Sister Grim Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Mathhammer plays a role in composing a list, but it's not possible to estimate the value of tactics on a mathematical basis realy ? so lets say I want to make a plasma hvy SW army and add drop pods to my GH squads , you think it is impossible to judge how those pods are better for such a tactic , then walking or using rhinos ? It is not impossible to judge it, but in order to get a mathematical result that is any better than wild-ass guess you would have to take into account so many variables that I am quite certain most people can't do that math and even for those who can do it will take quite a bit of time. In this kind of cases much of what you see passed for mathematics in the internet is extrapolated and simplified so much that in the end it hold little value on the table. Everyone can see that getting a two plasmaguns within 12" of enemy on turn 1 is better than getting two plasmaguns within 12" of enemy on turn 3. However, how many can actually calculate the odds of Deep Strike mishap with the drop pod, the odds that the most dangerous enemies are still in reserve during turn 1 or how likely the rhino is destroyed before getting to same range? Polaria you are right most people can not do the math to work out the variables. I have been working on a few and Khorne Berzerkers in a rhino with VOTLW to turn 2 is with in 2 points plus or minus of GH in most situations the math changes a lot if we are looking at a non armored transport and the bolters begin to need to be factored in turn 1. This struck me as odd be cause on the surface GH are a better buy but the WS 5 makes a bigger difference than most people ever see. The way I see the new dex it feels more xenos then any other marine dex. It will require finesse and dedication to make it work it does feel incomplete when I finish a army list the same way eldar does. Am I happy with it no but can it be made to work yes. Just my 2 cents Ave Dominus Nox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I cant remember a single xeno or non xeno army in w40k history since 2ed [cant talk about RT didnt play back then] which would dominate the play field , using finesse . Spaming , undercosted units , powerful combos , playing a totaly different game then every other army in w40k , and most offten combinations of the 4 listed before , yes . something else never. there was no finesse in 3ed Armored company , 3ed eldar , 2ed eldar , 4ed circus , nidzilla, ward GK dex coertez builds , DE venom spams , nob biker builds at the start of 5th , IW , BL khorn , syren prince builds , SW MSU . those armies played like clockworks , were reducing the the random factor of the game to minimum and were abusing lack of certain armies [there was no list more horrible to play against in 4th as nidzilla then wych DE]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperors Immortals Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Im old and this is a fascinating development in commercial GW history, we used to just use the cool looking models. Rules were a bonus. Thats not to say I dont enjoy the conversation, I really do. This board constantly surprises me with the intellectual depth of other sites but also the profound fan wisdom of ":huh:: it, ill play the cool units anyway". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Purple Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Im old and this is a fascinating development in commercial GW history, we used to just use the cool looking models. Rules were a bonus. Thats not to say I dont enjoy the conversation, I really do. This board constantly surprises me with the intellectual depth of other sites but also the profound fan wisdom of ":huh:: it, ill play the cool units anyway". I don't many people by 50+ marine models and 7 razorbacks, just because they like the models. Might buy a few cool looking models for modelling painting purposes, but an army's worth models (outside of a few insane collectors who might think it's cool to own a whole chapter or something), I think most people would only be interested in for gaming purposes. In that case, gamers have the right to want to be able to play the army they want to play without feeling like they are at a disadvantage compared to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Riorik Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Mutilators: It's what seperates the boys from the men. ;) I thought it was called a Mohel. But I guess Mutilator is an apt name xD. Anyways I am enjoying the new Codex. It wasn't everything I had hoped for but it is infinetly better than the 4th edition Codex which almost singlehandedly snuffed out my desire to play 40k because of it's blandness. It's not 3.5 (and no other Codex bar IGs 4th edition Codex or maybe the Tyranid Codexes ever were). But it isn't 3rd or 4th either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRoY Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 I would not say that this codex has snuffed out my desire to play 40k, but again, the possible combination of what the DA codex might have in it and the possible destruction of the Daemon codex will put the final nail in the coffin until 7th edition. Even as I say this, I am working on an entire new Nurgle army, so I really do have hope... GW be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Riorik Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 It's not the competetivness that gets me. I don't feel as though our new Codex is bad off in that regard. It's that compared to the dexes of late (Necrons, Dark Eldar, Grey Kniggets and now Dark Angels), the Chaos dex seems more like a polished rehash than an overhaul. I know there's plenty of new stuff, but it just feels like it's the same old in a slighly new format wheread the other dexes seem to have gotten more work thrown towards a reimagining where they become sharper, more crisper, more characterful and more unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I thought it was called a Mohel. What is a mohel and why would it separate me from boys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradill Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I suppose it does feel a little bit like GW handed us the 'what the last codex was meant to be' version, but I'm happy that no matter how awesome other codecies appear in comparison, there will always be us Chaos players who are content to play with mediocrity all for the pleasure of spilling blood on the name of the gods. I don't think we'll ever get the codex we deserve, but that is because what we deserve us inn attainable without a BRB sized codex. We may slaughter in the name of laughing gods and bind daemons to flesh metal shells, but I believe we are the most hopeful and so, despite my own misgivings, I for one will let the DA get whatever codex they get and keep hoping chaos' lot in the world will get better. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empchildrenbob Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 To OP I'm tired of seeing posts like these on the Internet. The chaos codex is a very well balanced book. The only I could see players complaining about is the lack of legion rules. The problem is that you are trying to compare units from other codex'. Don't. Before you make assumptions don't just run around saying "this is crap, I'm so dissapointed, space marines do it better". Every codex has things that make them unique,( Gks have the psy bolt and all the extra stuff. Necrons have they're flyers and other unique rules. Blood angels have fast vehicles and do on) not only that but at least try units out on the table before you say something aa bold as "faildex". Im a very competitive player and play at tournaments frequently and I've placed in top 3 numerous times with this so called faildex. In a competitive environment where you are up against the gk lists, the necron airs etc this book holds up well because just like them we have units that are unique and if used properly can win games( yes mutilators included) you have to think outside the box sometimes, i know it's hard to do sometimes when you've got people spouting all kinds of comparisons as to why things are bad. And I'm not just saying this for no reason, the new codex is a big step up from the last one. There's so many great combinations you can make. As far as fluff and not having legions specific units It does kind suck that we still don't have em but there's nothing stopping you from running that feel no pain termy squad, Mok gives them rage and counter attack etc. Not to mention, every unit can take a mark now so you can run that all slaanesh army or all khorne, nurgle, tzeench. Also I noticed that they tried to add a unit for each legion( cultists alpha legion, apostle word bearers, warp smith iron warriors, warp talons, night lords, then berzerkers etc..) they are in the right direction in that regards. In the 4th Ed codex there wasn't alot of variety. It was bland and everyone complained about there just not being enough options. They fixed that by giving us plenty of options and now some complain that they aren't good compared to certain units. Maybe those people should just stop playing chaos.Go play that other book that's so good instead of making posts on here complaining about it constantly. This army may just not be for you. And I'm saying this a a person who started from the 3.5 codex. I've been through the changes and dealt with it. The 3.5 to 4 th dex was a dissapointment and I think they fixed alot of what hurt that codex in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 @Emperorchildrenbob: At those tournaments, do you use the same list? Are there any variations that you have tried and what is your opinion on them? Have you tried any other lists and what did you think about those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazath Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 unique and if used properly can win games( yes mutilators included) you have to think outside the box sometimes Could you please explain the best use of our unique units (except the Heldrake) such as mutilators, warp talons, and possessed to win the games? I don't see myself thinking in the box, its just that we have better units that outshines those mentioned units, which make them quite redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empchildrenbob Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Yes i have. I should just make a seperate post or something. Usually i will make a list. Play it a few times and from each game learn and fix the list to make it effective. Then i play at a tourney and how ever i do ill will then use that list as a template and keep changing the list for further games. So my list always changes. You dont learn anything from trying the same lists over and over. You have to keep evolving it and thats what i think this book is very good at. Kol i can name a bunch of variations but that would be a very long post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Kol i can name a bunch of variations but that would be a very long post. That alone can suffice as a confirmation. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empchildrenbob Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Of course theyre are units that arent very good at all. Some are just a waste of points the warp talons and possesed come to mind they are crazy point sinks and as you said redundant. Playing with was a pain because there are so many other units better than those to they kinda didnt need to be in there other then to represent a Night lords unit and just another chaos unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazath Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I should just make a seperate post or something. That would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Warp Talons...a Night lords unit ;) I hate GW and the Raptor Legion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Riorik Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I thought it was called a Mohel. What is a mohel and why would it separate me from boys? A mohel is a person trained to perform the jewish circumcission. Mohel/mutilator. Same, same but different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant Steel Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 For me the CSM Codex is not the worst thing in the world, nor is it a disappointment when compared to previous CSM codices. It is a disappointment because it feels as though they badly needed a competent copy editor who actually knew the rules of the game and the place of Chaos in the 40K mythology. There are many fine examples in the Codex of extraneous rules and simply bad design. Off the top of my head there are things like: Rending on Slaaneshi Daemon Princes (who are already AP2), The Mark of Slaanesh on Obliterators (+1 Initiative on a unit which is only capable of attacking with Powerfists...), the Murder Sword not being a Daemon Weapon, The Dimensional Key being functionally useless before turn 3 (after your deep-striking units have likely arrived), The Mark of Tzeentch on anyone without an existing Invulnerable save, the fact that there are no benefits to spell casting if you have the Mark of Tzeentch, the Icon of Despair, The Icon of Flame, the fact that you cannot get Cult Terminators, the lack of Daemon weapons for other Gods than Khorne, the lack of ranged weapon options for Lords- what was so good about the Kai-gun that it had to be dropped?, Why can we not have an option for a Fleshmetal upgrade? Then there are the units and options with unbalanced points/ usefulness ratios: > Possessed > Warp Talons > Thousand Sons > Chaos Land Raiders > Abbadon > It costs points to change a Helbrutes Reaper Autocannon into a Heavy Bolter? WHY? > Sonic Weapons & Chainaxes > Veterans of the Long War (should at least be free on Terminators [the remnants of each Legions 1st company] and Chosen [10,000 year veterans]) > Mark of Tzeentch, Khorne or Slaanesh on Chaos Cultists (The Mark of Nurgle is also overcosted but due to the existence of Epidemius and the Tally it can't really afford to be corrected) Not to mention the badly written fluff behind some of the Abyssal Crusade Chapters; don't get me wrong, I like the style with which the A.Crusade was described, but the individual accounts of the lost legions were not handled as well as they could have been (The Blood Disciples story? You have got to be kidding me...) Without comparing the Chaos Codex to single other Codex in the game it is easy to see why people feel that it has it's fair share of problems. People should not just keep standing up for the Codex because people are whining about it. Sure some of the whining is excessive and some of it is pointing the finger of blame at other, more powerful codices (I hear about GK and Space Wolves a lot on this forum) but you cannot claim that this Codex does not have problems and that people are wrong to feel that it is not the standard that people have a right to expect; I paid £30 for this codex(!) before I jumped in and resurrected my old Chaos Army; I have been active on these boards trying to find a way of making an army that I'm proud of work on the field, and that's exactly what it has felt like: Work. Sure I can make variations on with this Codex, and I have and will make variations that are competitive without yielding to current internet wisdom about mono-builds. But it does not stop the feeling that I have that this Codex is not as good as it could have and should have been, given the depth of material and design ideas available to the forces of Chaos. But I am also getting irritated about the back-and-forth pissing and moaning about how people should shut up and make the codex work/ accept that they are doomed from the start. It's demoralising and not constructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I don't think anyone has said that it has zero problems, just that some of those problems are workable. And that just because it has problems is no reason to say that it is an exact copy of Gavdex when it's not and that there is proof of people making this edition work more than what the paper is saying it should because those people have found a way to either work with or around those problems. It's more of "Yes we got the short end of the stick but we're better off than we were before and there are ways to make it work" attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Amarel Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 And that is a thread win for Lieutenant Steel. Debate over, imo :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I don't think anyone has said that it has zero problems, just that some of those problems are workable. And that just because it has problems is no reason to say that it is an exact copy of Gavdex when it's not Nobody ever said that, as far as I know. It's just "highly inspired" by it. I don't think they would let anyone do the same mistake Calvatore and Thorpe did. Less is never more, when it comes to army building. When I think those guys were payed to do it... Our codex is decent. But in a few releases, we may end up in the same situation we were with the gavdex. It's more of "Yes we got the short end of the stick but we're better off than we were before and there are ways to make it work" attitude. It's more of "Yep, we got the short end of the stick". EDIT : typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I don't think anyone has said that it has zero problems, just that some of those problems are workable. And that just because it has problems is no reason to say that it is an exact copy of Gavdex when it's not Nobody ever said that, as far as I know. It's just "highly inspired" by it. I don't think they would let anyone do the same mistake Calvatore and Thorpe did. Less is never more, when it's come to army building. When I think those guys were payed to do it... Our codex is decent. But in a few releases, we may end up in the same situation we were with the gavdex. No, some people have said that the Codices are basically the same. There's page one of this thread, and a few more examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Amarel Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I don't think anyone has said that it has zero problems, just that some of those problems are workable. And that just because it has problems is no reason to say that it is an exact copy of Gavdex when it's not Nobody ever said that, as far as I know. It's just "highly inspired" by it. I don't think they would let anyone do the same mistake Calvatore and Thorpe did. Less is never more, when it's come to army building. When I think those guys were payed to do it... Our codex is decent. But in a few releases, we may end up in the same situation we were with the gavdex. No, some people have said that the Codices are basically the same. There's page one of this thread, and a few more examples. To be fair, you were the only one to mention "Gavdex" on page 1 and Agent Purple replied "that it might as well be". Which is a very different statement to saying that the two "are basically the same", imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 But since Faildex was one of the names that I have seen used for the Gavdex I was making sure that the OP was talking about this edition and not the previous edition. And like I said, some have said that are basically the same thing. "They might as well be the same Codex" is almost the same as saying they are. Especially with Purple's continued comparison of the Nurgle list with the Dual-Lash list. But saying they are directly the same would be incorrect for obvious reasons. That combined with the fact that we are not yet confined solely to the monobuild parameters in order to "just get by" means that there is another level of separation. So, while it may not be the best of the best, it is not the worst of the worst, which at the moment is degrees better than the Faildex of 4th and 5th edition. It might turn into another Faildex, but that is in the future and when it happens, if it happens, then I will treat it as a Faildex, not because the Codex itself was a failure but because GW failed to live up to the 6th Edition standard that they had created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.