Gav Thorpe on Codex Chaos

[satanaka]

How do you know they would have been made anyway? Let's consider for a second how long daemons had been in the Chaos codex.

I am quite certain that the drive came from the intention to make daemons into a stand alone Codex and that it was not a decision made by Gav to deny Chaos Space Marine lists the option for cult daemons. It is not an issue that was raisen because of this particular Codex Chaos Space Marines. It was merely coincidental that the decision to split daemons off of Chaos Marines (and WHFB Chaos Warriors) was made at that time. So even if the Codex would have been made completely focused on pure Legion lists with lots of variations, they would most likely still be without daemons.

 

 

 

And personally, I think the decision of breaking daemons off of Chaos warriors was a mistake also, though I do understand somewhat why it was done. However, even though I feel it was a mistake, it doesn't hurt WFB Warriors as much as breaking them off from Chaos Marines. (It does greatly hamper WFB Beastmen though, big time. Personally, you used to be able to run a solely daemon WFB army, even in the older books, which makes the breaking off a bit less sensical.)

 

And that's not to mention that doing so, invalidated every bit of GW, BL, and FW fluff ever written that features both Daemons AND Chaos Marines together.

 

Face it, it was a bad move all around.

[Grey Mage]

*blinks* Since when is a minimalist approach "For adults". Im sorry, but more options allow for more variations and more complex situations- wich require more maturity to handle in a friendly and even matter.

 

Simple games are for less developed minds- see candyland for details.

[Legatus]

What understandable reasons are those legatus?

Daemons --> The decision was made to outsource them into their own Codex, so that change was inevitable and not up for consideration by the Codex CSM writers.

 

All Infiltration --> I assume someone realized that an all infiltrating army of Marines with extra spikes (including Raptors and Plague Marines) was not the most balanced list. Especially since now the basic CSM as well as the cult units are improved.

All outflanking is not that much better, but for one thing that is tied to a special character and at least some people still have the decency to use them rarely and in agreement with the opponent, and for another that blame rests on Mat Wards shoulders and is a different discussion.

 

 

Because the 3rd edition was extremely poorly thought out and very unfluffy, Khorne Sorcerer for example.

My 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines points out that Sorcerers cannot get the mark of khorne, but maybe it is a later print.

 

Jervis is not God, in fact many people would say Jervis has lost the plot concerning when writing codecii. Jervis might have gone with the minimalist approach, but lets take a look at the last major codex he wrote, the Dark Angels codex. There are whole threads which cannot even begin to convey how badly the codex has faired since it was written.

The Codex Dark Angels is still my favourite current Marine Codex from it's army structure. What made it look bad in comparison was Mat Wards new, shiny Codex Space Marines which threw out a lot of the conventions Jervis had established with Codex DA, BA and CSM. If it was not for the Codex Space Marines, the Codex Dark Angels would still work fine.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

People hated the Codex: Dark Angels long before the new marine dex came out.

[satanaka]

What understandable reasons are those legatus?

Daemons --> The decision was made to outsource them into their own Codex, so that change was inevitable and not up for consideration by the Codex CSM writers.

 

All Infiltration --> I assume someone realized that an all infiltrating army of Marines with extra spikes (including Raptors and Plague Marines) was not the most balanced list. Especially since now the basic CSM as well as the cult units are improved.

All outflanking is not that much better, but for one thing that is tied to a special character and at least some people still have the decency to use them rarely and in agreement with the opponent, and for another that blame rests on Mat Wards shoulders and is a different discussion.

 

 

 

 

LOL and the double Lash spam or Oblit spam lists are balanced?

 

And as for people not using SC's that much, I suggest you again, look at all the lists on this site that include Vulkan, Pedro, Calgar, etc......

 

There's an SC in practically every list, and I'd bet if we added Ork and Eldar lists, we'd see a lot of lists with Eldrad and Ghazakull too.

[Grey Mage]

What understandable reasons are those legatus?

Daemons --> The decision was made to outsource them into their own Codex, so that change was inevitable and not up for consideration by the Codex CSM writers.

Why not an ally system, ala Witch/Daemonhunters, but with C:CSM. That would have been simple to execute, and not horribly unbalancing. They could have done that and simply removed the bland demons from the C:CSM altogether.

 

They could even have helped balance it more by saying if you want a god-specific daemon, then for each you take you need a God-specific troops choice. IE Plaguemarines let you take Plaguebearers, but not screamers of tzeentch.

[Brother Nihm]

Time for a little Service Announcement,

 

With reference to Kurgan's original post in this thread, the next time I have to purge this thread of off-topic/insulting posts (you know who you are) there will be given warnings.

 

Keep it constructive, keep it civil, keep it on-topic.

 

 

And now, back to the topic at hand.

[JamesI]

[Why not an ally system, ala Witch/Daemonhunters, but with C:CSM. That would have been simple to execute, and not horribly unbalancing. They could have done that and simply removed the bland demons from the C:CSM altogether.

 

They could even have helped balance it more by saying if you want a god-specific daemon, then for each you take you need a God-specific troops choice. IE Plaguemarines let you take Plaguebearers, but not screamers of tzeentch.

That idea would be good I think. I've been playtesting something similiar with a friend of mine and it doesn't appear unbalanced.

[the jeske]

My 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines points out that Sorcerers cannot get the mark of khorne, but maybe it is a later print.

its is . the first print had the so called "blood priests" in . more JJ when asked made sugestions that in his view it was all cool [because people wouldnt take it as khorn psykers :jaw:].

 

People hated the Codex: Dark Angels long before the new marine dex came out.

QFT. it is hard to describe what JJ dexs did to the playfield of end of 4th ed. Did you know that there were at least 3 legal BA lists , with different units and different costs in them , till the online version came out? For the views on the DA dex go take a look at some archive topics in the DA sub section . the codex was bad not in 5th ed . it was bad as soon as people got it leaked. And the general consensus was that it was a bad[not only weak , but actually bad] dex before 5th ed even started.

Finally, are you defending 3.5 Iron Warriors as not abusive at the time?

compering to eldar circus , nidzilla etc? not really normal list . H-man went a long way to minimise the number of special options he wanted to give IW, it could have been a lot worse . [specially considering eldar got eye of terror lists/craftworld eldar etc . techniclly more sub lists then one IW build].

That was very situational in the previous Codex. Give Mark of Khorne to a squad of CSM and they basically lose all of their options except for plasma pistols. Give th eMark of Khorne to a squad of Bikes and they lose the special weapon options.

cool . but game wise bikes made sense . you could run them with a WB lists and have full upgrades and summon demons which you want . you could go for "cult/marked" bikers and run them as cult demon bombs . hell you could even use bigger then 3 man squads in an ala NL list and try doing hth with them [not tier 1 , but still made sense]. Who cares that you can take any icon[that can die] on bikers in the gav dex , if the unit itself is a dead choice for any build and any army. In the 3.5 dex no onc forced any one to play with a WE list , it was a players choice. You didnt have to use a demon prince or oblits [not that those were bad or anything] . in the gav dex you have no choice , you take them because there is nothing else to take.

No, but I am going to tell you that in my opinion special characters are for special games and you don't need Shrike to play Raven Guard, but a lot of players will get the impression that you need Shrike if you want to play them or will take a Special Character in every game and base their whole army around them simply because the Codex puts so much emphasis on the flashy Chapter tactics and does not restrict their use.

yeah only that is not that case . If specials were only for special /scenario games then DA make no sense at all , as the only different[not better] thing they have is specials that change FoC . If they wouldnt be able to use those they are a nerfed version of sm. No one has to ask to use specials , they dont even exist as a in game term anymore[save for old dex like DE ] . vulkan is a normal space marine HQ . does it suck that chaos named characters suck ? yes it does , but it doesnt change the fact that khan gives outflank to a whole army and shriek is the base of the 4xscouts big termi unit with infiltration+drop dreads build .

as playing armies goes . with counts as being supported one can take a tau list , use sm models painted like white scares and say he plays a white scare list. that is how 5th ed looks like.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody "losing" an army happens - what usually really happens is that somebody resists making a change.

People singed up to play legions in the 3.5 dex. it was the main force driving the sales and the popularity of the dex. As I and many people said before , change is a normal thing. New edition mostlly means top tier units die [other wise Gw wouldnt sell more models to vets] . I played AL . Am I would totally be happy to see a different AL list. Thing is I dont or looking at it from a different point , the change in army gives me the same list the NL/WB/BL etc list . What's even more odd , when I looke at the list that should be even more different [like cult lists for example] I find out that there is 0 difference in game play of those and my "changed" AL list. This is why people say the chaos dex sucks . Its a boring , one way to play for all codex . And its more important then the EC losing all their sonic weapons or cult demons . the moment when Gav decided that the change part for the chaos players in the new dex is going to be "and now guys you can all play BL" he failed at the most important goal of any game desinger. Making stuff interesting for the players. Because people may play with a sub par or not tier 1 list , as long as the game play is different and the lists can draw new and old players alike [like the old sw dex did in 4th ed] .

[Legatus]

For the views on the DA dex go take a look at some archive topics in the DA sub section . the codex was bad not in 5th ed . it was bad as soon as people got it leaked. And the general consensus was that it was a bad[not only weak , but actually bad] dex before 5th ed even started.

I loved it since it is old school 2nd Edition Space Marine organisation. Obviously it is much more restrictive than the Marine lists GW has been producing since 3rd Edition, so I am not in the least bit surprised that a lot of people did not like it.

 

Who cares that you can take any icon[that can die] on bikers in the gav dex , if the unit itself is a dead choice for any build and any army.

They are actually not that bad. Marine Bikes are 25 points, and for 8 points more Chaos Marines get +1 Attack each. They are the fastest unit in the whole Codex, good for contesting objectives (a unit does not necessarily has to claim an objective to make a difference). Bikes have generally become much better since 4th when they got the ability to turbo boost. Chaos Bikes can be used to set up charges or to summon generic daemons, which still have their use.

 

No one has to ask to use specials , they dont even exist as a in game term anymore

Page 49 in the BRB has a quarter of a page devoted to explain what Special Characters are. there simply is no more opponent permission required, which is a shame. Personally, I have seen a special character being used only twice during the past 4 years playing at the local GW shop. One was Telion, the other was Bugman in a WHFB game.

[IronWinds]

Chaos use to have 9 completely different armies in 1 codex. 1 set of rules, 8 sets of sub rules. Everyone was completely different, some didn't get played really at all..... Thousand Sons, I'm looking at you. Whether you were a powergamer, fluff gamer, just a gamer, the variety made it more interesting and fun. There were so many different combinations for lords that it was crazy. That 1 thing might have been to much. And each army played extremely different.

 

Then we had the sub list in the EoT codex. 10 different rules sets based off one book. Variety!

 

Now we have 1... 1... 1... set of rules. And they lean extremely towards certain units because its obvious even to a new player that certain units in each category are far superior to others. Bezerkers>Possessed. Defiler/Oblits>Pred/Havoks. Lash>Nurgle's rot. Plauge marines>Thousand sons. Defiler>Dreadnought. Raptors>Bikes/Spawn. Is it surprising you end up with a lot of lists all built around DP, terminators, CSMs/plague marines/bezerkers, defilers/oblits.

 

Use to be just IWs were focused around, DP/Lord, Oblits, CSMs, Preds, Defilers, Havoks, baslisk/vindi

 

Just WEs: DP/Lord, Terminators, Bezerkers, dreadnoughts, LRs, defilers.

 

Just NLs: DP/Lord, Raptors, CSMs, Bikes, LRs, Predators

 

Just AL: Lord/Sorcerer, Infiltrating CSMs, Cultists, Raptors, infiltrating havoks.

 

And while each contains a Lord/DP, the Lord or DP for each army was normally very different. IMO any one of those old lists had more variety than the ENTIRE 4th ed codex. So... 3.5 codex had 9(10 including LatD) times as much variety as the 4th ed dex. Any wonder why chaos players are unhappy. This is like going into a ice cream shop to find they only have chocolate.

[Legatus]

Forgot:

 

with counts as being supported one can take a tau list , use sm models painted like white scares and say he plays a white scare list. that is how 5th ed looks like.

I have read a description of how "counts as" was being handeled for a 2005ish GT rules list, and IIRC in there it was described as being intended for models that did not have official rules, but could not be used to use models that actually had rules as something different. Is there a current description of how "counts as" works in tournaments?

[satanaka]

No one has to ask to use specials , they dont even exist as a in game term anymore

Page 49 in the BRB has a quarter of a page devoted to explain what Special Characters are. there simply is no more opponent permission required, which is a shame. Personally, I have seen a special character being used only twice during the past 4 years playing at the local GW shop. One was Telion, the other was Bugman in a WHFB game.

 

And I see them in every other game, in both systems, at my GW.

[Magnus Thane]

If your going to cause an arguement, at least try to do a little research before you throw the match. As it is, a lot of your arguements are contradicitonary and are completely unfounded.

Dude, given that I've played Eldar since 2nd, with full armies of SM/CSM/IG since 3rd, I think I've lived and played enough, thanks.

 

The contradictions are because you've got two people's replies mixed up - the first two quotes aren't even by me! If you're going to put my name down, at least make sure I wrote it!

 

The rest is pretty much all differing opinion, and I'm good with that. A minority opinion is still an opinion, and popularity doesn't equal correctness. Especially when talking about the pure subjectiveness tied to preferences in game rules for little toy soldiers.

 

Finally, are you defending 3.5 Iron Warriors as not abusive at the time?

 

Don't agree 100 percent with all your statements but I like a lot of what you stated so far. And I especially like this statement:

 

A minority opinion is still an opinion, and popularity doesn't equal correctness. Especially when talking about the pure subjectiveness tied to preferences in game rules for little toy soldiers.

[the jeske]

I have read a description of how "counts as" was being handeled for a 2005ish GT rules list, and IIRC in there it was described as being intended for models that did not have official rules, but could not be used to use models that actually had rules as something different.

that is 4th ed count as rules. where counts as was there to allowe people play with models that are GW legal , but longer have their own rules. In 5th ed GW encourges the use of specials characters , units or even whole armies to build any army a player wants[as long as the rules for the army come from one book , with exeption of inq of course]. that is why we kepp getting crap like siege expert WE[aka plague marines] word bearer dark apostols with chaos oratory [aka lash] etc etc. the tau example is extrem , but its totally legal.

Marine Bikes are 25 points, and for 8 points more Chaos Marines get +1 Attack each.

marine bikes are scoring and can get autoflank if khan is used , they get wonderful support in form of attack bikes and drop pod assault dreadnoughts/ironclads. chaos bikes are a dead choice[just like raptors] they dont do nothing better then a unit of csm/zerker or pms wouldnt do , at the same time those bikes are not scoring[2/3 of games is about taking objectives] . and again just like the raptors they force the use of 2 biker hqs.

They are the fastest unit in the whole Codex, good for contesting objectives (a unit does not necessarily has to claim an objective to make a difference).

If the unit of bikes is to survive , then it has to be 5-6 man strong [bigger would cost too much] +an HQ . in a 1500 games this means either one plays with 2 troops with a draw army or no support unit . In that case I would rather run a LR rush and keep the scoring units. specially as the bikes are not that fast[no outflank or scouting means they always give at least one turn for counter] . they do nothing to help against tougher match ups like eldar or IG and are not much better [while costing more and being more restricitive then a unit of csm/pms/zerkers]against meq builds.

 

Chaos Bikes can be used to set up charges or to summon generic daemons, which still have their use.

So I play with one sub standard unit to play with a random nerfed unit . I would have to run 2 biker units 3-4 man strong and 4-5 demon units of 8 [what means am already going under 2 normal troops] to be sure of seeing at least 2 on turn 2. The build would also make me dead against any form of LR rush and would have big problems with mecha builds specially based around skimers [iG/Tau/Eldar] . Even If I did pack melta guns [2 normal 1 combi and maybe even one on the HQ] one the biker , I still would be starting with 2 biker units[5 models strong] and two understrengh csm/pm units what with true LoS is a prove fatal against eldar or IG cav builds.

[Legatus]

that is 4th ed count as rules. where counts as was there to allowe people play with models that are GW legal , but longer have their own rules. In 5th ed GW encourges the use of specials characters , units or even whole armies to build any army a player wants[as long as the rules for the army come from one book , with exeption of inq of course]. that is why we kepp getting crap like siege expert WE[aka plague marines] word bearer dark apostols with chaos oratory [aka lash] etc etc. the tau example is extrem , but its totally legal.

Where are those rules written down? While googling I only found these 2008 GT rules on the US GW page, and while it does include a very broad permission for "counts as" (only requirements: Must be similar in size as what it counts as, must be consistent and each instance count as the same thing, and must be made clear to the opponent), it also includes the requirement for WYSIWYG. The "counts as" example is a Dread with twin linked heavy bolter that can be used as an assault cannon as that weapon is no longer available. Using Tau rules for Space Marines would be a clear cut violation of WYSIWYG, since neither is a pulse rifle a boltgun, nor is Tau carapace armour power armour, nor is a Tau Fire Warrior a Space Marine.

 

chaos bikes are a dead choice[just like raptors] they dont do nothing better then a unit of csm/zerker or pms wouldnt do

I can think of a few things...

 

specially as the bikes are not that fast[no outflank or scouting means they always give at least one turn for counter] . they do nothing to help against tougher match ups like eldar or IG and are not much better [while costing more and being more restricitive then a unit of csm/pms/zerkers]against meq builds.

Like zooming around the battlefield with 24" of movement in a single movement phase and having a 3+ cover save after that. A T5 MEQ unit with a 3+ cover save, CCWs, two special weapons, sitting next to wherever they want. And sometimes merely contesting an objective is enough for a win.

 

So I play with one sub standard unit to play with a random nerfed unit . I would have to run 2 biker units 3-4 man strong and 4-5 demon units of 8 [what means am already going under 2 normal troops] to be sure of seeing at least 2 on turn 2.

To position a unit of bikes somewhere and summon a squad of daemons next to them would by my math require 1 unit of bikes and 1 unit of daemons. Redundancy is good and well, but I was not exactly proposing that one bases his entire strategy around them. :mellow:

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Legatus, the current counts as rules are in the main rulebook.

 

To position a unit of bikes somewhere and summon a squad of daemons next to them would by my math require 1 unit of bikes and 1 unit of daemons. Redundancy is good and well, but I was not exactly proposing that one bases his entire strategy around them.

 

Except that daemon isn't guaranteed to come in on the 2nd turn. You need several units as jeske mentioned to be sure to have one come in.

[Legatus]

Legatus, the current counts as rules are in the main rulebook.

A page reference woul be awfully considerate. I did try finding such an entry in the rulebook for the last 15 minutes, but I have missed it so far.

 

Except that daemon isn't guaranteed to come in on the 2nd turn.

Indeed.

 

You need several units as jeske mentioned to be sure to have one come in.

Or maybe do not depend heavily on that daemon unit coming in at preciseily this turn. There are a lot of random dice decisions that heavily influence the course of the game, reserves being among the more crucial. The two solutions are not to either take a redundancy of reserve units or no reserves at all. It is perfectly ok to take just one reserve unit and have a little fun with it. Sometimes they appear just when you need them, sometimes they don't.

[the jeske]

Like zooming around the battlefield with 24" of movement in a single movement phase and having a 3+ cover save after that.

and do nothing . be cut away from the rest of the army [unless someone really makes something like 2biker HQs 3 biker units of 8 and two minimal size troops] . if they are suppose to do something next turn and not turbo boost again , they have to be within 18" of enemy units , what kind of a also is the range of a lot of counter unit . hell even a double taping unit from a rhino has an 18" treat range[and again this is not 4th ed . one guy in range means whole unit gets hit]

 

A T5 MEQ unit with a 3+ cover save, CCWs, two special weapons, sitting next to wherever they want.

I can have that with PM with only +4 cover , but with FnP and with a rhino blocking LoS to some units . same two specials , same asp champion with fist , no bonus for getting charged , but lower I and scoring

To position a unit of bikes somewhere and summon a squad of daemons next to them would by my math require 1 unit of bikes and 1 unit of daemons. Redundancy is good and well, but I was not exactly proposing that one bases his entire strategy around them.

as nough said . there is a 50% chance to see a demon unit on turn 2 . this means at least 2 units per 1 unit of bikers , the 5th unit is there to balance out bad rolls or give a stronger spearhead when its needed[against hth armies for example , or against armies that are shoty and horde as sweaping advance doesnt work like it did in 4th and an assault army fighting against a gunline and specially a gunline horde list has to engage mulitple units at the same time . To be able to do that , and considering that one unit of bikers could always run in to a counter unit or even get decimated by mulit shot weapons , two have to be used . this is why its 2 biker units and 4+one extra demon unit. As said before we have been testing almost everything out of the chaos dex and bikes do not work.

Sometimes they appear just when you need them, sometimes they don't.

but what does that have to do with game play and playabilty of units . techniclly every legal unit out of every codex in w40k can be taken and it can work or it can not work. Only spaming and certain unit rules make them work offten , almost always [like a drop dread in a vulkan list , the chance that both and the mulit melta attack bikes do nothing is really really small] and other units have less then 50% chance of working alone [single biker unit and single demon unit] or dont work at all[spawn for example].

Lets assume I take a single bike unit and a single demon unit [this probablly costs me a termicid and one of the troop units +I need one biker HQ for the unit]. How do I play them ? Do I boost turn 1 to make a quasi demon bomb move, having a 50% or less chance of actually seeing them[icon bearer can always die] or do I use them as spear head/counter unit [like Wolf raiders in SW dex] , but then what is the sense of taking the demons , if they cant keep up with the rest of the army and with a low save they are a small mob of orks [so not really qualified to hold objectives alone]. All this happens with me taking away valuable options from my army like anti tank [the termicid] and scoring units [because I took the bikes]. It is not worth it.

[Legatus]

and do nothing . be cut away from the rest of the army [unless someone really makes something like 2biker HQs 3 biker units of 8 and two minimal size troops] . if they are suppose to do something next turn and not turbo boost again , they have to be within 18" of enemy units , what kind of a also is the range of a lot of counter unit . hell even a double taping unit from a rhino has an 18" treat range[and again this is not 4th ed . one guy in range means whole unit gets hit]

What, you are telling me it is not a no brainer auto-win manouver that can be used in any situation and with any enemy/terrain constelation? That changes everything!

 

I can have that with PM with only +4 cover , but with FnP and with a rhino blocking LoS to some units . same two specials , same asp champion with fist , no bonus for getting charged , but lower I and scoring

And 24" movement. No, wait. (Plague Marines are also statistically less likely to charge themselves than bikes are)

 

as nough said . there is a 50% chance to see a demon unit on turn 2 . this means at least 2 units per 1 unit of bikers

If you want to increase your chances that at least 1 unit of daemons is appearing in 2nd turn from 50% to 75% then you might want to include a 2nd unit of daemons. If you don't feel the need to increase the chance that way, then you might not.

 

but what does that have to do with game play and playabilty of units . techniclly every legal unit...

Huh? Sorry, I was dozing off there. I was tinking about how much fun it was dropping a swarm of 10 daemons next to a unit of my opponent and then picking up 30 dice for their attacks. Ah, they did well supporting a single Sorcerer against an enemy tactical squad, or blocking a dread for 3 turns. Of course, at that time I did not know that a single unit of daemons is not very useful. If I had known I would probably have lost properly as I should have. :)

 

Edit: But I assume you already know that I have no idea how to play Chaos since I have mentioned before that I do not play the one and only list that works.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

What, you are telling me it is not a no brainer auto-win manouver that can be used in any situation and with any enemy/terrain constelation? That changes everything!

 

Ah, so since it isn't a no brainer auto win, then it is obviously a secret super leet tactic that only pros can use.

[Legatus]

So like every other move that by itself is no auto-win, right? The losers use all the auto-win manouvers, while the uber leet super tacticians use all the moves that are not automatically resulting in victory.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Or maybe its just a crappy unit and crappy move? Which is the opinion of, well, everybody but you? When was the last time you saw the sort of squad and tactic you are describing in a top tourney list? 3rd edition maybe?

[Legatus]

Or maybe its just a crappy unit and crappy move? Which is the opinion of, well, everybody but you? When was the last time you saw the sort of squad and tactic you are describing in a top tourney list? 3rd edition maybe?

Dunno, it seems that one cannot easily find a wealth of GT participant lists when one is not already deeply involved in that field. There seem to be a few lists with bikes being posted on this site (like here, here and here), but of course they are promptly advised to drop the bikes. I would have been surprised if it would have been any different. While searching I also found this list, and he seems to enjoy it, and mentions summoning daemons off the bikes as well, but it is an older blog post, so who knows, maybe he has come to realize his errors.

[Sception]

I personally think there isn't enough distinctive about blood angels or dark angels to warrant separate codeces, either.

 

I'd suggest that you read more fluff on both then. There are MASSIVE differences between the two, both strategically and fighting style, as well as as general outlook.

 

General outlook doesn't justify a separate codex. Neither, frankly, does abstract strategy, or even fighting style, if it isn't backed up by having armies based on different units with different gear and equipment and rules.

 

In the past Dark Angels and Blood Angels have used mostly the same units, with mostly the same stats and gear and rules, in mostly the same force org slots. The differences that set them apart do not seem any greater then the differences that the current marine book is willing to apply to an army by way of special characters. The most distinctive aspect of the Dark Angels, Deathwing and Ravenwing, already use the same special character mechanics to represent. The main unique factor of the Blood Angels, the Death Company, is itself but a single unit easily incorporated as a unique retinue of another special character. There's less differentiation between traditional Blood Angel and Dark Angel armies then between any two different Eldar Craftworlds, or Chaos Legions, or even Ork Klans, and I don't personally support those sub-lists getting their own full codeces, either. By comparison Space Wolves and Black Templar have fundamentally different units and options at the core of their armies.

 

Now, I'm not saying that Blood and Dark angels should be incorporated into the marine book. But I would like to see them pushed farther in the future, made more like the other non-codex astartes lists in terms of being based on fundamentally different units. Not just the same Tacticals/Scouts/etc. of normal Space Marines. But if they stay as mostly the same army but with a few minor special rule templats and a couple unique special character options, then I'd rather see them reabsorbed into the main SM book, with more detailed variant army rules handed over to Forgeworld. Just my opinion, though.

 

 

 

As for Gav's Chaos Codex,

 

There are things I like about the current book. The biggest is one unit = one entry. In the 3.5 book Berzerkers and Thousand sons were completely different units with different rules, stats, options, and functions. Yet the codex pretended they were the same unit given two different upgrades, which is confusing and counter-intuitive. For a single unit you had to look in multiple places - the main unit entry, the marks page to see if the unit could have a mark, the books of chaos entry to see what the mark did, and what the stats gear and options now where, and the legion page to see what modifications being in an individual legion made.

 

There was unnecessary confusion elsewhere as well. Characters had pools and sub pools of points of gear, and you needed an FAQ to figure out what upgrades counted for what pools and subpools to determine if the character was mortal or daemon, and whether or not it was legal. And you still needed to look at the books of chaos page and legions page as well. A lot of this was so the designers could pretend that monstrous daemon princes and non-monstrous chaos lords were the same unit entry, rather then two very different unit entries (different points, stats, special rules, unit type, starting gear, etc) that happened to share some of the same options.

 

All of that was unnecessary confusion. The truth is, basic chaos marines, berzerkers, and rubric marines are not the same unit. They're different units. Same with Chaos Lords and Daemon Princes. I appreciate the current book treating them as such.

 

 

I also appreciate a distinction between cult marines and aligned marines who have not attained cult status. Even if we accept the idea that World Eaters are a united, independent military force and not the shattered warbands that previous fluff described, the idea that they would eschew support fire or non-melee specialists was ludicrous. What, are their vehicle pilots frothing madmen? Their navigators? Oh, wait, Khorne hates psykers, so Berzerkers wouldn't use navigators. I guess they walk from planet to planet, right? The ultra narrow view of the aligned legions as all-cult, all-the-time always bugged me, and I welcome a distinction between marines with the mark of khorne and khornate berzerkers.

 

That said, once you acknowledge this difference, you really need to go all the way and provide all the proper cult options. If chaos marines with the mark of nurgle aren't the same as plague marines, then terminators with the mark of nurgle aren't plague marine terminators. I can understand the restrictions on codex size preventing the inclusion of cult versions of every individual specialist type, but options for cult HQs and Terminators really should have been included. Even the 3.0 codex had cult terminators added as an option in white dwarf.

 

 

I also welcome the idea that the legions, even the cult legions, utilize a mix of heresy-era vets, more recent traitor marines, as well as lesser daemons and cultists. There's no reason these forces wouldn't be all mixed together, and this is one example of the 3.0 book (once it included cultists and daemonic expansions from White Dwarf) was actually better off then the 3.5 book, which seemed to think only Alpha Legion would use cultists on the battlefield.

 

Loyalist guard and marines and the like are separate, but then again the fluff also has them working largely independently. The Codex Astartes is a huge part of loyalist marine fluff, and exists specifically to separate marines from other imperial forces. There is no such fluff separating chaos legions from lesser cultists and mutants, and indeed they specifically work together. Likewise, there's not so much established variety or independence to necessitate or justify a cultist army, or frankly even a daemon army. And incorporating these options into the chaos army goes a long way towards differentiating chaos from the frankly far too many T4, 3+ save armies in 40k. Again, the 3.0 army didn't feel over-stuffed with options, but still managed to have a range of demonic choices and cultist options if you count white dwarf additions.

 

 

I prefer to see the various legions together under a single army list as well. As I said above, there are far too many marine armies in 40k, the game didn't need chaos marines to become 2 or 5 or, heaven forbid, 9 separate marine books. Sublists and variants can and should be incorporated into a main book. The tyranid hives were successfully integrated under a single list. The current Eldar book, for all its failings, at least makes some serious nods towards representing the various craftworlds. The current Space Marine book uses special characters to apply special rules to represent armies that used to be covered by their old variant system - and with a few more special characters could probably have successfully absorbed Dark Angels and Blood Angels as well as mentioned above (just an opinion). The guard book goes out of its way to encourage different themed lists. The orc book does the same with Special characters and regular characters that change some of the army's options / force org positions. This could have been done well in the chaos book, but it would have required a codex that, like the current marine book, embraces options and special rules. GW had, foolishly in my opinion, allowed the single chaos marine army to become nine different armies. You can't incorporate nine different armies full of special rules and options into a single list that disdains them. The 4.0 Chaos codex is anemic even by the skeletal standards of the 3.0 book. And that was so slim that designers rightfully decided to add daemon prince gift options, cultists, and cult terminators via White Dwarf (all things that the current codex could likewise benefit from), even before they went overboard, imo, with the full variant sublists. As a result of the overly streamlined nature of the 4.0 book (to put it nicely), the 3.5 sub lists weren't integrated into the main chaos list, but were instead dropped altogether.

 

Not that I'm saying there's no place for full variant army lists. But with fully half the codeces of 40k already given over to marine lists, I don't think the place for those variants is in full codeces, or even intrusive and confusing sublists. No, the place for them is in Forgeworld books, a la the lists for Seige of Vraks. Official, but clearly set apart, and not eating into the already painfully drawn out codex release rotation.

 

 

 

Not surprisingly with the above, I also approve of the reduced emphasis on rivalries within the overall chaos faction. I prefer the 'chaos as a pantheon' take to the 'chaos as a bunch of morons who would rather sabotage their own interests then stand with each other against a common foe' version. In my mind, units that would never ever work together under any circumstances shouldn't be in the same codex. And since I don't think Chaos warrants 5 separate codeces, let alone 9, I don't think the chaos powers should have that kind of 'hate each other more then anyone else' relationship, even if this means abandoning old fluff. I prefer a pantheon, as with the Greek gods. Do they like each other? No, actually. Not really at all. Hades hated Zeus something fierce. Athena and Ares weren't exactly best friends, either. But when the Persian Gods show up, when the enemy is outside of the pantheon, well in that case the best way of deciding a rivalry between a follower of Athena and a follower of Ares is to see which can kill the most Persians, not to see which can kill the other while the Persians march by unmolested, neh?

 

Not that I don't think there should be some mechanical nod to the idea of like-aligned troops prefering to work together. In fact, such mechanics are downright necessary to incorporating the sublists into a single list. Such mechanics can already be seen in other factions, and would be as simple as 'berzerkers are elite, but every khorne-marked hero you take lets you take a berzerker unit as a troops choice' or the like. Chaos is almost unique among recent codeces in not employing force-org shifts to represent themed armies.

 

 

 

So I guess what I'm saying is that I like some of the theory behind Gav's 4.0 Chaos Codex, particularly the distinction between 'aligned' and 'cult', de-emphasizing the rivalries within chaos, and abandoment of sublists. But other ideas, like excising cultists and daemons, or emphasizing the 'marine' over the 'chaos' (when there are already five other marine codeces, eight if you count inquisition and necrons, and only one other chaos codex), I find wrong-headed. Even with the parts I agreed with, I found the implementation (dropping sublists instead of reincorporation them, abandoning special rules and options, overusing and overpricing randomness in gameplay elements, on top of the usual GW problems with poor gameplay balance due to insufficient playtesting) lacking, to say the least. Added to all of that, the codex simply lacks polish. Everything, from the art to the fluff to the rules, seems half-done. I always assumed this was because the 4e Chaos codex had been rushed out to fill a release gap created when delays on the new ork models had pushed back the release of that codex.

 

Anyway, even as someone who buys into a lot of the 4e theory for chaos, I still find the current book bland, poorly balanced, and totally lacking in polish that I associate with a good codex. Not that I think the book is overly weak - just boring, and unsuccessful at its goal of incorporating the various chaos marine themes back into a unified book.