Excessus Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Nobody is saying "shaft the renegades"... ...just "don't forget the legions are there too"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 No actually, I am saying categorically, shaft the renegades. Right up until the Legions get their due, then do whatever the hell you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Nobody is saying "shaft the renegades"... ...just "don't forget the legions are there too"... Okay then, what is wrong with a "Lord of Terror" Codex that showcases the Night Lords, Night Reapers and Death Shadows, who all use terror tactics? What would be wrong with a Codex: Khorne that showcases the World Eaters, Sanctified and Blood Disciples? Or a Codex: Slaanesh that shows off Emperor's Children, Violators and Flawless Host? I understand that this Codex: Crimson Slaughter, will very doubtful be any of these. I understand that. But so far, most of the suggestions I've seen are "Legion rules, then mono-god rules and then worry about the Renegades." Why? Why do that when we can hit all three in a satisfactory compromise by defining them by army types, since that's all the 3.5 Codex did and everyone seemed happy with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Just call it Codex Night Lords, and mention the rest. Thats my line in the sand. I'm sick of the second fiddle act, sick of the imbalance, sick of the disparity in model range, quality, updates, and depth. Call it Codex: World Eaters, and list successors, or warbands, or hangers on, or whatever. There are original Chaos Legions that maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany people have latched onto. Pay the setting, the history, that respect, or just continue release dumb ass Wraith Knights. EDIT: I dont even REALISTICALLY have a dog in this fight. I'm playing my 30K Night Lords as whatever list fits the models I want to bring to 40K, and am going Warriors of Chaos in Fantasy, but to ignore, or downplay the original legions based on the reaction since the 4th edition 'great work' dropped on our collective front doors in a flaming paper bag? No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Because it's the theme, Kol. It's the theme that has run through the fluff for almost 20 years now, that the legions are the threat. It's they that are the big players even though they are broken down and spread out (which is confirmed by the Black Legion supplement). The renegade chapters would only be imitators and spiritual successors of sorts anyway, since the legions did those tactics first. Your argument was valid, until the loyalist codex was released. Now that there are no "generic" loyalist marines anymore, why not have the legions return? Even if nothing else than as a tactic or special rule...something! Just give us something! Heck I don't even have a special character for my Alpha Legion, and my Thousand Sons are so badly done (yet again) that they handicap me when I play them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Because it's the theme, Kol. It's the theme that has run through the fluff for almost 20 years now, that the legions are the threat. It's they that are the big players even though they are broken down and spread out (which is confirmed by the Black Legion supplement). The renegade chapters would only be imitators and spiritual successors of sorts anyway, since the legions did those tactics first. Your argument was valid, until the loyalist codex was released. Now that there are no "generic" loyalist marines anymore, why not have the legions return? Even if nothing else than as a tactic or special rule...something! Just give us something! Heck I don't even have a special character for my Alpha Legion, and my Thousand Sons are so badly done (yet again) that they handicap me when I play them... And its a theme GW is leaving behind apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Or a Codex: Slaanesh that shows off Emperor's Children, Violators and Flawless Host? The violators are very different from EC [that is besides most of the Vs being dead] , it would be realy hard to do justice to both with 2-3 pages of rules . The problem probably is rooted in the fact that loyalists get multiple books with different game play and a loyalist marine can pick what ever he wants , a chaos player has to play the same things no matter what legion/warband he wants to pick. People liked the fact that saying I play chaos under 3.5 said nothing about the army , hell saying I play legion X didn't always tell much about what build is used. Right now it is not the case , at the same time saying you play loyalist marines can mean anything with BB ally they have , self ally and 4+supplements books. And its a theme GW is leaving behind apparently. Because it limits what people may want to buy , but it hardly makes the new thing good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboarder Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Because it's the theme, Kol. It's the theme that has run through the fluff for almost 20 years now, that the legions are the threat. It's they that are the big players even though they are broken down and spread out (which is confirmed by the Black Legion supplement). The renegade chapters would only be imitators and spiritual successors of sorts anyway, since the legions did those tactics first. Your argument was valid, until the loyalist codex was released. Now that there are no "generic" loyalist marines anymore, why not have the legions return? Even if nothing else than as a tactic or special rule...something! Just give us something! Heck I don't even have a special character for my Alpha Legion, and my Thousand Sons are so badly done (yet again) that they handicap me when I play them... And its a theme GW is leaving behind apparently. Why is then there 3 pages dedicated to teh legions not to mention 4 pages on the horus heresy in the codex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggnuggath Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I don't understand why GW would want to make it a full blown codex. Didn't they learn anything from the Black Templars codex fiasco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darknightdrako Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I don't understand why GW would want to make it a full blown codex. Didn't they learn anything from the Black Templars codex fiasco? I don't know if this will be a good thing for the future. If they do release a 7th ed CSM codex they might add Legion tactics + tactics of the Crimson Slaughter kinda like SM with chapter traits + Black Templar chapter traits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Yeah some stil think that all them different marines dexes are playing differently, but once you figure it out that they play roughly the same you will shake your head in amazement. I thought that folding Black Templars in the marines codex was a good start. But now GW just keeps putting out new dexes of pretty much the same thing as the original, new weapon here and there, some new lore and BAM, peeps think its completely new and buy it. The same will happen when they start putting out Legion codexes. Obvious some fanboys will disagree, but thats why they are fanboys of "insert chapter/legion" and iam just looking further than the length of my nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Disciple Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 At the risk of being Spawned \ Flamed I'm surprised that they didn't release this one before the Black Legion supplement. It seems like an easy win for GW following on from Dark Vengeance. By that I mean, someone must have had a lot of stuff written down about the Crimson Slaughter from drafting together the tie-in material. If loosing out on a Vets supplement for a while means we get more updated kits then I'm all for it. Who knows, it may be a change for the better. At the very least its another round of testing before the Vets supplement and will give us an idea of the direction they'll go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I don't understand why GW would want to make it a full blown codex. Didn't they learn anything from the Black Templars codex fiasco?I don't think this will have the same effect. BT had the deadly tripod of: A) Being Black and easier to paint to a basic table top standard B ) Having pretty cool Bonuses (Champion, Crusaders, neophytes) C) No drawbacks. Nobody used librarians in those days anyway. Basically, there was no reason that your army should be a BT one. Contrast with the poor Salamanders, they got: A) Great colour scheme (IMO) but a bugger to paint before the release of foundations B ) Bonuses that you had to pay for (signum on sergeants, more MC weapons) C) And the killer, -1I on all marines. If the sallies had had black armour and the rules that Vulkan He'stan provided in 3rd ed, they would have taken off instead of the BT. In my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 This certainly would have been a less confusing move much earlier on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I'm still reserving judgment to actually see; I might actually pick up this week's WD if it has some info on what the codex will contain. But I don't have a vested interest as I technically don't even play the game again, and all my old 2nd/3rd chaos stuff was lost many years ago so I'd be starting from scratch. I definitely sympathize with the lack of Legion rules though; I loved the Index Astartes articles. Even something simple like Chapter Tactics (even if they stole them from the loyalist Marines book) would go a long way. I know that I don't want to be forced to just spam Heldrakes to win, I want an army to be about the chaos marines with support, not a cultist army with a squad of marines bringing daemon engines or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I don't understand why GW would want to make it a full blown codex. Didn't they learn anything from the Black Templars codex fiasco?I don't think this will have the same effect. BT had the deadly tripod of: A) Being Black and easier to paint to a basic table top standard B ) Having pretty cool Bonuses (Champion, Crusaders, neophytes) C) No drawbacks. Nobody used librarians in those days anyway. Basically, there was no reason that your army should be a BT one. . And nowadays some complain like they lost alot, they only lost a rule that allowed them to move closer if they made a morale check after 1 was shot, Orb of Antioch and Blessed hull. Only minor loss was that last thing, but only if you know youre to go up against lots of Lance weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hezirah Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Good news everyone! Apparently, Crimson Slaughter gets to use possessed as troops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellrender Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 What i dont understand is that its worded like a checklist in the rumour: Warlord traits, relics and the force org change is possessed as troops. The tone implies there wont be much more (or that the author expects it to be like a supplement and not a codex) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Good news everyone! Apparently, Crimson Slaughter gets to use possessed as troops! wat That doesn't sound good at all :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassius Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 In which world is that good news ? Possessed are 26 points each, can´t have any wargear and have no guns. In a edition that focuses on firefights, why should we take possessed as troops ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hezirah Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I was being sarcastic. I used possessed before, regretting it ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Well.. that puts the kibosh on that then. I really wonder if they put thought into these or just "Hey this would be neat" and then put it out and charge for it without actually bothering to think if it would work. That's fine for free "Hey this is something we thought would be cool, give it a try!" rules, but rules you have to PAY for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Yeah some stil think that all them different marines dexes are playing differently, but once you figure it out that they play roughly the same you will shake your head in amazement. I thought that folding Black Templars in the marines codex was a good start. But now GW just keeps putting out new dexes of pretty much the same thing as the original, new weapon here and there, some new lore and BAM, peeps think its completely new and buy it. The same will happen when they start putting out Legion codexes. Obvious some fanboys will disagree, but thats why they are fanboys of "insert chapter/legion" and iam just looking further than the length of my nose. Drop pod SW don't play the same way pedro builds do , both of those don't play the same like sm biker builds and non of the 3 have the same game play as DA dakka builds or BA armies . That feel when CS codex better then eldar http://infinitythegame.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/excited.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RapatoR Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Wasn't possessed as troop something that BL and WB players wished? Well, so much about 'we don't care about strenght, we just want more fluffy options'. EDIT: Just found this in the comment section of the Faeit article: "From what i heard their possessed will be different. New /better/ chart to roll o on. Also their lord has options to be possessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Well the thing is that without being troops , possessed suck hard . They are melee only high cost elite units , that aren't even that good at melee and lack proper ways of getting in to melee . Right now they are worse then zerkers and warp talons , which is something of an achivment to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.