HQ choices

[Legatus]

I don't think that Jeske is saying that "everything that's possible in an army list per definition is fluffy".

I do believe that's what "If its legal in a dex it is fluffy" amounts to.

[Shas'o R'Vre]

I don't think that Jeske is saying that "everything that's possible in an army list per definition is fluffy".

I do believe that's what "If its legal in a dex it is fluffy" amounts to.

Well, not entirely. What he means is that any legal choices in a 'Dex can be justified by Fluff. For example, my imaginary two Lash-Prince, 2x2 Oblit, PM heavy powerplay army can be simply justified by "Oh, they are twin brothers who both fell to the lure of Slaanesh together and went round defiling temples until they both ascended to Daemonhood. They then cursed their former battle brothers with the afflictions of Nurgle because they refused to follow them. They then promptly invaded a Dark Mechanicus fortress-world and enslaved all the Techpriests and Obliterator cults within"

 

Anything can be justified under the heading "Fluff". The "effectiveness" of a unit is neither governed by or alters the "Fluff" of unit. Armies will be played according to the person playing it.

[Legatus]

How would two Avatars be justified, then? (And yes, apparently my Codex Eldar allows that. It is not "0-1" nor a "unique" unit. Maybe I have missed the limiting description somewhere?) Two avatars in every game?

Also, I do not agree that "it could potentially happen" equals "fluffy". Is there a possible constellation of circumstances where a Space Marine force is repeatedly led by two Chapter Masters? Maybe. Is that a fluffy army? Hell no.

[Vissah]

If it is in the codex you can play it no matter what the fluff is.

The fluff are just restrictions people are giving themselfs.

 

If it is in the codex you can play it and noone cant say anything about it.

[Hellios]

How would two Avatars be justified, then? (And yes, apparently my Codex Eldar allows that. It is not "0-1" nor a "unique" unit. Maybe I have missed the limiting description somewhere?) Two avatars in every game?

Also, I do not agree that "it could potentially happen" equals "fluffy". Is there a possible constellation of circumstances where a Space Marine force is repeatedly led by two Chapter Masters? Maybe. Is that a fluffy army? Hell no.

Only one Avatar can be summoned by a Craftworld at a time so to have multiple Avatars you would need multiple craftworlds working together (or against each other) so it would have to be a huge battle... I'm not sure if such battles have ever been mentioned in the background but something like the final battle against chaos would be the kind of time you might see lots of Avatars...

 

@Vissah: I'm sure Legatus is aware that if it is in the dex you can play it, his point is the options in the dex don't match the universe law... which lets be honest is the best thing about 40k...

[Shas'o R'Vre]

How would two Avatars be justified, then? (And yes, apparently my Codex Eldar allows that. It is not "0-1" nor a "unique" unit. Maybe I have missed the limiting description somewhere?) Two avatars in every game?

Already been Justified by someone else.

 

Also, I do not agree that "it could potentially happen" equals "fluffy". Is there a possible constellation of circumstances where a Space Marine force is repeatedly led by two Chapter Masters? Maybe. Is that a fluffy army? Hell no.

Two Chapter Masters? May I remind you that aboard Horus' Battle Barge there were AT LEAST 9 Primarchs? Two Chapter Masters is not a unusual occurence. Any battle where more than one chapter is involved (Occasionally even just one) is a fluff instance where more than one Chapter Master is justified.

 

Plus the fact that armies where two Chapter Masters/Avatars/Daemon Princes may be viable are usually in excess of 1500pts, which is usually an average-size battle by fluff standards.

[Hellios]

Plus the fact that armies where two Chapter Masters/Avatars/Daemon Princes may be viable are usually in excess of 1500pts, which is usually an average-size battle by fluff standards.

 

Actually EPIC is more a normal sized battle, hell an Avatar often won't stay for an entire battle but be brought by a webway portal onto a battle to turn the tide and then be taken back through to help the craftworld in another engagement elsewhere. Generally the 40K universe has things happening on a huge scale the exception to this is often space marines (especially in BL stories) where 10 men will save an entire world... from huge invasion fleet of aliens... but at other times fluff is more reasonable and will have at least a good sized battle group (half a company) to a whole chapter in a fight... obviously you get the really nuts important wars where you might have 20+ chapters + other imperial forces.

[Legatus]

How would two Avatars be justified, then? (And yes, apparently my Codex Eldar allows that. It is not "0-1" nor a "unique" unit. Maybe I have missed the limiting description somewhere?) Two avatars in every game?

Already been Justified by someone else.

And that had been a totally viable explanation for using two Avatars in your average pick up game of 40K. :P No, wait... ;)

 

 

Two Chapter Masters? May I remind you that aboard Horus' Battle Barge there were AT LEAST 9 Primarchs?

I doubt that very much. I can think of two that had not been there (Curze, Alpharius), and one more that IIRC wasn't (Magnus), and I am wondering why all of the remaining traitor Primarchs who actualy were present at Terra would all be travveling on Horus' ship and not with their own fleet.

 

 

Two Chapter Masters is not a unusual occurence. Any battle where more than one chapter is involved (Occasionally even just one) is a fluff instance where more than one Chapter Master is justified.

So, saying that you battle (or all of your battles) takes place during the second war for armageddon would totally justify you taking both Marneus Calgar and Commander Dante in your army (if that was somehow possible due to a freak army list accident). Let me think about that for a moment. No, it doesn't. Having your Genesis Chapter Marines be led by bot the Genesis Chapter Master and the Silver Skulls Master is never a fluffy army, even if the Chapter Masters of those two Chapter may actually have fought side by side at some point within the past 10,000 years. I wonder why the Space Marines Codex does not include Eldar units, as Marines have definitely fought against a common enemy at the side of Eldar before. Perhaps the Codex Space Marines should include a few Tau Battle suits, and the Codex Blood Angels a few Necron Immortals.

[Shas'o R'Vre]

How would two Avatars be justified, then? (And yes, apparently my Codex Eldar allows that. It is not "0-1" nor a "unique" unit. Maybe I have missed the limiting description somewhere?) Two avatars in every game?

Already been Justified by someone else.

And that had been a totally viable explanation for using two Avatars in your average pick up game of 40K. :cuss No, wait... :devil:

*sigh* Are you REALLY going to make sarcastic comments about ANY "evidence" of reasoning I present you with? That is BUT ONE EXAMPLE of how something could happen...

 

Two Chapter Masters? May I remind you that aboard Horus' Battle Barge there were AT LEAST 9 Primarchs?

I doubt that very much. I can think of two that had not been there (Curze, Alpharius), and one more that IIRC wasn't (Magnus), and I am wondering why all of the remaining traitor Primarchs who actualy were present at Terra would all be travveling on Horus' ship and not with their own fleet.

Erm... Most of the Loyalist ones were, Horus was there, and a few Chaos Primarchs were RUMOURED to be onboard. But either way, deciding on an exact number is just splitting hairs. The point I was making is that having more than one heroic individual in one place at one time is not unusual.

 

Two Chapter Masters is not a unusual occurence. Any battle where more than one chapter is involved (Occasionally even just one) is a fluff instance where more than one Chapter Master is justified.

So, saying that you battle (or all of your battles) takes place during the second war for armageddon would totally justify you taking both Marneus Calgar and Commander Dante in your army (if that was somehow possible due to a freak army list accident). Let me think about that for a moment. No, it doesn't. Having your Genesis Chapter Marines be led by bot the Genesis Chapter Master and the Silver Skulls Master is never a fluffy army, even if the Chapter Masters of those two Chapter may actually have fought side by side at some point within the past 10,000 years.

Ugh... Have you ever thought that maybe an average battle may justify the attention of more than one Space Marine chapter? Or that the Chapter Masters of respective armies may see fit to attack a Chaos raiding force (or similar situation) on the basis that it is lead by an important Chaos individual? Maybe even taking him on as a contest between them?

 

With a world like 40K, you cannot constrain yourself to "GW says this, therefore it is the truth, and NOTHING ELSE can happen otherwise".

 

Your imagination is the only limit, and if you can think of a story why it would happen, it can happen.

 

I wonder why the Space Marines Codex does not include Eldar units, as Marines have definitely fought against a common enemy at the side of Eldar before. Perhaps the Codex Space Marines should include a few Tau Battle suits, and the Codex Blood Angels a few Necron Immortals.

Was this comment even neccessary? Stupid comments like this only make you sound ridiculous and start flame wars. I have no intention of starting a flame war, so can we keep the ridiculous and sarcastic comments within acceptable limits?

[Legatus]

With a world like 40K, you cannot constrain yourself to "GW says this, therefore it is the truth, and NOTHING ELSE can happen otherwise".

 

Your imagination is the only limit, and if you can think of a story why it would happen, it can happen.

I wonder why the Space Marines Codex does not include Eldar units, as Marines have definitely fought against a common enemy at the side of Eldar before. Perhaps the Codex Space Marines should include a few Tau Battle suits, and the Codex Blood Angels a few Necron Immortals.

Was this comment even neccessary? Stupid comments like this only make you sound ridiculous and start flame wars.

Wait, what? :( Talk about double standards. Multiple Chapter Masters operating within a few tenths of feet of one another is common enough for it to be considered a fluffy army list, but Marines and Eldar fighting against a common foe is not. Do you honestly think that two Craftworlds fighting against a common enemy would both sacrifice an Exarch to summon their craftworlds avatar of Khaine and have them both attack at the same spot would be more likely than Eldar and Marine forces joining up to fight a common enemy? Because that seems to be what you are suggesting. Two Avatars is perfectly viable, but refering to Eldar and Marines fighting together, no, that is flame baiting.

 

As I have suggested before, how "fluffy" something is is not only determined by whether it would happen at all, but also by how often it would happen. Could Marneus Calgar be leading a force of Genesis Chapter units? I guess if the Genesis Chapter was providing a few units to support an Ultramarines crusade effort, that could potentially happen. Is it fluffy to have the actual Marneus Calgar (with blue armour and all, no renamed character using his rules as "couts as") lead a force of Genesis Chapter Marines? No. It isn't. Things will be less fluffy if they do not happen that often, and are especially unfluffy if they would not usually be expected at all. They may not be impossible, but they will still be unfluffy.

 

A - "all the time:" Genesis Chapter units led by Genesis Chapter Captain. --> fluffiest

 

B - "occasionally:" Genesis Chapter units led by Genesis Chapter Master. --> a bit less fluffy

 

C - "extremely rare:" Genesis Chapter units led by a different Chapter Master. --> not really that fluffy

 

D - "almost inconceivable:" Genesis Chapter units led by an Eldar Farseer. --> almost a crime, but could still be explained in some manner*

 

*(Eldar and Marines board a hive ship to disrupt a massive fleet that threatens a maiden world and imperial worlds, Space Marine Captain is killed but Eldar and Marines continue to cooperate)

 

If we applied that do Chaos HQ choices, a Lord or Sorcerer would be "A", while a single Daemon Prince would be "B". Using two daemon princes would be "C" at best.

[Shas'o R'Vre]

Because that seems to be what you are suggesting. Two Avatars is perfectly viable, but refering to Eldar and Marines fighting together, no, that is flame baiting.

Not so. Two Avatars is Codex Legal (or so I'm told, I don't actually own the 'dex). Codex mixing IS NOT, and the sarcastic way in which you made the comment was not only offensive but provocative.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Two Avatars is NOT Codex legal. The Avatar of Khaine is one per army.

 

Cheesemonsters. :(

[Legatus]

Two Avatars is Codex Legal (or so I'm told, I don't actually own the 'dex). Codex mixing IS NOT

However, we were not discussing army list legality, were we? The point had been made that if it is possible in an army list, it is fluffy. I pointed to an instance that is not really all that fluffy (Marines and Eldar forces fighting together under one commander) but would be far more likely to occur than fielding two Avatars (or two Daemon Princes at that). However, while fielding Marines and Eldar units in one army may not be possible in the rules, it is still more fluffy (even if not a lot) than fielding two of such monstrous creatures, which is possible. "Being possible in the army list" does not make it more fluffy in any way.

 

 

Two Avatars is NOT Codex legal. The Avatar of Khaine is one per army.

He is not limited to one in my Codex. Or maybe I am just having trouble finding where his limitation is declared.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Two Avatars is NOT Codex legal. The Avatar of Khaine is one per army.

He is not limited to one in my Codex. Or maybe I am just having trouble finding where his limitation is declared.

 

Pg 61, under AVATAR OF KHAINE, listing Individual.

[Legatus]

Ah, I see. The description of being a "personal especiale" was not included in the pre-print... ^_^ (Serves me right for being too lazy and not getting my own copy. But then my copy is not in english, so I do not reference them first anyway.)

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Ah, I see. The description of being a "personal especiale" was not included in the pre-print... :devil: (Serves me right for being too lazy and not getting my own copy. But then my copy is not in english, so I do not reference them first anyway.)

 

I would lambast you mercilessly for being lazy and cheap, but I confess I read the copy at my local LGS, where I'm currently sitting building a commission for someone, so that makes me a mooch as well as lazy and cheap (not that I play Eldar or anything).

 

Glad I could clarify. B)

[Legatus]

I am definitely lazy as hell, but not all that cheap. I own every Codex that has been released since the start of 2nd Edition, with the exception of the Current Codex Orks (for some odd reason...). I do have a small force for most of the armies as well, except for Necs, Dark Eldar and Tau. The "new kids" basically. None of my Codices is in english, though, so it helps in online debates to have some access to the original texts.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

I think people are starting to confuse "fluff" and "back story".

 

"Fluff" is generally agreed to be information, events, characters, etc. of the 40k universe as determined by GW.

 

"Back Story" is the history, exploits, and general identity of an army as determined by the player.

 

People who use the "fluff" to build their armies do put restrictions on themselves as to what can be in their armies and then try to work within those limitations.

 

People who are more competitive (min-maxers, power gamers, tournament fiends...) tend to lean more towards the back story side of things because they cannot build those "uber" armies within those same limitations.

 

Neither way is wrong, and they don't need to be able to agree, but they should try and see where the other is coming from.

 

Totally disregarding table-top effectiveness annoys competitive players. Either you are ruining their point spread (cause your losses will affect tie breaks), or they feel you aren't trying your best.

 

Totally disregarding "fluff" annoys storyline players. Either you are taking the fun out of the game or they feel you aren't putting full effort into "the hobby".

 

Both kinds of player need to take a little bit of the other's styling and try to work it into their own, everybody will be better off for it, and it will make your games that much more fun.

[the jeske]

I doubt that very much. I can think of two that had not been there (Curze, Alpharius), and one more that IIRC wasn't (Magnus), and I am wondering why all of the remaining traitor Primarchs who actualy were present at Terra would all be travveling on Horus' ship and not with their own fleet.

cadia and armagendon had more then 10 chapters masters on the same planet at the same time . two in the same battle group make just as much sense as a khorn lord leading a 1ksons army and we have been told by the JJ that this is awesome , cool and fluffy . same was said by the dex desinger and the by the happy family fluff. besides a demon army can have 2 GD[even more rare] and 3 princes in the same size skirmish battle.

 

 

People who are more competitive (min-maxers, power gamers, tournament fiends...) tend to lean more towards the back story side of things because they cannot build those "uber" armies within those same limitations.

[looks at the fluffy BL lists of to day ... looks at BL khorn and IW of yestarday .... looks at the circus eldar build of simm hann [visited by eldrad]...] yeah totaly if you want to power game you cant go fluffy or you cant just build an army restrciting yourself to the lets say IW or BL rules. no cant do that , because your a gamer .

 

 

I pointed to an instance that is not really all that fluffy (Marines and Eldar forces fighting together under one commander)

why ? where in the codex does it say that two commanders or two DPs at the same time in the same place is unfluffy . thats without going counts as and saying your army is something like a crusade one or the ultramarines honor company guarding cadia that may have god knows how many high ranking officers at the same time.

 

 

but Marines and Eldar fighting against a common foe is not.

yes because ally rules were removed as 3ed started. before they could after they couldnt . again your talking here about stuff you like or dislike . I dislike the chaos happy family , I hate it , it doesnt make sense to me , but it is the official fluff . Ergo a mixed force with 2 DPs is fluffy . If it wasnt [like eldar in a sm force] there wouldnt be an option for it . And before you bring out that quote about how the DT didnt think that people would play with 2 DPs , well it only proves how bad a desinger Thorpe was.

[Brother Nihm]

In case you forgot (and it would appear that many of you have), the topic is about

What is the best HQ choice for a new chaos space marines army

[Piousservant]

Both kinds of player need to take a little bit of the other's styling and try to work it into their own, everybody will be better off for it, and it will make your games that much more fun.

 

I think you're right, and I think the "silent majority" do sit somewhere in the middle. It's just the rarified atmosphere of forums tends have people who lean more strongly in one direction or the other.

 

I do think though, the playstyle arc of the 40kverse may be long, but it bends towards fluffy armies.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and clearly a single Daemon Prince is the answer Nihm. :P

[Grey Mage]

If it is in the codex you can play it no matter what the fluff is.

The fluff are just restrictions people are giving themselfs.

 

If it is in the codex you can play it and noone cant say anything about it.

Well I CAN say something about it. After all, freedom of speech is still alive in my neck of the woods, and Im rather fond of it. I can in fact state that I think putting a Slaaneshi Sorceror in a unit of Khorne Bezerkers is perhaps one of the most horribly unfluffy things Ive seen to date. I can say that the idea of plaguemarines willingly following the lead of a Tzeentch Daemon prince is absurd.

 

Does it mean I wont play you? Maybe, but that wouldnt be the only reason if it ever came to that. I much prefer to teach lessons about such things in a way that gets through to people- by beating them soundly, and repetitively, on the table top.

 

You'll excuse me while I try not to vomit in my own mouth. :P And this is the crowd that bemoans the lack of fluff in the 4th Edition Codex? Really, I wonder whether the people who complain about the lack of fluffy rules (such as the limitation to a single Lord or Dameon Prince) in the current Codex are the same who are recommending the use of two Daemon Princes. If I ever saw an Eldar player deploy a second Avatar on the table I would seriously reconsider playing him again in the future. And using two Daemon Princes is not much better.

But in a Codex where your Sorcerors and Lords are worse than Space Marine Captains, but cost more, then 2x DP is the only way you CAN go.

One always has a choice.

 

I COULD bring 4 Rune Priest to every 2k fight I have and spam psychic powers to make a tzeentchi daemon cry...

 

I could run with 15 guided Dark Reapers in my Eldar lists...

 

But I dont.

 

Can, should, and will- all very different things.

 

I understand, the internal balance and the lack of fluff in the current C:CSM sucks. That doesnt mean you have to do anything in particular to 'make it' an effective codex.

 

Ive seen people run Slaaneshi Sorcerors with Raptors and it worked well for them. Ive seen triple vindicator lists win out over obliterator spam in a tournament final.... there are other ways to make things work.

 

They arent as mathhammered to death, nor are they established as the 'right' way of doing things. But if you always play it safe with the same junk everyone else is doing then youll always get about the same results as they are. And if there complaining the codex doesnt compete, is that really what you want?

 

Despite all the talk about it, Ive rarely seen a dual DP oblit spamming plague marine army of doom. Why? Because with the onset of mech their just not all theyre cracked up to be in my area, and the increase in psychic defenses hasnt hurt anything... oh yeah, and DPs die quicker than Tyranid MCs too.

 

So I suggest for a starting player to take a basic sorceror with 1 or 2 powers, yeah lash isnt bad of course.

 

If the guy has, as the OP stated, just the Battleforce and wants to play Khornate instead of Black Legion, Id tell him to get a Demon Prince with wings. And maybe warp time.

 

A Sorceror may not be as straightforwardly RAWR as a DP, but hes certainly a match for a similarly priced SM captain.

[Hellios]

People who are more competitive (min-maxers, power gamers, tournament fiends...) tend to lean more towards the back story side of things because they cannot build those "uber" armies within those same limitations.

 

 

Totally disregarding table-top effectiveness annoys competitive players. Either you are ruining their point spread (cause your losses will affect tie breaks), or they feel you aren't trying your best.

 

I always find it funny when they say it is annoying because they want a challenge... because if they really wanted a challenge they wouldn't take a power gamers list XD... oh and I'm not saying all power gamers do by any means but I hate it when they rage out because you beat them with a fluff list XD

 

But yer DP wins for AWESOMENESS!

[Legatus]

why ? where in the codex does it say that two commanders or two DPs at the same time in the same place is unfluffy

Where in the Codex does it say that using Slaanesh Daemon princes to lead Khorne berserkers is unfluffy? Oh right, it's fluff not rules. Like you do not remember the complains about how the current Codex is not fluffy for even allowing such combinations? That would be the correct way to interprete the situation, btw:

 

"The new Codex allows me to have a Slaanesh Daemon Prince lead a bunch of Berserkers, therefor the Codex list is not that fluffy." <-- bingo!

 

"The new Codex allows me to have a Slaanesh Daemon Prince lead a bunch of Berserkers, therefor that is now fluffy." <-- what?

 

The fluff is the fluff. An army list either represents it well or it doesn't. Sometimes army list options are reflecting of fluff. Sometimes they aren't. Special rules with a fancy name are often reflecting the fluff (a la "And They Shall Know no Fear").

 

 

but Marines and Eldar fighting against a common foe is not.

yes because ally rules were removed as 3ed started. before they could after they couldnt . again your talking here about stuff you like or dislike

I am talking about fluff. Whether there are army list options that would allow you to play such an army has very little to do with how viable that would be in the fluff. Having Eldar and Marines in the same army is not currently possible via an official army list, but it is still more fluffy than playing two Daemon Princes, which is possible in an official army list. I did not think that "fluff" was such a confusing concept, but it is NOT what is and isn't possible with official army lists.

[the jeske]

Where in the Codex does it say that using Slaanesh Daemon princes to lead Khorne berserkers is unfluffy?

it was khorn lord with 1ksons . own words of JJ from WD . cant get an more official fluff then WD and codex.

 

"The new Codex allows me to have a Slaanesh Daemon Prince lead a bunch of Berserkers, therefor that is now fluffy."

of course you do know that under the 3.5 rules i was possible to have 3 oblits a khorn DP slanesh NM in the same army . it was the very schick that BL was build on. The difference was that in 3.5 dex BL was not the only army that was playable. In the 4th the BL build is just as fluffy , problem is there is nothing else to be played that is playable too.

 

 

I am talking about fluff.

same thing I was talking about . in 2ed the fluff was that sm do ally with eldar . in 3ed and every edition after that , the fluff wasthat they dont [outside of apo that is] ally .

JJ 3ed DA dex. DA do not ally with INQ , DA JJ 4th ed dex ... change to fluff INQ does ally with DA.

 

 

 

One always has a choice.

 

I COULD bring 4 Rune Priest to every 2k fight I have and spam psychic powers to make a tzeentchi daemon cry...

 

I could run with 15 guided Dark Reapers in my Eldar lists...

problem is mage chaos does not have what other armies like SW have . You can switch a 2xRP to a lord +RP one or go RP+ biker WP [for a biker build]. you can do razorspams [not just with SW] . An sm player who wants anti tank has many units to choose from. he can go drop dreads , MM attack bikes , maybe sternguard in a pod [be it 5 man with 3 combis or 10 with 6 combat squading] . has has oblits and that is it . A RP and lord is different , sure you can go easy on a nid player and save him the "fun" of playing against 3-4 rune priest , thunder lords or WP can be still viable and still give something to a list [a guy with TH/SS with lots of attacks and eternal warrior] . chaos can pick between a choppy guy , a choppy guy that can be ID and can stun himself and a a lot less choppy guy with FW [which considering SS , his ws and str doesnt have enough attacks to kill an opposing IC regularly] . But that is not all at 1500-1750 it doesnt show much , but when someone goes 2 or more points played chaos players suddenly realise they dont have options to pick from. while armies like SW or BA get whole new builds at 2k and more. units that are not realy viable at 1500 suddenly are an interesting option . So yeah . some armies can go "easy" and dont play the best of the best the codex has , chaos cant because chaos other options suck hard.