Vissah Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Concerning the traits are there any chapter specific restrictions? The only reason I bring this whole thing up is because after my raptors wiped out a mauled squad they were assaulted by an ultramarines tactical squad with furious charge! How can they be given this, what justification is there for giving the disciplined soldiers a frenzied melee attack but not my Night Lord killers, thats what they did, they were loyal monsters. The guy said it was legal as although they weren't the traits in the book for the ultramarines so long as he follwed the rules for them, which he did, that it was okay. As far as I could see he was right which annoyed me more. I lost the match by about 1/10 of an inch. Did he had an HQ in that squad? If he did then if he was a counts as Khan it was a legal move to do a furious charge. The Khan rules gives the squad he is in the furious chrage and hit and run special move. If that HQ was not in the squad then it was not a legal move. Hope this helps you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lay Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Keep in mind that Chaos Lords are meant to be charismatic b'tards. Particularly Tzeentch and Slaanesh Chaos Lords thanks to their patrons respective talents. All this "If x meets y, they engage in mortal combat" will be going against this idea I believe. You can't impress berzerkers with charisma. Why would a follow of Khorne seek the skull of a follower of Slaanesh when they both empower chaos as a whole, whilst their Terra loving brothers are right nearby who seek to rob power from chaos as a whole? Infighting is the nature of Chaos. And the animosity between the gods is much older than the war against the Imperium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillin Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 It does not go against the idea proper chaos fluff at all, in fact, it is right in line with YEARS of it. It doesn't matter how "charismatic" you are, if a gang of chainaxe murdering psyco's wants your pansy ass dead b/c they know it'll win them favor with their god, you're not going to charm them into not killing you, much less taking orders from you. I'd like to disagree. Why would a follow of Khorne seek the skull of a follower of Slaanesh when they both empower chaos as a whole, whilst their Terra loving brothers are right nearby I would much rather play an army that did not kill itself due to poor rolling. 1-You obviously don't know the fluff/history/fiction of chaos in this game. So I'm not sure why you are augueing/debating about something that, by your own admission, you know nothing about. If you don't understand why a khorne brzrkr might kill a slanny worshiper before, after, instead of, a loyalist you need to read the fluff, history, army rules, etc (for 40k & WHFB) going bach to the mid 1990's, I obviously can't explain 15 years of fluff/fiction/rules here and now. 2- If you (or my) army killed itself b/c on annimonsity rules it would be b/c poor generaling (is that a word ? :) )/tactics not poor dice rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draeden Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Fair enough, I am trying to learn more of the fluff but so far I've only really looked towards Tzeentch and cling to the idea that a good number of Chaos aint crazed nuts... wishful thinking probably... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillin Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Two DP's with lash and a bunch of zerkers and plague marines, yeah that makes sense... for a BL army out of a BL codex it does. No, actually it doesn't (fluffwize). The author of this dex (Thorpe) couldn't be bothered to write an "ancient enemies" or animosity rule, for the same reason he couldn't be bothered to write legion rules or and interesting dex. Taking a slanny HQ and brzrkrs would not have been legal in C:csm's 3.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillin Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I am trying to learn more of the fluff but so far I've only really looked towards Tzeentch and cling to the idea that a good number of Chaos aint crazed nuts... wishful thinking probably... :) They are on a crazed nut continuum, some being more crazed then others. That's why I suggested that the animosity between K and S be harder to pass then one between N and Tz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draeden Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Though, thinking on what you've said, it makes me think of DoW: Dark Crusade Firestorm over Kronus, and how they set up the legions in that. Pick a mark, undivided gets all cult troops with an undivided lord but no daemons. Culted armies get daemons belonging to said god, a marked leader, and relevant daemons. However I think my main point of contention on that animosity rule for me is that I only recently learnt the wonders behind a melee screening unit for my 1k Sons which I tend to run a rubric heavy army. So I'm going to probably attribute that to my earlier statements as well. Though I can see where you're coming from and if they did bring back this legion system I keep hearing about, even if it's in some small way in regards to just using the mark on the HQ to restrict the army choice and adding in more flavour, I can see it as a reasonable thing. So long as they include a reasonable melee unit to help Tzeentch out... :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sons of Horus Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 @Draeden: have you ever heard this saying: "Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, only that it flows" B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillin Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 So long as they include a reasonable melee unit to help Tzeentch out... :\ Hopefully we would also get real daemons back (I also want a purple pony), horrors made a good screen (still do), also you would still be able to use undivided csm's (one of the best all arounders in the game, very good melee unit) in a Tz led army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draeden Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 @Son of Horus: Heard it, I've also heard that followers of Tzeentch can be magnificent b'tards. Which is kinda what I aspire my Warband Leader to be. @Chillin, Yeah, I got the Chaos Daemons Codex and I look over it and can't help but think that so much of this should still be with Chaos Marines, at the very least able to ally up like Inquisition and normal Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TostitoBandito Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 @Chillin, Yeah, I got the Chaos Daemons Codex and I look over it and can't help but think that so much of this should still be with Chaos Marines, at the very least able to ally up like Inquisition and normal Marines. Yeah that's what surprised me the most. I expected them to be companion codices like Marines and Inquisition, not totally seperate. They took all the cool daemon stuff and put it in the other codex where we can't get it unless we want to run a straight daemon army (which I don't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I heard btards repeatedly, I assume this topic has the necessary amount of Desu to attack the loyalists with? Yes, we know the reason why are units are lacking veteran skills, Ancient Enemies, and any grasp of interesting detail to the Legions for a codex. We also know this codex is basically Black Legion without directly touching how the Black Legion was decent to use in previous editions. We are all pissed that people can mix and match specific Cult units without any repercussion. We all know that previous Editions make this pale, even if this a simple version to use. Did I touch most of everything we talk about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Funny how some people who claim to have played before the 3.5 Codex do not seem remember how bland the 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines really was. The 4th Edition Codex is much more interresting by far. Another thing that has been lost (or is unknown to those that started with the 3.5 Codex) is that in most earlier Chaos Codices it was perfectly viable to mix and match different cult units in an army. There were no restrictions in the 2nd or 3rd Edition Codex, except that a cult unit could only be led by a Champion of said cult. All Chaos Marine Codices were built around a Chaos warband with a variety of different choices, and it was usually up to the player to decide whether he wanted to play a dadicated force and restrict himself to only certain units. The 3.5 Codex fas the first one to include actual guidelines (after that principle had been introduced in the Index Astartes articles) for how to play a "proper" Legion army. In case some of those who are unhappy with the loss of all the equipment choices in the current Codex Chaos Space Marines have not looked beyond their own Codex: Eldar have lost their Craftworld rules, Loyalists have lost their Chapter Traits, Imperial Guatd has lost their Doctrines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDoom Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Two DP's with lash and a bunch of zerkers and plague marines, yeah that makes sense... for a BL army out of a BL codex it does. No, actually it doesn't (fluffwize). The author of this dex (Thorpe) couldn't be bothered to write an "ancient enemies" or animosity rule, for the same reason he couldn't be bothered to write legion rules or and interesting dex. Taking a slanny HQ and brzrkrs would not have been legal in C:csm's 3.5. But it could be done with other older Codex. Whats the breaking point? GW's fluff is subject to change. In second only Daemons had animosity and 3rd didn't say anything about it. People (myself included) may have problems with this codex but its light years beyond the first 3rd edition codex. That thing made me want to scream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Amarel Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 People (myself included) may have problems with this codex but its light years beyond the first 3rd edition codex. That thing made me want to scream. This is true. However having had a decent codex for a while (3.5, obviously) that makes this current codex all the more galling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lay Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Funny how some people who claim to have played before the 3.5 Codex do not seem remember how bland the 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines really was. The 3rd edition one was on par with the other books GW churned out at that time, but at least it featured actual Daemons and gifts, a decent marking system, and of course the "there can only be one"-rule which I never thought I'd miss. Not to mention amount of the options that was added later on. For example GW used to post rules for Cult Terminators and Cultists on their site and later we got the IA articles. We won't get that treatment in this edition. There were no restrictions in the 2nd or 3rd Edition Codex, except that a cult unit could only be led by a Champion of said cult. The second edition one had, what, three lists in one book - that doesn't even compare to the current one. In case some of those who are unhappy with the loss of all the equipment choices in the current Codex Chaos Space Marines have not looked beyond their own Codex: Eldar have lost their Craftworld rules, Loyalists have lost their Chapter Traits, Imperial Guatd has lost their Doctrines. Losses indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TostitoBandito Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 3rd Edition at least had real daemons, more chaos gifts/wargear, and some cult army rules. Also, as has been stated, it had cult terminators via an errata. 4th Edition has none of those. I would gladly take the 3rd edition codex over what we have now. Better yet, 2nd edition. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The 3rd edition one was on par with the other books GW churned out at that time, but at least it featured actual Daemons and gifts, a decent marking system... Not so sure about the marks. Champions got them... The second edition one had, what, three lists in one book - that doesn't even compare to the current one. That's because everything was better in 2nd Edition, naturally. :) 3rd Edition at least had real daemons, If you compare the 3rd Edition daemons with the current ones, you will notice that they differ in exactly one single stat. more chaos gifts/wargear I give you the lack of wargear. Instead now the units are better equipped and stronger by default. 4th Ed CSM or Berserkers or Plague Marines wipe the floor with the 3rd Ed counterparts. You could say the power has shifted from unit champions to the unit itself, which I don't neccessarily think is a bad thing. Also, as has been stated, it had cult terminators via an errata. 4th Ed has cult termintaors as well, once you let go of the notion that "cult" must mean "fearless" and you accept that a unit can lose their god's favour. I don't like the Icon system and losing the mark bpnus either, but you still can have T5 Terminators, or Ini5 Terminators (especially deadly with lightning claws), or 3A Terminators. I would gladly take the 3rd edition codex over what we have now. Better yet, 2nd edition. I don't think you remember the 3rd Edition Codex all that well. :( But I gladly take the 2nd Edition Codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TostitoBandito Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 If you compare the 3rd Edition daemons with the current ones, you will notice that they differ in exactly one single stat. For the lesser ones, kind of. They basically got their mark and occasionally something else. Like Tzeentch lesser daemons had a shooting attack too. However, I'm actually more annoyed about the generic greater daemon. There has always been a lot of diversity among those. The stat lines are completely different, as are their abilities in 3.0, and even moreso in 3.5. Though they were a little overpriced in 3.5. I give you the lack of wargear. Instead now the units are better equipped and stronger by default. 4th Ed CSM or Berserkers or Plague Marines wipe the floor with the 3rd Ed counterparts. You could say the power has shifted from unit champions to the unit itself, which I don't neccessarily think is a bad thing. I agree partly. For units yes I agree with you. For independent characters, absolutely not. For a 4th edition Daemon Prince for example, I can give him practically nothing. Lords and sorcerors have just your basic run of the mill marine weapons and armor, with the chaos addition of marks and a couple other small items. 4th Ed has cult termintaors as well, once you let go of the notion that "cult" must mean "fearless" and you accept that a unit can lose their god's favour. I don't like the Icon system and losing the mark bpnus either, but you still can have T5 Terminators, or Ini5 Terminators (especially deadly with lightning claws), or 3A Terminators. This is not the same as having fearless terminators with an extra attack and furious charge, or fearless terminators with a 4+ inv and ap3 bolters, etc... You could do this all in 3rd edition, well at least in 3.0. I don't think you remember the 3rd Edition Codex all that well. :P But I gladly take the 2nd Edition Codex. I think I have a pretty good memory of 3rd edition. It's probably where 75% of my games have been played (probably about evenly split between 3.0 and 3.5). I only first got into the 4th edition codex about a month ago. And yes, I do still have my spiral bound thick and meaty 2nd edtion codex as well. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 I miss the greater daemons as well. They were a fascinating element of Chaos Marine armies. But on the other hand I hardly ever used my Bloodthirster, since I allways felt a bit cheap. I usually concentrated on Marine units, with some daemons thrown in, so I can cope with the current Codex and I am curious whether the next Codex will bring the big ones back. As for daemon princes: The 3.5 Codex introduced a system where a damoen prince could be almost anything. The wealth of choices was nice, but I felt it was a bit broken as well. For comparison, in 2nd Edition there were a hand full of "special character" damon princes. In 3rd Edition it was a generic, no options, monstrous creature. The Avatar still is such a critter to this day. So I can kind of see that perhaps that is what a damon prince should look like in the game. It is just a strong being, which might come in different shapes, but is allways represented by the same generic profile. I don't mind it, and I think some players are a bit spoiled by the 3.5 interpretation of a daemon prince. This is not the same as having fearless terminators with an extra attack and furious charge, or fearless terminators with a 4+ inv and ap3 bolters, etc... You could do this all in 3rd edition, well at least in 3.0. I assume you mean 3.5? The 3rd Edition Errata Cult Terminators did not have furious charge, 4+ inv saves or AP3 bolters. I am not sure where your fascination with the 3rd Edition Codex lies. I found it terrible even when there was no 3.5 mega ultra Codex to compare it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lay Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 4th Ed has cult termintaors as well, once you let go of the notion that "cult" must mean "fearless" and you accept that a unit can lose their god's favour. I don't like the Icon system and losing the mark bpnus either, but you still can have T5 Terminators, or Ini5 Terminators (especially deadly with lightning claws), or 3A Terminators. Yet, there's still room for a more varied representation. Oddly enough, it's not even unacknowledged potential: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ren_Warband.pdf http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ns_Warcoven.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TostitoBandito Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 +++ I am not sure where your fascination with the 3rd Edition Codex lies. I found it terrible even when there was no 3.5 mega ultra Codex to compare it to. Well, that's what they would have now, being berzerkers rather than terminators with marks. The errata for 3.0 gave cult terminators everything that the cult power armor marines got, not just a mark. Carry that over to 4.0, which is what I was doing in my example, and you get berzerker terminators with furious charge, WS5, +1 attack, fearless, etc... Though, there weren't as many bonuses in 3.0, especially for berzerkers. Still, plague marines got the +1 T, zerkers got the +1 S, 1ksons got the immunity to attacks of strength < 5, and noise marines got their heavy weaponry. All were fearless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TostitoBandito Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 4th Ed has cult termintaors as well, once you let go of the notion that "cult" must mean "fearless" and you accept that a unit can lose their god's favour. I don't like the Icon system and losing the mark bpnus either, but you still can have T5 Terminators, or Ini5 Terminators (especially deadly with lightning claws), or 3A Terminators. Yet, there's still room for a more varied representation. Oddly enough, it's not even unacknowledged potential: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ren_Warband.pdf http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ns_Warcoven.pdf Where on earth are those from? Are they legal and are there more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFather_Midel Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Yeah, that's the NEW "oops, we know we screwed up, so here you go b/c you guys raised enough hell" those datasheets were in a past WD, I believe and or one of the new rulesets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Hadafix Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 4th Ed has cult termintaors as well, once you let go of the notion that "cult" must mean "fearless" and you accept that a unit can lose their god's favour. I don't like the Icon system and losing the mark bpnus either, but you still can have T5 Terminators, or Ini5 Terminators (especially deadly with lightning claws), or 3A Terminators. Yet, there's still room for a more varied representation. Oddly enough, it's not even unacknowledged potential: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ren_Warband.pdf http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...ns_Warcoven.pdf Where on earth are those from? Are they legal and are there more? I have a feeling that those are Apoc formations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.