Dissapointments with the new codex.

[Nehekhare]

I also think that Pre-heresy non FW book lists are best made with C:CSM, with the options you should be able to make something cool. Altough it will be more limited :P.

 

I think FW pre-heresy legion lists make the better CSM.

[Brother Ambroz]

In my not so humble opinion I think it's way too early for counts as already.

[Full_ork]

Flakk missiles. Too expensive for something which doesn't have interceptor as well as skyfire.

 

Do they replace the other missles entirely? If not, then it's not a big ordeal since you can just choose another shot.

 

I don't have the new chaos book so I wouldn't know but if it's an alternate shot then you could always use krak instead of flakk against nonflyers.

[Minsc]

Flakk missiles. Too expensive for something which doesn't have interceptor as well as skyfire.

 

Do they replace the other missles entirely? If not, then it's not a big ordeal since you can just choose another shot.

 

No Flakk does not replace Frag/Krak, you get them in addition to Frag/Krak for +XX pts.

 

With that said, I don't consider it worth it anyway. Giving 4 Havocs 4 Autocannons cost 40 pts. Giving 4 Havocs 4 ML's with Flakk costs 100 pts.

100 pts for what's essentially 2 autocannons with skyfire isn't really that great.

I'd rather take take the 4 Autcannons, and have the rest of the havocs man a Quadgun for almost the same price as giving them Flakk instead.

[Baluc]

So I know this thread is about screaming to the heavens, but is there a compiled list of things that are actually wrong with the armybook. I know we would have loved to see more. But short of an unlimited timeline surely something was going to be left out no?

 

Personally I can't think of too much that I would improve, ie in terms of straight effectiveness. I can think of one or two things I would add in terms of "fluff" though I likely would have removed Daemon Princes all together so maybe I'm not the best when it comes to adding or removing units.

[Azekai]

I likely would have removed Daemon Princes all together

Don't worry, they basically did that.

[Baluc]

I likely would have removed Daemon Princes all together

Don't worry, they basically did that.

 

 

 

What makes you say that? Personally I don't really like Hqs. Especially combat Hqs. My Chaos lord basically has a power weapon and an invuln. Unless they are force multipliers. Warlord traits aren't enough. But I have this problem in SW, and fantasy so thats not a codex issue.

 

I can see the appeal of DP however, but lets be clear DP are much inproved just from a core rules update. Ws9 high I ap2 attacks are rare in 8th. Add to that it flies, and has an armour save, possibly an an increased invuln save. Doesn't have to be the warlord, and causes fear? The ability to drop out the sky and flip a land raider is kind of a huge deal.

[the jeske]

if it tries to come out of reservs and flip anything it eats an quad gun/icarus and gets grounded . it doesnt open up slots for troops . it has a low sv , it doesnt have marks and is a 200+pts model with t5 and no eternal warrior . worse its a t5 model with a +3 normal save , hvy weapons will hurt it , but normal squad plasma and bolters [spamed in this edition] hurt it a lot too. he does nothing to buff the army [unlike huron], fear is a rule that doesnt work against most armies and against those that it doesnt it doesnt matter [ig/tau more or less] .

 

And while I am far from saying that a DP sucks , I dont think I would ever take one under 2k pts . It is better to take a demon ally and try out fate or a codex demon DP.

[Azekai]

Personally I don't really like Hqs. Especially combat Hqs. My Chaos lord basically has a power weapon and an invuln. Unless they are force multipliers. Warlord traits aren't enough. But I have this problem in SW, and fantasy so thats not a codex issue.

I completely agree. My lord is stripped-down and cheap as well.

 

I can see the appeal of DP however, but lets be clear DP are much inproved just from a core rules update. Ws9 high I ap2 attacks are rare in 8th. Add to that it flies, and has an armour save, possibly an an increased invuln save. Doesn't have to be the warlord, and causes fear? The ability to drop out the sky and flip a land raider is kind of a huge deal.

The problem is that the crazy expensive beatstick is countered by anything with Str 10. It is good at what it does, but it has a glaring deficiency in the critical 'staying alive' department. I know not everyone's meta involves railguns and BA cc dreads, but I have to deal with those constantly. One smack from a dread in cover and your eternal overlord of chaos is eating dirt.

[Brother Amarel]

And while I am far from saying that a DP sucks , I dont think I would ever take one under 2k pts . It is better to take a demon ally and try out fate or a codex demon DP.

I'm trying one out at 1500pts a couple of times in the next week (because, otherwise, I look at my list and realise that I'm far too close to a better SW list :)).

[the jeske]

I played NM in 5th just to be different . Did it for 5 years. I say no thank you to different for sake of being different. I doubt that the DP is going to get better with each new dex , in the long run it is better to use stuff that always works . being able to switch to SW in an instant is just a bonus.

 

 

Today for the first time in my life I have seen a counts as of a FW unit [twin AC contemptor with cyclon] with GW forgefiends in a counts as SW army using chaos models . No idea why , but it felt somehow more wrong then normal .

[zyl-]

The big big big problem with comparing to SW is that we are different mainly in the tanks department. Now as to whether or not we make up for it there.. that's another issue. What is the issue is that we are looking for the best way to field the basic units, since games of <2000 are insanely common. When it comes to the PA unit, we are seriously outclassed by the SW codex on every front. With the infantry heavy meta we are using (especially when we are talking about competative building), we lose no question.

 

I was just talking to a friend of mine last night about the comparison of the codexes. A longfang squad costs about 3/4 of a havoc squad with roughly equal gear.

[Azekai]

I was just talking to a friend of mine last night about the comparison of the codexes. A longfang squad costs about 3/4 of a havoc squad with roughly equal gear.

Which is nuts, because they are better in every way. Counter-attack, split fire, and ATSKNF? Dammit, Phil- what was the thought process there?

[Rain]

I was just talking to a friend of mine last night about the comparison of the codexes. A longfang squad costs about 3/4 of a havoc squad with roughly equal gear.

Which is nuts, because they are better in every way. Counter-attack, split fire, and ATSKNF? Dammit, Phil- what was the thought process there?

 

You can give Havocs counterattack with the Mark of Khorne. Not with a straight face though. Seriously, it seems like the only real Chaos fans among the game designers were Pete Haines and Andy Chambers, everyone else just sees Chaos as "the bad guys" that should by default be kind of like the good guys but worse because, after all, the heroes have to win. Hence us stacking up against BA or SW. They beat us at our own game, everything we can do they can do better.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

I was just talking to a friend of mine last night about the comparison of the codexes. A longfang squad costs about 3/4 of a havoc squad with roughly equal gear.

Patently untrue.

 

4 Lascannon Havocs is 155pts versus 4 Lascannon Long Fangs is 175pts.

4 Autocannon Havocs is 115pts versus 4 Missile Longs Fangs is 115pts. Different weapon systems of course, but worth comparison.

 

So Havocs come out WAY ahead with Lascannons, and have a unique functionality with Autocannons which Loyalists cannot access.

[Rain]

He was probably taking skyfire missiles. In either case, even given equal cost, what advantages to Havocs have over Long Fangs in exchange for no counter-attack (which isn't a big deal) and no split fire (which is)?

[CitadelArmyGuy]

He was probably taking skyfire missiles. In either case, even given equal cost, what advantages to Havocs have over Long Fangs in exchange for no counter-attack (which isn't a big deal) and no split fire (which is)?

Split-fire is a terrible rule. People assume it is amazing since it came into being at a time where stun-lock on MSU builds was extremely important. Now you need to hit vehicles with everything you've got to kill it through Hullpoints. If you are split-fire on Infantry, you're a player who has problems with Target Prioritization. Split-fire violates the Principle of Focussed Weight of Fire on the highest priority targets.

 

Split-fire looks good on paper, but in reality is a non-choice due to changes with 6th ed and also the Principles of good Fire Discipline. The only time you need Split-fire is if you take mixed weapons-profiles in one LF squad. Go ahead and ask a Tourny-winning SW player how many times they've split-fired in 6th ed. Probably not very often.

[Rain]

You can still kill vehicles without depleting their hull points, and missile launchers essentially are mixed profile weapons. That said, it's possible that tourney players never split fire and maybe that works for them given their particular niche in the game, but at a more casual level it's a useful thing to be able to do, especially later in the game when vehicles might already be down hull points or units might be down to just a few model a piece.

[Brother Ambroz]

Split-fire is a terrible rule.

 

I agree. There are very few circumstances in 6th which would warrant split-fire with MLs. Probably the only time I can think of off the top of my head are against very lightly armored vehicles (open topped like DE) where a pair of missles are likely to get a penetrating hit. Otherwise they're far better off just focusing all four on one target.

[Brother Amarel]

I was just talking to a friend of mine last night about the comparison of the codexes. A longfang squad costs about 3/4 of a havoc squad with roughly equal gear.

Patently untrue.

 

4 Lascannon Havocs is 155pts versus 4 Lascannon Long Fangs is 175pts.

4 Autocannon Havocs is 115pts versus 4 Missile Longs Fangs is 115pts. Different weapon systems of course, but worth comparison.

 

So Havocs come out WAY ahead with Lascannons, and have a unique functionality with Autocannons which Loyalists cannot access.

I'm not sure we should be picking and choosing like this. Las-Cannons are cheaper on Havoks (by 5 each) and they can take Autocannons, but Heavy Bolters and Missile Launchers are cheaper on Long Fangs (both by 5 each) and they can take Plasma Cannons (yay) and Multi-Meltas (meh).

 

Add to that higher base LD, ATSKNF and Counter-Attack, Fire Control (not used often, but when it is useful it's golden and it also makes it a lot 'easier' to take a mix of weapon), the ability to take 5 heavy weapons and a Razorback. They do have an issue with lower total numbers in a unit (7 vs 10) and they don't have the option of going with all Special Weapons or taking Marks.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

...I'm not sure we should be picking and choosing like this...

Of course you're quite right. Comparing the two Codicies is rather pointless, since Space Wolves was written as and still remains a Tier-1 competitive codex. The new Chaos Space Marine codex is Tier-3 (or Tier-2 if you squint real hard at it, and ally in Daemons at the same time). Of course the Epidemius-CSM Tally list is Tier-1 for the time being that the combo exists.

[MagicMan]

Why is everyone so hyped up on competitiveness and tiers?

 

 

If you're a tournie player, fair enough, but if the win means so much to you just pick a Tier 1 army and use that.

 

 

Most people i play with, play to have fun, and i think the new Chaos Codex is alot of fun. Its not all about min-maxing and wiping the floor with your opponent, its about interesting, fun choices and enjoying a game. The Chaos Codex has a lot of character. Dragon, aside.

[Sception]

My biggest complaints about the CSM book are issues of fun. There are units that are sufficiently points inefficient or just bad enough at their job that they aren't fun (possessed spring to mind). The armory is cool, but the relative lack of interesting items again sucks the fun out. There simply isn't a sword availble to my cool new DV chaos lord to match the awesomeness of his daemon sword. One bit of fluff mentions chaos lords 'smashing tanks with a daemonic sword' and there is no item that does that.

 

The Warpseers are supposed to maintain all the neat arcane equipment of the faction, yet they don't have access to most of it? Seers and apostles can't take terminator armor, bikes, or jump packs? etc.

 

There's just a lot of things in the book that feel awkward or self defeating, or like the designers got tired and gave up half way through working on them. Like the dimensional key that doesn't work because it doesn't turn on until after your reserves have already mostly arrived, or the warp talon's deep strike rule that's more likely to leave them suffering a deep strike mishap than actually blind anything. And the deliberate avoidance of synergy with the daemons book is just another dissapointing missed opportunity. Or the tzeentch lore - masters of sorcery my foot.

 

 

There's a lot to like about the new book, and a lot more options than we used to have at least, but it doesn't stand up to other recent books - not just in power but also in variety and novelty and just plain ambition.

[Hellios]

Split-fire is a terrible rule.

 

I agree. There are very few circumstances in 6th which would warrant split-fire with MLs. Probably the only time I can think of off the top of my head are against very lightly armored vehicles (open topped like DE) where a pair of missles are likely to get a penetrating hit. Otherwise they're far better off just focusing all four on one target.

 

Split-fire isn't terrible at all... Two units the same price with everything the same but one has split-fire which would you choose? The real question is how much you pay for it and do you use it? Especially compared to older devastator squads which cost more points than newer equivalents the cost of split-fire didn't make a difference even if you didn't use it. I however like to take a bunch of missile launchers and a single plasma cannon, for me split-fire can be very useful. The Plasma cannon can support the missile launchers in most roles if you wish and it is far superior against heavy infantry. Split-fire allows me to drop that plasma on terminators while sticking those missiles into a predator.

 

However I guess I'm going a bit off topic. I agree with Malisteen. My issue isn't that the codex is bad, (Although it is not great.) rather my complaint is the same as when the last codex came out... It is bland... Granted they have improved on the last codex, but I feel they missed some tiny things that would have made a huge difference and also missed some big things I would have liked although I would never have expected to do them all.

[Sception]

However I guess I'm going a bit off topic. I agree with Malisteen. My issue isn't that the codex is bad, (Although it is not great.) rather my complaint is the same as when the last codex came out... It is bland... Granted they have improved on the last codex, but I feel they missed some tiny things that would have made a huge difference and also missed some big things I would have liked although I would never have expected to do them all.

 

Basically this. But somehow I just can't feel unhappy or disappointed about it today.

 

Because today is Rosemary Day, where everything's wonderful and nothing hurts.