The real problem with the Chaos Space Marines Codex

[Rain]

To me the big problem is that instead of adding obvious and logical things like cult Terminators, drop pods, and demonic cavalry (seeker/jugger riders) they added ridiculous crap like the helldrake and megazords. But this is a trend in general for the past few years, everyone has been getting silly and over the top things like baby carrier dreads, deep striking LRs, etc. It's just that other armies have generally also gotten the obvious things included but we just got the same slop of last edition with a few new units and interesting options. Don't get me wrong it's still a lot better than what we had, but that's like saying that stale beer is better than battery acid, it's just not very high praise.

[Wolf Guard Dan]

I have played the 3rd, 3.5 and just picked up this codex for my Khorne army. I skipped the 4th ed codex when I got back into the hobby in 5th edition. I took one look at what they did and shook my head. This codex is a lot better. Sure, there are some units that are very situational, but gosh darnit, Phil Kelly made even spawns playable. That is an accomplishment in my book.

 

I understand the lack of direction criticism of this Codex. Just remember, that it takes a real mean Chaos Warlord like Abaddon to bring the bickering remnants of the legions together under a unified goal and make it devastating. So, the same can be said for how you should approach making a Chaos warband with this codex.

 

And the fluff is that this codex represents Chaos Warbands. The legions for the most part have disbanded into warbands. Its the fluff we live in nowadays. And to compare to space marines: they no longer have legions either. They have chapters. 40k=/= 30k.

 

I don't like what happened to the Mark of Khorne in this codex. Just give me +1 attack thank you. I get they are trying to fit fluff with a devastating charge, but defensive grenades can really mess that up for Zerkers. I dont think defensive grenades would mess up a zerker charge that much.

 

What I like about this codex is that they give you many ways to follow the path of one chaos god. I think how they approached cult troops and marked troops fits the fluff and the reality of what Chaos is today.

 

Also, its funny to read the Chaos forum after being so familiar with the SW forum. I think how people post on here fit their armies they play. No offense is meant by that. There is more dissent here, and when there is dissent on the SW forum people usually get put in place by the senior posters (not even admins). Very much pack mentality. You guys could argue your points til the 50th millennium lol. And thats good in its own way too.

[Azekai]

We are indeed a fractious lot. Wouldn't have it any other way. :D

[the jeske]

And the fluff is that this codex represents Chaos Warbands. The legions for the most part have disbanded into warbands. Its the fluff we live in nowadays.

and yet when you look arount list section of various forums , you see people wanting to play NL/AL/WE/DG and not siege company NL [own warband fluff] , shoty WE gunlines[own warband fluff] a DG/MoS coalition [own warband fluff] . look at the poster warband from the last chapter , the corsairs . they were no where near as popular as legions .

Also, its funny to read the Chaos forum after being so familiar with the SW forum. I think how people post on here fit their armies they play. No offense is meant by that. There is more dissent here, and when there is dissent on the SW forum people usually get put in place by the senior posters (not even admins)

you know there is a slight difference between being unable to play your army and the stuff like arguing if 2 las 3 RL or 3las/2RL set ups are better for over 1999 games. imagine you would have to play codex sm to run your army and the better way to play would be to take BA[jump pack less RAS more assaulty then tacticals] , how do you think SW players would like it?

I was referencing the imbalance in lists and the over all disorganized book of the 3.5 codex

dude what in the world are you saying . disorganized , how ? pick legion or not . pick builds . build army . how is that different from now , other then back then you had options to many different builds or variations of those [there were more then one demon bombs , more then one gunlines, more then one infiltration builds etc].

 

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.

neither did I . I said there were more options and more builds . And if you are claiming that only armies you like should get builds or options for viable play , then your going up a slipery slop . the game is not for you there , it is for the community. Everything that means more different armies is good , everything that gives fewer armies or dead choices . For example stuff like raptors technicly being there , but why take them with bikers in it . if spawns are FA they take slots from both flyers and bikers , doesnt matter how much better they got , they wont see much play etc .

 

And again I tell you to read the codex . you say restrictive , but it isnt the true . there were fluff restrictions [which by the way returned in this dex] . legion armies were ment to be made out of legion dudes . just like BA army is made out of BAs , DW is made out of DW etc. the 3.5 went even further with giving people options , it didnt just let you play with legion armies[which you call limited] you could play non legion . you took a chaos tzeench lord and could take tzeench sons as troops and everything else you wanted 3 oblits , raptors , bikers nothing stop you from taking those [if you wanted] .

 

the codex was not "cool" because of 800pts chosen units . 800 pts units do not added anything to the game[and if they are good we end up with a draigo wing sitaution] . it was good because there could be 3 WB army lists totaly different and each of the 3 dudes would be playing a totaly different army , but that is not all . each of those dudes would be happy playing those 3 different lists . this makes your argument about being limiting not even funny considering there is more or less 1 way to play now.

 

 

and If you think that 3.5 was "power gamy" , then man you must have had real problems in the 4th . circus , IG gunlines , sm gunlines , nidzilla all were had the same power level .

[Noctus Cornix]

I never said that I thought that armies I don't like shouldn't get good lists, Jeske and I would appreciate it if you dont twist my words. I was merely conceding to the point that I don't like the Thousands Sons so I haven't really given them much thought to begin with on the subject. Your response genuinely stumped me and I wasn't certain how to respond and I was sure that any answer I gave would be good.

 

I'm not blind because the restrictions are there on the page for me to see. Armies such as Night Lords, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion were unable to take any marks of chaos save for undivided or for the most part daemon allies if they wished to partake in their Legion rules. Why exactly, there is good answer. They dont worship the gods sure but they still use chaos as a tool, that goes for all Legions. That being said, not everyone in the legion adheres to this way of thinking. Moving on to bikes, raptors, havocs and the like. You couldn't have alot of these options in any army that adhered to one of the legions that's followed a specific god and that rule didnt even have a fluff answer behind it. No legion dedicated to a god could take raptors for example. Why, who knows but it was there.

 

Now here's the part where I'm getting irritated because you're making stuff up. How exactly is there now one way to play? This isn't the 4th edition where people play dual lash princes. I've seen completely different chaos lists from the new chaos codex played in both casual and competitive games and they proved perfectly fine. Did they win every time? No but they all did well and even when they lost, they gave the opponent a run for their money. Your argument is completely invalid, especially when you're comparing it to a codex that basically (not completely but for the most part) tells you that to play this legion, you play them this way.

 

And I dont even know where this 'Power gamy' assumption is coming from so im just not going to respond to that.

 

I just wanted to back away from this thread and let it run its course. I said my part and I came to a basic understanding with those who i disagreed with and disagreed with me.

[Yogi]

Noctus is has the right idea, but needs to go further.

 

In truth you only need one codex. The space marine codex. That is all you need. Everything else is superfluous.

 

Honestly you can represent any marine army with that codex. The space wolf codex is even better, so much I'd say they stole our codex.

 

 

The real problem with the chaos dex is its so weak after all these other power loyalist codexes we have seen.

 

GW pendulum has swung to wimpy codexes. In less then a year that will be back to OP trash.

 

Face it Malal was right chaos is bad.

[Tenebris]

I am not a seasoned chaos player but I have seen the previous codexes and I was eager to get CSM 6th edition in my hands as soon as possible to start my second army. I am a fluff nazi but I see how Chaos is way too big to be portrayed in a single book but still GW did a proper job and the codex allows me to field most of the legions as well as many renegade warbands. Sure some legions like Alpha or Night Lords got the short end of the stick but even so they are viable. You can take tons of raptors for your NL warband and in most of the gameclubs and friendly games you can have an agreement with your opponent to use the Master of Deception as your warlord trait, afterall we all love to play with our plastic soldiers in a fun and fluffy way.

 

A good approach to solve this legion problem could be to make lists like in the Imperial Guard codex. You can equip your basic units with special and heavy weapon that fit their lore and you can even make a viable armoured company with the inclusion of squadrons. There is little need for special characters with the Imperial Guard since most regiment specific doctrines can be interpreted with a good choice of weaponry and some green stuff for their uniforms. Perhaps some upgrades could be more in line with the legion lore but still CSM 6th is a great codex imo.

[Brother Amarel]

The real problem with the chaos dex is its so weak after all these other power loyalist codexes we have seen.

 

GW pendulum has swung to wimpy codexes. In less then a year that will be back to OP trash.

 

Face it Malal was right chaos is bad.

Uh-Oh, someone bought up Malal...

 

I don't know if it being weak, per se, is the issue (it's not the worst out there), but it's the internal balance that's the real kicker.

[Vesper]

I am not a seasoned chaos player but I have seen the previous codexes and I was eager to get CSM 6th edition in my hands as soon as possible to start my second army. I am a fluff nazi but I see how Chaos is way too big to be portrayed in a single book but still GW did a proper job and the codex allows me to field most of the legions as well as many renegade warbands.

 

The book should be at least three times bigger, to illustrate a decent view of Chaos marines in their diversity.

 

Lack of god specifics wargear and gifts, lack of Chosen Terminators, lack of Cult terminators, lack of options to turn key units into sorcerers (for TS and those who like it), legion specific rules, veteran skills, free imbalanced special rule like ATSKNF, lack of Whirlind (an heresy era vehicule), lack of a proper CSM flyers (when the Helldrake is obviously a codex: daemons flyer), lack of a drop pod equivalent, lack of deployment options, why not god specific vehicules, etc.

[Bearingtheword]

I think the problem comes down basically to the huge diversity of the different perceptions of what a Chaos Warband/Legion/Host should be. The cool thing about 3.5 was that their were options,( and lots of them). I think it's been hit right on the head when it's been said that with that 'dex you could see 3 or 4 Word Bearers forces and all would be/play different, and would have to be approached differently in each game. That's where I think we ran inot problems. Opponents couldn't come up with an "all comers list" that could beat all the diverse CSM forces out there, and were having to think in order to win rather than keep up using the same "stale" (Yeah that's right I went there) stratagems they wanted to to and that we see again now. How many 'dex's are just "point and shoot" now? It's sad..... I want to have those old options back, even if there was a tendency to be able to paint oneself into a restrictive corner it was still fun and interesting. You could play using said restrictions or you could go all out without them. For ex: You could build a Word Bearer host following the Word Bearer ruleset and come up with a list that would be fun and fit most peoples ideas of the fluff, and still have it translate into the game. Same with other legions. OR you could build something outside the box and still call it a Word Bearer host and it was still your Word Bearer's. I just don't see how it could be called restrictive....

 

Whereas, in later versions we haven't had the options and diversity that we had before and that IS restrictive....

 

Another thing I see here is that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding on many players behalf of the varied legions and their play styles/fluff. I am guilty of that as well. I freely admit that I don't know anywhere near as much about Night Lords, Alphas, Iron Warriors or Death Guard as I do about Word Bearers. But does that mean I want the dex tailored only towards my host/warband/legion? NO. What I want is a 'dex that allows each of us not be pidgeon holed into being clones with different coloured armour. Of course, our opponents love that that is what we have been reduced to... as they have no fear or worry or planning to do when they know they will be facing a Black Legion, Word Bearer, Iron Warrior, Red Corsair or "Joe Blows DIY Chaos Marines". He/she can just expect the same thing form each of them because of the way things are now. (Worse in last Ed when it was always dual lash DPs and oblits ...)

 

As for the new 'dex, it does feels.... incomplete....and unfocused. But granted Chaos is just too damned big and diverse to be able to focus on them in a single book. Much like the loyalist chapters are to difficult to focus on in one codex.

 

They added in some new cool stuff but left much of it weak. They placed too many things into certain FOC slots and not enough in others.

 

I was happy and excited that they were adding in Dark Apostles, as I'm a Word Bearer player. But the result was a let down. They should have just called him a Chaos Lt or a Cult leader as his only role now is to lead Cultists, rather than be the spiritual leader of a grand warhost.

 

Losing our deepstrike "homing" ability on Icons? Why? Was it so OP that it was deemed a necessity?

 

3 hull point AV 12 ( I mean would AV13 or 4 HPs have really been that OP?) Daemon Engines?? Oh that's scary! Especially when they get faceplanted by the second turn and become an obstacle preventing my Rhinos (that I now cannot assault out of) from getting close enough to disgorge their passengers ( Where did we leave our drop pods?) so they can stand around for a turn waiting to assault. (Yes I understand they can shoot and/or take cover but I'd rather having them going for the throat of my enemy) But I digress here...

 

I suspect that by December (if not sooner) we will start seeing the "new dual lash DP and oblits" list showing up and in use, which is so very very saddening to me. We, as Chaos, have the potential for such diversity, but I fear that we are forever doomed to be generic warbands. I hope that we see a return to Chapter Approved and IA supplements for our beloved Legions (and their decendents), but only time will tell.

 

~BtW

 

Edit: Oh and a little off-topic, but did SW not lose their Nightfight bonus from Acute Senses due to the SR being changed in the new BRB? Saw that mentioned above and was wondering....

[Nehekhare]

I hope that we see a return to [...] IA supplements for our beloved Legions

 

hint: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/THE_...E_BETRAYAL.html

[Kol Saresk]

Actually Betrayal is not like the true IA articles. First, there is no restrictions. Second, each Legion has a unique unit that can be added to the army, not a specific, normally restricted unit that can be found in abundance. For example, a Sons of Horus army has access to the Justaerin. The World Eaters have the Rampager squads, Emperor's Children have the Palatines and so on so forth. And only one or two special rules are being added to each specific Legion. And nothing is being taken away from them. For example, if one wanted to, they could still build a Legion list with a Librarian Consul as part of the HQ. Not saying one would, just that they can. There are no Legion lists. Instead it's here is the FOC and all available units. Now depending on which Legion you play, you unlock this unit and these rules. You gain without losing. The IA and 3.5 were, from looking at the actual material, you picked this Legion. You automatically lose these units and/or benefits. You now have access to the rest of the FOC with unit restrictions lifted off of this specific unit and you have these specific rules available. The only option you have is that in certain Legions, you could choose to give up a specific FOC slot to gain another slot. By the time you are done picking your Legion you were already being forced into a specific playstyle. Sure, you didn't have to give up the extra HS slot to get another FA slot. You didn't have to take advantage of the "no Restriction" on how many Raptors you could take since you were the only Legion that could take more than one unit. But even the very rules for that Legion admit that the List was being geared for FA-style tactics. With stealth capabilities. I don't know what Forgeworld will do for this Legion, but I'm more than willing to bet that it will follow the "give, give, give" pattern before it goes into the "trade your soul" pattern.

[Slayer le Boucher]

3 hull point AV 12 ( I mean would AV13 or 4 HPs have really been that OP?) Daemon Engines?? Oh that's scary! Especially when they get faceplanted by the second turn and become an obstacle preventing my Rhinos (that I now cannot assault out of) from getting close enough to disgorge their passengers ( Where did we leave our drop pods?) so they can stand around for a turn waiting to assault. (Yes I understand they can shoot and/or take cover but I'd rather having them going for the throat of my enemy) But I digress here...

 

The last game i played my Opponent could'n destroy my Forgefiend, one time it only had 1HP left, but thanks to IWND ni got it back to 3HP, the Forgefiend, destroyed a Thunderbolt, killed Termies and IG's and killed 2 Termies in his overwatch.

[Brother Aiwass]

Actually Betrayal is not like the true IA articles. First, there is no restrictions. Second, each Legion has a unique unit that can be added to the army, not a specific, normally restricted unit that can be found in abundance. For example, a Sons of Horus army has access to the Justaerin. The World Eaters have the Rampager squads, Emperor's Children have the Palatines and so on so forth. And only one or two special rules are being added to each specific Legion.

 

And how is this a bad thing?

 

And nothing is being taken away from them. For example, if one wanted to, they could still build a Legion list with a Librarian Consul as part of the HQ. Not saying one would, just that they can. There are no Legion lists. Instead it's here is the FOC and all available units. Now depending on which Legion you play, you unlock this unit and these rules. You gain without losing.

 

Again, how is this bad thing? You can have true Legions lists (i.e. a Legion list, with all the Legiones can have and deploy with some special rules to add the flavour they need). Do you think that a Legion (or Legion Commanders) is about to drop, say every Devastators/Havocs/Legion Heavy Support Squad in the legion just to take Rampagers?

 

The IA and 3.5 were, from looking at the actual material, you picked this Legion. You automatically lose these units and/or benefits. You now have access to the rest of the FOC with unit restrictions lifted off of this specific unit and you have these specific rules available. The only option you have is that in certain Legions, you could choose to give up a specific FOC slot to gain another slot. By the time you are done picking your Legion you were already being forced into a specific playstyle. Sure, you didn't have to give up the extra HS slot to get another FA slot.

 

This was in 3.5, and this was better than nothing. Are SM restricted in any way? Because Salamanders/Vulkan list are not more restricted than a Ultramarines/DIY chapter and they have a bonus. Are Blood Angels restricted? Or Space Wolves? They have plenty of options and builds.

 

You didn't have to take advantage of the "no Restriction" on how many Raptors you could take since you were the only Legion that could take more than one unit. But even the very rules for that Legion admit that the List was being geared for FA-style tactics. With stealth capabilities. I don't know what Forgeworld will do for this Legion, but I'm more than willing to bet that it will follow the "give, give, give" pattern before it goes into the "trade your soul" pattern.

 

So?

[Minsc]

The last game i played my Opponent could'n destroy my Forgefiend, one time it only had 1HP left, but thanks to IWND ni got it back to 3HP, the Forgefiend, destroyed a Thunderbolt, killed Termies and IG's and killed 2 Termies in his overwatch.

 

And the last game where I fielded a Forgefiend, it got destroyed instantly in turn one by a brightlance.

What's your point?

[Kol Saresk]

Actually Betrayal is not like the true IA articles. First, there is no restrictions. Second, each Legion has a unique unit that can be added to the army, not a specific, normally restricted unit that can be found in abundance. For example, a Sons of Horus army has access to the Justaerin. The World Eaters have the Rampager squads, Emperor's Children have the Palatines and so on so forth. And only one or two special rules are being added to each specific Legion.

 

And how is this a bad thing?

 

And nothing is being taken away from them. For example, if one wanted to, they could still build a Legion list with a Librarian Consul as part of the HQ. Not saying one would, just that they can. There are no Legion lists. Instead it's here is the FOC and all available units. Now depending on which Legion you play, you unlock this unit and these rules. You gain without losing.

 

Again, how is this bad thing? You can have true Legions lists (i.e. a Legion list, with all the Legiones can have and deploy with some special rules to add the flavour they need). Do you think that a Legion (or Legion Commanders) is about to drop, say every Devastators/Havocs/Legion Heavy Support Squad in the legion just to take Rampagers?

Where did I say the Heresy Lists were bad? Nowhere. My very first sentence says that I believe the Heresy lists are different from the IA and 3.5 lists. Since I've actually been able to look at it, I'd say the Heresy lists are better than 3.5 and IA. Now, I will admit that when I first heard that Betrayal was coming out, I didn't have very high hopes for it because I thought it would be a throwback to 3.5 and the IA articles. But it's not. It's... Different. It's not Legion lists so much as Legion options. Nothing forces you into a corner.

The IA and 3.5 were, from looking at the actual material, you picked this Legion. You automatically lose these units and/or benefits. You now have access to the rest of the FOC with unit restrictions lifted off of this specific unit and you have these specific rules available. The only option you have is that in certain Legions, you could choose to give up a specific FOC slot to gain another slot. By the time you are done picking your Legion you were already being forced into a specific playstyle. Sure, you didn't have to give up the extra HS slot to get another FA slot.

 

This was in 3.5, and this was better than nothing. Are SM restricted in any way? Because Salamanders/Vulkan list are not more restricted than a Ultramarines/DIY chapter and they have a bonus. Are Blood Angels restricted? Or Space Wolves? They have plenty of options and builds.

I know almost nothing about the SM Codices, it's why I never talk about them.

You didn't have to take advantage of the "no Restriction" on how many Raptors you could take since you were the only Legion that could take more than one unit. But even the very rules for that Legion admit that the List was being geared for FA-style tactics. With stealth capabilities. I don't know what Forgeworld will do for this Legion, but I'm more than willing to bet that it will follow the "give, give, give" pattern before it goes into the "trade your soul" pattern.

 

So?

Not sure why there has to be a so.

[Brother Aiwass]

@Kol;

 

I was not saying that you said HH were bad lists, but you were saying that those lists were not legion lists hence -maybe I'm wrong- I interpreted your post as if you were 'complaining' because of the lack of legion list.

 

Bearingtheword wished the return of legion rules, Nehekhare posted a link of HH Betrayal, then you pop saying that those were not legion lists because are not like IA nor 3.5 dex. I loved that dex for the reason it was the only way available of field a legion list in it's time (the accuracy of the 3.5 lists may be discussed) but now we have a better way to field legiones thanks to FW.

 

At the Heresy, the legiones were not so different each other troop wise. They differed in their warfare methods, favouring one approach or other to the war, and that is what we have in Betrayal. Besides of some specific units to each legion, thay also have specific warlord traits and rites of war rules which let us focus on the warfare style for our beloved legiones (e.g: Rites of War - Angels of Wrath; JP units gain Hit & Run, Storm Eagles as dedicated transports.) and that's why I don't understand why are you saying that this are not legion lists.

 

Off-Topic, I would recommend you to learn a bit about SM, because they're our most direct enemy (know your enemy and all that).

[Hellrender]

The main issue with the HH from forgeworld, is that its 30k. We play Warhammer 40k, not 30k. In those 10k years, things have evolved, mutated. Chaos Space Marines have traits, but are not fighting like the immense legions of old.

Those glory days are gone.

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

And Thousand sons have just become worse and worse.............. The current rules have killed my enthusiasim for my great repainting of my thousand sons..

[Minsc]

Appart from on IC's, MoTz in general, got worse, which is quite amazing considering how it already was the worst and least taken mark in the 4th Codex.

[Azekai]

Appart from on IC's, MoTz in general, got worse, which is quite amazing considering how it already was the worst and least taken mark in the 4th Codex.

And the only reason it is ok on ICs is not because MoT is actually good, but because Sigils of Corruption are a must-have.

[Snejk]

I love this thread. I have nothing to add or say other then that it is the very essens of chaos space marines in the 41st millennium; bitter, hate fueled and dreaming of the 3.5 glory days.

[Kol Saresk]

@Kol;

 

*snip

Fair enough, I can see how I was misunderstood. They're not Legion lists the same way that IA and 3.5 legion lists were Legion lists. Instead of "You pick this Legion, you have this specific base list with only these options." Heresy has it as, this is the base template. As you pick your Legion, you unlock this Elite unit, these HQ SCs, and get these rules for your army." That makes sense to me. If people want something similar to that, I will live with it. But I don't want to see a flashback to 3.5. Sorry, I just don't want to.

[Nehekhare]

We play Warhammer 40k, not 30k. [...]

Those glory days are gone.

It's almost sadistic to bring out HH1 and C:CSMeh at the same time. As long as my opponent is okay with it, I'll rather play 30k, thank you. It is a supplement for 40k, after all, maybe imbalanced, but so is 40k. And there is still so much more to come (first official mechanicum army, anyone?)...

Point is: playing what you really want to play* is simply more fun than complaining about what could have been!

 

 

*(if that includes allied daemons or typhus' zombie horde, kelly's dex may indeed suffice)

[Megalodon]

The book should be at least three times bigger, to illustrate a decent view of Chaos marines in their diversity.

 

Lack of god specifics wargear and gifts, lack of Chosen Terminators, lack of Cult terminators, lack of options to turn key units into sorcerers (for TS and those who like it), legion specific rules, veteran skills, free imbalanced special rule like ATSKNF, lack of Whirlind (an heresy era vehicule), lack of a proper CSM flyers (when the Helldrake is obviously a codex: daemons flyer), lack of a drop pod equivalent, lack of deployment options, why not god specific vehicules, etc.

I concur wholeheartedly, this is why I feel the new codex is nothing but a shameful missed opportunity.