Lord Pariah Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 A problem could be that all who play chaos, already buy/got an/a few armies... however, with he loyalist release, marines sold like hotcakes, especially the new stuff... now with the fact that not many new kits coming out for 7th and not many people itching to play CSM if they got a new 'dex.... GW is a miniature company after all, and they would see the investment of a new codex (with many of the formations, data slates and supplements included) or just release said content... Although, being a honest warp-spawn, this isn't really setting up for the long term, as I had to spend £80~ to bring my chaos up to something that resembles playable, and many people would look at that and walk the other way, so there are both sides to said argument... and I kinda want all the stuff rolled into one (but leave IA:13... they can't take that away from me!). Moreover, I've not heard of anyone chomping at the bit for any other imperial faction this side of SoB.. Maybe new sisters kits, maybe a hard back codex? What ever the case, fantasy is next up, and seen as the dev team (presumably) is working on one thing at a time instead of going off into a dark corner, creating all manner of balance issues *eldar and necron codices try and look busy*... a worthy wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pariah Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 while on the subject of being an honest heretic... if the new sisters get models... hello, new witch cult! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucio Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I'd like to see GW take the format proposed in the new Necron codex, build up formations, and offer matching box sets or bundle deals. It'd be better than an "expansion" set which contains a mish-mash of units Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schurge Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I play my Space Wolf buddy about once a week... and every game he pulls out a new special rule or weapon and I am just like "that <slur> does what!?" I think the Codex is good... thing is... other Codexes out class it by a mile. Namely Space Wolves. Make us Chaos Space Wolves... give us 3++ AP3 Rending Fast Attack, a million ways to bypass 3+ armour, a better version of every weapon, and the ability to be awesome at any range with most units. I'll settle for not getting nerfed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 But we're supposed to be. Who else gets to be the inept, mustache twirling fools that kill millions of red shirts and filler paper worlds just to prop the backgrounds of Loyalists and golden boy heroes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimerical Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 There's really only one thing that badly needs doing: make the marines more reliable in their leadership. It's amazing to me that they did't get stubborn already - stubborn defiance and hatred basically defines their existence. That alone would make them a decent army. But more legion rules would make people really care about them again. I'll never understand why GW marginalised the legions these past 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 They want them to be more reminiscent of Chapters, and make Warbands more inviting for new people. It's about as smart of a move as trying to say Black Templars are a codex Chapter or that Necrons enslaved their own Lovecraftian space gods and became butt buddies with Blood Angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The problem with any Chaos Marine codex is that there is no such thing as a "typical" Chaos Marine army. The Necron Decurian detachment for example which I think is done very well from an army building perspective, even if it is almost comically overpowered, represents a "typical" Necron army, so it's got warriors, immortals, and uh--tomb scythes. And then you fill in with the additional detachments as you please, wratihs and spyders, destroyers, etc to create the theme or just load up on wraiths. For chaos on the other hand, what would be the base? Chaos marines? But what about cult armies? This would require cults going back to just being marked CSM, which is fine with me, but I doubt GW will do it because then Little Timmy will get confused. The problem is that Chaos is really a set of several different armies that don't have much in common. The marine book for example has vanguard and sternguard veterans, but it's not like the two ever wage religious wars of extermination against one another. Berzerkers and noise marines do. Edit: On the bright side, the difference between us and loyalist marines isn't nearly as stark as that between Dark and Craftworld Eldar. Craftworld are essentially better in every conceivable way, often by a wide margin, except maybe for the deep striking talos/cronos/haemy detachment which doesn't have a direct Craftworld analogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebris Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I would make our "core" the following: 1 Chaos Lord 0-2 Chaos Terminators 1-4 Chaos Space Marines 2-8 Chaos Cultists Since we can take MSU this would not be much of an issue and the role of the cults will come to play with Cult X Detachments. I quite see GW following a similar path in the creation of our new book and I expect them to force us take multiple units per detachment (marketing strategy) like 2-3 Obliterators/Mutilators etc. I assume that the only "tribute" to fluff would be for example a bonus if the cult unit is taken with the sacred number of a god. But that is perhaps the maximum I expect from GW in our Decurion. Said that I care little for what they do with the rest of the army, sincerely my only concern are my beloved Thousand Sons. For once I would like to play them and do not feel like with a chain ball around my leg. That is all I ask. The rest is "meh" and in all sincerity I expect more "meh" in the future. It is not me being a pessimist but more of a realist. Our army idiosyncrasies are a very though nut to crack. You can easily make us the most overpowered book out there with the cherry picking of marks and upgrades or you can make us "just playable" if they are guarded in their development of our rules. Sadly the many marks, upgrades, unit typologies etc. which make us unique are easily a nightmare for a serious codex writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I have the distinct idea I won't be actually gaming next edition. Not that I will be soon, but from every other standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The problem with properly representing Thousand Sons is that they should play like WHB Vampire Counts. Very powerful characters that are also psykers, and slow, relatively bad troops that become much better with magical buffs and can be resurrected. Also on that point, the Tz psychic discipline needs to be changed to buffs and debuffs that represent the sorcerer manipulating fate, and not just shooting magic guns. Also, the primaris should allow him to refill broken armor with souls resurrecting D3 rubrics that were killed earlier in the game, but if the sorc in a squad dies, D3 rubrics are removed from the squad per turn to represent them shutting down and going into inactivity unless a sorc with the discipline of Tz joins the unit. Now that would be a fun and fluffy TS army. But it would probably require its own codex and for GW to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I think the biggest problem is that we are an close-range assault army without decent assault transports, in an edition that favours shooting. Until that is fixed we won't be able to be brought in line to top-tier armies like Eldar, Tau or Necrons. Also, I'd love it if the Champions of Chaos rule got revamped to make it optional. Why are my sneaky, backstabbing Night Lords loudly challenging enemy champions to single combat? Why would that make sense for the coldly pragmatic Iron Warriors or the deceitful Alpha Legion either? The problem with properly representing Thousand Sons is that they should play like WHB Vampire Counts. Very powerful characters that are also psykers, and slow, relatively bad troops that become much better with magical buffs and can be resurrected. Also on that point, the Tz psychic discipline needs to be changed to buffs and debuffs that represent the sorcerer manipulating fate, and not just shooting magic guns. Also, the primaris should allow him to refill broken armor with souls resurrecting D3 rubrics that were killed earlier in the game, but if the sorc in a squad dies, D3 rubrics are removed from the squad per turn to represent them shutting down and going into inactivity unless a sorc with the discipline of Tz joins the unit. Now that would be a fun and fluffy TS army. But it would probably require its own codex and for GW to care. Awesome fluff, but terrible special rules have pretty much defined the Thousand Sons since day one. It's probably not helped in this edition in that the Discipline of Tzeentch is the worst psychic discipline and you are forced to role on it for Thousand Sons. I find it sadly hilarious that the Unmarked Sorcerer is probably the best overall for the army and Tzeentch-mark sorcerers are argubly the worst. But really, at this point the Cult Legions are essentially reduced to an Elites Choice and a special character. I doubt we will be seeing the days of Noise Marine Havocs or Berzerker Terminators again. There's really only one thing that badly needs doing: make the marines more reliable in their leadership. It's amazing to me that they did't get stubborn already - stubborn defiance and hatred basically defines their existence. That alone would make them a decent army. But more legion rules would make people really care about them again. I'll never understand why GW marginalised the legions these past 10 years. I always thought something similar to the Fantasy WoC's special rule would be appropriate, army-wide re-roll of morale and pinning checks. It would be a nice replacement for the old school Undivided Mark. I never understood either why GW bothered to go ragtag warbands instead of Legions. It seems to be that people really want to play mono-Legions. Just look around this forum, with it's Legion-centric threads and all the painting logs with the beautifully painted Iron Warriors or Night Lords army. Look at popular the Horus Heresy Legions are. I get the fluff talks about how the Legions are broken down into disparate warbands, but that doesn't seem to be what the player base wants. How many players here to do you see operating with some Night Lords, with an allied squad of Death Guard, backed up by Iron Warrior Havocs, and attended to with an Alpha Legion sorcerer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 It's marketing decicions and schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimerical Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The incomprehension is not to do with why they tried the renegade warband angle, it's to do with why they've persisted so damn long in the face of overwhelming evidence that the players want better representation of the legions. It epitomises more than anything else GWs paradoxical logic as it constantly rationalises all of it's moves as financial strategies yet seems completely ignorant of what the players want (beyond pretty models). Make the legions playable and take my money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pariah Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The incomprehension is not to do with why they tried the renegade warband angle, it's to do with why they've persisted so damn long in the face of overwhelming evidence that the players want better representation of the legions. It epitomises more than anything else GWs paradoxical logic as it constantly rationalises all of it's moves as financial strategies yet seems completely ignorant of what the players want (beyond pretty models). Make the legions playable and take my money! It seems that gw strategy is to have easily recognisable armies that are different at a glance . Is this bad? No with the exeption of chaos... Warbands are different on a fundamental level and that is different to market when "make your own chapter of SMs" is next to it... Were seing a condensation of the faction, focusing on what makes them different and streamlining.. the chaos book has a lot of fluffy bits, and this makes me afraid of the next book.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.