PDA

View Full Version : Daemon Codex - what was the point?!?



cailus
29-05-2008, 23:52
I have just finished reading the new Daemon codex (a borrowed copy) and the thought I had was what was the point?

Instead of having Dark Eldar or Space Wolves or Imperial Guard receive a nice shiny new up-to-date codex we got a brand new army that in reality is just an offshoot of an existing codex (i.e. Chaos Space Marines).

To make matters worst it;s a codex that totally ignores the established background (e.g. God rivalry) and indeed emphasises a combined approach over god specific armies. And then there's no compatibility with the Chaos Space Marine codex.

So to clarify the point, it is quite legitimate for a Slaaneeshi Herald to lead multiple units of Bloodletters, but it is not Ok for a Slaaneeshi Chaos Space Marine lord to have support from Slaaneeshi Daemonettes (except as generic lesser daemons). Some people will say "play Apocalypse" but not everyone likes Apocalypse (in fact at my club it never took off at all).

The worst thing is that God specific Daemon armies are actually very weak when compared to the combined approach and are totally boring due to the lack of units. In essence it penalises themed forces much like it does in the generic crud that is the Chaos Space Marine codex.

The truly sad thing is that while Chaos Space Marines and now Chaos Daemons have a list, LaTD still don't. The issue here is that Lost and the Damned are meant to be the most common Chaos forces while Marines are less common and a full scale Daemonic incursion is meant to be a rare thing.

I even would've preferred Cul Legion books over a Daemon specific book.

The Daemon book itself has some very cool stuff both from a rules perspective and background but a lot of it doesn't have much of a 40K feel and seems more Fantasy oriented. In fact I suspect the fluff for the 40K codex might have been an afterthought after they wrote the Fantasy stuff.

The 3.5th edition of Codex Chaos Space Marines might've been seriously flawed but it's a much better book than the two horrid Chaos codexes that were spawned from it. Maybe the codexes should been called Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 1 and Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 2.

I will actually allow certain people who play with well themed armies (e.g. Cult Lists) to use the Daemon units from Codex Daemons in conjunction with their Chaos Space Marine codexes.

Gensuke626
29-05-2008, 23:55
true on most points, but I think an all nurgle force led by epidemius is probably more powerful than combining nurgle with anything...

Vaktathi
29-05-2008, 23:56
While I agree that a single unified Chaos codex with Daemon, Legion, and LatD rules would have been amazing and indeed the best way to go, and that the Daemon Codex contravenes 20 years of fluff in several places, it does raise the profile of Daemons in 40k from "CSM add-on units", which is nice, however I would never make a Daemon Army for 40k personally.

EDIT: that said, I am working on a Daemon Army for fantasy since I was going to do Hordes, but it is going through so many changes this year I decided against it. I just really am not feeling Daemons as a 40k army however.

Bigbot
30-05-2008, 00:05
Personally, I like the book, the fluff is awesome. The rivalries are still there though much more in the background.

It's given colour and depth to a lot of units and special characters. Plus the new Soul Grinder is awesome.

cailus
30-05-2008, 00:24
Not sure how you can say the Codex ignores the Gods' rivalries. Maybe you didn't read any of the fiction?

The actual rules totally ignore the rivalries. I could understand that in some cases Slaaneesh could team up with Khorne but there should be repurcussions in doing so (i.e. special rules where unfriendly gods team up).


And how exactly was your wallet raped, nerd? Were you forced to purchase the book at slide-rule point?

You used to buy 1 codex and get rules for all the units (unless you want to be stuck with generic daemons or no marines). Now you need two. So the required outlay to get all the rules has doubled. Simple mathematics.

By the way I didn't buy the codex - if you read the post properly you would have seen that.

Bloodknight
30-05-2008, 00:28
Well, at least they did not allow heralds of a god to lead units of another god. :)

cailus
30-05-2008, 00:33
Well, at least they did not allow heralds of a god to lead units of another god. :)

Doesn't stop Greater Daemons though.

Freakiq
30-05-2008, 00:43
Doesn't stop Greater Daemons though.

Yes it does.

Greater Daemons can't join any units as they are not independent characters.

Necros
30-05-2008, 00:44
What's the point? The point is to sell models.

they probably figured they will make more money by cross-selling the same models in 2 different product lines than upgrading something that's old in just one.

Next on the list is the big apocalypse deals everyone loved so they can clear out their warehouses to make room for more marines.

Plebian
30-05-2008, 00:44
Yep, codex daemons was a money play, pure and simple. In CD they got to make a single range and sell them in 2 systems. Plus they were trying to get 40k people into Fantasy and vice versa. It was a "bucket of fail" IMO.

Rhamag
30-05-2008, 00:44
GW seem to be trying to balance the codexes better than they have managed in the past. Balancing two seperate Chaos Marine and Chaos Daemon books, and not bothering at all with Lost & Damned, is easier than balancing multiple lists from multiple books which can be mixed together.

All the shiny new daemon rules would have been very difficult to integrate sensibly with the spiky marines without all sorts of "broken/spam/cheese" options being left open.

Look what they've done in Fantasy. Beasts and Mortals and Daemons are now totally seperate. Easier to balance. Pissed off loads of people, mind, but that's life.

And if you're playing Slaaneshi-worshipping Marines, do you really need special rules for your Slaaneshi daemons allies? Isn't just using the models enough? Is it the powergaming options you're looking for?

GW sell models. They sculpt some new daemons, give them some shiny rules and lists to encourage sales, and then make them stand-alone in both systems so it's easier to balance. Makes sense to me.

Chaplain Nikolai
30-05-2008, 00:45
Aren't Greater Daemons monstrous creatures? And therefore cannot join units?

Edit: Argh, beaten to the punch!

Bloodknight
30-05-2008, 00:47
No, the normal rules of the game do that already since GDs are not characters, but simply MCs and therefore cannot join any units. Only heralds and the special ICs can join units, and only those of their god ;)

edit: got ninja'd like 5 times while looking up the GD part...

cailus
30-05-2008, 00:58
Yes it does.

Greater Daemons can't join any units as they are not independent characters.


How does that stop you from fielding an army consisting of say a Slaaneeshi Greater Daemon and units of Bloodletters?

I will clarify that by leading I mean your HQ is from one god while the rest of the army includes choices from a hostile god.

Bigbot
30-05-2008, 01:03
Yeh, cos GW have NEVER changed the fluff before to suit.

THey've put rivalries in the background, big deal, in return we've got a nice balanced codex, an army full of character and some really good models.

cailus
30-05-2008, 01:07
And if you're playing Slaaneshi-worshipping Marines, do you really need special rules for your Slaaneshi daemons allies? Isn't just using the models enough? Is it the powergaming options you're looking for?


By that definition we might as well be all using one army list because using the models is enough - for example make the only difference between Orks, Guard and Marines the models and use the same stats.

The rules help create that sense of narrative and enforce the theme of an army as much as the paint scheme.

As for powergaming, I take offense. I do not powergame at all - heck I don't even load up on powerklaws like all other Ork players do. I used to enjoy playing against the old Chaos Codex even though it whooped my Orky butt.

I wanted to start a Death Guard army but can't be bothered now that the only unit left in that list is Plague Marines. But I can use my imagination to pretend other stuff is cool but that's kinda crap considering the cost of the models and the time invovled in painting them. To make matters worse, I can't get the cool Nurgle Daemon units into a Death Guard army.

Freakiq
30-05-2008, 01:11
How does that stop you from fielding an army consisting of say a Slaaneeshi Greater Daemon and units of Bloodletters?

I will clarify that by leading I mean your HQ is from one god while the rest of the army includes choices from a hostile god.

Are you saying that saemon from different gods have never fought on the same side?

Chaos often have a common foe, and sometimes the stench of blood from a Slaaneshi incursion attracts daemons from the other gods.

cailus
30-05-2008, 01:12
Yeh, cos GW have NEVER changed the fluff before to suit.

True. I won't argue with that.



THey've put rivalries in the background, big deal, in return we've got a nice balanced codex, an army full of character and some really good models.

And looking at the game as a whole we got a lame Chaos Space Marine codex without the old diversity of Daemons, did not get a new Space Wolves codex, a new Dark Eldar Codex or a new Imperial Guard codex. We did not get a Lost and the Damned Codex. We also got a slight fluff revision and an army whose existence is meant to be a rarity within the universe.

Freakiq
30-05-2008, 01:16
True. I won't argue with that.



And looking at the game as a whole we got a lame Chaos Space Marine codex without the old diversity of Daemons, did not get a new Space Wolves codex, a new Dark Eldar Codex or a new Imperial Guard codex. We did not get a Lost and the Damned Codex. We also got a slight fluff revision and an army whose existence is meant to be a rarity within the universe.

And the space wolves and dark eldar arn't?

I bet there are at leasst ten times as many daemons out there at any time than there are puppies in power armour.

cailus
30-05-2008, 01:17
Are you saying that saemon from different gods have never fought on the same side?

Chaos often have a common foe, and sometimes the stench of blood from a Slaaneshi incursion attracts daemons from the other gods.

Yes but it's meant to be as rare (in fact an entire Daemonic incursion is meant to be rare). Hence some game effects would've been good.

Also all this talk of fluff revision or how the codex plays does not detract from the ponti that there were other codexes that needed revising especially as we have a new rules edition coming around soon. Both Space Wolves and Dark Eldar have 3rd edition codexes.

Ambu
30-05-2008, 01:18
The actual rules totally ignore the rivalries. I could understand that in some cases Slaaneesh could team up with Khorne but there should be repurcussions in doing so (i.e. special rules where unfriendly gods team up).

Think they are trying to get to the more Chaos Undivided theme styles. Haven't had a chance to read the book itself but from what I read it was trending more that way. And who knows, I read the quote about the last days of man to the 5th ed teaser, maybe Chaos has came toger a little better to fight the 'greater' enimy. Whose to say what sort of fluff they come up with in this next edition.


You used to buy 1 codex and get rules for all the units (unless you want to be stuck with generic daemons or no marines). Now you need two. So the required outlay to get all the rules has doubled. Simple mathematics.

By the way I didn't buy the codex - if you read the post properly you would have seen that.

A) Allows for more detail and (at least from what I heard, correct me if I am wrong. Once again I haven't read this) allows for more of pure daemon armies type of deal.

B) If you wanna go that route, could end up like third ed where they had Mini-codexes for each marine chapter. Maybe this is going to come with Chaos too. By Making the Daemon Codex it is cheaper for GW then reproducing this over and over again in each of the CSM codexes that may come. Instead there is one source book that they can reference. Which leads too.....

C) Its all about making money at the cheapest cost to them. The more books they sell the better. If they repeated it over and over again it would cost more in materials for less of a turn around. This way they get the CSM players to buy multiple books at the lowest cost to them.

We all know that this game is a money sink yet we play it anyway and GW knows that. It isn't pointless, even though it will effect the wallet, GW made a smart move business wise.

cailus
30-05-2008, 01:20
And the space wolves and dark eldar arn't?

I bet there are at leasst ten times as many daemons out there at any time than there are puppies in power armour.

These exist as codexes. And they're outdated. Shouldn't they be upgraded first before churning out a new codex based on units we used to be able to get in another book?

Ambu
30-05-2008, 01:20
The 3.5th edition of Codex Chaos Space Marines might've been seriously flawed but it's a much better book than the two horrid Chaos codexes that were spawned from it. Maybe the codexes should been called Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 1 and Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 2.



BTW, I perfer the name Geek personally :evilgrin:

cailus
30-05-2008, 01:26
Think they are trying to get to the more Chaos Undivided theme styles. Haven't had a chance to read the book itself but from what I read it was trending more that way. And who knows, I read the quote about the last days of man to the 5th ed teaser, maybe Chaos has came toger a little better to fight the 'greater' enimy. Whose to say what sort of fluff they come up with in this next edition.

I would say that GW have no such foresight. They have a real life business plan. Adjusting the background seems to be an afterthought when it comes to accomplishing their business objectives. I don't think they realise it means a lot to at least some of their customers.


A) Allows for more detail and (at least from what I heard, correct me if I am wrong. Once again I haven't read this) allows for more of pure daemon armies type of deal.

B) If you wanna go that route, could end up like third ed where they had Mini-codexes for each marine chapter. Maybe this is going to come with Chaos too. By Making the Daemon Codex it is cheaper for GW then reproducing this over and over again in each of the CSM codexes that may come. Instead there is one source book that they can reference. Which leads too.....

In both instances they could have included these into the Chaos Space Marine codex.




C) Its all about making money at the cheapest cost to them. The more books they sell the better. If they repeated it over and over again it would cost more in materials for less of a turn around. This way they get the CSM players to buy multiple books at the lowest cost to them.

We all know that this game is a money sink yet we play it anyway and GW knows that. It isn't pointless, even though it will effect the wallet, GW made a smart move business wise.


Totally agree with you on this part. I want the company to make money. But I also want to get what I percieve as value. Needing to buy 2 books where I used to only need to buy 1 book is not good value, especially when the two books are totally incompatible other than in Apocalypse.

Freakiq
30-05-2008, 01:27
These exist as codexes. And they're outdated. Shouldn't they be upgraded first before churning out a new codex based on units we used to be able to get in another book?

Bit this book was made as a twin to the fantasy version and had to have a coinciding releasedate.

EarlGrey
30-05-2008, 01:35
I have just finished reading the new Daemon codex (a borrowed copy) and the thought I had was what was the point?

Instead of having Dark Eldar or Space Wolves or Imperial Guard receive a nice shiny new up-to-date codex we got a brand new army that in reality is just an offshoot of an existing codex (i.e. Chaos Space Marines).


A new Space Wolves codex will require the new Space Marine Codex.
Dark Eldar - they're apparently redoing most of the models, it's going to be a big project so will take a lot longer than most armies.
The Imperial Guard book is pretty good still and was one of the later 3rd edition books that had 4th edition in mind, and I feel it's better to wait until the dust has settled with 5th edition before redoing their codex.



To make matters worst it;s a codex that totally ignores the established background (e.g. God rivalry) and indeed emphasises a combined approach over god specific armies. And then there's no compatibility with the Chaos Space Marine codex.


You're very much mistaken here.
The background says that sometimes they do band together, and thus the codex allows you to represent that. If you want an army that represents times when they fight each other and have units from a single God, then go ahead because you can do that too. Games Workshop has given us the choice rather than limiting options.
To say it "totally ignores the established background" is a bit of an exageration too, there is a rule that disallows Heralds from one God joining a unit of a different God.



So to clarify the point, it is quite legitimate for a Slaaneeshi Herald to lead multiple units of Bloodletters, but it is not Ok for a Slaaneeshi Chaos Space Marine lord to have support from Slaaneeshi Daemonettes (except as generic lesser daemons). Some people will say "play Apocalypse" but not everyone likes Apocalypse (in fact at my club it never took off at all).


Have you read the Chaos Space Marine codex? The section under Daemons where it says they are less powerful than in a full scale Daemonic assault? Maybe it's a cheap cop-out, or maybe it's to focus attention on the CHAOS SPACE MARINES and not the Daemons.



The worst thing is that God specific Daemon armies are actually very weak when compared to the combined approach and are totally boring due to the lack of units. In essence it penalises themed forces much like it does in the generic crud that is the Chaos Space Marine codex.


Would you rather wait 10 years and complain again when Codex: Khorne comes out to say, "Oh, but what about the Dark Eldar codex?"



The truly sad thing is that while Chaos Space Marines and now Chaos Daemons have a list, LaTD still don't. The issue here is that Lost and the Damned are meant to be the most common Chaos forces while Marines are less common and a full scale Daemonic incursion is meant to be a rare thing.


Codex: Imperial Guard?
Who cares if they are the most common - you don't play a game against a Space Marine army and then say, "Right, to keep my gaming statistically proportional to the background, I must now not play Space Marines for a full 100 battles".




I even would've preferred Cul Legion books over a Daemon specific book.


I guess a lot of people would also prefer otherwise, or simply would enjoy either.



The Daemon book itself has some very cool stuff both from a rules perspective and background but a lot of it doesn't have much of a 40K feel and seems more Fantasy oriented. In fact I suspect the fluff for the 40K codex might have been an afterthought after they wrote the Fantasy stuff.


Well, since they are almost identical realms it would be hard to make them too different without creating two versions of Chaos.
The very Gothic look adds a lot to the 40K Univerise, which is supposed to be Gothic, and I think after the Tau and Necrons being the more recent additions before Daemons, it's brings back some of that darkness. Daemons are a the nightmares of humans for countless centuries - why not have an army of them that isn't typical sci-fi?



The 3.5th edition of Codex Chaos Space Marines might've been seriously flawed but it's a much better book than the two horrid Chaos codexes that were spawned from it. Maybe the codexes should been called Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 1 and Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 2.


I think your post seems to be complaining for the sake of complaining. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean others feel the same way. The attitude that you've taken is very arrogant and similar to a small child throwing their toys out of the pram because they wanted "the blue one". "Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 1 & 2"? Grow up. :wtf:



I will actually allow certain people who play with well themed armies (e.g. Cult Lists) to use the Daemon units from Codex Daemons in conjunction with their Chaos Space Marine codexes.

Will you? That's so kind.


Sorry, this sort of post drives me mad. MAD. :skull:

cailus
30-05-2008, 01:43
Bit this book was made as a twin to the fantasy version and had to have a coinciding releasedate.

But the book was unecessary. In fact the Fantasy release has had the effect of invalidating the Mortals army book so they now require a make-do White Dwarf release before a proper book is released.

I think what happened, was that GW started on the plastic sculpts for the new Daemonettes and Bloodletters. To bolster the sales of these new plastic kits (whose moulds cost a lot) they decided to release two army books to maximise sales and thereby get their money back quicker. They added the Soulcrusher (which has some of the stupidest fluff in a long time) and a few metal kits (cost a lot less in terms of moulds) to make it seem like an army release.

If the models were simply released as new plastic kits they would not generate as much in sales as you would not get all the new army fanboys jumping on the bandwagon and buying up big.

Rhamag
30-05-2008, 01:45
By that definition we might as well be all using one army list because using the models is enough - for example make the only difference between Orks, Guard and Marines the models and use the same stats.

The rules help create that sense of narrative and enforce the theme of an army as much as the paint scheme.

I wouldn't want that, so I apologise if that was how my post came across. I totally agree that the different army/unit-specific rules give a lot of the flavour of an army. It was my understanding though that the generic daemons in the Chaos Marine list are a relatively minor part of the list (since they are not Chaos Marines) and as such are maybe not required to have their own rules for them to "work" within the list. Their stats and rules are different from the Marine sections of the list, and so personally I think that is enough.


As for powergaming, I take offense. I do not powergame at all - heck I don't even load up on powerklaws like all other Ork players do. I used to enjoy playing against the old Chaos Codex even though it whooped my Orky butt.

No offence was meant, so I apologise if it was taken. It was a genuine question rather than an accusation. By "powergaming options" I meant the old biker-bomb trick etc.

And I hear you on the 'klaws. Many of my nobz are the older metal ones bought in the 5-model box, and I missed getting the klaw bitz before the service was "adjusted". They mostly have the slugga/choppa or kustom-shoota options. It would be too much bother to build more klaws, and I like them as they are, for variety's sake if nothing else.


I wanted to start a Death Guard army but can't be bothered now that the only unit left in that list is Plague Marines. But I can use my imagination to pretend other stuff is cool but that's kinda crap considering the cost of the models and the time invovled in painting them. To make matters worse, I can't get the cool Nurgle Daemon units into a Death Guard army.

And this is where GW has it tough. I'm the opposite to you in this regard. The daemons have always attracted me, but I wasn't bothered about the Chaos Marines at all.

Now GW have provided me with a list where I can take a striking mix of all sorts of freaky daemon models I enjoy painting, without needing the spiky beakies to make it work. Not only that, but with some creative basing, I have an army that works in Fantasy as well, and which plays totally differently to my Skaven and Tomb Kings. I win on all fronts, you unfortunately do not, GW have a hard time.

I guess it's all down to averages. If more people are, on average, like me (and happy with new codexes) then GW sell more models, which is what they hoped for. If more are like you (unhappy) then they sell less models and they are screwed in recovering the set-up costs and making a profit afterwards.

It seems that the daemons are selling really well, at least in my area, so perhaps they are right, and these two seperate lists have raised the average level of satisfaction in us gamers, at the expense of folks like yourself.

I see your point about eg. Death Guard themed armies, and I admit that apart from Marking as many of the other units as possible, the Death Guard are provided with fewer specific rules than before. I don't know what the answer is, but GW seems to think it will sell more models.

Anyway, agree to disagree?

Plebian
30-05-2008, 01:50
A new Space Wolves codex will require the new Space Marine Codex.
Dark Eldar - they're apparently redoing most of the models, it's going to be a big project so will take a lot longer than most armies.
The Imperial Guard book is pretty good still and was one of the later 3rd edition books that had 4th edition in mind, and I feel it's better to wait until the dust has settled with 5th edition before redoing their codex.



1) And the Dark Angels dex doesnt?
2)Well, I'm sure glad we wasted all that time on the daemon dex then, arn't I?
3)Have you actually played with the guard book?

cailus
30-05-2008, 02:07
A new Space Wolves codex will require the new Space Marine Codex.

Didn't stop GW releasing codex Dark Angels or codex Blood Angels.

In fact of all the Space Marine codexes the Space Wolves are the least similar to Codex Space Marines.



Dark Eldar - they're apparently redoing most of the models, it's going to be abig project so will take a lot longer than most armies.

They said the same thing about Orks. And inspite of this Orks are still using 2nd edition buggies, stupidly expensive metal grots and don't have models for Flashgitz, Battlewagons, most of the Warboss options, most of the special characters etc (please don't say anything about converting as it's an insult to Ork players).

And in spite of it being a "big project" the rulebook is still full of typos and rules discrepancies which makes me think it was a rushed job.

I think the reality is that GW do unprofitable lines when they can't justify doing profitable ones (e.g. you cannot release Codex Space MArines twice in a row).



The Imperial Guard book is pretty good still and was one of the later 3rd edition books that had 4th edition in mind, and I feel it's better to wait until the dust has settled with 5th edition before redoing their codex.




You're very much mistaken here.
The background says that sometimes they do band together, and thus the codex allows you to represent that. If you want an army that represents times when they fight each other and have units from a single God, then go ahead because you can do that too. Games Workshop has given us the choice rather than limiting options.

It's true that GW gives you the options. For many players all it is a blank cheque to power game. Since the new Chaos Space Marine Codex came out using the very same format nearly all the new chaos armies I've seen have been Lash Daemon Princes leading Obliterators and Berzerkers.

Rules that restrict or create some sort of risk are a good way of ensuring fluff is at least somewhat adhered to and also makes the army more interesting if you do go the undivided path because of the risk involved.




To say it "totally ignores the established background" is a bit of an exageration too, there is a rule that disallows Heralds from one God joining a unit of a different God.

It's not going to stop your Keeper of Secrets being the HQ of a unit of Bloodletters or a Slaaneeshi Lash Prince leading units of Berzerkers,




Have you read the Chaos Space Marine codex? The section under Daemons where it says they are less powerful than in a full scale Daemonic assault? Maybe it's a cheap cop-out, or maybe it's to focus attention on the CHAOS SPACE MARINES and not the Daemons.

Yes I've read it. GW still could have made specific daemons that still did not steal the show from the Chaos Marines. In fact GW could've easily made a list whereby your Chaos Space Marine army could've went from being a totally Marine force down to being a Daemonic force in one book. Chaos 3.5 edition did that to a degree.




Would you rather wait 10 years and complain again when Codex: Khorne comes out to say, "Oh, but what about the Dark Eldar codex?"

Sorry could you clarify this point?




Codex: Imperial Guard?
Who cares if they are the most common - you don't play a game against a Space Marine army and then say, "Right, to keep my gaming statistically proportional to the background, I must now not play Space Marines for a full 100 battles".

No, but it would be good if major forces were covered.





I guess a lot of people would also prefer otherwise, or simply would enjoy either.

More power to them. In a democracy one is allowed to voice an opinion just because it's not positive.





Well, since they are almost identical realms it would be hard to make them too different without creating two versions of Chaos.
The very Gothic look adds a lot to the 40K Univerise, which is supposed to be Gothic, and I think after the Tau and Necrons being the more recent additions before Daemons, it's brings back some of that darkness. Daemons are a the nightmares of humans for countless centuries - why not have an army of them that isn't typical sci-fi?

You'd think Codex Chaos Space Marines would've been enough?


Interestingly enough the overall effect was not very dark or gothic but that seems to be mainly due to the writing style.




I think your post seems to be complaining for the sake of complaining. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean others feel the same way. The attitude that you've taken is very arrogant and similar to a small child throwing their toys out of the pram because they wanted "the blue one". "Codex Nerd Wallet Raping 1 & 2"? Grow up. :wtf:

As stated it's a democracy and freedom of speech is a thing we value. You also had the right to not read this post or reply to my rant.

If you want a world everyone's a happy fanboy or yes-person, North Korea would be a excellent choice.

Necros
30-05-2008, 02:09
Actually desipite what I posted earlier I did enjoy reading the codex and though I doubt I'll build a full demon army I will definitely be adding some units to my CSM force to bulk it up to 3000 pts for apocalypse. Though if I did do a full demon army, it would probably be for Fantasy.

cailus
30-05-2008, 02:11
Anyway, agree to disagree?

Tis cool, I agree to disagree. :D

Chem-Dog
30-05-2008, 02:14
I have just finished reading the new Daemon codex (a borrowed copy) and the thought I had was what was the point?

A cynic would say that they get lots of sales for relatively few releases, it's two Armies for the price of one, given that the same models can port directly from 40K to Fantasy this is the only time they can get away with releasing one set of minatures for two armies. A huge overhead to profit difference.

But I'm not a cynic.


Instead of having Dark Eldar or Space Wolves or Imperial Guard receive a nice shiny new up-to-date codex we got a brand new army that in reality is just an offshoot of an existing codex (i.e. Chaos Space Marines).

I can't be the only one who's tired of hearing this can I? Consider the fact that probably quite a bit of Daemonic stuff was developed during work of the CSM book it's not a huge leap to think they'd rush out an army like this quick, to get it out of the way, sure it's an offshoot but with half the work done it was probably a lot more developed than Dark Eldar, who ARE in need of a complete overhaul, GW know this, it just takes time. I'm not going to rag on them for taking their sweet time untill (or should that be unless?) they produce an inferior product at the end of the wait ;)


To make matters worst it;s a codex that totally ignores the established background (e.g. God rivalry) and indeed emphasises a combined approach over god specific armies. And then there's no compatibility with the Chaos Space Marine codex.

Book goes into great detail about "The Big Game", how the Chaos gods are so preoccupied with their own eternal power struggle that they don't have time to pay attention to the affairs of mortals, unless a truly exceptional bright star catches their eye. Also Daemons, althoguh created by and beholden by the God they serve are free to persue their own agendas, so although the big four are always in a constant state of conflict truces are called and common causes are taken up, there's quite a bit of backscratching and debt paying going on amongst the Daemonic hordes. It's an evolution of the rather hazy detail of the Chaos gods that existed upto now.
As for the compatibility, why should there be? I doubt we'll see any Cross pollenation in codexes from now on. it gets messy when you start using multiple units from multiple codexes, ask any DH or WH players.


So to clarify the point, it is quite legitimate for a Slaaneeshi Herald to lead multiple units of Bloodletters, but it is not Ok for a Slaaneeshi Chaos Space Marine lord to have support from Slaaneeshi Daemonettes (except as generic lesser daemons). Some people will say "play Apocalypse" but not everyone likes Apocalypse (in fact at my club it never took off at all).

Although the Herald cannot Join a unit of daemons belonging to a different god... The Daemons in a CSM army are summoned, they haven't come through of their own free will and therefoe cannot, or will not perform as well as Daemons who are on a mission for their God or to gain personal standing/power, simple as that.


The worst thing is that God specific Daemon armies are actually very weak when compared to the combined approach and are totally boring due to the lack of units. In essence it penalises themed forces much like it does in the generic crud that is the Chaos Space Marine codex.

I've got the fundamentals of a pure Slaanesh army that's slowly expanding and although a "Pure" army has it's limitations it's something that will appeal to the true hobbyist in as much a a Nidzilla, Non GK DH's or All infantry Guard army might.
I do think that a few new units could have been added but I'm fine with how it is all in all.


The truly sad thing is that while Chaos Space Marines and now Chaos Daemons have a list, LaTD still don't. The issue here is that Lost and the Damned are meant to be the most common Chaos forces while Marines are less common and a full scale Daemonic incursion is meant to be a rare thing.

Here we agree, the LatD need a list BUT as I said before, it needs work, it needs to have defined and unique units that can represent the LatD well enough in a full codex, Ask anyone who has tried it, it is NOT easy to create a lit that works well on it's own.
If Warhammer gets three flavours of Chaos 40K should too.

[/quote]The Daemon book itself has some very cool stuff both from a rules perspective and background but a lot of it doesn't have much of a 40K feel and seems more Fantasy oriented. In fact I suspect the fluff for the 40K codex might have been an afterthought after they wrote the Fantasy stuff.[/quote]



I will actually allow certain people who play with well themed armies (e.g. Cult Lists) to use the Daemon units from Codex Daemons in conjunction with their Chaos Space Marine codexes.

So would I , but then I'm a nice guy :)



And the space wolves and dark eldar arn't?

I bet there are at leasst ten times as many daemons out there at any time than there are puppies in power armour.

And there are many people who would applaud a Non Imperium, Non "MEQ" codex.

Rhamag
30-05-2008, 02:48
Tis cool, I agree to disagree. :D

Sorted. I wish there was more of this on WarSeer. We've stated our opinions, are unlikely to change each other's minds, so descending into bitter post and counter-post seems pointless. Take it easy, man. :cool:

scientist tz
30-05-2008, 03:30
I played against a Daemon Army the other day. It was actually one of the better (more fun) games I've played all year.

People need to quit whining. Any addition that produces worthwhile games is fine by me.

Plastic Rat
30-05-2008, 04:14
Ah yes, I see it's that time of month again, when GW is cool and anything said against them meets with a crowd of pitchfork waving fans spouting everything they can to justify the latest 'new direction'. Any criticism is labeled as 'whining' and cries of 'I like it so it's fine!' are heard everywhere.

Oh well, I'll throw my lot in with the heretics then. I do believe that while the models are improving significantly, the rules and everything that surrounds them are becoming more and more gimmicky. It just seems like the rules are the primary method the company sees of dictating what sells.

The deamons codex smells like beancounter influence to me. It's the same thing that gave Draeni to the Alliance in World of Warcraft despite the fluff surrounding it. Some suit somewhere went, "Hey guys, my kid just loves the idea of demons and stuff like that, we need more in the game to make it sell!"

To which another suit replied: "Yes... that's awesome, how about Plan B! Let's make a whole army they can buy with just demons! It'll sell like hotcakes! I LOVE plan B!"

At which point any gibberings by designers about fluff and how chaos gods hated working together were simply ignored.

The current strategy appears to be:
1) get cool models
2) make up a rules gimmick for the army (if nothing comes to mind, go with something involving Deepstrike, it's big.)
3) copy and paste codex: vanilla and change some stats, add artwork and ship the sucker.
4) PROFIT!!!

Seriously, does anyone here even remember the awesomeness that was 2nd edition codexes?!

Ravenous
30-05-2008, 04:29
Ah yes, I see it's that time of month again, when GW is cool and anything said against them meets with a crowd of pitchfork waving fans spouting everything they can to justify the latest 'new direction'. Any criticism is labeled as 'whining' and cries of 'I like it so it's fine!' are heard everywhere.

Oh well, I'll throw my lot in with the heretics then. I do believe that while the models are improving significantly, the rules and everything that surrounds them are becoming more and more gimmicky. It just seems like the rules are the primary method the company sees of dictating what sells.

The deamons codex smells like beancounter influence to me. It's the same thing that gave Draeni to the Alliance in World of Warcraft despite the fluff surrounding it. Some suit somewhere went, "Hey guys, my kid just loves the idea of demons and stuff like that, we need more in the game to make it sell!"

To which another suit replied: "Yes... that's awesome, how about Plan B! Let's make a whole army they can buy with just demons! It'll sell like hotcakes! I LOVE plan B!"

At which point any gibberings by designers about fluff and how chaos gods hated working together were simply ignored.

The current strategy appears to be:
1) get cool models
2) make up a rules gimmick for the army (if nothing comes to mind, go with something involving Deepstrike, it's big.)
3) copy and paste codex: vanilla and change some stats, add artwork and ship the sucker.
4) PROFIT!!!

Seriously, does anyone here even remember the awesomeness that was 2nd edition codexes?!

You forgot the stage where they make every evil army a "universe killer" and every good army is doomed (hence why Dark Eldar will never see that light of day because they havent figured out how to make them the biggest threat to everything yet).

Considering how awesome daemons are in there own fluff Im surprised Horus lost considering how many daemons there were on terra, but I guess they forgot how to warp around and murder everything for fun back in those days.....

Also Im surprised that the gods even bother with Marine followers considering how lesser daemons are apparently that much more kick ass and almost all of the daemons weaknesses disappeared:

Grey Knight: "You're banished for 100 years and a day!"
Daemon: "Ummm no, I'll just go infiltrate the harlequins in the meanwhile then get back to you".
Grey Knight: "No no! you have to disappear because the warp is weak here!"
Daemon: "Nope Slaanesh said its okay to stay up past my bed time so I can go chill out and watch the superbowl with the bloodletters"
Grey Knight: "but you hate them!"
Daemon: "Nope, we only fight because we're bored, now shut up before I get the fleshhounds to hunt you down through space and time!"

==Me==
30-05-2008, 04:33
As stated it's a democracy and freedom of speech is a thing we value. You also had the right to not read this post or reply to my rant.

If you want a world everyone's a happy fanboy or yes-person, North Korea would be a excellent choice.
:eyebrows:
:wtf:
:rolleyes:

That wins the thread, people who disagree with cailus should move to North Korea, where their hatred of freedom and desire to be fanboys will be embraced.

Now, I like the Daemon Codex. The models look great, the fluff is awesome, and having 1 army for both systems is nifty. Plus, I've never been a big fan of the spiky emo marines, but the Chaos Gods have always been fascinating. So it all works for ==Me==.

The Daemon codex looks like a much easier book to do than DE, IG or Pups, so I seriously doubt they would have been out instead (they're probably waiting until after 5th drops). A lot of the background is pulled from, or inspired by the old Realms of Chaos books, which makes Chaos fluff so rich and interesting. The list is quite simple, 1 unit per God per slot, and the army itself is balanced, unique, not an MEQ, and best of all, fun! It's usable in 40k and Fantasy, so it cuts the models needed in half. And the models themselves are mostly metal and a lot have been around a while, so it's easy to put together an army. Also, it follows the new approach GW is taking to Chaos: undivided and seperate factions. You can still make mono-God themed armies, same with CSM, they just won't be as flexible as a mixed army.

As for the blasphemy of mixing gods, times and background change, get with the program. The rivalries are in the background and the very nature of Chaos (you know, chaotic) means that anything is possible. It strikes ==Me== as strange that Chaos players want to be restricted by the list and ordered quite clearly and rigidly, not very chaosy. If you want a restrictive, themed army, make one. Don't take Khorne in a Slaaneshi army, don't take Thousand Sons in a Death Guard army. You'll take a hit in overall effectiveness but since the background is so important to you it shouldn't be a problem.

Unless its the special rules and bonuses you miss, craftily concealed as a fluffy bunny army:angel:

But not everyone is going to be a fan, just like with any army, so play what you want and have a good time. That's what it's all about anyway.

Now if you'll excuse ==Me==, I'm off to go goose-stepping. Hail GW!

Hellebore
30-05-2008, 04:46
Meh, I'm not going to have much of a mixed force in my daemon armies.

The rivalry is still there, it's just that the rules don't FORCE you to stick to them.

So we can look at it like this:

In all of chaos history the gods HAVE teamed up. Ergo, if the army had rules preventing them doing so it would actually be MORE against the fluff than having no restrictions and leaving it up to the player to decide if they want to have an army during one of said teamups.

The chaos gods have teamed up without recourse to an undivided champion in the past (they ally with each other against their fellow gods, or whatever all the time).

From a gameplay perspective I'm sure the powergamers are just going to make an optimised list full of cheese, but they'll do that irrespective of HOW the list is constructed.

I like the god animosities a lot, bu it's a bit hard to create a balanced list that is effectively 4 lists side by side.

So, as with many armies out there, the fluff is left in the hands of the player. Just as the eldar codex doesn't limit Iyanden players in the number of living units they use, the daemon codex doesn't limit players in the type of units they use.

In a perfect world I would like to see 4 chaos god lists, 9 chaos marine lists, half a dozen lost and the damned lists that all of cross army compatability.

Course, I'd also like to see eldar aspect shrine codicies, craftworld codicies, ork klan and empire codicies and tyranid splinter fleet codicies.

Unfortunately we won't always get what we ask for,

Hellebore

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
30-05-2008, 04:46
This seems to be the time of GW making armies really boring. They made CSM boring space pirates. Then they ignore the background and now all demons get along, which is boring. But, the armies are way powerful so buy more models!

I fully expect the next hordes of chaos book to be very boring and powerful. *Yawn*

Mr. Smuckles
30-05-2008, 04:48
WOW

This same post manages to appear every time there's a new army release. Anyone remember OK for fantasy?

Jesus Christ, the law of the internet is that if something exists then there is always someone available to nitpick it at any time.

If you don't like GW or their release schedule, then there are plenty of other games to play. Hell, Vor 2.0 is comming out soon and it includes rules for using whatever minis from whatever system in their ruleset. They even have an official forum for you to complain on instead of trolling warseer for a reaction.

Hellebore
30-05-2008, 04:49
This seems to be the time of GW making armies really boring. They made CSM boring space pirates. Then they ignore the background and now all demons get along, which is boring. But, the armies are way powerful so buy more models!

I fully expect the next hordes of chaos book to be very boring and powerful. *Yawn*

Boring=simple=easy to balance.

If you can convince them that fluff and fun are more important than balance and convince all the whingers out there as well, then I'm sure GW would turn its efforts to pumping out fluff n fun over simple and balance.

Good luck.

Hellebore

carlisimo
30-05-2008, 05:00
I really like the new Daemon codex. Mostly because it's different... I don't want another variant of an existing army, whether it's evil Eldar, evil Imperial Guard, evil Space Marines, or toothy Space Marines. The daemons play differently compared to what's out there, and it's a great breath of fresh air.

In reality, it probably came to be because someone figured they'd save money by developing an army for both main systems at the same time, and the only one that can be done that way is Daemons. 1.5x the effort for 2x the armies. Besides that, daemons were always just add-ons for character. But in the background, the Chaos Space Marines do their own thing... I can't imagine them getting all that involved with daemons. Now they can be played on their own, and I'm glad that it's in a separate codex and not tied together with CSM or LatD. No army list should be that much larger and more varied than the rest.

I hope all the armies that've been waiting do get their codex. But only their fans would've noticed. With a whole new army out, more people will notice a slight refreshing of the 40k universe. The book's a fun read, too.

Torga_DW
30-05-2008, 05:08
I like the new chaos marine and daemon codexes.

Misanthrope
30-05-2008, 05:18
I agree with OP.

And I think it's somewhat hypocritical for people to complain about people complaining. Nobody's trolling for attention; fact is there is no longer any GW forum for players to air their grievences about a game they've most likely spent several hundred dollars on, their only recourse being to do it on 3rd party community websites in the vain hope that some GW lackey will stumble in and see it.

And I'm sure GW itself is far more appreciative of these trolling whiners than most of us here are.

Anyway, I think it's rather sad how this whole ordeal with Chaos has turned out. IMO GW could've done much better, making a much more interesting set of rules and further increasing their revenue. As it stands I still do not know of a single person who has started a Daemon army, and infact CSM players seem to be dwindling as well. I think given the interest the community as a whole has shown, everywhere I've looked on the internet, for LatD, GW really missed out on an oppurtunity.

thenurgler
30-05-2008, 05:24
I really don't understand the majority of the complaints. Does anybody remember what demons were before they made their own codex? Demons were a small bonus, a general offshoot to a largely Chaos Space Marine and sometimes LaTD armies. Demons did not have special characters (fantasy Demonic Legion excluded) and they had very little defining features other than support from the gods for Chaos Space Marines.

To say that the new codex didn't add anything new or cool? That is ridiculous. Take a look at a Soulgrinder, an incredible looking and awesome Demonic vehicle. Look at all of the incredibly characterful multitude of special characters leading the armies. The whole nature of the army has changed, but most importantly demon armies are very distinctive now from anything else.

By the way, I hated the new Chaos Codex as well as the general mixing of different Gods together that has happened in all recent Chaos Codexes/Army Books. That is something I'm willing to give up though for how awesome this codex was.

SabrX
30-05-2008, 05:50
I find the aspect of an entire Army deep striking and assaulting to be pure evil. That's something Daemon codex has over other armies. This is the bane of all Tau players.

carlisimo
30-05-2008, 05:55
And I think it's somewhat hypocritical for people to complain about people complaining.
...
Anyway, I think it's rather sad how this whole ordeal with Chaos has turned out. IMO GW could've done much better, making a much more interesting set of rules and further increasing their revenue.

I agree with your first point, and I understand your second even if I disagree with it. Maybe it's a matter of being the guy playing the army instead of against it... playing against large Chaos codices was always difficult because its opponents could never get to know it well enough. Just too big.

GW's also made a big push to make every unit useful (and purchased). It's like instead of 7 options of which 2 are great and will be used all the time, they're offering 4 options of which 3 are good enough for players to select them.

spaint2k
30-05-2008, 06:01
Cailus, I couldn't agree more with what you've said here.

When I first heard that GW were releasing a Daemon codex, I got all excited because I assumed it would mean a return of the LatD (someone's got to summon all those daemons, right?) Instead, the codex that we got is quite the disappointment for me as well.

Steve

Plastic Rat
30-05-2008, 06:22
I really don't understand the majority of the complaints. Does anybody remember what demons were before they made their own codex? Demons were a small bonus, a general offshoot to a largely Chaos Space Marine and sometimes LaTD armies.

And that's how I liked them.. the story was about OUR universe, humans and aliens fighting other humans and aliens. The warp added flavor and variety.

I don't have anything against the demon codex as it stands. It's interesting and the fluff is cool. I have something against what it takes AWAY from the game. Codex : Deamons and Codex Chaos Space Marines together have pretty much made most of the original cool and flavorful armies impossible to field legally.

They've replaced this with two codexes that each pretty much just revolve around a gimmick. Once you get tired of the gimmick, or for that matter don't enjoy it from the start, there's nothing left to make the army interesting.

Then again, I suppose by that time there'll be a NEW army available with an all NEW gimmick to keep us busy for a few months.



By the way, I hated the new Chaos Codex as well as the general mixing of different Gods together that has happened in all recent Chaos Codexes/Army Books. That is something I'm willing to give up though for how awesome this codex was.

Thanks, I'd rather trade back the 'awesome' for something a bit more deep, flavorful and fluff based.


I find the aspect of an entire Army deep striking and assaulting to be pure evil. That's something Daemon codex has over other armies. This is the bane of all Tau players.

Yeah, because we needed another deep striking army to make Tau players lives miserable.

I maintain, gimmicks handed to you on a plate by GW are not tactics.

Kurisu313
30-05-2008, 06:45
I don't think I'll ever understand the daemon codex hate.

As for rarity, there are only 1000 space wolves in the galaxy. Minor daemonic incursions happen all the time. Please remember that not all daemonic codex armies are world-wide apocalypses.

As for rivalry, what changed since previous codexes? Before, if I had an undivided general I could mix marks freely. GW simply got rid of the middleman. Do daemons work together? Yes. All the time. Do they work alone? Yes. All the time. The codex gives you options, if some jerk abuses it, then he's the jerk. If you see skulltaker leading a slaaneshi army, gently tell him that it's unlfuffy. However, remember that in a previous codex,you could have an undivided general, khornate daemon and slaaneshi followers. Hardly a huge change.

As for balance, the daemons are awesome, underpowered, if anything, with lots of special rules.

As for order, C:SW should wait for C:SM, or we'll get the problem that DA seems to be having, that it is less exotic than it's parent codex. I do feel the dark eldar players pain though. I don't want the IG codex to be redone! I'll miss traits :(

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
30-05-2008, 06:56
I agree with OP.

And I think it's somewhat hypocritical for people to complain about people complaining. Nobody's trolling for attention; fact is there is no longer any GW forum for players to air their grievences about a game they've most likely spent several hundred dollars on, their only recourse being to do it on 3rd party community websites in the vain hope that some GW lackey will stumble in and see it.



Amen! I've spent a lot more than several hundred.




Anyway, I think it's rather sad how this whole ordeal with Chaos has turned out. IMO GW could've done much better, making a much more interesting set of rules and further increasing their revenue.

I agree. What happened to fun and interesting rules? That's what attracted me to the 3.5 chaos codex. If I'd known how bland the next codex would be I wouldn't have any 40k right now, because no other race interests me as much.




To say that the new codex didn't add anything new or cool? That is ridiculous. Take a look at a Soulgrinder, an incredible looking and awesome Demonic vehicle. Look at all of the incredibly characterful multitude of special characters leading the armies. The whole nature of the army has changed, but most importantly demon armies are very distinctive now from anything else.


Oh come on, the soul grinder is just a glorified defiler with better armor. And I think there are far too many special characters in the demon codex. There's no reason to take a regular herald over the special character as far as I'm concerned. And I think that is sad.

Razarael
30-05-2008, 07:35
Oh come on, the soul grinder is just a glorified defiler with better armor.

Have you seen the model? It's absolutely awesome! And you never can quite tell what it's going to do! Is it going to hock a huge loogey at you from across the field? Perhaps it will vomit on you when you aren't looking. Or maybe it'll smack your battle tank in the face with it's TONGUE!

How is that not awesome?

But I digress...

When I first found out about the codex, I checked out the models and I was incredibly impressed.

The bloodletters and the bloodcrushers look fantastic. Fiends are fantastic. The soul grinder is fantastic. Finally a nurgle model on a palanquin. The models are wonderful. I know the old Tzeentch models aren't new, but I've always liked those. And get this! I didn't buy the Tzeentch models because there wasn't a good outlet for me to use them in an army, as I do not play fantasy and I don't like Chaos Space marines. So it worked out perfect for me!

Yes perhaps they are trying to pinch people for money. I'm not really concerned. If you are worried about money, buying toy soldiers probably shouldn't be your thing at the moment. I think GW is being quite reasonable lately concerning their prices. $20 for 10 Bloodletters (did I mention how awesome they look?) compaired to $30 for 10 Dire Avengers (of which I own 30). Blood letters, arguably cooler looking, for less cash-money and for more in-game points. So, similar sized armies won't be costing as much. (I know that's just one example... but it's a real example I'm coping with, so don't rail me with it).


On a final note - I love the idea of having all four chaos powers in my army. GW did a great job in allowing that to happen, you see. 2 heralds of differing gods for a single HQ choice. Gives you room for a greater daemon, and because you can have Daemon princes as heavy, you essentially get another HQ style unit for that fourth god you don't want to have to leave out. It's all very wonderful to me, and it suits my tastes- I get to use all the models I think are awesome, and it managed to create a balanced and flavorful list (A Lord of Change sneaking into reality and manipulating the other chaos powers into fighting his battles for him in order to obtain it's own ends).

Make war not love.

cailus
30-05-2008, 07:46
If you are worried about money, buying toy soldiers probably shouldn't be your thing at the moment.

Most sane people worry about money. Just because you're earning good money doesn't mean you should be frivolous and not look for value for money.

I've known people with excellent salaries who bankrupted themselves through poor financial management.

Varath- Lord Impaler
30-05-2008, 07:53
Most sane people worry about money. Just because you're earning good money doesn't mean you should be frivolous and not look for value for money.

I've known people with excellent salaries who bankrupted themselves through poor financial management.

um...congratulations?

Kurisu313
30-05-2008, 08:23
Oh come on, the soul grinder is just a glorified defiler with better armor. And I think there are far too many special characters in the demon codex. There's no reason to take a regular herald over the special character as far as I'm concerned. And I think that is sad.

I think it's quite sad that YOU think that. I currently have 3 unnamed heralds and no named ones.

As for the defiler, wow, a gigantic awesome model with great rules and your still not satisfied? The razorback, crusader, DE ravager, fire prism, sky ray, basilisk and demolisher are all additions to an existing tank, so its hardly fair to call the soul grinder a glorified defiler. Read the background - it is a glorified defiler. A chaos lord is a glorified marine.

Sorry if this post sounds a little confrontational, it's not supposed to.

Razarael
30-05-2008, 08:23
Most sane people worry about money. Just because you're earning good money doesn't mean you should be frivolous and not look for value for money.

I've known people with excellent salaries who bankrupted themselves through poor financial management.


There are also very frugal people with excellant and not so excellant salaries who end up bankrupt despite their choices. (Myself as an example - I am horrible with money and I have a horrid salary and by god I won't file for bankruptcy (I'm 45 grand in debt). Yesterday, I bought a Trukk).

But here's the point - it is no ones business but themselves to decide how one should spend their money. I really like the Chaos Models (for evidence, read my last post!), so I'm going to buy them. If you don't like them, or if you don't want to buy them for any number of reasons, good for you! Doesn't bother me one iota. (not you as in cailus, as this may seem to be directed, but to anybody- the universal you, as it were)

GW hasn't hurt anybody by putting out this codex. All they have done is made a rule set for what I believe are a wonderful new range of minis. Good for them! Personally, I think it is unfortunate that there are so many naysayers towards what I think has been a huge success. It's like when GW does something wrong, they get blasted for it. When they do something right, they get blasted for it. It's impossible to please everyone, and perhaps it is our job as the consumer to be understanding of that and work with them rather than against, to improve the 40k community for the greater good! (and let all that oppose be destroyed)

But let us all take a moment to remember, ladies and gentleman... The world as we know it is not ending. We've got another 38,000 years before that happens. Approximately.

Plebian
30-05-2008, 08:28
Have you seen the model? Is it going to hock a huge loogey at you from across the field? Perhaps it will vomit on you when you aren't looking. Or maybe it'll smack your battle tank in the face with it's TONGUE!

How is that not awesome?



Did you have a troubled childhood?
;)

PierceC
30-05-2008, 08:31
...we got a lame Chaos Space Marine codex without the old diversity of Daemons, did not get a new Space Wolves codex, a new Dark Eldar Codex or a new Imperial Guard codex. We did not get a Lost and the Damned Codex.

I am a bit tired of this lame thread topic...but I will take the bait. :evilgrin:

The reason that you have the elements of the 4th edition codex I believe is mainly down to 3.5 edition Chaos players.

You lament the loss of diversity of the new CSM codex, but if I remember correctly....CSM army build with loads of Chaos marines, few psychic powers, few if no daemons, and loads of tanks...hmmm...hmmm...IRON WARRIORS ring any bells! Also, didn't the Iron Warriors not support ANY Chaos god? So a CSM force without daemons or a Chaos god...in 3.5... and no one raised any objections then (Oh, that's right; because it was the most broken list in the book :rolleyes:)

So the codex after 3.5 basically supports one of the most popular, if not the most popular, CSM build in 3.5, and people think thats strange because.....:eyebrows:

And lets be honest, GW is a company so it supports the majority of its customers not the minority. Oh and before anyone gets on me for Iron Warriors, lets face it, the most popular builds are the ones that can be done mostly in plastic. Besides a World Eaters force, Iron Warriors were the easist to do in plastic.


...we... did not get a new Space Wolves codex, a new Dark Eldar Codex or a new Imperial Guard codex. We did not get a Lost and the Damned Codex.

So instead of a second Chaos codex you are suggesting they should have done a 3rd Space Marine codex :wtf: . Yep, cause SM really need more love. And that doesn't count the White Dwarf codex for Blood Angels.

Also in the vein they didn't do a Necron codex, or Daemon or Witch hunters codex. Obviously, when they do a codex, they don't do other codex which are probably at least as deserving. To go back to my last point, SW should really be the last army to get a new codex. There are already a S**T ton of SM codexes. I think DE will also get a boost from 5th edition rules, so I think it makes sense to wait.

As far as LATD, if GW base their usage numbers on Tournament play, which from the last Standard Bearer seems to suggest, then it is very easy to undertand why they have left them out. Once again just a vocal minority. Just like the far-right!

Razarael
30-05-2008, 08:43
Did you have a troubled childhood?
;)

Probably.:cries:

leonmallett
30-05-2008, 08:46
What was the point?

We got a codex that could be successfully released with a variety of models, that doesn't have similar characteristics to existing armies (stalines; army special rules; fairly unique deployment), and enriches the background as well as the game itself.

Yes there seems to be gnashing of teeth that everything wasn't included in C: CSM, but that CSM and Daemons are now less than happy allies makes sense of that move. Should the daemons have been subservient to the CSM in the past? Thinking about it, probably not. The Realms of the Ruinous Powers predated the rise of the Traitor Legions yet suddenly daemons were at the beck and call of CSM? In hindsight that makes little sense, so as far as I can see the right decsion has been made. Had everything been included in C: CSM would that have made a fair and balanced codex? Doubtful. There would simply have been too much in my view.

Hellebore made some excellent points about the rivalries, that they can still be played up (and this will be borne out by many mono-power forces, I am sure), but are not enforced. Players therefore have options. C: Eldar was the blueprint for this approach, which is reflected in C: Orks and now C: Daemons.

Has Codex Daemons delayed the likes of SW, DE, Necrons or any other list? Arguably yes and no. Yes, because GW have a finite amount of studio resources (capital, designers, artists, sculptors, painters, time), so any 'addition' to the lineup creates delay further down any tentative release schedule. No, because some releases are simply more expedient so get a faster turnaround (Tau empire as an example of this), and since no official schedule exists there are no delays except in the minds of consumers desiring those products.

To the poster who suggested that Codex Daemons simply recycled the WHFB Daemons army book - didn't they have seperate writers? If so, that undermines that assertion.

The utility of two army books being devised at the same time that utilise the same model lineup (largely) is simply obvious, especially on the heels of C: CSM. It cuts down overall development time, so is actually a boon, adds something new to the lineup of both systems, and in WH40K creates an army with a unique tabletop functionality. That is the point, amongst many.

Oh and like others, I liked it - there is another point.

Kurisu313
30-05-2008, 08:49
Actually, just thinking: the point was a cool army with cool models and rules thats a joy to play with and against?

Y'know, the hobby ;)

If you don't like the army, well that's not the armies' fault

Souleater
30-05-2008, 08:50
I thought it was a way of getting daemons into plastic. Figures can be used for WHFB or 40K.

Hopefully they will do Nurgle and Tzeentch later on.

Vaktathi
30-05-2008, 08:54
The reason that you have the elements of the 4th edition codex I believe is mainly down to 3.5 edition Chaos players.

You lament the loss of diversity of the new CSM codex, but if I remember correctly....CSM army build with loads of Chaos marines, few psychic powers, few if no daemons, and loads of tanks...hmmm...hmmm...IRON WARRIORS ring any bells! Also, didn't the Iron Warriors not support ANY Chaos god? So a CSM force without daemons or a Chaos god...in 3.5... and no one raised any objections then (Oh, that's right; because it was the most broken list in the book :rolleyes:) You seem to have an odd fixation with Iron Warriors. At my local store in Salem, I was the only one that played Iron Warriors. We had one Death Guard army, a couple Emperor's Children armies, a couple random Black Legion lists, and a couple Khorne armies, and a guy that plays Night Lords. At the store I play at in San Diego, I was again the only IW player I ever saw there, and there were Black Legion, Thousand Sons, and other Cult lists there. Every other army but mine utilized at least *some* daemons, usually at least two squads of Cult daemons actually, and a couple had Psyker hq's.

I guess on the west coast here IW's just weren't as popular as other places, but I saw a much larger variety of lists under the old codex. Now its almost all Lash Prince armies.




And lets be honest, GW is a company so it supports the majority of its customers not the minority. Oh and before anyone gets on me for Iron Warriors, lets face it, the most popular builds are the ones that can be done mostly in plastic. Besides a World Eaters force, Iron Warriors were the easist to do in plastic. Yes, for the most part they could be done in plastic, but the unit most people complained about, Oblits, is a $22 apiece metal model.



As far as LATD, if GW base their usage numbers on Tournament play, which from the last Standard Bearer seems to suggest, then it is very easy to undertand why they have left them out. I've seen more LatD armies than I've seen Space Wolf or Blood Angels


Once again just a vocal minority. Just like the far-right!:confused: ok...:rolleyes:

Whitehorn
30-05-2008, 08:56
Well I bought both books and a bucket of daemons. So they won my money :P

druchii
30-05-2008, 09:03
What was the point?

We got a codex that could be successfully released with a variety of models, that doesn't have similar characteristics to existing armies (stalines; army special rules; fairly unique deployment), and enriches the background as well as the game itself.

Yes there seems to be gnashing of teeth that everything wasn't included in C: CSM, but that CSM and Daemons are now less than happy allies makes sense of that move. Should the daemons have been subservient to the CSM in the past? Thinking about it, probably not. The Realms of the Ruinous Powers predated the rise of the Traitor Legions yet suddenly daemons were at the beck and call of CSM? In hindsight that makes little sense, so as far as I can see the right decsion has been made. Had everything been included in C: CSM would that have made a fair and balanced codex? Doubtful. There would simply have been too much in my view.

Hellebore made some excellent points about the rivalries, that they can still be played up (and this will be borne out by many mono-power forces, I am sure), but are not enforced. Players therefore have options. C: Eldar was the blueprint for this approach, which is reflected in C: Orks and now C: Daemons.

Has Codex Daemons delayed the likes of SW, DE, Necrons or any other list? Arguably yes and no. Yes, because GW have a finite amount of studio resources (capital, designers, artists, sculptors, painters, time), so any 'addition' to the lineup creates delay further down any tentative release schedule. No, because some releases are simply more expedient so get a faster turnaround (Tau empire as an example of this), and since no official schedule exists there are no delays except in the minds of consumers desiring those products.

To the poster who suggested that Codex Daemons simply recycled the WHFB Daemons army book - didn't they have seperate writers? If so, that undermines that assertion.

The utility of two army books being devised at the same time that utilise the same model lineup (largely) is simply obvious, especially on the heels of C: CSM. It cuts down overall development time, so is actually a boon, adds something new to the lineup of both systems, and in WH40K creates an army with a unique tabletop functionality. That is the point, amongst many.

Oh and like others, I liked it - there is another point.


Thank you for a wonderful post. I wish I could add much more to elaborate on these points.

It should be noted that GW is signifigantly scaling back on the "fluff" requirements for armies. They're finally learning and they're learning that letting the PLAYER of the army decide the fluff is the best way to go.

I've been creating and inventing my own fluff for years, and frankly the C:CSM book that had rigid and defining rules describing what each chaos legion could and couldn't use was tantamount to prison.

The less bars GW places on its hobby, the better.

d

Plastic Rat
30-05-2008, 09:33
As far as LATD, if GW base their usage numbers on Tournament play, which from the last Standard Bearer seems to suggest, then it is very easy to undertand why they have left them out.

...and then we have posts with people asking why so many veteran players resent the Tournament scene.

Sometimes it feels like it would just be so great if we could have two completely separate games with the same models. One for the tourney bunch, and one for those who don't view the fluff as a prison.

leonmallett
30-05-2008, 09:53
As far as LATD, if GW base their usage numbers on Tournament play, which from the last Standard Bearer seems to suggest, then it is very easy to undertand why they have left them out. Once again just a vocal minority. Just like the far-right!


...and then we have posts with people asking why so many veteran players resent the Tournament scene.

Sometimes it feels like it would just be so great if we could have two completely separate games with the same models. One for the tourney bunch, and one for those who don't view the fluff as a prison.

I think the LatD issue will be more complicated than looking at 'the tournament scene'. For a start many won't allow the old EoT lists, so that is llimiting data. Then again I don't really recall such an assertion in Standard Bearer but will happily re-read the latest article to check later. It is more likely that sales are the gauge rather than tournament appearances, or that a variety of factors include both of those are used.

I think the problem with LatD was that there was no way of gauging sales, pure and simply, since people were kitbashing left right and centre. I know, as an example, I used something like 3-4 boxes of Zombies, 1-2 boxes of Empire Militia and 1-2 boxes of Cadians to yield over 100 Plague Zombies and a ragtag bunch of Traitors. Those kits are from 3 ranges and some may have used kits from other ranges in a similar fashion. Thus tracking the success of LatD becomes difficult.

The point is that although there is a taste for LatD out there, and so a certain level of demand, there was likely a demand also for Daemons as an army. They (GW) took a calculated risk with C: Daemons and it's WHFB counterpart. I hope it pays off as it may pave the way for a LatD army (or my likely C: Chaos Heretics or somesuch other name since WHFB has set its precedent in army book names, and now with Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines so has WH40K). If it had been a straight choice between LatD and Daemons, I think the right choice was made (the crossover benefit with WHFB and CSM aside). The reason being that had we seen another ostensibly 'human' army there would likely have been a groundswell of complaints (myself included). This way variety has been added, but maybe it will show the appetite for an expanded lineup of Chaos armies in WH40K. Maybe this is part of the long game - a trinity of army types for both Imperial and Chaos? Think about it: CSM (maybe with Traitor Legion expansion into multiple books), Daemons and hopefully LatD for the Ruinous Powers; SM (of various hues), Inquistion and IG for the Imperium. Even if that isn't a long term plan, it would offer a nice sense of symmetry, if nothing else. Just speculation mixed with some wishlisting on my part. Time will tell.

Sir_Turalyon
30-05-2008, 10:06
Don't see much fluff changing here, deamons of rivalling gods probably fight each other alll the time in warp, but when they get opportunity for deamonic intrusion, they go all together and concentrate on taking souls for their separate patrons; they can always beat each other when incrusion is over. Incrusions can be special ocasions to rare and precious for deamons to waste it on struggle.

I see it like warp was a pub brawl, and "incrusion opportunity" like city-scale blackout: patrons stop beating each other and leave pub to loot shops in teams that moment ago looked unlikely.

vampires are cool!
30-05-2008, 10:17
All LatD players should just convert to Counts As Guard armies and stop complaining. The OP seems to be a classic example of an unfulfilled Jack-ass with too much time dedicated to hating and not enough to play the game he 'waists' his money on. Cant people just enjoy a thing regardless of the manufactures intentions. Did millions of people complain at the Beach Boys and The Monkeys? How often do you lament chocolate? Are you vexed by that new Apple Mac (possible a given there though)?

Let it go.

PierceC
30-05-2008, 10:32
As far as LATD, if GW base their usage numbers on Tournament play, which from the last Standard Bearer seems to suggest, then it is very easy to undertand why they have left them out.


...and then we have posts with people asking why so many veteran players resent the Tournament scene.

Sometimes it feels like it would just be so great if we could have two completely separate games with the same models. One for the tourney bunch, and one for those who don't view the fluff as a prison.

I'm not saying it's right, just raising the point that they are using some empirical meausre. Whether or not you or I believe its the correct way to measure usage, is a seperate point.

From my perspective, Jervis has finally put to rest the way they are calculating army usage. It has to be the way that people now assume GW are basing army decisions. Unless he comes out and definitively refutes what was printed in Standard Bearer, I think all arguments based upon army usage need to keep the Tournament scene in mind.

Whether GW decide to come up with a "more accurate" measuring tool is up to the business. I personally think a monthly exercise by GW stores on army played would gather a more representative sample, however there are human errors to factor into that equation as well.

Believe it to not, counting armies can be difficult :D

boogle
30-05-2008, 10:39
I really enjoyed reading it, it adds more to the background, and so what if things change, the rivalry is still there in essence (Tzeentch is still the biggest conniving git ever)

PierceC
30-05-2008, 10:46
I think the LatD issue will be more complicated than looking at 'the tournament scene'. For a start many won't allow the old EoT lists, so that is llimiting data. ... It is more likely that sales are the gauge rather than tournament appearances, or that a variety of factors include both of those are used.

I couldn't agree with you more! :D There are often a lot of issues which involve multiple aspects, however a few very important aspects may come to the forefront, or be selected out of many as they are easy to measure.


I think the "tournament scene" is easy to measure, so if your lazy its an easy get out. ;)

I don't however think that sales are a better measure because of the number of factors that affect sales. I think most poeople will agree SM are the best selling army and most played army, but obviously new armies significantly skew those results. In the year that Tau came out I would have thought they would have been the 2nd or 3rd most sold army, but I would that have meant that it was the 2nd or 3rd most popular army ever?

It's also hard to determine what sales numbers you would use to determine army usage. Would you use 1 year, 5 year, 3 year? I am sure that the statistics for sale computed daily. Would you use the numbers 6 months from the launchs, or 6 months from the time that you START in the studio???

Also GW aren't stupid, there's a reason that display cabinet is in the shop window:angel: - Impulse buying! Should that 6 year really be able to throw his weight on a hobby he may only do for 6 months?

As I said, its actually very difficult to measure army usage, I have to say I doubt envy the person who has to select the method, let alone compile the data. So it is understandable if they have chosen Tournaments as the way they are going to measure army usage. Like I said, I may not agree, but I can understand the reasoning behind it.

TimLeeson
30-05-2008, 11:44
Whats the point ? well im speaking for myself here, but it got new players like me into the hobby. Whats wrong with that ? iv been waiting several years for an army that appeals to my tastes in 40k and now I finally have something with the Tzeentch Daemons, which are about the only models I like. I love all the backround about the Warp/Immaterium and reminds me alot of HP Lovecraft - another thing that interests me. Sorry but Evil Guardmen and mutants just would of put me off this hobby even more if thats what came out instead as 40k is far too biped-centric as it is IMO.

Killgore
30-05-2008, 12:04
40K needed a new army imho, especialy one with a brand new game mechanic that no other army has

having an entire army that has to deep strike brings interesting new challenges to the 40k game system

Dave_Loken
30-05-2008, 12:46
You seem to know your fluff then you also know that when a tear appears in reality for deamons to cross over they all pretty much just jump on the incursion band wagon. I like the variation and know my fluff enough to theme my own armies whats so hard to wrap your head around? I'm sure a cult book is in the workings coss its a good excuse to do a second waves of releses ( please GW don't shaft guard or DE for this) and then I think there will be a good balence till then go maruading demon hordes

ADF
30-05-2008, 12:54
Killgore- that hit the nail on the head. In my humble opinion, the point of "Daemons" was:

1.)to sell (many) miniatures
2.)to cater more people into the games
3.)to add a new gameplay aspect to the game
4.)to meet demands (fluff, models, gameplay) from the customer base

GW, as a company, is naturally most interested in points 1 and 2, while the customers are more interested in 3 and 4. Codex: Daemons and the WH Army Book: Daemons fullfilled most of these goals; however, not everybody is happy with the books, but company can't please everybody all the time.

For me, the problem is that we have in fact more books than we need, but get even more because of point 1: Not every line of models is justified under gameplay aspects, yet GW produces armies that add very little to the game in general, but sell very well, best example in this case being the various sublists for SM. These lines sell like hotcakes, but do seldom add a new experience to the game, or, in the worst case even detract from it (MEQ anyone?). However, after a certain amount of time, the consumers expect that these armies are suported forever and get their regular overhaul just like the other, more unique armies. This leads directly to the cluttered release schedules and inconsistent rulesets that we have at the moment (codex creep etc. ).

So, in my opinion, 40k would fare much better with fewer, better supported armies as a core range and some odd army list variants in "Campaign supplements" like Armageddon or EoT that are clearly marked as one-shot armies that do not receive regular attention.

IJW
30-05-2008, 12:56
So, in my opinion, 40k would fare much better with fewer, better supported armies as a core range and some odd army list variants in "Campaign supplements" like Armageddon or EoT that are clearly marked as one-shot armies that do not receive regular attention.
What, like Lost and the Damned? :eyebrows:

Doomseer
30-05-2008, 12:59
"I have just finished reading the new Daemon codex (a borrowed copy) and the thought I had was what was the point?"

I think it was a pretty successful attempt to bring some great new ideas to 40K.

Bunnahabhain
30-05-2008, 14:21
All LatD players should just convert to Counts As Guard armies and stop complaining.

Let it go.

you think the counts-as-Guard solution would reduce the amount of complaints?

It would successfully add a number of players to the ranks of the Guard, who need to use doctrines to represent their army. They do tend to be absolutely dire as far as actually winning* is concerned, but they can be built, and they fit the structure and units of the LatD reasonably well.

It would just add the the number of people who want a Guard army capable of operating as a close combat horde, as well as the ranks of us who would like a Guard army that operates at all....

* Take the second most underpowered codex out there, and then choose heavily from many fluffy, but underpowered and overpriced units therin. You will lose alot, but look good doing it.

baphomael
30-05-2008, 15:09
These exist as codexes. And they're outdated. Shouldn't they be upgraded first before churning out a new codex based on units we used to be able to get in another book?

Its not like the daemon codex is pushing back other codecies. Think of it this way - Daemons were going to be a fantasy release. This was inevitable when GW started considering a daemon list. Without the codex, GW would have still released the daemon army book for fantasy, *still* taking up GWs time and resources. Instead, we get an additional extra codex that allows us to use the same army in another game - but the daemon codex isnt exactly detracting from future releases. Think of it as an aside to the fantasy release.

ADF
30-05-2008, 15:36
What, like Lost and the Damned? :eyebrows:

Yes, exactly...
In my opinion, the fault here lies patially on the player's side: The players demand from GW that they support EVERY army they EVER brought out until the universe explodes. However, this isn't feasible in a timely manner and not valid from a business-like point of view. GW's fault was that in the past, they actually did that, even if it wasn't profitable. This leads to an enormeous outrage when they actually decide to abandon an army, blimey, people do even today bemourn the loss of the squats!

The reason why people want so many armies to be supported is that they want variety in gameplay. Now, there are two ways to achieve variety: variety of choice (of armies) and internal variety (in each army list). In 3rd edition, the designers used an approach that was based on variety of choice, i.e. for the gameplay style "lots of fast-moving bike/light vehicle squads", there were AT LEAST 4 different army lists: Ravenwing, Saim-Hann Eldar, White Scars, Speed Freak Orks and so on. While these lists seem very different at first and have all a very unique look, all of them are based on the same concept, varying only in detail, but brought their own ruling issues and problems that afforded the designer's time to clear them, distracting support from other armies. An even better example is the list variant "CC-oriented MEQ": there were Blood Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves and Khornate CSMs, essentially being almost exactly the same lists from a gameplay pespective!

Now, to make that clear, I do not want ANY of these list to disappear, but IMHO, the current approach of writing a single Codex that has enough internal choices to create all of these sub-lists, possibly by using characters that alter the FOC or give army-wide special rules, is much better, because it allows the company to cut back the number of list variants that need individual support.

To start the fire, I have to say that a single SM Codex would be enough to represent all of the loyalist chapters, using characters and perhaps a single page of rules to differntiate BTs from BAs, Das and SWs, given that the list offers enough variety on troop choices to represent all of these chapters.

However, I am aware that:
a) such an approach would not do the fluff of these chapters proper justice
b) this will never happen, SMs and MEQs being THE top sellers that fund the company

Last, but not least:
LatD could very well be represented by the Imperial Guard, using conscripts as the hordes and Inquisitors as stand-ins for the more powerfull agitators. Add a single heretic/traitor special character to the new guard Codex and there you go.

gorgon
30-05-2008, 16:03
Now, to make that clear, I do not want ANY of these list to disappear, but IMHO, the current approach of writing a single Codex that has enough internal choices to create all of these sub-lists, possibly by using characters that alter the FOC or give army-wide special rules, is much better, because it allows the company to cut back the number of list variants that need individual support.

The frustrating thing for LatD players is that there were opportunities to work LatD elements into the CSM and Daemon codices (the latter of which many people expected to have some LatD representation). But it didn't happen.

I don't think LatD players are demanding much. Players would likely have accepted being worked into the aforementioned codices or getting a basic WD list. It didn't happen, so we just have to *keep writing letters* to the studio and wait our turn.

I agree that the Daemon 40K book was really just a unique cross-sell opportunity for GW. Once you accept that's all it really is, you get past the fact that it's conceptually underwhelming. ;)


All LatD players should just convert to Counts As Guard armies and stop complaining.


LatD could very well be represented by the Imperial Guard, using conscripts as the hordes and Inquisitors as stand-ins for the more powerfull agitators. Add a single heretic/traitor special character to the new guard Codex and there you go.

No offense, but I've seen comments a thousand times from people who don't actually play or understand the list. I had fewer than 20 Traitors in my army. Most of the army was CSMs, Daemons, Mutants, etc. Many LatD armies don't translate well at all to the IG book. And if you really force it to fit, you get an incoherent mess of an IG army. Before someone says "you should be playing for fun," keep in mind that LatD players are primarily not overly competitive types, or they wouldn't have gotten into the army in the first place. I think our bar is set pretty low. ;)

Champsguy
30-05-2008, 16:32
1) Cost Yes, GW exists to make money. Yes, they want to sell more people their stuff. So what? I don't get all pissed off because Ferrari puts out a new car that I can't afford. "That stupid Ferrari! They know I drive a car, and they put out this new sports car. They just want to make money!!!" Well... duh. If you can't afford a new army, don't buy it. Even if you want it.

2) LatD: Every player who has stuck around for the change from one codex to another has had part of their army made illegal. I had Dark Angel Assault Marines with flamers. I can't have that now. I know IG players who used to use Armored Company. They can't use that now, apart from some ancient WD list. Everyone has their army change. That is life. I am sorry if your army based off of a short-lived campaign supplement is no longer accepted by most players in the tournament scene. I would still play you if you wanted to use a LatD army. It would not bother me at all. But no reasonable person would have believed that the 3 page LatD list that appeared in the Eye of Terror codex would forever commit GW to produce a full-fledged codex for them with each edition of the rules.

x-esiv-4c
30-05-2008, 16:37
This happens everytime a codex comes out.

The "Nay sayers" creep out and defame the codex as broken, cheese, unreasonable etc. Then the "Yay sayers" jump valiantly to the defense of the new born codex. Each party presents arguments, each party ignores the other party's arguments and reiterate their position.

Then they take a hard look at each other, turn their heads and begin slap fighting in the Warseer tradition.

jfrazell
30-05-2008, 18:05
What was the point? Make money. Next question.

carlisimo
30-05-2008, 18:14
All LatD players should just convert to Counts As Guard armies and stop complaining.

Like that's going to happen. They want a frickin' Marines-Guard-Daemon combo army, the beardy gits!

owen matthew
30-05-2008, 18:26
Originally Posted by Ozendorph
And how exactly was your wallet raped, nerd? Were you forced to purchase the book at slide-rule point?

best single quote/retort in years. A little caustic, but I almost peed myself when I read it.

ADF
30-05-2008, 18:35
Well, to make it clear once again:

I do not want any of these lists to dissappear entirely, and I think that every army has a right to be present at least in the fluff, but I DO think that not all armies should have their own Codex, because many armies are so "same-ish" they do not deserve the associated amount of resources (full model line and designer effort) commited to them.

That said, I would vote for the abolition of the following stand-alone Codices:
SW, BA, DA, BT, all Chaos cult legions

Instead, there should be massive Codices for SM and CSM with enough internal choice and freedom to represent these factions; likelywise, there could be ways to work LatD, Speed freaks etc. in existing armies when their Codex is redone.

However, I am not against the introduction of new armies, but these have to be justified in terms of gameplay, i.e. they have to open up new "design space"! According to this criteria, the Daemon Codex did fairly well because a daemon army has a very unique style of play. In the same vein, Necrons were a poor addition to the game, just like the BT, because they are, after all, just another flavor of MEQ...

Edit: I don't want to insult anybody for his army choice; every army I've mentioned as "poor" can be rewarding to play and to play against; I just want to say that after all, everything that opens up new ways to play and poses new challenges is a better addition to the WHOLE GAME than a interesting, but similar variant of an existing army.

neophryte
30-05-2008, 18:47
Have you ever noticed that the people who bitch and moan about everything are the ones with the highest post count? I guess all that griping does get you something - a fancy title on an internet board.

I swear i am going to start of list of people who do nothing but bitch and start a thread of "ignore these people and your internet experience will be so much more enjoyable."

Okay, now that that is out of my way, do you remember Realm of Chaos? Yeah, that was the one that basically established Daemons and Chaos in 40k and Fantasy. You were allowed to mix daemons back then... granted there was a rule about animosity so things might be a problem, but it was still they have ALWAYS been allowed in the same army. In fact, they were their own army before (well, at the same time) as they were created as allies of Chaos Space Marines.

It seems like all the people bitching about how the fluff is all totally changed are only referring to 3rd edition and more recent.

As to what is the point? You are saying it would be better to have ANOTHER Space Marine codex than a new army that plays differently from all the other ones that exist? Granted, a Dark Eldar update would be nice but the daemon army is both fun to play and play against. That, I think, was "the point".

leonmallett
30-05-2008, 19:12
Have you ever noticed that the people who bitch and moan about everything are the ones with the highest post count? I guess all that griping does get you something - a fancy title on an internet board.

Are you sure about what you are saying here? Think about it a little. I think it is rare or in fact almost unknown to reference post count around here - yours is the first mention I can think of in some time. Think about the sweeping generalistion you have made, and think if it is factually accurate, please.


I swear i am going to start of list of people who do nothing but bitch and start a thread of "ignore these people and your internet experience will be so much more enjoyable."

Well as long as you don't break the rules in doing so, then fine. Don't forget you can put posters on your own ignore list.


Okay, now that that is out of my way, do you remember Realm of Chaos? Yeah, that was the one that basically established Daemons and Chaos in 40k and Fantasy. You were allowed to mix daemons back then... granted there was a rule about animosity so things might be a problem, but it was still they have ALWAYS been allowed in the same army. In fact, they were their own army before (well, at the same time) as they were created as allies of Chaos Space Marines.

It seems like all the people bitching about how the fluff is all totally changed are only referring to 3rd edition and more recent.

Good point.


As to what is the point? You are saying it would be better to have ANOTHER Space Marine codex than a new army that plays differently from all the other ones that exist? Granted, a Dark Eldar update would be nice but the daemon army is both fun to play and play against. That, I think, was "the point".

I think it goes a little wider than that. I feel there is a perception amongst some that because codex A, B or C has arrived, then that is explicitly why codex Z hasn't been done, when the truth is probably a little more complex.

kaimarion
31-05-2008, 01:59
Well at least I thought the codex was perfect , I've read every single page thoroughly(sp) and read it more than twice and all I can say is no other codex has been such a fun read.To add to that the Daemon Codex is the only codex which has been intresting enough for me to read every page.

Oh and I got the 40K Daemon Spearhead for a bargin price of Ģ80 :D .

Wraithbored
31-05-2008, 02:22
Why GW has made codex daemons? Simple two word answer: "Free army" because chaos players had a bunch of demons from before and all you need to add is a herald or two and a soulgrinder or two, and voila your army is ready.

Sidstyler
31-05-2008, 03:14
Why GW has made codex daemons? Simple two word answer: "Free army" because chaos players had a bunch of demons from before and all you need to add is a herald or two and a soulgrinder or two, and voila your army is ready.

Well technically that's not "free", you have to buy the book and those heralds/soulgrinders. :p

Rhamag
31-05-2008, 03:18
This happens everytime a codex comes out.

The "Nay sayers" creep out and defame the codex as broken, cheese, unreasonable etc. Then the "Yay sayers" jump valiantly to the defense of the new born codex. Each party presents arguments, each party ignores the other party's arguments and reiterate their position.

Then they take a hard look at each other, turn their heads and begin slap fighting in the Warseer tradition.

I guess I'm one of the Yay-Sayers. I posted in reply to the OP, and he replied to me. I then addressed his comments, and he then posted his returns. I suggested we "agree to disagree" since changing each other's minds was unlikely. He agreed. Cailus (the OP) and myself are now at peace, albeit with differing opinions. Why does this not happen more often? Why are people obsessed with "winning" a debate about games with model soldiers on the internet? X-esiv-4c speaketh the truth, IMO.


Have you ever noticed that the people who bitch and moan about everything are the ones with the highest post count? I guess all that griping does get you something - a fancy title on an internet board.

I swear i am going to start of list of people who do nothing but bitch and start a thread of "ignore these people and your internet experience will be so much more enjoyable."

Okay, now that that is out of my way, do you remember Realm of Chaos? Yeah, that was the one that basically established Daemons and Chaos in 40k and Fantasy. You were allowed to mix daemons back then... granted there was a rule about animosity so things might be a problem, but it was still they have ALWAYS been allowed in the same army. In fact, they were their own army before (well, at the same time) as they were created as allies of Chaos Space Marines.

It seems like all the people bitching about how the fluff is all totally changed are only referring to 3rd edition and more recent.

As to what is the point? You are saying it would be better to have ANOTHER Space Marine codex than a new army that plays differently from all the other ones that exist? Granted, a Dark Eldar update would be nice but the daemon army is both fun to play and play against. That, I think, was "the point".

Agreed with all of this. I do wonder why some people who post nothing but criticism of GW still play the games? How can you notch up hundreds or even thousands of posts on a forum dedicated to something you don't like? What is the point? Seriously, if anyone knows, please tell me. I'm not even having a go, being sarcastic, whatever. I'd genuinely like to know. I said as much earlier, and was indirectly branded a FanBoy because I dare to enjoy the Daemon codex (and armybook).

As for the changing background question some folks have a problem with... Why don't they realise that GW has always (in the 16 years I've been buying their products) been of the opinion that Models > Rules > Background? The background is just an excuse to play a game. If players want static background, why not play Flames of War (or any other historical wargame)? The background never gets re-written, the Axis is always the baddies, and the Allies are always the goodies (etc).


Why GW has made codex daemons? Simple two word answer: "Free army" because chaos players had a bunch of demons from before and all you need to add is a herald or two and a soulgrinder or two, and voila your army is ready.

Exactly. From the myriad posts regarding how much people think GW are ripping us off with their business strategies, you'd think that the offer of a "free army" would be enough to silence even the most diehard cynic. At the expense of a few lines of made-up FICTION in some old outdated books, you can use the same models in both of GW's main systems.


I've been reading and posting on WarSeer for a few years now, and the amount of utter crap posted has risen noticeably over the last year or so. Does anyone know any sites where it's actually okay to express a like for a GW product without being slated as a feeble-minded idiot fan-boi?

Wraithbored
31-05-2008, 03:40
Well technically that's not "free", you have to buy the book and those heralds/soulgrinders. :pOk it's free-er than all other armies out so far.



I've been reading and posting on WarSeer for a few years now, and the amount of utter crap posted has risen noticeably over the last year or so. Does anyone know any sites where it's actually okay to express a like for a GW product without being slated as a feeble-minded idiot fan-boi? I haven't found one yet, if you do please pm me asap.

TheDarkDuke
31-05-2008, 03:42
Its this simple: If you want a fluff army your given that option, if not you have that option as well.

This is beyond just complaining that something was taken away from you that you liked or what not... you can add daemons to CSM, you can do only Daemons. GW has provided us the customers 2 armies with 100x the flexibility then before while fixing the terrible balance it was before. Suck it up, its not as if this is life destroying, or life changing... whether your 8 or 80 grow up.

Captin Korea!
31-05-2008, 03:47
Like that's going to happen. They want a frickin' Marines-Guard-Daemon combo army, the beardy gits!

Ummm... all I want is a hoard of mutants with a chaos lord..? How the hell is THAT beardy? Guard are 8pt ld 6... how does that even compare to IG's standard troop?

If I want a Marines-Guard-Daemon army Ill play apoc..

malisteen
31-05-2008, 03:56
A) Units that don't belong in the same army don't belong in the same codex.

B) Chaos won't support 5+ codeces.

Therefore C) The old Chaos rivalries had to go.

I don't care how long that fluff has been there. It was bad for the game and I'm glad it's gone.

baphomael
31-05-2008, 04:00
Jeez, its almost like ogre kingdoms all over again. Just replace ogres with daemons and wood elves with dark eldar/space wolves/imperial guard/LatD/fishmen etc and there you go!

Rhamag
31-05-2008, 04:25
I haven't found one yet, if you do please pm me asap.

Will do mate. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot about WarSeer that I like, but a growing amount that I don't.


Jeez, its almost like ogre kingdoms all over again. Just replace ogres with daemons and wood elves with dark eldar/space wolves/imperial guard/LatD/fishmen etc and there you go!

This made me laugh, and not just because it's 4:30 AM and I've been drinking tequila after a 12 hour shift making pizzas for idiots. And your squid-beaked owl avatar is disturbing, but funny. Cheers.

techpriest_engineseer
31-05-2008, 04:59
hm.
i first have to say that you kind of need at least some fluff
for the game to make sense
kind of gives the armies character
which makes playing more enjoyable

the only problem i have with the codex daemons ois the lack of variation within the units.
it makes the army some what stale IMHO

but if there ever has to be a codex change..........
combine witch and daemon hunters(and add ordo xenos) and make an Inquisition codex with three lists within (general and specific units)
then make an adeptus mechanicus list

another idea is combining all the special chapters of marines (DA, BA, BT, etc.)
into one codex supplement to codex SM
each chapter has special items and such listed in their respective sections and have information that is based on them

GW is good stuff, I don't know why some people whine about it so much

DhaosAndy
31-05-2008, 05:40
malisteen: "A) Units that don't belong in the same army don't belong in the same codex."

Except that a rich variaty of daemons and CSM's DO belong in the same codex.

malisteen: "B) Chaos won't support 5+ codeces."

Prove it

malisteen: "Therefore C) The old Chaos rivalries had to go."

See above.

malisteen: "I don't care how long that Fluff has been there. It was bad for the game and I'm glad it's gone."

1/ It's my experience that fluff is elegible, background isn't.
2/ How was it bad for the game?
3/ You may well be glad, I ain't.

What has been the result of this wonderful change?

I'll tell you shall I, two codexes one of which is boring, and the other while Ok in it's self, fails to do justice to the background.

Sami
31-05-2008, 18:10
it's an awesome codex, and if you're that worried about the rivalry fluff then house rule it (it only really messes up Nurgle tbh as Tzeentch is the only shooty shooty, although you could double team Nurgle with some Slaanesh HQs/DPs).

Fluff is just that - background story. Sometimes it impacts on the game mechanics, sometimes it doesn't. Where are the rules that prevent your brand new space marine chapter from having dreads/land raiders/termis? There aren't any (no traits don't count, and they're being nuked in the new codex) because it wouldn't be any fun.

Having Khorne and Slaanesh or Nurgle and Tzeentch fighting together doesn't cause any balance issues, so the only reason to penalize people for doing so would be down to the backstory, not game design. If they did do so, Nurgle would have to gain a lot of shooting powers which would unbalance what is actually a very well put together list.

My Khorne army won't have any Slaanesh in it because I like the fluff. I don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

Richter Kless
31-05-2008, 18:19
Let me get this straight.

You would rather have LESS options than you have now, just because old (and now outdated) background says so.

I can't get my head around this. The fluff fanatics still get to have their one-god-armies and those with other approaches to the background (like me) can mix and match as they deem fit.

I declare this thread to be completely pointless, even by warseer standards.

ADF
31-05-2008, 19:57
Well, not pointless, but it has moved away from its original topic. Miles and miles away.

To comment on the fluff issue: I am amazed everytime one of the Fluffists complains about having MORE options then there are in the fluff. If you are truly so interested in a correct representation of the background, just don't take the damn options, and leave them alone for somebody else. I think it's a silly mix of envy and "correctness" that leads these people to deny others their options just because they think that they aren't "correct".

DhaosAndy
31-05-2008, 20:39
Alright then on topic, to answer the OP, yes the daemon codex is fundamentaly pointless. It contains nothing that should not have been in the CSM codex.

Off topic, fluff = lint or other nameless fibres, usualy found in inconvienient places. Background = what the game is about.

While I'm off topic I may as well chuck this in. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to mix and match, but if you go outside of the background you should be penalised. You should not need to do so. Likewise I don't say that if you stick to the background you should recieve bonuses, but you should not be penalised. The 3.5 CSM codex was far from perfect, but it did allow you to mix and match just not in a way that contradicted the background, mostly.

IMHO the 3.5 codex had problems Thousand sons for one, sorcerers needing to take powerfists was a bit daft, but that's less of a stretch than the current codex with thousand sons unable to take tzeentch daemons but able to take obliterators/raptors, etc. Utter twaddle.

Kurisu313
31-05-2008, 21:37
Alright then on topic, to answer the OP, yes the daemon codex is fundamentaly pointless. It contains nothing that should not have been in the CSM codex.

Off topic, fluff = lint or other nameless fibres, usualy found in inconvienient places. Background = what the game is about.

While I'm off topic I may as well chuck this in. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to mix and match, but if you go outside of the background you should be penalised. You should not need to do so. Likewise I don't say that if you stick to the background you should recieve bonuses, but you should not be penalised. The 3.5 CSM codex was far from perfect, but it did allow you to mix and match just not in a way that contradicted the background, mostly.

IMHO the 3.5 codex had problems Thousand sons for one, sorcerers needing to take powerfists was a bit daft, but that's less of a stretch than the current codex with thousand sons unable to take tzeentch daemons but able to take obliterators/raptors, etc. Utter twaddle.


Umm...what stopped you from including raptors and obliterators in a thousand sons army in the 3.5ed codex? Perhaps I'm wrong, but couldn't you do that?

I'm a big fan of generic daemons. There are supposed to be an infinite array of daemons all with wildly differing characteristics, which, IMO are better represented by a generic statline. I would have liked a FA daemon choice for fleshhounds, furies, etc, though - y'know, 'hunting' or 'winged' daemons. Your thousand sons ARE summoning tzeentchian daemons, they're just not LOC's, horrors, flamers or screamers.

ALL the codexes are fundamentally pointless. This is a hobby. If a codex brings fun and enjoyment, then its doing its job. IMO, the daemon codex is ace, therefore justifying its own point. If enough people agree, then it has its point, its right to exist, if you will.

-By the way, is that not arbaal the undefeated's flesh hound in your avatar? I'm looking at my own DP converted from him right now. I'd have thought you'd have more sympathy for a daemons-only codex, brother ;)

susu.exp
31-05-2008, 21:49
Deamons are a new army? They were playable under 2nd Ed. (and AFAIK under RT as well), the black Codex had a Chaos list that allowed pure Deamons and the 2nd Ed. Codex, where Chaos became CSM had them as an appendix list (the very fun to play deamon world list). In 3.5 pure Deamons were a one trick pony build (DP + Deamons, aka the deamon bomb). Now pure Deamons are neither an afterthought, nor an abusive list. 2nd Ed did have no rivalery in the black codex, it got into the rules with Codex Chaos. Still you could build poly-god lists. 3.5 got rid of that, but again: it was a build that wasnīt that cool.

Now, hellebore has pretty much summed it up, but itīs worth repeating: The option to mix and match is not a requirement to mix and match. Iīve got some Tseentch stuff lying around and I really like the new Bloodletter models and I did feel a bit queasy about fluff justfications. Then I read the story of Skarbrand and thought, well if the LOC is the agent of Tseentch who misled him, this could be a warband right after his action. And so Iīll convert me a good Skarbrand model and get some of those lovely 'letters...

The book actually ups my hopes for LatD in the future (given their history LatD was the classical Chaos build that got more love than deamons after 2nd Ed.). People had DB armies they couldnīt really use with C:CSM 4 and in Warhammer they had armies based on the storm of Chaos list. So this fits right in with support for the existing armies. And thatīs a good thing, because people have LatD armies. DE, IG and SWs will get their books in time. Some are on the horizon even now, with rumors on Guard and SW already around.

DhaosAndy
31-05-2008, 23:50
Kurisu313: "Umm...what stopped you from including raptors and obliterators in a thousand sons army in the 3.5ed codex? Perhaps I'm wrong, but couldn't you do that?"

Models that couldn't take a mark of tzeentch were specificaly excluded.

Kurisu313: "I'm a big fan of generic daemons. There are supposed to be an infinite array of daemons all with wildly differing characteristics, which, IMO are better represented by a generic statline. I would have liked a FA daemon choice for fleshhounds, furies, etc, though - y'know, 'hunting' or 'winged' daemons. Your thousand sons ARE summoning tzeentchian daemons, they're just not LOC's, horrors, flamers or screamers."

Well, good for you, personally I would have content with a generic stat line + an optional mark and an FA choice that could be upgraded to either flying or cav + optional mark, the option too take a LOC would also have been good. That would not have been ideal, but it would have done.

As far as I'm concerned it's not a tzeenctch daemon unless it's, of a recognised tzeentch daemon type or it carries the MOT.

As far as existing as a seperate codex, I have no problem with daemons being in a seperate book, my problem is that the daemons can't be mixed with CSM & LATD, possibly because the design team was too lazy or unable to sort out the balance issues. As a result chaos, which should be the most varied army of all, has less variaty than the wretched imperial inquisition codexes.

As to the avatar, its the upper half of aarbals flesh hounds head, atop a minotaur lords lower jaw (it's a converted WE daemon prince by the name of Krieghund).

@ susu: Until 3rd ed daemons were always playable either seperatly or combined with CSM/traitors/cultists/renagades. It is this variaty that I originally found so attractive about chaos. The fact that this is no longer possible is what I dislike so much about the curent trend. Hopefully the design team will eventually come full circle, until then it's the company and the painting/modelling side that are keeping me in the hobby not the uninspiring lists.

malisteen
01-06-2008, 00:01
Prove it.

Don't get me wrong. I would love 5 codeces for chaos. But unless each separate power gets its own codex, then I personally cannot be happy about any fluff or rules that says the various forces of chaos will refuse to work with each other. If they won't work with each other, they shouldn't be in the same codex. If they must be in the same codex, the fluff should be changed to make them willing to work with each other.

Let the daemons war amongst each other in the warp - once they get to the material plane it's time to harvest as many souls as possible before the gap closes - warpside rivalries can wait.

At least, to me, that's the best way of doing it if you're going to put forces of the various factions in the same codex.



So if we ever get 5 different codeces for chaos? fine, keep that fluff about the chaos gods hating each other more then the emperor, to the extent their units turn on each other on sight even in the middle of battle against a common enemy. Sure.

But, again, if the various chaos alignments are present in the same codex, there shouldn't be some Ballistic Skill stigma against fielding them in the same army.

susu.exp
01-06-2008, 00:42
@ susu: Until 3rd ed daemons were always playable either seperatly or combined with CSM/traitors/cultists/renagades. It is this variaty that I originally found so attractive about chaos. The fact that this is no longer possible is what I dislike so much about the curent trend. Hopefully the design team will eventually come full circle, until then it's the company and the painting/modelling side that are keeping me in the hobby not the uninspiring lists.

Yes, but the mixing stopped with 2nd Ed. Codex Chaos, where CSM became the focus (Summoned Daemons were still in, but Cultists and CSM would be "opponents permission", as well as some of the Daemon options. Thatīs actually no different from today). I actually think the new Codex CSM is less generic than the 3.5 version, because it doesnīt restrict armies as much. Then again I play a renegade Nurgle Battle Company and found it hard to explain why all the devastators were gone and the Assault marines had been posessed (now I can put MoN on Raptors and can include Heavy weapons). I did lose my Nurglings, but most changes were for the better. There have been complaints about blandness since Eldar came out. And I donīt see that at all. Weīve lost sublists and gained far more malleable main lists. You can still build pretty good cult lists (Thousand sons suffered, but Tseentch didnīt IMHO. The Changer of the Ways didnīt only grab a single legion and why shouldnīt there be Tseentch Oblits? If you want to stick to 1000 Sons, donīt use them) and if you donīt want one of the legions and make up something on your own, you can do it as well. The Clan sublists are gone from Orks, and we got a Codex which allows for Bad Moon lists closer to the Fluff than the sublist did. My Adeptuz Mekkanikuz certainly became far easier to represent.

You can mix and match between Codices: As long as your opponent allows you to do so. Iīll be happy to face such an army and Iīm also happy that it comes with this restriction. 5 DP armies? Lash + Masque with Berzerkers? I can see some builds that are WAAC and really mess with the fluff. A codex is a book of background, artwork, rules for competitive games and guidelines for narrative games.

swordwind
01-06-2008, 02:39
Making daemons separate from Chaos Space Marines? Yeah, I suppose I can kinda wrap my head around that. Not to happy with the obvious tactic of getting fans to pay twice for the same product (New Directors Special Cut Final Edition Codex, featuring deleted fluff, developers commentaries and exclusive artwork in a limited edition collectors tin! Yours for just Ģ40!) but I can wrap my head around that too. Not making them compatible with Chaos Marines though? WTF? It would be like writing Codex: Macragge Defence Force and not making them compatible with Ultramarines. Codex: Army incompatable with Codex: Guns.

Occulto
01-06-2008, 03:16
As a result chaos, which should be the most varied army of all, has less variaty than the wretched imperial inquisition codexes.

That's a double edged statement there.

Plenty of players enjoy the ability to mix 'n' match chaos gods within the same list. I found the focus on the original legions to be very one dimensional and produced too many lists that were nigh on indistinguishable. There's not much variety when every Khorne player fields every unit in multiples of 8.

Since my first foray into Chaos, I've always tried to include a range of options. It s*** me to tears how impossible it was to play a marked list without being forced to take 1ksons, EC, DG or WE.

V3.5 just showed how messed up trying to include 8 armylists in one codex could be. The rules they did have for the legions were one dimensional and boiled down to cliched "25 words of less" descriptions. These armies deserve more than just rearranging the force chart. For that reason I'm happy there's less focus on the Legions - it leaves the door open for follow up publications.

At the rate they're doing SM, GW's not going to have a lot of cheap MEQ releases up their sleeves to pad out the current cycle. Once 'nilla SM is released, there's BA and SW to go.

A couple of plastic EC & WE sprues + plastic daemonettes & bloodletters = the ingredients for a Slaanesh/Khorne Cult codex?

Lister of Smee
01-06-2008, 03:47
I think that GW is being lazy when it comes to chaos.
The lost and damned, supposadly the most common chaos force is impossible to field in a normal game. Renegade Guardsmen with zombies and mutants, whats so bad about that?
Plauge Marines with nurglings beside them, Iron Warriors with artillary and word bearars with daemons or cultists; all of these are now impossible.

An independant Daemon codex is perfect for Fantasy but it does not work in 40k as it stops a player fielding a balanced chaos force with a bit of everything.

I hope that it will be possible to field blood pact, legions or mutants in some future codex but right now my only hope is forge world.

The pestilent 1
01-06-2008, 04:08
Last I checked, The Avatar of Khaine was one to a craftworld, Eldrad is dead and Abaddon the Despoiler hardly has the time to fight in your 1000pt tournament.


What's the difference between special characters (and "Rare" non special ones) and the Daemon Rivalry being played down for game balance exactly?

Znail
01-06-2008, 05:12
I like both the CSM and the Daemon codexes. Both have lots of varity and units to pick from. Its obvious that it they had been released as a single book then alot of that varity would be gone. So there is a great advantage now with us having up to date rules for lots of Daemons that can be included in your CSM as well as long as the opponent doesnt object. There are also Apocalype, multiple detachment or custom rules like using the rules from Kroot mercs to add a small number of extra units.

Plastic Rat
01-06-2008, 05:35
Let me get this straight.

You would rather have LESS options than you have now, just because old (and now outdated) background says so.

I can't get my head around this. The fluff fanatics still get to have their one-god-armies and those with other approaches to the background (like me) can mix and match as they deem fit.

That 'old' and 'outdated' background of which you speak is the reason many of us play this game. It's as iconic as the Batcave, R2D2s warbling sounds and vampires hating sunlight.

Imagine if you simply changed all of those things to allow more 'freedom'? Batman doesn't need to be stuck operating from a cave, he can have a roving, floating superfortress flying around the city from which he can drop clones of Robin and himself onto any badguy. YEAH!

R2D2 suddenly becomes capable of full speech and can have long boring conversations with Luke, C3PO and everyone else. Awesome.

Or they bring out a vampire movie, and flat out ignore the lore that vampires hate sunlight, cause that like gives them more freedom, no?

Fluff imposes limits on the game, and it's those limits that define that game and make it what it is. Otherwise we might as well just go off and play tiddlywinks.

dblaz3r
01-06-2008, 05:49
Or they bring out a vampire movie, and flat out ignore the lore that vampires hate sunlight, cause that like gives them more freedom, no?

*cough*van helsing*cough*

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
01-06-2008, 05:52
long quote...

Sure legion lists were similar, because that's how those legions are *supposed* to be. Death Guard fought using mostly infantry and not many rhinos. So they couldn't have bikes or raptors. It made sense, it made me think, "Yes, this is a Death Guard army. Not a generic nurgle army." It limited options in a way that made sense and respected the background, which is the reason I like the game.

Now is it better that a lot of players can take 2 lash DP's, plague marines, and obliterators? How is that army represenative of any chaos force? Since when do multiple DP's go trouncing around, let along Slaaneshi DP's with plague marines?

I'm glad the new codex lets you take a marked force that is not THAT legion, but it does so at the expense of ALL the legions.

The rules may not have been very good. Hell, the rules for the Iron Warriors were just plain broken. But they nudged players towards background friendly lists. So the legion lists respected the rich, interesting background (which is why I play the game). But now it is totally ignored in favor of simpler rules.

DhaosAndy
01-06-2008, 06:05
malisteen: "If they won't work with each other, they shouldn't be in the same codex. If they must be in the same codex, the Fluff should be changed to make them willing to work with each other."

Well as I understood it, the 3.5 dex allowed just that, you could mix up marks pretty much as you liked, unless you were playing one of the legions.

My understanding of the background is that the forces of the gods can only be united fully under a leader of the like Horus or Abaddon, the fear of whom is great enough for them to put aside their rivalry.

susu: "Yes, but the mixing stopped with 2nd Ed."

Not really, between the LATD list and the 3.5 dex. one could have a list with real variety and character. It wasn't perfect, it could have been improved upon, instead it was abandoned, probably as to difficult to do. Instead we got that wretched document, which should be rechristened codex naughty SM.

Occulto: "Since my first foray into Chaos, I've always tried to include a range of options. It s*** me to tears how impossible it was to play a marked list without being forced to take 1ksons, EC, DG or WE."

One of the improvements that the 3.5 dex could have done with was an icon system like that used in the 4.0 dex. I just think removing the ability to play a legion list at all is to great a price to pay.

Znail: "I like both the CSM and the Daemon codexes."

Like I said, the daemon codex is OK and if you could combine the daemons with CSM at least you could play some sort of legion list, at least for the cult legions (which is mainly what concerns me).

Plastic Rat: "That 'old' and 'outdated' background of which you speak is the reason many of us play this game."

QFT

dblaz3r
01-06-2008, 06:06
Its a facial tissue made by kleenex :D But no, I don't. I was just reading your post and had watched that movie on tv last night, so thought I'd try my hand at being a joker. Obviously never going to make it as a comedian :cries: I'll be quiet now.

Occulto
02-06-2008, 02:49
Sure legion lists were similar, because that's how those legions are *supposed* to be. Death Guard fought using mostly infantry and not many rhinos. So they couldn't have bikes or raptors. It made sense, it made me think, "Yes, this is a Death Guard army. Not a generic nurgle army." It limited options in a way that made sense and respected the background, which is the reason I like the game.

I actually think Death Guard were one of the better set of rules, but still fell way short of what they deserved.

I guess that's the problem I have with 3.5 - yes, the number of options available were huge but the "theme by restriction" meant that you could end up with a list that was barely more detailed than the current Chaos codex.

I'm still firmly in the camp that (for example) Nightlords should be as different to Black Legion as Templars are to Dark Angels. I didn't see that in v3.5 and I'm glad they didn't even try with the latest codex.


Now is it better that a lot of players can take 2 lash DP's, plague marines, and obliterators? How is that army represenative of any chaos force? Since when do multiple DP's go trouncing around, let along Slaaneshi DP's with plague marines?

IMHO, it's a side of Chaos that's been seriously neglected - the shattered warbands.

The thing is, everyone's got their particular vision of Chaos - be it Daemons, Legions, Renegades or LaTD. Where it all falls down is trying to cram all of it in one book - because inevitably all that happens is a bunch of stats with no background.

Think of what everyone wants and think of how it could practically be done. Unless they released a 400 page codex with everything in it in one go, someone's going to feel left out.


I'm glad the new codex lets you take a marked force that is not THAT legion, but it does so at the expense of ALL the legions.

Only if you assume this codex is the beginning and end of Chaos SM.

I, for one, am happy that GW seem to be covering the generic basic codices before getting funky with sub-lists. That was the problem with 3rd ed - Nids were using the list from the rulebook while Eldar was getting Craftworld lists. They didn't finish giving every army a codex before introducing the sub-codices.


The rules may not have been very good. Hell, the rules for the Iron Warriors were just plain broken. But they nudged players towards background friendly lists. So the legion lists respected the rich, interesting background (which is why I play the game). But now it is totally ignored in favor of simpler rules.

Again, I think by cramming everything into one book they're doing that background a real disservice. When I look at v3.5 I see one page for each Legion. That's hardly representative of so much history. It's also why so many Legion lists ended up being one dimensional attempts to use every unique rule in the one list.

Night Lords are more than just Raptors - but that became their de facto theme. Why? Because if you started playing NL with v3.5 that's probably all you knew about them.

TheMav80
02-06-2008, 06:04
I love the Daemon armies (for fantasy and 40K). I'm not interested in Marines or Mortals at all.

So to me, the point was giving me a great army that plays differently from every other army in two different games. Two different games for which 90% of the models are interchangable. Which means I can get two full armies at almost half the cost.

Seems like a pretty good point to me.

cailus
02-06-2008, 07:09
Again, I think by cramming everything into one book they're doing that background a real disservice. When I look at v3.5 I see one page for each Legion. That's hardly representative of so much history. It's also why so many Legion lists ended up being one dimensional attempts to use every unique rule in the one list.

Night Lords are more than just Raptors - but that became their de facto theme. Why? Because if you started playing NL with v3.5.

And Blood Angels are more than just Death Company but many BA players focus on beefing up their DC squads.

Ravenwing are more than Assault Marines but that became their de facto theme too.

People will always go for a de facto theme because most can't be arsed thinking about the theme too much and like to field powerful options. Hence Iron Warriors became min-maxed heavy weapons + Oblits + Ordnance.

3.5 at least had the legions. The 4th edition chaos codex doesn't have next to anything in terms of fluff- it's merely a mishmash of bits and pieces. In fact the one conclusion you can get from the new Chaos codex is that most chaos armies are warbands with units from many different chapters with no purpose or direction save mindless slaughter and power. At least the 3.5 codex tried to change some of that.

This is reflected in real life with many new Chaos armies following the themeless and totally boring formula of Lash Prince, Death Guard, Oblits and Berzerkers.

The new Chaos codex simply gutted the background in favour of a one size fits all formula. The Daemon Codex further enforces this idea.

The background becomes even more pointless as it has no in-game effects and is just some nice extra reading in addition to your army list. In fact the background is becoming so redundant that they might as well include CD reviews and interviews with politicians in place of the background.

Occulto
02-06-2008, 08:58
And Blood Angels are more than just Death Company but many BA players focus on beefing up their DC squads.

Ravenwing are more than Assault Marines but that became their de facto theme too.

I'd be very curious how Ravenwing got associated with Assault Marines! :)

I presume you mean Ravenguard - and yes, they suffer from the same syndrome as the Legions. A couple of lame rules, a character and... well that's it isn't it? Not much to work with.

The undivided Chaos Legions (in particular) didn't get much more than that.


People will always go for a de facto theme because most can't be arsed thinking about the theme too much and like to field powerful options. Hence Iron Warriors became min-maxed heavy weapons + Oblits + Ordnance.

Those ideas were fairly heavily reinforced by the majority. I still remember reading an Alpha Legion player being told that Terminators are too "loud" to be part of a themed list. Apparently somewhere between the Heresy and the 41st millenium they lost all their terminator suits. (Or do anything besides sneak around...)


3.5 at least had the legions. The 4th edition chaos codex doesn't have next to anything in terms of fluff- it's merely a mishmash of bits and pieces. In fact the one conclusion you can get from the new Chaos codex is that most chaos armies are warbands with units from many different chapters with no purpose or direction save mindless slaughter and power. At least the 3.5 codex tried to change some of that.

It had the Legions, but I ask what's worse? Getting crap rules or no rules at all?

As a Chaos player, I was almost sickened at some of the comments I read when the latest codex was released. Hearing players say they would've been happy with the smallest scraps just to make their army "different".

Just a +1 here and a veteran skill there... :rolleyes:

Ironic that on one hand the codex was being slammed for being bland, yet so many were making demands for bland special rules so that the codex would technically cover the Legions.

I want Iron Warriors or Alpha Legion with unique wargear, psychic powers, weapons, units, daemon engines... the full kit. If GW are not going to do them right, then don't bother doing them at all.


This is reflected in real life with many new Chaos armies following the themeless and totally boring formula of Lash Prince, Death Guard, Oblits and Berzerkers.

That's not the fault of the codex. Any codex ends up being distilled down to the "most efficient" build. From everything I've read about 5th ed, I don't think that list is going to be as powerful at all (or it'll be easily countered by other combinations).


The new Chaos codex simply gutted the background in favour of a one size fits all formula. The Daemon Codex further enforces this idea.

The background becomes even more pointless as it has no in-game effects and is just some nice extra reading in addition to your army list. In fact the background is becoming so redundant that they might as well include CD reviews and interviews with politicians in place of the background.

Rubbish. When did fluff become pointless if it didn't have an in game +1 modifier or a 0-1 restriction? I missed that memo.

Players complained about losing Blood Frenzy on their Berzerkers saying they'd lost detail/flavour, but suggestions that they play aggressively (by choice) was supposedly not good enough. If you roll a dice for it, it's themed. If you do it voluntarily, it's not.

Plastic Rat
02-06-2008, 09:28
Rubbish. When did fluff become pointless if it didn't have an in game +1 modifier or a 0-1 restriction? I missed that memo.

Players complained about losing Blood Frenzy on their Berzerkers saying they'd lost detail/flavour, but suggestions that they play aggressively (by choice) was supposedly not good enough. If you roll a dice for it, it's themed. If you do it voluntarily, it's not.

Yeah, this conversation always seems to come up a lot. As I've said before, the reason I believe we SHOULD have as much fluff as possible reflected in the rules, is to create a sense of immersion in the game. A feeling that their is some verisimilitude in the rules. Something that ties the fluff and the game together into a neat package. Otherwise you end up with the problem we have today where most people are playing the rules and not the game.

Lash of Submission? How do you actually SEE that happening in your head? How does it go towards creating a spontaneous and engrossing story on the tabletop? We seem to have more and more rules that reward players for creating impossible or improbable situations on the tabletop.

I really struggle to understand how people can happily separate the game and the fluff like this.

EarlGrey
02-06-2008, 09:36
People will always go for a de facto theme because most can't be arsed thinking about the theme too much and like to field powerful options. Hence Iron Warriors became min-maxed heavy weapons + Oblits + Ordnance.


Perhaps the problem you're having is that you play with people who don't want to put in the effort to create a fun and interesting army?



3.5 at least had the legions. The 4th edition chaos codex doesn't have next to anything in terms of fluff- it's merely a mishmash of bits and pieces. In fact the one conclusion you can get from the new Chaos codex is that most chaos armies are warbands with units from many different chapters with no purpose or direction save mindless slaughter and power. At least the 3.5 codex tried to change some of that.


Have you read the Chaos Space Marine Codex? It's definatly a bit more than that.
Legions were what, a couple of special rules and a straightjacket? Armies were far similar back in 3.5 compared with 4.0 in my experience. The use of icons is really a big thing when it comes to customisation and themeing of the army, something that 3.5 just can't compete with.

For example: A Plague army.
3.5 - you're stuck with Death Guard. No heavy weapons, and all the other restrictions.
4.0 - you can have Nurgle bikers, raptors, heavy weapons, etc, etc. VARIETY! :)




This is reflected in real life with many new Chaos armies following the themeless and totally boring formula of Lash Prince, Death Guard, Oblits and Berzerkers.


Again, find some people with an imagination?



The new Chaos codex simply gutted the background in favour of a one size fits all formula. The Daemon Codex further enforces this idea.


The big change is the focus on warbands. After 10,000 years the old Chaos Legions are going to have become far more fragmented than they were originally. This makes sense, especially as they've advanced the timeline a bit.
Aside from that, the background is almost identical by comparison. Chaos is still Chaos.



The background becomes even more pointless as it has no in-game effects and is just some nice extra reading in addition to your army list. In fact the background is becoming so redundant that they might as well include CD reviews and interviews with politicians in place of the background.

The background is not supposed to straightjacket your army like Occulto said, but be a guide on how you can perhaps theme your army from the very broad army list given. By keeping things open you enable far more variety.

Royal Tiger
02-06-2008, 09:48
Yes, exactly...
In my opinion, the fault here lies patially on the player's side: The players demand from GW that they support EVERY army they EVER brought out until the universe explodes
you mean like every other game company that actually listens to its players does?

I personally am a great fan of the daemon codex, its the only thing in several years that GW have released that interests me

druchii
02-06-2008, 10:00
you mean like every other game company that actually listens to its players does?

I personally am a great fan of the daemon codex, its the only thing in several years that GW have released that interests me

Except that "every other game" company does this too much.

This is the same reason White Wolf ended up boiling their World of Darkness books back down to a few core books, they had too many books that tried to support every little bit the players wanted, and it got to be way too much to deal with!

Infinity (a fantastic game!) is falling into the same rut: they began with a single book filled with a ton of great miniatures with supporting rules, but soon they'll outstrip the book and force the players to get new suppliments that will further "deepen" the game. However, a few years down the road we'll begin to see too many suppliments to actually have a cohesive game.

This is something that I think GW has been brilliant about: Reigning in all the "other crap" people are demanding from them. After a while it gets to be too much for both the player and company to handle. I'm happy with a fairly (not too much, mind you) limited pool of choices.

d
ps. A great example of where this sort of "gimmie this, gimmie that!" mentality went horribly wrong was Mordheim: The core book and it's warbands were fantastic, fluffy and balanced, but the more warbands they produced (wheather it be through the black gobbo, or town cryer) the more redundant, convoluted and over powered they became.

Mullitron
02-06-2008, 11:16
I like the new army book and codex, it allows players to field a full daemon army. The gods have worked together and worked apart and the new army list allows players to easily field a mix or monogod army list. The chaos space marine book still allows deamons to be taken with them but to stop them having the best of both worlds there slightly towned down.

Killgore
02-06-2008, 11:58
Now is it better that a lot of players can take 2 lash DP's, plague marines, and obliterators? How is that army represenative of any chaos force? Since when do multiple DP's go trouncing around, let along Slaaneshi DP's with plague marines?

I'm glad the new codex lets you take a marked force that is not THAT legion, but it does so at the expense of ALL the legions.

The rules may not have been very good. Hell, the rules for the Iron Warriors were just plain broken. But they nudged players towards background friendly lists. So the legion lists respected the rich, interesting background (which is why I play the game). But now it is totally ignored in favor of simpler rules.


no one is forcing those people to use 2 lash princes and plague marines, people who do this are often the waac gamers, and as we all know there are 3 different camps of gamers who play 40k, the people who use odd combinations that are fun to them without the desire to win, the power gamers and the background gamers



i firmly believe that the old 3.5 lists where terrible and pigeon holed to many gamers in what they believe repersents a true legion list, personaly im of the opinion that Deathguard still have things such as raptor packs in their forces, bringing pestulence and death from the sky as well as the ability to use heavy bolters in their troop units..... the new 4th ed codex can make a much better legion list then the 3.5 codex ever did.

VikingThor
02-06-2008, 13:01
Chaos can not be defined, or understood by conventional human beings. When you think you are able to do so, you have obviously been corrupted and can expect a visit from the local Ordos. We think we understand the strife and emnitiy between the chaos gods, but we are short sighted, and foolish. And war makes for strange bedfellows. So Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other....doesn't mean they won't team up to bring a whoopin' on some hapless 3rd party.

Ambu
02-06-2008, 15:17
That 'old' and 'outdated' background of which you speak is the reason many of us play this game. It's as iconic as the Batcave, R2D2s warbling sounds and vampires hating sunlight.

Imagine if you simply changed all of those things to allow more 'freedom'?

If you want to talk about this fact, lets think of what Chaos means.

Chaos:
1obsolete : chasm, abyss
2 aoften capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms — compare cosmos b: the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a: a state of utter confusion <the blackout caused chaos throughout the city> b: a confused mass or mixture <a chaos of television antennas>

So If Chaos wants to use CSM (remember, they are the servants od Chaos, not the other way around) they will, if a warp rift opens up and it wants to pour nothing but tons of Daemons and nothing else through it sure, and if the Chaos Gods all want to team up who is stopping them. Just because Chaos does one thing one time doesnt mean it'll do it a second, thus I believe the two new codexes ALLOW that better.

If Chaos wished for R2D2 to speak and have long boring conversations, wouldn't that be unpredicable extreame, hey then it fits right in.

Yes Background is important but that is what is BRILLIANT about Chaos, it is evershifting at a whim, thus allowing the players to create there own fluff. Thus it ties them to there army that much more.

And as far as what everyone says about the gods and they shouldn't work together let me leave you with this tidbit. An Enemy of my Enemy is a Friend even if he is my Enemy. Our RL history is filled with Enimies working together to take down a common one.



The new Chaos codex simply gutted the background in favour of a one size fits all formula. The Daemon Codex further enforces this idea.

The background becomes even more pointless as it has no in-game effects and is just some nice extra reading in addition to your army list. In fact the background is becoming so redundant that they might as well include CD reviews and interviews with politicians in place of the background.

See above about about the term Chaos in general.

Also for another part in your comment above that I deleated but the new CSM codex allows the General make his army that best suits his tactics. Yes you are going to see alot of min-maxing armies but regardless what is put out, with what ever rules you are going to get that.

For every Developer/Play-tester that creates/refines a rule, there are 10 players looking for a way to abuse that rule for their advantage. It is in every game single game that allows any sort of freedoms with its rules. If you have a problem with that, play a game with exact, straight-forward, defined rules that is 100% for every player. I suggest Monopoly......


Chaos can not be defined, or understood by conventional human beings. When you think you are able to do so, you have obviously been corrupted and can expect a visit from the local Ordos. We think we understand the strife and emnitiy between the chaos gods, but we are short sighted, and foolish. And war makes for strange bedfellows. So Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other....doesn't mean they won't team up to bring a whoopin' on some hapless 3rd party.


Amen!!!!

Darth Rubi
02-06-2008, 16:39
I've figured it out...

GW is trying to corner the under 5's and preteen market by maxing out the number of bright colours in each chaos army, so:

Whereas before, you had to build, say, a "Death Guard" army it would plain green (Yawn!), now everyone does mix'n'match to get an EC/DG/WE/1kSONS army consisting of pink AND green AND blue AND bright red! YAY!

And now we get codex daemons because why have 90% of the surface area of the models be BRIGHT RED when we can have it at 100% ?

leonmallett
02-06-2008, 17:43
I've figured it out...

GW is trying to corner the under 5's and preteen market by maxing out the number of bright colours in each chaos army, so:

Whereas before, you had to build, say, a "Death Guard" army it would plain green (Yawn!), now everyone does mix'n'match to get an EC/DG/WE/1kSONS army consisting of pink AND green AND blue AND bright red! YAY!

And now we get codex daemons because why have 90% of the surface area of the models be BRIGHT RED when we can have it at 100% ?

:rolleyes:

I love that those posting comments like this don't recognise that the Daemons army is presumably popular with many hobbyists, including older or 'veteran' gamers like myself. In essence comments such as this are pretty insulting, not so much toward GW (since the design studio and company bossses as a whole largely won't be reading them), but to those who enjoy the hobby and enjoy what the Daemons army offers to the hobby.

gorgon
02-06-2008, 17:51
Darth, I'm still considering building my "Chaos Skittles" army. Berzerkers would be cherry (red), Plague Marines would be lime (green)...you get the picture. Their shoulder pad emblem would be a big white "S", and their war cry would be "Taste the rainbow!"

Of course, the daemons would be represented by featureless miniature blanks painted white with "DAEMON" written in black block letters on their chests... :D

TheDarkDuke
02-06-2008, 17:55
As far as existing as a seperate codex, I have no problem with daemons being in a seperate book, my problem is that the daemons can't be mixed with CSM & LatD, possibly because the design team was too lazy or unable to sort out the balance issues. As a result chaos, which should be the most varied army of all, has less variaty than the wretched imperial inquisition codexes.

Lets look at this a little bit... as GW has had this before and proved to be well a terrible set up. Where you ask... in Fantasy. You ended up with 3 Chaos books, all three seriously underpowered on their own preventing anyone from having a competitive army of only one faction. This creates very few useful items, and units, and in general there are very few advantages. 3 Books that are interchangeable have to be underpowered on there own or it becomes a horrible over powered combo books.

On the reverse the last Chaos Codex showed why supplemental lists, or alterations to FOC with some special rules on 2 pages resulted in again terribly designed armies when it came to gameplay. Yes fluff wise these things are great, but at some point gameplay and fluff have to be separated.

Like I posted earlier, gameplay is becoming far more balanced, and if the gamer wants to mix, or theme that option is there. Result more flexibility and a better product for everyone. If you don't want that, then go create your own system and run it into the ground.

DhaosAndy
02-06-2008, 18:31
TheDarkDuke: "Lets look at this a little bit... as GW has had this before and proved to be well a terrible set up. Where you ask... in Fantasy. You ended up with 3 Chaos books, all three seriously underpowered on their own preventing anyone from having a competitive army of only one faction. This creates very few useful items, and units, and in general there are very few advantages. 3 Books that are interchangeable have to be underpowered on there own or it becomes a horrible over powered combo books."

Yes, lets look. The mortals and beasts books where the best treatment of chaos, in fantasy, since LATD, had they simply replaced the daemon entries in those books with the appropriate reference to the daemon book all would have been well. That would have been sensible, sadly they didn't do it that way. They decided to stamp all over the background in 40K and in warhammer. Oh, and the final sentence in the above quote is just twaddle (the PG13 rating prevents a more accurate description).

TheDarkDuke: "On the reverse the last Chaos Codex showed why supplemental lists, or alterations to FOC with some special rules on 2 pages resulted in again terribly designed armies when it came to gameplay. Yes fluff wise these things are great, but at some point gameplay and fluff have to be separated."

At which juncture there is no point in playing, the rules are just vehicles for the background, which is itself an excuse to buy and build cool models. So we disagree completely there too.

TheDarkDuke: "Like I posted earlier, gameplay is becoming far more balanced, and if the gamer wants to mix, or theme that option is there. Result more flexibility and a better product for everyone."

Yeah, inwhich aspect of the multiverse? :rolleyes: More balanced, are you having a laugh? Double lash prince + oblits & plague marines too taste is balanced? Tri falcon, clown spam is balanced? I'll grant you we're getting less of that kind of thing, but that's only because the variaty is being removed from the lists, which is chucking the baby out with the bath water.
I'll grant you, you can mix and match, but theme, no. I've had to retire my WE & TS for the life of this codex because I'm not going to break my theme, and I'm not going to play an army that has 1 troop choice, 1 elite choice and 3HQ's to choose from.

TheDarkDuke: "If you don't want that, then go create your own system and run it into the ground."

When I want your advice, I'll ask you for it.

Darth Rubi
02-06-2008, 22:35
:rolleyes:

I love that those posting comments like this don't recognise that the Daemons army is presumably popular with many hobbyists, including older or 'veteran' gamers like myself. In essence comments such as this are pretty insulting, not so much toward GW (since the design studio and company bossses as a whole largely won't be reading them), but to those who enjoy the hobby and enjoy what the Daemons army offers to the hobby.


Darth, I'm still considering building my "Chaos Skittles" army. Berzerkers would be cherry (red), Plague Marines would be lime (green)...you get the picture. Their shoulder pad emblem would be a big white "S", and their war cry would be "Taste the rainbow!"

Of course, the daemons would be represented by featureless miniature blanks painted white with "DAEMON" written in black block letters on their chests... :D

Look, I don't have an issue with a daemons codex per se, but I think it is completely unfluffy for the norm to be a mash of all the different gods, whether it is mixing legions, or daemonettes with plaguebearers

I mean at the moment, whenever i play our local chaos marines player I get flashbacks of the fruit loops I ate that morning

Xollob
02-06-2008, 22:52
what can I say I've read a copy of the chaos army list and am dissapointed that they could not just stick it in the chaos space marines codex and call it the chaox dex but hey, as it is its going to be an army that only 3 people buy as the figures are expensive, and most often have units of deamonettes or bloodletters as allied troops in a chaos space marine army or maybe a traitor guard army

EmperorEternalXIX
02-06-2008, 23:41
My opinion is that the daemon codex is an advancement of the story. After all, according to GW's own 5th ed preview, Mankind is now officially crumbling, and part of that would be more and more demons coming into the physical plane as the Emperor's defenses begin to fail. I think the big picture makes more sense than just looking at it on its own.

Jonah_222
03-06-2008, 00:16
i like it a lot. it's cool that chaos demons get to do their own thing for a change.

cailus
03-06-2008, 06:56
It had the Legions, but I ask what's worse? Getting crap rules or no rules at all?

I'd rather the crap rules because at least they are rules and you can play with your army the way you want it to play.

I assume you also think that it's excellent that the Orks no longer have a battlewagon model because no model is better than a crap model?





As a Chaos player, I was almost sickened at some of the comments I read when the latest codex was released. Hearing players say they would've been happy with the smallest scraps just to make their army "different".

Just a +1 here and a veteran skill there... :rolleyes:

You underestimate the nature of the lists.

It wasn't a mere +1. You had basically full lists for Cult troops - specialised wargear, psychic powers, weapons, special abilities for troops and a whole range of units ranging from Cult Terminators and Bikers to Daemons and Daemonic Cavalry.

The undivided lists were for the most part restricted to a couple of items of wargear, some unit restricitions and veteran skills bu they had a bigger impact on the way the army played if you went down that road. For example the Alhpa Legion could not only infiltrate but also had Cultists as a unit choice.

At the same time if you wanted an army that fielded every type of unit, you could simply play using the basic codex. You were not restricted to using cult/legion specific lists if you didn't want to.

What the new Chaos Space Marine Codex has done is:

1.) Keep the basic Chaos list,
2.) Remove any variety in Daemons,
3.) Remove the ability to create Cult/legion specific lists,

Now tell me again how much we gained from the new codex?







I want Iron Warriors or Alpha Legion with unique wargear, psychic powers, weapons, units, daemon engines... the full kit.

You had a smaller version of it in 3.5 but it was not good enough for you.


If GW are not going to do them right, then don't bother doing them at all.

If that was the case, GW would never put out another rules publication again. :p

But seriously I'd rather a modified list than a dull boring list that is the same as everyone elses AND THAT




That's not the fault of the codex. Any codex ends up being distilled down to the "most efficient" build. From everything I've read about 5th ed, I don't think that list is going to be as powerful at all (or it'll be easily countered by other combinations).

So you admit that "straight jacketing" is a result of player's desires to have efficient lists and not because of codex restrictions.

After all with 3.5 I could still have had an Alpha Legion army that used heavy firepower, deep striking terminators as well as infiltrating marines and cultists. Or I could use a "pure" Alpha Legion force with lots of infiltrators. I also could have used the basic list to mix up my Alpha Legion with Berzerkers and Plague Marines if I wanted to.

Or I could use a Death Guard army with all units being Death Guard and backed up by Nurgle Daemons.

Now the Alpha Legion army is reduced to infiltrating chosen and then filling up with bog standard marines and the Nurgle army has Death Guard troops but the rest of the army is standard Marines with mark of Nurgle and even worse, generic Daemons.





Rubbish. When did fluff become pointless if it didn't have an in game +1 modifier or a 0-1 restriction? I missed that memo.

Fluff became pointless at the moment where they decided that it was Ok for a Slaaneeshi Lord could lead an army of Berzerkers but at the same time could not summon God specific Daemons.

It was even more blatantly obvious in the Daemon Codex which was clearly written around multi-god armies while themed God specific armies are at a distinct advantage.




Players complained about losing Blood Frenzy on their Berzerkers saying they'd lost detail/flavour, but suggestions that they play aggressively (by choice) was supposedly not good enough. If you roll a dice for it, it's themed. If you do it voluntarily, it's not.

Doing things voluntarily and playing in the spirit of the game is great but the two new Chaos codexes are blank cheques to ignore background and indeed promote playing in such a manner that background takes a backseat in favour of powerful combinations.

Occulto
03-06-2008, 08:53
I'd rather the crap rules because at least they are rules and you can play with your army the way you want it to play.

And if those crap rules don't allow you to play the army the way you want to?


I assume you also think that it's excellent that the Orks no longer have a battlewagon model because no model is better than a crap model?

I think it's excellent they didn't use up shelf space by continually stocking a horrible product that didn't sell - then point to abysmal sales records and say Orks weren't popular. No wonder Ork sales were down with those Trukks, Buggies and Bikes - crap models that were horrendously overpriced.


You underestimate the nature of the lists.

It wasn't a mere +1. You had basically full lists for Cult troops - specialised wargear, psychic powers, weapons, special abilities for troops and a whole range of units ranging from Cult Terminators and Bikers to Daemons and Daemonic Cavalry.

I'm talking about the discussions post-release where players were obsessed with the idea of Legion rules. Some people pretty much said they didn't care what rules they got as long as there was something.

"If only Iron Warriors got access to Tank Hunters..."

If that's all that it takes to make IW unique, there's a real problem


The undivided lists were for the most part restricted to a couple of items of wargear, some unit restricitions and veteran skills bu they had a bigger impact on the way the army played if you went down that road. For example the Alhpa Legion could not only infiltrate but also had Cultists as a unit choice.

And if you didn't want to play the Alpha Legion stealth army of doom?

Loyalist armies are supposedly masters of the Codex Astartes and can do anything from sabotage to seigecraft. Chaos? One tactic per legion please... unless you're Black Legion. Iron Warriors devote their time to twiddling their thumbs waiting to be invited to the next seige.


At the same time if you wanted an army that fielded every type of unit, you could simply play using the basic codex. You were not restricted to using cult/legion specific lists if you didn't want to.

What the new Chaos Space Marine Codex has done is:

1.) Keep the basic Chaos list,
2.) Remove any variety in Daemons,
3.) Remove the ability to create Cult/legion specific lists,

Now tell me again how much we gained from the new codex?

Well for one thing, it's a lot better organised. :D

Seriously though, I don't subscribe to the idea that "better" = "add yet more rules/options" - in fact I think that was the biggest downfall of v3.5. It tried to be all things to all Chaos players. Cramming NINE armylists into one book wasn't a smart move.

I believe the single most important thing we gained from the new codex was the fact it concentrated on Renegades, leaving plenty of scope for followup codices that are much more detailed.

Apparently, because I'm not jumping up and down outraged that Legions aren't specifically defined in Codex Chaos, that I'm perfectly happy for the Legions to never appear again.


You had a smaller version of it in 3.5 but it was not good enough for you.

No, it was not good enough for me. I'm not in awe of v3.5 and don't think it was the best release since Rogue Trader. I think we've established that.


If that was the case, GW would never put out another rules publication again. :p

But seriously I'd rather a modified list than a dull boring list that is the same as everyone elses AND THAT

As is your choice.


So you admit that "straight jacketing" is a result of player's desires to have efficient lists and not because of codex restrictions.

Not at all. I think it's a combination of a few things:

1) One dimensional fluff - someone starting Chaos doesn't have access to all the background that a veteran has. They haven't been reading about Chaos for the last 20 years.

2) Inflexible armylists

3) Player perception - which has become very evident with the last few releases. Apparently unless you have a special rule saying you're unique, it's impossible to be unique, even if everyone else uses the same special rules.


After all with 3.5 I could still have had an Alpha Legion army that used heavy firepower, deep striking terminators as well as infiltrating marines and cultists. Or I could use a "pure" Alpha Legion force with lots of infiltrators. I also could have used the basic list to mix up my Alpha Legion with Berzerkers and Plague Marines if I wanted to.

It's still a pretty p*** poor outcome.

With DA or BT, I have a wide range of tactics/options I can use that still make the list recognisable as DA or BT.

I just didn't see that with the Legion rules.

What I'd like to see is an armylist that allows a player to pick from a range of distinctly Alpha Legion options. Even if GW want to continue the "saboteurs" theme, writing a list should involve more decisions than: "how much infiltration/cultist units do I want?"


Now the Alpha Legion army is reduced to infiltrating chosen and then filling up with bog standard marines and the Nurgle army has Death Guard troops but the rest of the army is standard Marines with mark of Nurgle and even worse, generic Daemons.

Because it's pretty much Codex Generic CSM.

If I used Codex: SM to field a SW army, it would be cramming a square peg into a round hole and I'd come away from the experience feeling dissatisfied.

That's my point. Leave CSM as a "one size fits all" generic codex and concentrate on adding extra detail in the future. Not try to do everything remotely related to Chaos in one whiz bang release because it's too big a job. Either it'll end up being 400 pages long or it'll be the same size as one of the current codices and describe every unit using 25 words or less:

"World Eaters like killing people. They're red and gold. Now, moving onto Night Lords..."


Fluff became pointless at the moment where they decided that it was Ok for a Slaaneeshi Lord could lead an army of Berzerkers but at the same time could not summon God specific Daemons.

It was even more blatantly obvious in the Daemon Codex which was clearly written around multi-god armies while themed God specific armies are at a distinct advantage.

Well fluff changes.

IW used to be aligned to Slaanesh, Chaos Lords used to be able to take multiple marks, Tzeentch has gone back to brokering alliances between the Gods (after a little hiatus there), Khorne's followers have taken guns, lost their guns, and gone back to using guns...

While the Slaaneshi DP leading Khorne is the often repeated example (no doubt the Lash has something to do with that), if someone wants a Nurgle force that's been ensorcelled by a Tzeentch Daemon Prince then I say go for it.

As for the Daemon Codex? Yup, it was written around multi-god armies (says it in black and white in the WD designer notes). I fail to see the problem (and I have a Slaaneshi DL ready to go on the painting desk) - for those who want the easy route they can take a mix, while the purists can take mono-god lists.

It's the same with Eldar and Orks - players have the freedom to pick a mishmash of units they like or go down a very themed (and restrictive) path. I've seen some very interesting armies that would have been impossible to write without the flexibility of the current codices.


Doing things voluntarily and playing in the spirit of the game is great but the two new Chaos codexes are blank cheques to ignore background and indeed promote playing in such a manner that background takes a backseat in favour of powerful combinations.

Mate all the new codices are capable of doing that. Pick a traditional Alaitoc or Bad Moonz list and you'll find it harder to win than a generic list with a mix of everything.

Reaver83
03-06-2008, 11:30
I really liked the new codex as i could play my chaos force as it had been in 2nd Ed.

I had a khorne army, out for revenge, and they did not care from where the blood flowed, they used big guns, they used bikes, they were there to kill.
Yes I had some demons but the more I played in campaigns the more i lost interest in them.

When I rejoined the hobby and had the 3.5 codex, i was a little annoyed, I liked having my big guns and bikes etc, but no, if i wanted to be khorne i couldn't take them i couldn't even have an army of warriors, just an army of crazed loons!

The new Dex gives you the option to play as you see fit, you can craft your army to be a legion, or play as a rag tag bunch of renegades.

I think you've got to remember that if you want to play a legion you can, so you don't get wierd advantages and disadvantages, from what i saw it was restrict this, restrict that, if you want you can self impose those restrictions.

But for now i like having an army of warriors, who care not from where the blood flows!

(also demons are nice models, still assembling mine can't wait to see how they play!)

Asfaloth
03-06-2008, 12:12
@occulto: Great post!

I think the Deamon Codex and Armybook are a strike of genius. I adore both of them, great fluff, clearly different deamons and much wargear.

Brucopeloso
03-06-2008, 13:32
Maybe this is part of the long game - a trinity of army types for both Imperial and Chaos? Think about it: CSM (maybe with Traitor Legion expansion into multiple books), Daemons and hopefully LatD for the Ruinous Powers; SM (of various hues), Inquistion and IG for the Imperium. Even if that isn't a long term plan, it would offer a nice sense of symmetry, if nothing else. Just speculation mixed with some wishlisting on my part. Time will tell.

May GW heed your words! Chaos trinity, Imperium trinity and why not even Eldar trinity (Eldar, DE and Exodites)....... awww!:p

etancross
03-06-2008, 15:16
I really don't understand the majority of the complaints. Does anybody remember what demons were before they made their own codex? Demons were a small bonus, a general offshoot to a largely Chaos Space Marine and sometimes LaTD armies. Demons did not have special characters (fantasy Demonic Legion excluded) and they had very little defining features other than support from the gods for Chaos Space Marines.

To say that the new codex didn't add anything new or cool? That is ridiculous. Take a look at a Soulgrinder, an incredible looking and awesome Demonic vehicle. Look at all of the incredibly characterful multitude of special characters leading the armies. The whole nature of the army has changed, but most importantly demon armies are very distinctive now from anything else.

By the way, I hated the new Chaos Codex as well as the general mixing of different Gods together that has happened in all recent Chaos Codexes/Army Books. That is something I'm willing to give up though for how awesome this codex was.


Wow... i totally agree with this post

DhaosAndy
03-06-2008, 15:42
Occulto: "IW used to be aligned to Slaanesh,"

Reference please.

As far as I'm aware the only legion to actualy change allegence is the Night Lords. In STD Khorne was the only God with 2 Legions dedicated to him, WE were out and out slaughterers and Night Lords were more murder in the dark.

Death Korp
03-06-2008, 15:58
DhaosAndy: I think the Iron Warrior: Slannesh thing was referenced in either Slaves to Darkness or Lost and the Dammend Realm of Chaos books (VERY old books, where they around 1980s?).

I like the new direction of the books. I'm no GW fanboy (or fanboi...), but these books are alot better, as there is new fluff, more choice and like someone else said above, the daemons are not just a 'add on' any more, they are a cool army themselves, which they deserve as Chaos Daemons and Chaos in geral is pretty much the 'Ultimate Evil' in WFB and 40K.

DK

DhaosAndy
03-06-2008, 18:01
No references (that I can find) to the IW being dedicated to slaanesh in STD, I've just checked. That's why I asked for a reference, slaanesh deicated IW is a new one on me.

Just so we're clear. I don't think having daemons in a seperate book is a bad idea in and of itself. What is IMHO a bad idea is not allowing daemons to be mixed with CSM & LATD. While I'm on the subject of bad ideas having combined god armies as more powerful than the forces of a single god is another bad idea. Not because it isn't logical, it is, not because there are no references to such occurances in the background, there are, but because all of the background up to the daemon codex states that such occurences are, if not rare, then less common than mono god forces. Making the combination of gods much more powerful than the army of a single god produces a situation where such armies are more common than mono god armies, which according to the background just isn't the case.

The Song of Spears
03-06-2008, 18:06
Looking right here at the Slaves to Darkness, Realms of Chaos and Index Astartes IW never had any personal relationship with Slaanesh. IW claim to give no worship to any one chaos god, but acknowledge their power and usefulness.

The new daemons codex: i like it all but for one aspect. It should have had the 0-1 herald, 0-1FA, 0-2 troop, 0-1 elite options as allies for the chaos marines.

The Chaos Dex: Missing legions, and as the new imperial marines dex will show, GW could have done legions in the chaos marines dex just fine, flavour , fluff, rules and all.

And besides missing legion rules, its missing chaos drop pods, chaos siege engines, looted imperial vehicles, cultists who do indeed work with the chaos marines, and a WIDE WIDE variety of psychic powers for those who worship the very essence of the warp and would have access to. Only the most major points of chaos fluff, i'm not even including the little details...

This was a very very poor money making decision as well. Options to convert looted imperial vehicles, have multiple chaos armys representing multiple legions, having chaos marine players buy daemons for their legions as well as daemon armys (cross-selling is pure gold ask any marketing adviser) and otherwise making such a huge departure from the old chaos army and thus turning away many old chaos players and by having such a bland chaos marines codex, not interesting new players to chaos very well.

Chaos Daemons Codex = A-
Chaos Marines Codex = F+ (the plus being for the current chaos dex being functional but still worthless)

I for one, dropped chaos and started orks and eldar. Many others in this area have done the same. The only chaos armys i see selling are ones for off ebay, not new ones.

The Inquisitor
03-06-2008, 18:15
The only thing I wish they did with these books is make it similar to the DH/WH codecies- where you could take units as 'allies'- that would have been very cool.

==Me==
03-06-2008, 18:20
I too recall the IW being Slaanesh dedicated in Slaves to Darkness, I'd have to look through it again for a page number but I'm quite sure it's there.

The new approach isn't much of a bother to ==Me==. Having the armies seperate is what SM/IG have had to do for a while and they've worked out quite well. Plus it reserves such cataclysmic and apocalyptic scenarios where the Traitor Legions open giant warp rifts allowing hordes of true daemons to descend upon their hapless foes in an orgy of violence to a seperate expansion. The biggest boon to seperate armies is that they don't need to be balanced with respects to another army. Inquisition armies suffer from this, pure =][= armies are underpowered because they are paying extra for the ability to use and be used by other armies. If you could mix Daemons and CSM, each pure army would be underpowered, much like in Fantasy where the best Chaos armies were cherry-picked from each book. If units could be mixed, people would be complaining about the same unfluffy mixes (Lash DPs leading armies of Bloodletters, backed up by Oblits, Thousand Sons and Plaguebearers).

Of course, the same could be said about mono-god and mixed armies. But I'd prefer one type of army being weaker for sake of theme than an entire Codex being underpowered without getting propped up by units from other books. Of the mono-god armies, they aren't as flexible as mixed armies but can work if properly tricked out and used. Slaanesh is fast, frail and rending. Tzeentch is super shooty and sucks in combat. Nurgle has Epidemius. Khorne smashes anything in a fight, but is slow and lacks AT.

All in all, the current system isn't perfect, but it's an improvement. Daemons have gotten greatly fleshed out and made into a force all their own as opposed to add-ons to the CSM list, the CSM list represents renegades and can do Legions in a pinch, and you can mix them up in Apocalypse. All we need is a LatD Codex and the Chaos trio will be all set.

DhaosAndy
03-06-2008, 19:17
Well I'd prefer, as if you couldn't tell, that the armies that stay inline with the background be stronger than the pick 'n' mix approach, but failing that I'll take all weak over the weak/not there and strong pick 'n' mix that we have now.

While I'm on I think the hordes/beasts approach in warhammer was excellent and fitted very well with the background. I'll be generous and say that perhaps time constraints forced the new approach, though I'd dearly love to know the real reason for the change, from someone in the know.

AdmiralDick
03-06-2008, 20:46
Now tell me again how much we gained from the new codex?

actually, Occulto could you not.

whilst i am happy to discuss the flaws of the current Codex: CSM until the cows come home, that's not what this thread is about. if we really want to discuss it another time then we should start a seperate thread and not derail this one anyfurther.


I too recall the IW being Slaanesh dedicated in Slaves to Darkness, I'd have to look through it again for a page number but I'm quite sure it's there.

oh great. this old chestnut again. the myth than never dies.

sadly ==You==, its just the naivety of youth and poor page layout that has given you that impression (in much the same way that most of us mispronounce some words catastrophically, just because we guessed that that's what they were). on p66 of Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkess (in the colour section, two pages before the Hordes of Chaos chapter), there is a double page spread of Legion iconography. obviously, because Khorne and Slaanesh are the main thrust of the book, they are given the most space on the two pages. the rest of the legions are divided for seemingly no other reason than aesthetics. the IW and AL fall on the page with the EC (and the NL, BL, NL and WB with the WE). one of the EC's Slaaneshi shoulderpads is slightly infront of the IW banner, which might possibly be contrude as to mean that the two are linked, inspite of the fact that no such link is described, unlike the EC, WE and NL, and that elsewhere in the book they are described as being strictly undivided.

likewise, they have never been dedicated to Khorne, despite the quite specific missreading of the IA article that some people like to 'quote', or the Storm of Iron book that that miss reading inspired.

The Song of Spears
03-06-2008, 21:40
Thank you Admiral Dick on the correct and concise clarification.

And i agree, the CSM codex stinks, and its only relation to this thread is that the only flaw in the chaos daemons codex are that there are no allies rules. It should have had the 0-1 non-unique herald, 0-1 FA, 0-2 troop, 0-1 elite options as allies for the chaos marines.

cailus
04-06-2008, 00:07
My own solutions to the issue of the Chaos codices and their lack of interoperability are:

1.) Allow the use of Daemons from Codex Daemons to be used with Codex Chaos Space Marines. This is only for players I know aren't cheesy powergaming gits.
2.) Allow Chaos players to use the Lost and the Damned army list from the Eye of Terror codex. Allow use of LaTD specfic units in Codex Chaos Space Marines (so Mutants are ok but Leman Russes are not).
3.) Allow non-beardy Alpha Legion players to use the old cultists rules from 4.5 or Traitors from Lost and the Damned list.

That way these guys can still play their Cult Legions or LaTD or Legions.

Horus38
04-06-2008, 00:16
My own solutions to the issue of the Chaos codices and their lack of interoperability are:

1.) Allow the use of Daemons from Codex Daemons to be used with Codex Chaos Space Marines. This is only for players I know aren't cheesy powergaming gits.
2.) Allow Chaos players to use the Lost and the Damned army list from the Eye of Terror codex. Allow use of LaTD specfic units in Codex Chaos Space Marines (so Mutants are ok but Leman Russes are not).
3.) Allow non-beardy Alpha Legion players to use the old cultists rules from 4.5 or Traitors from Lost and the Damned list.

That way these guys can still play their Cult Legions or LaTD or Legions.

This doesn't make any sense for an official GW move as it'll mess with the balance of the armies which is something they've been striving to keep seperate and clean. If you want to to do one through 3 in the above list go right ahead, no one will stop you and GW would probably want you to do something like that. It's hardly a "solution" when it's possible for players to just take their own initiative on things.

DantesInferno
04-06-2008, 00:26
My own solutions to the issue of the Chaos codices and their lack of interoperability are:

1.) Allow the use of Daemons from Codex Daemons to be used with Codex Chaos Space Marines. This is only for players I know aren't cheesy powergaming gits.

Suit yourself. The problem, of course, is that the points costs from the two armies aren't in the least comparable. The two armies have completely different ways of summoning their troops, and summoned troops play different roles. The value of a unit of Bloodletters to a Chaos Marine army would be much higher than the value to a Daemon army, so they should really be worth more points for the Chaos Marine player.

If you want the game to be fair, you'll really to playtest/negotiate the value of the Daemons in the context of a Marine army.

zealot!
04-06-2008, 00:37
GW didn't contravene their own fluff! its theirs! they can change it as much as they want.

carlisimo
04-06-2008, 03:44
Imperial players should start whining about not being able to use Space Marines with Imperial Guard meatshields and artillery. It'd be just as ridiculous as what we have here.

DhaosAndy
04-06-2008, 04:48
carlisimo: "Imperial players should start whining about not being able to use Space Marines with Imperial Guard meatshields and artillery. It'd be just as ridiculous as what we have here."

Except that IG & SM have been seperate armies since RT, so I fail to see the relavence of your comment.

Torga_DW
04-06-2008, 05:01
Once upon a time in fantasy land, there was an undead army. Now there are tomb kings and vampire counts. And everyone lived happily ever after.

==Me==
04-06-2008, 05:05
oh great. this old chestnut again. the myth than never dies.

sadly ==You==, its just the naivety of youth and poor page layout that has given you that impression (in much the same way that most of us mispronounce some words catastrophically, just because we guessed that that's what they were). on p66 of Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkess (in the colour section, two pages before the Hordes of Chaos chapter), there is a double page spread of Legion iconography. obviously, because Khorne and Slaanesh are the main thrust of the book, they are given the most space on the two pages. the rest of the legions are divided for seemingly no other reason than aesthetics. the IW and AL fall on the page with the EC (and the NL, BL, NL and WB with the WE). one of the EC's Slaaneshi shoulderpads is slightly infront of the IW banner, which might possibly be contrude as to mean that the two are linked, inspite of the fact that no such link is described, unlike the EC, WE and NL, and that elsewhere in the book they are described as being strictly undivided.

likewise, they have never been dedicated to Khorne, despite the quite specific missreading of the IA article that some people like to 'quote', or the Storm of Iron book that that miss reading inspired.

You could have just said no:p

Now, as to letting Daemons mix freely with CSM as-is, I'm going to echo DantesInferno in saying that both armies would need to be rebalanced and redone completely. Daemons aren't costed because of the inherent unpredictability of the army, just adding in units that start on the board with icons, resilient marine units at that, and you've removed a huge weakness and defining feature of the army. Add in the good anti-tank of CSM and you've got 3.5 all over again in terms of ridiculous cheese.

The WHFB version of mixing is probably the best system GW has come up with to mix armies, though I would prefer Core into Special, Special into Rare, no Rares, and Heroes take up 2 slots. Translated to 40k, "allies" would take up valuable slots and couldn't count as compulsory, probably with more limits. So a 40k Daemon army could take 0-2 squads of CSM Troops as Elites, that's it (maybe 0-1 of certain elites, heavies, and fast attack). That way you can mix, but it is mostly for flavor and the individual armies remain viable without relying in the crutch of allied units.

carlisimo
04-06-2008, 05:25
carlisimo: "Imperial players should start whining about not being able to use Space Marines with Imperial Guard meatshields and artillery. It'd be just as ridiculous as what we have here."

Except that IG & SM have been seperate armies since RT, so I fail to see the relavence of your comment.

I don't. Chaos Marines and Chaos Guard have been separate armies since 2nd edition. Anything before that can hardly be compared to the current system, it was a total free-for-all back then.

cailus
04-06-2008, 06:51
Suit yourself. The problem, of course, is that the points costs from the two armies aren't in the least comparable. The two armies have completely different ways of summoning their troops, and summoned troops play different roles. The value of a unit of Bloodletters to a Chaos Marine army would be much higher than the value to a Daemon army, so they should really be worth more points for the Chaos Marine player.

If you want the game to be fair, you'll really to playtest/negotiate the value of the Daemons in the context of a Marine army.


Given that I don't play simply to win, I don't mind if the army is slightly unbalanced. It makes for a much cooler narrative and gives a greater sense of theme to these Chaos armies.

Besides GW has lots of unbalanced things in their codexes anyway. I'd rather play an unbalanced Khornate force with all manner of red Marines and Daemonic gribblies than a Lash Prince/Plague Guard/Berzerker/Obliterator combo.

DhaosAndy
04-06-2008, 07:15
Torga_DW: "Once upon a time in fantasy land, there was an undead army. Now there are tomb kings and vampire counts. And everyone lived happily ever after."

Nope, given an excuse I can still bitch lyrically about my units of mummies. :p

DantesInferno
04-06-2008, 10:53
Given that I don't play simply to win, I don't mind if the army is slightly unbalanced. It makes for a much cooler narrative and gives a greater sense of theme to these Chaos armies.

Besides GW has lots of unbalanced things in their codexes anyway. I'd rather play an unbalanced Khornate force with all manner of red Marines and Daemonic gribblies than a Lash Prince/Plague Guard/Berzerker/Obliterator combo.

I'm not really sure what you're after here. It seems like you're looking for a cookie, or for a pat on the back.

By all means, allow Chaos Marine armies to take Daemonic troops as a house rule if you really want to. We're not going to report you to the Games Workshop Official Rules Enforcement Police. Your secret is safe with us.

I was just pointing out the ramifications of such a plan. The people who write the codices cost units by their value to the army in question, not by an abstract standard of value independent of the army list. Simply importing Daemon units into a Chaos Marine army list is going to resort in a grossly imbalanced list (just compare the statistics and cost of summoned Daemons in a Chaos Marine list with any of the troop choices in a Daemonic Legion list to see exactly how important the context of the rest of the list is).

If the prospect of having an egregious imbalance between your list and your opponent's does not bother you, by all means allow Daemon units in Chaos Marine armies.

DhaosAndy
04-06-2008, 23:17
DantesInferno: "The people who write the codices cost units by their value to the army in question, not by an abstract standard of value independent of the army list."

Which is why they have such problems with creating balance, where it matters! Between lists!!

kishvier
04-06-2008, 23:20
Well, it's all off, due to many things such as new editions. SM plas pistols are 5 pts. cheaper than chaos PP's. Things like that happen a lot. Suck it up. Live with it. If you're any good you'll survive and win. If your not I don't care suck it up.

DantesInferno
05-06-2008, 00:11
Which is why they have such problems with creating balance, where it matters! Between lists!!

Attempting to balance units against units from other armies, without looking at the role they play in their respective army lists, would be a disaster.

Let's take the summoned lesser daemons from the Chaos Marine army list as an example: in that army, they're relatively cheap within the context of the list, so their role is generally to tie up enemy units in combat, kill a few, and wait until the real hard-hitting combat units in the Chaos Marine list arrive.

If, say, Tau could take the same unit of lesser summoned daemons, their role would be completely different. Within a Tau army, they'd be an elite assault unit. They'd also be incredibly valuable as a unit to prevent enemy assaulters reaching the valuable Tau troops.

Given that the same unit can play a completely different role in different armies, and thus be of completely different value to the various armies, there's really no reason at all that it should be priced uniformly, regardless of its context within the list.

Dexter099
05-06-2008, 02:42
"Also all this talk of Fluff revision or how the codex plays does not detract from the ponti that there were other codexes that needed revising especially as we have a new rules edition coming around soon. Both Space Wolves and Dark Eldar have 3rd edition codexes."

Where's my new Dark Eldar codex?

Though they needed a new demon codex for fantasy, they didn't need to split Beasts, Mortals, and Demons completely up.

I guess only allowing certain choices fromt he other two lists works, such as only beast herds and furies in mortal lists, beast herds and Chaos Warriors in demons, etc.

There is a rumor that WoC will be getting beast herds and trolls in their codexes.
But we stilll need demons, cause the northmen's lives are constantly entertwined.

Ah, well.

DhaosAndy
05-06-2008, 03:30
DantesInferno: "Attempting to balance units against units from other armies, without looking at the role they play in their respective army lists, would be a disaster."

And I said they should do that when? Who's talking about putting summoned lesser daemons (a completely pointless and boring unit) in a Tau army? I wouldn't put 'em in any army.

Nowhere have I said that you should just put daemons from the daemon codex in the CSM list. What I am saying is that the daemons from the daemon list should be available to a CSM army and they should be costed appropriatly therein. That they can't be and aren't is a failing by GW.

@ kishvier: I don't do "Suck it up" so may I invite you and your helpful comments to take an unlikely anatomical detour. :p

DantesInferno
05-06-2008, 04:00
And I said they should do that when? Who's talking about putting summoned lesser daemons (a completely pointless and boring unit) in a Tau army? I wouldn't put 'em in any army.

Nowhere have I said that you should just put daemons from the daemon codex in the CSM list. What I am saying is that the daemons from the daemon list should be available to a CSM army and they should be costed appropriatly therein. That they can't be and aren't is a failing by GW.

cailus was suggesting that units from the Daemon list should be used without alteration in Chaos Marine lists. That was what I was responding to, raising the point that the points costs of units are determined by their value to the army list in which they are found, so that simply transplanting units from one army to another will likely result in all sorts of gross imbalances.

While we're on the topic, though, I don't see what is so "pointless and boring" about the lesser summoned Daemons in a Chaos Marine army list. It's a unit which represents the vast variety of daemons Chaos Marines can summon.

==Me==
05-06-2008, 04:48
While we're on the topic, though, I don't see what is so "pointless and boring" about the lesser summoned Daemons in a Chaos Marine army list. It's a unit which represents the vast variety of daemons Chaos Marines can summon.

It's because they lack speshul ruelz:D

cailus
05-06-2008, 04:58
It's because they lack speshul ruelz:D

Pretty much. They also lack different stats, different abilities etc. They are generic and do not add anything to the theme of the army (except how they're painted, though theme is not just pretty paintjobs).

I mean GW could've at least given people the option of giving the Daemon a mark, let alone giving full options for Chaos Daemons.

DantesInferno
05-06-2008, 05:17
Pretty much. They also lack different stats, different abilities etc. They are generic and do not add anything to the theme of the army (except how they're painted, though theme is not just pretty paintjobs).

Look at Guardsmen. One unit with one stat-line representing an incredible array of different regiments from different worlds from across the galaxy. That doesn't make the unit boring. Or Imperial Marines. One unit representing Marines from nearly one thousand Chapters, each with their own character and history.

A unit doesn't need different stats, different abilities, or special rules to be interesting.

If you want, say, a Slaanesh theme to your army, use Slaanesh models for your summoned daemons, and paint them in Slaaneshi colours.

DhaosAndy
05-06-2008, 06:05
DantesInferno: "While we're on the topic, though, I don't see what is so "pointless and boring" about the lesser summoned Daemons in a Chaos Marine army list. "

Ok, in order, they are pontless because there are no circumstances inwhich a CSM could not do the same job, but better. They are boring because they can't be marked and therefore cannot fit the theme of any of background driven armies (which are the ones where it matters).

DantesInferno: "It's a unit which represents the vast variety of daemons Chaos Marines can summon."

Yes I know, and very badly they do it to. They'd have been easier to take as lesser daemons of chaos undivided, or even summoned, non aligned warp entities. To have entities as different as horrors and bloodletters represented by the same stat line and the same rules is boring and silly. To baton on to your guard analogy, how would you feel if ogryns and conscripts had the same stats?

==Me==: "It's because they lack speshul ruelz"

Exactly.

DantesInferno: "Look at Guardsmen. One unit with one stat-line representing an incredible array of different regiments from different worlds from across the galaxy. That doesn't make the unit boring. Or Imperial Marines. One unit representing Marines from nearly one thousand Chapters, each with their own character and history."

See above. Also don't play guard, or SM, guess why?

DantesInferno: "A unit doesn't need different stats, different abilities, or special rules to be interesting."

On that basis, let's just give every model the same stats and abilities, then viola! Perfect balance. :rolleyes:

DantesInferno: "If you want, say, a Slaanesh theme to your army, use Slaanesh models for your summoned daemons, and paint them in Slaaneshi colours."

I'm not building a Slaaneshi themed army, I'm building a EC army, I don't know why because it's just going to end up in the cabinet with the TS and the WE, unless, we get legion codex/s, or the lifetime of that wretched document expires and there's an outbreak of sense in the design studio.

cailus
05-06-2008, 06:40
Look at Guardsmen. One unit with one stat-line representing an incredible array of different regiments from different worlds from across the galaxy. That doesn't make the unit boring. Or Imperial Marines. One unit representing Marines from nearly one thousand Chapters, each with their own character and history.

Actually the Guard have doctrines which makes them different. A bunch of junked up Savlar Chem Dogs perform differently to a bunch of well equipped Vostroyans. The changes include anythign from equipment and armour to leadership to deployment modifiers.

As for Marines, they have several different codexes and a trait system which changes the way units perform. ANd when it comes down to it, the core models are the same and there is still different rules for Devastators, Tacticals, Scouts etc. Same for Guard.

And in this case it's completely different models. A Marine is still a Marine. The fact that a Khornate Fleshhound behaves the same way as a pack of Nurglings or as a Horror is such pathetic game design.





A unit doesn't need different stats, different abilities, or special rules to be interesting.

If you want, say, a Slaanesh theme to your army, use Slaanesh models for your summoned daemons, and paint them in Slaaneshi colours.

As DhaosAndy says, we might as well all have the same stats and abilities.

The rules help make the theme because they provide narrative and help enforce the character of the model. Otherwise you might as well be playing with coloured buttons - at least it'd be cheaper.

Darnok
05-06-2008, 07:20
On that basis, let's just give every model the same stats and abilities, then viola! Perfect balance. :rolleyes:

That would indeed be a huge step towards "perfect balance" (whatever that would be is another question). But it ain't gonna happen with GW. They produce lots of different models, and they want to sell them. The rules they produce are just a means to support the sales.

You can't have both special rules for every model AND balance at the same time - unless you accept to wait twenty years for each codex rewrite. You can't have your cake and eat it. Of course, you could get the second cake, namely Codex: Daemons, and eat both...

DantesInferno
05-06-2008, 07:32
Ok, in order, they are pontless because there are no circumstances inwhich a CSM could not do the same job, but better. They are boring because they can't be marked and therefore cannot fit the theme of any of background driven armies (which are the ones where it matters).

A unit isn't pointless if there's another unit in the list which can do the same job except better. Rhinos aren't pointless because there is no circumstance in which a Land Raider could not do the same job, but better.

In any case, there are plenty of circumstances in which summoned Daemons are better than Chaos Space Marines: they can reliably Deep Strike anywhere near an Icon, and then assault on the same turn. Useful in tying up troops which would otherwise be free to shoot or assault the valuable Chaos Marines nearby. And most of all, they're relatively cheap in the context of the Chaos Marine list. Quantity has a quality all of its own.

And they're not boring simply because they can't be marked. No vehicles can be marked, and I don't think anyone could imagine that therefore vehicles couldn't fit the theme of any background driven army.

Just use the appropriate models and you've got Daemons of the god you want. What's wrong with your imagination?


On that basis, let's just give every model the same stats and abilities, then viola! Perfect balance. :rolleyes:

That's a completely absurd slippery slope argument. Pointing out that abstraction allows some different entities in the background (for example, lesser summoned daemons of various gods) to be perfectly adequately represented by the same stat-line does not mean that we should give every model the same statistics and abilities.


I'm not building a Slaaneshi themed army, I'm building a EC army, I don't know why because it's just going to end up in the cabinet with the TS and the WE, unless, we get legion codex/s, or the lifetime of that wretched document expires and there's an outbreak of sense in the design studio.

So use Daemonette models. Your lesser summoned daemons are then Daemonettes, which fits entirely with an Emperor's Children army.


And in this case it's completely different models. A Marine is still a Marine. The fact that a Khornate Fleshhound behaves the same way as a pack of Nurglings or as a Horror is such pathetic game design.

I would have thought the fact that a unit could be represented by lots of different models was a good thing. It allows players to use their imaginations and select the appropriate models for their army's theme.


As DhaosAndy says, we might as well all have the same stats and abilities.

The rules help make the theme because they provide narrative and help enforce the character of the model. Otherwise you might as well be playing with coloured buttons - at least it'd be cheaper.

As above for the slippery slope argument.

Some variation in rules is good, but it does not mean that every single thing that is different in the background needs different rules.

jhon
05-06-2008, 07:41
i do agree that , the 3.5 is flawed but a better one than the two new dex combine . and i understand they have to spilt the race inorder to make it balance , but they can do by power or legion , just like the DA , BT , vinilla sm etc .... in the 4th ed they nerd every thing except the slanesshi pirnce is just the same as the 3.5 that slanesshi prince which is still the over kill baby .....

cailus
05-06-2008, 09:14
So use Daemonette models. Your lesser summoned daemons are then Daemonettes, which fits entirely with an Emperor's Children army.

I would have thought the fact that a unit could be represented by lots of different models was a good thing. It allows players to use their imaginations and select the appropriate models for their army's theme.

So why not just have one Marine unit to cover vanilla/BT/DA/BA/Chaos Marines. They're all Marines and to use sarcasm, a unit that can be represented by lots of different models is a good thing.

In fact most Marines are much more similar in model appearance and in terms of game play than the Daemons were.


Some variation in rules is good, but it does not mean that every single thing that is different in the background needs different rules.

You totally ignore the fact that Codex Daemons provides you with those same different rules for those same different models. Is there any logic that each Daemon model has totally different rules in two different codexes?

Here's the rational behind the split in the two codexes. It's not background, it's not game play, it's not providing an interesting gaming experience, it's the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

So now instead of buying one codex and getting all the rules, you now have to buy two and then can't even use them together. And because most people probably don't have enough models to field a full Daemon army, you probably have to buy additional models.

So instead of one integrated codex, you have two, one of which is the epitome of mediocrity. Instead of one army you must acquire two armies to be able to utilise both.

IJW
05-06-2008, 09:26
DantesInferno: "While we're on the topic, though, I don't see what is so "pointless and boring" about the lesser summoned Daemons in a Chaos Marine army list. "

Ok, in order, they are pontless because there are no circumstances inwhich a CSM could not do the same job, but better.
That just means that you haven't seen them being used properly, or haven't figured out how to use them. :rolleyes:


They'd have been easier to take as lesser daemons of chaos undivided, or even summoned, non aligned warp entities. To have entities as different as horrors and bloodletters represented by the same stat line and the same rules is boring and silly.
Now I'm just confused. Summoned lesser Daemons ARE effectively lesser daemons of chaos undivided - at no point in their descriptive text are specific types such as Bloodletters etc. mentioned.

One of the local CSM players uses converted Dryads for his summoned deamons - they fit the codex, they fit the fluff, they're cheap and they look great.

EDIT:

Here's the rational behind the split in the two codexes. It's not background, it's not game play, it's not providing an interesting gaming experience, it's the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

So now instead of buying one codex and getting all the rules, you now have to buy two and then can't even use them together. And because most people probably don't have enough models to field a full Daemon army, you probably have to buy additional models.
Slightly flawed logic there. If it was just down to money (forget the $, more GW stuff is sold in other currencies) then having CSM able to use daemon entries from both books would bring in more money - you'd still get all the people thinking about buying a daemon army anyway, and EVERY CSM player would go out and by the codex as well, even if they had no plans at all to do a daemon army.

DantesInferno
05-06-2008, 10:26
So why not just have one Marine unit to cover vanilla/BT/DA/BA/Chaos Marines. They're all Marines and to use sarcasm, a unit that can be represented by lots of different models is a good thing.

In fact most Marines are much more similar in model appearance and in terms of game play than the Daemons were.

Well, basic Marines of all the various Chapters and Legions do indeed share an extraordinary number of rules. They all have similar stat-lines, have similar equipment, can take similar wargear, and so on. And there's a good deal of potential model cross-over too.

Why are there different Codices for the various Marine variants? Because there's a market for it. I don't think there's anything controversial about that.

Of course, if you're really annoyed that Daemonettes no longer get separate rules to Bloodletters in a Chaos Marine army, there's a simple solution. Play a Slaanesh Daemonic Legion army. Voila: Daemonettes with their own special rules.


You totally ignore the fact that Codex Daemons provides you with those same different rules for those same different models. Is there any logic that each Daemon model has totally different rules in two different codexes?

In background terms? The Daemons summoned by Chaos Marines as cannon fodder are "not nearly as powerful as they are during a Daemonic incursion". Codex: Chaos Space Marines, p61


Here's the rational behind the split in the two codexes. It's not background, it's not game play, it's not providing an interesting gaming experience, it's the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

So now instead of buying one codex and getting all the rules, you now have to buy two and then can't even use them together. And because most people probably don't have enough models to field a full Daemon army, you probably have to buy additional models.

So instead of one integrated codex, you have two, one of which is the epitome of mediocrity. Instead of one army you must acquire two armies to be able to utilise both.

Excuse me? Let's say you had a bunch of Chaos Marine models and a bunch of various Daemon models (for argument's sake, a Bloodthirster, Bloodletters and Flesh Hounds).

Now, you can make the same Chaos Marine list that you always could: you'll have Chaos Marines with units of summoned lesser daemons and a summoned greater daemon. You certainly don't have to buy any extra models.

With the new Daemon Codex released, you also have the core of a whole new second army, without having to buy any new models at all! If you want to, you can buy more Daemon models to use in your Daemon army (models which you can also use in your Chaos Marine list).

I'm struggling to see how this is an elaborate scheme to illicitly force people to buy new models. You can still use all your old models in their original list, as well as part of a separate, brand new army.

NerdyOgre254
05-06-2008, 12:57
Story here:
I hated Possessed when they were turned into random rampaging monsters in the new codex. however, when i read the WD release notes, it made sense, and i looked at them in a better light.
The Daemon Codex didnt. I just don't think that Daemons should have been introduced as their own 40K army. Not at all, no siree.
Off topic, the upsets it caused for Warhammer are even worse. i would hate to be a Chaos WHFB player at a tourney for the next two months.

DhaosAndy
05-06-2008, 15:04
DantesInferno: "A unit isn't pointless if there's another unit in the list which can do the same job except better. Rhinos aren't pointless because there is no circumstance in which a Land Raider could not do the same job, but better."

Oh really, how many people would take a rhino over a land raider if they cost the same points?

DantesInferno: "In any case, there are plenty of circumstances in which summoned Daemons are better than Chaos Space Marines: they can reliably Deep Strike anywhere near an Icon, and then assault on the same turn. Useful in tying up troops which would otherwise be free to shoot or assault the valuable Chaos Marines nearby. And most of all, they're relatively cheap in the context of the Chaos Marine list. Quantity has a quality all of its own."

Alright, I'll concede that there may be exceptional circumstances inwhich a summoned lesser daemon might be as much use as a CSM. To deal with your examples, in order, if you have and icon left, which another CSM unit could do by moving up alongside the unit with the icon. So all that you gain is an extra 1/2 the width of the unit. This is IMO more than outweighed by the greater utility of the CSM. They are not cheap, they're the same price as the CSM's, so whats the point.

DantesInferno: "And they're not boring simply because they can't be marked. No vehicles can be marked, and I don't think anyone could imagine that therefore vehicles couldn't fit the theme of any background driven army."

No the're not boring simply because they can't be marked, but it's certainly a major contributing factor. Not being able to mark vehicles is another flaw of the current CSM codex, so yes, if I could field any of my background driven armies under the current codex they wouldn't have any vehicles in them. Just to avoid further confusion I'll spell out the theme for my TS (this basic theme is shared by all the others, each has it's own sub themes as well but, these two apply to all of them). All units must bear the MOT, units which can't have the MOT for any reason cannot be included. All units must be either single models or have a number of models equal to Tzeentch's sacred number (9). One of the sub themes in this army is that vehicles are limited to one per Sorcerer, they have to be possessed, representing the sorcerer dabbling in techno magic.

DantesInferno: "Just use the appropriate models and you've got Daemons of the god you want. What's wrong with your imagination?"

Ere' no, nothing. :eyebrows:

DantesInferno: "That's a completely absurd slippery slope argument. Pointing out that abstraction allows some different entities in the background (for example, lesser summoned daemons of various gods) to be perfectly adequately represented by the same stat-line does not mean that we should give every model the same statistics and abilities."

Not at all, it's just the reverse of your absurd slippery slope argument. :)

DantesInferno: "So use Daemonette models. Your lesser summoned daemons are then Daemonettes, which fits entirely with an Emperor's Children army."

Absurd, how can they be daemonettes when they don't have a MOS?

IJW: "That just means that you haven't seen them being used properly, or haven't figured out how to use them."

Sadly, this is not the case, they simply can't make up for the fact that the points are better spent on more CSM, the're a one trick pony, it's not a bad trick, it just doesn't compensate for their numerous flaws.

Kurisu313
05-06-2008, 15:54
Absurd, how can they be daemonettes when they don't have a MOS?


:eyebrows:,:eyebrows:, and I repeat, :eyebrows:

Do daemonettes in codex:daemons have the MOS? Are daemonettes lesser daemons?

I think this aptly shows the divide between the opposing viewpoints. TBH, if you're going to hold such a view and make comments like that, I don't see any point in trying to talk about it.

DhaosAndy
05-06-2008, 16:59
Kurisu313: "Do daemonettes in codex:daemons have the MOS? Are daemonettes lesser daemons?"

No because they are Daemonettes, the lesser daemons of Slaanesh. :eyebrows:

TBH, the debate is largely pointless, but the insane seperation of daemons and CSM/LATD in 40k and the equally pointless seperation of daemons, mortals and beasts in warhammer have consigned my two favourite armies to the cabinet for the forseeable future and I see no reason to let that pass without comment.

Richter Kless
05-06-2008, 18:47
DantesInferno: just let it slip man. There is nothing wrong with your arguments, but you would have to hold a gun against their temples to convince them.

Dexter099
06-06-2008, 00:26
Ah, well, all I can say is that I miss my screamers, but I least I get to keep my Beast Herds and Trolls in the new WoC armybook!

I guess I will just model my screamers into chaos knights.

"DantesInferno: just let it slip man. There is nothing wrong with your arguments, but you would have to hold a gun against their temples to convince them."

This could be true for both sides. I usually just "don't go there" in an argument.

DantesInferno
06-06-2008, 00:31
TBH, the debate is largely pointless, but the insane seperation of daemons and CSM/LATD in 40k and the equally pointless seperation of daemons, mortals and beasts in warhammer have consigned my two favourite armies to the cabinet for the forseeable future and I see no reason to let that pass without comment.

Is there some weird martyrdom complex going around Warseer?

"It's a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that my Chaos army goes to go to than it has ever known."


Oh really, how many people would take a rhino over a land raider if they cost the same points?

You were arguing that lesser summoned Daemons were pointless "because there are no circumstances in which a CSM could not do the same job, but better." Your point only really made sense if we don't take points costs into account: Daemons are cheaper than Chaos Space Marines.

If we're taking points cost into account, then there are plenty of circumstances in which the summoned Daemons can do better than other Chaos Marine units. They're about half as expensive as most of the other units in the Chaos list, and just as importantly, they can deep strike to where they're needed and assault that turn.


Alright, I'll concede that there may be exceptional circumstances inwhich a summoned lesser daemon might be as much use as a CSM. To deal with your examples, in order, if you have and icon left, which another CSM unit could do by moving up alongside the unit with the icon. So all that you gain is an extra 1/2 the width of the unit. This is IMO more than outweighed by the greater utility of the CSM. They are not cheap, they're the same price as the CSM's, so whats the point.

Lesser summoned Daemons are not the same price as Chaos Space Marines. They're 2 points cheaper than basic Chaos Space Marines. That might not sound like much, but remember that people rarely take basic Chaos Space Marines. Once you've given the unit special weapons, an Aspiring Champion, wargear, a transport, and an Icon; those Daemons are looking comparatively very cheap indeed. They're certainly not an amazing unit, but they have their role to play in a Chaos Marine army.

In any case, we might all take your theories about lesser summoned daemons more seriously if you actually tried using them. It seems pretty clear to me that you just wrote the unit off as soon as you heard about it.


No the're not boring simply because they can't be marked, but it's certainly a major contributing factor. Not being able to mark vehicles is another flaw of the current CSM codex, so yes, if I could field any of my background driven armies under the current codex they wouldn't have any vehicles in them. Just to avoid further confusion I'll spell out the theme for my TS (this basic theme is shared by all the others, each has it's own sub themes as well but, these two apply to all of them). All units must bear the MOT, units which can't have the MOT for any reason cannot be included. All units must be either single models or have a number of models equal to Tzeentch's sacred number (9). One of the sub themes in this army is that vehicles are limited to one per Sorcerer, they have to be possessed, representing the sorcerer dabbling in techno magic.

Good for you. Lesser summoned Daemons would fit perfectly well into this list: minor Tzeentchian Daemons summoned by the sorcerers and used as cannon fodder to protect the valuable Chaos Space Marines.


Not at all, it's just the reverse of your absurd slippery slope argument. :)

:eyebrows: What slippery slope argument would that be?


Absurd, how can they be daemonettes when they don't have a MOS?

I think this about sums it up. The Codex tells you that the lesser summoned daemon unit represents the lesser daemons of the various gods of Chaos.

Thus, if you want your daemons to be lesser Slaaneshi daemons, they are lesser Slaaneshi daemons. They don't need a special rule. Just model them appropriately and away you go.


DantesInferno: just let it slip man. There is nothing wrong with your arguments, but you would have to hold a gun against their temples to convince them.

What can I say: I'm a sucker for punishment...

Warpcrafter
06-06-2008, 01:31
Why is everybody whining about how the Lost and the Damned are supposedly gone? There are datasheets for them and the Plague Zombies, and if you refuse to play Apocalypse, you should just continue mumbling quietly to yourself in the corner. I've got masses and masses of mutants, zombies and traitor guard and I don't care if they get slaughtered, because my chaos marines and my upcoming demonic horde will sweep in and avenge them. With all that said, I wish they would have come up with a new unit type for each Chaos God instead of just recycling the old Daemons.:evilgrin:

cailus
06-06-2008, 01:52
Why is everybody whining about how the Lost and the Damned are supposedly gone? There are datasheets for them and the Plague Zombies, and if you refuse to play Apocalypse, you should just continue mumbling quietly to yourself in the corner. I've got masses and masses of mutants, zombies and traitor guard and I don't care if they get slaughtered, because my chaos marines and my upcoming demonic horde will sweep in and avenge them. With all that said, I wish they would have come up with a new unit type for each Chaos God instead of just recycling the old Daemons.:evilgrin:


There's also the old Eye of Terror codex which in my mind is still perfectly legal for LaTD armies.

However I am truly sick of Apocalypsologies. It seems everytime GW makes something not an option, they come up with a lame version of it in an Apocalypse datasheet and people view at some sort of great progress.

I'm going to start a new topic on this issue.

DhaosAndy
06-06-2008, 04:00
DantesInferno: "Good for you. Lesser summoned Daemons would fit perfectly well into this list: minor Tzeentchian Daemons summoned by the sorcerers and used as cannon fodder to protect the valuable Chaos Space Marines."

I'm getting sick of spelling this out to you, lesser damons of tzeentch = pink and blue horrors, not a horror = not a lesser daemon of tzeentch = does not fit theme. I've spelled out the theme for you at considerable length, do you not understand it?

I have spent alot of time and effort on my TS army, it's gone from warbands and auxillary uints through to the 3.5 dex, now it's been retired to await another turn of the wheel, because I just can't stomach any more fudge, compromise and lost units.

==Me==
06-06-2008, 04:23
I'm getting sick of spelling this out to you, lesser damons of tzeentch = pink and blue horrors, not a horror = not a lesser daemon of tzeentch = does not fit theme. I've spelled out the theme for you at considerable length, do you not understand it?

How about Furies under Tzeentch's control? How about Horrors that choose to manifest their sorcerour powers to augment themselves, or just put fire on their hands instead of tossing it? Your talking about the Chaos god of Change for Tzeentch's sake!

Rioghan Murchadha
06-06-2008, 05:03
How about Furies under Tzeentch's control? How about Horrors that choose to manifest their sorcerour powers to augment themselves, or just put fire on their hands instead of tossing it? Your talking about the Chaos god of Change for Tzeentch's sake!

This is true. Probably the same god of change that would balk at its lesser daemons being exactly the same as everyone elses. ;)

DantesInferno
06-06-2008, 05:09
I'm getting sick of spelling this out to you, lesser damons of tzeentch = pink and blue horrors, not a horror = not a lesser daemon of tzeentch = does not fit theme. I've spelled out the theme for you at considerable length, do you not understand it?

Firstly, do you really think that blue and pink horrors are the only form that lesser daemons of Tzeentch can take when summoned to realspace by Tzeentchian worshippers? As ==He== (or ==She==) said, we're talking about the Chaos God of Change here. The Warp is a fluid place, where daemons are constantly reforming and reshaping to reflect the influx of sentient emotions from realspace. To claim that anything that does not adhere to your incomprehensibly narrow definition of "not a horror = not a lesser daemon of Tzeentch" cannot be included in your Tzeentchian army is really absurd.

Even if you were going to stick to such an unjustified position that only "horrors" fitted into the theme of a Tzeentchian army, I still don't see what's wrong with having horrors as the lesser summoned daemons in your army. Why does something need a ranged attack to count as a "horror"? The Tzeentchian Horrors in your army are obviously ones which manifest their warp power through combat.


I have spent alot of time and effort on my TS army, it's gone from warbands and auxillary uints through to the 3.5 dex, now it's been retired to await another turn of the wheel, because I just can't stomach any more fudge, compromise and lost units.

Martyrdom complex again...

"It's a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that my Chaos army goes to go to than it has ever known."

==Me==
06-06-2008, 05:15
This is true. Probably the same god of change that would balk at its lesser daemons being exactly the same as everyone elses. ;)

Unless he knew that we would know that, so he devised a scheme to make us think we thought what he knew.

Just as planned.

DhaosAndy
06-06-2008, 06:17
==Me==: "How about Furies under Tzeentch's control? How about Horrors that choose to manifest their sorcerour powers to augment themselves, or just put fire on their hands instead of tossing it? Your talking about the Chaos god of Change for Tzeentch's sake!"

Furies :confused: there are no furies in the current CSM codex, or did I miss the flying damon entry?

DantesInferno: "Firstly, do you really think that blue and pink horrors are the only form that lesser daemons of Tzeentch can take when summoned to realspace by Tzeentchian worshippers?"

Firstly, they are the only form that fit my theme. Secondly, please site a background reference for another form of lesser daemon of tzeentch.

DantesInferno: "The Warp is a fluid place, where daemons are constantly reforming and reshaping to reflect the influx of sentient emotions from realspace. To claim that anything that does not adhere to your incomprehensibly narrow definition of "not a horror = not a lesser daemon of Tzeentch" cannot be included in your Tzeentchian army is really absurd."

No it's not, it's called sticking to my chosen theme.

DantesInferno: "Martyrdom complex again...

"It's a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that my Chaos army goes to go to than it has ever known.""

That's just being insulting, so in a similar vein, may I invite you and your pathetic justifications for the current CSM codex to take a unlikely anatomical detour.

Razarael
06-06-2008, 06:41
Whoa there people. Take a moment. Take a breath. And remember! The world isn't ending yet!

I've been reading this thread from the very beginning (If you'll remember, I'm the guy that REALLY liked the Soul Grinder model), and I can sum this thread up in a few sentences:

The world isn't fair. Everybody can't be pleased at once. It sucks if you are one of those people who isn't pleased.

If you are happy with things, then sweet! Go on with your daily business.
If you aren't, then do something about it other than griping. Find some proactive solution to the problem and fix it. This is a game, and NOBODY can tell you how to play it. Hopefully you have some understanding friends who will be understanding of your cause, and move forward with it.

That's just me though. Hell, if you want to gripe, go for it, but remember that it doesn't change anything. :)

DantesInferno
06-06-2008, 07:22
Firstly, they are the only form that fit my theme. Secondly, please site a background reference for another form of lesser daemon of tzeentch.

You could try actually reading the Codex which you malign so much. Daemons, particularly the lesser Daemons of Chaos Gods, are endlessly changing shapes in the warp, taking on whatever forms reflect the influx of emotions into the warp and the will of the Chaos God of which they are a constituent element. But that's hardly a new idea. The pigeon-holing of daemons into set "forms" has always been an abstraction, developing rules and models for the infinite variety of forms that Daemons can assume.

"Horrors" are not the only form which fit the theme of a lesser daemon of Tzeentch.


No it's not, it's called sticking to my chosen theme.

I would have called it "sticking to your chosen theme based on an inaccurate, unimaginative and close-minded misinterpretation of the 40k background".


That's just being insulting, so in a similar vein, may I invite you and your pathetic justifications for the current CSM codex to take a unlikely anatomical detour.

Easy, tiger...

My point was that you don't need to resort to the "woe is me" route of giving up playing with your army if you actually think for a bit of what the background says and how you can interpret that with the new rules.

Playa
06-06-2008, 08:03
Hey,


do something about it other than griping. Find some proactive solution to the problem and fix it

Just for the record, there's a reason these are called Discussion Groups.
Discussion is a proactive thing that adults do.

Often just before fixing something . . .


Playa

Kurisu313
06-06-2008, 08:40
Dhaosandy, I am baffled by your insistence that daemons only come in a limited number of forms.

EVERY chaos codex to date has spelled out that daemons have an infinite variety of forms, and Tzeentch, your chosen god, is the most random of all. Just look at the changeling!

It seems that you have the misconception that their are only four daemons per god, which to be honest, is a little sad coming from a chaos player demanding fluffy armies. Surely you are aware that GW can only make so many models, and so makes the most common daemons?

I'm sorry if this post is harsh, but it's annoying to hear age-old fluff dismissed by a man demanding more fluff support in 40k!

Playa
06-06-2008, 09:07
Hey,


The pigeon-holing of daemons into set "forms" has always been an abstraction

Dude, put down the Kool-aid and step s l o w l y away.

The Daemonic fluff in 40k has always been sales promotion.
All fluff merely justifies whatever Citadel is producing at the time.
Just as there are good and bad models, there is good and bad fluff.

But, no matter the quality of the fluff, rulebooks are about *rules*.
We can ignore bad fluff, and not buy bad models, but bad rules?


an inaccurate, unimaginative and close-minded misinterpretation of the 40k background

Um, it's not lack of *player* imagination that gutted the Chaos Codex.
Whatever you think of the fluff or models, the rules still suck in all of the ways that matter.

Compared to the Hainesdex, the Gavdex is as dry as burnt toast.


you don't need to resort to the "woe is me" route of giving up playing with your army if you actually think for a bit

Ah. So, outraged players are unimaginative and unthinking, is that it?

Well, let's think about things like the cost of mandatory Icons.
GLDs can't be fielded without them -

Icons average 30pts each, so GLDs cost as much as Marines, but don't have a Bolter.
Or Bolt Pistol. Or CCW. Or Grenades.
Actually, they don't have any ranged Attack.
Oh, and they're Forced Reserves.
Reserves that you can't always bring on when or where you'd like.
Unlike, say, Marines.

GLD Units also have no option for Heavy or Special Weapons.
Or Icon "Marks". Or Transports. Or Champions. Or Armour Saves.

But yeah, other than all that, they're the bee's knees . . .

Think about if Codex: CD had been released *before* Codex: CSM.
Who knows? I may have bought the dex and some new models in that event.
But, in that case, all Chaos players would still have been satisfied customers.

When we bought those Daemon figs, they were *something* more than mediocre minis.
We could overlook Citadel's comical efforts at modeling 'nightmare' based on that added value.
What GW has done, is take that *something* away from us, and resold it.

Due to the timing, many Chaos players wondered,
"What happened to all the fluff and power our Daemonic Units had before?"

The answer, predictably, yet no less disappointingly, was that it had been "appropriated".
For resale. "Our" fluff and power had been sold out from under us.
Resold, in large part, to players that already had Daemon models -
Chaos Marine players. Us.

GW can double-dip our wallets only because we're a captive market.

I have seen no credible argument that there was any more noble motive than mere avarice.

So, what can we do?

* We can make it known that we resent being treated shabbily.
* We can play only the armies that we *want* to play.
* And we can stop buying GW merch in protest.

And, for the most part, I'm okay with fanboys not "getting" it.


Playa

dblaz3r
06-06-2008, 11:06
Hey,

And, for the most part, I'm okay with fanboys not "getting" it.

Playa

Sad, very sad. :eyebrows:

Bassik
06-06-2008, 12:03
Bassik's opinion:
I played a couple of games with the daemons, painted a few models, and I had a lot of fun with both.
The models are obviously great, we can all agree on that, and the rules are fun to use for both you and your oponent.

I like daemons.:)

x-esiv-4c
06-06-2008, 12:19
Bassik's opinion:
I played a couple of games with the daemons, painted a few models, and I had a lot of fun with both.
The models are obviously great, we can all agree on that, and the rules are fun to use for both you and your oponent.

I like daemons.:)

There we go. Finally, a clear cut answer.

Razarael
06-06-2008, 13:08
Just for the record, there's a reason these are called Discussion Groups.
Discussion is a proactive thing that adults do.

Often just before fixing something . . .

Playa

There is a distinction between griping and between discussing. Discussion entails listening to all view points and being able to make a logical decision or opinion based upon it. I'm not in the business of singling people out, but that's what I'm seeing here. What is I see here is people that don't like what they got and some people are simpling griping.

Anyway... It's just my opinion. And as always, it can be ignored.

I like the Daemon codex and the models they let me use, so I'm happy regardless.

Freakiq
06-06-2008, 13:25
I really like the Daemon Codex and miniatures, my only gripe is that Seekers of Slaanesh don't have any models.

The new fluff is nice and gives the gods and daemons of chaos much more character.

The rules are nice and relatively balanced and forces your opponents to develop new tactics since the entire army deepstrikes.

The models are cool and the step backwards in style to the old Realms of Chaos gives the daemon army a much more unique feel.


I think GW did right to separate the Daemons from Chaos marines as they haven't been given any real attention since -88 and since they are iconic to both Warhammer worlds they deserve more attention than the 3.5 codex gave them.

DantesInferno
06-06-2008, 14:30
Dude, put down the Kool-aid and step s l o w l y away.

The Daemonic fluff in 40k has always been sales promotion.
All fluff merely justifies whatever Citadel is producing at the time.
Just as there are good and bad models, there is good and bad fluff.

But, no matter the quality of the fluff, rulebooks are about *rules*.
We can ignore bad fluff, and not buy bad models, but bad rules?

How does what you've said relate to the part of my post you were quoting?

Sure, don't buy a rulebook if you think the rules are bad.
What does that have to do with my point that daemons come in an infinite variety of forms? That Daemonettes, Bloodletters, Horrors and Plaguebearers are not the only forms that lesser daemons can take?


Um, it's not lack of *player* imagination that gutted the Chaos Codex.
Whatever you think of the fluff or models, the rules still suck in all of the ways that matter.

Compared to the Hainesdex, the Gavdex is as dry as burnt toast.

There may well be problems with the rules, but lack of player imagination, as well as lack of player awareness of the background and lack of player critical thinking sure aren't helping.


Ah. So, outraged players are unimaginative and unthinking, is that it?

[snip]

Not at all. I certainly haven't been arguing that the Chaos Marine Codex is perfect. There are definitely legitimate criticisms to be made. By all means, be outraged if you have a legitimate complaint about the Chaos Codex.

However, these legitimate criticisms have been largely left behind and forgotten amid a torrent of completely illogical complaints. Like the suggestion that lesser summoned Daemons can't possibly be Tzeentchian lesser summoned daemons unless they're found in a unit type called "Horrors" which have a specific stat-line and a ranged attack.

I have been directing my comments specifically against the illegitimate criticisms.


Think about if Codex: CD had been released *before* Codex: CSM.
Who knows? I may have bought the dex and some new models in that event.
But, in that case, all Chaos players would still have been satisfied customers.

When we bought those Daemon figs, they were *something* more than mediocre minis.
We could overlook Citadel's comical efforts at modeling 'nightmare' based on that added value.
What GW has done, is take that *something* away from us, and resold it.

Due to the timing, many Chaos players wondered,
"What happened to all the fluff and power our Daemonic Units had before?"

The answer, predictably, yet no less disappointingly, was that it had been "appropriated".
For resale. "Our" fluff and power had been sold out from under us.
Resold, in large part, to players that already had Daemon models -
Chaos Marine players. Us.

GW can double-dip our wallets only because we're a captive market.

I have seen no credible argument that there was any more noble motive than mere avarice.

See, cailus was raising this point earlier: that Codex Daemons is some illicit attempt to make everyone buy more models. I still don't understand the logic.

As I commented before, let's say you had a bunch of Chaos Marine models and a bunch of various Daemon models (for argument's sake, a Bloodthirster, Bloodletters and Flesh Hounds).

Now, you can make the same Chaos Marine list that you always could: you'll have Chaos Marines with units of summoned lesser daemons and a summoned greater daemon. You certainly don't have to buy any extra models.

With the new Daemon Codex released, you also have the core of a whole new second army, without having to buy any new models at all! If you want to, you can buy more Daemon models to use in your Daemon army (models which you can also use in your Chaos Marine list).

I'm struggling to see how this is an elaborate scheme to illicitly force people to buy new models. You can still use all your old models in their original list, as well as in a separate, brand new army.


So, what can we do?

* We can make it known that we resent being treated shabbily.
* We can play only the armies that we *want* to play.
* And we can stop buying GW merch in protest.

And, for the most part, I'm okay with fanboys not "getting" it.


Playa

Yeah! Fight the Man!

==Me==
06-06-2008, 15:27
So, what can we do?

* We can make it known that we resent being treated shabbily.
* We can play only the armies that we *want* to play.
* And we can stop buying GW merch in protest.

And, for the most part, I'm okay with fanboys not "getting" it.


Playa

That's pure gold, you win the thread:D

Grindgodgrind
06-06-2008, 15:43
I like the Daemon Codex. I don't like people counterproductively bitching about it on a forum.

Malcavious
06-06-2008, 16:02
I like the Daemon Codex. I don't like people counterproductively bitching about it on a forum.

Thats what forums are, a place for people to express thier opinions.

Grindgodgrind
06-06-2008, 16:08
Oh, but I don't have a problem with people 'expressing an opinion'. A lot of the replies here just seem to be "BOO HOO!".

Captin Korea!
06-06-2008, 16:39
Oh, but I don't have a problem with people 'expressing an opinion'. A lot of the replies here just seem to be "BOO HOO!".

Welcome to wineseer, people complain about any and everything they can! :D

Grindgodgrind
06-06-2008, 16:40
I've been playing GW games for 14 years, I was sad to see Chaos Dwarves go, and the Kroot lists. But all this unwarranted moaning?

Captin Korea!
06-06-2008, 16:55
And its about adding a new army too! I would rather GW add new armies, than them squat a race.

DhaosAndy
06-06-2008, 17:23
DantesInferno: "What does that have to do with my point that daemons come in an infinite variety of forms? That Daemonettes, Bloodletters, Horrors and Plaguebearers are not the only forms that lesser daemons can take?"

Of course daemons come in an infinite variaty of forms, you seem unable to acknowledge however, that the form I want in my TS army is horrors. I don't want substitutions or imitations for the same reason I wouldn't wear a fake rolex. You don't agree, fine. You must understand however, that I understand your points I just don't and won't agree with you.

On the subject of the daemon codex in general I think it's quite good, but it has a couple of faults, not least of which is the way the rules interact with the background in the book itself. Reading the background in the book one gets the impression that the most likely conflict for a daemon to be involved in is a conflict with other daemons of different gods, which is consistant with the general background material concerning chaos and the warp. The rules and the army list don't really reflect this.

On the subject of the current CSM codex, I'm not saying it's underpowered, it isn't. I'm not saying that you can't do an army themed around a particular god, you can. What I'm saying is that the powerbuilds defy the background and you can't do an aligned legion in any form that I find interesting due to a lack variaty in the unit choices.

==Me==
06-06-2008, 17:53
Of course daemons come in an infinite variaty of forms, you seem unable to acknowledge however, that the form I want in my TS army is horrors. I don't want substitutions or imitations for the same reason I wouldn't wear a fake rolex. You don't agree, fine. You must understand however, that I understand your points I just don't and won't agree with you.

That just seems like being needlessly strict for no other purpose than to complain about it. I understand you want a themed army, but all you end up doing is making yourself frustrated. It's like a marine player theming his army on marines with shuriken catapults and then complaining about it. Times change, you'd being a devotee of Tzeentch would make one more willing to adapt to it:p


On the subject of the current CSM codex, I'm not saying it's underpowered, it isn't. I'm not saying that you can't do an army themed around a particular god, you can. What I'm saying is that the powerbuilds defy the background and you can't do an aligned legion in any form that I find interesting due to a lack variaty in the unit choices.

Powerbuilds never take the background into consideration, since when is this new? Harlequins commandeering Falcons, Marines fielding half the chapter's Land Speeders in one engagement, Eldrad showing up to every skirmish hosted by every craftworld, Slaaneshi DPs leading Berzerkers, 8 TMCs, etc. And as for Legion, you can still make them, provided you aren't stuck on the 3.5 Codex. Legions end up like craftworlds, klans, and some chapters (how they all should be, but the big 4 sell too well): a themed army done for the sake of the background. DG-Nurglesque things only, infantry based; WE-Khorney, maim, kill, burn; TS-Tzeentchy, Sorc-heavy, plenty of rubrics; EC-Slaaneshi, Noise Marines, excessive and gaudy.

DhaosAndy
06-06-2008, 20:15
==Me==: "Powerbuilds never take the background into consideration, since when is this new? Harlequins commandeering Falcons, Marines fielding half the chapter's Land Speeders in one engagement, Eldrad showing up to every skirmish hosted by every craftworld, Slaaneshi DPs leading Berzerkers, 8 TMCs, etc. "

Agreed, those people who do powerbuilds will do them regardless of background. However, good design would eliminate powerbuilds, or if powerbuilds are a seen as a neccessary part of the design, force them to be in keeping with the background. For example if we are critising a design on the basis of including powerbuilds then 3.5 IW and, say the falcon/clown flying circus, are equally bad, but if powerbuilds are deemed neccessary then 3.5 IW where at least in keeping with their background while the flying circus is not. Do you see my point?

==Me==: "And as for Legion, you can still make them, provided you aren't stuck on the 3.5 Codex. Legions end up like craftworlds, klans, and some chapters (how they all should be, but the big 4 sell too well): a themed army done for the sake of the background. DG-Nurglesque things only, infantry based; WE-Khorney, maim, kill, burn; TS-Tzeentchy, Sorc-heavy, plenty of rubrics; EC-Slaaneshi, Noise Marines, excessive and gaudy."

Certainly you can, it'll just be very boring because so few units will fit the legion theme, I don't think your appreciating the difference between a force themed on Khorne and a WE force. The background is very clear on the subject of WE, all of them are berzerkers, it's equally clear on the TS, the're either sorcerers or rubrics. All other issues aside, all I ask of any chaos codex is that I'm able to field an interesting and viable force for the WE and the TS within my chosen theme. The 4.0 chaos codex fails that test miserably and then there is the issue of the daemons.

xavos
06-06-2008, 23:32
It's obvious that the Codex and Army books for Daemons are a way for GW to save money by using the same models for both game systems.

Don't get me wrong - they're a nice idea and add flavour to chaos armies. But GW has to get its priorities sorted out.

Now what I'd like to see are some rough 'n ready army lists for Dark Eldar, Space Wolves and Necrons printed in White Dwarf magazine, so that some of us 3rd edition commanders can at least fight properly in the 5th edition.

Torga_DW
06-06-2008, 23:57
I think some of these problems could have been solved by chapter approved in white dwarf. Not the perfect solution of course, but better than nothing. Why they decided to drop the article series from the magazine i don't know.

DantesInferno
07-06-2008, 00:32
Of course daemons come in an infinite variaty of forms, you seem unable to acknowledge however, that the form I want in my TS army is horrors. I don't want substitutions or imitations for the same reason I wouldn't wear a fake rolex. You don't agree, fine. You must understand however, that I understand your points I just don't and won't agree with you.

I'm still not following you.
You have a Tzeentchian force. You're claiming that you don't want to take summoned lesser daemons because it would not be part of your army's theme.

It's just silly: the codex specifically says that the lesser summoned daemon unit represents the lesser daemons of the Chaos Gods, which obviously includes Tzeentch. There's certainly no background reason whatsoever not to include lesser summoned daemons in a Tzeentchian army.

But even then, let's grant that you specifically want horrors in your army. Take a unit of lesser summoned daemons, and use the models for horrors. There you go: you have a unit of horrors in your army.


Certainly you can, it'll just be very boring because so few units will fit the legion theme, I don't think your appreciating the difference between a force themed on Khorne and a WE force. The background is very clear on the subject of WE, all of them are berzerkers, it's equally clear on the TS, the're either sorcerers or rubrics. All other issues aside, all I ask of any chaos codex is that I'm able to field an interesting and viable force for the WE and the TS within my chosen theme. The 4.0 chaos codex fails that test miserably and then there is the issue of the daemons.

There aren't any background reasons not to include troops with the Icon of Khorne or the Icon of Tzeentch in either a World Eater or a Thousand Son army, respectively.

In the case of the Thousand Sons, Ahriman's Rubric was cast about 9000 years ago. The Thousand Sons, like all the other Traitor Legions, have been recruiting new Legionnaires in the Eye. Marines with the Icon of Tzeentch would fit that perfectly, and allow you to take units like Havocs, Bikers, Raptors and so on. It's not like the Legion lost all its equipment during the Rubric.

DhaosAndy
07-06-2008, 00:55
DantesInferno: "I'm still not following you.
You have a Tzeentchian force. You're claiming that you don't want to take summoned lesser daemons because it would not be part of your army's theme.

It's just silly: the codex specifically says that the lesser summoned daemon unit represents the lesser daemons of the Chaos Gods, which obviously includes Tzeentch. There's certainly no background reason whatsoever not to include lesser summoned daemons in a Tzeentchian army.

But even then, let's grant that you specifically want horrors in your army. Take a unit of lesser summoned daemons, and use the models for horrors. There you go: you have a unit of horrors in your army.."

How plainly can I put this; the lesser daemon solution is not and will never be acceptable to me. End of.

DantesInferno: "There aren't any background reasons not to include troops with the Icon of Khorne or the Icon of Tzeentch in either a World Eater or a Thousand Son army, respectively."

Except they are not berzerkers or rubrics/sorcerers respectively and therefore cannot be members of the World Eaters or the Thousand Sons legions. Please cite references to post hersey/rubric members of either legion which do not conform to this part of the background.

DantesInferno: "In the case of the Thousand Sons, Ahriman's Rubric was cast about 9000 years ago. The Thousand Sons, like all the other Traitor Legions, have been recruiting new Legionnaires in the Eye. Marines with the Icon of Tzeentch would fit that perfectly, and allow you to take units like Havocs, Bikers, Raptors and so on. It's not like the Legion lost all its equipment during the Rubric."

References please.

DantesInferno
07-06-2008, 01:34
How plainly can I put this; the lesser daemon solution is not and will never be acceptable to me. End of.

Um, ok.

Do you accept there's no rational basis in the background for anyone with a Thousand Son army to refuse to use lesser summoned daemons in their army?


Except they are not berzerkers or rubrics/sorcerers respectively and therefore cannot be members of the World Eaters or the Thousand Sons legions. Please cite references to post hersey/rubric members of either legion which do not conform to this part of the background.

Sheer common sense? I would have thought the onus was on you to show that there are no post Heresy members of either of these Legions. After all, we're told in plenty of sources that the Legions have been recruiting new members in the Eye (cf Fabius Bile materials).

In the case of the World Eaters, someone has to be doing all the psycho-lobotomies on the new recruits, and it's unlikely to be someone who's undergone the procedure themselves...


References please.

Well, for the fact that all the Legions have been recruiting new warriors in the Eye since the Heresy, look at the materials on Fabius Bile (as well as using some common sense).

For the fact that the Rubric occurred fairly soon after the Heresy, look at the materials on Ahriman.

Add these together, and it's clear that the Thousand Sons have recruits who have joined the Legion after Ahriman's Rubric.

DhaosAndy
07-06-2008, 02:26
DantesInferno: "Do you accept there's no rational basis in the background for anyone with a Thousand Son army to refuse to use lesser summoned daemons in their army?

:eyebrows: Unsuprisingly, no I don't agree, that I must agree with you or be deemed irrational. The fact that you don't agree with me does not make either of us irrational, merely the holders of different points of view. I can think of a number of insults to place against your point of view, but this is a discussion not a slanging match.

DantesInferno: "Sheer common sense? I would have thought the onus was on you to show that there are no post Heresy members of either of these Legions. After all, we're told in plenty of sources that the Legions have been recruiting new members in the Eye (cf Fabius Bile materials).

In the case of the World Eaters, someone has to be doing all the psycho-lobotomies on the new recruits, and it's unlikely to be someone who's undergone the procedure themselves.."

The rubric came into the background around the time of the 2nd ed CSM codex, along with Ahriman. The latest background in this regard has the Black Legions sorcerers able to replicate the process to produce their own Rubrics, common sense would therefore say that if they can replicate the process so can Ahrimans cabal and the Sorcerers that remained with Magnus. So again, please provide a reference for non rubric/sorcerer TS and non berzerker WE. Since, with regard to the latter I can't find a reference to non berzerker WE that is more up to date than the material that cites them as all being berzerkers. With regard to Bile for example, who's to say he doesn't provide them suitably altered?

DantesInferno
07-06-2008, 03:05
:eyebrows: Unsuprisingly, no I don't agree, that I must agree with you or be deemed irrational. The fact that you don't agree with me does not make either of us irrational, merely the holders of different points of view. I can think of a number of insults to place against your point of view, but this is a discussion not a slanging match.

If you think there's a rational basis for anyone with a Thousand Sons army to refuse to use lesser summoned daemons purely because it does not fit in with the background, please explain it to us!

If your point was just "I just don't want to use lesser summoned daemons in my Thousand Sons army", that would be fair enough (a bit odd considering that you're also complaining about the lack of units you can use in your army theme, but we can let that slide).

However, your point seemed to be that "I can't use summoned lesser daemons in my Thousand Sons army because it would violate the background to do so". I've provided a few arguments to show that this point of view really has no substance in the background at all.


The rubric came into the background around the time of the 2nd ed CSM codex, along with Ahriman. The latest background in this regard has the Black Legions sorcerers able to replicate the process to produce their own Rubrics, common sense would therefore say that if they can replicate the process so can Ahrimans cabal and the Sorcerers that remained with Magnus.

Yeah, sure. Just because they can repeat the Rubric doesn't mean that they do repeat it on all their recruits though.

For instance, why wouldn't Magnus be in favour of recruiting new Thousand Sons Marines? He sacrificed everything to save his beloved Legion on Prospero, and he was mightily pissed when his right-hand-man accidentally turned a large proportion of his Legion into dust. And even if Magnus doesn't pay attention to stuff like recruitment, surely his subordinates will. And this is only the portion of the Legion loyal to Magnus: those in Ahriman's renegade Cabal and any other sorcerers who've struck out on their own certainly won't have any qualms about increasing the strength of their forces (and ensuring they don't all die out).

There's no background in the previous Codex, or any other previous source on the Thousand Sons, which says that the legion contains exclusively Rubrics and Sorcerers in M41. It's just a misconception which was promoted by the rules restrictions the previous Codex had in place (which didn't have any mechanism for non-Rubric Tzeentchian Marines), and has no legitimate basis in the background at all.


So again, please provide a reference for non rubric/sorcerer TS

Basically:
We know that all the other Traitor Legions have been recruiting new members in the Eye since the Heresy (numerous Chaos Codices, Black Library books etc).
We know that Fabius Bile has examined Thousand Son gene-seed (Heroes & Villains: Fabius Bile).
We know the leaders of the Thousand Sons have always been motivated to do whatever it takes to save their Legion and ensure its prosperity (Magnus on Prospero, Ahriman with his Rubric).
We know that the Thousand Sons are still motivated to continue their Long War against the Imperium.

If you add all this together, it's pretty straightforwardly clear that the Thousand Sons are recruiting new members in the Eye, just like all the other Traitor Legions.

Unless you have some background evidence to the contrary, there's certainly no rational background reason that Thousand Sons armies should be restricted from taking Tzeentch-dedicated non-Rubric troops.

zendral
07-06-2008, 03:23
I remember the "chaos child" novel had some non-rubric thousand sons (could be wrong). And I can't remember, but I also recall a book with ahriman in it(help here folks)...it involved him stepping out of a thunderhawk with a cabal of non-rubric thousand sons. For some reason i'm thinkin dawn of war novels on that one.

Ditto with DI and the Thousand sons. The story doesn't end with "the rubric was cast, THE END".
The opportunity to create new recruits exists (sorcerers have gene-seed and were not dustified). We also know that magnus was upset about the whole thing. Mayhaps he doesn't like his army dustified? Maybe he does. I think the point is, there is no hard proof at the moment that the legion is committed to casting the rubric on new recruits, or not. It leaves plenty of space to create non-rubric thousand sons, which I have done since the release of the new chaos dex.

Anywho, thats my $.02.

Aeneas
07-06-2008, 03:38
One of the Dawn of War books did have Ahriman with some non-rubric marines but they may have been aspiring sorcerers.

I almost always use non-rubric Thousand Sons. The fluf I started with (Renegades for Epic Space Marine) said, "Even now some spacecraft drop into the Eye of Terror disgorging crews of Chaos Space Marines fleeing from their defeat by the Emperor."

My Thousand Sons weren't all on the Planet of the Sorcerers when the rubric was cast. They still have their bodies, their souls, and their lascannons!

AdmiralDick
07-06-2008, 10:48
we're not still on this are we?

when are we going to go back an talk about the Codex: Chaos Daemons?


There's no background in the previous Codex, or any other previous source on the Thousand Sons, which says that the legion contains exclusively Rubrics and Sorcerers in M41.

so are you arguing that because the books don't cover negative statements on every possible thing that you could have imagined happened to the Legion, then they all must have happened?

the reason that it doesn't explicitly state 'all members of the TS are either dust or scorcerors', is because it doesn't need to. i can't see in any Codex: CSM where the story of the TS is carried much beyond the Rubric itself. sure, Ahriman gets a bit more of a mention, being sent on an eternal quest and all, but the the Legion doesn't get a look in.


It's just a misconception which was promoted by the rules restrictions the previous Codex had in place (which didn't have any mechanism for non-Rubric Tzeentchian Marines), and has no legitimate basis in the background at all.

:eyebrows: now you are just making stuff up. if, for the purposes of this arguement, we ignore the RoC army list, because it bares little relationship to more modern rules or background, due to being such a proto-form of the army, we are left with 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 4th. as i said before, none of the Codexes make mention the TS after the Rubric, which i think even a dunce would interpret as meaning that anything that happened to them afterwards was of little or no significance. a more sophisticated interpretation of the background would say that the reason that we are not told if anything changed, is because nothing changed, mirroring the now established theme of the TS that they are immutable, immortal warriors. that then leaves us to compare tha background to the rules.

2nd did not give a way for a player to select non-Rubric Tzeentchen troops, in fact it was the first book to directly link the term 'Thousand Sons' with Rubric Marines (to my mind a mistake). a player was not even allowed to give a Champion or Aspiring Champion the Mark of Tzeentch. that was reserved exclusively for Lords and Sorcerors. granted the Lord did not have to be a Psyker, but that was an exeption rather than a rule in that codex. over all it was quite clear that the message we were given (by rules alone) was that unlike other cult troops, TS were not drawn from your own army, but were hired as mercenaries (becuse they would always be TS and never NL Rubric Marines), and the only reason you would hire them is because of thier Rubric ability (so any non-rubric/sorceror marines wouldn't be welcome). if you wanted to take an entirely and exclusively Tzeentchen army, due to the restrictions on Marks you had to have solely Rubric Marines and Sorceror heroes, implying that that was all there was.

3rd Ed barely mentions any of the Legions (and gives only a paragraph to Ahriman), but continued the trend of directly calling Rubric Marines TS (meaning they were one in the same, all Rubrics were TS). for the first time you could give units (via the Asp Champ) the Mark of Tzeentch, whilst this didn't make them TS it did legitamize them in a 'purely' TS list. unfortunately, the mark did absolutley nothing for anyone who wasn't already a psyker, so the act of giving it to any other unit was meaningless; that you could also give it to a Khorne Bezerker or Plague Marine also detracted from its legitimacy. so unless you are saying that the TS probably have Khorne Bezerkers in their ranks, i don't think you can argue from this that there are more than just Rubrics and Sorcerors (not that that is even implied in the rules). also the rules that allowed you to take TS as troops could be seen as indicating that non-Rubric marines were supposed to be pushed out of the list in favour of Rubric ones.

if i were going to argue your case DantesInferno, then 3.5 would probably be the best place to start from:

The majority of the Legion are mindless automatons, made soulless by their Cheif Librarian's spell [...]
this statement is mildly ambiguous, as it doesn't say what the other part of the Legion is made up of. so inspite of the fact that there has been no mention in any codex previously of their being non-rubric, non-sorceror marines in the Legion, you might extrapolate that the minority could possibly include such things. however, the rules would not back you up; all units bearing the Mark of Tzeentch become either Rubric or Sorcerors and only units bearing the mark can be taken in an exclusively TS army. (that's not to say that you couldn't have an army using some Marks of Tzeentch and some units that either had another mark or no mark at all, but it wouldn't be a purely TS acting in their most typical fashion).

which leaves us with 4th. this book gives us actually some of the best information about the TS to date and even tells us what they get up to since the Rubric (which is a first). sadly, it totally re-enforces everything i've said so far. like all the codexes before, the TS are represented in the book with an actual unit (no other Legion gets this), which kind of implies that the TS are splintered, no-longer working as other Legions do, instead their troops are spread amoungst all the other Legions and Chapters dedicated to Chaos. in fact the book goes one further than that and for the first time it says as much:

The Sorcerors offer the services of their unliving warriors to those who promise them knowledge and magical power.
there, stated catagorically as fact, we are told that the TS do not opperate as a Legion but as mercenaries to other Legions. it is difficult to imagine that such small factions can support the creation of new marines.


Basically:
We know that all the other Traitor Legions have been recruiting new members in the Eye since the Heresy (numerous Chaos Codices, Black Library books etc).
We know that Fabius Bile has examined Thousand Son gene-seed (Heroes & Villains: Fabius Bile).
We know the leaders of the Thousand Sons have always been motivated to do whatever it takes to save their Legion and ensure its prosperity (Magnus on Prospero, Ahriman with his Rubric).
We know that the Thousand Sons are still motivated to continue their Long War against the Imperium.

could you please give actual quotes and page references, so that we know you have read these sources, rather than just having thought you'd read them. its only polite in a discussion to back up your points.


If you add all this together, it's pretty straightforwardly clear that the Thousand Sons are recruiting new members in the Eye, just like all the other Traitor Legions.

i agree that the answer is pretty clear when you add up all the evidence, but i think you have got you numbers muddled.


Unless you have some background evidence to the contrary, there's certainly no rational background reason that Thousand Sons armies should be restricted from taking Tzeentch-dedicated non-Rubric troops.

the rational reason would be that to have non-rubric marines would errode the purpose and theme of the army.

i would have much rather seen the rubric marines put on a back burner after 2nd, and have generic Tzeetch dedicated troops put in their place, one's that much better represented what Tzeentch stood for, change, tricker and magic. the TS would have remained an oddity, forever the opposite of their patron, but it would have made for so much less confusion, and certainly would have sated appetites for non-rubric Tzeentch marines.

DhaosAndy
07-06-2008, 18:32
DantesInferno: "If you think there's a rational basis for anyone with a Thousand Sons army to refuse to use lesser summoned daemons purely because it does not fit in with the background, please explain it to us!"

I have done, at great length, I'm not going to repeat myself, life's too short.

DantesInferno: "If your point was just "I just don't want to use lesser summoned daemons in my Thousand Sons army", that would be fair enough (a bit odd considering that you're also complaining about the lack of units you can use in your army theme, but we can let that slide). "

Again, I've made my point if you don't/won't understand it, fine. I can't resist adding this though. Now that the daemon codex is out we know what the daemons of tzeentch are, there are pictures photo's of models, etc, seen any for lesser summoned daemons?

DantesInferno: "However, your point seemed to be that "I can't use summoned lesser daemons in my Thousand Sons army because it would violate the background to do so". I've provided a few arguments to show that this point of view really has no substance in the background at all."

Fine, provide a reference/s since I'm not going to attempt to prove a negative.

DantesInferno: "Yeah, sure. Just because they can repeat the Rubric doesn't mean that they do repeat it on all their recruits though.

For instance, why wouldn't Magnus be in favour of recruiting new Thousand Sons Marines? He sacrificed everything to save his beloved Legion on Prospero, and he was mightily pissed when his right-hand-man accidentally turned a large proportion of his Legion into dust. And even if Magnus doesn't pay attention to stuff like recruitment, surely his subordinates will. And this is only the portion of the Legion loyal to Magnus: those in Ahriman's renegade Cabal and any other sorcerers who've struck out on their own certainly won't have any qualms about increasing the strength of their forces (and ensuring they don't all die out).

There's no background in the previous Codex, or any other previous source on the Thousand Sons, which says that the legion contains exclusively Rubrics and Sorcerers in M41. It's just a misconception which was promoted by the rules restrictions the previous Codex had in place (which didn't have any mechanism for non-Rubric Tzeentchian Marines), and has no legitimate basis in the background at all."

Pure speculation, please provide references.

DantesInferno: (1) "Basically:
We know that all the other Traitor Legions have been recruiting new members in the Eye since the Heresy (numerous Chaos Codices, Black Library books etc).
We know that Fabius Bile has examined Thousand Son gene-seed (Heroes & Villains: Fabius Bile).
We know the leaders of the Thousand Sons have always been motivated to do whatever it takes to save their Legion and ensure its prosperity (Magnus on Prospero, Ahriman with his Rubric).
We know that the Thousand Sons are still motivated to continue their Long War against the Imperium."

DantesInferno: (2) "If you add all this together, it's pretty straightforwardly clear that the Thousand Sons are recruiting new members in the Eye, just like all the other Traitor Legions."

(1) is not proof of (2), nor even strong evidence for it, so we come again too - provide references.

DantesInferno: "Unless you have some background evidence to the contrary, there's certainly no rational background reason that Thousand Sons armies should be restricted from taking Tzeentch-dedicated non-Rubric troops."

Right, let's make this clear, the rubric/sorcerer thing starts in the 2nd ed codex. Troops dedicated to tzeentch, but not sorcerers/rubrics return in the 4.0 codex. Nowwhere in either of these two documents (that I can find, hence the request for references) or in any of the intervening codexes is there any basis for members of the TS who are not either sorcerers or rubrics.
On the question of daemons, TS have been using tzeentch daemons (proper ones, not pathetic design fudge substitutes) since before the inception of the rubric, so I see no reason to include useless, ersatz daemons now (or ever).

Oh, and kindly refrain from attacking my rationality, it's becoming rather boring. :eyebrows:

@ zendral: It's a long time since I read Chaos Child, but I don't think it included non rubric/sorcerer TS, I'd have noticed something like that.

@ Aeneas: The effects of the warp on time are wonderful for justifying all sorts of stuff, I'm happy that you can play your army how you want to.

Madfool2
07-06-2008, 19:56
*rolls in with the push on topic cart*

I like codex: chaos daemons, I find it to be a breathe of fresh air (or death if you worship nurgle).

I like the background to it, I also enjoy the models and I like the fact the army list is well written.

AdmiralDick
07-06-2008, 21:02
sorry, didn't mean to help drag it down, but i really dislike it when forum posters miss-remember background and rules and then disseminate that misinformation to support their scewed point of veiw. worse still when the person that does it is a well respected member of the forum whom others are quick to listen to. i have a lot of respect for DantesInferno, but i don't particularly one him to propergate a lie (even if by accident).

anyway, as for Codex: Daemons. i still haven't seen anyone with a Daemon army. most people around here don't seem to inspired by it. no one particularly dislikes it. there isn't much vitriol. just not much support either.

i think a lot of people think its a really good idea; as you say, a breath of fresh air. but that a lot of opportunity has been missed. considering it is the first time Daemons have had their own codex (and Army Book) we were expecting the concept to be expanded rather more than it has been. there is only one new unit type and i'm really not convinced that the Soul Grinder is as impressive as everyone's made it out to be. i personally would have prefered something more feral, like the concept art showen, or something like a even bigger daemon, similar in concept to a Carnifex.

i would also have prefered that the basic units were a tad more flexible. i see no reason why all of the units couldn't have had the choice of a limited ranged weapon that reflected their god. Slaaneshi Daemonettes having either a sort of sniper rifle to pick and choose their opponent as they see fit, or a kind of weapon that fires needles or shards of glass, hitting many (maybe even pinning) and yet killing few (they could look a little like this (http://www.privateerpress.com/HORDES/gallery/default.php?level=picture&id=78)). Khorne Bloodletters could have had a short, stubby crossbow that fire one enormously powerful bolt (a garenteed skull for Khorne), that was then so crude and solid it could be swung in combat like a pick-axe (a device that wouldn't look out of place amoungst the Uruk Hai). Nurgle could have some kind of slurry gun, that was indiscriminate and splashed everyone, nurgles not too picky who sucumbs to his poisons, just that eventually everyone does. this would have left space for Tzeentchen Horrors to be much more profound and tricksy than they are at the moment.

generally i think that Tzeentchen daemons are something of a failure. they certainly don't represent their patron very well, and i'm quite sure the Changer of Ways is very displeased with them. they basically make no attempt to show how shifting and false their god is, which i think is a crying shame. playing Tzeentch should not be simple. it should be one of the hardest armies to master (if not to play against) and should be very rewarding. Tzeentchen magic should certainly not be boiled down to 'its basically a gun that does nothing special'.

i can think of several other ways they could have improved units or made new units simply buy adjusting current ones (a Khorne Ballista or Tzeentch War-Alter, or even a larger verion of a Screamer with a Heavy Flamer and Multimelta that was something equivelant to a Landspeeder), but i won't bore you with all the details.

i'm also rather disappointed with the miniatures relased. most other ranges have had 5 plastic kits for them, and considering how universal daemons are (you can use them in at least 3 armies and in 2 game systems) i was expected at least the average. instead we got 2 (and an extra sprue for the and no promise of any more. i think that the Greater Daemons especially are looking their age (i've never liked the Keeper of Secrets, and i'm not a fan of the Blood Thirster or the Great Unclean one. only the Lord of Change is a decent model that i'd consider having in my army). a plastic Keeper of Secrets and Blood Thirster i would have thought would have been essential, allowing GW to package basic army deals in the future. in the end we appear to have been given the bare minimum of miniatures for the army. not even new Daemonettes on Steeds to keep them up to date. and without wishing to complain about pricing (i know things are going to be expensive, so i don't have a problem with that), but several of the units are actually vastly more costly then there effectiveness in the game allows. i don't know about you but i don't think i could ever really justify Ģ12 on a 30pt Fiend. they're good, but they're not that good.

generally the book is sound. but, to me, its just an okay start, rather than a work of genius. i look forward to the next one, when the designers have a bit more experience with the army under their belts and can work on refining it, rather than laying the ground work (not to mention that the team will have had another coup and they change to design philosophy to allow a greater level of complexity in armies).

azimaith
07-06-2008, 21:12
Actually their gods influence for tzeentch is supposed to be based on their invul save. They have no distinct static anatomy making them harder to hurt (thus better armor saves).

The daemon firepower being guns rather than psychic power is also pretty important, otherwise it would be too easy to stop.

The tzeentch armies however get options to fire up to three shooting weapons in the shooting phase with certain models (IE lord of change w/ master sorceror and we are legion can fire three weapons and three different targets.) As well as the only model besides masque who can possibly use more than one of the same psychic power a turn. (The Blue Scribes with every psychic power and jump infantry seems pretty good to me, I can't wait to try it with boon of mutation.)

AdmiralDick
07-06-2008, 23:37
Actually their gods influence for tzeentch is supposed to be based on their invul save. They have no distinct static anatomy making them harder to hurt (thus better armor saves).

oh, don't worry. i get what they've done. but its still a stupid and simplistic answer that doesn't really convey the message that it is supposed to. +1 to a stat, here and there may well get you by, but it is hardly befitting of the complexities of the background that it is trying to convey.

and even if i was going to change a stat by 1, i wouldn't have made Tzeentchen models slightly harder to kill.


The daemon firepower being guns rather than psychic power is also pretty important, otherwise it would be too easy to stop.

i guess i hadn't thought of it in quite that way, because i'd have assumed that if you were going to write rules for the army of the god of magic, you'd give them some magic, and then work out solutions as to how to make the army viable (most likely through wargear and special rules). the no psychic powers in the whole army, is something of a cop-out.

however, that isn't what i was getting at originally, what i meant when i said it was 'basically a gun', was that the magic itself was, for the most part, literally just a gun. whilst i accept that there needs to be a certain percentage of all psychic powers that need to act like standard weapons, i think there are altogether too many in the game at the moment. and if there is one army that shouldn't contain a single psychic power that is so straight forward you could equally have armed the bearer with a bolter, its a Tzeentchen Daemon army.


The tzeentch armies however get options to fire up to three shooting weapons in the shooting phase with certain models

and that is certianly a pretty good rule. but what does that have to do with Tzeentch? he's not the god of 'more guns and more gun shots than everyone else'. those are rules more akin to what the Tau should be.

HiveTrygon
07-06-2008, 23:54
You know when I first read my chaos daemon dex I hated it but after reading it a second time it started to make some impression on me and after the third time I loved it. Here is why, if you read it as daemons hate each other and other gods it seems like the list is completely broken but if you read between the lines and see what they set up it's brilliant. Before I get flamed let me explaine.

The concept is that daemons lurk in the warp and seem to swarm to areas of space that break free into the warp, their not picky. They might even be fighting with each other before the gate breaks but when it does they are all about killing mortals for their gods. They care less about each other at the time and only want to get to the meat in their way.

The greater daemons or heralds are who help hold the force together even if not of the same god. Their magic essence given to them by the gods of chaos are what helps them hold everything together, which happens to be other daemons. Magic is like a bullet, it cares not who it hits, it just hits. I now love the dex with this mentality.

I just figure when they return to the warp they begin fighting again... "Khorn's warriors killed more, no Tzeentch tricked you into killing his foe!"... etc. etc. ;)

DantesInferno
08-06-2008, 01:36
we're not still on this are we?

when are we going to go back an talk about the Codex: Chaos Daemons?

I'll certainly drop this line of argument if people think it's derailing the thread. I still think it's an important line of thought, though, because it ties in to the broader point I was making earlier: that some of the criticisms of the treatment of Daemons in Codex: Chaos Space Marines (and by implication, Codex: Daemons) are based on a misunderstanding of the background and an excessively narrow-minded interpretation of an army's theme.

Perhaps if you want to continue the specific Thousand Sons discussion you could make a thread in the Background forum and we can continue it there?

EDIT: Turns out that there's already a suitable thread <here> (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146992).


so are you arguing that because the books don't cover negative statements on every possible thing that you could have imagined happened to the Legion, then they all must have happened?

the reason that it doesn't explicitly state 'all members of the TS are either dust or scorcerors', is because it doesn't need to. i can't see in any Codex: CSM where the story of the TS is carried much beyond the Rubric itself. sure, Ahriman gets a bit more of a mention, being sent on an eternal quest and all, but the the Legion doesn't get a look in.

No, I'm certainly not arguing that in the absence of negative statements on every possible thing that could have happened to the Legion, then they all must have happened. What I am saying when we're not told what the Legion did after the Rubric, it's important to analyse the background as a whole to come up with the most plausible explanation of what happened.


:eyebrows: now you are just making stuff up. if, for the purposes of this arguement, we ignore the RoC army list, because it bares little relationship to more modern rules or background, due to being such a proto-form of the army, we are left with 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 4th. as i said before, none of the Codexes make mention the TS after the Rubric, which i think even a dunce would interpret as meaning that anything that happened to them afterwards was of little or no significance. a more sophisticated interpretation of the background would say that the reason that we are not told if anything changed, is because nothing changed, mirroring the now established theme of the TS that they are immutable, immortal warriors. that then leaves us to compare tha background to the rules.

That doesn't follow. The fact that we're not told anything explicitly about the Thousand Sons' post-Rubric recruitment should not lead us to assume that it's because it doesn't happen. We're told very little about the post-Heresy recruitment of any of the Legions in particular. But we are told that the Chaos Marines from the Legions in the Eye use the precious progenoid gene-seed organs to create more Space Marine warriors (for a start, 2nd ed Chaos Codex, p102. Plenty more sources to that effect).

Given that, I would have thought the onus was on you guys to show that the Thousand Sons don't recruit new warriors when all the other Legions do.


2nd did not give a way for a player to select non-Rubric Tzeentchen troops, in fact it was the first book to directly link the term 'Thousand Sons' with Rubric Marines (to my mind a mistake). a player was not even allowed to give a Champion or Aspiring Champion the Mark of Tzeentch. that was reserved exclusively for Lords and Sorcerors. granted the Lord did not have to be a Psyker, but that was an exeption rather than a rule in that codex. over all it was quite clear that the message we were given (by rules alone) was that unlike other cult troops, TS were not drawn from your own army, but were hired as mercenaries (becuse they would always be TS and never NL Rubric Marines), and the only reason you would hire them is because of thier Rubric ability (so any non-rubric/sorceror marines wouldn't be welcome). if you wanted to take an entirely and exclusively Tzeentchen army, due to the restrictions on Marks you had to have solely Rubric Marines and Sorceror heroes, implying that that was all there was.

The fact that the only Tzeentchian troops in the 2nd ed (and 3rd, and 3.5th) army list were Rubric Marines does not imply that they're the only Tzeentchian troops that exist in the background. Chaos Codices, until very recently, have not had options for any non-Cult god-dedicated troops (Khornate Marines who aren't Berzerkers, Slaaneshi Marines who aren't Noise Marines, and so forth). They're shortcomings resulting from the limited resources of an army list (you can only fit so much stuff in, developers can only playtest so many units), and they certainly should be read to limit the background in any way.


however, the rules would not back you up; all units bearing the Mark of Tzeentch become either Rubric or Sorcerors and only units bearing the mark can be taken in an exclusively TS army. (that's not to say that you couldn't have an army using some Marks of Tzeentch and some units that either had another mark or no mark at all, but it wouldn't be a purely TS acting in their most typical fashion).

Again, it's an limitation of the army list. To quote from Gav Thorpe, posting on our forums <here> (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33194):

The lack of a Mark of Tzeentch without being a 'Rubric Marine' is an oversight in the current Codex and highlights what has, in my opinion, been some inconsistent misrepresentation of the cults.


which leaves us with 4th. this book gives us actually some of the best information about the TS to date and even tells us what they get up to since the Rubric (which is a first). sadly, it totally re-enforces everything i've said so far. like all the codexes before, the TS are represented in the book with an actual unit (no other Legion gets this), which kind of implies that the TS are splintered, no-longer working as other Legions do, instead their troops are spread amoungst all the other Legions and Chapters dedicated to Chaos. in fact the book goes one further than that and for the first time it says as much:
"The Sorcerors offer the services of their unliving warriors to those who promise them knowledge and magical power."
there, stated catagorically as fact, we are told that the TS do not opperate as a Legion but as mercenaries to other Legions. it is difficult to imagine that such small factions can support the creation of new marines.

The Thousand Sons are to some extent splintered into warbands, as in fact most of the Legions are (Black Legion, Word Bearers and Iron Warriors being the only Legions left with much of a chain of command). That shouldn't prevent us from talking about their recruitment practices, any more than we would about the Night Lords, Alpha Legion, World Eaters or any of the other Legions which have splintered.

Having said that, of course, there are still large groups of Thousand Sons form the factions of the Legion: those who still swear loyalty to Magnus, and Ahriman's exiled renegades.


could you please give actual quotes and page references, so that we know you have read these sources, rather than just having thought you'd read them. its only polite in a discussion to back up your points.

If you want. These obviously aren't meant to be exhaustive, they're just the references I could find first.
We know that all the other Traitor Legions have been recruiting new members in the Eye since the Heresy (2nd Codex Chaos p102)
We know that Fabius Bile has examined Thousand Son gene-seed (Heroes & Villains: Fabius Bile, WD AUS 278 , p70).
We know the leaders of the Thousand Sons have always been motivated to do whatever it takes to save their Legion and ensure its prosperity (Magnus on Prospero: Index Astartes: Thousand Sons, Ahriman with his Rubric: 2nd Codex Chaos p106-107).
We know that the Thousand Sons are still motivated to continue their Long War against the Imperium (Magnus' attack on Fenris: Index Astartes: Dreadnoughts).


the rational reason would be that to have non-rubric marines would errode the purpose and theme of the army.

Properly representing the composition of warbands of the Thousand Sons Legion would erode the purpose and theme of a Thousand Sons army? How?


Again, I've made my point if you don't/won't understand it, fine. I can't resist adding this though. Now that the daemon codex is out we know what the daemons of tzeentch are, there are pictures photo's of models, etc, seen any for lesser summoned daemons?

Use the same models. Summoned lesser daemons in a Chaos Marine army represent the various lesser daemons of the Chaos Gods. So if you're playing a Tzeentch army, use models for lesser daemons of Tzeentch. These models won't have the same rules, but that's hardly a problem. As the Codex describes, lesser daemons summoned by Chaos Marines aren't as powerful as those which come into realspace during a daemonic incursion.


Fine, provide a reference/s since I'm not going to attempt to prove a negative.

Pure speculation, please provide references.

(1) is not proof of (2), nor even strong evidence for it, so we come again too - provide references.

For a start, I've been providing evidence for my positions all the way through. I'd be more inclined to take your requests for evidence seriously if you were concerned in the least for providing references yourself


Right, let's make this clear, the rubric/sorcerer thing starts in the 2nd ed codex. Troops dedicated to tzeentch, but not sorcerers/rubrics return in the 4.0 codex. Nowwhere in either of these two documents (that I can find, hence the request for references) or in any of the intervening codexes is there any basis for members of the TS who are not either sorcerers or rubrics.

See my responses to AdmiralDick.


On the question of daemons, TS have been using tzeentch daemons (proper ones, not pathetic design fudge substitutes) since before the inception of the rubric, so I see no reason to include useless, ersatz daemons now (or ever).

But the lesser summoned daemons in the Chaos Marine codex do represent Tzeentch lesser daemons. Using lesser summoned daemons in a Thousand Sons army does not mean that you're not taking Tzeentchian daemons.

DhaosAndy
08-06-2008, 07:12
DantesInferno: "That doesn't follow. The fact that we're not told anything explicitly about the Thousand Sons' post-Rubric recruitment should not lead us to assume that it's because it doesn't happen."

Actually, their is reference in LATD and the 2nd Ed codex to recruitment by the TS on the planet of sorcerers and from the wider galaxy. LATD has them recruiting both warriors and promising sorcerer/psykers from the planets warbands and mentions that Magnus sends out ships to gather artifacts, knowledge and promising sorcerers/psykers for the TS. Now the part about warriors is missing from the broadly similar information in the 2nd Ed codex (probably because it predates the inception of the rubric). This too talks about sorcerers guiding hulks on raids into the imperium to obtain artifacts knowledge and promising psykers for recruitment into the TS it also mentions recruitment of sorcerer champions from the warband population of the planet.

This leads to the conclusion that we do indeed know something about recruitment in to the TS post rubric, but only of sorcerer/psykers.
(I must apologise for that lack of page references, I'm at work)

So following on from the above, if we are to make any assumption, that assumption has to be that post rubric the TS have only recruited sorcerers/psykers.

DantesInferno: "The fact that the only Tzeentchian troops in the 2nd ed (and 3rd, and 3.5th) army list were Rubric Marines does not imply that they're the only Tzeentchian troops that exist in the background. Chaos Codices, until very recently, have not had options for any non-Cult god-dedicated troops (Khornate Marines who aren't Berzerkers, Slaaneshi Marines who aren't Noise Marines, and so forth). They're shortcomings resulting from the limited resources of an army list (you can only fit so much stuff in, developers can only playtest so many units), and they certainly should be read to limit the background in any way."

You're doing it again, your confusing "Tzeentchian troops" ie any martial follower of Tzeentch with, Thousand Sons, the members of a specific legion. Now I agree that one of the faults with the 2, 3.0 and 3.5 codexes was that their was no way to represent followers of Tzeentch other than TS, (or indeed the followers of any god other than members of the cult legions or the BL) and your quote from GavT certainly supports that. However, having reread that thread I find no support at all for your assertion that the members of the TS are anything other than sorcerers or rubrics.

While I agree that everything cannot be in every addition of the codex it would not IMHO have been too difficult to include the cult terminators as a couple of extra lines on the page for the cult units, as an upgrade that moves them to elites or with the terminators entry (had they kept the armoury in some form they would not have had to reprint the same set of wargear cost on every page thus leaving more than enough room in the layout).

DantesInferno: "But the lesser summoned daemons in the Chaos Marine codex do represent Tzeentch lesser daemons. Using lesser summoned daemons in a Thousand Sons army does not mean that you're not taking Tzeentchian daemons."

It does as far as I'm concerned, so in the end, it's my army and it's my opinion that counts.

As far as the thread goes, perhaps we should take the argument elsewhere.

As far as the daemon codex goes, for all my critisisms and reservations I'll still be using it and I may even take a daemon army to the GT :)

DantesInferno
08-06-2008, 09:20
I'd like to respond to your post DhaosAndy, but I don't want to derail the thread any more than I already have. Perhaps you'd like to head over to the Background Forum and participate in the Thousand Sons thread currently going there? It's a more appropriate place for your points.

As I said before, l'll leave this thread in case anyone actually still has anything to say about the Daemon Codex.

DhaosAndy
08-06-2008, 10:01
Ok, thread sub added, will post later, need some kip.