did chaos cults really lose out?

[Possessed Marine]

Just a question related to this, how long has everyone been playing Chaos, and do you think the edition you started with has affected your opinion on this?

Started in 3.0, skipped 3.5 & 4... but my opinion still stands... they work for the warmaster

[Dammeron]

Just a question related to this, how long has everyone been playing Chaos, and do you think the edition you started with has affected your opinion on this?

 

My main gripe with the newest codex and the way chaos marines are treated in general is that without having a separate codex for each legion, it's very hard to maintain your army's identity from codex to codex.

 

For example, back in 3rd edition I loved the idea of Cypher and the fallen angels, and so created a newly renegade chapter with a contingent of fallen angels, I wasn't interested in cult units as I felt they weren't represented very well, and the rest of the codex was very basic (although I admit everything was a lot more basic back then).

 

3.5 pretty much destroyed my army, without Cypher, the fallen angels were discarded and I turned mostly to Khorne; khorne berzerker bikers were great fun to use, especially in conjunction with raptors to melt land raiders and chainaxes to fell terminators, with a bunch of bloodletters waiting to be summoned in.

 

4th edition has changed my army yet again; raptors aren't quite cut out for the role they once played - termicide squads are usually much more effective, my bikers are no longer berzerkers, just a mocking shadow, and the bloodletters are now just generic daemon bombs. Khârn can be brutal, but with the amount of hidden powerfists/claws these days, he doesn't seem worth it. My mostly khorne army basically became partly khorne, with a few icons scattered around. I've decided to finally go with a warband under the black legion, because at least in the next codex that can't be affected too much... I hope.

 

 

Been playing since the later days of RT/early second ed, and yes, the current chaos codex is a VAST departure from what has gone before in several key areas:

 

1. There has ALWAYS been the option to upgrade and characterise chaos characters via the application of daemonic rewards/gifts via some means or other. This was one of the key factors that distinguished them from their loyalist counter parts. The mechanisms by which said gifts/rewards were applied have never been perfect, and certainly required refining from the last codex. Instead they simply chose to throw them out.

 

2. Chaos Space Marines have always, always ALWAYS been able to take allies in the form of daemons, sometimes cultists and other tertiary chaos forces as well. Though daemons have had their own army lists before, they have NEVER been seperate from Chaos Space Marines, or rather from a primary Chaos list that allows for a mixture of both. The only reason the two were seperated was entirely corporate; it was so that those players whose armies feature daemons prominently would ideally go out and buy two seperate forces: one chaos space marine, one daemon. Unfortunately, owing to the lack listre nature of both army lists, it actually hasn't panned out that way for the most part.

 

Has the current codex affected my multiple chaos armies? Yup. I like daemons. I like my Death Guard army to be led by my extensively converted Great Unclean One, and to summon Plague Bearers for support in combat. I'm not interested in these painstakingly painted and converted models being generic "Greater" or "lesser" daemons. Plague Marines summon and fight alongside DAEMONS OF NURGLE, as the artwork in the current codex ironically depicts. Can I still field them? Sure. It's just no fun. So why would I? And herein lies the core failure of this codex: it favours technical efficiency over enthusiasm and passion. I don't really care about army lists being "balanced," about every little tactical niche being filled; I care about them being interesting and characterful. I want Eldar armies to be fast and shooty as hell, tyranids to be terrifying, and Chaos to be corrupt and malevolent. What I don't want is what we're currently getting: the war gaming equivalent of microwave ready meals; fast, simple, easy to prepare, but hardly inspiring.

[aeroplane]

Feel the power of my Aubergine Carnifex, Melon Monolith and Noise Prunes.

 

ROTFLMAO!

 

That aside, it does illustrate why people hate it when their Codex gets neutered, and 'counts as' sucks. The old Cult lists were fun, because you were handed a specific list of handicaps, and you got some specific strengths in return.

 

Where GW screwed up was their awesome lack of playtesting, and certain combinations/lists were overly powerful. The screwed up again when they tried to fix it, with the current Codex - they swung too far in the opposite direction.

[Grey Mage]

I was thinking that I might just spraypaint all of my ECs grey and have them 'count as' whichever army is the strongest at any given time. I think I'll have all of my models 'count as' Imperial Guard seeing as that's just been released.

 

Better yet, why not just get rid of my models on ebay and use various fruit and vegetables as 'count as' whatever I choose? Feel the power of my Aubergine Carnifex, Melon Monolith and Noise Prunes.

Because that shows the intellegence and imagination of a grapefruit?

 

Any idea taken to extremes looks stupid.

[chillin]

I think he was being sarcastic GM :)

[Sovereign]

Codex: Chaos Marines is just boring now. Nearly every list is the same it is going to have either a Slaanesh or Nurgle daemon prince, plague marines, and a few handfuls of obliterators.

And that's the fault of the Codex?

 

Or the players?

 

I suspect the latter, not the former.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Codex: Chaos Marines is just boring now. Nearly every list is the same it is going to have either a Slaanesh or Nurgle daemon prince, plague marines, and a few handfuls of obliterators.

And that's the fault of the Codex?

 

Or the players?

 

I suspect the latter, not the former.

 

You suspect wrong.

[Forgerer]

Chaos Marines is just boring now. Nearly every list is the same it is going to have either a Slaanesh or Nurgle daemon prince, plague marines, and a few handfuls of obliterators.

 

--And that's the fault of the Codex?--

--Or the players?--

--I suspect the latter, not the former.--

 

"You suspect wrong."

 

It is the players who make the lists. Codex only encourages players to a certain direction, ultimately it is up to us, what we do. People should not blame the book so eagerly.

[Messanger of Death]

Count-as is your friend... not a pile of fruit to be played with and then eaten. There is no denying that 4th Edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines had a drastic drop in quality compared to its previous Edition. But that doesn't mean it can't be played with and doesn't mean miniatures have become useless.

 

Pretty much every codex prior to 5th Edition has become worse or in some cases (like C: CSM) started off bad. But alot of people are just missing the point that the original poster is saying. Just come up with some short explanation for why your army is using the state lines for Plague Marines even though you play Iron Warriors. I was able to come up with single sentence explanations in 5 minutes to explain why someone would use C: CSM to represent a Black Templar Crusade.

 

Cheers, Messanger

[Dammeron]

Count-as is your friend... not a pile of fruit to be played with and then eaten. There is no denying that 4th Edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines had a drastic drop in quality compared to its previous Edition. But that doesn't mean it can't be played with and doesn't mean miniatures have become useless.

 

Pretty much every codex prior to 5th Edition has become worse or in some cases (like C: CSM) started off bad. But alot of people are just missing the point that the original poster is saying. Just come up with some short explanation for why your army is using the state lines for Plague Marines even though you play Iron Warriors. I was able to come up with single sentence explanations in 5 minutes to explain why someone would use C: CSM to represent a Black Templar Crusade.

 

Cheers, Messanger

 

 

In other words, just shut up andf settle for a sub standard product. If I get an under-cooked meal in a restaurant, I send it back. If I see a bad movie then, as my current profession as critic currently warrants, I write a scathing review. I am not interested in "settling" for a bad product from a company that enjoys GW's status, especially since what it provides is far from essential. I have other hobbies. At present, I have the choice of spending £20.00 + on a box of GW miniatures, or less than half that on a good book, DVD, artistic materials etc etc. In the game's current state, I will opt for the latter every time. There is simply no impetus, no inspiration or enthusiasm to continue collecting, painting, modelling etc under the current cocdex. I particularly have no interest in performing mental gymnastics simply to justify elements in my armies that have no business being there simply because the army list is so inadequate it cannot accomodate what EVERY Chaos army list before it has been able to (for all their faults).

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Chaos Marines is just boring now. Nearly every list is the same it is going to have either a Slaanesh or Nurgle daemon prince, plague marines, and a few handfuls of obliterators.

 

--And that's the fault of the Codex?--

--Or the players?--

--I suspect the latter, not the former.--

 

"You suspect wrong."

 

It is the players who make the lists. Codex only encourages players to a certain direction, ultimately it is up to us, what we do. People should not blame the book so eagerly.

 

The codex dictates the boundries and limits of what can be done. What you have just said would make sense if a codex was a list of suggestions or guidelines. It is not. Counts as helps, but no amount of it can compare with the old legion lists. No amount of it is going to allow me to make proper fluffy legion lists that are also viable gamewise.

 

Counts as certainly is our best method of making the best of a bad situation. I don't think anybody debates that. What is NOT correct is to claim that it solves everything, which is how people in this thread are acting. My fault that i'm dissatisfied with the codex? Please. I've written literally thousands of army lists with this codex. I've stretched it to the limits of counts as. So have plenty of other posters in this thread who are being seen as whiners. Take a look at some of the posting histories here.

 

This thread has gotten a bad response because its like thread number 592309 on this issue.

[chillin]

Codex: Chaos Marines is just boring now. Nearly every list is the same it is going to have either a Slaanesh or Nurgle daemon prince, plague marines, and a few handfuls of obliterators.

And that's the fault of the Codex?

Or the players?

I suspect the latter, not the former.

 

Did the players take the fluff out of the dex ? Did the players character and chaosy feel out of the dex ? Did the players get their dex's and rip out the war gear page ? Did they do the same to the legion rules s section ? Did they write GW saying that their characters had too many options and equipiment, we're confused, only give us 3 or 4 ?

As far as all chaos list looking the same; I guess you could fill your list with weak options and combos that don't wk well together, knowing you'll get beat by anyone with a 1/2 decient list, so you can say "I used all the chaos stuff that no one esle uses", but that seems rather stupid to me.

[chillin]

Count-as is your friend...

But alot of people are just missing the point that the original poster is saying. Just come up with some short explanation for why your army is using the state lines for Plague Marines even though you play Iron Warriors.

 

I think it is you who is missing the OP point. You can make up any reason you want to why you PM's "counts as" this that or the other thing.

Your opponent is still playing an army full of PM's, just like the last army he played against.

You can come up with any kind of crap story you want for why your slanny lash DP "counts as" ...(the excuses I've heard for this one are far to numerous to list). Your opponent is still getting his units moved around by his opponent. Counts as does NOTHING to change the fact that almost all competitive chaos armies look and play one of 2 ways, actually it drives it farther in that direction. How does calling your PM's something else change the reality that your opponent is playing against PM's. You can come up with any explaination you want for why your army is led by two slanny or 2 N. DP's but that doesn't change the fact that you chaos army is built the same as every other chaos army. And they become tiresome to play with and against.

In the immortal words of Shakespere "a PM by any other name smells the same"

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Well said chillin.

[Vissah]

I agree with chillin it does not matter what kind of 'count as' story you make up a PM is a PM no matter what colour it has.

I got the same thing with my Obliterators, I made them into Heavy Weapon teams with 2 marines on a base one holding a Lascannon and the other holding a Power Fist and a Combi Weapon.

It looks good and different from the Obliterator that is in the Codex but it is still a Obliterator and still plays as a Obliterator and still has the same abilities as a Obliterator.

 

I dont care if you play 'counts as' against me since I do the same with my Obliterators.

But dont expect me to think that you made a original list when you still moving 2 Lash Princes, PM's and Oblits around in Iron Warriors colour with some fancy story you made up for them.

 

ps. The Iron Warriors example is nothing personal it is just an example.

[the jeske]

true so very true. in the end it looks like this . 3.5 dex had many different armies with different game play [the thrall 1ksons builds, demon bombs, IA infiltration build , the hth DG build , BL khorn etc offten more then one army per one legion] , it was full of fluff and it was very playable . the new dex has fluff that makes no sense or no fluff , 2 builds [mecha and LR rush] and the "different " stuff like ECwater warrior [which I play by the way only because they are a wee bit different then the rest] or chaozylla arent even tier 2 right now . The only way to get a semi decent army is to play a BL list [because at least the DP will not be undivided] , the more BL the list is the more good it becomes . Worse all the codex after chaos sm , had a drasticlly change desing philosphy . Now I could blame it on thorpe and his inabilty to write a decent codex . I could blame it on the whole JJ era simplificiation movment. But the sad truth is that the chaos dex looks like it does now only , because the ork model range wasnt ready for sale and Gw had to fill in the void . what kind of a means that the whole "they had a different desing ideas" argument is wrong , because the 5th ground rules and ork dex were ready , before the chaos dex was castrated in its 4th ed form.

 

as counts as goes. People say it is a such a great thing [what I wouldnt personally agree on as most of the counts as armies I played against were not uber converted works of art] and that is the new dex that gave that uber option to use. They seem to forget that people did counts as with the 3.5 dex too . Remember those cool looking Ad mecha armies with IW and WB rules ? The full greenstuffed hrud army made with EC rules [and I dont mean the syren DP list]. I could go on and on about lists like that .

the thorpe dex gave us nothing , no new units or old school units brought back[all the other dexs seem to get those] , less fluff , few new models [of which possessed are just nice models and termis were planed independed of codex ] . And as gaming comunity goes . Check the chaos topic from 2-3 years ago , how many were writen about EC , AL etc builds , and how dead are the cult forums right now .

[Sovereign]

Codex: Chaos Marines is just boring now. Nearly every list is the same it is going to have either a Slaanesh or Nurgle daemon prince, plague marines, and a few handfuls of obliterators.

And that's the fault of the Codex?

Or the players?

I suspect the latter, not the former.

Did the players take the fluff out of the dex ? Did the players get their dex's and rip out the war gear page ? Did they do the same to the legion rules s section ?

 

As far as all chaos list looking the same; I guess you could fill your list with weak options and combos that don't wk well together, knowing you'll get beat by anyone with a 1/2 decient list, so you can say "I used all the chaos stuff that no one esle uses", but that seems rather stupid to me.

Are the players so lacking in imagination that they cannot create their own Fluff, that it must be spoon-fed to them by the designers? Given a broad list of options that never get used, why keep them? And why can't players follow their own "legion" rules?

 

It's still the player's fault. The notion of all these being "weak" options seems more the fault of players being cattle and following whatever somebody else made work, rather than showing a spark of individuality and stepping out of the herd to do something of their own.

 

And that's a pity. GW has catered to lowest common denominator for so long, making players think is a stunted skill. Point in fact - my Eldar would *kill* for a CSM-like book, with a variety of Aspects as Troops. My Guard would love to have distinct Regiments as Troops. Really, the whole thing comes off as spoiled whines.

[Forgerer]

The codex dictates the boundries and limits of what can be done. What you have just said would make sense if a codex was a list of suggestions or guidelines. It is not. Counts as helps, but no amount of it can compare with the old legion lists. No amount of it is going to allow me to make proper fluffy legion lists that are also viable gamewise.

 

Counts as certainly is our best method of making the best of a bad situation. I don't think anybody debates that. What is NOT correct is to claim that it solves everything, which is how people in this thread are acting. My fault that i'm dissatisfied with the codex? Please. I've written literally thousands of army lists with this codex. I've stretched it to the limits of counts as. So have plenty of other posters in this thread who are being seen as whiners. Take a look at some of the posting histories here.

 

This thread has gotten a bad response because its like thread number 592309 on this issue.

 

Well I have no idea as what you consider to be a fluffy viable IW army. Soo let me ask you this: Are you "happy" (could think a better word but...) when you are playing against someone? If you are, why so miffed? And it is up to you wether you like it or not, but I think it is more your fault not to like the book. you are the one limiting your self when making lists.

 

I dont see this codex as a bad one, but that is mostly cause I dont care. As long as I am having fun playing against others its (almost) all the same what kind of a codex we have.

[tyrannosaurus]

And that's a pity. GW has catered to lowest common denominator for so long, making players think is a stunted skill. Point in fact - my Eldar would *kill* for a CSM-like book, with a variety of Aspects as Troops. My Guard would love to have distinct Regiments as Troops. Really, the whole thing comes off as spoiled whines.

 

Lots of trolls on this thread. I'd rather hear from players who play CSMs.

 

Fact is the vast majority of Chaos players [particularly those with cult armies] are unhappy with the codex - don't take my word for it, read the hundreds of posts on the subject. If so many people are unhappy there must be a problem. Expressing disatisfaction with a substandard product isn't whining in my book.

 

Fluff is a hugely important part of the game, hence why there are forums like this to discuss it. Players would willingly take units that are a little less competitive in order to have a fluffy army. They just wouldn't take a completely uncompetitive list in order to have a fluffy army. It's not just about winning, but losing constantly isn't fun. This codex ignored a lot of the established fluff and narrowed the number of viable options for a competitive army, which is why there are so many cookie cutter lists now.

 

In what way did the new codex improve CSMs in terms of ability to use fluffy armies, flexibility in creating competitive lists and gameplay?

[the jeske]

And it is up to you wether you like it or not, but I think it is more your fault not to like the book.

yes but the number of people who dislike the dex is huge . m8 dont you see there is something wrong with the fact that a IW, AL and WB and NL army looks identical [and by looks am not talking about how it is painted you could use stones on bases with counts as supported] ? how hard is it to understand that people played IW , because they liked armies full of oblits , defilers and minimax [again am simplifing things here there was more builds then the pie plate spam build] and people playing playing AL wanted their cultists and infiltration . two legions , two type of people , two different armies with distinct game play . how is suppose a dex that forces two builds on every player [no matter if he played a demon bomb , a gunline or hth lists] make people who played totally different armies happy ? I made this example a lot , but it is as if GW told all sm they wont make a codex SW/BA/DA/BT , that they will only do one codex sm and everyone will be happy about it [venguard can be counts as DC , bikes with khan can make RW and for SW you just dont take hvy weapons for your tacticals and instant GH] ... only they wont do that , not after what they got with codex csm .

 

people will say that fun is a different thing for different people. and it is probablly true . But I know one thing , before If someone asked what army you played you had to say a WB gunline non infiltration list [because there were so many chaos builds of different tiers you had to be specific about it] , right now you say chaos and people know what your using. Yes techniclly you can take loads of possessed and bikes and minimal troops and play with it . You would also get your ass handed to you everytime you play against a good build . More I can even believe you could have fun when that happens . But you know what ? your not having fun because of the game . no , you have fun because you like the people you play with . So in the end you may have the same fun with the same people and not spend tons of cash on plastic models .

[bc99]

Hey, I play CSM, although very small list.

 

I loved the old cults, I also loved the lost and the damned. I read a piece by Gav Thorpe off his blog, he defended the codex strongly and basically bashed people's complaints. So you've got the development team being defensive. It's obvious they wanted to increase sales with the Codex Demon rules, it's a marketing ploy. Why not just do a chaos codex, that's basically what CSM used to be. You had everything, cults, CSM, demons, etc.

 

Oh well, I am still playing.

[Brother Nihm]

I'm with Jeske and the other defenders of good product, it isn't whining, it's pointing out that the entire design for the Codex is substandard - which it is.

To all of you who do not play Chaos, haven't played Chaos for 10+ years or simply 'do not care'.

 

Think of all the Loyalist chapters, now..

Imagine, Codex: Ultramarines. To cover all Power Armour lists (and for added effect: at the same time you receive nonsensical/random rules to 3+ units, say Scouts, Speeders and Predators as minimum as well as lose ALL Chapter specific rules/theme.)

Seriously - try to imagine it.

 

I can see the walls of downright hate posting now that would result from that..

Now scale that scenario back a bit and you have our current situation.

[cathar the great]

I've seen lots of threads like this one go astray.

 

It starts out with someone talking about how they use specific arguments to justify the use of different Chaos unit choices in different armies and still be more or less fluffy. This always involves some kind of "counts-as".

 

One of the first answers to this person is that the current chaos codex sucks the bigzor!oneone, sometimes more eloquently expressed, sometimes less.

 

Following this is a lot of discussion about counts-as, who is to blame and many other things.

 

In the end, you can sum it up rather easy (and it has been done lots and lots of times, even in this thread):

 

- Yes, you can use counts-as to, for example, use Khorne Berzerkers in a Slaneesh army (or Pedro Kantor as a Chaos Lord).

- But they will still BE Khorne Berzerkers (or Pedro), no matter what their models look like.

- This means that most lists will play the same, no matter what background story they have.

- If you are mostly into modelling and converting (like me) this will not matter to you.

- But if you are in it for serious playing or the fluff side of things, it will matter a lot.

 

I think that this divergence is the only reason why threads like this even grow bigger than a few answers.

[Vissah]

I've seen lots of threads like this one go astray.

 

It starts out with someone talking about how they use specific arguments to justify the use of different Chaos unit choices in different armies and still be more or less fluffy. This always involves some kind of "counts-as".

 

One of the first answers to this person is that the current chaos codex sucks the bigzor!oneone, sometimes more eloquently expressed, sometimes less.

 

Following this is a lot of discussion about counts-as, who is to blame and many other things.

 

In the end, you can sum it up rather easy (and it has been done lots and lots of times, even in this thread):

 

- Yes, you can use counts-as to, for example, use Khorne Berzerkers in a Slaneesh army (or Pedro Kantor as a Chaos Lord).

- But they will still BE Khorne Berzerkers (or Pedro), no matter what their models look like.

- This means that most lists will play the same, no matter what background story they have.

- If you are mostly into modelling and converting (like me) this will not matter to you.

- But if you are in it for serious playing or the fluff side of things, it will matter a lot.

 

I think that this divergence is the only reason why threads like this even grow bigger than a few answers.

 

That is the point that I tried to make a couple posts earlier.

It does not matter how you explain your army Berzerkers and Lash Princes is one army it is just not fluffy.

The point that people just dont get this is what makes these kind of threads go from a simple question to a big rant.

 

Sure you can make up every kind of story you want like I said before your army will be the same as most armies out there.

My problems with playing this Dex is not as big as the cult players got.

I play all Undivided so I can fit anything in without problem but I really understand the frustration of all the cult players that just seen there army become the standard list most people play.

 

And standing up for your right to have a good product is not whinin it's your right to do.

If you buy a car and after some time it appears to be broken you go back to the carstore and say that they have to fix it or give money back or some other solution to the problem.

If you call that whinin you probably wont see the whole point people are trying to make here.

[tyrannosaurus]

I think that this divergence is the only reason why threads like this even grow bigger than a few answers.

 

I kinda disagree, I think the problem is a lot more complicated and wider reaching, but I appreciate the attempt to bring the thread to a close.

 

The reason why this thread has carried on is because posters who have said they dislike the current codex have been labled 'unimaginative', 'whiners' and different variations on those words. Therefore they have felt the need to defend themselves.

 

Point is that most Chaos players have accepted that this is the codex we have to work with and that's not gonna change for a while. Doesn't mean we have to be happy about it, and being unhappy about something doesn't make us whiners or unimaginative.