PDA

View Full Version : Who has remained loyal?



x-esiv-4c
21-10-2008, 13:56
Since the advent of the latest chaos codex, we legion players have been able to take non-marked units without losing the special rules bestowed for being loyal to the chaos gods.

Who has?

I've seen Khorne armies feature a unit or two of 1ksons, EC armies with a plaguemarine squad and a khorne DP. I have steered clear from non-marked units (not even a popular lash-prince). All the units in my army have MoN/plaguemarines. No bikes...Raptors etc. Am I screwing myself by doing this? Probably.

sydbridges
21-10-2008, 14:07
Since the advent of the latest chaos codex, we legion players have been able to take non-marked units without losing the special rules bestowed for being loyal to the chaos gods.

Well, it's not so much that we don't lose the special rules for being loyal to a particular god as there are no rules for being loyal to a particular god.


Who has?

I've seen Khorne armies feature a unit or two of 1ksons, EC armies with a plaguemarine squad and a khorne DP. I have steered clear from non-marked units (not even a popular lash-prince). All the units in my army have MoN/plaguemarines. No bikes...Raptors etc. Am I screwing myself by doing this? Probably.

My EC army is still monotheistic Slaaneshi. Would a mix be more powerful? Probably. Would I complain if an opponent fielded a mix-god army? No (although it'd probably drive me nuts in my head if they did something like paint up berserkers in EC colors or plague marines in 1kSons, I'd be able to keep my own crazy to myself and play the game.)

EVIL INC
21-10-2008, 14:20
Luckily, you can now field FULLY fluffy armies without having to go to the other gods.
Before, you were stuck with one dimensional bland stereotype lists while now you can use icons to get more of the units "actually" fielded by the legions such as assault troops, bikers ect. True, the icons dont give the full "mark" and the "mark" is lost when the icon is lost, but half a loaf is better then none.

x-esiv-4c
21-10-2008, 14:28
There weren't special rules for playing a Deathguard army in 4th edition? Pretty sure Aspiring champions were free in units composed of multiples of 7 as well as something about summoning daemons...

Redrivertears
21-10-2008, 14:35
Heya,

For my Emperor's Children, I've stuck to units either with the Mark of Slaanesh or no marks at all. I don't know if you consider that loyal or not :) I don't take different marks (including Mark of Chaos Undivided) or different cult troops.

I do take unmarked units, including basic chaos marines. I figure if I have to do so for vehicles anyways, I might as well do the same for basic units. My reasoning is that they're the new recruits who are filling out the ranks for casualties among the older legion members, and that once they've proven their worth in the eyes of the Dark Prince, they become marked as well.

All my independant characters, ofcourse, have the Mark of Slaanesh.

-Redrivertears-

the1stpip
21-10-2008, 14:40
Well, I preferred the old codex, and I haven't used my Ec since the new one came out.

It is not a bad codex if you want to make a standard Chaos List (indeed, I have started a fluffy Word Bearers army) but for Legions, it is awful.

==Me==
21-10-2008, 14:41
I believe EVIL INC is referring to the straighjacketing the old Chaos book did with regards to Legions. Every Legion army looked pretty much the same thanks to a lack of any meaningful rules beyond limiting your choices severely in exchange for free stuff.

I would rather they did Legions properly (standalone Codex, similar to the marine chapters) or not at all. They can be represented with the CSM currently with the same degree of homogenity if you go pure mark-only or a degree of difference with icons and counts-as.

I'd say cult legions are better off than undivided legions, as you can easily comprise an army of marked troops, icon'd other units, Daemons, and vehicles to rep a Cult Legion. It isn't perfect but I suppose it can work for now. I'd keep pushing for a full-on Legion 'dex though. If it were up to ==Me==, I'd give Chaos the 3-way split Fantasy got. Legions, Renegades (incorporating renegade marines like the Red Corsairs as well as LatD), and Daemons.

qwertywraith
21-10-2008, 14:47
I've begun incorporating the Icon of Tzeetch on my terminators (though I may switch back to Slaanesh on them in a new build). I'll also probably be adding some pink plague marines. Maybe some undivided CSM.

Everything is still pink, and I'll play a pure Slaanesh list sometimes, but I'm trying out new play styles and units.

Vaktathi
21-10-2008, 15:00
personally I never really use anything other than just undivided icons, with the occasional Khorne icon on terminators or Raptors, and an MoK on Daemon Princes.


That said, the way the Icon work, especially with the new wound allocation system, just makes taking Icons too much of a bad investment, with the once exception of Undivided Icons. They are simply too likely to die off, and cost too much for what they do.

Nero
21-10-2008, 15:05
I have Icons in my Word Bearers army, so no, I'm not loyal. The Chaos Codex is bland enough as it is, removing Icons limits my choices down to 'do I put a power weapon or a powerfist in this squad?'.

EVIL INC
21-10-2008, 15:21
==ME==, you caught what I meant. Thanx for explaining it.
I agree, I would love to see a full "legions" codex (if it were done correctly with the full range of unit types actually available to the legions rather then just the same bland stereotype unit they had before). Hopefully, they learned from the past mistakes and do it right this time (if/when they do it at all).

Bounou
21-10-2008, 15:26
Interesting discussion, what about squad sizes for cult troops? How many of you still restrict yourselves to the numbers of your specific god? IE 8 for Khorne, 7 for Nurgle, etc...

EVIL INC
21-10-2008, 15:34
I see many people who stick with the "cult numbers". Some say that it actually brings good luck even.
Personally, that was something I disagreed with even in the days of Rogue Trader. This is because squads and units take losses in the course of time and not every unit is able to fully replenish between battles. So even if a unit "started" with the "right number" it might not have the "right number" available for a particuler battle. Then, there are economics. Why only put 6 guys in a rhino when it will hold 10? To me, even the gods can see that a "full" 10 man squad can put out more fire/fistpower then a lesser number. It also makes it harder for us as players to "do the math" in putting the army together.
So, no. I dont use the "magic" numbers.

x-esiv-4c
21-10-2008, 15:37
I still use 7 plaguemarines per squad. Cheap enough to pack in 2 plasma guns. Other then that? No real reason outside a 4th edition relic.

sydbridges
21-10-2008, 15:40
Interesting discussion, what about squad sizes for cult troops? How many of you still restrict yourselves to the numbers of your specific god? IE 8 for Khorne, 7 for Nurgle, etc...

I spent some time laboring over this in my head. Did I want to have all squads of six except for one squad of five, who the sorcerer would join to make a squad of six, or all squads of six. I went with the second because if I went with the first case and decided to have the sorcerer leave the unit of five to join another unit, I'd then have a unit of five and a unit of seven (two wrong), whereas with the second, I only ever have one wrong.

totgeboren
21-10-2008, 15:42
I have a Word Bearer army, and have started using different icons in my CSM squads.

Though, I have changed things around abit, so now my Chaplains don't lead the army, but instead are just Champions carrying an icon of Khorne. +1 attack is almost the same as rites of battle. :)


My old Sorcerer has been reborn as a Champion with an icon of Tzeench. 5++ save for the squad is the same as a Libby with the force dome power.

My Chaos Lord has the MoK, for no other reason than I can. It doesn't count as anything other than being extra badass in combat.

All are still followers of Chaos Undivided, I just try and use the hand I have been dealt in the best way possible.

The self-imposed restriction of 'do I put a power weapon or a powerfist in this squad?' as Nero put it made me shelf my Chaos army for well over a year. Then I read about using the icons to represent other stuff. My vets will have an apothecary, who will represent an Icon of Nurgle for example.

though i still dont use any Cult troops. Im sure I could come up with some fluff for them, but I feel that would take away from the Word Bearer theme too much.


Heh, when running CSM squads with no Rhino, I tend to try and run them 12-man strong, since thats the Word Bearer prefered squad-size. No other reason than fluff. :D

Sister_Sin
21-10-2008, 15:56
I haven't used my World Eaters since shortly after the new Codex came out, and I probably won't until a Legion dex comes, if it ever does.

Sister Sin

Madfool2
21-10-2008, 16:03
Around my area, there was only one legion player, and he now plays renegades, so no one here.

IJW
21-10-2008, 16:11
Like Evil Inc, I found the 3.5 codex legion rules over-caricatured, that said my Nurgle-following marines (not Death Guard, BTW) are:

In units of seven.
Mostly Plague Marines.
Led by a sorcerer with MoN & Nurgle's Rot
Come to a total of 7x7 models in the army.

Unfortunately I ran out of points to give the Havocs Icons of Nurgle. :(

Barbarossa
21-10-2008, 16:22
My Thousand Sons still operate in units of 9.
All my characters have the Mark of Tzeentch.
Except for a unit of Terminators (which were TS termies in the last codex!) I use only Thousand Sons as infantry.
My summoned daemons are all horrors and operate in multiples of 9.
I use Tzeentch-converted vehicles as fire support.

Still, I had to play against that Slaanesh special character riding in the same Rhino as his Death Guard homies. :cries:

IAMNOTHERE
21-10-2008, 16:35
My EC list has 36 models in it.

2 Squads Noise, 1 Squads Lesser daemons, 1 squad possessed, 1 squad chosen all in multiples of 6.

Vehicles and support make up the rest but everything that can be is marked Slanesh.

Fixer
21-10-2008, 16:57
If anything this new chaos space marine codex has shown me how Chaos players who supposedly played their armies for fluff, that are completely willing to go directly against their own army background in order to get the most powerful combinations available.

An army of nothing but world eaters! Lead by Slaaneshi daemon princes with sorcerous powers. Urghh...

My Thousand sons are extremely happy though. I can play a full Tzeentch list that doesn't completely suck ass.

Nero
21-10-2008, 17:28
If anything this new chaos space marine codex has shown me how Chaos players who supposedly played their armies for fluff, that are completely willing to go directly against their own army background in order to get the most powerful combinations available.

An army of nothing but world eaters! Lead by Slaaneshi daemon princes with sorcerous powers. Urghh...

My Thousand sons are extremely happy though. I can play a full Tzeentch list that doesn't completely suck ass.

Righto! I'll just make my army not fun to play for the sake of pedantically adhering to some ever-changing fluff!

What gets me about comments like this is how black and white it is - either my army is fluffy at the expense of being boring to play, or I'm a powergamer who completely ignores fluff in favor of cheese. We were spoilt last codex - we could have 100% fluffy armies that were massively fun to play (between 14 pages of armory and 11 types of daemon, you better believe they were!). Now apparently I have to choose - fluff or fun.

For the record, my Word Bearers army has icons of the various gods, but it has no lashes, no obliterators, no daemon princes, and no cult troops. In the last codex, my Word Bearers were entirely fluffy and fun, had no Dread Axes, Sirens, didn't rely on daemon-bombs, and (obviously) didn't use the IW rules.

tortoise
21-10-2008, 17:31
Everything in my EC army has either a mark or an icon of Slaanesh. Everything in my DG army has the mark of nurgle.

I always hated fixed numbers even in RoC days. They were too restrictive and some rules seriously hampered certain powers (for instance daemonic legions didn't pay points for greater daemons back then- you just got your gods number for free. This was in spite of the fact that Bloodthirsters were more expensive than keepers for example).

IAMNOTHERE
21-10-2008, 17:44
Sacred numbers were never restrictive, quite the opposite. You could always take more or less but if you took a multiple then you got a free aspiring Champ in certain Legions.

The new C:CSM hit EC playres harder then most because we lost sonics, blast masters and doom sirens of everything but Troops choices.

I've seen beutiful armies of converted EC which are no longer playable. It's a shame it had to come to it.

You'll see from the list above that I take a real mixture of units but keep to the theme of EC. It is effective, it does work and I contribute that to Slanesh smiling on my sacred numbers.

Havarel
21-10-2008, 17:52
Back in the old chaos codex I ran an EC army, and enjoyed playing it, and found it to be fairly varied even within the confines of Slaaneshi only. But I found the new codex to be boring, the marks/ cult units were purely alternatives to wargear, so i decided to open out and run a bit of everything.
I still run my Marines as an off-shoot of the EC, I've just had to adapt my fluff to explain why they would have access to these upgrades. Ie units that have the MoN are marines who have had genetic enhancements, making them tougher than even the average marine. The MoK represents marines who have taken massive doses of combat drugs, making them more viscious in combat.
I found it surprisinlgy easy to find fluff reasons why these units would be included in my armies. Its allowed me to have very different and interesting army lists.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a Slaaneshi-only list, or codex, but only if it allowed me to make varied, different lists and have a play around with it, which I couldn't do now if I kept only to one god.

Durath
21-10-2008, 18:08
I haven't stayed loyal. I used to run all Slaanesh, but with the threat of AP3 Flamer Templates, high STR template weapons, and assault marines that can charge on the turn they deepstrike, the only way to hold a position now is with Thousand Sons. I've bought a box of 9 of them. Will probably buy more.

For similar reasons, I actually dug up some old Plague Marines that I had stashed away in a cup in the bottom of my bits trunk. Even with the Tarnish from oxidation, they still are harder to kill than my Noise Marines.

I've also started playing Chaos Daemons. I already had a sizeable Daemons army. All I had to do was buy some Fiends, a "true" KoS, some Flamers and some Plaguebearers, and now its tournament worthy.

I hate to turn-away from the Lord of Pleasure, but as someone else pointed out, EC and Slaanesh armies kinda got the shaft in terms of force selection (and points cost really). Though I do like the Doom Siren and Blastmaster in their current incantation, I just wish you could put the new stats on vehicles's weapons.

EmperorEternalXIX
21-10-2008, 18:10
While I admire the stalwart fluff adherence that seems to be present in the chaos community...I have to wonder how much the widespread disdain for the chaos dex is aided by this theistic loyalty.

Case in point: I have a friend who has a Nurgle army and he will only take plague marines (which he pronounces "plag" not "playg"...argh!). Nothing else. He has recently added some vindicators to his list, and occasionally fields a predator, but otherwise, like literally nothing else. He won't even take Chaos Marines with an Icon of Nurgle.

He of course loses constantly.

I am curious: do the other gods' loyal armies have issues holding their own? It seems the codex was designed to all be used together but some gods seem more viable then others. The Nurgle armies, I am not afraid of at all. Two good demolisher hits in 5th and most of their model count is gone. I am curious as to how well god-specific lists work out for Khorne, Tzeentch, and Slaanesh?

Durath
21-10-2008, 18:32
I am curious as to how well god-specific lists work out for Khorne, Tzeentch, and Slaanesh?

Well... here's what I've seen...

Nurgle - No teeth, not survivable enough with the limited scope of 5th Ed. FnP. On their own, they get owned.

Khorne - If the opposing team can survive the initial charge, Khorne armies get butchered in the end. Its very dicey, but a few good rounds of CC can make Khorne armies unbeatable. Likewise, a bad round of CC, and your Khorne army can't beat anyone. Definitely not as powerful as they used to be. If you like to gamble, play an all Khorne army.

Slaanesh - See my post above. Slaanesh is probably the most expensive unit to deploy for the least survivablity. They can be nasty, but require finesse, or a stupid opponent, or a lot of good luck to win with. Not having the Havocs or Vehicle weapon options hurts them too. I'd have to say, they are a close second if not first place for the least viable exclusive god CSM list.

Tzeentch - Ahh... Thousand Sons. The legion GW deemed to redeem. Not only are these armies viable, they can be downright nasty. With AP3 bolters, 4+ Inv. saves, AP1 Psychic powers and numerous ways to overcome their slowness, I've seen Tzeentch-based CSM armies trounce player after player. A co-gamer at the store I frequent runs them, and only loses to Orks. And even then he can beat them. I haven't seen him go up against the new marine book though. I'm curious how he'd fare. I think he's going to see a few more L's against them.

DrDoom
21-10-2008, 18:39
One of my regular opponents plays a solid EC army. Its all Noise Marines and squads with Icons of Slaanesh. Its pretty effective.

Supremearchmarshal
21-10-2008, 19:24
Tzeentch - Ahh... Thousand Sons. The legion GW deemed to redeem. Not only are these armies viable, they can be downright nasty. With AP3 bolters, 4+ Inv. saves, AP1 Psychic powers and numerous ways to overcome their slowness, I've seen Tzeentch-based CSM armies trounce player after player. A co-gamer at the store I frequent runs them, and only loses to Orks. And even then he can beat them. I haven't seen him go up against the new marine book though. I'm curious how he'd fare. I think he's going to see a few more L's against them.

I'll second this - one game I played against such an army and my opponent just wouldn't fail his invulnerable saves. To say it was annoying would be an understatement. Also I felt Ahriman has been given a considerable boost - I underestimated him and paid the price.

Fixer
21-10-2008, 20:55
All of the marked legion armies are pretty solid in 5th.

You have 4 cult troops, all as good as space marine elites that count as scoring units. All of them fearless.
Nurgle and Slaanesh have as many attacks as marine sternguard veterans. Khorne beserkers can beat down Vanguard veterans, Thousand sons have impressive anti-MEQ firepower and can take battlecannon shots to the chin without flinching.
Noise marines can lay down a massive torrent of firepower, combined with the new armor save rules they kick ass against character lead units and are amazing against horde armies.
Plague marines in cover holding an objective are almost impossible to take down. They can take most anti infantry firepower without flinching, only elite high strength power weapon units can be relied to take them down.

Throw in some vehicle support, a character or two, maybe some iconed units and you have a great competetive army.

keatsmeister
21-10-2008, 21:08
My Thousand Sons still operate in units of 9.
All my characters have the Mark of Tzeentch.
Except for a unit of Terminators (which were TS termies in the last codex!) I use only Thousand Sons as infantry.
My summoned daemons are all horrors and operate in multiples of 9.
I use Tzeentch-converted vehicles as fire support.

Dedication yields its own rewards :D

the neckbone
21-10-2008, 21:24
in the old codex i ran pure slannesh and i still do now i just had to radically change my army. Some nights when its cold and the wind is blowing i dream about my slannesh libarian in a squad of khorn but then i wake up and relise that every 10 year old player that plays chaos has already done that.
Then i slap myself

Captin Korea!
21-10-2008, 21:33
I run 6 man noise marines/ terminators with mos still. I never run anything else aside from undivided troops.

IAMNOTHERE
21-10-2008, 21:58
Slanesh can deffinatly hold it's own, even against hardcore armies. I've seen TKsons do well too.

Not seen a pure Nurgle or Khorne list since 4th ed which is a shame. What a lot of people get wrong with khorne is that they think it's all about Hand to hand, it's not. They need to be supported just as much as the next raving psycopath. If I did a pure Khorne list it would involve a lot of termies I think.

Ravenheart
21-10-2008, 22:18
Imho a Nurge force consisting of Plaguemarines and lesser daemons as core, backed up by long range support (Oblits, Defiler) and big guys (daemon prince, GD) works quite well.
Apart of the Oblits (which are a bit of a grey area) it's even a true to the background.

EVIL INC
21-10-2008, 22:47
While I admire the stalwart fluff adherence that seems to be present in the chaos community...I have to wonder how much the widespread disdain for the chaos dex is aided by this theistic loyalty.

Offhand, I would say no. Most chaos players love the new chaos codex and this is because it is more true to the original chaos fluff then the 3rd and 4th edition version.
It is a matter of whether you prefer the original fleshed out version of the chaos fluff or the later watered down bland version.

A Death Gaurd force comprising plague marines as troops, havocs with the icon of Nurgle and raptors with icon of nurgle as well as a pred is also fluffy (and more realiustic).

malisteen
23-10-2008, 05:41
I dislike the book due to a lack of the special rules, gimmicks, and options that make this game fun to me, rather then any issue of viability or fear of mixed marks. It may be my Black Legion roots, but I never understood the bias against mixed marks in the first place....

cailus
23-10-2008, 06:35
Offhand, I would say no. Most chaos players love the new chaos codex and this is because it is more true to the original chaos fluff then the 3rd and 4th edition version.

Any proof of most Chaos players loving their new book?

I'd say the split is 50:50. I know some that like it (mainly new players) and others who loathe it (mainly older players)



It is a matter of whether you prefer the original fleshed out version of the chaos fluff or the later watered down bland version.

Dunno how 3.5 was watered down - it was the first codex to feature legion rules and it still had varied Daemons.

The new codex is watered down - no varied Daemons, no Legion specific rules, next to no Daemonic upgrades etc.

I haven't read Realms of Chaos, but the new rulebook isn't even as Chaotic as the 2nd edition rulebook.


A Death Gaurd force comprising plague marines as troops, havocs with the icon of Nurgle and raptors with icon of nurgle as well as a pred is also fluffy (and more realiustic).


Dunno about the Raptors - Jump Packs were really rare during the time of the Heresy and Mortarion favoured foot slogging infantry to anything else. So the Havocs make sense but Raptors absolutely do not.

Besides as far as I remember Raptors are now their own little subcult.

totgeboren
23-10-2008, 06:49
It may be my Black Legion roots, but I never understood the bias against mixed marks in the first place....

One of the most central things in 40k is religious fanaticism, and cult chaos marines are more fanatically loyal to their god than most SM are to the Emperor.

Codex CSM vs codex SM now is like, the SM are Christians, and the CSM are every other religion out there.

Having a Sorc with the MoS leading some Plaguemarines would be like a Jewish fanatic leading a crack-troop of mujahejin Muslim warriors.

It just doesn't work within the setting GW has put up. The Cult followers of the chaos gods are as far away from each other as they are from the followers of the Emperor.

On the other hand, if 40k was a place where religious tolerance was the name of the game, I would have no problem with mixed mark armies.

Supremearchmarshal
23-10-2008, 11:58
Dunno how 3.5 was watered down - it was the first codex to feature legion rules and it still had varied Daemons.

I believe he's referring to how the 3.5 codex made all lists of a particular legion very similar - all WE list would consist of only Berserkers and Daemons, all Alpha Legion armies consisted almost entirely of infiltrators etc. That resulted in armies being reduced to boring stereotypes. On that I do agree with him.
However, the current codex goes completely in the opposite direction: it throws out all the old fluff through the window and the end result is armies lacking a unified theme: Plague Marines and Thousand Sons led by a Slaanesh Daemon prince and supported by Obliterators :wtf:


I haven't read Realms of Chaos, but the new rulebook isn't even as Chaotic as the 2nd edition rulebook.

In hindsight, the 2nd edition CSM codex was probably the best of the bunch. RoC books were awesome for background, art, ideas etc. but much too complex IMO. If you played them "by the book" it would take several hours just to write an army list.

The 2nd edition codex did not have legions, lists, but had varied and interesting Daemons, lots of different Chaos wargear/blessings (not quite as much as the 3.5 one, though) and - to me the best bit - two sub-lists: the Daemonworld horde and the Chaos Cult. The best thing was that you could combine elements of all three into a single army. Also the 2nd edition codex seemed to be actually balanced.


Dunno about the Raptors - Jump Packs were really rare during the time of the Heresy and Mortarion favoured foot slogging infantry to anything else. So the Havocs make sense but Raptors absolutely do not.

Besides as far as I remember Raptors are now their own little subcult.

Originally, in the RoC lists, Chaos had Assault Marines like the loyalists. Then the Jump packs were dropped altogether. They were re-introduced in the 3rd edition as Raptors, marines which had their own cult. The current codex makes no mention of the cult, so in a way it is a return to the roots.

It's actually a typical example of the GW pendulum-swing design philosophy:

RoC books: Chaos had Devastators, Tacticals and Assault Marines just like the loyalists.

2nd edition: To make Chaos more distinct, Devastators and Assault Marines are dropped. Instead, the basic CSM squad can get 2 special or heavy weapons and the entire squad a pistol/chainsword combo. This means that they're more flexible than the loyalists, but lack the loyalists specialized troops.

3rd and 4th edition: The Havocs and Raptors are (re)introduced for some reason, IMO upsetting the balance somewhat.

5th edition: We've come back to the beginning, but IMO the CSM get an edge over the loyalists. Raptors become Assault Marines able to buy special weapons. CSM get an extra attack over the loyalist Tacticals. Havocs are probably the best balanced, as they cannot get Plasma Cannons and cannot use combat squads, but are more powerful in combat and can get special weapons.

Griffin
23-10-2008, 12:03
My Black Legion force still operates without the benefit of cult troops, Led by Abaddon, Specializing in Speartip tactics and our famed rapid assaults.

LordFulgrim
23-10-2008, 12:16
My EC still run with 6-man Noise Marine squads and everything I else that I use has, where possible, the MoS. The only new thing I added is Raptors and standard marines with an Icon.
I only rarely unpack them these days to play with which is a damn shame but I just hat the fact that more than half of my models aren't playable anymore because of all the noise-weapons...noise-dreadnought *sniff*

Unclejo
23-10-2008, 12:53
The original Legion lists from Codex 3.5 were sublimely stupid. Havoks who devote themselves to Nurgle have to pop around the Iron Warriors gaff first to swap all of theyre heavy weapons for specials? Please.

cailus
23-10-2008, 23:34
I believe he's referring to how the 3.5 codex made all lists of a particular legion very similar - all WE list would consist of only Berserkers and Daemons, all Alpha Legion armies consisted almost entirely of infiltrators etc. That resulted in armies being reduced to boring stereotypes. On that I do agree with him.

This was mainly players themselves reducing their armies to stereotypes. You could still create a fluffy Alpha Legion force where infiltrate did not play such a big role or a fluffy Iron Warrior force that did not simply have 6-9 Obliterators and 4 Ordnance.

For example the Alpha Legion could be utilising Cultists as forward shock troops backed up by Deep Striking termies or an Alpha Legion armoured strike force. Iron Warriors could be done very fluffily with melta gun/flamer equipped units, Terminators and Dreads with Thunderhammers.

A big problem with 40K is the players themselves. People go for the most efficient lists.

I've noticed a lot of people only embrace the most simplistic of ideas and can't see past that. For example, Khorne which represents martial pride, anger and violence is reduced to Kill Maim Burn.

People do this with things such as politics - I know a lot of people who think the Australian Labor Party is a pro-worker borderline Communist party when even a cursory glance at their policies reveals a centre orientated party which has over the last 20 years leaned more to the centre-right (e.g. privatisation of government business).

A lot of people seem unable or unwilling to see past superficial presentation of ideas.




However, the current codex goes completely in the opposite direction: it throws out all the old fluff through the window and the end result is armies lacking a unified theme: Plague Marines and Thousand Sons led by a Slaanesh Daemon prince and supported by Obliterators :wtf:

Or even worse, Slaaneeshi lords leading armies of Khorne. I've seen this and the player was bagged out so much for this combo that he ceased using it. Ironically in the game that I watched, the Gods themselves must've been unimpressed cause the Slaaneeshi lord failed two Perils of the Warp test and suffered his last wound to an exploding plasma pistol.

GW no longer seems to be promoting unified themes. Both Chaos Marines and Daemons focus on mixing inter-God units to the point where it is unfluffy.





In hindsight, the 2nd edition CSM codex was probably the best of the bunch. RoC books were awesome for background, art, ideas etc. but much too complex IMO. If you played them "by the book" it would take several hours just to write an army list.

The 2nd edition codex did not have legions, lists, but had varied and interesting Daemons, lots of different Chaos wargear/blessings (not quite as much as the 3.5 one, though) and - to me the best bit - two sub-lists: the Daemonworld horde and the Chaos Cult. The best thing was that you could combine elements of all three into a single army. Also the 2nd edition codex seemed to be actually balanced.

The 2nd edition had a lot going for it. I think it was partially due to a coherent and consistent design philosophy.

Since 2nd edition, Games Workshop has struggled to find its feet with 40K. They are trying to appease all factions - the fluff gamers, the modellers, the power gamers and the tournament players. As a result the pendulum is swinging constantly from one design paradigm to another.






Originally, in the RoC lists, Chaos had Assault Marines like the loyalists. Then the Jump packs were dropped altogether. They were re-introduced in the 3rd edition as Raptors, marines which had their own cult. The current codex makes no mention of the cult, so in a way it is a return to the roots.

It's actually a typical example of the GW pendulum-swing design philosophy:

RoC books: Chaos had Devastators, Tacticals and Assault Marines just like the loyalists.

2nd edition: To make Chaos more distinct, Devastators and Assault Marines are dropped. Instead, the basic CSM squad can get 2 special or heavy weapons and the entire squad a pistol/chainsword combo. This means that they're more flexible than the loyalists, but lack the loyalists specialized troops.

3rd and 4th edition: The Havocs and Raptors are (re)introduced for some reason, IMO upsetting the balance somewhat.

5th edition: We've come back to the beginning, but IMO the CSM get an edge over the loyalists. Raptors become Assault Marines able to buy special weapons. CSM get an extra attack over the loyalist Tacticals. Havocs are probably the best balanced, as they cannot get Plasma Cannons and cannot use combat squads, but are more powerful in combat and can get special weapons.

Interestingly enough though, the loyalists get more interesting and flavoursome rules.

While the Raptors may be Assault Marines with special weapons, Vanguard are a bunch of brutal elite veterans with some very nifty rules.

Other units give more flavour to the Marine codex over the Chaos one, ranging from small wargear items such as digitial weapons and camo cloaks to certain abilities such as the ability to fortify to units such as Sternguard, Vanguard, Landspeeder Storm etc.

Basically Chaos is Codex: Bland Marines

Amnar
24-10-2008, 00:08
My entire army is light pinkish purple.... I don't think anything else needs to be added :-P

Beastlord Karankawa
24-10-2008, 12:58
I'm fairly dissappointed in the new 'dex. I play black legion and have lost a fair number of options (mainly daemons), but there are more "markable" units that help to make up for that.

AdmiralDick
28-10-2008, 11:02
i don't personally take non-slaaneshi units in my army, but that is because my army is Slaaneshi themed. however, it is not an EC army so there is no logical reason as to why i cannot take such units, i just choose not to. thus i'm not particularly phased by the idea of others taking mixed armies.


Before, you were stuck with one dimensional bland stereotype lists while now you can use icons to get more of the units "actually" fielded by the legions such as assault troops, bikers ect

ahh, are we back to this old chestnut?

as you well know EVIL INC i have to disagree with you on both counts here; yes the previous Codex was too restrictive on what armies could have what marks, but i don't think the restrictions on what units could have what marks was unfounded at all. for the most part such restrictions were obviously game balanced based (you couldn't have Bikers with the MoN, because it would crank their toughness up to monsterous levels). GW seem to have through much of this caution to the wind for the new book, but i'm not sure it is necessarily for the better.

i don't think that the Legions were any more stereotypical or one dimensional than they ever had been before. the RoC lists were as similar to one another as you suggest the 3.5 lists were, but also lack any sense of direction and character. the DG list was not the DG, but just marines that were green around the gills.


They can be represented with the CSM currently with the same degree of homogenity if you go pure mark-only or a degree of difference with icons and counts-as.

except without any of the characterful units that made them at least in part palatable.

i'm not saying that the 3.5 lists were perfect, just that the current lists are equally imperfect (if not a little more so).


I see many people who stick with the "cult numbers". Some say that it actually brings good luck even.

having units of 6 Noise Marine Havocs was a nightmare. they were so so fragile it was unbelievable. and not being able to take 12 men squads in a Rhino was a pain in the posterior too.

having said that though, i felt that the squad numbers was a good way of helping to create a sense of difference between the various groups. Noise Marines were fragile because of numbers, but it added to the idea that actually they quite liked being injured and set them in contrast against the almost unstoppable 9 strong squads of Thousand Sons.


Like Evil Inc, I found the 3.5 codex legion rules over-caricatured

its this concept that i find difficult to come to terms with.

i agree that there were a number of unit missing from the previous codex that should have been included as basic options for everyone, including Cultists/Beastmen and the like.

i also agree that with the exception of the WB the out and out ban on undivided Legions taking marks, even if it may have been there for game balance, didn't necessarily develop the themes of the armies well.

but, for the first time EVERwe had a Chaos codex that went beyond simply ascribing every Legion a name and vague bit of background. they actually had a fighting style and battle-field tactic. how this can be seen as 'water-down' or over-caricatured i really fail to see. presumably if ever a book was released for any of the Legions it would only seem more caricatured, as there would be more new units introduced to re-enforce the Legions theme.


.I have to wonder how much the widespread disdain for the chaos dex is aided by this theistic loyalty.

perhaps, like me, the loyalty is based on what models we have already collected and painted. i don't particularly want to introduce Plague Marines because their style would fly in the face of the themes already present in my army.


Offhand, I would say no. Most chaos players love the new chaos codex and this is because it is more true to the original chaos fluff then the 3rd and 4th edition version.

i'm going to have to say i disagree with you on two counts here. the only people i personally know that say they prefer the new codex are unfortunately fanboys that generally spend too much time kissing staffers backsides and cooing over everything that they say. and they contrast almost exactly person for person with those people who don't take the hobby too seriously, play for fun and don't like the 'freedom' offered by colour-by-numbers.

now, i'm not saying its like that for everyone, just for me. but the split is far more like 50/50 than nearly everyone loves the new codex. so as we have discussed in the past, i would prefer it if you don't talk on behalf of most people. (unless of course you are most people, in which case i retract my request).

secondly, i have still yet to see what it is you feel that this current codex shares with RoC that it doesn't share with 2nd Ed (or perhaps even 3rd). you keep telling it is a return to form, but it still doesn't have Tzaangors in it.


It is a matter of whether you prefer the original fleshed out version of the chaos fluff or the later watered down bland version.

suffice to say that i disagree with you whole heartedly on which version is watered-down, and which is sophisticated.


A Death Gaurd force comprising plague marines as troops, havocs with the icon of Nurgle and raptors with icon of nurgle as well as a pred is also fluffy (and more realiustic).

whilst i'm not in the game of telling people what they can and can't have in their armies, i am quite willing to correct someone if they say that something that doesn't agree with the background in fact does.

it may well have been acceptable in RoC to take jump-pack equipped DG (not bikes because they hadn't been invented), what it was to be a DG was completely up in the air. as far as i can tell the only way in which the background of the legion impacted on what units were or were not 'fluffy' was that their armour was painted green.

we now have a much more sophisticated example of the DG. they are glacially slow, preferring infantry marches against enemy positions above all else. but incredibly tough and resilient to go with it, and when they do finally fall on the enemy the combination of their power and the enemies demoralisation at having just seen their bullets bounce off the DG allows a swift victory.

simply taking a unit of Raptor because you can does not make the army in anyway more like a DG army than a list generated from 3.5.


It may be my Black Legion roots[...]

i'm not even very confident about that.

look a lot more like an UM list to me.


In hindsight, the 2nd edition CSM codex was probably the best of the bunch. RoC books were awesome for background, art, ideas etc. but much too complex IMO. If you played them "by the book" it would take several hours just to write an army list.

if i were going to rank them i would probably go:

3.5 - for flexibility and being the best attempt so far (if not perfect)

2nd - it didn't really attempt to suggest a difference between the Legions, but the enormous choice of units is probably enough to make you forgive that. the only thing it was missing was a War Altar.

RoC - the army lists were shambolic and lacked any real sense of theme or differentiation and the background for the Chaos Legions was next to non-existent. but what it had to tell us about the Chaos Gods has never been replaced.

4th - honestly this is a perfectly decent book, and if it hadn't been for the exceedingly good books that preceded it, it would have had a higher position. it doesn't pip 3.5 for flexibility or differentiation, it doesn't have the upper-hand on 2nd for unit choice (in fact it has fewer units than 3.5) and it seriously lacks the background of RoC.

3rd - the less said about this pamphlet the better, i guess.


3rd and 4th edition: The Havocs and Raptors are (re)introduced for some reason, IMO upsetting the balance somewhat.

am inclined to agree.


The original Legion lists from Codex 3.5 were sublimely stupid. Havoks who devote themselves to Nurgle have to pop around the Iron Warriors gaff first to swap all of theyre heavy weapons for specials? Please.

if you ever read any DG background you'd know why that is.


I play black legion and have lost a fair number of options (mainly daemons), but there are more "markable" units that help to make up for that.

the value of that benefit depends on whether you regard the current mark system as being adequate. i think a lot of people don't.

adreal
28-10-2008, 12:04
Well the only (and I do mean only) non vechile unit without a mark of slaanesh or icon of slaanesh is three oblits that I never really use. Oh yeah I don't icon my havocs (used to) but I keep them 6 man strong, I don't icon them because it's to expensive ($$) to get the ocon's into the unit, if noise marines could take normal special/heavy weapons them I would have some more icon's free'd up and my havocs would get a flag.

In a recient list I'm nt using a sacred number, but that's cause I want to use my land raider,and my termie lord and chosen termies take up alot of room I can't fit the 6+1 I normally field in a lord/bodyguard situation.

Even in my chaos daemons I run mono-god stick to the numbers, havn't had a chance to play it yet but......



As to do I win/have a successful army, 6 man squads hurt if I run them into a one on one fight, just don't have the bodies to win, but 2-4 units combo charging, or just a lord and 6 men combo charging tends to have better results for me. Having two squads of noise marines (10 sonics and 2 blastmasters) sit with 6 missile toting havocs and a defilier gives me a great firebase that not much (if anyhting) in the game can walk though...

Supremearchmarshal
28-10-2008, 12:26
if i were going to rank them i would probably go:

3.5 - for flexibility and being the best attempt so far (if not perfect)

2nd - it didn't really attempt to suggest a difference between the Legions, but the enormous choice of units is probably enough to make you forgive that. the only thing it was missing was a War Altar.

The reason I ranked the 2nd edition codex higher is simply because it felt far more balanced and playtested than 3.5. Let's face it, 3.5 had several combos that were especially powerful and used far more than the others; likewise, some legion lists were much more powerful than the others. And Pete Haines making his own army one of the most powerful is just unforgivable.

The cult/daemon sub-lists are another edge it has over 3.5. Otherwise I agree with your ranking of the codices.

One interesting question that comes to mind: do you think that the basic 3.5 list was good and that the legion rules made it unbalanced? I've actually rarely seen players use the basic list, most went for a legion.

Vault-Dweller
28-10-2008, 12:35
My deathguard just went home. luckily my orks got a new life short after.

Meriwether
28-10-2008, 13:31
My EC have some Soulgrinder support, but other than that I've been loyal. Squads of 6 and all that.

Meri

Earthbeard
28-10-2008, 15:58
Still Play Death Guard with Nurgle marked units.

Fluff and love for the great bloated one is what I play for anyway, so no real change for me, I've got multiple different armies for variance if needs be.

Sister_Sin
28-10-2008, 16:17
I've recently begun working on my World Eaters again, although I don't play them outside of Apoc these days. Lord Zhufor and the rules for Angron (however washed out) kind of spurred me to start working on them. Like I need to add to the army; it's huge already. LOL

Sister Sin

sydbridges
28-10-2008, 23:17
Offhand, I would say no. Most chaos players love the new chaos codex and this is because it is more true to the original chaos fluff then the 3rd and 4th edition version.
It is a matter of whether you prefer the original fleshed out version of the chaos fluff or the later watered down bland version.

A Death Gaurd force comprising plague marines as troops, havocs with the icon of Nurgle and raptors with icon of nurgle as well as a pred is also fluffy (and more realiustic).

In the 3.5 codex, there was fluff about the ECs and Death Guard. Not a lot, but every chaos legion had a little half page basically saying, "This is this legion. This is what they do."

In the 4th ed codex, both legions have less fluff - they get mentions in their 'units' (for example, two paragraphs about the ECs under Noise Marines, a few under Lucius), but there's no 'this is a description of the EC legion' in the 4th ed codex.

So, you say the fluff is 'watered down' in the 3.5 codex, but it isn't even present in the 4th ed codex. I don't see how that's an improvement.

As for "most chaos players love the new codex," I haven't seen that - every single Chaos player I know, including myself, sits somewhere between "I tolerate the new codex but wish she was her hotter 3.5 sister" and "this codex is why I quit 40k and refuse to buy anything from GW ever again." Of course, other places will have different experiences.

Lanparth
29-10-2008, 00:44
Undivided all. Not one marked thing in the army other than undivided. Word Bearers submit only to Lorgar.

Lanparth
29-10-2008, 00:45
The reason I ranked the 2nd edition codex higher is simply because it felt far more balanced and playtested than 3.5. Let's face it, 3.5 had several combos that were especially powerful and used far more than the others; likewise, some legion lists were much more powerful than the others. And Pete Haines making his own army one of the most powerful is just unforgivable.

The cult/daemon sub-lists are another edge it has over 3.5. Otherwise I agree with your ranking of the codices.

One interesting question that comes to mind: do you think that the basic 3.5 list was good and that the legion rules made it unbalanced? I've actually rarely seen players use the basic list, most went for a legion.

Honestly? the 3.5 list was decent, no more than the current list. Most people would agree the current one's removal of Legions/Daemons has been the biggest blow to Chaos, as people even like myself just can't forgive.

Fire Harte
29-10-2008, 00:54
Ok, not bothered about any debate, just stating what I originally planned and how my plan was utterly destroyed by the new codex :evilgrin:. (I am not focusing on my devotion to gods here).

I was originally going to do a pure Alpha Legion army, but the new release made me do apostles of minthras. I vowed never to do Iron Warriors, but as I pretty much could, I have two models in my current warband of red and silver bodies, and 5 Legionaires of Alpha. Oh, and my berkie squads are 8 strong, even if I lose previous advantages, 8 is good, pretty much. :)

May be attacked a bit here, but I am practiacllay loyal to my original icons, Glory and Khorne, I just changed my army theme, and went for a warband. So I am a traitor of warband choice, ut not much with the dark gods.

Acceptable?

emperorpenguin
29-10-2008, 01:30
Interestingly enough though, the loyalists get more interesting and flavoursome rules.

While the Raptors may be Assault Marines with special weapons, Vanguard are a bunch of brutal elite veterans with some very nifty rules.

Other units give more flavour to the Marine codex over the Chaos one, ranging from small wargear items such as digitial weapons and camo cloaks to certain abilities such as the ability to fortify to units such as Sternguard, Vanguard, Landspeeder Storm etc.

Basically Chaos is Codex: Bland Marines

I agree with Cailus. 3.5 introduced veteran skills for Chaos armies, a way to set apart the 10000 year veterans of the traitor legions from the less experienced loyalists. This didn't affect my army since I play Thousand Sons but it was a good idea.
Then Marine Codex 4.0 comes along and Marines get these same skill options.... great.

So Chaos 4.0 removes skills from their codex aside from infiltrating chosen. But Marine 4.5 gives out treats and things like Sternguard and Vanguard.

I find the Chaos codex bland. It's adequate and if we hadn't known anything better in the past we'd not complain but GW did take away a lot of our toys and a hell of a lot of flavour, so we do recall a better past codex and we do yearn for it. Sure it had flaws but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water and that's what the current dex did

Rioghan Murchadha
29-10-2008, 04:54
Luckily, you can now field FULLY fluffy armies without having to go to the other gods.
Before, you were stuck with one dimensional bland stereotype lists while now you can use icons to get more of the units "actually" fielded by the legions such as assault troops, bikers ect. True, the icons dont give the full "mark" and the "mark" is lost when the icon is lost, but half a loaf is better then none.

Really have to stop fobbing off your personal opinion as to what makes up the bulk of legion forces in terms of the legions who haven't had their fluff advanced at all.

I will use the 1ksons as an example, just cause.. :angel: According to the fluff we have, the 1ksons have been sitting on the planet of the sorcerers doing largely nothing for thousands of years now. A VERY small number of them were exiled along with Ahriman for turning the legion into dust bunnies. Those guys participated in some of the WW campaigns and such. We have no new information on the structure of the legion, however, we do know what the rubric did.

While I can imagine that the sons would still have some rubric havocs kicking around, since they stand still quite abit, I do have issues with people assuming they would have bikers or raptors. If they can't walk on level ground properly, how would they ride bikes / jetpacks?

Now I'm sure you're going to chime in with "Well they must have been recruiting or making new marines in the Eye of Terror." As do most people who claim you can make fluffy legion lists with the new book. I would remind you that the sons are a canon legion, and there has been nothing written by GW about them to indicate that they've done anything of the sort, where other legions have. (Iron Warriors stealing geneseed to produce new chaos marines etc.)

While I agree with you that the 3.5 codex distilled the legions down to pretty much a single point, and was a tad silly, I find it impossible to make a proper list for a legion that contains only a)Powerful psykers, and b)Piles of dust in power armour with the current codex. The chaos psychic powers are a joke, damn near all of them are just guns of some sort, and my only real proper choices are the 1ksons troop entry, and a sorcerer with the MoTzeentch.


I see many people who stick with the "cult numbers". Some say that it actually brings good luck even.
Personally, that was something I disagreed with even in the days of Rogue Trader. This is because squads and units take losses in the course of time and not every unit is able to fully replenish between battles. So even if a unit "started" with the "right number" it might not have the "right number" available for a particuler battle. Then, there are economics. Why only put 6 guys in a rhino when it will hold 10? To me, even the gods can see that a "full" 10 man squad can put out more fire/fistpower then a lesser number. It also makes it harder for us as players to "do the math" in putting the army together.
So, no. I dont use the "magic" numbers.

I use squads of 9 for everything. If I don't have the points to fit in a 9 man squad, I take something else, like a dread, or vehicle. Tzeentch is the god of magic. There is magic in numbers. I refuse to mess with fate. The other gods, I wouldn't care so much. Besides, the sorcs can just patch up the rubrics between fights. No big deal.

Shangrila
29-10-2008, 04:56
My brother plays straight thousands sons. and i am trying to not start ironwarriors. but that's all they'll be.

Kveld-Ulf
29-10-2008, 05:49
Still a pure strain Khorne player. Never going to incorporate a model with any other Icon unless I find a good reason to fluff-wise like a pact. Which would only last however long, and that would be a waste of money on seldom used models. (maybe branch into a second army though)

I still don't use Obliterators, but I'm just not particularly fond of them. I don't use raptors either, but that's just because I love bikes.

TheDarkDuke
29-10-2008, 05:51
Well I never liked the old codex so never started an army. With the new codex it opened up a better feel for what I wanted to do with Death Guard. However I also fell in love with The Purge. So I was going to do a Purge force until FW released those lovely DG conversions. Now my force is fully dedicated to Nurgle and am still trying to figure out if it will be DG Conversion as DG and mark of nurgle as The Purge or all DG colour wise.

My brother had started a 1ksons in the older codex, and carried over to the same sort of thing I have done but only dedicated to Tzeench through that mark or 1ksons.

Xandros
29-10-2008, 06:38
I am a loyal traitor, although not truly loyal to the codex. While mostly codex Thousand Sons there are units I will not use, like obliterators, and I use some rules of my own like including daemons of Tzeentch. This seems to be ok with my local club.