Gav Thorpe on Codex Chaos

[Legatus]

Cool when was it [in fluff] that EC and WE warbands fought in the same sector at the same time without precise order from Abadon ?

The World Eaters and the Emperor's Children Legions are both shattered. There may be larger formations still around, but smaller units working for whatever warband will take them are common. Thus Berserkers and/or Noise Marines are perfectly viable in any Chaos army as far as fluff is concerned. Well, maybe no Noise Marines in a World Eaters force and vice versa.

 

blah blah blah... So at least for the Night Lords the current Codex works out pretty good.

Yeah... Except that it doesn't, at all.

I have a Nightlords playing friend who's pretty much decided to go with a World Eaters army because he's tired of not being able to play to his fluff as well as he used to.

Yeah, that..and there are no "NL's" in the new codex, so how is it that they wk out so well ?

They must wk out better now that they don't have Night Vision & Stealth Adept vet skills and don't get an xtra fast attack choice and can't take two units of "hit and run" raptors and can't cause fear and don't have a page of gifts and wargear.

I played Night Lords in 2nd Edition. I played Night Lords in 3rd Edition. I played them with the 3.5 Codex and I still play them with the 4th Edition Codex.

 

I don't need Night Vision, Stealth and extra Fast Attack choices to play Night Lords, and I find claims that they cannot be represented without their fancy (and in fact quite nice) 3.5 rules pretty ridiculous. I played them before they had such rules, and I keep playing them now that they are gone again. Oh, but the ones complaining about the current Codex are the ones who care for "fluff". There is a laugh. :)

 

Butchered fluff in the new codex

Index Astartes, actually, which predates the 3.5 Codex. World Eaters and Night Lords are shattered and their units fight for whomever will take them. Night Lords specifically use units of any cult when they can get them. No need to blame Gav for this.

 

And therein lies the problem, the codex gets people thinking that the Chaos Gods are helpers, give them a little praise and viola, you got power. Thats not how it works, you don't work with the Gods, you serve them, you don't ask them for help or power, you hope they pay enough attention and are pleased enough with you to grant you a boon and you hope that boon doesn't turn out to be a curse.

But it is easy to understand that GW decided to make a dedicated "Chaos Space Marines" book and then publish a distinct "Chaos Daemons" book later, which they did. Similar to how it had been done for WHFB for years, in 40K there now is a book that focuses on Chaos Marines, with only a little bit of warp critters, and one book with all the evil quartets glory. Via multiple detachments and Apocalypse rules there are even still legal ways how you can include various cult daemons in your Chaos Marine army. Just not in smaller games, and not in tournaments. And maybe that is ok. Summoning daemons is not easy, the barrier between realities not easily pierced. Not on every world where a Chaos force attacks they will be able to immediately summon hordes of daemons. The majority of their battles the Chaos Marines will have to fight on their own.

 

And about the Emperor's Children and the World Eaters, one word........Skalanthrax. After that, theres no way the two Legions would work together unless it was with an extremely powerful Chaos Lord or Abaddon gearing up for a Black Crusade. The Cults hate each other too much to actually work together bar for the most apocalyptic wars, like Black Crusades, or are you just choosing to selectively ignore the fluff?

You mean Skalathrax, where the "World Eaters Legion" ceased to exist as a Legion? Which is why World Eater squads can pretty much appear in any warband? :) I am ignoring the what now? If you play an Emperor's Children army you might want to refrain from using World Eaters Berserkers. ;)

[Castlerook]

Legatus, I wouldn't talk about spelling mistakes if I were you, or have you not noticed the irony of your last point? [/sarcasm]

 

You mean Skalathrax, where the "World Eaters Legion" seized to exist as a Legion?

Seize - To grasp suddenly and forcibly; take or grab

To take into custody capture

 

Cease - To put an end to; discontinue

To come to an end; stop

To stop performing an activity or action; desist

[Legatus]

Thx for the heads up. I am no native english speaker, so I am not usually one to point out spelling mistakes, though I can see that my last post can give that impression. But I was asking for (rethorical) confirmation that he was talking about the one incident that made World Eaters viable for pretty much every Chaos force (save one) and used it as an argument for why World Eaters should not be available to other Chaos forces (using one particular example).

 

Edit: I hope you don't mind if I remove my spelling mistake from my previous post as to not detract from the point I was actually trying to make.

 

Edit2: I just noticed that "he" was you, Abernaxe. Sorry, I compiled several points from differnet posters into my reply. And I honestly did not even notice the misspelled "Skalathrax" before I had hit the send button. Khârn is one of my favourite Characters since 2nd, so I read and write that name without double checking.

[IronWinds]

Cool when was it [in fluff] that EC and WE warbands fought in the same sector at the same time without precise order from Abadon ?

 

I can find plenty of places in the fluff where they fought in the same sector at the same time. Most took place in the Eye of Terror...... against each other.

 

The World Eaters and the Emperor's Children Legions are both shattered. There may be larger formations still around, but smaller units working for whatever warband will take them are common. Thus Berserkers and/or Noise Marines are perfectly viable in any Chaos army as far as fluff is concerned. Well, maybe no Noise Marines in a World Eaters force and vice versa.

 

Exactly, and that is why in the 3.5 codex you could take bezerkers and noise marines... under an undivided lord. You couldn't have a khorne DP with noise marines. He would kill them before fighting the enemy.

 

In the 4th ed dex you can have Khârn fighting alongside EC. The last time that happened... he was killing them. And the time before that... Horus was still alive and ordered the two legions to work together. Its unfluffy, shouldn't happen. Its so unfluffy the player should make his units fight each other. In a friendly game I wouldn't allow it. Call me whatever you want, I like my fluff, I like the story, and in no way shape or form can I have a story where Khârn and some noise marines are fighting my Iron Warriors.

 

Summoning daemons is not easy, the barrier between realities not easily pierced. Not on every world where a Chaos force attacks they will be able to immediately summon hordes of daemons. The majority of their battles the Chaos Marines will have to fight on their own.

 

To start, I'm an IW player, I could care less about summoning. However.... Summoning demons is not easy.... for a novice. I think chaos sorcerers, word bearers, and cults have it pretty down pat. When your commanding officer IS a demon, and a squad of your guys and two of your tanks are possessed with demons I don't see you having a problem summoning demons. And chaos marines carry icons to summon demons everywhere they go. The very presence of an army of chaos marines makes it easier for demons to spawn. This argument is also mute, under the current dex we can summon demons, crappy demons no one wants. Under the 3.5 WEs could summon bloodletters, thats the argument.

 

I played Night Lords in 2nd Edition. I played Night Lords in 3rd Edition. I played them with the 3.5 Codex and I still play them with the 4th Edition Codex.

 

Ok how do you play them?

 

And that still doesn't help the other legions. Alpha Legion kind of need infiltrating and/or cultists to be fluffy. Iron Warriors kind of need heavy firepower to be fluffy. Word Bearers kind of need good demons to take, and more than 1 option.

 

And sure AL can take chosen.... but it will never accomplish what they used to be able to do.

Sure word bearers can take a crap load of lesser demons, but not a lot of variety there.

Sure IWs can just take 3 heavy supports and make their troops static firing squads.... but 10 guys to buy 1 heavy weapon is not efficient by any means. And the IWs have always had some type of bombardment until now(preliminary bombardment in IA, basilisk in 3.5). How do I represent that?

 

Why should I be forced to 'count as' and make my life harder, and have to explain all my units because someone at GW was lazy. And yes lazy. I guess reading about flavors of ice cream was interesting [sarcasm] <_< , but in the end the problem here is just laziness. The writers couldn't be bothered to properly play test the units in the codex... yet alone try to implement even 'some' rules for the different legions. When I say properly play test the units in the codex, look at dreadnoughts and possessed. Who would playtest those and then say, "I think people will love using these in their armies, this is a great improvement." Dread's usefullness in 3.5 struggled because they could shoot your own guys if they were the closest unit in front of them. Now they can 'turn around' to shoot your own guys. Who thought that was a good idea?

 

Examples of quick easy rules for the legions.

WEs, no other marks, get champions in squads of 8 for free. Squads that can buy icons have to buy icons of khorn, but the unit keeps its abilities even if the icon bearer dies.

Cults: same as above w/ different scared numbers.

IWs: No demons or marks. CSMs get the option of tank hunter for xpts. Can add a 0-1 artillery piece(Basilisk/Griphon) as a heavy support option.

AL: No demons or marks. CSM get the option of infiltrate for xpts. Can take cultists. Cultists get a brief statline and mentioning, same as before.

NLs: No marks. Night fighter for free. Stealth for xpts.

WBs: No marks. Have a short list of demons from codex demons they can take.

 

Nothing crazy, short, sweat, simple, still gives each 'something' to define who they are.

 

And the fluff got maimed, simple an easy. And how many pages would some fluff on the legions have added. Crap each special character got a few, especially Huron and his group of misfits. 1 page to each legion to much to ask for? Don't even add to the book, just remove the crap about renegades that no one read anyways.

 

I can't remember who but someone quoted economic figures on the laws of supply. No one cares what the supplier of x thinks about it, they care about what the buyers think. The supplier of something thinking it is cool does not increase demand, the buyers have to demand it. I could care less what Gav thinks about the codex. What the buyers think matters, and just based on this one topic I think it is pretty clear.

 

In the 60s a car that could drive on land or water was built, and it was fairly affordable. Great idea. Bankrupt idea. It came out at the same time as the Mustang, and cost about the same thing. Guess which one won?

 

I don't care if you think your car offers more options, land or sea, mine is a whole lot more fun to drive and has a much better story. What I want will decide whether I buy the car, not what you think is good. Theres an anology you can use while you eat your icecream ;) .

[Lord_Caerolion]

I don't need Night Vision, Stealth and extra Fast Attack choices to play Night Lords, and I find claims that they cannot be represented without their fancy (and in fact quite nice) 3.5 rules pretty ridiculous. I played them before they had such rules, and I keep playing them now that they are gone again. Oh, but the ones complaining about the current Codex are the ones who care for "fluff". There is a laugh.

Well, I'm glad to hear that because of the fact that I started playing Warhammer when 3.5 was released, I can never, ever call myself a fluffy Chaos player. I guess all I'm after is the cheese. I never knew that playing Chaos since 2nd Edition was a prerequisite for being a fluff gamer. Now that I know better, I'd better let my inherent beardiness take over!

 

Sarcasm aside, I don't believe that just because something existed without something before means it shouldn't be developed. Yes, Chaos worked fine without Legion rules before. It worked pretty damn well. Then 3.5 came along, and added something to it, and everybody had that little bit more to work with. I don't see how taking that away, and moving back to the simplified, albeit workable, Chaos codex can be seen as an improvement. Surely, by any logic, removing a workable benefit is a negative, not a positive? Appeals to tradition are logical fallacies.

You liked the streamlined rules? They were in 3.5. You had your basic list. They also added on optional extras (note the use of the word optional, something many 3.5 naysayers seem to forget) for those who wished to take them, to give some added depth if you so wished.

 

We aren't arguing that World Eaters shouldn't be available to other forces. We're arguing that they shouldn't be able to fight alongside Slaaneshi armies, when by all rights they should try to kill each other as soon as they see each other. We get that the Emperors Children and World Eaters are both fragmented, but that doesn't mean they'll work alongside each other. World Eaters and Death Guard? Sure! WE and Thousand Sons? Not too likely. WE and EC? Don't run for cover, 'cause Khârn's there with his flamer again!

[Cale]

If you don't want Berserkers to fight alongside Noise Marines or a Lash Prince, then don't build that army. Removing a restriction doesn't make the codex any less fluffy or flavorful--the fluff and flavor of Khorne and Slaanesh hating each other is still there. You can still easily build an army in which this hatred is expressed. All that's been done is allow for the admittedly remote possibility that a Slaaneshi lord might temporarily put aside his hatred of Khorne and work towards some other goal. Really, the notion that this confluence cannot, possibly, ever happen is a more than a little inane. The fluff makes it highly unlikely. But, the rules don't have to make it impossible for the rules to be fluffy.

 

If it's a restriction you like, go for it, but restrictions basically don't add to the flavor of an army. If you feel compelled to complain, complain about stuff you've actually lost. Complaining about removed restrictions is just silly.

[Castlerook]

I can't remember who but someone quoted economic figures on the laws of supply. No one cares what the supplier of x thinks about it, they care about what the buyers think. The supplier of something thinking it is cool does not increase demand, the buyers have to demand it. I could care less what Gav thinks about the codex. What the buyers think matters, and just based on this one topic I think it is pretty clear.

 

That was me, thanks Ironwinds :)

[the jeske]

All that's been done is allow for the admittedly remote possibility that a Slaaneshi lord might temporarily put aside his hatred of Khorne and work towards some other goal.

the thing is , because csm have one good choice each slot and rest that are sub par , when an army [like AL for example] would not use DPs, oblits , cult units because of fluff it also becomes very , very weak. when one considers that and the fact that while legion armies were in most cases weaker then stright up BL[not just khorn] lists , but were still ok to play and had something special and unique about them , with the 5th ed dex a fluff players lost both the unique stuff and the army , while a tournament gamer[or rather someone who doesnt care about fluff] got more or less one build . Even in the 4th ed dex , if someone was just out of power , he had two lists [iW and khorn BL] . Right now the power player and the fluff guy have to play the identical list with identical game play to hope to win . And that sucks hard.

[incinerator950]

All that's been done is allow for the admittedly remote possibility that a Slaaneshi lord might temporarily put aside his hatred of Khorne and work towards some other goal.

the thing is , because csm have one good choice each slot and rest that are sub par , when an army [like AL for example] would not use DPs, oblits , cult units because of fluff it also becomes very , very weak. when one considers that and the fact that while legion armies were in most cases weaker then stright up BL[not just khorn] lists , but were still ok to play and had something special and unique about them , with the 5th ed dex a fluff players lost both the unique stuff and the army , while a tournament gamer[or rather someone who doesnt care about fluff] got more or less one build . Even in the 4th ed dex , if someone was just out of power , he had two lists [iW and khorn BL] . Right now the power player and the fluff guy have to play the identical list with identical game play to hope to win . And that sucks hard.

 

We went from 6 playable tourney lists to 2, correct?

[Castlerook]

We went from 6 playable tourney lists to 2, correct?

 

The two Sorcerers with Lash, and the two Daemon Princes with lash, correct?

[incinerator950]

We went from 6 playable tourney lists to 2, correct?

 

The two Sorcerers with Lash, and the two Daemon Princes with lash, correct?

 

No, Chaoszilla and Duel Lash

[Prot]

I realize the thread has taken its own turn for discussion on 'what went wrong' with the current Chaos 'dex, but I wanted to go back.... back to Gav's original post to try and figure out what he's really saying here. What motivated some of the things he said. So humour me here as I quote some of his post below:

 

An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else.

 

I kept re-reading this and scratching my head. Basically there are 3 types of gamers (NOT hobbiests) that *I* run into: Power gamer, competitive but themed, and pure fluff. Gav's statement above seems to indicate (to me at least, that most consideration would be given to the 'theme' of Chaos, and respect for the background).

 

Almost everyday since that codex came out I read player's complaints about the lack of representation of 'something else'. In fact one never-ending-theme about the Codex seems to be an utter lack of representation of the history of Chaos at the cost of vanilla-fying the rules.

 

The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.

 

Didn't this guy do the previous edition Eldar codex? Many of the people I played with considered that one of THE strongest rulesets at that time. The last Chaos codex was extremely ambitious. Did it have a element of 'over the top'? Sure. Do Orks? Check. Do IG? Check..... This is the nature of an ever evolving game. (As admitted to by Gav). Unfortunately while he seems to have removed the 'over the top rules', he also removed: History, Character, and Depth. Was this the price for a level rule set? If so, I'd like a refund.... please?

 

The following excerpts are on 'over the top' and 'a minutiae of rules' for Chaos:

Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame

 

Whoa... wait a second. I'm really trying to understand this, really I am. But on one hand (above) you are saying, 'Let's trim down those over the top rules.' And now you are saying, 'It's the players' responsibility to not go over the top just because it's within the rule set?" Whhhaaaaaaat? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

You can NOT make a 'ruleset' for a game and expect that people will NOT abuse it, or look at every possible way of USING it to their advantage! This is like saying you're going to make a hardhat (construction helmet) with a giant hole in the top of it. And if the person wearing the helmet gets hit on the top of the head with a rock, you want to tell them they used the wrong part of the helmet? Sorry, but this helmet... sucks. You made it, and a lot of people want a new one.

 

The second problem with this approach is at the opposite end of the scale. By having a minutiae of rules covering very detailed elements of a players army, it can also trigger the response, ‘I can’t do this because the rules don’t say I can’. By listing very specific allowances and restrictions, the old Codex essentially presented very narrow interpretations of the background, again removing the choice from the players

 

I understand why Gav says this. In part I agree, but the 'solution' in this case actually might have been worse than the cause! We have lost a lot of background in an effort to give us more choice? Well I remember when that codex came out how many legion type players I knew (myself included) that just stopped playing their legion of choice. They don't exist anymore.... Word Bearers? Night Lords? etc, etc,... these are ALL the SAME now, just with different coloured paint.

 

This chaos 'solution' reminds me of the saying, " The operation was a success! But unfortunately, the patient died!"

 

Bear in mind that a lot of the variant armies people associate with the old Codex were not in fact from the Codex, but from the Index Astartes articles

 

Absolutely! And what a fun time that was. It spurred the release of Index Astartes box sets, Legion specific armies, and even some 'over the top' rules. But man it was a fun time to have your hands kneading away in the Chaos cauldron..... the stuff we could make! You could go to a tournament and play 5 totally and completely different themed Chaos armies! Not anymore....

 

Rather than dismiss some of the most entertaining parts of the background (and potential miniatures) as footnotes, it was decided that they should be given books of their own, to delve into their histories and personalities and armies with separate volumes (and, of course, cool new miniatures).

 

*sigh*. What can you say to this? "Better luck next time guys!" or "Hey, we almost did something... interesting... but didn't..." I'm not sure what to take from that hollow idea that admits our current codex is at the very least, incomplete.

 

Purely from a background point of view the current Chaos is incomplete. While it doesn't restrict us, it doesn't empower us either. It doesn't limit our imagination (Sorcerer HQ lead World Eater and Noise Marine armies anyone?) but it doesn't give us any true history treatment either.

 

Rules-wise we were a little spoiled. We had across the board representation of most armies (even if fueled by IA articles) on the table top. We now have the background of a 'pirate-chaos army'. Not to mention the plethora of utterly useless army entries. As Gavin left the GW studios, I sure hope his parting gift wasn't a box of Chaos spawn models for instance.

 

How about rules representing fluff? The idea of a squad of Khorne dedicated marines losing faith if the dude holding the ornament thingy on a stick dying is ridiculous:

 

Bob: "Hey Dave, what happened to that Khorne thingy you were holding on that stick?"

 

Dave: "Gees... I don't know, I think one of those cruddy Ultramarines shot it clean off the pole... no wait, I feel some pain. WOW! My right arm's been shot off"

 

Bob: "Dang! That means..... you can't hold that Khorne stick anymore, can you?"

 

Dave: "Bob, you've got a point. And I'm feeling a lot less 'Khorney' right about now. How about you?"

 

Bob: "Hmmm, you know I think you're right! I don't feel like taking skulls. Instead I feel like pizza!"

 

Dave: "Plan 'B'. Let's forget this whole Khorne thing, get a pizza, sit down with a coke and reconsider our religious devotion... UNLESS we find the Khorne stick!"

 

Bob: "Riiiiiight, unless we find the Khorne stick" (*wink*wink*)

 

Dave: "Anchovies? Or no?"

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But every time I lose an icon bearing marine, and the whole squad 'loses its religion' I kind of play that scenario out in my head. Why did things like this change? I have no idea, they certainly didn't simplify anything. Granted wound allocation is newer than Khorne lollipops, but still... it's just silly.

 

I realize this post is long enough.... so I just want to end it by saying at its worst the current codex falls short of giving us any real background, any real choice. Most armies I see are extremely similar. Also I think the studio members who make 'rule sets' should also realize players will USE or ABUSE them.

 

There are also many useless entries in the codex (daemons, greater daemons, spawns, etc). I also still get a very strong feeling this codex was very rushed out the door... for instance we needed a new dreadnaught badly... a non-midget Abaddon (as primary examples). And at the most this current Codex is representative of one ideal; 'Renegades'. I think this should have been at the very most an addition to the real Chaos codex, much like 'Black Templars' are an addition to the Space Marines codex.

 

Most of the fairly 'content' Chaos players I know do not know of the last editions, and never really played Chaos back then. So they really don't know what they're missing. And in this way, I suppose you could say then the Codex is a success...to them. BUT the vast majority (and I'm talking 80%, maybe even more) of chaos players I played with have boxed their armies up LONG ago, and switched entirely. A few left the game entirely.

 

Heck we used to have these gigantic mega-battles where Chaos could field 30,000 points of bad guys against the imperium. Now (locally) we can't get enough Chaos together to even have them participate.

 

But there are a few of us that held on. Heck, I've probably tried 5-10 different Chaos builds. I still don't like the army. I like what it COULD be, and maybe what it was, but not what it is today.

[incinerator950]

The old codex actually showed the background, this codex didn't show :P. I love how many people commented on his replies as bull- and not actually answering the real questions pitted on him, but you notice that on his second blog.

 

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/200...glory-of-chaos/

[Castlerook]

Prot, a most excellent post, I, for one, thank you for that insight.

 

Without repeating too many of your points, I'll just say this, when I first read the current Codex, I half expected to read "Yar!" somewhere in the book. I truly do wonder if Gavin Thorpe was told "get a book done in a year or less" or did he just want to get out of the studio as quickly as he could. Some people seem content to just let things be, but like you say, a lot of people never really experienced the previous Chaos Codex, the ones who have used the previous books seem to me to be the type of people who if their told have a terminal disease end up just sitting there and letting the disease do its thing. Those who want the list to work again are the ones who fight the disease with every fibre of their being, who won't just sit there and take it. (Yes, its an extreme example, but seeing how this is my 500th post, I wanted to do something memorable....besides which my other example involved castration by rusty sheers and if you'd fight it).

 

I've got a Chaos army, which I really loved playing, sitting under my bed because I can't stand playing it with the current book. I'd love to bring it out and play it again, and I am tempted to use the 3.5 codex to do this, but I just can't because of the damn current codex has taken away the taste of playing the army, in essence, my icon has been destroyed.

 

Thats all I have to say.

 

++spelling errors++

[Wolfbiter]

Hello again all,

 

I'm sorry I don't have my White Dwarf magazines handy to look this up, but right before the most recent Chaos Codex came out, wasn't there a developer's diary article in the magazine saying that GW directed Alessio and Gav to take away the Traitor Legions fluff in favor of modern Renegade Chapters?

 

I seem to recall the article saying that 1) GW thought it was "unlikely" that after 10,000 years the Traitor Legions would still have viable numbers of troops (despite explaining this with the time-distorting effects of the Eye of Terror in every previous codex) and 2) They wanted new players to create more DIY Chaos renegade color schemes instead of just using the nine Traitor Legions.*

 

Personally, I don't understand this, since it seems pretty clear people loved the Index Astartes articles on the Traitor Legions (I certainly did). I'm all for letting people create their own Chaos warbands, but I think the new Codex, while playable, went waaaaay too far in minimizing the fluff on the Traitor Legions. I mean, if no one likes them, why are people buying up all those Horus Heresy novels, right? :devil: But it may mean that Gav and Alesio were given a very limited set of parameters to work from. (That said, in his blog he seems to enthusiatically embrace said parameters).

 

If I'm misrembering this WD article, I apologize. Does anyone else recall the article I'm thinking of?

 

I don't think people would have been nearly as cranky about the codex except for 3 factors:

 

1) The less-than-carefully-thought out overpowering of certain elements (2 Princes with Lash, for example) so that people took those choices to the exclusion of all else, while others were made pariahs (Dreadnoughts and Possessed.)

 

2) The marginalization of the Traitor Legions. GW could have taken out 2 pages of the very mediocre Renegades description (especially that dull bit about the Ultramarines sergeant going renegade for a page-and-a-half) and done 2-4 paragraph short descriptions of the nine Traitor Legions, like in the 2nd Edition codex, if nothing else. How hard would that have been? Or even just a quick hobby and modelling page "If you want to build a World Eaters themed army, we SUGGEST lots of Berzerkers and units with the Icon of Khorne." for instance. I know a lot of people would like more (I would too) but it would have been something.

 

3) The fact that after all the lecturing about how Chaos needed less powerful characters and over the top options, GW then went and gave the same sort of options to codices like Space Wolves. That's just not cool.

 

I'm not a major Codex Chaos hater. My Nurgle Death Guard army has been very fun and playable using it. My Alpha Legion army isn't as fun as it used to be. But I think the whole "Less Traitor Legions, more Modern Renegades" approach grossly misjudged what many Chaos players enjoy from the fluff.

 

 

 

 

*And I have no idea why this was considered a good idea! Imagine what would have happened if they said "After 10,000 years the Ultramarines, Space Wolves, et al. just aren't viable. People should only play DIY loyalists!" To paraphrase Johnny Cochrane on South Park: "It doesn't...make...sense!"

[Prot]

Prot, a most excellent post, I, for one, thank you for that insight.

 

Without repeating too many of your points, I'll just say this, when I first read the current Codex, I half expected to read "Yar!" somewhere in the book. I truly do wonder if Gavin Thorpe was told "get a book done in a year or less" or did he just want to get out of the studio as quickly as he could. Some people seem content to just let things be, but like you say, a lot of people never really experienced the previous Chaos Codex, the ones who have used the previous books seem to me to be the type of people who if their told have a terminal disease end up just sitting there and letting the disease do its thing. Those who want the list to work again are the ones who fight the disease with every fibre of their being, who won't just sit there and take it. (Yes, its an extreme example, but seeing how this is my 500th post, I wanted to do something memorable....besides which my other example involved castration by rusty sheers and if you'd fight it).

 

I've got a Chaos army, which I really loved playing, sitting under my bed because I stand playing it with the current book. I'd love to bring it out and play it again, and I am tempted to use the 3.5 codex to do this, but I just can't because of the damn current codex has taken away the taste of playing the army, in essence, my icon has been destroyed.

 

Thats all I have to say.

 

Thanks for reading through the post. It wasn't posted with any malicious intent. I too would really like to know IF it was rushed out. I had been told (this is a while ago so I'm trying to remember exactly) that the Ork codex was actually planned to come out first....was looking like it wouldn't be near done in time, and Chaos got pushed out like an unwilling turd. I'm not sure if that's true or not.

 

Most of the points I make are of course just my opinion, however; they are the literal experience of most local Chaos players I know.

[incinerator950]

Hello again all,

 

I'm sorry I don't have my White Dwarf magazines handy to look this up, but right before the most recent Chaos Codex came out, wasn't there a developer's diary article in the magazine saying that GW directed Alessio and Gav to take away the Traitor Legions fluff in favor of modern Renegade Chapters?

 

I seem to recall the article saying that 1) GW thought it was "unlikely" that after 10,000 years the Traitor Legions would still have viable numbers of troops (despite explaining this with the time-distorting effects of the Eye of Terror in every previous codex) and 2) They wanted new players to create more DIY Chaos renegade color schemes instead of just using the nine Traitor Legions.*

 

Personally, I don't understand this, since it seems pretty clear people loved the Index Astartes articles on the Traitor Legions (I certainly did). I'm all for letting people create their own Chaos warbands, but I think the new Codex, while playable, went waaaaay too far in minimizing the fluff on the Traitor Legions. I mean, if no one likes them, why are people buying up all those Horus Heresy novels, right? ;) But it may mean that Gav and Alesio were given a very limited set of parameters to work from. (That said, in his blog he seems to enthusiatically embrace said parameters).

 

If I'm misrembering this WD article, I apologize. Does anyone else recall the article I'm thinking of?

 

I don't think people would have been nearly as cranky about the codex except for 3 factors:

 

1) The less-than-carefully-thought out overpowering of certain elements (2 Princes with Lash, for example) so that people took those choices to the exclusion of all else, while others were made pariahs (Dreadnoughts and Possessed.)

 

2) The marginalization of the Traitor Legions. GW could have taken out 2 pages of the very mediocre Renegades description (especially that dull bit about the Ultramarines sergeant going renegade for a page-and-a-half) and done 2-4 paragraph short descriptions of the nine Traitor Legions, like in the 2nd Edition codex, if nothing else. How hard would that have been? Or even just a quick hobby and modelling page "If you want to build a World Eaters themed army, we SUGGEST lots of Berzerkers and units with the Icon of Khorne." for instance. I know a lot of people would like more (I would too) but it would have been something.

 

3) The fact that after all the lecturing about how Chaos needed less powerful characters and over the top options, GW then went and gave the same sort of options to codices like Space Wolves. That's just not cool.

 

I'm not a major Codex Chaos hater. My Nurgle Death Guard army has been very fun and playable using it. My Alpha Legion army isn't as fun as it used to be. But I think the whole "Less Traitor Legions, more Modern Renegades" approach grossly misjudged what many Chaos players enjoy from the fluff.

 

 

 

 

*And I have no idea why this was considered a good idea! Imagine what would have happened if they said "After 10,000 years the Ultramarines, Space Wolves, et al. just aren't viable. People should only play DIY loyalists!" To paraphrase Johnny Cochrane on South Park: "It doesn't...make...sense!"

 

Find that article, now.

[Wolfbiter]

Find that article, now.

 

Again, don't have access to my own collection right now, but I did an online search...possibly around issue 331 or 332 (August-September 07?). I know the issue number varies depending on region.

[Cale]

We went from 6 playable tourney lists to 2, correct?

 

I don't buy it. I play a list without obliterators and without lash. In fact, I pretty much just play tanks--Chaos Marines in Rhinos, Predators, Vindicators, etc. Khorne prince--and I win almost every game. It's not the best list I could possibly play, but it's plenty competitive, even at a fairly high level of play. Further, I could modify it significantly and it would still be competitive.

 

Replace the Khorne Prince with Warp Time prince, swap out some chaos marines for lesser summoned daemons and combi-weapon terminator squads. Defilers or obliterators swap in for heavy support easily enough. Berserkers or plague marines can easily replace regular chaos marines and the army stays competitive.

 

There aren't two competitive builds. Like every codex, there is going to be one army which is the best, period. There will be a small set of armies which are practically indistinguishable in quality. Fine.

 

Your assertion, really, is that the next level below those lists is too low, and that simply isn't true. There are plenty of sub-prime armies which are competitive even in competitive environments.

[the jeske]

Replace the Khorne Prince with Warp Time prince, swap out some chaos marines for lesser summoned daemons and combi-weapon terminator squads. Defilers or obliterators swap in for heavy support easily enough. Berserkers or plague marines can easily replace regular chaos marines and the army stays competitive.

0 difference in game play . Its like saying that IW list with 3 defilers +a basiliks and a 4 defilers list in 4th ed were totally different list. it doesnt really matter if a list has 4 csm units or 4 pm units or 2 pms and 2 zerker ones . all those list play in identical way.

we have a LR rsuh build and a mecha builds at tier one and that is it. NM water warrior and chaozylla are maybe tier 2 .

 

Like every codex, there is going to be one army which is the best, period

only orks have more then 2 builds that are tier 1 . sm have pedro and vulkan lists , the khan LR rush and the biker list +many tier 2 lists[normal LR rush, shriek builds for example] . SW have at least 3 viable list [the psyker build, the LR rush , the mecha build] . even BA have two builds both tier 1 and they dont even have a codex. chaos has 2 identical list , with the difference being one can charge out of transport and the other one runs oblits.

 

 

In fact, I pretty much just play tanks--Chaos Marines in Rhinos, Predators, Vindicators, etc. Khorne prince--and I win almost every game

but If you played the optimal builds you would win easier ? I mean yeah I play NM water warrior [not even tier 1] , because its different . But that doesnt mean I dont know that a zerker/pms +oblits and 2xDPs list is superior to my list and that If I win I win because of luck and a lot of test games. And there are still games where I know a "normal"chaos list would just go auto pilot , when I have to be concetrated all the time [+have at least avarge rolls].

[Cale]

0 difference in game play . Its like saying that IW list with 3 defilers +a basiliks and a 4 defilers list in 4th ed were totally different list. it doesnt really matter if a list has 4 csm units or 4 pm units or 2 pms and 2 zerker ones . all those list play in identical way.

we have a LR rsuh build and a mecha builds at tier one and that is it. NM water warrior and chaozylla are maybe tier 2 .

 

I wouldn't agree that it's zero, but you're right that all mechanized chaos armies are similar in the fundamentals. Still, for the most part, people haven't been complaining about fundamental differences, but stylistic ones. The differences between a plague marine squad and a chaos marine squad may be negligible in terms of what you do with them, but they're very important to a Nurgle player, and that's the sort of distinction that people have been complaining about lacking in this thread.

 

but If you played the optimal builds you would win easier ? I mean yeah I play NM water warrior [not even tier 1] , because its different . But that doesnt mean I dont know that a zerker/pms +oblits and 2xDPs list is superior to my list and that If I win I win because of luck and a lot of test games. And there are still games where I know a "normal"chaos list would just go auto pilot , when I have to be concetrated all the time [+have at least avarge rolls].

 

Probably. Against some lists. Honestly, Lash just isn't that hot against fully mechanized armies, and there are a lot of those around. Anyway, I might win easier, but I win easily enough. My list, even if not optimal, is certainly competitive with the majority of competitive builds, both tier one and tier two.

 

Saying that I could be winning more easily with a slightly improved list is one thing. It's obvious, frankly. It's true for every list out of every codex but a very, very few. Noting that it's true for most chaos lists too isn't novel, and it isn't a legitimate complaint about the Chaos codex. If it were, it would be a legitimate complaint against every codex.

 

 

the thing is , because csm have one good choice each slot and rest that are sub par , when an army [like AL for example] would not use DPs, oblits , cult units because of fluff it also becomes very , very weak.

 

This is your statement, Jeske. And it isn't true. A list without DPs, Oblits, or Cult Units isn't very, very weak. The most you could really say is that it is very marginally weaker than a list with those things.

 

Vindicators and Defilers compete reasonably well with obliterators.

 

Chaos Marines compare very well to any of the Cult Troops.

 

I'll agree that the DP is much, much better than the other two HQ options, but it doesn't make your list incapable of winning if you don't take one--and there's really no reason that you can't use the DP entry to represent a particularly powerful lord or sorcerer if you can't find any other acceptable compromise between fluff and rules.

 

This is the complaint to which I was objecting, reiterated in the post I quoted earlier, and you haven't really addressed my objection.

[IronWinds]

I seem to recall the article saying that 1) GW thought it was "unlikely" that after 10,000 years the Traitor Legions would still have viable numbers of troops (despite explaining this with the time-distorting effects of the Eye of Terror in every previous codex) and 2) They wanted new players to create more DIY Chaos renegade color schemes instead of just using the nine Traitor Legions.*

 

Interesting they released that codex shorty after 'Dead Sky Black Sun' came out..... a book that revolved around the Iron Warriors creating NEW marines using stolen geneseed. How exactly do they do that if the legion is falling apart?

 

Oh and the main evil character in that book was an Iron Warrior that was created using Imperial Fist geneseed they had stolen in the past. Yup no new marines in that Legion :P . Oh... almost forgot another detail. He gave a bunch of the stolen geneseed to Abbadon.

 

 

On a side note... legions were good for GW. If I play a DIY army I'll just have a bunch of everything. On the other hand....

I'm not a major Codex Chaos hater. My Nurgle Death Guard army has been very fun and playable using it. My Alpha Legion army isn't as fun as it used to be. But I think the whole "Less Traitor Legions, more Modern Renegades" approach grossly misjudged what many Chaos players enjoy from the fluff.

.... many chaos legion players owned 2]/b] different legions, because each was a different army. Why bother now a days, GW literally threw future sales out the window.

 

2) The marginalization of the Traitor Legions. GW could have taken out 2 pages of the very mediocre Renegades description (especially that dull bit about the Ultramarines sergeant going renegade for a page-and-a-half) and done 2-4 paragraph short descriptions of the nine Traitor Legions, like in the 2nd Edition codex, if nothing else. How hard would that have been?

 

Thank you. I honestly didn't finish reading that crap. I couldn't, I've yet to read 'The Wolf of Fenris'.... in case you didn't know.... thats a story in the Chaos codex ;) . Every other codex I own, I've read all the stories, even my EoT codex that has several armies I don't even play. Now my 3.5, I read the IW section multiple times, and read the other armies a few times as well. They couldn't just remove some of the crap.... to put in more stuff about the legions.

 

 

On a side note.... something I heard in the grape vine a while back from someone inside GW. The ork codex that was suppose to be next to come out was running behind a few months, and the chaos codex... which was suppose to come out afterwards was going extra well. So to avoid having to say they were behind GW rushed the chaos codex ahead several months to give them a little extra time on the ork one. Result: Ork codex is amazing, chaos one is heavily lacking.

[the jeske]

On a side note.... something I heard in the grape vine a while back from someone inside GW. The ork codex that was suppose to be next to come out was running behind a few months, and the chaos codex... which was suppose to come out afterwards was going extra well. So to avoid having to say they were behind GW rushed the chaos codex ahead several months to give them a little extra time on the ork one. Result: Ork codex is amazing, chaos one is heavily lacking.

that is not precise enough. the ork codex was ready , the ork model range was not . even with codex csm and demons in the middle look how big the ork second wave of models was.

I think I can follow how GW though . Chaos is easy to do. Cut all options[5th begin the bomb in desing for all dexs] ,but still make some powerful options like lash/oblits etc. Power gamers will be happy [they were wrong no power gamer is happy when lists drop from 6 to 1 . meta game becomes to easy] and we tell fluff players that they can paint their armies what ever they want . It doesnt really matter that NL are lord/dp with csm and oblits and IW are lord/dp with csm and oblits etc , because "fluff" players and casuals dont care about wining/army composition [as long as its not too strong]/game play etc .

 

But the real sad truth is that while GW never really cared for old playersand by old I mean their old , a vet is someone who plays more then a year . New chaos players in a year or two will not know that 3.5 existed , how the fluff looks, because aside for the happy chaos family there is close to 0 legion fluff in Gav dex etc they will just not know that there was something else to chaos then 2 hqs , 4 troops and oblits.

[the jeske]

Still, for the most part, people haven't been complaining about fundamental differences, but stylistic ones.

 

O_o what? Khorn BL or IW gunline had a totally different build then lets say AL armies[and each other] . WB were totally different [and I mean just the non demon bomb version] the DG lists . DG had one build that was simiular to the AL one , that is true , but DG was more a short range/assault army back then[+lord speed inf and the same for a Lt] , while AL offten took stuff like mini max or havocks with hvy weapons . Even mecha lists were different . WE used rhinos as shields and while csm armies were more a drive by disembark double tap army [a bit like today only with plasma]. EC the syren build , no other army played like that . And then on top of that there were 2 demon bomb armies played out of 4 legions [WB,BL,WE,EC].

 

And thats just tier 1 armies. there were still NL with their fast attack spam ,both mecha and/or inf armies . the "magic" 1ksons build with sorc thralls . the difference between all those lists , not just in name but in actuall gameplay was huge . Compering to that the difference between pedro and vulkan are almost non existent.

 

 

Probably. Against some lists. Honestly, Lash just isn't that hot against fully mechanized armies, and there are a lot of those around. Anyway, I might win easier, but I win easily enough. My list, even if not optimal, is certainly competitive with the majority of competitive builds, both tier one and tier two.

well lash has to work for one turn , so lash builds are build around opening transports . melta on squads , oblits , termicid with melta . yes lash did get weaker in 5th ed rarlly does one win with your opponent having 0 models [unlike in 4th where mini max just died 2/3 per turn] .

 

am not sure if using DPs with lash or not is going for the weaker build .

Now and this is not pointed at you , if someone used something like 1ksons build or had sorc hqs and won , it could prove that am wrong. yes a khorn DP was weaker .. warp time ones were better [unless you played against eldar] . now with eldar/sw and all loyalists going for the DH psychic hoods[unlimited range] neither lash or warp time are "broken". but they do help a lot against orks.

[Cale]

O_o what? Khorn BL or IW gunline had a totally different build then lets say AL armies[and each other] . WB were totally different [and I mean just the non demon bomb version] the DG lists . DG had one build that was simiular to the AL one , that is true , but DG was more a short range/assault army back then[+lord speed inf and the same for a Lt] , while AL offten took stuff like mini max or havocks with hvy weapons . Even mecha lists were different . WE used rhinos as shields and while csm armies were more a drive by disembark double tap army [a bit like today only with plasma]. EC the syren build , no other army played like that . And then on top of that there were 2 demon bomb armies played out of 4 legions [WB,BL,WE,EC].

 

And thats just tier 1 armies. there were still NL with their fast attack spam ,both mecha and/or inf armies . the "magic" 1ksons build with sorc thralls . the difference between all those lists , not just in name but in actuall gameplay was huge . Compering to that the difference between pedro and vulkan are almost non existent.

 

I guess I'll take your word for it. The only 3.5 army I knew all that well was the T-Sons army my wife played. It didn't really change at all between 4th and 5th (the only real differences are that her Daemons are now Assaulty instead of Shooty, and she plays a Daemon Prince instead of a Sorcerer on a disk with a bunch of wargear) and it's not really all that similar to my CSM army.

 

Of course, it's fair to say that the T-Sons don't make a very good army, but, then, they didn't before, either. They've always been pretty third-tier.

 

 

 

 

you know that this way I could have an WB army with assault veterans [zerkers] and real WB veterans from the time of heresy [with those old power armors that were stronger on one side ... being of course plagua marines] and a DP [with lash of course he is a great orator or rather both of them are] . I could have 0 undivided units in my army and still say am playing WBs.

 

You could. And you know what? That would be a fine army, fluffwise. It's perfectly legitimate to use the rules made available by the Codex without feeling obligated to use the fluff the codex offers alongside those rules. I'm in the process of making up some "berserkers" now, using mostly Dark Angels Veteran bits and chainswords--in other words, I'm going exactly for the "assault veterans" theme rather than the "crazy Khorne-worshipers theme," and I really do think that's a perfectly legitimate use of the codex. If Gav's blog entry is any indication, it's clear that he feels the same way.

 

 

Finally, sure. CSMs might be somewhat weaker than PMs, Zerks, or a combination of the two. They aren't that much weaker, though. They're not so much weaker that they don't stand any chance at all against the PMs and Zerkers, or that there are armies the PMs and Zerkers beat which the CSMs can't. If there's a difference in power between the CSMs and the Cult Troops, it is minor, not the game-rending imbalance that obligates you to play cult troops if you want any shot at winning at all--which is basically how you characterized it in your earlier post.