did chaos cults really lose out?

[Drudge Dreadnought]

And lets not even bring space wolves into this...

[Hellios]

What you people don't seem to get is we are not arguing the new codex is weak, you can take any army from any codex and I would be happy to thrash you with a list from the Chaos codex... hell I'll even beat you with a 1ksons army list... for I'm favoured by my god and so keep rolling 9's :)

 

What I hate is that my options have been reduced, I've never been a power gamer (although I've used armies from time to time that were very strong) and would even take a cut in power to have a codex with more flavour as long as the cut wasn't to such an extent that the armies were non-viable. I think when you look at a force as diverse as chaos you should have options to show that diversity. You have many potentially effective lists. Personally I never thought the Iron Warriors list was over powered (and I played against it), it was just a strong list of that era. However other list were also competitive to one degree or another. When Chaos players use the Space marine codex to represent their armies something is wrong...

 

When some Night Lord and Alpha Legion players (and maybe other?) use the space marine dex because they think they can make more fluffy armies that is wrong...

 

(By the way I'm not saying the players are wrong, I'm saying they shouldn't be put in a position where they feel that way...)

[Cale]

Refuse:

 

You mean besides all the others that post here?

 

I'm pretty sure I don't know anyone who posts here. Perhaps you should try reading what I write, next time. =P

 

 

On the whole as long as you played "hard core chaos" you mean?

 

Not at all. I mean that the vast majority of chaos armies didn't actually lose options which were important to their 'flavor'.

 

Noise Marine armies gone.

 

This, at least, is true, in that sonic weapons are not as widely available as they used to be.

 

Elite Slaanesh armies (that stay slaanesh/cult all game) gone.

 

The fact that you don't like the current incarnation of the mark rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

Slaanesh Daemons enhancing your army gone (unless you count generic daemons as equivalent to daemonettes, gone).

 

Same as above. The fact that you don't like the stat-line of the current Daemonettes doesn't mean that there aren't Daemonettes.

 

 

 

 

1) Flavor is important to most people. Even if its not for you, you should accept this.

 

Of course I accept it. I never suggested otherwise. Perhaps if you were to actually read the conversation which gave rise to the post you quoted, you'd see what I was trying to say. Or, if you prefer, you can continue to ignore the context of my statements and I'll begin to ignore you entirely, since I really have little interest in debating with people who don't put bother to try to understand what I'm saying.

 

2) I think your misinformed. C:SM>C:CSM as an army. While specific CSM units may win out, the SM army has more tactical flexability, more effective ways of doing things, and better characters.

 

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but let me just say, "Haha! Good one!" I honestly can't bring myself to believe that this assertion, or any of the "support" you post below, is anything more than a joke. If not... well... 0.o

 

Since 5th edition, I haven't lost a single game to C:SM with my Chaos. CSMs are vastly better than any of the C:SM troop choices, and that's to say nothing of plagues and berzerkers. Daemon Princes outperform every single C:SM HQ choice, including their special characters. They're about even with us in Heavy Support, where we get Obliterators and Defilers, but they have much better Land Raiders. We're about even, again, in Elites where they have sane Dreads and Assault Terminators, but we get cheap and effective Termicide squads. The only place they have a clear-cut win is in Fast Attack.

 

One catagory (maybe two, if you count Elites) out of five is not nearly enough to push their codex over ours. Frankly, they could be well ahead in everything except troops and HQs (where nothing they have even really comes close to competing with our stuff) and it wouldn't matter, because having better troops is that much more important, and our troops are that much better.

[The Nephilim]

Again, Cale, I feel you've missed the point...

[Grey Mage]

1) Flavor is important to most people. Even if its not for you, you should accept this.

 

Of course I accept it. I never suggested otherwise. Perhaps if you were to actually read the conversation which gave rise to the post you quoted, you'd see what I was trying to say. Or, if you prefer, you can continue to ignore the context of my statements and I'll begin to ignore you entirely, since I really have little interest in debating with people who don't put bother to try to understand what I'm saying.

 

2) I think your misinformed. C:SM>C:CSM as an army. While specific CSM units may win out, the SM army has more tactical flexability, more effective ways of doing things, and better characters.

 

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but let me just say, "Haha! Good one!" I honestly can't bring myself to believe that this assertion, or any of the "support" you post below, is anything more than a joke. If not... well... 0.o

 

Since 5th edition, I haven't lost a single game to C:SM with my Chaos. CSMs are vastly better than any of the C:SM troop choices, and that's to say nothing of plagues and berzerkers. Daemon Princes outperform every single C:SM HQ choice, including their special characters. They're about even with us in Heavy Support, where we get Obliterators and Defilers, but they have much better Land Raiders. We're about even, again, in Elites where they have sane Dreads and Assault Terminators, but we get cheap and effective Termicide squads. The only place they have a clear-cut win is in Fast Attack.

 

One catagory (maybe two, if you count Elites) out of five is not nearly enough to push their codex over ours. Frankly, they could be well ahead in everything except troops and HQs (where nothing they have even really comes close to competing with our stuff) and it wouldn't matter, because having better troops is that much more important, and our troops are that much better.

 

You have repeatedly suggested the flavor doesnt count for beans wich such statements as:

 

I was approaching it from a standpoint of effectiveness. It would be idiotic to complain about the SM codex's effectiveness, because, despite their greater variety of options, the CSM codex is still more powerful. More options doesn't mean a more effective book, nor does it mean a more 'flavorful' book.

and:

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that the CSM codex fields more powerful armies than the SM codex, despite having less options. I never said anything about representing legions properly.

And others. I have indeed been paying attention to what your saying- and I simply disagree. You cant simply take the book from a point of veiw of raw numbers and say that it is a "good" codex. Nor can one accurately take the raw numbers with any level of math hammering ive yet to see on this or any other forum for 40k and accurately correspond to real data.

 

I take issue, for example, the idea that more options would not make a more flavorful book in this case. With something as varied and mutable as chaos is by nature more options is at its heart true to the fluff, and is an obvious and effective way to put that broad spectrum of forces into game terms. I would further put forth the idea that it should be the duty first and foremost of any codex or army book to accurately portray the flavor of the army to the best of the developers abilities, and that effectiveness should be placed in that frame work.

 

As for your W/L/D ratio, about 1 in 20 people on this board will say they have higher losses than draws- so Im afraid I cant really take your testimony to heart. You seem to miss out on a few things- like for example that SMs also edge forword with whirlwinds in the heavy support slot, and that they have not one but three better landraiders. Their Fast Attack section is indeed quite impressive by comparison with the only advantage chaos has being slaaneshi raptors. Elites show Sterngaurd for an effective and potentially scoring unit that is easily on par with any of the cult troops they might be compared to, and stronger than chosen- I also find that even the largest proponents of termicide say it only works about 3/4 times and they fully expect the unit to die... and issue also eliviated by SMs better FA options. And of course in troops between scoring Sterngaurd and Scouts marines have options for troops that are as good as CSMs, though they are not primarily assault oriented.

 

No, your comments on the SM codex lead me to simply believe that the marines players in your area lack tactical acumen, wich seems to imply that *taking you at your word* you are simply a big fish in a small pond.

 

And I feel that my point, and that of many others here is being missed by some of the posters- It is not that you cannot make an effective list with the current book, nor is it that you cannot force it to be fluffy if you so choose, it is that you shouldnt have to take twice the effort to make a fluffy and effective list to find that its only half of what it would have been and only fluffy because you are pulling unit names and descriptions out of your arse. A properly made codex does not require a player to use counts as to come up with the greater number of fluffy lists that are still effective and balanced.

[Cale]

You have repeatedly suggested the flavor doesnt count for beans wich such statements as:

 

I was approaching it from a standpoint of effectiveness. It would be idiotic to complain about the SM codex's effectiveness, because, despite their greater variety of options, the CSM codex is still more powerful. More options doesn't mean a more effective book, nor does it mean a more 'flavorful' book.

and:

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that the CSM codex fields more powerful armies than the SM codex, despite having less options. I never said anything about representing legions properly.

 

What? Seriously? The fact that I've been mainly discussing the strength of the Chaos codex--in response to a post which brought it up, no less--means that I don't think flavor counts for beans? That's nonsense. If you've taken that impression from what I'm reading...I...don't even know what to say. There's no justification for that assertion at all. These posts certainly don't support it, and neither does anything else I've said.

 

 

And others. I have indeed been paying attention to what your saying- and I simply disagree.

 

No, you've apparently been having crazy delusions. See above, where you quote two of my posts and then draw a wildly erroneous and utterly unsupported conclusion from them.

 

You cant simply take the book from a point of veiw of raw numbers and say that it is a "good" codex. Nor can one accurately take the raw numbers with any level of math hammering ive yet to see on this or any other forum for 40k and accurately correspond to real data.

 

I can absolutely look at the book from a point of view of raw numbers and say that it's a codex which produces a very effective list, which is what I did.

 

I take issue, for example, the idea that more options would not make a more flavorful book in this case. With something as varied and mutable as chaos is by nature more options is at its heart true to the fluff, and is an obvious and effective way to put that broad spectrum of forces into game terms. I would further put forth the idea that it should be the duty first and foremost of any codex or army book to accurately portray the flavor of the army to the best of the developers abilities, and that effectiveness should be placed in that frame work.

 

More options does not necessarily make a more flavorful codex. If I were to add thirty-two varieties of care-bear units to the Chaos codex, it would not make the Chaos codex more flavorful. For a more germane example, consider the Thunderfire Cannon. It's certainly another option in the Marine codex, but it basically left the codex less flavorful for its inclusion, since its flavor is so utterly contrary to the flavor of marines in general. It was a bad inclusion.

 

That's all I was saying. If you'd bothered to actually read what I said instead of pretending that I'd said something to which you could object, you'd note that my words, "More options doesn't mean a more effective book, nor does it mean a more 'flavorful' book." do not suggest, state, or imply that the chaos codex could not be made more effective or flavorful by the addition of more options, but instead merely suggest that more options would not necessarily increase either the effectiveness or flavor of any codex, which is true.

 

As for your W/L/D ratio, about 1 in 20 people on this board will say they have higher losses than draws- so Im afraid I cant really take your testimony to heart.

 

I wouldn't expect you to.

 

You seem to miss out on a few things- like for example that SMs also edge forword with whirlwinds in the heavy support slot, and that they have not one but three better landraiders. Their Fast Attack section is indeed quite impressive by comparison with the only advantage chaos has being slaaneshi raptors. Elites show Sterngaurd for an effective and potentially scoring unit that is easily on par with any of the cult troops they might be compared to, and stronger than chosen- I also find that even the largest proponents of termicide say it only works about 3/4 times and they fully expect the unit to die... and issue also eliviated by SMs better FA options. And of course in troops between scoring Sterngaurd and Scouts marines have options for troops that are as good as CSMs, though they are not primarily assault oriented.

 

Scoring Sternguard aren't troops, and while Sternguard are reasonably good, you'd still be hard-pressed to say that they're better than Chaos Marines, for the cost. And, no. I definitely remember that there are three better land raiders (the number of better land raiders doesn't matter--only that at least one of them is better) and the Whirlwind, which is a decent tank, but no Defiler (which is why I mentioned the Defiler).

 

So, you can think I'm forgetting something, but, again, you're just wrong. I haven't forgotten any of that, and none of it makes up the difference.

 

 

No, your comments on the SM codex lead me to simply believe that the marines players in your area lack tactical acumen, wich seems to imply that *taking you at your word* you are simply a big fish in a small pond.

 

That's fair. Your comments have led me to seriously doubt your judgement as well, and should lead any marginally intelligent person to doubt your literacy. I might be a big fish in a small pond. I'm definitely right about the CSM/SM comparison, and, frankly, I've lost interest in debating this further with you. You've destroyed any credibility I might have been willing to see in you.

 

And I feel that my point, and that of many others here is being missed by some of the posters- It is not that you cannot make an effective list with the current book, nor is it that you cannot force it to be fluffy if you so choose, it is that you shouldnt have to take twice the effort to make a fluffy and effective list to find that its only half of what it would have been and only fluffy because you are pulling unit names and descriptions out of your arse. A properly made codex does not require a player to use counts as to come up with the greater number of fluffy lists that are still effective and balanced.

 

A properly made codex doesn't require counts-as to come up with the greater number of fluffy lists than what, exactly? Than the codex can generate without Counts-as? Than the Space Marine Codex? (which also requires a lot of counts-as, if you want to gain flavor through the special characters). Or is this just more vapid smoke?

[Grey Mage]

Cale, you cant have your cake and eat it too- unless you think others are saying any additional options, or as you said 32 kinds of care bears, are better than what they have now I think your IQ is probly to high to not have understood that the want legitimate options that add more flavor to the codex, because the current one lacks those options.

 

And I dont think its erroneous to see a post wherein you state that you "never said the codex represents the legions well" but do affirm that it is an effective book to be throwing out the idea of having a fluffy codex.

 

Your entire argument up to this point seems to be that the book works, so its good. Many of our disagreements- such as the SMvsCSM are matters of opinion- so theres no need to be so defensive about the whole thing.

 

Your statements draw obvious conclusions- what else am I to draw from

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that the CSM codex fields more powerful armies than the SM codex, despite having less options. I never said anything about representing legions properly.

except that you dont care if the CSM codex is fluffy, as long as it is effective?

 

Edit: And frankly, Ive seen alot of fluffy and effective lists from C:SM that didnt include any special characters. In fact, you can see a number of them in Tactica, or the army list section.

 

And as for erroneous or not, Ill wait a bit before replying again... well see if anyone else has drawn the conclusions I did from your words.

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

The main problem is the fact that the Chaos carecters have about as much options a Terminator assault squad, I can not play pure thousand son's, the thousand son unit, unlike the other cult units cannot take special weapons or power fists and are we have to take an aspiring Sorceror and then pay for a pcychic powers, plus in the days of Eternal warrior spam, a force weapon is basicaly an over priced power weapon, My terminator lord, who I think is one of my better conversions, a Alpha legion lord with terminator armour with thunder hammer and stormshield is basicaly Tzeentch lord with terminator armour and deamon weapon, my obliterator and terminator unit have to be Alpha legion, my sorceror, of the thousand sons, can not take bolts like the thousand son unit, and why is there no option for artificer armour, and why, when he worships the god of sorcorey,deception and munipulation are his powers all destructive, why is young Rune priest of the space wolves able to have powers for free and able to stop them on a 4+, when a Thousand sons sorceror can't even attempt to stop them.

because the only legion supported is the Black legion.

Thousand sons were never over powered and hopefully will always be an army that needs skill, style and planning ahead to win.

But this codex whilst kicking the chaos legions in the balls, put steel toecapped boats on when it did it to the thousand sons.

 

As a note, I won a game once on turn one, the Necron player used a peice of wargear to teleport his lord and 20+ necron warrior unit, he scattered into my thousand son unit and they were destroyed, since I had focussed the fire power of my entire unit on his other 20+ necron warrior unit and he had kept the destroyers in reserve, he phased out.

This was one of my few wins with my thousand sons, and shows te divine intervention needed for thousand sons player.

[Cale]

Cale, you cant have your cake and eat it too- unless you think others are saying any additional options, or as you said 32 kinds of care bears, are better than what they have now I think your IQ is probly to high to not have understood that the want legitimate options that add more flavor to the codex, because the current one lacks those options.

 

I made a simple assertion: that more variety doesn't necessarily equal more flavor. That's all.

 

You can try to make it into more than that, but you'll only make yourself look like an idiot.

 

So. Stop.

 

 

And I dont think its erroneous to see a post wherein you state that you "never said the codex represents the legions well" but do affirm that it is an effective book to be throwing out the idea of having a fluffy codex.

 

So, now you're just going to invent things and pretend that I said them? Here's what I said:

 

I never said anything about representing legions properly.

 

Which means exactly what it says it means: I didn't even broach the topic. It never came up in my posts.

 

Quit lying.

 

 

Your entire argument up to this point seems to be that the book works, so its good. Many of our disagreements- such as the SMvsCSM are matters of opinion- so theres no need to be so defensive about the whole thing.

 

No, my "argument" up to this point was that the book works, so people shouldn't complain about it not working. Specifically, one person mentioned that SM players used to complain about the Chaos book being able to field four units of bikers (with the implication that four units of bikers was, somehow, particularly good), which seems ironic, since now the Chaos book can only field three units of bikers while Marines can have a whole army of them.

 

I responded to that by saying that would, indeed, be stupid for Marine players to complain about chaos bikers (and, basically, it would have been stupid in the old codex, too) but that it would also be stupid for Chaos players to complain about the Marine book.

 

When I said that, I meant that it would be stupid to complain about the marine book's effectiveness, because (despite being able to field an army of bikers) it's not as effective a book.

 

Since then, you've decided to imagine that I said something completely different, and have made a bunch of unjustified attacks against me. Knock it off. Nothing I wrote was unclear. Take the time to read it, and stop building up straw-men, putting my face on them, and punching them! It's irritating.

 

 

Your statements draw obvious conclusions- what else am I to draw from

 

 

No, they don't. If you've really drawn the conclusions you've alleged after carefully reading what I've written, you're an idiot.

 

 

except that you dont care if the CSM codex is fluffy, as long as it is effective?

 

I don't particularly care, no. But, that hasn't been germane to the discussion you've decided to criticize at any point.

 

Edit: And frankly, Ive seen alot of fluffy and effective lists from C:SM that didnt include any special characters. In fact, you can see a number of them in Tactica, or the army list section.

 

Sure. I've seen a lot of fluffy and effective CSM lists that don't include counts-as. You can find them in roughly the same places. What's your point?

[The 13th Goat]

Cale and indeed everyone else, you need to calm down. This has got way to aggressive for what this forum is meant to be about: People discussing (and disagreeing :lol: ) on a hobby we all love. I see your points, and yes to an extent i agree with you. What we have here is people upset that the C:CSM book is all were getting, despite the fact loyalists are getting their forces gone over in far more detail, and as a player i'm sure you'll understand the resentment thats felt about that. Unfortunatly, here its gone down the path of "Your saying were stupid for being annoyed", misinterpreted as it may have been. It also hasn't helped that people have also started throwing insults at each other. Everyone needs to cool their jets, or Mods will simply end the thread.

[Cale]

Yeah, you're probably right, Goat.

 

Still, little irritates me more than people willfully misrepresenting what I've said.

[The 13th Goat]

I understand. This topic genrally causes heated debate. Same as the SM "Ultra" codex argument. Fluff is important to many people, and some (including myself) feel the new codex doesn't represent this. Tends to boil over and led to misunderstandings.

[Hellios]

Yeah, you're probably right, Goat.

 

Still, little irritates me more than people willfully misrepresenting what I've said.

 

People will make of things what they will unless you make your words crystal... get over it.

 

Can you make strong lists... yes

Can you make fluffy lists... yes

Are the lists you can make fluffy or otherwise far more limited compared to the old codex... yes

Do many people consider that you could make more fluffy lists with the old dex... yes

Do many people think that the old fluffy lists that could be made were more competitive than the fluffy ones that can be made in this dex... this is more of a mixed point and core rules have changed and this makes a difference.

 

Would I prefer a dex closer to the old one with rules updated for the current edition (FOC choice and options rather than unit stats)... personally yes.

[Dammeron]

I understand. This topic genrally causes heated debate. Same as the SM "Ultra" codex argument. Fluff is important to many people, and some (including myself) feel the new codex doesn't represent this. Tends to boil over and led to misunderstandings.

 

Indeed. I think what would probably help is a measured and constructed catalogue of what players feel are the most significant greivances concerning the new 'dex, along with possible suggestions on how they might be fixed in the future. This will avoid situations in which proponents of any one position are mis-represented or straw manned, and hopefully the arguments that lead to these threads being moderated into oblivion. I don't currently have time to produce such a list myself at this instant, but as an example:

 

1. Lack of daemonic gifts/customisation for HQs

 

- As I mentioned in my post above, it has always been the situation that chaos characters are highly customisable. This makes sense from a backgrouncd perspective, as not only do they use debased versions of the weapons they wielded as loyalists, they also carry daemon weapons, bear daemonic gifts and rewards from their patrons, wield corrupted war gear from the Eye of Terror and so on and so forth. the problem with the last codex is that it went overboard with this, allowing far too much freedom when it came to the application of wargear on a single character. The problem with the current codex is that it threw baby out with the bathwater: rather than refining the situation, which would've been very easy indeed to accomplish, the options available to chaos characters were simply thrown out wholesale, resulting in potentially effective but bland, cookie-cutter characters, no brainer choices such as daemon princes, etc.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS: Provide a standardised list of daemonic gifts, nominally seperated into sub-categories for each Chaos God. Any H.Q. in the Chaos Space Marine army list may purchase up to three such gifts, depending upon what Mark they bear, or four if they do not bear a Mark. None H.Q. characters may only EVER purchase up to two.

 

The customisation of H.Qs also has other potential benefits for the overall army list. For example, the ability to upgrade a single H.Q. to a Warsmith, Dark Apostle etc (for an appropriate points cost and with appropriate benefits/deficits) would be a very efficient way of allowing for a degree of customisation without clunky or restrictive tertiary army lists. For example, a Chaos Lord, Sorcerer or Daemon Prince upgraded to a Dark Apostle would carry an Accursed Crozius and an army led by such a character would be allowed to take Daemons as compulsory units on the Force Organisation chart, or something to that effect.

 

2. Marks and Icons: The icon system is under baked and poorly implemented, the Marks of Chaos are far too diluted.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Do away with the cumbersome and unnecessary "icon" system. Allow characters and units to purchase Marks of Chaos for a particular points cost per model (or perhaps for a standardised points cost based on unit size, e.g. a unit of five Chaos Space Marines purchases the Mark of Khorne for +20pts, a unit of ten for +40, etc). Certain units (Terminators, Chosen, Possessed, H.Qs) with particular Marks may be further upgraded to have abilities redolent of particular Chaos "cults" (for example, a Daemon Prince with the Mark of Nurgle could be uograded to a Plague Prince for a particular points cost, in which instance he gains the Feel no Pain ability).

 

3. Daemons: I think most caos players would be quite happy with daemons if there were simply some limited means of customising and differentiating them from one another.

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Allow Greater Daemons and units of Lesser Daemons to purchase Marks of Chaos (MARKS, not ICONS). Perhaps allow for the application of a very limited number of daemonic rewards so that players can make their own Greater/Lesser daemons (for example, Greater Daemons should at the very least have access to wings).

 

and so on and so forth.

[Hellios]

I would like to be able to take non-standard cult troops such as Khorne Berzerker terminators and bikers not just generic khorne bikers.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Cale my interpretations of what you were saying are the same as Grey Mage's. That may not be what you meant to say, or what you meant for your posts to convey, but it is how they look. Perhaps more elaboration on what are and are not your points in future posts would help avoid miscommunication/interpretation.

[Cale]

Cale my interpretations of what you were saying are the same as Grey Mage's. That may not be what you meant to say, or what you meant for your posts to convey, but it is how they look. Perhaps more elaboration on what are and are not your points in future posts would help avoid miscommunication/interpretation.

 

As far as I can tell, it has been alleged that I was making two points:

 

First, that the Chaos codex is effective, and therefor any lack of flavor is excusable.

 

Second, that the mechanics in the original codex didn't actually represent the legion fluff all that well.

 

 

Quote the posts in this thread where I stated or asserted those two points, and I'll buy that I've made a mistake. If you can't, I think the only decent thing for you to do would be to admit that you, like Grey Mage, have simply misread my posts.

 

I don't feel that I have been unclear on any point, and it's going to take more than a couple of people who've obviously approached this topic from a belligerent position telling me that they 'interpreted' my posts as something they could argue against to convince me otherwise.

 

 

edit:

 

A third alleged assertion is that I don't think the Chaos codex could be made more flavorful by the inclusion of more options.

 

I never said that, nor anything remotely approaching it, either.

 

 

edit II:

Please understand that I'm not mad at you or Grey Mage because of the position you hold on this topic. I really don't feel strongly about this topic at all.

 

What has made me mad is that my assertions have been grossly misrepresented, that I have been attacked by way of those misrepresentations, and that Grey Mage has actually lied about what I've said. That sort of behavior is really unacceptable in a discussion forum.

[Grey Mage]

I havent lied, and Im somewhat insulted that you would say such a thing Cale. While to you, as the writer, your points may be crystal clear they come off as something else entirely to a person who can only read them off the page 2000 miles away. I have been debating a topic that, as a non-chaos player, is not particularly dear to me but of wich I have what I believe to be an informed opinion.

 

Instead of being defensive and simply stating I was misinterpreting you perhaps you would have been better off to explain what you really meant by your posts?

 

Because at this point if I remove what you have said your points are not from what youve said I really cant see that youve made any points at all.

[the jeske]

I responded to that by saying that would, indeed, be stupid for Marine players to complain about chaos bikers (and, basically, it would have been stupid in the old codex, too) but that it would also be stupid for Chaos players to complain about the Marine book.

 

When I said that, I meant that it would be stupid to complain about the marine book's effectiveness, because (despite being able to field an army of bikers) it's not as effective a book.

is that generally better or better to build a biker list ? because both the old sm dex and the new one were always better to make a bike centered army list . [while bike armies out of 3.5chaos and 4th ed sm dex werent good, the khan build is playable , unlike anything that tries to run bikes out of the gav dex] . I do think the problem here is how non chaos player look/looked at the chaos dex [the 3.5 one] . for an sm player there is one dex with many builds , all for his own army . one could have build[both with the old 4th ed and the new 5th ed dex] a bike centered army and it could still be ultramarines[am not puning you cale in anyway] or an imperial fists bike company . it would still feel right , both game playwise [well probablly more out of the 5th ed dex] and fluffwise. Now for chaos players the the 3.5 dex was not one dex. it was many dex that just happened to be in one book . some were good , some were bad , some really really sucked gameplaywise . But there was tons of fluff there and the builds [no matter how good they were] were many and different . the problem with the book is that is that , yes in 5th ed even with the los changes , rise of psychic power meta and death of sm gunline it was still possible to build a good army with the dex[unlike with nids , necron or IG pre new dex that took a harsh beating in 5th enviroment] . the problem it was just one army [ok two builds]. if someone wanted to make a WB[and I am going to make the assumption here that the whole renegade thing idea GW had died] army list and wanted it to be good and fluffy [because If someone just wanted a powerlist there are better ones and easier to play then chaos] , his list ended up very much like his friends AL lists. More when he looked around armies that had totally different game play before [like DG or WE] suddenlly have armies that against are almost carbon copies of each other[in game play] . what the WB player felt when he saw the SW dex is probablly worth a special story.

I think you will agree with me here cale , that while a lot of armies that are meq look the same , even when you take just the sm dex [and legion players really though about their dex as a compilation of mini dexs . so for them AL = SW or BT] , there are some builds [both fluffy and good] that have different game play. A khan build works different from vulkan one , an a pedro build is different from the shriek termi one [and this is just the special character based ones , there are many more] . If make a BL list and then make a DG list the only different between the two will be the 10 man csm vs 7 man pm squads. that is freaking boring. More while there are better and worse choices in both dex [for example oblits and MM attack bikes are really great ] , when it comes to the less optimal ones the new chaos dex gives us not just less powerful options or more stuff that is just a bit more random [like I dont know a sm LR rush build centered around one unit] , it gives us options that are mostlly unplayable [and yes I do remember vanguard , but chaos dex has more units like that . units that taking makes no sense , but at the same time the same choice are what should make the lists fluffy] . what is very sad I think , because the chaos sm dex was always about many different builds [even the JJ one and that was one bad dex ] .

[Ardune]

Well, I'm a hardcore believer in the fluff > effectiveness argument. Because of that, I really see the 4.0 codex as being way worse than the 3.5 codex. I played 3 of the different cult armies (Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch) and still won't allow myself to mix marks in an army although the 4.0 codex really pushes strongly in that direction. With fluff as a guiding principle, I would hope everyone would see the 3.5 codex as being the poorly constructed book it truly is. The 3.5 tome actually stands as my personal favorite codex of all time and I've been playing since 2nd edition. It was the pinnacle of army customization and I was greatly saddened when the design philosophy began to favor simple and bland codeices.

 

Now I must say I disagree with the OP, all of the cults got a serious kick in the crotch. I mean it is possible for a cult legion player to play with only their specific cult selections but that really cuts down on the number of list options that can be taken. And without the little wargear bells and whistles to smooth it over, it's very noticable. The old codex may have had more restrictions but they were optional and you were rewarded for taking them. Your tzeentch sorcerers became more crafty, your berzerker lord became more bloodthirsty, your favored number squads got a little more killy, etc. And then there's the whole Icon vs Mark thing, where are my cult terminators? Why can't I have a lord with the same rules as my troops?

 

Also, I guess it may not be unanimous opinion but I feel counts-as really robs from the flavor of a codex. I mean once you stop calling Berzerkers and Plague Marines by their proper names and start treating them as Troop Option A and Troop Option B, it just begs the question why bother calling the book Codex: Chaos Space Marines rather than Power Armor Codex 3? And as far as I'm concerned, this really screams laziness on the part of the developers considering it's their job to make me feel immersed in the 40k universe with my army. Instead, once I start doing army wide counts-as I start to get the feeling like I'm making arbitrary rules and it just ruins any sense of immersion I might have gotten. And without the immersion, 40k becomes just another game with plastic pieces that takes way too much time and way too much money.

 

Needless to say, my 40k habit has been in a light hibernation mode since my Chaos and DA codices were done the disservice they've been done. I've been playing this game long enough to know that the environment is fairly cyclical and I look forward to really getting back into the hobby when there's something to get excited about. But for now, I feel a little jaded and must take some solace in knowing that at least Gav won't be putting forward any more substandard work.

[Cale]

I think you will agree with me here cale , that while a lot of armies that are meq look the same , even when you take just the sm dex [and legion players really though about their dex as a compilation of mini dexs . so for them AL = SW or BT] , there are some builds [both fluffy and good] that have different game play. A khan build works different from vulkan one , an a pedro build is different from the shriek termi one [and this is just the special character based ones , there are many more] . If make a BL list and then make a DG list the only different between the two will be the 10 man csm vs 7 man pm squads. that is freaking boring.

 

I would agree with you up to the "freaking boring" part. I like the BL mech chaos list. I don't find it to be boring. If I did want to play a different type of army, there'd be nothing stopping me from building a biker list with Khan, or a Pedro list to give myself some variety.

 

Heck, I could even build a biker list with Khan and paint it in my renegade color scheme, play it as a counts as "chaos" list using the C:SM rules, so that I didn't have to feel like I was playing two different armies.

 

 

I havent lied, and Im somewhat insulted that you would say such a thing Cale. While to you, as the writer, your points may be crystal clear they come off as something else entirely to a person who can only read them off the page 2000 miles away. I have been debating a topic that, as a non-chaos player, is not particularly dear to me but of wich I have what I believe to be an informed opinion.

 

What about this, then?

 

you state that you "never said the codex represents the legions well"

 

I didn't state that. This is just untrue. Even if you are 2000 miles away from me, that's not an excuse for making things up and alleging that I wrote them.

 

Like I said before, I'm not upset because of your position on the worth of the current Chaos Codex. I really don't care that much. In fact, as you mention below, I haven't really made many significant points in this thread at all.

 

The reason I'm upset is that you've misrepresented what I've said and attacked me by way of those misrepresentations. You've gone further, and made it clear that you don't care what I actually said by blatantly misquoting me, and then attacking me by way of that misquotation. That sort of thing isn't really acceptable.

 

Instead of being defensive and simply stating I was misinterpreting you perhaps you would have been better off to explain what you really meant by your posts?

 

I have, several times. Like here:

 

I was approaching it from a standpoint of effectiveness. It would be idiotic to complain about the SM codex's effectiveness, because, despite their greater variety of options, the CSM codex is still more powerful. More options doesn't mean a more effective book, nor does it mean a more 'flavorful' book.

 

or here:

 

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that the CSM codex fields more powerful armies than the SM codex, despite having less options. I never said anything about representing legions properly.

 

or here:

 

More options does not necessarily make a more flavorful codex. If I were to add thirty-two varieties of care-bear units to the Chaos codex, it would not make the Chaos codex more flavorful. For a more germane example, consider the Thunderfire Cannon. It's certainly another option in the Marine codex, but it basically left the codex less flavorful for its inclusion, since its flavor is so utterly contrary to the flavor of marines in general. It was a bad inclusion.

 

That's all I was saying.

 

or here:

 

No, my "argument" up to this point was that the book works, so people shouldn't complain about it not working. Specifically, one person mentioned that SM players used to complain about the Chaos book being able to field four units of bikers (with the implication that four units of bikers was, somehow, particularly good), which seems ironic, since now the Chaos book can only field three units of bikers while Marines can have a whole army of them.

 

I responded to that by saying that would, indeed, be stupid for Marine players to complain about chaos bikers (and, basically, it would have been stupid in the old codex, too) but that it would also be stupid for Chaos players to complain about the Marine book.

 

 

When I said that, I meant that it would be stupid to complain about the marine book's effectiveness, because (despite being able to field an army of bikers) it's not as effective a book.

 

 

Because at this point if I remove what you have said your points are not from what youve said I really cant see that youve made any points at all.

 

I've made each of the points above:

 

That the chaos codex makes effective lists, and that's something worthwhile.

 

That the chaos codex makes more effective lists than the SM codex.

 

That the chaos codex didn't lose substantial Force Organization options in the new codex, and that they certainly didn't lose them "to" the new Marine codex.

 

 

And I think that's really about it. Most of the rest of what I've been doing is trying to get you (and a couple others) to actually read what I've written; realize that I haven't said:

 

that the Chaos codex is effective, and therefor any lack of flavor is excusable,

 

that the mechanics in the original codex didn't actually represent the legion fluff all that well, or

 

that the Chaos codex could not be made more flavorful by the inclusion of more options;

 

and stop making posts in which you attack my "position" by attacking one of these three straw-men.

 

 

That's really all I'm asking. You can think whatever you want about the new marine codex, the new chaos codex, or just about anything else. Just stop misquoting me, and stop representing my opinions with straw-men and attacking me through them.

[The Nephilim]

Seriously... Will you two stop arguing? I think it's time for this thread to be locked.

[Dammeron]

Seriously... Will you two stop arguing? I think it's time for this thread to be locked.

 

Annoying, as quibbling aside, it was beginning to become quite productive.

[Iron-Daemon Forge]

Since it seem people can not get along with out argue after my last in post warning. This topic will be close until this mess can be sorted out

 

Hopeful until then, this will give a few people time to settle down

 

http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt347/Insane-Psychopath/close-1.jpg

 

Insane Psychopath