PDA

View Full Version : Night Lords/Word Bearers/Iron Warriors . . . Should there be Specific Rules?



thrawn
30-10-2012, 17:25
So I want to do either a Word Bearers army or a Night Lords army and was talking to a friend about it. His question, why? What's the benefit? Truth is there is none. Infact, if you want to remain true to the fluff, you're actually disadvantaging yourself as you should not be taking any marks, thus limiting yourself.

That kind of frustrates me.

Someone looks at your army. "wow those are cool. what army is that?"
"night lords."
"cool, what's the difference between those guys over there?"
"those are word bearers. nothing. my guys are painted blue, his are red."
"oh that's odd. what about those guys?"
"those are loyal space marines. they have about 10 different codex'. even seconding founding chapters like black templars get their own codex."
"oh. that doesn't seem fair huh?"

I mean couldn't they just do something like:

"you may take a night lords army. if you do, you are not allowed any marks of any kind (except on your daemon prince). all your units gain acute sense special rule, D3 of your troop choices can infiltrate and your chosen can choose jump packs for 5 points per model. if they do, they cause fear."

there. done. Night Lords, not over powered and a reason to paint your toy soldiers blue.

IcedCrow
30-10-2012, 17:33
Kind of like running Ultramarines, Salamanders, Emperor's Blades, Crimson Fists etc vs Blood Angels, Space Wolves, or Grey Knights?

Or is everyone so spoiled now that they only want to run a list that gives them a ton of benefits?

Does every chapter and legion need its own special rules?

IrishDelinquent
30-10-2012, 17:34
No offense, but this is true of pretty much every other army in Warhammer 40K. What's the difference between any two given Tyranid armies, aside from asthetic details like colour scheme and models included. Yes, space marines and their ilk get the bulk of GW's attention.....we get it.

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 17:41
Oh boy, not this again.

Also, your logic is strange. Why wouldn't Word Bearers be marked? They wouldn't all use the same mark, but I see no reason why they wouldn't use any. Same with playing non-atheist Night Lords, which do exist despite everyone believing otherwise. And if you don't take marks at all you have more points for other stuff. You're never going to be completely different from another Chaos army - that's not their codex design style (and don't get me started on the 'but loyalists have more dexes so we should too' crap - that's lousy business and design logic).

If you want a fluffy Word Bearers list, use Chosen, Possessed, Cultists and Apostles. If you want a fluffy Night Lords list use Raptors, Warp Talons, and CSM. If you want a list that only uses competetive units, then lighten up on your fluff restrictions because competetive environments don't care about fluff.

thrawn
30-10-2012, 17:44
No offense, but this is true of pretty much every other army in Warhammer 40K. What's the difference between any two given Tyranid armies, aside from asthetic details like colour scheme and models included. Yes, space marines and their ilk get the bulk of GW's attention.....we get it.

i understand, this is not a rant, i like the codex.

and yes everyother army does not have these options (necron, tyranids, orcs, etc.).

but i'm not asking for a seperate codex. one paragraph, like i stated above will do it. one or two small changes and it will make the army play differently. here is my 2 cents:

Night Lords:

You may take a Night Lords army. if you do, you are not allowed any marks of any kind (except on your daemon prince). All your units gain acute senses special rule, D3 of your troop choices (CSM only, not Cultists) can infiltrate and your Chosen can choose jump packs for 5 points per model. if they do, they cause "Fear" special rule.

Word Bearers:

You may take a Word Bearers army. if you do, you are not allowed any marks of any kind (except on your daemon prince). You must take one Dark Apostle. All your Chaos Space Marines gain the fearless rule (including Chaos Space Marine, Chosen, Terminators, Bikers, Rapters and Havocs).

Iron Warriors:

You may take a Iron Warriors army. if you do, you are not allowed any marks of any kind (except on your daemon prince). You must take one Warpsmith. One unit of Havocs can be used as a troops choice.

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 17:48
But what if my Iron Warriors have pledged themselves to Nurgle? Or my Night Lords have fallen to Khorne? Or why does a Word Bearer army get a special rules advantage over my unmarked renegade warband?

Restrictions don't make for a good game, no matter how much you think those restrictions enhance your view of the game.

thrawn
30-10-2012, 17:48
Oh boy, not this again.

Also, your logic is strange. Why wouldn't Word Bearers be marked? They wouldn't all use the same mark, but I see no reason why they wouldn't use any. Same with playing non-atheist Night Lords, which do exist despite everyone believing otherwise. And if you don't take marks at all you have more points for other stuff. You're never going to be completely different from another Chaos army - that's not their codex design style (and don't get me started on the 'but loyalists have more dexes so we should too' crap - that's lousy business and design logic).

If you want a fluffy Word Bearers list, use Chosen, Possessed, Cultists and Apostles. If you want a fluffy Night Lords list use Raptors, Warp Talons, and CSM. If you want a list that only uses competetive units, then lighten up on your fluff restrictions because competetive environments don't care about fluff.

Word Bearers typically do not aligned themselves to a specific God so that's why I figure they should not take any marks. I guess that's up to the end user if they want.

Denny
30-10-2012, 17:50
Do you know how they differentiate Dark Eldar Kabals, Eldar Craftworlds, different Tyranid strains, Ork clans, guard regiments, Tau septs . .?

Colour Scheme and self-imposed limitations. :)
Why do you need special rules?

thrawn
30-10-2012, 17:51
But what if my Iron Warriors have pledged themselves to Nurgle? Or my Night Lords have fallen to Khorne? Or why does a Word Bearer army get a special rules advantage over my unmarked renegade warband?

Restrictions don't make for a good game, no matter how much you think those restrictions enhance your view of the game.

I hear you Theocracity. This is a public forum to discuss ideas. Eldar got a Craftworlds Codex, which I thought was a phenemonal idea. You can use Eldar as in the Codex, or this seperate Codex allowed different customizations. Anyways, like I said this is not a rant, I just like my idea. If you don't like it, that's fine.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 17:56
...is everyone so spoiled now that they only want to run a list that gives them a ton of benefits?

Does every chapter and legion need its own special rules?

GW doesn't need to write a new codex for everything in order to make an army distinguishable. GW has written (and since invalidated) tons of very flexible books such as 4th ed. C:SM, 3.5th ed. C:CSM, 3rd and 4th ed. Tyranids, and to a limited extent, 5th ed. C:SM.

I'm sure that GW has written millions of SM variant books simply because they sell. Space Marines are the superheroes of 40k. When people think of Gotham City, who immediately comes to mind? Batman has been re-imagined like a trillion times; but how many different versions of Harley Quinn have you seen?

A single paragraph that says the following (or something like it) would be awesome: "No marks may be taken. Every tactical squad, chosen, raptor squad, etc. etc. etc. in the army gains acute senses at +1 point per model. Any Chosen that have been given acute senses in this way may be upgraded to jump infantry at a cost of +5 points per model." Bam. Night Lords. It took all of three minutes to type and could practically be written in the margins. Or they could REALLY go the extra mile and make a special character that makes raptors and warp talons troops choices or something, but makes the other troops choices elites instead. :shifty:

Alpha Legion could have similar treatment. As could Word Bearers, Imperial Fists, Hive Fleet Leviathan, Craftworld (Ul'uthwe? Biel'taan? spelling?) Eldar, Catachans, Bad Moonz(sp?), what have you.

@Theocracity. My personal feelings on the matter are that GW's IP is their strongest suit. Writing rules to reward people for caring (not with wins or losses; just with a bit of 'identity infusion') seems to me like a very good idea.

Lightning Strike!
30-10-2012, 17:56
Night Lords:

You may take a Night Lords army. if you do, you are not allowed any marks of any kind (except on your daemon prince). All your units gain acute senses special rule, D3 of your troop choices (CSM only, not Cultists) can infiltrate and your Chosen can choose jump packs for 5 points per model. if they do, they cause "Fear" special rule.

Field Huron as a counts-as Night Lord Champion, take lots of Raptors and if fear is so important to you, put MoN on your Chaos Marines; giving them the icon of despair. You don't have to model these things as 'Nurgle', you know. The justification is that they're battle-hardened veterans who have spent too much time in the eye, and are more resilient than most now. Bam - Night Lords.

I could do the same with the other two, if you like. Hopefully I don't need to, and you're getting the idea.

You're only limited by your own creativity. :)

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 18:00
I hear you. It's just that GW's modern design and business logic supports a more open rules set where people are allowed to do whatever they like, rather than a closed set that forces people into fluff archetypes. People will restrict the units they use on their own - whether for fluff or competetive reasons - without GW's input. And it's in GW's interest to incentivize people to buy as many different models as possible over a long period of time, so providing any additional restrictions on them is a bad practice. The only fluff-based limitations or specializations to lists are provided through special characters - which provokes sales as people buy the special models.

The Craftworld codex and its ilk are outdated remnants of the old GW business model. They've changed since then to become a company that can create long term sales, rather than one that incentivizes people to not buy products in their range.

Inquisitor Engel
30-10-2012, 18:03
I hear you Theocracity. This is a public forum to discuss ideas. Eldar got a Craftworlds Codex, which I thought was a phenemonal idea. You can use Eldar as in the Codex, or this seperate Codex allowed different customizations. Anyways, like I said this is not a rant, I just like my idea. If you don't like it, that's fine.

The Craftworld Eldar Codex was like 10 pages long and hasn't been valid for about a decade. Almost everything you could do in it, you can do in the current Eldar Codex.

Stop whining and find other ways. This has been discussed to death.

Scammel
30-10-2012, 18:03
Both WB and IW are effortless to represent. WB just need Apostles, Cultists, VotLW, Fearless icons (if you're so inclined) and Daemon allies. IW just need Smiths, Oblits, Muties, VotLW, heavy weapons on every unit that can take 'em and as many tanks as you can squeeze in. No need for any additional restrictions/rules at all.

Col. Dash
30-10-2012, 18:08
Because the rules do not reflect the fluff of the units force org. I will have to disagree on the IW though, even in the fluff they use marks, Storm of Iron even has a unit of IW Khorne Berserkers and the book Treacheries of the Space Marines has possessed marines.

I think you suggestions are valid but a bit too far. Word Bearers have no issues with marks, and can easily be played with lots of cultists. Iron Warriors I would support with the old standby of losing two FA slots and replacing them with an extra heavy.

Night Lords are not the raptor legion although they do have a preponderance of using them more than the other legions. They do not have a reputation of using marks, there might be one or two warbands that have succumbed to chaos but they are rare exceptions. One of the biggest things of the Night Lords has always been their looking down upon the other legions for their use of chaos. You dont just throw away one of the biggest parts of what makes the Night Lords the Night Lords. They like to strike by surprise, hit the enemy where they are weakest. Drop pods, teleportation, infiltration are the only things in game that can effectively represent this. Since GW boned chaos and didnt give them drop pods contrary to years of fluff of them having them, we are left with teleportation and infiltration. Night Vision, and infiltration, but no marks army wide are what I would give them as rules.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 18:13
The Craftworld codex and its ilk are outdated remnants of the old GW business model. They've changed since then to become a company that can create long term sales, rather than one that incentivizes people to not buy products in their range.

I don't think GW's business model would need to change (from what it already is) for them to write more flexible books. GW could just make night lords/iron warriors/word bearers models to go with their rules. This is exactly what they do with Space Marine characters. It's also exactly what they did when Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Salamanders, Crimson Fists, Imperial Fists, and Grey Knights came out of the woodwork so many years ago. Seems like it's been decades now, for most of those. 10 years ago if you wanted a BT army, you painted your marines black with white shoulderpads and a templar's cross on the shoulderpad. You want death compay? Paint them black and put a big red 'X' on them. Red Corsairs? Do the same thing, only with any color but black. :p

Strictly speaking, The doom of Malan'tai, the Red Terror, the Parasite of Mortrex, Old One-eye, Ymgarl Genestealers, etc. are all unique bugs and could be represented in very specific hive fleets. Why not offer players more choices in how to theme their army? Say, by theming around these creatures? Perhaps in an Old One Eye list, Mawlocs and Warriors could be covered in crushing claws and have some sort of "Regenerate." Why not? How does "At +100 points per model, your army can play however you want" incentivize anyone to not buy models? GW could just release an "Old One Eye army upgrade pack" full of crab thingys and weird looking tyranid heads.

Having an official product available also allows the community at large to be the fashion police. It gives the players something to be angry about when an opponent says "These space marines are blue and they're covered in big upside down Omega symbols, but they're blood angels and not ultramarines."

At the very least, it would encourage sales with people who want themed armies.

EDIT: To make this on point...

If GW made models for Night Lords/Word Bearers/Iron Warriors, it would generate sales. If GW made rules for said armies, there's incentive to make models.

Silver guys with yellow stripes=Iron Warriors
Red guys with lots of paper=Word Bearers
self imposed limits=fluffy army

The model above is what the rules represent. An alternative model for differentiating word bearers from Iron Warriors (for example, actual differences in play style) encourages "proxying," which is really only proxying if an official model exists. But if GW makes an official model and you don't buy it but you use its rules, you're apparently (among some gaming circles) just a proxying ****** cheapskate, hence encouraging sales.

Or maybe using vanilla model kits to represent something special is just old school.

totgeboren
30-10-2012, 18:18
Though I'm a WB fanboi, I must say I'm relatively happy with this new codex and the general design philosophy. It's leagues better than the previous codex at least.
But regarding special rules for the 'unmarked' legions. I don't think it is fair that my unmarked WB should get some extra perk just because they are painted as WB, instead of being a DIY warband. I feel more sympathy for the God-alligned legions than the rest of us, as they can't even field proper elites or HQs. The codex actually makes more sense for a God-legion-theme if you just remove the four God-specific (well, maybe not the TS) cult units from the book.

I just wish Chosen, Possessed and the Dark Apostle weren't so overpriced, as those are units I would like to field to represent my theme. Cultists are ok at least, but it feels like Phil Kelly really wanted to give WB players a hard time if they ever felt like taking their armies to a competitive setting. :(

Brotheroracle
30-10-2012, 18:23
I hear you Theocracity. This is a public forum to discuss ideas. Eldar got a Craftworlds Codex, which I thought was a phenemonal idea. You can use Eldar as in the Codex, or this seperate Codex allowed different customizations. Anyways, like I said this is not a rant, I just like my idea. If you don't like it, that's fine.

Yeah that craftworlds codex that has been invalidated for what, 8 years now?

Scribe of Khorne
30-10-2012, 18:28
Word Bearers - Dark Apostle
Iron Warriors - Warpsmith

Simple. CSM will never be treated like SW/BA/DA/SM/GK, just time to accept it.

The_Klobb_Maniac
30-10-2012, 18:29
To be fair, Word Bearers are well represented. You can ally with daemons just fine. Take zealots. Take shooty cheap marines. Take a Dark Apostle.

IW get shooty marines Warpsmith, lots of daemon engines, can take bassies by virtue of guard (infact, can take 3 bassies..) and in general can be tooled up the way you think they need to be.

NL don't get super special stuff, but they don't in general. The standard icon is enough (+1 in combat is basically "fear" in the non rules sense, and quite awesome) and on top of that they have cheap bikes and such to work with. There's no need for mega-20 special rules on everything evar. Be happy you have 17 troops choices.

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 18:39
I don't think GW's business model would need to change (from what it already is) for them to write more flexible books. GW could just make night lords/iron warriors/word bearers models to go with their rules. This is exactly what they do with Space Marine characters. It's also exactly what they did when Grey Knights came out of the woodwork so many years ago. Seems like it's been decades now.

Strictly speaking, The doom of Malan'tai, the Red Terror, the Parasite of Mortrex, Old One-eye, Ymgarl Genestealers, etc. are all unique bugs and could be represented in very specific hive fleets. Why not offer players more choices in how to theme their army? Say, by theming around these creatures? Perhaps in an Old One Eye list, Mawlocs and Warriors could be covered in crushing claws and have some sort of "Regenerate." Why not? How does "At +100 points per model, your army can play however you want" incentivize anyone to not buy models? GW could just release an "Old One Eye army upgrade pack" full of crab thingys and Weird looking tyranid heads.

Having an official product available also allows the community at large to be the fashion police. It gives the players something to be angry about when an opponent says "These space marines are blue and they're covered in big upside down Omega symbols, but they're blood angels and not ultramarines."

At the very least, it would encourage sales with people who want themed armies.

Additive specialization, through special characters or conversion packs, is an okay direction to take and is mainly limited by balance and production limitations. Restrictive specialization, which is what I see a lot of fluffy players ask for ('only my faction gets unit X, or my faction will never use unit Y otherwise we're not special') is where it becomes a problem that GW doesn't want to promote.

I think a few special characters for the other legions would have been nice, but there were likely production / design / balance reasons they weren't included. Maybe adding them would have pushed things a bit too far in the direction of legion-specific restrictive specialization.

A.T.
30-10-2012, 18:43
Eldar got a Craftworlds Codex, which I thought was a phenemonal idea.Ah yes, Codex:freebies.

IcedCrow
30-10-2012, 19:01
GW doesn't need to write a new codex for everything in order to make an army distinguishable. GW has written (and since invalidated) tons of very flexible books such as 4th ed. C:SM, 3.5th ed. C:CSM, 3rd and 4th ed. Tyranids, and to a limited extent, 5th ed. C:SM.

I'm sure that GW has written millions of SM variant books simply because they sell. Space Marines are the superheroes of 40k. When people think of Gotham City, who immediately comes to mind? Batman has been re-imagined like a trillion times; but how many different versions of Harley Quinn have you seen?

A single paragraph that says the following (or something like it) would be awesome: "No marks may be taken. Every tactical squad, chosen, raptor squad, etc. etc. etc. in the army gains acute senses at +1 point per model. Any Chosen that have been given acute senses in this way may be upgraded to jump infantry at a cost of +5 points per model." Bam. Night Lords. It took all of three minutes to type and could practically be written in the margins. Or they could REALLY go the extra mile and make a special character that makes raptors and warp talons troops choices or something, but makes the other troops choices elites instead. :shifty:

Alpha Legion could have similar treatment. As could Word Bearers, Imperial Fists, Hive Fleet Leviathan, Craftworld (Ul'uthwe? Biel'taan? spelling?) Eldar, Catachans, Bad Moonz(sp?), what have you.

@Theocracity. My personal feelings on the matter are that GW's IP is their strongest suit. Writing rules to reward people for caring (not with wins or losses; just with a bit of 'identity infusion') seems to me like a very good idea.

I own those codices. That still doesn't mean that its needed. You can represent whatever legion you want with the new book, each one doesn't require their own paragraph of personal rules to do so. The problem with the 3.5 codex and why the designers have (at least when questioned publically at Games Day) went away from that design-practice was because it cluttered up the book with a lot of needless extra rules.

I think the issue boils down to two pieces:

1) it's not fair that chapters like Blood Angels and Black Templars and Dark Angels and Grey Kngihts and Space Wolves can get their own rules and we can't

And

2) it's not fair that our legions have to use generic rules when things like grey knights and space wolves and blood angels have their own rules *and* are more powerful than the generic book to boot

If you want specialized legion rules - write them yourself and then incorporate them into your group's play.

Bonzai
30-10-2012, 19:14
Shafted? Not quite... But it does chafe some that it is Codex: Black Legion 2.0. All armies are encouraged to mix and match, taking whatever, regardless of theme. You have a night lord dark apostle of nurgle? Thats perfectly fine in this codex.

As a Word Bearer player, i did have my fluff butchered. Now instead of being chaos undivided and scorning those who fall to the worship of a single diety, they now actively pick one to follow. There are no unmarked daemon princes, and Dark Apostles are now common among all the legions instead of being unique to the legion. Thats the price we pay to be allowed to field cultists and dark apostles.

I fully agree with the sentiment though. The loyalists get legion traits, (except for Iron Hands, as GW evidently doesnt care about them). That is what makes codex: Ultra Smurf tolerable. Chaos players simply want equal love. Not even that much.

How about Legion Warlord traits?

Word Bearers: Daemonic Pacts. All Dark Apostles and icons counts as Daemonic icons for the purpose of deep striking Daemonic allys.

Alpha Legion : 5th Column. Imperial Guard allies are concidered Battle Brothers.

Iron Warriors: siege specialists.
Iron Warriors add +1 to their penatration rolls against fortifications.

Night Lords: we have come for you. All units gain the fear rule.

Thousands Suns: masters of sorcery. +1 to deny the witch rolls.

Deathguard: cup brothers. Poison weapons only wound on 6+ instead of their normal values.

Etc...

Nothing super powerful, but allows some fluffy minor benefits at the cost of a potential warlord trait. Seems like it would have been easy to do, and would have gone a long way to ease the sore feeling engendered by the last codex.

shakedown47
30-10-2012, 19:17
I guess my question would be, if Word Bearers, Night Lords, and Iron Warriors aren't the epitome of undivided chaos, what is? They pre-date the Black Legion, after all. Also, and this isn't directed at the OP since he only wanted a paragraph of special exceptions per legion, but what is with people wanting separate army books for World Eater, Death Guard, etc.? Why would you prefer to wait 8 years between army book releases and have a few more options as opposed to 3 or 4 years and just end up taking most of what you would have anyway?

I do understand the OP's suggestion for a simplified paragraph or two of rules to denote these standout chapters, though. Whether or not it's 100% fluffy, I don't know, but something like these might work and your opponents may even allow you to houserule them:

Night Lords: If there are no marks present in the army, all chaos lords, sorcerers, warpsmiths, dark apostles, chaos space marines, chosen, raptors, havocs, and terminators gain the Fear special rule and may take the Veterans of the Long War upgrade for free.

Word Bearers: If there are no marks present in the army and while there is at least one Dark Apostle still in play, all cultists gain the Fearless and Hatred special rules as well as -1 Ld. In addition, all of the units listed above may take the Veterans of the Long War upgrade for free.

Iron Warriors: If there are no marks present in the army, CSM squads may also choose autocannons as special weapons and all vehicles may take Seige Blades for free. In addition, all of the units listed in the Night Lords entry may take the Veterans of the Long War upgrade for free.

I don't think any of those are OP and do a fair job of representing the fluff of each legion without resorting to wacky options such as changing the FOC or making shock troops scoring units. I could even see something like this come out as an official rules update in White Dwarf in a few months' time.

Wyrmwood
30-10-2012, 19:20
Is this a joke? This must be a joke.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 19:23
I think the issue boils down to two pieces:

1) it's not fair that chapters like Blood Angels and Black Templars and Dark Angels and Grey Kngihts and Space Wolves can get their own rules and we can't

And

2) it's not fair that our legions have to use generic rules when things like grey knights and space wolves and blood angels have their own rules *and* are more powerful than the generic book to boot

People whining because a particular faction isn't represented can certainly be seen that way. You gotta wonder though, if GW would have any less success by offering fans of non-space marine IP a little something extra to work with.

"No one could figure out how to organize the information efficiently" seems like a convenient excuse. I'll agree that on the whole, 3.5 codex was a logistical mess. There are some things in there that are very hard to find. For example, the benefit for fielding daemon packs in favored numbers. But if I wanted to find the rules for alpha legion, I knew exactly where to turn after flipping through the book just once. It isn't that hard to devote one page in a book to fluff and rules for a particular "sub-army" and you could just make an extra 2-3 page section after the army-list section of the book for all the "sub-armies" with a neat little bullet-point list of extra options or limitations, point costs, and a page reference for the explanation of the special rule.

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 19:24
@Theocracity. My personal feelings on the matter are that GW's IP is their strongest suit. Writing rules to reward people for caring (not with wins or losses; just with a bit of 'identity infusion') seems to me like a very good idea.

Just noticed this edit and wanted to address it.

Yes, GW has a strong IP. They also have a strong hobby tradition that incentivizes painting, modeling, and other creative pursuits - including the ability to create a faction of your own. Providing rules support to pre-built fluff factions is okay to support your IP, but when you add support to every conceivable variation it becomes pointless to make your own ideas. There's a spectrum here, where a certain amount of factionalization can build your IP or ease new players into buying new armies (as the multiple Marine codexes are intended to do), but at a certain point it becomes impossible to support with rules / models and stifles innovation.

Sexiest_hero
30-10-2012, 19:27
It's a fair point, but it will never change, much like how the horde gets shafted in world of warcraft. It the downside for playing bad guys.

Minsc
30-10-2012, 19:29
This thread is a bad joke. Essentially the threadtitle should be "NL/WB/IW no free specialrules :( "
The only Legion that can complain with the new Codex is Thousand Sons, since they somehow managed to be worse off in the new Codex.

All the other Legions are perfectly doable (read: "viable") with the 6th Ed. CSM codex and the 6th Ed. ruleset:

Our FA has never been this good and we've never had so much fear -> NL.
We can take Dark Apostles and Daemonic Allies and not just stupid "Lesser Daemons" -> WB.
We can take Warpsmiths, plenty of Dark Mechanicum-crafted Daemon Engines and Imperial Guard tanks as Allies -> IW.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 19:31
Just noticed this edit and wanted to address it.

Yes, GW has a strong IP. They also have a strong hobby tradition that incentivizes painting, modeling, and other creative pursuits - including the ability to create a faction of your own. Providing rules support to pre-built fluff factions is okay to support your IP, but when you add support to every conceivable variation it becomes pointless to make your own ideas. There's a spectrum here, where a certain amount of factionalization can build your IP or ease new players into buying new armies (as the multiple Marine codexes are intended to do), but at a certain point it becomes impossible to support with rules / models and stifles innovation.

Interesting, hadn't thought about it like that. I think that there's definitely something to the whole stifling innovation thing. It's hard to be creative when you're being bombarded by a "bounty of ideas." But still... just because GW releases an "official" version doesn't mean you can't homebrew.

The more I think about this whole thing, the better forge world looks. After all, they publish rules and make models for things like Carcharadons. Sharks in space...

I suppose if you really want special rules for Night Lords, they wouldn't be that hard to find. They're just expensive. :/

RunepriestRidcully
30-10-2012, 19:37
The only Legion that can complain with the new Codex is Thousand Sons.
.
This, as if we were overpowerd before and needed nerfs.

A.T.
30-10-2012, 19:38
Iron Warriors: If there are no marks present in the army, CSM squads may also choose autocannons as special weapons and all vehicles may take Seige Blades for free. In addition, all of the units listed in the Night Lords entry may take the Veterans of the Long War upgrade for free.These kind of things quickly become :

My Army: If there are no units that I don't want to use in the army, the units I want to make more powerful may take what I want to have for free. In addition, everything else gets something else I want free too.


Which is pretty much how the old craftworld eldar, chaos legion, and marine chapter traits systems worked, and probably why they were killed off.

Chapters Unwritten
30-10-2012, 19:46
Kind of like running Ultramarines, Salamanders, Emperor's Blades, Crimson Fists etc vs Blood Angels, Space Wolves, or Grey Knights?

Or is everyone so spoiled now that they only want to run a list that gives them a ton of benefits?

Does every chapter and legion need its own special rules?But it's so much more fun to sit around and bitch!

I would be thrilled to run any Chaos army, because you can use the Marks to give yourself a truly unique force.
Iron Warriors, I'd do Mark of Nurgle CSM to represent bionics.
Night Lords, I'd go with Mark of Khorne just to make them more fighty, seems to fit the few stories I've heard of Curze at least.
Word Bearers, I would definitely go Tzeentch, just to give them some flavor.

The problem is all these upgrades have a Chaos god's name on them and you Chaos guys have been WAY too hung up about that for the past decade.

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 19:53
Interesting, hadn't thought about it like that. I think that there's definitely something to the whole stifling innovation thing. It's hard to be creative when you're being bombarded by a "bounty of ideas." But still... just because GW releases an "official" version doesn't mean you can't homebrew.

The more I think about this whole thing, the better forge world looks. After all, they publish rules and make models for things like Carcharadons. Sharks in space...

I suppose if you really want special rules for Night Lords, they wouldn't be that hard to find. They're just expensive. :/

True, but the home brew argument also works in reverse.

I do like FW and wish it was more commonly accepted. But it should be recognized that they have more freedom to add creative factions because they're not subject to the same market pressures as GW. FW can sit back, write whatever rules and sculpt whatever models they want on a long time scale because they serve a specialty market of gamers who've already bought in to the setting and are willing to spend a lot of money on expert level resin.

GW needs to attract, build and sustain a market of new gamers. To do that they need easier to build plastic models (more expensive molds), store fronts, a stronger marketing presence, etc. That's all expensive. Thus they need to ensure that players keep buying new stuff (without imposed restrictions), easily transition between armies, are kept in the hobby by promoting creativity, etc. They also need to use their resources efficiently, and not spend extra time ensuring balance & support between tons of different factions as the game develops.

I think GW has an understandable business model - its just one that doesn't always mesh with the whims of veteran gamers. They do take strides to bridge that gap (the new stuff in the Chaos dex, Forgeworld) but it doesn't always register easily.

thrawn
30-10-2012, 20:07
This thread is a bad joke. Essentially the threadtitle should be "NL/WB/IW no free specialrules :( "
The only Legion that can complain with the new Codex is Thousand Sons, since they somehow managed to be worse off in the new Codex.

All the other Legions are perfectly doable (read: "viable") with the 6th Ed. CSM codex and the 6th Ed. ruleset:

Our FA has never been this good and we've never had so much fear -> NL.
We can take Dark Apostles and Daemonic Allies and not just stupid "Lesser Daemons" -> WB.
We can take Warpsmiths, plenty of Dark Mechanicum-crafted Daemon Engines and Imperial Guard tanks as Allies -> IW.

don't be so negative and such a know-it-all, i've been playing warhammer for almost 20 years and even remember rogue trader days.

this is not a rant. i am happy with the codex, the consensus is that most people are. i also understand the concept of proxying models. give your warpsmith mark of nurgle, bang he's got bionics! this was the way 40K was played originally, probably before many of you on this forum even heard of Games-Workshop.

my "SUGGESTION" (NOT RANT, NOT WHINE) is that it would have been fun to be able to feild a NL army or WB army and at least have some unique rules. NO ONE is talking about free rules here guys. please read the posts before you start bashing the thread.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 20:11
Which is pretty much how the old craftworld eldar, chaos legion, and marine chapter traits systems worked, and probably why they were killed off.

Can't speak for Craftworld Eldar really, but the old marine chapter trait system was actually "You can't have a dreadnought, but in exchange you may upgrade your squad leaders to apothecaries at +25 points each." Which is very different from "If you don't take a dreadnought, you can have an apothecary for free."

I fondly remember entire armies of marines with infiltrate and counter-attack. 21 points per model IIRC. Though they still only had one attack, one wound, and a bolter.

IcedCrow
30-10-2012, 20:15
my "SUGGESTION" (NOT RANT, NOT WHINE) is that it would have been fun to be able to feild a NL army or WB army and at least have some unique rules. NO ONE is talking about free rules here guys. please read the posts before you start bashing the thread.

I think the title is misleading then. The title uses the word "shafted" which is typically the forerunner for ranting and whining. When I read the title it reads like someone whining that their army isn't as good as the spuce muhreenz that have their own codices and run the tournament-scene.

Edit the title a bit and you've changed the feel of the thread into more of a "suggestion" thread as opposed to a "my chaos legion got SHAFTED" thread.

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 20:16
Can't speak for Craftworld Eldar really, but the old marine chapter trait system was actually "You can't have a dreadnought, but in exchange you may upgrade your squad leaders to apothecaries at +25 points each." Which is very different from "If you don't take a dreadnought, you can have an apothecary for free."

That's an example of the restrictive specialization I was talking about. By including those rules, you've created a player base whose attachment to the fluff involves never buying any of the Drednought models you make. That's bad business, and it's why they don't do that anymore.

thrawn
30-10-2012, 20:18
Just noticed this edit and wanted to address it.

Yes, GW has a strong IP. They also have a strong hobby tradition that incentivizes painting, modeling, and other creative pursuits - including the ability to create a faction of your own. Providing rules support to pre-built fluff factions is okay to support your IP, but when you add support to every conceivable variation it becomes pointless to make your own ideas. There's a spectrum here, where a certain amount of factionalization can build your IP or ease new players into buying new armies (as the multiple Marine codexes are intended to do), but at a certain point it becomes impossible to support with rules / models and stifles innovation.

this is a good point theocracity.

the problem with the old school system of rogue trader, was that it was built around a DnD model (almost limitless customization possibilities). Inevatibily someone who all plays WAAC (win at all costs) found some very strong customizations and made the game unfun for his friends. you can see this over and over, give people too many options, basically impossible for GW to playtest every signle combo in the Codex, and someone will find a weakness/strength and exploit it (min/maxing). this is why there is a strong push towards simplification and not too many options. GW simply can't play test everything in the codex to death and somewhere out there some WAAC gamer will find something cheesy. i guess ultimately we have those people to blame, as they basically ruin it for the rest of us.

as for coming up with house rules, that also never works. let's say you wanna make some house rules for NL, so you take out marks but give your guys "fear," the moment your opponent fails a fear test what's the first words out of his mouth?
"well these rules are not official and obviously biased. defintely not balanced. etc. etc."

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 20:18
That's an example of the restrictive specialization I was talking about. By including those rules, you've created a player base whose attachment to the fluff involves never buying any of the Drednought models you make. That's bad business, and it's why they don't do that anymore.

But it's not bad business if they sell 20+ apothecaries to someone who wouldn't have bought a dreadnought anyway.

That's sort of what I was trying to get at with the hypothetical "Old One Eye Army Upgrade Pack." They only limit sales if they don't offer the alternative.

EDIT: And besides that, who's to say that the person wouldn't want a dreadnought just to paint? Or so that he could field it with his army when he didn't want to use apothecaries? Imagine a player who has a huge single army of dusty yellow space marines. He makes his own chapter. He buys some Death Company, paints them yellow and fields his dusty yellow chapter as BA. Then he turns around and buys some Thunderwolf Cavalry and fields everything except the Death Company as Space Wolves. Sales haven't been limited here.

thrawn
30-10-2012, 20:19
I think the title is misleading then. The title uses the word "shafted" which is typically the forerunner for ranting and whining. When I read the title it reads like someone whining that their army isn't as good as the spuce muhreenz that have their own codices and run the tournament-scene.

Edit the title a bit and you've changed the feel of the thread into more of a "suggestion" thread as opposed to a "my chaos legion got SHAFTED" thread.

you are right iced crow. i will do that.

uh . . . how do i do that?

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 20:27
But it's not bad business if they sell 20+ apothecaries to someone who wouldn't have bought a dreadnought anyway.

But it would be even better business to give players a reason to buy any model, because you can't plan your inventory around the guy who hates dreads but loves apothecaries. Also, once that guy has bought all his apothecaries, they don't want to provide a reason for him to not buy a dread on a whim - he's still allowed to include it in his army if he wants, because GW didn't make an own goal and prevent a sale from itself.

Players will restrict their purchases for any number of reasons - its not in GW's interests to give that any more incentive than what already exists.

IcedCrow
30-10-2012, 20:28
I think if you edit the first post (your original post) you should have the ability to rename the thread title. It used to work that way anyway.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 20:28
But it would be even better business to give players a reason to buy any model, because you can't plan your inventory around the guy who hates dreads but loves apothecaries. Also, once that guy has bought all his apothecaries, they don't want to provide a reason for him to not buy a dread on a whim - he's still allowed to include it in his army if he wants, because GW didn't make an own goal and prevent a sale from itself.

Players will restrict their purchases for any number of reasons - its not in GW's interests to give that any more incentive than what already exists.

Just edited that post above to address this point.


EDIT: And besides that, who's to say that the person wouldn't want a dreadnought just to paint? Or so that he could field it with his army when he didn't want to use apothecaries? Imagine a player who has a huge single army of dusty yellow space marines. He makes his own chapter. He buys some Death Company, paints them yellow and fields his dusty yellow chapter as BA. Then he turns around and buys some Thunderwolf Cavalry and fields everything except the Death Company as Space Wolves. Sales haven't been limited here.

Just the same way, a player could buy 20+ apothecaries and 3 dreadnoughts, and only field one or the other. :/

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 20:35
Just edited that post above to address this point.

But it would be even easier if any player could field a model in their army for any reason without resorting to custom chapters or codex-hopping. A player is more likely to buy something if he can field it with everything else he has.

As a side note, your point about codex-hopping is one of my thoughts about why loyalists get more codexes than chaos or xenos. The TL;DR version of the argument is that Marines are a good draw for new players, and multiple codexes provide an easy way for a new player to transition into new purchases without changing their entire understanding of the game. Fragmenting a chaos or xenos list into multiple dexes wouldn't have the same effect - it would just splinter the fanbase and make things difficult to support, because they don't provide the same new player draw.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 20:41
But it would be even easier if any player could field a model in their army for any reason without resorting to custom chapters or codex-hopping.

The thought just occurred to me that if GW thought it were bad business to limit what players buy based on restrictive rules, they would eliminate the FOC and encourage players to field armies of termagants and sisters of battle led by Phoenix Lord Maugan'Ra and allied to a detatchment of Kroot Mercs fighting alongside Black Templars and Chaos Daemons. Teleported in to battle through monoliths. :shifty:

That is of course assuming that we really push it to the logical extreme. After all, every Dark Vengeance kit a person buys is a reason to avoid buying necrons, right? ...right? :p :shifty:

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 20:45
The thought just occurred to me that if GW thought it were bad business to limit what players buy based on restrictive rules, they would eliminate the FOC and encourage players to field armies of termagants and sisters of battle led by Phoenix Lord Maugan'Ra and allied to a detatchment of Kroot Mercs fighting alongside Black Templars and Chaos Daemons.

That is of course assuming that we really push it to the logical extreme.

Right, but as you said that's a logical extreme. The reality is that it's a spectrum that has to be balanced between presenting a coherent IP and generating maximum sales.

And also, GW does support that kind of gameplay. It's called Apocalypse :p

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 20:55
I swear. In fifteen minutes, I've made up my mind to start buying Forgeworld books and only to play 1,000-2,000 point apocalypse games whenever I play 40k.

TheMav80
30-10-2012, 20:56
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people are attached to the restrictive army fluff path.

Someone mentioned earlier taking Berzerkers with your Night Lords to represent their brutal ferocity in battle. That certainly makes a bit of sense. Maybe just marking CSM with Khorne even. But then you would have a, probably equal, number of people who would find that to be a terrible fluff violation because Night Lords should be Undivided and that they don't use Berzerkers. Then you have a whole other problem if you wanted to use the Berzerker rules, but not the actual models because you want them to be Night Lords.

Personally, I would probably just run Huron. But I don't really like his model so we come to the Counts As problem again.

Minsc
30-10-2012, 20:57
my "SUGGESTION" (NOT RANT, NOT WHINE) is that it would have been fun to be able to feild a NL army or WB army and at least have some unique rules. NO ONE is talking about free rules here guys. please read the posts before you start bashing the thread.

As previously mentioned, you should do better thread-titles then.
I only read the title and at once felt "sigh, not -another- whine-thread about the lack of legion-specific rules...", hence my somewhat as you put it "know-it-all" reply.

Although:


i've been playing warhammer for almost 20 years and even remember rogue trader days.

What does that have to do with anything?
"I've been in this game longer than you, so that automatically gives me more authority / makes me right"?

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 21:02
Edit: Re: scarymushroom

At GW HQ, someone is whispering "Yesssss....yeeeesss!" ;)

Haha, I mostly agree though. FW, big games and home brew rules are where I get most of my fun in this hobby. The base rules are a good structure to hang creativity on, as long as you've got a like-minded group to play with.

But as I noted, we can do this because we're veteran gamers who have already bought in. We fit in a valuable space of GW's business model, but we're not the only ones that matter to their continued operation. Realizing the business logic behind the actions allows you to relax and not take every fluff or rules change as a slap in the face :) (I mean that generically, not to you specifically Scary - you've been much more reasonable than other posters I've talked this over with).

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 22:14
At GW HQ, someone is whispering "Yesssss....yeeeesss!" ;)


Lol. Unfortunately for GW HQ, they're not likely to see more model sales from me because of that declaration. I am a sucker for a rule set that lets me personalize anything+everything, but truth be told I don't play that much and I'm happy to play 'counts-as' when I do.

TheDungen
30-10-2012, 22:15
having special rules or even worse a book for each of the 18 surviving legions would make the game impossible to balance not to mention supporting all those books.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-10-2012, 22:19
having special rules or even worse a book for each of the 18 surviving legions would make the game impossible to balance not to mention supporting all those books.

But they don't need a whole book. A single page (per legion that gets the special treatment) in the CSM codex would do wonders IMO. Of course, we have been discussing the pros and cons of even a single page in the whole thread... :shifty:

Theocracity
30-10-2012, 22:20
Lol. Unfortunately for GW HQ, they're not likely to see more model sales from me because of that declaration. I am a sucker for a rule set that lets me personalize anything+everything, but truth be told I don't play that much and I'm happy to play 'counts-as' when I do.

...which is exactly why GW spends so much effort making the game accessible to new players. Veterans will usually build the hobby their own way, and that doesn't always lead to the sales needed to keep the lights on.

Vaktathi
30-10-2012, 22:38
As an Iron Warriors player, I don't feel we really *need* specific rules rather than just certain things to be available to the army as a whole. Personally I'd like to see more daemon engines, and one's that aren't just a rather weendy AV12, and some bigger gun batteries and cheaper/more plentiful Reaper Autocannons for Terminators, but that goes for the book as a whole. I'm just kinda sad that Warpsmiths are so naff, paying for CC abilities they can't use effectively (WS4...I1...W2) and shooting/repair abilities that are too meager for a 110pt miniumum HQ.

Word Bearers feel fine with allies in the mix, without them I'd say some daemon units would be nice that aren't represented in the book, but aside from that, no, I don't think special rules are necessary for them to function to full potential, aside that I think the Dark Apostle abilities should be an upgrade to a Lord and not a unit in its own right.

Nights Lords I'd like to see have more Fear/Morale based abilities, but and some easier access to Lightning Claws, but aside from that I don't see any particular issues with portraying them.


So no, I don't think any of these armies need a ton of stuff to make them playable or that they *need* a ton of specific rules for the most part, but they could use with a bit more wiggle room than the current book allows. They could add in a lot of flavor with only a page worth of updates for each.

Really, more than anything, the issue is with the Cult legions.

However, as an exercise in trying to imagine what I would have liked to see (and largely didn't) in the current book, I wrote this up last year for Iron Warriors: http://www.mediafire.com/?n7pwhv33o2xj64v

Horus38
30-10-2012, 22:44
Can't speak for Craftworld Eldar really, but the old marine chapter trait system was actually "You can't have a dreadnought, but in exchange you may upgrade your squad leaders to apothecaries at +25 points each." Which is very different from "If you don't take a dreadnought, you can have an apothecary for free."

It was more "can take a lot less of these things, and a ton of these other things". Overall it was a pretty lame offshoot for the Eldar lists, and IMHO was open to cheesy lists as opposed to enhancing the fluffliness of whatever craftworld you wanted to represent. The current Eldar codex actually does a much better job of this then Codex Craftworld did.

Freakiq
30-10-2012, 23:07
I don't get it, they have a special rule called Night Vision, why not just give it to Night Lords who are known for it?

They made warlord traits specific for some of the traitor legions, why did they make them random?
Why does my Alpha Legion army have a 1 in 6 chance of playing as Alpha Legion?

AlphariusOmegon20
30-10-2012, 23:26
I could be wrong, but what I think the OP was trying to point out, in an albeit round about way, was that there is a serious disconnect between BL Fluff, which is supposed to be canon, according to GW themselves, and the game rules we are given to play with BY GW.

What attracts us to a certain faction in the first place? It is the fluff that draws us into an army. The more I think about the issue the OP brought up, the more I feel I CAN get behind melding the various SM codexes into one, as so GW can offer the SM "treatment" (the various rules for the chapters, not the books themselves) to ALL armies.

lordreaven448
30-10-2012, 23:58
Easiest way to solve this. All Space Wolf, Dark Angel, Black Templar, Blood Angel players have to try to use C:SM to make their Chapters.. That is what the traitor Legions (who, in all honesty Are more Different than Red Marines, Green Marines, Blue Marines etc.) have to do

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 00:11
Easiest way to solve this. All Space Wolf, Dark Angel, Black Templar, Blood Angel players have to try to use C:SM to make their Chapters.. That is what the traitor Legions (who, in all honesty Are more Different than Red Marines, Green Marines, Blue Marines etc.) have to do

At some point I'm going to make a big post about the business reasons why the all in one dex is a dumb idea. I'm getting tired of arguing it on a case by case basis.

EvilFuzzyDoom
31-10-2012, 00:26
The 3.5ed Chaos codex was a messy hellswamp.

The new one is fine.

lordreaven448
31-10-2012, 00:28
At some point I'm going to make a big post about the business reasons why the all in one dex is a dumb idea. I'm getting tired of arguing it on a case by case basis.
I am just pointing out that those who oppose even small rules for the traitor legions are usually they guys who play Space Wolves, DA, etc.

Gutlord Grom
31-10-2012, 00:32
I am just pointing out that those who oppose even small rules for the traitor legions are usually they guys who play Space Wolves, DA, etc.

Proof would be awesome.

By the way, we live in a jar of Tang.

lordreaven448
31-10-2012, 01:09
Proof would be awesome.

By the way, we live in a jar of Tang.
It's an observation that i could be wrong in. All in all I feel the Traitors should get some love too. We already have loads of MEQ armies so a few more wouldn't really matter anyway.

Xerkics
31-10-2012, 01:11
At some point I'm going to make a big post about the business reasons why the all in one dex is a dumb idea. I'm getting tired of arguing it on a case by case basis.

That sounds like it would make a very interesting read. Looking forward to you posting it. Thanks.

Scaryscarymushroom
31-10-2012, 01:12
By the way, we live in a jar of Tang.

Yeah, but everyone knows that already.

156533

DietDolphin
31-10-2012, 01:12
This, as if we were overpowerd before and needed nerfs.

It's not that a Thousand Sons army is bad (add fateweaver and they are very competitive), it's just that outside a few units the mark of Tzeentch doesn't really do what it's supported to. Give the MoT to chosen and they get a 6+ invul, it doesn't really fit as rubrics or sorcerers.

While I love the Emperors Children, World Eaters and Word bearers, Out of all legion/chapters (including loyalists and GK), the Thousands Sons are the most unique and could blossom more than any with their own codex and actually add a new dimension. I mean their average trooper is a hollow walking suit of magical armour and everyone else is a deadly sorcerer! It the one legion/chapter I don't think will ever be done well (fluffwise) without its own codex.

Aiwass
31-10-2012, 01:16
The 3.5 wasn't a messy anything.

But on topic,

The legion rules could have been made in a very simple way: "Your generic Chaos Lord/Sorc can purchase gene-seed from [...]"

And every gene-seed is treated like "chapter tactics". Not only for NL/WB/IW (to the OP, you forgot the AL xD), but all the legiones.

BTW, official 40k supplements give us some options: Necrosius for DG, Zhufor for WE & Arkos for the AL. Three more official SC for the lackluster chaos dex.

Xerkics
31-10-2012, 01:18
While I love the Emperors Children, World Eaters and Word bearers, Out of all legion/chapters (including loyalists and GK), the Thousands Sons are the most unique and could blossom more than any with their own codex and actually add a new dimension. I mean their average trooper is a hollow walking suit of magical armour and everyone else is a deadly sorcerer! It the one legion/chapter I don't think will ever be done well (fluffwise) without its own codex.

Arguably that can be said of any legion, i heard someone say the same thing about deathguard and compare thousand sons to gk.

Minsc
31-10-2012, 01:26
It's not that a Thousand Sons army is bad (add fateweaver and they are very competitive)

Fateweaver only give rerolls to other Daemons from the DoC-Codex - it's in the FAQ.

DietDolphin
31-10-2012, 01:32
Arguably that can be said of any legion, i heard someone say the same thing about deathguard and compare thousand sons to gk.

Well the thing with the other god legions is that an army wide mark basically covers them, but Thousand Sons are the complete opposite from what the MoT is. they are the result of a spell that specifically stopped Tzeentch's blessings from affect them. Also it's just ridiculously messy trying to give army wide psychic powers without proper attention.


Fateweaver only give rerolls to other Daemons from the DoC-Codex - it's in the FAQ.

Oh we'll that's a bit of a bummer, especially considering once upon a time Thousand Sons were "daemons"

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 02:01
I am just pointing out that those who oppose even small rules for the traitor legions are usually they guys who play Space Wolves, DA, etc.

I play Orks, Deldar and Chaos and I oppose it. A persecution complex doesn't help illuminate the reason things are the way they are.


That sounds like it would make a very interesting read. Looking forward to you posting it. Thanks.

Thanks. I'll try to put some thought into it so it might be a bit.

lordreaven448
31-10-2012, 02:05
I play Orks, Deldar and Chaos and I oppose it. A persecution complex doesn't help illuminate the reason things are the way they are.



Thanks. I'll try to put some thought into it so it might be a bit.

Oh we all know why they way it is (GW makes more money off of Marines, so they expand them) I'm juts thinking of other reasons:p

Also I would to like to read Why you thinka combined Marine dex would be bad. Would eb interesting no doubt.

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 02:16
Oh we all know why they way it is (GW makes more money off of Marines, so they expand them) I'm juts thinking of other reasons:p

Also I would to like to read Why you thinka combined Marine dex would be bad. Would eb interesting no doubt.

The TL;DR version is that marines are an entry to the hobby, and they don't want the barrier of entry to be high. The marine variant lists allow the new players to easily transition into new armies that are similar, expanding on the hobby and making GW money in the process. They don't give the same treatment to other armies because they're not gateways into the hobby - they're where veteran players are designed to go, and they don't want players to become too niche-focused so they still buy a wide variety of models.

I'll go into my thoughts on it more later, when I'm not typing on an iPhone :p

Stonerhino
31-10-2012, 02:17
The 6th ed CSM codex can be used to represent most loyalist fluffy armies. It's just that if you just give the loyalist a paraphrased CSM codex. Then you lose the limits and advantages given to each loyal codex. And end up with more players playing smaller selection of loyal marine army list.

lordreaven448
31-10-2012, 02:26
The TL;DR version is that marines are an entry to the hobby, and they don't want the barrier of entry to be high. The marine variant lists allow the new players to easily transition into new armies that are similar, expanding on the hobby and making GW money in the process. They don't give the same treatment to other armies because they're not gateways into the hobby - they're where veteran players are designed to go, and they don't want players to become too niche-focused so they still buy a wide variety of models.

I'll go into my thoughts on it more later, when I'm not typing on an iPhone :p
That is a very good point.

boogle
31-10-2012, 02:51
Word Bearers - Dark Apostle, possibly also a Sorcerer, Chosen, Possessed, CSM, Cultists (lots!!), maybe Daemon Engines, allied with Daemons, various marsk to suit taste and the worship the pantheon

Night Lords - No marks, max out on FA, not just Raptors, but bikers, and Warp Talons, suits their Terror Tactics, you don't know where they are going hit, Terminators (if you like ADB's Atrementar)

Iron Warriors - no Marks, Warpsmith, Terminators, CSM, Cultists (siege fodder), Vindicators, Defilers, Daemon Engines, sprinkle some allied guard for more Arty/bodies

Alpha Legion - Sorcerer (high level operative, powers represent skills), Chosen, loads of Cultists, Bikers, Havocs

it's not hard to do those legions with just a little bit of imagination

Chem-Dog
31-10-2012, 03:59
The thought just occurred to me that if GW thought it were bad business to limit what players buy based on restrictive rules, they would eliminate the FOC and encourage players to field armies of termagants and sisters of battle led by Phoenix Lord Maugan'Ra and allied to a detatchment of Kroot Mercs fighting alongside Black Templars and Chaos Daemons. Teleported in to battle through monoliths. :shifty:

Jervis' article in the first edition of revamped WD addressed this, he called it "verisimilitude", essentially they want you to build the army you want to without too many impediments (I think he was specifically referring to the death of 0-1 unit choices) whilst sticking to an army shape that's vaguely "realistic".
Basically the whole article was saying what Theocracy has been saying, they want to remove as many obstacles from your buying options as possible (although in the article, it's more about allowing you to buy all the models you want).

Radium
31-10-2012, 08:33
The codex gives you plenty of options to represent the legions, so there really is no need to give them all extra rules. Just like there is no need to give the Ork klans, Eldar craftworlds, Tau septs, Nid hivefleets etc no additional special rules.

Poseidal
31-10-2012, 09:12
The problem with the gateway analysis is that it encourages buying fewer models as you're buying from only one line with multiple armies, with only a few variant models. The correct approach in this case would be to make the loyalist marine variant codices very weak in comparison to other codices, so when players play more they will want to win and switch over to a new model line.

AlphariusOmegon20
31-10-2012, 09:42
Jervis' article in the first edition of revamped WD addressed this, he called it "verisimilitude", essentially they want you to build the army you want to without too many impediments (I think he was specifically referring to the death of 0-1 unit choices) whilst sticking to an army shape that's vaguely "realistic".
Basically the whole article was saying what Theocracy has been saying, they want to remove as many obstacles from your buying options as possible (although in the article, it's more about allowing you to buy all the models you want).


Actually, Chem, I have an issue with Jervis' view, as it appears he's forgotten why the warband/DIY Chapter concept appeared in the first place, to allow for such things. There used to be a time where if you wanted to play Word Bearers, you used only WB things, or created an offshoot warband, much like the Sanctified are now, i.e. you took not only WB things, but marked them as Khorne.


What ever happened to personal creativity? It almost seems like GW has traded their previous view of actual creativity, for a paler version of one that requires less thought and even less originality. It seems now we have 5 different Nurgle offshoots (Death Guard, The Purge, Lords of Decay, Apostles of Contagion, and the Tainted) with only half that has any substantial difference to them beyond the others (The Purge and Apostles of Contagion). Similarly, Did we really need THREE Black Legion warbands (Black Legion, The Corpsemakers, and Black Brethren of Eyreas) , none being different to the other? I do understand that there are multiple warbands of the World Eaters/Khorne that exist, and that the WE breakup is part of the fluff, but did we really need SEVEN different ones NAMED? It could have been left at the World Eaters and maybe one other if truly needed. The worst part of this is EC is just as fractured as WE is and we only have have TWO that exist and neither has a name (One belongs to Lucius, the other to Jihar the Lacerator).

GW needs to get back to what made them great. Either get ALL armies in line with multiple factions and warbands within an army, or go back to NO ONE having special offshoots and let the imagination of the player create them. To only do the SM in this manner with requisite rules to represent the differences between them, seems disjointed and confused.

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 15:36
The problem with the gateway analysis is that it encourages buying fewer models as you're buying from only one line with multiple armies, with only a few variant models. The correct approach in this case would be to make the loyalist marine variant codices very weak in comparison to other codices, so when players play more they will want to win and switch over to a new model line.

The gateway theory has nothing to do with game balance. It's all about getting new players comfortable with the modeling and rules while encouraging them to branch out. The Marine model line is specifically designed to encourage this, and be profitable in the process (pay for one plastic mold, sell it to several armies).

Not all players play to win, so competetive balance is a bad way to design your business model. It's about getting new players comfortable with the hobby so that starting new armies is a less daunting idea, and thus more likely to happen in the future.



Actually, Chem, I have an issue with Jervis' view, as it appears he's forgotten why the warband/DIY Chapter concept appeared in the first place, to allow for such things. There used to be a time where if you wanted to play Word Bearers, you used only WB things, or created an offshoot warband, much like the Sanctified are now, i.e. you took not only WB things, but marked them as Khorne.


What ever happened to personal creativity? It almost seems like GW has traded their previous view of actual creativity, for a paler version of one that requires less thought and even less originality. It seems now we have 5 different Nurgle offshoots (Death Guard, The Purge, Lords of Decay, Apostles of Contagion, and the Tainted) with only half that has any substantial difference to them beyond the others (The Purge and Apostles of Contagion). Similarly, Did we really need THREE Black Legion warbands (Black Legion, The Corpsemakers, and Black Brethren of Eyreas) , none being different to the other? I do understand that there are multiple warbands of the World Eaters/Khorne that exist, and that the WE breakup is part of the fluff, but did we really need SEVEN different ones NAMED? It could have been left at the World Eaters and maybe one other if truly needed. The worst part of this is EC is just as fractured as WE is and we only have have TWO that exist and neither has a name (One belongs to Lucius, the other to Jihar the Lacerator).

GW needs to get back to what made them great. Either get ALL armies in line with multiple factions and warbands within an army, or go back to NO ONE having special offshoots and let the imagination of the player create them. To only do the SM in this manner with requisite rules to represent the differences between them, seems disjointed and confused.

I'm pretty sure the random named warbands are just examples designed to let players know that it's okay to create their own army and aren't forced into playing Legions.

thrawn
31-10-2012, 16:19
That is a very good point.

this is right and wrong. yes space marines are the gateway army, they are also the top selling army. apparently, if you add up all space marine sales (all chapters, GK, BA, SW, etc.) they constitute over 50% of all sales for 40K. to keep this machine going, they have to make more options for space marine armies. imagine the smurf codex was the only one (which would make sense as most chapters follow the index astartes) then would the sales really be were they are? probably not.

with this train of thought, i'm pretty confident adding some specific rules for the fallen legions will increase sales.

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 16:45
this is right and wrong. yes space marines are the gateway army, they are also the top selling army. apparently, if you add up all space marine sales (all chapters, GK, BA, SW, etc.) they constitute over 50% of all sales for 40K. to keep this machine going, they have to make more options for space marine armies. imagine the smurf codex was the only one (which would make sense as most chapters follow the index astartes) then would the sales really be were they are? probably not.

with this train of thought, i'm pretty confident adding some specific rules for the fallen legions will increase sales.

You're misunderstanding my point. Marine variants and sales are high because they are the hook that attracts new players. Once a new player has bought in to the game and setting, they can branch out to new variants or more specialized armies. GW can't count on the specialized armies to be the hook - and if they're too specialized, as for example a lot of Legion lists are, they might not have the same broad sales base that GW needs.

Veteran players are much less reliable from a business model perspective. They are going to build whatever army they want, and it might not be an army that leads to broad sales. It would be a mistake for GW to spend too much resources and logistics catering to these groups*, because half the time they're going to do what they want anyway. It's better to cultivate the new player base and make it easier for more people to become veterans - while giving GW the profits it needs on the way there.

*: That sounds harsher than I mean it. Obviously GW gets a lot from adding depth to its IP that veterans enjoy. But they don't want to devote too much resources to fragmenting their factions, because the support needed would outweigh the return.

Chapters Unwritten
31-10-2012, 16:53
That sounds like it would make a very interesting read. Looking forward to you posting it. Thanks.It seems so obvious to me, I'm amazed that people don't realize it.

Lot of non-objective commentary in here. Legion specific rules are totally doable, but acting like the new dex can't be used at all to field anything resembling your preferred army is ridiculous.

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 17:04
It seems so obvious to me, I'm amazed that people don't realize it.

Lot of non-objective commentary in here. Legion specific rules are totally doable, but acting like the new dex can't be used at all to field anything resembling your preferred army is ridiculous.

A lot of people view GW through a Gamer's lens. This makes sense for them in a way, because they are interested in the end product as consumers and gamers. The problem is that GW isn't a consumer and is only partly a gamer, so viewing them through that lens will distort the view of their business decisions. I sometimes get annoyed at it but I mostly just want people to look at the hobby a bit more objectively.

AlphariusOmegon20
31-10-2012, 17:18
It seems so obvious to me, I'm amazed that people don't realize it.

Lot of non-objective commentary in here. Legion specific rules are totally doable, but acting like the new dex can't be used at all to field anything resembling your preferred army is ridiculous.

Try running my old Alpha Legion with the new book. You can't.

It depended on the Chosen's USR of infiltrate. When the Chosen lost it, I had to shelve the army.

Scaryscarymushroom
31-10-2012, 17:25
That sounds like it would make a very interesting read. Looking forward to you posting it. Thanks.

It seems so obvious to me, I'm amazed that people don't realize it.


I think there are good reasons for both sides of the argument of:

condensed, fair rules that reflect thousands of possible player choices (the all in one dex)
vs.
Dispersed, fluffy rules that individually reflect maybe a few dozen highly characteristic possible player choices (having 6 separate codices).

Fluff should be reflected by rules to a certain extent, but I like Theocracity's suggestion that there's a sliding scale of encouraging a cool army that looks like an army vs. encouraging a model collection of infinite size and variety.

Seems like the reason we have 6 codices is not because GW loves space marines. It's because the wargaming public at large loved space marines (especially in early editions of the game). There's a vicious cycle going on here... :shifty: I feel it is now pertinent to remind Warseer that a collection of enthusiasts who care enough to post online is not reflective of the public at large. As much as I'd love SM to be treated equally to every other army, I think the abundance and diversity of fluff couldn't be served by an all-in-one dex unless it were 500 pages long. The rules would stay balanced for longer, but then the price would be restrictive and the game as a whole would probably suffer...

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 17:29
Try running my old Alpha Legion with the new book. You can't.

It depended on the Chosen's USR of infiltrate. When the Chosen lost it, I had to shelve the army.

That seems like an overreaction, especially with counts-as Huron or Ahriman available. Or hell, even just rolling on the chart with the knowledge that not every battle presents a favorable infiltration scenario.

It's also a good example of why catering to veterans isn't a great business plan. Imagine how much money might be wasted if they provided full support for these kind of variants, only to have veterans quit in a huff because they changed how a USR is implemented. They're better off cultivating a culture of 'do what you want' where people feel fine about using the pieces they're given to make something interesting to themselves.

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 17:42
As much as I'd love SM to be treated equally to every other army, I think the abundance and diversity of fluff couldn't be served by an all-in-one dex unless it were 500 pages long. The rules would stay balanced for longer, but then the price would be restrictive and the game as a whole would probably suffer...

Exactly. And as Marines are a gateway for new players, putting the price of entry so high creates a barrier that could prevent them from ever taking the first step. It's better to monetize it over a longer period of time, with variant marine dexes that they purchase as they become more comfortable in the hobby. That way you cultivate a new player base (and smooth out your profits over a longer period of time), rather than limit yourself to a gradually attenuating and factionalized veteran base with a much spikier and less reliable purchasing schedule.

TheMav80
31-10-2012, 18:14
In my opinion, adding different rules and special theme lists should be what White Dwarf is for. Granted I also think homebrew rules and scenarios are cool and am always willing to give them a go at least once.

But I am not at all concerned with fragmentation and tournament legality as some.

Col. Dash
31-10-2012, 19:21
Radium- by your logic, we dont need BA, SW, BT or DA either because the SM codex can represent them just as well. Do you really think the legions after operating years with no support other than salvage and daemon forgeworlds are any less varied than the chapters with normal uniform support and logistics?

For once I agree with one of the people I usually disagree with, a chapter tactics without needing a specific special character lord would have been the easiest and least fluff destroying way to go.

Fear Ghoul
31-10-2012, 19:37
Try running my old Alpha Legion with the new book. You can't.

It depended on the Chosen's USR of infiltrate. When the Chosen lost it, I had to shelve the army.

Your problem is that you think Alpha Legion = infiltrate. If anything Alpha Legion can use any game strategy and tactics you desire (flexibility IS their doctrine), with maybe some added emphasis on cultists and allies masquerading as Legionnaires if you wish.

Your line of reasoning is exactly why the overly prescriptive method of army list design was dropped from Chaos Space Marines. It restricted peoples armies in favour of a simplistic view of the background.

Radium
31-10-2012, 19:38
Radium- by your logic, we dont need BA, SW, BT or DA either because the SM codex can represent them just as well.

And that's exactly what I'd like to see. I'd much rather have a single codex for all loyalist marines than the mess we currently have. That would free up GW's time to properly update all armies each edition, and they might even add some armies people would love to see (AdMech comes to mind...).

AlphariusOmegon20
31-10-2012, 19:47
That seems like an overreaction, especially with counts-as Huron or Ahriman available. Or hell, even just rolling on the chart with the knowledge that not every battle presents a favorable infiltration scenario.

It's also a good example of why catering to veterans isn't a great business plan. Imagine how much money might be wasted if they provided full support for these kind of variants, only to have veterans quit in a huff because they changed how a USR is implemented. They're better off cultivating a culture of 'do what you want' where people feel fine about using the pieces they're given to make something interesting to themselves.

You missed my point. I didn't run any SC's, as the army never depended on them.

My point was I could run that army WITHOUT an SC, and it did what I wanted.


Your problem is that you think Alpha Legion = infiltrate. If anything Alpha Legion can use any game strategy and tactics you desire (flexibility IS their doctrine), with maybe some added emphasis on cultists and allies masquerading as Legionnaires if you wish.

Your line of reasoning is exactly why the overly prescriptive method of army list design was dropped from Chaos Space Marines. It restricted peoples armies in favour of a simplistic view of the background.

Perhaps, or it could be that I wanted the army TO be different than bog standard Black Legion, as I think that's what EVERY army deserves, in every book, which also supports fluff.

I personally think 3.5, flawed as it was, finally gave an IDENTITY to each of the legions, other than the "oh you have Black CSM, well mine are Blue" line of thinking of 2nd and early 3rd ed. Choice is not a bad thing in my book, the more choices you have available to you, the richer the hobby, as is the game.

have I walked away from 40K? no, Have I walked away from CSM, an army I have played since 2nd ed? No. Did i walk away from Alpha Legion, due to the inability to play the army as in fluff? You bet I did, Hence why I am working on Word Bearers now. THAT army, I can make using the current book, and it match the established fluff.

Chapters Unwritten
31-10-2012, 19:59
That seems like an overreaction, especially with counts-as Huron or Ahriman available. Or hell, even just rolling on the chart with the knowledge that not every battle presents a favorable infiltration scenario.

It's also a good example of why catering to veterans isn't a great business plan. Imagine how much money might be wasted if they provided full support for these kind of variants, only to have veterans quit in a huff because they changed how a USR is implemented. They're better off cultivating a culture of 'do what you want' where people feel fine about using the pieces they're given to make something interesting to themselves.Agreed on all counts. My personal opinion after nearly a decade or so of Warhammering is that folks of this particular ilk are the worst thing for the hobby.

1.) "It was better how it USED to be!" Not even close to an objective statement. The idea that your entire army sucks because you lost the ability to infiltrate three squads is just ridiculous.

2.) "I can't play my army anymore!!" No, it changed. Ignoring all of the positive changes to the book in favor of focusing on a very narrow difference (note: I didn't say loss...). More importantly, there are some guys who would use the same pieces for 20 years without supporting the game one drop if nothing ever changed. It's a necessary part of the game and let's just be thankful that at least to some degree, things that they change aren't always totally arbitrary and at least make some sense with the gameplay and fanbase a decent amount of the time.

3.) "They made me shelf my army!" What a joke. No one made you shelf your army.

Older veterans are among the whiniest of this group. I am 30 years old this weekend, and am surprised by how many men above my age are a consistent problem in our club. Young people accept, the average ages tend to adapt, the old people just lose their **** pretty regularly about every little thing.

Infiltrate for Chosen was a stupid rule anyway, IMO.

boogle
31-10-2012, 20:01
I like 3.5 at the time, but i feel that it pigeonholed peoples perceptions of the legions a bit too much, background has since told us that the Alpha Legion is a lot more than just the 'infiltrate army' they are diverse and able to adapt to most scenarios, plus they use a lot of cults to do their bidding, so taking a diverse list (possibly ignoring daemonic units) with lots of cultist support give you a better representation of the Alpha Legion than 3.5 did

TheDungen
31-10-2012, 20:04
I'd say that we bring back the veteran skills from 3.5 instead of the legion lists, maybe with the added park that if your warlord has a vet skill then all other models take it cheaper. Something that while costing points allows you to tailor your force to a specific way of fighting without reducing your choices.

A similar system could also be in codex sm.

Theocracity
31-10-2012, 20:08
You missed my point. I didn't run any SC's, as the army never depended on them.

My point was I could run that army WITHOUT an SC, and it did what I wanted.



Perhaps, or it could be that I wanted the army TO be different than bog standard Black Legion, as I think that's what EVERY army deserves, in every book, which also supports fluff.

I personally think 3.5, flawed as it was, finally gave an IDENTITY to each of the legions, other than the "oh you have Black CSM, well mine are Blue" line of thinking of 2nd and early 3rd ed. Choice is not a bad thing in my book, the more choices you have available to you, the richer the hobby, as is the game.

have I walked away from 40K? no, Have I walked away from CSM, an army I have played since 2nd ed? No. Did i walk away from Alpha Legion, due to the inability to play the army as in fluff? You bet I did, Hence why I am working on Word Bearers now. THAT army, I can make using the current book, and it match the established fluff.

But you're defining choice as the imposition of limitations. You're free to do that on your own, but it's not in GW's interests to support that too much.

Chapters, I didn't mean to turn this into veteran bashing or anything like that. Veterans and newbs alike can be equally annoying, depending on the individual involved. My point was that GW's business model can easily predict the amount of money they can gain from grooming a new player, whereas a veteran's proclivities are much harder to predict. Thus they build the game around easy access for new players, and emphasize an open environment so that veterans can do whatever they want. They don't want to invest in ways for veterans to marginalize their interest in the hobby, because that's counterproductive and changes based on the whims of each player.

Samael Grigori
31-10-2012, 20:54
You're leaving out the other traitor legions. Half of my Emperor's Children army is still invalidated. I have sonic bikers, tanks, terminators and a dreadnaught that I can't use.

Daedalus81
31-10-2012, 21:13
You're leaving out the other traitor legions. Half of my Emperor's Children army is still invalidated. I have sonic bikers, tanks, terminators and a dreadnaught that I can't use.

EC is not entirely defined by its weapon options.

TheDungen
31-10-2012, 21:47
actually scratch my last idea, just make a warlord trait list kind of the like the magic item list in the warhammer fantasy battles rulebook. You can take one of each up to a maximum amount of points, some of these can give you easier allies, some can open up units for troops. some can give you more force organisation slots.
Sorted into categories such as Organisation traits, Command traits, Personal traits, strategic traits, and veteran traits.

For an example.

Organisation traits:

x points Dragoons
The warlords army may take one fast attack choice as a heavy support choice (it will count as a heavy support unit for all purposes). One member of the unit more than usual may take one of the heavy/special weapons available to that unit.

x points Lighting Strikes
The warlords army may take may take one fast attack choice as troops choice.

x points Blitz Krieg
The warlords army may take one heavy support choice as a fast attack choice(it will count as a fast attack choice for all purposes). This unit may make a free move before the game starts.

x points Scatter their skies
The warlords army may take may take one heavy support choice as troops choice.

x points Long campaigns
The warlords army may take one troops,fast attack or heavy support choice as an elite choice (it will count as an elite choice for all purposes). This unit must upgrade all members to characters (note: units of characters dont get look out sir)

x points veterans of a thousand wars
The warlords army may take may take one elite choice as troops choice.


Veteran traits:

x points Night fighter
the warlord has the night fighter special rule, any units in the army may buy the night fighter special rule at y points per model.

x points true grit
the warlord has the true grit special rule, any units in the army may buy the true grit special rule at y points per model.


and then just add the random traits under their specific categories just like magic items are sorted into categories. Maybe codices can add a few new one each but just a few ones. (also i have no idea of points costs such things would require play testing i guess)

Wyrmwood
31-10-2012, 23:48
If anything, I'd liked to have seen a few more bits of Horus Heresy wargear; ala a piece of Volkite weaponry, maybe some rad-missles etc. Not too much and nothing too fancy.

big squig
01-11-2012, 00:06
The advantage is that your army looks bad-ass. And who says you can't take marks? That's not in the fluff. Word bearers are well represented and despite popular belief, there's nothing in the fluff that says night lords take only raptors. In fact night lords are all about stealth, so a raptor would be the LAST thing you want!

It bugs the crap out of me that loyal marines get rules for everything when they would be perfectly fine just being great looking models. It's not enough to have an awesome army of viking themed marines or vampire themed marines. No, we need special rules for EVERYTHING!!!

Chapters Unwritten
01-11-2012, 00:41
This thread is bursting at the seams with simple jealousy.

DietDolphin
01-11-2012, 01:41
This thread is bursting at the seams with simple jealousy.

Your sig sums up this thread up perfectly.

zippy_tang
01-11-2012, 03:29
This argument has been floating around quite allot since the new chaos codex has come out and to be honest as much as I find myself on the side of "I want to represent Xlegion properly" we need to realise that we can accurately achieve any and all of these legions within the new codex.

* people want their iron warriors with basilisks...too bad, you now can take warpsmiths, daemon engines and even ally with guard to achieve this.

* people want their alpha legion with infiltrate... too bad, there is plenty of wargear options and warlord traits to create plenty of reserve/ deployment shenanigans.

* People want their Night lords with raptors as troops BA style... too bad, take some chaos marines and cultists and spend your bulk of points on getting big units of raptors and warp talons.

*people want their Word bearers to be holy dark zealots... that's achievable through dark apostles

and just to show that I'm not totally biased

*I wanted thousands sons to have better psychic powers and rubric terminators....too bad, there is plenty of options /weapons and powers that make my thousand sons even better than the 3.5 and 4th ed book. I can also take terminators with combi bolters power weapons, the mark of tzeentch and veterans of the long war and it represents rubric terminators perfectly.

the problem I see here is people seem to be very close minded about the entire discussion. Its not what I wanted is what most of it boils down to and the loyalist marines lists don't help this. I personally feel that the problem with the chaos codex as far as delivering what people wanted is that the loyalist books simply exist. Blood angels, dark angels, space wolves, black templar and even the space marines books offer soooo many options anything less is well...less.

TheMav80
01-11-2012, 03:34
Actually I would rather have Night Lords with Night Vision and Stealth or Infiltrate or Scout.

AlphariusOmegon20
01-11-2012, 03:36
But you're defining choice as the imposition of limitations. You're free to do that on your own, but it's not in GW's interests to support that too much.

Chapters, I didn't mean to turn this into veteran bashing or anything like that. Veterans and newbs alike can be equally annoying, depending on the individual involved. My point was that GW's business model can easily predict the amount of money they can gain from grooming a new player, whereas a veteran's proclivities are much harder to predict. Thus they build the game around easy access for new players, and emphasize an open environment so that veterans can do whatever they want. They don't want to invest in ways for veterans to marginalize their interest in the hobby, because that's counterproductive and changes based on the whims of each player.



I never took it as "veteran bashing" ;)

But you missed my point again. You shouldn't NEED to run an SC to get an army to work the way it does in fluff. I shouldn't need Huron, a Red Corsair to make ALpha Legion work properly. As bad as the last 'dex was, it did do some things correctly. I'll admit, I'm not a fan of "one size fits all" because one size DOESN'T fit all.

*puts on asbestos coat*

I see a much bigger problem though. The focus placed on SC's by GW is more attributed, IMO, to appeasement of WAAC power gaming tournament players, for a game that was never intended to BE in a tournament setting.It personally wouldn't hurt my feelings to get rid of EVERY SC.



EC is not entirely defined by its weapon options.

Perhaps, but it IS a part of their identity, and what makes them unique from other Legions

Gutlord Grom
01-11-2012, 03:57
I never took it as "veteran bashing" ;)

But you missed my point again. You shouldn't NEED to run an SC to get an army to work the way it does in fluff. I shouldn't need Huron, a Red Corsair to make ALpha Legion work properly. As bad as the last 'dex was, it did do some things correctly. I'll admit, I'm not a fan of "one size fits all" because one size DOESN'T fit all.

*puts on asbestos coat*

I see a much bigger problem though. The focus placed on SC's by GW is more attributed, IMO, to appeasement of WAAC power gaming tournament players, for a game that was never intended to BE in a tournament setting.It personally wouldn't hurt my feelings to get rid of EVERY SC.

There's nothing about need. It's an option, take or it leave it. It offers surety if you don't want a lucky role on the Chaos warlord traits table: I took a count as Huron with a counts as Al'Rahem for my Night Lords and I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you don't like that, that's perfectly fine. But we have to look at the fact that we've long since passed the 3rd/4th edition taboo on taking special characters, and making special characters more useful is part of the GW design philosphy. By and large its not the end of the world. They remain an option, but they rarely wholly outshine their generic counterparts.

As to the "incendiary comment", really? Saying you don't like the competitive scene is like saying "Guys, I'm not a fan of Khal Drago's background". It's not for everyone, and personally, I'm not really into that part of the game either. I like the background more then I like necessarily fielding a competitive list. But to go out and call them "Win At All Costs" does a disservice to the term. WAAC means, literally, winning at all costs whether that be through fudging the dice, "misreading" a rule, trash talking, even flat out cheating. Competitive tournament players play to have fun, but just not in the same way you or I might. There's nothing wrong with that.

That all said, I don't by your explanation about the proliferation of SC's as a way to "appease" tournament players. It's too trite and trying to set up for the usual "Competive vs Fluffy: No Middle Ground(Sunday Sunday Sunday)" that spews up every week or so.

Harbinger
01-11-2012, 05:03
Just my proverbial two cents...

If the Eldar, Dark Elder, Tau, Tyranids, Orks, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Sister of Battle can get by relatively well without special rules for specific Craftworlds, Kabals, Septs, Hive Fleets, Klans, Regiments, Tomb Worlds, and Orders...I think we (Chaos) can do the same. The Codex should allow for proper representation through the army list.

Inquisitor Engel
01-11-2012, 05:28
Just my proverbial two cents...

If the Eldar, Dark Elder, Tau, Tyranids, Orks, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Sister of Battle can get by relatively well without special rules for specific Craftworlds, Kabals, Septs, Hive Fleets, Klans, Regiments, Tomb Worlds, and Orders...I think we (Chaos) can do the same. The Codex should allow for proper representation through the army list.

THANK YOU!



WHY is this discussion still happening? :shifty:

Books change. The Chaos Codex is still one of the most flexible out there and if it doesn't suit you, you have a couple of options:



Quit. It's doubtful you will EVER be truly happy with a Chaos Codex, so quit now and start some humanitarian work in your free time or something.
Suck it up and find a way to make it work. I play Night Lords. I love this Codex. It, along with the Horus Heresy rules, have given me more modeling opportunity and flexibility in list-building than... well ever. It CAN work. Numerous suggestions have been given.* If you want a "fluffy" army, no one's stopping you but your own selfish desire to win within the rules. Set your own rules, enjoy the challenge.
Play it as a 'counts-as' Blood Angels and laugh while I point out all the things wrong with such an interpretation.


That's it. Those are your options. No amount of whining is going to get GW to change it.


*I'm kind of fond of the Mark of Nurgle counting as some dark Nostraman gang-upbringing, or taking a counts-as Huron Blackheart.

AlphariusOmegon20
01-11-2012, 09:24
THANK YOU!



WHY is this discussion still happening? :shifty:

Books change. The Chaos Codex is still one of the most flexible out there and if it doesn't suit you, you have a couple of options:



Quit. It's doubtful you will EVER be truly happy with a Chaos Codex, so quit now and start some humanitarian work in your free time or something.
Suck it up and find a way to make it work. I play Night Lords. I love this Codex. It, along with the Horus Heresy rules, have given me more modeling opportunity and flexibility in list-building than... well ever. It CAN work. Numerous suggestions have been given.* If you want a "fluffy" army, no one's stopping you but your own selfish desire to win within the rules. Set your own rules, enjoy the challenge.
Play it as a 'counts-as' Blood Angels and laugh while I point out all the things wrong with such an interpretation.


That's it. Those are your options. No amount of whining is going to get GW to change it.


*I'm kind of fond of the Mark of Nurgle counting as some dark Nostraman gang-upbringing, or taking a counts-as Huron Blackheart.


I think you also missed the point I was trying to make.

Actually, there WAS one codex a lot of Chaos players WERE happy with, 3.5. Was its layout clunky? Yes, no dispute there. Did it need some tweaking to some of its Legion Rules? Yes, most certainly, the IW list rules were a big offender there. But there is a REASON why that codex remains so popular with a good portion of Chaos players and is referred to every time this subject comes up, is because it offered something no Chaos codex had offered before or since; every Legion had unique rules and AN IDENTITY separate from the others. The added bonus of not requiring an SC to use those rules also made that ruleset attractive. THAT is the reason I made the comment I did about WAAC players. WAAC players don't care about fluff, and could care less about which army they play, so long as they win. WAAC players also don't bring in any money, as once their army is set, they're done buying. It is the "fluff Nazis" for lack of a better term, that make sales, regardless what GW tries to say on it. Whether a particular unit fits in an army is moot, at least you know what doesn't fit and what does when you cater to the fluff over WAAC.

You've also missed that there are threads consistently about the SM variant of this discussion, about Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, and White Scars also. Clearly, there is a call for these types for rulesets. What GW seems to miss in their "calculations" is by providing not such rules for other armies seems like double speak when you look at the SM side of the equation. By ONLY considering the new players, they seem to miss half of the equation, and the part they seem to miss is player retention to the hobby and game. Ok, great, SM brings them in; so now what once you've got them? This is where other armies rules set should retain them, yet because of the double speak given by GW in the disparity between Sm and every other army they produce, they aren't retaining as many players as they should, because they ignore the "veterans", which DOES include anyone who DID buy a SM product. At SOME point, a "new player" does stop being new and becomes a "veteran", if they are retained in the hobby.

Why should I and a lot of other players be limited to "shut up and accept it"? OTHER companies, such as Nike, Apple, and Proctor Gamble, listen to their customer base as to what changes they want seen in their products, why doesn't GW? Calls for these types of rulesets have continued since RT days and they have yet to subside in almost 30 years, THAT should speak volumes to a company, yet GW continues to ignore it. What makes this even worse is other companies using GW's OWN IP, such as FW and FFG, are able to include rules for other Legions and Chapters on a regular basis for their products, it's not like it can't be done.

A.T.
01-11-2012, 10:36
It is the "fluff Nazis" for lack of a better term, that make sales, regardless what GW tries to say on it. Whether a particular unit fits in an army is moot, at least you know what doesn't fit and what does when you cater to the fluff over WAAC.Fluff has nothing to do with units having special rules or abilities, fluff is not Night Lords with the fear rule, or infiltrate, or arbitrary unit restrictions in return for freebies.

It's when you theme your army around a background, when you play your Khorne list as all out assault even though you don't have to, or pick units because they are fitting. It's the little grey box in the corner of the page, the text in italics in the item description, the story in the timeline and the background in the unit entry. It doesn't have anything to do with extra rules - it's just fluff.

Wishing
01-11-2012, 10:44
As a side note, your point about codex-hopping is one of my thoughts about why loyalists get more codexes than chaos or xenos. The TL;DR version of the argument is that Marines are a good draw for new players, and multiple codexes provide an easy way for a new player to transition into new purchases without changing their entire understanding of the game. Fragmenting a chaos or xenos list into multiple dexes wouldn't have the same effect - it would just splinter the fanbase and make things difficult to support, because they don't provide the same new player draw.


But as I noted, we can do this because we're veteran gamers who have already bought in. We fit in a valuable space of GW's business model, but we're not the only ones that matter to their continued operation. Realizing the business logic behind the actions allows you to relax and not take every fluff or rules change as a slap in the face :)

Thank you for posting this. I've always agreed with the underlying point - that we just have to accept the imbalance between marine armies and non-marine armies because it's integral to GW's business model - but I've never thought of it in terms of marines being the "starter army" for new players, the Black Reach / Dark Vengeance of codex groups, even though it is so obvious. The design structure of the game, while it doesn't exactly improve, certainly makes so much more sense when you look at it that way.

Endobai
01-11-2012, 10:46
* people want their alpha legion with infiltrate... too bad, there is plenty of wargear options and warlord traits to create plenty of reserve/ deployment shenanigans.

Are there. I've read the codex so this statement seems quite a suprise to me.

Care to name this 'plenty'?

I've counted the following: marines on foot, marines in a Land Raider/Rhino, scattering deep strike... so three without a lucky Warlord roll (everyone can get even in the 6th ed. rulebook), allies or mispelled Ahriman/Huron.

Vanilla SM codex gives me: marines on foot, marines in a transport, drop pods, scattering deep strike, safe deep strike, outflank, scout moves, infiltration or all of them so eight.

HH - book one (without any AL rules yet) allows me to deploy as: marines on foot, marines in a transport, drop pods, expensive flyer transports, scattering deep strike, safe deep strike, scout moves, infiltration and outflank so nine.


Isn't the CSM codex the only single one without infiltration/outflank BTW?

No it is not - daemons so the army which doesn't even deploy before a game on the battlefield and the Black Templars so the army which is known for not so subtle crusades, which however still has drop pods and better transports.

That is a relief, obviously. Has to be.


That only leaves Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau, Necrons, Sisters of Battle, vanilla Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard...

Wonderful.

Haunter!
01-11-2012, 10:59
Actually I would rather have Night Lords with Night Vision and Stealth or Infiltrate or Scout.

I agree with this so much. Raptors are not what the Night Lords are all about, people!

A.T.
01-11-2012, 11:07
Isn't the CSM codex the only single one without infiltration/outflank BTW?No, sisters(no infiltrators) and daemons are. GK are also limited to a single infiltrating model (the vindicare).

Chaos have the greatest range of infiltrating units outside of forgeworld rules as they are able to infiltrate/outflank more than half the units in the dex, up to 9 units/models in any given FoC if i'm not mistaken.

BT do have infiltrators BTW, and don't forget chaos steed lords for accurate outflanking of units.

Wishing
01-11-2012, 11:10
In my opinion, adding different rules and special theme lists should be what White Dwarf is for. Granted I also think homebrew rules and scenarios are cool and am always willing to give them a go at least once.

But I am not at all concerned with fragmentation and tournament legality as some.

I'm the same, really. It is clear that GW *could*, if they wanted, write army lists for any and all sub-factions in 40k, complete with special rules and special characters, and publish them periodically in WD in Chapter Approved format. Like they used to do to some extent. But they don't, and there must be a specific long-term business decision behind it (since it would be very easy to do and make many people very happy) - presumably related to the fragmentation issue you refer to. I'm not sure if tournament legality is an issue for GW, they seem to not really care at all what TOs do with their rules as far as I can tell... just look at the tournament comp systems in warhammer.

Fear Ghoul
01-11-2012, 12:26
Perhaps, or it could be that I wanted the army TO be different than bog standard Black Legion, as I think that's what EVERY army deserves, in every book, which also supports fluff.

You CAN make your Alpha Legion army different enough from other armies using list selection as I suggested. And how do you think the thousands of people who play Ultramarines successors play the game? They don't all have special rules to represent their own army, but they can create their own background and tailor their list selection, thus making their army different from others. If you're really desperate for your army (Alpha Legion) to have special rules (Infiltrate) due to your (flawed) vision of their background, then I can easily turn that around: why shouldn't little Timmy's Black Legion warband get infiltrate because he's decided that's their specialization? The truth of the matter is that Alpha Legion don't specialize in infiltration any more than anyone else. What they do specialize in is fluid operational, strategic, and tactical warfare, with emphasis on cultists to deceive and weaken the enemy from within and Alpha Legionnaires masquerading as their opponents to turn the tide of battle at a crucial juncture. I see nothing in the Chaos Space Marine codex army book that prevents the existence of such an army. In fact I'm somewhat tempted to build one myself. The moment you start arguing that YOU should get infiltrate you open the flood gates to EVERYONE arguing they should get infiltarte: "What do you mean my Tactical Marines haven't realized that it would be more sensible to deploy closer to the enemy gunline? Stupid GW designers."

zippy_tang
01-11-2012, 12:42
Are there. I've read the codex so this statement seems quite a suprise to me.

Care to name this 'plenty'?

I've counted the following: marines on foot, marines in a Land Raider/Rhino, scattering deep strike... so three without a lucky Warlord roll (everyone can get even in the 6th ed. rulebook), allies or mispelled Ahriman/Huron.

Vanilla SM codex gives me: marines on foot, marines in a transport, drop pods, scattering deep strike, safe deep strike, outflank, scout moves, infiltration or all of them so eight.

HH - book one (without any AL rules yet) allows me to deploy as: marines on foot, marines in a transport, drop pods, expensive flyer transports, scattering deep strike, safe deep strike, scout moves, infiltration and outflank so nine.


Isn't the CSM codex the only single one without infiltration/outflank BTW?

No it is not - daemons so the army which doesn't even deploy before a game on the battlefield and the Black Templars so the army which is known for not so subtle crusades, which however still has drop pods and better transports.

That is a relief, obviously. Has to be.


That only leaves Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau, Necrons, Sisters of Battle, vanilla Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard...

Wonderful.

If you have read the codex you may have actually noticed not once does it mention the alpha legion are experts of infiltration. it mentions that they "fight a covert war of sabotage and insurrection that sees entire populations rise up against the imperium" the only thing this tells us about the alpha legion is that they are good at spreading chaos throughout a planets infrastructure through covert means to create more 'cultists'. The book has given you cultists. it also mentions "spreading daemon cults and cultivating the seeds of heresy" which opens up reasons for allying daemons and imperial guard.

The problem here is that games workshop have probably changed their identity slightly and players are still clinging to an older model of the alpha legion description. Now regardless of what i have said don't you think if GW really wanted to give alpha legion some form of infiltration they would have? the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

now the one thing I will take from what you said and humbly agree with is the options for alternate deployment the loyalist codex's offer over the chaos codex. This is once again a problem of those books not the chaos one. There is plenty of evidence from these books to show they may have gone a little fanboyish for the spess mahreens and sadly its left chaos players and also xenos players out in the cold a, but i digress.

the discussion here is about accurately portraying the named legions with the new chaos codex and I personally think it is perfectly achievable. Its not the 3.5 mk2 people were looking for but it still allows us to represent 9 major legions with the one army list which if anything is a testament to its flexibility.

I don't mean to add fuel to fire on this subject by any means because there are a lot of people who feel strongly about this topic. I only ask for players to read the new fluff a bit and really play with the new chaos codex and build lists...even play some games before jumping ship to a loyalist space marine codex to represent chaos marines.

Aiwass
01-11-2012, 12:51
Try running my old Alpha Legion with the new book. You can't.

It depended on the Chosen's USR of infiltrate. When the Chosen lost it, I had to shelve the army.


That seems like an overreaction, especially with counts-as Huron or Ahriman available. Or hell, even just rolling on the chart with the knowledge that not every battle presents a favorable infiltration scenario.

It's also a good example of why catering to veterans isn't a great business plan. Imagine how much money might be wasted if they provided full support for these kind of variants, only to have veterans quit in a huff because they changed how a USR is implemented. They're better off cultivating a culture of 'do what you want' where people feel fine about using the pieces they're given to make something interesting to themselves.

As Theocracity said, Huron is a good way to infiltrate units. Also is Ahriman, while expensive gives you a level 4 psyker with Telepathy which have nice powers to represent AL stuff: Invisibility, Puppet Master, and Hallucination.

Other ways to go with the AL approach of warfare it's DS terminators. Part of the AL philosophy it's attack from all directions at the same time, and is not difficult to achieve with an Aegis Defence Line w/ Comms relay and an allied IG CCS w/ astropath. That's rerollable reserves arriving with 2+ (and if you don't like using allies, buy carapace armor to the guards and use scouts models).

It's not perfect, but neither was the crappy 5th codex.

Theocracity
01-11-2012, 14:43
I never took it as "veteran bashing" ;)

But you missed my point again. You shouldn't NEED to run an SC to get an army to work the way it does in fluff. I shouldn't need Huron, a Red Corsair to make ALpha Legion work properly. As bad as the last 'dex was, it did do some things correctly. I'll admit, I'm not a fan of "one size fits all" because one size DOESN'T fit all.

*puts on asbestos coat*

I see a much bigger problem though. The focus placed on SC's by GW is more attributed, IMO, to appeasement of WAAC power gaming tournament players, for a game that was never intended to BE in a tournament setting.It personally wouldn't hurt my feelings to get rid of EVERY SC.




Perhaps, but it IS a part of their identity, and what makes them unique from other Legions

I don't think Special Characters has anything to do with tournaments, actually. My theory on why GW pushes those is the idea of Additive Specialization, as opposed to Restrictive Specialization.

If you had the ability to get special Legion abilities at no cost or at a simple points cost, there would be little reason not to play a Legion - thus penalizing those who like to create their own factions. If you try and fix this by restricting what a particular Legion can use, then GW is providing an incentive for players to choose armies that don't want to buy products from their whole range. This is Restrictive Specialization, and for sales and hobby reasons GW wants to avoid that.

Special Characters are Additive Specialization because they require a purchase of a particular model to get the benefits of specialization. It's essentially a sales tax for limiting yourself. This lets GW benefit from players who want to specialize even if they're not buying a full range of models.


Thank you for posting this. I've always agreed with the underlying point - that we just have to accept the imbalance between marine armies and non-marine armies because it's integral to GW's business model - but I've never thought of it in terms of marines being the "starter army" for new players, the Black Reach / Dark Vengeance of codex groups, even though it is so obvious. The design structure of the game, while it doesn't exactly improve, certainly makes so much more sense when you look at it that way.

Thanks :). I do want to take a moment to point out that I'm not intending to patronize Marine players here - they're designed to be easy to get into but also have a lot of depth. The flat panels on the models may be easy to paint, but there's still lots of gribbly bits in there for the veterans :).

Wishing
01-11-2012, 17:59
Thanks :). I do want to take a moment to point out that I'm not intending to patronize Marine players here - they're designed to be easy to get into but also have a lot of depth. The flat panels on the models may be easy to paint, but there's still lots of gribbly bits in there for the veterans :).

I quite agree. Marines aren't just an easy access "baby's first 40k army", though they are that. They're also the core of what makes 40k into what it is, and for the same reasons really - that in addition to being easy to paint and play, they just look really really cool, which is what 40k (and GW) is all about really. Models come first, and the marine models are brilliant and classic designs that are neutral enough to lend themselves to almost any theme imaginable. So they appeal both the complete beginners and hardcore veterans like Tempus Fugitives.