Trevak Dal Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 How about it then? I hear how great it was and all, and I'm curious if people have tried it in 6th edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaosReigns Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I have, once. It was great fun too. Ironically it's pretty tame by 40k's present standard - I played World Eaters against my usual opponent's Crimson Fists and it was touch and go, but I haven't enjoyed a game that much since 3.5 was the current codex. I'd actually forgotten how much fun it was just to put together a list with that codex! :D Even if I'd lost it still would have been an eminently enjoyable game, but even so I couldn't help but cackle maniacally when my tooled up Daemon Prince (who was, by the way, more expensive than Kantor and a second Chapter Master put together) butchered his way through Kantor's bodyguard of five Terminators and slew that naive lapdog in single combat. Whenever someone used to say - "The Emperor protects!" I used to respond with - "The Dark Powers triumph!". Suffice to say that if it hadn't been for that game, I might have forgotten what it was like to say "the Dark Powers triumph" with real conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Ah yes, the joy of 3.5 Slaanesh Daemon Princes, those guys had some real stuff going for them. (Combat drugged Slaanesh Prince could go around ignoring all kind of saves as well as not getting much wounded). I might give it a try as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurfalypse Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 lol I may try to convince my friends to allow to me use it from time to time just to be able to actually use Marines effectively in this edition. The biggest beef with that Codex was the summoned Daemons though, being able to move and assault was insane :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I've tried it actually, ironically it can still hold it's own unless you're playing oot-waac-competetitve. It does need some tweaking rule-wise though, since afew things doesn't make sense in 6th (ofc, it's 2,5 editions old), but overall the pointcosts are about right. Daemon Armour costs 20 points in 3,5, guess what loyalists pay for Artificer Armour now? Daemonic Rune costs 35 pts in 3,5, guess what loyalists pay for their Eternal Warrior-Stormshield? ... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 That's an interesting thought. I mean, 6th expands on the rules for 3rd anyways (as 4th and 5th did) so technically there should be no reason that it wouldn't still fit in. I mean hell Orks are using the 4th edition codex still aren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yes they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam13n Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I still have a stored version of my normal 2000pt Iron Warriors list written up for 6th edition, using the 3.5 codex. It has basically the same stuff albeit: - a Flying Daemon Prince with a 2+/5++ with Daemonic Fire (flamer), Dreadaxe (no saves of any kind in melee) and a few other assorted nasty surprises. - a couple of Mutated Hull Vindicators - 2 units of Infiltrating Special Weapon Havoks in Rhinos - 3 S5 T5 Obliterators @ 70pts each (Aah, the good old days... :) ) - Min-maxed double special weapon CSM squads with Infiltrate and so on. With everything getting Siege Specialist for free. I showed it to a friend who I've played many times. He looked scared for a moment (until he realised that it wasn't a legal 6th edition list). It fits fine. The only drawback is that you have to buy grenades. That and once your opponent realises the sort of shenanigans you can pull, but you need their permission to do it, they'll just say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Pretty sure vindicators were 0-1 for iron warriors in 3.5? Anyway, there are a few things that really should be dropped from that book if you want to bring it into a 6e environment. 1) no dreadaxe (ignoring invuln saves if you aren't a lord of war seems out of place in 6e) - maybe replace it with something more akin to the current blinding fury axe? 2) drop the daemons (they're a separate and functional army now, and their primary gimmick of charging the turn they arrive doesn't fit with 6e, anyway) 3) drop the modifications to the force org chart itself. Pushing units around the chart is one thing, actually changing the slots is something else, and really shouldn't have been a thing to begin with. We have allies slots and formations and double orgs at 2k points anyway, now. Maybe let night lords take raptors as troops, but apart from that.... 4) drop siren. Honestly, probably drop the minor psychic powers altogether. Just let chaos psychers choose from pyromancy & telekinesis, plus biomancy for nurgle, telepathy for slaanesh, and divination for tzeentch. That should bring you in pretty close to where you should be, with enough units dropped to consider adding a few from the current book, esp. cultists as a general unit (let alpha legion keep their more elite, infiltrating cultists as a unique thing), maybe spawn/fiends. Maybe the drake, but it would be way less necessary, so might warrant some serious toning down (back to hull mounted instead of turret, maybe make the balefire cost 20 to 30 points extra, instead of being a free exchange). Maybe warp smiths, with iron warriors having an option for a three wound version with wider armory access? You'd still be taking a pretty big hit on the assault front with the changes over to the current edition. drop pods (without the drop pod assualt rule), and some sort of more transport-focused land raider (available as a dedicated to chosen, maybe possessed) would round things out pretty nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neigorath Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yup, one basilisk and one vindicator but iron warriors only. I love how this codex is 72 pages, 56 of them filled with rules, wargear, legion rules AND rules for monogod lists. I love how you made the cult troops by buing a mark for the basic csm. I love how my black legionnaires had an ld 10 with a reroll, making up for lack of atsknf. Such were the works of the Overfiend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam13n Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Maybe it was a Vindicator and an Autolas Predator... Knowing me, it probably was. I like to take a variety of tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It was not only the rules though. The whole theme of the codex was dark and brooding. Lots of darkness and despair, the colours in the new codex are a bit too bright and "plastic"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It was not only the rules though. The whole theme of the codex was dark and brooding. Lots of darkness and despair, the colours in the new codex are a bit too bright and "plastic"! I remember when I was young and new to 40k, how the models and especially the name of "Thousand Sons" and "Emperors Children" sent eerie shivers down my spine. Ahh, good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillin Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Funny how the tuned up DP's were the big deal (in both a pos and neg way) in 3.5 , I used a relatively cheap lord (gave him only 4 things, that I though represented each of the 4 major gods , my own "mark of chaos assended" if you will) , and beat lotsa guys with the tuned up, expensive DP too . My army was basically just full of MoCU uber-grit csm's and a unit of furies in that undivided banner. Being able to run an all MoCU army and do well was awesome. . Ahhhh, good times indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 @malisteen: playing csm codex 3.5 asits writtens means playing as its written, why change stuff? Yes it contains Daemons but they are part of the dex (unles you say 1 using this can add a Helldrake), yes it contains some rules that dont seem to fit the edition, but dont forget that Ymgarl Genestealers could charge from reserves up until just a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 @malisteen: playing csm codex 3.5 asits writtens means playing as its written, why change stuff? Yes it contains Daemons but they are part of the dex (unles you say 1 using this can add a Helldrake), yes it contains some rules that dont seem to fit the edition, but dont forget that Ymgarl Genestealers could charge from reserves up until just a few weeks ago. No one likes a cherry-picker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Father Ferrum Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It was not only the rules though. The whole theme of the codex was dark and brooding. Lots of darkness and despair, the colours in the new codex are a bit too bright and "plastic"! I remember when I was young and new to 40k, how the models and especially the name of "Thousand Sons" and "Emperors Children" sent eerie shivers down my spine. Ahh, good times. Yeah, I remember those feelings, too. My first 40K codex and army, and everything just gave off this supreme-evil vibe. . . Took me a while to figure out how to properly pronounce Tzeentch's name, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaliGn Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 @malisteen: playing csm codex 3.5 asits writtens means playing as its written, why change stuff? Yes it contains Daemons but they are part of the dex (unles you say 1 using this can add a Helldrake), yes it contains some rules that dont seem to fit the edition, but dont forget that Ymgarl Genestealers could charge from reserves up until just a few weeks ago. If you want to add things like helldrakes maulerfiemds etc alongside your 3.5 force it's simple, ally with the 6th Ed book for your second detachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Whether you add things or not, units charging the turn they arrive without scatter, units that cannot be targeted at all, & MC characters that ignore invulnerable saves outright, are inappropriate in 6e. Frankly, they were inappropriate in 3.5. And having two completely different sets of rules for daemons in the same edition would be super awkward. Imagine CSM units with daemons with one set of rules, allying with daemons with a completely different set of rules, for the same units in the same army but completely different stats and rules. Like it or not, that's a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HsojVvad Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 That's an interesting thought. I mean, 6th expands on the rules for 3rd anyways (as 4th and 5th did) so technically there should be no reason that it wouldn't still fit in. I mean hell Orks are using the 4th edition codex still aren't they? I have always said we are still playing 3rd edition. It's just 3.3 now. 4th was 3.1, 5th was 3.2, so 6th is really 3.3 now. Summer we may get 3.4. We didn't really have edition changes. Now 2nd to 3rd is really an edition change. Now we just have tweaks or a living rule book that takes ever 4 or 5 years to be updated. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.