Hellios Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 That's one thing that critics of the current Codex often fail to see. Yes, it removed a lot of the flavour text and failed to adequately explain the options, but among its other flaws, anything was possible. Except that is wrong... Can I take four units of oblits? Can I take long range indirect artillery? Can I take a giant host of daemons dedicated to my god? It continues on in this way. The old codex didn't force you to use Word Bearers rules if you painted your army as word bearers. It allowed you to take some 'fluffy' options but tried to restrict you to keep things balanced. Most of us don't think 3.5 was perfect but I was always excited to play against Chaos in the 3.5 days as I didn't know what I would face. Now I know or if it isn't a cookie cutter list it isn't that much different from any other power armoured list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Caerolion Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 That's one thing that critics of the current Codex often fail to see. Yes, it removed a lot of the flavour text and failed to adequately explain the options, but among its other flaws, anything was possible. Except that is wrong... Can I take four units of oblits? Can I take long range indirect artillery? Can I take a giant host of daemons dedicated to my god? It continues on in this way. The old codex didn't force you to use Word Bearers rules if you painted your army as word bearers. It allowed you to take some 'fluffy' options but tried to restrict you to keep things balanced. Most of us don't think 3.5 was perfect but I was always excited to play against Chaos in the 3.5 days as I didn't know what I would face. Now I know or if it isn't a cookie cutter list it isn't that much different from any other power armoured list. So the basic list should be capable of taking 4 Obliterator squads? No. The Chaos codex may not have that amount of specialisation, but the list is how the 3.5 list should have been structured. They may have done the units terribly, and have almost negligible internal balance, but if those problems are fixed, then the Legions would be able to be represented just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 That's one thing that critics of the current Codex often fail to see. Yes, it removed a lot of the flavour text and failed to adequately explain the options, but among its other flaws, anything was possible. Except that is wrong... Can I take four units of oblits? Can I take long range indirect artillery? Can I take a giant host of daemons dedicated to my god? It continues on in this way. The old codex didn't force you to use Word Bearers rules if you painted your army as word bearers. It allowed you to take some 'fluffy' options but tried to restrict you to keep things balanced. Most of us don't think 3.5 was perfect but I was always excited to play against Chaos in the 3.5 days as I didn't know what I would face. Now I know or if it isn't a cookie cutter list it isn't that much different from any other power armoured list. So the basic list should be capable of taking 4 Obliterator squads? No. The Chaos codex may not have that amount of specialisation, but the list is how the 3.5 list should have been structured. They may have done the units terribly, and have almost negligible internal balance, but if those problems are fixed, then the Legions would be able to be represented just fine. BINGO! And if people want a Legion-specific list like there was in 3.5, then select only the units you want to use and then do something like what the Loyalists have with Special Characters improving specific builds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Mk.231 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Replying to the OP, you could try something like this. It's how I'll be repressenting my beserkers since the bunny ears don't fit in with my Iron Warriors and regular chaos marines wouldn't stand out enough to pass them off as beserkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearingtheword Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 That's one thing that critics of the current Codex often fail to see. Yes, it removed a lot of the flavour text and failed to adequately explain the options, but among its other flaws, anything was possible. Except that is wrong... Can I take four units of oblits? Can I take long range indirect artillery? Can I take a giant host of daemons dedicated to my god? It continues on in this way. The old codex didn't force you to use Word Bearers rules if you painted your army as word bearers. It allowed you to take some 'fluffy' options but tried to restrict you to keep things balanced. Most of us don't think 3.5 was perfect but I was always excited to play against Chaos in the 3.5 days as I didn't know what I would face. Now I know or if it isn't a cookie cutter list it isn't that much different from any other power armoured list. So the basic list should be capable of taking 4 Obliterator squads? No. The Chaos codex may not have that amount of specialisation, but the list is how the 3.5 list should have been structured. They may have done the units terribly, and have almost negligible internal balance, but if those problems are fixed, then the Legions would be able to be represented just fine. I don't think that taking 4 oblit squads in a basic list is what he was saying....I think he was saying that at least in the 3.5 dex you had some diversity. There was more than 1 or 2 successful builds. Not everyone was the same DP with Lash and oblits build. You would see and face off against various builds that still had a chance of kicking your butt, meaning it wasn't the same old monotonous BS. Was it perfect? No, but at least there were options. Personally I missed the 3.5 dex. I came back after the current one was released, but I did track down one of the 3.5 dexs and built and played (still do from time to time) a Word Bearer list from it. I have tried to create a similar list with the current dex but it fails when it comes to the keeping the fluff and rules intermeshed. For example, in the 3.5 dex I could have an Accursed Crozius for my Dark Apostle that gave me the 4+ invuln (fitting the fluff), now I have to take a Mark of Tzeentch on my Dark Apostle (very unfluffy imo) to get a 5+ invuln. Other legions had other options available to them, with some restrictions, that made the rules fit with the fluff. Which is what I think Helios was getting at. Anyhow I could go further into detail but I won't. It's all been argued before. I just hope that the new dex brings back some of the former legion options, and not just via a special character as seems to be the trend.... And as for the Cult Troops, I am stumped as to what I'd use to represent Crusaders, Cataphracts and Conquerers as far as modeling goes. Any thoughts? ~BtW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Yes I wasn't trying to say that 4 squads of oblits was right but that I feel options were taken away rather than given to us and If I'm honest I feel some restrictions are better if it gives us more options overall. If someone can choose to play a special sublist for their world eaters army and get extra options that make it more viable compared to a generic list... Well I don't mind that one bit. Also some fluff restrictions are fine in my mind. For example if GW wanted to decide that in smaller scale 40K battles (Not Apocalypse) you wouldn't have more than one Daemon Prince in a CSM host I'm cool with that... For me that is no different than GW making the choice to not give chaos space marines Eldar Aspect warriors. What you don't have is just (and sometimes more) important that what you do have when defining an army. One of my big issues is everyone getting faster and I'm wondering what will define the DE and CWE in editions to come. As for representing cult troops... You can use them as Mercs... You can use them as marines who have switched from one legion to another... A number of none cult legions have a certain number of some of the cult troops or with the option behind door number 3 you can just make up whatever excuse and steal their rules. The only major need for option number is if you are running a cult list of one god but want to take a cult unit for another god or if you want thousand sons where you only have the option of mercs or turncoat sorcerer. Personally I like the fact that not every man and his dog has a troupe of 1ksons following them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.