What do you want in the next "Codex: Chaos Space Marines" ?

[AoC]

What's the solution then? We can't change too many fundamentals of 40K to show the difference between a Tactical Marine of the Salamanders, a Tactical Marine from the Blood Angels and Chaos Marine (maybe if we had a scale of 100 for their stats) so we need other ways of doing so in a tight rules set.

 

Things like an extra close combat weapon have been tried, but to be honest I feel like it is an inelogent fix that takes away the purpose of other units in unit in the game. Look at Blood Claws and Grey Hunters right now; almost no one takes Blood Claws now. Having an extra attack doesn't really make a Chaos Marine unit any more experienced, just fiercer in assaults.

 

So what other options are available to us to make Chaos Marines different to Tactical Marines without making them simple inferior copies? Veteran skills are really the only thing I can think of without over complicating the system.

 

Scale of 100 is very good idea, add movement in cm, change the dices used to k10 or k20, make tests 0-1-2-3 instead of 0-1 (miss-minor success-success-major success for hit, saved-weak penetration-penetration-critical hit for save etc), introduce 3 or 4 step chain of melee (hit-parry-save-wound), lower amount of models on the table for elite armies, give all modes multiple wounds (and introduce bleeding and other effects, wounds affecting performance), make it non igo-yougo but something more tactical OR move it to epic scale and make it more strategical.

 

Problem lies in weakness of command (and leadership in general) system in current wh40k, and with huge gaps between characteristics, and with entire current 40k system.'

 

In current system, there is not much that can be done except giving them more protection, better characteristics, rerolls, additional attacks, stronger ranged attacks, better weapons, pinning, leadership effects, ability to bypass/partialy negate some core rules (like for example ability to rally after go to ground on successful leadership test or give -1 to cover for opponent or reducing bs of squad targeting them), access to gifts and mutations, ability to field spawns in-unit, ability to buy multiple champions, more special weapons/melee weapons options/better weapons, give them watered down fnp (on 5+ o 6+), give them inv.

 

Besides, Tactical marines are inferior copies, they should see their faults and join forces of chaos gods. (to be serious, loyalists are less experienced, and act within as they were trained. Cooperation between loyalists squads and coherent battle plans are their forte, they can trust each other, 1vs1 they are inferior).

[subtlebrush]

I'm almost positive that if they just took the Chaos Warrior from WHF, gave him a BS of 4 and the standard Marine war gear he'd solve some problems. At the very least bring the Will of Chaos to 40k so that every squad doesn't need to drop the points on IoC.

 

 

Damn I thought the exact same thing, WOC profile + standard Marine armament + some type of Will Of Chaos 40k edition = good times for Chaos. With a profile like that you would definitely pay the fluff its due and possibly give Chaos a better edge. They are for the most part thousands upon thousands of years old, they should have something over a 200 year old Initiate.

 

Edit: Oh yeah I forgot to include the Eye Of The Gods 40k edition would be amazing as well.

[Tzif]

Hello guys, I am a fanatic Chaos player, as I assume all of you are as well. I've played through all 3 published CSM codices, and indeed, the one we have right now sucks really bad.

 

I recently wrote an article on a friend's blog, about this exact thing. I am posting its url in the end of this post.

 

We have to keep in mind, that our last codex was too powerful, this one is really nerfed, but people still whine about Lash of Submission.

 

I admit that our 4th (3.5) edition codex was overpowered on many levels, but that's just because it was too ahead of its time. But in this edition, it wouldn't really work, it needs adjustments.

 

We should not forget we are not game designers, so a utopian codex would be too convenient and a really non-viable expectation. What we CAN[b/] do, is to give some desirable gudelines so the designers can build a new codex up to our expectations, but still, keeping it simple, yet characterful and with a purpose.

 

I don't want to sound like a boaster or a showoff, but I believe I have found that "golden spot". Our codex can't be like the Blood Angels or the Space Wolves codices, nor can we hope for 1 Black Legion & 8 Legion-Specific books. So, they'll have to fit it all in one book, and yet every army must feel special while keeping things as simple and all-around as they can be.

 

The role-model codex that does that, is the Space Marines codex; You take a captain on a bike and Korsaro and you have white scars. You take Vulkan and you have Salamanders. You take a Master of the Forge and you got Iron Hands.

 

So, as you'll see in my article, I am suggesting that the leaders of the army may "unlock" some choices, giving character to some Legions out there (introducing a couple of new choices as Dark Apostle and Warsmith). Other than that, I am proposing "purpose" back to some units (eg. Hit & Run for Raptors), as well as more benefits from Marks of Chaos.

 

I am not giving exact points values, and as I am a human being and wrote the whole article in one night, it may be up for suggestions and changes. I am considering emailing it to GW's codex writers, to give them some ideas perhaps.

 

Here is my article, I hope you enjoy reading it. Feedback and suggestions are welcomed, and I will incorporate any which seem logical and balanced.

 

http://cadia122.blogspot.com/2011/01/chaos...dex-anyone.html

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

3.5 was not "too powerful", except to armies that hadn't had their own Codices updated to support that edition (Orks, Dark Eldar) or people with bad IG builds (Gav Thorpe). Claiming that it was so powerful that it had to be nerfed to what we have now is apologist nonsense meant to soothe egos of people that didn't know how to build a decent list, play a decent list, or are looking for someone to blame other than their bad dice and poor choices.

[Tzif]

To speak the truth, Iron Warriors were overpowered. No army could match 9 Obliterators, 2 Defilers, 1 Vindicator & 1 Basilisk. It was shootier than anything else on the table, and cc armies had no chance of approaching (remember, Transports were not that popular in 4th edition)

 

Here is as much as I can remember from my 3.5 Iron Warriors list:

 

1 "Moves as cavalry, Furious Charge and rerolls 1 miss in close combat WS6 BS3 S6 T6 I5 A3 W4 LD10 Sv2+/5+" Daemon Prince 190

9 Obliterators

10 Chaos Space Marines

2 Defilers

Vindicator

Basilisk

 

TOTAL: 1485pts, I guess the extra points to reach 1500 would go to give extra armour to the vindicator if I remember correctly.

 

The aforementioned army was way too overpowered, in just 1500pts you could outshoot even a current 1750pts shooty army. Remember, back then you didn't care for Troops, it was purely the kills that mattered. That list (and its variants with very little changes, mostly making the DP a lord with a servo-arm and putting the points to indirect fire for the deffies and the basilisk, although I preferred a DP just to kill anything that made it to my lines) was the source of the whining. Our codex indeed needed some "nerfing", but it didn't have to be as nerfed as it was. Oblits are more balanced now, and the plasma cannon rocks anyway. What was "cheesy" was giving extra slots for min/maxing. And in 4th ed., 4 heavy supports=win (and no 0-1 for the oblits which were Elites back then -AND T5!-). Their stripping of all substantial mark-specific stuff and Legion-related wargear was just lamer than lame, indeed :/

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

To speak the truth, Iron Warriors were overpowered. No army could match 9 Obliterators, 2 Defilers, 1 Vindicator & 1 Basilisk. It was shootier than anything else on the table, and cc armies had no chance of approaching (remember, Transports were not that popular in 4th edition)

 

Here is as much as I can remember from my 3.5 Iron Warriors list:

 

1 "Moves as cavalry, Furious Charge and rerolls 1 miss in close combat WS6 BS3 S6 T6 I5 A3 W4 LD10 Sv2+/5+" Daemon Prince 190

9 Obliterators

10 Chaos Space Marines

2 Defilers

Vindicator

Basilisk

 

TOTAL: 1485pts, I guess the extra points to reach 1500 would go to give extra armour to the vindicator if I remember correctly.

 

The aforementioned army was way too overpowered, in just 1500pts you could outshoot even a current 1750pts shooty army. Remember, back then you didn't care for Troops, it was purely the kills that mattered. That list (and its variants with very little changes, mostly making the DP a lord with a servo-arm and putting the points to indirect fire for the deffies and the basilisk, although I preferred a DP just to kill anything that made it to my lines) was the source of the whining. Our codex indeed needed some "nerfing", but it didn't have to be as nerfed as it was. Oblits are more balanced now, and the plasma cannon rocks anyway. What was "cheesy" was giving extra slots for min/maxing. And in 4th ed., 4 heavy supports=win (and no 0-1 for the oblits which were Elites back then -AND T5!-). Their stripping of all substantial mark-specific stuff and Legion-related wargear was just lamer than lame, indeed :/

 

I concur it was powerful, but attempting that list under the current edition means you'll probably lose the game just by virtue of not having enough Troops, and mech spam is now the SOP for virtually everyone. GW chose to punish the failings of 4th Edition players by nerfing a Codex right before a release into an edition that corrects the "issue" with the Iron Warriors list. The fact remains, however, that there were still several ways of combatting that list under 4th Edition, it's just you had to optimize for it to the exclusion of anything else. That's a weakness of other Codices, not expressly a strength of one Codex. The point is that no matter the attempts at justification for what can only be classified as gross treachery on GW's part, the Chaos 3.5 Codex did not need to be nerfed; everyone else needed to be amped.

[the jeske]

No army could match 9 Obliterators, 2 Defilers, 1 Vindicator & 1 Basilisk.

BL khorn did. the IW build you show here had big problems with eldar and nid builds for example . BL khorn was more balanced. +hth was always more powerful in 4th ed. also the version with auto cannon havocks was better because it was killing eldar better[well stuning] and was killing minimax faster then blast templates.

[Tzif]

I agree with you, everything is combatable, but indeed, for such IW lists enemies had to make anti-lists, something not really achievable in tournaments. And indeed, the other codices needed to be amped, not ours to be nerfed. A modernised version of our 3.5 dex would work just fine in 5th.

 

 

Anyways, from the way I see it, the codex was nerfed, the Daemons Codex is a crap one as well (the entries are great, but the whole army plays too "random". An army based purely on luck -aka scatter dice & 1st wave roll- can't be taken seriously regarding competitive playing. Then, 5th ed. and their Space Marines come out, and of course, all is now corrected again (for the SM players, of course). The ones who paid the price of GW's "simplifying mania period" were both Chaos armies and the Dark Angels.

 

What can be done now, is to give good and achievable ideas to the designers so they can create a solid and good codex, yet keeping things simple.

 

I've seen fandexes out there, which are way too complicated, and include new units/models. In my article, what I write is not an actual fandex, just some suggestions and proposals. I know very well that it's not up to the players to decide what new models GW will release (noone could predict Stormravens, vendettas, or Defilers back then), so I hold back on that one (I saw fandexes with Hell Talons, introducing flyer rules, which I find way too much for normal games).

 

Anyways, things as they are, I am glad there is a variety of opinons, can you guys give me any additional ideas/suggestions? Do you like the ones stated in my article? :)

[Frater Uriah]

The ones who paid the price of GW's "simplifying mania period" were both Chaos armies and the Dark Angels.

As someone who plays both, I heartily agree.

[Hellios]

I agree with you, everything is combatable, but indeed, for such IW lists enemies had to make anti-lists, something not really achievable in tournaments. And indeed, the other codices needed to be amped, not ours to be nerfed. A modernised version of our 3.5 dex would work just fine in 5th.

 

 

Anyways, from the way I see it, the codex was nerfed, the Daemons Codex is a crap one as well (the entries are great, but the whole army plays too "random". An army based purely on luck -aka scatter dice & 1st wave roll- can't be taken seriously regarding competitive playing. Then, 5th ed. and their Space Marines come out, and of course, all is now corrected again (for the SM players, of course). The ones who paid the price of GW's "simplifying mania period" were both Chaos armies and the Dark Angels.

 

What can be done now, is to give good and achievable ideas to the designers so they can create a solid and good codex, yet keeping things simple.

 

I've seen fandexes out there, which are way too complicated, and include new units/models. In my article, what I write is not an actual fandex, just some suggestions and proposals. I know very well that it's not up to the players to decide what new models GW will release (noone could predict Stormravens, vendettas, or Defilers back then), so I hold back on that one (I saw fandexes with Hell Talons, introducing flyer rules, which I find way too much for normal games).

 

Anyways, things as they are, I am glad there is a variety of opinons, can you guys give me any additional ideas/suggestions? Do you like the ones stated in my article? :)

 

Hi as Jeske kinda touched on my all comers Eldar army (from that time period) had no problem with that IW list... hell I had a number of Eldar lists using the standard codex and craftworld lists that could take such an army (not tailored but the ones I used in... and it wasn't 33 star cannon spam either). I never actually played with chaos under the 3.5 dex but against them. I loved fighting chaos armies because they were a challenge but also each chaos army I played was different! I play 2 Space Marine armies and there is a good chance they are the same... I play chaos and I don't know if it is going to be shooty, sneaky or choppy.

 

 

Will I agree that the Chaos dex was the best codex of its time when it was released? Yer I could maybe agree to that based on power and how many good lists you could make. Will I agree that it was broken? Well only compared to some out of date lists or against people who were not playing with being competitive in mind. Would it be broken now? Well some of the rules would need to be re-done and it is obviously of a different design ethos but I would say no... I'm pretty sure todays IG, SW and BA lists could deal with it... and they are the codices that set the standard... I also like to think some of the other codices could deal with it. I imagine Daemon Hunters will still have trouble against that chaos list but that some of the new IG armies will also cause them trouble!

[Brother Nihm]

To speak the truth, Iron Warriors were overpowered. No army could match 9 Obliterators, 2 Defilers, 1 Vindicator & 1 Basilisk.

I agree with you, everything is combatable, but indeed, for such IW lists enemies had to make anti-lists, something not really achievable in tournaments.

Hello, we were called the Night Lords, and we could make Fury bomb/Biker lists with Chosen support and we WRECKED 3.5 ed. IW lists like the one above.

 

Maybe the tendency to field more FA choices than most made my 3.5 NL lists 'anti-IW', but I never lost to the 'silver super shooty armies of doom'. And I did go up against them fairly often as we had two Iron Warrior players in our gaming group.

 

The main issue people seem to overlook was that back then terrain was sparse. All terrain had to be built - e.g. not bought, and there were no hard rules that stated that X amount of terrain was required.

Making all shooty lists vs all comers list games a pointless exercise.

 

I still maintain that the problem was not with the 3.5 IW list and its emphasis on Heavy Support. It was with the general state of the game (and people's refusal to adapt - many MEQ lists had few Fast Attack choices with 0 supporting units).

 

 

My 2 Kraks

[Captain Idaho]

No army could match 9 Obliterators, 2 Defilers, 1 Vindicator & 1 Basilisk.

BL khorn did. the IW build you show here had big problems with eldar and nid builds for example . BL khorn was more balanced. +hth was always more powerful in 4th ed. also the version with auto cannon havocks was better because it was killing eldar better[well stuning] and was killing minimax faster then blast templates.

 

Whilst I agree with you here, it doesn't make you feel any better if your Space Marines got nuked in 2 turns without doing a thing... :P

[Hellios]

No army could match 9 Obliterators, 2 Defilers, 1 Vindicator & 1 Basilisk.

BL khorn did. the IW build you show here had big problems with eldar and nid builds for example . BL khorn was more balanced. +hth was always more powerful in 4th ed. also the version with auto cannon havocks was better because it was killing eldar better[well stuning] and was killing minimax faster then blast templates.

 

Whilst I agree with you here, it doesn't make you feel any better if your Space Marines got nuked in 2 turns without doing a thing... :o

 

Yer but that can still happen today in 5th... or you can be wiped out by third in CC. It isn't about if you feel good when you lose but is it fair?

[TheDarkApostle]

Moving away from the discussion at hand;

 

I walked into my local GW today for the first time in about half a year and got to glance through the new Dark Eldar book.

 

Pain Token system.

 

To me it looked like a system like that could very easily be reworked to work with a Chaos army instead, so that's definitely something I'd like in a new Codex: CSM.

 

TDA

[the jeske]

Whilst I agree with you here, it doesn't make you feel any better if your Space Marines got nuked in 2 turns without doing a thing... :lol:

 

 

sm buillds of those time were runing what . 2 minimax 2 tac termi squads[to get 4AC] 4-6 LS[to get 4-6 AC] maybe a dread or two [to get more AC] and 2-3 rhinos to snipe.

It wasnt that bad.

 

 

To me it looked like a system like that could very easily be reworked to work with a Chaos army instead, so that's definitely something I'd like in a new Codex: CSM.

the problem is the pain token system doesnt work . and it got nerfed more in the last FAQ .

[Captain Idaho]

Well yes you could counter cheddar with stilton, but that wasn't a good thing. If you didn't take a massive cheesey list you would lose without a doubt.

[Boshea]

The more I play the more I think chaos either needs a way to spam tanks, or better ways to deal with the spamming of tanks. Our codex is bad, but I think its 5th edition in general which makes it really bad. Would also help if Assaulting anything wasn't complete suicide most of the time.

[d@n]

I would basically like the 3.5 codex reworked a bit so it fit into the 5th ed game and formatted like the newer codexs so its easier to understand.Also i would like to be to have some units from forge world and chaos demons in there.

[the jeske]

Well yes you could counter cheddar with stilton, but that wasn't a good thing. If you didn't take a massive cheesey list you would lose without a doubt.

 

ah so to combat the cheez[which imo wasnt there] of one list 8 other were nerfed , the BL list got only better[in fact becoming the army to play with chaos , in 3.5 it was probably the best one but other builds were viable too] and then loyalist marines get more then one build in their dex and both the SW and BAs got viable armies with more then one build per codex ?

 

the difference between good or bad in 4th ed wasnt if something was cheez or not[i dont think that there were any cheez builds in 4th ed , maybe the IG hellfire mortar build pre nerfing and it was an FW using army too] , but how good and bad armies were viable. I played AL it freaking sucked from a tournament point of view . If I didnt get turn one or if I lost the roll who deploys infiltrators first my army [that wasnt getting infiltration for free] would end up almost in the its deployment zone. There was tons of lists like that in 4th , all the hth armies out of codex sm etc not good but not bad . Right now with chaos I can play a BL list or I can as well not bother to play at all and not just because AL sucks [which in deed it would If I wanted to play AL] , but because other dex can build a bigger number of more or less viable lists then we do . Where are chaos versions of DoA builds or Sang guard armies[both no sane man would take to a tournament] ? where are our shriek builds ? the best we can do is something like nids warrior army , play a build that will lose not just because it has bad rules , but because the rules of the edition are against it [lets say someone would want to play a "wing" army with chaos or a slogger build or a demon bomb].

 

 

I would basically like the 3.5 codex reworked a bit so it fit into the 5th ed game and formatted like the newer codexs so its easier to understand.Also i would like to be to have some units from forge world and chaos demons in there.

only both wont happen Because A the new dex when it comes will be based around the Gav dex and as demons are a 5th ed codex GW will keep supporting them so a chance to see real demons in our dex is close to 0 . Maybe they will let us mark them , if we are lucky.

[Kassill]

Probably already stated, but I'll state it again.

 

 

TRAIT SYSTEM

 

 

Not sure if C:CSM ever had them before, but I really think they should implement them to C:CSM and RE-Implement them into C:SM to really give you an original army, not just some bloke who gives your army this this and this. Seriously, for those out there that want to run a DIY chapter, but want stubborn USR, they have to take Lysander. This maddens me as, I really, really dont like taking characters and calling them "Johnny Blah" or whatever. I want to run my own leader with his own wargear and such, not some chum who I renamed. And this could easily be fixed with the trait system. Give me X and Y at the cost of Z for my army. This could also be done with the Chaos Codex, by giving them a trait system. More characters from diff legions/renegades that confers X to my army is NOT the way, IMHO, to fix it.

 

Ex. Giving a new character named "Honsou" (just using him as an example) to the army as the IW speacial character to give IW traits to the army is not the way to do it. Because then if I want to run an IW army through and through I am forced to take this bloke and call him w/e my Warsmiths name is.

 

/endrant

[Captain Idaho]

Well yes you could counter cheddar with stilton, but that wasn't a good thing. If you didn't take a massive cheesey list you would lose without a doubt.

 

ah so to combat the cheez[which imo wasnt there] of one list 8 other were nerfed , the BL list got only better[in fact becoming the army to play with chaos , in 3.5 it was probably the best one but other builds were viable too] and then loyalist marines get more then one build in their dex and both the SW and BAs got viable armies with more then one build per codex ?

 

the difference between good or bad in 4th ed wasnt if something was cheez or not[i dont think that there were any cheez builds in 4th ed , maybe the IG hellfire mortar build pre nerfing and it was an FW using army too] , but how good and bad armies were viable. I played AL it freaking sucked from a tournament point of view . If I didnt get turn one or if I lost the roll who deploys infiltrators first my army [that wasnt getting infiltration for free] would end up almost in the its deployment zone. There was tons of lists like that in 4th , all the hth armies out of codex sm etc not good but not bad . Right now with chaos I can play a BL list or I can as well not bother to play at all and not just because AL sucks [which in deed it would If I wanted to play AL] , but because other dex can build a bigger number of more or less viable lists then we do . Where are chaos versions of DoA builds or Sang guard armies[both no sane man would take to a tournament] ? where are our shriek builds ? the best we can do is something like nids warrior army , play a build that will lose not just because it has bad rules , but because the rules of the edition are against it [lets say someone would want to play a "wing" army with chaos or a slogger build or a demon bomb].

 

 

I would basically like the 3.5 codex reworked a bit so it fit into the 5th ed game and formatted like the newer codexs so its easier to understand.Also i would like to be to have some units from forge world and chaos demons in there.

only both wont happen Because A the new dex when it comes will be based around the Gav dex and as demons are a 5th ed codex GW will keep supporting them so a chance to see real demons in our dex is close to 0 . Maybe they will let us mark them , if we are lucky.

 

We were comparing the 4th edition Codex books with the Chaos Marines 3.5 Codex since the Codex existed for a time before the real 4th edition Codex came out. That Codex was extremely comparable to other Codex books of the time, with plenty of scope for army builds.

 

At least that was what I was comparing anyway.

 

There was cheese there also. You don't believe there were any cheesey builds in that Codex? Have you tried facing an Iron Warriors gunline? 9 Obliterators plus 4 Heavy support choices vs 4th edition rules for transports meant most armies got absolutlely blitzed with little chance of causing any damange.

 

The 4th edition Chaos Marines Codex was a spectacular flop, really poor from a hobby and a business sense, but we all know that. We know that there are limited builds there. It sucks there is going to be another year wait until they get a new Codex, I can't believe GW refused to interupt their release cycle to correct what went wrong here.

 

At least we know the next release will be awesome and horrific in equal measure! I actually can't wait until they get a load of new stuff, as I'm fed up of 2x Daemon Princes and Obliterators ruining my game every time. We can be sure no matter what they add it, it can't be as over powered and silly as 2x Daemon Princes and half a dozen Obliterators...

[d@n]

Our raptors and bikers are well overpriced in the latest codex due to them being good in the 3.5 codex, a raptor is around 5 points more then an assault marine with no combat tactics, no and they shall know no fear all because they had hit and run in the 3.5 codex and dont anymore.

[Alys]

Our raptors and bikers are well overpriced in the latest codex due to them being good in the 3.5 codex, a raptor is around 5 points more then an assault marine with no combat tactics, no and they shall know no fear all because they had hit and run in the 3.5 codex and dont anymore.

 

Chaos Bikers, I'd like to see some kind of "cult of speed" with them. Maybe they do a form of tank-shock, where they ride through a unit (unit gets displaced), and cause x amount of hits. Kinda like the dark eldar bikes. Failing that, if they charge, they get +x hits from the fact they've just ramped a spikey/bladed bike at high speed into a unit of troops.

 

Raptors, are something I've thought on before... if they deepstrike, then they cause a negative modifier to leadership to any units within x inches, which lasts until the chaos player's next turn. This represents the terror of having these eagle talon'd monstrosities filling the air with screams and cries, while rending and tearing people. It means if they win the combat, there's a pretty good chance of the enemy running away. Add in Hit and Run maybe, and they are now worth their 5pts more.

[the jeske]

You don't believe there were any cheesey builds in that Codex? Have you tried facing an Iron Warriors gunline? 9 Obliterators plus 4 Heavy support choices vs 4th edition rules for transports meant most armies got absolutlely blitzed with little chance of causing any damange.

it had bad match ups against nids and even more against eldar[specialy if someone went with pie plate builds] . normal sm armies due to rolling 30+ rending shots per turn also did quite well against those . IW even the ones that werent runing 4 pie plate , were not the most optimal army chaos could make . they also had huge problems with demon bombs , specialy the syren price build . But yeah if someone was playing a bad army IW seemed to be the end of the list build food chain . But that we have the same every edition . But for chaos the difference was switching from a lot of viable and different lists to one BL list .

 

 

That Codex was extremely comparable to other Codex books of the time, with plenty of scope for army builds.

and which codex would that be ? orks were ready before chaos sm dex and they had tons of options , the 4th ed eldar dex had tons of options . the DA did suck but that is because JJ never knew how to write good dex . chaos demons were tested at the same time as chaos sm and they have a lot of options and while the game play is always the same [just like it is for us with the Gav dex] at least they have more then one unit to pick for each of the slots .

[Captain Idaho]

it had bad match ups against nids and even more against eldar[specialy if someone went with pie plate builds] . normal sm armies due to rolling 30+ rending shots per turn also did quite well against those . IW even the ones that werent runing 4 pie plate , were not the most optimal army chaos could make . they also had huge problems with demon bombs , specialy the syren price build . But yeah if someone was playing a bad army IW seemed to be the end of the list build food chain . But that we have the same every edition . But for chaos the difference was switching from a lot of viable and different lists to one BL list .

 

Dude, I agree, the Chaos Marines Codex went from hero to zero in a single edition. It is currently probably the least loved Codex out there and that includes the out dated Races.

 

But you have illustrated my point about the problems with the old Codex; to beat them you needed an army with 30+ rending shots per turn, which was a bad thing.

 

Eldar on the other hand have been cheesey for a while and nothing will change that in a new Codex I would imagine!

 

Given the choice though, I would rather the old Codex with all it's problems than the current Codex. It might have had it's silly builds (Iron Warriors and 12" assaulting HQs spring to mind) but at least it was fun!