PDA

View Full Version : What was so bad about storm of chaos?



Alltaken
28-03-2014, 00:04
I never played soc and really want to know what was so bad about it? Was it just a balance thing? It looks incredibly lorefull and fun. I inted to play the campaing mode the tree one with my friends

From my servoskull

yabbadabba
28-03-2014, 00:16
Usual problem between GW and its community - lack of a common language. Aside from that I found it great fun if you played with mates and took everything anyone said, including GW, with a pinch of salt.

badguyshaveallthefun
28-03-2014, 00:28
It was a ton of fun actually, although a lot of the "new" army lists that they released for it really were all about spamming a single unit.

My biggest gripe though was that after the warhammer community played all those campaign games, and the results were in, GW basically said: "Nah, we don't like those results so we're just going to pretend the whole thing never happened".

Alltaken
28-03-2014, 00:57
So the problem wasnt the supplement, but rather gw being its douchy self?

I really hoped we got teutogen guard still along the Doom seekers and the goblin hewer (with new rules), those were cool minis

From my servoskull

MOMUS
28-03-2014, 01:02
There are PLENTY of thread on SoC, I would adivse a search.

IcedCrow
28-03-2014, 01:29
SoC was a blast. My problem with it was:

They pretended it was a global campaign where you could contribute to the storyline. This seemed to be false on both accounts as the results seemed very predetermined and the storyline never advanced and was later retconned.

Ayin
28-03-2014, 01:46
Oh, the majority of the SoC complaints come from how it was handled in the end.

The Campaign itself was neat. The ending was one of the worst written things I have ever seen. It was atrocious from every angle.

The armies they introduced were, for the most part, pretty poor as well. More than a few were simply about copying the same unit as much as possible (an army of ALL Sea Guard, an army of ALL Slayers, ect), often these were units that were, well, poor in their main book (Sea Guard in 6th were not victory) and got some ridiculous bonus in the SoC rules (your whole army gets an extra round of shooting before the game starts...).


So, we started with some good, some bad army lists, a neat concept, and ended up with a horrible conclusion...that was quickly retconned and forgotten. Not something that was going to go down in history as 'well done'.

JPThunda
28-03-2014, 01:47
The problem with SoC was that GW made a great campaign, and a significant portion of the players of a certain faction (Orks) decided to reject the restrictions the campaign placed on them and claim -all- of their games in a region in which they were not 'supposed' to be participating. Then, rather than GW simply ignoring all of those games, they said "Ok, fine, here's your half-arsed ending. We're not doing this again, you ruined it for everyone, good job, I hope you're happy with yourselves." At least that's my understanding of it.

I've actually noticed a similar problem in a 40k Narrative Campaign I've been running. A player of a certain faction (Orks) could not bear to be "just a member of the team" with whatever cool events happened during a battle written in, he wanted bold, in your face, sweeping, center stage plot points that were all about him but effected everyone else. Understandably, this caused problems, but I'm beginning to see a connection between Orks and that kind of behavior.

Fear Ghoul
28-03-2014, 01:49
Storm of Chaos was interesting at the time, but retrospectively it was a terrible idea. Any timeline advancement either has to offer huge changes at the expense of one or more factions in the game or change so little as to be meaningless, neither of which is an attractive prospective in a hobby driven by emotional investment and fueled by nerd rage.

tezdal
28-03-2014, 02:12
I enjoyed it, unfortunately GW bungled it.

mostlyharmless
28-03-2014, 02:32
I had a lot of fun with it, but it was handled poorly, both by a lot of the players (orcs) and by GW.

Urgat
28-03-2014, 08:05
So the problem wasnt the supplement, but rather gw being its douchy self?

Not only. It's easy to blame it all on GW, but so many players abused the rules it wasn't fun. Not gonna talk about the thousands of obviously fake results, but there was also some focus/lack of focus on some region targets that completely locked the campaign. I don't remember the specifics, but the Order people worked together fine, while the Chaos side just did whatever.


The problem with SoC was that GW made a great campaign, and a significant portion of the players of a certain faction (Orks) decided to reject the restrictions the campaign placed on them and claim -all- of their games in a region in which they were not 'supposed' to be participating. Then, rather than GW simply ignoring all of those games, they said "Ok, fine, here's your half-arsed ending. We're not doing this again, you ruined it for everyone, good job, I hope you're happy with yourselves." At least that's my understanding of it.

What a load of bull. Greenskins were designed as a third faction in SoC, and we were free to do whatever we wanted, that was our role and what we were supposed to do. The chaos side blames greenskins for not supporting them wholely (and, I guess, for CD joining us instead of them), but we wacked the Order side just as much. Not our fault chaos couldn't do a single concerted action and strike meaningful targets.

Bad monkey
28-03-2014, 09:40
Not only. It's easy to blame it all on GW, but so many players abused the rules it wasn't fun. Not gonna talk about the thousands of obviously fake results, but there was also some focus/lack of focus on some region targets that completely locked the campaign. I don't remember the specifics, but the Order people worked together fine, while the Chaos side just did whatever.



What a load of bull. Greenskins were designed as a third faction in SoC, and we were free to do whatever we wanted, that was our role and what we were supposed to do. The chaos side blames greenskins for not supporting them wholely (and, I guess, for CD joining us instead of them), but we wacked the Order side just as much. Not our fault chaos couldn't do a single concerted action and strike meaningful targets.

Yeah pretty much this, chaos just didn't have the same direction and focus as they did in eye of terror. Which I found comparably was a more enjoyable experience.

shelfunit.
28-03-2014, 10:00
The book itself was fine - nice variant army lists, a standard, but well done campaign, good models - and guides on how to convert the models for unit entries with no "official" models. Essentially just what you'd want for a global campaign. Shame nothing really progressed, either in game or otherwise because of it.

Fear Ghoul
28-03-2014, 11:48
I'm also not sure why people want the results of a global campaign influenced by unbalanced army lists.

Spider-pope
28-03-2014, 13:36
"What was so bad about storm of chaos? "

The ending. The campaign itself and the build up was fine to great.

Fear Ghoul
28-03-2014, 13:52
"What was so bad about storm of chaos? "

The ending. The campaign itself and the build up was fine to great.

Looking back I'm not even sure the build up was very good. The whole Council of Light stuff was very cheesy and pulpish.

jtrowell
28-03-2014, 13:53
From my experience, what they should have done from the start is thinking of several different outcome depending on the campaign results, and not only what they were thinking was the most probable outcomes.

They could have said for exemple :
chaos major victory = part of the empire has been razed, maybe middenland is now controlled by chaos from where raids are launched against the rest of the Empire
chaos minor victory = chaos has been hold back, but at the cost of middenheim being razed (and maybe the flame of Ulric has been desecrated).
chaos defeat = the invasion has reached middenheim, but Valten (with maybe the "help" of some other factions depending on results) kill Archaon and break the siege
and so on.

As long as they had viable consequences planned they could have allowed the players to truly influence the results (note that the exact consequences would not have had to be known by the players in advance)

They could also have made a few rules or units choices from the campaign become official addons to their armies as a reward for the campaign results (dogs of wars winning many battles for exemple might have not prevented a chaos win on the global scale but it might have earned then a new unit or two, maybe some veterans fom the war with bonus against chaos ?)

From what I understand, GW clearly just got into the campaign with maybe one or two results planned at best (and even then, I wonder how much they were improvising), this was a recipe for disaster from the very start.

Geep
28-03-2014, 14:01
I really enjoyed being a part of it- being on forums where areas of attack and defence were decided, watching the map change day by day, etc.
No one I knew ever played the variant lists, so I can't comment on those, but most of the models were great.
I even didn't mind that regions had a set time until they fell, and that player results could only delay the inevitable- to me this seemed necessary, as 'chaos vs everyone else' is clearly unbalanced in the real world.

The real failing point was the final end story. It seems clear that GW HQ got together all of the special characters from the campaign, and had a big-bash (literally playing a game with the models), presenting the results like a grand conclusion to the campaign.

Then, once that little abomination was over, they needed a 'quick fix' to restore things to the normal order. So Grimgor just turns around and walks off, taking his armies, a does Manfred and all of his undead minions. Archaon, who really should have suffered some kind of wrath from the gods for failure, just moves into the Brass Keep. Valten gets taken out by an assassin, just because it would have been inconvenient if he remained.

I admit there would have been no clean and simple way leave Manfred, Grimgor and Valten as they were- so IMO they shouldn't have done anything. I would have been happy with the campaign ending, Chaos defeated but still a threat at the Empire's door, as well as Grimgor's and Manfred's hordes. Leave it there- a 1-minute to midnight style situation.

Why GW felt a need to undo the timeline until the 'current' point I don't know. There will always be more storms of Chaos, more champions rising and falling. The end of that storm doesn't mean safety by a longshot.

Voss
28-03-2014, 20:53
So the problem wasnt the supplement, but rather gw being its douchy self?


From my servoskull
Not really. Gw bungled the end, but most of the problems throughout stemmed from groups of players, and, admittedly, an easily exploitable system. Happily the idea that gw was going to let players wreck the setting is a horribly bad idea that they have since outgrown.

Spider-pope
28-03-2014, 21:46
Looking back I'm not even sure the build up was very good. The whole Council of Light stuff was very cheesy and pulpish.

There was build up in a few novels too. The best being the 'Mark of Chaos' duology, which really made Valten an interesting character and more than just Sigmar 2.0.

cornonthecob
28-03-2014, 21:51
I've never heard/read about them Spider pope , could you go into more detail ?

SuperHappyTime
29-03-2014, 15:05
So I'm to new to have played in SoC, but since everyone is mentioning the ending was bad, I have to ask what about the ending was bad? Was it that Chaos should have won, but Order did instead? I know GW tends to dwell in the grim-dark, but does wiping out the Empire and Old World advance the world plot in a good way?

Urgat
29-03-2014, 15:22
There's a combination of things, really. On the game result side, Chaos totally fubbared it, they shouldn't even have reached Middenheim, but they still moved ahead in the fluff. There's also some absurd stuff like Von Carstein steamrolling up north, but he turns back just because Volkmar stares at him. There's also some grumpiness about Grimgor's headbutt.

Lastavenger
29-03-2014, 18:09
I know that this is stupid idea, but is it possible to play again SoC, do another worldwide campaign using SoC scenarios? Do similar thing, but with better story and consequences (of course only for that campaign, but still, we could demolish entire setting). I know that would be hard to organize , but I think it would be fun to play story driven campaign with users of warseer.

quietus1986
29-03-2014, 18:18
they should have just prepared beter. make multibal ending from the start so if one side won that happend in the story line ( it didn't even have to be something drastic) like chaos won middenheim could have almost fallen if that of that didn't happen take something that happent in the campain that would have made it look that way and change the story line a bit forward. just annof that players would have felt like they made a bit of a difference. Exemple just give every book a special car that has something to do with that campain. empire hero who did something great. a new chaos champion. something that would give you a feeling that it happent.

Alltaken
29-03-2014, 20:54
I find this "players should not determine the future" thing. Legend of the five rings (card game similar to magic) works this way and it seems to be quite succesfull, I'd say N 2 on the card games

From my servoskull

theJ
30-03-2014, 09:33
So I'm to new to have played in SoC, but since everyone is mentioning the ending was bad, I have to ask what about the ending was bad? Was it that Chaos should have won, but Order did instead? I know GW tends to dwell in the grim-dark, but does wiping out the Empire and Old World advance the world plot in a good way?

Pretty much the opposite, really. I wasn't there, but I've heard this discussion a hundred times, so I'd recon I could recap it well enough.
The gist of it is that Chaos got steamrolled, failing to take even a single objective. Despite this, it was the Empire who lost their greatest champion in a final duel against Archaon, and had their fluff hit more than excessively with the great mallet of grimdark, completely neutralizing all their efforts.
While I can understand(and to some extent appreciate) that this ending led to a much more "in character" post-SoC warhammer world, it was still a dick move on GWs part.

The biggest failures, however, were in the side stories.
The massive daemon army got insta-banished by a single spell, which left neither side satisfied.
The "greatest Orc warboss of all time" got a great moment of glory, wading through the Chaos army like a champ, bitchslapping Archaon down, again like a champ... and then completely ruined the moment by just leaving.
The greatest Undead army of all time... didn't actually do anything. Upon spotting Volkmar holding a particularly shiny book, Mannfred apparantly got scared and fled with his forces back to Sylvania and was never heard from again.

Bottomline is... nobody was really satisfied with the results, and it didn't take long for GW to roll back everything that happened, which is actually a shame, because what little post-storm fluff we got was really really good, while the post-retcon fluff... really really wasn't.

Wishing
30-03-2014, 10:44
Pretty much the opposite, really. I wasn't there, but I've heard this discussion a hundred times, so I'd recon I could recap it well enough.
The gist of it is that Chaos got steamrolled, failing to take even a single objective. Despite this, it was the Empire who lost their greatest champion in a final duel against Archaon, and had their fluff hit more than excessively with the great mallet of grimdark, completely neutralizing all their efforts.
While I can understand(and to some extent appreciate) that this ending led to a much more "in character" post-SoC warhammer world, it was still a dick move on GWs part.

That's quite funny, and interesting from a drama point of view.

It is clear that to GW (and lots of other fantasy), the great eternal storyline is that of the forces of chaos/evil invading the realms of order/good and threatening to destroy the world. For the sake of drama, such stories always have to have evil inflicting huge amounts of damage, and only being stopped at the very last minute by a heroic sacrifice or effort on the side of good. That's what real drama and legends are made of.

So combining this idea with the idea of a player-driven campaign seems quite amusing to me, because it opens up the possibility of exactly what you describe here (if I understand correctly) - that the forces of evil get nowhere. And if there is nothing threatening the forces of good, then there is no drama and no story. The idea of a huge campaign of destruction having a conclusion that goes "actually there was never anything to worry about, the invaders were disorganised and weak, so instead of going to war, the forces of good spent the resources on building more schools and better infrastructure" is, quite obviously, complete anathema to GW.

So the funny part is that GW claimed that the results of people's games would shape the results of the campaign, even though there is only ever one way GW will let a campaign pan out. I wonder if they were aware at the time that they were making bogus claims, or if they just didn't realise that their need for the campaign to have drama wouldn't let them do what they promised, unless the game results just happened to result in the result they wanted.

I wasn't part of the event, so if I am misunderstanding something, please rectify.

One thing that makes me wonder is, if chaos didn't accomplish their objectives and got nowhere, what about other evil forces? It sounded like the orcs were doing pretty well, from what someone said earlier. Couldn't GW just have shifted around the forces, and said that even though the chaos invasion failed, the orcs then invaded instead, so it ended up being orcs who were on the brink of destroying civilisation? The dramatic conflict could then still occur, but with game results influencing the story anyway.

BigbyWolf
30-03-2014, 11:36
For me it was a bit of a tricky situation from the start. A large-scale global campaign which could have consequences works fine in 40K, as deciding the fate for a star system will have little impact on the game as a whole, but the Warhammer World is a lot smaller and changes following the campaign would be game-changing. I'm all for global campaigns, but keep it small-scale for Warhammer.

The one they did after that, about the crown or whatnot was a step in the right direction, but still pretty bad.

Kahadras
30-03-2014, 12:28
Same as the 13th Black Crusade IMHO. GW offered players an epic campaign that would have a 'real' effect the world/galaxy. They then realised how bad an idea this was and put the brakes on which resulted in the whole thing being a bit of a failure and the whole thing was 'ploughed under' by later fluff. Basic lesson is if you don't want your world background changing don't run campaigns where you offer that possibility to the fan base. A lot of people are going to be cheesed off when you then fudge the results.

Fen
30-03-2014, 14:22
The biggest failures, however, were in the side stories.
The massive daemon army got insta-banished by a single spell, which left neither side satisfied.
The "greatest Orc warboss of all time" got a great moment of glory, wading through the Chaos army like a champ, bitchslapping Archaon down, again like a champ... and then completely ruined the moment by just leaving.
The greatest Undead army of all time... didn't actually do anything. Upon spotting Volkmar holding a particularly shiny book, Mannfred apparantly got scared and fled with his forces back to Sylvania and was never heard from again.

Bottomline is... nobody was really satisfied with the results, and it didn't take long for GW to roll back everything that happened, which is actually a shame, because what little post-storm fluff we got was really really good, while the post-retcon fluff... really really wasn't.
The good armies had it no better

The largest errant war of Bretonnia joined forces with the empire and then...Vanished (yeah,Louen duelled Be'Lakor to a stalemate in a 2 lines note,at least)
The greatest achivement of the dwarves was having Garagrim killed...And then his existence was made pointless right after that.
The high elves and their greatest commitment to the old world sinceforever... "Clap your hand if you believe" by Teclis aside,they did pretty much nothing too (and it's better not to speak of the wood elves...)
And the lizard were kinda...There....

forseer of fates
30-03-2014, 14:31
Its just silliness that they are trying to reverse the 40k and fantasy timelines, they should be going forward, for me storm of chaos is done and over with, even sigmars blood goes on about the war in the north a little bit, craziness.

yabbadabba
30-03-2014, 14:58
The global campaigns made money, encouraged gaming and were lots of fun. However what they suffered from was being based around IP directly linked to on going sales lines. Almost at the end of EoT it is rumoured that Priestly went nuts at the campaign team for allowing the Cadians to be almost wiped out, not long after their release.

I was one of many who argued for areas of the WFB and 40K universe to be dedicated to such events so that they could be completely wrecked but not have a major impact on the established IPs. The post campaign rewards would be optional bonuses and penalties presented as a campaign pack.

venus_redscar
31-03-2014, 02:03
It seems like the biggest problem was it was too big to make anyone happy. Who wants to see the entire fluff turned on it's head? The campaigns should have been more focused (smaller) or based on history...

dishwasherlove
31-03-2014, 03:14
These guys were going to run an updated version for 8e as a anniversary celebration but it looks like it died.

http://storm.bugeatergames.com/

StygianBeach
31-03-2014, 08:55
These guys were going to run an updated version for 8e as a anniversary celebration but it looks like it died.

http://storm.bugeatergames.com/

Thanks for the link. That looks pretty interesting.

MeanJellybean
31-03-2014, 09:44
I always thought it was a poor idea to have Storm of Chaos (a campaign about an apocalyptic Chaos invasion) directly after Eye of Terror (a campaign about an apocalyptic Chaos invasion), it would have be nice to have delayed SoC until all the armies were re-released and then run the campaign as a sort of closure to 6th edition.

BigRob
31-03-2014, 11:00
Personally for me, the biggest issue that arose from Storm of Chaos was that GW made it a requirement for the production of second edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay that the new edition was set post SOC with half the Empire destroyed and chaos running rampant and everyone talking about Valten's disappearance.

This meant that while GW were busy franticly burying the corpse of SOC and all it's misery in the garden, poor old Black Industries and Green Ronin were forced to produce book after book referencing the travesty.

Albion and Thorskinsons Island....that's how you do a campaign :D

Bloodknight
31-03-2014, 11:01
What really felt lame was that they moved Chaos towards Middenheim via game master decision. The chaos forces got stuck at Bohsenfels, which was being defended by Dogs of War players mostly. The DoW players had quite a good win ratio that should not have allowed Chaos to get past them, yet the city was razed per ordre de mufti. That was not a lot of fun to behold for us.

Kahadras
31-03-2014, 12:45
What really felt lame was that they moved Chaos towards Middenheim via game master decision. The chaos forces got stuck at Bohsenfels, which was being defended by Dogs of War players mostly. The DoW players had quite a good win ratio that should not have allowed Chaos to get past them, yet the city was razed per ordre de mufti. That was not a lot of fun to behold for us.

One of my friends who took part said exactly the same thing. GW railroading did absolutly nothing for the campaign apart from annoy a bunch of players who were made to feel that any achievements they'd managed counted for nothing. What's the point in telling people their games will have an impact on the campaign if GW have already decided that Chaos get to Middenheim, that Archaon will be defeated and then everything will return to the way it was.

Disposable Hero
31-03-2014, 13:25
We played a few games with the SoC rules. Great games.

As for the GW-campaign, I have no idea what went on. I do know what will fix it: Alan Bligh.

That man is the anti-dote to the rot in GW. The day I become dictator of the world, he becomes Loremaster General of all GW.

Athelassan
31-03-2014, 13:27
I don't know how much of the campaign was predetermined. Obviously it was already decided that Archaon would get to Middenheim. I don't think it was necessarily decided that he would be turned back when he got there. There was the feeling at the time among a lot of players that the expected ending was for Archaon to capture Middenheim and the reason the ending went a bit wrong (although they should have seen it coming after the opening phase of the campaign) was that that couldn't be justified on the results. If Chaos had won the final campaign phase to capture the city itself, it's hard to see how it could have been justified for them not to have done so.

I think there was a lot to like about Storm of Chaos. The level of detail the campaign went into was really impressive, and the descriptions of some of the battles were really good. Although Valten never really did it for me, the build-up to the campaign was done really well. Some of the material produced for the post-Storm of Chaos setting was excellent, whether set in the ruined Empire in the north or the political situation in the south, and I think it would have been better to stick with it rather than do this half-hearted rollback where it's sort of happening except not really and all the details are different even though it's basically the same...

I think people's annoyance with it now is for different reasons to their annoyance at the time. At the time the principal complaints were:
- From the defenders, that they were winning by miles in the results but losing on the campaign map.
- From the attackers, that it wasn't fair, that the defenders were probably cheating.
- From the orcs (a designated third faction), that they had no control over what they were doing and were being taken in directions they didn't want to go.
- From everyone, that the fluff piece concluding the campaign was lacklustre, didn't reflect the participation of every faction in a way people wanted, and included three notably preposterous elements (Grimgor's headbutt of Archaon, Teclis's banishing of all the daemons, and Volkmar's staring contest with Mannfred).

(Gav mentioned after the event, iirc, that the attackers and orcs results taken together would have made the campaign result as a whole a lot tighter, but since about a third of the attackers' results got siphoned off to another faction it weakened both. In retrospect, that was probably one of the biggest mistakes. Another error I think was the decision to have four other campaign theatres in addition to the Empire invasion, which pulled results all over the place even more than they would have been anyway and exaggerated the disparity in organisation between the sides.)

Over time this has morphed into a sort of general sense of grievance about the whole thing. Some people now wish it had never happened and are glad it's been retconned, some were generally happy with it but are annoyed with the way some elements were handled in the aftermath, some thought it was great and are now annoyed that it's been retconned, and everything in between. Basically everyone's now unhappy with some part of the situation.

Overall I genuinely think it was more hit than miss. The majority of stuff for it was imo good, or very good, including some really lovely miniatures. Despite the griping, the overall background changes were interesting at ground-level and made a good roleplay setting at least. It's just that the whole idea was, firstly, kind of fundamentally flawed and over-ambitious both from a community and setting perspective and secondly, let down by some very average plotting at key points. It didn't help that none of the interesting features of the end of the campaign were picked up on in army books in the following edition, only mentioning things in broad brush-strokes that made it sound rather uninteresting (the novels and roleplay game did a better job). Its reputation now is such that any mention of it is bound to stir a hornets' nest.


What really felt lame was that they moved Chaos towards Middenheim via game master decision. The chaos forces got stuck at Bohsenfels, which was being defended by Dogs of War players mostly. The DoW players had quite a good win ratio that should not have allowed Chaos to get past them, yet the city was razed per ordre de mufti. That was not a lot of fun to behold for us.
Actually, iirc, Bohsenfels was the one area on the map that didn't fall, and Archaon abandoned the siege after executing the commander. It was just about the one bone thrown to the defenders' superior results. It might eventually have been taken off the grid as a viable combat area, but that was a recognition of breaking the siege rather than the fortress falling. There were a number of other sites that should probably have held out longer than they did on the basis of the results and fell by GM fiat, but Bohsenfels was the exception to that.

Bloodknight
31-03-2014, 15:00
Ah, ok, then I misremembered, it's been 10 years or so and the one thing that stuck was that cities fell for no reason and that I was one of the defenders of Bohsenfels. :).

Rake
31-03-2014, 15:06
There was this brilliant piece written by a player Re: Storm of Chaos. It was Archaon retelling the story to a fellow Warlord. It went tragic to comic as it described his failure to destroy the temple and extinguish the (suddenly important) flame within. Then his failure to even breach the walls. then his failure to kill their champion (as Luthor Huss stops the killing blow with his own body not once but three times...). The final line was: "Well, at least you got Volkmar at the beginning of the campaign, right? And Archaon answers: "Yeah, fuuny you should mention that..." I pissed myself reading it.

And it summarized everything. Ninja Orcs trained by Grimgor are still a comedic staple in our group, as Grimgor's decimated horde was able to make its way past EVERYBODY to suddenly materialize next to Archaon in the apocalyptic duel he had with Valten... Yeah that duel that had Luthor Huss stop a killing blow from the SLAYER OF KINGS (you know the most powerful runeblade ever held by the most powerful everchosen ever to be etc etc) at least TWICE in the duel. Possibly three... I was laughing so hard I almost cried.

Let me be abundantly clear. The lore was utter CRAP. Think Kaldor Draigo in Warhammer fantasy. The army lists were utterly imbalanced. I know. I played against them. The slayer army was, quite literally, impossible to beat as they scored their own VP plus yours... The sea guard army could be geared to wipe out 1/2 your army before the first turn even started. The skaven assassin army was pointless unless they cheesed the hell out of it in which case it was brutal.
The modeling was decent, as were the hobby articles, but nothing groundbreaking. In fact this was the only salvageable bit of the whole campaign and it was mediocre.

As for all this passive aggressive attitude towards us, the Orc players who refused to play ball and go with the bad guys. Hell, yes we didn't play ball and join the "hordes of Destruction". Let me explain why:
a) We are Orcs. We are in it for the fight. We dont care against who. This was evidenced by the results.
b) At the onset of the campaign our warlord is bitchslapped by Croms horde and we are supposed to play nice? Heck I spent most of my victories placing them wherever it hurt Croms horde the most.
c) Orcs are not a force for good, or Evil. We are a force of pure ******* chaos. We were true to our lore in a way it never occurred the the prepubescent fanboys that wrote this campaign.

So to sum it up. My opinion is that this campaign was A) not thought through B) Terrible gaming rules C) lore that is actually worse than the Grey Knights. Thats why there is so much hate against it.

Grocklock
31-03-2014, 17:37
I thought the setting was really fun and the build up was great to read. Some of the fluff following was hit and miss. I actually liked how the Orc warlord did what he did. It was a statement. Which is what orcs are about. They don't want to destroy you just let you know who is boss.

I mean he fights the skaven in the tunnels until they are to week to carry on, and then leave them to come back.

Then there was the arch lord on the banner who is now discrassed.

I just wish GW. Didn't listen to the general moans, and keep with it. Learn from the campaign and do it again.

deathrain-commander
31-03-2014, 17:45
My biggest memory of Storm of Chaos (aside from the bizarre Cult of Slaanesh list that I used) was the ending. Archaon is about to win when Grimgor blindsides him, declares himself the best and leaves before Archaon can stand up and rip him in half. And then when Manfred shows up, this guy comes out on the walls and says the equivalent of "My daddy beat up your daddy so I could beat up you," and Manfred just leaves (yes I know I'm over simplifying, don't care). The campaign itself was fine, but the ending was half-assed at best. You'll note that while people get mad about the Eye of Terror getting retconned, no one cares about Storm of Chaos getting retconned.

Athelassan
31-03-2014, 18:05
ou'll note that while people get mad about the Eye of Terror getting retconned, no one cares about Storm of Chaos getting retconned.
There are still people who are annoyed about it (I'm one of them). I think WHF fans are just slightly more jaded and used to their background being hacked around; it's not exactly the first major overhaul the setting's had, nor the biggest.

Re: Grimgor, his downing Archaon and not killing him wasn't the most nonsensical thing I'd ever read nor was it entirely out of character. What was ridiculous was Grimgor's sudden and inexplicable appearance then and there right in the middle of the Chaos army when absolutely nobody had seen him coming. Ninja Grimgor indeed.

Jorkin Thunderclaw
31-03-2014, 18:17
As a Bretonnian player, I remember we had really strong results (same as the crown campaign that came later) and despite being promised at the start all these cool things, we basically got 3 lines of text for our efforts. Oh we still haven't had a new army book since either :P

Spider-pope
31-03-2014, 21:50
I've never heard/read about them Spider pope , could you go into more detail ?

The 'Mark of Chaos' duology, not to be confused with the novel, Mark of Chaos which novelized the videogame of the same name, were by James Wallis. The first, 'Mark of Heresy', sets up the idea of various cults infiltrating the Empires hierarchy, which then pay off in the second book, 'Mark of Damnation' which delves into the build up to the Storm of Chaos - specifically the march of Luthor Huss on Altdorf with Valten. They really fleshed out the two characters, giving Huss doubts to overcome and Valten rising to the occasion.

They are available as a print on demand Omnibus. Well worth 20. There were other novels that included bits of build up too, like Magestorm by Jonathan Green

Lorm
31-03-2014, 23:59
There was this brilliant piece written by a player Re: Storm of Chaos. It was Archaon retelling the story to a fellow Warlord. It went tragic to comic as it described his failure to destroy the temple and extinguish the (suddenly important) flame within. Then his failure to even breach the walls. then his failure to kill their champion (as Luthor Huss stops the killing blow with his own body not once but three times...). The final line was: "Well, at least you got Volkmar at the beginning of the campaign, right? And Archaon answers: "Yeah, fuuny you should mention that..." I pissed myself reading it.

And it summarized everything. Ninja Orcs trained by Grimgor are still a comedic staple in our group, as Grimgor's decimated horde was able to make its way past EVERYBODY to suddenly materialize next to Archaon in the apocalyptic duel he had with Valten... Yeah that duel that had Luthor Huss stop a killing blow from the SLAYER OF KINGS (you know the most powerful runeblade ever held by the most powerful everchosen ever to be etc etc) at least TWICE in the duel. Possibly three... I was laughing so hard I almost cried.

Let me be abundantly clear. The lore was utter CRAP. Think Kaldor Draigo in Warhammer fantasy. The army lists were utterly imbalanced. I know. I played against them. The slayer army was, quite literally, impossible to beat as they scored their own VP plus yours... The sea guard army could be geared to wipe out 1/2 your army before the first turn even started. The skaven assassin army was pointless unless they cheesed the hell out of it in which case it was brutal.
The modeling was decent, as were the hobby articles, but nothing groundbreaking. In fact this was the only salvageable bit of the whole campaign and it was mediocre.

As for all this passive aggressive attitude towards us, the Orc players who refused to play ball and go with the bad guys. Hell, yes we didn't play ball and join the "hordes of Destruction". Let me explain why:
a) We are Orcs. We are in it for the fight. We dont care against who. This was evidenced by the results.
b) At the onset of the campaign our warlord is bitchslapped by Croms horde and we are supposed to play nice? Heck I spent most of my victories placing them wherever it hurt Croms horde the most.
c) Orcs are not a force for good, or Evil. We are a force of pure ******* chaos. We were true to our lore in a way it never occurred the the prepubescent fanboys that wrote this campaign.

So to sum it up. My opinion is that this campaign was A) not thought through B) Terrible gaming rules C) lore that is actually worse than the Grey Knights. Thats why there is so much hate against it.
So now it seems a good thing that the campaign got retconned...
I'm thinking that the current background situation is Archaon gathering and preparing for the great attack, isn't it?
Without restarting Storm of Chaos, or reintroducing its nonsensical background, the story could be easily stopped there, just before the start, making possible the return of heroes from the campaign, without killing them... that's at least how i would deal with it, but GW sadly always finds its ways...

Kakapo42
01-04-2014, 03:18
(and it's better not to speak of the wood elves...)

I have to know what happened with the Wood Elves now (especially as I'm a Wood Elf collector myself, and I missed out on the whole Storm of Chaos thing, and all my research into their involvement has only raised more questions than it's answered).

Rake
01-04-2014, 14:06
Definitely better its dead. However its spirit lives on in the ongoing efforts of Manfred Von Carstein, Nagash's favorite ninja, and his most recent efforts to kidnap the future Everqueen. Finds her, looses her, finds her again, looses her again when the combined army of Tyrion and the Throng of High King of Karaz-a-Karak kick his ass, but then somehow steals her away from beneath the very noses of the 300 cannon crews and thousands of elves and dwarves who basically stand there yelling at each other. A

GW should just give up writing new fluff. It has all been juvenile. And the teenagers dont care. It just hurts us, the older generation of gamer.

m1acca1551
01-04-2014, 14:44
For me it was an overall waste of time, GW obviously was not prepared for any other eventuality other than Chaos taking Middenhiem and then the forces of order moving to take it back resulting in another expansion.

The fluff was dreadful, there was no clear story arc, everything chopped and changed and towards the end it was a case of who really cares. Archaon getting a beat down by an Orc who received a beat down by the guy Archaon snotted??? Really WTF?!?

The empire fluff was actually quite interesting as Valtens appearance really forced a change to the imperial political system, I would have very much like to see this come about again. Valtens death was good as there was always the subtle hint of it was Karl Franz doing it, makes him all the more bad ass.

Dwarfs, VC, HE and Skaven were received participation medals whilst the other races were barely represented.

All in all, GW already had the plan of what they wanted/expected to happen, reality bit them in the ass, knee jerked the reactio, knee quickly scribbled some outcome stuff hoping people would buy it, allowing them to make a sequel book. Not counting on the nerd rage that followed were forced to alter the outcome but couldn't so scrapped it and SoC became a legend used to scare small children and still causes nightmares on those of us who were there to witness it.

"You weren't there man, you weren't there for the storm of chaos man... The writing... It was horrible, please make the dreams stop" :)

yabbadabba
01-04-2014, 16:54
For me it was an overall waste of time, GW obviously was not prepared for any other eventuality other than Chaos taking Middenhiem and then the forces of order moving to take it back resulting in another expansion. As far as I remember in the marketing brief there were no plans for Chaos taking Middenheim at all. Choas was going to almost do it, but fail. That was the plan all along.

Dwarfs, VC, HE and Skaven were received participation medals whilst the other races were barely represented. I am not sure the others were supposed to be represented at all to be honest, the opportunity was given for involvement but it was always clear who the main stage actors were going to be, and always were going to be.

Athelassan
01-04-2014, 17:50
I have to know what happened with the Wood Elves now (especially as I'm a Wood Elf collector myself, and I missed out on the whole Storm of Chaos thing, and all my research into their involvement has only raised more questions than it's answered).
The Wood Elves got their own campaign arena, where they fought the Beastmen under Malagor. The Wood Elves totally wiped the floor with the Beastmen, by, iirc, a bigger margin than any other theatre, and a result of something like 80-20. It didn't really have any lasting effect on the status quo, though, since the Wood Elves retained hold of all of Loren, just slightly more securely than before.



The fluff was dreadful, there was no clear story arc, everything chopped and changed and towards the end it was a case of who really cares. Archaon getting a beat down by an Orc who received a beat down by the guy Archaon snotted??? Really WTF?!?
I call this "top trumps" thinking; the idea that there's a set-in-stone combat hierarchy and that Guy A can beat Guy B who can beat Guy C therefore Guy A will beat Guy C even harder, and so on. It's not how things actually work. Think of it more in terms of, say, professional tennis players; there's a top cadre of players each capable of beating the others, and in favourable conditions or when one of them is in form he might win a series of matches and climb to the top of the world rankings. But they're all still easily capable of losing to the others, especially if they're ill or (in Archaon's case) distracted. Even the fight between Grimgor and Crom was extremely tight and could have gone either way.

Losing to an "inferior" opponent might not be the likeliest outcome, but that doesn't make it impossible, or even especially unlikely. To take Grimgor and Crom as an example, if they fought a hundred times they'd probably win fifty each; on that occasion Crom won. If Grimgor and Archaon fought a hundred times - on an equal footing - Archaon would likely win more, maybe even three-quarters of the bouts, but Grimgor is still easily capable of winning several.

And then you take into account the circumstances of Grimgor's attack on Archaon, and it's fine. Which isn't to say that the circumstances weren't utterly ludicrous, but Grimgor's knocking Archaon down was pretty much the only part of that sequence that wasn't exceptionable.

CommanderCax
01-04-2014, 20:08
The campaign concept was broken before it began. Chaos (plus Skaven) had to fight against all other factions, being outnumbered at least 2:1 and having to act (instead of react) was all that spoiled the campaign for Chaos right from the beginning. Especially the mechanics for the siege itself was broken and unwinnable for Chaos, as Chaos had to act by deciding for a certain front and one day later the forces of light threw all their superior numbers at these slightly weakened fronts (i.e. wall sections).

Normally one would except the results should've eavened up on average or that the more successfull armies (on a tournament level) should have gathered more wins. But I was told that almost 95% of all battle results that were registered at the website during the SoC campaign were wins, irrespective of the faction. So only 5% of players registered games that were lost. So outnumbering means a lot.
This was one of the reasons GW changed the registration policy for the subsequent 40K campaigns.

I think it is naive to assume a company like GW would let the background of the Warhammer world be dictated by the gaming results of their customers. In my view the sacking of an important city like Middeneheim was never an issue (according to the game mechanics it was actually not possible just by calculation).
In the 40K Eye of Terror campaign Chaos had more than 50% hold on Cadia at the end of the campaign, still GW decided to keep it in Imperial control because it would have been an economical disaster for GW to sell Cadian Shock Troops (the most popular Imperial Guard faction) with an additional mutation sprue afterwards...

The game results just decided about the overall performance of the factions and their impact onto the given storyline. It was mentioned right at the start of the campaign that no Special Character from an actual Army List in print would die. Chaos lost all their Chaos God specific Champions if I remember correctly. An aging Ar-Ulric even slew the chosen Champion of Khorne (hard to believe and mere propaganda in my view ;)). So, it was quite clear that Chaos lost.

According to these game mechanics Chaos clearly lost. No doubt about that. What people forget is that it was clearly stated from the beginning that from a background perspective it will either be 'a lot of destruction' for the Empire (including Middenheim) in case of a 'campaign win' result for Chaos or 'not so much destruction' for the Empire (excluding Middeneheim) in case of a 'campaign lost' result for Chaos. The later occured.

That's what was bad about Storm of Chaos and of course some of the fluff. There was simply no logic reason for most of what happened in any way, neither was there a logic reason how a big Orc army was all the time able to move around in a warzone between two opposed fractions (namely the Empire and Chaos) and being able to approach the center of the major battle and thusly Archaon (as well as Valten and Huss).
We speak about tenthousands of troops on every side. Especially for an unsneaky army like the Orc one, it should be an impossible feat, without even thinking about the logistical problems for any kind of supply such armies are in need of. The only reason for this to happen, was that the Orcs needed to do a major thing during this campaign. Otherwise all the Orc players would have cried once again that Chaos is favoured all the way. Which is unfortunately even true in a way.
The writers (Gav et al.) wanted to please everyone (ie. every faction) and therefore it resulted in actually satisfying no-one. Even going so far to make some kind of useless 'special guest appearing' Mannfred von Carstein saying hello and leaving after a few warm words by quasi-undead Volkmar... I mean what was that good for? All this 'knocking out' thing alone is so plain ridiculous it hurts. Though the fluff was still better than the already mentioned and rather ridiculous "daughter of the everqueen gets captured and is freed three time in a row story arc" from today...

I would have loved to see Archaon calling out a challenge while standing on the causeway of Middenheim only to get his head blown off by a cannon ball or two... Spawning him on the other hand would've suggested the Ruinous Powers really cared whether he would have sacked Middenheim or not. Which they did not in my opinion.

Alltaken
01-04-2014, 20:17
Losing to an "inferior" opponent might not be the likeliest outcome, but that doesn't make it impossible, or even especially unlikely. To take Grimgor and Crom as an example, if they fought a hundred times they'd probably win fifty each; on that occasion Crom won. If Grimgor and Archaon fought a hundred times - on an equal footing - Archaon would likely win more, maybe even three-quarters of the bouts, but Grimgor is still easily capable of winning several.

And then you take into account the circumstances of Grimgor's attack on Archaon, and it's fine. Which isn't to say that the circumstances weren't utterly ludicrous, but Grimgor's knocking Archaon down was pretty much the only part of that sequence that wasn't exceptionable.

Was this 6th or 7th? Because I dont remember grimgor's stats or rules close to archaon at all.

From my servoskull

decker_cky
02-04-2014, 19:11
6th. Grimgor wouldn't stand a chance against archaon. But 7th orcs had grimgor gain 2 attacks (many considered this to be a reward for bashin archaon).

There was a lot wrong with SoC, particularly the conclusion, but it was a lot of fun, and introduced a lot of fun armies. I still love the errantry list, which has a rule about knights errant wanting to impress girls by charging dragons.

With a little elbow grease, GW could have cleaned up the fluff atrocities, had a few characters die (GW now includes dead characters in armybooks, so why not?), then established a new setting with the main chaos force broken and marauding about the empire, with the main force pushed back to Brass Keep. That opens itself to smaller follow up campaigns as the Empire reclaims some of the Northern lands, and lots of fun stuff like that.

Athelassan
02-04-2014, 20:52
Was this 6th or 7th? Because I dont remember grimgor's stats or rules close to archaon at all.

It was in 6th, but that's not the point. The stats are just a vague abstraction of the character's abilities and have to take into account game balance and so forth; they don't necessarily represent accurately or at all the capabilities of a character in the background. Marius Leitdorf used to have WS5 for heavens' sake, worse than a conventional general. Schwartzhelm and Helborg are meant to be almost perfectly-matched in combat, but their stats tell a different story. Even in 5th edition, an Emperor Dragon or Greater Daemon was still probably not as comparatively potent as it should be and things have only gone downhill for them from there. Don't get bogged down in the game stats: it just feeds back into the "top trumps" mentality.

(Even then, in game terms, if Grimgor got the charge on Archaon, hitting and wounding him wouldn't be a problem. He likely wouldn't kill him in one round, but then... he didn't in the story. )

decker_cky
02-04-2014, 21:06
He likely wouldn't kill him in one round, but then... he didn't in the story. )

I'd argue he did 'kill' Archaon in game terms in the story. He caused enough damage to incapacitate Archaon. That's all a casualty is in game, so it's the same thing. Very unlikely in game terms, but assuming Valten + Luther Huss had caused decent damage to Archaon, then it's realistic for Grimgor to plink the last wound off.

Rake
03-04-2014, 15:42
Either way. We were not looking for a grand grimgore vs archaon bash. In fact I was looking for the truth about Grimogre Ironhide to be revealed: He isnt actually an Orc. He is a color blind human worshiper of Khorne who thinks he paints himself red when in fact is using green paint. So he leaves the Orc army book (whose pages he should never have sullied) and joins the Chaos army book as a proper special character of khrone. Cause you know, being alternative and pro womens rights when it comes to designing Khornes favored champion is SUCH A GOOD IDEA...

Fear Ghoul
04-04-2014, 20:00
Cause you know, being alternative and pro womens rights when it comes to designing Khornes favored champion is SUCH A GOOD IDEA...

What's wrong with Valkia? I don't think Khorne cares as much about gender as you evidently do.

decker_cky
04-04-2014, 20:03
Yeah, I have issues with some of the other replaced characters (aekold helbrass and egrimm von horstmann both show something about chaos far more interesting than vilitch for example), but Valkia is as cool and interesting as an Khorne champion in my mind.

JDman
05-04-2014, 05:22
I just remember the siege when the empire forces got to shoot a large templet cannon ball that destroyed everything in its path.

blake
05-04-2014, 06:20
SoC was fine....within SoC. Problem was the armies were around a while after SoC ended (lamely btw).

There was nothing balanced about several of the armies (VC and Slayers come to mind, dark elf slaneesh thing was awful too, as well as the sea guard list). Oh but you don't have to play soandso...well for a good while several of our players kept on playing those lists...and it was hard to find a game not against one of those SoC armies. They were just not fun at all to play against, in fact some of those armies meant you basically had to "tailor" your list to just make a game of it.

I hope nothing like SoC is ever done again. Make supplements that use current army books and just provide either alliances or rules that tell the story you are trying to tell.

Man now this whole topic has me mad at my bud again....his blasted Slayer army (Slayer list was basically almost unbeatable). I think that army won like 150+ games and only lost maybe 2-3, and those were games where we basically schemed up a all skink army and ran around and blow piped him to death and avoided his army at all costs.

Muad'Dib
05-04-2014, 19:27
There was nothing balanced about several of the armies (VC and Slayers come to mind, dark elf slaneesh thing was awful too, as well as the sea guard list). Oh but you don't have to play soandso...well for a good while several of our players kept on playing those lists...and it was hard to find a game not against one of those SoC armies. They were just not fun at all to play against, in fact some of those armies meant you basically had to "tailor" your list to just make a game of it.


You forgot the glorious Daemonic Legion list - one of most powerful army of 6th and early 7th. You know how monstrous cavalry is really, really good in 8th? Well, Daemonic Legion had monstrous cavalry units on pretty much same power level. (Nurgle Plague Riders cost 5 more points than a Spawn, and had: +1 WS, 6" non-random movement, -1 to hit in CC, 5+ ward, +1 A; and exchanged Unbreakable for LD 9 Daemonic Instability with option for BSB re-rolls & general's LD 10) The Daemonic chariots and even basic Daemonic infantry were really good; the increased LD and BSB re-rolls made them a nightmare to actually grind down in combat.
I won a (local) tournament with them when I was ~13 years old, lol. (the polish WFB community consisted mainly of 16+ players then)




Man now this whole topic has me mad at my bud again....his blasted Slayer army (Slayer list was basically almost unbeatable). I think that army won like 150+ games and only lost maybe 2-3, and those were games where we basically schemed up a all skink army and ran around and blow piped him to death and avoided his army at all costs.
My Daemons quite liked them, seeing majority of my units were S4, so Slayers didn't get any points for getting killed by me.
Why nobody ever asked him to, uhm, switch armies?

decker_cky
06-04-2014, 02:17
Daemonic legion from SoC was strong for the time (top tier, not broken)...but was way weaker than the 7th edition book. You're comparing stuff to chaos spawn, which were already terrible by that point (early in 6th, they were ok). You're also forgetting how bad instability could be, even with the +1Ld - fail on your base leadership and the unit is gone.

Geep
06-04-2014, 04:15
I think people's annoyance with it now is for different reasons to their annoyance at the time. At the time the principal complaints were:
- From the defenders, that they were winning by miles in the results but losing on the campaign map.
- From the attackers, that it wasn't fair, that the defenders were probably cheating.
There was a huge amount of cheating. I know in my own gaming group alone (about 6 people at the time) nearly everyone submitted daily reports about winning with their armies- and none of us played for the 'evil' team. Honest game results probably made only about 1% of the reports my group submitted. I can only assume that this scenario was played out by gaming groups everywhere.
Because of this, things really weren't fair for the bad guys. They were outnumbered and, assuming only 50% of submissions were cheating (I suspect it was much more), numbers meant everything.
The campaign map though had to be pushed forward to keep the 'threat' up, and keep people interested. If the mighty Storm of Chaos followed player results and fizzled at the first Empire hamlet it visited things would have been even worse. Things would have been so dull no one would even remember the SoC today.
I think, mechanics wise, the campaign was well done- or at least done in the best possible way for a campaign that is 'player influenced' like this one was.
What really stunk about the SoC was the final story. A re-writing of that story (and different fates for armies like the daemons and undead) could help keep the SoC as proper canon events.


The campaign concept was broken before it began. Chaos (plus Skaven) had to fight against all other factions, being outnumbered at least 2:1 and having to act (instead of react) was all that spoiled the campaign for Chaos right from the beginning. Especially the mechanics for the siege itself was broken and unwinnable for Chaos, as Chaos had to act by deciding for a certain front and one day later the forces of light threw all their superior numbers at these slightly weakened fronts (i.e. wall sections).

Normally one would except the results should've eavened up on average or that the more successfull armies (on a tournament level) should have gathered more wins. But I was told that almost 95% of all battle results that were registered at the website during the SoC campaign were wins, irrespective of the faction. So only 5% of players registered games that were lost. So outnumbering means a lot.
I basically agree with this

Wishing
06-04-2014, 08:53
The campaign map though had to be pushed forward to keep the 'threat' up, and keep people interested. If the mighty Storm of Chaos followed player results and fizzled at the first Empire hamlet it visited things would have been even worse. Things would have been so dull no one would even remember the SoC today.

That's an interesting question then. Would it have been better to have had a campaign that accurately depicted the (fake) game results, which meant that nothing happened, instead of GW ignoring the game results and saying that stuff happened anyway? Both of which are crap results.

It sounds like the only answer is, as you say, that the idea of the campaign didn't work from the beginning and could almost only produce crap results. The only way it could have been satisfying was if the submitted game results just happened to fit in with what GW wanted to happen.

Of course, it is easy to say that with hindsight. :) GW must have felt that what they wanted to happen was also definitely going to happen, since they didn't seem to have a plan for what would happen if things didn't pan out as they wanted (other than to ignore the results).

yabbadabba
06-04-2014, 09:02
I refer you to my earlier comment on GWs plans. No matter what happened the campaign would reach the climax GW had planned for.

Grimstonefire
06-04-2014, 12:15
They should have spawned Archaon and had representatives from the gods reclaim their 'gifts' in anticipation of the next everchosen.

Muad'Dib
06-04-2014, 18:22
but was way weaker than the 7th edition book.
Everything was way weaker than the 7th Daemon book. :P (except 7th Skaven maybe?)

You're comparing stuff to chaos spawn, which were already terrible by that point (early in 6th, they were ok).
Plague Riders aren't bufffed Chaos Spawn - they are literally the sum of a Plaguebearer and a Nurgle&Slaanesh Spawn. Plaguebearers are already the toughest models in 6th (-1 to hit in CC & WS 4, 5+ ward); only the 1+ save cavalries have compareable durability. For 5 points, the Spawn's T5 W3 profile gets all these benefits (due to 5+ ward, it effectively has 4 wounds); the fusion with Plaguebearer also improves offense and reliability. The latter is especially important - rolling D6+1 attacks on a single Spawn might be weak; but with each of 3-4 Plague Riders getting 1d6+2 attacks, you can rely on them having excellent offensive output. They don't suffer from drawbacks of relying on lance or great weapon for punch; while heavy cavalry loses it's steam after charge, Plague Riders shine in protracted combats.

Even wholly unsupported Plague Riders will, with points being equal, handily beat every CC unit in 6th edition (except charging Chosen Knights of Khorne; but these are frenzied) . Hero cavalry buses are doomed in 2nd round and even Dragon-lords will get bogged down due to T5, Cloud of Flies and 5+ ward. 4 Plague Riders statistically survive charge of Bretonnian Questing Knights deathstar with BSB & general - that costs twice as much as they do. When they are the ones charging or are given support - like a Daemon Prince or BsB, or a chariot, or even a unit of 10 Daemonettes/Plaguebearers charging the enemy flank in 2nd round - they usually massacre anything in CC; even if they fluff their attacks for one round, LD 9 with possibility of LD 10 & re-roll ensures that the enemy won't gain much - if anything - from one or two won combats.

Not only they are the superior CC unit, but T5 and 5+ ward give them ability to weather ranged attacks - from Repeater Crossbows through Handguns to Bolt Throwers - on the same level as heavy cavalry. 6" movement ensures they can be a threat versus a defensive army.
And they (and the rest of their army) cause the 6th edition overpowered fear.

You're also forgetting how bad instability could be, even with the +1Ld - fail on your base leadership and the unit is gone.
You're forgetting that Daemonic Legion could take a BSB - mine was always mounted on Boobworm or Daemonic Mount, so him being within 12" of a key combat was a given. The odds of failing re-rollable LD 9 are ~3 %; for the ~one year I played Daemons, the only unit that ever poofed for me were Furies.
Additionally 1) 2k+ points Daemons have Daemon Prince with LD 10; who due to flying can in a single turn lend it to units up to 32" away 2) Daemons aren't easy to beat in combat - having to take relatively few Instability tests makes poofing even less likely.

Daemonic legion from SoC was strong for the time (top tier, not broken)...
They were worse than the other broken 6th edition army - Skyre Skaven. Skaven were ridiculous because they had one of best shooting & magic phases..but without being as vulnerable as an Empire or High Elf defensive shooting&magic list.
Daemons were broken cause of several distinct reasons
1) They were strictly superior to any of the close combat/offensive army lists. The 6th CC armies' commonly used tournament choices in - Black Knight Blood Dragon bus, Chaos Knight MSU, Bretonnian lances - were, when push came to shove, simply a tier below Daemon stuff like units of 4-5 Plague Riders, Daemon Prince & mounted BSB with War Banner tag-team or a block of 24 Plaguebearers (or Daemonettes) with the 4+ ward banner.
2) They had many tools to deal with defensive armies: multiple units of Furies, all Slaaneshi units having 20" charge, Spellbreaker (Dispel Scroll) Gifts on fighter heroes, immunity to psychology.
3) The Daemonic core rule ended up overpowered - the LD 9/10 Instability with option for BsB, 5+ true ward save on everything (with those two things and with a bit of luck, a unit of 10 Daemonettes could hold a heavy cavalry unit for 1-3 turns) and fear (outnumber...).

I think the ultimate list in 6th is Nurgle&Slaanesh at 2k+ points. A couple of big Nurglesque units is enough to massacre any CC armies and the rest is spent on Slaaneshi to decimate any shooting&magic army lists. Both Gods' contingents are useful no matter the match-up. Plague Riders can still threaten defensive opponents; and Slaaneshi units are excellent CC troops - when either paired up with other Slaaneshi for combined charges , or when flanking enemies engaged with Nurglesque Daemons.

Wishing
07-04-2014, 06:57
I refer you to my earlier comment on GWs plans. No matter what happened the campaign would reach the climax GW had planned for.

Yeah, and this was one of the primary crap things about a campaign that promised to reflect the submitted game results of the players, as far as I can tell.

Echunia
07-04-2014, 09:04
Yeah, and this was one of the primary crap things about a campaign that promised to reflect the submitted game results of the players, as far as I can tell.

No, not really as stated by some one here before, GW was very clear at the start of the campaign that chaos would advance no matter the results. The results were basically there to determine how much the chaos armies lost on the way and how fast they would advance. Chaos always got stuck at every town for the maximum amount of allotted time and all of its forces were weakened. I think the system of the whole campaign is reflected well in the Archons horde list/scenario where the chaos player picks double the points of the opposing player. The game is simply decided by how long it takes the chaos player to wipe the opposing army off the board.

In the end the real problem was the ending, everyone was disappointed because they decided to write something based on the results of the gaming. If they would have written it with the story in mind the campaign might have been remembered fondly today.

Neckutter
07-04-2014, 09:08
SoC was amazing. Great opportunity for GW to do something right... But the story at the end was kinda 'meh'.

The armies in the book were Amazing. I played daemons, and sylvanian vamp counts, and it was an abusive time for my opponent.

I fondly remember having units of forty zombies with spears beating units by one, they would auto break... And the five skeleton crossbowen I raised for free from a stone behind them would auto-kill the fleeing unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lorm
07-04-2014, 09:38
No, not really as stated by some one here before, GW was very clear at the start of the campaign that chaos would advance no matter the results. The results were basically there to determine how much the chaos armies lost on the way and how fast they would advance. Chaos always got stuck at every town for the maximum amount of allotted time and all of its forces were weakened. I think the system of the whole campaign is reflected well in the Archons horde list/scenario where the chaos player picks double the points of the opposing player. The game is simply decided by how long it takes the chaos player to wipe the opposing army off the board.

In the end the real problem was the ending, everyone was disappointed because they decided to write something based on the results of the gaming. If they would have written it with the story in mind the campaign might have been remembered fondly today.
I'm fine with pre-determined campaigns, but clearly they are not made to be influenced by players; I agree that SoC should have been planned rather than influenced by players' (fake) results, too important for the storyline, leave interactivity for campaigns where you don't care for the results and everyone can mess up the local setting...
Most important was the ending, now that really should have been accurately planned, much more than everything else, instead it seems to have disappointed anyone.

yabbadabba
07-04-2014, 17:45
Yeah, and this was one of the primary crap things about a campaign that promised to reflect the submitted game results of the players, as far as I can tell. Its been the basis of every GW global campaign. Gordon Davidson called it "the illusion of control".

SpanielBear
07-04-2014, 18:56
Player control in global campaigns is like pushing the button on a traffic light- you think you make a difference, but actually you are just mucking up another persons predictions. At best you have no effect, at worst you bring the whole system to a grinding, awkward halt...

Lord Damocles
07-04-2014, 19:44
Its been the basis of every GW global campaign. Gordon Davidson called it "the illusion of control".
Given that they stated in White Dwarf at the beginning of the campaign that Choas would reach Middenheim regardless, it wasn't even that much of an illusion.

yabbadabba
07-04-2014, 19:48
Given that they stated in White Dwarf at the beginning of the campaign that Choas would reach Middenheim regardless, it wasn't even that much of an illusion. Yes, but that was just SoC. And even then, and on this thread, people seem to think their games would make a difference.

Alltaken
07-04-2014, 22:46
I guess it would have been great if they planed 2 scenarios which they announced before hand and present an official lore to that point.
And still write an alternative lore piece just for the results and sell it to us.

From my servoskull

Wishing
08-04-2014, 07:19
No, not really as stated by some one here before, GW was very clear at the start of the campaign that chaos would advance no matter the results.

OK then, interesting. So when people complain about the submitted results being ignored, people were simply misunderstanding by thinking that the submitted results would matter in terms of the story, since GW started out by saying that the story was already fixed from the start and all that was up for changing was the timescale. So GW were being upfront about presenting the illusion - "your games will matter! (not really)"

Still seems a bit crap to me to craft the illusion in the first place, even if it was an honest illusion. But I guess the important thing was that it got people to play games and have fun.

Urgat
08-04-2014, 08:26
They did adapt the story based on the players results though, for instance, one of the chaos champions got slained that way.

Folomo
08-04-2014, 13:54
The problem here is that people can't know what would have happened had the results been different. Probably if Chaos had won most of the games, then Middenheim would have been destroyed completely and the chaos horde would have returned victorious instead of getting it ass kicked.

Lorm
08-04-2014, 18:19
What could have happened if numbers were overall similar? A big draw? Now that would have been a nasty situation for GW.

Anyway it seems (at least to me) that the result was indeed influenced, that's the main problem, since this way you mess up the lore too much (chaos losing everything, empire gaining nothing and losing valten and orcs going around undefeated? wtf? not really a fair ending).
Either you leave the ending open and don't give result (a bit lame, but it's the theme of the "time of the end"), you give a fixed result or a range of results based on players' actions that somewhat make everyone happy (example: middenheim falls, but empire resists; or middenheim resists despite being heavily damaged and nearby land is pillaged, etc...); the last one may be too difficult for GW however... (they mess up so many stories with random silly stupid stuff)
That's the basic for a master of an adventure/campaign.

decker_cky
09-04-2014, 06:31
Overall similar numbers would have had chaos advancing at the planned pace, then probably reaching the walls from at least one direction, but not enough to actually sack middenheim, so not much difference. But not an embarrassing defeat.