Shas'o R'Vre Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 Funny, I'm starting Chaos Marines because I get that feeling with my Tau. I have both Chaos and Tau, and neither of them represent the true fluff I see. I think I do suffer dreadfully from 3.5 syndrome. I grew into the hobby with options coming out of my ears, and my Iron Warriors were at home not because they were Silver and Spiky but because they carried as many heavy weapons as I could, sat around with my artillery units and blew the crap out of stuff with Tank Hunters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidhogg_Rider Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Chaos 3rd edition was definitely the pinnacle, that said, I have no idea what I can do with my army as I haven't played since then :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavement Artist Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Chaos is bad, true, but it could be worse. At least we're better than Necrons. I find Necrons far more appealing to play than our current Chaos purely because the feel is there. I can get the vibe while fielding them - not so with Chaos. Now thats a grim portent, when Necrons have more depth than chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlkTom Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I haven't played Chaos since 1st and 2nd Ed, so I don't know about the 3rd & 4th Ed Codexes, but even I am disappointed in the 5th Ed Codex. I am even surprised that there was a Demon Codex, as I don't know how diverse it really can be compaired to a chaos marine codex. But wow... what a weak attempt compaired to the Vannilla codex. Even the Eldar Codex has more options, and that is 4th Ed! Generic Demons??? No cultist/IG?? Cats and Dogs living together (Slannesh and Khorn)? I am disappointed just by making an army and I haven't even played a game with them. Heck, I have a hard time even coming up with a good fluff army. I dunno if I am sold on the whole trend of taking a HQ to base your army around as a game system when I have no control or imput over those HQ (besides taking it or not). GW /has/ to give options that are on par with each other to make a successful codex. Customization and paridy allow diversity and playability. All I can say is wait for 6th Ed and see if they get a new (and better) codex then. I don't want over the top powerful, like Abbadon going to Terra and buring down the Imperial Palace and giving the Emperor a Chuck Norris roundhouse and forging a new sword out of the Golden Thorn with his bare hands (stupid GK codex fluff). I just want something on par with other marine books, as fitting and deserving of the chaos marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Caerolion Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 The one real upside to this codex is you can finally have God-marked troops of different Cults, if that makes sense, so we can have Plague Marines who are marked by "Nurgle" but no longer have the 'fat, slow zombie' virus, but instead have 'super-rabies' ("Nurgle" Berzerkers) etc. Other than that... yeah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prot Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Odd. Thinking back, I was pretty much happy with CSM until I came to these forums and started hearing about what lists were/were not competitive, and much more importantly what was lost from the previous codex. I'm not sure what to make of that. As soon as I read a comment like this I look at the 'join date' of the frater. It is usually 09 or newer. No offense meant but 'ignorance is bliss' seems very appropriate. If you could play a few years with the 3.5, then come back to the forum and do a search for "Gav-dex" or "chaos sucks" or whatever, you'll find thread after thread re-living the nightmare. More specifically to the O.P.'s comment, one thing sometimes I think some of us forget is "they" did the Chaos codex after a long period of codex creep, and quirky (but super fun) Index Astartes rules/articles. For me this was the best of times in this game. Yes, things were imbalanced, but I had a blast. So approximately right around then, GW seemed to be in this phase of pulling everything back to bland. Then with Orks they went the complete other direction again, and here we are after Wolves, BA and now Grey Knights with an even blander feeling codex (in comparison). I think it's important to differentiate from being critical of the codex and what the OP is saying- which is that it is bland. It certainly is. And playtesters knew it and warned them, but they were told to shut up and test it.... so they did. (I don't think they even use playtester groups anymore.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thradok Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Odd. Thinking back, I was pretty much happy with CSM until I came to these forums and started hearing about what lists were/were not competitive, and much more importantly what was lost from the previous codex. I'm not sure what to make of that. No offense meant but 'ignorance is bliss' seems very appropriate. No offense taken, and I agree. I only had minor annoyances before, comparing the codex to my friend's vanilla SM codex. (LR, Drop pods, no scout/cultists, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Ambroz Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 So it's back to beating this horse again eh? Well certainly compared to the way our DP's in the previous codex could destroy half our opponents force alone they definitely are not portrayed correctly. Anything though at this point seems like it would be better than our current codex. I was thinking last night it seems they wanted to put alot more emphasis on renegades in our current codex, if that was so, why not make a renegade space marine as a choice in the codex? Instead of giving them marks/fearlessness and all the stuff that should belong to an actual ten thousand year old chaos marine, give them some of the newer SM gear and make them a bit cheaper, maybe the equivalent of a regular SM. Whereas our boys would be a bit more expensive but tougher, actual "veterans" of the long war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 because the dex was mostly made this way to have something for the void the unready ork model range created . Sad but true . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sangneur Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Odd. Thinking back, I was pretty much happy with CSM until I came to these forums and started hearing about what lists were/were not competitive, and much more importantly what was lost from the previous codex. I'm not sure what to make of that. As soon as I read a comment like this I look at the 'join date' of the frater. It is usually 09 or newer. No offense meant but 'ignorance is bliss' seems very appropriate. If you could play a few years with the 3.5, then come back to the forum and do a search for "Gav-dex" or "chaos sucks" or whatever, you'll find thread after thread re-living the nightmare. More specifically to the O.P.'s comment, one thing sometimes I think some of us forget is "they" did the Chaos codex after a long period of codex creep, and quirky (but super fun) Index Astartes rules/articles. For me this was the best of times in this game. Yes, things were imbalanced, but I had a blast. So approximately right around then, GW seemed to be in this phase of pulling everything back to bland. Then with Orks they went the complete other direction again, and here we are after Wolves, BA and now Grey Knights with an even blander feeling codex (in comparison). I think it's important to differentiate from being critical of the codex and what the OP is saying- which is that it is bland. It certainly is. And playtesters knew it and warned them, but they were told to shut up and test it.... so they did. (I don't think they even use playtester groups anymore.) I made the mistake of reading the 3.5 codex before the 4th one, despite me coming into the hobby well after it had come out. When my friend told me the 4th edition book was the newer one I literally did not believe him, to me it looked like it was older and had not as evolved in concept as its predecessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 well that is because the gav dex is very much like the early 3ed JJ chaos dex. a dex so bad that GW started doing IA articles to modify the chaos lists . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diabloelmo Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 As a new convert to chaos, I have also come to many conclusions about the current codex being bland when compared to the current set of 'dexes. However, I knew all this BEFORE I decided to play them. Sure the lack of special rules is sad, but I see the game as being what you make of it. I take Predators instead of obliterators I take Raptors as a retinue for a sorcerer on a disk I take rubric marines without transports I give my ENTIRE army the same mark I do this for the sheer flavour that the units have in my head and in the fluff, rather than the flavour given by the rules in the codex. I make a point of having a story behind my army, and many individual units will evolve over time from playing many games. For example, back in early 4th ed when I played vanilla marines, i had a lowly veteran sergeant in an assault squad. As a group, the squad would never do anything worthwhile, dying almost to the last man in every game. The sergeant, however... He would fly around the table, killing everything that he came into contact with and surviving the often ridiculous amounts of firepower aimed his way. He gained quite a bit of notoriety in my local gaming club as a highly dangerous model, and often regular opponents would aim to kill him as soon as possible, even ignoring more immediate threats to do so. He evolved into a character in his own right, despite having the same statline as every other veteran sergeant in my force. The point is, I see the bland codex as a blank slate to work on, rather than a hindrance. And if it means I loose a few more games than I would otherwise due to sub-optimal choices? I don't think it really matters, since I'm using the models I want to in the army I want to play with, and I'm having fun while doing so. And if nothing else, having a crappy codex is a challenge. So if I win, I've done so DESPITE the weaknesses of my army, not because it's an overpowered hammer army :D Just my two rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 no dude. playing with a good codex against other codex is a challange because there skills and personal abilty to play the list comes to shine . When two good players face in a non biased scenario and one playes a good army and the other plays a bad one the dude with the bad one will lose more offten . Always . Now multiply the always through 2 years with 2-3 smaller and 1-2 bigger tournaments per month , 10~ games of testing per week and the expiriance of bad dex makes people leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Sasha Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 So, my point is that our units don't FEEL quite as great as other units do. They don't really have rules accurately representing their fluff portrayals. Does anyone else find this... I sympathise, and hope that C:CSM gets updated some time soon in a manner that pleases you! ... and how do you counter it? In the mean time, I suggest you proxy a codex. Wolves, Grey Knights and Blood Angels are all Power Armour based, but with ferocity, magic/tech or speed bumped up in the way I would expect a Chaos chapter to have. Develop your own fluff, justify and re-describe all those weapons, powers or rules as warped equivalents, and make them feel Chaos because they are warped YOUR way! My current main army is Skaven Counts-As-Tyranids; justifying and modelling appropriately has been immense fun, and I really feel like I have rats on the table, not bugs. Instinctive behaviour? No, cowardice and gang bravado. Tervigon spawning baby gaunts? No, a big wagon, teeming with rats, many of whom jump off to join the battle! Zoeanthropes casting warp powers? No, ratty warlocks shooting warpstone blasts! I hope that a project like this can re-invigorate your enthusiasm; Nurglez posted earlier about his Loganwing, Counts-As-Chaos all-terminator; it's spiky, it's purple, it hurts, and it's fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diabloelmo Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 no dude. playing with a good codex against other codex is a challange because there skills and personal abilty to play the list comes to shine . When two good players face in a non biased scenario and one playes a good army and the other plays a bad one the dude with the bad one will lose more offten . Always . Now multiply the always through 2 years with 2-3 smaller and 1-2 bigger tournaments per month , 10~ games of testing per week and the expiriance of bad dex makes people leave. So my own experiences are wrong? Thanks for clearing that up for me, I'll be sure to sell off all my chaos units immediately and go jump on a bandwagon. ;) A 'good' codex won't ALWAYS beat a 'bad' codex, the player's skill and the will of the dice gods are also important factors. I've played against plenty of 4th ed chaos armies before, many of them without a daemon prince or obliterator in sight, and I've lost just as many games as I've won. This is against players who I know are skilled at using their forces to best effect, which is a necessary skill when you cannot call upon overpowered hammer units. So I'm not sure where you're getting the statistics of chaos loosing all the time in an unbiased scenario involving two players of similar skill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 So I'm not sure where you're getting the statistics of chaos loosing all the time in an unbiased scenario involving two players of similar skill... 21 CSM armies went to Adepticon this year; none made it into the final 16. That should give you some idea of what happens when opponents of similar level with two different Codices get together under identical conditions, and what happens when one of those Codices is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 So my own experiences are wrong? yes because . comunity xp > one player xp. A 'good' codex won't ALWAYS beat a 'bad' codex, the player's skill and the will of the dice gods are also important factors. all good lists are build in a such a way to make dice unimportant . If I list looses or wins because of dice . It is a bad list . To make an example .an sm list that is build around 4 MM .If they work first turn and blow up their targets , the list works . If not the list loses [because it is close probably wont be able to shot next turn against most of the match ups etc] . I've played against plenty of 4th ed chaos armies before, many of them without a daemon prince or obliterator in sight, and I've lost just as many games as I've won not my job to judge how good your opponents or your enviroment is . But If you get a 50/50 lose win ratio against chaos lists with or without DP/oblits . It means what that you lose against LR rush 50% of time [because there are no other chaos builds without DPS+oblits] ? This is against players who I know are skilled at using their forces to best effect, which is a necessary skill when you cannot call upon overpowered hammer units. you think that countering alfa strike or uber units with an all comers list is skill? realy ? Besides I wasnt talking about that. Look up the SW dex one can make an identical list for less points with better options for support. No ammount of skill will change the fact that chaos has support units in one slot[the hvy] while loyalists use at least two [hvy/FA] and offten 3[bA/SW for example] . I think your missing the point here. The problem is that skills while playing chaos dont help , because rules [ergo the codex] dont give such options . I can sit down with a SW list or an IG one and think hmm this GT army X will be spamed , team Z/Y changed their rooster or maybe top tier players A/B are not coming this year. lets try a SW list with two biker packs and no LF . and it will freaking work , because he will put the long range in to rifle man . Or maybe I'll know that razor spam is the thing again and I'll take a slogger IG list taking fewer chimeras but more lascanons . Try doing this with chaos dex. It is impossible . But that is not all check what happens when you go States and go for 2250 or 2500 tournaments. most dex get more builds the more points are played , all the chaos builds are made around the idea "let us pray that my opponent never played against a biker list or doesnt know how much worse chaos LR are and that it is not worth to focus fire on them at 2.5k". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Riorik Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Yeah it is boring. A lot of the fun with Warhammer, Fantasy or 40k lies in just creating the lists and envisioning how you'd play it, the actual playing of the game is then an added element on top of list creating (albeit the "funner" part). If it is fun creating your list you know you've got a good Codex because it has a good internal balance. It forces you to make decisions and doesn't particularily penalise you for what you choose as long as you pick stuff that complements the strategy you're going for. The Chaos Codex however suffers from having clear cut choices that are just per definition the better ones. Most units in the Codex will be there for selection, but you'll always feel just a little bit cheated unless you took one of the better ones. Slightly more on topic though I do feel that next to other Codici the Chaos Codex doesn't have the feel that I think it once had. In 3.5th and as far as I know pretty much always in Fantasy there is one thing which marked Chaos out for me. The elite feeling. The feeling that this here is the number one evil enemy of ultimate doom that if managing to unite its nastiest elements for a big push could stomp the universe flat. Elite means, hard hitting, hard to beat units both with multiple models or just a single big gribbly. Few in numbers but deadly like no other. But contending with countless Space Marines armies, Grey Knights, Tyranids and the fact that seemingly every army has to have a super big gribbly of their own, suddenly something like the washed down Daemon Prince of our newest Codex doesn't look so tough. Not to mention that the rest of the units in the list have pretty much better or equal replicas in the opposition armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverike_prime Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I haven't played Chaos since 1st and 2nd Ed, so I don't know about the 3rd & 4th Ed Codexes, but even I am disappointed in the 5th Ed Codex. I am even surprised that there was a Demon Codex, as I don't know how diverse it really can be compaired to a chaos marine codex. But wow... what a weak attempt compaired to the Vannilla codex. Even the Eldar Codex has more options, and that is 4th Ed! Generic Demons??? No cultist/IG?? Cats and Dogs living together (Slannesh and Khorn)? I am disappointed just by making an army and I haven't even played a game with them. Heck, I have a hard time even coming up with a good fluff army. Actually the current CSM codex is 4th Edition. Of course there were 2 or 3 3rd editon Chaos Codex (Anyone remember the codex where Daemons didn't cause fear?). The current CSM codex is the extreme result of Games Workshop's attempt at streamlining the codex. Dark Angels are another example, though less severe. GW wanted to stream line the efforts of creating an army list. What was it they said? "You shouldn't need to spend the better part of a day building you're Army list." or something to that effect. They were also trying to get away from the problem model units. When does a Chaos Lord stop being a lord and start being a Demon prince? Why are all marines with Mark of Tzeentch Thousand Sons? Stuff like that. Now I have to say I think they went about answering those problems the wrong way entirely. But how do I deal with it? Models. I'm a converter. End of Story. I tend to build the model first and then try and figure out how I can represent it in the game. Like this: Captured Space Wolves turned into Combat Servitors using stolen Flux Core Bolter ammo (Counts as Thousand Sons) http://mgc-projects.info/40k-unleashed/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cyber-wolf-group.jpg Blood Angles who have Subcum to a form of the Black Rage and are now totally Psychotic (counts as Khorne Berzerkers) http://mgc-projects.info/40k-unleashed/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DSCN4717.jpg Whiplash (Counts as a Khorne Berzerker) http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/maverike_prime/Warhammer/khorne_chain_03-front_shot.jpg Marines who were caught in Typhus' blight (Counts as Plague Marines) http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/maverike_prime/Warhammer/trio-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venjenz Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 @diabloelmo - I am a new player, and CSM was always my first choice. I agree with your whole take, but unlike the jeske, I am not a tournament player, so how much CSM suck really doesn't bother me. My other fave army is Sisters, and they really suck, but look and sound cool. Like you, I have themed, non-competitive thinking in my lists. I have a full Nurgle list that has Fabius Bile experimenting on CSM (I love the whole gamble at the start of the match, and who cares if it goofs me up), no oblits and no DP. Whatever. I have fashioned a full Tzeentch list just so I can have Gift of Chaos x8, and maybe get one expensive opponent model turned into a spawn. Is it a really good list? Heck no, but it will be fun to play and Tzeentch color scheme is really nice looking. Fun doesn't necessarily equal competitive. If you can accept that, then CSM can be really fun. But if tourney wins matter, yeah, the codex is less fun than several others for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer le Boucher Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 I must admit that after 14 years of killing in the name of the Blood God, the only thing that makes me continue is the conversion opportunity's and freedom. Thats the thing that got me started into chaos when i was 13, and thats whats keep me going now. But i admit like anyone else here, if the rules, and gameplay could match the minis and conversions, then it would be Heaven(or rather Hell ^^) on Earth . And as said before, our codex was the first and last to be one of a new line of codex who made a come back to the 3ed era, where you had 4 lines of special rules for the whole dex..., but then seeing that it din't work quite well, they make the following dexes overflowing with special rules and Characters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candleshoes Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Here Here Slayer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sandbot Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 I haven't played Chaos since 1st and 2nd Ed, so I don't know about the 3rd & 4th Ed Codexes, but even I am disappointed in the 5th Ed Codex. I am even surprised that there was a Demon Codex, as I don't know how diverse it really can be compaired to a chaos marine codex. But wow... what a weak attempt compaired to the Vannilla codex. Even the Eldar Codex has more options, and that is 4th Ed! Generic Demons??? No cultist/IG?? Cats and Dogs living together (Slannesh and Khorn)? I am disappointed just by making an army and I haven't even played a game with them. Heck, I have a hard time even coming up with a good fluff army. Actually the current CSM codex is 4th Edition. Of course there were 2 or 3 3rd editon Chaos Codex (Anyone remember the codex where Daemons didn't cause fear?). The current CSM codex is the extreme result of Games Workshop's attempt at streamlining the codex. Dark Angels are another example, though less severe. GW wanted to stream line the efforts of creating an army list. What was it they said? "You shouldn't need to spend the better part of a day building you're Army list." or something to that effect. They were also trying to get away from the problem model units. When does a Chaos Lord stop being a lord and start being a Demon prince? Why are all marines with Mark of Tzeentch Thousand Sons? Stuff like that. Now I have to say I think they went about answering those problems the wrong way entirely. But how do I deal with it? Models. I'm a converter. End of Story. I tend to build the model first and then try and figure out how I can represent it in the game. Like this: Captured Space Wolves turned into Combat Servitors using stolen Flux Core Bolter ammo (Counts as Thousand Sons) http://mgc-projects.info/40k-unleashed/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cyber-wolf-group.jpg Blood Angles who have Subcum to a form of the Black Rage and are now totally Psychotic (counts as Khorne Berzerkers) http://mgc-projects.info/40k-unleashed/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DSCN4717.jpg Whiplash (Counts as a Khorne Berzerker) http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/maverike_prime/Warhammer/khorne_chain_03-front_shot.jpg Marines who were caught in Typhus' blight (Counts as Plague Marines) http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/maverike_prime/Warhammer/trio-1.jpg I think I'm in love ;) Personally I am loving the lobotomized space wolves over the rest. What bitz did you use? But Maverike did remind me that one of the most fun parts of being chaos that really makes an otherwise boring as hell codex fun is the conversion. Seriously, there is nothing more fun than creating count-as chaos models out of the new marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diabloelmo Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Fun doesn't necessarily equal competitive. If you can accept that, then CSM can be really fun. But if tourney wins matter, yeah, the codex is less fun than several others for sure. At least someone got what I was trying to say in my first post. I'm not a tourney player in any respect, so having a disadvantage due to what codex I have really isn't an issue for me. What I DID have an issue with was being told point-blank that my enjoyment of the army, despite it's myriad codex flaws, was WRONG. Sure, it's not as flavourful as the 3.5 'dex by any stretch of the imagination, but I love the background of the army, so I'm still going to play it, and I just see the weaknesses of the list as a challenge to be overcome. The minute I start an army with the sole intention of winning games, I'll know I've missed the entire point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverike_prime Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 The minute I start an army with the sole intention of winning games, I'll know I've missed the entire point. *Does double reverse blind folded cartwheels across the ocean!* YES! Someone who thinks like I do!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.