count as, just why?

[Captain Juan Juarez]

And most tournaments won't let you use the Dawkins from Codex: Daemons.

 

I thought I covered that in "Not perfect.."/"Represent, but not truly accurate..." dammit.. :P

[Legatus]

But each choice is not perfect is it? You can represent, but not in a truly accurate way.

Why? How? The only instance of "counts as" is with the "cultists" for the Alpha Legion. What is inaccurate about Iron Warriors with Vindicators, Defilers and Dreadnoughts? What is inaccurate about Word Bearers with hordes of weaker warp critters?

 

You could argue that the Codex Chaos Space Marines is not very interesting (though I would argue that compared to the Codex Dark Angels or downloadable Codex Blood Angels at that time it was quite suitable), but you can hardly argue that the army list does not allow you to represent Iron Warriors or Night Lords. It certainly does this better than the Codex Space Marines or the Codex Blood Angels. Those Codices just have more flashy bits to play around with, which for a lot of people makes them "more interesting". Personally, I was disappointed when the Codex Space Marines was released. I had hoped that it would be just like the Codex Dark Angels.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

But each choice is not perfect is it? You can represent, but not in a truly accurate way.

Why? How? The only instance of "counts as" is with the "cultists" for the Alpha Legion. What is inaccurate about Iron Warriors with Vindicators, Defilers and Dreadnoughts? What is inaccurate about Word Bearers with hordes of weaker warp critters?

 

Iron Warriors are noted for their siege craft, including using captured Imperial Guard artillery pieces - I'd like to see a more developed armoury to truly represent them for example.

 

That fact you included another Codex to "buff the fluff" aspect of the army says alot to me.

 

Also, I'm not actually saying that any one other Codex allows better representation; what I'm saying is that C:CSM as is does not allow an accurate and true representation.

[Lexington]

Iron Warriors are noted for their siege craft, including using captured Imperial Guard artillery pieces - I'd like to see a more developed armoury to truly represent them for example.

We've had a little FAQ revolution over the last few days, and while I've been a tad too busy to pay close attention to the finer details, I'm pretty sure they didn't suddenly allow Loyalist SM armies to take Imperial Guard artillery. ;)

 

Facetious, sure, but it's a good sum-up of my problem with your argument, Juan - what you're saying is that, because Legion X or Y lost one choice or another, that it's completely justified to start using Loyalist Codexes that do not, in any way, actually rectify those issues. No, the Iron Warriors can't take Basilisks anymore, but neither do Lysander lists.

 

As always, I really don't have much of a problem with people using modern Loyalist SM 'Dexes to play their Traitor forces, but the idea that the more powerful, competitive and flexible 5th Edition lists just so happen to "represent" Chaos Legions better on the tabletop is utter sophistry. Everyone knows the Chaos Codex is embarrassingly awful - no need to add false pretenses of nobility to the justification.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Facetious, sure, but it's a good sum-up of my problem with your argument, Juan - what you're saying is that, because Legion X or Y lost one choice or another, that it's completely justified to start using Loyalist Codexes that do not, in any way, actually rectify those issues. No, the Iron Warriors can't take Basilisks anymore, but neither do Lysander lists.

 

The you have not understood - and probably I haven't articulated very well - my argument.

 

What I am trying to say is that the C:CSM is in no way ideal for representing the Legions; it simply can't do it.

 

The Iron Warriors taking Basilisks is acceptable to me, it fits with their history and fluff but it isn't possible; Imperial Fists should not be able too, because despite siege craft tendancies they remain a Codex Chapter.

 

I'm not trying to say that using Loyalist Codices is justified - I'm a purist at heart and disagree with almost everything "Counts As" - what I'm saying is that if people feel they have to use something other than C:CSM then there is something wrong with that.

[Hellios]

As always, I really don't have much of a problem with people using modern Loyalist SM 'Dexes to play their Traitor forces, but the idea that the more powerful, competitive and flexible 5th Edition lists just so happen to "represent" Chaos Legions better on the tabletop is utter sophistry. Everyone knows the Chaos Codex is embarrassingly awful - no need to add false pretenses of nobility to the justification.

 

Ahh this is all very well and good but I've seen take weaker lists than the one they have used in C:CSM because they felt the list was better suited to whatever they were playing... So why the only reason you might consider using counts as is to get a compettitive advantage, not everyone is like you :D

 

Personally I have a 1kson army... nothing is suitable for counts as... only 1ksons... although if people let me use the Apocalypse Rubric terminators and Tzeentch daemons from codex: Daemons I get very happy... If not well rubrics... rubrics... rubrics and some more rubrics... maybe some spawn... and tzeentch daemons counts as lesser daemons... oh plus vehicles... If I don't want to do any serious counts as...

[Brother Nihm]

what I'm saying is that if people feel they have to use something other than C:CSM then there is something wrong with that.

And therein lies the heart of the problem.

[Lexington]

What I am trying to say is that the C:CSM is in no way ideal for representing the Legions; it simply can't do it.

Really? I've been playing Word Bearers since the crusty old days of 2nd Edition, and don't find the current book to be at all problematic from the "representation" angle. Chaos Lords, Daemon Princes, Chaos Space Marines with all of their normal variations and vehicles, daemons both big and small, plus all the little sub-cults and niggly bits that the army's always been made of. Nowadays, I can also take all of those Cult Troops, too, which has presented some interesting modeling opportunities. In this sense, the list represents my army just fine.

 

Same should go for everyone else. Yes, the Alpha Legion used to have Infiltrate, but that's not the be-all, end-all of the Legion, and I can't really object to a change that requires players themselves to be clever, rather than relying on a special rule to do their work for them. Similarly, the Night Lords can take as many Raptors as they've ever been able to. It's not unique to them anymore, but I don't see how that matters for tabletop representation. Cult Legions, of course, are very much present.

 

At the end of the day, you've got almost the exact same choices that the Chaos Space Marines have always been presented with. There's a few things that've been lost, sure, but that's true of most any Codex revamp, and you don't see, say, Salamanders players engaging in the wailing and gnashing of keyboards that the Chaos community has, simply because they lost the dual special weapons options in their book. There is, I think, a reason for this.

 

I'm not trying to say that using Loyalist Codices is justified - I'm a purist at heart and disagree with almost everything "Counts As" - what I'm saying is that if people feel they have to use something other than C:CSM then there is something wrong with that.

With you there, sir, even if I might have something of a different perspective on what's actually wrong here. Obviously, the biggest problem here is that the Chaos Codex is flatly terrible. I find it shocking to think that this army list was ever even a rough draft, much less something that made it through the editing process. Aside from the occasional playtesting gig, I've got zero experience in the workings of game design, yet the huge errors being committed in this book stood out to my eyes after just a cursory read-through. This is to say nothing of the horrible fiction or art. It's a shameful book, made all the worse for the way its failure almost certainly contributed to the early death of 4th Edition's march towards simpler, more elegant rules.

 

Otherwise, though, I feel a lot of the issues here actually lie within the Chaos player base and their expectations.The IA/3.5 era left us with a group of Chaos players so attached to their sub-lists and Legion rules that they refused to accept the idea that their armies could be represented differently. To many, the Alpha Legion was the Infiltrate special rule, and the character of the Iron Warriors was found entirely within the hulls of their Basilisks. The most common thing one heard when the book was released was that a player's army wasn't special anymore, as if players could have no input on their army aside from points-shuffling. This reliance on Games Workshop to do a player's work for them is an ugly thing, and I wish to hell that we'd already seen its backside.

[Dr Duck]

I'm a big fan of encouraging people to fill in the gaps and make a unique force.

 

I'd almost prefer them to produce a set of codex's such as 'Space Marine Assault', 'Space Marine Heavy Support', 'Space Marine Terminator' and then let the players fill in the gaps as to the names and cultures and reasons behind the armies

[Captain Juan Juarez]

What I am trying to say is that the C:CSM is in no way ideal for representing the Legions; it simply can't do it.

Really? I've been playing Word Bearers since the crusty old days of 2nd Edition, and don't find the current book to be at all problematic from the "representation" angle. Chaos Lords, Daemon Princes, Chaos Space Marines with all of their normal variations and vehicles, daemons both big and small, plus all the little sub-cults and niggly bits that the army's always been made of. Nowadays, I can also take all of those Cult Troops, too, which has presented some interesting modeling opportunities. In this sense, the list represents my army just fine.

 

Same should go for everyone else. Yes, the Alpha Legion used to have Infiltrate, but that's not the be-all, end-all of the Legion, and I can't really object to a change that requires players themselves to be clever, rather than relying on a special rule to do their work for them. Similarly, the Night Lords can take as many Raptors as they've ever been able to. It's not unique to them anymore, but I don't see how that matters for tabletop representation. Cult Legions, of course, are very much present.

 

At the end of the day, you've got almost the exact same choices that the Chaos Space Marines have always been presented with. There's a few things that've been lost, sure, but that's true of most any Codex revamp, and you don't see, say, Salamanders players engaging in the wailing and gnashing of keyboards that the Chaos community has, simply because they lost the dual special weapons options in their book. There is, I think, a reason for this.

 

Otherwise, though, I feel a lot of the issues here actually lie within the Chaos player base and their expectations.The IA/3.5 era left us with a group of Chaos players so attached to their sub-lists and Legion rules that they refused to accept the idea that their armies could be represented differently. To many, the Alpha Legion was the Infiltrate special rule, and the character of the Iron Warriors was found entirely within the hulls of their Basilisks. The most common thing one heard when the book was released was that a player's army wasn't special anymore, as if players could have no input on their army aside from points-shuffling. This reliance on Games Workshop to do a player's work for them is an ugly thing, and I wish to hell that we'd already seen its backside.

 

The Alpha Legion are more than just Infiltrate or Outflank; the use of Cultists is one thing that springs to mind.

 

The Iron Warriors: It isn't just the loss of Basilisks; you can't take an accurate siege army complete with artillery, Dreads and the like.

 

The Night Lords are more than just Raptor Cults* but there are no actual rules to depict them.

 

It isn't about being special, but about being true to the army; not every IW army will be for sieges, but the option should still be there.

 

 

For a while I've been advocating the use of Army Special Rules that you can buy at the beginning of army selection to give character to your force; something that can give your army a certain Chapters uniqueness - or Legion in this case.

 

If all else fails this is what I'd like to see.

 

 

*It was at this point that the PC Tower unit fell on my foot.

 

EDIT: Because my typing now sucks.

[the jeske]

(though I would argue that compared to the Codex Dark Angels or downloadable Codex Blood Angels at that time it was quite suitable)

DA dex 3 builds minimum [am not counting mix of builds etc] RW , DW , green marines . 3 armies 3 totaly different game plays. Lets look at the chaos builds of that time .... 2 dps in everyone one [check] oblits till maxed out slots and/or points[check] +troops. OK but DPs and oblits are just support units , so maybe armies with different kind of troop units have dramaticly different game play ? and what do we find 3-4 csm and 4 pms... identical . 3-4 csm and zerker/pm ... identical . 1ksons just as short ranged as csm or pm builds , but without the anti tank and for more points . NM builds carried by lash and oblits without which neither the water warrior nor the hth version[ and a hth version of NM was a watered down version of the same build only with zerkers] hmmm .

 

BAs sure HQs were fixed , but the list at least had working elite and FA unlike us .

 

But what about the other build we had the LR rush , maybe there somehow [no oblits for example] the game play changes between different troops used. But no such thing happens , picking csm over pms is a cosmeticial choice and if someone wanted a LR rush he knew that zerkers were the only option [NM/1ksons LR rush... non existant].

 

So I ask how was it balanced and ok . Considering the DA dex was crap and seen as a very bad codex. Not just but the DA players , but by sm players in general.

 

I've been playing Word Bearers since the crusty old days of 2nd Edition, and don't find the current book to be at all problematic from the "representation" angle. Chaos Lords, Daemon Princes, Chaos Space Marines with all of their normal variations and vehicles, daemons both big and small, plus all the little sub-cults and niggly bits that the army's always been made of.

only the 2ed fluff was in many places retconed . The gaming community took the IA article and the 3.5 dex so good , just because they gave legions flavor [and it is not like chambers didnt want to put legion rules in to the 2ed dex , he was just given an option , demon/bestman/renegade armies or legion rules and he took the first] . I dont know If you remember how bad the JJ dex in teh 3ed was viewed by the chaos players ? and the gav dex is almost a copy pasta of that dex.

 

I may have agreed with you that there is no need or that there never was need for IA articales or legion rules , because the stuff in the JJ dex and Gav dex give so many viable options to pick from that in the end it doesnt matter . That I can build an army with what ever I want and have a good army . Only that is not true . Your not going to tell me that a lord or a sorc is more or the same viable as a DP . Your not going to tell me that oblits out class other support so much that others just dont matter [i mean even GW noticed that a pred costed like ours maybe not the best idea]. that stuff like spawn or possessed can find way in to a working list . Because it is not like that , it doesnt come up in the builds posted and used by people . If somehow bikes were possible to be made viable people would have used them , they would have come up in tournament lists around the world .

 

The most common thing one heard when the book was released was that a player's army wasn't special anymore, as if players could have no input on their army aside from points-shuffling.

Looks at the sm dex. biker builds , special rules and army wide buff all around , FoC manipulation more then one unit viable per slot.

 

IG tons of single units no one fixed build like they had once , both a full slogging army viable [hard counter to razor spams] as a full mecha build . + if someone is crazy enough he can play air cav.

 

SW tons of upgrades , very strong options , more special rules , at least two types of builds to play [mecha =normal and razorspam] and pod . IF someone is crazy enough he can play a slogger build .

 

Hmm yeah right of course GW cut the special rules from chaos armies because it was their plan <_< totaly , it didnt have anything to do with the fact that the ork range wasnt ready and they had to bring out a dex.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

On a side note: As a non-Chaos player, or lover of Chaos particularly, am I the largest contributor to this simply because I'm argumentative? <_<

 

I know there are other die-hard Chaos fans out there, do any have an opinion? I'm not a fan of Chaos, as stated, neither is Lexington or Legatus particularly as far as I'm aware.. So, any more for any more?

[Dr Duck]

Ironically i think less people would use 'count as' at codex level, if more people used 'count as' at unit level... what I mean by this is using Khorne Beserker rules as non-khorne, but assualt heavy troops or Thousand Sons as a form of 'Heavy Weapon Troop' etc.

 

I think players get a bit nervous about crossing gods. For example i will be playing a 4v4 in a couple of weeks and we are lucky that each of the 4 chaos players happens to specialise in each of the 4 gods, in my case Nurgle. In this army I will be fielding a unit of LC armed terminators but I want to give them Mark of Slaneesh as the extra Initiative makes more sense to me than a toughness boost. Now its totally legal army list wise, i'm using models that are unquestionably 'Nurgle' still and its quite feasible that fluff wise you could chalk this extra initiative bonus to extra training or experince of the unit that spends all its time going hand to hand. Yet all this said i'm still hesitant to do it even though i've justified it on all levels tactically, visially, fluff(ily).

 

For some people making one big break with tradition by choosing a loylaist codex is less intimidating than having to make lots of little breaks and justify them like the ones i mention above.

 

I'm now working on my second Chaos army (Iron Warriors). This is partly because I wanted to have an army where i felt much freerer to go 'multi-god' without having to feel a pressure to justify things to much. Also while I will use the Chaos dex, at some point im sure i'll put together an alternative list using my Dark Angel book in order to experiment with an all termiantor force....... that is definatly an option we are missing as chaos players

[Legatus]

I'm not a fan of Chaos, as stated, neither is Lexington or Legatus particularly as far as I'm aware..

Night Lords are pretty much my number 2 army, out of 6 Marine armies and several non-marine armies. I have played them since 2nd Edition. I guess much like for Lexington, the fact that I have played them and enjoyed them before they ever got "special rules" has a lot to do with why I am not terribly bothered by the lack of distinct rules in the current Codex. I have played them in 2nd Edition, when they were Chaos Marines with black armour and golden trims, I have played them with the Index Astartes rules, when they had become the "raptor" and "fast attack" chaos army, which they had not been before that, and I still play them with the 4th Edition Codex, where they are Chaos Space Marines again (though now with a slightly brighter bluish armour to allow Black Legion to now have golden trims as well). For me, the Night Lords are more about a certain style and attitude than they are about any army wide rules or special units that did not even exist when I started playing them.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

For me, the Night Lords are more about a certain style and attitude than they are about any army wide rules or special units that did not even exist when I started playing them.

 

But Special Rules would surely help reinforce that style and attitude?

 

 

Amsuing, I realise how dumb my intial statement looks when I recall that Lex said he's been playing Word Bearers since the 2^nd.. /epicfail.

[Legatus]

Special rules are neat. But when the newest Codex does not have special rules for them, and instead includes a few of their previous "special" traits in the basic list, like GW has done with pretty much every other army, then that will work too.

 

All of the Eldar Craftworlds had distinct rules. The distinct army lists were united into one basic list with their current Codex, and you can do certain things with that list you could previously only do with the craftworld variant army lists. They did not include all special rules, however. It is the same with Chaos. The Legion specific veteran skills are mainly gone due to most veteran skills being removed everywhere in general. Loyalist Veterans and terminators could chose between different veteran skills in the previous loyalist Codex as well. Now they can't. What was included in the current Codex Chaos were several unit choices that were previously only available to variant army lists, similar to Codex Eldar. Perhaps in the case of Codex Chaos that was too few changes. Things like unlimited Raptors, unlimited Obliterators, Vindicators, Cult units as Troops, were not available in the generic army list in the previous Codex, and were only available to specific Legions. A Black Legion could only get 0-1 unit of Raptors, while a Night Lords army was not limited in the number of Raptor units it could field. A Black Legion could only get 0-1 unit of Obliterators, and could not get a Vindicator at all. The Iron Warriors army was not limited in the number of Obliterator units it could get, and it could get 0-1 Vindicator (or a Basilisk).

The 4th Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines removed the limitation of Raptors and Obliterators, and it included Vindicators as a new unit. So you can still create very similar forces to a 3.5 Night Lords or Iron Warriors army. The Night Lords will not have an army wide "Night Vision" veteran skill, but they can still fill up their fast attack slots with Raptors. The Iron Warriors do not have an army wide "Siege specialists" veteran skill, but they can still fill up their Heavy Support choices with obilterators (they were moved from Elite to Heavy Support, but in turn Dreadnoughts were moved from Heavy Support to Elite), and they now can choise more than 0-1 Vindicators.

 

Perhaps those new units that were intended to allow players to construct armies for the different legions similar to the 3.5 armies were just too few. Or maybe there really are a lot of units that are not very efficient. I don't remember Eldar Players complaining that the new Codex could not properly represent Alaitoc, only because now every army could field Pathfinders and because the ranger/pathfinder table was gone. And I don't think Orks complained that it was now impossible to play an Evil Sunz clan only because every army could field Deff Copters and could use Trukk boys as Troops.

 

Edit: Edit for teh sucky spelingz...

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Captain Juan Juarez: 0

 

Legatus: 4 (so far, dammit, I think)

 

Moral: Don't argue with Legatus because eventually he'll find a big enough stick.

 

See that makes sense, but you'll never get me to agree that such a system is perfect; to me it won't be unless it confroms to my ideals. Though I've more of a chance of having a steady relationship with a woman than that happening and that's saying somthing :)

[Lord_Caerolion]

Heh, Evil Sinz...

 

As to your post, Legatus, I pretty much agree, I just disagree that Night Lords should be "take lots of Raptors!" to be a fluffy list. The logic of "they had the first ones, so therefore they're almost all Raptors!" makes no sense. Nobody says a Wolf player needs to take as many Annihilators as possible to be fluffy, but hey, the Wolves had the first one! To me, a Night Lords list in 3.5 was one where every model possible had Night Vision and D.Visage. I can still get my Night Vision using the Space Wolves list, and also get snipers and drop pods which the Night Lords would use.

 

Do I like the fact that I have to use Wolves to get an army that 'feels' like the Night Lords (to me)? Hell no. For that matter, I barely ever use my Night Lords any more. Give me a method to take Night Vision and/or a D.Visage-type abilty, and I'll be running back to the Chaos Marines, no matter what they do to the rest of it.

[Brother Nihm]

For me, the Night Lords are more about a certain style and attitude than they are about any army wide rules or special units that did not even exist when I started playing them.

And when you can no longer accurately portray that style and attitude on the tabletop, what then?

 

Night Lords today is a paintjob + optional conversions and/or a sub-par list filled with broken/bad units if you limit (notice that word) yourself to fielding a 'fluffy list. And if you dont', they aren't Night Lords..

They didn't use to be like that.. Nor did you have to limit yourself in the past by selecting bad or broken units in order to stay fluffy. Hell, 2nd ed. Codex Chaos had several pages of Night Lord fluff (and no Legion rules mind you).

 

The new Codex has moronic stuff like 'lightning coming out of nowhere oooh, aaah!", broken units, and it downplays the role of the Horus Heresy so that it is reminiscent of a bar-room brawl, involving "a lot of Marines" sometime in the past. Yeah, that's grand.

 

Where is the fear/terror factor? where is the overwhelming force? and where is the attitude when you have Marines that emit electricity and force the Imperium to court martial and execute their officers?

Night Lords are not few in number, daft, or cripples...

 

 

Even though I dabbled with the BA pdf 'dex for a year and a half (Raptor Cult), I now stick with C:CSM because to me that is what I should be using (it is supposed to represent Chaos Space Marines after all), but I fully support count-as until we get a Codex that isn't written by shortsighted devs with no flair for supporting the background material.

 

 

My 2 Kraks

[Boshea]

I couldn't agree more Nihm. Its funny how in 3.5 Possessed could buy their abilities, and Dreadnaughts were smart enough to shoot the enemy first in a fire frenzy. I started with Night Lords and had to make the call on whether I try to play it fluffy or simply keep it to a paint job and conversions. In the end I switched to World Eaters since its easier to justify some of your choices, and keeping it fluffy doesn't require you to rely on chaos's terrible fast attack choices.

[Lexington]

The Alpha Legion are more than just Infiltrate or Outflank; the use of Cultists is one thing that springs to mind.

I've got a mixed opinion here, to be honest. As a Word Bearers guy, I'd love to see the return of Cultists, but never thought they were integrated well into the Chaos Space Marine army list. This actually goes double for the Alpha Legion, whose operatives don't strike me as the "screaming, fanatical bullet-catcher" types. Personally, I think Alpha Legion Cultists were better represented by the wonderful Lost and the Damned list, whose sudden and unnecessary demise is, I think, the real tragedy of the current book.

 

Regardless, though, you're still quite able to represent Alpha Legion Astartes on the table. Saying that they can't be accurately represented because they can't take Cultists seems to me only as valid as saying you can't represent Space Marines accurately because they can't use Imperial Guard back-up.

 

The Iron Warriors: It isn't just the loss of Basilisks; you can't take an accurate siege army complete with artillery, Dreads and the like.

Wha? I mean, clearly, Chaos Dreads are terrible choices in the current book, but they're not gone or anything. Similarly, Vindicators now populate the Heavy Support section of the Chaos list, so I hardly see artillery being absent here.

 

The Night Lords are more than just Raptor Cults* but there are no actual rules to depict them.

Indeed, there aren't, but are they really necessary? Sure, the motivations behind a Word Bearer and a Night Lord are nearly as different as can be, but at the end of the day, they more or less fight the same way. They have a statline full of 4's encased within the bulky frame of a 3+ armor save, and really, really want the Imperium to die a painful, hideous death. As far as the tabletop is concerned, I don't think one needs to make a distinction.

 

I may have agreed with you that there is no need or that there never was need for IA articales or legion rules , because the stuff in the JJ dex and Gav dex give so many viable options to pick from that in the end it doesnt matter . That I can build an army with what ever I want and have a good army . Only that is not true .

I agree with you in full here, but I don't see how Legion lists would fix any of this. Chaos Dreadnoughts, Spawn and all the rest of the useless chaff of the Chaos Codex will continue to be useless, whether they're dragged along by World Eaters, Alpha Legion or Night Lords. The only way Legion lists would fix things would be if they made changes to the units themselves, and in that case, why not just apply them to the units in the general army list?

 

[and it is not like chambers didnt want to put legion rules in to the 2ed dex , he was just given an option , demon/bestman/renegade armies or legion rules and he took the first] .

You've said this in a few places, jeske, but every time I ask where you're getting this idea from, I'm met with a deafening chorus of silence. C'mon, man! I'm legitimately curious here!

 

Hmm yeah right of course GW cut the special rules from chaos armies because it was their plan :D totaly , it didnt have anything to do with the fact that the ork range wasnt ready and they had to bring out a dex.

In all honesty, it probably didn't. This schedule-shifting probably did cause the poor production values and rushed work in the Chaos Codex, but the idea of folding intra-army factions into an all-encompassing Codex had already been in effect for a few books when Chaos hit.

 

Amsuing, I realise how dumb my intial statement looks when I recall that Lex said he's been playing Word Bearers since the 2^nd.. /epicfail.

Hah! Dude, I do have that big honking Aurora Chapter banner sitting under my every post. Don't feel too bad about glossing over a minor point in my dense, verbose paragraphs. ;)

 

Night Lords today is a paintjob + optional conversions and/or a sub-par list filled with broken/bad units if you limit (notice that word) yourself to fielding a 'fluffy list. And if you dont', they aren't Night Lords..

Erm, wha? You realize that the "several pages of Night Lord fluff" from 2nd Edition that you're referencing later in your post is a story about a force of Night Lords invading a world with Berzerker and Noise Marine auxiliaries, right? Hell, they even summon a Bloodthirster at the end of it all. Mixed-Legion forces are as fluffy as mono-Legion ones.

[Legatus]

See that makes sense, but you'll never get me to agree that such a system is perfect

I do not think the current Codex is perfect. There are a lot of things I do not like. But there are other things I do like.

 

Don't like:

- Marks that are lost when the banner bearer dies

- No true cult units other than the one troops choice

- No cult equipment

- no cult daemons

- daemon prince is boring, well, Lord is too

 

Like:

- Chaos Marines come packing boltgun, bolt pistol, ccw, frag and krak grenades

- Berserkers are awesome as you buy them

- no silly "frenzy" rule for Berzerkers (having to run forward was fine, jumping out of a transport to do so was not)

- Plague Marines are awesome as you buy them

- a lot more "dedicated" units than before (like Khorne Raptors or Khorne Havocs) you just have to get used to the idea that those are not fearless and may lose their bonus (but that's actually how Berserkers worked in 2nd Edition)

- Iron Warriors are not broken anymore (I was almost starting an Iron Warriors force twice now, but time and money...)

- generic, non-described daemons (I had a lot of fun coming up with "themed" daemon types for the different Legions)

 

 

As to your post, Legatus, I pretty much agree, I just disagree that Night Lords should be "take lots of Raptors!" to be a fluffy list.

Neither do I think that. I am not a big fan of Raptors, mianly because they are "newfangled stuff" for me (when I started, Chaos forces had no jump pack units), and I did not like the previous or the current models for them. I have one squad of Chaos Marines with "chaotified" loyalist jump packs instead. But Raptors were a trademark unit for them according to the Index Astartes and the 3.5 Codex. That was the main difference in army lists between Night Lords and other Legions. THey also had nice veteran skills, but I think those would have been removed even if the current Codex had included distinct army lists for the Legions, simply because GW was removing a lot of those veteran skills in army lists at that time.

 

To me, I only need the basic Chaos Marine units to play Night Lords. The difference between my squad of Night Lords attacking an enemy unit or a squad of Black Legion or Iron Warriors doing that is that my Night Lords are not fighting to achieve a military goal, to secure a position or to defeat the enemy forces in this area. My Night Lords fight because they enjoy slaughtering the enemy soldiers, before moving on to the civilian population.

 

I liked the "fear" aspect the Index Astartes emphasized, and that account from Grendels world is just awesome. They are such badasses. But the majority of that business will happen outside of a Warhammer 40K game. A lot of forces will desert because of their methods. What you encounter in a game of 40K are the forces that remained and did not outright flee. Plus, of the possible opponents only four are really susceptible to those tactics, while two of those cannot really be attacked by the Night Lords. Only Imperial Guard and Tau are really suitable victims for them. All the other races will either not be intimidated by such tactics (Marines, Chaos Marines, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons) or cannot really be surprised by the Night Lords (Eldar and Dark Eldar). Since their tactics will mainly take place outside of an actual battle, and since their tactics would not really work against most of the forces of 40K anyway, I am ok with that being merely a part of their background. Why should every enemy suffer morale penalties if that should really only work against the Imperial Guard and the Tau?

[nurglez]

I've played chaos since just before 3rd (had like 2-4 games of 2nd), started out as generic undivided with what ever looked cool, and after converting up a squad of plague marines I was hooked, this was with the 3rd edition "bland" codex. Fighting imperial guard with toughness 5 plague marines was great fun, and after a few months of trying out a nurgle led undivided army (so I got plague marines as troops, but could still take anything else apart from things with the mark of tzeentch), I started trying out a pure deathguard force.

 

And man that was fun, I could get plague marine havocs, plague marine possessed, plague marine chosen and even plague marines! And if they numbered 7 (the sacred number of nurgle) they got a free champion, and my champions could buy plague swords, and nurgle's rot, but I couldn't have any heavy weapons on my infantry.

 

In the current codex, I have 4 squads of plague marines in 3 rhinos and a landraider, a daemon prince, and a vindicator, this is my army at 1500 points, due to fluff reasons I cant add any more infantry unless I add in plague marines, as buying a squad an icon that bestows +1 toughness but I lose it if the icon bearer dies doesn't signify plague marines, that signifies that my guys are carrying round a rotting icon.

 

I still run squads of 7, and have to buy my champions (only having 2 but oh well), my daemon prince now uses his claws instead of a darkblade that could damage him if he lost control of it, but I get a vindicator, woohoo.

 

quite frankly the current codex is bland, as it has been said above, units that were fun and mostly/totally reliable become random (possessed/dreadnaught). lord's are so sub par compaired to prince's it isn't even funny (the amount of times my lord has been punched in the face by a hidden powerfist, at least I could make him immune to eternal warrior before).

 

If i want to take a fluffy force I have to handicap myself without any benefit. If I'm taking my current renegade logan wing force I handicap myself with only using terminators as troops, but at least they have terminator armour and are fun to play, I've stopped using my deathguard because they are boring, in the 3.5 codex I could take 1500 points of deathguard, and they could be different from the last game i used them in, now i need 70-90% of the same force or they are too random or un fluffy.

 

moving cult troops to troops was the worse thing they could have done, unless you are trying to make a recently renegade force with hired help, which is funny because thats what I'm using my logan wing as... (renegades hired some khorne guys, hence me having zerkers riding juggers :( )

[Lord_Caerolion]

See that makes sense, but you'll never get me to agree that such a system is perfect

I do not think the current Codex is perfect. There are a lot of things I do not like. But there are other things I do like.

 

Don't like:

- Marks that are lost when the banner bearer dies

- No true cult units other than the one troops choice

- No cult equipment

- no cult daemons

- daemon prince is boring, well, Lord is too

Agreed wholeheartedly, although add "Dreadnoughts are stupid, Possessed went backwards in what people wanted and Spawn are useless".

 

Like:

- Chaos Marines come packing boltgun, bolt pistol, ccw, frag and krak grenades

- Berserkers are awesome as you buy them

- no silly "frenzy" rule for Berzerkers (having to run forward was fine, jumping out of a transport to do so was not)

- Plague Marines are awesome as you buy them

- a lot more "dedicated" units than before (like Khorne Raptors or Khorne Havocs) you just have to get used to the idea that those are not fearless and may lose their bonus (but that's actually how Berserkers worked in 2nd Edition)

- Iron Warriors are not broken anymore (I was almost starting an Iron Warriors force twice now, but time and money...)

- generic, non-described daemons (I had a lot of fun coming up with "themed" daemon types for the different Legions)

Add "removed limits of Cult units, so people can have Nurgle Marines infected with diseases other than 'fat-slow-zombie-itis', etc".

 

Neither do I think that. I am not a big fan of Raptors, mianly because they are "newfangled stuff" for me (when I started, Chaos forces had no jump pack units), and I did not like the previous or the current models for them. I have one squad of Chaos Marines with "chaotified" loyalist jump packs instead. But Raptors were a trademark unit for them according to the Index Astartes and the 3.5 Codex. That was the main difference in army lists between Night Lords and other Legions. THey also had nice veteran skills, but I think those would have been removed even if the current Codex had included distinct army lists for the Legions, simply because GW was removing a lot of those veteran skills in army lists at that time.

 

To me, I only need the basic Chaos Marine units to play Night Lords. The difference between my squad of Night Lords attacking an enemy unit or a squad of Black Legion or Iron Warriors doing that is that my Night Lords are not fighting to achieve a military goal, to secure a position or to defeat the enemy forces in this area. My Night Lords fight because they enjoy slaughtering the enemy soldiers, before moving on to the civilian population.

 

I liked the "fear" aspect the Index Astartes emphasized, and that account from Grendels world is just awesome. They are such badasses. But the majority of that business will happen outside of a Warhammer 40K game. A lot of forces will desert because of their methods. What you encounter in a game of 40K are the forces that remained and did not outright flee. Plus, of the possible opponents only four are really susceptible to those tactics, while two of those cannot really be attacked by the Night Lords. Only Imperial Guard and Tau are really suitable victims for them. All the other races will either not be intimidated by such tactics (Marines, Chaos Marines, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons) or cannot really be surprised by the Night Lords (Eldar and Dark Eldar). Since their tactics will mainly take place outside of an actual battle, and since their tactics would not really work against most of the forces of 40K anyway, I am ok with that being merely a part of their background. Why should every enemy suffer morale penalties if that should really only work against the Imperial Guard and the Tau?

 

Even the Index Astartes makes no reference to Raptors regarding the tactics and organisation of the Night Lords. 3.5 just needed a mirror to the Iron Warriors, and the Night Lords were picked.

As for the fear tactics, we've already seen that it's possible to make a rule reflecting that aspect of their background. If they added a way to have "Legion Tactics: Night Lords - all models have the old D.Visage rule" in the next codex, I'd be overjoyed.

To me though, the armies that are less affected by the Night Lords terror tactics usually have a higher number of Fearless units anyway, so it balances out fluff-wise.

[Alphz]

Legatus has an excellent post.

 

After spending a long time and I mean a long time reading the codex over and over trying to represent my alpha legion I came to a couple (few) of interesting revelations.

 

1. All in all, the choices available in the codex are pretty awesome and allow for a pretty good range of units to select; maybe more so than the old codex. All in all the troops section is pretty solid and the other options give some nice selection (chosen, possessed and dreadnoughts aside, I mean really? why can't we have some decent elite traitors)

 

2. Customisation is woeful. And this really drags down point two. And as jeske rightly points out, it feels so much harder to be unique with the list; especially so when you start talking competitive.

 

Edit: 3. Our elites and HQ are abysmal. Chaos has always (since I've played) been reknowned for the most variety in their elite and characters. And I think, like me this was a big drawcard for a lot of chaos players (some players like the army, others like the characters; and certain armies were better at one or the other in terms of composition)

 

Its not the fact that this codex can't represent our beloved legions, it can. Its just so freaking terrible at it that no one wants to bother. And this comes back to Jaurez's question: "why aren't more veteran chaos players coming to represent on this thread?"

 

answer: because we just don't care for it anymore, nothing can change how terrible this codex is and how much it changed the character of what (I feel) a lot of people got into chaos for. Its just too bland, cookie cutter and lacking so much character that chaos once had; both in fluff and list selection.

 

I'm getting back into my chaos army because I love the fluff and modelling and painting, but despite how hard I've tried I just can't get excited about the army list... and even after every attempt I have to come to terms with the fact it will probably play averagely and only be modestly fluffly.