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

[techsoldaten]

I don't really mind the 'dex we've got, I just find that there are a lot more interesting ones out there :D.

 

But there are some interesting thoughts going about here.

I agree, the reduction in rules is a good thing. Some of the old Codexes were hard to play, to really comply with the 2nd editon rules you had to study them.

 

The issue people have with the current Dex mostly boils down to the following:

 

1) Lack of army-specific rules

 

2) Rules that make certain units hard to use (like Crazed)

 

3) Lack of adherance to fluff

 

The thing about Chaos was that these armies are supposed to be fundamentally different based on their patronage or lack thereof. The current Dex really does drop all the armies into a single bucket, and makes it hard to differentiate except in terms of paint and name. There is demand for some army specific rules, I just hope it does not get to the point where we are dealing with rules so complex they take us back a step.

[Black Hand]

The Iron Warriors: Only the MoCG is allowed in the army. No other marks are allowed.

 

The Chaos Lord of the IW becomes a Warsmith (only one Warsmith in the army is allowed, see c:sm Master of The Forge for rules). Any IW character or champion can take a servo-arm or full servo-harness (characters only), see c:sm techmarines for rules. In addition the IW marines lose ATSKNF and gains the Stubborn USR. Furthermore, when a IW is assaulting an enemy unit in cover count as having Furious Charge USR. Any champion can be upgraded to Obliterator Cult.

 

I don't know about this; a lot of the stuff I have read about the Iron Warriors suggests they do make use of cult troops - indeed, this would make sense, as it would allow for specialised assault units for taking breaches and clearing out fortifications, perhaps units with the mark of Khorne would be allocated for this duty. Actually, I think that is the case in Storm of Iron(or is it?) and thus perhaps it wouldn't be such a good idea to limit players in this respect.

[Lexington]

The thing about Chaos was that these armies are supposed to be fundamentally different based on their patronage or lack thereof.

Well, no, not really; patronage is individual, not organizational. A Berzerker's still a Berzerker, even if he's fighting alongside a Plague Marine or an Iron Warrior, which I think is pretty well-represented in the current Codex. Sadly, the community's inability to make that distinction, or, really, make any distinction that isn't enforced by in-game representation, means that we'll probably be getting the stratification-by-special-character treatment that others have been seeing over the last couple of years. Shame, really. GW gave us a few Codexes which encouraged people to use their imagination, and in return, they got angry snarls from a populace who'd long ago learned to love its cage.

[the jeske]

dude what do you mean by distinction ? if two things are doing the same but one is more efficient either in cost or in rules , then the one that is worse wont be used , few people play armies to show how their armies looked painted. An option that sucks and is unplayable is not an option at all , even for players who dont care about game play efficiency , notice that there is offten a big gap more then it used to be between good and bad in the dex. Considering that the Gav dex also killed a lot of builds and then some were killed by the 5th ed , we end up with lists that looks the same , play the same and are more or less the same boring. The only way to have happy players is to make it possible to build different builds[and no 4 csm instead of 2 zerker 2 pms is not a different build] , armies that should at least technicly be less flexible then us [bA/SW are only a chapter our dex at least technicly represents all the legions and all the renegades] have more playable options and more builds then us .

 

Also legions are different . a khorn IW follower is not the same as a WE zerker. A EC is not the same as an AL . and a WB has a very different build[in fluff] then BL. So no , I dont think we should have one list for all legions and all renegades . It was a bad idea and at least the low sales of chaos show us that there is something wrong with chaos.

[Lord_Caerolion]

The thing about Chaos was that these armies are supposed to be fundamentally different based on their patronage or lack thereof.

Well, no, not really; patronage is individual, not organizational. A Berzerker's still a Berzerker, even if he's fighting alongside a Plague Marine or an Iron Warrior, which I think is pretty well-represented in the current Codex. Sadly, the community's inability to make that distinction, or, really, make any distinction that isn't enforced by in-game representation, means that we'll probably be getting the stratification-by-special-character treatment that others have been seeing over the last couple of years. Shame, really. GW gave us a few Codexes which encouraged people to use their imagination, and in return, they got angry snarls from a populace who'd long ago learned to love its cage.

 

One of the things I've come to love in the new codex is the ability to have "non-cult" Cult units, in that we can finally use Berzerkers in a Slaanesh army, to represent Slaaneshi guys that aren't solely obsessed with sound but sight or martial training.

Hopefully that gets kept in the next codex, but with the addition of a paragraph in each Cult unit entry explaining that Marines dedicated to other Gods, but still displaying similar characteristics, have been sighted, just not as commonly as the "standard" ones. I mean, not every Plague Marine in the galaxy is infected with the "fat, slow zombie" virus. There have to be ones infected with something with symptoms along the lines of rabies (Berzerker Plague Marines) and so on.

[Lexington]

dude what do you mean by distinction ? if two things are doing the same but one is more efficient either in cost or in rules , then the one that is worse wont be used

Not really sure what you're on about in this paragraph - I'm talking about army list structure, rather than "builds" (that awful concept that's done so much bad already). The Codex is full of flaws, obviously, and I've been decrying them since day one. It's just that I'm fairly convinced that a lack of "Legion Lists" isn't one of those issues.

 

Also legions are different . a khorn IW follower is not the same as a WE zerker. A EC is not the same as an AL . and a WB has a very different build[in fluff] then BL. So no , I dont think we should have one list for all legions and all renegades .

Well, not to get too Fisky about things, but let's break this down and address it point-by-point, shall we?

 

1) Indeed, a Khorne-worshipping Iron Warrior is substantially different from a Berzerker, but this is something the current Codex takes into account quite well. Khorne-luvvin' Perturaboys are Chaos Space Marines with an Iron of Khorne. A World Eater Berzerker is...a Berzerker. Now, this isn't to say that the Icon system has been implemented perfectly - I'd prefer a per-model "mark" upgrade, or something of the like - but the distinction remains, fully-field-able, within the boundaries of the current Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

 

2) Same thing here - you've got Chaos Marines (Alpha Legion), and Emperor's Children (Noise Marines). Where's the beef?

 

3) Howso? Sure, the Word Bearers don't have the in-house resources to make Cult Troops in the same way the Black Legion apparently does these days, but that's what mercenaries are for, just as they've been since that hefty 2nd Edition book all those years ago. There's no reason, structurally, for separate Word Bearer or Black Legion lists; they may take different fictional routes to get there, but at the end of the day, they can put the same pieces on the table.

 

4) I'll definitely agree with you on Renegades, here - there's no good reason for Johnny-Fall-Lately Loyalists to suddenly have equipment that hasn't seen use since the Heresy ended. Legions, though? I just don't see how they're done an injustice by this book, as far as available choices go. Yes, the Chaos Codex has appalling internal balance issues, but that's what the next Codex should be addressing, not this "oh, my Alpha Legion can't always infiltrate, they're just Black Legion with a different color scheme" whining that's possessed the Chaos-playing community for the last three or so years.

[maverike_prime]

I would like to see a way to make an Iron Warriors army definably different than the 999 other Chaos Space Marine armies out there. With that said am I looking for a hard and fast rule saying if you play Iron Warriors you must do A, B, and C and the models must be painted boltgun metal? no. if you want to take 3 Squads of Raptors and no Obliterators in your army but still call them Iron Warriors, I have no issue with this. But just as Ultramarines can be fielded using different rules then Crimson fists which can be fielded using different rules then the White Scars which can be fielded using different rules them the Salamanders which can be fielded using.... well you get the idea.

 

The Great Crusade is what formed the original Legions into what they were at the time of the Heresy. Those wars in turn allowed the respective legions to excel in their chosen form of war. The World Eaters emphasis close combat and reveal in the butchery of their enemy. The Alpha Legion practiced extreme planning, mis-direction, sabotage, and traps to out maneuver their opponent and destroy them with a minimum of direct effort. The Iron Warriors are Siege masters, with Peterbo having boasted that he could topple any fortification. The Word Bearers are fanatical zealots, dark mirrors of the Black Templars faith based wars. The Night Lords excell in terror raids and breaking enemy moral, power armored psychotic bullies as it were.

 

Yes, some of these varient forces can be adequately represented by the current Codex. You can take 3 Vindicators/Obliterator cults and paint your figures Boltgun Metal and you have a reasonably viable Iron Warriors army.

 

If you limit yourself to Nurgle Plague marines. and give your lord Mark of Nurgle, you can do a reasonable Death Guard army.

 

There really isn't much of a way to make Word Bearers in the current Codex that would be different from most other Chaos Armies. You can take lots of Deamons, but they're just not worth the points you're going to expend in getting them to where you need them to do the most good.

 

Night Lords are in a similar predicament. Previously, they were given the ability to field more Raptors then other Chaos Armies. Not really sure where this idea came from, though the "Opposite of Iron Warriors" seems a viable possibility. Well now you have a double problem. One, taking 3 squads of Raptors is no longer unique to Night Lords, and two the Raptors suck.

 

The Space Marines get the ability to field variant armies that represent the White Scars by being able to take Bikes as troops, the Crimson fists by making Sternguard scoring units, and the Slammanders by making Melta and Flammer weapons that much more effective in that army's hands.

 

I would like to see something similar for Chaos Space Marines. Of course CSMs also have the problem of needing to differentiate between 1,000 year old Space marines who were part of the heresy itself and thus have survived in the warp for the ensuing time span, and the newbie- "I hate the Emperor" traitor marines who have more recently turned to Chaos.

[maverike_prime]

The thing about Chaos was that these armies are supposed to be fundamentally different based on their patronage or lack thereof.

GW gave us a few Codexes which encouraged people to use their imagination, and in return, they got angry snarls from a populace who'd long ago learned to love its cage.

 

I'm not going to disagree with the 'openness' of the current codex. It is decidedly open and extremely flexible allowing for any manner of army build. The problem is that in making it open, they limited it's abilities. Bikers are simply too expensive for what they do, Raptors are only good in the short term and Spawn... yeah a slow and purposeful unit in the fast attack slot? Anyone care to explain that one to me?

 

Thousand Sons are only effective as small units. If you try to take a substantial portion of them you're opponent is either an fool and you win, or has dreams of playing Duck Hunt as your army stops in the middle of an open field.

 

I'm still trying to understand why taking Noise marines is a good idea. If anyone can elaborate on this, please tell me.

 

I'm not saying I hate the current Codex. Like I've said before I think they did a lot of things right with it. Making the Daemon Prince a separate entry from the Chaos Lord was needed because far too often you wound up fighting a lord and couldn't tell what the heck you were fighting unless you had a copy of your enemy's army list in front of you. Being able to field non-legion marked units was a good move though I think they should have gone with a per-model mark version as opposed to the Single model Icon. doing away with the Armory was practically required. Anyone remember the 9 attack Aspiring champion with 19 ablative wounds? Yeah that needed to go.

 

I'm not opposed to an open army list, but I would like an army list can produce more then one or two viable builds.

[Chengar Qordath]

I'm not opposed to an open army list, but I would like an army list can produce more then one or two viable builds.

Has anyone argued that the next codex should not be better-balanced? I'm pretty sure that's the one point everyone agrees on.

 

That said, I'll reiterate my opposition to excessively restrictive Legion rules. Keeping the army list flexible enough to represent all of the major Chaos factions is far better than printing out 20+ pages of various special rules for all the different legions, and still allows plenty of flexibility for people who want to get creative with their lists.

 

Way too many people seem to think that there is only one acceptable way to play as any of the major Chaos factions, and that the new codex should heavily penalize or outright disallow any deviation from their One True List. The fact that these "true" lists are often only loosely connected to the actual background and methods of the legions hardly helps matters.

[Lexington]

But just as Ultramarines can be fielded using different rules then Crimson fists which can be fielded using different rules then the White Scars which can be fielded using different rules them the Salamanders which can be fielded using.... well you get the idea.

Well, we've already been around this one earlier in the thread, but I'll note here that I'm not really enamored of these rules, either. Much like the old 3.5 Legion lists, they end up requiring every one of these factions to have some sort of difference to define themselves by that's not only a part of the background, but something that can be represented on the battlefield as well. Inevitably, the background of said Space Marine Chapters/Legions/etc. focuses so heavily on these little differences that they become nothing but embodiments of some special rule or troop choice swap. It makes the fiction subservient to the needs of the tabletop, eroding the verisimilitude and possibility of a universe that drew us all into the game in the first place. Frankly, I don't want my Word Bearers to just be "the daemon army" or my Aurora Chapter to be the "tank marines." They have (or deserve to have) deeper and more interesting fictional identities than that.

 

Also, really, a lot of these swaps just don't make a lot of sense. Why do the Crimson Fists have so many Sternguard Vets? I mean, sure, they've been markedly devastated as an overall force, but that seems to me like they would just make them have less of everything. Yes, the Salamanders are forge-masters and artisans without peer amongst the Astartes, and their weaponry is clearly of a higher quality, but, really, twin-linked quality? Seems a bit much.

 

I'm not going to disagree with the 'openness' of the current codex. It is decidedly open and extremely flexible allowing for any manner of army build. The problem is that in making it open, they limited it's abilities. Bikers are simply too expensive for what they do, Raptors are only good in the short term and Spawn... yeah a slow and purposeful unit in the fast attack slot? Anyone care to explain that one to me?

Well, as Chengar Qordath said, I'm pretty sure no one's arguing that the current Codex is perfect or, beyond a conceptual sense, even vaguely acceptable. It introduced all sorts of head-scratchingly bad ideas into the game (including Lash of Submission, the best PR Slaaensh has gotten since Studio 54), wiped out the absolutely wonderful Lost and the Damned army list, and nearly every good idea contained within is executed with such dire incompetence that it casts doubt on the possibility that it could be done well. I definitely have issues with all sorts of things within that book, it's just that a lack of Legion lists isn't one of them.

[maverike_prime]

I'm not opposed to an open army list, but I would like an army list can produce more then one or two viable builds.

Has anyone argued that the next codex should not be better-balanced? I'm pretty sure that's the one point everyone agrees on.

 

That said, I'll reiterate my opposition to excessively restrictive Legion rules. Keeping the army list flexible enough to represent all of the major Chaos factions is far better than printing out 20+ pages of various special rules for all the different legions, and still allows plenty of flexibility for people who want to get creative with their lists.

 

Way too many people seem to think that there is only one acceptable way to play as any of the major Chaos factions, and that the new codex should heavily penalize or outright disallow any deviation from their One True List. The fact that these "true" lists are often only loosely connected to the actual background and methods of the legions hardly helps matters.

 

I'm not going to get into a debate of "true" lists versus "fluffy" lists versus "Strategic" Lists. As for the question of the next codex being more balanced, absolutely. I expect that to be Objective #1 whenever they begin thinking about the possibility of exploring the option of beginning to write a new codex.

 

Do I think that the best way to represent the legions is to have a series of pages that are exceptions to the previous 50 or so pages? No. Not so much. There are basically 5 different methods that GW has attempted to address the whole Alternate legion/chapter approach and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

 

1) Separate books: Black Templars. Dark Angels. Blood Angels. Space Wolves. each of these have their own separate codex. This approach has the advantage of being able to build the book for that specific army with out much in the way of exceptions but it has the problem of becoming time consuming to update and we see much more severe "codex creep" with each new codex. The majority of each codex tends to be nothing but reprinting of the core codex as well.

 

2) Army Trait system: We saw this in the 4th edition of Codex:Space Marines. You pick X number of traits and that dictates how many disadvantages you have. This has the advantage of being very open and very encouraging of players to use their imagination to create their own armies. The disadvantage we saw in 4th edition with Space Marines. We tended to see nothing but severe divergences from the normal army lists with the regular list being practically forgotten.

 

3) Commander/lord Dictates the army: We have this in the current Space Marine Codex with the plethora of Special characters. The chief complaint here is how it places so much emphasis on the characters over the army. While 5th edition is becoming much more akin to hero hammer then the prior edition, this is still a major complaint for many.

 

4) Alternate rules in the book: This is what we had in the 3.5 CSM codex. You have the basic CSM list, followed by 18 pages of exceptions. I think others have done a good job of listing the draw backs to this approach. No need to beat a dead horse.

 

5) Sub-books. We saw this with the 3rd edition Eldar and the Craft World Eldar Codex. This approach has the same problems of the Alternate rules in the book, but with the added annoyance of forcing the players to need 2+ books to build their armies.

 

Those are the 5 methods I am aware of GW utilizing thus far. If I've missed any, please point them out.

 

With that being said, allow me to defend my original comment.

 

I'm not opposed to an open army list, but I would like an army list can produce more then one or two viable builds.

As it stands right now, everything that the Lord or Sorcerer can do, the Daemon prince can do them better and for a better price with better survivability. Why do you want to take a Lord or Sorcerer? Sure you can hid them in a squad of CSMs, but if you do the lord looses his Fearlessness. We just wiped out 2/3 of the HQ selections right there.

 

The Bikers are simply too expensive for as little as they can do. If they were able to carry a teleport homer equivalent with out the ability for it to be snipped off the board they would be more viable. Like wise if they had other options beyond just a melta gun, Flamer or plasma gun.

 

The Spawn... slow and purposeful unit in the fast attack section. Need I say more? That's the majority of the Fast Attack section right there.

 

Chaos Space Marines are pretty good as they are. I have no complaints with them.

 

Khorne Berzerkers: again, no complaints here. Though I would like non-bunny froo-froo esque models.

 

Plague Marines: The default go-to cult troop. TOughness 5, blight grenades that negate attackers bonus attack for charging. Drop these guys on an objective and nothing shy of a dedicated assault force or a heavy serving of pie plates is going to move them.

 

Thousand Sons: They are good in small groups. If you take more then 1 or 2 squads for the entire army they become an anchor to your entire army as they tend to wind up standing in the middle of an open field as the enemy plays Duck hunt with them.

 

Noise Marines: Can someone please tell me why you take these guys?

 

The Chosen are alright, but they're expensive for what they are, and frankly I'd rather take more CSMs then drop the points on Chosen.

 

The Dreadnought Frenzy rule with no option to counter it really makes it unusable.

 

 

 

With those sorts of difficulties in the army, it's small wonder that we tend to see the same couple lists done again and again. They're the only ones that work.

 

If I want to make biker CSM army, and take it against a Biker Space Marine army, assuming a comparable build between the two armies, It should be an even match up all around. But wait, Space Marines bikes are 25 points a piece. And they get "And They shall know no fear" to boot. That's 8 points less then the CSM comparable unit.

 

So, lets look at it like so:

 

Space Marine Bike squad 305 points | Chaos Space Marine Bike Squad 345 points

7 Bikes | 9 bikers

-T.linked Bolters | - T.linked Bolters

-Toughness 5 Marines | - Toughness 5 Marines

-Combat Squad | 1 Aspiring Champion on bike

1 Sergent on bike | -2 attacks

-2 attacks |

Attack Bike |

-H. Bolter that can move and shoot |

 

So for, 305 points Marine players get a Heavy Weapon that can move and shoot, the ability to regroup even when below half strength and the ability to break up into 2 groups, giving the Space Marine player the ability to effectively have 6 Fast attack choices. The Chaos Space marines on the other hand pay an extra 40 points and get 9 bikers with an Aspiring Champion.

 

So in my Biker vs Biker comparison, the Space Marine player can outmaneuver me, outshout me, and outlast me when it comes to moral checks. And they're cheaper to boot!

 

I think that illustrates the major problem with the fast attack section. You have 2 real choices, and both are margin able at best in the normal game of 1850 points.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

One can cry about the 'complexity' of 3.5 all they wish to, it doesn't alter the fact that 3.5's Legion lists were the counterbalance to the multiple Codices of Loyalist Marine Chapters it had to combat. Under the current Codex, we're expected to take on a multi-build Codex: SM, a Codex: BT, a Codex: SW, a Codex: BA, a Codex: DA, and the upcoming Codex: GKs, without a similar degree of variation within ourselves to the extent to which the opposition can field. Frankly, anyone who would even conceive that a Legion-less CSM Codex is a good thing should really take a look at the myriad Chapter factions and how no one seems to have a problem with them and rethink their options very carefully. Or, is 20 pages of Legion rules asking too much in the face of multiple books of SMs whose variations aren't even as profound as those of the Legions? :(

[Lay]

I definitely have issues with all sorts of things within that book, it's just that a lack of Legion lists isn't one of them.

Of course not. It's not like you actually lost something, if you didn't want to use Legion rules in the first place. After all, the previous book didn't force you play a Legion, and even then, it didn't require you to max out each and every option.

 

Honestly, I don't see why you need these options removed just to be, like you said, "encouraged to use your imagination".

 

Frankly, I don't want my Word Bearers to just be "the daemon army"

Good thing daemons weren't mandatory for a Word Bearers army in 3.5.

 

Way too many people seem to think that there is only one acceptable way to play as any of the major Chaos factions, and that the new codex should heavily penalize or outright disallow any deviation from their One True List. The fact that these "true" lists are often only loosely connected to the actual background and methods of the legions hardly helps matters.

I'd rather decide for myself how well Cultists fit in an Alpha Legions themed army. If someone wants to stick to the vanilla list instead, what do I care?

 

Who is penalizing who again?

[Magnus Thane]

Can't we just go for a Lord or DP choice. Depending on the type he gets an extra ability, effect, etc or something that is conferred to the entire or part of the force.

Thus helping the force to be more themed. That way we do not need a special char fest and we can bring the Chaos Lords and their customization back to the forefront.

[the jeske]

Good thing daemons weren't mandatory for a Word Bearers army in 3.5.

true both the gunline and the infiltration build were good too , and even if you could have used demons in those it didnt have to be a demon bomb build . hell I seen people play mecha [as in actual squads in rhinos , not rhinos used for walls or sniping] too , even if the list wasnt top of the game .

Way too many people seem to think that there is only one acceptable way to play as any of the major Chaos factions, and that the new codex should heavily penalize or outright disallow any deviation from their One True List. The fact that these "true" lists are often only loosely connected to the actual background and methods of the legions hardly helps matters.

Did you have to play a syren prince build with an EC build , was a WB player limited to a demon bomb. Did a AL dude like myself spam the living hell out of culitists ? Did someone playing BL have no other option , but to play a BL khorn build ?

nope in all cases . I played AL and I used 0 cultists . I played with full infiltration builds , both hth and shoting ones , I even played armies that used units without infiltration[were only my havocks were runing around with infiltration and tank hunter and the rest was classic gunline].

In the 3.5 one could make a NL list with bikers and raptors[and let us remember that both werent very good just like they are now ] or without them . But there was more stuff to the NL then the extra FA slot .

I could have run AL as chaosless army with 2 vet skills or I could have run an non legion list that was the same but had more HVy support slots [but skills cost more] . Or how about EC , I could make an army with sonics , a demon bomb an assault army with infiltration or a biker syren build

There were tons of builds for legions [well maybe not for 1ksons , but GW doesnt love 1ksons ] .

And how is it right now ? Well a lot of builds are dead , and the options are build in a such a way that they are very bad or good. Is DP not the best all round HQ for us , arent oblits the best all roudn support units for us . Arent units like possessed , LSD ,raptor or chosen that could technicly make for a "fluffy" legion list unplayable to the extrem ? I mean why take them when a unit of csm or zerkers does the same for the same points , but is scoring ? Bad options are no options at all . If people are given the oportunity to play BL or play something that sucks they will play BL , unless they are not in w40k for the game , but then the whole talk about codex or not doesnt matter , because if someone is interested in painting or coverting more , then he may as well use another dex for his army.

 

I mean look at the list around forums around the world . what kind of an option for support do EC or 1ksons player have . they are starting from tier 2 , and their "fluffy" upgrades are dreads , possessed , LR and preds . taking those makes an army that is already weaker then the normal chaos army , even worse . So what do they do ? they run oblits .

Of course one could say , hey the fluff options are not weaker they are just different and not ment for the WAAC game play [what ever that means]. Thing is those support units dont play different , taking possessed or chosen or a pred does not make the list work in a different way . OR at least not in a good way , because yeah some stuff is different you have to deal with the fact that stuff aint scoring , goes crazy is less efficient , so you need more units to do the same thing[units you dont have to begin with because you decided to play something else then a BL list] . That kind of different does not make the codex good. Neither does it make gamers happy that the only thing that makes a AL and a BL list different is the way they are painted.

[Lexington]

One can cry about the 'complexity' of 3.5 all they wish to, it doesn't alter the fact that 3.5's Legion lists were the counterbalance to the multiple Codices of Loyalist Marine Chapters it had to combat.

Well, no, not really. Sure, there were (and are) lots of Loyalist Marine army lists, but it's not like they're one big honking army list that you can pick and choose from. You can't take Death Company in your Vulkan lists any more than someone's Eldar can requisition a couple of Carnifexes. In the post-3rd Edition era, only the Grey Knights could ever intermix with others power armor lists, and even that option isn't long for the world. They're each separate army lists with their own ups and downs. One can quibble with the appropriateness of this - personally, I'd kill for a good allies system - but that's the way things have been for a long time now.

 

Of course not. It's not like you actually lost something, if you didn't want to use Legion rules in the first place.

In a similar way, you lose nothing with a list that's expansive all-around, rather than narrowed on a list-by-list basis. Now, this isn't to discount the fact that Alpha Legion players lost their Cultists, or the loss of the Iron Warriors' Basilisks; like the Lost and the Damned list, seeing them eliminated for reasons that are almost certainly coordinated with an SKU-streamlining scheme on the part of GW is immensely frustrating. Demand those back, and, sure, I'll be right there with you. I just don't see why people need to be told that their army is "special" because it fits a very narrow idea of Legions as consisting of their signature gimmick.

 

Neither does it make gamers happy that the only thing that makes a AL and a BL list different is the way they are painted.

Eh. Call me needlessly cruel, but I'm honestly willing, nay, eager, to alienate whatever portion of the 40K fanbase would actually admit to believing this sort of nonsense. If one's view of things is that, without a specific in-game reward, there's no use in painting, writing and otherwise putting creative energy into an army, I don't want that person anywhere near my damn hobby. They've nothing useful to contribute, and become a drag on the community as a whole while they simper away at the injustice of GW not specifically patting them on the head and giving them a cookie for their work. I'd be glad to see their backside.

[Hellios]

Well, no, not really. Sure, there were (and are) lots of Loyalist Marine army lists, but it's not like they're one big honking army list that you can pick and choose from. You can't take Death Company in your Vulkan lists any more than someone's Eldar can requisition a couple of Carnifexes. In the post-3rd Edition era, only the Grey Knights could ever intermix with others power armor lists, and even that option isn't long for the world. They're each separate army lists with their own ups and downs. One can quibble with the appropriateness of this - personally, I'd kill for a good allies system - but that's the way things have been for a long time now.

 

 

If GW wants to do a Codex for each legion then we are fine with that I'm sure... although what 40k really needs is another 8 marine codexs... although if they mixed in daemons, renegades, mutants and cultists maybe they wouldn't be marine dexs anymore...

 

On the other hand if GW wants to make a codex where I can do everything with no restrictions... so I can make my list of tank hunting infiltrating havocs with a meatshield of fearless cultists and deepstriking bloodletters who can assault the turn they deepstrike then I'm sure many chaos players won't complain...

 

What will happen is anyone playing any other army will complain about how broken the chaos codex is... However I want my options to represent my legion... I mean so I can play Iron Warriors with a focus on what Iron warriors do... I can play them as normal chaos if I want to now and again without all the restrictions but I like those extra options...

 

The whole point of the straight jacket as you called it was to keep some balance in the codex... I mean that was the problem with the Iron warriors is that people did not feel that the drawbacks were major enough just like the problem with space marine DIY traits meant that people would pick stupid disadvantages that had no effect on them such as may not take allies... heh I didn't plan on taking them anyway.

 

So the whole point of those sub lists was that you could play as vanilla chaos if you wanted but they also had ideas that represented the legion but would have been unbalanced if applied to the list in general... so what do they do they make a set of rules you CAN apply that have restrictions to counter the additional strengths being given. I mean I'm sure people would have loved the Iron warrior gunline combined with berzerkers in rhinos rushing foward and daemon bombing people....

 

 

So what I'm saying is I'm willing to accept restrictions to optional lists that allow me to use other stuff that cannot be put in the normal list due to unbalancing the codex...

[Lexington]

So the whole point of those sub lists was that you could play as vanilla chaos if you wanted but they also had ideas that represented the legion but would have been unbalanced if applied to the list in general...

I'd say that the current Codex more or less disproves this - something like 90% of the applicable Legion-specific special rules were folded into the main list, but you hardly hear about the IW/Berserker combo burning up the tournament scene.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

One can cry about the 'complexity' of 3.5 all they wish to, it doesn't alter the fact that 3.5's Legion lists were the counterbalance to the multiple Codices of Loyalist Marine Chapters it had to combat.

Well, no, not really. Sure, there were (and are) lots of Loyalist Marine army lists, but it's not like they're one big honking army list that you can pick and choose from. You can't take Death Company in your Vulkan lists any more than someone's Eldar can requisition a couple of Carnifexes. In the post-3rd Edition era, only the Grey Knights could ever intermix with others power armor lists, and even that option isn't long for the world. They're each separate army lists with their own ups and downs. One can quibble with the appropriateness of this - personally, I'd kill for a good allies system - but that's the way things have been for a long time now.

 

 

You missed the point. The premise of your argument is that GW was right to "simplify" the CSMs by removing the Legion lists to make it easier to play. My counterargument is that that was never GW's intention at all, given that they did basically the same thing to Codex: SM by removing the Traits, and then continued on their ludicrous path of generating entirely separate Codices for various Chapters in spite of the differences between a Dark Angel, a Blood Angel, an Ultramarine, a Salamander, etc. being less profound than the differences between a Death Guard, an Emperor's Child, an Alpha Legionnaire, etc. If GW removed the Legions to simplify playability, then there should have never been a Codex: DA, Codex: SW, or any other Codex that wasn't contained inside Codex: SMs with a special character lashed to it to "make" a DA, BT, SW, etc Chapter. No matter what justification they contrive, the fact remains that the Legion lists were the answer to the half-dozen different flavors of different-colored Chapters that all "warranted" their own entire Codices, and yet we're expected to simply "accept" that the Legion lists were "too much"? I think not.

[Notanoob]

One can cry about the 'complexity' of 3.5 all they wish to, it doesn't alter the fact that 3.5's Legion lists were the counterbalance to the multiple Codices of Loyalist Marine Chapters it had to combat.

Well, no, not really. Sure, there were (and are) lots of Loyalist Marine army lists, but it's not like they're one big honking army list that you can pick and choose from. You can't take Death Company in your Vulkan lists any more than someone's Eldar can requisition a couple of Carnifexes. In the post-3rd Edition era, only the Grey Knights could ever intermix with others power armor lists, and even that option isn't long for the world. They're each separate army lists with their own ups and downs. One can quibble with the appropriateness of this - personally, I'd kill for a good allies system - but that's the way things have been for a long time now.

You can't take DC with Vulkan because they're in different chapters and they don't really work together accept in very unusual circumstances. Carnifexes are an entire different species, you're resorting to hyperbole. The fact is that these CSM forces work together more often than an other more distinct faction.

 

But more to the point, Loyalists don't deserve their own codexes, the differences before 5th edition were minimal. Blood Angles had DC and the Baal pred. Dark Angles had Terminator troops and Ravenwing Landspeeders. BT had Crusade squads, which are just mixed tac/scout squads with the LRC transports. World Eaters as opposed to Word Bearers? Way more different than the loyalists ever were, but they got more stuff and more codexes while we lost stuff and were compacted. That's why people are pissed. What about those people who converted their Iron Warrior Terminators? Or their Sonic Weapons onto vehicles? It's not fair to them that just because they have spikes they get the short end of the stick.

[Lexington]

You missed the point. The premise of your argument is that GW was right to "simplify" the CSMs by removing the Legion lists to make it easier to play.

Well, no, "simplicity" never was, and never has been my main reason for liking the direction (not specifics, direction) of the current Chaos Codex. Simplification's nice sometimes, and I definitely enjoyed the elegance of those late 4th Edition lists, but it's the expansive nature of the 4th Edition Chaos book that I'm a fan of. I like that you can play a "Word Bearers" army with Raptors and Obliterators and Cult Troops that've been hired, extorted or otherwise connived into working with the Children of Lorgar. I like that it gives all Chaos players access to the full panoply of troops and vehicles that a modern Chaos Lord needs to pillage the galaxy on a schedule and a budget. Most of all, I like the fact that it stripped away the notion that a faction's background only exists to give it some in-game quirk, rather than, say, imbuing these little pieces of plastic and metal with a worth that goes beyond their make and material. We're all just playing imagination games here, and the new Codex, intentionally or no, gives a lot more room for the "imagination" part of that construct. Bully for that, I say.

 

My counterargument is that that was never GW's intention at all, given that they did basically the same thing to Codex: SM by removing the Traits, and then continued on their ludicrous path of generating entirely separate Codices for various Chapters in spite of the differences between a Dark Angel, a Blood Angel, an Ultramarine, a Salamander, etc. being less profound than the differences between a Death Guard, an Emperor's Child, an Alpha Legionnaire, etc.

Well, like my early post, I'll note that while you've got a lot more in the way of differences between a Berserker and a Plague Marine, we're talking about differences that take place on an individual level, rather than an organizational one. Yes, there's a lot of space between these types of Marines, but at the same time, each Cult faction lacks the varied structure of any given Loyalist Chapter. There's no Berserker Devastators, or Thousand Sons bikers, and as far as I know, there never have been. Similarly, there's just never been unique squads within the Undivided Legions. There's no Alpha Legion Sneaky Gitz or Word Preachers in the same way that there's a Blood Angels Death Company or mixed squads of Black Templars and their, er, "young wards." The Undivided Legions have always, to my knowledge, been portrayed as having similar organizational structures. Thus, generic "Chaos Space Marine" squads (and their specialist variants) fit them all quite well.

 

This isn't to say that I necessarily disagree with the idea that you could pretty easily lump all of the Space Marine Chapters together in one Codex. There's really no reason they couldn't. However, the fact remains that a lot of GW's 40K business plan exists because they threw together a bunch of ideas in the 90's that weren't expected to have lasted nearly this long. It's not perfect, but it's something that's probably not going away anytime soon.

[the jeske]

but it's not like they're one big honking army list that you can pick and choose from.

with counts as in full support for 5th ed , or was that sarcasm ? because they not only get one big book [the loyalist one] but also if they want to use it they get codex BA and DA , even SW dex can be used with counts as . all is loyalist and you can play red marines in 3 or 4 different ways.

 

I just don't see why people need to be told that their army is "special" because it fits a very narrow idea of Legions as consisting of their signature gimmick.

because a codex with 6-8 builds is better then one with 2 . I rather have 6-8 builds with a signature gimmik then 99% of chaos armies being identical no matter , if you play AL, WB or BL .

 

 

If one's view of things is that, without a specific in-game reward, there's no use in painting, writing and otherwise putting creative energy into an army, I don't want that person anywhere near my damn hobby.

cool but you do know that this is a table top game , the painting the fluff and the converting is there , few gamers would say that those aspects should be eliminated . But above all it is a game , it is about playing [no matter what kind of style you pick] more in many cases it is possible to play without painted models and without converted stuff and by good few people want to read or hear about fluff another guy wrote , but no one can play without rules and fewer want to play the game when they suck . w40k stoped being rules for citatel models for painters and converters when 2ed started . Look at the other dex after our glorious one . See anything special ? ah yes full of options for different builds , the stuff you call gimmik and special rules that buff you for using unit X. It is like that in codex sm , codex SW , codex IG , codex BA , codex DE and technicly in codex nids too.

 

The whole point of the straight jacket as you called it was to keep some balance in the codex... I mean that was the problem with the Iron warriors is that people did not feel that the drawbacks were major enough just like the problem with space marine DIY traits meant that people would pick stupid disadvantages that had no effect on them such as may not take allies... heh I didn't plan on taking them anyway.

that is not true . the dex was "balanced" not because the DT wanted it [or at least not in the way Gav did it in the end], but because the ork range wasnt ready and they had to fit something in , as codex sm was being done at the same time as demons [but the demons werent ready yet with the model range and csm were] they cut everything and did a lot of copy past . And even if they realy would want to "balance" everything like JJ did in the DA dex , then well they didnt do a very good job with it , considering all dex after that were everything but not like DA and chaos.

something like 90% of the applicable Legion-specific special rules were folded into the main list, but you hardly hear about the IW/Berserker combo burning up the tournament scene.

because you cant play IW , no one in their right mind will call a a list with 2 nurgle DPs[or lash back in 4th ed] zerkers and pms and oblits and IW. because there is nothing IW about it .

 

also before you say 90% representation in rules in the gav dex , think about it for a second . lets say that the list we have now is a version of BL khorn and/or a modification of the IW lists [both run oblits , both run DPs , both run csm and/or zerkers ]. Those are 2 lists . where are the demon bombs , where are the infiltration builds ? and that is just the good builds , because there was tons of tier 2 stuff that people played . How about EC guys having their bikes , lords , havocks , tanks and if they were crazy enough to do it rhinos made illegal ?

 

I like that you can play a "Word Bearers" army with Raptors and Obliterators and Cult Troops that've been hired, extorted or otherwise connived into working with the Children of Lorgar. I like that it gives all Chaos players access to the full panoply of troops and vehicles that a modern Chaos Lord needs to pillage the galaxy on a schedule and a budget.

take a 3.5 dex. buy raptors [god knows why in the 4th, but your choice], buy oblits , take a BL list or a lord with undivided mark . army done . Want a WB siege army ? take codex 3.5 take IW rules paint your guys red . army done . both armies work , both armies are legal , can be more or less good . your not forced to use demons or a apostol in a WB list , no one says you had to buy option X or Y . Now you will say how is that different from now , no one forces anyone to play with any option too ? yeah no one forces me , save for one thing 5th ed rule and playabilty . In the 3.5 dex I could make a mecha or gunline WB with 0 demons , list wouldnt be the best in the world but it would work . But to make a better example I could make an army of NL with 4 raptor units 2x5 man minimax 2x8 AC tank hunter havocks . it would work .again not the best in the world , but it would be playable . IF I try to build an army with havocks and raptors now I get a crap list that gets steam rolled . It doesnt matter what my opponent bring[well save maybe for necron] , I will lose to a same class of player [or even someone worse then me] because the 5th main rule book will work against me .

 

But this is turning in to a rant again . I see less and less people playing chaos around the world , fewer list posted and forums like this either ignoring chaos[well how many times can one talk about DPS and oblits] or being like we have it here in B&C . 1 post per 2-3 days in the slany part of the forum ? It wasnt like that when 3.5 was there . People were coming up with different builds or combination of builds all the time . where is that ? where is the constructive talk about tactics for different builds we had back then ? again gone [because how many times can we talk about DPs/oblits and how other stuff is bad or sub standard] . There is no way your going to convince me that we have it better now , because now I can have pms and zerkers in something that is called a AL army [by the way in 3.5 I could have done the build too] .

 

 

There's no Alpha Legion Sneaky Gitz or Word Preachers in the same way that there's a Blood Angels Death Company or mixed squads of Black Templars and their, er, "young wards." The Undivided Legions have always, to my knowledge, been portrayed as having similar organizational structures. Thus, generic "Chaos Space Marine" squads (and their specialist variants) fit them all quite well.

the NL had a full Grand company made out of raptors only , no legion ever had something like that . IW were both known for their line break squads and their siege units , and while all legions did siege at some time non of them were known for their siege or line breaker units. The AL do use more cultists then other marines and they also used field operatives with partial sm modification both as spies and as forward units . That is just the name a few .

 

 

The Undivided Legions have always, to my knowledge, been portrayed as having similar organizational structures.

 

how can a legion with fixed focused on religion structure , be the same in organisation , as a legion that works in cells that rarely know what other cells do .

[A D-B]

the NL had a full Grand company made out of raptors only

 

Nyet.

 

That's not confirmed. There's a vague mention of something like it in Lord of the Night, but no specifics, and no numbers are laid down. Their First Company were Terminators, like every other Legion.

 

This is one of those Raptors, Raptors, Raptors! things we need to be careful of, because too many people believe it already.

[Lexington]

cool but you do know that this is a table top game , the painting the fluff and the converting is there , few gamers would say that those aspects should be eliminated . But above all it is a game

Yes, but it's not a very good game. I've been playing tabletop miniatures wargames for about fifteen years now, and have gotten in at least a couple of games with just about every major system released during that time, from Warzone to VOR to Starship Troopers, and at no point has 40K had a rules set that was above average. Talk to a game designer from a competing company, and you will never once hear them mention 40K's rules when it comes to why GW's a dominant force in the industry. Hell, bring up the topic and the nicest reply you're liable to get is a dismissive snort. It's the universe, the concepts, the models and the other elements of the 40K IP that draw people in to this niche of the hobby, and I think we'd all do well to keep that in mind.

 

how can a legion with fixed focused on religion structure , be the same in organisation , as a legion that works in cells that rarely know what other cells do .

Uh, they both field squads of power-armored Astartes who use a boltgun as their main armament? I mean, I'm open to the idea that the Alpha Legion is, at this point, completely unable to be accurately represented on the tabletop, since their background's always shifting focus (possibly intentionally), but at least when they've been shown in-game, they're no different from other CSMs.

 

Now you will say how is that different from now , no one forces anyone to play with any option too ? yeah no one forces me , save for one thing 5th ed rule and playabilty . [...] IF I try to build an army with havocks and raptors now I get a crap list that gets steam rolled .

jeske, every time this topic comes up, you and I find each other on opposite sides of the argument, usually with fairly similar points argued. This time, though, I'd like to come out and simply ask you what the hell you are talking about. There's a constant and baffling refusal on your part to separate concept from execution, as if the 3.5 and 4.0 Chaos Codicies are the only possible outcomes of these competing philosophies of army list design. I don't think I've ever seen a single human being claim, in any of these threads, that the 4th Edition Chaos Codex is, as a whole product, well-done or balanced. The argument is always over the idea of an expansive singular list vs. individual Legion lists, but you wade into it talking about "builds" and "tiers" and other things that have nothing to do with the abstract notions under discussion. The idea that all of a list's elements should, ideally, be useful to some degree, and given an appropriate points value is a position I think everyone operates from without a need to out-and-out state it. Why act as if people don't realize this stuff?

[Shas'o R'Vre]

Nyet.

Anyone else read this in the voice of the Heavy from Team Fortress 2?