New Chaos codex

[Forgerer]

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.

 

Absolutely true! (and well said)

 

But at the moment, the responsibility has already been given to the individual player. It is up to us, wether we take two princes or one (or none).

 

Now I'd like to see some legion specific rules, But no limitations. Now I havent red the new SMC so cant say if taking a pedro limits your army in any other way (except you had to take a pedro to make your army Crimson Fists. Now I agree that that was a bad move. They could have insted made the rules conferred by named HQ characters Legion/chapter specific.)

[Hellios]

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.

 

Absolutely true! (and well said)

 

But at the moment, the responsibility has already been given to the individual player. It is up to us, wether we take two princes or one (or none).

 

Now I'd like to see some legion specific rules, But no limitations. Now I havent red the new SMC so cant say if taking a pedro limits your army in any other way (except you had to take a pedro to make your army Crimson Fists. Now I agree that that was a bad move. They could have insted made the rules conferred by named HQ characters Legion/chapter specific.)

 

You do realise it's impossible to not have limitations. This current codex has limitations and if you have special rules that are strong you need limitations to counter-balance them. What you call no limitations would just be the standard list with no special legion rules. Having 0-1 DP is no different from having 0-1 Pedro Kantor or the Masque of Slaanesh.

[Vassius]

Maybe GW should transfer the Demon princes to Apocalypse like the C´tan gods ? I think that would be more fluffy.

And than bring back the lieutnants, make better commanders ans psykers, add a dark mechanicus HQ, something like a tech priest.

 

Other things i would like to see:

- cult terminators

- cultists

- new demonic enginges like the defiler, maybe they could add things like the blight drone from forge world ?

[Cale]

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.

 

Ah, so that means that the "there can be two" rule in the current codex counts? Guess that means a restriction would be specifically and directly contrary to the fluff.

 

 

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.

 

 

I don't mind special characters, and all characters, including daemon princes, are exactly "unnamed special characters." The only thing that makes the character special is the name, unless you count the rules (in which case your stated about Daemon Princes would be obviously incorrect).

 

 

You do realise it's impossible to have limitations.

 

Also, it is definitely possible to have limitations. I thought you wanted limitations?

[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.

 

Ah, so that means that the "there can be two" rule in the current codex counts? Guess that means a restriction would be specifically and directly contrary to the fluff.

Context, dude. You were asking for fluff that was "capable of supporting the restriction" and I provided it. The 'There can be only one' rule (like many of the rules I prefer) is one that is tied to a background description.

 

You have yet to provide the background example IronWinds asked for.

[Cale]

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.

 

Ah, so that means that the "there can be two" rule in the current codex counts? Guess that means a restriction would be specifically and directly contrary to the fluff.

 

Context, dude. You were asking for fluff that was "capable of supporting the restriction" and I provided it. The 'There can be only one' rule (like many of the rules I prefer) is one that is tied to a background description.

 

You have yet to provide the background example IronWinds asked for.

 

And that background description says that Daemon Princes can never, ever fight alongside each other?

 

I have no background example for IronWinds. I made it clear why I don't need to.

 

No one, including you, has provided the example I've asked for. So. What's your point?

 

 

edit:

 

On a related note, here's some fluff that supports my position as well as any of the fluff presented so far supports yours:

 

"Daemon Princes often lead Chaos Space Marine warbands, lending their unnatural might to the cause. Some Daemon Princes ally themselves with Chaos Champions, lending their patronage to followers of Chaos as the whims and commands of their gods dictate."

 

So, they're known to ally themselves with other Chaos Champions. Daemon Princes are certainly Chaos Champions, why couldn't they be allied to other Daemon Princes?

 

Also, they lend their patronage to followers of Chaos as the whims and commands of their gods dictate. Are you really going to suggest that the gods of Chaos follow such a strict rule as "only one Daemon Prince in a place at a time?" That their whims and commands are so rigidly structured as to never involve having two Daemon Princes in the same place?

 

This is a quote from page 32 of the current Chaos codex, by the way.

[Ashe Darke]

Something interesting I heard about ancient enemies today. I think I heard this before but it had never really solidified in my mind, but the current thing of Nurgle and Tzeentch not liking each other and Khorne and Slaanesh not getting on is different from when it started. Apparently it used to be Khorne - Tzeentch and Nurgle - Slaanesh.

 

Now my point isn't that those examples of Lucius and Berserkers was wrong so quit your moaning because if we're taking older fluff then you're wrong because why should the newer stuff be considered more important than the old, the point is that fluff changes. And people, through no fault of their own, will pick the bits they like and will treat that as the true fluff as far as they're concerned. Now certain people will be taking 3.5 fluff as the base line, others 2nd Ed and others 4th. But the thing is that the newer stuff seems to be the most relevant and some people are having trouble accepting that there is newer fluff coming about. Just like they might complain about 4th Ed I'm sure there are people complaining that ancient enemies isn't the same as it used to be.

 

I personally think its a question of evolving with the company because if you don't and you cling on to things that are going to become obsolete then you end up with what we have now. A whole load of people complaining. Refusing to accept the inevitable change is only only going to wind you up and if you're balancing a lot of happiness based on something from GW not changing then that can only lead to disappointment. It's like the people who get in a hissy fit when the fail saves then chuck their models about. If you're gonna base your happiness on something that is out of your control and in this case a random dice roll then is this really the thing for you?

[satanaka]

Throw the curent codex away and start like it never existed.

 

What he said.

[Cale]

Throw the curent codex away and start like it never existed.

 

What he said.

 

Why? There have certainly been poorly designed and poorly written portions of past codex, and there are certainly good portions of this codex. The notion that everything from the current codex should be scrapped is basically inane.

[the jeske]

Now my point isn't that those examples of Lucius and Berserkers was wrong so quit your moaning because if we're taking older fluff then you're wrong because why should the newer stuff be considered more important than the old, the point is that fluff change

what do you mean by old fluff. the EC zerker hate is there since 2ed dex . the problem with the other legions , specially the undivided ones is that in 2ed times and even in 3ed JJ era dex there just no fluff about them . Till the IA articles we didnt knew a lot about IW for example[hate with fists, siege masters , on the same page as slanesh guys in SoD but with no mix legion icons like the khorn NL one ] or the AL [the are sneaky . tzeench is sneaky too . so AL is tzeench too etc] .

RT fluff got retconed and if we going the way of NL were khorn in SoD , then lemman Russ is an IG commander and ultramarines are a late founding chapter that fill in a place of same named chapter that went chaos , and those hardcore romansque ultras of those days have sm breeding programs etc. the chaos gods alway hated each other not just their opposit . each time one of them gets stronger other band against him . the tzeench/khorn did not hate each other , khorn just has no respect for people who dont fight man against man , for trickery etc . What khorn does hate is slanesh way of life. Nurgle vs Tzeench are unchanging since like for ever , one is change the other is stagnation .

 

Refusing to accept the inevitable change is only only going to wind you up and if you're balancing a lot of happiness based on something from GW not changing then that can only lead to disappointment. It's like the people who get in a hissy fit when the fail saves then chuck their models about.

sorry but did the orks that one lists ? did they get fluff that all tribes love each other ? did sm get one list with just ultramarines in it , no options for HQs , no wargear section etc ? are the SW one dimensional , without any form of customisation in their list ? did the IG end up with no unit options and half of their old units moved to "codex imperial navy" ?

all the 5th ed codex look more like 4th ed dex [within boundries of 5th ed with the 10 man squad sized forced on people etc] , then the chaos or DA dex.

the thorpe dex was both a bad 4th ed [turning everyone in to a fusion of IW and BL khorn] and a bad 5th dex . we were forced to see that the desing philosphy of cuting all options was a one codex thing [well 2 considering the DAs] . the 3.5 dex even if one ignores the fluff and just goes for the number of possible armies was a mega dex [i mean the size]. one could easilly put it on one side and all the loyalist sm dex on the other . There is absolutlly now way of defending the stand point that going from 10+ builds to 2 is something good for the game. I dont how many times I said it , but ask a BT/SW/BA etc player what would they think if their dexs were cut and all that was left to play was the last sm dex . Are SW players are somehow better that they can have a dex with many builds and an EC player cant even have one ?

 

If you're gonna base your happiness on something that is out of your control and in this case a random dice roll then is this really the thing for you?

the whole idea behind of WHFB and WH40k army building is the overcoming of dice . the whole gaming part of the hobby is about how to make stuff work and not just "this one time my fist sgt downed two monoliths in one game".

[Ashe Darke]

Well that information was passed on to me from my friend who said he got into GW 24 years ago and he remembers when those were the pairings. I don't even know what era this was, but like I said this is what I've been told. Whether it's true or not I don't know, not that I think he'd lie to me.

 

I wasn't on about the change from 3.5 to 4 Jeske, you always respond with posts like that which have missed the point, comparing 3.5 and 4. I was on about the change from 4th to hopefully 5th if not 6th. The point was is that it has been established in fluff that multiple Princes is allowed and there's a good chance it will be in the next codex and fighting it will probably be a lot of grief with little results, and I personally don't think being so dogmatic about stuff that is going to change with each iteration is a good idea.

 

And yes that is the point, but some people still let their happiness be decided by stuff like that. I know a few people like that and I don't play them because it's not a nice experience. Just like some people are clinging to 3.5 fluff and refuse to accept that the Chaos fluff is changing. Something, like a dice roll, which is out of their hands.

[Lay]

And that background description says that Daemon Princes can never, ever fight alongside each other?

That's rich, you know that's not even the question I was answering to. Let me quote myself yet again: You were asking for fluff that was "capable of supporting the restriction" and I provided it. "There can only be one" is about warbands having only one leader and DPs not fighting alongside someone as high ranking as a Chaos Lord - hence the name of the rule.

 

On a related note, here's some fluff that supports my position as well as any of the fluff presented so far supports yours:

 

"Daemon Princes often lead Chaos Space Marine warbands, lending their unnatural might to the cause. Some Daemon Princes ally themselves with Chaos Champions, lending their patronage to followers of Chaos as the whims and commands of their gods dictate."

You are right about this merely supporting your position - just as my example supports mine. It certainly doesn't state anything conclusive about Daemon Princes fighting alongside each other.

 

What's your point?

Claiming that an argument for limiting DPs doesn't convince you would be one thing, but claiming that there is simply isn't one is nonsense.

 

Why? There have certainly been poorly designed and poorly written portions of past codex, and there are certainly good portions of this codex. The notion that everything from the current codex should be scrapped is basically inane.

Agreed. Anything from the 3.5 Codex that made it into 4.0 unscathed can stay.

 

 

Apparently it used to be Khorne - Tzeentch and Nurgle - Slaanesh.

It's Khorne vs Slaanesh and Nurgle vs Tzeentch ever since Realms of Chaos - even with early animosity rules.

 

I personally think its a question of evolving with the company because if you don't and you cling on to things that are going to become obsolete then you end up with what we have now. A whole load of people complaining. Refusing to accept the inevitable change is only only going to wind you up and if you're balancing a lot of happiness based on something from GW not changing then that can only lead to disappointment. It's like the people who get in a hissy fit when the fail saves then chuck their models about. If you're gonna base your happiness on something that is out of your control and in this case a random dice roll then is this really the thing for you?

Or maybe you are missing the point of this thread. To quote the OP: "With all the other codexes getting updates i keep wondering what they will get. But if we had a hand in it what would you like to see."

[Cale]

That's rich, you know that's not even the question I was answering to. Let me quote myself yet again: You were asking for fluff that was "capable of supporting the restriction" and I provided it. "There can only be one" is about warbands having only one leader and DPs not fighting alongside someone as high ranking as a Chaos Lord - hence the name of the rule.

 

That's fair. I did say that there is no fluff capable of supporting your position and I can see how you could construe this bit of fluff as being capable of doing so.

 

That being said, it has been contradicted by later fluff, and there's really no justification at all for claiming that it takes precedence over that later fluff.

 

You are right about this merely supporting your position - just as my example supports mine. It certainly doesn't state anything conclusive about Daemon Princes fighting alongside each other.

 

No it doesn't--just as nothing states anything conclusive about Daemon Princes not fighting alongside each other--or, at least, nothing that hasn't been contradicted elsewhere.

 

 

Claiming that an argument for limiting DPs doesn't convince you would be one thing, but claiming that there is simply isn't one is nonsense.

 

Claiming that there isn't a good one, though, is merely accurate. ;)

[Ashe Darke]

Apparently it used to be Khorne - Tzeentch and Nurgle - Slaanesh.

It's Khorne vs Slaanesh and Nurgle vs Tzeentch ever since Realms of Chaos - even with early animosity rules.

He said it pre-dated that. When chaos and the HH was made to give titans someone to fight. Adeptus Titanicus was the name of the game or something like that. It came before Realms of Chaos as far as I know.

I personally think its a question of evolving with the company because if you don't and you cling on to things that are going to become obsolete then you end up with what we have now. A whole load of people complaining. Refusing to accept the inevitable change is only only going to wind you up and if you're balancing a lot of happiness based on something from GW not changing then that can only lead to disappointment. It's like the people who get in a hissy fit when the fail saves then chuck their models about. If you're gonna base your happiness on something that is out of your control and in this case a random dice roll then is this really the thing for you?

Or maybe you are missing the point of this thread. To quote the OP: "With all the other codexes getting updates i keep wondering what they will get. But if we had a hand in it what would you like to see."

Yep, and people have made their points. The first person to make a point I didn't agree with (Drudge) I started a debate with them (something running a long side the original thread), I've not really told anyone they're wrong about what they'd like to see, nor have I told Drudge that he is wrong. My point that you've quoted was designed to make people think about how fanatical they are being about this as personally I think they're only setting themselves up for more disappointment. If they don't think I'm right or don't wanna know then they'll ignore it. I'm just concerned about peoples well beings as personally I think the direction it will be going in (regardless of what some people wish) will annoy them. I'm also not stopping people from posting their points, nor have I said that they're wrong. I just asked for them to qualify what they said when what they want will limit other people.

[IronWinds]

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."

 

Never said 2 princes wouldn't work together <_< . Actually I'm 100% sure I provided an example where many princes would work together. Of course those were very large battles.

 

 

What I'm saying is that a champion is not going to become a demon prince leading 50 marines.... and 2 princes leading 50 marines around is even less likely. A demon prince has more important things to worry about than 50 guys. He could be leading armies of thousands of marines. WHY would he choose to lead 50 alongside another prince when he could lead thousands???? Lead thousands or 25? I'll take the 25... your demon prince failed math... obviously a demon prince of Khorne... I kid, I kid the blood god. I'll go kill a cultist to make up for it in a minute.

 

 

And they are rare... is a GREAT argument. Yes chaos marines are rare, very rare. In a galaxy of trillions to hundreds of trillions of humans alone there are only probably 100,000 to a million chaos marines(depending on fluff sources used). And there are probably only 20-100 chaos marine demon princes. I'm not saying princes total, I'm saying chaos marine princes... the ones CSM armies take, marines that have asended. And those 20-100 are counting the demon primarchs. 100,000/100 should tell us.. at the least a prince should be leading 1000 marines. I say at least because the princes will in 'most' cases be leading larger forces than lower champions. Now these are all numbers I'm guessing, but based on so few chaos marines even becoming lords, and on so few of them becoming princes it is going to be a small number... We only know of what... <10 Astartes Princes. Doombreed wasn't one, he wasn't ever a marine. We have Angron, Mortarion, Magnus, Fulgrim, Perturabo, Lorgar, the one from the 3.5 codex, the one from Storm of Iron, the one from Lord of the Night, and tell me if I'm missing any. Still not very many, and no prince(especially none of the ones mentioned) is going around leading 50 guys. And no 2 princes are sharing them. If you did field 2 princes.. what does that say about them? Each could have thousands of marines... but choose to share 50... not a very inspiring prince in my eyes.

 

There are plenty of cases where 2 princes would fight together... all involve battles of EPIC proportaions where you would be bringing 2+ FOCs or using apoc rules anyways. Limiting princes to 1 per army... actually only limits them to 1 in every 2000-2500 points(a FOC)... which I find very reasonable. No one is saying you can't have 2 princes. They are saying 2 in an 1850 battle is SO highly unrealistic that it shouldn't even be portrayed in the rules. If someone thinks 2 princes leading around 50 marines happens enough to be worthy of being in the rules then they need to buy lottery tickets as well.

 

 

Even if your 50 guys are part of some huge formation... both princes just happened to pick the exact same part of the battlefield to fight on? Possible if your taking the gates to the Imperial palace... anything else.. probably not. There have to be more targets on the battlefield.. if there weren't then the entire enemy would be guarding that one spot.. and it would be a 10000pt vs 10000pt battle instead of 1850 so end result you still have epic battle.

 

 

"Daemon Princes often lead Chaos Space Marine warbands, lending their unnatural might to the cause. Some Daemon Princes ally themselves with Chaos Champions, lending their patronage to followers of Chaos as the whims and commands of their gods dictate."

 

Yup... makes perfect sense. I'll even go with princes working together if their gods told them to. But sorry... even the gods could care less about what a band of 50 chaos marines are doing. They are busy watching that lord with thousands of followers trying to take on an entire Imperial sector by himself because he hopes to be a prince.

 

 

And there are plenty of REALLY rare things in fluff that would never be in the rules. Should we allow all of those. Horus was possessed by the gods themselves, and in a BL novel a chaos lord on his own with no weapons is possessed by Slaanesh for a short time, an army of demonettes appear around him and he goes on to kill an entire army by himself. Does that mean we should allow all chaos lords the option of being possessed by a god and becoming nigh invincible? No, its is extremely rare, and has only happened twice in all of 40k history. Princes are also very rare, the chance of having 2 in one place even rarer and thats when there is something major going on. 2 princes leading 50 guys on whatever BS mission 50 guys undertake... its not gonna happen, and even if it did it would be one of those happens once in history things and shouldn't be taken by every single army -_- .

 

2 princes is possible, 2 princes leading 50 marines is technically possible. All the ships guarding terra leaving at the same exact moment and all the custodes having double heart attacks each at the exact same time is technically possible. However we don't see Abbadon trying to take advantage of that possibility. There is 'possible' then there is 'probable' and that 2 princes leading 50 guys is not ;) .

[the jeske]

No it doesn't--just as nothing states anything conclusive about Daemon Princes not fighting alongside each other--or, at least, nothing that hasn't been contradicted elsewhere.

side for csm being paranoid and never trusting each other and marked people becoming powerful for killing other people , specially if they are marked . But to make it simple. How fluffy is a list with 2 chapter masters in it [of course sm have it better here as A chapters masters arent that good and B there are other more viable options and we are stuck with DPs].

 

I was on about the change from 4th to hopefully 5th if not 6th.

if the a new chaos dex for 5th ed is going to be made it will never have legions rule in it , it will still be a a BL codex . I said what is possible . maybe special asp champions , maybe undivided lord change FoC , maybe mutations for lords/some sort of custom stuff for sorc and that is it , if we get really lucky we get a new unit option . For something else to happen they would have to change the desing team[wont happen] , change the whole edition philosophy [that doesnt happen 2-3 dexs before a new edition] . And it still sucks , because a legion codex or something close to a 3.5 dex can happen no sooner then 6th ed [so 3+ years of playing BL lists] and even then they would actually have to want to do something like that. In my eyes that is bad . A happy chaos family is not what is fun to play with . Playing with the same one build is no fun [and it doesnt really matter , if the next chaos dex nerfs oblits and cult units and buffs csm over cult units , if it still means I will have to play with one list for a few years].

[Lay]

I don't think anyone wants to limit Lords and Daemon Princes because of a dogmatic devotion to the fluff or something like that.

It has probably more to do with 3.5 pushing the customization and thus the individuality of our HQs so far. Disregarding the rampant powergaming and numerous no-brainer options, the old dex really helped create custom HQs that felt even more unique and interesting than any of the special characters - even if it was just numbers and silly names adding up. And iirc Pete Haines stated in the designer notes that he wanted to give players some role-playing elements.

By comparison (speaking for myself here) the split in 4.0 back into two clearly defined unit types made them feel "expendable" and "anonymous".

 

That doesn't mean that I think that anyone who prefers the current way our HQs work is wrong, but if I had a say in the next Codex (which is what this thread is all about) I egoistically would include my preferences.

[Ashe Darke]

I don't think anyone wants to limit Lords and Daemon Princes because of a dogmatic devotion to the fluff or something like that.

It has probably more to do with 3.5 pushing the customization, and thus the individuality of our HQs so far. Disregarding the rampant powergaming and numerous no-brainer options, the old dex really helped create custom HQs that felt even more unique and interesting than any of the special characters - even if it was just numbers and silly names adding up. And iirc Pete Haines stated in the designer notes that he wanted to give players some role-playing elements.

By comparison (speaking for myself here) the split in 4.0 back into two clearly defined unit types made them feel "expendable" and "anonymous".

I understand that there was a limit in 3.5 and those characters were more diverse and interesting so that's where the idea of only having one comes from but surely the ability to make more diverse HQs like it has been suggested would be ideal. Adding the level of customisation from 3.5 to what is already there maybe rather than just using what they had in 3.5? I personally would be for this and think there's a lot of potential for interesting characters if they did something like that and would probably actually use Lords and Sorcerers.

 

That doesn't mean that I think that anyone who prefers the current way our HQs work is wrong, but if I had a say in the next Codex (which is what this thread is all about) I egoistically would include my preferences.

Cool, fair enough :)

[shiningstorm101]

id love to see an iron warriors basillisk.

 

with balistic skill 4 it would be better than a guard basilisk and it would be a source of artillery we dont really have.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

I haven't been around to keep up with this discussion, but from skimming through i still see that the people who are for having multiple DPs allowed have never justified why they should be. They are only attacking the arguments for why they shouldn't be. So please explain why multiple daemon princes should be allowed in both fluff and game terms. So far the only reason i'm seeing is "because I want it that way" and we all know that isn't good enough.

[Hellios]

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.

 

 

I don't mind special characters, and all characters, including daemon princes, are exactly "unnamed special characters." The only thing that makes the character special is the name, unless you count the rules (in which case your stated about Daemon Princes would be obviously incorrect).

 

 

You do realise it's impossible to have limitations.

 

Also, it is definitely possible to have limitations. I thought you wanted limitations?

 

Indeed I meant You do realise it's impossible to not have limitations... but you knew that already.

[Ashe Darke]

I haven't been around to keep up with this discussion, but from skimming through i still see that the people who are for having multiple DPs allowed have never justified why they should be. They are only attacking the arguments for why they shouldn't be. So please explain why multiple daemon princes should be allowed in both fluff and game terms. So far the only reason i'm seeing is "because I want it that way" and we all know that isn't good enough.

Why it should be allowed?

 

Ok well if they (GW) want to put in there then they can. It's theirs to do so. So there's why it could. And seen as it's in the current codex then technically it is in the fluff already. Maybe the conversation went something like this.

Hmmm what can we do to get more customers?

 

Giving them more options to do what they want?

 

That's it! If we want more customers then we should give them more options like 2 Princes, and 9 Obliterators etc.

 

As for games terms why shouldn't it be allowed? I don't think it's unbalanced. Sure they can hurt a lot of things but there are a lot of things that can hurt them. TH+SS termies are very hard and can hurt a lot of things and you can have 30 of them. I personally find that unbalanced. I also think Cale found a very good quote and backed it up with some good points as to why you might find two in a warband, despite the fact that you could claim that each of your games is a smaller part of a bigger battle, so not really a warband.

 

 

I've said this time and time again yet people (except for Jeske who is very much a realist) refuse to accept that GW will do whatever they can to get more money, even if it means changing the fluff. There seems to be a strong sense of false ownership over the chaos fluff from some forum users which is odd seen as it's not their intellectual property, and they seem to get upset when the actual owner changes it. There also seems to be a strong adversity to change, particularly in things that are out of their hands and that have already happened. 'Because it's good for their business' and 'It will increase sales' seem not to be valid reasons to them which is odd seen as the owner is a worldwide business.

 

Sure they might change it back to just one but I don't see them reverting back personally for the reasons that it will give more sales. I have 3 Princes, because I can. That's trippled what I would have bought before. There are many other people who own multiple Princes because they can. Same with Obliterators etc so you can't exactly say it's not working. On that note of 3 Princes how come we're apparently supposed to have 1 yet Chaos Daemons can have 3?

 

It's a shame you were busy while this was going on Drudge. It must be annoying to have missed so much you want to respond to. This is not supposed to sound sarcastic, sorry if it does.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Ok well if they (GW) want to put in there then they can. It's theirs to do so. So there's why it could. And seen as it's in the current codex then technically it is in the fluff already. Maybe the conversation went something like this.

 

Being in the current codex does not mean it is in the fluff because the current codex doesn't have any fluff. It describes the units but thats about it.

 

That's it! If we want more customers then we should give them more options like 2 Princes, and 9 Obliterators etc.

 

Or maybe it didn't? In fact, we know it didn't because the codex author himself said he hadn't expected people to take multiple DPs. Perhaps the conversation should have gone like this: "That's it! If we want more customers then we should give them a codex that actually reflects the true spirit of chaos with all its restrictions and sacrifices!"

 

As for games terms why shouldn't it be allowed? I don't think it's unbalanced. Sure they can hurt a lot of things but there are a lot of things that can hurt them.

 

By the same logic, why should it be allowed? If there's no specific point to it gameplay wise then there is certainly less of a reason to allow gameplay choices that contradict the fluff?

 

I've said this time and time again yet people (except for Jeske who is very much a realist) refuse to accept that GW will do whatever they can to get more money, even if it means changing the fluff.

 

And, as jeske has said time and time again, Chaos used to be their second best selling product. Now it is down there with dark eldar. I think it is you who are refusing to accept that GW did something dumb and it ought to be undone.

 

There seems to be a strong sense of false ownership over the chaos fluff from some forum users which is odd seen as it's not their intellectual property, and they seem to get upset when the actual owner changes it.

 

Again, nothing has been changed. In their fluff blurb in the new codex daemon princes are presented as they always were. There is no new line saying that they aren't egomaniacs now. The only differences is that gameplay wise that 0-1 restriction is gone. Its the same with ancient enemies. Slaanesh and Khorne still hate each other. The rule representing this part of the fluff is just gone.

 

There also seems to be a strong adversity to change, particularly in things that are out of their hands and that have already happened. 'Because it's good for their business' and 'It will increase sales' seem not to be valid reasons to them which is odd seen as the owner is a worldwide business.

 

See previous comment about sales.

 

Sure they might change it back to just one but I don't see them reverting back personally for the reasons that it will give more sales. I have 3 Princes, because I can. That's trippled what I would have bought before. There are many other people who own multiple Princes because they can. Same with Obliterators etc so you can't exactly say it's not working. On that note of 3 Princes how come we're apparently supposed to have 1 yet Chaos Daemons can have 3?

 

Again, the sale numbers actually agree with my side of this argument. Sure lots of people have multiple princes now, but for every player you have with 2 princes now you had 4 or 5 with 1 prince before. I own two princes myself. If we still had the old codex, i'd own 2 armies instead (i'd probably have built every cult legion by now in fact). Its pretty clear what is the superior profit there.

 

It's a shame you were busy while this was going on Drudge. It must be annoying to have missed so much you want to respond to.

 

Yes, I am sorry that i'm kind of saying stuff and then not replying until another page goes by. Busy week. Thank you for having a civil discussion though even though we do not agree.

[Ashe Darke]

Well I'm glad that is has stayed this way. I don't like to think that this conversation will cause any bad blood between us that will be reflected outside this thread.

 

Well I've personally not seen the sales reports and I can only speak for what I've seen locally but they seem to be selling strong, there does seem to a lot of people still buying stuff and starting up lists. But then again my example of the cup and the sea comes up. But it has been a long time since the codex came out and given the trend I see at my local shop people tend to start another new army when a new codex comes out. I know people who are new-ish to the hobby and the only armies they own are the codexes that came out since they started so is it surprising that their sales aren't as strong? I expect a lot of people will start adding bits to their nid armies soon or starting ones up, all because of the new codex. I'm not saying this is the reason, but this is my perception of what's going on. If you could provide me with some data on their sales then I'd be interested in reading it. So it's not necessarily me not accepting, it's just I've not been privy to their sales records. The apparent drop in sales is not just due to the fact people can take 2 Princes, it's a number of factors and changing it to 0-1 in an FAQ won't suddenly make people flock to the shops to buy stuff. Just like having no restriction on it in 3.5 would have dropped sales or not caused them to be as strong. Although it would have been very broken ;)

 

There is a quote that says that anything with the GW logo on it is considered fluff, and while it does not exclusively say 'You can have 2 Princes' or 'Princes regularly meet up in their tree-houses and talk about girls', it does allow you to take two which one could consider the fluff saying it's ok. That's how I've taken it anyway, just so you can see where I'm coming from.

 

As for what you said about there being a lack of fluff. There is a lot of text in there, not that I've read much of it, but is your comment comparing the richness and the chaosyness of the old one compared to new one, implying that it is diluted in comparison? Because if so then maybe that's what they wanted to do? I'm not saying it is but by cutting down on the restrictive fluff it allows the mixing and taking of Princes etc like they wanted this edition to allow. And as for not saying exclusively maybe it's a subtle approach as they thought it would be easier to handle? I've not finished checking as I had to type this up but I've not seen anything about Ancient Enemies in 4th Ed. Maybe I haven't got to it yet but I haven't found it so far. If it is in there and you know where would you mind giving me the page number? Surely it would make sense that if you're using a codex then you should use the fluff from their codex as a basis?

 

What Gav said was merely words. If I say I'm an pro golfer does it make it true? If he's got a lot of angry people going 'Why have you done this? You ruined it!' why not lie to them to make them happy especially seen as he doesn't work for the company any more and no one would find out. My point is he didn't necessarily tell the truth and I wouldn't be surprised if someone getting as much flak as him didn't just make something up to lessen that. Didn't his response come out quite some time after the codex came out as well?

 

2 Princes in gameplay - having 2 does open up options, there is a point in having 2. As for contradicting the most recent fluff (4th), well I don't see anything in there that taking 2 contradicts and it makes sense to use the fluff of the codex you're using. Not that I'm saying the older stuff isn't valid as this is the company's stand point so who am I to disagree, but considering you can't buy 3.5 from them any more, maybe that's the fluff they want old and new customers to be using.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

As for what you said about there being a lack of fluff. There is a lot of text in there, not that I've read much of it, but is your comment comparing the richness and the chaosyness of the old one compared to new one, implying that it is diluted in comparison? Because if so then maybe that's what they wanted to do? I'm not saying it is but by cutting down on the restrictive fluff it allows the mixing and taking of Princes etc like they wanted this edition to allow. And as for not saying exclusively maybe it's a subtle approach as they thought it would be easier to handle? I've not finished checking as I had to type this up but I've not seen anything about Ancient Enemies in 4th Ed. Maybe I haven't got to it yet but I haven't found it so far. If it is in there and you know where would you mind giving me the page number? Surely it would make sense that if you're using a codex then you should use the fluff from their codex as a basis?

 

While the new one is certainly diluted in a lot of areas, that isn't what i meant. I meant that there is literally no fluff covering this sort of thing. In the previous codex lords/princes were described as powerful egomaniacs, and that was why there could be only one. In the new codex lords/princes are still powerful egomaniacs. But any idea of this being a restriction is gone, and not because of new fluff saying they like to work together. It simply isn't mentioned.

 

What Gav said was merely words. If I say I'm an pro golfer does it make it true? If he's got a lot of angry people going 'Why have you done this? You ruined it!' why not lie to them to make them happy especially seen as he doesn't work for the company any more and no one would find out. My point is he didn't necessarily tell the truth and I wouldn't be surprised if someone getting as much flak as him didn't just make something up to lessen that. Didn't his response come out quite some time after the codex came out as well?

 

If it was a lie to avoid taking more flak it was a terrible one. Saying that he did it to give people more options would have gotten him much less flak. It would have been a poor game balance choice instead of an idiot and oblivous gamebalance oversight.

 

2 Princes in gameplay, having 2 does open up options, there is a point in having 2. As for contradicting the most recent fluff (4th), well I don't see anything in there that taking 2 contradicts and it makes sense to use the fluff of the codex you're using. Not that I'm saying the older stuff isn't valid as this is the company's stand point so who am I to disagree, but considering you can't buy 3.5 from them any more, maybe that's the fluff they want old and new customers to be using.

 

Perhaps it is the fluff they want used. But it is less developed inferior fluff. Other races have new codexes add to the fluff and retcons are more or less clear. The new chaos codex only adds to renegade fluff and never retcons or overrides old stuff.

 

 

Just so you know where I am coming from, i believe that the various restrictions like there can be only one and ancient enemies make chaos far more interesting. When I bought the chaos codex i wanted to play a powerful and characterful force. I wanted to make an army that represented chaos well. And I believe restrictions are essential to the character and flavor of chaos. This is what differentiates it from other types of marines. You get more powerful stuff but at a price beyond just point costs. The restrictions enrich the flavor of the different god's forces and the different legions. Having only 1 prince keeps that prince special the way its supposed to be. Having two breaks the immersion and isn't worth doing for such gamey reasons. In the current codex 2 princes are essential for competitive armies. Everyone runs around with tons of them. This has devalued the character and importance of them, which is a real shame.

 

Remember that it isn't just princes that are restricted, its all lords. That is the defining diffference between chaos and loyalist. A chaos warband revolves around the style of the lord and his wishes and whims. It is an extension of his character. Whereas a captain leads his force but it is still defined by the doctrines of The Codex.