New Chaos codex

[saintevil]

Its all fine and dandy and I wouldnt mind to have half o the things evry1 mentioned, but what I truelly want from the new dex is for CHAOS to be SCARY again. We arnt scary, not even mediocre! We are sometimes considered bland by our foes. I want to shout GLORY TO CHAOS! and truelly mean it! I want nervous, fidgeting sm players acros my table. I want nids scuttling to dark corners, necrons rather phasing out than meeting CHAOS. Thats all I want. I dont care how they do it, just that they do. Oh and some decent traitor legion fluff will be nice to. I just have to sacrifice more sm players till the CHAOS (GW) GODS hear my plea.

[Ashe Darke]

Jeske you sound like you want to go back to 3.5 which is fair enough but why not hope for something even better in the next edition? Sure some people preferred it but why not ask for something that satisfies everyone? You could ask for the bits of 3.5 you loved and more. That's what I don't get.

 

one or two new units or maybe 2 characters that would change foc , so there would be more then one lists. everything more is not doable , not in this edition at least

This is all I've seen as to what you'd actually like to see. Is this just two units brought back or two new units etc? I'm curious as to what you actually want as you haven't really said yet. All you've done is debate other people's comments or say what there was in the last edition. That isn't supposed to sound bitchy, sorry if it does. I'm just wondering what specific things you'd like to see.

[Chaos Lord Shamrockius]

Ashe, having read what you have put on here about not caring about the fluff over the last 24 hours confuses me.

 

I have to be honest and say what came first, the fluff or the game? The game is born FROM the fluff. You said that back in 2nd ed, you were drawn to Nurgle; why? Something about them drew you in and made in intrequed/interested in playing and painting a Nurgle army. I don't think it was just down to your desire to paint autumnal colours, your deep admiration for disease and all things brown (reminds me of my parents sitting room in the 80s... the brown, not the disease...) or your desire to bloated suits of armour and the god awful models they had for Plague Marines back then (I know, I still have 5 to use).

 

I'm not a "power gamer", I'm not a tourney guy, I'm someone who came to Chaos because I was sick of painting green skins during 2nd ed. But still, I was drawn to Chaos the same way as I was drawn to Orks and the same way I wasn't drawn to Eldar, Loyalist SMs, IG, Tyranids, (or on their introduction) Tau or Necrons. Because I liked the background. I liked where they came from, it interested me, it made me interested, it made me want to paint, model and pose each model to have an individual character.

 

The "fluff" has to have a basis in your army selection, your game play and your painting. I always felt that Ultramarines were the "vanilla" of the Gaming world, both painting and playing, when I have played against them. Blood Angels used to have serious character, DA, SW, Eldar, liked playing them all as they all had a basis for the way they were to be played.

 

I know you will pick apart the wording of this but I don't feel you can build a codex and ignore the fluff. (the word pulled apart there will be "feel", I'm sure)

 

Something like the Red Corsairs really doesn't have a "feel" or "fluff", as they are renegades and will take any Marine, chimp or llama who wish to turn their back on the Imperium. My basic knowledge of Witch Hunters/inquisition based codex (I believe) says that you cannot have Grey Knights in an army that contains a Daemonhost based on their fluff that they despise any use of Chaos and do not believe that there is a middle ground of using it. That gives you two options; Daemonhost and no GKs or GKs and no Daemonhost. How does that ruin your gaming experience? I don't see as it can, it gives you choice builds. Someone not liking someone else within their own army has to exhist, not everyone likes everything the people they work with does every day. No different, as I see it, in gaming terms. There has to be some level of Realism within a totally fictitious (sp) world/universe. There has to be cannon that you base your army on. Otherwise, why not add some GKs in your Nurgle force, throw Eldar and Slaaneshi forces together for Apoc games? Because it doesn't fit within the game. Why don't we put some Brettonian Knight rules together and smack them alongside some Dark Angels? How about some Skaven fighting alongside some Tau? Or just throw a couple of Action Men in for good measure as "counts as" Giants?

 

These may be overkill in terms of ideas or point making but this is how gaming goes. You need to have a basis for your army/codex/gaming or we are just in total anarchy.

[Ashe Darke]

Ashe, having read what you have put on here about not caring about the fluff over the last 24 hours confuses me.

 

I have to be honest and say what came first, the fluff or the game? The game is born FROM the fluff. You said that back in 2nd ed, you were drawn to Nurgle; why? Something about them drew you in and made in intrequed/interested in playing and painting a Nurgle army. I don't think it was just down to your desire to paint autumnal colours, your deep admiration for disease and all things brown (reminds me of my parents sitting room in the 80s... the brown, not the disease...) or your desire to bloated suits of armour and the god awful models they had for Plague Marines back then (I know, I still have 5 to use).

So I'm not allowed to just like the idea/look of an army then? I have to read up about every aspect of their background? Sure I've read the fluff on DG but I've bent some of that to suit my needs as that is more important to me that sticking to some text that is subjective. Plus most the fluff I've read on their tactics comes from Index Astartes which concentrates on pre-heresy stuff. Surely things might have changed over 10,000 years. I didn't know that two Princes wouldn't get on (not that they're sitting down for a cup of tea anyway :lol: ) because I didn't read the fluff. I don't need to know the background on every unit I'm fielding. If the codex says I can then why should I restrict myself other than my own desire to because 40k to me is more about gaming, tactics etc than sticking to stuff like that and coming up with a background for my army. You might argue that the book is wrong but seen as it's their IP and they can change it at any point, who's to say they didn't change it when 4th Ed came out?

 

The "fluff" has to have a basis in your army selection, your game play and your painting. I always felt that Ultramarines were the "vanilla" of the Gaming world, both painting and playing, when I have played against them. Blood Angels used to have serious character, DA, SW, Eldar, liked playing them all as they all had a basis for the way they were to be played.

It has to huh? So the little kid who has just joined the hobby and picked some units he likes the look of and made an army from it, he's doing his hobby wrong because he isn't doing it how you would? Say he's got some Thousand Sons and Plague Marines. He's broken no rules, they're from the same codex which says you can take them (not a great example as I'm not for this but it will serve for this purpose), there isn't a theme going on. He can even paint them all different colours. The hobby for him is to play around with little toy men, not necessarily to get caught up in the background of it. I know people who buy this stuff and just paint it, they don't play, but that's what they enjoy doing. Some people enjoy making a really nice themed army with a background and names for their squads and characters, all based on the fluff because they like the fluff and they want to stay true to it. But that's ONE way of enjoying the hobby, I don't see how you can expect everyone to share the same view as you on this, then wonder why these people are doing things differently to you. You might consider them stupid for missing out on the rich flavour of the fluff while they might think you're sad for getting hung up on the background of some toy soldiers. They're just opinions, neither are right or wrong, I just find that the some of the fluff people tend to think of their way IS right and can't seem to see that it's not for everyone.

 

I know you will pick apart the wording of this but I don't feel you can build a codex and ignore the fluff. (the word pulled apart there will be "feel", I'm sure)

Depends which came first, the fluff most likely. I agree it is based on the fluff but balance and a degree of freedom for the consumers will have a say in it as well. They probably went too far with the last one when they wrote this edition though. Ancient enemies being allowed to play side-by-side is a ham-handed attempt at freedom which is lazy in my opinion. But there is nothing in the rules to stop you from doing an all Nurgle/Khorne etc army, just that there are options to do weird mix ups. I think a lot of people are annoyed that the mixing of stuff like that replaced a lot of thing they loved from the old one and were told use that ability to mix to fill in the blanks.

 

Two Princes on the other hand is not as far fetched, and considering they let you do it that might indicate that the fluff might be changing. That's right, the fluff for any of their stuff can change. And by doing this they open up the options for people who don't care about the fluff as much, for little kid who wants to lead his Thousand Sons and Plague Marines with 2 Princes. You may not agree with it but it's a hobby for everyone not just fluff lovers. And I've said it before while you might only want one Prince there's nothing stopping you from only taking one to fit in with the theme/fluff. As for toning him down maybe they felt there was a balance issue from the last codex. I know I'm going on about Princes a lot but that's the only thing that has been mentioned that I don't like. The rest I'm fine with, as long as you don't take away from what I have now.

 

Something like the Red Corsairs really doesn't have a "feel" or "fluff", as they are renegades and will take any Marine, chimp or llama who wish to turn their back on the Imperium. My basic knowledge of Witch Hunters/inquisition based codex (I believe) says that you cannot have Grey Knights in an army that contains a Daemonhost based on their fluff that they despise any use of Chaos and do not believe that there is a middle ground of using it. That gives you two options; Daemonhost and no GKs or GKs and no Daemonhost. How does that ruin your gaming experience? I don't see as it can, it gives you choice builds. Someone not liking someone else within their own army has to exhist, not everyone likes everything the people they work with does every day. No different, as I see it, in gaming terms. There has to be some level of Realism within a totally fictitious (sp) world/universe. There has to be cannon that you base your army on. Otherwise, why not add some GKs in your Nurgle force, throw Eldar and Slaaneshi forces together for Apoc games? Because it doesn't fit within the game. Why don't we put some Brettonian Knight rules together and smack them alongside some Dark Angels? How about some Skaven fighting alongside some Tau? Or just throw a couple of Action Men in for good measure as "counts as" Giants?

 

These may be overkill in terms of ideas or point making but this is how gaming goes. You need to have a basis for your army/codex/gaming or we are just in total anarchy.

While fluff wise it might exist that two people in the army might not like each other, maybe they decided to keep that out of their game for the sake of simplicity. You could say that their commander has knocked their head together and told them to get on because there are more important things going on. Storm of Iron has character's who don't like each other yet they function as an army. Yes they're not immortal enemies but you get the idea.

 

I don't know the DH codex but are you saying the rules state you can't take both? If not, fair enough. But if it does or if the next edition does allow it then they might explain it with things like this.

 

GK#1 - I don't like the fact we've got these daemonhosts with us.

GK#2 - I know what you mean but Inquisitor Bob says we're gonna need them.

 

Or

 

They're fighting whomever and these daemonhosts who have taken a shine to an Inquisitor decide to help him out, similar to how Cherubael was with Eisenhorn.

 

They could use something like this to explain why there is no animosity in the rules. Hmm sounds like fluff governing rules. This may not agree with your interpretation of the fluff but GW are using things like that all the time to give freedom to people. And why should they restrict the people who don't want to be restricted? What about the people who want to take them both because they think it would be cool and the rules say they can. If you can explain it then you can do it pretty much, I think that's what they're leaning towards nowadays anyway. And if you don't agree with it then they'll tell you to restrict yourself.

 

And what I said is not an opening to say 'what's next, mixing codexes?' because I've only ever talked about things within a single codex, nor have I said that I personally was the person behind the choices they've made, I was just explaining how/why they would do such a thing, so not my idea, just a potential explanation.

[Dammeron]

Rather than the existence of an absolute and binding rule restricting access to daemon princes or other such units, there should instead be a mention of the fact that it is rare for more than one daemon prince to occur in a single force in the background, then the alternative H.Q. options need to be made viable and interesting enough that people actually have to make a considered choice as to which they would like to field. That way, responsibility is given to the individual player.

[Lay]

Must have:

- Daemonic gifts

- Chaos marks instead of Icons

- Marks having an effect on unit selection

- Revised rules for Possessed & Dreadnoughts

- New minis for our not so Special looking Characters

- Comprehensive background summary for each Traitor Legion

 

Would be cool to have:

- Adopt the background approach from the Siege of Vraks series which explains that most warbands are splinter factions of the Legions

- Chaos Lieutenant

- Cult Terminators

- Dreadclaws

- Cultists

- Chaos hounds

- Ancient enemies rule

- Kai Gun!

 

Don't want:

- Special Characters giving Legion rules

- Multiple Lords/Daemon Princes

- Lazy array of colourschemes clogging up the background section

[IronWinds]

On the greater prince or 2 dorky princes. Back in 3.5 there was a way to take two flying godly models that tore through everything. Cracked out prince + Bloodthirster. If we had those back would we need 2 princes?

 

I vote for being able to make nasty princes again, but only have 1... I want my stature/dreadaxe/speed prince that made Chaplains cry. And if someone wants 2 big nasties on the field at once... have the bloodthirster back, or at least have the option of putting wings(not to mention other upgrades) on a generic greater demon.

 

Thats anohter request of the new codex. If we are stuck with generic demons, have upgrade options that make them more like their marked cousins.

 

Fix possessed.... surprised I didn't ask for that earlier.

 

Nastier demon prince.... T 6 standard... please! Why does that huge model and a plauge marine have the same T when all other models that big are T6?

 

am a realist here , the legion rules wont come back [well maybe after a desing team switch] . lords giving speciala USR ? not going to happen . unless it is something generic for undivided lords , if you dont pick mark give one unit the anti tank/infiltration/scoring status. the legions stuff could be done with named characters [a raptor asp champion makes all raptors give -1LD . a AL asp champion gives a unit he joins inf etc] .

 

Names characters that effect the whole army were the worst idea since... an icon bearer granting a squad special abilities. I do doubt we will get many things. But I do hold a place in my heart that they will bring back 'some' legion rules. Not like before but some. I can see it happening because of exactly what you said. Under 3.5 sales were UP, way UP. Under 4th.... well.... not so much. The design team might get pressure to bring chaos' sales back to their former glory... and an easy way to do it is bring back the Legions we all love. That and because ever sense the travesty that was 4th ed CSM codex they have been talking about a Legions codex. We all know it is hogwash, but the very least they can do to avoid looking even more like lying theives is to have the next codex have Legions in it.

 

Its also insurance. If the next codex got as much comeback as this one.... AND it didn't have Legion rules in it any and every excuse they used afterwards(all the ones they have dried up by now) would be laughed at by the players. By having some Legion rules they at least keep their word from before, and even if the codex had problems it would be one promise kept.

[the jeske]

This is all I've seen as to what you'd actually like to see. Is this just two units brought back or two new units etc? I'm curious as to what you actually want as you haven't really said yet. All you've done is debate other people's comments or say what there was in the last edition. That isn't supposed to sound bitchy, sorry if it does. I'm just wondering what specific things you'd like to see

the stuff what I would like to see is a 3.5 dex made 5th ed . a codex with many different armies and builds . but is never going to happen.

 

no old units [as in syren prince , infiltration csm etc] would be brought back . as said before I am a realist and if stuff doesnt sale models Gw wont make rules for it , they wont bring back EC all sonic armies because the models for them dont sell well enough , they wont bring back AL [because cultists are not csm and because it would be too easy to use maruders or IG models for them , so making cultists a choice wouldnt rise sales] in any form . with the desing philosophy they have right now the closest thing we could get is maybe 2 characters that change the FoC and here anything that makes new units is probablly out of the question so I would say . a NL with scoring raptors/bikes and probablly a WB guy that lets demons take icons , but considering the bitching from other legions even those two would have a really hard time finding a way to the new dex.

 

what would be possible is more custom stuff. a set of mutation/gifts like sagas [probablly not more then 5-6] for hqs , with some limitations for the marked lords and non for the undivided ones [maybe the undivided takes 2 and the marked ones cant take upgrades that they marks already buff . but that would be too much text ,so small chance to find its way in to the dex] . a anti psyker gear for sorc [maybe auto cast of psychic powers for tzeench , all sorc using 2 per turn . perils of the warp would still be rolled] . stuff that would make them viable , when compared with a DP.

the "and they pick up the fallen icon" special rule for all units without marks. options to buy marks for demons[so again no rending , fleet /power weapons or shoting attacks , but they would be different from each other and worth considering in a list] . That is probablly it . unless GW desing team had a complet change of heart or decided to add stuff like LatD /FW stuff , I dont think anything more would be in a new chaos dex .

 

 

ah maybe drop pods , but without the drop pod assault rule and without being guided by icons. [+of course no deathwind launchers etc].

 

Storm of Iron has character's who don't like each other yet they function as an army. Yes they're not immortal enemies but you get the idea.

yes because they are all IW and have an overlord above them . in this dex you can have lucius leading a unit of zerkers or Khârn leading a unit of NM . how do you think how many times does stuff like that happen in the w40k world ?

 

 

Names characters that effect the whole army were the worst idea since... an icon bearer granting a squad special abilities.

am not saying no , but in most[all new] dexs that is how it works. you want salamanders you take vulkan , you want crimson fists you take pedro etc . I can imagin a special option for an asp champion in a raptor unit , I dont believe GW would bring back NL as a playable legion with different rules .

[Vassius]

It took time, but I had read the entire postings and like to add some ideas.

 

I agree that the HQ section of the codex should let us use more different builds. I play at tournaments and a couple more times I play at home with friends. At tournaments chaos players always have 2 princes or the 2/9 build. Because with other builds it is difficult to compare with the other players.

Maybe GW could add some other options, I don´t belive they will bring in Greater Princes or something like that, but why not add some sort of Dark Mechanicus tech priest ? Maybe with some special options.

On the other hand, GW should take some care about the Lord and the sorcerer. I choose them rarely as HQ option, because to make them work fine, it costs to much points in my eyes. And again, that the sorcerer can´t block psyker powers is a fail. At this point, GW showed they don´t care much about the fluff.

I also would like to see Chaos more evil. I mean, Chaos is evil in its purest form, but most of our opponents look more evil than we. Hope we will have some day new miniatures, which can compare with other races.

 

Ah, and one last point. I play since the 2nd edition, so I care about the fluff. In the end, all the traitors are united in their hate for the empire of man, that´s why they fight since 10k years. So at least, it can be "fluffy" to have them all in the same list.

But it is like Ash said, most of the players beginn to play, because they like the miniatures without knowing the fluff. And so its no wonder why so much people don´t care about it.

But what I dont understand is, why our marines with 10k years of experience have the same profil, the same abilitties like our loyal counterparts. Had we only learned to take a second combat weapon with us ?

Maybe GW should make Chaos more elite, strenghten up our marines and make them more expensive, so they can represent the traitors who fought so long against the forces of the false emperor ?

 

So, these were some of my ideas, what do you think about it ?

[Mr. Sandbot]

oh god yes on fixed possessed. Throw decently controllable dreads on that boat too.

 

I would just like to point out that while fluff plays a great and integral role in..well... everything, I'm under the impression that you still need to keep it subjective for each player to have his or her own say on it then create an army to reflect it. If someone wishes to have a warband of Slaanesh and Khorne then imo, its fine to field the two in the same army as long as you give them something that sincerely and appropriatly addresses the fluff involving the two.

 

@ironwinds, I can see where your coming from and do agree that if a player wants to have two flying beasties, than having one prince and one bloodthirster is a better idea than the garbage we have now. But, I still disagree that we should limit princes just because that previously mentioned option would exist, since its exactly what this current codex is doing; "whats the point in putting in a Dark Apostle when its really the same as a Chaos Lord with a power weapon?". I'm still under the belief that if a player wishes to create two weaker princes or one strong one, or whatever what not, then they should have the freedom to. The restictions should be placed on what units can do and what they can be fielded with, not the number of them we can field (there are a few exceptions to this though). imo, points and the FoC should be the ones that dictate how much of what we should be able to field while fluff dictates how each individual player army works and remains unique.

I mean, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board is in agreement that Lucius leading Zerks or Typhus leading a 1kson squad is pretty much in the wrong since it contradicts every piece of fluff in existance. But if anything, that just means we should be more restrictive (and rewarding) with how each unit plays as well as how a themed army plays, not what players can field as a whole.

One of the systems 3rd did right was rewarding players for playing with certain restrictions on, and I believe that should be brought back, but not at the cost of army options or people who don't want to restrict themselves.

 

imo, independent characters that dictate the way your entire army plays was by far one of THE worst ideas in the world. What if I don't want my Raven Guard to be led by Shrike? I could use Shrike as a count as sure, but no matter what he's still Shrike, so that doesn't make me feel much better.

Furthermore, maybe we should go into more about the legion rules. Especially since what we want is a break from the bland that 5th has come to represent and everyone has just been saying "I want legion rules back". But do you guys mean back in the exact same incarnation as 3rd? or back in a new way? or back with conditions? More elaboration to satisfy my curiosity please :lol:

 

Oh and my earlier comment about calming down was more so a pre-cautionary nip at the bud so this entire thing can stay on the facinating discussion everyone is having instead of having it all degenerate into a slug fest.

 

tl;dr imo, seperate unit functions from player options. Restrict unit functions while fostering more player options. Reward the usage of restrictions like in 3rd. Fluff should make each army unique and individualized while game options should allow for the player's freedom to represent their take on the fluff. Independent characters suck. Anyone have any particular take on the Legion rules beyond "I want legion rules"? I mean I know you want them back, but in what way should they come back?

[Dammeron]

One of the weirder ideas I toyed with in my homegrown codex was the concept of being able to take "Banners of the Legions." This was an adaptation of the crappy icon system whereby Chaos Space Marine characters and units could be upgraded to carry the "banner" of a particular Chaos Legion that conferred particular abilities on that unit. It's the kind of thing I can see GW going for in its current mode as it is highly visual and can be represente on the actual models. For example, The Banner of Night (Night Lords) conferred Stealth Adepts and conferred a -1 modifier to enemy leadership when the unit carrying it successfully charged into assault. If you want to represent an army of a single legion, you simply upgrade all units and characters with the same banner. If you want to represent something more eclectic, you mix and match. Simple, visual; somwthing that can be conferred in war gear options, and highly adaptable, especially with the Marks of Chaos also available as upgrades (also, the abilities are not lost if the banner bearer is killed; it is simply assumed that another model picks up the banner and carries on with it).

[Cale]

Rather than the existence of an absolute and binding rule restricting access to daemon princes or other such units, there should instead be a mention of the fact that it is rare for more than one daemon prince to occur in a single force in the background, then the alternative H.Q. options need to be made viable and interesting enough that people actually have to make a considered choice as to which they would like to field. That way, responsibility is given to the individual player.

 

 

I agree completely. I think I remember your proposed codex, too, and I remember liking it pretty well, all things considered.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Rather than the existence of an absolute and binding rule restricting access to daemon princes or other such units, there should instead be a mention of the fact that it is rare for more than one daemon prince to occur in a single force in the background, then the alternative H.Q. options need to be made viable and interesting enough that people actually have to make a considered choice as to which they would like to field. That way, responsibility is given to the individual player.

 

 

I agree completely. I think I remember your proposed codex, too, and I remember liking it pretty well, all things considered.

 

I simply see no reason why this restriction ought be bypassable and left to the responsibility of the player. Why this one? There is no fluff justification for it. But even ignoring fluff you still need a gameplay reason. What is it beyond power? All i'm seeing is arguments that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I disagree. Letting people do whatever they want is just going to lead to an unfluffy, unbalanced game.

 

Take a look at any other instance of arbitrarily removing restrictions. If you were playing an opponent who put down a Tactical squad with 10 heavy weapons you would call him a cheater. He then responds that he doesn't feel he should have to follow the restrictions and this is the army he wants to play. It even conforms with his army fluff of using lots of heavy weapons. Is this alright? Obviously not. Tactical squads are limited to 1 special and 1 heavy for a combination of fluff and gameplay reasons.

 

All the arguments that can be made for having DPs allowed more than 1 can be made to remove any other restriction in the game. But if we removed even a few of these restrictions the game would quickly get really stupid. Is there any argument beyond "I want it?" If you want to ignore fluff and strong game design reasons you can always play your own codex, house rule, or play apoc.

[the jeske]

Why this one? There is no fluff justification for it. But even ignoring fluff you still need a gameplay reason. What is it beyond power? All i'm seeing is arguments that people should be allowed to do whatever they want.

I can explain why 2 DPs in the new dex. Well after cuting the options for HQ and removing the gifts/wargear pages both for DIY and legions , GW had to leave something there . lifting the 0-1 on stature princes what they did. imagine what would have been if oblits stayed 0-1 and DPs were 0-1 too. the codex would suck even more because it would loose half its power [2 dps and mass oblits] . But of course on the other hand I is possible that Thorpe actually thought people would not take 2 dps , because Lords and Sorc are so cool . I never understood his[and JJ] way of thinking that people pick models because of looks and not effectivness , specially in a counts as enviroment.

 

. That way, responsibility is given to the individual player.

and then they make something like that with SW sagas [where the downside is that you"lose your honor , if you dont try to fullfill them] and what we are getting ? how many sw players actually use the sagas for something else then a IC buff ? and how many chaos players play 2 DP for their "cool" slanesh sob twins DPs[with lash] fluff and not runing 2 DPs being the most viable?

techniclly GW with this dex did just that . In both the words of JJ and Thorpe they were really surprised that people were using 2 DPs [because all the other HQs are so cool and now other legions could use different legions special characters too . which are so cool].

[Dammeron]

Rather than the existence of an absolute and binding rule restricting access to daemon princes or other such units, there should instead be a mention of the fact that it is rare for more than one daemon prince to occur in a single force in the background, then the alternative H.Q. options need to be made viable and interesting enough that people actually have to make a considered choice as to which they would like to field. That way, responsibility is given to the individual player.

 

 

I agree completely. I think I remember your proposed codex, too, and I remember liking it pretty well, all things considered.

 

 

Looking back, the early editions were truly horrible, but it got better with time :P

 

I'm actually running a fairly workable version of it now in my local gaming group, and it seems to go down very well (especially since there's alot of stuff in it that has the potential to backfire). One of the funnest gaming moments I had recently was when my Sorcerer of Tzeentch cast a psychic power called "Immolation of Change," which is a power I designed to be deliberately ridiculous; restricted to H.Q. psykers only, and with as much potential to wreak havoc amongst your own units as the enemies. I had grand ambitions of taking out a rather choicly placed Terminator squad, only for the pie-plate to stray back and settle over the sorcerer, killing him before moving on and decimating my nearby Thousand Sons. It was hilarious fun; easily one of my best gaming moments ever.

[Ashe Darke]

I simply see no reason why this restriction ought be bypassable and left to the responsibility of the player. Why this one? There is no fluff justification for it. But even ignoring fluff you still need a gameplay reason. What is it beyond power? All i'm seeing is arguments that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I disagree. Letting people do whatever they want is just going to lead to an unfluffy, unbalanced game.

Well again, not everyone cares about fluff and by doing that they open up the codex to more customers. Something I think might be on their business plan. Is mixing Ancient Enemies really unbalanced? Is two Princes really unbalanced? As for being unfluffy, well yes you playing an opponent who has done a mixed army might make you mad, but it's not your army, it's theirs and they don't hold the same values as you. If they want to do that and rules allow it then they will, and GW have one more customer.

 

Take a look at any other instance of arbitrarily removing restrictions. If you were playing an opponent who put down a Tactical squad with 10 heavy weapons you would call him a cheater. He then responds that he doesn't feel he should have to follow the restrictions and this is the army he wants to play. It even conforms with his army fluff of using lots of heavy weapons. Is this alright? Obviously not. Tactical squads are limited to 1 special and 1 heavy for a combination of fluff and gameplay reasons.

You're talking about a change in restriction that you just made up, not one that was actually in a codex. Not the same thing and not a fair comparison. To compare one codex to the other is fair enough because they're both official. Examples like that are intentionally designed to be preposterous to try and discredit the earlier point, but it holds no validity. And if there's lot of heavy weapons about in the fluff, not that I remember any books where a fair amount of people that were non-devastators had heavy weapons, then that's just another example of fluff being changed or broken by the company to suit their needs. Or maybe it was something the author thought was cool. A one off occurrence in a post-heresy book is easy to discredit. So it looks like they're bending fluff with everyone maybe? Don't like it? Well it's their company and the thing to remember that it's a game, and if they want it to do well it needs balance. Something that cannot happen if they stick too close to the fluff, a vast quantity of inconsistent text written by many people all with different ideas and agendas when they wrote it. Marines are a prime example of fluff vs balance.

 

All the arguments that can be made for having DPs allowed more than 1 can be made to remove any other restriction in the game. But if we removed even a few of these restrictions the game would quickly get really stupid. Is there any argument beyond "I want it?" If you want to ignore fluff and strong game design reasons you can always play your own codex, house rule, or play apoc.

Yeah they can be, but we're not the ones who are making the decision, GW will be. Have some faith that they won't go too crazy with the next one. As for house rules and apoc not everyone plays apoc and not everyone will allow house rules, nor will anyone touch anything that's not official. I know I won't.

[Lay]

Ashe Darke: This is pretty much a wish listing thread - it is about what we want to see. And that has nothing to do with GW making the decisions. Or stepping on fellow gamers toes with personal preferences, since you can't change anything in any Codex without doing that.

[Ashe Darke]

Drudge said he saw no reason why they'd do that. Had he said 'I wish they wouldn't do that in the next codex' then fair enough. Since he didn't I gave an explanation as to why.

 

2 Princes being removed is the only thing I've had any objection to so which is what has caused this debate. Other people have mentioned it since the debate began and I've not jumped on them because they said they'd like to see it removed and me re-iterating my point to them is pointless.

 

The reason why I brought this debate up is I see no reason to do that just to satisfy one group of people when there are others it won't satisfy. If they could come up with a solution to keep both parties happy surely that would be better. These are the points I'm raising, so it's not like I'm telling Drudge 'no you can't have that' what I'm asking is 'why can't we both get what we want if you can overlook certain things and remember that this is a codex for everyone'.

 

If my suggestion of having a codex that satisfies everyone albeit with some compromises doesn't sit well with him then fair enough and I'm sure he'll tell me why. He may feel they're crapping on his hobby to pander to idiots but I'm sure the company see them as customers and may not care about his or other peoples opinions as much as they care about new customers as that certain does seem to be the trend they're following. I'm just yet to see a what I perceive to be a valid reason for not having options for every type of gamer who wants to use the codex. If he doesn't care about what other people might want from a codex then fair enough, I do which is why I've brought this up.

[Cale]

Rather than the existence of an absolute and binding rule restricting access to daemon princes or other such units, there should instead be a mention of the fact that it is rare for more than one daemon prince to occur in a single force in the background, then the alternative H.Q. options need to be made viable and interesting enough that people actually have to make a considered choice as to which they would like to field. That way, responsibility is given to the individual player.

 

 

I agree completely. I think I remember your proposed codex, too, and I remember liking it pretty well, all things considered.

 

I simply see no reason why this restriction ought be bypassable and left to the responsibility of the player. Why this one? There is no fluff justification for it. But even ignoring fluff you still need a gameplay reason. What is it beyond power? All i'm seeing is arguments that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I disagree. Letting people do whatever they want is just going to lead to an unfluffy, unbalanced game.

 

Take a look at any other instance of arbitrarily removing restrictions. If you were playing an opponent who put down a Tactical squad with 10 heavy weapons you would call him a cheater. He then responds that he doesn't feel he should have to follow the restrictions and this is the army he wants to play. It even conforms with his army fluff of using lots of heavy weapons. Is this alright? Obviously not. Tactical squads are limited to 1 special and 1 heavy for a combination of fluff and gameplay reasons.

 

All the arguments that can be made for having DPs allowed more than 1 can be made to remove any other restriction in the game. But if we removed even a few of these restrictions the game would quickly get really stupid. Is there any argument beyond "I want it?" If you want to ignore fluff and strong game design reasons you can always play your own codex, house rule, or play apoc.

 

The reason that Daemon Princes should not be restricted is that there is no good reason to restrict them. Given that we're proposing a more or less total re-write of the codex, there is no reason to presume that they will need to be restricted for the sake of game balance. Further, nothing in the fluff suggests that they should be restricted.

 

Things should only be restricted if there is a reason to do so. There is no reason to restrict Daemon Princes, thus they should not be restricted.

 

Your representation of our position is basically nothing like what I've posted so far.

 

 

Looking back, the early editions were truly horrible, but it got better with time :lol:

 

I'm actually running a fairly workable version of it now in my local gaming group, and it seems to go down very well (especially since there's alot of stuff in it that has the potential to backfire). One of the funnest gaming moments I had recently was when my Sorcerer of Tzeentch cast a psychic power called "Immolation of Change," which is a power I designed to be deliberately ridiculous; restricted to H.Q. psykers only, and with as much potential to wreak havoc amongst your own units as the enemies. I had grand ambitions of taking out a rather choicly placed Terminator squad, only for the pie-plate to stray back and settle over the sorcerer, killing him before moving on and decimating my nearby Thousand Sons. It was hilarious fun; easily one of my best gaming moments ever.

 

Think you could link me to a copy?

[Xynoq]

basically i just want a slightly improved version of this one with traitor guard in it.

[IronWinds]

Further, nothing in the fluff suggests that they should be restricted.

 

Find me a situation in fluff where 2 demon princes lead a small group of warriors. Back in 3.5 I actually thought there should be a 1500 pt game minimum to even field a prince. And honestly fluffwise I don't see a prince leading an amry under 10000pts minimum. 2 in 1500... no. They should be restricted because they are 'rare' warriors.

 

I'm reading Dark Creed right now. 9000 Word Bearers(thats not a spoiler, its at the very begiinning)... not 1 demon prince among them... if there are 50 marines in 2000pts... thats a 360,000pt army, not counting human servants and ships. Not even Erebus is a prince yet, the guy helped cause the Heresy. If he isn't a prince yet I imagine the things you have to do to become one are pretty high. The bar is not so low that any champion of chaos can become one tomorrow. You have to work your way up and top all that hard work off with one massive event... Killing 400 Imperial fists, capturing one of the Imperium's largest geneseed banks, being Angron, etc.

 

Kharne isn't a prince yet, neither is Typhus, or Arhiman.... How much have these guys done? We assume Abbadon doesn't want to be one yet. None are princes yet. And from the fluff I've read princes often abandon their armies to go play in the warp or do something else after becoming a prince. The number of armies being led by a prince period would be small... the number of armies led by 2.... I can think of 1 situation. An entire legion attacks something, the few demon princes(and I'm saying a few in an entire legion) and their demon primarch are on the field at the same time. Short of that I don't see 2 princes taking the field at once.

 

How big were the armies of the princes we know of? Primarchs are obviously big, they have Legions. The prince in Storm of Iron had thousands of marines, hundreds of thousands of slaves, titans... and Imperator titan, space ships, a giant fortress on Medrengard where he had a pet bloodthirster and even more titans. Not your little champion with 50 marines just trying to get by.

 

The prince in Lord of the Night had a large part of the Night Lords legion under his direct control, tons of ships, thousands of marines... who knows what else?

 

A prince is not a standard run of the mill commander. They are rare immortal demi gods who lead vast armies that have proven themselves over thousands of years of battle. I think princes should be 'much' more powerful, but also have an 0-1 restriction and be limited to 1500+pt games.

 

 

Now again... I'm a lot pickier about Ancient Enemies than princes.... partly because with the crappy statline a prince has he could just be a really big mutant or a lord that has undergone serious changes(like my bionic spider prince... which is fluffwise just a lord). But there are plenty of fluff reasons why you wouldn't have 2 princes leading 50 marines into combat.

[Cale]

Ironwind. Find me a situation in the fluff where it says that Daemon Princes can't or don't work together alongside a small warband.

 

Your argument boils down to, essentially,

 

1.) If you it never shows up in the fluff, you shouldn't be able to do it.

 

2.) Two Daemon Princes working together alongside a small warband or a small portion of a warband never shows up in the fluff.

 

3.) Therefore, you should be able to bring two Daemon Princes along with an army that represents a small warband or a small portion of a warband (such as every possible normal 40k army).

 

 

I don't know if premise two is true or not, but premise one is obviously rubbish.

 

Name an instance where one Lord, one Khornate Daemon Prince, one unit of Chaos Space Marines, one Dreadnought, one unit of Chosen with marks of Nurgle, one unit of Khorne Berserkers, one unit of Obliterators, and one Land Raider operated together.

 

Can you find that exact combination? No? Guess you shouldn't be able to bring that exact combination of units alongside each other, then! Better write in that restriction!

 

Restrictions shouldn't limit you to exactly what is represented in the fluff. They should only be in place to prevent you from taking this which, according to the fluff could never happen. It takes more than a lack of mention in the fluff to assert that something can never happen--lots of stuff that we accept as possible is never specifically mentioned. Rather, it would require an affirmative statement in the fluff spelling out that something could never happen.

 

Short of finding a bit of fluff that states or suggests that Daemon Princes never work together alongside small warbands or small portions of warbands, there is nothing in the fluff that is even capable of supporting the restriction you propose.

 

Simply noting that Daemon Princes are fairly rare isn't sufficient, either. Lots of things are rare. Heck, Chaos Space Marines are rare, on the scale of all the beings in the galaxy, yet they tend to gather together. There's no particular reason to presume that, because Daemon Princes are rare, they never work together. Birds of a feather, and all that.

 

Further, there's no particular reason to presume that each army represents the entirety of a Warband. Another What if your warband is actually enormous--several thousand warbands, with a pair of daemon princes. They might tend to work alongside each other just because each can't stand the idea of letting the other out of his sight, afraid of what might be done behind his back.

 

I'll agree--Daemon Princes are rare, and most warbands, fluff-wise, won't have two, and more battles, fluff-wise, won't include two. None of that is sufficient to support a rule which says, "two Daemon Princes can never fight together under any circumstances."

[Atheist]

Well said Iron Winds .

[Lay]

Short of finding a bit of fluff that states or suggests that Daemon Princes never work together alongside small warbands or small portions of warbands, there is nothing in the fluff that is even capable of supporting the restriction you propose.

The 'There can be only one' rule from the 3.0 Codex comes to mind.

[Hellios]

Must have:

- Daemonic gifts

- Chaos marks instead of Icons

- Marks having an effect on unit selection

- Revised rules for Possessed & Dreadnoughts

- New minis for our not so Special looking Characters

- Comprehensive background summary for each Traitor Legion

 

Would be cool to have:

- Adopt the background approach from the Siege of Vraks series which explains that most warbands are splinter factions of the Legions

- Chaos Lieutenant

- Cult Terminators

- Dreadclaws

- Cultists

- Chaos hounds

- Ancient enemies rule

- Kai Gun!

 

Don't want:

- Special Characters giving Legion rules

- Multiple Lords/Daemon Princes

- Lazy array of colourschemes clogging up the background section

 

I like :tu:

 

I want the old HQ's back AKA lord a lieutenant who can be both be upgraded to sorcerer because a sorcerer isn't the same as a psyker although many are psykers... Also with Daemonic gifts (maybe more limited than 3.5 or at least revised) so that your lord can become a daemon prince and not just a hulking one (I think this should be 0-1 lords because the lieutenant would be good enough to be "mini-lords" if you decided to go nuts with gifts) but a whole myriad that truly reflects the face of chaos.

 

I want ancient enemies again... don't like this don't pick a Khorne Lord? I want Marks instead of Icons that actually turn the unit into that gods cult rather than we wear red and are a bit more choppy marines but not really berzerkers (this kinda fits in with legion rules as well).

 

New units...

Dreadclaw, fastskimmer, open-topped, deepstrike.

Real Daemons... I guess this won't happen because of the daemons dex...

Traitor guard/cultists/hounds would be cool even if restricted to certain legions, however like daemons and renegade chapters being able to access more nilla marine equipment I think this won't happen.

 

Note I think warbands should be able to use legion rules... So If I'm Playing the Skulltakers Warband of the World Eaters they are as far as I am concerned World Eaters. I just Don't think Emperors Children should use World Eaters rules.

 

Chaos are much like the Sith from Star Wars. They normally work alone (powerful ones anyway) or with an apprentice (Lieutenant) however most many Lieutenants are only trying to increase their own power until they can kill their master and become the master themselves and normally pick someone else to learn from them and do their dirty work. However the reason for this differs from the Sith where the idea is that each Sith will be more powerful than the last. It is just because Lords don't like to do everything themselves.

 

However powerful lords and princes just like the Sith have known to gather although in the case of Chaos usually for a short period of time. What they have in common however if that they are unified under a greater purpose and under a powerful leader like Abaddon (sp?) and only "work together" during that period and even then they generally have their own agendas or try to out do each other. They also have their own forces which they will lead and normally forces large enough to be lead by a daemon prince won't need another force lead by a daemon prince to back them up. Sometimes however this will occur and this is what Apocalypse is about... but still don't expect them to fight shoulder to shoulder although I guess it's possible. The other thing that happens when lots of the powerful chaos lords meet up is they fight each other to destroy the other for a number of reasons... self satisfaction, the favour of their patron/s or because the leaders of their opponents Warband has now been destroyed they may well be able to take over the survivors swelling their personal power. This is much like the Sith who also destroy each other when they have no one powerful enough to rule them.

 

You know the people who don't like the fact that special characters are becoming more and more common? Well a special character is more likely to appear on a battlefield than two daemon princes. Daemon princes are essentially unnamed special characters.