PDA

View Full Version : Iron Warriors In the New Codex-threadomancy-CLOSED



Pages : [1] 2

havoc626
16-03-2008, 10:45
I was just wandering if there are still different rules for IW?

This might have been answered before, but I can't find them. Are they just a normal chaos marine army now? Because I was thinking of collecting them, but reading through the codex, there are no more special rules for them. It is a real shame if they don't have any more rules for them

Havarel
16-03-2008, 11:17
Sadly there aren't any special rules for any of the Traitor Legions anymore.

Lordsaradain
16-03-2008, 11:21
The new codex removed all chapter-specific upgrades, rules etc.

Latro_
16-03-2008, 12:01
It makes me wonder what happend to all those people with beardy IW armies?
Did they sell it all? rework it?

Ironhand
16-03-2008, 12:26
Isn't Karma wonderful? They had no choice but to sell or re-work I guess. Best part of it is, they brought it on themselves by being so beardy in the first place.

Bookwrak
16-03-2008, 12:27
If you want to collect Iron Warriors, collect Iron Warriors. The only substantial difference is your army won't have a Basilisk in it.

Ironhand
16-03-2008, 12:32
If you want to collect Iron Warriors, collect Iron Warriors. The only substantial difference is your army won't have a Basilisk in it.

and no 5 man las-plas squads, and no more 9 Obliterators and 4 pie plates. In other words, no more of everything that made IW so obnoxious.

NastyNymph
16-03-2008, 13:03
and no 5 man las-plas squads, and no more 9 Obliterators and 4 pie plates. In other words, no more of everything that made IW so so overpowered, stupid, idiotic and cheesy and no fun to play against
:D

Iron Warriors are still very easy to make fluffy

catbarf
16-03-2008, 13:14
Some people like having Iron Warriors that differ from their friend's World Eaters.

There are other differences besides the pie plates, lascannon spam, and oblits. Because of a few powergamers abusing a game that isn't suited to competitive play, anyone who wanted a normal IW army now doesn't have the choice.

shade_1313
16-03-2008, 13:16
that being said, if the only reason you wanted to play IW was for their highly abusable rules, maybe you're choosing your armies for the wrong reasons?

catbarf
16-03-2008, 13:18
that being said, if the only reason you wanted to play IW was for their highly abusable rules, maybe you're choosing your armies for the wrong reasons?

So a mech Eldar player is automatically choosing his army for the wrong reasons, since OBVIOUSLY he is a cheesy powergamer who wants to use the highly abusable rules for Falcon spam?

lord_blackfang
16-03-2008, 13:18
Remember, kids, if an army doesn't have special rules, it doesn't exist.

KazenX
16-03-2008, 13:20
In the news and rumors section there is a interview with Jervis from this year where he states that there will be a new legion/cult codex, the current chaos dex is just for generic chaos. So it looks like the IW along with the other traitors will make a triumphuant return prolly some time in 2009-2010.

There are signigicant changes from the previous dex, no more servo arm, basalisk or 4 heavy choices, but you can still use your vindacators and yes you can still have a total of 9 obliterators but they are a heavy now.

The loss of the servo arm is what I miss most rules wise, but the new chaos list is still capable, if you have vindacators (which are open to all now) I recomend the new demonic poession, you also have access to more options if you have larger squads.

In short if you have an Iron Warriors army and want to get back in you still have a competitive army albeit not as themeatic as the one you started with or if you want to get in with an IW army now you can build and paint one use the current dex and migrate to the new one when it comes out :)

lord_blackfang
16-03-2008, 13:21
Some people like having Iron Warriors that differ from their friend's World Eaters.

Seeing a lot of World Eater armies full of ordnance and Iron Warriors full of Berserkers lately, are you? :rolleyes:



There are other differences besides the pie plates, lascannon spam, and oblits. Because of a few powergamers abusing a game that isn't suited to competitive play, anyone who wanted a normal IW army now doesn't have the choice.

So you're screwed out of an armour penetration bonus against bunkers and the option to buy one powerfist attack for +30 pts? The horror! Your army is totally unfluffy now!

catbarf
16-03-2008, 13:22
Remember, kids, if an army doesn't have special rules, it doesn't exist.

And if your troops don't have rules at ALL, they certainly don't exist beyond 'counts-as'. Servo arm? Basilisk? Heavy Support?

NastyNymph
16-03-2008, 13:34
Some people like having Iron Warriors that differ from their friend's World Eaters.
well apart from no Iron warrior army looking like a world eater army, then yeah I guess there exactly the same:p

as an example when was the last time you saw World eaters that looked like this
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102229
wait no lemme guess, yesterday:p

anyone who wanted a normal IW army now doesn't have the choice.
yes you do, surely how you construct your army and list makes an Iron Warrior force, not a bunch of useless extra rules and wargear like a servo arm and bunker killing abilities (when was the last time you ever fought a bunker:rolleyes:)

the only way the new codex has a negative effect on you is if you played your force like most Iron warriors players, with Obliterator spam and 4 indirect firing defilers (or 3 and 1 basilisk), if you didn't play like that and actually used your imagination, then your fine

ehlijen
16-03-2008, 13:40
The Iron Warriors still exist. There are still plenty of chaos space marines with the Iron warriors colour scheme. The core of the army is still there: you can still have marines, havocs, obliterators, ordnance tanks and heavy weapons. You don't need the 4th heavy. You don't need basiliks (though I can understand how owners of converted ones might be annoyed). And you don't need servo arms to make IW IW.

In the end one piece of wargear has been removed (and an obscure one at that) and a vehicle is no longer availble (this has been balanced by the fact that a similar vehicle is no longer 0-1).

philbrad2
16-03-2008, 13:43
It makes me wonder what happend to all those people with beardy IW armies?
Did they sell it all? rework it?

Rework ... my IW were going 'assaulty' before the new 'Chaos book' and with the FoMv campaign one of my most effective Champions was in charge of a breach assautl team and ever so slowly strted to get more 'yampy' an fall to Khorne. So it worked out quite nicely. Now I've a number of Khorne based assault units. Also use sorcerers and Tzeentchian amrcked troops. I know, not exactly fluffy to take Khorne & Tzeentch in the same army, but hey GW seem to have given up on this... so when in Rome ....

TBH I've not found a massive change. I did like the odd Servo arm which was quite fluffy and I miss my Basilisk but my IW were never a multi-pie-plate-multi-Obliterator type of army. How many IW players do you know field bikes :)

You avatar's giving me a headache too LATRO ;)

PhilB
:chrome:

AdmiralDick
16-03-2008, 13:44
ah, and yet another thread dragged down by a lack of imagination and tack from both sides. nice one guys.

philbrad2
16-03-2008, 13:49
well apart from no Iron warrior army looking like a world eater army, then yeah I guess there exactly the same

as an example when was the last time you saw World eaters that looked like this
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102229
wait no lemme guess, yesterday

I love these models and soon as my Orkies are done I aim to do a big robot Defiler a la Transformer for my IW as a Defiler stand in. This is a very cool IW army.


Remember, kids, if an army doesn't have special rules, it doesn't exist.

Now, now we all know generic is best :)

PhilB
:chrome:

Gorbad Ironclaw
16-03-2008, 13:49
I know, not exactly fluffy to take Khorne & Tzeentch in the same army, but hey GW seem to have given up on this... so when in Rome ....


Nothing wrong with Khorne and Tzeentch. It's Khorne/Slaanesh and Tzeentch/Nurgle that isn't likely to mix.

Captin Korea!
16-03-2008, 13:49
My list did not change to much from 3.5 to the new rules. I dropped the basli for 2 oblits and added some raptors.

Master Jeridian
16-03-2008, 14:00
Maybe I'm cynical but I haven't seen an IW army since the new Codex, and before I saw them everywhere- especially at tournaments.
I have noticed a huge upsurge in Mech Eldar armies in their place...

This is probably why me and many others can't find pity for IW's players- even the mystical 'fluffy' IW's players.


Starting IW's now- you can still spam Oblits, you can still take Vindicators, you can still take the cheap Monstrous Creature.
What you can't do is break the FOC system by taking too many Heavy Support, and you don't get free bonuses on Bunker busting and what not just for painting you models with a hideous colour scheme.
You don't get access to an artillery piece that made IG unique (Marines shouldn't have heavy indirect ordnance, they're a strike force).

I feel the pain of the Cult Lists (Death Guard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters, Emperor's Children) as they had radically different units, wargear and abilities.

But what can't you do with IW's now, besides the broken stuff?

The only thing I can think of is the Servo-arm, that's it. So your entire army is unplayable because of one dubious piece of wargear.

Latro_
16-03-2008, 14:50
You avatar's giving me a headache too LATRO ;)

PhilB
:chrome:

hehe i was just plating about with gifs like yours, ended up with 1/100th of a sec madness, gonna work on it more later.

philbrad2
16-03-2008, 16:40
Mine has a duration of .9 sec per frame ...(my head still hurts ... )

PhilB
:chrome:

shade_1313
16-03-2008, 17:04
So a mech Eldar player is automatically choosing his army for the wrong reasons, since OBVIOUSLY he is a cheesy powergamer who wants to use the highly abusable rules for Falcon spam?

not at all what i said. i said that IF a player chooses to play a highly abusable list is why said list is chosen. i didn't say that the OP was such a player, nor anyone else, nor did i ever say that such a player could be spotted with such a simpleminded method. i'll chalk this one up to the internet being a hideously bad way to communicate clearly and that i was misunderstood.

advinius
16-03-2008, 18:12
Wow, Master Jeridian... did an Iron Warriors player kick your dog or something? Much with the hating.

Speaking as someone who's used Iron Warriors on two seperate occasions, the first one before the Index Astartes article even came out, I have to say we "fluffy" Iron Warriors players are more than myth. :D

Now that being said, I shelved mine during the height of the IW hatefest of the last edition, as I got tired of my conversations about my games being interupted by people telling me my army was cheese, sight unseen, at the mere mention of my affiliation.

Never mind that I never ran more than 1 ordinance weapon, or 3 obliterators, and had more of a mobile assault theme. I was an Iron Warriors Player, so assumptions were made.

Now that things are back to a low simmer, I've been thinking it's time for the Lads to come back out of the blast shelters and show folks how its done! :chrome:

And I beg to differ: while Steel and Gold may not be great heraldry, classically speaking, It can look quite striking!

Mad Doc Grotsnik
16-03-2008, 18:22
I used to have an extensive Iron Warrior army (I was staff at the time!) but ultimately got bored of it.

You see, when you could outshoot any other army, and still offer a pretty thorough kicking in HTH, you do get horiffically bored.

Now, I'm kind of tempted to start them again.

Reaver83
16-03-2008, 18:42
Two people I knew used to play IW with the old codex, one did have a Bessie, 9 oblits etc I hear he sold them on E.Bay, the other guy's rejigged his and it's now a reasonably solid list.

As a side note the gentleman who sold his does now play mech eldar

Dreachon
16-03-2008, 18:56
With this codex the real IW players have stayed and the wannabees have dropepd them.

Grand Master Raziel
16-03-2008, 18:59
Some people like having Iron Warriors that differ from their friend's World Eaters.

There are other differences besides the pie plates, lascannon spam, and oblits. Because of a few powergamers abusing a game that isn't suited to competitive play, anyone who wanted a normal IW army now doesn't have the choice.

I fail to see how it's impossible, or even difficult, to make a thematically appropriate IW army with the current Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Since it's practically impossible to fill a single FOC at anything but Apocalypse-level games, theme consists of what you choose to emphasize rather than a set of dodgy special rules. In the case of IW, you simply take units of Chaos Space Marines with IoCG and three Heavy Supports - a squad of Obliterators and two Vindicators, say. Lead them with a Chaos Lord and you're good to go. If you were playing Night Lords, you'd emphasize Fast Attack. If you were playing Alpha Legion, you'd emphasize Elites (specifically Chosen). If you were playing Word Bearers, you'd take a lot of GLD packs as cannon fodder. No one should have any problem at all playing any of the Undivided legions in a thematically appropriate way.

As for the cult legions, they were a little more heavily effected, but you can still get by with Codex: Chaos Space Marines. The major difference is that cult troops are specific unit entries in the Troops category now instead of a modification to existing unit entries. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, but some do, because they can't cultify up other units in the same way they used to be able to. They could still give them the icon of the appropriate Chaos god, but that's not good enough for some people. I understand that, eventually, the cult legions will get their own dexes. Personally, I don't think that's necessary. People should just get used to the idea that what defines a cult legion now is different from what used to define a cult legion. That said, there are 4 dexes for variant loyalist SM chapters in addition to Codex: Space Marines, so there is a precedent in support of seperate dexes for the cult legions. Fair's fair, I guess, although that would tend to add to the persecution complex that many xenos-army players nurse. I wouldn't expect seperate dexes for the Undivided legions, though. That would be like having seperate dexes for all the Ultramarines successor chapters. There simply isn't enough of a difference between the Undivided legions to justify each one having its own dex. The only possible justification for doing so would be to give back the dodgy special rules that were deliberately taken away in the first place.

In regards to seperate dexes for the cult legions, I also can't help but think, "Be careful what you wish for." It occurs to me that cult legion dexes would be just as apt to take stuff away as give stuff to the cult legion players. For instance, I could definately see cult legions not getting access to Raptors or Obliterators, since both of those units are supposed to be representatives of seperate cults in their own right. So, you could easily make the case that a thematically-appropriate pure cult legion dex shouldn't include either of those units, since they conflict with the orthodoxy of the cult legion. A lot of cult players want cult legion dexes because they want X, Y, and Z that they used to be able to get from the old, broken 3.5 dex, but I have to wonder: are they prepared to give up A, B, and C to get it?




And I beg to differ: while Steel and Gold may not be great heraldry, classically speaking, It can look quite striking!

Any paint job, done well, can look good, as long as the colors don't clash.

Vaktathi
16-03-2008, 19:00
Isn't Karma wonderful? They had no choice but to sell or re-work I guess. Best part of it is, they brought it on themselves by being so beardy in the first place



and no 5 man las-plas squads, and no more 9 Obliterators and 4 pie plates. In other words, no more of everything that made IW so obnoxious.

You make it sound like the players fault instead of the game designers for not doing enough playtesting.

Technically, according to the IW Index Astartes article and the 3.5 codex, minimum numbers of troops with maximum numbers of heavy weapons and gun platforms was *exactly* the way the operated, the problem was the rules allowed it to be taken *too* far for game balance.

That said, you really couldn't put a firepower heavy, low troop count army down as being "unfluffy", just as you can't put down a holofield skimmerspam Mech Eldar army down as being unfluffy (as it is exactly how Eldar armies often operate) unless they start throwing harlies in falcons, even if they are hideously abuseable.



Seeing a lot of World Eater armies full of ordnance and Iron Warriors full of Berserkers lately, are you?
The problem is we've been seeing alot of armies that don't make sense in any sort of fluff (I've seen lash princes with berserker troops and oblit HS in WE colors.) or that bear no resemblance to fluff for their legion past the color scheme on the troops. Trying to make an effective, fluffy shooty non-cult list (like IW) doesn't work very well, you are going to have to rely on CC a lot more than previously. If you want shooting, you go with Noise Marines and sometimes Tsons, neither of which would be found in an IW army for instance. Hell, one of the most effective tools for a shooting army is Lash of Submission (whip units out of cover and into LoS for Oblit plasma cannon spam) which I find to be personally a ridiculous power, but also one that doesn't fit into an IW army. If you do try and fit a ridiculous amount of shooting power in, you still end up with lists with 5man squads as in the last codex, they just won't have the Lascannon, and you could have gotten the same firepower from using Noise Marines instead.


A noise marine army with 6man blastmaster squads and oblits in HS with a Lash prince or two is generally going to be a more "IW-y" army than an actual faithful IW army with the new codex. That's the problem.

Dr.Clock
16-03-2008, 19:09
IW eh?

I'd probably take something like this:

2x 'zerks in rhinos
2x rhino squads w/dual melta
2x14 CSM (squads larger than ten are sooooo sweet)

2x large nurgle chosen (advanced bionics?)
1x termies or dread

1x large havoc squad
2x vindicators

Daemon Prince
Chaos Lord

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Imperialis_Dominatus
17-03-2008, 02:41
Some people like having Iron Warriors that differ from their friend's World Eaters.

Basic Troops choices would be your first step in designing such a list. Berzerkers would likely be found in a World Eaters list, whereas Iron Warriors might use more basic Chaos Marines (though some fluff portrays them as having Berzerkers, and implants/bionics might represent Plague Marines, blah blah blah). You will also need to choose a distinctive HQ- a fluffy choice for a World Eaters warband just might include a Lord or Prince with the Mark of Khorne, whereas an Iron Warriors Lord would likely remain unmarked. If you feel the need to give the Warsmith a servo-arm, give him a powerfist. Combi-bolters will work well for them too.

I've just created two very basic armies with Troops choices and an HQ that play entirely differently, without even going into unit options like specials and heavy weapons, or even other FOC slots. My, I must be a god amongst men.


Remember, kids, if an army doesn't have special rules, it doesn't exist.

Yep.


ah, and yet another thread dragged down by a lack of imagination and tack from both sides. nice one guys.

Any time someone asks a question about a Codex they don't own, especially the Gods-damned Chaos Codex, they're asking for trouble. I suspect troll.


The problem is we've been seeing alot of armies that don't make sense in any sort of fluff

This is going to happen, every army, every Codex. Not everyone respects the sanctity of fluff. It has been so since the dawn of gaming itself. Learn to deal?

Vaktathi
17-03-2008, 02:53
This is going to happen, every army, every Codex. Not everyone respects the sanctity of fluff. It has been so since the dawn of gaming itself. Learn to deal?

The "it's fine lern2play" response got old a while ago. The problem is that the current codex rewards unfluffy armies much more than fluffy armies. As I pointed out, you are much more likely to see "Legion" armies that don't adhere to their fluff now than before. While there were undeniable problems with the old rules (free champions, 4 pie-plate 9 Oblit IW, Daemonbomb Siren prince armies) the rules at least attempted to make armies play within fluff restrictions (even if it may be fluff that was different than fluff written 10 years earlier). Now it almost mandates or at least makes it easier to construct a competitive list for one to either disregard it, or go for gold on "counts as". It was a poor attempt to switch the focus from Legions to Renegades while simultaneously failing to do either well. It's not bad as an army list taken in its whole, but flubbs it when it comes to portraying background.

Imperialis_Dominatus
17-03-2008, 03:55
I did say it was fine, nor did I insult your playing capabilities. Ergo, "l2p" does not sum up my post adequately at all.

Besides, do we really, really, really need another Chaos Codex debate? Honestly.

Vaktathi
17-03-2008, 04:20
I did say it was fine, nor did I insult your playing capabilities.


It wasn't so much that as the "live with it". It ends up being the same logic path as "lern2play".

My main argument was against the people just trashing the army just for kicks (the "Isn't karma wonderful" comment, see above), and just blithely ignoring the changes in constructing a faithful IW army with the new codex.

==Me==
17-03-2008, 06:10
With this codex the real IW players have stayed and the wannabees have dropepd them.

This sums up ==My== feelings regarding this issue (re: elation). Powergamers will always jump from abusable army to abusable army, but the real players stick with their armies because they like them.

Min/maxing and loading up on artillery/oblits never fit IW, but the index astartes and 3.5 codex shoe-horned them into being the SAFH Legion, much like the DA and their pamphlet. Iron Warriors are a siege army, which means big squads, big guns, and a big hammer to rip apart the enemy in close combat. Not 6 man las/plas, 4 pie plates, and Oblits out the wazoo. The new Codex does a much better job representing the IW and the other Legions as well as CSM as a whole while keeping them balanced.

Load up on basic CSMs, some Berzerkers for assault, and take plenty of siege gear (4 melta havocs, Vindicators, DS-ing terminators). Add in hazard stripes and you've got Iron Warriors. If you're adventurous you can even use the dreaded counts-as to make IW squads augmented by bionics (icons/cult units) or even in early-onset stages of Obliterator infection (possessed?) and maybe some more exotic stuff (daemons = tunneling teams?).


Also, L2P :p

Ddraiglais
17-03-2008, 07:14
I fail to see how it's impossible, or even difficult, to make a thematically appropriate IW army with the current Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Jervis Johnson has said that the current codex isn't meant for legions, yet you can somehow make legions with the current dex? That's amazing!!!


@Vaktathi, I agree with you 100%. I do think it's impossible to convince some people. They would rather love every product GW ever put out... even when GW apologises for it.



IW eh?

I'd probably take something like this:

2x 'zerks in rhinos
2x rhino squads w/dual melta
2x14 CSM (squads larger than ten are sooooo sweet)

2x large nurgle chosen (advanced bionics?)
1x termies or dread

1x large havoc squad
2x vindicators

Daemon Prince
Chaos Lord

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

That looks almost exactly like a BL list I saw not too long ago. Nice try though.



This sums up ==My== feelings regarding this issue (re: elation). Powergamers will always jump from abusable army to abusable army, but the real players stick with their armies because they like them.

Min/maxing and loading up on artillery/oblits never fit IW, but the index astartes and 3.5 codex shoe-horned them into being the SAFH Legion, much like the DA and their pamphlet. Iron Warriors are a siege army, which means big squads, big guns, and a big hammer to rip apart the enemy in close combat. Not 6 man las/plas, 4 pie plates, and Oblits out the wazoo. The new Codex does a much better job representing the IW and the other Legions as well as CSM as a whole while keeping them balanced.

Load up on basic CSMs, some Berzerkers for assault, and take plenty of siege gear (4 melta havocs, Vindicators, DS-ing terminators). Add in hazard stripes and you've got Iron Warriors. If you're adventurous you can even use the dreaded counts-as to make IW squads augmented by bionics (icons/cult units) or even in early-onset stages of Obliterator infection (possessed?) and maybe some more exotic stuff (daemons = tunneling teams?).


Also, L2P :p

I haven't jumped to another list, but I haven't played 40K since the current dex. I love the IW for a bunch of reasons. I do not feel that I can represent them in a game of 40K anymore though.

Loading up on artillery makes perfect sense. What do you think they shoot the walls with? Oblits also make perfect sense since the virus supposedly first appeared in the IW legion. I do agree with you about the small squads, but artillery and oblits are perfect for the IW. The current dex does a better job of representing the legions? First of all see above. The designers don't even think it does a decent job. Secondly, see Vaktathi's comments. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing anything with any list. If I wanted, I could make a list exactly like Dr Clock suggested, paint it red, and call it a Word Bearers army. I could do the same thing with any other color scheme or army theme.

Legion players shouldn't have to use "counts as" for their armies. There should be specific lists with a few choices. If you want more choices you could always use the generic list.

I keep saying this, but yet nobody seems to read it. There are a lot of us legion players (even a few IW players) that want fluffy legion specific rules. We are NOT asking for broken/cheesy rules. We just want the uniqueness back in our armies.

Occulto
17-03-2008, 07:22
I keep saying this, but yet nobody seems to read it. There are a lot of us legion players (even a few IW players) that want fluffy legion specific rules. We are NOT asking for broken/cheesy rules. We just want the uniqueness back in our armies.

I heartily agree with this.

I just don't think it should be done as half-arsed as it was under the old codex. A Legion should be about more than rearranging the force org chart, juggling a few restrictions and a piece of wargear or two.

Do it properly, or don't do it at all.

squeekenator
17-03-2008, 11:20
(Marines shouldn't have heavy indirect ordnance, they're a strike force)

That's only loyalists. The Legions were sledgehammers that pounded the enemy into submission, the Chapters small surgical strike forces. As the Chaos, for some reason, never chose to follow the Codex Astartes, they're sledgehammers.


The problem is that the current codex rewards unfluffy armies much more than fluffy armies. As I pointed out, you are much more likely to see "Legion" armies that don't adhere to their Fluff now than before.

Riiiiight. The legion rules were complete unfluffy crap. Squads of 8 Berserkers do not suddenly channel thousands of years of experience into their leader. The World Eaters could not have consisted entirely of blood-crazed maniacs, because if they did there would be no-one who remembers how to lobotomize them. The legion rules consisted of a squads getting a stupid benefit if their squad numbers a certain number that was picked out of a hat. Yes, GW could make an Ultramarines codex that says that squads of 6 Marines with a lascannon and plasma gun are favoured by the Emperor and get a free teleport homer. That doesn't make it fluffy, it makes it stupid. Fluff =/= min/maxing.


Now it almost mandates or at least makes it easier to construct a competitive list for one to either disregard it, or go for gold on "counts as". It was a poor attempt to switch the focus from Legions to Renegades while simultaneously failing to do either well. It's not bad as an army list taken in its whole, but flubbs it when it comes to portraying background.

I agree that it doesn't portray Legions well. Nothing short of a proper codex will. However, I can't see why it doesn't work for renegades. Why doesn't it?


Jervis Johnson has said that the current codex isn't meant for legions, yet you can somehow make legions with the current dex? That's amazing!!!


@Vaktathi, I agree with you 100%. I do think it's impossible to convince some people. They would rather love every product GW ever put out... even when GW apologises for it.

God I hate the fanboy argument... You do realise that not everyone believes the new Chaos codex to be poor quality, right? If it's impossible to convince people with indirect flames, mockery and poorly thought-out arguments, then maybe they aren't necessarily wrong? The new book doesn't work for legions. Sure. Neither did the old one.

Also, just because GW says that their book can't do something doesn't mean that they are correct. I would have thought that the people who bash the new Chaos codex and GW would be the first to pick up on that, but rage clouds your vision. How about going back and actually making an argument against it rather than saying "GW said!".


That looks almost exactly like a BL list I saw not too long ago. Nice try though.

Oh dear god! It's possible to make a SPACE MARINES list that looks like a Chaos SPACE MARINES list! Shock horror! Teh internets = over!!!11one

I cannot pour enough scathing sarcasm into my reply to truly respond to something like that.


I haven't jumped to another list, but I haven't played 40K since the current dex. I love the IW for a bunch of reasons. I do not feel that I can represent them in a game of 40K anymore though.

Good for you. GW is surely quaking in their boots now. Seriously now, did ANYONE expect to get legion rules? Hive fleet rules? Gone. Craftworld rules? Gone. Klan rules? Gone. Legion rules? Nah, we have to keep them, otherwise random people on tar intawebz will get cranky that their GW picked on their variant list.


Loading up on artillery makes perfect sense. What do you think they shoot the walls with? Oblits also make perfect sense since the virus supposedly first appeared in the IW legion. I do agree with you about the small squads, but artillery and oblits are perfect for the IW.

You don't shoot walls. You kill the people behind the walls. And what can kill them really easily? Raptors, Terminators, Vindicators, Chosen, Daemons, Obliterators - oh, hang on. You can GET all of them, and none of them are limited. Basalisks? They miss, you can go in a bunker to avoid them, they take far too long to be your main offensive force.


If I wanted, I could make a list exactly like Dr Clock suggested, paint it red, and call it a Word Bearers army. I could do the same thing with any other color scheme or army theme.

Yeah. You could do this before. Nothing ever forced you to paint your Iron Warriors metal with hazard stripes. Nothing ever stopped someone painting them hot pink and giving them butterfly wings, either.


I keep saying this, but yet nobody seems to read it. There are a lot of us legion players (even a few IW players) that want fluffy legion specific rules. We are NOT asking for broken/cheesy rules. We just want the uniqueness back in our armies.

Sure. Unfortunately for the 2 people who didn't abuse the stupidity which was the legion rules, lots of people did. Basically, the formula goes like this:

Balanced army = balanced
Min/maxed army = broken
Min/maxed army that is given bonuses for being min/maxed = stupid

Legion rules are inherently overpowered, because anything that REWARDS min/maxing is never going to work.

Reaver83
17-03-2008, 11:37
See what I just don't get is all you people who want 'fluffy' rules for your IW (in this case) don't you see rules don't make the legion, what you have in it does!

If you want to play a strict IW force, go read dome books like 'storm of iron' articles on their history etc then build from there. Take a Lord in Termi Armour, take three vindcators, max out you elites on oblitorators, take a squad of bezerkers, don't take any fast attack.

There you have it, an IW force!

advinius
17-03-2008, 13:35
One thing to note: Obliterators are now a heavy support choice so the 3 Vindicators + 9 Oblits is a no go, which I'm fine with.

40k is basically platoon level stuff, so I'm ok with huge siege batteries not being in it. That's more of an Apocalypse thing, in my book.

Once I reconstruct my IW up to about 2000 points (I traded a good chunk of them for other goodies a few years back), then I'll pick up a basilisk battery and a linebreaker squad. That, plus a deamon prince and a few extra troop squads, will get me to Apoc levels. Then the leveling of Imperial cities can begin in earnest!

Oh, and I should admit that I did use the 4 heavy slots on occasion before I put the scions of Peturabo aside, but not for ordinance. I tried out 4 infiltrating squads of Havoks with 4 assault weapons each once or twice (which was nasty!). Also, I did get a kick out of loading one flank with 4 assault dreadnoughts once. The look on my opponent's face was priceless. :chrome:

Sureshot05
17-03-2008, 14:07
40k is basically platoon level stuff, so I'm ok with huge siege batteries not being in it. That's more of an Apocalypse thing, in my book.

Once I reconstruct my IW up to about 2000 points (I traded a good chunk of them for other goodies a few years back), then I'll pick up a basilisk battery and a linebreaker squad. That, plus a deamon prince and a few extra troop squads, will get me to Apoc levels. Then the leveling of Imperial cities can begin in earnest!


I agree with this. I'm gonna sidestep the whole legion debate as both sides have valid and invalid points ;) . However, I do feel that things like siege warfare are not gonna be handled by a small 2000 point army. There simply isn't the space to get a balanced siege force into those points.

Personally, since apoc, my regular gaming buddies and I haven't played many of the regular games as we find more fun in the apoc rules (yes, even at 1000 pts), but that is a whole other story.

sliganian
17-03-2008, 14:14
As someone who had IW before they became a swear word, I can see how my current stack of models would be roughly translated into the new Codex:

HEAVY SUPPORT
6-9 Havocs with 4 HB's
6-9 Havocs 2 LasCannons, 2 Autocannons
3 Obliterators

ELITES
Dreadnought (cuz he's been in my IW list for 8+ years!)
Probably Chosen with 2 Plasma Guns, 2 Flamers. Remember kids: Chosen can be mini-Havoc squads that Infiltrate.

TROOPS
Lots a CSM's. 2-3 squads in Rhinos. Only main difference is that instead of fielding a themed 9 in a squad I might go to 10 for the Heavy weapon.

FAST ATTACK
Bwa--ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

HQ
Warsmith: Chaos Lord with combi-melta, then call it a Daemon Weapon for the Servo.

==Me==
17-03-2008, 14:21
Do it properly, or don't do it at all.

Now this I agree with. If they can make the Legions unique and fluffy like the DA/BA/BT/SW then I'll be all for it. Otherwise, use the Codex.


snip

Pretty much everything you said I agree with, good show:)

catbarf
17-03-2008, 14:25
See what I just don't get is all you people who want 'fluffy' rules for your IW (in this case) don't you see rules don't make the legion, what you have in it does!

If you want to play a strict IW force, go read dome books like 'storm of iron' articles on their history etc then build from there. Take a Lord in Termi Armour, take three vindcators, max out you elites on oblitorators, take a squad of bezerkers, don't take any fast attack.

There you have it, an IW force!

Some people might want the additional HS slot, or the servo-arm or a Basilisk or similar- but the big issue is that in order to make a real shooty list (like IW), you need things like Noise Marines and other units that don't fit the fluff. 5-man squads with heavy weapons are gone. The only way to get a really fluffy, shooty list, which the IW should be, is by taking non-fluffy options. And that isn't much fun.

So many people here go on about how removing the IW list was great because it could be abused, while completely ignoring how simple it is to take Lash Princes, Khorne Berserkers, and 1K Sons in the same army.

Supremearchmarshal
17-03-2008, 14:27
Seeing a lot of World Eater armies full of ordnance and Iron Warriors full of Berserkers lately, are you? :rolleyes:

As a matter of fact, I have seen a World Eater army with 9 Obliterators.

PondaNagura
17-03-2008, 17:12
because the restrictions have been dropped and the FOC been re-organized i've seen previously pure Zerker armies start supporting not only oblits, but noise marines.
i've seen 2 winged DP...how the heck is that fluffy and/or not cheesy?

now i have no problem with the current FOC, it's evident they moved things around to accommodate for the transition of IW players; but there still should be some restrictions in play. personally i would have loved to see an old index-astartes way of allocating troops or rules. something along the lines of IW, taking servo arms for x points, and all squads can take tank hunter for y points.
alpha legion may have access to x,y,z units from IG codex, and have infiltrate for x points each.
wordbearers, trade in FA choices for troops.
black legion's fine.
nightlords can take raptors for troops, but are increased by x points/model for doing so.
then place restrictions for DG, WE, EC, TS...they may not have a,b,c units.

the problem with the older dex was that it rewarded more than restricted in certain armies, without proper restrictions or point increases. granted their isn't mass artillery for ONE army, but now you see completely unfluffy and almost cheese armies of nightlords with vindicators, and almost every list i see now a days, in person or online, has a Lash-list.

lord_blackfang
17-03-2008, 17:30
What some of you are forgetting is that the Gods, Marks, Cults, etc. are just fancy names for special rules.

Why would a Khorne army with some models with higher Initiative be unfluffy? Only because the Initiative upgrade is called the Icon of Slaanesh.

Ignore the names and suddenly saying that Noise Marines and Berserkers don't belong in the same army is about as daft as saying that heavy bolters and plasma guns don't belong in the same army.

catbarf
17-03-2008, 17:39
What some of you are forgetting is that the Gods, Marks, Cults, etc. are just fancy names for special rules.

Why would a Khorne army with some models with higher Initiative be unfluffy? Only because the Initiative upgrade is called the Icon of Slaanesh.

Ignore the names and suddenly saying that Noise Marines and Berserkers don't belong in the same army is about as daft as saying that heavy bolters and plasma guns don't belong in the same army.

Welcome to Powergaming With A Valid Excuse™. May I take your order?

Ravenheart
17-03-2008, 17:43
Welcome to Powergaming With A Valid Excuse™. May I take your order?

Playing Berserkers and Noise Marines in the same list is powergaming all of a sudden? Interessting ... :eyebrows:

legionaires
17-03-2008, 17:46
I won't lie I'm one of the people that shelfed their IW army. The irony was I ran 4 troop squads, of which only one was a 5 man LC (no Plas) squad. The rest were 8-10 man assault or infiltrate squads with special weapons (yes including flamers). The reason I shelfed the army is I can't get icons for the army without paying $15 for the two bits for the icon or $35 for a new box, I already have 75 CSM troopers, I really don't need more. Too bad GW killed their bits order as I would have just brought the CSM extras sprues.

toymaker
17-03-2008, 18:12
I used to play IW when I first started. When I saw the new Chaos Codex I was upset to see my army got nerfed. But when I got back into 40k after a prolonged absence I was happy that it gave me a chance to try out a new army. Yeah I'm using stuff normally not allowed to my army but they look good and I can always go more fluff based if I choose

Vaktathi
17-03-2008, 18:30
Riiiiight. The legion rules were complete unfluffy crap. Squads of 8 Berserkers do not suddenly channel thousands of years of experience into their leader.
The World Eaters could not have consisted entirely of blood-crazed maniacs, because if they did there would be no-one who remembers how to lobotomize them. The legion rules consisted of a squads getting a stupid benefit if their squad numbers a certain number that was picked out of a hat. Yes, GW could make an Ultramarines codex that says that squads of 6 Marines with a lascannon and plasma gun are favoured by the Emperor and get a free teleport homer. That doesn't make it fluffy, it makes it stupid. Fluff =/= min/maxing.The point was they tried to make the fluff integral into the army list. We already covered the fact that the army itself was abuseable. They put forth fluff in the book, and then integrated it into the list. It may have been different fluff than 2nd Ed fluff, but it still did a better job than the current codex.




I agree that it doesn't portray Legions well. Nothing short of a proper codex will. However, I can't see why it doesn't work for renegades. Why doesn't it?
Why do Renegades all of a sudden not have *any* Imperial equipment? Why do they all of a sudden have the same equipment and organization that the ancient Chaos legions have? Where do Loyalists all of a sudden find Reaper Autocannons and all those combi-weapons for their termi's? Where do they find all those autocannons for their havocs and troops squads? Where did their LRC's, Whirlwinds and Land Speeders and Techpriests and Thunderhammers go?

I'm not asking for these to be in the Chaos codex, please don't think I am, but a Renegades book needs to be Renegades, not *Non-Legion CSM*




The new book doesn't work for legions. Sure. Neither did the old one. In balance terms? sure, in fluff and mechanics terms? It worked better than the current one. The current codex isn't a terrible list, its just generic as hell and offers no real incentive to avoid abuse of fluff and it's altogether too straight forward in how it plays. Even if you didn't like the fluff of the last codex (although many players did, I didn't hear any complaints until the new codex came out), The old one set forth fluff for each army, and organized the army list according to the fluff in the book and the IA articles. The new one covers a couple individuals and a history of the Heresy, and then throws out a "one-size-fits-all" list. Should the lists have been better? Yes. Did it need to be toned down? Yes. Could they have done better? Yes. However it was also attempting to make an army in the 3rd/4th ed crossover, and the army plays differently under the 3rd ed rules when it came out than it did under the 4th ed rules. Was it totally worthless and complete crap? No.








Sure. Unfortunately for the 2 people who didn't abuse the stupidity which was the legion rules, lots of people did. Basically, the formula goes like this:

Balanced army = balanced
Min/maxed army = broken
Min/maxed army that is given bonuses for being min/maxed = stupid

Legion rules are inherently overpowered, because anything that REWARDS min/maxing is never going to work. Nobody will argue against this, however it just means they messed up the previous Legions list for game balance. It *does not* mean that rules for Legions cannot exist.

And remember, not all of the Legion rules were hideously broken. I don't think I've heard anyone complain about Word Bearers, Thousand Sons, Night Lords, Alpha Legion or Death Guard as inherently cheesy, mainly just IW, EC, and sometimes WE, and even then only if one went to town on them. My 1850 list under the old codex was only *Iron Warriors* because it had one extra squad of Oblits, otherwise it was 3 preds, 1 Termi lord, 4 Chosen termi's, 4 8 man HB/Plas squads, 6 Oblits. Lots of firepower, but only one competent CC unit, everything else got eaten in CC which was the real weakness (that and Mech Eldar)

With the current codex, it's very difficult to achieve the same level of firepower without using cult troops or tanking on troops and loading into HS and Elites even more than before.




I still play my Iron Warriors, It's just not the same army it used to be. It doesn't operate in anywhere near the same manner, and is heavily CC based with lots of Terminators and Khorne/Undivided icons on everything. It's still "fluffy" I guess, but doesn't represent the army I used to play at all and trying to keep it fluffy reduces its competitiveness.

AdmiralDick
17-03-2008, 18:42
@ Advinius: is that an AdMech cake?!


Any time someone asks a question about a Codex they don't own, especially the Gods-damned Chaos Codex, they're asking for trouble. I suspect troll.

its cool. i'm all up for intelligent discussion and there is no reason why this couldn't have been one. the question that started it was perfectly reasonable.

what is a problem is when people simply refuse to actually debate the point at hand. this thread is already rife with stupid remarks from people who are deliberately misrepresenting their opponents.

there's no necessity to agree or even find a resolution. but their's also no reason to refuse to acept that your opponent has an arguement, even if its not a very good one.

it makes these threads even more boring than the things we dislike about the Codex: Chaos Space Marines.


See what I just don't get is all you people who want 'fluffy' rules for your IW (in this case) don't you see rules don't make the legion, what you have in it does!

lol. what an absurd idea.

had it ever occured to you that both might be a part of an interesting an background rich army? why do you feel it necessary to force a false dichotomy between composition and 'special rules'. as if the two are discretely different anyway. what if there was a special rule that allowed you to have a different composition of army? would that be okay in your book?


However, I do feel that things like siege warfare are not gonna be handled by a small 2000 point army. There simply isn't the space to get a balanced siege force into those points.

so what does that mean in practice? what happens when you divide a siege army to the point that you can't see that its a siege army any more? what are you left with? because i'm not sure that you are left with a sort of generic middle ground.


Now this I agree with. If they can make the Legions unique and fluffy like the DA/BA/BT/SW then I'll be all for it. Otherwise, use the Codex.

lets not forget the Ultramarines in this equation. they have their own Codex too.

whilst i don't think that the Legion adaptations were all immaculate, they certainly had potential. i believe had they re-written the previous codex, rather than cutting it down they'd have ended up with a trait/doctrine/adaptation list that was much more to everyone's taste. but for a number of reasons they chose not to.

nevertheless, moving forward from now, whatever comes next will have to be a lot better than anything that has come before, including this list (because however you veiw it this Codex has generated more discontent amoungst players than any other to my memory (and i have a long memory)).

sliganian
17-03-2008, 18:43
I won't lie I'm one of the people that shelfed their IW army. ...The reason I shelfed the army is I can't get icons for the army without paying $15 for the two bits for the icon or $35 for a new box, I already have 75 CSM troopers, I really don't need more. Too bad GW killed their bits order as I would have just brought the CSM extras sprues.

You don't own paper, paints and pens? Who said your Icons have to be Official GW Plastic (tm)?

boogle
17-03-2008, 18:44
Daemon Prince
Terminators
Dreads
CSM
Defiler
Vindicator
Oblits

hmm that wasn't hard to do a IW army was it?

Supremearchmarshal
17-03-2008, 19:23
In balance terms? sure, in fluff and mechanics terms? It worked better than the current one. The current codex isn't a terrible list, its just generic as hell and offers no real incentive to avoid abuse of fluff and it's altogether too straight forward in how it plays. Even if you didn't like the fluff of the last codex (although many players did, I didn't hear any complaints until the new codex came out), The old one set forth fluff for each army, and organized the army list according to the fluff in the book and the IA articles. The new one covers a couple individuals and a history of the Heresy, and then throws out a "one-size-fits-all" list. Should the lists have been better? Yes. Did it need to be toned down? Yes. Could they have done better? Yes. However it was also attempting to make an army in the 3rd/4th ed crossover, and the army plays differently under the 3rd ed rules when it came out than it did under the 4th ed rules. Was it totally worthless and complete crap? No.

The new GW method of solving balance issues is simply to drop things they can't be bothered to try balancing. That or one of the 2 standard answers to cover their laziness or incompetence:

1) Counts as
2) play Apocalypse

Note that I have nothing against the above two on their own, it's just the way GW uses them as a cover for avoiding work that bothers me.

lord_blackfang
17-03-2008, 19:42
Welcome to Powergaming With A Valid Excuse™. May I take your order?

So if the fluff said that, for example, Assault Marines and Tactical Marines rarely fight side by side, taking both in the same SM army would be Powergaming? :wtf:

Sir_Turalyon
17-03-2008, 20:03
Why do Renegades all of a sudden not have *any* Imperial equipment? Why do they all of a sudden have the same equipment and organization that the ancient Chaos legions have? Where do Loyalists all of a sudden find Reaper Autocannons and all those combi-weapons for their termi's? Where do they find all those autocannons for their havocs and troops squads? Where did their LRC's, Whirlwinds and Land Speeders and Techpriests and Thunderhammers go?


They broke down and replacements are hard to find without Chapters armouries and rest of imperium providing resources / spares. Assault Cannons tend to explode and kill user if poorly maintained (fluff no longer represented in rules), man-portable plasma cannons and multimelta are so sophisticated they were not used yet in times of Heresy, Land Speeders are quoted in 3,5 chaos codex as too maintaince-dependent for chaos legions to keep them. In general, if Chaos Legions don't have something, it's because it's too difficult to maintain, not necessarily because it was not availiable during heresy. When Renegade's equipment start failing, they usualy replace it with something autocannon based: effective, easily maintained and easily found in nearest Guard garnison.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
17-03-2008, 20:12
Indeed, Assault Cannons did not exist during the Heresy (to my knowledge) and the Reaper was a pre-cursor to it

Same reason as they have Combi-Bolters and not Stormbolters.

But mark you, if it wasn't for the Heresy, Power Armour and Bolters would be a thing of the past. It would be Terminators and Combi-Plasma up the wazoo, not to mention the prospect of every knacked Brother going into a Dreadnought!

PondaNagura
17-03-2008, 21:45
They broke down and replacements are hard to find without Chapters armouries and rest of imperium providing resources / spares. Assault Cannons tend to explode and kill user if poorly maintained (fluff no longer represented in rules), man-portable plasma cannons and multimelta are so sophisticated they were not used yet in times of Heresy, Land Speeders are quoted in 3,5 chaos codex as too maintaince-dependent for chaos legions to keep them. In general, if Chaos Legions don't have something, it's because it's too difficult to maintain, not necessarily because it was not availiable during heresy. When Renegade's equipment start failing, they usualy replace it with something autocannon based: effective, easily maintained and easily found in nearest Guard garnison.

they're Chaos...if it breaks down empower it with chaos magics, or use the dark adeptus.
and how might these renegade marines get into said guard garrison, when all their equipment is broken down? hold up their broken plasmacannons and yell bang!

catbarf
17-03-2008, 22:10
So if the fluff said that, for example, Assault Marines and Tactical Marines rarely fight side by side, taking both in the same SM army would be Powergaming? :wtf:

If you are deliberately ignoring fluff for the purpose of making a powerful army, then you are powergaming. Mixing and matching deity-aligned troops that in the fluff hate each other with a passion would be powergaming, since it ignores well-established and prominent fluff.


Playing Berserkers and Noise Marines in the same list is powergaming all of a sudden? Interessting ... :eyebrows:

Two Lash Princes mixed with Berserkers, 2K Sons, and Plague Marines?

Imperialis_Dominatus
17-03-2008, 22:29
It wasn't so much that as the "live with it". It ends up being the same logic path as "lern2play".

I don't follow, but I'll just drop it, if you don't mind.


My main argument was against the people just trashing the army just for kicks (the "Isn't karma wonderful" comment, see above), and just blithely ignoring the changes in constructing a faithful IW army with the new codex.

I guess I can follow you there, the 'karma' argument struck me as vindictive as well.


@Vaktathi, I agree with you 100%. I do think it's impossible to convince some people. They would rather love every product GW ever put out... even when GW apologises for it.

Normally a statement like that is one I'd class as general in scope, but seeing as you're responding to a poster that was directly responding to me, I must object to your blatant slander and flaming. I am not a fanboi, I don't love everything about the new Codex, and I am not impossible to convince... unless your definition for the above three categories is 'disagrees with me,' in which case I'm definitely not continuing this for another sentence.


That looks almost exactly like a BL list I saw not too long ago. Nice try though.

Oh, and I can make a Blood Ravens list that looks exactly like a Salamanders list in the SM Codex. Man, you'd think it was up to the player to make his armies distinct or something...


I heartily agree with this.

I just don't think it should be done as half-arsed as it was under the old codex. A Legion should be about more than rearranging the force org chart, juggling a few restrictions and a piece of wargear or two.

Do it properly, or don't do it at all.

The fiery monkey is wise.


Good for you. GW is surely quaking in their boots now. Seriously now, did ANYONE expect to get legion rules? Hive fleet rules? Gone. Craftworld rules? Gone. Klan rules? Gone. Legion rules? Nah, we have to keep them, otherwise random people on tar intawebz will get cranky that their GW picked on their variant list.

I liked the whole post, but I think this needs repeating. Under GW's current direction, variant lists will not survive. Nothing more complex than Ravenwing has made it past the latest batches of Codices. Instead, GW has attempted (though I use the term perhaps too kindly) to balance the game on one hand while offering options to simulate formerly diverse lists. However, it's impossible to please everyone, and I can understand how this decision might be unpopular. I don't like it entirely myself- allaying confusion, I hope, that I am some kind of rabid drooling *********** fanboi- and would have preferred to see former options balanced out. But life is life.


What some of you are forgetting is that the Gods, Marks, Cults, etc. are just fancy names for special rules.

Why would a Khorne army with some models with higher Initiative be unfluffy? Only because the Initiative upgrade is called the Icon of Slaanesh.

Ignore the names and suddenly saying that Noise Marines and Berserkers don't belong in the same army is about as daft as saying that heavy bolters and plasma guns don't belong in the same army.

I think GW is trying to leave it to the player to theme their lists instead of doing it themselves- the Legion lists had advantages and restrictions, but obviously the restrictions for some of those were not strong enough. And other lists were easily an abomination by any standard. Personally I think mixing Berzerkers and Noise Marines without some serious Chaos-Undivided Lordship or Tzeentchian meddling is a no-no. That's how I would run my Chaos. But there are others who a) don't care about fluff, or b) are creative enough to come up with some sort of fluff explanation that may or may not jibe with my own version of the fluff.

For a), there is no solution, because scum will always exist and GW won't come up with a ruleset that alienates them without turning the game into chess (which it is not at the moment, disregarding those who think the sky is falling). For b), well, more creativity isn't a bad thing in my opinion.


Daemon Prince
Terminators
Dreads
CSM
Defiler
Vindicator
Oblits

hmm that wasn't hard to do a IW army was it?

The problem is, apparently, that any jackass could paint it in Night Lords colors and call it Night Lords.

Which, apparently, there was no way to do last Codex.

Vaktathi
17-03-2008, 22:55
They broke down and replacements are hard to find without Chapters armouries and rest of imperium providing resources / spares. Assault Cannons tend to explode and kill user if poorly maintained (fluff no longer represented in rules), man-portable plasma cannons and multimelta are so sophisticated they were not used yet in times of Heresy, Land Speeders are quoted in 3,5 chaos codex as too maintaince-dependent for chaos legions to keep them. In general, if Chaos Legions don't have something, it's because it's too difficult to maintain, not necessarily because it was not availiable during heresy. When Renegade's equipment start failing, they usualy replace it with something autocannon based: effective, easily maintained and easily found in nearest Guard garnison.

This I all understand and makes sense for a Legion army.

However a *Renegade* chapter would have most of these. Such chapters would likely have stores and training to keep such things in use for a while. Why would they suddenly have Legion weapons from 10,000 years in the past and none of the normal SM stuff? Why would they suddenly lose more than half their arsenal and vehicle fleet and suddenly replace it with equipment that they've never used before and have no experience with? Huron's armies especially don't make sense to me, they are by no means old enough to have Legion equipment, and are in contact with the Imperium enough (through raiding and whatnot) to get what they need to maintain what they have.


The point was that why are Renegades equipped and organized just like Legion armies now?

Imperialis_Dominatus
17-03-2008, 22:58
Game balance.

Supremearchmarshal
17-03-2008, 23:03
Something that irks me about all this is that some people say the old codex straitjacketed all Khorne armies to play a certain way etc. while disregarding the fact that you didn't have to use the legion rules if you didn't want to. It was perfectly possible to field a Khorne force with Plague Marines to "count as" heavily armoured or cyber-enchanced Marines etc.

Vaktathi
17-03-2008, 23:03
Game balance.

Which I understand, but when taken as a whole product, the Chaos codex fails to do either Legions or Renegades well from a fluff or mechanics perspective, rather amalgamates them into one gooey average that does neither justice, and (at least in my experience) most people were more into Legions than Renegades, so I think the (poor) attempt at refocusing the army wasn't all that brilliant.

Why bother with fluff if it's going to be sacrificed in the name of balance? I understand and applaud the effort for balance, but they didn't exactly achieve that either (dual lash lists, etc...)

Pitalla Crimson
17-03-2008, 23:35
no more rules for the 10 thousand year legions and we have Gave Thorpe to thank.
It is true that he quitted GW, but loads of GW employees belive that Rick Priestly turned him into a Disgusting Nurgle Chaos Spawn.


This codex should had been Called Rouge Space Marines or Bad Space Marines.

DantesInferno
17-03-2008, 23:49
This I all understand and makes sense for a Legion army.

However a *Renegade* chapter would have most of these. Such chapters would likely have stores and training to keep such things in use for a while. Why would they suddenly have Legion weapons from 10,000 years in the past and none of the normal SM stuff? Why would they suddenly lose more than half their arsenal and vehicle fleet and suddenly replace it with equipment that they've never used before and have no experience with? Huron's armies especially don't make sense to me, they are by no means old enough to have Legion equipment, and are in contact with the Imperium enough (through raiding and whatnot) to get what they need to maintain what they have.


The point was that why are Renegades equipped and organized just like Legion armies now?

If you're playing a recently-turned Renegade army and think they should be using M41 Imperial gear, you can just use the Codex: Space Marines.

The only Chaos Codex to ever give people the option to include M41 Imperial gear for renegades was the 2nd edition codex, and it priced them at such a high premium that it wasn't a viable choice.

cailus
18-03-2008, 00:18
Which I understand, but when taken as a whole product, the Chaos codex fails to do either Legions or Renegades well from a fluff or mechanics perspective, rather amalgamates them into one gooey average that does neither justice, and (at least in my experience) most people were more into Legions than Renegades, so I think the (poor) attempt at refocusing the army wasn't all that brilliant.

Why bother with fluff if it's going to be sacrificed in the name of balance? I understand and applaud the effort for balance, but they didn't exactly achieve that either (dual lash lists, etc...)

I totally agree with you Vaktathi.

I was actually all for the new Chaos codex when the rumours about getting rid of the legion sublists just came out.

However the effect of getting rid of these lists has had an adverse effect on Chaos armies in my area.

Firstly, all the new new Chaos players have come up with roughly the same list that involves Plague Marines, Berzerkers, Obliterators, Terminators and Defilers. These lists are totally unfluffy and totally identical. When version 3.5 came out, the new players usually dived onto a legion bandwagon, thereby creating a diversity of armies.

Secondly, the gutting of things like Daemons was a very bad move. It's not that the Lesser Daemons are a poor choice but rather you have a great collection of different models all with the same boring rules.

Thirdly, existing Legion players found their armies to now be seriously lacknig in what initially attracted these people to that army. As a result some have quit.

Now we have rumours of Legion specific codexes and a confirmed Daemon book. LaTD have been scrapped unless you play Apocalypse.

All this is merely GW gouging their customers.

Version 3.5. attempted to provide the customer with a book that contained most of the Chaos forces, bar LaTD.

Now you'll have at least 2 books - one being the uber-generic characterless Codex Spiky Loyalists and a specific Codex Daemons. There is a possible 3rd codex in the form of Codex Legions thoguh this might be released as a hole heap of legion specific books that in many cases simply rehash certain elements of Codex Spiky Loyalists and add the odd different unit.

So we've gone from having one book that covered most of Chaos and an extra list for Lost and the Damned, to having two incompatible books and no codex Lost and the Damned whatsoever.

Sad state of affairs indeed.

It's also interesting that the Chaos codex was so gutted of any sort of flavour while the Ork codex actualy introduced a fair bit of it (inspite of some serious rules errors). It's also interesting that the Chaos codex gutted a lot of special rules etc whereas the Ork codex introduced many (Shokk Attakk Gun, Ramshackle etc).

Me thinks that somewhere in between codex Chaos and codex Orks tehre was a big change in codex design paradigm following the uproar about Chaos codex. And indeed according to some rumours the Ork codex was quickly re-written, hence all the typos.

The_Outsider
18-03-2008, 01:29
Hey guys, where's are my rules for Vect's Kabal in codex DE? I can't seem to find them.

Oh thats right - because you can make a powerful and fluffy list without special rules.

As far as marines go (loyalist or chaos) any force can be represented by A) self control in unit selection and B) a blue paint job instead of a red one.

Its a simple as that.

Before anyone screams "but...but SM get many codices...!!!!" GW is a business and space mariens sell 1 metric ****ton™ month in month out.

P.S Can someone please tell me where I can find the rules for the craftworlds in codex eldar? Thanks.

catbarf
18-03-2008, 01:34
If you're playing a recently-turned Renegade army and think they should be using M41 Imperial gear, you can just use the Codex: Space Marines.

Then you lose everything that makes them Chaos.


The only Chaos Codex to ever give people the option to include M41 Imperial gear for renegades was the 2nd edition codex, and it priced them at such a high premium that it wasn't a viable choice.

Sounds perfect. What's wrong with them having to pay a little extra for such gear?


Hey guys, where's are my rules for Vect's Kabal in codex DE? I can't seem to find them.

Oh thats right - because you can make a powerful and fluffy list without special rules.

As far as marines go (loyalist or chaos) any force can be represented by A) self control in unit selection and B) a blue paint job instead of a red one.

Its a simple as that.

Before anyone screams "but...but SM get many codices...!!!!" GW is a business and space mariens sell 1 metric ****ton™ month in month out.

P.S Can someone please tell me where I can find the rules for the craftworlds in codex eldar? Thanks.

Let's take this mindset to its logical conclusion. Chaos and Loyalists are now the same codex. Either of the two can be represented by A) self control in unit selection and B) a blue paint job instead of a red one. What's the difference?

Dartzstrong
18-03-2008, 01:36
What are these "pie plates?"

catbarf
18-03-2008, 01:38
What are these "pie plates?"

Ordnance blast.

Tymell
18-03-2008, 01:45
Some people like having Iron Warriors that differ from their friend's World Eaters.

And those people can make them different to their friend's world eaters, if they're prepared to accept change and not just whinge at everything they can.

Seriously, if you want an Iron Warrior army, then make one, there's nothing whatsoever stopping you. And if you really loathe player X because he has some things in his Iron Warrior army you don't think belong, then don't play him and be proud of the fact that you know you're getting it right.

Vaktathi
18-03-2008, 01:48
Hey guys, where's are my rules for Vect's Kabal in codex DE? I can't seem to find them.

Oh thats right - because you can make a powerful and fluffy list without special rules. Has Vect's cabal been described as operating in a substantially different manner than other Cabals? Not to my knowledge, and thus, no list is needed.




As far as marines go (loyalist or chaos) any force can be represented by A) self control in unit selection and B) a blue paint job instead of a red one.

Its a simple as that.

The problem is, to make a decent undivided shooty heavy list without resorting to unfluffy Cult noise marines, one has to tank on comp and take minimum troops in exchange for tons of Chosen and HS. The min/max problem remains, otherwise you are left with a more CC based route for most undivided armies.

The_Outsider
18-03-2008, 02:11
Has Vect's cabal been described as operating in a substantially different manner than other Cabals? Not to my knowledge, and thus, no list is needed.

Ok poor example - but the premise behind it holds true



The problem is, to make a decent undivided shooty heavy list without resorting to unfluffy Cult noise marines, one has to tank on comp and take minimum troops in exchange for tons of Chosen and HS. The min/max problem remains, otherwise you are left with a more CC based route for most undivided armies.

Is there anything to say an undivided force couldn't have say, daemon fused mechanical constructs using the same type of technology as defilers (i.e 1k sons)?

But I suppose if you look at things black and white (and no counts as) then you are right pretty much.

catbarf
18-03-2008, 03:38
Is there anything to say an undivided force couldn't have say, daemon fused mechanical constructs using the same type of technology as defilers (i.e 1k sons)?

Do pray tell how using Defilers will get me more heavy weapons in each squad, to follow IW fluff.


But I suppose if you look at things black and white (and no counts as) then you are right pretty much.

Do pray tell how counts as will get me five-man squads with Lascannons.

Joewrightgm
18-03-2008, 04:20
I think players need to let the past codex go.

And you can easily create Iron warriors. 3 Ordinance blasts from either defilers or vindicators, or 3 squads of 3 obliterators, season troops and HQ to taste.

Does it stink that Servo Arms are gone? yeah. Does it suck that the Basilisk went away? Probably not. Does it stink that the 4th Heavy Support slot is gone? Hell no.

Facing cold hard facts, the Iron Warrior legion rules had serious problems. That this was (perhaps predictably so) abused by players in a tournament setting.

So the facts are: the Iron Warriors legion rules should have been removed and have.

What does that leave us with? A flexible list that you can make whatever the Hell you want; including Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Word Bearers, etc.


Do pray tell how counts as will get me five-man squads with Lascannons.

It doesn't. Get used to it.


Do pray tell how using Defilers will get me more heavy weapons in each squad, to follow IW fluff.

It doesn't. Get used to it.

ehlijen
18-03-2008, 04:36
You want a 5 man squad with a lascannon? That's easy! Get 5 havocs and give one a lascannon! Done!

It was intentional that troops slots can no longer be abused as 'diet heavies' to improve the metagame (ie making it less futile to take tanks). This affects DA, BA, all chaos lists (not just IW who never had more troop heavy weapons available than anyone else) and soon all other loyalist marines as well. And IG has always had to deal with it.

cailus
18-03-2008, 05:15
What does that leave us with? A flexible list that you can make whatever the Hell you want; including Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Word Bearers, etc.

Iron Warriors - still possible albeit significant reduction in available firepower.

Alpha Legion is not really possible as the cultists have been removed and infiltrate is limited.

As for the other legions they're possible but no longer have half the cool rules.

Word Bearers lost the Dark Apostle with his special rules.

Nightlords just become Spiky Assault Marines. Raptor rules were gutted for no real reason. Also lost night fight rules.

Death Guard - lost Cult Terminators and Havocs as well as specialised daemons, wargear eliminated

World Eaters - lost cult specialised troops and daemons, lots of wargear eliminated.

Noise Marines - lost cult specialised troops and daemons, lots of wargear eliminated.

Thousand Sons - lost cult specialised troops and daemons, lots of wargear eliminated.

Basically if you want to play a dedicated Cult army, you have access to the basic unit (e.g. Berzerkers) and Lesser Daemons and that's kinda it for your infantry.

People can harp on about "counts as" but it's a really lame solution to go from a Cult list to a pseudo-list.

Quite simply GW ****ed up royally with the Chaos Codex.

Vaktathi
18-03-2008, 05:18
I think players need to let the past codex go.

And you can easily create Iron warriors. 3 Ordinance blasts from either defilers or vindicators, or 3 squads of 3 obliterators, season troops and HQ to taste.

Does it stink that Servo Arms are gone? yeah. Does it suck that the Basilisk went away? Probably not. Does it stink that the 4th Heavy Support slot is gone? Hell no.

Nobody is asking for the old rules back. Yes we know you can have 3 Vindi's or 3 squads of Oblits. That isn't what makes an Iron Warriors army however (and 3 ordnance weapons is nothing new, and not something that's exactly effective on its own). People keep harping on that. What makes it Iron Warriors is it's ability to be shooty. In the new codex, this is done primarily through Cult troops, otherwise (unless you tank on comp and min/max troops and buy mini-havoc chosen) the rest of your army is going to be more CC bent. Sure you can still have 9 Oblits, but again, unless your tanking comp or using non-fluffy units, the list will have a tendency towards CC rather than shooting. The most effective "IW-y" list with the new codex remains double-lash prince, Sonic blaster/blastmaster, 3 Oblits squad lists, which is decidedly unfluffy (not to mention Lash is broken as all hell, and as a Chaos player I'm hoping it gets nerfed)


The basic problem is, while trying to stay within established IW fluff, it's very difficult to create a shooty army and not min/max still. In the previous codex I could still have 4 eight man troops squads with a heavy bolter and a plasma gun in addition to six oblits, three preds and a termi lord with a retinue (at which point the only IW rule that was actually being utilized was the extra 3 Obliterators). I can't achieve anything near that level of firepower with the new codex without taking a bunch of Chosen units and dumping the troops while maxing out the HS. That and there is no logical reason to take Predators now, which makes me sad.



Facing cold hard facts, the Iron Warrior legion rules had serious problems. That this was (perhaps predictably so) abused by players in a tournament setting.


Nobody in this entire thread said anything to the contrary.




So the facts are: the Iron Warriors legion rules should have been removed and have. This is where we differ. Should they have removed the rules from the previous list? Yes. Should they have eliminated legions altogether? No.



What does that leave us with? A flexible list that you can make whatever the Hell you want; including Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Word Bearers, etc.


Again, this is where we differ. It gives us a list where we can do everything, and yet do nothing at the same time. I will admit you can probably do Night Lords better with the new codex, at least the way they appear to my mind, but that's about the only thing to me.

Everything else either became a watered down version of it's previous self (Berserker's now lose their fearlessness and WS5 and ability to charge furiously just because they have a different armor set than their bretheren and lose all their Khornate abilities if one dude with a banner dies?), Or became easier to do *only* if fluff is sacrificed.

DantesInferno
18-03-2008, 07:22
Nobody is asking for the old rules back. Yes we know you can have 3 Vindi's or 3 squads of Oblits. That isn't what makes an Iron Warriors army however (and 3 ordnance weapons is nothing new, and not something that's exactly effective on its own). People keep harping on that. What makes it Iron Warriors is it's ability to be shooty. In the new codex, this is done primarily through Cult troops, otherwise (unless you tank on comp and min/max troops and buy mini-havoc chosen) the rest of your army is going to be more CC bent. Sure you can still have 9 Oblits, but again, unless your tanking comp or using non-fluffy units, the list will have a tendency towards CC rather than shooting. The most effective "IW-y" list with the new codex remains double-lash prince, Sonic blaster/blastmaster, 3 Oblits squad lists, which is decidedly unfluffy (not to mention Lash is broken as all hell, and as a Chaos player I'm hoping it gets nerfed)

The basic problem is, while trying to stay within established IW fluff, it's very difficult to create a shooty army and not min/max still. In the previous codex I could still have 4 eight man troops squads with a heavy bolter and a plasma gun in addition to six oblits, three preds and a termi lord with a retinue (at which point the only IW rule that was actually being utilized was the extra 3 Obliterators). I can't achieve anything near that level of firepower with the new codex without taking a bunch of Chosen units and dumping the troops while maxing out the HS. That and there is no logical reason to take Predators now, which makes me sad.

This is exactly the sort of silly stereotyping the old Codex promoted. What makes an army Iron Warriors has nothing to do with its ability to be shooty. That's just ridiculous.

An army is not an Iron Warrior army because it's shooty. It's an Iron Warrior army because it consists of troops from the Iron Warriors Legion. Making Legion-specific lists just encourages the sorts of gross simplification and pigeonholing we saw in the previous Codex.

Vaktathi
18-03-2008, 07:42
This is exactly the sort of silly stereotyping the old Codex promoted. What makes an army Iron Warriors has nothing to do with its ability to be shooty. That's just ridiculous.
How so? The fluff from the Iron Warriors Index Astartes article, Storm of Iron, Dead Sky Black Sun, and the previous codex laid out very clearly how they operate in detail. Previous codex's merely gave fluff as to their character and mindset. These sources have all showed the Iron Warriors as a legion dependent on heavy firepower and minimal close combat, only closing to close combat once the heavy weapons have pounded everything to dust or when overwhelmed.

Do you have anything to show this is not so? Everything else says it is, and this isn't just from the 3.5 codex.



An army is not an Iron Warrior army because it's shooty. It's an Iron Warrior army because it consists of troops from the Iron Warriors Legion. Making Legion-specific lists just encourages the sorts of gross simplification and pigeonholing we saw in the previous Codex. Given the available fluff, I'd say trying to portray an IW army as a non-shooty army wouldn't be faithful at all.


Troops from the Iron Warriors legion would have a very heavy shooting aspect, and while there may be a CC component, the majority of the army would be there for firepower. A list of Berserkers, Daemons and Bikes for instance, would not be an Iron Warriors army in terms of fluff. Sure you could call it that, just as you could take a mechanized carapace army and call it a Catachan list.

lord_blackfang
18-03-2008, 09:14
Do pray tell how using Defilers will get me more heavy weapons in each squad, to follow IW fluff.

Do pray tell how counts as will get me five-man squads with Lascannons.

And here the truth comes out. All this moaning about fluff is really just moaning about 5 man las squads. Who's powergaming now? :rolleyes:

(Or can you show me a fluff citation that says IW field at least 1 lascannon for every five Marines? Come on, I dare you :evilgrin: )

lord_blackfang
18-03-2008, 09:21
Troops from the Iron Warriors legion would have a very heavy shooting aspect, and while there may be a CC component, the majority of the army would be there for firepower. A list of Berserkers, Daemons and Bikes for instance, would not be an Iron Warriors army in terms of fluff. Sure you could call it that, just as you could take a mechanized carapace army and call it a Catachan list.

Except that we don't actually field armies on the table, we field tiny detachments of (in the case of SM/CSM) 30-40 men.

And 30 guys don't have to be representative of the army as a whole. If the US sends 30 of its soldiers somewhere, I doubt the group will include the exact same proportions of grunts, commandos, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc. as in the US armed forces as a whole. In fact, it'll probably be a rather homogenous force, as forces tasked with a specific objective tend to be.

So it it that unrealistic to say that the 30 IW guys you bring to the table happen to be the assault specialists designated to enter the breach in enemy fortifications?

Vaktathi
18-03-2008, 09:52
And here the truth comes out. All this moaning about fluff is really just moaning about 5 man las squads. Who's powergaming now? :rolleyes:

(Or can you show me a fluff citation that says IW field at least 1 lascannon for every five Marines? Come on, I dare you :evilgrin: )



We don't all want to fit 9 oblits with min max'd 5man las/plas squads and 4 ordnance weapons into 1500pt armies again, especially those who didn't do so in the first place. Admittedly I will admit I won't agree with the poster you quoted (although Counts As will get you 5man Blastmaster squads if one really must have 5man anti-tank squads), but not *all* of us want that, I don't think most of us want that. Hell, I never found 5man lascannon squads attractive. The smallest squads I fielded with the previous codex was 6man HB squads, more typically 8 man.

That said, IW fluff does emphasize that IW use the absolute minimum number of troops coupled with the maximum number of heavy weapons they can utilize (Index Astartes) but you won't find anything about 5man Lascannon squads specifically of course. That's a case of GW allowing too much leeway with army lists.

What we want is to be able to field an undivided IW army with maybe one or two Khorne marked units that's capable of putting out decent firepower without having to resort to "Counts As" for half the army or tanking comp scores. You can make a decent shooting list with the current Chaos codex, but IW don't field Noise Marines or Thousand Sons, and while you still have the option to just toss in the minimum number of troops and tank comp scores and dump all your points into Oblits and Chosen, why should one be forced to do so to maintain both fluffiness and firepower?


For instance, in a theoretical IW list, if IW termi's could say, be taken in squads of 3-12 and take a Reaper autocannon for every 3 terminators at the cost of some of the CC options (say 1 powerfist or pair of LC's for every 5 Termi's?) and limit Champions to one per squad and limit it to either an Undivided or a Khorne Icon, I think that would be fair. Therefore you get very shooty termi's that are going to likely be heavy fire bases, but not heavy CC units. Instead of a heavy 6 mini-HQ LC champs w/6 attacks on the charge, You may get 6man double RAC squads with a single powerfist and a couple combi-weapons acting as firebases. I think a unit like that would fit perfectly in with an IW army and still be fairly balanced (especially at about 300pts). Maybe allow IW troops to take a 2nd heavy weapon in place of the special weapon for Havoc squad prices?

A theoretical list I came up with for IW in another thread is here (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2336435&postcount=99), obviously not perfect, but you can get a general idea of what I'm trying to get at there.


Except that we don't actually field armies on the table, we field tiny detachments of (in the case of SM/CSM) 30-40 men.

And 30 guys don't have to be representative of the army as a whole. If the US sends 30 of its soldiers somewhere, I doubt the group will include the exact same proportions of grunts, commandos, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc. as in the US armed forces as a whole. In fact, it'll probably be a rather homogenous force, as forces tasked with a specific objective tend to be.

So it it that unrealistic to say that the 30 IW guys you bring to the table happen to be the assault specialists designated to enter the breach in enemy fortifications?


People design armies around the theme of the army as a whole. Of course, you can take any force, paint it in whatever colors and call it that army. You could take SM Terminators, paint them blood angels colors, and then use Deathwing rules for them. Are they Blood Angels termi's? By their paint scheme, yes. For all other intents and purposes, they are Dark Angels Deathwing Terminators. Again, I could take a carapace IG mechanized army and call it a Catachan breaching force. Would anyone really look at it as a Catachan army? No.

You could take 30 Wraithguard and 3 Wraithlords and a couple fire dragons and paint it in Ulthwe colors. Will most people actually think Ulthwe when they see it on the table? No, they will think Inyanden. Is such a force possible considering the Ulthwe craftworld? Sure, 100%. Is that how people actually see Ulthwe playing on the table? No. Is that what most Ulthwe players would play? No.

The idea of the army as a whole is what is used as the basis for the tabletop force. You can find exceptions for just about any army out there. But if you want to walk that line whats the point of making distinct army entities in the first place?

BrainFireBob
18-03-2008, 10:02
Vaktathi-

You read the post he quoted, and the excerpt he provided? He wasn't accusing you, he was pointing out a truth- so often those who loudly claim it's about fluff come around to asking where their five-man lascannon squads are.

Well, they don't exist in game, and there's zero fluff about five-man lascannon squads being how the IW field their troops. By fluff, lascannons wouldn't be a commonly expected weapon- they're supposed to only be efficient at taking out tanks. Since the mechanics don't work that way, people associate shooty IW with things like lots of lascannons.

Actually, shooty configurations would be preferred. The *most shooty* would use Noise Marines, but it doesn't have to, and Noise Marines are only *most shooty* because of rules mechanics that have absolutely nothing to do with the fluff whatsoever!

EDIT: I think I was unclear. Fine, Vaktathi, you don't care about 5 man las teams. You are not the only person on your side of the debate- or rather, you may be, take a good luck at the arguments being presented parallel to yours before assuming they're all aimed at you.

For the record, different armies are created for different playstyles, or to provide dynamism to the story of 40K, give us a reason to game. The scale of the game doesn't lend itself well to micro differences, so those minor differences needed generally major rules changes to make them distinctive at all, and those tossed game balance out the window. They are now gone. This is why Legion lists left, just like Craftworld lists. You may not agree. Understanding why does not require agreement. Acknowledging that those who write the "official rules" do agree with the reasoning does not require you to agree, but does require you to abide if you want to attend their events (you are free not to, of course).

For the record, removing the Legion sublists did not kill your dog, make your wife leave you, or worst of all, destroy your truck. Ergo, life is not a tragic blues country sock. It is done. Not agreeing does not make it the *wrong* decision, unless one has a monopoly on absolute truth and all absolute truth.

Now, there's sympathy for models out of commission this edition- which consists of cultists.

There's sympathy for those who converted and had those conversions rendered "useless" in and of themselves (cult terminators), but hey, at least those models weren't shelved, like cultists. They're still useable, and they'll probably make a comeback someday (like cultists). This is the nature of an iterative rules-set, and really, the treat of being a Vet. Much as it sucks to lose your Harlies, how awesome was it to get them back when the 4th Ed 'dex came out? Pretty damn awesome, that's how much, with "pretty damn" being a number between "a lot" and "whoopee!"

As to the fluff argument, there is not a distinction drawn at this time on 40K scale between, say, regular Icon'd Chaos Terminators and Cult Terminators. This does not mean that fluffwise there isn't one, but the current rules do not provide a sufficient range of variability in ability to meaningfully distinguish them from each other within the scale of a standard 40K game. It's the "meaningfully distinguished" part that's relevent. Do IW favor guns? Hells yes! Do they favor guns so much more than other Chaos forces that their limited "extra" gunniness- extensive use of Titan-Terminator bearing assault pods, Bassies maintained solely by the First Great Company appear in even 40K scale elements of their armies? No, or rather, they'd appear in a tiny, tiny fraction, and on the scale of 40K, it'd be unbalancing, so it's not allowed (game design decision). If you want to go to a scale of game that these divergences would matter, one has been provided inclusive with rules for batteries of such weapons. That's not a coincidence.

MORE Edit: I say all this as an IW player, and one that's damned glad he won't be told his Siegebreaker/Trenchsmasher force (under GW-worthy Edixo Suorref) was docked comp because it had neither Oblits nor pie-plates.

Vaktathi
18-03-2008, 10:09
Vaktathi-

You read the post he quoted, and the excerpt he provided? He wasn't accusing you, he was pointing out a truth- so often those who loudly claim it's about fluff come around to asking where their five-man lascannon squads are. Yes, I edited my post to reflect that.

I'll totally agree with respect to 5man lascannon squads, the whole min/max thing is something GW should have caught in the first place, although the same people that would abuse that are the same people that will abuse any list (double-lash prince, triple holofield clown spam, etc...). IW fluff supports lots of heavy weapons with few numbers, but if anything, a 5man squad would probably have melta/plasmaguns or a heavy bolter instead of a lascannon, and with Iron Warriors would probably be a 6man squad anyway (given that IW have a tendency, although not a mandatory organization, to operate in multiples of 3)

BrainFireBob
18-03-2008, 10:21
I run mine in 9's, or did. Now I'm running three squads of 10- 9 troopers and an Aspiring Champ, for three champs commanding 3X3 marines each. Well, the third Aspiring champ, the third of three in charge of 3X3, is actually a Chaos Lord, but you get the idea.

DantesInferno
18-03-2008, 10:39
What we want is to be able to field an undivided IW army with maybe one or two Khorne marked units that's capable of putting out decent firepower without having to resort to "Counts As" for half the army or tanking comp scores. You can make a decent shooting list with the current Chaos codex, but IW don't field Noise Marines or Thousand Sons, and while you still have the option to just toss in the minimum number of troops and tank comp scores and dump all your points into Oblits and Chosen, why should one be forced to do so to maintain both fluffiness and firepower?

So really, your complaint is that it isn't as points-efficient to buy heavy weapons anymore?

Tough - squad-based heavy weaponry was far too cheap all the way through 3rd ed. Making it less efficient to buy massed BS4 lascannon is a good thing.


People design armies around the theme of the army as a whole. Of course, you can take any force, paint it in whatever colors and call it that army. You could take SM Terminators, paint them blood angels colors, and then use Deathwing rules for them. Are they Blood Angels termi's? By their paint scheme, yes. For all other intents and purposes, they are Dark Angels Deathwing Terminators. Again, I could take a carapace IG mechanized army and call it a Catachan breaching force. Would anyone really look at it as a Catachan army? No.

You could take 30 Wraithguard and 3 Wraithlords and a couple fire dragons and paint it in Ulthwe colors. Will most people actually think Ulthwe when they see it on the table? No, they will think Inyanden. Is such a force possible considering the Ulthwe craftworld? Sure, 100%. Is that how people actually see Ulthwe playing on the table? No. Is that what most Ulthwe players would play? No.

The idea of the army as a whole is what is used as the basis for the tabletop force. You can find exceptions for just about any army out there. But if you want to walk that line whats the point of making distinct army entities in the first place?

This is exactly my point with stereotyping! An Ulthwe army with lots of Wraith constructs is an Ulthwe army! It's not an Iyanden army in disguise.

Craftworlds are huge, and are able to field wildly different forces depending on the context. If the predictions of an Ulthwe Seer showed that a specific engagement was important for the security of the Craftworld, s/he isn't going to wait around until a bunch of Guardians can be rounded up "because that's what Ulthwe armies are really like"!

The point of the background distinguishing different Craftworlds, Chapters, Legions, Regiments and so on is to make the 40k background a more interesting place. It's to give the players a better grasp of how varied warfare in the 41st millennium can be.

It's not there so you can look down your nose at someone who makes a wraith-themed Ulthwe army.

Lord Damocles
18-03-2008, 10:52
Is this still going on? Geeese...

I agree 100% with Dante above. A disturbing number of players seem to loose all creativity, imagination, common sense etc. as soon as GW tells them they can do someting.

The IW varient list was made stupidly shooty in an attempt to make it obviously different to the other varient lists. Now players often seem to be unable to invisage an IW force which doesn't just stand and shoot until the enemy falls over. (The exact same thing happened with Apocalypse - GW said 'look, now you can play big games!' and suddenly most people couldn't understand how a large game could be played without a vortex grenade).

Every siege force needs to actually attack sooner or later, and the force which storms the breach in the enemy fortifications is much better represented at 40K scale than a besieging force which just sits behind vast batteries of long range guns for months on end.

Vaktathi
18-03-2008, 11:27
So really, your complaint is that it isn't as points-efficient to buy heavy weapons anymore?

Tough - squad-based heavy weaponry was far too cheap all the way through 3rd ed. Making it less efficient to buy massed BS4 lascannon is a good thing.


Ugh, no, my point was that the Chaos codex, when it comes to individed armies, is much more CC oriented, and to make a decent shooting list you have to min/max and tank on comp if you don't want to go to town on "Counts As". *Everything* went up in cost with the new codex. I'm not necessarily saying anything is wrong with that, many weapons and wargear were undercosted. However the current undivided marine paradigm is a more closely dedicated CC force than a shooty force. Most of the units were redesigned to favor close combat more than shooting.

The codex as a whole doesn't do any particular army justice, it's just a calculated average than *can* do all of them, just none well, hence why we now have semi-substantiated rumors of a Legions book.

And honestly, if people think the new Chaos book is any less abuseable, they are wrong, it just does it in different ways. Seeing an 1850pt necron army phased out turn 2 and losing 3700-0 to a double-lash prince Oblit-Tson-Blastmaster spam was...interesting.




This is exactly my point with stereotyping! An Ulthwe army with lots of Wraith constructs is an Ulthwe army! It's not an Iyanden army in disguise.

Craftworlds are huge, and are able to field wildly different forces depending on the context. If the predictions of an Ulthwe Seer showed that a specific engagement was important for the security of the Craftworld, s/he isn't going to wait around until a bunch of Guardians can be rounded up "because that's what Ulthwe armies are really like"!

The point of the background distinguishing different Craftworlds, Chapters, Legions, Regiments and so on is to make the 40k background a more interesting place. It's to give the players a better grasp of how varied warfare in the 41st millennium can be.

It's not there so you can look down your nose at someone who makes a wraith-themed Ulthwe army.
I'm not saying it's there to deride players for making whatever they please, but at the same time it's there to provide a guideline for armies. A Wraith army would most likely be found from Inyanden, a mechanized IG army most likely from Armageddon, etc...

Don't get me wrong, I can see what you are trying to say, and I agree up to a point, but at the same time I think that armies generally should nominally follow how their fluff states they normally operate, as I think it makes more sense for an army that will face multiple adversaries and to keep the background of a faction intact. An Inyanden army of Guardians for instance could exist, but are they really going to throw it against the Imperial Guard or Orks on some random battlefield? Probably not. Against Tyranids in desperate defense of their craftworld? Yes. But wasting Eldar lives against lowly mon'keigh or Greenskins when the dead can be brought back and do it without wasting valuable lives? Probably not. It's an exception. Of course I realize this applies to many other sorts of things as well, but it does count for something. How often would Ulthwe organize and field a Ghost army? Probably only in reaction to a specific threat, not as a standing unit. As a permanent take-all comers army, such would probably be odd. Is an average Iron Warriors force (even if just meeting an opponent in open battle, not a siege) going to have more Raptors and bikes or more Terminators and Tanks? More autocannons and meltaguns or lightning claws and power axe's?

If fluff exists for an army, but you are going to use it as an exception for another army, why not just use it with the army that operates that way as the rule, rather than the one that operates that way only in the exception, or better yet, make your own! Otherwise a lot of the feel of the faction as a whole starts to wear off.( You get the same sort of thing in MMO's when you've killed the legendary Ragnaros the Elemental Lord of Fire or the infamous Illidan 23 times)

And yes, there are in many cases, army builds that simply would not exist in certain armies.

DantesInferno
18-03-2008, 13:08
Ugh, no, my point was that the Chaos codex, when it comes to individed armies, is much more CC oriented, and to make a decent shooting list you have to min/max and tank on comp if you don't want to go to town on "Counts As". *Everything* went up in cost with the new codex. I'm not necessarily saying anything is wrong with that, many weapons and wargear were undercosted. However the current undivided marine paradigm is a more closely dedicated CC force than a shooty force. Most of the units were redesigned to favor close combat more than shooting.

Again, not something I have a problem with. Marine armies have always encouraged far too much static heavy weaponry: it's about time that there was a shift towards close assault. It is, after all, what the Marines do best.

And that's not really a problem for Iron Warriors. If you want to make a static shooting army, you still can. It just won't be as efficient as it was.

But after all, Iron Warriors aren't meant to just be static shooting armies. Their IA, for instance, comments on their abilities to rapidly redeploy their troops to make the most of enemy weak points or counter-attacks. Just lining up all your troops with heavy weaponry on one side of the board is never how the Iron Warriors were meant to play.


And honestly, if people think the new Chaos book is any less abuseable, they are wrong, it just does it in different ways. Seeing an 1850pt necron army phased out turn 2 and losing 3700-0 to a double-lash prince Oblit-Tson-Blastmaster spam was...interesting.

No-one's saying that the 4.0 Chaos Codex is perfect, particularly when it comes to balance issues.


Don't get me wrong, I can see what you are trying to say, and I agree up to a point, but at the same time I think that armies generally should nominally follow how their fluff states they normally operate, as I think it makes more sense for an army that will face multiple adversaries and to keep the background of a faction intact. An Inyanden army of Guardians for instance could exist, but are they really going to throw it against the Imperial Guard or Orks on some random battlefield? Probably not. Against Tyranids in desperate defense of their craftworld? Yes. But wasting Eldar lives against lowly mon'keigh or Greenskins when the dead can be brought back and do it without wasting valuable lives? Probably not. It's an exception. Of course I realize this applies to many other sorts of things as well, but it does count for something. How often would Ulthwe organize and field a Ghost army? Probably only in reaction to a specific threat, not as a standing unit. As a permanent take-all comers army, such would probably be odd. Is an average Iron Warriors force (even if just meeting an opponent in open battle, not a siege) going to have more Raptors and bikes or more Terminators and Tanks? More autocannons and meltaguns or lightning claws and power axe's?

So if we agree that the stereotypes often presented by faction sub-codices (eg Iron Warriors = shooty) don't represent the entirety of the faction, why should all the armies from a particular faction be forced to play a certain way?

After all, I suspect there are so many players with static Iron Warrior armies that my Iron Warrior mobile strike force is entirely proportionate as far as the background is concerned...


If fluff exists for an army, but you are going to use it as an exception for another army, why not just use it with the army that operates that way as the rule, rather than the one that operates that way only in the exception, or better yet, make your own! Otherwise a lot of the feel of the faction as a whole starts to wear off.( You get the same sort of thing in MMO's when you've killed the legendary Ragnaros the Elemental Lord of Fire or the infamous Illidan 23 times)

I designed my army as an Iron Warrior strike force precisely because I liked the Iron Warriors' background. Just because, say, the Night Lords or Black Legion also use mobile strike forces doesn't invalidate in any way my desire to collect an Iron Warriors army.

Surely your example of killing Illidan 23 times applies in exactly the opposite manner to this debate? Who wants to fight yet another static Iron Warrior army....

catbarf
18-03-2008, 14:02
It doesn't. Get used to it.

That seems familiar:


This is going to happen, every army, every Codex. Not everyone respects the sanctity of fluff. It has been so since the dawn of gaming itself. Learn to deal?

And now we're right back to the same 'LOL LERN2PLAY' as before. Around and around the reasoning goes, where will it stop? Nobody knows!

Iron Warriors use very few troops but many heavy weapons. The new codex does not reflect this, and does not allow the option. Ergo, I cannot make an IW army that truly follows the fluff.


And here the truth comes out. All this moaning about fluff is really just moaning about 5 man las squads. Who's powergaming now?

Well, if you really want to be nitpicky, let's just replace 'Lascannon' with 'Heavy Bolter'. Point still stands.


Just lining up all your troops with heavy weaponry on one side of the board is never how the Iron Warriors were meant to play.


Running your entire army into melee combat isn't how they were meant to play either. The only way to get a good shooting army in the current codex is through min-maxing or 'counts-as'.


So if we agree that the stereotypes often presented by faction sub-codices (eg Iron Warriors = shooty) don't represent the entirety of the faction, why should all the armies from a particular faction be forced to play a certain way?

After all, I suspect there are so many players with static Iron Warrior armies that my Iron Warrior mobile strike force is entirely proportionate as far as the background is concerned...

You play your army according to the normal rules, then. It most accurately reflects the strike force mentality of your list. However, the default Codex does not accurately reflect the shooty Iron Warriors armies.

boogle
18-03-2008, 15:11
IW are siege troops, and you don't HAVE to take lots of Heavy Weapons to break a siege, Vindicators would do the bulk of the work, as would Defilers, Dreads and Chosen (3-4 Melta Weapons anyone?) to help expand the breaches/assault the walls, followed up by the ground troops, add a Daemon Prince, it's not hard to make a background friendly IW army with just a little bit of thought

Joewrightgm
18-03-2008, 15:14
@ Catbarf:

If it sounded like "lern2play", it was not intended. Its just that with any codex revision, a paradigm shift with how you play your army has to happen even at a very subtle level most times with most army books.

But honestly, trying to represent anything exclusively and faithfully to fluff leads to Codex: Movie Marines in WD 300. Its just not possible or practical really.

My .02, I'm punching out.

Supremearchmarshal
18-03-2008, 15:34
This is exactly my point with stereotyping! An Ulthwe army with lots of Wraith constructs is an Ulthwe army! It's not an Iyanden army in disguise.

Craftworlds are huge, and are able to field wildly different forces depending on the context. If the predictions of an Ulthwe Seer showed that a specific engagement was important for the security of the Craftworld, s/he isn't going to wait around until a bunch of Guardians can be rounded up "because that's what Ulthwe armies are really like"!

The point of the background distinguishing different Craftworlds, Chapters, Legions, Regiments and so on is to make the 40k background a more interesting place. It's to give the players a better grasp of how varied warfare in the 41st millennium can be.

It's not there so you can look down your nose at someone who makes a wraith-themed Ulthwe army.

Ok, so will you then please explain how did the old codex not allow you to field for example an assault-orientated or rapid-strike IW list?

a) They did not have to switch the 2 FA choices for HS. It was perfectly possible to take 3 Bike squads if you wanted.

b) It was by no means compulsory to take a Basilisk, an Indirect Fire Defiler, 9 Obliterators or whatever.

c) Assault units available to IW: any HQ choice, Chosen (they could have any number of Aspiring Champions, or be a squad of LC Terminators), Possessed, Chaos Space Marines in Rhinos and with pistol+CCW. Havocs, Chosen or Raptors with 4 special weapons could also work as a hard-hitting close support unit.

d) Rapid Strike - just about any unit can take a Rhino plus you have winged DP, Raptors, Bikers, Winged Possessed.

e) You could do even less orthodox IW, like many Infiltrating Chosen and/or Havocs, or a tide of assault cyborgs (since IW Possessed were described to be more like that).

f) as I have already stated, you didn't necessarily have to use the legion rules, especially if you did a force that is not standard for its Legion - for example using the standard list you could still have the Siege Specialists skills, Obliterators (not as many though, but this isn't a "standard" force, right?) etc. plus you could for example add Khorne Berzerkers, or even Plague Marines to represent cyber-enhanced Marines.

Bottom line: Why didn't people use the above? Because those builds weren't 100% cost-efficient.
So is the idea poor? Or it's execution? Or does the fault lie in the players themselves? Or are the game rules in general flawed and reward min-maxing?

Master Jeridian
18-03-2008, 15:37
Could someone quote to me please the section in the IA or anywhere else where it states IW's are supposed to min/max, that their theme is power gaming?

All I can hear when someone says "I can't make an IW's army any more" is "I can't min/max and produce abusive static shooty armies."

As many other's have said- the Iron Warriors speciality is siege warfare, this applies on a strategic level (i.e. far above the level of 40k). At 40k level you could have the Breach Assault force, or you could sit several miles away and bombard the enemy fortification for several months- I know which makes a more interesting 40k game.

Breach Assault force doesn't just mean they are all close-combat nuts either- people keep thinking way too narrowly about fluff. The Assault force will have it's share of heavy weapons, and may even be just about mobile firepower, with Rhino mounted troops to push passed the Breach and into the fortress (these things could be city sized in 40k).


But let's pretend for the moment that the IW's whole 10,000yr history has been dumbed down to just be about static shooty min/maxed armies.
It was broken, and boring to play against.
First and foremost, this is a game, if your fluff is to powergame- then it may have to be sacrified for gameplay.

My Inquisition armies should be able to Exterminatus the planet and roast my opponent's army whenever I'm close to losing the game....it isn't possible in the game, despite far more fluff about it than about IW's min/maxing, because it is boring and unfair to the opponent.


Or put another- how would you the IW's player design a variant army list that isn't just a normal Chaos list plus lots of abusive extra rules?

catbarf
18-03-2008, 15:44
@ Catbarf:

If it sounded like "lern2play", it was not intended. Its just that with any codex revision, a paradigm shift with how you play your army has to happen even at a very subtle level most times with most army books.

But honestly, trying to represent anything exclusively and faithfully to fluff leads to Codex: Movie Marines in WD 300. Its just not possible or practical really.

My .02, I'm punching out.

Oh, I see, sorry for my misunderstanding. I do agree that you cannot take the fluff entirely literally, but I think here it is a little more than a subtle paradigm shift. The option for few troops/many guns is just about gone.


Could someone quote to me please the section in the IA or anywhere else where it states IW's are supposed to min/max, that their theme is power gaming?

All I can hear when someone says "I can't make an IW's army any more" is "I can't min/max and produce abusive static shooty armies."

IW Index Astartes article states that Iron Warriors use few troops but heavy firepower. This translates to five-man squads with a special and a heavy weapon. Perhaps using six squads of 5-man Las/Plas would be min-maxing, but would using meltaguns, flamers, and heavy bolters be?


Could someone quote to me please the section in the IA or anywhere else where it states IW's are supposed to min/max, that their theme is power gaming?

All I can hear when someone says "I can't make an IW's army any more" is "I can't min/max and produce abusive static shooty armies."

Allow small squads to have heavy weapons. Charge more points for mobile units. Have severe restrictions on God-aligned troops.

In general, provide a few bonuses coupled with disproportionate weaknesses. That's how you balance variant lists, by making them slightly weak in return for their specialization.

lord_blackfang
18-03-2008, 15:48
Well, if you really want to be nitpicky, let's just replace 'Lascannon' with 'Heavy Bolter'. Point still stands.

Yes, it does. The point being that what you really want is a heavy weapon for every 5 guys, but you try to rationalize it with fluff.

Reminds me of the Slaanesh players who whined that generic Daemons aren't fluffy. Apparently there's some little known fluff out there that says Daemonettes instantly kill anyone they touch 1/6 of the time. Must be in the same book that says IW have exactly 1 heavy for every 5 guys.

boogle
18-03-2008, 15:53
Supremearchmarshal - you have hit the nail on the head, people didn't want to choose the non 'standard lists' that were offered up to them, because they would then have to think about their army selections, i had an IW army, i had the Bassie and Vindicator, but i took neither in the 4 games i played with them (i sold them because there was a lot of FW in there,not because i didn't like them), i even created a back story for their lack of siege stuff

catbarf, i fail to see how fewer troops plus heavier firepower equals 5 man squads? This could mean instead of 20man squds that other Legions take, they take 10, allowing them to have a Plasma Gun and Lascannon if so desired

catbarf
18-03-2008, 15:53
Yes, it does. The point being that what you really want is a heavy weapon for every 5 guys, but you try to rationalize it with fluff.

And in return for getting a heavy weapon for every five guys, I use no daemons, very few god-aligned troops, and nothing fast. It's a themed army, and it is directly following established background material. What exactly is the problem here?

Supremearchmarshal
18-03-2008, 16:07
catbarf, i fail to see how fewer troops plus heavier firepower equals 5 man squads? This could mean instead of 20man squds that other Legions take, they take 10, allowing them to have a Plasma Gun and Lascannon if so desired

I agree there - fewer troops more firepower can mean what catbarf said, but it can also mean fewer marines and more Obliterators, or more tanks etc.

boogle
18-03-2008, 16:09
And in return for getting a heavy weapon for every five guys, I use no daemons, very few god-aligned troops, and nothing fast. It's a themed army, and it is directly following established background material. What exactly is the problem here?

Where exactly does it say that IW squad sets ups are 5 men strong?

catbarf
18-03-2008, 16:10
I agree there - fewer troops more firepower can mean what catbarf said, but it can also mean fewer marines and more Obliterators, or more tanks etc.

Well, I think this is a situation of a fine line between theme and min-maxing. I would say that using five-man squads with heavy weapons (with little daemon support) or Fast Attack would fall under theme. Using the points saved to buy Obliterators, Siren Princes, or 2K Sons would be min-maxing.


Where exactly does it say that IW squad sets ups are 5 men strong?

Already been said, Index Astartes article states that they use few troops supported with large numbers of heavy weapons. Needing ten men for every Heavy Bolter defeats this.

boogle
18-03-2008, 16:12
since when did few = 5?

catbarf
18-03-2008, 16:26
since when did few = 5?

Since when did few = 10?

lord_blackfang
18-03-2008, 16:36
And in return for getting a heavy weapon for every five guys, I use no daemons, very few god-aligned troops, and nothing fast. It's a themed army, and it is directly following established background material. What exactly is the problem here?

The problem is that GW has finally realized that restricting some units isn't an appropriate balancing factor for beefing up others.

For one thing, it gives an advantage based on paint scheme. Why woud you get a second heavy just for having Boltgun Metal Marines compared to another Chaos player who chose not to field any Daemons, Cults and Fast Attack, but paints his stuff green?

Secondly, you're trying to shoe-horn all IW armies into the same mould. Someone on this thread already said he had a fast IW army. Whare would your rules leave him?

And finally...
Can my Thousand Sons ger Rending Bolters if I don't field any Daemons, Chaos Spawn or Possessed?

catbarf
18-03-2008, 16:44
The problem is that GW has finally realized that restricting some units isn't an appropriate balancing factor for beefing up others.

They've done it with Guard. Several doctrines are free and give very powerful benefits. The downside is that you lose access to some units.


For one thing, it gives an advantage based on paint scheme. Why woud you get a second heavy just for having Boltgun Metal Marines compared to another Chaos player who chose not to field any Daemons, Cults and Fast Attack, but paints his stuff green?

You, among others, advocate using paint schemes and 'counts-as' to use god-specific troops, as well as for theme. So here's an idea: Paint your Marines any way you like, and you can use 'counts-as' to use the IW rules.

And besides, are you really suggesting that color scheme is the only thing differentiating IW from other Chaos Marines? That there isn't enough of a difference in organization to warrant a different list?


Secondly, you're trying to shoe-horn all IW armies into the same mould. Someone on this thread already said he had a fast IW army. Whare would your rules leave him?

As I already said, he could just use the normal Chaos list, which fits his needs perfectly. As a long-range siege list with little fast attack and low numbers of men supported with high numbers of heavy weapons, the normal Chaos list is not suitable.


And finally...
Can my Thousand Sons ger Rending Bolters if I don't field any Daemons, Chaos Spawn or Possessed?

Not enough of a handicap, not supported by fluff, so no.

Salmon
18-03-2008, 16:49
Where exactly does it say that IW squad sets ups are 5 men strong?

It never does, nor does it say precisely the ratio of boltgun to special and heavy weapon is to be deduced, but under last edition’s codex, in troops units, it would have been 3:1:1 or 3:2, now it is 4:1, which is indeed the way that most armies are going and reflect a paradigm shift in 40k as part of a backlash against min-maxing, reflected also in rumoured rules changes pertaining to the sole scoring nature of troops choices. What really gets my goat in all of this is that many of my fellow Iron Warrior players are clamouring for 5 man squads with heavy weapons, rather than six man, or nine man, as fluff should demand, if anything, what they should be requesting is this with regards to heavy and special weapons; An increase in the minimum squad size of Iron Warriors powered armoured infantry and jump infantry from five to six; The reduction in the threshold for access to a second weapon for terminators and basic chaos space marines with a dedicated transport from ten to nine.

This would provide incentives to possess squads which obey the rule of three, as established as a piece of fluff in the index astartes article and onwards, for at the moment, unfluffy 10 man terminator squads are rendered far superior to 9 man ones, and if one desires a heavy weapon toting squad in a rhino that is not a havoc, then the unfluffy 10 man squad is the way to go (foot squads, of course, should, if desiring a heavy weapon, possess 12 men). This would provide a better return to fluff for Iron Warriors than 5 man las/plas squads ever could, and any other problems with the depicted of Iron Warriors in the codex should be attributed to the inadequate rules for Legionary Chaos Space Marines, rather than renegade chapter based ones (that is to say, non codex champion equipment, appropriately balanced, along with balanced veteran skills and mark restrictions). So, while I agree that a modicum of revision is needed, the return to five man squads with howls of “but they need a high heavy weapon/boltgun ratio” is about the last thing the Iron Warriors need.

Edit: aha! More intrusion into thread, now with opposition to Blackfang in addition to Catbarf

[QUOTE]The problem is that GW has finally realized that restricting some units isn't an appropriate balancing factor for beefing up others.[QUOTE]

I’m pretty sure the restriction of combinations is a perfectly reasonable ground for a boost, for instance, Iron Warriors, if they were deprived of the option to utilise marks other than those of Chaos Glory, would be deprived of the ability to take Slaaneshi sorcerers in combination with their prodigious firepower, thereby depriving them of the (perhaps overpowered) ability to pull enemy units out of cover and rain death upon them. Loss of daemons combined with the fact that one purchases icons now (5 points per squad, one must assume, from the cult troop entries) in order to gain the mark of chaos glory would also necessitate some minor boost (for instance, the gain of siege engineers* USR, a rule which, in my time as playing as an Iron Warrior, only arose during a siege campaign fought between my Iron Warriors and a friend’s Black Templars; hardly an ability that makes itself felt in normal play, but a fluffy nicety nonetheless.)

This having been said, I do agree with you on most of your other points (save for paint scheme), especially with regards to the pigeon holing of Iron Warrior armies, not to mention your jibe earlier at the ‘unfluffiness of generic lesser slaanieshi daemons’.

*To defend this from the argument that siege warfare occurs on apocalypse level and beyond, not on the skirmish level of 40K, I would concede the fluff point, but maintain my support of the rule on the grounds that even on this skirmish level, the superior experience and focus of Iron Warriors on sieges renders it probably that individually, or at a squad level, they would have greater proficiency at dealing with fortifications.

Vaktathi
18-03-2008, 17:50
Again, not something I have a problem with. Marine armies have always encouraged far too much static heavy weaponry: it's about time that there was a shift towards close assault. It is, after all, what the Marines do best.

But after all, Iron Warriors aren't meant to just be static shooting armies. Their IA, for instance, comments on their abilities to rapidly redeploy their troops to make the most of enemy weak points or counter-attacks. Just lining up all your troops with heavy weaponry on one side of the board is never how the Iron Warriors were meant to play. Why does everyone assume Shooty=Static? None of my IW armies have been particularly static. My previous army had lots of deep striking units that would move and shoot (or assault in the Termi's case) and tanks that always kept moving (and the army as a whole had a rather gaping CC vulnerability which I was fine with), the only thing static was the Troops squads when they wanted to heavy bolter something. With the current codex, no shooty army is going to be static either unless its just a bunch of Havoc squads, most of the builds I've used have actually been Terminator heavy and thus deep striking and movement is common, the main difficulty is the troops seem to have very little purpose besides icons or CC meatshields in that case. The problem is, many of the support units have been more focused on close combat rather than shooting (or in the case of Dreads, have been given a huge incentive against being used as weapons platforms). Some of us don't want a CC shifted IW army. Some of us want to keep it a shooty army but don't want to resort to counts as or tanking on Comp because of added abilities in units that we aren't going to utilize.

Either way, just because they aren't driving balls to the wall to crash into CC doesn't make them static. I don't see why people continually think this. They aren't Guard.







So if we agree that the stereotypes often presented by faction sub-codices (eg Iron Warriors = shooty) don't represent the entirety of the faction, why should all the armies from a particular faction be forced to play a certain way?

After all, I suspect there are so many players with static Iron Warrior armies that my Iron Warrior mobile strike force is entirely proportionate as far as the background is concerned...
Because the Army has been presented in a certain way, and the majority of the players who play with that particular background play it with that in mind and would like an army list that reflects that. Nobody is saying you can't have your fast-strike IW force or whatever, but that most people want their heavy firepower IW force, as it is how they most often operate. Hell even in the 3.5 codex you could still have a fast-strike IW force if you wanted, you didn't *have* to utilize all 4 HS slots, I often didn't, in fact I didn't utilize it most of the time.






Surely your example of killing Illidan 23 times applies in exactly the opposite manner to this debate? Who wants to fight yet another static Iron Warrior army.... There's a difference. Facing the same faction multiple times is one thing, an army based on a build that would see only limited, special purpose use within a faction tends to wear down the feeling of said army over time. It's like "Well, you'd see "Z" army do this once in a while under "X" circumstances, but would probably operate in "Y" manner the vast majority of the time whereas "T" army does operate as "X" much of the time". It's like a Night Lords triple vindi list may *exist*, but probably wouldn't be used for anything other than a single operation. It's basically building an army out of something an army does out of necessity where their normal operating standards must be changed, it doesn't represent how they normally operate.

Again, for a standard for of Iron Warriors meeting any random opponent, are they going to have more tanks, meltaguns, autocannons, and terminators or more raptors, bikes, and powerweapons?

Gaftra
18-03-2008, 18:30
my question to the iw player is: why arent you using squads of chosen to layer in large numbers of heavy/special weapons?
Do you really hate melta or something? you can take 3 heavy slots, minimum troop choices with maximum heavy wep choices, and then 3 elite slots with max special/heavy weapon choices as well?

im definately not trying to hate on IW players per se. I just dont think that iw necessarily are any more boned than any other army. If you played a daemon bomb you now half about half of two armies kicking around for example.

Inquisitor_Eljer
18-03-2008, 18:31
Maybe instead of debating, arguing, etc., it would be more beneficial or useful (like some posters have tried...I'm not trying to bash anyone here) to detail what we'd like to see a 'new' Iron Warriors rule-set encompass?

Personally I love the fluff and the paint-scheme for the Iron Warriors...I was in the process of building up a force under the old rules, and will continue to finish them up under the new, all the while hoping for legion specific rules to return some time in the future.

What I really want...

The CSM equivalent of a 'Tech-Priest' or 'Engin-Seer'. We previously had the servo arms available to us, and I'd love to see that continue. Aside from that I'm really okay. I can still field 9 Oblits if that's the direction I want to go (I don't, but I could do it within the existing rules). I can field everything I could before, acception the Basilisk, just in a different way.

I'd also love to be able to field a CSM version of the Forgeworld Seige Dreadnought. That would rock!

I don't feel the need to add demons to my Iron Warriors...I don't need an all-powerful demon prince, or 3 Defilers, or 5 man min-max squads. I just want an army I like the fluff for to continue forward...and hopefully have some balanced and reasonable rules. I told people I was going for an Iron Warriors force and everyone cried 'cheesey' BEFORE ever seeing my lists...they got a bad rep from some abuses, real or imagined. Would the min-max list be tough to beat? Yes. Impossible? No. I'd prefer that if / when they're a viable choice again with their own rules that those rules are balanced and consistent.

Thanks all.

DarkstarSabre
18-03-2008, 18:34
Seeing a lot of World Eater armies full of ordnance and Iron Warriors full of Berserkers lately, are you? :rolleyes:


And that is called fluff. Cause....you know....

Fluff is great.

World Eaters with ordnance? Yay! They remembered how to shoot again! They remembered how many freaking daemon engines Khorne actually has!

Iron Warriors with Berserkers? Yay! They remembered how to....y'know....take a breach!

Pitalla Crimson
18-03-2008, 18:41
When the chaos codex was in production did GW actually tought on wath they where doing?
I think I cant say GW here but Gave thorpe, if you grab your codex copy you will see that the Author is Gave Thorpe with Alessio as the fluff writter for the codex.

And the funny thing is that he quitted GW after the codex was released.

GW screwed up with their gamers and with their own budget when the codex was released and they know it, thats why they fired Gave Thorpe.

sliganian
18-03-2008, 19:25
When the chaos codex was in production did GW actually tought on wath they where doing?
I think I cant say GW here but Gave thorpe, if you grab your codex copy you will see that the Author is Gave Thorpe with Alessio as the fluff writter for the codex.

And the funny thing is that he quitted GW after the codex was released.

GW screwed up with their gamers and with their own budget when the codex was released and they know it, thats why they fired Gave Thorpe.

So much FAIL in one post I am not sure where to begin. Someone help a gamer out? :D

Tymell
18-03-2008, 19:38
IW Index Astartes article states that Iron Warriors use few troops but heavy firepower. This translates to five-man squads with a special and a heavy weapon. Perhaps using six squads of 5-man Las/Plas would be min-maxing, but would using meltaguns, flamers, and heavy bolters be?

No, it translates as "few troops but heavy firepower". 5-man squads are not the only way to have few troops :rolleyes: Try beefing up on tanks or havoc squads. Plus you can still have powerful firepower in 5 man squads, just not lascannons. And plus you can still have your lascannons, the only difference is not so many of them, which was only open to abuse. Perhaps you didn't abuse the list, and well done to you if so. But it -was- a highly abusable list, sorry, and not everyone can be relied upon, so sometimes things have to be cut back a bit. There's still nothing at all stopping you from having an IW army.


As I already said, he could just use the normal Chaos list, which fits his needs perfectly. As a long-range siege list with little fast attack and low numbers of men supported with high numbers of heavy weapons, the normal Chaos list is not suitable.

It's perfectly suitable, you can still make an army themed like that no problem.

I don't have my chaos codex with me, but here's a random suggestion off the top of my head
HQ: Chaos lord in termie armour.

Elites: Terminators to go with the Lord, acting as a teleporting assault force (high points therefore low numbers), dreadnought, maybe some possessed (modelled properly, there's no reason you couldn't have techno-enhancements to represent possessed, or obliterator style meldings. Either option perfectly acceptable)

Troops: Some marine squads with lascannons. Yes, you need 10 of them. Too bad. That's better than enabling it with 5, because that just becomes abusable.

Fast Attack: If you want a static force, you could ignore this section all-together. If you do want something, bikers would seem an obvious choice for a techno-legion. Perhaps marines modelled with bike/quad-wheels in place of legs? Again, just a random suggestion that popped into my head to illustrate how you can be creative with this.

Heavy Support: Vindicator/Land Raider/Defiler/Obliterators/Havocs. Plenty of choice there.

All that stuff is perfectly fitting for Iron Warriors. Anything that you might not think suitable (e.g. Raptors) wasn't suitable last time either. All that's changed is the abusable combos aren't available anymore.

Ultimately Iron Warriors are still perfectly do-able. If someone has a view of how they should be done that's really too narrow for the current codex, then sorry, that's that person's problem, not GW's. GW made a list that can make Iron Warriors. It can't make them precisely as they were before but A) How they were before was abusable, B) How they were before isn't the -only- way to represent them, and C) Who was it who actually decided to make Iron Warriors that way previously? GW. And who has decided to make them this way now? GW. What makes the old list (note: list, not background/fluff, the list itself) so much more valid?

EarthAndAllStars
18-03-2008, 19:39
I think it is safe to say that if a list is unbalanced, you play it because it is unbalance and really powerful, then expect the nerf stick to show up and ruin your party. It may not happen for a few years, but it will happen.

This is why the best tournament players switch armies every year or two. GW is notorious for game imbalance and the "clever" players quickly gravitate towards the more powerful armies. Hence, Eldar is popular now in 40K.

It looks like skimmers are going to be brought into line in the next edition so I expect to see a great deal of angst from people who use the heck out of skimmers now. The next big nerf stick will be taken to the new SM codex due out soon and the 6 man las/plas squads will be eliminated. I expect a Warseer meltdown when that happens.

Supremearchmarshal
18-03-2008, 19:53
All that stuff is perfectly fitting for Iron Warriors. Anything that you might not think suitable (e.g. Raptors) wasn't suitable last time either. All that's changed is the abusable combos aren't available anymore.

Yeah, nothing abusable in taking 2 Lash Princes, some Plague Marines and Thousand Sons in an IW army.

Ultimately what it boils down to is that if there's anything abusable in the list some people will abuse it. More people will then follow their example for various reasons.
Like I and others have already said, the new codex didn't invent anything new - a themed legion list or a generic list with "counts as" was perfectly possible in the old codex. Neither did the old codex force you to take any unit or combo.

Pitalla Crimson
18-03-2008, 20:15
So much FAIL in one post I am not sure where to begin. Someone help a gamer out? :D

Prove me wrong then, help me get out from the darkness of ignorance.

However that guy is greatly hated for some reason.

sliganian
18-03-2008, 20:20
Prove me wrong then, help me get out from the darkness of ignorance.

However that guy is greatly hated for some reason.

Ok, a few points:

- GW knew EXACTLY what they doing with the Chaos Codex. Full Stop.

- The Codex can be subject to lots of internal GW influences that do not necessarily make it to the 'Author' part of the credits. Gav was never working in a vacuum on the book.

- Given Gav had over 10+ years at the company, one slightly askew Codex would not end a career. I suspect he just got tired of doing what he's been doing for so long.

Ravenheart
18-03-2008, 20:24
Prove me wrong then, help me get out from the darkness of ignorance.

However that guy is greatly hated for some reason.

The same reason JJ is hated by some players right now. They don't agree with the changes he has brought, thinking they know everything about 40k better than everyone else.

Official word says that Gav Thrope wanted to pursue a 'career' as writer of some sorts. That's what I have heard at least.

Offical word of course doesn't mean anything in most cases, but I can assure you, that he would not have been kicked because of a codex, because that one doesn't appeal to a fraction of chaos players.
He doesn't work alone on a 'dex and surely gets his relevant decisions get controlled.

PondaNagura
18-03-2008, 22:05
first, Pitalla Crimson, i don't think it was you point that was in question (i might be wrong), but all the syntax errors made in writing it.

second
for some reason i got the impression that this thread has moved beyond just talking about the composition of IW lists, but into the realm of chaos as a whole.
now i don't mean another ranting thread about why the new chaos is bad, but an in depth analysis of things were changed, some for the better (abusable lists), into an overall generic approach to chaos' image and playing style.

me, i never used the legion lists, but still defend the idea behind them. adding a flavor with some restriction to how an army was composed.
sure i used "counts as" lists...still do (from my scout-based admech skitarii list, my eldar mech list for squats, etc etc), but counts as should be used for personally themed armies, not justifying commercially endorsed ones. ask any ork player from last edition about that.

catbarf
18-03-2008, 22:14
Perhaps you didn't abuse the list, and well done to you if so. But it -was- a highly abusable list, sorry, and not everyone can be relied upon, so sometimes things have to be cut back a bit.

Whoop-de-doo. Since when did 40k become geared towards tournament play? And since when did the cheesy armies disappear, and game balance come about?

The current codex is abusable. Lash Princes! Bad! Let's just go and cut Princes out of the list, shall we?

Just because a list is abusable is no grounds for its removal. I swear, tournaments and WAAC are killing this game more than anything else.

Tymell
18-03-2008, 22:24
Whoop-de-doo. Since when did 40k become geared towards tournament play? And since when did the cheesy armies disappear, and game balance come about?

The current codex is abusable. Lash Princes! Bad! Let's just go and cut Princes out of the list, shall we?

Just because a list is abusable is no grounds for its removal. I swear, tournaments and WAAC are killing this game more than anything else.

It's not geared towards tournaments alone. Indeed, I never play tournaments or competitive games, so don't think I'm arguing from that point of view. I play purely for fun.

But nevertheless, a list so easy to abuse lessens that fun. As I say, maybe you didn't do it and good for you, but a lot did, and such lists aren't very fun to play against or to see come up.

Of course there are things in the current codex that are abusable. I've never said it's perfect, and I feel there are things that need changing the next time round. But if nothing else, that example you give isn't appropriate: if it's the lashes that are broken, then they need changing, not the princes themselves. In the same way, GW didn't remove obliterators, they simply changed certain elements to make them less abusable. Same with this heavy weapons in a squad thing: they didn't remove lascannons all-together, as your analogy would suggest, they just limited the thing that made them abusable.

Removing princes because one part of them is abusable = over-reacting.

Removing a list because the list as a whole is abusable = perfectly sensible.

So yes, they removed the Iron Warrior list. But to quote you, whoop-de-doo. Why does that suddenly mean you can't play Iron Warriors? If I recall, the 3.0 codex didn't have a separate Iron Warrior list either, that didn't seem to stop people from playing them.

Your army has not been rendered unplayable.

Barely anything has actually been rendered useless (Basilisks, cultists, the odd model here or there -possibly-)

You can still make Iron Warrior armies.

Arhalien
18-03-2008, 22:40
They've done it with Guard. Several doctrines are free and give very powerful benefits. The downside is that you lose access to some units.


Well the only one I can think of off the top of my head is drop troops and that's considered to be broken anyway.
The others really aren;t that powerful as far as I can see; ok, grenadiers allows some min maxing but thats only really useful at lower points levels and it isn;t as bad as for some other armies (nids anyone?), mechanised (hardly free as you have to pay for the tanks), and, err, that seems to be about it. (if I've missed any please point them out)

Oh damn, have I really just got involved with another Chaos Codex thread...
*kills himself*

PondaNagura
18-03-2008, 22:43
the thing is that IW are no different than any other list...everythings vanilla. and eventually you get tired of vanilla, so instead you put some food coloring on it to make it look chocolate or maybe minty, but deep down you know it's 'nilla, and so is your neighbors.

Salmon
18-03-2008, 22:43
for some reason i got the impression that this thread has moved beyond just talking about the composition of IW lists, but into the realm of chaos as a whole.
now i don't mean another ranting thread about why the new chaos is bad, but an in depth analysis of things were changed, some for the better (abusable lists), into an overall generic approach to chaos' image and playing style.

me, i never used the legion lists, but still defend the idea behind them. adding a flavor with some restriction to how an army was composed.
sure i used "counts as" lists...still do (from my scout-based admech skitarii list, my eldar mech list for squats, etc etc), but counts as should be used for personally themed armies, not justifying commercially endorsed ones. ask any ork player from last edition about that.
To give the writers their due, they did eliminate a reasonable number of the problems with the old list, such as the four heavy support Iron Warriors, obliterators in elites, the daemon bomb, even though they also created various unbalanced new options such as lash of submission, they mostly did not create nor balance options, they simply lazily cut them out, as if they would rather have been down the pub than delivering for their loyal customers in the way that one should expect. For instance, rather than balancing the daemon weapons, they simply cut most of them of them out, they didn’t fix the dark blade’s points, make the needle of desire worthwhile or anything, they simply dropped them, and this is something they did for many other overpowered options, the daemonettes? Gone, not fixed for the codex, same with many of the lord options, and all of the gifts of the gods! Thus, if you choose not to embrace the warband philosophy, the new renegade chapter theme, and choose to play one of the legions (who, it must be noted, have as much, if not more, variance than the space marine chapters which possess their own codices) then one suffers from a distinct poverty of options, for more than a few underpowered or even balanced items have disappeared, gone is old nurgle’s rot, gone are collars of khorne, talismans of tzeentch and combat drugs, instead one is left with personal icons and meltabombs as our wargear, nothing more.

Iron Warriors I feel are amongst the least affected (and have the least grounds for legitimate complaints), they can still be shooty as hell, break through fortifications and almost retain their index astartes organisation, save for the issue of multiples of three which I have already discussed. However, they suffer from a lack of options, which, far from curtailing their tournament performance, as must have been intended, merely reduced the individuality of lists; one would have been right to complain about 9 obliterator, 4 ordnance, daemon prince min/max lists (and indeed I did on Portent) but the one of the objections to the list was its omnipresence and lack of distinctive character, and the same can be said about the new HQ builds, what use is it if everyone has the same lords due to such a poverty of options?

This having been said, the main reason why undivided legionary armies are so difficult to represent with this codex is not due to the removal of options (like daemons for the word bearers, raptors which are not merely renamed assault marines for night lords, cultists for alpha legion) but rather the removal of skills. To quote from the chosen entry,

“Squads of Chosen Chaos Space Marines have many decades, often centuries, of combat experience…”

The Chosen function much like normal Chaos Space Marines with Infiltrate did in the last codex, with the addition of various weapon options, but the quote illustrates how few thoughts of representing the ten millennia old legionaries entered the minds of the writers, and I do not even think veteran skills, save perhaps for the cheap infiltrate of the alpha legion and the mandatory tank hunters on havocs could have been exploited, as they rarely increased a model’s survivability, and relied on specific circumstances to be invoked (night fighting, in cover, charging, shooting a vehicle, shooting a fortification, to name a few). The removals of them served little purpose save to say “no legionaries allowed”.

Thus, the undivided legions do not need individual lists, merely veteran skills, daemons and the de-vanilla-isation of options, retaining balance one should hope; the cult lists on the other hand, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

catbarf
18-03-2008, 22:49
Well the only one I can think of off the top of my head is drop troops and that's considered to be broken anyway.
The others really aren;t that powerful as far as I can see; ok, grenadiers allows some min maxing but thats only really useful at lower points levels and it isn;t as bad as for some other armies (nids anyone?), mechanised (hardly free as you have to pay for the tanks), and, err, that seems to be about it. (if I've missed any please point them out)

Oh damn, have I really just got involved with another Chaos Codex thread...
*kills himself*

Close order drill, Veterans (one of the best choices in the codex), Drop Troops, Mechanized, Grenadiers. Iron Discipline may as well be added since it's 5pts but grants huge benefits.


But nevertheless, a list so easy to abuse lessens that fun. As I say, maybe you didn't do it and good for you, but a lot did, and such lists aren't very fun to play against or to see come up.

If you play for fun, why should you ever encounter someone who abuses the list and cheeses it to hell and back?

Supremearchmarshal
18-03-2008, 22:53
Removing princes because one part of them is abusable = over-reacting.

Removing a list because the list as a whole is abusable = perfectly sensible.

Huh? How was the whole IW list abusable?

Ok, I'll go through the IW rules one by one:

1) Only mark they can have is Undivided. A drawback.

2) No Daemons except Daemon Princes and Possessed. Another drawback.

3) Everyone gets Siege Specialists for free. This is good, but how often do they get the chance to use it?

4) 0-1 Obliterators restriction removed. Well Oblits were overpowered in the last codex, but that's a fault in the Obliterator rules, not the IW rules. And guess what? With the new codex anyone can have 9 Obliterators.

5) Swap 2 FA for 1 HS. Now this was abusable. However, it also raises the question of the design of the codex and indeed the game as a whole. FA choices are often inferior to HS choices, and this was quite prominent in the CSM codex and hasn't changed in the new one.

6) May use Basilisk or Vindicator. Granted, the Basilisk I always felt was too powerful. However, I see nothing wrong with the Vindicator and it's freely available in the new codex anyway.

7) Servo-Arms. Nice fluffy upgrade that was not cost-effective.

When I think about it the problem with the old IW list had much more to do with the game rules rewarding min-maxing and firepower over speed than any cheesiness in the IW rules. EDIT: And of course the Obliterators being a hideously broken unit.

Tymell
18-03-2008, 23:04
If you play for fun, why should you ever encounter someone who abuses the list and cheeses it to hell and back?

Because I didn't always just play for fun and avoid tournies, and I also know people who do play competitively sometimes.


Huh? How was the whole IW list abusable?

Ok, I'll go through the IW rules one by one:

1) Only mark they can have is Undivided. A drawback.

2) No Daemons except Daemon Princes and Possessed. Another drawback.

3) Everyone gets Siege Specialists for free. This is good, but how often do they get the chance to use it?

4) 0-1 Obliterators restriction removed. Well Oblits were overpowered in the last codex, but that's a fault in the Obliterator rules, not the IW rules. And guess what? With the new codex anyone can have 9 Obliterators.

5) Swap 2 FA for 1 HS. Now this was abusable. However, it also raises the question of the design of the codex and indeed the game as a whole. FA choices are often inferior to HS choices, and this was quite prominent in the CSM codex and hasn't changed in the new one.

6) May use Basilisk or Vindicator. Granted, the Basilisk I always felt was too powerful. However, I see nothing wrong with the Vindicator and it's freely available in the new codex anyway.

7) Servo-Arms. Nice fluffy upgrade that was not cost-effective.

When I think about it the problem with the old IW list had much more to do with the game rules rewarding min-maxing and firepower over speed than any cheesiness in the IW rules.

Point 5 you admit was abusable, and point 4 is very much abusable: the problem didn't lie in Obliterators, when they are limited they're fine. And the old "but now you can take lots anyway" argument isn't valid I'm afraid, because if you do, you don't get any other heavy support. So it balances out. The basilisk doesn't really fit much with them, and the point here was that it/the vindicator combined with the extra heavy support slot and oblits being elites. So the abusable nature stacked up, it wasn't just in the individual points.

So what would you be left with if we removed all that? Possibility of servo-arms, only undivided marks, no daemons except princes and possessed, and siege specialists. Not really much of a list, let's face it. Point being that with princes you could alter the lash and they'd be fine. With Iron Warriors you'd have to change so much about their list that you might as well be done with it.

Also, in terms of how things have changed rather than just the list as it was, your set of points just illustrates how little Iron Warrior players can legitimately complain about: you can still have undivided marks and lack of daemons if you want to, and the other options were cheesy or didn't fit. So all they really lost was siege specialists, which did very little, and a servo arm here or there. Hardly ruining the army, is it?

There are definite problems with the new codex, it's far from perfect. But it's not forcing anyone to give up their armies or ruining the army either. The amount of over-reaction to it from some people is just laughable.

catbarf
18-03-2008, 23:08
Point 5 you admit was abusable, and point 4 is very much abusable: the problem didn't lie in Obliterators, when they are limited they're fine. And the old "but now you can take lots anyway" argument isn't valid I'm afraid, because if you do, you don't get any other heavy support. So it balances out. The basilisk doesn't really fit much with them, and the point here was that it/the vindicator combined with the extra heavy support slot and oblits being elites. So the abusable nature stacked up, it wasn't just in the individual points.

No, the problem was still Obliterators. They were a no-brainer choice. Being able to take only one squad of them just meant that they couldn't be spammed, but that's no excuse for the unit being overpowered. If there's some reason for you to want to take large numbers of them instead of any other unit, they're not balanced.

Arhalien
18-03-2008, 23:15
Close order drill, Veterans (one of the best choices in the codex), Drop Troops, Mechanized, Grenadiers. Iron Discipline may as well be added since it's 5pts but grants huge benefits.


Fair point on CoD, I'd forgotten that one, but that has some big disadvantages built into it which add to the disadvantages of restricted units.
Vets, again, good point, although with that one it needs to be taken in context I think; they're good, but they're still only t3, 5+ save models so hardly overpowering.
the next three have been covered
Iron discipline, again useful, but not totally free.

But as with vets, they need to be taken in context of the codex as a whole; the old chaos codex was a powerful even without the bonuses granted by the cult lists, but the IG codex is nowhere near as powerful, and these things are needed to make them at least reasonable

catbarf
18-03-2008, 23:20
But as with vets, they need to be taken in context of the codex as a whole; the old chaos codex was a powerful even without the bonuses granted by the cult lists, but the IG codex is nowhere near as powerful, and these things are needed to make them at least reasonable

So, in other words, it's fine to have such things (which you previously stated GW is learning to avoid) as long as the rest of the army sucks?

DarkstarSabre
18-03-2008, 23:21
Yeah, nothing abusable in taking 2 Lash Princes, some Plague Marines and Thousand Sons in an IW army.

Ultimately what it boils down to is that if there's anything abusable in the list some people will abuse it. More people will then follow their example for various reasons.
Like I and others have already said, the new codex didn't invent anything new - a themed legion list or a generic list with "counts as" was perfectly possible in the old codex. Neither did the old codex force you to take any unit or combo.


But looking at the recent Codex trend, starting with the Eldar...

I like it.

Why the hell should you Craftworld/Marines/Ork Tribe get special rules just because of what you chose to paint it? Why? Give me a valid reason.

The new codexes are very generic, yes but they are flexible enough to allow you to make any list. IT ultimately comes down to your choice as a player to pick the appropriate units to represent your chosen Craftworld/Legion/Tribe. No more free skills because you painted your marines gunmetal. No more free stat increases because your Guardians were painted black. Now everyone is on equal footing and the variation comes in the form of players sticking to the spirit of the game.

Because in the end it's a game. It's about having fun. It's about telling a story as they so often put it. If your immediate reaction to the new Chaos codex is 2 lash princes, plague marines and thousand sons in an IW army then you may want to consider why you are playing.

I mean, yes, you can take them if you want. Nothing stopping you. They even justified it with the background about warbands, about how they come about. But if you want to be a true Legion player you will either model those appropriately or you'll pick what's appropriate.

You don't need extra heavy support slots, free stat increases or free skills to do that.

Arhalien
18-03-2008, 23:26
So, in other words, it's fine to have such things (which you previously stated GW is learning to avoid) as long as the rest of the army sucks?

No, not at all. It's hardly valid to have a comparison between the old chaos cult lists and those doctrines because all the doctrines you listed have some form of disadvantage other than a simple restriction of your choices (except for drop troops, which is a perfect example of a free advantage being overpowered. And I know that iron discipline is only 5pts, but the principle still stands), whereas from what I;ve heard of the chaos dex the only disadvantage was that you weren;t able to take certain choices.

DantesInferno
18-03-2008, 23:30
Why does everyone assume Shooty=Static? None of my IW armies have been particularly static. My previous army had lots of deep striking units that would move and shoot (or assault in the Termi's case) and tanks that always kept moving (and the army as a whole had a rather gaping CC vulnerability which I was fine with), the only thing static was the Troops squads when they wanted to heavy bolter something. With the current codex, no shooty army is going to be static either unless its just a bunch of Havoc squads, most of the builds I've used have actually been Terminator heavy and thus deep striking and movement is common, the main difficulty is the troops seem to have very little purpose besides icons or CC meatshields in that case. The problem is, many of the support units have been more focused on close combat rather than shooting (or in the case of Dreads, have been given a huge incentive against being used as weapons platforms). Some of us don't want a CC shifted IW army.

The current Codex encourages aggressive maneuverability over static firepower. In short, it's encouraging Iron Warrior armies to play according to the background: much more so than the old Codex did!

I don't see how Troops suddenly became ineffective now they can no longer take 5 man las-plas squads. Use 10 man squads with special weapons in Rhinos to maximise your close-range firepower, and escort them with supporting units.


Some of us want to keep it a shooty army but don't want to resort to counts as or tanking on Comp because of added abilities in units that we aren't going to utilize.

If you're that desperate to take shooting units, take 10 man troop choices with heavy weapons, havocs, chosen, and so forth. I can't see how you'd have to resort to counts as or be forced to tank on your Composition scores. Unless of course, your real complaint is that such an army wouldn't be as effective as it used to. In which case, tough: it was too effective before.


Either way, just because they aren't driving balls to the wall to crash into CC doesn't make them static. I don't see why people continually think this. They aren't Guard.

Aren't you complaining that you don't have enough static firepower anymore?


Because the Army has been presented in a certain way, and the majority of the players who play with that particular background play it with that in mind and would like an army list that reflects that. Nobody is saying you can't have your fast-strike IW force or whatever, but that most people want their heavy firepower IW force, as it is how they most often operate. Hell even in the 3.5 codex you could still have a fast-strike IW force if you wanted, you didn't *have* to utilize all 4 HS slots, I often didn't, in fact I didn't utilize it most of the time.

Then take a heavy firepower Iron Warriors force! The new Codex doesn't stop you at all. It makes it less efficient, but that's a good thing: it was too good before.


There's a difference. Facing the same faction multiple times is one thing, an army based on a build that would see only limited, special purpose use within a faction tends to wear down the feeling of said army over time. It's like "Well, you'd see "Z" army do this once in a while under "X" circumstances, but would probably operate in "Y" manner the vast majority of the time whereas "T" army does operate as "X" much of the time". It's like a Night Lords triple vindi list may *exist*, but probably wouldn't be used for anything other than a single operation. It's basically building an army out of something an army does out of necessity where their normal operating standards must be changed, it doesn't represent how they normally operate.

Again, for a standard for of Iron Warriors meeting any random opponent, are they going to have more tanks, meltaguns, autocannons, and terminators or more raptors, bikes, and powerweapons?

Again, given the vast majority of static shooting Iron Warrior armies out there, I would have thought an opponent would enjoy the prospect of playing a mobile Iron Warrior army.

But in any case, it's a baseless argument. If the armies players chose had to be representative of the warfare of the 41st millennium, we should all be playing PDF/IG, LatD and Orks. There should only be a handful of Legion players worldwide.


Ok, so will you then please explain how did the old codex not allow you to field for example an assault-orientated or rapid-strike IW list?

Of course I could, the point is that by encouraging the "optional" restrictions on sub-lists, it encourages the perception that an Iron Warrior army has to be shooty to be an Iron Warrior army. Which is just ridiculous. It fosters incredibly bland stereotypes which don't at all reflect the sheer size and flexibility of the Chaos Legions.

It's the same attitude that was leading Vaktathi to claim that an Ulthwe army with lots of wraith units wasn't really an Ulthwe army after all (despite what the player thinks): it was actually an Iyanden army in disguise.


Already been said, Index Astartes article states that they use few troops supported with large numbers of heavy weapons. Needing ten men for every Heavy Bolter defeats this.

Do you actually have a quote for that, because I can't find that in the article.

Supremearchmarshal
18-03-2008, 23:44
There are definite problems with the new codex, it's far from perfect. But it's not forcing anyone to give up their armies or ruining the army either. The amount of over-reaction to it from some people is just laughable.

Yes, saying your entire army is ruined forever is definitely overreacting. However, I think you've read my post wrong - the last paragraph is the most important one - the foundations on which the variant list was built were shaky, and it's generally hard to build a solid structure on poor foundations.


Why the hell should you Craftworld/Marines/Ork Tribe get special rules just because of what you chose to paint it? Why? Give me a valid reason.

Marines, however, do get rules simply for having a different colour scheme. Reason? Money.


The new codexes are very generic, yes but they are flexible enough to allow you to make any list. IT ultimately comes down to your choice as a player to pick the appropriate units to represent your chosen Craftworld/Legion/Tribe. No more free skills because you painted your marines gunmetal. No more free stat increases because your Guardians were painted black. Now everyone is on equal footing and the variation comes in the form of players sticking to the spirit of the game.

I believe I have given proof that it was perfectly possible to make a IW rapid strike force or assault army using the old CSM codex.


Because in the end it's a game. It's about having fun. It's about telling a story as they so often put it. If your immediate reaction to the new Chaos codex is 2 lash princes, plague marines and thousand sons in an IW army then you may want to consider why you are playing.

I mean, yes, you can take them if you want. Nothing stopping you. They even justified it with the background about warbands, about how they come about. But if you want to be a true Legion player you will either model those appropriately or you'll pick what's appropriate.

You don't need extra heavy support slots, free stat increases or free skills to do that.

Again we come to the problem I've mentioned - what you said is all well and good in theory, but most armies I've seen tend to be geared towards effectiveness/efficiency with fluff as secondary (not ignoring it, but not letting it take priority over the aforementioned). And on one hand who can really blame them - does using the most efficient units available equal abuse?

calicojack
19-03-2008, 00:38
So yes, they removed the Iron Warrior list. But to quote you, whoop-de-doo. Why does that suddenly mean you can't play Iron Warriors? If I recall, the 3.0 codex didn't have a separate Iron Warrior list either, that didn't seem to stop people from playing them.

Cut Space Wolfs army list as a specialized list. Cut Dark Angels as a specialized list. Remove traits from the "core" Marines list. Mostly, complaint is about Chaos Space Marines [even Legion marines] on a marine-by-marine basis, now being less experienced but more plentiful than loyalists. Considering the number of "loyalist" players, and thus "loyalist" armies compared to chaos, if overall tournament balance was the goal, then what list more needed simplification? Alas, instead, Loyalist Marines armies will remain overpowered, and effort was spent reducing the capabilities of their competition, for an entire "edition" of the game.

Tymell
19-03-2008, 00:48
Yes, saying your entire army is ruined forever is definitely overreacting. However, I think you've read my post wrong - the last paragraph is the most important one - the foundations on which the variant list was built were shaky, and it's generally hard to build a solid structure on poor foundations.

Perhaps I interpreted it incorrectly, I'm not sure. But ultimately, whether you think the IW list was too abusable or not (I do), why do you actually need a separate list? As others have mentioned, and I have said before this Chaos codex came out, sub-lists only really restrict things and offer greater chance for abuse. I've never liked them. To me, the core list should be able to represent, to a fair degree, the main variants (e.g. chapters of space marines, legions of chaos marines, klans of orks, craftworlds of eldar), and having lots of sub-lists is basically just admitting that the core list can't handle it.

The core list we have now isn't perfect by any means, but I feel it's still totally possible to make a decent and fluffy Iron Warriors army without need to compromise, and that the potential to abuse them is lessened.

There are definitely things to complain about, of course: lash prince abuse, over-stocking on other good choices like plague marines, not being able to mark daemons is a big hole too, and we're still missing the Lost and the Damned (although that's more an issue with lack of some separate codex than this one itself). I just can't stand all the constant cries of people saying their armies are ruined, everything about the new codex is awful, loads of models have become useless, the legions/daemons don't exist any more, etc ad nauseum. Just complaining about certain things, with valid stuff to back it up, is fine :)

Supremearchmarshal
19-03-2008, 00:57
Perhaps I interpreted it incorrectly, I'm not sure. But ultimately, whether you think the IW list was too abusable or not (I do), why do you actually need a separate list? As others have mentioned, and I have said before this Chaos codex came out, sub-lists only really restrict things and offer greater chance for abuse. I've never liked them. To me, the core list should be able to represent, to a fair degree, the main variants (e.g. chapters of space marines, legions of chaos marines, klans of orks, craftworlds of eldar), and having lots of sub-lists is basically just admitting that the core list can't handle it.

To be honest, I don't like them either (with the exception of the IG doctrines system - the only one you could call overpowered is Drop Pods). However, GW decided a long time ago to do these lists and gave them rules, only to drop them recently. I think it's quite understandable why so many people are upset about this, especially since SM get to keep theirs.

EDIT: Why the Doctrines? Well I think they help add a bit of character without being overpowered and, most importantly, you are allowed to mix & match them as you like - having blue uniforms doesn't mean you have to take doctrines #3, 7 and 9.


The core list we have now isn't perfect by any means, but I feel it's still totally possible to make a decent and fluffy Iron Warriors army without need to compromise, and that the potential to abuse them is lessened.

There are definitely things to complain about, of course: lash prince abuse, over-stocking on other good choices like plague marines, not being able to mark daemons is a big hole too, and we're still missing the Lost and the Damned (although that's more an issue with lack of some separate codex than this one itself). I just can't stand all the constant cries of people saying their armies are ruined, everything about the new codex is awful, loads of models have become useless, the legions/daemons don't exist any more, etc ad nauseum.

About this I generally agree (I also strongly believe they shouldn't have removed the Cultists, but made them weaker and available to every legion).

catbarf
19-03-2008, 01:19
Why the hell should you Craftworld/Marines/Ork Tribe get special rules just because of what you chose to paint it? Why? Give me a valid reason.

Perhaps because some people feel that siege troops, mechanized assault armies, footslogging elites, and untrained hordes should use different rules, rather than one big homogenized list?

Do you really think there's nothing to an army beyond color scheme? That nobody makes or follows fluff for their army? That there is no reason to have your army play a specific way, and that the default rules don't have the flexibility to let you play your army that way?

Really, your notion that colors are the only reason we use for wanting special rules is astounding.

Vaktathi
19-03-2008, 01:35
The current Codex encourages aggressive maneuverability over static firepower. In short, it's encouraging Iron Warrior armies to play according to the background: much more so than the old Codex did! It encourages CC over shooting, not necessarily mobile firepower over static firepower. I don't see how the current list is necessarily more "fluffy" or how the old list was so "unfluffy", especially given that it didn't contradict any earlier fluff that I can see. I will admit I do like some things about the new book, its not totally naff, but it's definitely not an improvement, just different.





If you're that desperate to take shooting units, take 10 man troop choices with heavy weapons, havocs, chosen, and so forth. I can't see how you'd have to resort to counts as or be forced to tank on your Composition scores. Unless of course, your real complaint is that such an army wouldn't be as effective as it used to. In which case, tough: it was too effective before. 10 man heavy weapon squads are...clunky to say the least. spending 200+ points for a single heavy weapon platform isn't the greatest use of assets for a unit that's been more kitted out for close range firefights and CC. I understand 5man Lascannon squads being retarded, but a 6 or 8 man Heavy bolter squad? Probably not. I never met an opponent who regarded them as such. Oblits? Sure, but not the HB troop squads. I would have much rather seen missile launchers and lascannons removed from troop slots and been left with AC's and HB's. If Death Guard can take 2 plasma guns in a 5 man squad, or Noise Marines can take a blastmaster in a 5man squad, is the min/maxing problem gone? No, it's just not there for the basic troops. I'm don't have a problem with not having anti-tank firepower in small troops squads, but there *is* a difference between a 5man lascannon squad and a 6 or 8 man heavy bolter squad.

As for it being too effective before, At what points level are we talking about? At 1850 or 2000pts (what is most commonly played in my area) a Mech Eldar army or Nidzilla list was generally more effective than the much derided Iron Warriors, especially if 4 ordnance platforms weren't used. At 1500? Sure, it was broken, but 8 TMC's with multiple genestealer squads tore the army apart at 2000pts, same with Mech Eldar.




Aren't you complaining that you don't have enough static firepower anymore?
No, I'm complaining that overall firepower is difficult to achieve without resorting to Counts As with undivided units. Much of the army ,while still having shooty ability, is more directed at CC. If I could, for instance, get an extra RAC in a Termi squad instead of having the option for multiple 6 attack LC mini-HQ's, I'd take it, and use the unit as a mobile autocannon base that could hit hard in assault if desired instead of battering ram CC unit.

Units such as Terminators have less overall firepower than before (combi-melta's are cheaper, flamers the same, we have plasma's now, but these are also one use weapons for use before a charge, not as a mobile firebase, and RAC's are both more expensive and less available and were never something that was hideously powerful in the first place) Dreadnaughts are very heavily biased towards being used as CC walkers instead of firing platforms (oh look I turn and expose rear armor to unload into the unit directly behind me!), Chosen have more firepower then previously, but they had no point previously either other than as Terminators, and also still have a not insignificant CC bent, although they are one of the shootier units in the army if kitted out for it. Defilers have more of a CC bent as well even with the new weapons options (although I prefer them as an overall Chaos unit this way, and always though Indirect fire was stupid on them and always thought of them as combat monsters)

While most of these units *can* be shooty units, they serve better as close quarters units.




Then take a heavy firepower Iron Warriors force! The new Codex doesn't stop you at all. It makes it less efficient, but that's a good thing: it was too good before. Again, it's difficult to do without resorting to unfluffy unit options or min/maxing. As for its overpoweredness, that again depended on the points level being played.




Again, given the vast majority of static shooting Iron Warrior armies out there, I would have thought an opponent would enjoy the prospect of playing a mobile Iron Warrior army. Again, while I don't necessarily disagree with the intent behind your army, I don't think IW armies were all that static in the last codex. My Predators were constantly moving (and were in fact built Las/HB to reinforce that), my oblits deep striking and moving, my terminators and lord deep striking into position to assault something the next turn, my troops squads were probably the only things that were relatively static, and even then only when they wanted to utilize the HB, other wise they were moving to take objective, getting into firing positions, or rapid fire range.

Sure the 4 ordnance armies probably were static, but in all honesty, I have never seen one, having played at 4 different stores (two on a weekly basis, the others a couple times) in vastly different locations, I never saw the dreaded 9 oblit 4 pieplate, 5 man las/plas army. I've heard much bemoaning of it on Warseer, and apparently they were popular in GT's, but I never saw them in a game store, ever. Most of the people I play with have never seen it either. In fact I didn't see many Iron Warriors armies, I did see and play against several Daemon-bomb siren prince armies (which also tore my IW apart) and I *have* seen and played against triple holofield skimmer spam armies and Nidzilla lists, etc...







It's the same attitude that was leading Vaktathi to claim that an Ulthwe army with lots of wraith units wasn't really an Ulthwe army after all (despite what the player thinks): it was actually an Iyanden army in disguise. Did I claim *anywhere* that it was not in fact an Ulthwe army? No. In fact I said that it was entirely plausable for such a force to exist (albeit under limited and special circumstances for a short period of time) I did say however that most people would think "Inyanden" when they saw all the wraithlords/guard, and that most Ulthwe combat operations do not function in such a manner.

Marius Xerxes
19-03-2008, 02:44
As far as ive noticed no one has mentioned Veteran Skills as having been taken out and its effect on an IW (or any Chaos) armies.

For my example I had a unit of 8 Havoc's with 3 Auto Cannons and a Missile Launcher with Tank Hunters.

Now I know they are getting rid of Veteran type skill sets, but there was already a precident set with Eldar that perhaps if you took a Champion, you could buy the power or Veteran Skill for X ammount of points. Wish they would have included that as an option for some units like Havocs.

I tried to create a list where everything could preform 2 differant options well, and when used in combination with another unit worked very well together.

I had those above Havocs which were certiantly Anti-Tank with an "effective" 6 Krak Missile plus 1 las connon shot. They were also anti infantry with 6 Str 7 AP 4 plus a frag missile shot.

My Dreadnaught was armed with a TL Heavy Bolter, Havoc Launcher and Possesion. When people saw this dread they were not all instantly concerned because that armament wasnt as instantly threatening as some other choices ill mention. But get it a fire Frenzy under old rules where you targeted Enemy units first, thats now 6 TL HB shots plus 4 Havoc Templates. That could do some damage even against MEQ's due to number of saves required. Now go the other way and you have a Blood Frenzy and again under old rules, was 7 attacks on a charge Str 10 no save.

My other 2 Heavies were a Indirect Basalisk and Indirect Defiler, both of which are now not either able to be taken, or used as before.

I had 2 obliterators total walking as seperate units.

Then I had 3, 8 man squads with las, plas inc Champs with Mark of Undivided. Then I had a 4th squad in a rhino with 8 men total inc a champ with fist and again marked undivided.

Lord was admittidly broken for cost. Stature, Speed, Dread Axe, 5+ inv.

But when you look at its components the army had to function together to work. The only real HtH i had was the Lord and Dread, perhaps a lil Defiler action if need be. So Lord as nasty as he was, was only in a counter assult role. The army was based around an encompasing overlapping abilty to take on differant targets while moving and holding table quarters with leap frog tactics starting turn 3.

I guess my point to this huge post is (as with any army change) that I cannont use this any longer. I can play my IW, and have continued to do so, but this list i felt was not broken, but still got affected in such a way that this list is no longer viable. For me the Veteran Skills was a huge hit to this army, and since they have taken them away, I dont have a use for Havocs as I have them compared to before, and have not taken them at all after the new dex.

Kalec
19-03-2008, 02:57
I don't see why we don't just have 1 codex for all armies. After all, the rules aren't important, so why does any army need special rules when you can add theme and flavor with paint and spikes?

Occulto
19-03-2008, 03:30
I don't see why we don't just have 1 codex for all armies. After all, the rules aren't important, so why does any army need special rules when you can add theme and flavor with paint and spikes?

That tired argument again? :rolleyes:

You know there's a middle ground somewhere between: "here's a codex for every little possible variation you can think of... and a few you can't" and "codex generic-one-size-fits-all- 40K."

PondaNagura
19-03-2008, 03:42
there's a game with 1 set of rules for all armies. it's called chess. we both have the same army, the game's winner might vary on who goes first. deployment doesn't matter. tactics are limited, and you dont have to worry about falling back and off the board. hell, maybe i'll be inventive and paint my side blue, while you have standard 'nilla white? and we could a have a ripping old time, unless you start cheesing out with your en passant.

Occulto
19-03-2008, 03:57
unless you start cheesing out with your en passant.

Nice touch there. :p

Imperialis_Dominatus
19-03-2008, 04:45
I don't see why we don't just have 1 codex for all armies. After all, the rules aren't important, so why does any army need special rules when you can add theme and flavor with paint and spikes?

:wtf:

My own response was likely to be banworthy so I'll just repeat what Occulto said:


That tired argument again? :rolleyes:

You know there's a middle ground somewhere between: "here's a codex for every little possible variation you can think of... and a few you can't" and "codex generic-one-size-fits-all- 40K."

Hallelujah, the man speaks truth!

cailus
19-03-2008, 06:24
You know there's a middle ground somewhere between: "here's a codex for every little possible variation you can think of... and a few you can't" and "codex generic-one-size-fits-all- 40K."

Totally and utterly true.

However GW are totally inept at this sort of thing.

So they've gutted Codex Chaos with all it's variations but then released Codex Dark Angels and Codex Orks which has differing Troop choices dependent on HQ selection.

There is also Codex Blood Angels which in order to give itself a little bit more justification to exist, allowed Assault Marines to be taken as troops.

So why do these 3 codexes allow the sort of differentiation that the Chaos codex used to allow?

And then there's the issue of even the existence of Alternative Space Marine codexes. BA/DA are really codex chapters and therefore really covered by Codex Space Marines. They have a few special units but these could've been included in the normal codex via some Special Character or as upgrades to existing units.

Besides Chaos Legions have special units too ala Berzerkers or Dark APostles or Alpha Legion Cultists etc.

The problem with defending Games Workshop is that its games design is not consistent. It seems to me not only to be influenced by marketing and sales targets but is very much dependent on the personal whims and preferences of whatever designer is working on the codex. In essence it's very unprofessional with no clear aim or game orientated goals.

Ddraiglais
19-03-2008, 06:28
God I hate the fanboy argument... You do realise that not everyone believes the new Chaos codex to be poor quality, right? If it's impossible to convince people with indirect flames, mockery and poorly thought-out arguments, then maybe they aren't necessarily wrong? The new book doesn't work for legions. Sure. Neither did the old one.

Like the rest of your post? The old book worked better for legions. There were a lot of good ideas in it. It was just executed poorly. They didn't have to scrap everything with the current dex. They could have tried to fix what was broken.


Also, just because GW says that their book can't do something doesn't mean that they are correct. I would have thought that the people who bash the new Chaos codex and GW would be the first to pick up on that, but rage clouds your vision. How about going back and actually making an argument against it rather than saying "GW said!".

Vaktathi has made plenty of arguments that I would have. I was going to say that the new dex tries to present legions and renegades. Trying to come up with rules that include both seems to mean that they do neither.


Oh dear god! It's possible to make a SPACE MARINES list that looks like a Chaos SPACE MARINES list! Shock horror! Teh internets = over!!!11one

I cannot pour enough scathing sarcasm into my reply to truly respond to something like that.

While trying to be funny and sarcastic you A) missed my point entirely and B) got real confused about what I was talking about. BL is short for Black Legion. That's another CHAOS legion. The legions should look different from one another. They should look drastically different from SM armies. 10K years is a long time to develope different ways of fighting. You do make a funny point by getting defensive about CSM looking like SM though. If you're going to get defensive about it, and I didn't even mention it; doesn't that say something about the current dex?


Good for you. GW is surely quaking in their boots now. Seriously now, did ANYONE expect to get legion rules? Hive fleet rules? Gone. Craftworld rules? Gone. Klan rules? Gone. Legion rules? Nah, we have to keep them, otherwise random people on tar intawebz will get cranky that their GW picked on their variant list.

I don't care what GW thinks about what I do. I didn't post that for some sort of boycott of GW or anything. I posted that to point out that 40K is no longer fun for me because of the current dex. I still play Apocalypse from time to time, but I would like to find regular 40K games fun again. IMO there should be klan, craftworld, hive fleet, C'tan followers, kabal, regiment, chapter, legion, and sept rules. I think it would bring a lot more flavor and diversity to the game. I would even suggest that GW do "fun" codices for all of those armies. They'd be perfectly legal for pickup games and games among friend. Tournaments could accept them or deny them as they saw fit. I really do think that the (what I perceive as) concentration on the tournament scene is killing 40K.


You don't shoot walls. You kill the people behind the walls. And what can kill them really easily? Raptors, Terminators, Vindicators, Chosen, Daemons, Obliterators - oh, hang on. You can GET all of them, and none of them are limited. Basalisks? They miss, you can go in a bunker to avoid them, they take far too long to be your main offensive force.

You might want to do some research before you make misinformed statements like this. All the things you mention are sent in AFTER a breach in the walls has been established. The breach is acheived by mining, artillery, or a combination of the two. The only other option is to starve the forces inside, and that would be a pretty boring game. Basilisks (and other artillery) are not meant to kill anyone during a siege. Their role is to destroy walls so you can assault the breach. The attacker doesn't care if you are in a bunker or not. If a few defenders are killed, then that's just gravy. I always thought the medusa would be a better choice, but out of what GW makes; the basilisk works the best. I also thought that maybe they could use the cannon from WFB. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with rules for that if the basilisk seems too unreal for most people. Oh, and if you want to do some research "Vauban" would be a great word to google.


Yeah. You could do this before. Nothing ever forced you to paint your Iron Warriors metal with hazard stripes. Nothing ever stopped someone painting them hot pink and giving them butterfly wings, either.

Again, you miss my point. I don't care what color you painted your minis. You could run an IW offshoot army or a renegade army that specialised in siege warefare and paint it any color you wanted to. My point was that none of the existing legions would fight the same way as IW.



Sure. Unfortunately for the 2 people who didn't abuse the stupidity which was the legion rules, lots of people did. Basically, the formula goes like this:

Balanced army = balanced
Min/maxed army = broken
Min/maxed army that is given bonuses for being min/maxed = stupid

Legion rules are inherently overpowered, because anything that REWARDS min/maxing is never going to work.

I think if you looked outside of the tournament scene, you'd find a lot more than that. I never min/maxed. I used a few special rules, but I played a fair army.



Normally a statement like that is one I'd class as general in scope, but seeing as you're responding to a poster that was directly responding to me, I must object to your blatant slander and flaming. I am not a fanboi, I don't love everything about the new Codex, and I am not impossible to convince... unless your definition for the above three categories is 'disagrees with me,' in which case I'm definitely not continuing this for another sentence.

I've seen enough of your posts to know you disagree with GW. My apologies for lumping you in with fanbois. However, I have seen enough from the other side of this argument that seem to agree with everything GW does.


Oh, and I can make a Blood Ravens list that looks exactly like a Salamanders list in the SM Codex. Man, you'd think it was up to the player to make his armies distinct or something...

I thought you weren't continuing this for another sentence? :p Could you do the same wih BA, DA, SW, or BT? Then why do we have those lists? No army group in 40K should be as varied as Chaos (maybe Orks come close). If anyone should have special rules for it's factions, it's Chaos. If you read above, you'd see that I support everyone getting varient lists as well.



Except that we don't actually field armies on the table, we field tiny detachments of (in the case of SM/CSM) 30-40 men.

And 30 guys don't have to be representative of the army as a whole. If the US sends 30 of its soldiers somewhere, I doubt the group will include the exact same proportions of grunts, commandos, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc. as in the US armed forces as a whole. In fact, it'll probably be a rather homogenous force, as forces tasked with a specific objective tend to be.

So it it that unrealistic to say that the 30 IW guys you bring to the table happen to be the assault specialists designated to enter the breach in enemy fortifications?

I agree with you here. I have always viewed 40K as an important part of a much larger battle.

That depends. If you have a legion that has worked on perfecting siege warfare for better than 10K years, I'd expect even new recruits to know a little something about siege warfare. Let's take your example of the U.S. The U.S. has become more and more dependent on it's aircraft. In WW II it started as a shift from battleships to aircraft carriers in the navy. Now even small groups of special forces can call on an AC-130. There are situations that might arise (urban warfare) where aircraft might be limited, but in most cases, you can expect those 30 guys to be able to call on some sort of air support. If we were playing a game based on modern times, wouldn't you expect marines to operate differently than the army? What about airborne or mountain troops?

If that's how the player of that army sees his force, then why not? Why wouldn't those 30 assault specialist be what the commander sent? If it's a pivotal point on the battlefield, wouldn't a commander send what he thought could get the job done?



Could someone quote to me please the section in the IA or anywhere else where it states IW's are supposed to min/max, that their theme is power gaming?

It doesn't. Sadly that's one of the things I think killed the list. There were too many powergamers at tournaments.


All I can hear when someone says "I can't make an IW's army any more" is "I can't min/max and produce abusive static shooty armies."

Then you're not listening (reading). We want flavorfull lists. At this point, I would take a weaker list that was fluffy.


As many other's have said- the Iron Warriors speciality is siege warfare, this applies on a strategic level (i.e. far above the level of 40k). At 40k level you could have the Breach Assault force, or you could sit several miles away and bombard the enemy fortification for several months- I know which makes a more interesting 40k game.

Some people like artillery. Some people like tanks. Why should 40K exclude these people?


Breach Assault force doesn't just mean they are all close-combat nuts either- people keep thinking way too narrowly about fluff. The Assault force will have it's share of heavy weapons, and may even be just about mobile firepower, with Rhino mounted troops to push passed the Breach and into the fortress (these things could be city sized in 40k).

I agree. Not everyone in the assault needs to be a bezerker or CCW specialist.


But let's pretend for the moment that the IW's whole 10,000yr history has been dumbed down to just be about static shooty min/maxed armies.
It was broken, and boring to play against.
First and foremost, this is a game, if your fluff is to powergame- then it may have to be sacrified for gameplay.

There are plenty of counters to extremely shooty lists. I also play traitor guard that relies heavily on artillery. I dread deep strikers when I play my artillery company. On top of that, not all IW lists need to be static shooting. I had a list in 3.5 that used the generic (BL) rules. I had a LT dedicated to Khorne. I had a couple of squads of bezerkers next to my regular CSM. I had plenty of HS to remind my opponents that it was still an IW list. It was fluffy, but different from my normal IW lists.


My Inquisition armies should be able to Exterminatus the planet and roast my opponent's army whenever I'm close to losing the game....it isn't possible in the game, despite far more fluff about it than about IW's min/maxing, because it is boring and unfair to the opponent.

I don't see why not. The rules should be fair though. Maybe you should be able to buy more orbital bombardments at a reduced price, but that could only be used on the last turn if you were behind by X amount of VPs? See? You could have fluff included in your army AND not be cheesy.


Or put another- how would you the IW's player design a variant army list that isn't just a normal Chaos list plus lots of abusive extra rules?

AdmiralDick had a great thread a few weeks ago about how people would do the legions. Unfortunately it devolved into another "the Chaos dex sucks" vs "there is nothing wrong with the Chaos dex" threads. One idea I loved for the IW was an ability to buy bunkers instead of rhinos for their squads. My idea was to let the IW have their 4th HS and basilisk (or medusa). The catch is that their 4th HS slot would have to be a basilisk (or medusa). It would also cost 150%-200%(or whatever was fair after playtesting) of the guard's cost. I would also bring back siege specialists (never used but fluffy) and the servo arm (overcosted). Someone else suggested a techmarine type troop and servitors. There are a lot of ways you could go about it without breaking the game.

BrainFireBob
19-03-2008, 06:36
The CSM equivalent of a 'Tech-Priest' or 'Engin-Seer'. We previously had the servo arms available to us, and I'd love to see that continue. Aside from that I'm really okay. I can still field 9 Oblits if that's the direction I want to go (I don't, but I could do it within the existing rules). I can field everything I could before, acception the Basilisk, just in a different way.


I agree that that would be nice- currently, I have two servo-arms, and they're both (with a little reconfiguring in one case) counting as the second of two lightning claws, with a gun in the offhand.

It's not enough to give them their own codex to give them this (since even a Legion-specific piece of wargear for each legion would ramp up the book to excess, I think), but adding more, without completely redrawing the army, leads to balance issues. Might work with one permutation- but not with nine. Some of them will be metagame-altering broken.

So do it properly, or leave it up to the player to self-monitor and express their vision.


The Chosen function much like normal Chaos Space Marines with Infiltrate did in the last codex, with the addition of various weapon options, but the quote illustrates how few thoughts of representing the ten millennia old legionaries entered the minds of the writers

Well, before that codex, the fluff answer was that you couldn't infiltrate in power armor, it was too bulky and the power unit was too noisy.

When the last CSM dex came out, the answer was "after 10,000 years, some CSM have learned to do it."

The the new SM dex came out, and the explanation was *silence*.

Now, we're back to the "Chaos vets have learned to do it, because it's damn near impossible in power armor.


It encourages CC over shooting, not necessarily mobile firepower over static firepower. I don't see how the current list is necessarily more "fluffy" or how the old list was so "unfluffy", especially given that it didn't contradict any earlier fluff that I can see. I will admit I do like some things about the new book, its not totally naff, but it's definitely not an improvement, just different.


Try this: Chaos is primarily an assault geared army. The IW are shooty- for a chaos army. Ergo, they shouldn't be the shootiest thing around, just more shooty than standard Chaos in general, by the fluff.



So they've gutted Codex Chaos with all it's variations but then released Codex Dark Angels and Codex Orks which has differing Troop choices dependent on HQ selection.

There is also Codex Blood Angels which in order to give itself a little bit more justification to exist, allowed Assault Marines to be taken as troops.

So why do these 3 codexes allow the sort of differentiation that the Chaos codex used to allow?


Because Chaos has all five Troop choices all the time, without have to invest in a specific commander, desired or not, to get that Troop option?



Like the rest of your post? The old book worked better for legions. There were a lot of good ideas in it. It was just executed poorly. They didn't have to scrap everything with the current dex. They could have tried to fix what was broken.

And you know they didn't try because of your vast inside knowledge of the design process? That they didn't try and decide it didn't work?

That's not to say they did, but it's poor logic at best to handwaive and assume they didn't just because it suits your biased, pre-decided opinion. That's not to flame, mind.


My point was that none of the existing legions would fight the same way as IW.

They would, they just wouldn't do it as often. None of the CSM used "unique" formations, aside from Berzerkers and the *late* addition of Sonic Weapons. Two other legions gained unique- at the time- troops from specific events.

And who hijacked AdmiralDick's thread? If you polled Warseer, I'm sure you'd find split opinions on the matter.

Occulto
19-03-2008, 07:20
Totally and utterly true.

However GW are totally inept at this sort of thing.

So they've gutted Codex Chaos with all it's variations but then released Codex Dark Angels and Codex Orks which has differing Troop choices dependent on HQ selection.

There is also Codex Blood Angels which in order to give itself a little bit more justification to exist, allowed Assault Marines to be taken as troops.

So why do these 3 codexes allow the sort of differentiation that the Chaos codex used to allow?

Again, this seems like a catch-22.

Imagine the reaction if Chaos used the same system as DA: "you need Ahriman to take 1ksons as Troops, otherwise they're Elites." My money's on a few thousand posts of players complaining that they play 1ksons, but don't want to use Ahriman!

Even if that wasn't a problem, you'd still get complaints because a player could probably field Lucius and Kharn in the same list, in the same way I can field Belial and Sammael in one DA army.

What I do like about the current Chaos codex, is that it's not finished. There's this big gaping hole in the middle that's the Legions. The problem with v3.5 was both its slap dash approach and the fact it signalled the end of development for Chaos in that cycle.

I'd hate for the current codex to be a polished version of v3.5 and watch everyone get stuck with an extra force org slot and some wargear for the next 7 years or so!

As it is, there's still openings for Legions. I don't think it's an idle dream - I think Chaos (done right) has the potential to be a counterweight to all the attention Imperial forces get.


And then there's the issue of even the existence of Alternative Space Marine codexes. BA/DA are really codex chapters and therefore really covered by Codex Space Marines. They have a few special units but these could've been included in the normal codex via some Special Character or as upgrades to existing units.

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

I actually theorise that DA was released almost as a beta-test for 5th edition. It would make sense to see how people react to various concepts before releasing the biggest codex/armybook in their entire range (combat squads etc)

Also, I reckon they've learnt their lesson after the 3rd ed fiasco where so many people were left without decent rules for so long. This way, most of the generic codices will already be there on the shelf when the new edition is released.

They've already done 3 of the "big 5" armies - Eldar, Orks and Chaos. Assume SM are done around the same time as 5th ed and IG shortly afterwards? You've got the majority of the bases covered. I think that's what they're trying to do - get a baseline out for a new edition as quickly as possible, then once that's done, start getting into the funky stuff.

Personally, I'd love to see an eventual return to campaign books like Armageddon. Not full world wide campaigns, but just books with four or so armylists in there and maybe some scenarios. A bit like the Forgeworld campaign books (though not nearly as extensive).


Besides Chaos Legions have special units too ala Berzerkers or Dark APostles or Alpha Legion Cultists etc.

Yeah, but even some of those were pretty uninspiring (or just plain stupid) IMHO. Why on earth cultists were restricted to Alpha Legion, I'll never know. Dark Apostles were pretty bland - a 4++ save and the demagogue ability. *yawns*


The problem with defending Games Workshop is that its games design is not consistent. It seems to me not only to be influenced by marketing and sales targets but is very much dependent on the personal whims and preferences of whatever designer is working on the codex. In essence it's very unprofessional with no clear aim or game orientated goals.

Agreed.

squeekenator
19-03-2008, 07:31
Iron Warriors Combat Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Warriors#Combat_Doctrine)

The relevant bits:


Siege warfare follows a very simple but effective set of general tactics. When a breach has been forced in the enemy defences it will initially be probed by veterans and infiltrated, then the gap will be prised open with firepower until a storming force can be unleashed. These storming forces are based around fast moving heavy armour which can move instantly from relentless barrage to lightning-fast advance. Breaches are then widened until the defences are shattered. For the key moments in battle when a position absolutely must be taken, the Iron Warriors adopt an ice-cold ferocity that is comparable to the Blood Angels or World Eaters, but only when the moment is right and never for longer than necessary.

Iron Warriors tactics after the enemy isn't behind huge walls (i.e., in anything but a themed Apocalypse game) certainly don't seem to involve huge numbers of heavy support troops, more like a lot of fast attack, transports and infiltrators. They should be played as fast forces, nothing like the old codex portrayed them. Again, the old codex did not portray Iron Warriors any better than the new one does.


In combat, Iron Warriors are terrifyingly adept at both ballistic warfare and close-range bloodshed, and use a mixture of the two to slaughter opponents in vast numbers. The typical Iron Warrior is armed with a powerful bolter, plasma gun or other such ranged weapon, as well as a close-combat blade or chainsword.

Maybe they aren't even that obsessed with shooting. While that armament is now the default, perhaps they should have had a bolter, pistol and chainsword for the old legion rules to properly do Iron Warriors.


The Iron Warriors are expert sappers, engineers and miners and have acquired a formidable siege train of specialist equipment over the centuries. This includes Termite tunnelers, a Leviathan transport, Dreadclaw assault boats adapted for planetary landings and a large assortment of Imperial-built artillery. These are used very sparingly and are maintained and guarded by the 1st Company.

Imperial artillery is used very sparingly. Maybe those Basilisks shouldn't have been part of the main list, eh? More of something you would see in Apocalypse, where, hey, you can get them. So you aren't even losing Basilisks, because they never should have been made available, and at the very least they should have been only available in very large games.


While trying to be funny and sarcastic you A) missed my point entirely and B) got real confused about what I was talking about. BL is short for Black Legion. That's another CHAOS legion. The legions should look different from one another. They should look drastically different from SM armies. 10K years is a long time to develope different ways of fighting. You do make a funny point by getting defensive about CSM looking like SM though. If you're going to get defensive about it, and I didn't even mention it; doesn't that say something about the current dex?

Ah, ok then. I misread BL to be BA, sorry about that, not sure how I managed to do that. Still, that hardly makes my point less valid. The Black Legion are meant to encompass all methods of warfare, because Chaos marines with all specialties join them. Of course they should be able to look exactly like another Legion. And the Chaos marines should be more similar to each other than to the loyalists. That's like claiming that Ultramarines looking like Space Wolves is blasphemous, yet playing them like Imperial Guard is fine because Ultramarines and Guardsmen are both Imperial.


I don't care what GW thinks about what I do. I didn't post that for some sort of boycott of GW or anything. I posted that to point out that 40K is no longer fun for me because of the current dex. I still play Apocalypse from time to time, but I would like to find regular 40K games fun again. IMO there should be klan, craftworld, hive fleet, C'tan followers, kabal, regiment, chapter, legion, and sept rules. I think it would bring a lot more flavor and diversity to the game. I would even suggest that GW do "fun" codices for all of those armies. They'd be perfectly legal for pickup games and games among friend. Tournaments could accept them or deny them as they saw fit. I really do think that the (what I perceive as) concentration on the tournament scene is killing 40K.

Now this I can agree with. However, it doesn't really work, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, not all races really have variants. There are no Dark Eldar kabals that have been described with anything but a name, Necrons are all identical regardless of which C'Tan controls them, all septs are controlled by the same combat doctrine, and all improvements are spread across all the Hive Fleets, making them identical. The only reason it worked in the old codex is because that focussed on Kraken, which was the only Hive Fleet that could really have different splinter fleets, due to its unique method of attack. Now, however, that method has become obsolete, and no more fleets will use that tactic. And if half the races don't get variants and the other half are full of them, every 40K forum is going to drown in fanatic whiners and fanboys. And yes, Warhammer would be a lot better if tournaments weren't so emphasised.


You might want to do some research before you make misinformed statements like this. All the things you mention are sent in AFTER a breach in the walls has been established. The breach is acheived by mining, artillery, or a combination of the two. The only other option is to starve the forces inside, and that would be a pretty boring game. Basilisks (and other artillery) are not meant to kill anyone during a siege. Their role is to destroy walls so you can assault the breach.

Oh, sure, but 40K's technology makes our method of siege rather useless. Raptors can fly over the walls and into their bunkers, Terminators teleport straight into the bunker and slaughter the startled defenders, and random Bloodthirsters appearing in the middle of your defensive complex is really going to ruin your day. Yes, you can make a breach and assault it, but Perturabo really isn't going to be blinded enough to consider that the only way of attacking an entrenched defender, especially after 10,000 years. And the example of selfish use of that Chaos Terminator formation shows that they can certainly teleport into buildings, so there isn't any problem with that.


I think if you looked outside of the tournament scene, you'd find a lot more than that. I never min/maxed. I used a few special rules, but I played a fair army.

I've never entered a 40K tournament (other than a 500pt tournie between friends, but that hardly counts). I'm not looking at the impact on the tournament scene, I'm looking at the concept of variant lists and pointing out its flaws.

Ddraiglais
19-03-2008, 07:32
And you know they didn't try because of your vast inside knowledge of the design process? That they didn't try and decide it didn't work?

That's not to say they did, but it's poor logic at best to handwaive and assume they didn't just because it suits your biased, pre-decided opinion. That's not to flame, mind.

It's not because it suits my opinion. It's because A) The codex seems rushed (I'm not the only person who's said this). B) I know that I could have come up with nonbroken rules for the legions, and I'm not that smart. :D and C) They seem to be doing fine with SM codices.


They would, they just wouldn't do it as often. None of the CSM used "unique" formations, aside from Berzerkers and the *late* addition of Sonic Weapons. Two other legions gained unique- at the time- troops from specific events.

I guess that depends on the legion. I guess BL could probably fight a siege and do it almost as well as IW. There is no way AL could muster that many CSM together. I also doubt they have the equipment. The WE wouldn't be able to do it due to lack of firepower (the old version of WE probably could though). I'd say the other legions fall in between somewhere. However, they would all probably do it differently. The WB would probably have greater daemons smash a breach in the wall. The TS would probably use sorcery to breach the wall. NL would just go over the wall. Even fighting the same style of battle would see the legions fighting it differently.


And who hijacked AdmiralDick's thread? If you polled Warseer, I'm sure you'd find split opinions on the matter.

IIRC, it was the other side. :angel:

BrainFireBob
19-03-2008, 07:44
It's not because it suits my opinion. It's because A) The codex seems rushed (I'm not the only person who's said this). B) I know that I could have come up with nonbroken rules for the legions, and I'm not that smart. :D and C) They seem to be doing fine with SM codices.

B contradicts itself. You believe you can do it without trying, and the claim it's proven as true because you're not smart? ;-) I don't think it could be done without doing what they've announced they intend to do- do fully-fledged Chaos Legion books, and I *am* smart. :-D


IIRC, it was the other side. :angel:

LOL. My opinion is obviously the opposite, since I find it's the anti-dex people that contain the most didactic and rigid posters- consider the heavy use of "fanboi" to brand anyone that doesn't agree with them that the codex is Gods-awful and destroyed their armies, when many who think that still think the old one was better (I don't, I think it had great concepts and terrible execution. Get a solid framework down before you get fancy).

squeekenator
19-03-2008, 07:54
Ironhand started it by making remarks on the balance of the old list, which wasn't necessarily intended to start a flamefest, catbarf escalated it by providing another viewpoint, thus allowing this whole fiasco to really begin, and then everyone else piled in. So who started it depends on whether Ironhand was intending to start a codex war or if he was just making a casual 'good riddance' post.

Ddraiglais
19-03-2008, 08:28
Iron Warriors Combat Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Warriors#Combat_Doctrine)

The relevant bits:



Iron Warriors tactics after the enemy isn't behind huge walls (i.e., in anything but a themed Apocalypse game) certainly don't seem to involve huge numbers of heavy support troops, more like a lot of fast attack, transports and infiltrators. They should be played as fast forces, nothing like the old codex portrayed them. Again, the old codex did not portray Iron Warriors any better than the new one does.

I agree somewhat. There is fluff that describes them as moving fast. However, they would still have their tanks. The first (IIRC) Battle of Tallarn was a huge tank battle between the Iron Warriors and Tallarn. Since the planet was recently virus bombed, the battle ended up being the largest tank battlein human history. There were over a million wrecked tanks by the end of the battle.


Maybe they aren't even that obsessed with shooting. While that armament is now the default, perhaps they should have had a bolter, pistol and chainsword for the old legion rules to properly do Iron Warriors.

Again, I agree a bit. The IW should have CCW units. Someone has to take the breach.


Imperial artillery is used very sparingly. Maybe those Basilisks shouldn't have been part of the main list, eh? More of something you would see in Apocalypse, where, hey, you can get them. So you aren't even losing Basilisks, because they never should have been made available, and at the very least they should have been only available in very large games.

Depends. Krieg is famous for it's artillery. I would replace the basilisks in the IW list with medusas or that cannon from WFB. The thunderer would be another idea, but that would be redundent with the vindicator. I disagree that artillery should only be used in very large games. If people want to play with lots of artillery, then why should they be denied? I personally think that CCW troops should be an afterthought since there are bolters, lasers, railguns, etc in the game, but there's a huge place for them anyway.


Ah, ok then. I misread BL to be BA, sorry about that, not sure how I managed to do that. Still, that hardly makes my point less valid. The Black Legion are meant to encompass all methods of warfare, because Chaos marines with all specialties join them. Of course they should be able to look exactly like another Legion. And the Chaos marines should be more similar to each other than to the loyalists. That's like claiming that Ultramarines looking like Space Wolves is blasphemous, yet playing them like Imperial Guard is fine because Ultramarines and Guardsmen are both Imperial.

No worries. Now that I think about it, I used the absolute worst example I could have from the Chaos legions. The BL are well rounded enough to maybe field an army that looked like IW. However, most of the other legions couldn't, and that was my main point.


Now this I can agree with. However, it doesn't really work, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, not all races really have variants. There are no Dark Eldar kabals that have been described with anything but a name, Necrons are all identical regardless of which C'Tan controls them, all septs are controlled by the same combat doctrine, and all improvements are spread across all the Hive Fleets, making them identical. The only reason it worked in the old codex is because that focussed on Kraken, which was the only Hive Fleet that could really have different splinter fleets, due to its unique method of attack. Now, however, that method has become obsolete, and no more fleets will use that tactic. And if half the races don't get variants and the other half are full of them, every 40K forum is going to drown in fanatic whiners and fanboys. And yes, Warhammer would be a lot better if tournaments weren't so emphasised.

My point is that all races could have slight variations. The only problem is coming up with the rules. Why couldn't the Void Dragon have a different approach to warfare than the Deceiver? Tyranids adapt their techniques. There's a hive fleet that has just invaded Ork space. I don't see why it wouldn't come up with different creatures. The Tau could have a Farsight enclave, Kroot army (which they already have an unofficial list), and maybe a Vespid or Demiurg list. I don't know enough about DE to comment, but why couldn't they have a different list? (although I think most DE players would be happy enough just to get a codex that wasn't a decade old).


Oh, sure, but 40K's technology makes our method of siege rather useless. Raptors can fly over the walls and into their bunkers, Terminators teleport straight into the bunker and slaughter the startled defenders, and random Bloodthirsters appearing in the middle of your defensive complex is really going to ruin your day. Yes, you can make a breach and assault it, but Perturabo really isn't going to be blinded enough to consider that the only way of attacking an entrenched defender, especially after 10,000 years. And the example of selfish use of that Chaos Terminator formation shows that they can certainly teleport into buildings, so there isn't any problem with that.

Here I have to apologise for not mentioning the imagery of siege warfare that I was using. That wasn't even our method of siege warfare. Siege warfare basically doesn't exist in the 21st century. I had star forts pictured in my mind. Storm of Iron is a book that I use for a lot of my info on IW. In it, the fortress is in the star fort mold. It was hinted that Perturabo had built it. I kind of assumed that the Imperium had reverted back to fortresses like that. Of course I'm sure they have things like the Maginot Line and Atlantik Wall as well. There are also examples of trench warfare. Assaulting any of these could be done like you say. However, there are ways to block teleporting. There are ways to stop summoning. Raptors can be shot down. There are different ways fortresses can be defended. I could even say void shields can stop orbital bombardments and/or artillery shells to go against what I'm saying. I agree there are dozens of ways to skin a cat. I am also saying that there is a classical way to storm a fortress. Those ideas were presented in a book that I consider a great insight into how the IW operate.


I've never entered a 40K tournament (other than a 500pt tournie between friends, but that hardly counts). I'm not looking at the impact on the tournament scene, I'm looking at the concept of variant lists and pointing out its flaws.

I still think the lists were more likely to abused in tournaments, and that that led to their downfall.



B contradicts itself. You believe you can do it without trying, and the claim it's proven as true because you're not smart? ;-) I don't think it could be done without doing what they've announced they intend to do- do fully-fledged Chaos Legion books, and I *am* smart. :-D

What? I can't joke around? :D I have written house rules for a lot of games I've played. When I use to play D&D, I pretty much rewrote the rules when I was DM. I really don't think that it would be too hard to write the legion rules and have them balanced, especially if that was your job.

Here I agree with you. It would be much easier to write them if you took some time and released them as a new legion dex. I'm not 100% convinced that that was the initial plan. I'm not so sure that they didn't come out and say that was the plan because of all the backlash from the current dex. Either way, they may or may not do a legion dex. GW has been known to change their plans before. I'm hoping they do a legion dex, but I'm not holding my breath.


LOL. My opinion is obviously the opposite, since I find it's the anti-dex people that contain the most didactic and rigid posters- consider the heavy use of "fanboi" to brand anyone that doesn't agree with them that the codex is Gods-awful and destroyed their armies, when many who think that still think the old one was better (I don't, I think it had great concepts and terrible execution. Get a solid framework down before you get fancy).

Seriously, I think it was a lot of us anti-dex people who were talking about what we would like to see in the promised legion dex that got interupted by one of the pro-dexers.

I also think we kinda agree on the old dex. I do see the old one as better, but I'm the first person to admit it was broken. I agree wholeheartedly that it was a great concept that failed in it's execution. Maybe you're right about getting a solid framework before you get fancy, but hasn't GW been writing these rules for a couple of decades now?

BrainFireBob
19-03-2008, 08:48
Yes, but- allegedly, mind!- JJ's new position marks the first time someone's trying to make sure there's a unified vision of the game (how this differs from Overfiend, I don't know, but it certainly could).

Since his inception, they've been reworking the framework, dealing with the worst abusers first. We're now even getting a new edition. If they continue throughout an entire release schedule, things will be great for just adding new stuff. Of course, there's enough hostility that, even if the intent, one doubts there will be follow-through.

Interestingly, JJ is the only person at GW that's still involved with rules writing as a job that's been doing it for a couple of decades (what the hell *is* Priestly doing, anyway, getting coffee? Playing games on his PC until he gets an idea? He does really nice work- IMO- but he doesn't do it often, it seems, in game design).

Redrivertears
19-03-2008, 09:43
Hey there,

I'm not an Iron Warrior player, and I admit I haven't read every response in this thread in depth (but I have skimmed through it all).

I think though, what this entire debate comes down to, is simply the concept of background versus abstraction.


BACKGROUND: When you chose an army, you do it for various reasons. Some people chose an army because the paint scheme appeals to them. Some people do it because they like the army rules. But I think most of us do it because we've read or heard (or seen, with the PC games these days) about the background of the army somewhere, and say "this is the type of army we want to play."

You envision the army in your head, and with it, envision a certain 'game experience'. When I envision my dark eldar army, I envision playing games with lots of fast moving troops, assaults, skimmers. When I envision playing games with my necrons, I envision hordes of similar troops, unwilling to die, that keep on coming.

This 'game experience' that we envision, and that makes us chose the army we want to play, is based on the background of the army, the entire idea, theme of it.


ABSTRACTION: Then we get to the rules. Now rules, by necessity, make an abstraction of this idea, this theme. Its hard to translate the entire background into a ruleset. Because you have to factor in things like playability, balance, and general dynamism of the game. So every ruleset 'abstracts' the games' background somehow. Marines on the tabletop aren't the same as marines you read in the novels. Eldar farseers can't do all the great things you read about them doing in the stories. The tyranid don't quite have the endless hordes they seem to do in the tales when translated to tabletop.

Now the whole debate here, I think, is a debate of people's personal opinion, on one simple thing: when do you make things too abstract? where lies the point when too much abstraction makes you lose the theme of the army?

For some people, that point has been reached with regards to Iron Warriors. For others, the current codex is fine and they can still play the Iron Warriors they wanted to play.

DEBATE: But the thing is, this original theme, this way that we envision our army, is a highly subjective thing. It's different for everyone. I don't see the Iron Warriors quite in the same light as my fellow player does.

So the question: "Have the rules abstractions gone too far and ruined the theme of the Iron Warriors, or is it fine the way it is?" is not one where you'll ever reach a common consensus. Because it depends too much on the original, subjective idea of exactly what it is like to play an Iron Warrior army.... which is different for everyone.


As for myself, I play Emperor's Children. When the new codex came out, I was very happy about some things, and less so about others. I sat down, thought long and hard about what I was going to do with my army, and finally decided it was still worth doing. I needed to make some adjustments, buy some new models, change things around a bit. I even had to change the theme of my army and how I envisioned it. But I decided to do so, and continue. And I've been having a blast with it since.

So I think it's up to all of us to simply ask ourselves the question: "Can I still play the army I want to play with this new codex, or can I adjust so that it's still enjoyable for me?".

Anyways, that's just my opinion,

-Redrivertears-

BrainFireBob
19-03-2008, 10:03
Appreciated, Redrivertears, and said before. Hopefully tempers have cooled enough this time people will listen.

Supremearchmarshal
19-03-2008, 12:51
As far as ive noticed no one has mentioned Veteran Skills as having been taken out and its effect on an IW (or any Chaos) armies.

Well I think the rules allowing any CSM unit to take any veteran skill was abusable and its good they dropped it. However, having several veteran skills is not overpowered for an Elites choice like Chosen. So instead of the current boring "I'm a mighty champion of Chaos so I get to sneak around with a Plasma Gun" they should have made Chosen into a highly customizable unit like for example the Carnifex. Allowing Chosen that could represent anything from infiltrating tank hunters to elite Berserkers would solve a lot of the gripes about the legions being dropped.


They've already done 3 of the "big 5" armies - Eldar, Orks and Chaos. Assume SM are done around the same time as 5th ed and IG shortly afterwards? You've got the majority of the bases covered. I think that's what they're trying to do - get a baseline out for a new edition as quickly as possible, then once that's done, start getting into the funky stuff.

Personally, I'd love to see an eventual return to campaign books like Armageddon. Not full world wide campaigns, but just books with four or so armylists in there and maybe some scenarios. A bit like the Forgeworld campaign books (though not nearly as extensive).

I'm not very sure about this - Jervis's comment about an army being required to have a dedicated model range goes against this. So does the loss of the bitz. And the you-don't-need-special-rules-to-make-an-army argument. And Apocalypse.

Still, as cailus said, it's perfectly possible that GW will change its design philosophy again in the near future.

Staurikosaurus
19-03-2008, 13:29
I agree with Redrivertears and a few others on this one.

I played Word Bearers in the previous codex (not the daemon bomb but I did use a few daemon units). I played them because I liked their backstory and the ability to take a dark apostle and mix god-specific daemons as a nice touch. The new codex tossed a wrench into my list. I was upset for awhile but like Redrivertears I saw it as an opportunity to redesign my list and do some new conversions. After spending a bit of time on it, I am much happier with my current Word Bearers list than I was with my old one - additionally I got to do a LOT of conversions (not required by the book but to fit the new fluff I wrote for my army).

While special rules CAN help define how an army plays and looks, for the most part it is up to the player. Look for inspiration from past background articles and novels and go from there - and don't forget that you can create your own background for your lists, not everything has to be handed to you. GW is attempting to get away from designing lists for the hardcore Tournament players - they represent only 10% of their gaming market. On reflection I think that this is a good move and I say this as a former tournament player. There will always be bandwagon jumpers and codex abuses but the new codex designs and rules rewrites are slowly bringing this into line. Yes there will always be rules abuses but it is as much up to the players as it is GW to curb their application. As has been said by many before me, the OBJECT of the game is to win, the POINT is to have fun - for both yourself and your opponent. Take this into consideration when designing a list.

To sum up, consider it YOUR responsibility to create a list with the codex given to you to fit legion or other background. You may have more fun creating something on your own, that you can call your own rather than having something handed to you. Background is more than special rules and a paint job.

bobsacks
19-03-2008, 13:46
I just got back into playing Warhammer 40k after a four year break. Right before I quit I was working on building a Nurgle CSM army. When I picked up the new Chaos codex a while back I was a bit disappointed at first because my army wasn't in there any more. I was really confused at first.

But the more I have looked at it the happier I have become. I think it is great that you can mix cult troops now. We really have only 'lost' a few options but we have also gained quite a few from what I have seen. I like the new setup because it will allow me to collect all the cult armies and actually be able to field them all in a battle if I want.

To me it seems like a high percentage of the people really complaining about this probably had a one trick army built off of real specific items in the old list and are now having trouble winning. To me those people are playing for the wrong reason and probably won't be around that long anyway.

Killgore
19-03-2008, 15:07
I just got back into playing Warhammer 40k after a four year break. Right before I quit I was working on building a Nurgle CSM army. When I picked up the new Chaos codex a while back I was a bit disappointed at first because my army wasn't in there any more. I was really confused at first.

But the more I have looked at it the happier I have become. I think it is great that you can mix cult troops now. We really have only 'lost' a few options but we have also gained quite a few from what I have seen. I like the new setup because it will allow me to collect all the cult armies and actually be able to field them all in a battle if I want.

To me it seems like a high percentage of the people really complaining about this probably had a one trick army built off of real specific items in the old list and are now having trouble winning. To me those people are playing for the wrong reason and probably won't be around that long anyway.



agreed, initialy i was disapointed with a few changes to the new army list and the affect this had on my Word Bearers, but now i'v fully grasped the list and relised what i can add to my army

i just wish there was more units that could be 'tinkered' with, such as old chosen and the daemon prince.

DarkstarSabre
19-03-2008, 18:26
Perhaps because some people feel that siege troops, mechanized assault armies, footslogging elites, and untrained hordes should use different rules, rather than one big homogenized list?

Do you really think there's nothing to an army beyond color scheme? That nobody makes or follows fluff for their army? That there is no reason to have your army play a specific way, and that the default rules don't have the flexibility to let you play your army that way?

Really, your notion that colors are the only reason we use for wanting special rules is astounding.

Now this is laughable right here.

I find the list that allows Player A to produce a mechanised assault army, Player B to produce footslogging elites and Player C to produce a mass of untrained hordes while being in the same codex to be far, far better than 3 seperate codexes altogether. For one it's actually a more 'friendly' approach, allowing people to vary their tactics and making it so you don't have to be lugging around half a suitcase in addition to your army.

Maybe you liked you suitcase. I don't know.

Also, please try harder to read into what I was stating. I follow fluff quite happily. I design lists based on what I want to play and what suits the army I'm playing. In fact, the vast majority of your posts appear to be kicking off and screaming because you cannot take 5 man las-plas squads. Hell, you are clinging to this motion of small numbers of men for a large proportion of heavy weapons and taking that as gospel.

Here's a hint.

Take minimal troops choices if you want. And bulk up on Heavy Support and Elites. Suddenly, low numbers of men with high numbers of heavy weapons.

You don't want special rules for Fluff. Hell no.

You want them because you want to win. It's as plain as that. And it's disgusting.

Dr.Clock
19-03-2008, 19:28
Whether for model sales or game balance, the days of minimum troop choices is over.

I, for one, am extremely thankful.

The fact that every new codex is FORCING players to make hard decisions about what to take is a good thing.

Darkstar's hit it on the head: the possibilities in each list are expanded tenfold. Yet, each step you take in list building has a much larger impact on what you can expect from each successive step.

The FOC actually means something these days.

Certainly, the biggest trial facing an IW player is going to be what to do in Heavy Support. If this means that some players opt for an oblit-cult supported by a couple dreads and termies and some pick up a LR and two vindis, then I think the community is better for it. BOTH options are IMO a great depiction of IW, no matter what is in troops.

If people start complaining that they actually have to start thinking about how to equip their units, then the main strategic element of the game is lost. By the time the models are on the board, it's all about tactics. I, for one, enjoy the STRATEGIC phase of the game: picking a list.

The fact that each IW list is going to be different IS a little chaotic isn't it? Then again, in an army where each Warsmith (player?) will have his own strengths and weaknesses, this seems more fitting than "each 1500 points of IW looks like this... 2000 points like this". Now there are no directions aside from fluff. You are only limited by the FOC and unit options. This is as it should be.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Grand Master Raziel
19-03-2008, 23:32
I've just created two very basic armies with Troops choices and an HQ that play entirely differently, without even going into unit options like specials and heavy weapons, or even other FOC slots. My, I must be a god amongst men.


Oh, but you are, ID, you are! ;)


Jervis Johnson has said that the current codex isn't meant for legions, yet you can somehow make legions with the current dex? That's amazing!!!

You mean you can't? :eek: Doesn't everyone who frequents Warseer think that they're smarter than the entirety of GW's game development staff? Sure seems that way, most days.

Anyway, I think what Jervis meant is that the current dex isn't meant for the cult legions, because anyone who can't make a thematically appropriate list for any of the Undivided legions with Codex: Chaos Space Marines just isn't trying. Basically, all the 3.5 Undivided Legion rules consisted of were Black Legion rules with a few undeserved additions. You lost the undeserved additions, that's all.

The Cult legions are a little harder to manage, but only if you can't wrap your brain around the idea that not every single member of the Legion in question has to be one of the Cult troops. Even if you can't bring yourself to make this inconsequential leap of logic, you can still make playable lists for all the Cult legions with the current rules - maybe not tournament competitive, but competitive enough for friendly play. You just go for largely vehicle-based support units, maybe settling for Spawn in your FA slot or simply forgoing FA altogether, since realistically you can't fill a FOC in a 401-2000pt game with any kind of reasonable list anyway.


I haven't jumped to another list, but I haven't played 40K since the current dex. I love the IW for a bunch of reasons. I do not feel that I can represent them in a game of 40K anymore though.

Loading up on artillery makes perfect sense.

Actually, it doesn't. Why would anyone have rare-and-valuable Chaos Space Marines manning artillery pieces? That's a job that can be done by any batch of reasonably strong retards as long as you include at least one joker who's good at math.


I keep saying this, but yet nobody seems to read it. There are a lot of us legion players (even a few IW players) that want fluffy legion specific rules. We are NOT asking for broken/cheesy rules. We just want the uniqueness back in our armies.

Uh huh. Yeah, right. I'd be more convinced if folks such as yourself who make this claim would list the things they'd like to see taken away from their Legions to make them more thematically appropriate instead of listing things they'd like to see added.


I won't lie I'm one of the people that shelfed their IW army. The irony was I ran 4 troop squads, of which only one was a 5 man LC (no Plas) squad. The rest were 8-10 man assault or infiltrate squads with special weapons (yes including flamers). The reason I shelfed the army is I can't get icons for the army without paying $15 for the two bits for the icon or $35 for a new box, I already have 75 CSM troopers, I really don't need more. Too bad GW killed their bits order as I would have just brought the CSM extras sprues.

Battlewagon Bitz, man.



And remember, not all of the Legion rules were hideously broken. I don't think I've heard anyone complain about Word Bearers, Thousand Sons, Night Lords, Alpha Legion or Death Guard as inherently cheesy, mainly just IW, EC, and sometimes WE, and even then only if one went to town on them.

Let's get something straight here. 3.5 was not a Codex that would have been fine had it not been for the IW rules and Siren Princes. It was the most horrendously broken dex of the cycle, with things like the IWAoD, Siren Princes, Daemonbombing and whatnot just being the particular nails that stuck out most. The only Chaos armis that didn't automatically reek of cheese unless proven otherwise were the Thousand Sons armies, and that's because playing Thousand Sons was an exercise in favoring theme over effectiveness.





And honestly, if people think the new Chaos book is any less abuseable, they are wrong, it just does it in different ways. Seeing an 1850pt necron army phased out turn 2 and losing 3700-0 to a double-lash prince Oblit-Tson-Blastmaster spam was...interesting.

One Necron player getting creamed hardly constitutes conclusive evidence. The current book is most certainly less abuseable than 3.5. Consider:
1: No more broken uber-princes of varying types (Siren Prince, unkillable FNP Khorne Prince, infiltrating Speedlord, etc).
2: No more slapping whatever Veteran skills you want on whatever units you want (so, no more mass Infiltrating armies, no more Tankhunting Autocannon Havocs, etc).
3: Daemonbomb toned way the hell down.
4: No more Indirect fire ordnance.
5: No more making vehicles virtually unkillable.
6: No more FOC-breaking variant lists.
7: Obliterators put in Heavy Support, where they always should have been in the first place.

That's just off the top of my head, and that's lumping a lot of major downtones together into broad categories. Against that, claiming that the current book is anywhere near as abuseable as 3.5 because of Lash on a T5 MC platform and being able to mix-and-match cult troops (which you could do to an extent in 3.5) is just laughable.


And now we're right back to the same 'LOL LERN2PLAY' as before.

No one is saying that. I think what we might be saying is: ":rolleyes: Learn to make a thematically-appropriate army list without GW giving you a bunch of special rules and/or spoon-feeding you every bit of it."


IW Index Astartes article states that Iron Warriors use few troops but heavy firepower. This translates to five-man squads with a special and a heavy weapon.

Wow, that is really reaching!


They've done it with Guard. Several doctrines are free and give very powerful benefits. The downside is that you lose access to some units.


The difference there is that IG, sans Doctrines, is one of the weakest lists in the game, whereas Chaos, sans Legion rules as it is, is still one of the strongest. Anyhow, I'd expect to see Doctrines either dropped altogether or heavily modified so there are no more free or unreasonably-cheap benefits. Ditto the SM Traits system.


Iron Warriors with Berserkers? Yay! They remembered how to....y'know....take a breach!

You know what? If I were an IW Warsmith, I'd totally want a few units of Berserkers kicking around to use as cannon fodder...I mean, breaching troops. I'd rather send a bunch of lobotomized sociopaths from another legion into that meat grinder than risk my own troops.


So they've gutted Codex Chaos with all it's variations but then released Codex Dark Angels and Codex Orks which has differing Troop choices dependent on HQ selection.


So, you're saying that Codex: Chaos Space Marines, with its 6 different unconditionally-available Troops choices, is less cool than Codex: Dark Angels because DA players can conditionally have up to 3 Troops choices? How does that make sense?

Marius Xerxes
19-03-2008, 23:57
Well I think the rules allowing any CSM unit to take any veteran skill was abusable and its good they dropped it. However, having several veteran skills is not overpowered for an Elites choice like Chosen. So instead of the current boring "I'm a mighty champion of Chaos so I get to sneak around with a Plasma Gun" they should have made Chosen into a highly customizable unit like for example the Carnifex. Allowing Chosen that could represent anything from infiltrating tank hunters to elite Berserkers would solve a lot of the gripes about the legions being dropped.



Well like I said later in my post, there is precident with the Eldar Codex to allow specific Veteran Upgrades for certian units by having to take a "Champion" type upgrade and then further pay a flat rate of points for the unit to have Skill X. I think leaving this in the Codex would have been fair.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 00:02
Let's get something straight here. 3.5 was not a Codex that would have been fine had it not been for the IW rules and Siren Princes. It was the most horrendously broken dex of the cycle, with things like the IWAoD, Siren Princes, Daemonbombing and whatnot just being the particular nails that stuck out most. The only Chaos armis that didn't automatically reek of cheese unless proven otherwise were the Thousand Sons armies, and that's because playing Thousand Sons was an exercise in favoring theme over effectiveness.
That's a pretty bold statement. Granted Tsons weren't an abuseable list, but how were Night Lords cheesy? Alpha Legion? Word Bearers? Death Guard?

To just claim that every list except Thousand Sons was an automatic cheese army is...overreaching to say the least.





One Necron player getting creamed hardly constitutes conclusive evidence. You are entirely correct, however its not something I ever saw happen under the old dex.


The current book is most certainly less abuseable than 3.5. Consider:
1: No more broken uber-princes of varying types (Siren Prince, unkillable FNP Khorne Prince, infiltrating Speedlord, etc).
2: No more slapping whatever Veteran skills you want on whatever units you want (so, no more mass Infiltrating armies, no more Tankhunting Autocannon Havocs, etc).
3: Daemonbomb toned way the hell down.
4: No more Indirect fire ordnance.
5: No more making vehicles virtually unkillable.
6: No more FOC-breaking variant lists.
7: Obliterators put in Heavy Support, where they always should have been in the first place.
And in return you get Lash, Warptime, teleport homers on everything, even *more* incentive to min/max with cult troops, etc...

It may not be as abuseable in so many forms, but it is still just as abuseable.

Also, as a whole I've seen far more lists that look like with the new codex than with the previous book, and from looking around the army list forums here and on other places it looks to not just be me either.






No one is saying that. I think what we might be saying is: ":rolleyes: Learn to make a thematically-appropriate army list without GW giving you a bunch of special rules and/or spoon-feeding you every bit of it." And others of us are saying the current codex does a ****-poor job of trying to do Renegades and Legions in a thematic manner with only a couple exceptions.




Wow, that is really reaching!


That I'll agree with, however I think the utility of heavy weapons in 10 man squads is reduced to the point where you might as well not even have the option given the way the current basic CSM is set up and the cost increases in other areas.

I don't understand why Cult troops maintain the ability to min/max(and in fact have a huge incentive to do so) but the normal CSM do not.

EDIT: I'm not wishing for a return to 5man las/plas squads, I never used them myself (although I don't see why 10 had to be the minimum number for heavy weapons, especially something like a heavy bolter), however it seems to be something that a lot of people are harping on as one of the reasons the last codex was so bad, when its still possible to do so with the Cult units.

Imperialis_Dominatus
20-03-2008, 00:02
Oh, but you are, ID, you are! ;)

Agreed with pretty much everything you posted, good Raziel, but this one takes the cake.

Now where is that smite key... Goto's going down...

Killgore
20-03-2008, 00:12
I won't lie I'm one of the people that shelfed their IW army. The irony was I ran 4 troop squads, of which only one was a 5 man LC (no Plas) squad. The rest were 8-10 man assault or infiltrate squads with special weapons (yes including flamers). The reason I shelfed the army is I can't get icons for the army without paying $15 for the two bits for the icon or $35 for a new box, I already have 75 CSM troopers, I really don't need more. Too bad GW killed their bits order as I would have just brought the CSM extras sprues.



you shelfed an entire army because you couldnt buy icons????


if i was you i'd go to a party with a buffay, eat alot of cocktail sausages or pineapple and cheese sticks, pocket the cocktail sticks

go home, turn the cocktail sticks into back banner poles for your Chaos marines then paint some Chaos Banners to act as your icons

hardly rocket science is it?

DarkstarSabre
20-03-2008, 00:33
Yeah, that got me too.

Y'know, another alternative to Icons if you don't want banners etc. is trophy racks. Hell, I use a lot of trophy racks as Icons with appropriate symbols or bits.

As a Chaos player with that many Marines you're bound to have bits. Seriously.

Tymell
20-03-2008, 00:42
Quite so. Indeed, it doesn't even specify that "icon" has to mean some big pole, that just happens to be something GW included in the marine box as one representation, and people have jumped on that. But it doesn't need to be that. I see it more like the old "trademark item" thing with Guard characters. It can be largely whatever you want, as long as there's something there that looks like an Icon of said power.

I must say, I know they come up a lot, but more recent Chaos 'dex threads feel much more encouraging. It seems a lot of the people genuinely whining (i.e. over-complaining) have gone silent, mostly it's now people who accept things and the majority of complaints are genuine (example: "I wish you could mark daemons" = valid complaint and phrased properly. "OMG wtf daemons completely suck now, they're utterly crap and I can never play Chaos again, it's all GW's fault!" = not a valid complaint, and phrased badly). I stress this because I'm not having a go at anyone complaining. I'm satisfied with the new codex. Some people aren't. That's fine. All the mindless over-reacting, and continuing to do so when sensible people like Raziel are here providing perfectly acceptable solutions or refuting arguments isn't.

Additional: This thread has actually got me quite keen to collect an Iron Warriors army, oddly enough :p All the thinking of ways to convert and so on has just given me so many ideas: techno-possessed, guys fused to their bikes, spawn represented by insane machine-constructs...yummy.

Occulto
20-03-2008, 01:08
I'm not very sure about this - Jervis's comment about an army being required to have a dedicated model range goes against this. So does the loss of the bitz.

Which part aren't you sure about?

I seem to recall seeing a few upgrade sets on the online store - although not as versatile as before. I guess it depends on whether GW deems that enough of a "dedicated" range or not


And the you-don't-need-special-rules-to-make-an-army argument.

They help, but they're not absolutely 100% necessary. I don't agree that the absence of a few lame rules means a very expensive army is now forced to gather dust.

As I've said before, I'm all for special rules - but they've got to be more than a +1 here and a org chart shuffle there. It was kind of embarrassing reading some of the comments around the time of the codex release. People screaming they were no longer unique because they lost infiltrate, furious charge and tank hunters... even though every second player used exactly the same veteran skills on the same units. (Tankhunting Havocs? That's a new one...) :rolleyes:


And Apocalypse.

*laughs*

I often wonder whether Apocalypse data sheets are another form of playtesting. Ironically, they've probably released more stuff for 40K armies in the last 6 months than in the previous 6 years.


Still, as cailus said, it's perfectly possible that GW will change its design philosophy again in the near future.

It's more than possible mate.

Supremearchmarshal
20-03-2008, 01:41
Which part aren't you sure about?

I seem to recall seeing a few upgrade sets on the online store - although not as versatile as before. I guess it depends on whether GW deems that enough of a "dedicated" range or not

I was thinking of the reason Jervis said LatD aren't getting a codex anytime soon. He said something to the effect that a dedicated model rage means at least 5-6 boxed sets plus blisters. The bitz packs may suffice for Eye of Terror-style variant lists, but GW said they're avoiding such lists.

Still it's hard to say what GW will about 2 and a half years from now, when hopefully all the main codexes will be finished (and the Inquisition codex is probably giving them nightmares - I think it's impossible to make it fit the current design philosophy without dropping a lot of units).


They help, but they're not absolutely 100% necessary. I don't agree that the absence of a few lame rules means a very expensive army is now forced to gather dust.

I mostly agree on that, but what I was more referring to the fact that GW's current policy is that one doesn't need special rules to make a variant army. Though, of course that's GW's current policy.


*laughs*

I often wonder whether Apocalypse data sheets are another form of playtesting. Ironically, they've probably released more stuff for 40K armies in the last 6 months than in the previous 6 years.

Well it's true they've released a lot of stuff, but IMO Apocalypse is played for fun and isn't meant to be in balanced in any way. I think it has more to do with appeasing the vets - they get to use older models that aren't supported in the main game and also have an incentive to expand their armies further. But yeah, that's just my opinion.

catbarf
20-03-2008, 01:59
Now this is laughable right here.

I find the list that allows Player A to produce a mechanised assault army, Player B to produce footslogging elites and Player C to produce a mass of untrained hordes while being in the same codex to be far, far better than 3 seperate codexes altogether. For one it's actually a more 'friendly' approach, allowing people to vary their tactics and making it so you don't have to be lugging around half a suitcase in addition to your army.

Being able to combine the footslogging elites, mass of untrained hordes, and mechanized troops in the same army encourages powergaming, which, while not a terrible thing in itself, leaves Player D wondering why his army concept was kicked out of the game for being abusable.


Also, please try harder to read into what I was stating. I follow fluff quite happily. I design lists based on what I want to play and what suits the army I'm playing. In fact, the vast majority of your posts appear to be kicking off and screaming because you cannot take 5 man las-plas squads. Hell, you are clinging to this motion of small numbers of men for a large proportion of heavy weapons and taking that as gospel.

It's not five-man las/plas, it's being able to have less than ten men for a heavy weapon at all. I don't feel like using 30 Marines just to get a trio of heavy bolters. Does that seem like few men, many guns to you? That's almost a quarter of your army just for three heavy weapons.


Take minimal troops choices if you want. And bulk up on Heavy Support and Elites. Suddenly, low numbers of men with high numbers of heavy weapons.

'You're so cheesy for wanting five-man squads with guns. Min-max instead, that's so much better.'


You don't want special rules for Fluff. Hell no.

Yes, as my disliking for not being able to follow fluff shows. I could, perhaps, use Noise Marines, Dreadnoughts, and the like, but that would not be following the fluff. So I'm not sure where you draw this argument.


You want them because you want to win. It's as plain as that. And it's disgusting.

And you assume that because I dislike needing ten men for one gun, I am obviously a WAAC, cheesy powergamer with absolute hatred for any rules change that makes it harder for me to win. You're making a real leap here.

Tymell
20-03-2008, 03:13
It's not five-man las/plas, it's being able to have less than ten men for a heavy weapon at all. I don't feel like using 30 Marines just to get a trio of heavy bolters. Does that seem like few men, many guns to you? That's almost a quarter of your army just for three heavy weapons.

If you think 30 marines is the only way to get three heavy weapons, then I'd have to assume you simply haven't read the codex :rolleyes:

Chosen, terminators, dreadnoughts, predators, land raiders, havocs, obliterators, vindicators, defilers.

All of these will get you heavy weapons, and all are perfectly valid choices for Iron Warriors. If you want heavy weapons, take them.

Also, take a look at those choices: most of them are heavy support. That should tell you something. Heavy weapons are found in the heavy support section. Wow, who would have expected that?

You seem to have this bizzare preconception that you're supposed to get all your heavy weapons in the troops section. No, sorry, afraid not. The heavy weapons there are more like bonuses, not essentials. The point is, if you could take lots of heavy weapons there too, then you'd be overloaded with them. And indeed, that was part of the problem with old Iron Warrior armies.

Now, don't go saying "But I'm supposed to get lots of heavy weapons with few troops". Because you still can, as has been explained to you numerous times. If you really want very few troops, then take the basic ones in the troops section that you have to, then load up on elites and heavy support. And it's not like everything in the army has to have a heavy weapon to be useful, there are other things for your troops to do, you know. Use them for other things, and get your heavy weapons from elites and heavy support, like you're supposed to. Stop thinking of squads as just carriers for heavy weapons, where 80% of the squad does nothing but soak up firepower or bulk your force out (as indicated when you say "a quarter of your army just for"). That kind of thinking spoils games.

And if that's still not enough for you, then I guess your view of Iron Warriors is nearly every one of them has to have a heavy weapon. Well my view of Tyranids is that they should come in hordes far, far bigger than they do on the tabletop, outnumbering the enemy by many many times. And in my mind, Imperial Guard should do a lot more shelling the enemy from afar. And in my mind Space Marines should be able to take on whole squads on their own. But those things wouldn't make for a very enjoyable and balanced game.

Also, one other point: 30 marines would be "almost a quarter of your army"? :eyebrows: 120+ marines? That's quite a force. In one of that size you should have plenty of heavy weapons elsewhere.

PondaNagura
20-03-2008, 03:29
i think the quarter of army was related to points rather than number of models.
some of those are bad examples for you argument:

chosen are expensive units, the price you pay for infiltrate i suppose.
termies also expensive...mostly due to their save/inv save, plus you only get 1 heavy weapon/5 guys. and even then that heavy weapon is mediocre.
dreads are often unpredictable and more geared towards HtH than any reliable range.
vindicators are built for taking flak but you need support to get them up into position, or let the enemy approach you to get the demolisher within range.

preds, LR, havocs and oblits are a no brainer for heavy weapons, but these are often primary targets in any game, especially defilers and oblits.

the idea of heavies availability to basic squads, was so that you didnt put your eggs in firepower in one or two baskets.
ideally the troops could be used to further support other units deployed on th board.
e

Tymell
20-03-2008, 03:35
Yes, they're expensive, but that's the whole point: he said he wanted few models, a greater ratio of heavy weapons to models. Thus, more expensive works fine. If you're taking lots of heavy weapons and few men, then you are going to be putting most of your eggs in a few baskets. The fact still remains that heavy support is the main place you get your heavy weapons, and just because a weapon isn't a heavy weapon doesn't render it pointless either.

If 30 marines meant points rather than numbers, then my whole point about taking other choices for your heavy weapons still stands. Catbarf claimed he had to take 30 marines to get three heavy weapons. This isn't remotely true.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 03:40
methinks it was obvious by "30 marines" he meant points wise, and meant in terms of Troops FoC slots given the context of the conversation.

normal CSM troops at this point are pointless as heavy weapons platforms in general now. They are best utilized with 2 special weapons at rapid fire range and in close combat, none of the heavy weapons besides the HB and autocannon really fit into what they are best at anyway, and there's no point in taking either if you ware best at close range and hand-to-hand fighting.


On the other hand, one can take 6 Noise Marines with a Blastmaster and assault2/heavy3 bolters and be almost as effective in CC (with I5 and Fearless) and more effective at shooting, for the same price as a 10man CSM squad with a heavy weapon.

Tymell
20-03-2008, 05:09
methinks it was obvious by "30 marines" he meant points wise, and meant in terms of Troops FoC slots given the context of the conversation.

As I said, if it meant in terms of numbers or points then my original point stands. Troops isn't where you get your heavy weapons, and they can be found in plenty of other places. So there'd be no need to take 30 marines in troops if he doesn't want to.

If it meant in terms of FoC slots, then it would be a rather meaningless point to make, made even more so by the fact that, if trying to stick to a strict Iron Warriors army as close as possible to how it was detailed in the old list, cult troops wouldn't be utilised.

Campbell
20-03-2008, 05:25
I had 4 dreads and 30 terminators in my Iron Warriors. It's a pain i can't do that anymore but stuff it I just play apocalypse then i can use all of my pieces. I hate defilers and basilisks, i wont use them. Short range vindicators and obliterator's are where it's at anyway. & for those who don't like IW we always have smaller armies size wise. USE YOUR INFANTRY!!!!!!

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 06:06
As I said, if it meant in terms of numbers or points then my original point stands. Troops isn't where you get your heavy weapons, and they can be found in plenty of other places. So there'd be no need to take 30 marines in troops if he doesn't want to. Making heavy weapons in troops squads, and thus their shooting ability, negligable.



If it meant in terms of FoC slots, then it would be a rather meaningless point to make, made even more so by the fact that, if trying to stick to a strict Iron Warriors army as close as possible to how it was detailed in the old list, cult troops wouldn't be utilised.

That was the point, It's difficult to get shooting power out of Troops while trying to stay fluffy.

Dr.Clock
20-03-2008, 06:21
I don't know about this.... I think any IW army with thirty CSM, twenty havocs, three oblits and twenty chosen and a dread will basically be the coolest IW army ever. 24 berzerkers for good measure?

Undivided Horde FTW.

Trench warfare is basically lines of infantry right?

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 06:25
I don't know about this.... I think any IW army with thirty CSM, twenty havocs, three oblits and twenty chosen and a dread will basically be the coolest IW army ever. 24 berzerkers for good measure?

Undivided Horde FTW.

Trench warfare is basically lines of infantry right?

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

For a 2800pt army list? Sure. Although you may as well throw in one more unit of anything and play Apoc.

Tymell
20-03-2008, 06:51
Making heavy weapons in troops squads, and thus their shooting ability, negligable.

He said he didn't want to take 30 troops "just" for three heavy weapons, ergo his sole interest was in the heavy weapons. He complained this meant taking too many troops for those heavy weapons, so I showed the numerous other ways to get heavy weapons. I didn't say heavy weapons in troop squads were negligable, and I certainly didn't say that about their shooting ability. This is only the case if, as it appears with Catbarf, you're interested only in heavy weapon power.


That was the point, It's difficult to get shooting power out of Troops while trying to stay fluffy.

You can still get shooting power out of them, just not -heavy- shooting power, as this is not their role. If not enough shooting power for you, then you can get that elsewhere, take few troops marines and and use them for something else.

So yes, troops aren't as dangerous shooting-wise, but this is as it should be. "Not the most powerful" doesn't translate as "useless". To make them able to take lots of heavy weapons would only serve to warp balance. As happened previously, when you could just take 5 marines and whack a lascannon in there. Now players actually have to think about things and consider what might be more tactically viable.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 07:15
He said he didn't want to take 30 troops "just" for three heavy weapons, ergo his sole interest was in the heavy weapons. He complained this meant taking too many troops for those heavy weapons, so I showed the numerous other ways to get heavy weapons. I didn't say heavy weapons in troop squads were negligable, and I certainly didn't say that about their shooting ability. There are numerous ways to get heavy weapons, sure, but to a decent level of firepower without resorting to Cult troops, one needs to basically resort to dumping troops. The other options also typically are better utilized (save for Oblits and Havocs) as CC units. Sure they *can* be shooty, but are better when used as CC units in most cases. The basic CSM serves best as a shooty unit only when matched against units such as Genestealers or Terminators, units that can defeat it in CC easily, otherwise assaults are going to be more effective given that they are now more oriented in that direction.


This is only the case if, as it appears with Catbarf, you're interested only in heavy weapon power. Given that was the army I started playing, one centered around long range firepower rather than CC and close range firefights, I guess so, but I could care less about where it comes from, so long as I don't have to tank on comp to get it. For example, if I could dump CC options from my Terminators to take an extra RAC, I would do so. The problem is all the other units are better as CC units than shooting platforms. As it is now, unless I want a Noise Marine based army, my IW tend to be much more determined to get into CC than shooting as a whole. With Terminators for instance (what I usually take lots of) they can have an ok amount of firepower, but still will find themselves destroying enemy units more efficiently in CC, same with the basic Chaos marine.



You can still get shooting power out of them, just not -heavy- shooting power, as this is not their role. I don't agree. Noise Marines and Thousand sons are marvelous heavy firepower units, and are *troops*. Even Plague marines are great shooty units, with T5, FNP,3+ save, and two plasma guns in a 5man squad? All three of these cult units will generally be better at standing and shooting than basic CSM's. Hence why if an IW player wants to keep it fluffy, they have to tank on comp to maintain lots of shooty power.




So yes, troops aren't as dangerous shooting-wise, but this is as it should be. Again, not the case with Chaos troops, the Cult units save for Berserkers.


"Not the most powerful" doesn't translate as "useless". Never said it did, it just makes them more CC oriented, which isn't a direction most Iron Warriors players wanted to take.


To make them able to take lots of heavy weapons would only serve to warp balance. As happened previously, when you could just take 5 marines and whack a lascannon in there. Now players actually have to think about things and consider what might be more tactically viable.
Heavy weapons in troops squads doesn't unbalance the game, it's only when they are ridiculously cheap. However making shooting options more expensive and requiring *double* the squad size was probably an over-correction, especially when there is such a huge difference in heavy weapons capabilities.

Is a 6 or 8 man heavy bolter squad min/maxing, cheesy or game breaking? No. 5man Lascannon/plasma gun? Sure, but that's alot heavier firepower than a heavy bolter in a smaller squad. Hell, you can still get min/max'd anti-tank squads with even more horrendous anti-infantry firepower with Noise Marines and Thousand Sons. AP3? Yes. Anti-tank? Yes. great anti-infantry? Yes. Great or at the least passable CC? Yes.


The problem isn't that "Players have to consider what might be more tactically viable", if one want's to go to town on "Counts As" (which seems to be what they expected when writing the codex almost, as they just reduced everything to one gooey list) that concept goes out the window instantly, it holds no water. No, it's that the option that allows for effective heavy firepower in troops is unfluffy for the "shootiest" Chaos marine army.

BrainFireBob
20-03-2008, 07:25
Additional: This thread has actually got me quite keen to collect an Iron Warriors army, oddly enough :p All the thinking of ways to convert and so on has just given me so many ideas: techno-possessed, guys fused to their bikes, spawn represented by insane machine-constructs...yummy.

I've been working on mechanized possessed for a few years. I really can recommend Kanz/Ork bitz.

EDIT:

Vaktathi- your posts reveal that the level of power/performance you expect out of Troops comes from the 4th Ed paradigm, where the unit that gets intiative devastates its opponent. The 5th Ed paradigm, apparently- which, by the way, is my preference, I almost quite playing during much of 4th- is that it should take multiple units to eliminate one enemy unit, not one-to-one chess-style "captures."

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 07:55
Vaktathi- your posts reveal that the level of power/performance you expect out of Troops comes from the 4th Ed paradigm, where the unit that gets intiative devastates its opponent. The 5th Ed paradigm, apparently- which, by the way, is my preference, I almost quite playing during much of 4th- is that it should take multiple units to eliminate one enemy unit, not one-to-one chess-style "captures."

That may be, since all I've really played is 4th ed (although I've got access to pretty much every printed 40k item since 3rd ed and have much of the 2nd Ed and some RT era stuff). If I am, then it's due to the current state of the game, where we are still in 4th ed using a mish-mash of codex's from those designed from early third ed to those supposedly designed with fifth ed in mind and all we have of fifth ed is a leaked super-early set of incomplete draft rules and some two Marine codex's designed with a new Marine paradigm (which may be expanded to a total system paradigm) in mind, I don't think Orks really fit the same design theme of the Marine codex's. I also think such a situation varies from codex to codex. With Chaos you can expect a unit to single handedly be able to compete with another unit, given their cost and abilities. Such is obviously not the case with Guard units for instance.

BrainFireBob
20-03-2008, 08:13
True. My point is, in general units were "powered up" in 4th- power gaming became terrible because of the idea that "if it's not guaranteed, it's not worth taking." The d6 is supposed to introduce a random element. That's basically what the game became under Haines- I imagine because Haines likes to play that way. It's not terribly tactical, though- deploy better than the other guy with equal lists? Win. Write a much better list? Win- these weren't complete, mind, but were often true.

Quite a few of us really, really disliked it. The 4th rules-set was tighter, and that was great. The codices left quite a bit to be desired, to me. Hence my being excited about the new changes. Tactics matter more.

Might explain all the bitterness about "but the SM's aren't losing their Vet skills!" I played Vanilla Marines since 2000, I can *guarantee* you that the vanilla dex was considered, if not the most underpowered, close to it, until 4th Ed. No, the SMs have not always been the most powerful army. I'm still not used to having a powerful army when playing them, it's so counter to the paradigm I learned them under.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 08:27
Having read through the original 3rd ed SM list, I totally agree it was crap, and can definitely see the power difference in the late 3rd ed and 4th ed books compared to the early 3rd ed lists, however most of these early 3rd ed lists also lacked any character as well (especially the Ork, SM and Chaos books). I'm not saying that power and character are linked, however they did manage to increase both after the first round of codex's for 3rd ed.

That said, trying to change design philosophy multiple times while still within the lifespan of one edition (or it's slightly modified successor), isn't exactly a brilliant maneuver if you are only releasing a couple armies a year. If they could get every army redone in 18months, then I don't think I'd have such a problem with the paradigm shift, however deciding to start lowering the power level without any clear shift in the overall metagame and having released only a couple armies in 2007 (all Marine armies too), is a poor move. With the shift in design philosophy to lowering the power curve after Eldar came out (although I think they applied it more to Marines than Orks, I love the new Orks, however it can definitely be one of the most abuseable lists in the game right now along with Eldar, Nids and SM's) they sort of left the MEQ armies after it hanging, especially if one attempts to stick to fluff. It leaves some armies at the top of the heap (Eldar, Tyranids, SM's) while leaving the older armies yet to be redone and the newer ones with the design shift in a lurch. You have a middling group with a much higher power level while the newer ones are right under them, and still trying to redo older armies, which even if redone, will be below the armies that weren't part of the paradigm shift.

If they had simply waited for 5th to come out and then released a new army every 4-6 weeks, I think it would have been better for the overall metagame. As is, we are left with some armies that may continue without much needed updates for some time, some armies that got their updates but were made with the bigger power curve in mind, and some updated armies with the lower power curve in mind.

BrainFireBob
20-03-2008, 08:31
True. Still, at least they're obviously aware of the problem and trying.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 08:52
Yes, which is nice, however they way they are going about it they have simply shifted the power curve to different codex's instead, and will still have to increase the power of older codex's in general to match the new metagame average.

Also (this isn't directed at any particular person), with the Chaos codex, the fact that we still have these discussions 6 months after the book came out is probably indicative of something more than just "omg lost mah powergaming list!". With the Eldar codex, there was some initial complaining about the loss of Craftworld rules and the nerfs to Wraithlords and such, but these ceased rather quickly once the codex was revealed. That codex came out November 2006, did we see threads such as this in May 2007? Hell did we even see them in December 2006?

The fact that these discussions still take place should tell people that "maybe, just maybe, the new Chaos codex wasn't the answer to everything wrong with the old book, and that it does in fact have significant issues."
Counts As and "streamlining" are not magic bandaids that fix everything.

BrainFireBob
20-03-2008, 08:56
I believe we did, from the diehard.

What killed kvetching about the Eldar dex was the complaining about Chaos rumors, as I recall. Many switched to Chaos threads to show support, and then . .disappeared.

Don't underestimate a) bullheadedness, b) emotional responses, or c) the idea some people have that if they get the last word in, they are proven right.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 09:04
Mmm...Maybe I just don't remember it. I remember some right around the time of the Eldar codex release about the loss of large Seer councils and Wraithlord nerfs and such, but only remember one or two after the book actually came out, definitely not the way we continue having these sort of threads now.

BrainFireBob
20-03-2008, 09:10
I believe there's also more chaos players.

We still get the Warseer noobs posting about it. Don't seem to be many Eldar nooblets to Warseer.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 09:19
That I could believe, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Although I still think having these threads 6 month on, with regularity, is indicative of something with the Chaos book.

AdmiralDick
20-03-2008, 09:41
i'm afraid i'm inclined to agree with Vaktathi on this one, BFB. if what your saying is true and the 'moaning' is simply an emotive constant that we should accept as happening with every new codex, why has it not moved on to Orks?

without a shadow of a doubt this has been the most contravertial Codex amoungst players that GW has ever produced. and saying that 'oh this always happens' is frankly rather akin to sticking your head in the sand (not aimed at you personally, but it is the way that a lot of pro-codex commentators tend to treat the subject). whether you love or hate the current book, it is clear that it was not the best possible answer because of how devicive it has been.

Dr.Clock
20-03-2008, 09:52
Regularity? I was surprised that this thread crept past page five...

Not that it isn't interesting and all...

Am I right in thinking, Vaktathi, that your main concern is that there are no convincing shooty troop choices outside of cult units?

Is it not acceptable to have a couple ten-man with dual plasma and one with dual melta in an IW list? The whole 'heavy weapon' in smaller squads idea is not something I'd necessarily be against. In lieu of recent changes to other lists, perhaps simply swapping the place of the options might be better... one heavy OR special up to ten and then another special at or above? six-man heavy-bolter and lascannon units with no specials? I, for one, would probably end up using CSM as they are apparently intended in this rendition: aggressively.

Would any alternative to the way it is now lead to more min/maxing in IW or other legions? I think it probably would.

If you want numerous small squads, expect them to be a skirmish screen for the real meat of the list, heavy support or otherwise. Everybody loves troops. Taking more is a good thing. The way things are going, EVERYBODY will be doing it. I'm really looking forward to it.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Vaktathi
20-03-2008, 10:17
Regularity? I was surprised that this thread crept past page five... They pop up just about every week.



Am I right in thinking, Vaktathi, that your main concern is that there are no convincing shooty troop choices outside of cult units? I'm saying that the basic CSM squad, while not a bad unit in and of itself, isn't a unit built around heavy shooting anymore, it's much more a CC unit than before for several reasons. They are just too expensive to use as shooting platforms, their strength comes from their enhanced CC abilities. Sure they can be shooty, but 180pts for a squad with 2 plasma guns and no AC is pretty pricey just to get the 2nd special weapon. 230 for 2 PG's, a powerfist champ and an Icon of glory isn't exactly amazing as a shooting unit, especially when one can get 8 Chosen with a powerfist, 4 plasma guns and an Icon of Glory (and they can infiltrate) for 9 points more.

Thats a whole lot more hitting power (and probably in position for better shooting anyway) for roughly the same cost (also before it comes up, Just because they are Elites doesn't mean they should necessarily be so much more points efficient, it should mean they have equal, but different and less common, potential for the same cost) such troop units *can* be shooty, it's not terrible at it, but using it in such a manner isn't exaclty cost effective, its much better at fighting hand to hand with most units.


The whole 'heavy weapon' in smaller squads idea is not something I'd necessarily be against. In lieu of recent changes to other lists, perhaps simply swapping the place of the options might be better... one heavy OR special up to ten and then another special at or above? six-man heavy-bolter and lascannon units with no specials? I wouldn't be opposed to this, although I think I'd limit it to Autocannons and HB's (again, I will concede that 5man lascannon squads were silly) as this reinforces their use as anti-infantry squads, not dedicated tank hunters.

The problem is, when writing this codex, the designers lumped all heavy and special weapons together in terms of effectiveness in their minds. A 6man double flamer squad is going to be much different than a 6man double plasma or Las/Plas squad in terms of killing power. One may be a broken unit option where the other may not. I also understand the need to encourage players to spend more points in troops to get firepower, and not just take two min sized squads with 2 special weapons, however I think there could have been ways to work around this. Honestly I think 8 would have been a more appropriate minimum sized squad if they wanted to go that route, 10 not only makes them too similar to normal SM's, but also seems like an arbitrary number just because it looks nice and round, rather than any other reason.



Would any alternative to the way it is now lead to more min/maxing in IW or other legions? I think it probably would. Given that to make a truly shooty army without cult troops you will probably have to take min troops anyway, and that units like noise marines and plague marines are typically fielded in small units as well, I don't think it would lead to any more min/maxing than we currently have.



If you want numerous small squads, expect them to be a skirmish screen for the real meat of the list, heavy support or otherwise. Everybody loves troops. Taking more is a good thing. The way things are going, EVERYBODY will be doing it. I'm really looking forward to it. I like troops as well, hell I've got 70 something basic Chaos marines (sadly most still left to paint :() but if I want to make a shooty army, I'd rather they not be under-utilized units.

squeekenator
20-03-2008, 11:12
If I recall correctly, GW is trying to make Marines more, well, tactical by lessening their shooting power and increasing their close combat ability, which is why they aren't so fantastic at range any more. Combat squads REALLY help this, and would help Chaos out a lot, but I don't find my Chaos Marines to be useless. They're the middle ground between specialised troops. All the cult units have gaping weaknesses (Berserkers at range, Plague Marines against anti-tank weapons, Rubric Marines against hordes and Noise Marines are glass cannons, especially with sonic blasters), and Chaos Marines can balance them out. For 15pts, they're still on par with Tacticals for the most cost-efficient Troops unit in the game. In fact, the added power of an extra attack and grenades could well have them even better.

catbarf
20-03-2008, 14:19
But Chaos Marines aren't the middle ground. They're expensive, and yet they throw out very little firepower relative to the cost.

Tymell
20-03-2008, 14:56
There are numerous ways to get heavy weapons, sure, but to a decent level of firepower without resorting to Cult troops, one needs to basically resort to dumping troops. The other options also typically are better utilized (save for Oblits and Havocs) as CC units. Sure they *can* be shooty, but are better when used as CC units in most cases. The basic CSM serves best as a shooty unit only when matched against units such as Genestealers or Terminators, units that can defeat it in CC easily, otherwise assaults are going to be more effective given that they are now more oriented in that direction.

I think here we just disagree on what a "decent level of firepower" is. To me, a unit doesn't have to have a lascannon or a heavy bolter to be useful. Shooting doesn't have to be capable of obliterating entire enemy units in one round to be useful. Again, that's the kind of thinking that was lessening 4th ed. IMO, and is what GW are moving away from for the most part.


Given that was the army I started playing, one centered around long range firepower rather than CC and close range firefights, I guess so, but I could care less about where it comes from, so long as I don't have to tank on comp to get it. For example, if I could dump CC options from my Terminators to take an extra RAC, I would do so. The problem is all the other units are better as CC units than shooting platforms. As it is now, unless I want a Noise Marine based army, my IW tend to be much more determined to get into CC than shooting as a whole. With Terminators for instance (what I usually take lots of) they can have an ok amount of firepower, but still will find themselves destroying enemy units more efficiently in CC, same with the basic Chaos marine.

Even if the army is centred around heavy firepower that doesn't mean that's -all- that is useful in it. Chaos Marines can still be used for other roles: claiming objectives, assault, special weapons other than heavy, holding the line, whatever. All-4s statlines and boltguns shouldn't be considered weak, and heavy weapons shouldn't be considered the norm and thus essential to usefulness.

And as I have already said several times, you can get your heavier firepower elsewhere. No, you don't have to take cult troops. I haven't analysed the stats to a truly deep degree, so perhaps cult troops are, point-for-point, the most effective. But again, just because something's not the absolute most effective thing in the army, doesn't mean it's no good. Chaos marines have their uses, and if you don't want to use them for much then as I say, take the minimum and stock up on shooty power (of which there is plenty viable for a fluff-conscious Iron Warrior player) elsewhere.


I don't agree. Noise Marines and Thousand sons are marvelous heavy firepower units, and are *troops*. Even Plague marines are great shooty units, with T5, FNP,3+ save, and two plasma guns in a 5man squad? All three of these cult units will generally be better at standing and shooting than basic CSM's. Hence why if an IW player wants to keep it fluffy, they have to tank on comp to maintain lots of shooty power.

Again, not the case with Chaos troops, the Cult units save for Berserkers.

And for that marvelous performance you are paying a big chunk of points. If you -still- feel they are worth so much more, that still doesn't alter the fact that there are plenty of other IW-available options for you to take, none of which are useless by any means.


Never said it did, it just makes them more CC oriented, which isn't a direction most Iron Warriors players wanted to take.

It does make them more CC oriented, but not solely CC-oriented. They can still do other things, they're just not so good at blowing up Land Raiders or mowing down squads of the enemy so quickly, as should be the case. So, again, if you don't like them as they are, that's your decision, not GW's fault, and you can just take the minimum.


Heavy weapons in troops squads doesn't unbalance the game, it's only when they are ridiculously cheap. However making shooting options more expensive and requiring *double* the squad size was probably an over-correction, especially when there is such a huge difference in heavy weapons capabilities.

Is a 6 or 8 man heavy bolter squad min/maxing, cheesy or game breaking? No. 5man Lascannon/plasma gun? Sure, but that's alot heavier firepower than a heavy bolter in a smaller squad. Hell, you can still get min/max'd anti-tank squads with even more horrendous anti-infantry firepower with Noise Marines and Thousand Sons. AP3? Yes. Anti-tank? Yes. great anti-infantry? Yes. Great or at the least passable CC? Yes.

And indeed, my point is they were ridiculously cheap when you could take 5-man las/plas squads. And again, you're paying a lot of points for those cult troops.


The problem isn't that "Players have to consider what might be more tactically viable", if one want's to go to town on "Counts As" (which seems to be what they expected when writing the codex almost, as they just reduced everything to one gooey list) that concept goes out the window instantly, it holds no water. No, it's that the option that allows for effective heavy firepower in troops is unfluffy for the "shootiest" Chaos marine army.

First off, I haven't brought up count-as in this specific point, so I don't see how that's relevant.

I assume you're referring to cult troops there, talking about "the option that allows for effective heavy firepower in troops"? If not, sorry, but I find that last paragraph a bit unclear as to it's meaning.

And again, as I've already said, cult troops are expensive and you get what you pay for. Thousand Sons get you AP3 yes, but AP isn't everything, they're still not effective against tanks. Plague Marines get you extra weaponry, but still not the real heavy hitters. Noise Marines will get you some, but as we've heard endlessly from Emperor's Children players, you don't get that much from them.

So I don't see this whole "Chaos marines are rubbish at shooting and cult marines are amazing" thing. They have their uses, and you pay your points for them. Yes, you can't get heavy weapons in chaos marines as easily as you could, but if you want them, then go to the heavy support section.

BrainFireBob
20-03-2008, 19:57
Admiral Dick-

Orks didn't have a major design paradigm shift. Their primary shift involved the slugga-shoota shift, and in those threads, it was a very tiny number of posters who had a vehement problem.

See, with the Chaos dex, one person posts, and the same old crowd comes in swinging about it being terrible. Reinforcement. I'll also comment many of them seem under the delusion that if people agree with you, that's validating. Logically, that's false.

Victomorga
20-03-2008, 20:58
People DO complain after the release of almost every codex. People have been going nuts over the Nob upgrade "misprints" since the book came out. When the DA codex came out, people complained that they couldn't put two ass cans in one squad. BA players complain that their whole 'dex is overpriced to offset free death company. Whatever change you make, there is always someone who used the rule the old way and now feels their force is broken and useless without it.

Part of the reason the CSM codex is so reviled is that it fixed a bunch of broken game dynamics that lead to super-cheese lists. Power gamers are pissed that they have to find new ways to exploit new codecies. Heavy revisions means big changes, so there's more for people to be upset about, powergamer or not.

I'm not accusing anyone here of being a powergamer, or a jerk, or of being cheesy, but you can't have everything. Maybe you were using an aspect of the codex reasonably, but guess what? Hundreds of other people may have been exploiting the hell out of it. What you see as "ruined" other players (and more importantly the game designers) probabley see as "fixed."

Your troops aren't as shooty as they used to be? They have more attacks now. Everything is counter-balanced.

kishvier
20-03-2008, 21:05
People DO complain after the release of almost every codex.

Almost every release? They complain about anything. Every codex has it's weak parts which everyone hates and it's good parts.

Imperialis_Dominatus
20-03-2008, 21:59
That I could believe, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Although I still think having these threads 6 month on, with regularity, is indicative of something with the Chaos book.

Well, personally I attribute this more to the nature of Warseer, but I suppose you've got a point. ;)

Master Jeridian
20-03-2008, 22:09
You don't hear Codex Orks complaints because the previous Codex was nearly 10yrs old and woefully uncompetitive.
GW could have done anything with the new Codex and it would be an improvement.

As for IW's, I've still yet to see any convincing evidence that the IW's IA states they are supposed to spam 5xman las/plas.
The closest it ever gets is to describe 'heavy firepower' which can mean anything- lots of tanks, Havoc squads, Oblits, etc, etc.

Far more interesting, that isn't the 'IW's Guide to Powergaming' is the theme of siegecraft and breaching fortifications. This opens up a lot of highly mobile, balanced armies.

And finally, though I disagree that the IW's theme is supposed to be 5xman las/plas spam, yawn, even if it was. Cheap mini-Dev's squad spam was the most boring kind of broken, it made taking tanks pointless as every squad packed a plasma and lascannon for 115pts-ish. It made games highly boring as the IW's player just sat in the deployment zone and through dice at you.

So given the choice between IW's losing their 'theme' or keeping las/plas spam- I know my choice.


One of the other arguments was that SM's and IG still get Traits/Doctrines, so why not IW's. A very silly argument that doesn't take into account that not all Codex's are released at the same time...

Marius Xerxes
20-03-2008, 22:10
I just want to throw in that I dont think its 4th, or indeed any edition that made people say "its not worth taking if its not the most effective" etc type stuff.

What made it this way was the level of competition this game is seeing. Not everyone plays in tournies, but the ammount of people who do, and indeed the ammount of tournies poping up from the local to the world wide level have insresed.

Competition itself brings that mentality. Some people want to compete for fun and under they way they want to play.. but I dare say more people eventually compete to do well and win. Best way to do that is to take the best combination of army you can come up with. Add in the readily available way of discovering those certian "broken" lists through various online forums and there you have it.. wide spread broken lists that anyone can use.

What i think GW is hoping to do is eliminate those obvious no branier lists that any general can play with relative ease and do remarkably well. However again with online forums even finese armies can me mastered much more easily with tactica threads laying out exactly how to use said units and combinations. Indeed anyone with a basic understanding of how effective equipment and units are in said situations can make a list run smooth enough to be competitive.

Occulto
20-03-2008, 22:52
As for IW's, I've still yet to see any convincing evidence that the IW's IA states they are supposed to spam 5xman las/plas.
The closest it ever gets is to describe 'heavy firepower' which can mean anything- lots of tanks, Havoc squads, Oblits, etc, etc.

Far more interesting, that isn't the 'IW's Guide to Powergaming' is the theme of siegecraft and breaching fortifications. This opens up a lot of highly mobile, balanced armies.

Unfortunately, that's what v3.5 produced. One dimensional thinking a lot of the time when it came to the Legions.

It seems that the less special rules an army has, the more rigid a theme becomes. Access to a special rule doesn't mean that you have to use it. I'm not going to criticise a SW player for not using an Exterminator, so why should I criticise a NL player who decided to play a biker army instead of a raptor force?

It's not just Chaos either, I've seen it happen time and time again. I lost count the numer of times an army was criticised along the lines of the following:

"What? You didn't take maximum WG/WL? You call that an Iyanden list?"

Just replace WG/WL with infiltration if talking about AL, raptors for NL, heavy support for IW and daemons for WB.

Under the old DA codex, people started thinking that a "themed" DA list took as much plasma as possible. Just because they were the only chapter to have access to plasma cannons in tac squads, suddenly the PC became the "signature" weapon. All the fluff ever said was: "DA make use of a higher than normal use of ancient tech." Higher than normal does not mean "may only take."

When it came to IW, I didn't think a list had to go overboard with obliterators. The fluff said they made "extensive" use of oblits, which to me, could easily be satisfied with taking a unit in every list.

Part of the problem with IW is that to theme them under the new codex involves taking penalties. Sure you can take heavy weapons in Troops, but you're going to have to take 10 strong units. If you take the "easier" option and include cult troops, you're no longer adhering to theme.

Nothing I've seen indicates that this makes them significantly harder to play than before.

Supremearchmarshal
20-03-2008, 22:54
A very silly argument that doesn't take into account that not all Codex's are released at the same time...

As mentioned before, this has a major negative effect on game balance and is GW's own fault. Currently the game's armies are based on three different design philosophies - one 10 years old, the second made for the current rules and the third with a future ruleset in mind.


What i think GW is hoping to do is eliminate those obvious no branier lists that any general can play with relative ease and do remarkably well. However again with online forums even finese armies can me mastered much more easily with tactica threads laying out exactly how to use said units and combinations. Indeed anyone with a basic understanding of how effective equipment and units are in said situations can make a list run smooth enough to be competitive.

Firstly I have to say there are still plenty no-brainer options in the new codexes.

Secondly, in real life, if a commander had a choice of what troops and weapons to use for the upcoming battle, and knew that any losses wouldn't affect the future course of the war, wouldn't he choose the most efficient ones for the job? This also has a lot to do with the rules, which often reward such min-maxing.

==Me==
20-03-2008, 23:28
Firstly I have to say there are still plenty no-brainer options in the new codexes.

They aren't anywhere near the level of broken that was IW, Siren, and Daemonbomb. 2 Lashes and Co are strong, but it relies on a power with limited range that affects only one unit (pinning isn't a problem due to high Ld across the board) and is quite limited against vehicles.


Secondly, in real life, if a commander had a choice of what troops and weapons to use for the upcoming battle, and knew that any losses wouldn't affect the future course of the war, wouldn't he choose the most efficient ones for the job? This also has a lot to do with the rules, which often reward such min-maxing.

But it's not real life. This whole hyper competitive viewpoint is what is killing 40k. It is a game, meant for the enjoyment of both players. You should not be reading Sun Tzu before playing 40k, you should be watching Starship Troopers. The best way to defeat an enemy in real life is to beat him before he knows he is fighting, so you really should jump him out in the parking lot and stomp his models flat.

self biased
20-03-2008, 23:29
Remember, kids, if an army doesn't have special rules, it doesn't exist.

hahah! you made a funny.

Supremearchmarshal
21-03-2008, 00:30
They aren't anywhere near the level of broken that was IW, Siren, and Daemonbomb. 2 Lashes and Co are strong, but it relies on a power with limited range that affects only one unit (pinning isn't a problem due to high Ld across the board) and is quite limited against vehicles.

Perhaps they aren't as abusable as before, but no-brainers still abound. I don't feel like repeating them for the umpteenth time, but I can point you to this old, but IMO very good and balanced review of the codex:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103821


But it's not real life. This whole hyper competitive viewpoint is what is killing 40k. It is a game, meant for the enjoyment of both players. You should not be reading Sun Tzu before playing 40k, you should be watching Starship Troopers.

Warhammer 40k is supposed to be a game of strategy, not a game of pure chance (if I want that I'll play Monopoly). As a result, it should reward well-made army lists and good battlefield tactics. It is a problem of the game rules and not the players, if the rules allow one-trick pony armies to be so effective.

Master Jeridian
21-03-2008, 01:41
Secondly, in real life, if a commander had a choice of what troops and weapons to use for the upcoming battle, and knew that any losses wouldn't affect the future course of the war, wouldn't he choose the most efficient ones for the job? This also has a lot to do with the rules, which often reward such min-maxing.

Ah, but in real life most commanders aren't handed a 'Codex' with all possible units in then given a blank cheque to take whatever they want. Most commanders (especially in more symmetrical warfare like WW2, rather than asymmetrical like in Iraq) must make do with what's available at the time.

And in real life, symmetrical warfare isn't even symmetrical...generals will always try to outmaneouver, outflank and outnumber the enemy. They will never engage in a fair 'equal pts' fight unless they have too.

The 'but in real life' falls flat on it's face when you don't take into account economics, military funding, casualties and shortages prior to the battle, etc, etc. All combining to mean most Generals don't get to go "Hmm, I have £x pounds, I'll just field Spectre Gunships..."


As for the current Codex having no-brainers, yep, this is GW- don't expect perfection, don't expect even half-assed proof reading.
But in comparison to the old Codex, no-brainers and abusive units are way down.

From memory:

Current Chaos Codex

Lash Prince
2+ Inv Turbo-boosting Tzeentch Bikers
Anything else?

Old Chaos Codex

Tankhunting Autocannon Havocs
All-Infiltrating Marine armies for 1pt per model...
First turn charge Chaos Lords
Untouchable Siren Lords/Princes
Super fast Khorne Prince with Glaive before the FAQ corrected it
IW's Oblit Spam
IW's 4 Heavy Supports
IW's Basilisks
Daemonbomb Uber Biker
6xman las/plas
Anything else?

Supremearchmarshal
21-03-2008, 02:37
Ah, but in real life most commanders aren't handed a 'Codex' with all possible units in then given a blank cheque to take whatever they want. Most commanders (especially in more symmetrical warfare like WW2, rather than asymmetrical like in Iraq) must make do with what's available at the time.

And in real life, symmetrical warfare isn't even symmetrical...generals will always try to outmaneouver, outflank and outnumber the enemy. They will never engage in a fair 'equal pts' fight unless they have too.

The 'but in real life' falls flat on it's face when you don't take into account economics, military funding, casualties and shortages prior to the battle, etc, etc. All combining to mean most Generals don't get to go "Hmm, I have £x pounds, I'll just field Spectre Gunships..."

Of course, but as I said the game doesn't really offer much incentive for anything remotely close to realism. For example, how about the old IW list? It really is the game's fault that an army based almost exclusively on static anti-tank firepower could beat just about anything. Such a list wouldn't work in Epic, for example.

And btw, the Heavy Support spam you mentioned is direct proof of the core rules failings. Did anyone ever complain about the Night Lords getting 4 Fast Attack choices? With very few exceptions (like Land Speeders) the game favours HS over FA.


From memory:

Current Chaos Codex

Lash Prince
2+ Inv Turbo-boosting Tzeentch Bikers
Anything else?

Check out the link I provided in my previous post - it's a really long post, but it identifies a lot of the no-brainers. There's many of them - though I grant you not quite as much as in the old codex, but still plenty.

Marius Xerxes
21-03-2008, 02:48
Firstly I have to say there are still plenty no-brainer options in the new codexes.



This may be true, but take a look forward to 5th edition and a lot of these "no brainer" lists wont hold as much water due to new ways of counting as scoring etc.

ehlijen
21-03-2008, 03:09
How are CSM bad at offering heavy troops firepower? Or at least worse than cult troops?

All the cults offer is very specialised special weapons (try Thousand sons against guard or Noise marines against nidzilla if you don't believe it), and the one cult that actually offers heavy weapon options (ie something powerful and beyond basic weapon range) are the noise marines that at minimum (if they take the thing) cost the same as 10 CSM.
All you need to do then is spend that little extra to get the heavy weapon. Hardly sounds ineffective at shooting in comparison. (And always keep in mind that some armies actually fear the boltgun!)

Grand Master Raziel
21-03-2008, 15:06
Well I think the rules allowing any CSM unit to take any veteran skill was abusable and its good they dropped it. However, having several veteran skills is not overpowered for an Elites choice like Chosen. So instead of the current boring "I'm a mighty champion of Chaos so I get to sneak around with a Plasma Gun" they should have made Chosen into a highly customizable unit like for example the Carnifex. Allowing Chosen that could represent anything from infiltrating tank hunters to elite Berserkers would solve a lot of the gripes about the legions being dropped.


Perhaps. However, in a sense, that can already be done by giving Icons to the unit. They can be made harder-hitting in assault with IoK or IoS, or more resilient with IoT or IoN. Personally, I've had my fill of units that can take any Veteran skill they want, and am not eager to see any more.


That's a pretty bold statement. Granted Tsons weren't an abuseable list, but how were Night Lords cheesy? Alpha Legion? Word Bearers? Death Guard?

To just claim that every list except Thousand Sons was an automatic cheese army is...overreaching to say the least.

Not really. The current Codex: Space Marines gets slammed for being overpowered for 6-man lasplas SAFH, access to Veteran skills, and AC-spam. 3.5 Chaos obviously couldn't do AC-spam, but it could do the other two, and it made up for AC-spam with fantastically broken ICs, Elites that should have been Heavy Supports (Oblits and certain configurations of Chosen), being able to upgrade vehicles so they could shoot every turn and would be harder to kill than anything but Holo-Falcons (Daemonic Possession, Parasitic Possession, Mutated Hull), Daemonbomb, battle cannon platforms with access to both the aforementioned vehicle upgrades and Indirect Fire, and on and on and on.

As for the Legion rules, with the exception of the Thousand Sons, all the Legion rules really did was encourage players to spam out one particular bit of cheese by cloaking it as a theme. IW's "theme" was the SAFH. Alpha Legion's "theme" was the all-Infiltrate, all-the-time army. Word Bearer's "theme" was the Daemonbomb. Night Lords got Stealth Adepts (which they could also tack onto Infiltrators). As for the cult Legions, other than the Thousand Sons, they got some fantastically cost-effective package deals with their particular Marks, access to some ridiculous wargear and powers, free upgrades, and in return "paid" for them with disadvantages that were, at best, marginal, or in some cases were actually advantages unless their opponent did something risky and clever to turn them against the player using them.

So, yeah, other than the T-Sons, any Chaos army had the potential to be absurdly cheesy. I'm not saying that every single Chaos player played his army in that way, but it was definately one of the most power gamer-friendly dexes in the cycle (the other being Codex: Craftworld Eldar). The only Chaos armies that I could be sure wouldn't be cheesy without seeing what the other guy put on the table were the T-Sons armies, and even against players that weren't trying particularly hard to cheese it out, every single win I got against Chaos I got by either being significantly better than the other guy, or significantly luckier. If the balance of playing skill and luck were equal, 3.5 Chaos would beat most any other army almost all the time.



It may not be as abuseable in so many forms, but it is still just as abuseable.

C:CSM isn't as abusable as 3.5, but it's still just as abusable? :wtf:


Also, as a whole I've seen far more lists that look like with the new codex than with the previous book, and from looking around the army list forums here and on other places it looks to not just be me either.

I think that says more about the kinds of players who were attracted to Chaos by 3.5 than it says about C:CSM.



And others of us are saying the current codex does a ****-poor job of trying to do Renegades and Legions in a thematic manner with only a couple exceptions.

It does a fine job with the Undivided Legions and an adequate job with the Cult Legions (and treats T-Sons much better than 3.5 did). It also gives more of a nod to non-legion renegades by having two tiers of dedication to the Chaos powers (Icons for more recent renegades, Cult unit entries for the legionaries). It just doesn't do these things in exactly the same way it used to do.



That I'll agree with, however I think the utility of heavy weapons in 10 man squads is reduced to the point where you might as well not even have the option given the way the current basic CSM is set up and the cost increases in other areas.

I disagree. I think it's more about choosing different heavies to get better synergies with the CSMs in the squad. Under 3.5, CSMs with heavy weapons were basically 5-6 wounds around a lascannon. Now, the smart thing to do if you want heavies in your Troops is to give them heavies that are good anti-infantry weapons (HB, autocannon, ML). That lets the CSMs lend to the weight of antipersonell fire with their bolters, whereas under 3.5 their bolter fire would have been wasted every time the lascannon they were guarding fired on a tank. Long-range anti-tank capability is now best gotten thru Heavy Support - Havocs, Oblits, and Predators being the most likely choices.






On the other hand, one can take 6 Noise Marines with a Blastmaster and assault2/heavy3 bolters and be almost as effective in CC (with I5 and Fearless) and more effective at shooting, for the same price as a 10man CSM squad with a heavy weapon.

I think you're forgetting that Noise Marines don't get Sonic Blasters for free. They have to pay additional points-per-model for them. The Noise Marine squad you're suggesting above actually costs 25pts more than a 10-man CSM squad with any heavy except the lascannon, and 15pts more than a 10-man CSM squad with a lascannon. Also, the 6-man Noise Marine squad would be signficantly easier to reduce to below scoring strength than the 10-man CSM squad, and easier to wipe out altogether. Is it really min-maxing to take a 6-man Noise Marine squad with sonic blasters and a blastmaster when you can have a 10-man CSM squad with a lascannon and plasma gun for the same amount of points?



Is a 6 or 8 man heavy bolter squad min/maxing, cheesy or game breaking?

I contend that it would be if Chaos' nearest equivalent (loyalist Space Marines) can't do exactly the same thing, which Codex: Dark Angels virtually promises is going to be the case.


Might explain all the bitterness about "but the SM's aren't losing their Vet skills!" I played Vanilla Marines since 2000, I can *guarantee* you that the vanilla dex was considered, if not the most underpowered, close to it, until 4th Ed. No, the SMs have not always been the most powerful army. I'm still not used to having a powerful army when playing them, it's so counter to the paradigm I learned them under.

No kidding, huh? I cut my teeth on that dex, and had to use it to play against 3.5 Chaos for an interminably long time.


That I could believe, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Although I still think having these threads 6 month on, with regularity, is indicative of something with the Chaos book.

Again, I think it's more indicative of the type of players that 3.5 attracted to Chaos. Given how overpowered that book was, there was no way that the following edition was going to do anything but downpower Chaos, and consequently there was no way that the undesireables that 3.5 attracted to Chaos were going to be anything but outraged about it. This is not to say that every Chaos player was cut from that mold, but there were enough of them to put Chaos as a whole under a foul odor. It's also not to say that C:CSM is perfect, but it's definately not 3rd ed. SM bad, Doctrineless IG bad, or Daemonhunters bad, so it could be way, way worse.


They pop up just about every week.

Not really. I think it's been at least a month since I've seen one.

Vaktathi
21-03-2008, 19:31
Not really. The current Codex: Space Marines gets slammed for being overpowered for 6-man lasplas SAFH, access to Veteran skills, and AC-spam. 3.5 Chaos obviously couldn't do AC-spam, but it could do the other two, and it made up for AC-spam with fantastically broken ICs, Elites that should have been Heavy Supports (Oblits and certain configurations of Chosen), being able to upgrade vehicles so they could shoot every turn and would be harder to kill than anything but Holo-Falcons (Daemonic Possession, Parasitic Possession, Mutated Hull), Daemonbomb, battle cannon platforms with access to both the aforementioned vehicle upgrades and Indirect Fire, and on and on and on. Vehicle upgrades certainly didn't put Chaos vehicles on anything near par with Holofield tanks, the only thing that affected survivability in any meaningful way was Mutated hull. Nothing changed the chance of destruction on either a glancing or penetrating hit, not to mention these upgrades were hideously costly when added together. Paying 230pts for a Predator wasn't exactly a bargain even with everything else it got. That said, I don't think anybody really misses them, although the nerf to Daemonic Possession makes predators practically pointless now when set next to Obliterators.




As for the Legion rules, with the exception of the Thousand Sons, all the Legion rules really did was encourage players to spam out one particular bit of cheese by cloaking it as a theme. IW's "theme" was the SAFH. Alpha Legion's "theme" was the all-Infiltrate, all-the-time army. Word Bearer's "theme" was the Daemonbomb. Night Lords got Stealth Adepts (which they could also tack onto Infiltrators). Did the rules for these legions (Bar IW), their legion specific rules, make them cheesy, or was it just the Vet Skills? I don't think it was the Legion Rules for many armies that made them cheesy, rather the Armory. Granted for some it was the Legion rules, but not others, and a fluffy list didn't depend on abusing the Vet Skills either for many of these lists. Everyone can agree that the ability to take vet skills on everything was abusable, but did the ability to take more Troops in exchange for other FoC slots make WB cheesy? Was Stealth Adepts broken? I personally don't think so. Was the extra FA broken given the choices? No =P. As for the Word Bearer daemon bomb, I don't think that was necessarily unfluffy, however the problem was the inherent mechanics of the Daemons and their abilities, not the Legion rules, had they toned down rending and bumped the price on Bloodletters and used the current Daemon summoning rules, I don't think it would have been all that bad at all.




So, yeah, other than the T-Sons, any Chaos army had the potential to be absurdly cheesy. I'm not saying that every single Chaos player played his army in that way, but it was definately one of the most power gamer-friendly dexes in the cycle (the other being Codex: Craftworld Eldar). The only Chaos armies that I could be sure wouldn't be cheesy without seeing what the other guy put on the table were the T-Sons armies, and even against players that weren't trying particularly hard to cheese it out, every single win I got against Chaos I got by either being significantly better than the other guy, or significantly luckier. I think my gaming groups are way different then. Even with my cheesiest IW build (and proxying extra oblits) I've routinely lost to my most common opponents of Mech Eldar with the new codex, Necrons , Dark Eldar, and other Chaos armies. Did I just suck? Maybe, its possible, but I don't think that beating Chaos in the last codex was dependent entirely on luck. All that generally needed to happen with my army was for my Oblits to get locked in CC or otherwise negated (difficult, but by no means impossible) and a couple predators popped (also not too hard) and the back of the army was broken.





C:CSM isn't as abusable as 3.5, but it's still just as abusable? :wtf: The point was, it's still easy to abuse. It doesn't take a genius to discover the two or three really powerful list combinations. There just aren't as many build options in general, and thus, fewer power builds. I think the ability to cheese the list out relative to the possible army builds hasn't changed, making it functionally the same in this respect.




I think that says more about the kinds of players who were attracted to Chaos by 3.5 than it says about C:CSM. How so? That every Chaos player is a powergaming git or that the current codex typically centers around a couple lists with some slight variations? I've seen more Lash prince armies since the new codex came out than I ever saw IW armies in total.





It does a fine job with the Undivided Legions Many would disagree here. It does an OK job for a couple undivided legions (Night Lords, Black Legion), but not all.


and an adequate job with the Cult Legions (and treats T-Sons much better than 3.5 did). Mainly only in Troops choices. Outside of that, Cult troops lose their "Cultiness". A Noise marine granted a terminator armor suite loses his ability to be fearless, loses his I5 if a dude with an icon dies, has no access to sonic weaponry of any kind, etc... Dreads and Preds lost their access to sonic weaponry as well.


It also gives more of a nod to non-legion renegades by having two tiers of dedication to the Chaos powers (Icons for more recent renegades, Cult unit entries for the legionaries). It just doesn't do these things in exactly the same way it used to do. It does them in a poorly averaged manner meant to be all inclusive but failing to do any of them justice. If they wanted to do Renegades, the Icons would have worked, but then why do they all have Legion equipment? Why do they all have Legion organizations and unit structure? Why are the Legions suddenly dependent on Icons and why do they lose so much of their previous abilities on anything but Troops?





I disagree. I think it's more about choosing different heavies to get better synergies with the CSMs in the squad. Under 3.5, CSMs with heavy weapons were basically 5-6 wounds around a lascannon. That depends on how you played them. Many people (most that I played against actually) used their troops and anti-infantry. I never took any HW except a heavy bolter in troops squads because their purpose was to engage other infantry. While CSM squads could be used in the manner you describe, I don't think I ever faced more than one Chaos list that was built with such squads.


Now, the smart thing to do if you want heavies in your Troops is to give them heavies that are good anti-infantry weapons (HB, autocannon, ML). That lets the CSMs lend to the weight of antipersonell fire with their bolters, whereas under 3.5 their bolter fire would have been wasted every time the lascannon they were guarding fired on a tank. Long-range anti-tank capability is now best gotten thru Heavy Support - Havocs, Oblits, and Predators being the most likely choices. The problem is the new Chaos marine is geared much more towards close range firefights and assaults. standing and shooting heavy weapons, even anti-infantry ones, generally leaves 9 other guys standing around at the best ranges for heavy weapons, or leaving them not moving to get into much more desirable rapid fire and/or assault range. The squads generally work far better now with 2x special weapons. There is no point to taking a heavy weapon in a squad that needs to be close to be at its most effective and needs to be very large and relatively expensive to even get the option to take the heavy weapon. Why is there this consistent insistence that every Chaos squad under the old codex took lascannons and nothing else? Playing on a weekly basis at two different stores in two very different cities I was pretty much the only IW player, and never saw the much derided 5man las/plas outside of one army at one event. 6 and 8 man squads with autocannons and HB's were common, but most troops I saw fielded didn't take Lascannons. Is it just that the two areas I play in are so far out of the norm or is it a case of GT and internet lists being accepted as the norm?





I think you're forgetting that Noise Marines don't get Sonic Blasters for free. They have to pay additional points-per-model for them. The Noise Marine squad you're suggesting above actually costs 25pts more than a 10-man CSM squad with any heavy except the lascannon, and 15pts more than a 10-man CSM squad with a lascannon. I didn't forget that fact, I mentally just assumed the powerfist/weapon champ that most people take.

A six man Noise Marine squad with 5 sonic blasters, a blastmaster and a powerfist/weapon champ will cost the same as a 10 man ML/Plasma squad with a PW/PF champ and an Icon of Glory. The noise marines still have the greater advantage in firepower.


Also, the 6-man Noise Marine squad would be signficantly easier to reduce to below scoring strength than the 10-man CSM squad, and easier to wipe out altogether. True, however they can move and fire every weapon in their squad to effect, and still have an I bonus in CC, or stay still and have tremendous firepower against just about anything. the larger CSM squad is going to have to get closer before it can fire to full effect, taking more casualties, still won't match the shooting power even at rapid fire range. Pit the two squads against each other and unless the Noise Marines decide to advance on the CSM's while the CSM's stay stationary, the Noise Marines have a *clear* advantage, especially if the CSM's have to advance *against* the Noise Marines or get into a static shooting war.


Is it really min-maxing to take a 6-man Noise Marine squad with sonic blasters and a blastmaster when you can have a 10-man CSM squad with a lascannon and plasma gun for the same amount of points? It's not necessarily min/maxing, but given the relative differences in ability in terms of mobility and CC ability, as well as firepower versatility, I'd say the Noise marines are still more attractive. I think that's why I'm the only Chaos player in my area that still fields normal CSM's, everyone else decided to go with Noise Marines.




I contend that it would be if Chaos' nearest equivalent (loyalist Space Marines) can't do exactly the same thing, which Codex: Dark Angels virtually promises is going to be the case. Why? Combat squads can split guys into two units, one with the heavy weapon in the back of the field while the powerfist and meltagun move up the field, while an 8man non-combat squad unit HB squad has 7 guys sitting around doing nothing while the HB fires at range. Just because another book can't do it doesn't mean it's cheese. The relative effectiveness is what counts.






Again, I think it's more indicative of the type of players that 3.5 attracted to Chaos. And it wasn't for Craftworld Eldar?


Given how overpowered that book was, there was no way that the following edition was going to do anything but downpower Chaos I don't disagree, but I think they could have done a better job. As a total army list, it's not terrible, but as a representation of the Forces of Chaos, it's pretty bad.


and consequently there was no way that the undesireables that 3.5 attracted to Chaos were going to be anything but outraged about it. This is not to say that every Chaos player was cut from that mold, but there were enough of them to put Chaos as a whole under a foul odor. Again, what of the Craftworld Eldar? Just as bad, but we didn't see them sitting around forever. The current dex just didn't cover all the bases it needed to. Did it do some things right? Yes, very much so. The HQ's, cult troops, movement of Oblits to HS, new Termi's, Raptors and new Daemon summoning rules are all great examples. Did it whiff horribly at others? Yes.


It's also not to say that C:CSM is perfect, but it's definately not 3rd ed. SM bad, Doctrineless IG bad, or Daemonhunters bad, so it could be way, way worse. Just because it could be worse doesn't mean we should be entirely happy with a mediocre product.




Not really. I think it's been at least a month since I've seen one.

Just doing a quick search we've had several in the last month that either started on this topic or evolved into it.

Staurikosaurus
25-03-2008, 05:03
Vehicle upgrades certainly didn't put Chaos vehicles on anything near par with Holofield tanks

I'd like to see you suggest something that is on par with holofield tanks that would not be considered "broken" by the majority.


the nerf to Daemonic Possession makes predators practically pointless now when set next to Obliterators

Except that a predator is around 100 pts cheaper allowing you to field very nearly 2 predators for the price of 3 oblits


Cult troops lose their "Cultiness". A Noise marine granted a terminator armor suite loses his ability to be fearless, loses his I5 if a dude with an icon dies, has no access to sonic weaponry of any kind, etc... Dreads and Preds lost their access to sonic weaponry as well.

I think that this says more about the power level of the cult weapons than it does about the changes to the list. As an example, consider assault cannon spam marine armies and the rumoured changes to the SM codex with the changes made from 3.5 to 4 for C:CSM


Why are the Legions suddenly dependent on Icons and why do they lose so much of their previous abilities on anything but Troops?


Because in 5th ed you won't be able to pick out the icon bearer as a casualty through massed firepower like you can in 4th thus restoring the "cultiness" of the legions.


True, however they can move and fire every weapon in their squad to effect, and still have an I bonus in CC, or stay still and have tremendous firepower against just about anything. the larger CSM squad is going to have to get closer before it can fire to full effect, taking more casualties, still won't match the shooting power even at rapid fire range. Pit the two squads against each other and unless the Noise Marines decide to advance on the CSM's while the CSM's stay stationary, the Noise Marines have a *clear* advantage, especially if the CSM's have to advance *against* the Noise Marines or get into a static shooting war.


I would pit a 10 man CSM squad with 2 meltaguns and a champ with powerfist against said Noise Marine squad any day of the week. Not to mention that it rings in at a much lower points cost, has more versatility and is as mobile.


Just because it could be worse doesn't mean we should be entirely happy with a mediocre product.


The current codex is far from mediocre. If you want to play one of the old legions, all you are required to do is make a few small changes to your list to accomodate old fluff. Tournament players represent only 10% of GW's client base. If you choose not to believe that statement then email them yourself. In no way is it good business sense to tailor your product to 10% of your market share.

The current codex balances out the chaos space marine list to a vast degree when compared to the potential abuses of the previous edition. Yes ppl bring up lash prince spam. How effective are they against psychic hoods or eldar that force you to roll your psychic tests on 3d6? Not very. The current codex gives you MORE options than the previous edition no matter the list you play. In addition it gave Chaos players a points discount on many of the list choices. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

Syrus101
25-03-2008, 08:08
it still sucks...

its almost like ordo Xenos...

Vaktathi
25-03-2008, 09:10
I'd like to see you suggest something that is on par with holofield tanks that would not be considered "broken" by the majority. There isn't anything. :p




Except that a predator is around 100 pts cheaper allowing you to field very nearly 2 predators for the price of 3 oblits 100 points cheaper than what? The only configuration that is cheaper than in the previous codex is the Autocannon/HB version. They also really aren't worth taking over Oblits in the vast majority of cases when taking into account total firepower, mobility (Deep Strike) and survivability for points paid.




I think that this says more about the power level of the cult weapons than it does about the changes to the list. As an example, consider assault cannon spam marine armies and the rumoured changes to the SM codex with the changes made from 3.5 to 4 for C:CSM How so? Why should a Berserker lose all that makes him what he is when he gains a more powerful suit of armor? Why does a Plague Marine not gain any net protective bonus (against non-power/ID weapons) when obtaining a suit of Terminator armor (3+sv +FNP is equal to a 2+ save against anything that isn't AP3) and lose his ability to be fearless? Such things should have remained in the codex and been costed appropriately, as is the Icons for most squads don't offer a huge benefit and cost far too much for their benefit for many units (Icon of Nurgle for termi's or Raptors for instance, is just not worth 50pts for just about anything less than an unfeasibly large squad in most cases)




Because in 5th ed you won't be able to pick out the icon bearer as a casualty through massed firepower like you can in 4th thus restoring the "cultiness" of the legions. Keep in mind that's based off an early draft set of possible 5th ed rules. If such is indeed the case, why was the change from a per model costing/availability changed to a per unit system that depended on one model remaining in the unit? If it won't matter in 5th ed, what was the point of the change?




I would pit a 10 man CSM squad with 2 meltaguns and a champ with powerfist against said Noise Marine squad any day of the week. I have, several times. The extra two firing phases that the Noise Marines usually get while trying to advance more than make up for the lack of numbers, especially with that AP3 blast. Hell, the Noise Marines can simply continually move away and blast away to full effect at 24" while kiting those CSM's around. Even sitting 24" away with a heavy weapon and just shooting at each other, the Noise Marines have the advantage. Only at close range (and only if they get the first round of fire and at full strength) does the 10man CSM squad become a match for the Noise Marines.

Not to mention that it rings in at a much lower points cost, has more versatility and is as mobile. It's not *that* much less (220 with 2x melta, powerfist, and an icon of glory versus 230 for 6x noise marines with powerfist and all sonic blasters and a blastmaster?), and while it is just as mobile, the Noise marines get to move and fire at double the range, and can pump out even more fire if standing still. Not to mention that AP3 blast really puts out hurt and has a much further range than that ten man CSM squad. This allows them long range anti-tank/MC firepower, close range anti-infantry firepower, as well as decent CC ability. Noise Marines may be more expensive than in the last codex, but they really are worth their cost. They are probably one of the best units in the new codex.




The current codex is far from mediocre. Quite a few Chaos players would beg to differ. As an army list, if you don't think about the background behind it and the units, it's not bad at all (although, as with anything, it could be better) , much better than many of the other army lists out there currently. As a representation of the forces of Chaos and a book designed to cover both post-heresy renegade Space Marines and Heresy era Legions, it falls short.


If you want to play one of the old legions, all you are required to do is make a few small changes to your list to accomodate old fluff. Yes, but it's still not the same, especially the non-troop cult units being naff versions of their old selves. It tries to do too much and ends up as a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Sure it can represent any theoretical Chaos force. Can it do them well? No. A couple sure, but I sure wouldn't say it does any particular Cult legion (and several undivided legions) well, nor renegades.


Tournament players represent only 10% of GW's client base. If you choose not to believe that statement then email them yourself. In no way is it good business sense to tailor your product to 10% of your market share. Who said anything about tournaments? I don't think that was a major point of this thread. That said, Tournaments is what GW apparently looks at when designing their products as that is where the most abusive lists are found and most commonly played.



The current codex balances out the chaos space marine list to a vast degree when compared to the potential abuses of the previous edition. Ir reduces some of it yes, but much of it could have been reigned in without stripping the army of much of its flavor and various other things.


Yes ppl bring up lash prince spam. How effective are they against psychic hoods or eldar that force you to roll your psychic tests on 3d6? Not very. True, but even then, most Marine and Eldar armies don't take these. A lot do, but far from most. Of course if they are intending to face such and army they will take them, however (and this may just be me) I've yet to see them often in all comers lists, especially outside tournaments where they may know what opponents they are facing.


The current codex gives you MORE options than the previous edition no matter the list you play. In some ways, yes (unrestricted Raptors, more Termi's). In other ways, definitely not (Daemon types, vehicle options and unit options, etc...) . And many of those new options may not fit into most established fluff for an army. Also, many options have a definite advantage over others in terms of attractiveness and probable performance (Raptors versus Bikers for instance, or Termi's and Chosen versus Dreads and Possessed)


In addition it gave Chaos players a points discount on many of the list choices. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. It also raised costs on just as many things and has added either odd rules (Possessed, and especially given that they roll after deployment) or rules that definitely give one a reason to take something else (new Dread fire frenzy rules give a huge incentive against shooty dreads)

philbrad2
25-03-2008, 10:21
The current codex is far from mediocre. If you want to play one of the old legions, all you are required to do is make a few small changes to your list to accomodate old fluff. Tournament players represent only 10% of GW's client base. If you choose not to believe that statement then email them yourself. In no way is it good business sense to tailor your product to 10% of your market share.

I really would dispute this... the old codex gave player a much more characterful set of rules and wargear for playing their Chaos force. What the current list has done is is conform to GW's new ethos in armies that characterfulness/customisability/individuality is bad. Chaos are now a 'bad guy' version of what we can expect to see in the revision of Codex: SM. Mark my words I can see the vet traits/Codex deviation rules going out of the window when that hits the shelves. And all us Chaos players will be sitting here typing "...well, told you so!"

The revised Chaos codex has been lambasted by those who play the army. I know GW keep on it now represents Renegade chapters more (although my Soul Drinkers were far more characterful utilising a daemonless WB list in the old codex that a vanilla list in the current.) GW has paid only token tribute to the Traitor Legions the CORE of Chaos SM's in the current book. I'm not saying the old book was perfect and the new a total abomination but everyone will agree the old list was far more 'Chaosy' then what we now have. My IW are being revamped to fit in with the new Codex and its taken me into using more Assault troops and Tzeentchian Sorcerers/Troops. These are the new rules GW has given me for my army and I'll make the best of them that I can doesn't mean I totally agree with them.


The current codex balances out the chaos space marine list to a vast degree when compared to the potential abuses of the previous edition. Yes ppl bring up lash prince spam. How effective are they against psychic hoods or eldar that force you to roll your psychic tests on 3d6? Not very. The current codex gives you MORE options than the previous edition no matter the list you play. In addition it gave Chaos players a points discount on many of the list choices. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.Agreed some elements of the rules in the old book were open to abuse and needed curtailing. But adjustments like "There is only one list!" compared to a revision of the Traitor Legion rules in the old codex is not warranted. GW have made Chaos again a 'cookie cutter' army- yes there is choice on what you can give the force, I applaud the move to give undivided armies back marks for troops, yes choices are there but to me the list feels like it was thrown together in a Wednesday afternoon tea break not a thoroughly thought out, worked out and tested codex it should be. It's as if GW took the first 3rd ed codex and did some updates to it. As a Chaos/IW player since 2nd ed, I also have played Night Lord/World Eaters/Death Guard in my Chaos 'career' so I'm no newbie to the forces of the Warp, I think this is the weakest Chaos codex so far.

I'm not bothered about what other forces may affect my playing style and a little revolution is a good thing, but would it have been so hard to include some decent, balanced Legion based rulesets to include in this book? The vast majority of Chaos players will use a Traitor Legion based army. The old mix and match armies for Chaos, which I found hard to imagine would work together on the battlefield, seem to be coming back now and the background and rules GW built up for the Traitor Legion during the Index Astartes series and crowned (IMHO) with the last Chaos Codex seem to have been swept under the carpet.

As I say GW are on a crusade... to remove the character from armies and it looks like they are winning.

PhilB
:chrome:

Supremearchmarshal
25-03-2008, 12:07
I really would dispute this... the old codex gave player a much more characterful set of rules and wargear for playing their Chaos force. What the current list has done is is conform to GW's new ethos in armies that characterfulness/customisability/individuality is bad. Chaos are now a 'bad guy' version of what we can expect to see in the revision of Codex: SM. Mark my words I can see the vet traits/Codex deviation rules going out of the window when that hits the shelves. And all us Chaos players will be sitting here typing "...well, told you so!"

I'm not 100% sure about this. Namely, GW is well-known for suddenly changing its design philosophy in the middle of updating the codexes.

Something the Space Marines have going for them is that they're the top selling range of all GW's products, and this may allow them to evade some of the changes in the new codexes. GW will be very careful about p***ing off a large portion of its customers - especially after the new CSM codex and the resulting promise of legion rules in the future. And indeed, SM are the only army that has evaded the "no sub-codexes" policy.

ehlijen
25-03-2008, 12:20
They already did it to DA and BA, and the change was good! I can't wait for combat squads for regular marines and the death of diet devestators in the troops slots.

Staurikosaurus
25-03-2008, 16:44
@ Syrus101: stop trolling


There isn't anything.

Thus rendering the initial point moot.


100 points cheaper than what? The only configuration that is cheaper than in the previous codex is the Autocannon/HB version. They also really aren't worth taking over Oblits in the vast majority of cases when taking into account total firepower, mobility (Deep Strike) and survivability for points paid

100 points cheaper than 3 obliterators thus allowing you to field 2 if you so chose. They ALWAYS move 6 and fire all weapons (yes the AC HB version but I believe it was your penchant for HBs that lead me to believe you would prefer that version), are effective on the first turn unlike DSing Oblits, and are immune to small arms fire unlike the obliterators.


Why should a Berserker lose all that makes him what he is when he gains a more powerful suit of armor? Why does a Plague Marine not gain any net protective bonus (against non-power/ID weapons) when obtaining a suit of Terminator armor

How would a Berserker have the presence of mind to actually don a suit of terminator armour? As well, would any commander worth his salt give such an expensive, rare and revered piece of kit to a frothing lunatic? As well, how is something like a 10 man raptor squad unfeasibly large?


Keep in mind that's based off an early draft set of possible 5th ed rules. If such is indeed the case, why was the change from a per model costing/availability changed to a per unit system that depended on one model remaining in the unit? If it won't matter in 5th ed, what was the point of the change

That is the point of the change. It gives you a method of customizing your units to specific god dedications without having an overly inflated codex. 6 different entries for each unit type would swell the book beyond anything managable. Yes icon bearers are targetable now, this drawback will be removed in the new rules - unless of course you're suggesting that Brimstone, is in fact wrong. :eyebrows:


It's not *that* much less (220 with 2x melta, powerfist, and an icon of glory versus 230 for 6x noise marines with powerfist and all sonic blasters and a blastmaster?

Why bother giving them the icon of glory? They're already Ld 10. I have played against the new Noise Marines several times and have yet to have a problem against them with my basic squads. Perhaps the boards you play on are light on terrain.


Quite a few Chaos players would beg to differ. As an army list, if you don't think about the background behind it and the units, it's not bad at all (although, as with anything, it could be better) , much better than many of the other army lists out there currently. As a representation of the forces of Chaos and a book designed to cover both post-heresy renegade Space Marines and Heresy era Legions, it falls short.

Obviously quite a few chaos players disagree with you as well otherwise threads like this wouldn't exist. How does the book fall short? It gives you legion specific entries and allows you to mark nearly every unit with the blessing of a god. I fail to see how this is limiting - unless you feel that fearless terminators with T5 and feel no pain is somehow a balanced choice you were robbed of.


Yes, but it's still not the same, especially the non-troop cult units being naff versions of their old selves

Which was the point of making the changes - unless of course you're suggesting that the majority of the cult lists were balanced. They toned down the rules abuses while still allowing you to dedicate your troops. Why does a world eaters army need to be composed of nothing but berserkers? If they're all madmen then who lobotomizes them, takes care of equipment and directs forces? The old codex limited players by making blanket statements about the renegade legions without giving said statements much thought. The current book corrects this oversight.


Who said anything about tournaments

Tournaments being the best place to find the most common rules abuses - especially for such tournaments as 'ard boyz. The abuses in those tournaments tell you what needs to be toned down.


It also raised costs on just as many things and has added either odd rules

False. It streamlined rules that were open to abuse and discounted the majority of units in the book. If you like I can do a unit by unit analysis to prove it - most went down in points cost allowing players to field larger armies.


GW's new ethos in armies that characterfulness/customisability/individuality is bad

Characterfulness etc is not bad, obvious rules abuses to gain unfair advantages in the name of fluff are bad. The new codex has plenty of options but instead of poorly tested rules and overpowered options to guide you in making your army, you now have background information and versatile unit options to construct your army. Much less cookie cutter - unless you're suggesting that (as an example) the majority of IW players in the previous codex didn't field 4 heavy choices?

Vaktathi
25-03-2008, 19:50
Thus rendering the initial point moot.
I believe that was my point, that the old upgrades didn't make Chaos tanks like Holofield tanks, thus negating that comparison.



100 points cheaper than 3 obliterators thus allowing you to field 2 if you so chose. They ALWAYS move 6 and fire all weapons (yes the AC HB version but I believe it was your penchant for HBs that lead me to believe you would prefer that version), are effective on the first turn unlike DSing Oblits, and are immune to small arms fire unlike the obliterators. I do prefer HB sponsons, although I prefer lascannon turrets (allowing them to perform multiple roles and still move and fire everything). That said, the Oblits will give you more bang for your buck. predators tend not to last very long, the oblits will last longer, and give you more flexibility in deploying them.




How would a Berserker have the presence of mind to actually don a suit of terminator armour? Given that they've been able to do so in both the 2nd Ed and 3.5 Ed codex, I don't see where it is a problem. The World Eaters aren't totally mindless, maybe in the heat of battle, but not at all times, and they had Terminator units during the Heresy. The only codex that didn't have Khornate terminators at all was the first 3rd ed codex, which most will agree was a universal pile of crap.


As well, would any commander worth his salt give such an expensive, rare and revered piece of kit to a frothing lunatic? Again, except for Kharne, they aren't all frothing lunatics at all hours of the day every day. And given that their commander is likely just as bad off as them, I don't see why it would be an issue. I can't see any justification for this with the other cults either. What happened to Rubric terminators for instance? Why can't an actual plague marine have terminator armor? These were all past options that aren't well represented in the new codex.


As well, how is something like a 10 man raptor squad unfeasibly large? In some cases it may not be, but in many it is, as it's simply too large for what it needs to do. Same with Terminators. I field two squads of 10 terminators sometimes, but thats when the entire list is built around them, and I still wouldn't give them the Nurgle icon, too little benefit for too much cost. Most people use terminators in 5 or 6man squads, in such squads, the more expensive icons are simply too costly to be of practical use.




That is the point of the change. Change just for the sake of change is a poor reason for change however.

It gives you a method of customizing your units to specific god dedications without having an overly inflated codex. How would actual Marks been over-inflating the codex? How would actual Cult units in slots other than Troops been so undoable?


6 different entries for each unit type would swell the book beyond anything managable. I find this difficult to believe. "Icon of Nurgle=50pts, Mark of nurgle=Xpts per squad, adds FNP" not a huge deal. And if it did in fact make the book unmanageable, it just goes to show it's deficiences and that they shouldn't have tried to lump everything together in the first place.


Yes icon bearers are targetable now, this drawback will be removed in the new rules - unless of course you're suggesting that Brimstone, is in fact wrong. :eyebrows: My point was why make them targetable under the current rules at all then, why not have just used the old Mark system where it simply applies to everyone instead of relying on one guy providing it?




Why bother giving them the icon of glory? They're already Ld 10. I have played against the new Noise Marines several times and have yet to have a problem against them with my basic squads. Perhaps the boards you play on are light on terrain. You would not believe how many times I've failed Ld10 morale tests. :p Remember, 1 in 12 times you will fail that test, with the icon, this drops to less than 1% with the icon from over 8%. The boards I play on are usually actually more than 25% terrain. It's usually not hard to get LoS to a large advancing squad in some manner, especially if its footslogging, and cover only helps with the blastmaster shots, not the 1 or 2 guys you will lose on average a turn from the 24" heavy3/assault2 sonic blaster fire which you may have to take for two or three turns before getting into range yourself, thus negating the numbers advantage by the time you get to hit back.




Obviously quite a few chaos players disagree with you as well otherwise threads like this wouldn't exist. True, however alot of people posting in threads like this also aren't Chaos players as well.


How does the book fall short? It gives you legion specific entries *Cult* specific, not necessarily Legion specific, and only in Troops slots.

and allows you to mark nearly every unit with the blessing of a god. Yes, although as pointed out above not to the same extent as they should for Legion units and their cost is prohibitive with some Icons.


I fail to see how this is limiting - unless you feel that fearless terminators with T5 and feel no pain is somehow a balanced choice you were robbed of. In all honesty, its a fluff consistency issue. Why is a Plague Marine in power armor a more solid trooper than a Plague terminator? Why does a Noise Marine lost his fearlessness and permanent I5 and ability to wield a sonic weapon if he uses what is supposed to be an Elite suite of armor? As for balance, if costed appropriately, it wouldn't be an issue would it? If a plague termi was 50pts base, I don' think it would be too much of an issue.




Which was the point of making the changes - unless of course you're suggesting that the majority of the cult lists were balanced. I certainly don't think the balance issue came from non-cult Troop units. I don't see how the Berserker terminators in the last codex were horrifically overpowered. The ability to take infilitrating everything with furious charge and whatnot and some of the more ridiculous equipment and FoC changes is what really did it. I don't think I ever heard anyone complain about Noise Termi's, Predators or Dreads, or about Khorne Terminators in the previous codex.


They toned down the rules abuses while still allowing you to dedicate your troops. Why does a world eaters army need to be composed of nothing but berserkers? Given that the previous codex's from 2nd Ed until the 3.5ed codex have said the World Eaters all underwent the Berserker brain surgery and became berserkers after the Heresy, I think it would make sense. Why would the guys in Terminator armor not become Berserkers? Did they just miss out on that Legion meeting because they were stuck in the teleporter bay? I fail to see why only the tactical squad guy became Berserkers with the new codex when every previous codex could have Berserkers in Terminator armor (except the first 3rd ed one).

If they're all madmen then who lobotomizes them, takes care of equipment and directs forces? Again, except for a few exceptions like Kharne they aren't frothing madmen all the time. Otherwise they would have killed each other off by now. the current codex has a story of a berserker squad that is far more rational than most would believe, waiting for fire at their position to cease before attempting to charge again, talking rationally with one another, etc...


The old codex limited players by making blanket statements about the renegade legions without giving said statements much thought. I don't think so, especially when they were based on the IA articles and older codex's from RT and 2nd Ed.


The current book corrects this oversight. Or horribly butchers it depending on your view.




Tournaments being the best place to find the most common rules abuses - especially for such tournaments as 'ard boyz. The abuses in those tournaments tell you what needs to be toned down. Well, 'ard boyz was made for that. As for the rest, that was my point, GW uses them to base their revisions off of.




False. It streamlined rules that were open to abuse and discounted the majority of units in the book. Just stating "False" doesn't make something so. Streamlining also is another term that is often heard around here that many simply equate to "dumbing down".

If you like I can do a unit by unit analysis to prove it - most went down in points cost allowing players to field larger armies. Sure, a lot of units did, I didn't deny that. However some did not, and others lost a lot of what made them cool (Hit and Run with Raptors for instance).




Characterfulness etc is not bad, obvious rules abuses to gain unfair advantages in the name of fluff are bad. Not going to deny that.


The new codex has plenty of options but instead of poorly tested rules and overpowered options to guide you in making your army, you now have background information The background in the new codex with respect to the individual Legions is...poor at best. The background mostly centers on a couple individuals and cases of renegades. The codex as a whole feels much more rushed than the previous codex. With the previous codex they spent a lot of time changing it from the first 3rd ed codex and did the IA articles in advance and then incorporated them in and redid much of the model line. With the new codex, we got a couple new models, but the list just took and cookie-cutter'd the units from the last codex. It feels much more rushed than the last one.


and versatile unit options to construct your army. Well, you had that in the last codex too.


Much less cookie cutter - unless you're suggesting that (as an example) the majority of IW players in the previous codex didn't field 4 heavy choices? It may be less cookie cutter as a whole, but certain builds fielded tend to be much more. Now I see Lash armies more than I see anything else. Even when I do see something else I don't see Possessed, Dreads, Preds, Land Raiders, Bikers, spawn, etc...

I still don't think I've seen half the codex on the table outside of Apocalypse. Granted its a subjective example so take it for what its worth, but there are numerous chaos players at both places I play at, and I've played every week since the book came out.






In the end, I think they shouldn't have tried to lump everything into one book. If they wanted to do renegades, they should have done a book for Renegades, and a seperate book for Legions. That way instead of the lumpy average that *can* do anything but *doesn't* do anything particularly well, we'd have our Legions done without having to be Renegades at the same time.

Supremearchmarshal
25-03-2008, 20:00
How would a Berserker have the presence of mind to actually don a suit of terminator armour? As well, would any commander worth his salt give such an expensive, rare and revered piece of kit to a frothing lunatic?

How would he have the presence of mind to don Power Armour then? Think of how many days they have to spend without any combat - like when traveling through the space. Obviously they go berserk during battle, not all the time.

As for your second question - a frothing lunatic commander would have no problem with it. And Berserkers wouldn't just let a non-Khornate lord bully them around.
Besides, it's not like your average Chaos Marine is a shining example of sanity.

philbrad2
25-03-2008, 20:14
Characterfulness etc is not bad, obvious rules abuses to gain unfair advantages in the name of fluff are bad.

Agreed but no rules should be for the sake of background. And any rules added to make an army like its background should be within certain parameters - ie fair and playable.. The infamous IW 4 heavies Pie plate/Obli/Defiler army of death was one I rarely came across. And those I saw were simply relying on firepower to win, no tactics, clever employment of forces. The clever opponent ran rings around the army and forced the major downside of this army, mobility.

1K Sons under the last codex sucked big time now they are good again. Whereas EC players complain. Why can't GW change? But change with BALANCE.


The new codex has plenty of options but instead of poorly tested rules and overpowered options to guide you in making your army, you now have background information and versatile unit options to construct your army.

Again agreed, the current codex still has options and in some instances as I've mentioned give players a little more now, but I feel far more has left the fold than has been bought to it.

However my biggest gripe is the 'lip service' paid to the Traitor Legions. Sure a Chaos player can field a Slanneshi army, but no rules for a dedicated Emp. Childrens army. The old codex offered us a generic Chaos list as this but also rules for these Traitor Legions. GW are quite prepared to offer loyalist players numerous standalone lists na codicies for SM chapters even BT's - thought I'd never see the day! GW have admitted the chaos codex isn't focused on Traitor legions but Renegade SM chapters. But the Traitor Legions are the core force of Chaos Space Marines. GW contradict their own background by giving us a codex so heavily slanted to renegade forces. Surely an SM chapter falling to Chaos should be a hyper-rare occurrence, from the look of new codex it appears a good number of chapters are/have/are still joining Chaos outright or have gone rogue. At least the Traitor legions falling to Chaos has a good background story and even the more recent fall of the Relictors has been steadily catalogued in various GW publications.


Much less cookie cutter - unless you're suggesting that (as an example) the majority of IW players in the previous codex didn't field 4 heavy choices?

4 heavy's was nothing. It was the ability to field multiple Obliterator units that was most abused. Of course the ability to 'min/max' troops doesn't help. Such an ability was a tournament players dream. Thing is, like the 3rd ed Blood Angels 'slashy-jump-pack-army-of-death' they were used and abused and all players fielding these armies just get labelled power-gamers. How many IW armies fielded assualt units, bikers or Raptors? Mine had one (or more) of these in every connotation of the army I fielded. Does that make me a power-gamer? It just shows two things 1) GW gamers are actually human and suffer all the traits we call 'human nature' 2) the holes in GW's work. Give us some 'fluffy' rules but lets keep game balance in there and minimise their abuse.

I miss my Basilisk and would gladly have paid more points for it. But instead I can field multiple Vindicators ... so where's the logic in that.

PhilB
:chrome:

DantesInferno
25-03-2008, 22:48
Agreed but no rules should be for the sake of background. And any rules added to make an army like its background should be within certain parameters - ie fair and playable.. The infamous IW 4 heavies Pie plate/Obli/Defiler army of death was one I rarely came across. And those I saw were simply relying on firepower to win, no tactics, clever employment of forces. The clever opponent ran rings around the army and forced the major downside of this army, mobility.

1K Sons under the last codex sucked big time now they are good again. Whereas EC players complain. Why can't GW change? But change with BALANCE.

The greatest enemy of balance is having lots of different sub-lists in a Codex. Instead of individually balancing each list, the sub-list is given a set of free advantages. The restrictions are laughable, because they often restrict things players had no intention of taking anyway.

Look at the number of customised Marine lists with the "No allies" disadvantage...


However my biggest gripe is the 'lip service' paid to the Traitor Legions. Sure a Chaos player can field a Slanneshi army, but no rules for a dedicated Emp. Childrens army. The old codex offered us a generic Chaos list as this but also rules for these Traitor Legions. GW are quite prepared to offer loyalist players numerous standalone lists na codicies for SM chapters even BT's - thought I'd never see the day! GW have admitted the chaos codex isn't focused on Traitor legions but Renegade SM chapters. But the Traitor Legions are the core force of Chaos Space Marines. GW contradict their own background by giving us a codex so heavily slanted to renegade forces. Surely an SM chapter falling to Chaos should be a hyper-rare occurrence, from the look of new codex it appears a good number of chapters are/have/are still joining Chaos outright or have gone rogue. At least the Traitor legions falling to Chaos has a good background story and even the more recent fall of the Relictors has been steadily catalogued in various GW publications.

Just because there aren't specific lists for each Traitor Legion doesn't mean that the Codex is only paying lip service to them.

Of the four Chaos Codices printed over the last 12 or so years, the 3.5 ed Codex was the only one to have sub-lists for the Legions. And yet we all managed to play Legion armies perfectly well beforehand.


4 heavy's was nothing. It was the ability to field multiple Obliterator units that was most abused. Of course the ability to 'min/max' troops doesn't help. Such an ability was a tournament players dream. Thing is, like the 3rd ed Blood Angels 'slashy-jump-pack-army-of-death' they were used and abused and all players fielding these armies just get labelled power-gamers. How many IW armies fielded assualt units, bikers or Raptors? Mine had one (or more) of these in every connotation of the army I fielded. Does that make me a power-gamer? It just shows two things 1) GW gamers are actually human and suffer all the traits we call 'human nature' 2) the holes in GW's work. Give us some 'fluffy' rules but lets keep game balance in there and minimise their abuse.

I miss my Basilisk and would gladly have paid more points for it. But instead I can field multiple Vindicators ... so where's the logic in that.

The Basilisk was a horrible aberration in the Iron Warriors list. It should never have been included.

Imperialis_Dominatus
25-03-2008, 22:50
The greatest enemy of balance is having lots of different sub-lists in a Codex. Instead of individually balancing each list, the sub-list is given a set of free advantages. The restrictions are laughable, because they often restrict things players had no intention of taking anyway.

Look at the number of customised Marine lists with the "No allies" disadvantage...

Agreed. Plus those Marines are shooting themselves in the foot in Apocalypse... ;)

Occulto
26-03-2008, 00:30
The Basilisk was a horrible aberration in the Iron Warriors list. It should never have been included.

The Basilisk was fine when the Defiler was still a concept buried somewhere in Jes Goodwin's sketchbooks. A CSM Legion with ordinance? Cool idea.

Grand Master Raziel
26-03-2008, 00:48
Vehicle upgrades certainly didn't put Chaos vehicles on anything near par with Holofield tanks, the only thing that affected survivability in any meaningful way was Mutated hull. Nothing changed the chance of destruction on either a glancing or penetrating hit, not to mention these upgrades were hideously costly when added together.

Perhaps, but on the other hand even a Holo-Falcon can be Shaken, preventing it from shooting next turn, whereas a 3.5 Chaos Pred with Daemonic Possession was immune to Shaken and Stunned results, meaning the thing would keep shooting until popped dead. That was not an insignificant ability by any stretch. Also, Parasitic Possession did add to the survivability of vehicles in question, just not as directly as Mutated Hull or Holofields. PP made it much more difficult to destroy a vehicle with that upgrade through multiple short-of-destroyed results. Also, an Immobilized vehicle could abruptly become a mobile vehicle, going from not a scoring unit to scoring unit. That was worth a lot of points.


Paying 230pts for a Predator wasn't exactly a bargain even with everything else it got. That said, I don't think anybody really misses them, although the nerf to Daemonic Possession makes predators practically pointless now when set next to Obliterators.

Well, paying 230pts for such a Pred was a lot better than paying 250pts for a Land Raider that could be Shaken/Stunned (albiet with those results mitigated by PotMS), doesn't grow back blown-off stuff, and is likely going to get used as a transport, minimizing its value as a fire support unit.


Did the rules for these legions (Bar IW), their legion specific rules, make them cheesy, or was it just the Vet Skills? I don't think it was the Legion Rules for many armies that made them cheesy, rather the Armory. Granted for some it was the Legion rules, but not others, and a fluffy list didn't depend on abusing the Vet Skills either for many of these lists.

Well, as previously stated, 3.5 Chaos was the most totally abuseable book in the whole 3rd-4th ed. cycle, so there was certainly plenty of broken aspects available to all Chaos players (with the exception of T-Sons players, in most cases). However, many of the Legion rules added that little bit extra, such as the well-aired IW example, or Alpha Legion with it's Infiltrate-for-1pt-per-figure rules.


Everyone can agree that the ability to take vet skills on everything was abusable, but did the ability to take more Troops in exchange for other FoC slots make WB cheesy? Was Stealth Adepts broken? I personally don't think so. Was the extra FA broken given the choices? No =P. As for the Word Bearer daemon bomb, I don't think that was necessarily unfluffy, however the problem was the inherent mechanics of the Daemons and their abilities, not the Legion rules, had they toned down rending and bumped the price on Bloodletters and used the current Daemon summoning rules, I don't think it would have been all that bad at all.

If you've ever seen Stealth Adepts applied to a gunline army, I'm surprised you can suggest that it wasn't broken. As for the Word Bearers, their Daemon Bomb may not have been any more broken than any other Chaos army's Daemon Bomb, but the problem with the Word Bearers entry was that it gave that particular flavor of cheese a thin veneer of legitimacy by presenting the Daemon Bomb schtick as the WBs' standard combat doctrine. That may well have been 3.5's biggest failing: instead of leaving players to define their own themes, it presented a series of cheesy schticks as iconic themes, encouraging potential players to pick one that suited them and run it exactly the same way all the time. This, apparently, worked, judging from testimonials given by Chaos players of other players who gave them the hairy eyeball if they didn't, for instance, take 4 Heavy Supports in their IW armies. So, in one sense, I will agree that C:CSM gives Chaos players less than 3.5 did: it doesn't hold up the old series of schticks with fluff that amounted to "See? This is how you're supposed to play this army!" However, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It allows Chaos players to come up with their own way of playing their armies, rather than adhering to an extremely narrow framework written by one biased, crazy old man. Anyone that's really interested in the background of any of the particular legions can do a little research on the matter and compose his army lists accordingly. The material is out there: the Index Astartes books, the BL novels, and I imagine you could do a Google search for any particular legion and come up with any number of sites that will provide you background material galore. So, there's no reason for Codex: Chaos Space Marines to try and present special rules for all of the Legions, or even for any of them, because the book is flexible enough for any player to take a real swinging go at making a thematically appropriate list for any of the Chaos legions, cult legion or no. Saying that each and every legion deserves its own special rules is like saying that each and every Ultramarines successor chapter deserves its own special rules as well. If C:CSM were extremely rigid (like a 3.0 dex), then you might be able to make a case for it, but it's actually extremely flexible, just not as flexible as 3.5.



The point was, it's still easy to abuse. It doesn't take a genius to discover the two or three really powerful list combinations. There just aren't as many build options in general, and thus, fewer power builds. I think the ability to cheese the list out relative to the possible army builds hasn't changed, making it functionally the same in this respect.

Well, I will agree that it's possible to try to abuse any particular codex, but not that each and every codex. You can min-max Codex: Daemonhunters, but you won't get anywhere near the same return you'd get with Codex: Eldar. Similarly, C:CSM may have some power builds that are more competitive than other potential builds with that book, but there is no way that those power builds are anywhere near as abusive as the things that could be accomplished with 3.5. C:CSM just does not offer the same return on powergaming that 3.5 did.


How so? That every Chaos player is a powergaming git or that the current codex typically centers around a couple lists with some slight variations? I've seen more Lash prince armies since the new codex came out than I ever saw IW armies in total.

Choosing my words very carefully: it suggests that 3.5 attracted a disproportionate share of powergamers, who are now all making similar lists because C:CSM doesn't offer the breadth and depth of cheese that 3.5 did. The lack of variety of possible abuses is making powergamy players come up with similar lists. These lists may well be the most powergamy lists that C:CSM can produce. However, they pale in comparison to the things that could be done with 3.5. Since 3.5 attracted a disproportionate share of powergamers, and those powergamers are now forced to to either use C:CSM or migrate to another army, we're now seeing a disproprortionate number of Lash Prince armies. However, the powergamers will eventually come to the conclusion that if they really want to powergame they'll have to look elsewhere, and the number of Lash Prince armies will diminish. Where the powergamers will go, I don't know. Perhaps they'll move on to Orks. I've been hearing that Boy-spam is pretty powerful, but I have no idea myself, as I haven't been able to sit down and give the dex a good read yet, neither have I seen it in action.


Many would disagree here. It does an OK job for a couple undivided legions (Night Lords, Black Legion), but not all.

The only Undivided Legion players that have any legitimate right to complain are Alpha Legion players, and their only legitimate beef is the lack of cultists.


Mainly only in Troops choices. Outside of that, Cult troops lose their "Cultiness". A Noise marine granted a terminator armor suite loses his ability to be fearless, loses his I5 if a dude with an icon dies, has no access to sonic weaponry of any kind, etc... Dreads and Preds lost their access to sonic weaponry as well.

I do not hold that units with Icons are any less appropriate as troops for one of the Cult legions than units with the 3.5 Marks. I always thought the Marks gave too much benefit for too few points anyway. Loosing the benefit of the Icon if the Icon bearer dies isn't that hard to justify. The Chaos gods are supposed to be fickle and arbitrary. They'd probably get honked off if their minions dropped their graven images in the mud and withhold their blessing as punishment. As for sonic weaponry, I'm sympathetic, but not unreservedly so. Bikes and Terminators were clearly better platforms for sonic blasters, and yet got them at the same price as ordinary foot troops.



The problem is the new Chaos marine is geared much more towards close range firefights and assaults. standing and shooting heavy weapons, even anti-infantry ones, generally leaves 9 other guys standing around at the best ranges for heavy weapons, or leaving them not moving to get into much more desirable rapid fire and/or assault range. The squads generally work far better now with 2x special weapons. There is no point to taking a heavy weapon in a squad that needs to be close to be at its most effective and needs to be very large and relatively expensive to even get the option to take the heavy weapon.

I've actually had a fair bit of experience using 10-man squads with a heavy, special, and fist-bearing unit leader, mounted in Rhinos no less. What I've found is that those units actually work very well. The main difference in utility from, say, either a 6-man lasplas squad or a 10-man, 2-special squad is that you have to think more about how you use the squad every turn, whereas the other squads are relative no-brainers in comparison. Versatility is a virtue that can be exploited to defeat armies with more "optimal" builds.


Why is there this consistent insistence that every Chaos squad under the old codex took lascannons and nothing else? Playing on a weekly basis at two different stores in two very different cities I was pretty much the only IW player, and never saw the much derided 5man las/plas outside of one army at one event. 6 and 8 man squads with autocannons and HB's were common, but most troops I saw fielded didn't take Lascannons. Is it just that the two areas I play in are so far out of the norm or is it a case of GT and internet lists being accepted as the norm?

If I had to guess, I'd say that it was because Chaos players had access to all manner of other really good anti-tank options, such as the almost-stereotypical 4-autocannon Tank Hunting Havoc squad, or the inappropriately-an-Elite-choice Obliterators squad.


Why? Combat squads can split guys into two units, one with the heavy weapon in the back of the field while the powerfist and meltagun move up the field, while an 8man non-combat squad unit HB squad has 7 guys sitting around doing nothing while the HB fires at range. Just because another book can't do it doesn't mean it's cheese. The relative effectiveness is what counts.

5 guys is not enough to shield a power fist for long enough to ensure it gets to swing at least once. The Combat Squads rule is not a no-brainer by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, in order to get the heavy, you're still paying for the prerequisite 10 guys, so if Chaos could, say, get a heavy in an 8-man squad, that would give Chaos an obvious, undeserved advantage in long-range firepower over loyalist Marines.



Just because it could be worse doesn't mean we should be entirely happy with a mediocre product.

It's not mediocre. It's an awesome book. The only thing it compares poorly against is 3.5, but that's because everything compared poorly in terms of power, flexibility, and abusability to 3.5.



Just doing a quick search we've had several in the last month that either started on this topic or evolved into it.

Well, perhaps you're right about that. If there were, though, they didn't jump out at me.

Staurikosaurus
26-03-2008, 03:21
@ Vaktathi:
Since it seems that you can't be convinced in any way shape or form that the current codex is by far a vast improvement over the previous codex, or that it can represent properly the chaos legions, how would you have written the book? You seem to think that all of the legions could have been properly represented in a single codex without it becoming over inflated. If this is the case, why not a single marine codex for all of the imperial chapters?


why make them targetable under the current rules at all then

because the 4th ed rules were written well before the current C:CSM was even written. They didn't "make" them targetable. Any model in an infantry unit is targetable with massed firepower.


I do prefer HB sponsons, although I prefer lascannon turrets (allowing them to perform multiple roles and still move and fire everything)

Thus performing 2 roles in a mediocre fashion and neither well. Of course with that load out oblits are a better choice.


In some cases it may not be, but in many it is, as it's simply too large for what it needs to do

A unit of 10 raptors has the nearly the same profile as 5 terminators [10 raptors, min profile of 250mm (25x10), 5 terminators 200mm (40mm x 5)] and is more manouvreable

I also find that the examples you give are slightly skewed. How is it that you saw next to no IW heavy/oblit spam armies and yet you now face a preponderance of lash prince armies? If the current book falls so short by comparison to the previous why does anyone even use it?


Just stating "False" doesn't make something so

Neither does an entire codex become mediocre just because unit options you feel are requisite to making a "fluff" oriented list become dropped in the interests of game balance. How many codexes has Pete Haines written lately?


True, however alot of people posting in threads like this also aren't Chaos players as well.

I am; Word Bearers no less.


Sure, a lot of units did, I didn't deny that

It also raised costs on just as many things and has added either odd rules

Seems like you did.

As I've previously stated on page 9 of this thread, it is the responsibility of the player to create a list that's representative of the background they find most interesting and not the responsibility of the codex author. If it was, then movie marines would be legal.

IyandenAvatar
26-03-2008, 03:47
With this codex the real IW players have stayed and the wannabees have dropepd them.

word...

The true 4th Legion is still standing... but I liked that 30 point wargear option!!!!
...and nothing is more unfluffy for Iron Warriors than giving marines marks (other than glory... which I feel should be few and far between... chosen is fine)

I also liked that mixed chosen squad with terms and regular marines... what happened to that

Imperialis_Dominatus
26-03-2008, 04:03
True, however alot of people posting in threads like this also aren't Chaos players as well.

Personally, although the poster you were responding to specifically mentioned Chaos players, I don't think this is all that important. I think it's more important that people across the hobby talk about things like this. Just because one plays Eldar doesn't mean one doesn't care about what's going on with Chaos- on the contrary, if he wants to compete then he should probably keep up. Know thine enemy and all that. Besides, one can set aside their own bias about a particular race or faction long enough to discuss a Codex.

Dr.Clock
26-03-2008, 05:53
I post in Chaos threads all the time. I play eldar.

I HAVE played 99% of my games against one other person and his first army was Chaos in 2nd ed. I've faced most of the 'legions' in one incantation or the other at least once or twice (but mostly TSons and DG... Night Lords back in the day).

When you're talking about (essentially) building fluff in with rules, it is important to recognize that I play the game for the same reasons you do: the character of the narrative. I WANT iron warriors lists to be characterful enemies for my poncy elves. EVERY chaos list I've faced under the new codex has been substantially different. They have ALL presented new challenges that I have enjoyed playing against.

I keep waiting until my regular opponent figures out that fielding a themed list, without going overboard, is what I really fear the most. While he is getting bogged down figuring out which combination of cult troops and armoured support works best, I am hoping he doesn't start fielding a raft of plague marines and 14-man nurgle CSM squads. Does he realize that my scatterlasers could be wounding on 3s against his entire army?

I have had a pretty easy go so far, as I am getting ridiculously good results from mixed mech-eldar at 2500 points. Next time I'll drop the fields (sorry).

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

AdmiralDick
26-03-2008, 10:39
Just because one plays Eldar doesn't mean one doesn't care about what's going on with Chaos- on the contrary, if he wants to compete then he should probably keep up. Know thine enemy and all that.

one doesn't even have to be biased toward the army that they collect and play most frequently.

i have always played Chaos as my main army (rarely collected anything else), but i take a keen interest in all of the armys, their background and how that is translated into game mechanics.


I post in Chaos threads all the time. I play eldar.

You sick freak! :D

Vaktathi
26-03-2008, 10:42
@ Vaktathi:
Since it seems that you can't be convinced in any way shape or form that the current codex is by far a vast improvement over the previous codex, I guess what I'm saying is, is that it isn't the magical solution that many people see it as. Does it remove a lot of the cheese from the last book? Sure. Did it make some units cheaper? Yes. The problem is is that it still is fairly cookie cutter (e.g. Dreads, Bikes, Possessed, LR's, Preds, etc are rare next to termi's, chosen, oblits and raptors) and tries to do too much with too little.

I think the cheesy lists in the current codex are no less powerful than the cheesy lists of the last codex, although there are fewer of them, however there are fewer army builds and lists as well.

The fluff in the book is lacking with respect to the 3.5 codex. The focus of Chaos has been Legions for over a decade. Yet we have very little detailed info on each Legion, rather a couple words (literally) in some cases, and a focus on a couple individuals. It tries to amalgamate what may in fact amount to a force that is roughly half the size of the current Loyalist space marine force into a single book and doesn't do any particular version the justice that should be done to it.


or that it can represent properly the chaos legions, how would you have written the book? You seem to think that all of the legions could have been properly represented in a single codex without it becoming over inflated. If this is the case, why not a single marine codex for all of the imperial chapters? I think they could have done Marks without over inflating the codex, it wouldn't have been hard to do. Just because there are extra options doesn't necessarily mean it translates to unmanageable bloat. That said, I think if they wanted for Renegades to play a greater role, they should have done a Renegades book, and then a seperate Legions book.


Just because an army has sublists doesn't make it inherently cheesy if each list is playtested with the most abusive lists in mind and adjusted from there. an all infiltrating /DSing Night Lords force with a special Night Lords infiltration synergy needn't be abusive if it's got no long range HW platforms, has much fewer troops than other Legions may, can't get first turn assaults and has limited overall unit sets, etc. Look at the Dark Angels, they can get first turn DS's with scouting bikes, but they are costed appropriately for such. If Legions were done in a similar manner, that is given unique army approaches and maybe a couple legion unique units or equipment or something, but with appropriate points costs and restrictions, it wouldn't be abusive.

If doing renegades I would have added in a couple Imperial equipment options (albeit with quirks, say a 1 in 6 chance every time an AC fires to jam for a turn and a 1 in 36 to explode or fire a couple extra shots and then jam for the rest of the game) and removed some of the more Legion specific equipment and quirks (such as dreadnoughts flipping out, maybe replacing it with a different mechanic) while maybe adding a daemonically possessed variant of an Imperial unit (maybe a CC Land speeder or something else crazy), essentially keeping an Imperial left-over theme, without turning them into Legions. Maybe only allow recent Renegades to summon generic Daemons while allowing the older Legions access to more expensive and restricted specific Daemons (along with something akin to the 2nd Ed Daemon hostility rules)

As for a single Marine book, I've wondered that myself, the DA and BA armies are far more alike than an Iron Warriors and World Eater armies, yet these are now lumped into the same list while the others have their own books. I think if one wanted to, one could amalgamate the BT, DA,BA and vanilla SM codex into one book. it would be big of course, but probably not much bigger than the current Chaos codex, just more characters and a couple different unit abilities and a differentiation for DA bikes versus normal bikes etc.






because the 4th ed rules were written well before the current C:CSM was even written. They didn't "make" them targetable. Any model in an infantry unit is targetable with massed firepower. Exactly, but why bother with the switch from the previous system? Why make it so dependent on a single model? Why not just adjust the per-model cost if it was felt to be out of whack?




Thus performing 2 roles in a mediocre fashion and neither well. Of course with that load out oblits are a better choice. I didn't think so. With regards to anti-MEQ, the TL Las/HB combo works at least as well the AC/HB and offers far more mobility than AC/LC or triple las, It also works just as well as a triple las against tanks if you are using it as a mobile platform due to the main/defensive weapons rules, and works only slightly worse than the AC/HB against 4+ or worse infantry. If you don't care so much about mobility, then sure, the overall firepower of a triple Las predator is better than two Oblits, but the Oblits are still going to live longer on average and can Deep Strike if desired and move and fire to full effect, albeit erratically.




A unit of 10 raptors has the nearly the same profile as 5 terminators [10 raptors, min profile of 250mm (25x10), 5 terminators 200mm (40mm x 5)] and is more manouvreable Not at all what I meant. I meant that a squad of raptors doesn't usually need to be 10 strong to do what its there for. 5-8 will usually get the job done. The extra guys are points that could be better used elsewhere unless you are going for a very Raptor heavy list. Or even if you do want lots of raptors, 2x 7 man squads and a 6man squad will probably do better than 2x 10man squads.



I also find that the examples you give are slightly skewed. How is it that you saw next to no IW heavy/oblit spam armies and yet you now face a preponderance of lash prince armies? Again, subjective example as I admitted, however previously there were Death Guard, World Eaters, Emperor's Children, Black Legion and Thousand Sons armies in the places I played most often in addition to my Iron Warriors, now most just take a couple cult units, some Oblits, maybe one or two Raptor or Termi squads, and take Lash units for HQ's.


and If the current book falls so short by comparison to the previous why does anyone even use it? Because there isn't an alternative if you play Chaos? Just because you may think the new book is mediocre doesn't necessarily mean you want to totally drop the army. I haven't stopped playing Chaos, I still like my bitter traitors, I may not think the new book is great (although I haven't said its totally terrible either, just mediocre) but I still continue playing Chaos because I like Chaos. Hell, I play mechanized Guard even though any halfway decent competitive list can trash it in 4 turns. Just because the book may not be the most amazing book ever isn't a reason for me to drop the army unless it just becomes totally unplayable. I imagine many other Chaos players who have my viewpoint think the same.

I know many love the new codex, and I don't have anything against that, there are things I like about it, and I think the army list (just from "list only" perspective) is not a bad list. The problem is I just don't think it covers all the bases it tried to.




Neither does an entire codex become mediocre just because unit options you feel are requisite to making a "fluff" oriented list become dropped in the interests of game balance. How many codexes has Pete Haines written lately? I didn't say it was mediocre merely based on the attempt to bring balance, my primary argument is that it has tried to do too much in one list given the diversity we've had previously, and not just in the 3.5 ed codex. I have no problems with the new Daemon Prince being toned down from their previous forms, that's not whats bothering me, its when everything that used to be highly customizable or could cover a broad range of examples is stripped down to a single average. Variety isn't necessarily cheesy, for example how cheesy was a Sonic Predator in the last codex? The point is that sacrificing the flavor and variety for balance instead of simply working to more appropriately balance those options is a poor work-around.




I am; Word Bearers no less.


Personally, although the poster you were responding to specifically mentioned Chaos players, I don't think this is all that important. I think it's more important that people across the hobby talk about things like this. Just because one plays Eldar doesn't mean one doesn't care about what's going on with Chaos- on the contrary, if he wants to compete then he should probably keep up. Know thine enemy and all that. Besides, one can set aside their own bias about a particular race or faction long enough to discuss a Codex. My point (although I don't think I quite made it well) was that a lot of the people defending the new codex seem to almost be doing so out of spite (see the first page of this thread) as some sort of "payback". I agree on all the points listed, don't get me wrong, but I see an awful lot of people (not just here either) who think the new chaos codex is there simply to punish Chaos players, just as I'm sure we will see whenever we get a new SM Redux codex after 5th Ed comes out.




Seems like you did. No, I agreed that many of the units did get cheaper, but that it wasn't universal, some units did in fact go up in cost, it didn't apply to every unit even taking into consideration it's abilities (sure a Chaos dread is at least the same price it was in the previous codex, but they are a lot less useable as firing platforms for instance)




As I've previously stated on page 9 of this thread, it is the responsibility of the player to create a list that's representative of the background they find most interesting and not the responsibility of the codex author. If it was, then movie marines would be legal.
That's a subjective viewpoint, and others would disagree, I don't think so, I think the game designers have a lot to do with it actually. I think its the responsibility of the game designer, once fluff and lists have been established, to follow through on that, allowing the player to work within a framework for a given army, not just say 'here's the codex, all that matters now is the paint scheme!'.






Perhaps, but on the other hand even a Holo-Falcon can be Shaken, preventing it from shooting next turn, whereas a 3.5 Chaos Pred with Daemonic Possession was immune to Shaken and Stunned results, meaning the thing would keep shooting until popped dead. That was not an insignificant ability by any stretch. Also, Parasitic Possession did add to the survivability of vehicles in question, just not as directly as Mutated Hull or Holofields. PP made it much more difficult to destroy a vehicle with that upgrade through multiple short-of-destroyed results. Also, an Immobilized vehicle could abruptly become a mobile vehicle, going from not a scoring unit to scoring unit. That was worth a lot of points All true, and I didn't bemoan the loss of PP or MH. We still have DP, and although it is powerful, it's current state makes it very unattractive for predators, thus relegating it to LR's and Vindi's, and making the Predator a second rate option compared with Obliterators. I would have preferred it to be 35pts or something and keep BS4, thus making something like a TL Las/HB pred still a viable unit compared with an Obliterator, but still much more expensive than in the previous codex to make up for the balance issues, although thats just a personal opinion.



Well, I will agree that it's possible to try to abuse any particular codex, but not that each and every codex. You can min-max Codex: Daemonhunters, but you won't get anywhere near the same return you'd get with Codex: Eldar. Similarly, C:CSM may have some power builds that are more competitive than other potential builds with that book, but there is no way that those power builds are anywhere near as abusive as the things that could be accomplished with 3.5. C:CSM just does not offer the same return on powergaming that 3.5 did. I'd disagree, I've seen some power builds that are just as powerful as those we saw in the previous codex, just fewer of them and fewer builds in total.


Choosing my words very carefully: it suggests that 3.5 attracted a disproportionate share of powergamers, who are now all making similar lists because C:CSM doesn't offer the breadth and depth of cheese that 3.5 did. The lack of variety of possible abuses is making powergamy players come up with similar lists. These lists may well be the most powergamy lists that C:CSM can produce. However, they pale in comparison to the things that could be done with 3.5. Since 3.5 attracted a disproportionate share of powergamers, and those powergamers are now forced to to either use C:CSM or migrate to another army, we're now seeing a disproprortionate number of Lash Prince armies. However, the powergamers will eventually come to the conclusion that if they really want to powergame they'll have to look elsewhere, and the number of Lash Prince armies will diminish. Where the powergamers will go, I don't know. Perhaps they'll move on to Orks. I've been hearing that Boy-spam is pretty powerful, but I have no idea myself, as I haven't been able to sit down and give the dex a good read yet, neither have I seen it in action. Again (and it may just be me, I admit I could be wrong) I think some of the abuseable lists are just as powerful as those in the previous codex, merely different. As for most power-gamey armies? I think Chaos can still rank up there, along with Nidzilla, Mech Eldar, some SM lists, and Orks.


As for powergamers, in my (totally subjective) experience, I think other codex's attracted just as many proportional to their player base as the old Chaos did, Chaos just had a lot of players in general. There are a *lot* of Nidzilla players relative to total Tyranid players, there are a lot of triple holofield spam mech eldar players as well, I don't think it means that these are necessarily by definition powergamer armies (especially in the Eldar case, I think mech eldar are very fluffy and its the current SMF benefits make them rock hard, not necessarily the tanks themselves)


The only Undivided Legion players that have any legitimate right to complain are Alpha Legion players, and their only legitimate beef is the lack of cultists. I'd disagree here, but again that comes down to subjective opinion of what Legions should look like to each player, I think I've already said what I had to say on that point.


I do not hold that units with Icons are any less appropriate as troops for one of the Cult legions than units with the 3.5 Marks. I always thought the Marks gave too much benefit for too few points anyway. Loosing the benefit of the Icon if the Icon bearer dies isn't that hard to justify. The Chaos gods are supposed to be fickle and arbitrary. They'd probably get honked off if their minions dropped their graven images in the mud and withhold their blessing as punishment. As for sonic weaponry, I'm sympathetic, but not unreservedly so. Bikes and Terminators were clearly better platforms for sonic blasters, and yet got them at the same price as ordinary foot troops. I think the issue then should have been to rework the points cost and unit availability instead of simply removing most of what makes them what they are. As for the banner bearer, why is it so fickle depending on FoC slot? Why are elite and high ranking Terminators so dependent on one dude for their abilities while the rank and file troopers aren't? As for things like sonic blasters, again, if they were too cheap, adjust the points cost to an appropriate level instead of just lazily hacking the option from the list. I don't think they were all that abusive on Dreads or Preds either.


I've actually had a fair bit of experience using 10-man squads with a heavy, special, and fist-bearing unit leader, mounted in Rhinos no less. What I've found is that those units actually work very well. The main difference in utility from, say, either a 6-man lasplas squad or a 10-man, 2-special squad is that you have to think more about how you use the squad every turn, whereas the other squads are relative no-brainers in comparison. Versatility is a virtue that can be exploited to defeat armies with more "optimal" builds. If it works for you, then its all gravy, however I've had much better results dumping the heavy weapons from the troops squads. While versatility can be a good thing, trying to do multiple things with a squad thats more focused on one or two things, in my experience, leads to costly mistakes and under utilized weapons and models.



If I had to guess, I'd say that it was because Chaos players had access to all manner of other really good anti-tank options, such as the almost-stereotypical 4-autocannon Tank Hunting Havoc squad, or the inappropriately-an-Elite-choice Obliterators squad.
I totally agree that the tank hunting autocannons were silly, and that Oblits belong in HS, these are issues I've had no problem with. I do however think the 5man las/plas thing (while abuseable) was made out to be more than it was, as much as its derided, I haven't seen it in very wide use, and that the increased cost and restriction of *all* heavy weapons simply didn't think things through, and went for the easiest option instead ("just make it the arbitrary nice round double digit number and that will fix everything!")



It's not mediocre. It's an awesome book. The only thing it compares poorly against is 3.5, but that's because everything compared poorly in terms of power, flexibility, and abusability to 3.5. It's a nice list from looking at it only from that perspective and not taking into account fluff or previous lists, but the book as a representation of the totality of the Chaos Space marines (at least to me) doesn't cover everything well, and the fluff contained within doesn't cover half of what it should (how much is there on the background of the Legions for instance? How much is there on the Night Lords beyond they were at Istvaan and wear blue and are hit and run specialists?)

FurryMiguell
26-03-2008, 10:48
@Vaktathi<. sry, that reply is just too damn long! cant read it. im too lazy;)

I was in my local hobbystore yesterday, and I picked up the new chaos codex. I looked at it and thought "got-a remember to buy this one". so, I found the chariot and another pack of wolfriders for my goblin army, payed and left, realizing when on the bus, I forgot the stupid book!

Im going back tomorrow, until then,
Cheers:D

Vaktathi
26-03-2008, 10:52
@Vaktathi<. sry, that reply is just too damn long! cant read it. im too lazy;)



Haha, yeah, after I posted it I realized it was a giant wall of eye-bleeding text, although I tried to answer most of the counterpoints to the points I had made, I enjoy the thought-out discussion a lot, too much it seems sometimes.

Supremearchmarshal
26-03-2008, 12:09
When you're talking about (essentially) building fluff in with rules, it is important to recognize that I play the game for the same reasons you do: the character of the narrative. I WANT iron warriors lists to be characterful enemies for my poncy elves. EVERY chaos list I've faced under the new codex has been substantially different. They have ALL presented new challenges that I have enjoyed playing against.

Well my experience has been just the opposite. All the lists I've seen in action include:
-2 DPs or 1 DP + 1 GD
-cult marines, usually Plague Marines and/or Thousand Sons
-2 or 3 units of Obliterators
-several Rhinos

Also:
-all but one list has Terminators
-Fast Attack choices are very rare
-nobody uses Possessed, Spawn, Dreadnoughts, Predators or Land Raiders.
-Defilers, Lords and Sorcerers I did see in the weeks after the codex was released, but no longer.


The fluff in the book is lacking with respect to the 3.5 codex. The focus of Chaos has been Legions for over a decade. Yet we have very little detailed info on each Legion, rather a couple words (literally) in some cases, and a focus on a couple individuals.

Not only are the legions lacking fluff, but also the new renegades, who are supposed to be in the spotlight. Aside from the Red Corsairs, the renegade warbands get almost no background - just single offhand mention or none at all. All the players I know still play the legions.

Imperialis_Dominatus
26-03-2008, 12:10
Eh, I'm guilty of the same, don't worry about it. ;)

BrainFireBob
26-03-2008, 21:08
Vaktathi-

When you look at people trumpeting the new Chaos codex "out of spite," you need to consider how much whining the community has been subjected to since the rumors started from undeniable powergamers. ie, consider what it's in reaction to- is it an irrational hate of the codex, or is it a "well, it's your comeuppance" directed at those who fielded six man las-plas, 4 Pie Plates of Doom, etc.?

Then ask which came first- because undeniably, there's been a vast increase in the lack of sympathy toward remarks from powergamer types (or those who use similar statements) after what, 6 months of the same "My army was nerfed and doesn't exist anymore- it relied solely on this special, broken gimmick that's now gone!"

If someone is trying to maintain that they feel the fluff should be represented in rules, they should avoid that statement, since it looks very much like "they took my auto-win, how dare they!?" which there is no longer sympathy for- nor even tolerance or commisseration, by this point.

Master Jeridian
26-03-2008, 21:29
I don't think there was ever going to be sympathy for the Iron Warriors, much as there's probably going to be no sympathy for Skimmer Spam in 5th Ed.

It is the price paid for easy wins.