The real problem with the Chaos Space Marines Codex

[Slayer le Boucher]

Your analisis feels perfectly right to me, and that's far from being new. Every Chaos codex suffers from that perticular problem : Chaos is too huge, diverse and deep for a simple codex.

It's a nightmare for GW, as they don't want to multipliate codices (they can't even update them all at a decent rate, which is pretty shameful because it ruins our (the customers) experience of the hobby. If you ask me, I do think you can almost sue GW for that.

More important, GW has a crush on the imperium. Wet dreams and stuff (half the codices around are imperials, and the fluff is made from an imperial point of view, and is really imperial friendly (which leads to complains about the loss of the grimdark feel, as the imperium feels perfectly fine (do really think GW is out of good fluff writers, I have yet to find something as great as the Realm of Chaos books).

That leads to the state of Chaos. It's unthinkable to make multiple codices for Chaos, because Chaos don't deserve it (as most people play imperials, as GW wishes). Daemons got their own, mostly thanks to the their presence in WFB, and stuff.

 

There is really many things to create from Chaos, codex : Legions, codex : Renegades, codex : Traitor Guard, codex : Chaos Cults... But there's no room for those, so everything is put in the Chaos codex, wich is crazy for the guy who writes it. Some made the best they could (Chambers and Haines were going in the right direction with 3.5, they made their best to illustrate, by the rules, the diversity and the infinite amount of combinations, and it is still the best codex GW ever printed...), other don't care, like Gavin Thorpe.

In the end, we, the players, absolutly don't know what we'll get out of a new codex, because there is so many in Chaos, and writers can't put everything in a book.

 

Chaos will never get the space needed to expand like it should, and I blame GW focus on imperials, and dumb codices writing rate and policy.

 

 

This might change if they continue to make additional rules & models waveslike they are doing for the last few Months with the White Dwarf.

 

We had a Deamon update, a Flyer update, a lastly a WoC update, now, maybe, and i really insist on the maybe, they will make Legions specific stuffs in the WD, like they did in the good 'ol days of the Chapter Approved.

 

After all, all the cults rules and Specific Legions rules that where in the 3.5 Dex was inspired by the work made upfront in the Index Astartes and Chapter Approved articles a few years before.

 

So if they get their heads out of their butts, and decide to finally be more then just a Traders-Compagny and again a compagny who do things for players and customers, this might come true, but yeah, it might take years or even never happen...

[Noctus Cornix]

So Noctus, for Night Lords if we want fear you're basically saying its ok to give them MoN/Fear Icon and count it as something else, but its not alright to use the army as a counts as BL? For Alpha Legion yeah they're not as specific, but they do have their niches which people want reflected in the rules. TS is mostly rubrics but what about raptors, havocs and terminators for example? You can choose not to use them but it limits you. Just a few examples. Those that play these legions want to be special. They want their things that differentiate their chaos marines from their friends chaos marines.

 

Really if they want to satisfy the vast majority of players (which they'll never satisfy everyone, as evidence ^^) I think they need to give some of the old legion rules again or just give us the option to customize more with veteran skills.

 

Counts as? Oh no, whats wrong with Nurgle Night Lords? :)

 

As i said before, these were merely rudimentary examples to fit with what you were asking. Wait... TS raptors and havocs? You do remember that back in the 3.5 codex a TS army couldn't take raptors, bikes, havocs, or raptors. Its only since the 4th edition codex that you can give alot of those units marks. And now, with 6th edition, you can give them marks and icons.

 

As you said, they're not going to satisfy everyone but that's just the way the world is. And even on this, i still disagree with you and i know they never will, which makes me gleeful. :P

[Shuggnuggath]

Thousand Sons may be better off using Codex Daemons with Thousand Sons allies.

[Brother Ambroz]

Counts as? Oh no, whats wrong with Nurgle Night Lords? :)

 

As i said before, these were merely rudimentary examples to fit with what you were asking. Wait... TS raptors and havocs? You do remember that back in the 3.5 codex a TS army couldn't take raptors, bikes, havocs, or raptors. Its only since the 4th edition codex that you can give alot of those units marks. And now, with 6th edition, you can give them marks and icons.

 

As you said, they're not going to satisfy everyone but that's just the way the world is. And even on this, i still disagree with you and i know they never will, which makes me gleeful. :P

 

Eh I don't like Nurgle and none of my boys will ever be Nurgly. The other three are fine and they do have some disciples in my warband but Nurgle....we just don't get along. That's my problem, Nurgle is the only way to get fear.

 

Yeah I remember and that's my point, you don't take those and you're really limiting yourself. What've you got left? Possessed? Yeah with the rubric possessed don't make much sense. Chosen and Terminators? They don't have any psychic ability and yet they're not rubrics....hmm. Warptalons/Raptors/Havocs are the same boat.

 

At the same time, I know what you mean and this was one of the problems with 3.5. At the time I didn't know about Black Legion, otherwise I'd have just used mine as counts as BL. That way I could've taken Havocs/Raptors and not been so limited.

 

Trick is finding a balance between the two and still satisfying the majority of players.

[Vesper]

I kind of have to agree with this assessment. 3.5 was a one-dimensional, very biased way of representing the Legions and it has given rise to very biased ways of thought. I still find it ironic that some of the most die-hard Puritan Night Lord fans love A-D-B's Night Lords.

 

As far as 3.5 being a powerhouse, yeah it was a powerhouse. In all the wrong ways. From I've everything I've been able to find, the only way it lost was if it went up against a very good player or it was played by someone who was either new to the game or had no grasp of tactics. That's not competitive, that's overwhelming. Competitive means everyone else has as equal a chance of winning as you do. It comes down to strategy and luck of the die.

 

We could have Codex: Legions, Codex: Renegades and all that jazz. But I don't want it. Well, I wouldn't mind something just for the Traitor Guard. But as far as CSM go, I don't want a Codex: Legions. It means that in order to "represent" my Legion, I have to conform to a very specific and narrow view. No. I'm sorry, but the answer is no. Love me, hate me, say what you want about me, my answer is and always be no.

 

I understand exactly what you mean, good sir. I simply call foul because there was nothing fluffy or fair about the 3.5 edition and its terrible Legion rules. I'm sorry but what is there that's fair when say the Night Lords Legion gets an extra slot of raptors and the most useless special rules in the game, and in return Iron Warriors can have 9 obliterators and 4 tanks or the Word Bearers who could deepstrike 8 Blood Letter squads who still had power armour then right on your face? and that's to name just a few examples.

 

You should be pretty ashamed to write such statements based on the incorrect info you both put in your posts. There's nothing wrong in writing nonsensical crap for the sake of it, but you should at least warn people that what they are about to read is in no way related to 3.5 or everything that took place in the reality.

It was a powerhouse in a wrong way ? Having more viable builds than the sum of those all the other codices got is a "wrong" way ? You must really enjoy spamming units, I guess. And making statements like "you couldn't lost when you played 3.5" is a bit weird coming from someone who never played it, and obviously made his mind on what TEH INTERNET says.

Noctis, the Night Lords didn't have an extra slot of raptors. You dreamed about it.

They had cool fluffy special rules, +1 FA slot if they wanted to trade a HS slot (totally optionnal), and the limitation of 0-1 raptors units was removed. That is what is printed. The NL list was the weakest of all, but it was still totally viable. You wanted something as strong as the daemon bomb ? Then just don't come up to say it was totally cheesy GK-style.

 

Because in real life, you're both wrong.

 

This might change if they continue to make additional rules & models waveslike they are doing for the last few Months with the White Dwarf.

 

We had a Deamon update, a Flyer update, a lastly a WoC update, now, maybe, and i really insist on the maybe, they will make Legions specific stuffs in the WD, like they did in the good 'ol days of the Chapter Approved.

 

After all, all the cults rules and Specific Legions rules that where in the 3.5 Dex was inspired by the work made upfront in the Index Astartes and Chapter Approved articles a few years before.

 

So if they get their heads out of their butts, and decide to finally be more then just a Traders-Compagny and again a compagny who do things for players and customers, this might come true, but yeah, it might take years or even never happen...

 

If.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Umm... Deus? I'm sorry but I think you're taking my words out of context.

 

I never said that cultists and infiltrate are the end all be all representation of the Alpha Legion. I was merely giving basic examples that relate to the Legion rules of the 3.5 codex that you promote.

 

As Hellrender put so well, the Alpha Legion and the Night Lords are two legions with very distinct traits that do not translate into the game itself. That being said, simply adding Legion rules won't achieve the flavor for your army you so desire. They never did.

 

Index Astartes IV, page 36, first sentence under the "Combat Doctrine" heading:

 

Alpharius' doctrine was to attack the enemy in as many different ways as possible, all at the same time.

 

With this in mind, how is cultists & Master of Deception a "basic example" of Alpha Legion doctrine?

 

That being said, infiltrating an entire army is not a perfect representation of the Legion's doctrine; nor was their ability (unique at the time) to field cultists. You're correct about that. But at least it was something, which is more than we have now. If the same rule was ported into 6th Edition, I wouldn't Infiltrate everything. I'd outflank a bunch for sure. As for coming up with Legion rules that provide the flavor I so desire? It's easy, and I can do it now without making it overpowered. Watch.

 

"The Hydra"

Standard Chaos Lord stat line

Frag & krak grenades, power sword, bolt pistol, power armor, Aura of Dark Glory, Champion of Chaos, Fearless, Independant Character, Veteran of the Long War

Warlord Trait (fixed): Master of Deception

Preplanned Assault: If The Hydra is your Warlord, you may reroll Reserves rolls. Additionally, deep striking units from this codex roll one less die when scattering.

 

Bam. I didn't even invent anything; I just borrowed abilities from C:SM and C:BA, one of which is a free army-wide ability. I'd pay 150 points for that; Huron's 160, with a better I-save and much better as both a shooter and fighter. This modest character will turn a Chaos Marine force into an army that uses about as close to Alpha Legion tactical doctrine as possible given the rules. The simple core fact here is that every time you play against an Alpha Legion army, you should feel like you're being ambushed. Period.

 

 

Oh, sure you can -- Iron Warriors...tactical doctrines are built into the Codex (for Iron Warriors -- Vindicators, maybe some Oblits, Land Raider, daemon engines) and into the main rules (for Word Bearers -- ally in some C:CD daemons). But praytell, how do I accurately represent the tactical doctrines of the Night Lords or Alpha Legion?

 

So. You just pigeon-holed the Iron Warriors horrendously.

 

 

No, I didn't. The general tactical doctrine of the Iron Warriors is that of siege warfare, which requires artillery, long-range weapons, and heavy armor in order to deliver breaching squads. Ergo, every unit type I named. I'd prefer if they could take things like Medusas, Griffons, or Basilisks, but I'm not arguing from an Iron Warriors stand point at this particular moment.

[Brother Aiwass]

The legion rules could have been made in a very simple way: "Your generic Chaos Lord/Sorc can purchase gene-seed from [...]"

 

And every gene-seed is treated like "chapter tactics".

[the jeske]

As Hellrender put so well, the Alpha Legion and the Night Lords are two legions with very distinct traits that do not translate into the game itself. That being said, simply adding Legion rules won't achieve the flavor for your army you so desire. They never did.

oh how I would love to see you write this in response to GW making all marines of all kinds play with the same codex . including BT and SW .

 

Rules make the flavor . builds make the flavor . being painted blue/red/black/metalic does not make flavor , if all armies look the same . A 1ksons build should be heavy magic . doesnt matter what the "magic" does.

NL should have terror . it should counter ATKNF/fearless etc , because in the fluff that is what they were able to do . They made other marines fear them . AL should have the ability to manipulate deployment/terrain , puting mines/traps and having inside agents within the ranks of enemy army . WB should feel like a chaos chaos army , one should feel the those dudes realy serv chaos and it walks with them . This how a the chaos codex would look like in a perfect world [or if there never was a chaos dex before or if there wasnt one for 2-3 editions]. I get it , everyone gets it that the new dex we got would not be build on top of 3.5 . But please dont tell us that playing the same build for all legions is a good thing. We did it with the gav dex and it doesnt work . It isnt good for gaming, it isnt fun for those who are not in to gaming , it is not even good for painters and converters .

 

As i said before, these were merely rudimentary examples to fit with what you were asking. Wait... TS raptors and havocs? You do remember that back in the 3.5 codex a TS army couldn't take raptors, bikes, havocs, or raptors. Its only since the 4th edition codex that you can give alot of those units marks. And now, with 6th edition, you can give them marks and icons.

oh man how wrong you are . for the gamer 1ksons the new dex gives nothing . the 1ksons , base unit of his list , sucks . plain and simple . it is not worth to take anything save maybe for a+3inv tank HQ and even that rises the question , if it is worth to play a reaction HQ instead of one that simple kills or buffs stuff.

 

For the 1ksons fluff dude , there are no extra options . 1ksons are rubrics . period . no raptors , no bikes , no talons etc. he can of course use those , but how is his 1ksons list , different from a BL list using 1ksons ? in name maybe ?

 

And before you say something about 3.5 at least go and check the codex . it had rubrics of all kinds , it had terminator rubrics[no longer exist] , thrall sorc[no longer exist] . Was it a good list , hell no . It was a 1ksons list and GW hates them , but it had both more character and more 1ksons units , then the gav dex or the new dex has.

 

 

 

And please dont talk about limitations . you could play a non legion/renegade list with HQ unlocking elites/mark units the same way you can play them now .

[meeper]

I would have liked to give the CL a choice of a vet skill that he can purchase instead of a mark. If he purchases a skill, then CSM/Chosen can purchase that same skill for 2-3 pts a pop instead of taking a mark.

[Noctus Cornix]

Tanith- Its not that I absolutely hate the 3.5 codex, there's things about it that I do like. That being said though, what I despise is the restriction I feel it has on the legions and the effects it has brought to bear on current chaos players who feel they HAVE to meet these arbitrary requirements to play the legion correctly when really there's nothing in the fluff that says they can't. I'm glad we could see each others opinion on the matter. :)

 

Vesper- Well then... My good mood for the day is gone... ;)

 

Why exactly should I be ashamed of myself when my opinion is completely viable and is by no means incorrect. I'm sorry but where do you get off disenfranchising my thoughts as 'nonsensical crap' simply because it does not agree with your own? I grew up into the 3.5 chaos codex, it was my first codex and the first thing I ever bought for 40k. I learned about 40k in a game store that was almost 100% Chaos. Because the guys who went to my store were a bunch of power gamers who move from best codex to best codex to win. All of my thoughts and opinions are based on my experiences, plain and simple.

 

That being said, I wasn't referring to to power gaming or the sort. I was referencing the imbalance in lists and the over all disorganized book of the 3.5 codex. I am well aware that it simply doesnt just say it gives you an extra raptor slot but that is basically what it equates to, plain and simple. I despise the restrictive nature the codex holds on the Legions that forces them to cut out 2/3 of their book if they want to play a legion. I don't want anything like the daemon bomb or the Iron Warriors stomp brigade, so stop putting words in my mouth. I want an equitable and balanced army that everyone from every legion or warband can be happy with and this new codex is the closest its been.

 

I come here to share my thoughts and opinions of a hobby that I have loved for over a decade, not to have people like you throw petty insults simply because I don't share the same ideals as you.

 

 

Deus- Your example is a fairly good one and I like it but, then again we come to the dilemma where we would have to come up with rules for every other legion that balances out with the others and doesn't overpower one or the other and imbalance the game. That would be an extremely difficult task, if you ask me.

 

Jeske- I never said that the new codex gave very good options to begin with, I simply they they gave more options. I have been looking at the codex this entire time... well the giant bundle of pages that used to be my codex. Its very old and worn out. I'll admit that there were alot of cool things here and there among the 3.5 codex, like the ridiculous but cool option of having a chosen squad of all sorcerers and then cult terminators aswell but as I said before there are still those restrictions. This is where I personally come up to a problem because I have never liked the 1ksons. The restrictive nature of the army, like the 3.5 codex, is something I just don't like. So, I will be honest I cannot give you a straight good answer.

[Vesper]

I've been quite vehement, that's true. The thing is, I read the same things on 3.5, and again and again, every bit is false.

3.5 had one over the top build : Daemon Bomb. Iron Warriors ? Nah, it's ok, really. AL infiltrating shenanigans ? Pretty ok too. Yet, once again, there are next to endless ways to play this codex while staying viable, fun and challenging. You speak of restrictions, I see only possibilities (minus the thingy about the marks in the Legions, that book isn't perfect). Yet it was an attempt to give us something we all dreamed about, a proper Chaos codex, with the possibility to play the Legions, or a pseudo BL list for those who want. And if people wanted to play thier Night Lords as Iron Warriors, well that was fine.

 

You're a Night Lords player. Are you happy to see that SW can get Night Vision when you don't in your codex, about your marines ? Well I'm not. I'm not happy with the absence of Veteran stuff either, and I'm not happy without the Legion rules. There is nothing that tells me, on table top, that your Night Lords are Night Lords. And that is the true shame of 3.5's demise.

 

To be perfectly honest, the actual codex is pretty decent, I'm not denying that, really. Suffered the gavdex every day of its existence, so it's a relief to have something non retarded to play with. Yet, our codex don't have the depth, the character and the amount of possibilities 3.5 had. That's not a big deal. But that is a fact.

[Minsc]

In addition to the complaints listed by many others (the codex feels flat, unfocussed, one step short of being the codex we wanted it to be, etc), one thing that bother's me is the lack of internal balance (not as with Tyranids, but it's -there- I tell you), and the general feeling of "GW couldn't be bothered".

 

Just afew things in the Codex that strikes me as having poor internal balance:

 

- Almost everything and anything with Mark of Tzeentch is an inferior option compared to the other marks. Both the Mark and Icon in general are laughably bad, and the Icon is just a big ";)", which makes me wonder if the developers actually play the game they themselves make up rules for. Soulblaze is a horrible rule, it's not bad, but it's nearly useless. The only exception to this is MoTz on Characters, more specifically Lords and Sorcerers, who have the option of a 3++ save, and for a few units which have a 5++ by default (Terminators, Talons, Possessed, Mutilators and Obliterators - but on theese units, especially the Oblits/Mutilators, MoN is clearly superior, and MoN is also cheaper on Talons/Possessed, and arguably more effective as well.)

 

- Mutilators: Cowardly Terminators with 2 wounds and a small unitsize. Terminators will be a better option 9 out of 10 times. Not unique enough, and just feels like a strange, lame filler-unit.

 

- Berzerkers: Its sad how the pinnacle of the World Eaters are the worst choice in a World Eater-list. Their Khornate Brothers in the Biker/Raptor/Chosen/CSM fill the same role as they do, except they do it much better for the cost.

 

- Thousand Sons: Yes, if shooting against something with a 3+ save in the open, they are devastating. However, against all other targets, our old buddies the bolter-equiped CSM will outshoot them for the same pts/cost-ratio.

They are simply too specialized for their own good.

 

- In many cases, the cost for marks/icons just doesn't make sense, let me take an example:

*10x CSM /w bolters, pistols, ccw, MoN and IoVengeance costs 215 pts. 10x Plague Marines cost 240 pts. For 25 pts more you loose 1 point of Initiative, but you gain FnP, Plague Knives and Defensive Grenades. Seems like a nobrainer no?

*10x CSM /w bolters, pistols, ccw, MoS and IoSlaanesh costs 210 pts. 10x Noise Marines with bolters, pistols, ccw and IoSlaanesh costs 220 pts. For 10 pts you loose nothing (assault weapons vs blastmasters/doomsirens), but gain Fearless. Again a nobrainer. If the CSM instead get IoVengeance, the Noise Marines now pay 15 pts for FnP.

 

- Insert all the whining about Daemon Princes being overpriced, because they are right.

 

- Warptalons vs Raptors. Warptalons cost twice as much as a Raptor with the same Mark, can't take assault-weapons or Icons, and don't have grenades: all for a 5++ and lightningclaws on a A1-model.

Would anyone in competetive play really take Warp Talons over Raptors, except for the reason that they love the model's/fluff? I don't think so.

 

- Lastly, the Marks in general. On IC's some marks really appeal more than the others, let's take a look at what the Marks offer:

*Khorne: Sorcerer's can't take it, Warpsmith's/Apostles don't want it unless they have to due to joining a unit with the same Mark. Only the Chaos Lords want it, and that's only to unlock the Juggernaught and AoBF. Unlocking Berzerkers as troops will rarely be of importance for most gamers. It's not a bad mark, but far from the best.

*Tzeentch: Sorcerer's and Lords want it for the 3++ and the odd Disc of Tzeentch. It's far from useless on Warpsmith's/Apostles, but they really don't want it unless again, they need it in order to join a unit. Unlocking Thousand Sons as troops will rarely be of importance for most gamers. It's not a bad mark, but it's clearly the worst.

*Slaanesh: All IC's want this one, it makes them benefit from FnP if in the right unit, in additon to the Initiative-boost (with the exception of the Warpsmith, but he still get's FnP.).

Sorcerers want it because the Slaanesh-Lore is arguably the best in the book. Lords want it, because making Noise Marines troops will actually matter for most gamers. MoS would be the winner if it weren't for...

*Nurgle: I'll start by saying this: Nurgle is my least favoured Chaos God (sorry Papa), yet I've found myself using MoN on many of my IC's and units in 6th, because this Mark is just so much better than the rest. All of our IC's want this, it gives them two major advantages without the need for an Icon: It makes them harder to wound, and prevent's ID from S8-9, of which there are alot of. Secondly, it allows Lords and Sorcerers to very cheaply get their hands on Defensive Grenades. (5 pts, can you spell n-o-b-r-a-i-n-e-r?) The Lore of Nurgle is also decent for Sorcerers, not to mention the ability to get a 4wound Sorcerer with +1 Attack, and for Chaos Lords it unlocks our best cult-troop as troops. Clearly the best mark.

 

That's it for now, but there are more instances where the lack of internal balance shows.

In addition to this, I just sigh everytime I see the entry for Possessed. "May take "near-useless Icon" of Vengeance/Despair/Flame, because I was to lazy to think of something worthwhile and different for this one unit // Phil Kelly."

[Noctus Cornix]

I've been quite vehement, that's true. The thing is, I read the same things on 3.5, and again and again, every bit is false.

3.5 had one over the top build : Daemon Bomb. Iron Warriors ? Nah, it's ok, really. AL infiltrating shenanigans ? Pretty ok too. Yet, once again, there are next to endless ways to play this codex while staying viable, fun and challenging. You speak of restrictions, I see only possibilities (minus the thingy about the marks in the Legions, that book isn't perfect). Yet it was an attempt to give us something we all dreamed about, a proper Chaos codex, with the possibility to play the Legions, or a pseudo BL list for those who want. And if people wanted to play thier Night Lords as Iron Warriors, well that was fine.

 

You're a Night Lords player. Are you happy to see that SW can get Night Vision when you don't in your codex, about your marines ? Well I'm not. I'm not happy with the absence of Veteran stuff either, and I'm not happy without the Legion rules. There is nothing that tells me, on table top, that your Night Lords are Night Lords. And that is the true shame of 3.5's demise.

 

To be perfectly honest, the actual codex is pretty decent, I'm not denying that, really. Suffered the gavdex every day of its existence, so it's a relief to have something non retarded to play with. Yet, our codex don't have the depth, the character and the amount of possibilities 3.5 had. That's not a big deal. But that is a fact.

 

Game builds aside and all that stuff aside, I will admit that one thing I loved about the 3.5 codex was that it had alot of soul and character. That being said, I still feel it was an absolute mess but, you get the idea. None of the codexes are perfect and I think the main problem is that GW really tried to move to a more structured game. With that in mind, the 3.5 codex would have just never lasted in that environment and so all the soul got sucked out in the Gav dex. That's why I really like our new dex. It has that structure and variety but brought back a bit of the soul 3.5 had. Its not much, but it's a step forward.

 

No im not happy that the Space Pups get Night Vision but, to be frank, Night Vision really isn't a rule that's going to keep me up at night but then again none of the Night Lord Legion rules stuck out at me as being very useful.

[Vesper]

I don't really understand, I never felt it was a mess. Feels like people want a one build codex, to stop thinking, making builds, calculating points and such, to just move miniatures on a table.

The Night Vision thingy was an example. When you see that people who want to play an AL infiltration-heavy army have to take Huron or Arhiman, I feel kinda sad for them as they are trapped in a codex that just fails to capture the very spirit of their army, according to the fluff. That's just not right.

[Kol Saresk]

Vesper, how am I wrong exactly? Was the 3.5 Codex not a very powerful Codex no matter which one of the nine lists you used? Am I wrong for saying that? As a few others said, some of whom still want Legion lists, the 3.5 was unbalanced. Strong and unbalanced means that it is a powerhouse in the wrong way. Now we have this one. Does it have List A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I with option 1,2,3? No. Is it balanced? Yes. Does it have different viable builds? Look in the army lists subforum. Then jump over to the Alpha Legion forums. Excessus has two different lists that he has success with. Talk to littlebitz right in his thread about him winning at Mechanicon, I'm willing to bet he has a different list from Excessus. So that's three right there. Let's not get forget Smurfalypse's list. That makes four. Four viable lists. Five more and we can officially say that we're running equal with 3.5.

 

Okay, veteran skills, yes, from what I've seen, I wouldn't mind those. As far as Legion lists, no. Sorry, no.

 

And I find it ironic that people are saying that an HQ that guarantees Infiltrate is "unfluffy" for an Infiltrating List because they have to "Count As" when some of them hold the opinion that when someone wants to play outside the typical Legion lists, they should play "Count As" Black Legion. If it's okay for them to tell someone to do "Count As" then why is it such a problem for them to do "Count As"? I mean really.

 

Now as far as what I would consider a proper way to represent the Night Lords and the Alpha Legion on the table? Not sure. Just giving the Night Lords "Night Fight" rules when the only army that forces Night Fight is a specific Necrons HQ, seems redundant. Besides, other than a fluffy battle, how many people actually play with Night Fighting in effect during a game? Same with the Fear rule since how many armies are immune to Fear? Or are more than capable of surviving its effects? And just giving the Alpha Legion infiltrate is just as bland as well. Why not give them Outflank or some other similar rule? No. The closest thing I think it will come to making everyone "happy" is to take the Codex we have right here, either dump the Warp Talons or make them better, and add veteran skills and give each squad the ability to pick them. And maybe a bigger armoury. That's it.

 

And Vesper, it's not that we want a one build Codex. There's a reason people didn't like 4th Edition. But at the same time, some of us don't want to feel like the only way to play "fluffy" with our chosen Legion warband is to play List G and then only have the option of playing it in its base form, or switching out for its overplayed alternate mode.

[Vesper]

As far as I remember, people used to like 4rd, and 3rd too. 5th was the point where it was awful.

On balance : 1 over the top build (daemon bomb), one say 'strong build' IW (not a big deal, in fact). You want me to say that a book that have 1 over the top build is a powerhouse ? So the gavdex, with 2 DP lash, PM and full oblits is a powerhouse, right ? Caus' it was a strong build back before the Ward craziness.

You can't say that 3.5 was unbeatable in a fair game, that's not true. What people who played against it disliked was the diversity we love so much. With such a great amount of viable radically different builds/lists, they just couldn't adapt to everything at once.

3.5 was one of the top tier books of its times. Yet it was overall balanced. Now, the top tier books of 5th/6th, are unbalanced because of spammable cheap as hell super effective units. That is the wrong way.

 

Then, giving NL Night Fighting and Fear ? You think that's unecessary, I find that's better than nothing.

[Lexington]

I actually put the blame for the new Codex's lack of focus on GW - they're the ones who decided to add another aspect to the book, with all the Daemon Engines. It's a sales strategy (the 'big things!' they're so keen on now) that's pretty short-sighted when you consider the fact that Codex: Chaos Space Marines, by dint of those two latter words, contains the most vibrant, well-loved and best-selling element of 40K already. Chrissakes, guys. Develop that.

 

Then again, the blurred nature of the book reflects the fairly dim prospects that any book coming out of the modern Studio has. It's great that, background-wise, they decided to lift so much directly from the 2nd Edition book, but it also illuminates what made that old tome such a good read. Even as a gaming book, it was about something - specifically, the sort of obsessions that drove the various Legions to the Heresy, with hell-bent special characters like Khârn, Bile and Abbadon reinforcing that theme. The new book's got that, in so much as it's reprinting old material, but it's diluted by all the other now-standard nonsense that pollutes all new books. We're never going to get a focused book out of a Studio that's either unwilling or unable to write.

 

I am glad that works for you, but very few of us want to play with Codex: Black Legion. The 'happy chaos family' is something that I always thought was silly, almost a loyalist misrepresentation of chaos than anything else.

It's always weird to hear the assumption that Legion Traits were an eternal status quo that the last book came along and shattered. That 2nd Ed book, which introduced the Legions as we know them, was completely devoid of rules for the Word Bearers, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors or Black Legion. Not a one. Yet, no one complained about being unable to represent their army on the tabletop. An army's character could come through just fine via a player's contributions!

[Kol Saresk]

I am glad that works for you, but very few of us want to play with Codex: Black Legion. The 'happy chaos family' is something that I always thought was silly, almost a loyalist misrepresentation of chaos than anything else.

It's always weird to hear the assumption that Legion Traits were an eternal status quo that the last book came along and shattered. That 2nd Ed book, which introduced the Legions as we know them, was completely devoid of rules for the Word Bearers, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors or Black Legion. Not a one. Yet, no one complained about being unable to represent their army on the tabletop. Strange, that.

I believe the term you are looking for is irony. Every chance I could be wrong.

 

 

And Vesper, I never said it was unbeatable. As far as being over the top, that statement is an inference based on observations of the fact that all nine lists could be put in the hands of a newer(not new) player and they had a high chance of winning against a more experienced player.

 

And to be perfectly, fully honest, I don't think there will ever be a list that represents the Night Lords and Alpha Legion beyond Raptor Legion and Cultist Mash, respectively. The only way I can think of truly fielding them won't be reflected in the list you build, but how you use that list. There's more to the tabletop game that is based on strategy than just making a list and pointing it in the direction of your opponent. Granted, six turns isn't much time, but rarely do we have enough time for anything.

[Vesper]

And Vesper, I never said it was unbeatable. As far as being over the top, that statement is an inference based on observations of the fact that all nine lists could be put in the hands of a newer(not new) player and they had a high chance of winning against a more experienced player.

From I've everything I've been able to find, the only way it lost was if it went up against a very good player or it was played by someone who was either new to the game or had no grasp of tactics. That's not competitive, that's overwhelming.

 

Now that I cleared that :

 

And to be perfectly, fully honest, I don't think there will ever be a list that represents the Night Lords and Alpha Legion beyond Raptor Legion and Cultist Mash, respectively. The only way I can think of truly fielding them won't be reflected in the list you build, but how you use that list. There's more to the tabletop game that is based on strategy than just making a list and pointing it in the direction of your opponent. Granted, six turns isn't much time, but rarely do we have enough time for anything.

 

Can't wait for GW to stop producing codices SW, BA, BT, GK, DA to allow ALL SM players to finally enjoy the greatness of a single awesome 80 pages codex to rule them all !

[Kol Saresk]

Unbeatable is just that, unbeatable. As in never beaten. There is a difference between that and hard to beat. Try reading both quotes next time. So again, I never said it was unbeatable.

[Vesper]

Hence my subte "in a fair game" in the sentence

You can't say that 3.5 was unbeatable in a fair game, that's not true.

, which is pretty much what you said in :

From I've everything I've been able to find, the only way it lost was if it went up against a very good player or it was played by someone who was either new to the game or had no grasp of tactics. That's not competitive, that's overwhelming.

It can only lose if the guy on the other side is really good or if the guy behind the 3.5 sucks hard. Yet in a fair game, it can't lose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that's false.

[Kol Saresk]

Fine. See whatever you want and do whatever you want. I never thought I would see you twist other people's words before.

[minigun762]

This thread is headed for the barrel of a meltagun. Consider this your fair warning that beating the dead horse of 3.5 codex as well as trading blows with fellow members will not be allowed.

 

[Azekai]

It's always weird to hear the assumption that Legion Traits were an eternal status quo that the last book came along and shattered. That 2nd Ed book, which introduced the Legions as we know them, was completely devoid of rules for the Word Bearers, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors or Black Legion. Not a one. Yet, no one complained about being unable to represent their army on the tabletop. An army's character could come through just fine via a player's contributions!

I am not assuming that; and that is sort of tertiary to the point I was trying to make (which was general dissatisfaction with the assumption that we all wanted multi-cult armies).

 

A lot of things did not have rules back then, but that doesn't mean that when people were forced to make due it was 'better.' Anyway, 2nd ed was a long time ago, and to be given new definition in the form of varied and colorful legion rules was positive. By the same token, to have those choices removed was a step in the wrong direction. Now we have nothing even roughly analogous, short of FW. It feels like Windows Vista all over again. ^_^

 

By the way Lexington, I think you are an upstanding frater here at the BnC.

Please nobody shoot me with a meltagun.

[nurglez]

Little bit of history from me :D

 

Played chaos at the end of 2nd/begining of 3rd, this is now my 5th chaos codex.

 

Inbetween 3 and 3.5 I had started using nurgle units, when 3.5 came out I tried a variety of lists, and ended up using nurgle marked infantry mainly.

When using Deathguard rules, I enjoyed the restrictions on heavy weapons and only being able to use nurgle marked units, as I got a bonus, a free aspiring champion (when at multiples of 7 ofc). I was also able to use a "normal" nurgle list and add in a few other units (and killed a few of my own marines with nurgle's rot ^_^ ).

 

With the 5th edition codex, my choice of units went from 5 to 1, as carrying an icon does not make you a nurgle marine (in my opinion at least).

 

Also, with the current incarnation of the "plague marine" (I3 + FNP), I have to choose between normal marines that are only T5 and can run away, or "plague marines". (so No plague marine chosen, terminators, possessed or havocs).

 

I will adapt though, Nurgle is my primary god for chaos (my forum name isn't a give away at all, first created it back on deathguard.org baby), but I shall be open to trying out other units, as I feel I will have to to create a balanced list.

 

I can take nurgle havocs with heavy weapons now, though need a icon to give them fearless, I can have nurgle marked terminators without losing it if the icon dies (and will probably attach my lord there anyway to combat the lack of fearless).

 

Certain players will always restrict their selection to fit a theme, and we will do this because we want to. However, if you want to play competitive, you will have to fight above the average to play with sub par units.

 

I'm happy we have a new codex, and I am vaguely hopeful that GW might bring back different styles of lists or allies in white dwarfs (it's a way to make money so they are bound to milk it for what its worth).