, I as a devoted space marine player,(loyalist and traitor) I would love to see codices for ALL of the first founding chapters. I do believe that they all have significantly divergent methods of battle, which necessitates diferent army lists. I do not believe that they need "speshul roolz," just unit options that reflect their unique way of fighting. The fluff on the tt comes from painting, converting and unit selection. No one needs rules to only take predators and vindicators for heavy support, no one needs special rules to take no fast attack. Where the need foe separate codices is when a unit is shifted from one foc slot to another, or when that force fields unique units.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

just to let you know, im keeping an eye on this thread. don't turn it into a bitchfest, please.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

> The argument regarding doctrines for IG, and traits for space marines is a power game argument masquerading as a "Fluff" argument.


Oh, come on. 
Despite their flaws these rules do not exist for the sake of powergaming - there are enough players that enjoy deeper customization.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

hurt-wm said:


> before, things were limited, but they always had a balancing rule, or wargear, or what have you.


I'm sorry but I really disagree with this. The old codex *was not balanced*. Neither is the new one to be honest, but it is nearer.

the trouble with all the wargear options in the old book is that there were too many to properly test, or to test all the different combinations. The result was that things that were not intended turned out to be very powerful, and were used a lot. 

Armies were made up of daemons, vehicles and obliterators. The actual chaos marines were often relegated to standing in groups of 5 or 6, guarding a guy with a lascannon. That's if they were present at all, which wasn't always the case. I don't think a 7 heavy support IW army, or a slaanesh "army" of a daemon prince and lieutenant, both with siren, and a load of daemonnettes would match anyone's definition of "fluffy".

The new book is focussed on the chaos marines themselves, and they are now better. It helps that the new edition makes troops more useful too. In my opinion it's a big improvement to see chaos marines in a chaos marine army.

I don't really think that cult armies have lost anything in the new book. In fact I think they are probably better in most cases. The only army I miss is the word bearers. I think they could have done a much better job of the daemons. I'm hugely glad to see the back of iron warriors.


----------



## da big boss (May 1, 2008)

mgtymouze said:


> Haven't heard this but it would piss me off if they did. Even though my primary army is chaos, other armies need updating first. Dark Eldar are dated as are Space Wolves. The current Chaos codex is barely a year old, so if this is true then GW's release schedule is even more broke than I thought.


agreed:fuck:


----------



## hurt-wm (Jun 8, 2008)

now, i wasnt necessarily talking about chaos, but you make a good point. IW had a powerfull option to take extra heavy support; this was balanced by the fact that they were vulnerable to fast attack and anti-tank units. Slaanesh armies were powerfull in combat, but once again they had a major weakness in that the had no firepower. That is the nature of chaos; they are usually NOT tactically balanced. i have to go, but ill be back in a bit.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

hurt-wm said:


> IW had a powerfull option to take extra heavy support; this was balanced by the fact that they were vulnerable to fast attack and anti-tank units.


In theory, that is how it was meant to work. In practice it didn't work. Iron warriors didn't particularly suffer from losing fast attack choices, because the fast attack choices weren't very good. You ended up with an army that could shoot as well as anything out there, if not better, but which was far tougher to assault. 

It's a simplification, but basically it was like an IG army with a daemon prince and a load of power fists in it - and even some mobility.

The slaanesh daemon bomb army was just stupid. In this case I'm not trying to argue that it was too powerful, though siren was clearly broken, but that it was ridiculous that people ever even considered it.

Luckily daemon bomb was pretty rare (unlike IW), so I didn't have to play it very often, and I don't think I ever lost to it. The daemonnettes never quite figured out how to charge my kroot in woods. I did once manage to trap a siren prince (with speed instead of wings) by surrounding him with my 3 hammerheads so there was no way for him to go while the rest of my army ran away. He did kill a HH in the end, but then the game ended.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Maybe i was lucky to play in a fairly adult club with no tournament pretensions but I didn't find many net lists, 9 oblits etc. And not at the campaign weekends either.

I refer you to my earlier post where I said the 3ed chaos codex had soul. By that I mean breadth and depth. Sure a beginner could play something easy to understand but the more entertaining choices were there for the experienced player. I couldn't give a monkeys if it could be twisted into power lists, for the overwhelming majority of hobbyists who don't play competitively it just didn't matter.

I personally fielded Word bearers heavy on troops and daemons with no oblits or vehicles. And never came across two lists the same. Can we say that for the new codex?


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Seen on today's bols, 

"Secondly Jervis was asked about earlier comments regarding the possibility of seperate codices for the Traitor Legions and said "Yes we aim to do a standalone codex for each legion". World Eaters were given as en example and of course no timelines"

as reported by Warseer's: Philbrad (emphasis mine)

Boo yah this means that we will get legion specific 'dexes, we just gotta be patient, use the current, broken 'dex to make us srtonger, so we will own when we get our better 'dexes.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Technically a smart idea as the current codex was meant to be about renegade chapters that could follow random gods and join up into the red corsairs. Basically bull.... The seperate codices would be a tad weird then because if that happens, Loyalist marine players will scream for a codex for every primary legion.... The likelihood of that happening is very slim..... and if that happens, for equality they should release one for every craftworld, every kabal, every IG different styled regiment. If they do it for one demand for others will be huge and that would not make GW money to release a codex for everything....


----------



## gwmaniac (Sep 1, 2008)

well, i hope they focus on the iron warriors. personally, i don't think there's enough background for them.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> The argument regarding doctrines for IG, and traits for space marines is a power game argument masquerading as a "Fluff" argument.


My Light Infantry army with few tanks and no Storm Troopers begs to differ.

Sometimes, a rules option that ISN'T abused is just that.

An option.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Jervis has said in the past that the codices he is referring to here are the CULT legions, not all of them


----------



## The Thunder Ravens (Jul 7, 2008)

i've got a mixed legion army that i used a few years back, to be honest there wouldn't have been any point in doing a power list coz that made your army really unbalanced. At the time i was playing against alot of veteran players and would no doubt have been torn to pieces. The army i used was HQ and troops from black legion (come on who wouldn't want Abaddon leading a chaos army). Heavy support was the Iron warriors, fast attack came from some night lords bikers (with a side helping of Black legion raptors) Elites came in the form of Black legion terminators and Khorne berzerkers with a few Emperors children or thounsand sons, depending on the opponent. if the game was big enough i always took as much of everything as i could. One thing ive always done in games of 40k is to take plenty of troops coz that really will win you the game if you plan well. Chaos legions getting their own codexes would be pretty cool, would like to know more about the Night lords and their primarch Konrad Kurze/Night haunter he was supposed to have something like split personality disorder or something like that which made him a real loose cannon. Word bearers would be cool to simply for more about Erebus coz he is a 1st class Primarch corrupting, Planet wrecking, Civilian killing super villain and there's not much better than a true villain


----------



## Hailo-15 (Aug 4, 2008)

A legion specified book would be great and i think in light of the new Space marine rules possible post something to buff up the CSM on the side of redeemer tanks and crusaders since we have adeptus mechanicus in CSM and possibly a feel no pain rule for the black legion fighters to even the odds up a bit.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Hailo-15 said:


> A legion specified book would be great and i think in light of the new Space marine rules possible post something to buff up the CSM on the side of redeemer tanks and crusaders since we have adeptus mechanicus in CSM and possibly a feel no pain rule for the black legion fighters to even the odds up a bit.


Feel no pain for black legion? Why, they are not fanatics like word bearers, they are not berserkers like the world eaters, they are not drug crazed like the emperor's children. I think that a better rule would be one that affected their leadership tests, but without making them fearless. The advantage that black legion would have would be numbers and leadership.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

what iv heard is that there probably wont be a new codex for CSM for awhile and that GW is concentrating more on making plastic kits for the metal models that are out because of the price increase of metal models, and by the fact its cheaper to create plastic kits, i do hope that in the next csm dex they will have small sections for certain legions


----------



## Lord Lucius (Sep 18, 2008)

Hopefuly GW will as there could be alot more fluff to army i.e arent all emperors children comanders expected to have the sonic cram thing(god i play them & cant remember the name!)but in game they can't?etc


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Fluff'Ead said:


> DE sell less _because_ they are in need of an update.


I would argue that is not the case, as necrons and space wolves need updates just as bad, but are still popular, while dark eldar are less so.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

That doesn't surprise me.
Space Woofs and Necrons don't look like Glam Rock retards and get more attention in the fluff.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Fluff'Ead said:


> That doesn't surprise me.
> Space Woofs and Necrons don't look like Glam Rock retards and get more attention in the fluff.


I think you hit the nail on the head, the basic concept makes it hard to sell the dark eldar, as they don't nearly acheive what the fluff ( what there is) makes them out to be. I think it goes deeper than the shoddy minis, I think the whole background needs reworking, even if it is tweaks here and there.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

The Wraithlord said:


> Jervis has said in the past that the codices he is referring to here are the CULT legions, not all of them


Jervis: Why do you KEEP bothering me to work on things! Ugh!


hahah, but on a serious note I wouldn't be teeming with anticipation over the next codex, I'm pretty sure it's incompatible with the current dex(no allies) and will basically just be the same stuff we have with the marks already applied, and maybe a sorceror in the squad or something. GW is -far- too uninterested in chaos to do anything else about it.

And if it's only the cult legions, count me as uninterested. It can't be THAT hard to make a book containing them all (Hell they did it in 3rd) with only minor game-breaking balance issues coming from obliterators and iron warriors.


----------



## Ferrus Manus (Apr 28, 2008)

i would like a night lord codex or alpha legion


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

From my pov the are trying to fix a gamesystem that is somewhat flawed in itself. If you were around back in 2nd ed you most likely have things you remember as "the good old days" :scare:
That for example GW finally realized that units should be able to run again is a huge step forwards towards a decent game. The plain idea that an Ork never was able to catch a guard(roughly speaking) since both moved 6 inch and not more was utterly stupid.
5th is all in all a good game, by far better then 3d and 4th (imho). Introduction of a few good rules and much better clarifications has given the game a step forwards.

The really sad part of the CSM list is that the Traitor Legions are scarecly even mentioned in the list and thats what the CSM's still are. They never went trough the "splitting down" that the loyalists did to minimize the risk that thousands of marines turnes traitors again. 
To only talk about "Chaos Warbands" is like _only_ talking about Ultrasmurfs in the SM list, which would be taken very badly too. To me that seems to be the bigger issue then not being able to have a 4th heavy choice as Iron Warriors. 
That and the very limited options on FO slots(exept troops), both Elite and (specially) FA leaves quite much to wish for...

Id wish that they would "remake" the 2 good old classics "slaves to darkness" and "The Lost and the Damned". I recon that they could easily fit 2 legions in a book(like the BA/DA list). That would speed up the releases somewhat and still cover nuff for both legions/book.
For the remaining legions they would do a 3d one and cover those 4(they dont divert that extremly from BL) and that would much likely please all players k:

Sadly tho i dont know if any of that will become reality. To me JJ's statements seems painfully much like damagecontroll due to the massive critics they have recieved as feedback on the CSM list.
The list aint "that bad" but it damn sure rivals the booringness of the 3d ed one which really is saying alot...
When one comes to think of it its quite amazing that they fluke the same list twice with not that long time in between :angry:


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

This rumour has been drifting around for a while, personally I would like to see a *Codex: Chaos Legions* :biggrin:


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

I would love to see Realms of Chaos redone but I really don't think it's going to happen, shame!
A book covering the Chaos Legions should be done but how far down the line it wil be is anyones guess.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

there isnt going to be a new CSM dex for about 3-4yrs, and as iv said in a pervious post the most there going to do is release plastic kits for the metal kits that are currently out there


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

yanlou said:


> there isnt going to be a new CSM dex for about 3-4yrs, and as iv said in a pervious post the most there going to do is release plastic kits for the metal kits that are currently out there


where have you seen this? can you provide some confirmation?
If you could, it would be appreciated.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

iv been told directly by members of staff of GW that there isnt going to be a new CSM dex and by the fact that the current CSM dex hasnt even been out that long,


----------



## abaddonthedespoir (Jan 28, 2008)

yanlou said:


> iv been told directly by members of staff of GW that there isnt going to be a new CSM dex and by the fact that the current CSM dex hasnt even been out that long,


hehe...everyone has been told something by the GW staff that's crap. For me, i've been told the washes aren't going to be sold individually, that Battle for Black Reach would not have a rulebook in it, and other complete crap, and the new dex has been out for about a year, id think that a codex legion will come out in 2, maybe 3, years


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

oh i know about some staff saying stuff thats wrong, but i have been told by a member of staff that was in the head office, but yer 2-3 yrs is about right, and as for metal to plastic, it will happen as its cheaper for GW to make plastic kits then metal kits, (come on who here will be happy when they bring say plastic obliterator kits out?)


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

yanlou said:


> ...come on who here will be happy when they bring say plastic obliterator kits out?


Id _much_ rather have a new codex then a few new models 

And also, all plastic big models (like Ob'z) feels a bit fake since they dont have any weight


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

yanlou said:


> oh i know about some staff saying stuff thats wrong, but i have been told by a member of staff that was in the head office, but yer 2-3 yrs is about right, and as for metal to plastic, it will happen as its cheaper for GW to make plastic kits then metal kits, (come on who here will be happy when they bring say plastic obliterator kits out?)


not me, I think that obliterators are the lamest thing since lame went to lametown.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

I asked a redshirt about it once, and he said it was a "definite possibility," whatever that is supposed to mean. If an Iron Warriors codex came out I'd definitely start a Chaos army lol.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

wait so the GW staff basically said There's definitely a chance it'll come out? That means nothing. There is always a definte chance. It's the chance thing that Means it might not happen... Silly GW...


----------



## Apoctis (Feb 14, 2008)

ANother chaos codex augh!! Man I guess they need it but some other armies should be looked at first. I bet they do an ork codex right after.:no:


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

You don't need a new codex to make any of the legion armies. There is so much backgroung and fluff for all of them already.

What people are asking for is the return of the old broken overpowered legion specific rules to try to chisel some gaming adavntage. IMO.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> You don't need a new codex to make any of the legion armies. There is so much backgroung and fluff for all of them already.
> 
> What people are asking for is the return of the old broken overpowered legion specific rules to try to chisel some gaming adavntage. IMO.


then explain why a lord of nurgle, an upgraded plague marine does not have feel no pain or blight grenades? we want consistency. I had a whole army thqa tI could make out of plague marines and now I have a lame ass k-mart imitation crap in a hat " havoc squad with icon of nurgle"


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Basically, I have no objection to the power level, as such.

What I hate is, if you ran, say, Word Bearers? You're stuck with Daemons who now may have abilities that are in no way reflected by the models.

A Lord of Nurgle cannot have blight grenades... and suffers none of the penalties associated with beign a Plague Marine (his Initiative? Still sky-high)
A Khorne Lord will cheerfully serve with a Slaanesh Sorcerer... instead of slaying the vile and cowardly wizard-servant of his patron's enemy.

An Undivided Dreadnought is now crazier than a Khorne Berzerker.

Thousand Sons make colanders of power armor... but fold like a cheap lawn chair if any thing with an Armor Rating higher than ten wanders their way. So much for being able to field an actual Legion list.

A Chaos Lord, a man who _sold his soul for power_... can now be bent over a typical Space Marne Captain's knee.

Oh yeah... and servants marked by the GOD OF SORCERY are now among the least tricked-out Psykers in the game. Warptime aside, all they do is blow things up. The Eldar, Orks, and Loyalists all surpass them in terms of actual utility. Would it have KILLED them to put in a few more buffing abilities, a few less "ME ROAST YOU NOW!" things?


----------



## Wraithian (Jul 23, 2008)

I think a lot of the complaints from chaos players (myself included, to a certain extent) are just as Cole explained it above, and the idea that chaos had 80% of it's options removed for the sake of, "streamlining," things, but yet the new marine codex has tons of options (and fleeting marine builds--WTF???). Consistency would be nice, from one codex concept to the next.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Spot on and definitely my largest complaint regarding the new marine book. They took all the cool shit chaos had and threw it out in order to 'streamline' as Wraithian said, but then turned around and just HANDED a metric ton of goodies to marines and what did they lose? Traits. Couple minor wargear options. Absolute kick in the nuts to chaos players.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

Hear hear! Until I had a look at the new Marine codex, I wasn't too fussed about what we'd lost. I figured that I wouldn't need a Lashing DP if I just upped my game a bit in terms of on-the-field generalship. Oops. No more. Now I'm just hoping and praying for an Alpha Legion book to proxy from so that I can field a fluffy list AND compete at the same time. Shame on me.


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

This is something I have been considering of late and I do think I could have dealed with the new Chaos Codex had they just done marks instead of that ridiculous 'Icon' rollocks. It just annoys the hell out of me, that my heavily converted Plauge Marine havocs are suddenly no longer nurgle if the Icon goes, it makes no bloody sense for one thing, and if it was to save a few pts, I'd rather have paid over the odds for the marks.

I will be converting my armies to Legion if it ever happens, just for the that and for the lesser demon/greater demon set up. The thing I really don't get was Demons already had a option to be fielded alone in fantasy, why didn't they just add them a 40K army but still have the option of having the Daemons as normal in the other books. 

From a financial position surely that would have equaled more sales for Daemon figs, especially in fantasy where it now seems they don't fight at all alongside the Mortals and Beasts?

Chaos for me is the current edition is probably the oddest decesion they have ever made as a company, I can't believe the same people who wrote the Realms of Chaos books are still in the company and allowed/embraced the change. Its like Weis/Hickman and the 5th age of Dragonlance all over again for me.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

IMO we are all guilty of looking back with rose tinted specs at times.

There are a lot of complaints about new Nurgle armies. But in the old codex they were shit! Slow, shit in combat and shit long ranged fire. I think the ability to give the mark makes fluffy army building easy. But hey as far as really competitive (tournament) gaming goes I am to that what Richard Reid was to suicide bombing.

But if one of the biggest gripes is that a charachter can't get blight grenades then I don't think we are in too bad a place.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> There are a lot of complaints about new Nurgle armies. But in the old codex they were shit! Slow, shit in combat and shit long ranged fire...


Cant really say i agree here. 
Sure DG dont sport heavy weapons but you had to be an utter fool not to compensate that with vehicles for heavy support, which back in the old codex had options not thinkable of nowdays.
Or the classical 4 plasmaguns havoc squad, which back in the days had propper marks.
You could take 2 squads in Rhinos as troops, and more as FA if you felt the need. They still had t5, and had true grit and were fearless which imho sums up to a good cc unit. Hell even the plaguebearers were hard due to t5 in CC and poisoned weapons made them dangerous to the few things that took DGs time to grind down(wraithlords and the like).
And the characters now are but a pale shade of the last ed codex chaos characters :angry:

Sure they've become even harder now with feel no pain, and the options of making unorthodox DG armies, but saying they were shit in the 3,5 list isnt really correct imho :angel:

And yea Druchii, that is probably the biggest of all annoyances in the list for me too. I mean wtf, is only that guy given the mark or wtf? Since if he dies the unit lose the mark, geez :ireful2:


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

MaidenManiac said:


> Cant really say i agree here.
> Sure DG dont sport heavy weapons but you had to be an utter fool not to compensate that with vehicles for heavy support, which back in the old codex had options not thinkable of nowdays.
> Or the classical 4 plasmaguns havoc squad, which back in the days had propper marks.
> You could take 2 squads in Rhinos as troops, and more as FA if you felt the need. They still had t5, and had true grit and were fearless which imho sums up to a good cc unit. Hell even the plaguebearers were hard due to t5 in CC and poisoned weapons made them dangerous to the few things that took DGs time to grind down(wraithlords and the like).
> ...


I am not convinced, and I think much of the proof was in that Death Gaurd armies were as common as pork butchers in Tehran.

You're right that vehicles could compensate to an extent. But in the few times I faced Death Gaurd take out the vehicles and the rest fell apart. And what were the great options available for them? I think possessed is better now than it was, what else was there?

As for true grit and fearless. They now get bolt pistols (I think sorry codex at home) so are actually better than true grit! And they are still fearless so and T5 so no change for the worse.

And a havoc squad with plasma cost what 300 points or so, and thats without a tarted up champion. A little pricey for a one shot unit whose blokes fall over to plasma gets hot as easily as any other marine. And by the way used up one of the heavy support choices you wanted for vehicles.

I actually mourn the loss of power specific daemons as my only real whinge for the new codex but plaguebearers against wraithlords? OK but how many games did you actually get to do that. How many Eldar players were actually dumb enough to let them close? You could never rely on the tactic as you never new when or where they would turn up. I never collected a Deathgaurd army but had a small squad of daemons from each power in my Word Bearers army (Still there in fact) and they only ever really functioned as a roadblock. Furies, Daemonettes and Bloodletters all performed better over a couple of years on the table.

As for charachters I always thought the old ones were overpowered anyway so don't mind them calming down. All my opinion obviously but in my experience Deathgaurd were shit. (By the way I loved the idea as fluffy as hell but was too scared to take on the project of doing them properly painting and modelling wise).


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> You're right that vehicles could compensate to an extent. But in the few times I faced Death Gaurd take out the vehicles and the rest fell apart. And what were the great options available for them? I think possessed is better now than it was, what else was there?


We had predators with AV 14/12/11 and dreadnoughts with 13/13/11. Our vehicles used to be scary things on the tables, they could all have a pair of DDCW for a measly few points, could cause other units to quake in terror, or even give out own units fearless via loudspeaker. They were -fantastic- vehicles.

Also possession might be better, but we can't take it on units that really would benefit from it. Also I think it costs more.



the cabbage said:


> As for true grit and fearless. They now get bolt pistols (I think sorry codex at home) so are actually better than true grit! And they are still fearless so and T5 so no change for the worse.


Those pistols are almost a commodity, if you're charging with plague marines, something went wrong if you're playing competitively. Although I agree plague marines were, without a doubt, buffed significantly this codex.



the cabbage said:


> And a havoc squad with plasma cost what 300 points or so, and thats without a tarted up champion. A little pricey for a one shot unit whose blokes fall over to plasma gets hot as easily as any other marine. And by the way used up one of the heavy support choices you wanted for vehicles.


Actually I'd have to do the math on that, I believe our weaponry on a whole costs alot more this edition...Also our obliterators used to be in the elites, so even without the tanks we'd do well.



the cabbage said:


> I actually mourn the loss of power specific daemons as my only real whine for the new codex but plaguebearers against wraithlords? OK but how many games did you actually get to do that. How many Eldar players were actually dumb enough to let them close?


It was called the daemonbomb. We used to be able to do it. Nobody besides the inquisition could do anything to stop it.



the cabbage said:


> You could never rely on the tactic as you never new when or where they would turn up. I never collected a Deathgaurd army but had a small squad of daemons from each power in my Word Bearers army (Still there in fact) and they only ever really functioned as a roadblock. Furies, Daemonettes and Bloodletters all performed better over a couple of years on the table.


I'll agree that I never gave plague bearers much of a look through, bloodletters were amazing, and daemonettes rocked.



the cabbage said:


> As for characters I always thought the old ones were overpowered anyway so don't mind them calming down. All my opinion obviously but in my experience Deathgaurd were shit. (By the way I loved the idea as fluffy as hell but was too scared to take on the project of doing them properly painting and modelling wise).


The older characters had a bunch of zany, nonsensical rules that made them fun to do, they weren't so much 'point and click' like they are now.


----------



## jax40kplyr (Sep 15, 2008)

I'll second the frustration I have with the seperation of god-specific demons in the chaos codex. Used to be a great combo when I could use my plague Marines as a static base, let them come close and them bam! - summon those daemonettes and rend the heck out of them. Now - generic demons aren't even worth the points, let alone the cost of models. 
The demon bomb started to become ridiculous though with some powergamers - good example:
Daemonlord of Slaanesh - couldn't target it with ranged weapons (pychic power), wings, all tooled up. Icon
Chaos Lt, greater daemon vessel. 
Squad of infiltrating chosen with plasma guns. Icon.
6 squads of daemonettes (as many as he could fit in).
Either the chosen would infiltrate close up to you or the Daemonlord would fly right up near you - boom - daemonettes started popping in and assaulting. Rending and combat consolidation would take care of the rest.
Either way - I like how they toned the demonbomb down, but hate the generic demons associated with the newer codex.


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

I still play word bearers and i still enjoy the daemon bomb yeah they toned it down and i do like that too, its something i can throw in there and they're meat. and for marine stats two attacks being fearless and having an invul, yeah thats not bad for being 2 points cheeper than csm's as well as theres no point in loading them down with upgrades and they dont take up foc slots they make up a GREAT meat squad you can just throw at something, same with the greater daemon, its a monster for what it costs, i would have kept maybe a lesser daemon for FA like a winged lesser daemon IE fury type thing so we have SOMETHING in FA thats not wtf pointsink, and maybe throw the lesser daemons a bone, let a model take a mark so they get /something/ to differenciate between each other, i mean for the needs of CSM i think the daemons fill a slot that the marines needed a cheep meat unit, just the absence of so much fluff...hurts...so much...so...dry


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

word bearers are probably the legion that got hurt the least( I am a little jealous), and in some ways even helped out. Sure there are no true dark apostles, but the daemon weapons are better. the lesser daemons are weaker, but you can have as many as points allow. 

This having been said, much of the flavor is gone, I loved being able to give my champions nurgle's rot, as I imagined them as being contagious, and giving more than one type of possession to my vehicle created many conversion ideas, such as a predator that had a slug-style pseudopod instead of tracks, and worms and cables sprouting forth from all over.
The loss of cultists also hurts, as I have always had an eye towards a cultist list for alpha legion. many of the options that are gone are the ones that were fun, but not too powerful.

as for obliterators, they are not as versatile as imagined, as they can only use one of those many weapons per turn, and other options can be just as versatile, do it better, and for a lot less points.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> word bearers are probably the legion that got hurt the least


Nope. Thousand Sons got the best end of the deal, legion-wise. My boys went from being the most useless troop in the codex to being incredibly deadly.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

The Wraithlord said:


> Nope. Thousand Sons got the best end of the deal, legion-wise. My boys went from being the most useless troop in the codex to being incredibly deadly.


If short-ranged and doomed against any vehicle with semi-decent armor....


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> word bearers are probably the legion that got hurt the least( I am a little jealous), and in some ways even helped out. Sure there are no true dark apostles, but the daemon weapons are better. the lesser daemons are weaker, but you can have as many as points allow.
> 
> This having been said, much of the flavor is gone, I loved being able to give my champions nurgle's rot, as I imagined them as being contagious, and giving more than one type of possession to my vehicle created many conversion ideas, such as a predator that had a slug-style pseudopod instead of tracks, and worms and cables sprouting forth from all over.
> The loss of cultists also hurts, as I have always had an eye towards a cultist list for alpha legion. many of the options that are gone are the ones that were fun, but not too powerful.
> ...


Lesser daemons are kind of crap, it's rare to see a list use them, they could have used alot more imagination than just "Armorless, weaponless marines with a 5+ invul, hell yeah." Because everything they can do, I can have other troops do better. And with zero upgrades, all they have to do is get hit by something they can't possibly harm and the squad is wasted. Plus losing combat with only a 5+ invul sucks hard...And saving two points isn't worth it imho unless you KNOW you're fighting banshees.

Losing cultists was nonsensical and lazy(like most of the codex).



The Wraithlord said:


> Nope. Thousand Sons got the best end of the deal, legion-wise. My boys went from being the most useless troop in the codex to being incredibly deadly.


What?

No really what?

Last edition you had some of the most broken infantry in the game, two wound bastards with invincible sorcerors who never needed to take a psychic test.

Sorcerors could get gear as well if memory serves right. I'm really quite confused how going from "unkillable, monster marines, with a 'do-anything' sorceror" to "niche marine killer" is better.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> Losing cultists was nonsensical and lazy(like most of the codex).


definitely agree that this is probably the laziest and most nonsensical effort they have produced so far.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

that's why I let my friends use eye of terror still with the traitor guard.... makes it some bit closer to the old one...


----------



## Wolfenstien (Oct 16, 2008)

:threaten:Yes, curse the attention that gw give to the loyalist scum. the ancient codex's must be worked on(Necrons,dark eldar, I-guard,etc.)


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> What?
> 
> No really what?
> 
> ...


Are you serious? You honestly think that the 2 wound tsons were _better_?? Tsons were hands down the weakest army in the game regardless of 2 wounds. Hell maybe, MAYBE, old Orks were worse but not by much. The army was so small because of the high points costs that fielding much more than 30 models at 2000pts was damn near impossible while still being effective. And those two wounds didn't amount to shit when they got pegged with S8 weapons or higher, which happened far more often than now due to high strength weapons being much cheaper and more readily available. If you found them unkillable, you were doing something wrong my friend. And considering that the psychic powers in the old codex were ass for the most part, being a sorc wasn't that big of a deal really.

The _only_ list I have a real problem with now is a horde Ork list. That's it. Anything else is a good game with a reasonable chance at winning as opposed to a fight to do anything but lose or draw, more often lose. Marines are definitely my chosen target with the ap3 bolters, no argument, but that is nowhere near the only thing the current Thousand Sons are good at fighting.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Ultimately, i think that chaos marine players would be happier with the dex if it didn't supersede the previous dex for legion players, and there had been warning about it featuring the renegades over true servants of the ruinous powers. for us, it was thes ame as if gw had decided that ultras were no longer the standard for space marines, but black templars were, sure, some players would be happy, but those of us that stuck with the fluff, and developed our armys(models), and our play style around it got hosed.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

Take it from a guy who plays 'em - it's shite for fielding fluffy Renegades as well. Actually, what it seems to represent is the Black Legion, so it's more like if GW decided that all Marine armies had to stick rigidly to the Smurf template, whether it makes sense or not.

That nitpick aside, though - yeah, total agreement.

[EDIT: NOOOOO! I put an apostrophe in a verb! BACK, egregiously misplaced punctuation, BACK! The power of Christ compels you!]


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

I dont think that they were really going for black legion, as there is a lot more mention of renegades than the black legion, huron blackheart has four pages of fluff and rules, while abbadon has one page of fluff and rules, and a picture.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

Well, yes, in terms of fluff it's a bit Renegade-centric, but there's just no way Renegades could gain access to Obliterators, Defilers, or Rubric Marines, so I'd have to say that the list itself is BL.

[EDIT: Dammit. I screwed up with capitalization, too. This has not been a good thread for me.]


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

true, I think that they were trying to show that the black legion are what a typical warband is, and renegades that do not follow a structure similar to a cult legion will be similar. 

The obliterators, defilers, and rubric marines are something that, if a renegade warband had access to, it would be limited. I also find that frustrating, as it further dilutes what it means to be a legion player.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

I don't think Renegades should have any access to them, unless they camp in or around the Eye. Daemon Princes should also be rare, if available at all. Trouble is, once you've cut yourself off from all these things (as well as non-Khornate cult troops or marks, like I have), there's not a lot left for a Renegade to play with. And, Black Legion aside, all the other Legions are faced with a very similar dilemma.

All of which leads us back to the need for tailored Codices. As I think I mentioned before, I'm just sitting here hoping for an Alpha Legion list that I can proxy from. Ah well, perhaps 2010...


----------



## Cruor (Jun 2, 2008)

I for one hope that they certainly do do another legion book as i agree that the new chaos book has sucked the soul ouf of chaos. My once interesting thousand son purely tzeentch aremy has just become a load of normal dudes with a few TS marines thrown in. Indeed I may have gained some troop options that a purely tzeentch army would not have had before, but then again so did EVERY legion army and now almost EVERY chaos army follows similar formla/makeup and its boring andf aceless.


----------



## Exodus (Nov 12, 2008)

I agree Space Wolves need a new codes as well Dark Eldar and Imperal gard seames to be next plus you can still theam your units with marks in the current codex to produce the cult armys (T6 bikers with the mark of Nurgle come to mind)

Anyhoo for the most part The World eaters, Death gard, Thousand suns and empors children have been split into many varying warbands over time and background.

So i would image its a bit off thy will problery get to it around the time a Xenos hunter inquistor book comes out ha!


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

*New CSM Codices*

As someone whose fairly new to 40K, the new Chaos Marine Codex was the first book I bought, along with a Chaos Dreadnought, and though a mate sold me an older edition, I wouldn't say this new codex was a bad book, it being the psychopathic nature of Chaos Dreads which made me buy the book in the first place.

The real problems with Chaos Marines are that the new Space Marine codex has made them second best (unless your playing apocalypse) and also that there has been no attempt to differentiate between the traitor legions and renegade warbands.

After all you would expect the Red Corsairs who've only defected within the last century to be a complete contrast to groups who embraced the Chaos gods ten thousand years ago such as the Black Legion.

What's needed are some new models to reflect this, rather than a new codex, just as Games Workshop are doing for the Orks in January. For example groups like the Red Corsairs should be able to take Razorbacks or Assault Terminators into battle (with a limit of one unit each per army), as well as a plastic dreadnought model more akin to that used by Loyalist Space Marines.

Add in a few more of the new units from Codex: Space Marines, and edit the rules a little so that Land Raiders can carry twelve models instead of ten, and I'd say your set.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> As someone whose fairly new to 40K, the new Chaos Marine Codex was the first book I bought, along with a Chaos Dreadnought, and though a mate sold me an older edition, I wouldn't say this new codex was a bad book, it being the psychopathic nature of Chaos Dreads which made me buy the book in the first place.
> 
> The real problems with Chaos Marines are that the new Space Marine codex has made them second best (unless your playing apocalypse) and also that there has been no attempt to differentiate between the traitor legions and renegade warbands.
> 
> ...


The entire counter-argument to this is that in the old book, dreadnaughts were profittably psychotic. Doing double the attacks when they bloodraged. So remember now how you fleet into something to do normal attacks? Forget that. You're a psychotic warmachine running itself off hate and oiled by the gore and ichor you stomp out of others.

New models wouldn't make the rules any better, it would make the army more fun to play though. I try to avoid older chaos models because they all have the "unibrow of anger" that was prominant pre-3rd edition.

And the red corsairs can burn in a little hole. They're what started this entire mess of "renegade legions nobody cares about".


----------



## Volchek (Oct 14, 2008)

What irritates me about the current CSM codex is the vehicle selections and the upgrades/wargear limitations they have. Regardless of a legion or renegade chapter being 10000 years old or 10 years old, they should have almost the same choices as normal Space Marines when it comes to vehicles, and they should be allowed to make as many customizations as any Space Marine vehicle.

However, I would like to see legion specific codices for Chaos Space Marines.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> The entire counter-argument to this is that in the old book, dreadnaughts were profittably psychotic. Doing double the attacks when they bloodraged. So remember now how you fleet into something to do normal attacks? Forget that. You're a psychotic warmachine running itself off hate and oiled by the gore and ichor you stomp out of others.
> 
> New models wouldn't make the rules any better, it would make the army more fun to play though. I try to avoid older chaos models because they all have the "unibrow of anger" that was prominant pre-3rd edition.
> 
> And the red corsairs can burn in a little hole. They're what started this entire mess of "renegade legions nobody cares about".


Lordwaffles, all I'm saying is that their should either be a new dreadnought model or a chance to do a conversion, simply for the newer Chaos recruits such as the Red Corsairs, the same rules would still be in place, so that even though they had been Loyal Space Marines when interred they would be nonetheless psychotic, just as Blood Angels Death Company Dreadnoughts are.

As for the importance of renegades to the Chaos Space Marines, they wouldn't be nearly as interesting or as threatening if they were just those Space Marine Legions which fought under Horus. After all the character flaw that makes Space Marines so interesting is a neccessity since their capacity for deceit and betrayal makes them more human.



Volchek said:


> What irritates me about the current CSM codex is the vehicle selections and the upgrades/wargear limitations they have. Regardless of a legion or renegade chapter being 10000 years old or 10 years old, they should have almost the same choices as normal Space Marines when it comes to vehicles, and they should be allowed to make as many customizations as any Space Marine vehicle.
> 
> However, I would like to see legion specific codices for Chaos Space Marines.


This is pretty much what I've been saying Volchek, and I agree with you where the vehicles are concerned. Part of the problem is that the different Space Marine factions, unlike the Eldar where the Dark Eldar all live in one place and have nowhere near the manufacturing capacity of the craftworlds, is that the Loyal and traitorous Space Marines are pretty much matched for resources.

Consequently where as Gav Thorpe and Alessio Cavatore set out to simplify the army lists for Chaos Marines into one all-encompassing list to provide for a more straightforward and balanced army that was easier to play with and against, Mat Ward in writing his first codex in the Space Marine Codex has stamped his authority on it to such an extent that the influx of new models have made the Loyalists the more attractive proposition for prospective players.

So until the next Codex: Chaos Space Marines comes out, which probably won't be before 2010, Apocalypse games will be the only place to field converted redeemers and the like (forget my Razorback suggestion).

As for Legion-specific codices, I think you'll have a long wait.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Lordwaffles, all I'm saying is that their should either be a new dreadnought model or a chance to do a conversion, simply for the newer Chaos recruits such as the Red Corsairs, the same rules would still be in place, so that even though they had been Loyal Space Marines when interred they would be nonetheless psychotic, just as Blood Angels Death Company Dreadnoughts are.


It's perfectly legal to use conversions on the plastic dreadnoughts as long as you use the weapons available from the chaos codex. And if you want to play marines, play marines with fluff. "We recently converted, so still use this dex" is all you have to say.



The Sullen One said:


> As for the importance of renegades to the Chaos Space Marines, they wouldn't be nearly as interesting or as threatening if they were just those Space Marine Legions which fought under Horus. After all the character flaw that makes Space Marines so interesting is a neccessity since their capacity for deceit and betrayal makes them more human.


We had renegades. We had good ones. We called them "basic chaos space marine squad". We don't need an entire codex of noobish raptors, rhinos, possessed, daemons, lords, bikers, or terminators.
The character flaw is prevalent enough in the established fluff of the older edition. New recruits were inducted and taken under the wing of ancient, powerful marines, til they too, became of similar abilities. Nowadays it feels like we have a whole bunch of unattended children running around picking up bolters, bolt pistol/CCW, a pack of grenades, and running into battle for more points than they're worth, with an icon that can go flying out of their hands. Hell, those new possessed on the block didn't even remember to pick up those!

Besides, which is more interesting, the subtle and minor choice of "I'm not going back." to the seething, raging dissent formed by thousands of years of betrayal? A man entirely committed to his new cause of survival or any other new objective he found.

A chaos marine is like a book, the renegades are the beggining, not powerful or especially smart, they die in the droves, the legendary ancient ones are what becomes of the best and brightest.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> Besides, which is more interesting, the subtle and minor choice of "I'm not going back." to the seething, raging dissent formed by thousands of years of betrayal? A man entirely committed to his new cause of survival or any other new objective he found.



Sometimes the subtle choices are the more interesting. That said thanks for advice on being able to convert plastic dreadnoughts, that's exactly what I'm going to do.


----------



## Syko515 (Jan 22, 2008)

honestly i agree in the need for new chaos codecies, HOWEVER, and this is a big however, i feel that older chaos players really need to let it go. the past codex is GONE and not coming back.EVER. stop whining about fluff that was writen way back when the game was in its infancy and the loss of all the rules that made your specific armies completely stupidly broken. what is done is done and it should remain so.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Syko515 said:


> honestly i agree in the need for new chaos codecies, HOWEVER, and this is a big however, i feel that older chaos players really need to let it go. the past codex is GONE and not coming back.EVER. stop whining about fluff that was writen way back when the game was in its infancy and the loss of all the rules that made your specific armies completely stupidly broken. what is done is done and it should remain so.


I get the feeling you haven't been here long.

That fluff was written circa 2002. The game was made around the 1980's. So you are entirely incorrect.

Also, if you want to discuss it, the fluff in the previous edition completely overwrote the fluff of 2nd edition in some ways, but in many ways stayed extremely faithful. And how dare we ask for a good list that doesn't REQUIRE the use of daemon princes, obliterators, and cult squads. 

The Iron Warriors and daemonbomb were extremely powerful, the IW were nearly unstoppable in every way. Nowadays all that additional firepower wouldn't have helped them a jot since they'd lack troop choices. I'm hard pressed to even fill all three heavy support in 1500. The game has changed, and we were handed a half-done book that has already made itself obsolete with the change to the newer edition.

Whining would be baseless lamenting over nothing at all important. Having legions -is- important. Having choices -is- important. And being forced to take nearly mandatory choices to win is why I now have an entire army of "counts as" black templar.

But I'm pretty sure that's all been said and done, in short, I can't wait for legions.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

Syko515 said:


> the past codex is GONE and not coming back.EVER. stop whining about fluff that was writen way back when the game was in its infancy


The fluff and rules in the 3.5 Codex were heavily based on the Index Astartes articles which were written in 3ed - hardly 40k's infancy. They were included in the Codex because of the positive feedback from players.

Oh, and speaking of older publications, mind that the 5th edition Space Marine Codex leans quite heavily on the 2nd edition Codex Ultramarines (complete with the revival of the LotD).



> and the loss of all the rules that made your specific armies completely stupidly broken. what is done is done and it should remain so.


Special rules and balance are not mutually exclusive. GW needs to do better.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Syko515 said:


> The past codex is GONE and not coming back.EVER.


Thats the truth of the matter, especially since GW are moving towards mixed Chaos armies in general. That said if you want to play using the older codex, there's nothing stopping you doing so in private, after all outside of tournaments most players bend the rules a little.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

Since I don't play tournaments the whole tournament scene rules lawyering doesn't concern me. Generally these days I play my World Eaters only in Apocalypse and generally I use the 3.5 rules for that; or lot is far more interested in good storyline games than anything else and the older rules allow a pure World Eaters army whereas the new ones allow a heavy World Eaters Khornate army. Slight difference to some but big enough for me.

To each their own; just because GW is currently trending away from one thing doesn't mean the wheel won't turn again. I've watched them change things multiple times since '87 and I have faith that will keep on going. I might not like it when it does, but then again I might. For now I have my own way of dealing.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Fluff'Ead said:


> Special rules and balance are not mutually exclusive. GW needs to do better.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Sister Sin said:


> Generally these days I play my World Eaters only in Apocalypse and generally I use the 3.5 rules for that; or lot is far more interested in good storyline games than anything else and the older rules allow a pure World Eaters army whereas the new ones allow a heavy World Eaters Khornate army. Slight difference to some but big enough for me.


Actually you can build a pure World Eaters army under the new rules since Khorne Berserkers are troop choices, take some of these in rhinos, perhaps some terminators, using the forgeworld conversions to make them World Eaters, and finally add some predators or dreadnoughts for a pretty decent army. You can also do the same for Death Guard, Emperor's Children, and Thousand Sons


----------



## Air Meister (Nov 19, 2008)

I heard they were splitting them into chapters but i'd ave put that down as a hopeful rumour but it would be cool (specially seeing as i've heard that the Chaos dex at the mo is to put it politely "not very good")


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

I should rephrase myself then: A pure World Eaters army where the entire army has World Eaters rules, not just the troops. 

Currently the codex allows for various formations with an Icon of Khorne...this makes them Khornate with certain benefits. They lose it, they lose faith. That makes them Khornate troops, yes.

The entire World Eaters Legion is the Chosen Legion of Khorne...World Eaters don't lose devotion. Since Terminators are supposed to be long time veterans, as are Chosen, but they lose faith if they lose their icon pole, they aren't World Eaters to my mind. 

We shall politely agree to disagree.  For me, and only for me, a truly pure World Eaters force cannot be made using the new Codex. I never used Daemons or Tanks anyway although I think bringing back the usefulness of Rhinos is a good thing. My army was all Berserkers, Terminators, Dreadnoughts, and Bikers, none of whom lost faith in Khorne because some guy with a pole got shot. They were World Eaters, not World Eaters with a few Khornate guys tossed in. This is entirely how I see them and nothing more.

The current Codex is, in many ways, more powerful than the old one. Certainly one can build The Abomination list with it so it can be abused as easily as the old one, just in different ways.

Bear in mind this is all my opinion of course, not speaking for someone else here.

To each their own however. If the current setup works fine for people I don't have a problem with that. I'm only saying it does not work fine for *me*.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

*Current Codex very good indeed*



Air Meister said:


> (specially seeing as i've heard that the Chaos dex at the mo is to put it politely "not very good")


The current Chaos Marine codex is very good, and I say as a guy who bought it as my first book, before I even got the rule book, before I'd even played a game. It was this book more than anything else which got hooked on 40K (actually it was the mention of psycho dreadnoughts in the book) and when I compare it to the older codex I got off a friend, I don't have any trouble seeing that its the better tome.

While codices for specific legions would be nice, especially where the Night Lords are concerned, I don't think its going to happen.

With the Space Marine chapters that have their own codices, there is something recognisably different from regular chapters. The Blood Angels have a horrific defect in their geneseed, the Dark Angels are trying to cover up a dark secret, the Black Templars are always crusading and have scouts mixed with full Space Marines, while the Space Wolves are, well there the Space Wolves, but you see what I mean.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

The Sullen One is correct; the current Chaos Codex is very powerful and deals very well with Renegades especially. 

It would be nice to have Legion specific Codices as I think they are as different from standard Chaos as any of the 'special' loyalist Chapters are from Ultramarines. But I will believe it when I see it happen, even though they have said they will do so. 

GW says a lot of things and delivers up on some of them. Ordo Xenos comes to mind.

I'm an old broad and rather set in my ways and my World Eater days started back with the release of Realms of Chaos, so the changes have been many and sometimes irritating. Still, the Wheel that is GW continues to turn...no one knows where it will go in time, and I am patient...


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

The Sullen One said:


> With the Space Marine chapters that have their own codices, there is something recognisably different from regular chapters. The Blood Angels have a horrific defect in their geneseed, the Dark Angels are trying to cover up a dark secret, the Black Templars are always crusading and have scouts mixed with full Space Marines, while the Space Wolves are, well there the Space Wolves, but you see what I mean.


Not really. These Chapters only have their own Codices because of their popularity. In fact, all of the First Founding Legions are diverse enough to justify individual rules for them as shown by the Index Astartes articles from the third edition. It simply depends on GW how much these differences are emphasized or shoehorned, and currently only the four Chapters you mentioned pay off for them.


----------



## Air Meister (Nov 19, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> The current Chaos Marine codex is very good, and I say as a guy who bought it as my first book, before I even got the rule book, before I'd even played a game. It was this book more than anything else which got hooked on 40K (actually it was the mention of psycho dreadnoughts in the book) and when I compare it to the older codex I got off a friend, I don't have any trouble seeing that its the better tome.
> 
> While codices for specific legions would be nice, especially where the Night Lords are concerned, I don't think its going to happen.
> 
> With the Space Marine chapters that have their own codices, there is something recognisably different from regular chapters. The Blood Angels have a horrific defect in their geneseed, the Dark Angels are trying to cover up a dark secret, the Black Templars are always crusading and have scouts mixed with full Space Marines, while the Space Wolves are, well there the Space Wolves, but you see what I mean.



no offense meant mate i just know that the old chaos dex was more fluffy and Daemon princes were effectively gods (that and the track records the old dex in comparison to the new dex they seem to lose more than they win now and it certainly does'nt mach up to the orcs other than some of the characters who r pretty sweet)


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Fluff'Ead said:


> Not really. These Chapters only have their own Codices because of their popularity. In fact, all of the First Founding Legions are diverse enough to justify individual rules for them as shown by the Index Astartes articles from the third edition. It simply depends on GW how much these differences are emphasized or shoehorned, and currently only the four Chapters you mentioned pay off for them.


Exactly, and that's the problem with the traitor legions, the only ones where you could justify doing individual codices are the Black Legion (simply for the backstory) and the Night Lords (since they don't worship the Chaos gods, but rather use them as an excuse for slaughter). As for the others, okay some of them might worship a particular Chaos god, and that affects their fighting style, but it's hardly enough to merit expanding the background material to make an entire codex.

What's more the differences between these legions and those such as the Black Legion aren't enough to prevent Khorne Berserkers or Emperor's Children entering Abbadon's service, whereas even if it were possible you could never imagine a Blood Angel or Space Wolf doning Ultramarine colours.


----------



## 1k-termie (May 31, 2008)

new Codex? perfect. Making a great army even greater! Both Sullen One and Sister Sin are right. Renegade-friendly codex, thats still very strong with the non renegade armies. Looking forward to it!


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Air Meister said:


> no offense meant mate i just know that the old chaos dex was more fluffy and Daemon princes were effectively gods (that and the track records the old dex in comparison to the new dex they seem to lose more than they win now and it certainly does'nt mach up to the orcs other than some of the characters who r pretty sweet)


No offence taken, and while I can understand adverse reactions when units come out worse, but this isn't a development unique to Chaos Space Marines, Eldar wraithlords were amongst the units that lost out a bit when their new codex came out, and ultimately all this is part of GW's attempts to create fairer and more balanced games.



1k-termie said:


> new Codex? perfect. Making a great army even greater! Both Sullen One and Sister Sin are right. Renegade-friendly codex, thats still very strong with the non renegade armies. Looking forward to it!


Yes! Yes! Yes! This is what we need, people agreeing with me.

Also a codex for the renegades, and one for the Traitor Legions is a good idea.

Please don't make double posts within minutes of each other. That is what the edit button is for.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

Well, the Renegades have a dex; it's the current dex and it works fine for them.

Jervis says a Legion 'dex will be forthcoming but of course there's no idea when, so don't anybody hold their breath...some of these codices have a way of not appearing.  It would be nice to have a codex for the Legions, but I'm not counting on it.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

@The Sullen One
Man, did you even read what I wrote?



> As for the others, okay some of them might worship a particular Chaos god, and that affects their fighting style, but it's hardly enough to merit expanding the background material to make an entire codex.


Expanding the fluff for the Cult Legions even more? Don't "Realms of Darkness" and "Index Astartes" ring a bell?



> What's more the differences between these legions and those such as the Black Legion aren't enough to prevent Khorne Berserkers or Emperor's Children entering Abbadon's service, whereas even if it were possible you could never imagine a Blood Angel or Space Wolf doning Ultramarine colours.


Firstly, I was talking about all of the *First Founding Legions*. Or are the White Scars in the Vanilla Codex because they mingle with the Ultras? Secondly, this has little to do with the fact that BL, WE and EC are still entirely different armies.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Fluff'Ead, I stand by what I said, and while the talk of Blood Angels, Space Wolves and the like doning Ultramarine colours was I'll admit a bad example, I'd still contend the idea that the World Eaters, Emperor's Children and other monotheistic Chaos Legions are different enough to merit a codex.

With the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, their differences from the more orthodox chapters being a defining part of their identity and leading onto specialist formations such as the Death Company or Ravenwing (I don't know enough about either the Black Templars or Space Wolves to talk with any authority)

And while other chapters amongst the first founding legions are different to the Ultramarines such as the Salamanders and the White Scars those differences are not as extensive as they are for the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, so they can be summed up in a line or special rule rather than a book. Furthermore in the new Space Marine Codex even some of these latter chapters are described as trying to follow the teachings of Guilliman but being thwarted by their defective gene-seed.

Which brings me to the point I'm trying to make, that new material is considered canon even if it contradicts what has already been published. So the decision to devise a single army list for all Chaos Space Marines has diminished the differences between legions serving different gods.

Now maybe this decision will be reversed by Games Workshop and we will see codices for specific traitor legions, but given the way they were set out in the preceding codex, with each god and his followers receiving their own book, I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

One of the reasons people are so annoyed at the whole Chaos dex is that the current version didn't just tweak a bit of background here and there, it rewrote, sometimes completely reversed 20 years of background. Sure, there had been tweaks and changes off and on down the line, but generally not quite so harsh as this.

It's the background that has drawn, and keeps, so many 40K players in the game. Tinkering is fine, people are accustomed to it. Wholesale change doesn't go down so well.

World Eaters have progressed (broadly speaking), over those two decades, from a very Codex like Legion of troops to scattered warbands of dedicated Close Combat fanatics. Yet they still see themselves as members of a First Founding Legion, so much so that pieces of armor still in the original livery are highly valued. Doesn't matter that they are scattered or nutjobs of Khorne, it's how they are and have been.

Until now. I don't think it is any surprise that people get annoyed with it...such a rewrite took whole armies and made lovingly crafted conversions useless in a blink..and there really wasn't any reason for it; a few tweaks to the previous Codex would have worked as well if not better than a wholesale revamp of Codex and Background.

The Legions of the First Founding are as different as can be. If anything the Renegades of the current dex should be cookie cutter types as the large majority of Chapters are from Ultramarines geneseed and it is therefore likely that larger number of those Chapters that go renegade are also of Ultramarine geneseed. Hmmm. New Codex fits that template well I'd say, but it ignores the screaming differences in the original Traitor Legions.

All that being said, I will believe a Legions Codex when I see it; their track record speaks for itself. But I do believe such a Codex would be not only good but is necessary to boot.

Just my PoV.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Personally I think the new dex is OK. Not great but definately not bad.

It does allow for armies which I do not consider fluffy, this allows some fairly powerfull combo's for tournament gamers.

However there also opportunity to make god specific forces. That sorts out the hobbyists.

A few people lost out. Mainly Alpha Legion, who were basically ultramarines with infiltrate. I do mourn thier loss. Iron warriors lost out in theory but they were a badly abused power gamer force (Where I saw them obviously).

I do favour a legions codex but that's because I like new codices. I only hope they wouldn't be too overpowered.

Just my ten penneth.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

The Sullen One said:


> With the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, their differences from the more orthodox chapters being a defining part of their identity and leading onto specialist formations such as the Death Company or Ravenwing


Green Marines, White Terminators and Black Vehicles - Dark Angels.
Red Marines, Black Veterans and jump packs galore - Blood Angels.
Same fluff, no special rules. They can be shoehorned like any other chapter.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Fluff'Ead said:


> Green Marines, White Terminators and Black Vehicles - Dark Angels.
> Red Marines, Black Veterans and jump packs galore - Blood Angels.
> Same fluff, no special rules. They can be shoehorned like any other chapter.


I agree with this. The ultimate scenario for consumers woudl be a codex for every seperate Legion, craftworld, kabal, guard regiment, cadre, hive fleet(maybe) but that will never happen as it will cost GW too much money and not be effective. However I do agree that renegades and the original legions deserve seperate codices... How the hell can Recent renegades have daemon oprinces, thousand sons and hordes of obliterators?


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Exactly, and that's the problem with the traitor legions, the only ones where you could justify doing individual codices are the Black Legion (simply for the backstory) and the Night Lords (since they don't worship the Chaos gods, but rather use them as an excuse for slaughter). As for the others, okay some of them might worship a particular Chaos god, and that affects their fighting style, but it's hardly enough to merit expanding the background material to make an entire codex.
> 
> What's more the differences between these legions and those such as the Black Legion aren't enough to prevent Khorne Berserkers or Emperor's Children entering Abbadon's service, whereas even if it were possible you could never imagine a Blood Angel or Space Wolf doning Ultramarine colours.


Really? -Really-? Did you even read the backgrounds? You sound increasingly like you've never actually read any of the ornate, twisted histories of the powerful legions of chaos(I only say this because that's exactly what I used to think of codex marines. "Meh! They're all the same!" Than I read the backgrounds, and they're really exciting, and extremely diverse.). Each one fights vastly different than another. 

The new codex only really offers insight into five of the nine legions that turned traitor. And that's completely unacceptable. Sure you have your cult troops(Which seem to be where Jervis is taking all this. More focus on JUST the four big cult troops) and black legion. Which is the general excuse for having such a funless codex.

Just look at the Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion! They both operate on ENTIRELY different fronts of warfare. Iron Warriors build up defenses and knock the others down. Alpha Legion have no need for a central location, and they rot defenses away from the inside. I honestly can't believe you only feel like Night lords deserve their own codex while we leave all the others out in the cold.

Although your later idea of having a renegades, and a 'legions' codex is great. And would probably solve every problem ever. For ever. 

I'm in the line of thinking it'd be comparable to grey knights and generic marines, one side has numbers and crappy gear, the other has highly point effective troops, special rules, and good gear, but at a high price.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

All of the Traitor Legions ought to have codices, or a book that handles them all anyway, not just the four Cult Legions. I happen to love World Eaters but I also have Black Legion and am attracted to both Night Lords and Alpha Legion. But I'm not about to build those other two when they are so milksop as they are now.

The loyalist First Founding Legions (Yes Legions, they were Chapters after the Heresy and the Second Founding), also all fight differently. I do suspect a lot of newer players haven't read (possibly don't know about) the huge amount of background history to the First Founding Legions.

I loved the Index Astartes articles, enjoyed the rules derived from them. Yes, they could have been better, were abused in many ways and cases...but that could have easily been fixed with tweaks.

Nothing GW does will make everyone happy though, there's a truth. LOL

All I can do is wait and see, and thank the guys in my gaming group for their willingness to let me play my World Eaters as World Eaters.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Sister Sin said:


> All of the Traitor Legions ought to have codices, or a book that handles them all anyway, not just the four Cult Legions. I happen to love World Eaters but I also have Black Legion and am attracted to both Night Lords and Alpha Legion. But I'm not about to build those other two when they are so milksop as they are now.
> 
> The loyalist First Founding Legions (Yes Legions, they were Chapters after the Heresy and the Second Founding), also all fight differently. I do suspect a lot of newer players haven't read (possibly don't know about) the huge amount of background history to the First Founding Legions.
> 
> ...


I'd be really excited if my legion GOT a single mention in the cults codex. I highly suspect Jervis is just going to say "Herp-a-derp, just make the dex for the god legions." which would only really fix the broken arms on a shattered body.

And really, making the legions book wouldn't be all that hard. They had the right idea on the 3rd edition one. "You get benefits X, Y, and Z, and downfalls A, B, and C" Maybe a few (good) elites.

Fix possessed, dreadnought, spawn, lords. And bam. I'd buy that.


----------



## Gul Torgo (Mar 31, 2008)

I don't see why we would need anything as involved as a separate codex for each traitor legion, as much as I would love an EC book. I can't speak for the the other legions, but the 1 page Emperor's Children Apoc datasheet seems to cover most of the issues for that legion, so surely they could put all the traitor legions in one decent sized book and just have it build off of the original chaos codex.

Even better, I would hope that the cult legions could use at least some of their god's units in the Daemons Codex, and the Cult legions could become a sort of Chaos version of the Inquisition forces, using stuff from multiple codexes. Just my two cents


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

You know, if the Chaos Legions end up getting a Codex, we better see something for the Lost and the Damned.


----------



## Gobbo (Jun 4, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> You know, if the Chaos Legions end up getting a Codex, we better see something for the Lost and the Damned.


We better do, I spent ages mutilating perfectly good tyranids for their claws to make my black dragons. Which were the first minis I really put any effort into painting and converting. Ah, just talking about them gets me all emotional.

They used to have good rending and now... they dont even have bad rending :cray:


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> You know, if the Chaos Legions end up getting a Codex, we better see something for the Lost and the Damned.


PREACH IT, Canadienne.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Gobbo said:


> We better do, I spent ages mutilating perfectly good tyranids for their claws to make my black dragons. Which were the first minis I really put any effort into painting and converting. Ah, just talking about them gets me all emotional.
> 
> They used to have good rending and now... they dont even have bad rending :cray:


No... the Lost and the Damned. Not the Cursed Founding. Weener.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Gul Torgo said:


> I don't see why we would need anything as involved as a separate codex for each traitor legion, as much as I would love an EC book. I can't speak for the the other legions, but the 1 page Emperor's Children Apoc datasheet seems to cover most of the issues for that legion, so surely they could put all the traitor legions in one decent sized book and just have it build off of the original chaos codex.
> 
> Even better, I would hope that the cult legions could use at least some of their god's units in the Daemons Codex, and the Cult legions could become a sort of Chaos version of the Inquisition forces, using stuff from multiple codexes. Just my two cents


it couldn't work that easily, the biggest differences between the unaligned legions is how they fight, with the foc needing manipulation. something that is heavy support for night lords would be a troop choice in iron warriors, and completely out of the question for some of the cult legions, such as death guard. There is more difference between two chaos legions than there are between imperials. 

I agree with Katie, there needs to be a lost and the damned book, and not the lame, half thought out list that was part of codex: eye of terror. make it a true chos cult/ mutant/ traitor guard book.


----------



## Syko515 (Jan 22, 2008)

personally i feel a legions codex would be nice, however the current codex has yet to let me down. IMHO there isn't a NEED for it presently. IMHO fluff should not have any relivance to the game, my apologies to all of you who actually give a damn about the crappy short stories fabricated to boost sales a tenth of a percent.fluff matters about as much as a sneeze when you start rolling dice. as to the alligations that because i do not pay any attention to the useless information known as fluff that i am new to this game is frankly wrong and and simple minded of a view. i understand that there are people who play for the sake of story, why do you not understand that the same is true of the people who play solely to play? now, as to the statement that you require a deamon prince, and other varied units in every list just to have a shot at winning is also completely wrong and says a great deal about the lack of tactical intelligence involved here.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Syko515 said:


> personally i feel a legions codex would be nice, however the current codex has yet to let me down. IMHO there isn't a NEED for it presently. IMHO fluff should not have any relivance to the game, my apologies to all of you who actually give a damn about the crappy short stories fabricated to boost sales a tenth of a percent.fluff matters about as much as a sneeze when you start rolling dice. as to the alligations that because i do not pay any attention to the useless information known as fluff that i am new to this game is frankly wrong and and simple minded of a view. i understand that there are people who play for the sake of story, why do you not understand that the same is true of the people who play solely to play? now, as to the statement that you require a deamon prince, and other varied units in every list just to have a shot at winning is also completely wrong and says a great deal about the lack of tactical intelligence involved here.



How right Syko515 is, the current codex works just fine, and if you want a good backstory for the Legions read the Horus Heresy, as their cheaper and provide a far more intimate background to the legions than any codex.

P.S if you haven't check out Baron Spikey's post about this month's White Dwarf.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

Syko515 said:


> IMHO fluff should not have any relivance to the game, my apologies to all of you who actually give a damn about the crappy short stories fabricated to boost sales a tenth of a percent.fluff matters about as much as a sneeze when you start rolling dice.


Paint jobs and conversions matter as much as a sneeze when the dice rolls. That doesn't lessen their impact on the Hobby as a whole.



The Sullen One said:


> the current codex works just fine, and if you want a good backstory for the Legions read the Horus Heresy, as their cheaper and provide a far more intimate background to the legions than any codex.


This isn't about the unavailability of fluff, but about the inability of the Codex to represent it properly. The Codex fails to work in that regard.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Syko515 said:


> IMHO fluff should not have any relivance to the game, my apologies to all of you who actually give a damn about the crappy short stories fabricated to boost sales a tenth of a percent.


If I felt that way, I wouldn;t play Warhammer of any kind.

There are far superior rulesets out there.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

I think it might be a bit more than 10% sales boost.... If they got rid of fluff altogether, then how many players would leave?


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Fluff'Ead said:


> This isn't about the unavailability of fluff, but about the inability of the Codex to represent it properly. The Codex fails to work in that regard.



The Codex isn't meant to represent fluff, it's meant to allow you to build an army, and so the background is as much about describing the various units you can incoportate into your army, as it is about describing the Horus Heresy. Personally I'd say you've got the option to come up with your own fluff, either by building an army from a reference warband around a certain theme, such as an Iron Warriors Tank Army, or by developing your own army from scratch, in which case you can add fluff to your heart's content.

Bear in mind there are two legions which have been left as unknown so that players can develop their own custom armies and backgrounds.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

If GW ever removed background entirely I'd lose interest. No other game has such a fascinating and richly detailed backstory. I don't know about the younger players, but all of the old hands I have known since the game came out cite the background as the greatest motivator for staying with it. After all, there are far better rules systems and game systems out there. None of them have the background though.

I doubt GW would ever do such a thing. For those who don't give a fig about background, that's fine; there's room for everyone and their opinions. But for a lot of us, especially older veterans of the game, the background matters, and it matters a great deal. 

It has always been a big part of the driving force behind the game, since its very inception and the big backstory on the Rhynn's World invasion and the defense of the Farm in the original Rogue Trader book. The stories included in the Compendium, First Book of the Astronomican, and the other books of that time, regardless of how small they were, had huge impacts on the game. As they should.

Modern 40K can perhaps be seen as just another game where background doesn't matter, but to me that's a very limiting point of view. It's an opinion those who hold it have every right to, but I personally disagree with it completely. (That ought to be a little clearer!)

If they ever remove the background from being an integral part of the game, I'm off back to historicals; Warhammer Ancients or similar with Warlord Games miniatures. Their Romans and Celts rock! *grins* But I don't think I have to worry about that and I play those games anyway.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

The Sullen One said:


> The Codex isn't meant to represent fluff, it's meant to allow you to build an army


Some of the better codices out there could do both.



> Personally I'd say you've got the option to come up with your own fluff, either by building an army from a reference warband around a certain theme, such as an Iron Warriors Tank Army, or by developing your own army from scratch, in which case you can add fluff to your heart's content.


Granted, but DIY armies have always been an option, for every army in every edition, and they'd still be one even if this codex was able to do the fluff more justice.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Syko515 said:


> personally i feel a legions codex would be nice, however the current codex has yet to let me down. IMHO there isn't a NEED for it presently. IMHO fluff should not have any relivance to the game, my apologies to all of you who actually give a damn about the crappy short stories fabricated to boost sales a tenth of a percent.fluff matters about as much as a sneeze when you start rolling dice. as to the alligations that because i do not pay any attention to the useless information known as fluff that i am new to this game is frankly wrong and and simple minded of a view. i understand that there are people who play for the sake of story, why do you not understand that the same is true of the people who play solely to play? now, as to the statement that you require a deamon prince, and other varied units in every list just to have a shot at winning is also completely wrong and says a great deal about the lack of tactical intelligence involved here.


you really don't understand this hobby do you? the whole point of fluff is to provide a guideline for building forces, to say that it isnt important is foolish, without the fluff the game would be "plastic spacemen' not Warhammer 40k.
I have yet to see any player denigrate the value of fluff in any way wh wasn't a power gamer. it has been my experience that all but the most obnoxious power gamer acknowledges that the fluff has value.

I agree with Sister sin, except for that it is a valid viewpoint regarding fluff not mattering, it isnt a valid viewpoint. Without fluff, there is no warhammer, so to believe that fluff doesn't matter, or is a "marketing ploy ( making the game interesting isn't a marketing ploy, it is good game design)," is not a valid viewpoint. any game can have plastic space men, any game can have aliens. this one has space marines, and orks, and eldar and tau,etc. this game has gothic cathedrals crumbling from artillery barrages. this game has fallen heroes, those that descended to become the worst that mankind has produced. 

If you don't want fluff, go play some game that has "plastic spacemen" and "aliens." Warhammer 40k has much more, and it is due to the fluff.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Fluff'Ead I agree with you that there could have been a little more background information in the codex, and I would have liked a page devoted to each of the legions and major renegades, but in return for losing that we got a more in-depth description of each of the unit types and the major characters.

Ultimately the codexes aren't going to please everyone, but since they've gotten larger with each new publication odds are that come the next Chaos codex, whether it's a legion specific one or covers the Chaos Space Marines in general, then they'll be able to include enough background material, unit descriptions, and army lists to suit everyone.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

i know this was posted way back but its spot on



Jase said:


> i believe that the entirety of 4th ed, and it's following codices, are some of the most complicated piece of work ever.
> 
> traits, doctrines, the old chaos list, eldar craftworlds, ork speed freaks. there were so many 'differing' lists that we all lost sight of what the army was meant to be about in the first place.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

> BUT YOU CAN! you can't do them as powerfully as before, but it's still there.


Sure it is. IF what one wants is an equivalent *power* build. However, if what you are seeking is a *background* build, some of the various armies fall short. For me, that's the rub; background, not power. 

I don't give a fig about power building but I do care about being as close to the backstory as I can get. When a list changes such that I can't do that, or changes are effectively reversals of what has been going on, it's upsetting to some folks, me included.

I've had to get rid of entire armies because of edition/codex/book changes but I'm still around. Worst was going from 3e to 4e Fantasy with Dark Elves; nearly the entire army became useless as they were armed wrong, units didn't function right or were outright gone, that sort of thing. I've rebuilt them and kept what I could from that old list, but it is aggravating. Same deal with 40K. 

Yes there are Daemons, and Greater Daemons...but they aren't Bloodthirsters or Plague Lords. There are lesser daemons, but they aren't Flesh Hounds...they're watered down copies. And what cultists are there? These are the kinds of things that get some people upset.

So yes, that argument is spot on given a certain perspective. It isn't from other perspectives. There is no one correct way to look at things.

So I politely agree to disagree. Which is how I usually approach these kinds of situations.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

There are a lot of people who complain because their, say, Word Bearers were screwed over. People complain saying that Word Bearer players have no room to complain since their army can still technically work with the new Codex. Sure, one could take a mountain of Lesser Daemons but they kinda suck. I don't think it's too much to ask to ask for a Codex that allows the different Legions to be represented _and_ has some powerful and interesting choices. Fluff and use in game don't have to be mutually exclusive.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

> Fluff and use in game don't have to be mutually exclusive.


Precisely. We have power, now a bit more background compatibility would be awesome. I can always dream.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

> Everytime a codex comes out, someone will cry that they can't do a massive fluff list (eg. exodites) from the rules, they will cry that they can't do their specific army lists (eg iron warriors)


Well, I certainly did not cry when a new Index Astartes article or the previous Chaos Codex came out. That stuff was an enrichment.


> chaos lists?
> word bearers still have access to daemons
> iron warriors have vindicators now and can take their 9 obliterators
> [...]
> night lords nothing stopping you taking 3 units of raptors, marines in rhinos, chosen infiltrating. it's all in there.


That's actually describing the problem perfectly: Legions are now reduced to mere unit choices. 
How boring.



And on an unrelated note:


> alpha legion can take 3 squads of infiltrating chosen with shed loads of special weapons, and *contrary to popular belief they never used cultists*, they used auxiliaries, guardsmen/militia that fought with them and helped them out (*my big problem with the last dex was it said they were cultists, cultists are more likely to help word bearers*)


_NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO_ ]:<
Stuff like that makes me write pointless fluff textwalls.
In short: They've been using cultists ever since their first in-depth description in "Codex: Chaos (2nd edition)". They are rivals with the Word Bearers because of that.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

... and anyone who can't navigate their way around IG Doctrines must not be trying very hard.

"Complicated" my arse.

These "streamlined" Codices are like steamed rice. Filling, but really, really dull.

If I want to build for power, this shouldn't bother me.

But I don't... so it does.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

Personally I think the IG Codex is excellent; the Doctrines are easy, not overpowered, and a real joy to have. I've never understood the contention that such things are too complicated. 

I tend to agree on the streamlined aspect; dulled down considerably.

The old Chaos Codex could easily have been tweaked in places to fix it while keeping the choice avenue open. I don't see the need to remove Doctrines from the Guard, and I didn't see the need to remove Traits from the Marines; now there are so many Vulkan He'stan's around it's weird since that's how one makes a Salamanders flavored force now. 

I sometimes wonder if the recent direction has more to do with studio politics than actual game design, but eh, it's all speculation on my part. In the end it doesn't matter what's causing it, only that it is happening. Nothing to be done about it though; have to wait for the wheel to turn again and see what happens.

Some are happy with it. Obviously I'm not terribly keen on it.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

One way of looking at this is that in a standard game of 40k you choose to play alpha legion. Therefore you can use members of the alpha legion. Prehaps a strike force of elite warriors working there way behind enemy lines, or taking out supply lines in order to disrupt the enemy. 
If you want to use "cultists/auxilaries" they come into the apocalypse games, when those two forces would come together for something big.

Wordbearers again your using word bearers. As in the marine legion the wordbearers. you want to have then perform a huge ritual to unlease daemons amoungst an unsuspecting population....apocalypse. you want to make a wordbearers army you can.

How many fluff monkeys playing word bearers are using a few units of possessed in there elite squads, as they've had so much contact with daemons over the centuries, or even willingly given themselves as hosts? Oblitorators as hvy support again as the daemonic energies wielded by the legion as fused them with the weapons they once used. Raptors converted from winged possesed as again they've become fused with their equipment and are more daemon than marine????
many? no
how many lament the days when they could take 1 unit of infiltrating chosen and a bucket of daemonettes/bloodletters?


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

jigplums said:


> how many lament the days when they could take 1 unit of infiltrating chosen and a bucket of daemonettes/bloodletters?


Since you ask?

Nobody around here.

How hard is it to accept that some people don't mourn the loss of "broken" lists so much as they mourn the demise of their list's "character?"

Because for every 4-Heavy Iron Warrior player whining about how he can't leave the entire battle to his Basilisks, you've got a guy who simply wants an _Emperor's Children_ lord, not merely a Lord with the Mark of Slaanesh.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Cole Deschain said:


> Since you ask?
> 
> Nobody around here.
> 
> ...


Exactly. While it's true that some people bitch because they can't cheese out, there are also people who complain because they feel the character of their army has been robbed.

As for Jiggy's reply, is it so much to ask to be able to take a unit of cultists or two in a non-Apocalypse game? I think it's a bit silly to have to be playing a 3,000+ point mega battle that takes tons of preparation and time to play so that we can use our single unit of Cultists that we spent so much time modeling.

GW always talks about how their biggest goal when making new Codex books is to never invalidate people's existing models. Tell that to the Alpha Legion players with cultists, Eldar players with old Seer Councils with more than two Farseers, or, say, people that owned entire Lost and the Damned armies full of tanks, mutants, traitors, Defilers, etc.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

There's a whole lot of chat about Alpha Legion cultists through this thread.

In my personal experience they were shit. Nobody ever used them. I played third through it's whole life and never faced them, that includes four years worth of campaign weekends so it wasn't just my club. Can't speak for tournies though.

I just don't think that the character has been removed. I mean what is the difference between an Emperors Children lord and one with the mark of slaanesh. Wargear and profile obviously. However I would say that much of the charachter of an army is in it's appearance. The new codex encourages us to convert our characters, chosen and havocs with the availability of marks.

I do look forward to a legions or lost and confused codex as they will make quirky lists available but i'm just not convinced that we've been raped by the current codex.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> I mean what is the difference between an Emperors Children lord and one with the mark of slaanesh. Wargear and profile obviously.


Yes.

Wargear.

The Great Disappearing Armory- which this particular Codex is merely symptomatic of.

Heaven FORBID we should have a list of options to choose from that ISN'T hardwired in GW's notion of what a character should pack.

Chaos Lords cannot use sonic weaponry or blight grenades. Or, in fact, anything more characterful than the ever-so-delightful Daemon Weapons.
Plague Marines carrying heavy weapons? Whatever for?!
Thousand Sons sorcerers being able to take Power Fists? What a silly idea!
Space Marine Chaplains can't have Thunder Hammers. Or Arttificer Armor. Or any of the other thigns a potential army commander would, by rights, have access to.


It's as if they think we're too stupid to wrap our heads around _options._


----------



## Underground Heretic (Aug 9, 2008)

Have to agree with that. I love, don't usually use, but love having options. That's why I love my Crisis Suits and want to found the "Bring Back the Armory Party." Our purpose is simple, lobby GW for more options, then fly to the moon. I hope the trend reverses, but unfortunately don't think it will. That being said I'd love to see, read and/or play against an old (current -1 edition) codex chaos army.


----------



## Fluff'Ead (Aug 22, 2007)

> In my personal experience they were shit.


Meh.


> However I would say that much of the charachter of an army is in it's appearance. The new codex encourages us to convert our characters, chosen and havocs with the availability of marks.


The old one didn't? 
I don't think that there's a higher number of conversions (or better looking armies) under the new codex.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

I think there were more conversions under the older one...we had far more choice which encouraged more converting. The current Codex made useless a lot of lovingly converted models, and some of them expensive too. 

A Legion is more than a paint job; it has specific traits to it that makes each one different. A World Eaters Lord and a Lord with the Mark of Khorne seem much the same (probably the closest match at the moment)...except that if he were truly of the World Eaters he'd have the same, if magnified, attributes as the rest of his Legion; the same goes for others, most especially Emperor's Children, many of whose players watched as their most characterful weaponry suddenly got cut to the bone.

In the case of World Eaters, their backstory has been, with some exceptions, fairly consistent over the years with their slide from standard Legion TO&E to adopting Close Combat as their absolute focus...why throw that away just to make Havocs available again? Black Legion has Havocs, so do the Undivided Legions...oh, that's right, we have to make every Legion more or less the same. World Eaters that wave sticks in the air to bolster their courage. *snorts* Oh noes! Stick man got shot! Flee! Not a World Eaters trait that.

Around here Alpha Legion players used cultists all the time, I might add, and now of course have models they can't use any longer. Expense and time shot because someone thought players shouldn't have to think? Or the game was too complicated? If the game/Codex is too complicated for someone perhaps such folk ought to find another game/Codex?

The old Codex had issues, some of them pretty ugly ones, but it wasn't so bad it couldn't be salvaged...it could have been fixed with modifications and changes instead of wholesale rewrites. I didn't agree with mindless charging of anything nearby, choppas, nor the uselessness of Rhinos by World Eaters...but I lived with it because the basic character of the army was still the same; CC fanatics. Now what I get is a bunch of Khornate wannabes in World Eaters paint schemes...who run when their stick man is shot. The only real World Eaters are the Berserkers...so that makes a Khornate force with World Eaters included...not a World Eaters army. All the counts-as in the world won't change this simple fact.

The Character of a *pure* World Eaters army/warband is not attainable by the current Codex.

Some people think it's all a tempest in a teapot, some of us don't.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

I thought you could build a 'pure' World Eaters army given the new rules favouring troops in 40K's fifth edition. Since Khorne Berserkers who have the Mark Of Khorne are now counted as scoring units you can use them solely for your troops. Now bearing in mind armies can include a maximum of six troop choices, that means you can get in a fair number of bersekers, plus whatever transport/tanks/dreads you feel like.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

The Sullen One said:


> I thought you could build a 'pure' World Eaters army given the new rules favouring troops in 40K's fifth edition. Since Khorne Berserkers who have the Mark Of Khorne are now counted as scoring units you can use them solely for your troops. Now bearing in mind armies can include a maximum of six troop choices, that means you can get in a fair number of bersekers, plus whatever transport/tanks/dreads you feel like.


Sure, but the Lord of the army himself doesn't benefit from the Berserker's Furious Charge or extra high Weapon Skill or anything like that, and also have access to things like Havocs, Obliterators and all. Self-imposed restrictions are one thing but just aren't quite the same as having them imposed on you by the rules. It makes you (well, me, at least) feel better about playing the army that I do.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Sister Sin said:


> I think there were more conversions under the older one...we had far more choice which encouraged more converting. The current Codex made useless a lot of lovingly converted models, and some of them expensive too.
> 
> A Legion is more than a paint job; it has specific traits to it that makes each one different. A World Eaters Lord and a Lord with the Mark of Khorne seem much the same (probably the closest match at the moment)...except that if he were truly of the World Eaters he'd have the same, if magnified, attributes as the rest of his Legion; the same goes for others, most especially Emperor's Children, many of whose players watched as their most characterful weaponry suddenly got cut to the bone.
> 
> ...





Katie Drake said:


> Sure, but the Lord of the army himself doesn't benefit from the Berserker's Furious Charge or extra high Weapon Skill or anything like that, and also have access to things like Havocs, Obliterators and all. Self-imposed restrictions are one thing but just aren't quite the same as having them imposed on you by the rules. It makes you (well, me, at least) feel better about playing the army that I do.


two points that are at the essence of the argument. If a khorne berzerker or a plague marine are the baseline for world eaters and death guard respectively, their lords should have modifications to their wargear, statline and options to reflect this.
If you are using a cult legion, the rules should clearly reflect their TO&E. Plague marines should never, Ever, have access to a rhino, and still be troops. Anyone that used the previous 'dex saw that it clearly said that any over 3(too many for me0 were fast attack.
Not only will rules imposed restrictions give 'bona fides" to fluff players, making their list more than a "fluff build," but the legal build, it will also prevent power builds from being too obnixious. two lords or two daemon princes, or one of each is definitely not keeping to fluff. Just because a daemon prince is near the bottom of the food chain in a daemon list, and there fore acceptable to have more than one, in a CSM list, he is in charge, period. the old rules reflected this perfectly, you could only have one, of either. if you took a daemon prince, you could not have another, nor could you have a lord . that was the best way to limit double daemon princes with lash, you couldn't have it.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

Excellent sum up, Son of Mortarion.

I really don't understand why so many people have a hard time comprehending the basic reasons for unhappiness on the part of Legion players. Nor the rather harsh insistence that we don't need Legion rules and therefore ought to just go away or use the current Codex without a peep. Baffles me.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> two points that are at the essence of the argument. If a khorne berzerker or a plague marine are the baseline for world eaters and death guard respectively, their lords should have modifications to their wargear, statline and options to reflect this.
> If you are using a cult legion, the rules should clearly reflect their TO&E. Plague marines should never, Ever, have access to a rhino, and still be troops.


Son of mortarion, I agree with you about the lords, though you might at least be able to give them the same appearence by fielding the specialist terminator variants for those legions.

As to your point about Plague Marines, I'm a little confused. As I understand it all Death Guard are Plague Marines just as all World Eaters are Khorne Berserkers. Now you've said Plague Marines shouldn't be able to use Rhinos and still be troops, do you mean that Plague Marines shouldn't be able to use Rhinos ever, or that if they do they should be reclassified as elites?


----------



## SpaNNerZ (Jun 17, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Sure, but the Lord of the army himself doesn't benefit from the Berserker's Furious Charge or extra high Weapon Skill or anything like that, and also have access to things like Havocs, Obliterators and all. Self-imposed restrictions are one thing but just aren't quite the same as having them imposed on you by the rules. It makes you (well, me, at least) feel better about playing the army that I do.


Im with this statement all the way
I miss the Night Lords Most of all, in the golden old days I was the only one happy about playing Night Vision games, and now Ive got 4 squads of raptors that rarely get a run anymore, as they are nothing more than expensive tank hunters. 
As Katie said it is one thing to try and implacate a self imposed rule, but you always sit down and say "but my army really could use some more anti tank" so you start tweaking your list, and before long you end up with something totally off track, in otherwords these days its hard to make a list that is truly your own. I loved going to tournys and learning of other Chaos players combos for Lords, Lieutenants and certain squads, some of the ones around were amazing, and with the Daemonic Strength/Talons/Resilience etc etc you dont see arguements about what would be more beneficial to a character, to make it more hard hitting or more survivability.

Okay Ive had my nostalgic rantk:

peace out:victory:


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Son of mortarion, I agree with you about the lords, though you might at least be able to give them the same appearence by fielding the specialist terminator variants for those legions.
> 
> As to your point about Plague Marines, I'm a little confused. As I understand it all Death Guard are Plague Marines just as all World Eaters are Khorne Berserkers. Now you've said Plague Marines shouldn't be able to use Rhinos and still be troops, do you mean that Plague Marines shouldn't be able to use Rhinos ever, or that if they do they should be reclassified as elites?


not elites, fast attack. I personally believe that rhinos don't belong anywhere in a death guard list. in the old edition, if you had more than three squads with rhinos, the extra counted as fast attack.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> There's a whole lot of chat about Alpha Legion cultists through this thread.


Indeed there is. Each unit was fairly pricey and if not homemade, they were all metal. Heavy buggerz in large numbers is not something you just 'throw away'.



the cabbage said:


> In my personal experience they were shit. Nobody ever used them. I played third through it's whole life and never faced them, that includes four years worth of campaign weekends so it wasn't just my club. Can't speak for tournies though.


Six point infiltrating squads that strike like chaos marines on the charge? You either never experienced a good player, or never fought alpha legion. Also, the cult champ had access to the armoury, he could be decked out in terminator armor and daemonic strength if he really felt like it.(So he's hitting 4 times at s5 on the charge with a power weapon.) And during third edition, they'd nearly never lose combat since they weren't often outnumbered, and they'd usually gain fearless from a passing rhino with a dirge caster(Conferred fearless...I think dirge caster was the upgrade.)



the cabbage said:


> I just don't think that the character has been removed. I mean what is the difference between an Emperors Children lord and one with the mark of slaanesh. Wargear and profile obviously. However I would say that much of the charachter of an army is in it's appearance. The new codex encourages us to convert our characters, chosen and havocs with the availability of marks.


Wargear and profile aside? That's like saying "I don't believe having money is any different from having no money. Money obviously aside.

And why would we use bad, noncustomizable generic lord hqs that we can 'convert to our hearts content'? They're bad. They don't win games. And with the lord so underpowered and overcosted, what's the point of having one in your fluff? So he gets obliterated turn one by a wayward lascannon? Or maybe he can just get his expensive ass stuck in fights he has no way to win in, since that's all the options they have. Wargear might sound like "pish posh" to people who didn't play 3rd edition, but back than, each piece told a story about your developing or finished general.

Like spikey bits, one thing vanilla marines never got was 'spiky bits'. Or daemonic strength. They didn't need to be removed entirely, they just needed a slight amount of fixi(Oh and bionics too)ng in order to accurat(doom sirens, good daemon weapons, god specific wargear)ely use them in the new codex. Instead we got "Just use units A, D, and G, and you'll win a high percentage of games. Use fluff, and lose consistantly.

I mean I guess you can write amazing fanfiction about your lord armed only with a CC weapon and bolt pistol doing amazing things, but eventually that'll wear thin. Exciting choices like spiky bitz gave us another little special rule all to our own, for those final game turn brawls (Oh no! My lord missed with everything! ... *loyalist smiles* but now he rolls for being spiky on the side!) It's like a bad episode of a tv show, but those were OUR tv shows!



the cabbage said:


> I do look forward to a legions or lost and confused codex as they will make quirky lists available but i'm just not convinced that we've been raped by the current codex.


Right quick question for you. Make a list only using lords, possessed, dreadnoughts, vanilla marines, chaos spawn, and bikes. Hell I'll even let you use a mid tier choice of tzeentch boiz, unless your legions fluff doesn't allow it. 

Also phrase my demand in the form of a question for me right fast.

We should really make a game out of that, using the new codex, make an old list as viable as you can without the obviously good unfluffy choices in the dex(IE:No marks for undivided legions)


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> Right quick question for you. Make a list only using lords, possessed, dreadnoughts, vanilla marines, chaos spawn, and bikes. Hell I'll even let you use a mid tier choice of tzeentch boiz, unless your legions fluff doesn't allow it.


Being the perverse and deeply cynical sod that I am I couldn't resist gatecrashing this one, so here's my go at that list.

Lords - Abbadon The Despoiler.
Huron Blackheart.


Troops - 10 Chaos Marines, Champion, icon of Chaos glory, lascannon, meltagun.

10 Chaos Marines, Champion, icon of Chaos glory, lascannon, meltagun.

Elites - 10 possessed Chaos Marines.

1 Dreadnought, plasma cannon, power claw.

1 spawn.

Fast Attack- 5 Chaos Bikers, Champion, plasma pistol, power fist.

Of course this army has neither transport capabilites or anti-tank firepower, apart from the two lascannons so i'd expect it to get beaten pretty easily.

Also Son of Mortarion, that's pretty much what would happen to Death Guard armies without Rhinos, they'd lose. Oh sure it might look nice and more authentic, but unless your opponents coming from a similar mindset I wouldn't hope for much.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Also Son of Mortarion, that's pretty much what would happen to Death Guard armies without Rhinos, they'd lose. Oh sure it might look nice and more authentic, but unless your opponents coming from a similar mindset I wouldn't hope for much.


real close to being personal, and to make it clear I am offended.

To assume that the force would lose is ignorant in the extreme as it assumes that death guard players need rhinos and cannot figure out how to use cover or how to add strengths that cover up for the weaknesses.

the lsit you made is not only imbalanced the weapon options you took are not a good match for each other or the role that the squad fills. The rest of the list shows no consideration for how each element is supposed to work.

before you start trash talking, you need to make sure you don't put your foot in your mouth by posting a garbage list in response to a serious statement.


----------



## SpaNNerZ (Jun 17, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Of course this army has neither transport capabilites or anti-tank firepower, apart from the two lascannons so i'd expect it to get beaten pretty easily.
> 
> Also Son of Mortarion, that's pretty much what would happen to Death Guard armies without Rhinos, they'd lose. Oh sure it might look nice and more authentic, but unless your opponents coming from a similar mindset I wouldn't hope for much.



Since when did the GAME of Warhammer become all about winning. If you think that Warhammer and its associates are only there to beat people with then, I imagine you dont enjoy the game too much, or at least on as many levels as others. 

This is a game enjoyed on many levels, and being one of the ones whining about how the codex has lost the personality it used to have (myself included), and thats all we are simply doing, whining about how the new dex has lost those restrictions, and therefore has taken away any pure armys that a legion player may want to have, these days its all Khorne flavoured army or Slaneesh Flavoured, there is no possibility for all out any more, as there are no restrictions on what you can and cant take, and with everything free game you cant tell if its with the Khorne/Slaneesh/Tzeentch/Nurgle/Alpha Legion/Word Bearers/Night Lords/Iron Warriors flavour of the list.
If you get what Im saying

peace out:victory:


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

The whole point is exactly 'more authentic'. Some of us *_want_* that serious tie with the background and victory isn't the reason we play the lists we do. How to get it across that the *_power_* of the build isn't the point at all, the point is the background. I didn't play World Eaters because it was a hard beat everything list; it surely wasn't. I played it because the World Eaters are awesome in my opinion. That simple. 

And apparently that complex. 

I play this game to spend some damned fine time with friends who have similar interests to my own. To have fun. The whole point is being able to field a characterful list that works with the background and which encourages me to convert and create my own backstory. Doing that I 'win' every time I play, regardless of the outcome of any game.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

First of all let me just apologise to Son of Mortarion, what I said wasn't even meant to get personal or anywhere near it, so again I'm sorry.

Second, just picking up on a point by spaNNerz, if the impression the new codex is giving where armies stand is that people are confused as to what's being brought to the table, then the authors really screwed up since it was their stated intentions to slimplify things precisely so that people would know what stats the units had.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

Confused as to what is being brought to the table? I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not at all confused, never have been; the current Codex is ridiculously simple to my mind. 

GW did indeed 'simplify' the Codex...by removing choices and making what amounts to cookie cutter forces in many respects. If someone wants to know what a list has, then ask to look at the list; in our group it is considered common courtesy to allow an opponent to see the list they are facing and we always offer.

The problem is the simplification; it removed most of the things that allowed people to make very personalized and very highly valued armies. Such themed armies encouraged conversion, background writing, and similar activities, all of which enhanced the hobby and game considerably, and were loads of fun. 

Apparently some people found the Codex too challenging to understand (something I don't really understand to be honest), and others howled about how broken it all was (it had bad spots but was mostly an excellent Codex). So GW, instead of simply fixing what was wrong, went and reduced the Codex to a lower level of complexity and created something that has annoyed a lot of players, many of them long time veterans, and continues to cause controversy, often bitter, right to the present day; a very good sign all is not well with this work.


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Lords - Abbadon The Despoiler.
> Huron Blackheart.



I don't know if this is what Lord Waffles ment... But taking two Special characters after he's talked about not being able to create fluff characters... Sort of goes agasint the point?

Taking two special characters isn't very fluffy in my opinion.

Not meaning to tread on anyones toes here, please don't take this comment the wrong way!


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Being the perverse and deeply cynical sod that I am I couldn't resist gatecrashing this one, so here's my go at that list.


While I agree that using special characters that aren't lords kind of defeats the purpose, it's okay because our special characters usually suck boot.



The Sullen One said:


> Lords - Abbadon The Despoiler.
> Huron Blackheart.


Hi, I'm Abaddon the Despoiler. You know what you could be doing with my points? You could buy a good-sized planet, and two small ones

Hi. I'm huron blackheart and I'm mainly an assault lord with both a power weapon and FIST! Aren't I wacky! Oh and look! I've got a heavy flamer! Watch me clear out my own killzone before I can charge my measly six inches! Oh and I pop like a grape between bricks.




The Sullen One said:


> Troops - 10 Chaos Marines, Champion, icon of Chaos glory, lascannon, meltagun.
> 
> 10 Chaos Marines, Champion, icon of Chaos glory, lascannon, meltagun.


No fearless, no toughness, no furious charge, no invul save. They are beaten in every respect beside saving points,which were spent on:



The Sullen One said:


> Elites - 10 possessed Chaos Marines.


Ick. I'd highly suggest choosing terminators as they're better in every way.



The Sullen One said:


> 1 Dreadnought, plasma cannon, power claw.


Why not get some chosen with plasma?



The Sullen One said:


> 1 spawn.


Why not get some anything else?



The Sullen One said:


> Of course this army has neither transport capabilites or anti-tank firepower, apart from the two lascannons so i'd expect it to get beaten pretty easily.
> 
> Also Son of Mortarion, that's pretty much what would happen to Death Guard armies without Rhinos, they'd lose. Oh sure it might look nice and more authentic, but unless your opponents coming from a similar mindset I wouldn't hope for much.


Actually I'm going to agree for the sole reason death guard -are- better with rhinos. You can argue cover til the end of time, but they are infinitely better with rhinos.

This list is much much worse than rhinoless plague marines. But you really shouldn't talk like you have amazing skill nowadays. If it seems like PM forces got better suddenly, it's because they have. They are the BEST troop choice in the new codex and it's not terribly hard to win with them. I have much more respect for people who try to keep using tzeentch boiz or nilla marines as they are inferior choices. Hell, even the slaaneshi guys have a harder time.


But oh these undivided lists ARE fun to pick apart! hahaha


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Lordwaffles, thank you for supporting my argument.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

The Sullen One said:


> Lordwaffles, thank you for supporting my argument.


I'm not always trying to shoot down your opinion all the time hahaha.


----------

