[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 368 KB, 384x708, 1298773194936.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14546580 No.14546580 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Hey /tg/

Anon here, I checked out Chaos 3.5 after I was generally discontent with the boring lack of customization in 4.0 and was blown away. I'm not a competitive player, I play on Vassal with friends, and I love the customization that can be done with 3.5 I'm going to make an army to fight against my friend's 5th Ed Grey Knights, don't care if I get trashed it sounds fun.

Question being, I know there are two different point costs on a variety of items. In the Armoury it is described as the difference between Independent Characters and Aspiring Champions or other units with access to Wargear who aren't IC. Now in the Book of Khorne, the Chainaxe has special stats and notes that "The first points cost is applicable to Independent Characters, the second to members of a unit." Am I understanding this right that ALL members of units with the Mark of Khorne, like Berserkers, get a fucking Chainaxe as they should and it actually is awesome instead of just counting as a Close Combat Weapon?

Furthermore, do any other abilities like Feel no Pain with the extra point cost follow this rule, or are all the rest just like the items in the armoury and for ACs?

I love this Codex, and I'm noticing newer additions are going away from customization. Why is this? Why is Chaos 4th addition a borefest and 3.5 have a million options? Why did they get rid of Chapter Traits? What happened to Regimental Doctrines? I know they're trying to use Special Characters to do this, but this seems kind of lame, why can I only have a customizable HQ or a customizable army? What happened to being able to make your own unique force instead of having to drag around one particular named crazy Inquisitor just to have an army with more than a dozen Inquistorial Henchmen? Why can't any Inquistor do this?

General Codex discussion thread, I suppose.

>> No.14546599
File: 170 KB, 828x530, 1234715414432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546611
File: 578 KB, 460x994, 1238950511949.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546617
File: 156 KB, 505x642, 1250524205863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546624
File: 912 KB, 725x1100, 1251272222529.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546627

Fine, I'll be using the 4ed nid codex then.

I have all these fexes lying around and I don't feel like paying so much points for them.

>> No.14546636

My theory is that the Chaos Spacemarine Codex was not user-friendly enough to new players so they decided to simplify it a lot.

I also think it's bullshit that they separated Demons from CSM. Now they are just pretty much a regular Spacemarine variation army with lack of diverse troops.

>> No.14546661
File: 716 KB, 512x679, 1251272308974.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Hey man, there's no issue if everyone agrees right? It's just a game for fun, it's not like we're playing in tournaments or anything. I still use 4th Ed Guard even though 5th Ed is a giant pile of Rape, because I love the customization Regimental Doctrines bring out.

>> No.14546677

Yeah I'll play my 5ed guards. I'll take the demonhunter allied inquisitor though, you know the old one.

>> No.14546678


I wish this was still the codex in use :(

To answer your first question, yes all the unit can have choppaz....i mean err....chain axes

I'll get back to you on the rest as I have to visit the garage to get that codex out.

>> No.14546680
File: 167 KB, 452x595, 1251272431674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546686

I think it was b/c it made balancing easier for GW. If your kit is priced on a per unit basis and is also restricted in the same way. I don't know why they went and got rid of the leigon's but it is stupid as is.

>> No.14546708
File: 94 KB, 540x720, 1251272549998.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546721
File: 620 KB, 1131x1626, 1251272677506.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546734
File: 652 KB, 1200x1175, 1259905996161.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546743

> I think it was b/c it made balancing easier for GW.

Because balance is something GW really, really cares about. I mean, just look at the codexes they make, it's obvious that they put a lot of work into making sure they are all well balanced.

Oh wait.

>> No.14546748
File: 813 KB, 2500x1667, 1260915165590.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546764
File: 2.43 MB, 4000x2393, 1263378318735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546789
File: 1.55 MB, 1680x1050, 1263362564341.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546791

Yeah don't think it was balance but they definately wanted to simplyfy everything

Theres an interview somewhere with the author saying so

I think the only reason more codexes didn't end simplyfied as much was the backlash from that pile of crap

>> No.14546804
File: 643 KB, 1680x1050, 1265938879270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546833
File: 334 KB, 1137x1024, 1265938947133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546845
File: 1.15 MB, 1680x1050, 1269466657306.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546859
File: 25 KB, 386x591, 1270271040779.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546877
File: 325 KB, 1500x1000, 1271950522837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546880


Yeah, the "simplification" of late 4e ended with Alessio Cavatore and Gav Thorpe leaving the 40k design studio and never returning,

>> No.14546902
File: 100 KB, 500x651, 1293310402384.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546921
File: 219 KB, 1063x752, 1294047822788.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546969
File: 1.02 MB, 946x1080, 1295098175090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14546992
File: 898 KB, 1199x902, 1295098305447.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14547110
File: 672 KB, 754x1100, 1295838067065.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14547161
File: 510 KB, 595x854, 1297464203354.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14547278
File: 623 KB, 999x1141, 1297812365186.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14547513
File: 114 KB, 1024x836, 1298304870919.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14547615

>Why is Chaos 4th addition a borefest and 3.5 have a million options?

The 4th edition Chaos Codex was written during a short lived design philosophy of "less is more; players can use counts-as, conversions, and paint jobs to field whatever they like, rather than feeling like they can only take X, Y, and Z." For example, in the 3.5 ed codex, an Emperor's Children army was limited to a small number of units. In the 4th ed Chaos Codex, you could use anything, so long as you converted and refluffed it to fit your theme. Plague Marines might be Slaaneshi hedonists who have burned themselves out to the point where they don't feel anything any more, let alone pain. Berserkers might be combat drug abusing swordsmen seeking out opponents to prove their skill against. And so on. The problem was that the shears cut too deeply, and took too many options away. It was a solid idea, ruined by poor execution.

>Why did they get rid of Chapter Traits? What happened to Regimental Doctrines?

Both were horribly easy to abuse, with penalties/flaws that didn't really hamper you in any way. The Chapter Traits, for example - there was one downside which prevented you from taking Witch Hunter or Daemonhunter allies. Few people did anyway, so losing that option was no great loss. Switching things to simple benefits provided by Special Characters is easier - in theory, at least - to balance. The above counts-as theory also comes into play here, as you can easily build your own custom model to represent that character, give them a new name, and use use the printed rules for them.

>> No.14548641
File: 1.14 MB, 2550x3509, 1298771886068.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Cool, excellent explenation.

Though I don't think anyone will say 4th Edition Guardsmen Doctrines are anywhere near as broken as 5th Edition Mech Guard, but I see your point despite that, its easier to balance around Independent Characters instead of tons of customizable options. Personally still like the way Battletech is designed in that "We know cheesey munchkins exist, but we hope you aren't one of them and we made our system around fun instead of forced balance," but in something like 40k with lots of tournaments and a much larger fanbase it can become necessary.

>> No.14548745

During the brief period between the release of 5ed and the 5ed Guard book, The doctrines that gave +1 coversaves became the mainstay of my army. With huge unbreakable conscript mobs blocking the real fire power of my army anytime an enemy wanted to shoot my non-conscript units I had 3+ coversaves. I would go to ground in cover to capture an objective and have 2+ It was ridiculous. The doctrines were easily abused. Mech guard is just the faggy meta.

>> No.14548862
File: 80 KB, 1024x709, 1299361019039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Not going to lie, Camo-Liners are are a pretty damn good doctrine.

>> No.14551862
File: 435 KB, 860x1220, 1298771977571.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14552615

But why did they have to take away the Guard carapace for troops? Why?!

>> No.14554667

>The 4th edition Chaos Codex was written during a short
>lived design philosophy of "less is more; players can use
>counts-as, conversions, and paint jobs to field whatever they
>like, rather than feeling like they can only take X, Y, and Z."

Lol! OmG, what complete bullshit. There's nothing in any 4th ed dex to support these claims, and no one felt restricted to "only" XYZ by the vastly superior 3rd ed CSM dex. You're evidently not the authority you think you are.

>For example, in the 3.5 ed codex, an Emperor's Children
>army was limited to a small number of units.

You're SO full of shit. In the 4th ed dex, I can't field my pricey EC Dreads as EC Dreads, because in th 4th ed dex, there are no EC Dreads. Gav added NOTHING! "Here's 2 for you, 18 for me". Did you even play Chaos before 2008?

>In the 4th ed Chaos Codex, you could use anything, so long
>as you converted and refluffed it to fit your theme.

Utter bollocks. "Use anything"? Instead of, say, selling lots of purpose-built models? Grow up.

>The problem was that the shears cut too deeply, and took too
>many options away. It was a solid idea, ruined by poor

Um, no. The problem was - and is - that treating customers like idiots is idiotic. There was nothing exceptionally "poor"
about GW's execution of CSM4, as indifferent internal balance is endemic to EVERYTHING they publish.

Put down the pompons, and limit your pontifications to areas of actual knowledge.

>> No.14554719

craftworld eldar were consolidated into codex eldar in 4th as well.

i miss my black guardians.

>> No.14554789

Okay, not go off-topic here, but look at
...now tell me what the point of putting camouflage on an Imperator Titan is.

>> No.14554808

Twin Volcano Cannons mean it's spec'd for Titan-Hunting, so at the ranges it's actually intended to operate at the Camo might actually provide a slight advantage. Obviously it's not going to hide you from the troops standing in your shadow, but you might be harder to hit to the Gargant 20km away.

>> No.14554817

>Chapter Traits easy to abuse

Nothing you could do with the 4e SM codex is as powerful as the best you can do with the 5e codex. I usually have little complaints about Ward's rules but ditching the Chapter traits system and instead tying the variant abilities to special characters like Kantor and Vulkan was a mistake.

>> No.14554896

rolled 4 = 4


>Lol! OmG, what complete bullshit. There's nothing in any 4th ed dex to support these claims, and no one felt restricted to "only" XYZ by the vastly superior 3rd ed CSM dex. You're evidently not the authority you think you are.

But GW THOUGHT they were, they were proven wrong by the backlash.

>> No.14554923

rolled 2 = 2

Looks like a mountain?
Those are an awful lot bigger than standard Volcano Cannons.
Hell even the guns on the back are too big for that.

Though I don't know if the "Super sized" Volcano cannons have a different name

>> No.14554985

That's because I said it was an Imperator when it's clearly a Warlord. The four guns on it's shoulders are Turbolaser Destructors, and it's arms are Volcano Canons.

>> No.14555048

Well, you can still end up with 6 Vet squads in Chimeras with Carapace and lots of guns. That's something at least.

Also, blobbed squads more than make up for it.

>> No.14555095

rolled 4 = 4

Yes I know, but compare it to the baneblade chassis in the corner, a Baneblade Chasis can mount a Volcano Cannon, and it would STILL be smaller than the Turbolaser Destructors.

>> No.14555103


But gargants cant hit anything 20m away!

>> No.14555136

Perhaps the Shadowsword's version of the V. Cannon is scaled down a bit?

>> No.14555159

>Implying Gargants hit their targets by anything other than dumb luck and huge bullets.

>> No.14555205
File: 302 KB, 294x266, 3iakl.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You sound like a whiny bitch.

>> No.14555349


Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon is
120'' range Strength D AP2 5'' blast

Warlord Titan's Volcano Cannon is 240'' range Strength D AP2 10'' blast.

Size difference actually matters in-game in this case.

>> No.14555393

I'm actually relieved to get an answer on this.

>> No.14557809
File: 518 KB, 700x662, 1298772247911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14557975

Shut up and spent ten minutes on google. Searching for Gav Thorpe interviews regarding the Chaos codex.

>> No.14558055

The reason they moved away from it was that it was daunting for new players to see this giant Wargear List, and it required you to memorize the other guy's codex as well or he could easily cheat. Imagine playing the 4e Marine dex, the one with the Advantages and Disadvantages, and not knowing how far they could go?

"Faith in your fellow gamer" is not something you can assume, from experience.

>> No.14559423
File: 134 KB, 1074x724, 1298773394114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14560849

What a load. The Armoury listings existed because players were encouraged to play using the models we liked, and even to buy bits to customise our models to our tastes.
The (bits) Armoury was later replaced with (what's on the sprue) Options category when GW stopped selling bits, and we are now encouraged to play using the models GW likes. Notice how your Options are just a list of the relevant models in the current range?
Feel free to join the dots.

>> No.14560907
File: 229 KB, 437x648, Grotesques.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

tl;dr armouries were impossible to correctly balance - the only one that is balanced is the necron one and thats only because of the limited access to it.


They do actually try y'know. The 5th ed codices are massively more balanced agaisnt each other than the older books were/are against each other.

The 2 main things that screwed thing up were armouries (you cannot correctly balance everything when multiple models with vastly different statlines get access to the same gear) and lack of playtesting.

The former got axed for good reason (justl ook at the number of footnotes in the 3.5 chaos codex, it is a mess) and the latter is being worked on due to longer development cycles.

if you do not believe GW does actively try and balacne the game then you CLEARLY are blind. The problem somewhat stems from the fact both 40k and fantasy are ruels so you can use cool models, not models with fuckwin rules cos you're some 1337 haxx0r pro trounament gamer like everyfuckwit on warseer/dakka claism they are.

Christ it is dipshits like dashofpepper and stelek preaching their way of playing the game is right when no GW game has ever been designed to play that way is half of the problem. The other half is people actually believe that shit and just copy the same shit over and over.

>> No.14560974

>Herp Derp
Seriously man, you mad? Dark Angels and CSM are the primary examples of the thankfully short-lived "Trim the fat" mindset in regards to rules.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.