Gav Thorpe on Codex Chaos

[Sovereign]

OK, sure.

 

Tho, at the Codex level, I doubt it makes that much difference. Sure, GW could do Mutants, Cultists, and Traitor Guardsmen. They'd all be bundled together into a single LatD book in the same way that KB, RM, NM, and PG are bundled in together. They're still fundamentally GEQs.

 

And looking at the new SW conversion sprues, it wouldn't be hard to do something similar for Mutants, Cultists, and Traitors. Or Cult CSM, for that matter.

 

So yes, a Cultist army would be different in the same way that a Cult CSM army would be different.

[Talisac]

Question: Why does the inclusion of cultists in C:CSM require a seperate codex?

 

I seem to recall AL having cultists in 3.5 without much incident. Sure, the old LatD rules were fun, but you only really need a single entry to add expendable cultists to a Chaos Marine army. Sure, there would be a need for new models... but I could easily see conversion sprues made to be used with current guard models. Heck, Nurgle players like myself could even use zombie models to represent their cultists. B)

[Grey Mage]

Are nobs advancing behind gretchin so terrible a thing? Are genestealers advancing behind gaunts a detriment to the game? were chaos terminators screened by cultists so evil back in 3.0? Maybe so, I don't know. I didn't own cultists back in the day, and I've more or less stopped playing 40k for the past year or so, due in no small part to how dull I find the current chaos codex (not weak, mind you, I still won more then half the games I played with it, even without resorting to lash/plague/oblit spam, just dull), and my lack of desire to play another army.

Maybe I am still scarred by 3rd Edtion, where enemy unist did not just grant a cover save but blocked LOS alltogether. I was quite frustrated that it was almost impossible to ever shoot at Genestealers (which had powerweapons prior to their first 3rd Ed Codex...) as they were allways moving behind a large screen of Gaunts. Eldar Guardians were used as screens for Dark Reapers, who were themselves untouchable by enemy fire as long as teh guardians lived. A cover save is not that bad, but stil I think Marine armies should not have cheap screening units and instead rely on their armour save.

So what do you think of the new Fenrisian Wolf packs in C:SW?

 

LOL drop them next to a full unit of Wyches and see what happens.

 

Nevermind, I'll tell you. The Daemons get punched. Badly.

Then maybe don't do that? B)

Agreed- bad tactics often bring bad results- its not the units fault.

[Legatus]

LOL dropping anything CC next to a full unit of Wyches is usually a bad idea. (They half your WS AND subtract the add. attack for two CCW's. You need S6 or more to ignore the Halving of WS.)

Funnily enough lesser daemons are not bothered by either of those special rules. They will hit the Wyches at 4+ regardless (WS is only halved for attacks against the whyches, it does not help the Wyches to better hit), and they have 2 base attacks and no additional CCW.

 

So what do you think of the new Fenrisian Wolf packs in C:SW?

I am not particularly fond of them as a concept. I don't like Marines riding on Wolves and I do not like Marines herding large packs of wolves with them in their space ships, thunderhawks or drop pods.

Rule wise there are a lot of elements in teh new Codex Space Wolves that rub me the wrong way (and I was so looking forward to it), and I did not actually ponder the Fenris Wolves that much. If it was up to me, with the next Codex Space Wolves (2017 or so) I would like to see them gone again. One can hope. (It worked with Tyrannic War Veterans, so maybe it will work here too.)

[the jeske]

Cultists would be different from a professional army.

unless they were AL field operatives who are closer to sm scouts then IG.

 

Still the thing isn't it odd that chaos got 0 new units in the dex? sm got new units , orks got new units , IG got new units , sw got new units , demons were mostlly made out of new models , we got 0 new units . again it wouldnt be bad , if we got something in return . Would it been so hard to make 1 page for legion lords? infiltration for whole army too powerful? ok take an AL lord and have one csm unit with infiltration. Let BL possessed be scoring [would make the unit actually useful] with a BL lord . Let a WB lord take demons with icon[yes not marks , icons to make it streamlined] , a scoring bike/raptor unit for NL , let an IW lord rise the cover of one terrain pice in his deployment[would make havocks an interesting option] or a scoring havock unit. There were countless ways the codex could have been made interesting , with a lot of options/builds viable. It could have been done with one page and it would still have the same streamlined core [bL for everyone and DPs would still be a better hq choice] . But GW did not do it and we ended up with a BL dex with 2 builds.

 

I am not particularly fond of them as a concept.

But they are there , just like special character for all , FoC changing , multiple builds from same dex etc they are there.

[Legatus]

unless they were AL field operatives who are closer to sm scouts then IG.

They are also described largely as non-combatants in the Index Astartes, tasked with keepin contact with the cultists cells the Alpha Legion is training and working with, which in turn will then do the actual fighting. The unit available to the ALpha Legion in the Index Astartes and the 3.5 Codex were plain cultists. Well, trained cultists, hence the WS and BS of 3 and the higher leadership. It would have been operatives that made contact with the cultist cells, perhapy years in advance, and who then would have trained them and relayed the Legions instructions to them.

 

Still the thing isn't it odd that chaos got 0 new units in the dex?

No.

 

sm got new units , orks got new units , IG got new units , sw got new units , demons were mostlly made out of new models

In those cases they were either "old" units, there was no need for them, or they made things worse. I don't want "new units" from a Codex. I want updated rules for the known units.

 

But they are there , just like special character for all , FoC changing , multiple builds from same dex etc they are there.

A Codex is rarely without flaws. DA got Veterans, BA got Troop assault squads, SW got Wolf Riders, SM got Vanguard veterans. It seems GW allways has to include at least one unfluffy unit in each new Marine Codex. Did I mention how glad I am that TWVs are gone? Too bad they are still referenced in the fluff.

[Lay]

Question: Why does the inclusion of cultists in C:CSM require a seperate codex?

It really doesn't. There's no real point against the inclusion of Cultists beyond the fact that they aren't in the current Codex. Honestly, if they were, there'd be no objections.

 

I seem to recall AL having cultists in 3.5 without much incident.

And before that, everyone in early 3E thanks to Chapter Approved.

 

I don't want "new units" from a Codex. I want updated rules for the known units.

So do I.

[Sception]

In my mind, some units that should be in the codex are missing (cultists, cult terminators, special characters for the other undivided legions), some options are less refined then they should be (raptors, daemons), some fluff-conveying special rules are absent (HQs modifying force org slots, perhaps some sort of divine favor rule a la fantasy mortals), some options are a little too strong (lash in particular, arguably plagues and oblits, though less so) while others too lackluster (possessed, bikes, I don't count spawn since I don't think they should be their own unit in the first place). There's also an overvaluing of random die rolls leading to overpriced options that use them (possessed, dreads, daemon weapons). There's also generally less in the way of special rules and unit options then there should be, imo, particularly unit options for the daemon prince.

 

I would not like to see a 'legions' codex. I don't like that the daemon book is four armies that don't like each other pretending to be a single codex, and I wouldn't want to see a marine version of the same. Rather, I'd like to see a new Chaos book that embraces options and special rules in the same manner as the current space marine book. I think that a more fleshed out codex could go a long way towards making all the old legion players content, if not perfectly happy, with chaos marines as a single codex list again, with forgeworld providing specialist lists for those who want something more specific.

 

Hopefully chaos doesn't take too much longer to swing around again. I know there are older books, and books that need expansion more. I won't complain if I have to wait through another tyranid book, another necron book, or even another dark angels book. That said, I won't be playing much 40k in the mean time. My once massive CSM army (8,000 points) has slimmed down to a paltry 2,000 points, and gone into hibernation, waiting for a day to come when I find them more enjoyable to play with and make lists for again.

[the jeske]

In those cases they were either "old" units, there was no need for them, or they made things worse.

how are valkirias ,scoring nob biker or wolf raiders making it worse for those dexs players?

 

A Codex is rarely without flaws. DA got Veterans, BA got Troop assault squads, SW got Wolf Riders, SM got Vanguard veterans. It seems GW allways has to include at least one unfluffy unit in each new Marine Codex.

what are the new , never used before units for chaos? oblits? had them in IW or any other BL list[only they were 0-1 , game play wise 2 minimax and 3 oblits vs 4-6 oblits isnt that much of a difference]. vindicators ? again IW. zerker/pm spam ? well BL khorn was the most flexible chaos list out there. Powerful DP ? again had that , glaive prince, syren prince , dread ax build prince , demon prince without stature like speed lords and Lt etc.

So where are the new units for chaos players [lets say we are generous and say everyone plays BL] , that got improved game play or totally new uses?

 

I want updated rules for the known units.

oh yeah with cult termintors gone , sonics gone out of everything , ditching of veteran skills , fixing squad size at 10-8-7 , we totally got upgraded .

[Legatus]

how are valkirias ,scoring nob biker or wolf raiders making it worse for those dexs players?

Valkyries are a "Forgeworld" unit and a flyer and belong into a game of 40K like Baneblades. Or Basilisks and Colossus's.

 

what are the new , never used before units for chaos?

I don't understand that quetsion at that point. It is out of context and has nothing to do with my dislike for wolf rider concepts as well as several other units from the last batch of Marine codices. My biggest "unfluffy" bone with the current Codex Chaos would probably be that Khârn (on eof my favourite Characters) got stripped of any special defensive capabilities, which had beenone of his original trademarks. No 2+ armour, no additional wounds, no eternal warrior. Just the basic 5+ invulnerable save every Chaos Character has.

 

oh yeah with cult termintors gone , sonics gone out of everything , ditching of veteran skills , fixing squad size at 10-8-7 , we totally got upgraded .

Yeah, it got, actually.

 

Cult Terminators have gone from "permanent mark" to "iconed", sonic weapons for everything has been left on th estreamlining floor, veteran skills got cut just like they were for loyalists. The rules were upgraded along the theme GW was going for at the time. The rules are indeed "upgraded" to be up to date and in line with the other 40K codices. Wargear as unit options instead of armoury, consolidation of sub lists into one, upgraded basic gear for all Marines, adjustment of point costs of weapons and vehicles.

[Grey Mage]

That said, I won't be playing much 40k in the mean time. My once massive CSM army (8,000 points) has slimmed down to a paltry 2,000 points, and gone into hibernation, waiting for a day to come when I find them more enjoyable to play with and make lists for again.

This is the part I hear alot, and the part that makes me feel forced to agree that the new codex sucks, even if I can see ways to play it well.

 

Cult Terminators have gone from "permanent mark" to "iconed", sonic weapons for everything has been left on th estreamlining floor, veteran skills got cut just like they were for loyalists. The rules were upgraded along the theme GW was going for at the time. The rules are indeed "upgraded", which does not mean "more stuff".

 

If its not better, its not an upgrade- its a retrofit, or a rewrite. Upgrade implies an improvement :).

[Legatus]

I decided to edit the statement again, too shortly before you started to post, and specify a bit more what "update" means in this context. It does not mean "improved", it means "adjusted to the current rule system and army list conventions". --> Wargear as unit options instead of armoury, consolidation of sub lists into one, upgraded basic gear for all Marines, adjustment of point costs of weapons and vehicles.

[the jeske]

veteran skills got cut just like they were for loyalists.

 

looks at codex sm.... fleet...check....outflank...check.... stubborn...check. ultra grit ...check[sw]. veteran assault sm and scoring [troop] RAs.. check[codex BA]. I fail to see how the traits are gone from loyalist sm.

Valkyries are a "Forgeworld" unit and a flyer and belong into a game of 40K like Baneblades. Or Basilisks and Colossus's.

valks are a plastic model in the IG codex. or do you mean those with actuall flyer rules. We are not talking about FW here[otherwise we have orbital landers we can charge out of on turn we arrive from reserves].

I don't understand that quetsion at that point. It is out of context and has nothing to do with my dislike for wolf rider concepts as well as several other units from the last batch of Marine codices.

you said that the "new" type models made the armies/lists worse , that they were unfluffy and bad. What aint the truth , because those options gave codex that got them better [more options , more lists etc]. If the chaos dex is so good and the streamlining was such a great idea , why was it dumped after 2 dexs ?

 

 

The rules were upgraded along the theme GW was going for at the time.

only there was no such thing as a theme . [because all the dexs after it are different] . there was a need to fill the void the lack of ork model range made , that is true . But again having a codex forced on you with all the options cut , because A there are no models for them [not even in plans] B the fear that the demon dex may sell bad , does not make us getting of chaos dex good.

 

 

Wargear as unit options instead of armoury, consolidation of sub lists into one, upgraded basic gear for all Marines, adjustment of point costs of weapons and vehicles.

ok lets take a small look at the non existent wargear section of codex chaos. The options come down to . Demonic weapon or not [and unless khorn this means demonic weapon] , wings are an auto include [unlike jump packs which make no sense for same points] . This is lord . DPs are even worse its which mark do you take and why not lash or warp time [at best].

Now the codex sm ... 4 playable special characters each changing with not just unique gear , but with FoC changes , special rules etc. then there are the normal guys again tons of options while some are small [like take a relic blade] others are game changing[honor guard , bike cpts making bikes scoring etc] . If all that is getting various wargear then I dont know what is .

 

Psyker powers . sm dex ... most viable , no clear best power. chaos [for sorc] lash and nothing else .

And this is not just codex sm . Orks have warbosses , meks etc open up different builds . SW have sagas , tons of different working gear . IG score of special characters with different arments and at the same time normal HQs are still viable and still good.

 

Yes JJ is a bad desinger and the DA dex is cut everywhere , even there where it never should have been cut. And yes the chaos dex is "stream lined" too . Only it has nothing to do with 5th ed core rules , the 5th ed theme or how the desing team wants armies to work in 5th ed.

[Legatus]

veteran skills got cut just like they were for loyalists.

looks at codex sm.... fleet...check....outflank...check.... stubborn...check.

None of these "universal special rules" had been available as a veteran skill in any prior Codex. I hope you are not trying to insinuate that the Codex Chaos has no units with fancy universal special rules. They have access to very potent Troops units with "fearless","furious charge", "feel no pain" etc.

 

ultra grit ...check[sw]

Seriously? You list SW ultra grit as an example of what loyalists have while Chaos does not? ;)

 

veteran assault sm and scoring [troop] RAs.. check[codex BA]

How this relates to "veteran skills" or even universal special rules is a mystery to me. Chaos got the incredibly powerful cult units, which were elite choices in previous Codices, as regular Troop choices.

 

Also: Being able to upgrade almost every unit with +1 Attack, +1 Toughness or +1 Initiative is not something you can disregard in terms of "traits". It does not matter that you do not like how these traits are implemented (icons), but you cannot deny that they are there. No need for Special Characters either, so you do not have to feel bad for lousy gaming etiquette. (that was a subjective and judgemental statement based on my point of view, since I know you are going to protest).

 

Valkyries are a "Forgeworld" unit and a flyer and belong into a game of 40K like Baneblades. Or Basilisks and Colossus's.

valks are a plastic model in the IG codex. or do you mean those with actuall flyer rules. We are not talking about FW here[otherwise we have orbital landers we can charge out of on turn we arrive from reserves].

What I was trying to say was that such a vehicle belongs to Epic 40K or special "large scale" battles via Apocalypse or Forgeworld units, and not into a regular 40K game. I am sorry if I was being obscure.

 

you said that the "new" type models made the armies/lists worse , that they were unfluffy and bad. What aint the truth , because those options gave codex that got them better [more options , more lists etc].

SM(4th): Tyranniy War veterans --> extremely unfluffy

 

BA: Assault Squads as Troops --> unfluffy

 

DA: Veteran Squads --> unfluffy

 

SM: Vanguard Veterans --> unfluffy

 

SW: Wolf Riders --> unfluffy

 

Whether or not they are potent/fun units is a different matter. I am usually put off more by unfluffy content rather than by ineffective units, annoying as those may be.

 

The rules were upgraded along the theme GW was going for at the time.

 

only there was no such thing as a theme . [because all the dexs after it are different]

1. No more armoury, instead all options part of the unit entry --> consistently applied since Codex Eldar

 

2. Consolidations of sub lists into one --> consistently applied since Codex Eldar

 

3. upgraded Marine basic gear (grenades, pistols) --> consistently applied since Codex Dark Angels

 

4. adjustment of point costs of weapons and vehicles --> almost consistently applied, Power Weapons and Powerfists have gone up again from 10/15 for squad characters to 15/25, only the current Wolf Guard has cheaper weapons again. Jump units have become cheaper, though not consistently at the same price. Rhinos an Predators at cheaper base price (with new default gear), but higher extra armoru price and more expensive laser cannon upgrades.

 

There have been some changes made to the theme since Codex Space Marines, but those elements were kept. The main change was to give more equipment options to characters, then there were additional cost reductions for jump units.

 

Psyker powers . sm dex ... most viable , no clear best power. chaos [for sorc] lash and nothing else .

That's just horse manure. Warp Time, Gift of Chaos, Wind of Chaos and Nurgle's Rot are all viable and fun to use.

[traitor_dice]

SM(4th): Tyranniy War veterans --> extremely unfluffy

 

BA: Assault Squads as Troops --> unfluffy

 

DA: Veteran Squads --> unfluffy

 

SM: Vanguard Veterans --> unfluffy

 

SW: Wolf Riders --> unfluffy

 

tyrannic war veterans: if the threat is large enough, I'm sure such measures would be taken. sure, Ultramarines follow the codex, but if its an extreme enough circumstance, then things are going to be changed (for example, the creation of the Vindicator pattern tank.) if you're saying that an SM force designed to specifically target a particular enemy type, would'nt the deathwatch very nearly fall to that category?

 

BA troop assault marines: its to show the difference between them and any other marine force (like how Kantor gives scoring sternguard) admittedly, to a more extreme extent. BA have either an above average proficiency/preference (either way) for assault. even though the fluff says they try to be as codex as possible and all, this is one of the reasons that they aren't codex, same with the death company.

 

DA veterans: don't know much of their fluff, and haven't read the codex, so im not sure of this one.

 

SW wolf riders: I agree with this one. designers must have been drunk or something when they came up with it.

 

as for vanguard vets being unfluffy, the way i see it is not ALL veterans are going to be in TDA or bolter armed. how is a close combat veteran unit unfluffy? where in the fluff does it say ALL veterans are either equipped for ranged combat or in TDA ALL the time?

 

 

as for codex CSM.

 

I can see what they were trying to do, I just don't think they did it well. I can understand the 3.5 codex being seen as over-complicated, though really it isn't. alot of it could have been fixed by adding the wargear options to the entrys (like 5th ed codexs) and by repositioning some of the wargear info (put it all on one page, and with the options in the unit entrys it removes alot of the problems with the "books of chaos" section.) as for legion rules, its just like the SM special characters, except rather than having one character with one set of wargear, you have a customizable character (imagine taking an ordinary captain, then getting to choose from a list of combat tactics/special rules. thats pretty much it.)

 

the 3.5 codex can be largely improved even through just repositioning some sections and rules throughout the book, so you didnt have to jump from page to page so much. this, combined with a bit of 5th ed balancing could have done the job nicely. instead of trying to fix or change the problem areas, they just tore them out and threw them away.

 

4th Edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines hasn't been streamlined, it's been hacked at with a rusty chainsword.

[Sception]

SM(4th): Tyranniy War veterans --> extremely unfluffy

 

BA: Assault Squads as Troops --> unfluffy

 

DA: Veteran Squads --> unfluffy

 

SM: Vanguard Veterans --> unfluffy

 

SW: Wolf Riders --> unfluffy

 

'Unfluffy' or 'Not Matching Previous Fluff'? Fluff changes, after all, and sometimes for the better. Do you rail against any description of the Iron Warriors legion because they were originally described as a Slaaneshii Warband? Do you accuse Undivided marines and Obliterators in an Iron Warriors warband of being unfluffy? If they released rules for Peturabo in Apocalypse or Epic would you accuse them of being unfluffy because Iron Warriors were not originally described as being a legion?

 

Some fluff is better then others, and sometimes old fluff, even if it wasn't bad, needs to be changed for the good of the game. The current fluff for World Eaters, and the fluff they've had since third edition at least, is that they consist entirely of berzerkers. An entire military body with only lobotomized madmen in it. Madmen who eschew fire support, disdain strategy, and hate psykers, in a universe where all of those things are not only ubiquitous, but absolutely necessary just to get to the battle lines in the first place. That fluff should be changed.

 

Old blood angels were space marines with one unique army-wide rule, one unique unit, and a few special characters. Under the current marine codex, all of that could be accounted for with three special characters, one of which with 'death company' as a unique retinue. I don't mind Blood Angels as a stand alone codex, but they really need to be fundamentally different from core marines - they really need to show some more deviation from default codex formations - to warrant that. Otherwise, just let them be red painted codex marines in the game, and let their unique fluff be described in Black Library books. Troop choice assault squads probably aren't the way I would have gone about that, but I still appreciate the decision to make their codex into something more obviously distinct.

 

So is it fluffy? Not by the old fluff, no. But is changing the fluff to accommodate something different the right move in this case? IMO, it is. and once the fluff is changed, it is fluffy.

 

 

Even so, I do agree that space wolf wolf riders is just silly. Maybe as a single special character... but units of them? no. Again, too silly for me.

 

I can understand the 3.5 codex being seen as over-complicated, though really it isn't.

 

I disagree. The two points I mentioned previously - lord equipment pools and subpools, and the marking system, are overly and unnecessarily confusing.

 

The lord's equipment pools - Weapons don't count as wargear or daemonic gifts unless they're daemon weapons, then they count as both. Daemonic Gifts are wargear, but wargear is not daemonic gifts. Psychic powers are neither unless they're both. Gifts of the gods are both. And none of this is clearly explained in the codex, you need an FAQ for that. And all of that so they could pretend that daemon princes and chaos lords are the same unit, despite having completely different stats, roles, and even unit types, when they could have ditched all that confusion by simply admitting that they aren't the same unit and giving them two separate unit entries.

 

This unnecessary confusion resulted in fully half of the army lists I saw posted for C:CSM3.5 being needing revision due to an illegal lord set up. People were quite obviously confused, so claiming these rules weren't confusing strikes me as condescending. You may not have been confused. I may not have been confused (or at least, not after reading the FAQ). But many, many people were confused, and it seems fairer then to say that the rules were confusing then to say the rules were fine, and the majority of chaos players weren't smart enough.

 

 

The second issue - the marking system - was just foolish. It was a way for the designers to pretend that Berzerkers, Thousand Sons, and Generic marines were the same unit when they really really weren't. They had different stats, special rules, base equipment, upgrade options, and battlefield roles. These were not the same units, and the 3.5 book wasted a lot of space and caused a lot of confusion by pretending that they were and in so doing forcing players to look in fully 5 separate places in the codex to try and figure out what the rules, points costs, and options for their units were. A far better way would have been to simply write up each of these units as a different unit entry - but to do that they would have had to admit to themselves the truth of the matter - that they had simply put too many units into the same codex.

 

A more frank and honest approach might not have allowed for 'plague marine bikers' or 'noise marine havoks', but it would have been far less confusing, and far more sustainable, and might have forced them to abandon the whole 'every world eater is a berzerker' nonsence before it got started.

 

 

So yeah, I think a far heavier rewriting of the rules was necessary then you seem to. Still, though, I would have taken the version of the 3.0 codex that had been fully fleshed out by chapter approved, the version with cultists, and cult terminators, and equipment options for daemon princes, and expanded from there. Instead Gav took the initial version of that book - the most limited, anemic version, and 'streamlined' it further into what we have now.

 

However, that's only part of what went wrong with the current chaos book. The other part of the equation is insufficient prep time, especially in play testing. Sufficient play testing would have told the developers that lash just isn't fun, that possessed don't work well, that bikes are overpriced, or that spawn are awful to the point of not being worth the page space they were printed on. Otherwise there are many places where the Chaos book lacks the polish that four more months of development would have given it, and I don't necessarily blame Gav for any of that.

 

In any event, it was shortly after C:CSM that we saw the death of 'late 4e' style codeces the the birth of '5e' style books. I doubt it was a direct result of poor response to the Chaos and Dark Angels books, the Ork codex had to be pretty far underway before the chaos book was released, but the negative reaction to the chaos book and positive reaction to the ork book* together likely had a significant impact on the direction taken by later codeces. Hopefully the current trend is still going strong when then next chaos book is released.

 

 

*apart from dislike of nob bikers, but again that's more a balance problem stemming from insufficient play testing and wonky 5e wound allocation rules then a failure of design for the ork codex).

[Hellios]

Also what's fluffy and what is not depends on your opinion. I personally think DA veteran squads are fluffy while the current codex lacks fluff. The difference between me a Legatus is that he sees them as 1st company veterans while I see them as the most experienced tactical marines of a company who have been given a bit more flexibility (Like IG veteran squads).

 

I also don't see Assault squads as troops being unfluffy because sure they are no more common then in any codex chapter but the BA prefer to utilise them more often and although the tactical marines probably play just as much as normal tactical I see BA assault Marines playing more than others because the blood angels like that rapid stirke and to get up close.

 

 

My only problem with tyranic war veterans as such was that they still referred to UM as being a strictly codex chapter if they had said until recently then that would have been fine:S

 

Its all subjective and getting Legatus to agree with you is pretty much pointless because regardless of if he is right or wrong (which I still think is subjective) he never seems to listen to what others say and I don't see this topic going anywhere useful at least not within the bounds of the OP if it carries on like this.

 

 

I think the new codex is rubbish and I play pure Thousand Sons about the only unit most people think are better than before.

[traitor_dice]

The lord's equipment pools - Weapons don't count as wargear or daemonic gifts unless they're daemon weapons, then they count as both. Daemonic Gifts are wargear, but wargear is not daemonic gifts. Psychic powers are neither unless they're both. Gifts of the gods are both. And none of this is clearly explained in the codex, you need an FAQ for that. And all of that so they could pretend that daemon princes and chaos lords are the same unit, despite having completely different stats, roles, and even unit types, when they could have ditched all that confusion by simply admitting that they aren't the same unit and giving them two separate unit entries.

 

This unnecessary confusion resulted in fully half of the army lists I saw posted for C:CSM3.5 being needing revision due to an illegal lord set up. People were quite obviously confused, so claiming these rules weren't confusing strikes me as condescending. You may not have been confused. I may not have been confused (or at least, not after reading the FAQ). But many, many people were confused, and it seems fairer then to say that the rules were confusing then to say the rules were fine, and the majority of chaos players weren't smart enough.

 

 

The second issue - the marking system - was just foolish. It was a way for the designers to pretend that Berzerkers, Thousand Sons, and Generic marines were the same unit when they really really weren't. They had different stats, special rules, base equipment, upgrade options, and battlefield roles. These were not the same units, and the 3.5 book wasted a lot of space and caused a lot of confusion by pretending that they were and in so doing forcing players to look in fully 5 separate places in the codex to try and figure out what the rules, points costs, and options for their units were. A far better way would have been to simply write up each of these units as a different unit entry - but to do that they would have had to admit to themselves the truth of the matter - that they had simply put too many units into the same codex.

 

this is what I meant by repositioning things. alot of the confusion in the 3.5 codex is caused not by the rules themselves, but by the fact that they're scattered all over the place. (i spent hours looking for what the "favoured numbers" do, until a friend told me to check the f.a.q)

 

the wargear descriptions should have all been in one section, perhaps if necessary with sub headings for cult-specific options. already that nearly removes the need for the "books of chaos" section that seems to cause so many problems.

then if the wargear choices had been added to the unit entries, as per other 5th ed codex, things would be far simpler. for troops choices the marks are obslete anyways. it was just a roundabout way of showing the cult troops replaceing generic CSM in a cult force. however, marks could still be of use for a lord or other IC.

 

simply have an entry for each cult choice, then add notation in each cult unit entry and the lord/sorcerer's entry that cult units may be taken as troops if the army has H.Q choices with the mark of the corresponding deity.

 

as for cult specific gear, just add a note to the subheading in the wargear section saying something along the lines of "any character may take undivided options, but cult options may only be taken by models with the corresponding mark. as the marks then become a choice only for HQs, its then easier to just say " a unit with MOK gains furious charge and +1 S" or whatever.

 

then, for BL, WB, NL, AL and IW just have mark of chaos undivided, and give them a choice of effects (one per character with MOCU) similar to combat tactics that allow use of the legion rules. limit the MOCU to one per army (for obvious reasons.....we don't want to have infiltrating, stubborn marines for example.)

 

i.e,

BL: may take one of each cult unit as troops.

 

WB: may take a tainted crozius for x points, and maybe give CSM, havoks, and termies stubborn or something at x points per model. (not much else to do without daemons)

 

NL: allows raptors as troops, and give night vision and/or stealh at x points per model

 

IW: allow lords to take a servo arm at x points, give one extra heavy support choice in exchange for one fast attack.

 

AL: one unit may infiltrate, or take the infiltrate skill at x points per model (make it high enough not to be spam-friendly) and allow 1 unit of guardsman to be taken as per codex: IG (or use the 3.5 cultist rules)

*note, the above is off the top of my head at 3 am*

 

also, note that I didnt restrict it to one mark per army. this allows players to still use a mixed army. want a khorne/nurgle army? take a HQ with MON and one with MOK. the system also allows for more mixed armies, via the BL MOU. you could take it on one IC, then take say, MOK on the other. this allows you to use all the cult units, but with khorne in particular being a prominent force. not haveing the simple "all cult forces are troops" for BL stops people from spamming cult units, but still lets them include a mix. and if you want to have alot of one unit, just take another HQ with that mark along with your BL HQ.

 

as for the lord's wargear, thats not hard to fix. just make the system for it clearer, or simplify it.

 

 

my point is, they could have achieved what they were aiming for, far more easily, and in a far better way. the whole codex didnt need a re-write. true, a bit of tweaking and re-balancing, but not the beat it got.

[Sception]

Still sounds more complicated then the book has any need to be, and while I think five different kinds of terminators and five different kinds of vets may be justified, adding onto that five different kinds of basic troops, four different kinds of bikes, and three different kinds of havoks is taking things too far, imo. I don't believe Chaos can justify 5 fully separate codeces, so some concessions need to be made towards keeping everything in the same book.

 

I'd go more into the specifics of what I would have liked to see done, but that's really getting into wishlisting, which is ultimately pointless and is certainly not the purpose of this thread. If you'd like to start a separate thread for posters to idly write out what they would have done with a new chaos codex then I'd post my thoughts there.

[IronWinds]

What I was trying to say was that such a vehicle belongs to Epic 40K or special "large scale" battles via Apocalypse or Forgeworld units, and not into a regular 40K game. I am sorry if I was being obscure.

 

Ummm.... its not a FW model anymore, its in the IG codex. It wasn't before, now it is, therefore being a new unit. I do believe that is what Jeske was getting at. You can take Valkries in 1000pt games, not just big huge missions. And honesty... if chaos could take dreadclaws(as they are now written... not as crappy drop pods) and GW made a plastic kit, chaos players wouldn't be complaining about other armies getting new units and us not. They also wouldn't be complaining about how crappy dreadnoughts are, because w/ dreadclaws they make a whole lot more sense.

 

 

Where you would need 200 models where Marine players field forces of 50 and IG/Tyranids about 100? At least with Guard you have the whole "contemporary/ww2 military" theme going. Cultists are just crazed mobs with pointy sticks or handguns. A "cultist army" would probably not be among the most successful Codices. Also GW would have to do a whole range of models for them. They would have to invest a lot of capacity into a force that would not be very popular.

 

My old LatD list had 90-120 mutants backed by marines. Using the FW rules my new army has 120-150(they got cheaper and lost T4) mutants backed by marines. And it was and still is successful. 20 mutants are not scary, the chaos champion or super mutant style thing in the middle, and the space marines using them as moving cover are scary. They were and still are hordes of cannon fodder protecting a small group of very scary individuals.

 

GW would have to do new sprues for Cultists and Mutants, that's a given and the reason they're not back as an army. But popularity wouldn't be worse than, say, Dark Eldar.

 

Mutants never had models. They were convert your own. GW had kits of mixed IG, ork, and zombie bags for making your own models, but they never had their own minis. And traitors are just guardsmen with spikes/mutantions..... So new sprues is a dead argument.

[Legatus]

traitor_dice:

 

tyrannic war veterans: if the threat is large enough, I'm sure such measures would be taken. sure, Ultramarines follow the codex, but if its an extreme enough circumstance, then things are going to be changed (for example, the creation of the Vindicator pattern tank.)

When something new emerges, the new elements are inlcuded into the Codex Astartes. It is a growing tome, and was not set 10,000 years ago. However, changing established doctrines is a different issue.

Aside from that, was the threat really large enough? Hive Fleet behemoth had beencompletely wiped out at Macragge, and then there had not been any contact with Tyranids for the next 250 years, and they have even been beleivd to be entirely estinguished. Why would teh Ultramarines decide to specialise into fighting a xeno species they just wiped out? It simply makes not the least bit of sense. Not to mention that they owuld not have anything to train on for the next 250 years, untill only very recently (7 years ago with the appearance of Kraken).

 

if you're saying that an SM force designed to specifically target a particular enemy type, would'nt the deathwatch very nearly fall to that category?

I did not know they were generally described as a Codex Chapter. I would have to read up on them.

 

BA troop assault marines: its to show the difference between them and any other marine force (like how Kantor gives scoring sternguard) admittedly, to a more extreme extent. BA have either an above average proficiency/preference (either way) for assault. even though the fluff says they try to be as codex as possible and all, this is one of the reasons that they aren't codex, same with the death company.

Giving Blood Angels Assault Squads as troops implies that either they have more Assault Marines than a Codex Chapter or that a Codex Chapter would in a lot of instances not use Assault Squads. We know the first is not correct, but the second does not make a lot more sense.

 

DA veterans: don't know much of their fluff, and haven't read the codex, so im not sure of this one.

Basically: DA 1st Company only uses Terminator Armour, DA 2nd Company uses Bikes, Attack Bikes and Speeders, all other companies are Codex. The Veteran Squads are supposed to be squads from the Battle Companies. So where are teh Battle Company veteran Squads described in Codex Space marines if they are a Codex unit?

 

as for vanguard vets being unfluffy, the way i see it is not ALL veterans are going to be in TDA or bolter armed. how is a close combat veteran unit unfluffy? where in the fluff does it say ALL veterans are either equipped for ranged combat or in TDA ALL the time?

This is how Veteran Squads were described in the Index Astartes (as well as the 2nd Edition Codex Ultramarines):

 

Veteran Squads are organised exactly like Tactical squads of the Battle Companies.

 

---

 

malisteen:

 

'Unfluffy' or 'Not Matching Previous Fluff'?

To me that is pretty much the same, but if you want to know specifically: TWVs and BA assault Troops do not match current fluff, Vanguard and Wolf Riders got rewritten into the background, and DA Veterans are kinda shaky (their battle companies are described as being organised according to the Codex, but they are also described as having Veteran Squads).

 

Fluff changes, after all, and sometimes for the better. Do you rail against any description of the Iron Warriors legion because they were originally described as a Slaaneshii Warband? Do you accuse Undivided marines and Obliterators in an Iron Warriors warband of being unfluffy? If they released rules for Peturabo in Apocalypse or Epic would you accuse them of being unfluffy because Iron Warriors were not originally described as being a legion?

My opinions of fluff are usually rooted in 2nd Edition, since that is where I started playing. It is also a factor, however, that from 1st to 2nd GW revamped a lot of elements of the background and established the status quo how we still have it today, with only minor changes to certain Chapters (mostly BT, but also with the advent of the Index Astartes).

 

Some fluff is better then others, and sometimes old fluff, even if it wasn't bad, needs to be changed for the good of the game. The current fluff for World Eaters, and the fluff they've had since third edition at least, is that they consist entirely of berzerkers. An entire military body with only lobotomized madmen in it. Madmen who eschew fire support, disdain strategy, and hate psykers, in a universe where all of those things are not only ubiquitous, but absolutely necessary just to get to the battle lines in the first place. That fluff should be changed.

I am ok with all World Eaters being Berserkers. I think it has been that way even in 2nd. What I don't like is the notion that they only ever use footsloggers with CCWs and no vehicles or support or slaves or whatever. Khorne is the god of war and death, and not the god of chopping heads off. And anyone who thinks World Eaters would not use massive cannons has not heard of things like the "tower of Skulls" or a "banelord". The Iron Warriors are envious of the World Eaters war machinery.

 

 

---

 

Hellios:

 

The difference between me a Legatus is that he sees them as 1st company veterans

No he doesn't. He sees Dark Angels Battle Companies as being organised according to the Codex Astartes.

 

My only problem with tyranic war veterans as such was that they still referred to UM as being a strictly codex chapter if they had said until recently then that would have been fine:S

My problem with them is that strictly following the Codex has pretty much allways been (and still is supposed to be, oddly enough) one of the main characteristics of the Ultramarines. And to completely throw that over board just to introduce a fancy unit does not sit well with me.

 

Its all subjective and getting Legatus to agree with you is pretty much pointless because regardless of if he is right or wrong

If you are waiting for me to agree that the Codex Chaos Space Marines is unplayable and cannot be fun or that Raptors are not in the least bit viable then don't hold your breath.

 

 

Edit:

 

Ironwinds:

 

Ummm.... its not a FW model anymore, its in the IG codex.

Yes. And it shouldn't be.

 

My old LatD list had 90-120 mutants backed by marines. Using the FW rules my new army has 120-150(they got cheaper and lost T4) mutants backed by marines. And it was and still is successful.

"successful" as in "selling well/high demand". Sorry if I was not clear. Also, I was talking about a dedicated cultist list. No CSM choices.

 

Mutants never had models. They were convert your own. GW had kits of mixed IG, ork, and zombie bags for making your own models, but they never had their own minis. And traitors are just guardsmen with spikes/mutantions..... So new sprues is a dead argument.

If GW was to release a Codex for Cultists and Mutants, surely they would have to release some kits for at least some units from that Codex?

[Sception]

To me, 'organized according to the Codex: Astartes' should be synonymous with 'fielded using Codex: Space Marines'. If two armies are using the same units with the same stats occupying the same slots and carrying the same gear then they are the same army and don't warrant separate codeces, with the increased codex rotation time that entails.

 

I'd be happy if the Blood Angels and Dark Angels kept to Codex organization and were folded into C:SM. I'd be equally happy if their fluff was re-written so that, like Space Wolves and Black Templar, they do not follow Codex Organization - making them actual separate armies in the game and not just a couple re-releases of the same army with different special characters. The re-writing of fluff that the latter would require would not bother me in the slightest.

 

Fluff is there to enhance the experience of the game, not the other way around.

 

 

As for World Eaters - Berzerkers as currently described don't make good pilots, drivers, or gunners. The frothing lunacy induced by their cybernetic implants just doesn't make sense with these things. I agree that a better take on Khorne includes Big Guns and War Engines. Surely the reduced personal aspect of the sacrifices are more then made up by the sheer quantity of blood spilled. Then again, in a game where psychic powers make you a better warrior, imo a martial god should embrace psychic adepts, not shun them. Even more so given that daemons are inherently psychic constructs. That Psykers are required to summon them. That psykers are required to pilot the spacecraft that carry the world eaters from one world to another. Given the nature of the 40k universe, and the forces of chaos in particular, 'Khorne Hates Sorcery' is about as ridiculous as 'Khorne Hates Guns' or 'Khorne Hates Strategy'. Worse, since daemons are manifest psychic energy themselves, 'Khorne Hates Sorcery, and refuses to use sorcerers' makes about as much sense as me saying 'I Hate Bones, and I will tolerate no bones within my person!'

 

So, in the end, maybe it's best that I'm not writing Chaos Codeces / rewriting Chaos fluff after all, since I doubt many Chaos players would welcome such things as Khornate Sorcerers and Khorne-only psychic powers.

[Legatus]

Khorne despises the use of magic and sorcery as cowardly, he is not in favour of frying someones brain with your though, more in bashing someones face in with whatever blunt object you can find. I don't think he is ever described as hating anything that has to do with warp utilisation, just the cowardly use of magic in combat instead of using physical means.

 

Since drivers are not often described, (not even for loyalists, does he come from the armoury? or from a reserve company, or from the squad?) I assume that similar to how Berserkers have fused with their chaos armour, the World Eater vehicles are driven by members of the Legion that over time have fused with them. They are not legionaires anymore in the sense of the word, rather half way towards a daemon engine.

[Sception]

So Khorne doesn't care from whom the blood flows, so long as it flows..... but wait, he really, really cares how the blood flows. Blood from club smash good, blood from gunshot bad, blood from magic lightning very bad, blood from magic lightning enhanced club smash still also very bad.

 

I'm sorry that still doesn't make sense to me. The warp enhances the strength of it's warriors. How is that any different from a chaos sorcerer using the power of the warp to enhance his strength so he can better bludgeon someone about the head? It's been a rather pathetic truth for some time that khornate heroes are rarely any better in melee then their non-khornate compatriots since the latter can enhance themselves with melee augmenting psychic powers. Tzeentchian daemon princes are far more offensively intimidating in the current book because re-rolls to hit and to wound are simply a better melee gift then +1 attack. In my mind a Khornate Sorcerer would use the warp to flood himself or his followers with the strength of their god before the club-pummeling of their enemies.

 

And daemons are manifest psychic energy. There is no physical strength to a blood letter or flesh hound that isn't the result of sorcerous magicks.

 

Khorne is described in the fluff as hating sorcery and sorcerers. His forces never include sorcerers - so we can assume that he refuses their service. I don't even know of any fluff describing how the World Eaters get from place to place, or how they summon daemons, or how they do any of the myriad basic tasks that in 40k require psykers to perform, especially for a chaos faction. Is there fluff that covers this?

 

Anyway, for me 'Khorne doesn't like sorcerers' remains right up there with 'Khorne doesn't like guns' in the hierarchy of stupid fluff, even if the former is supported by older fluff, and the latter was only around since 3rd edition. Thankfully the 4e book allows for khorne aligned heavy weapons should you want them, and thankfully we've seen some of the old big khorne gun machines in apocalypse sheets, so it seems like the latter bit is going away. If only the former would as well....

[Legatus]

Khorne wants blood to flow... well, he wants someone to be hurt via violence. If someone accidently cuts himself, or if there is a horrible accident, I doubt Khorne is that interrested. It is the violence that is being done by someone to someone that matters. And perhaps if someone is harmed via the manipulation of the warp it is not the same, since the warp is not part of this physical realm.

 

I am also not happy that Tzeentch Princes are currently the more potent fighters, but I do not blame the lack of enhancing psychic powers, I blame the lack of a proper compensation for Khorne princes. Champions and favourites of Khorne should have no equal in combat among the other followers of Chaos, yet they are more limited because their gifts are nit "better" than the other ones, but they have to do without psychic powers.