My feeble attempts at discussing the next Chaos Codex at GD

[Menkeroth]

You can ignore his posts, jeske ain't know what he says ^_^ Most of Chaos-powa! players (as well as non-Chaos but the best gamer in the CIS Stepan) prefer to run 6 oblits and the Defiler as it's better. 2 DP rarely have any sense, mostly one DP and Lash Winged Sorcerer or just Sorcerer (e.g. against DE) are much better as DP often die very quickly. And so on. And it's if not saying about ChaosZilla list, of course - the second powa! variant, no less deadly.

 

But i think if Kelly or Cruddace write our codex we'll have nothing to worry about.

[Maleficum]

Chaos isnt inherantly weaker than space marines IMO, some differences that can make a difference, but not always

 

No it's not. I believe it was on Warshadow someone commented to the idea that the tyranid codex wasn't tested that it probarly was, but just not competively. The person claimed that it seemed like a lot of GW playtesting goes with what some here would define as "fluffy" armies. 3# Tactical squads, a dreadnought, a rhino and a predator, all led by a captain. Then the tournament players bring 2# lash-princes backed up by berzerkers as TROOPs and oblits. In the 3.5 codex two of those were 0-1 choices, and Berzerkers/cult troops were ELITE unless the army was led by a cult-marked HQ.

 

 

I played a game against Blood Angels, and allthough the dice did have something to say, the real difference was that the BAs had really spammed their good unit/unit-combos. The same player admitted to disregarding fluff when making lists. I think the game really breaks when different-minded people meet, allthough I'm also sure that one can easily get on a more level field. You don't tackle as hard when playing your little nephew or your grandma, as when you're playing a league game, to use a strong, but in my opinion an adequate simile.

 

 

I do love the tyranid codex for it's options, though. And the Dark Eldar codex is truly beautiful!

[Walter Payton]

I remember reading an article in White Dwarf, back before it became a glorified monthly catalogue (I think it might even have been in the Paul Sawyer, Owen Rees, or Guy Haley eras), that posed a hypothetical scenario that neatly illustrated how the game should work. It was from WFB, but was just as relevant to 40k (although, obviously, the specifics were different).

 

(WFB Players, bear in mind this was old. The rules really have changed since then)

 

Orcs vs Dwarfs

 

It is the final turn of the game. The Orcs have gone

There is an Ork Warboss on a Wyvern, tooled up with magic weapons, facing a single Dwarf Slayer

The Slayer is the sole survivor of a unit that captured two unit standards and the Orcs and Goblins Battle Standard.

Thus, the Slayer is worth nearly three hundred points (due to the older rules about taking enemy flags).

He will almost certainly be killed if he charges the Wyvern.

 

You are the Dwarf player. What do you do?

 

The article went on to explain that, if you were playing a very hard-nosed tournament player, then it would be a bad idea to charge, he would think you silly if you did. However, if this was a game between two people whose lists were picked purely there to tell a story, then go for it. Hell, the slayer might even survive and you would have a great story to tell later.

 

The thing is, is that the Codexes should be able to cater to both tastes, as both are equally important to the game, and I can think of a few Codexes that do this (Space Wolves spring to mind).

 

I hope that GW can try to reclaim this. Who knows, perhaps Ward will start writing decent fluff to go with his decent rules design.

[Darkapostle222]

I remember reading an article in White Dwarf, back before it became a glorified monthly catalogue (I think it might even have been in the Paul Sawyer, Owen Rees, or Guy Haley eras), that posed a hypothetical scenario that neatly illustrated how the game should work. It was from WFB, but was just as relevant to 40k (although, obviously, the specifics were different).

 

(WFB Players, bear in mind this was old. The rules really have changed since then)

 

Orcs vs Dwarfs

 

It is the final turn of the game. The Orcs have gone

There is an Ork Warboss on a Wyvern, tooled up with magic weapons, facing a single Dwarf Slayer

The Slayer is the sole survivor of a unit that captured two unit standards and the Orcs and Goblins Battle Standard.

Thus, the Slayer is worth nearly three hundred points (due to the older rules about taking enemy flags).

He will almost certainly be killed if he charges the Wyvern.

 

You are the Dwarf player. What do you do?

 

The article went on to explain that, if you were playing a very hard-nosed tournament player, then it would be a bad idea to charge, he would think you silly if you did. However, if this was a game between two people whose lists were picked purely there to tell a story, then go for it. Hell, the slayer might even survive and you would have a great story to tell later.

 

The thing is, is that the Codexes should be able to cater to both tastes, as both are equally important to the game, and I can think of a few Codexes that do this (Space Wolves spring to mind).

 

I hope that GW can try to reclaim this. Who knows, perhaps Ward will start writing decent fluff to go with his decent rules design.

 

QFT. If the codex allowed for me to be able to perform story-esque moments such as this I would be incredibly happy. For me that is what the hobby has always been. It's never really been about winning or coming out on top from tournaments, it's been about creating an army with it's own unique personality that caters to your tastes and then inserting them into this lore-rich universe and crafting a story of your own. That way simple pick-up games can become the decisive battle in a planetary campaign or the beginning skirmish of the next Black Crusade. In my opinion that's what makes the game fun, not seeing how I can make the most out of my army with the fewest points and choosing models due to effectiveness.

[Menkeroth]

+1! Agree to both of you! It'd be great if codex caters tastes of both sportsmen and people such as us. And if Kelly or Cruddace write it so it will be.

[darth_giles]

The article went on to explain that, if you were playing a very hard-nosed tournament player, then it would be a bad idea to charge, he would think you silly if you did. However, if this was a game between two people whose lists were picked purely there to tell a story, then go for it. Hell, the slayer might even survive and you would have a great story to tell later.

 

The thing is, is that the Codexes should be able to cater to both tastes, as both are equally important to the game, and I can think of a few Codexes that do this (Space Wolves spring to mind).

 

I hope that GW can try to reclaim this. Who knows, perhaps Ward will start writing decent fluff to go with his decent rules design.

The big problem I see is that the culture of gaming has changed since then. The focus isn't so much on having fun, but winning games. Which is why I focus more on modelling and painting. I'd just as soon knock everyone's socks off and then set their feet on fire with an amazing-looking army, than have to start doing long calculus equations to determine how to optimize everything. Sure those four Havocs with Lascannons and a Rhino might not be the optimal choice for gaming, but if I can make them look more impressive than the usual lolbliterator spam then I'll be happy.

[greatcrusade08]

@darthgiles, for alotof people thats true, but you can always spot the diamonds in the rough.

i was playing at a tournament of all things and hadnt had a good day, my dice we so bad i was losing in close combat to tau, the last game of the day im on table 21 of 25 and my opponent pulls out an ork list.. two ork pirate ships hit the board followed by a priate warboss, complete with eye patch, peg legg and robotic parrot on his shoulder.

he saw my fluffy scout list with all my conversions and it was like a 40k bromance, i tabled the guy, but you wouldnt have noticed, we chatted and laughed like old friends, its a shame we live so far apart becuase thats the kind of person i want to spend my time with.. i know two or three fellas like that already, sadly two of them have just emigrated to america (im a sad sad bunny).

 

so whilst i do attend tournament to occasionally test my themed lists, i prefer fun games where the many other aspects of the game are equally or more important as winning

[Captain Idaho]

I find it amusing how selective people's memories are when considering the writers of a 40k Codex. Forgetting the obvious that only a single person is given credit as author, the whole design team work together on projects, forgetting that fact I see comments like "at least our back ground won't be ruined" because Kelly is author.

 

Funny, I actually find myself smiling reading comments like that, because Phil Kelly was head designer on Codex SW so shares responsibility for Thunder Wolves, Lukas the trickster and the like.

 

Not to mention he is also responsible for the "balanced" Codex Eldar which gave us unkillable Falcons, units of War Walkers with 36 S6 shots and Eldrad Ulthuan.

 

I'd be happy with whoever releases a Chaos Marine Codex appropriately, and not get excited about anyone getting involved (or disappointed).

 

I'm optimistic. We have a couple different sources confirming various games desingers confessing Chaos Space Marines sucked and needed a new Codex. This means we should get a decent release next time round. Could imagine it being too much of course, but it's better too much than not enough eh!

[Brother Ambroz]

I have to agree with GC08. While our codex is old, and there are options that were never thought out to begin with (FA spawn with slow and purposeful? Really GW?) our codex can still be fun. The problem is the discussion is almost literally going across two different points. You can't argue Tourney play vs. Fun games. You just can't.

While I am not in anyway going after you on this, I have to stand against Jeske. You are sounding like a broken record. I agree with some of your points but you always say that there is only ONE list to rule them all. This just isn't true. If you are playing for fun, with absolutely no thought given to math or HAVING to win, then there are quite a few choices. Soo many people that I play against will gear their list a certain way once they hear that I am bringing CSM to a game it isn't funny. The 2xDP 9xOblits will evaporate against the amount of lascannons that I always seem to face off against. They may not try to do so, but given how many people do it, the 2xDP is almost a given when you hear CSM.

I have soo much CSM models that I can p[retty much run whatever list that I want, and frequently do so. A melee oriented EC army can be a fun change to try. Against most armies a standard MEQ at I5 can be a scary thing. Is it super great and can pulp another codex? No, that is for Grey Knights :)

Not only that, but our codex does one thing better than all other armies: Conversion. You can do a different Ragnar, or build your own Pedro, model a champion Interrogator, but our codex shines at this. Where else can you dump your bits box down, glue the first 5 or 6 things together and have a model that can fit some where? Ok, the Ork codex can do it too, stupid fungus....

 

I play Chaos because I like Chaos. Thats it. There are evil and creepy and demented and driven by human emotions. SM don't have that. Neither do Tau or Eldar or Orks. A Chaos Lord is a fluff gold mine, driven by greed or lusting after glory. Goaded by a fear of death soo strong that he sells his immortal soul to avoid it.

 

I play because it is an awesome game, not to win every time.

 

Yeah well it's fun to take fluffy lists against other codex books as old as ours but really if you take a fun/fluff list against SW or any newer dex it's very difficult even to just draw a game. Chaos codex books have always shined at conversions, this is nothing new at all. Not trying to bring you down here but it's not fun even just trying to play a fluffy game and still getting stomped by a newer dex nearly every time. Personally I'd rather have a good dex with bad fluff rather than a bad dex with good fluff. I'd rather be able to use good units and make up my own fluff.

[darth_giles]

Not to mention he is also responsible for the "balanced" Codex Eldar which gave us unkillable Falcons, units of War Walkers with 36 S6 shots and Eldrad Ulthuan.

Weren't War Walker weapons like that before this codex; instead of adding a second Starcannon or Scatter Laser making them twin-linked, it would actually give them a second set of shots? I read somewhere- might've been Dakka since I lurked there for a while- that a Warlock casting Guide on them when they were armed like that was unofficially called the "mixmaster" attack.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Not to mention he is also responsible for the "balanced" Codex Eldar which gave us unkillable Falcons, units of War Walkers with 36 S6 shots and Eldrad Ulthuan.

Weren't War Walker weapons like that before this codex; instead of adding a second Starcannon or Scatter Laser making them twin-linked, it would actually give them a second set of shots? I read somewhere- might've been Dakka since I lurked there for a while- that a Warlock casting Guide on them when they were armed like that was unofficially called the "mixmaster" attack.

 

They were d6 shots in the old codex, not a flat four, so technically, you could have had MORE shots.

[Hellios]

Not to mention he is also responsible for the "balanced" Codex Eldar which gave us unkillable Falcons, units of War Walkers with 36 S6 shots and Eldrad Ulthuan.

 

To be honest Eldar tanks should be pretty hard to destroy... Maybe second to Necron tanks... While most of the infantry units should be fairly soft and squishy... and those tanks cost a hell of a lot. As for the Warwalkers... Warwalkers are fine... Guard can make units with a stupid amount of shots, so can Orks it isn't something that just the Eldar do.

 

As for Eldrad... I admit he is too cheap compared to a tooled up Farseer but I also think a tooled up Farseer costs too much. Raise Eldrad's cost and lower the cost of Farseer upgrades and people will take Farseers.

 

Most of the Eldar units are pretty good... my main two criticisms are that heavy weapons are over-priced (at least the tank busting ones... compare Bright lance prices with Dark lance prices.) and while the units are mostly well balanced the codex needs to adjust the prices to make some less obvious choices.

 

Oh and this is more of an edition creep but now that most transports seem to have gotten cheaper... Wave Serpents cost a lot of points... Although they are very good... Again if weapon upgrades were not so expensive it might not be an issue. The Wraithlord's weapon options are a joke!

 

As for Lukas the trickster... I don't see the problem... Thunderwolves... Yer... I like the concept of the unit as far as rules go but I'll admit that the actual concept seems less grimdark and more childish.

[greatcrusade08]

Yeah well it's fun to take fluffy lists against other codex books as old as ours but really if you take a fun/fluff list against SW or any newer dex it's very difficult even to just draw a game. Chaos codex books have always shined at conversions, this is nothing new at all. Not trying to bring you down here but it's not fun even just trying to play a fluffy game and still getting stomped by a newer dex nearly every time. Personally I'd rather have a good dex with bad fluff rather than a bad dex with good fluff. I'd rather be able to use good units and make up my own fluff.

 

i take a fluffy chaos list and it competes very well against newer dexes, fact is the only time it gets owned is when my opponents use a netlist from the new dexes, at which point its not an issue with the dex or army build, but an issue with WAAC gaming and the widening void between competative and friendly play

[techsoldaten]

I've got to side with Nihm... Many chaos units are decent but very few get anywhere near top tier and then you are very restricted as to what you can take. The main complaint about the chaos codex isn't the power level although it is starting to fall behind a bit now but the choice... Some units are not viable while others are no brainers... The biggest issue is if you try and make a fluff driven list based on say a legion... A 1kson list has no chance of being anywhere near competitive.

Have to admit, the news that Matt Ward is not involved is more exciting than learning that Phil may be.

 

In response to this earlier comment, yes, CSMs seem to top off at a certain tier and more powerful units become challenging in terms of points cost. I agree with the second point wholeheartedly, but think the effect is that you can't really field the army you want out of Chaos any more. Even if you are not competitive, CSMs just don't have the parity with MEQs the way they used to.

 

Here's what I mean. Last week, I won an eBay auction for some guys' armies. It was a little dated, and most of the models go back to the second and third edition. But there were 2 armies in the box, an Emperor's Children army and a Salamanders army.

 

I lined them up on my table to look at the models. For the ECs, there was a champion, some sorcerors, 30 noise marines, 20 daemonettes, 2 Keepers of Secrets, some Rhinos and dreadnoughts. For the Salamanders, there was a commander, a techmarine and medic, 30 marines, 10 assault marines, Land Raider, a couple Land Speeders, a Whirlwind and a dreadnought. Looking at the two side by side, I was struck by the fact the rules are so different now that it would be hard to field these same armies on the table against each other.

 

There was a time these two armies would have been competitive with each other. There was some character there that is missing now. I mean, it used to be that SMs had all the hardware, and the CSMs brought all the daemons. They would offset each other nicely and make for some interesting games. These days, I don't know any Chaos players who actually use daemons anymore, it's all Obliterators and Defilers. I also don't know anyone who uses one type of troop anymore unless it's vanilla CSMs. Some of the Daemonettes were on mounts. Remember when that was desireable?

 

It's not really just that we have a 'bad' Codex, it's that the Codex provides an incentive for less creative armies compared to previous versions. This is what I really miss about the earlier editions, you just don't have reasons to explore different army lists the way you once did.

[the jeske]

i take a fluffy chaos list and it competes very well against newer dexes, fact is the only time it gets owned is when my opponents use a netlist from the new dexes, at which point its not an issue with the dex or army build, but an issue with WAAC gaming and the widening void between competative and friendly play

another words If your opponent builds a normal optimized list your chaos gets owned . Right .

 

Try to build a 2500pts EC or 1ksons army and win a tournament with it or at least place high with it .

If you are playing for fun, with absolutely no thought given to math or HAVING to win, then there are quite a few choices. Soo many people that I play against will gear their list a certain way once they hear that I am bringing CSM to a game it isn't funny. The 2xDP 9xOblits will evaporate against the amount of lascannons that I always seem to face off against. They may not try to do so, but given how many people do it, the 2xDP is almost a given when you hear CSM.

Do you offten play games when you start and think to yourself "well time to lose to keep my opponent happy" ?

 

 

build a EC army or a 1ksons army . play 10 games against SW/IG/GK/BA/SM . play 5 games of 1500 and 5 games of 1750-2250pts. Then talk about how "fun" it is to make fluff lists and how viable they are in or outside of a tournament setting.

 

I mean the very idea that in a fluff setting anything other then what is ALWAYS played works is taken from what ?

EC are gimped versions of GK . people build armies that can deal with GK , why wouldnt they deal with EC [fewer units , weaker options both as gear, uprades , HQs etc goes] . 1ksons with cover+4 everywhere dont work much better then plasma squads [but they are weaker in hth , have problems with dealing with tanks etc] .

 

Some armies cant even be build with this dex . AL ? no DP [dont live in warp] no oblits[cant realy get the virus when your not in the warp] no cultists[not in the rules] . So what is left is 5 man chosen with 5 specials kamikaze style[which isnt very much AL , but it is the only thing that works] ? and because of how costs work when am building the list am gimping not just one thing . Take lord ? cool now you have to lose a second special on a csm squad because our rhinos are 10 man . take chosen ? awesome unit costs more then 150pts so its not a simple 2 oblits for 5 chosen . So I can either take a single chosen unit[bad outflank too random with a single unit] or drop troops [bad 2/3 of games is about scoring and in KP missions the chosen are free points] , which hurts because I cant combat squad . etc etc etc.

 

Of course I could go with hth specialists[zerkers] and add some siege specialists[pms] , but if I have to use counts as to make my army work semi decant then I would rather make a druged up EC army [using GK with granades , psycanons being sonic weapons , sonic dreads and sonic razors ] .

[greatcrusade08]

jeske how many times have people been through the tournament vs normal play argument with you?

whats optimised for you, is cheesy tournament lists to many other people.

 

chaos may not be a tournament winning army, but who cares, its perfectly able to hold its own against any non tournament meta lists.

my losses have been to the long fang ML/razor spam lists and draigowing, and tbh i probably would have lost no matter which army i played from any of the codexes.

 

Do you offten play games when you start and think to yourself "well time to lose to keep my opponent happy"

a: that attitude can be considered childish (note im not calling you childish)

b: thats clearly not what we are saying.

if your playing a game, you play with the aim of winning, but using a tournament styled lists anywhere but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.. of course if your opponent is happy to face it thats completely different.. but clubbing baby seals is not cool, and nor is it a good reflection on the more competative players.

 

at the moment there is a big divide between copetative and friendly play, alot of the more powerful codexes at the moment have many any builds which are more user friendly, youd probably still win with them, but you wouldnt table your opponent in two turns, which can only be good for the hobby and for social gaming surely?

of winning is your only goal in this hobby, then its probably time to find another hobby, a BIg aspect of 40k is the most important rule (the one that says its all about having fun), that means your opponent has to have fun too.. if you cant see that, then your being very selfish

[Hellios]

but clubbing baby seals is not cool

 

Jeske sees it the other way round. He has brought the normal list... He goes to a place where people fight with Orcas, so if you bring a baby seal you are spoiling his fun because you are not providing a challenge. If the internal balance within the codex was good and the balance between the chaos codex and other codices was good then I could bring a fluffy 1kson list and while it may not be an Orca it would at least be a Great White Shark.

 

 

The problem isn't with Jeske's definition of fun... fun is subjective... The problem is the rule set. With a good rule set both competitive gamers and fluff gamers could play against each other and have no problems.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

but clubbing baby seals is not cool

 

Jeske sees it the other way round. He has brought the normal list... He goes to a place where people fight with Orcas, so if you bring a baby seal you are spoiling his fun because you are not providing a challenge. If the internal balance within the codex was good and the balance between the chaos codex and other codices was good then I could bring a fluffy 1kson list and while it may not be an Orca it would at least be a Great White Shark.

 

 

The problem isn't with Jeske's definition of fun... fun is subjective... The problem is the rule set. With a good rule set both competitive gamers and fluff gamers could play against each other and have no problems.

 

This x infinity.

 

The Codices could certainly be written so that fluffy is powerful.

 

Bob the fluffite shouldn't get pwned because he thinks taking one of each unit is fun.

Jack the competitive shouldn't get stigmatised because he spams XYZ.

 

It should be written that the powa! levels are the same. Then generalship [what is the correct word or phrase for this? skill as a general?] will be the divide, and not lists. People can tell me any list can win all they like, but I'll happily take my list that is a sword to your knife. It shouldn't be like that.

 

Secondly, the rules should be much tighter. I don't think PP has half the drama as GW does about rules writing. And just like computer companies, if it is too hard to put out a polished product from the get-go, then patch the thing. FAQs should be a regular and concise thing, not be few and far between.

 

There shouldn't be a fluffy list that is actually very poor on table, nor should there be a strong list that isn't fluffy. Considering what we can come up with in terms of mini-dexes, fan dexes, stories, tacticas and battle reports, that we do for free and in our spare time, I really am boggled by the ever more expensive GWs ethos.

 

Then people would be less interested in band wagoning. But band wagoning would not be frowned upon by fluffites anyway, because that new shiny Dex doesn't result in them getting pwned in the wake of count-as. Not that people who are "not competitive" dislike not winning ;)

 

It is not like GW are a small company struggling to make ends meet. They charge top dollar for their product, which is fine, as long as the delivery top notch too. Fair's fair.

[greatcrusade08]

but clubbing baby seals is not cool

 

Jeske sees it the other way round. He has brought the normal list... He goes to a place where people fight with Orcas, so if you bring a baby seal you are spoiling his fun because you are not providing a challenge. If the internal balance within the codex was good and the balance between the chaos codex and other codices was good then I could bring a fluffy 1kson list and while it may not be an Orca it would at least be a Great White Shark.

 

 

The problem isn't with Jeske's definition of fun... fun is subjective... The problem is the rule set. With a good rule set both competitive gamers and fluff gamers could play against each other and have no problems.

 

no the problem isnt with jeskes definition of fun, and in his area im sure there are many others who see it the same way.. hence he gets on very well.

however there are many more non tournament players than there are tournament players in this world, and if they dont see meta netlisting as fun opponents who is jeske or you or anyone to tell them its tough or they are cry babies (as ive heard recently)

 

the issue here is that it takes two to play a 40k game, i you can find a like minded opponent then its all good (i mentioned this as a caveat in my last post), however if your playing a tournament styled list at a bog standard LGS, chances are there are a large proportion of people who think your lists is overpowered and wont enjoy the match up.

perhaps we all need to stand back and think about our gaming buddies once and a while.

 

now dont think for one minute im anti competition, becuase anyone who knows me, knows thats not true, i believe there is a time and a place for all leveles of gaming, but i also know there is a divide at the moment, widened by the overuse at LGS' of certain SW and GK builds that rule the current tourney scene.. i enjoy playing at tournament level every once and a while, but its a special event for me, in the lead up ill ask around for competative matches, but for the most part at my games club its more beer and pretzels gaming, where social convention and a certain level of restraint is shown towards army building.

 

edit: i agree very much with wilhelm, alot of the issue comes with poor rulessets and bandwagoning.. of course people assume that fluffy = non powerful, but i dont necessarily agree with that.. anyone who has faced my scout army will attest that its no slouch, and whilst my chaos only uses 1DP and avoids oblits doesnt make it weak either

[Hellios]

I used to be involved in a certain competitive team event and I used to divide players into 4 tiers and then split those tiers as well...

 

So you had low level players... At a competitive level these guys didn't have a chance I've seen exceedingly high flawless scores against teams consisting of this level of play.

 

You had the medium level players which I would split into bottom, middle and top... At the low end they new what they were doing and would beat a low level player 9/10 times but struggle against anyone else. At a high level you have someone who is competent when it comes to holding their own ground and who can score but they are not normally going to win matches.

 

Then you have high level tier.... which again is split into three.... with the bottom guys being better in support roles or scoring than the top players of the medium ability players... Normally the difference was that the high tier players had both the ability to stand on their own but also greater teamwork skills... At the top end you have players who will normally only lose against players of the same level.

 

Then you have the god tier... I made this category up specifically for two people who I thought where a level above everyone else I had seen play... These guys can normally win games by themselves against the top end of high tier...

 

Why do I mention this... Well I was rated between the top of the medium tier and the middle of the high tier... I varied from day to day... Had a bit of a rep as a giant killer but not that great overall but great in support.

 

What's my point? I was no slouch but with the exception of one of the god tier players having their knees give out I would never ever beat them! So taking luck out of the question and assuming all else is equal has your scout list got a fair chance against the 'top' tournament lists? Fair being the key word.

[greatcrusade08]

What's my point? I was no slouch but with the exception of one of the god tier players having their knees give out I would never ever beat them! So taking luck out of the question and assuming all else is equal has your scout list got a fair chance against the 'top' tournament lists? Fair being the key word.

 

excluding luck, then my scout list would be hard pressed to take down a top tier list, although it ahs been done, just extremely rarely

how does that change my point about non tournament gaming?

[Brother Ambroz]

i take a fluffy chaos list and it competes very well against newer dexes, fact is the only time it gets owned is when my opponents use a netlist from the new dexes, at which point its not an issue with the dex or army build, but an issue with WAAC gaming and the widening void between competative and friendly play

 

Well then gc08 I think it's because they're using bad lists to give you a chance. Anytime I face SW they usually even in fluffy games take a deathstarish unit, not because its OP but because its their fluff. Their HQ has a powerful squad he is always with and they represent that on the tabletop. Then that deathstar precedes to destroy anything that I let get close. That's just one example. It's nothing against you, I personally would just like to see more options and be able to take fluffy lists without it being an almost auto-loss.

[the jeske]

the issue here is that it takes two to play a 40k game, i you can find a like minded opponent then its all good (i mentioned this as a caveat in my last post), however if your playing a tournament styled list at a bog standard LGS, chances are there are a large proportion of people who think your lists is overpowered and wont enjoy the match up.

perhaps we all need to stand back and think about our gaming buddies once and a while.

show me an EC army that works post IG dex . that can deal with IG/SW and BA without tailoring and that is not build around the idea "my opponent plays DoA and doesnt know what syren does".

when a list to win has to be lucky or the list builder has to hope that his opponent is incompetent , then the list is bad . It doesnt matter if it is ment to play around in LGS or in a madrid vs 200 other people [by the way are spanish GT still that big?].

Why ? simple because options scale . If one dude starts gaming picks up 2 squads a leader and maybe 1-2 support units and his m8 picks up the same number of stuff , and both just started and one dude finds out that his army is this 2 options [ NM and demon prince] and the other dude has 14+ choices one of them has a better dex . and when one is better , then the other one sucks because the difference is that big . you play a scout list , idaho plays a honor guard build , both armies are not main stream [and there is nothing bad in it ] other dudes have the options to pick something more ortodox like a vulkan or khan build , play a demi company , even builds like razorspams are doable[am not saying that those would be on par with BA or SW ones , but they are still there] . that is a lot of lists which are different out of single dex .

Chaos is different ? how does a DG list play different from one with csm [with same arment 99% of time] ? it doesnt . Is an army made out of zerkers in rhinos different in game play then the one build around csm ? nope , identical game play.

Lets take a look at how support units work in our dex and how they work in the sm dex . SM dex has some that are clearly very good [MM attack bikes. rifle man etc] and some that are worse or even bad [venguard for example] . What about the csm dex ? possessed .. why take them when zerkers are plain better[scoring not random] , spawn are not even funny , dreads ? random and its not even the fact that they shot your own dudes sometimes , that makes them realy bad , but the fact that they dont shot at what you want them to . terminators ? no assault transport for them , no arment like cyclons or SS . 5 man squads are too small to do hth bigger squads dont fit in to LR [and ours dont have frags so any terrain means i1, like freaking nids] . so we play them kamikaze style[which beyond unfluffy] , but we always remember 4 termis with combis is 2 oblits and oblis are generaly not one shot[+have more weapons] . preds unused in SM armies , unused in chaos armies only our cost more . etc etc

 

And before you start saying , but this only matters to tournament players , let me tell you one thing I have seen and made and played those "fluffy" armies and played them against people with SW which had one unit of LF or even non , GK which were based around SS squads with INQ leaders[non special ones] , orks which were not about battle wagons or green tide but bikes etc. And every time I was forced to see how the chaos builds were not only boring , but also weak . The mechanics of the army when DPs,oblits zerkers and pms are cut off just dont work that well , sometimes even at all . the dex is made to play a BL list [one out of many .], who doesnt not remember JJ being happy about playing a "chaos zerker army led by a lord of tzeench" .

 

 

if your playing a game, you play with the aim of winning, but using a tournament styled lists anywhere but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.. of course if your opponent is happy to face it thats completely different.. but clubbing baby seals is not cool, and nor is it a good reflection on the more competative players.

you know thats like asking a dude in sports to go easy on someone smaller . Never seen in happen [in fact weaker people tend to generate more aggresion from other sportsmen , but that is a different story] . + as I said before the chaos dex is weak and bad on all levels doesnt matter if its at tournament levels or at casual ones.

 

 

 

jeske how many times have people been through the tournament vs normal play argument with you?

and each time I go to shops in holland or GWs in berlin or when I go back to the times visting UK and spain I kind of a dont remember people using armies that are bad . Armies may have been unpainted[sometimes unglued] , people may have been not very good with the rules[sometimes of their own dex] , but I yet have to see a IG army in 5th ed that uses rough riders or an sm army with vanguard. [and realy all armies I have ever seen made with chaos had oblits or were LR rush or were zylla with 3 defilers].

 

chaos may not be a tournament winning army, but who cares, its perfectly able to hold its own against any non tournament meta lists.

with what I will disagree. I seen enough games vs or with chaos armies played by a different level of gamers and I know that chaos A scales bad in larger games . B has no options unless someone goes BL C even when one plays BL the number of options is low [am almost sure there are chaos player out there who would like to put zerkers/pms in elite slots too ].

 

 

 

Well then gc08 I think it's because they're using bad lists to give you a chance. Anytime I face SW they usually even in fluffy games take a deathstarish unit, not because its OP but because its their fluff. Their HQ has a powerful squad he is always with and they represent that on the tabletop. Then that deathstar precedes to destroy anything that I let get close. That's just one example. It's nothing against you, I personally would just like to see more options and be able to take fluffy lists without it being an almost auto-loss.

its not even such a problem . Imagine you play a list without DP oblits and special spamed on termis/5 man pms etc. on the other side you find a meq list with TH/SS termis[probably with a 4th/SS +twin LC set up ] with an attached HQ in a LR. you have no counter to that . lords will die , csm will die , 1ksons are sad about +2 sv , NM have too few low shots to even open the LR .

Also the alternete chaos armies main weapon , the auto cannon bounces of the LR hull. Could there be anything more sad . A simple elite unit in a transport with an HQ and you have no counters .

[Excessus]

What I don't get is why you even play CSM jeske, since you seem like a WAAC player you should be playing a top tier codex or at the least counts-as...

 

...and if you aren't playing CSM, why are you even in here?

 

 

And deathstar units? Just pop the LR and avoid them...play to your strengths and not your weaknesses...it's not like they can claim objectives or anything...

[Menkeroth]

I think we shouldn't continue, it's not a topic, right? ;) we've got some news and i think it's more interesting to continue discussing them than reading this broken record © all the time. Our codex if not a ChaosZilla is no match for the "Scorpion" for GK, BA, SW and even DA Deathwing and so be it.

 

But even this codexes (except DA, of course) are not fully competitive, and also can offer interesting lists. And so ours too. It simply needs refreshing as all the others, so i think if Kelly writes or at least is involved we'll get the same as the DE and maybe Tau and that's great! But it's only if...