Have Chaos Space Marines gone 2-D?

[AoC]

You said that it was possible to have khorne havocs. No, it was impossible.

Come on, using a generic Havoc squad and pretending that they're heavy weapon toting Berzerkers is a minor inconvenience compared to all the unusable AL cultists, IW Basilisks, Sonic Dreadnoughts and boring generic Daemons we have now.

 

So ? Current codex is awful, but it does not mean the former was good one.

 

@Lay: what means someone is berzerker anyway ? From fluff standpoint every berzerker have implants that increase his aggression, right ? What prevent them from wielding heavy weapons or meltas or using jump packs ? Nothing.

It means that the WE are a legion of Khorne Berzerkers, who, according to the fluff, "are now armed entirely with pistols and close combat weapons, chain-axes and chainswords". If GW wants to change this and make more wargear available to them, fine. Bottom line is, that legion specific rules should reflect legion specific fluff.

 

Sure, rules should reflect fluff. On the other side, current fluff for berzerkers is not any good.

 

Each and every legion work in multiple ways, there is no need to create army lists for each legion as it will FAIL TO PORTRAY IT ACCURATELY and it will create bunch of narrow minded fools who think that some legions always operate within such limits that is NOT TRUE.

There's a number of sub-factions for most armies in 40K that represent certain archetypes. There are brawlers like the World Eaters or Goff Clan Orks, shady infiltrators like the Raven Guard or Alpha Legion, or howling bikers like Evil Sunz Orks, the Saim-Hann Craftworld and the White Scars. Since the fluff of shady CSM infiltrators appeals to me, so do the respective rules.

 

I don't find this narrowing, if anything it helps broaden the scope of characterization beyond that of generic vanilla armies. By contrast, if anything is possible, nothing is interesting.

Altering the army via characters (not special characters) by giving them marks and equipment and choosing the right ones (DP for daemon-heavy armies, Lords for marine-centric, Lords/DP with marks of chaos for god-centric) is better way for creating unique armies than crutch army lists which made no sense and were contradicted by established background.

 

3.5 had their bad stuff like all models with mark of khorne are berzekers, all with mark of nurgle are plague marines, all with mark of tzeentch are sorcerers/rubrics, ditto for slaany.

ah so you rather like . hmm csm with MoT which are crap . csm with IoN which are crap . IoS .... crap again . oh and khorn...wait zerkers still are superior for a hth build . yeah totaly giving us options for non cult god units worked so well ... But wait what If I wanted to that "dedicted to khorn but not mindless thing" in 3.5 ... It is not like I could take FC or counter attack for my csm , which would make them exactly that . slanny ? how about not buying sonic weapons[which were overcosted just like now] etc

 

No, i would rather have csm with mark (not icon) of some god, who are competitive enough to warrant playing them. I would rather have codex that have at least 5 good choices in every force organisation chart and that will allow playing both legions and renegades out of the single list.

 

 

You said that it was possible to have khorne havocs. No, it was impossible.

take undivided army buy havocks take FC for them[god knows why , but you wanted it] . take special weapons like melta.

And khorn teeth as in WE units that were khorn were retconed . So no they shouldnt get rage and extra A .

 

They didn't had mark of khorne. Can't i have codex that is playable without senseless 'counts as' ?

 

 

what means someone is berzerker anyway ? From fluff standpoint every berzerker have implants that increase his aggression, right ? What prevent them from wielding heavy weapons or meltas or using jump packs ? Nothing.

read some non RT fluff for WE . they are lobotomised and uncontrolable [which of course rises the question how do they get transported etc] , mindless killing machines . unless something changed in BL books .w40k khorn is not the WFB khorn.

WE dont do the whole "dont kill unworthy opponents etc" .

 

For example black crusade have Khorne who is not one-dimensional. Recent fluff.

 

Retconning retcons is the way to go, chaos need to go away from one dimensional marks of chaos and one dimensional legions of chaos

aha so lemman russ is an imperial general and ultramarines are a later founding chapter made to fill in the gap made by a same named chapter that went rogue . yeah lets go back to that.

I said about retconning senseless chaos fluff, not imperial fluff. I don't give a damn about loyalist dogs.

 

Each and every legion work in multiple ways, there is no need to create army lists for each legion as it will FAIL TO PORTRAY IT ACCURATELY and it will create bunch of narrow minded fools who think that some legions always operate within such limits that is NOT TRUE.

As opposed to the broad minded fools who think a slaaneshi sorcerer is the perfect leader for twenty khorne berserkers?

 

Sorry, its alot easier to tell people "You know, you could do night lords by putting undivided squads in dreadclaws and supporting them with raptors instead of just spamming raptors and furies right? Just use the generic list instead" instead of "you know, itd be awesome if we could take raptors as troops for our nightlords force eh?".

 

Either way there will be ignorance and a lack of thought- but the extent would be greatly reduced. How do we know? Because it was never, ever, this bad before.... and right now weve got exactly that- no army lists for each legion et al, and a bunch of disatisfied people and a number of fools or unfortunates who think that things operate in a way they dont.

 

4ed chaos is awful too, does it mean we can't have BETTER chaos codex ?

 

Better would be:

"You know, you can take Chaos Champion or Lord on Jump Pack to make those raptors troops, and take that terror marking and night vision gifts on your models, along with taking some daemons or even noise marines support or khorne berzerkers if it suit you fancy. You can instead take undivided Daemon Prince, give him terror marking and night vision gifts and take those marines with terror marking and night vision in dread claws to represent your NL force. Or go terminator heavy, or go balanced, as long as you take some HQ with MoCU and Terror Markings and Night vision along with marines with terror marking and night vision you are good to go".

 

I don't find this narrowing, if anything it helps broaden the scope of characterization beyond that of generic vanilla armies. By contrast, if anything is possible, nothing is interesting.

Thats right- rules should give context to the fluff.

 

Not only does a lack of restrictions in lists mean that things to go a bit bland as certain choices start winning out over other similar units, but it means that things are much harder to balance as the number of options goes up......

 

Oh wait, that sounds just like the 4rth ed codex.

 

No, as long as there is large amount of good units that allow you to take diverse lists and have good chance for winning, it's good. Chaos codex have not many choices and balance is awful.

[Lay]

So ? Current codex is awful, but it does not mean the former was good one.

Sure, rules should reflect fluff. On the other side, current fluff for berzerkers is not any good.

Altering the army via characters (not special characters) by giving them marks and equipment and choosing the right ones (DP for daemon-heavy armies, Lords for marine-centric, Lords/DP with marks of chaos for god-centric) is better way for creating unique armies than crutch army lists which made no sense and were contradicted by established background.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

Afaik, GW put the legion rules in 3.5 after the positive response to the IA articles. Anyway, if you think that the last Codex was actually a failure and that there's a higher demand for Khorne sorcerers and whatnot than for the old lists, then good for ya.

[AoC]

So ? Current codex is awful, but it does not mean the former was good one.

Sure, rules should reflect fluff. On the other side, current fluff for berzerkers is not any good.

Altering the army via characters (not special characters) by giving them marks and equipment and choosing the right ones (DP for daemon-heavy armies, Lords for marine-centric, Lords/DP with marks of chaos for god-centric) is better way for creating unique armies than crutch army lists which made no sense and were contradicted by established background.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

Afaik, GW put the legion rules in 3.5 after the positive response to the IA articles. Anyway, if you think that the last Codex was actually a failure and that there's a higher demand for Khorne sorcerers and whatnot than for the old lists, then good for ya.

Did you seen 3.0 chaos codex ? No ? Then read it, and guess why people enjoyed everything that spice up the gameplay. Yep, it was that boring.

 

With interesting and balanced codex no sub-list would be required.

 

Khornate sorcerers are not required, it's cool idea that make sense, but it's niche choice. Legion list may be demanded, but are bad idea entirely. It's like creating codex for blood angels - possible, but stupid, and actually disservice to the hobby.

[Grey Mage]

Retconning retcons is the way to go, chaos need to go away from one dimensional marks of chaos and one dimensional legions of chaos

aha so lemman russ is an imperial general and ultramarines are a later founding chapter made to fill in the gap made by a same named chapter that went rogue . yeah lets go back to that.

I said about retconning senseless chaos fluff, not imperial fluff. I don't give a damn about loyalist dogs.

Well you should- lessons can be learned by whats happened with imperial codices.

 

I hate matt wards fluff, but in the new loyalist codices atleast there is alot of it. Its not quite 2nd ed, but its getting there and its good to see. Each of the loyalist armies to come out has had a different emphasis, and plays well against each other. These things are not things you could do without opening a door of abuse if they were all lumped together- and risking making the book as expensive as the core book.

 

I don't find this narrowing, if anything it helps broaden the scope of characterization beyond that of generic vanilla armies. By contrast, if anything is possible, nothing is interesting.

Thats right- rules should give context to the fluff.

 

Not only does a lack of restrictions in lists mean that things to go a bit bland as certain choices start winning out over other similar units, but it means that things are much harder to balance as the number of options goes up......

 

Oh wait, that sounds just like the 4rth ed codex.

 

No, as long as there is large amount of good units that allow you to take diverse lists and have good chance for winning, it's good. Chaos codex have not many choices and balance is awful.

The problem is the more combinations you put into a book the higher the chance that someone will find a way to break the system. The more unit types there are the more likelyhood one will end up being relatively ineffective. The more wargear you add the more likely you are to simply miss something or word it poorly enough that people will do hideous things with it.

 

And sure, it can help- I mean, the Eldar book seems to do it alright, eh? Except, in practice, most peoples eldar lists look shockingly similar, and most older players continue to be frustrated that they can no longer field an effective force along the lines of what they used to. Sure- Wraithgaurd can be a troops choice, but on the other hand its not a 400pt unit. Gaurdians changed little, but because dire avengers were actually made an effective choice theyre more worthless to players than ever before...

 

 

Khornate sorcerers are not required, it's cool idea that make sense, but it's niche choice. Legion list may be demanded, but are bad idea entirely. It's like creating codex for blood angels - possible, but stupid, and actually disservice to the hobby.

 

Im sorry but.... no. Super-dexes are not the way to go. They dont help create diversity, they dont help make things more interesting, and they dont improve quality by a single hair. What rolling everyone into a single codex does is gives more opportunity for forces to be left out, more opportunity for unseen rules exploits to come up, and fewer model releases. It kills factions- no/little fluff, no rules, maybe a paint scheme?- wich in turn makes people care less about the hobby. Wich makes people leave the hobby.

 

Chaos, and the hobby, needs more diversity, not less.

[AoC]

Well you should- lessons can be learned by whats happened with imperial codices.

 

I hate matt wards fluff, but in the new loyalist codices atleast there is alot of it. Its not quite 2nd ed, but its getting there and its good to see. Each of the loyalist armies to come out has had a different emphasis, and plays well against each other. These things are not things you could do without opening a door of abuse if they were all lumped together- and risking making the book as expensive as the core book.

 

Are you stating that lot of poor fluff is the way to go ? I dare to oppose this pov.

Each and every marine codex have poor internal balance (SW blood claws ? BA tacticals ? UM Vanguard ?), and are bound to keep equipment and statlines between codices. And no, you can lump all those together if you put in-list restrictions and foc altering. And it don't even have to be as big as rulebook, having only few SC would keep it reasonable (not to mention that you can replace places with their fluff with some serious fluff).

 

The problem is the more combinations you put into a book the higher the chance that someone will find a way to break the system. The more unit types there are the more likelyhood one will end up being relatively ineffective. The more wargear you add the more likely you are to simply miss something or word it poorly enough that people will do hideous things with it.

 

And sure, it can help- I mean, the Eldar book seems to do it alright, eh? Except, in practice, most peoples eldar lists look shockingly similar, and most older players continue to be frustrated that they can no longer field an effective force along the lines of what they used to. Sure- Wraithgaurd can be a troops choice, but on the other hand its not a 400pt unit. Gaurdians changed little, but because dire avengers were actually made an effective choice theyre more worthless to players than ever before...

 

Eldar list have practically no in-list restrictions, unlocks and foc-altering. In eldar codex you can just pick most effective choices in every slot selection, just like in chaos codex. You don't have to take for example HQ Dire Avenger Exarch to make Dire Avengers troops, they are troops out of the box. IF you had to made real choices, list will not look very alike each other (of course 40k core rules are partially to blame).

 

Im sorry but.... no. Super-dexes are not the way to go. They dont help create diversity, they dont help make things more interesting, and they dont improve quality by a single hair. What rolling everyone into a single codex does is gives more opportunity for forces to be left out, more opportunity for unseen rules exploits to come up, and fewer model releases. It kills factions- no/little fluff, no rules, maybe a paint scheme?- wich in turn makes people care less about the hobby. Wich makes people leave the hobby.

 

Chaos, and the hobby, needs more diversity, not less.

Special characters are thing that prevent diversity, not codices with many options. Such codices make things more interesting and improve quality of both the army and the hobby. It is better to create one codex for the faction than create 5 codices (SM case).

 

Rolling everything into single list does create more opportunity for it, but it can be avoided with solid rules design. Model releases are independent from codex. What kill faction is bloat of codices that lead to very long time between updating codices, SM are to blame (all their 5 flavours). And it's already the case with current codex, and most other armies. Hell, if not modeling i would leave the hobby long time ago, like most chaos players.

[Lay]

Did you seen 3.0 chaos codex ? No ? Then read it, and guess why people enjoyed everything that spice up the gameplay. Yep, it was that boring.

That says more about the 3.0 Codex than it does about IA and 3.5.

 

With interesting and balanced codex no sub-list would be required.

Interesting and balanced sub-lists are the best of both worlds.

 

Legion list may be demanded, but are bad idea entirely. It's like creating codex for blood angels - possible, but stupid, and actually disservice to the hobby.

Catering to the playerbase, bad. Getting rid of a Codex with an established following, good. Got it.

[AoC]

Did you seen 3.0 chaos codex ? No ? Then read it, and guess why people enjoyed everything that spice up the gameplay. Yep, it was that boring.

That says more about the 3.0 Codex than it does about IA and 3.5.

 

Would you rather play crap codex or mediocre one ? Yep, thats why people enjoyed 3.5, it was good enough to warrant playing. It was ultimately flawed and had not good internal balance and fluff, but allow numerous builds, so people was not so vocal about it's flaws.

 

With interesting and balanced codex no sub-list would be required.

Interesting and balanced sub-lists are the best of both worlds.

 

How do you envision those sublists ? More heavies and restricted fast attack and marks of gods for Iron Warriors ? It makes no sense, as IW are known of using Khorne Berzerkers and other cult troops, and they have resources to run fast attack force when needed. Why do you need strict restriction when it makes no sense fluffwise ?

 

Legion list may be demanded, but are bad idea entirely. It's like creating codex for blood angels - possible, but stupid, and actually disservice to the hobby.

Catering to the playerbase, bad. Getting rid of a Codex with an established following, good. Got it.

Yes, as it serve only certain players, and make it worse for everyone else. Variant marine codices only alienated non-marine players and didn't made playing 40k more interesting (than proper SM codex with in-list restrictions, unlocks and foc switches would do). I'm sure that there are many raven guard, white scars or nova marines players who would enjoy codices for their own armies. It would increase development cycle and many people will quit 40k as they would be stuck with useless codex (like chaos marine players are atm).

[Kristoff]

It seems this conversation is becoming 1-D.

 

The 3.5 codex was superior to the current codex in that it's ability to have a varied army was largely superior to that of the 4.0 codex. The 3.5 codex was inferior in that half the rules/gear had you bouncing back and forth and certain sub-lists were quite over-powered. If you want to truly demonstrate the superiority of either codex, get with a friend who plays Chaos. Have him play 4.0, and you play 3.5, and then switch. Do this a number of times, and then report on it in the 3.5 vs 4.0 dex discussion on this board.

 

Now, having said that, the ARMY BUILD of the codex has nothing to do with the original topic of this post, that being the character of the army as presented in the fluff has become stale, bland, and overly cliche'.

[caboosebe]

Yes, they are, according to GW in codeci. But GW's policy isn't about 'we're being good to our members' but 'we want money'. And all great companies turn to that policy.

At one point, a 'veteran' player will stop buying products, or very few because he has gotten to a point that he doesn't need much more.

The new players will buy a lot at first, a starter kit like assault on Black Reach, Codex, Rulebook, paints, dices, etc etc. Now these are the players that bring the money.

 

So how does this show in current policy: kids, even if you're young, you can play warhammer. Just look how awesome ultramarines are, we have a movie about it, every other chapter wants to be like them, they have most of the founding chapters, we're going to bring a called 'Space Marine' with ultramarines in them. If you buy a generic Space marine box, you get ultramarines in them, etc etc etc.

On top of that, our codeci's fluff are becoming very very easy. Chaos is evil, Ultramarines are good, and Grey Knights are the children of Chuck Norris.

 

Veteran players: 'I stop, I hate the fluff, even though I wasted so much money on it all'

New players: 'I stop, The rules are too hard for me to understand as a 10 year old, even though I bought all that stuff'

GW:'Sir, we lost 100 players today' - 'Did they buy more then 500 dollars/euro before they stopped' - 'Yes sir' - 'Day well spend'

 

 

So yes, by GW standards, Chaos has become 2D, like all races are becoming 2D, with a few still getting a boost in the good direction.

They promote Imperium as much as they can, so almost all the stories are written in the point of view of loyalist, and ofcourse Chaos is going to become 2D that way.

It's like all the made up movies, stories, books, comics in life: Good wins, evil loses.

It's like Star Wars. MOST kids are: GO JEDI! - when they grow up: 'DIE JEDI!'

 

There are still some Black Library writers who can still bring back that old Chaos feeling that we're all missing at the moment.

 

All we have to do, is try to convince ourselves over and over again, that Chaos isn't 2D, but so much more. They are cunning bastards, with plotting that would make Tzeentch blush.

I know it's easy for me to say to those that have a lot of kids in their gaming club that give :tu: about fluff and only about 'awesomeness' as I'm the only Chaos player in my club.

[Lay]

Yes, they are, according to GW in codeci. But GW's policy isn't about 'we're being good to our members' but 'we want money'. And all great companies turn to that policy.

Oh well, we still have FFG and Forge World. Who knows, maybe they'll cause GW to step up their game again.

 

Would you rather play crap codex or mediocre one ? Yep, thats why people enjoyed 3.5, it was good enough to warrant playing. It was ultimately flawed and had not good internal balance and fluff, but allow numerous builds, so people was not so vocal about it's flaws.

Speaking on behalf of everyone who enjoyed the last Codex, eh?

 

As for your other points: You could field all three fast attack choices with the old IW list as well as stick to the vanilla list in 3.5. Furthermore, there's a difference between getting rid of a long-established Codex and not meeting a potential demand for completely new ones. And new codices aren't a necessity as IA and 3.5 have shown.

[AoC]

Would you rather play crap codex or mediocre one ? Yep, thats why people enjoyed 3.5, it was good enough to warrant playing. It was ultimately flawed and had not good internal balance and fluff, but allow numerous builds, so people was not so vocal about it's flaws.

Speaking on behalf of everyone who enjoyed the last Codex, eh?

 

As for your other points: You could field all three fast attack choices with the old IW list as well as stick to the vanilla list in 3.5. Furthermore, there's a difference between getting rid of a long-established Codex and not meeting a potential demand for completely new ones. And new codices aren't a necessity as IA and 3.5 have shown.

Yup, and i am right.

 

Really ? IW defining in-game trait was bonus siege specialist. Playing generic list not allow it. IW were unable to represent on tabletop unless you wanted to not use cult troops, its something like forbidding SM players to use their drop pod. IW and every other sub-lists-in-codex were done wrong, and are ultimately unneeded in the-perfect-chaos-codex, as they would be viable out of the box.

[caboosebe]

I'm no mod, but please get back on topic :P Kristoff wanted a thread about the current fluff of Chaos, not the current list and gameplay :lol:

[axabrax]

I disagree pretty strongly. Try reading the Nightlords novels. Yes, some of the characters are what you'd describe as 2-d, but that's because they are peripheral characters, for instance the Exalted or Abbadon. Also, have you seen that FFG is coming out with an RPG, Black Crusade, that is based upon exploring the perspective of Chaos in the 40K universe? I think it very much will suppose that chaos is a 3-d perspective--otherwise it wouldn't be much fun to play.

[Kristoff]

I'm no mod, but please get back on topic ^_^ Kristoff wanted a thread about the current fluff of Chaos, not the current list and gameplay :)

It wasn't me, but I thought it would be a good idea to keep to the OP's intent, which he has repeated several times already.

[Zincite]

Sorry, been away for a while, so haven't had a a chance to log on. ;)

 

Fair 'nuff. But by that logic, we're still talking about the 4th edition codex. The current CSM codex came out before 5th edition. It was intended to be the first real 5th edition style codex, before they realized that style was a bad idea.

 

As you said: Fair 'nuff. I've kicked my rear end into gear and gone through it, I think it's fixed now.

 

*Snip*

I literally don't know what to say to that. Not from shock or anything, I just can't think of how to reply to it. But it felt rude not to.

 

Yes, they are, according to GW in codeci. But GW's policy isn't about 'we're being good to our members' but 'we want money'. And all great companies turn to that policy. *SnipSnip*

 

Sensibility is present in great quantities here.

 

But... Good VS Evil shouldn't work that way. 40K is GrimDark. The Imperium should be corrupt, a vast organization pulled down by its own weight. Chaos should be... well, I said it before.

 

Your post makes me sad. Because it makes Games Workshop into a normal, greedy, money-grabbing compony. And shows 40K being made into a flashy toy. What's even more sad is I can't argue with it.

 

*Sighs*

 

Is this making me sound old?

 

I'm no mod, but please get back on topic :whistling: Kristoff wanted a thread about the current fluff of Chaos, not the current list and gameplay <_<

It wasn't me, but I thought it would be a good idea to keep to the OP's intent, which he has repeated several times already.

 

YES, THIS THREAD IS MINE!!!! ALL MINE!!!!

 

But the men make a good point guys. :tu:

[Trevak Dal]

As far as the 'official' background and fluff goes...that's more of a guideline in my opinion. Ours may get better once we get another book. I really was drawn for the longest time of creating my own Warband, but also wanted to do something established. I really liked the Night Lords, Raptors Chapter and the Alpha Legion, but I wanted a more assault heavy army to contrast with my shooty Tau. And I also really stumbled back and forth over creating a really themed army, with unit identification, or if I wanted to go hodge-podge like Black Legion.

 

I was drawn to the Chaos Space marines...because I was being sold an an unassembled unpainted CSM army for very cheap. Ebay cheap. I knew I wanted a more close-combat oriented army (or one that would reliably win in close combat).

 

I've flip flopped and couldn't decide on what I wanted to do. So...I chose option D. All of the Above. My army is the remnant of a Codex Chapter-though it is uncertain when they were made. A highly place Alpha Legionnaire had masterminded the entire formation of the chapter, and chose specific recruits and officers to lead it, basically a Chapter-strength MK-Ultra program.

 

They eventually join up with the Red Corsairs, through a series of raids gain Huron's respect and his trust, and he allows their leader more assets.

 

They know they are fighting a losing war, but they are brothers until the end, doing what they do best, against an enemy they feel have wronged them.

[Walter Payton]

I cannot express how much I miss running a Lord with Daemonic Stature and a Dread Axe :P

[caboosebe]

One on the main problem is also that many people don't know the difference between 'dumb' and 'evil'.

Many think: I am dumb, therefor I'm evil and I am evil, therefor I'm dumb.

Sadly enough, that's what people think about Chaos