techsoldaten Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 I still remember when they replaced the 3.5 codex with the 4th ed codex at the start of their new scaled back design filosophy that lasted for all of two codexes (poor DA had to share our fate) ...and then we had that codex for two whole editions... ...or the 6th ed codex with insane internal balance that we also had for two editions while the loyalists got a crapton of new formations and updates. The Legion book was a band-aid because of all the whining... So excuse me for not being convinced of GWs track record for chaos... HEY! THE EYE OF THE GODS TABLE WAS AMAZING! IT MADE THE GAME RANDOM - NOTHING MORE CHAOS!!!! No, seriously, who ever thought waiting to get to the table to find out how strong your army was is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aothaine Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 I hear you. I know what your talking about and I feel for your anguish. But this GW is a lot different than the old GW. I still have faith in them. They have done a LOT for the game. Something else I want to point out is that their rules might have been for fun and not designed for competitive play in the past. It seems they are most focused on balancing armies for competitive play these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaVolt87 Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 I hear you. I know what your talking about and I feel for your anguish. But this GW is a lot different than the old GW. I still have faith in them. They have done a LOT for the game. Something else I want to point out is that their rules might have been for fun and not designed for competitive play in the past. It seems they are most focused on balancing armies for competitive play these days. Not competitive? The 3.0-3.5 CSM codex was one of the strongest ever written codexes in 40k history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sersi Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 I still remember when they replaced the 3.5 codex with the 4th ed codex at the start of their new scaled back design filosophy that lasted for all of two codexes (poor DA had to share our fate) ...and then we had that codex for two whole editions... ...or the 6th ed codex with insane internal balance that we also had for two editions while the loyalists got a crapton of new formations and updates. The Legion book was a band-aid because of all the whining... So excuse me for not being convinced of GWs track record for chaos... You know I pointed out Chaos being skipped two whole editions twice and was told well Orks waited 7 years; so clearly there's no bias, GW does not favor C:SM over CSM. But you forgot to mention that we had to wait 18 months after C:SM got their OP Gladdius detachment to get our under-powered Traitor Legions book. Only to have it may obsolete in 6 months! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sersi Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 I hear you. I know what your talking about and I feel for your anguish. But this GW is a lot different than the old GW. I still have faith in them. They have done a LOT for the game. Something else I want to point out is that their rules might have been for fun and not designed for competitive play in the past. It seems they are most focused on balancing armies for competitive play these days. Not competitive? The 3.0-3.5 CSM codex was one of the strongest ever written codexes in 40k history. Yes, it was. But the Scary thing is even its most abusive builds would go nowhere today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaVolt87 Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 I hear you. I know what your talking about and I feel for your anguish. But this GW is a lot different than the old GW. I still have faith in them. They have done a LOT for the game. Something else I want to point out is that their rules might have been for fun and not designed for competitive play in the past. It seems they are most focused on balancing armies for competitive play these days. Not competitive? The 3.0-3.5 CSM codex was one of the strongest ever written codexes in 40k history. Yes, it was. But the Scary thing is even its most abusive builds would go nowhere today. Dunno, maybe. Though I would take back the old oblits rules from back then in a heartbeat though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aothaine Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Not competitive? The 3.0-3.5 CSM codex was one of the strongest ever written codexes in 40k history. Fair. But just because a codex is strong does not mean that it was designed for a competitive field. There is a huge difference between a codex that is just strong and a codex that is designed for competitive play. The competitive play codex requires balancing and testing. A lot of the older codices did not appear to have much testing behind them. I know they do significant testing of codices now. A great example is the Sisters of Battle codex. They have been testing that for a good long time to make sure it is not only competitive but fulfills the desires of the Sisters of Battle player base. Like I said, give it some time. The Death Guard and Thousand Sons got some good treatment. World Eaters and Emperor's Children will come and the core CSM book will be great as well. We also know they are working on new CSM sculpts and they are looking fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaVolt87 Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Strength and competitive play go hand in hand though. Another example, old GK were also strong and appeared in top places in competitive tournaments as a result. Eldar codex in 8th, if it was designed to be competitive, it is a result strong- which it is. Talking about strength and competitiveness in miniwargaming are interchangeable terms that mean essentially the same thing. Marshal Loss 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom Herald Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) My primary problem with the way CSM, amd to some degree Chaos in general, has been handled in 8th is the lack of balancing, lack of editting, and the lack of effective playtesting. Our first Codex had the ToC wrong, unclear rules on chaos marks, and unclear rules on Cypher. These rules issues having been addressed in Index errata and then completely forgotten for the release. Warp Talons are just now looking useful, same with possessed. Mutilators are the most utterly worthless unit. They actually ADVERTISED in the WH TV video prior to releae of the Daemons dex that you could use it to deepstrike primarchs, then imediately took it away, after CSM players bought the Daemon dex. They tried the same thing with Haarken, but no one was letting that one go. We have how many glaring rules issues every time they give is new rules? I don't mean a normal "whoops" either, there's a thread about the last batch of problems with rule changes. Some Renegade rules still only say that you can use them if your "...renegade army..." without errata making you wonder if we can even use these rules in mixed armies. Again, the interaction between Warband and marks of chaos was forgotten and eratad. Also, they approved the full on errata to the Alpha Legion strat imedieately after the new Codex and datacards came out, so my new data cards were almost imediately not worth getting. It may sound petty, but if you know you are playtesting a rules chamge while you are designing a new codex for that army, you NEED to make that call in time for release. I'm going to go ahead and let my personal complaint about Crimson Slaughter being OBVIOUSLY the weakest choice for renegades get aired too, seriously, how did they think there was any balance there? It's not just that we would like our units and rules balanced and competitive, of course we do want that though. We want rules that are better evaluated and tested and not undergoing major changes, minor changes are ok, immediately after release. If you have to make big changes that soon, you are not testing, evaluating, and balancing well, end of story. This means more rule changes to keep track of. This means a less appealing product. This means less people buying the "premium" products that go with your basic product (Collectors Codex and Datacards) when that special edition book is so screwed up the table of contents is wrong (I can't be the only one to notice how long the special edition Codex CSM was for sale compared to other special editions) or the datacards are going to be eratad 1 or two weeks after release. My issue with GW and Chaos right now is that it feels like there is very little effort actually going into our rules and products. Designs for new models are cool, don't get me wrong, but everything else is below expectations as far as quality of product. I know I'm repeating here, but it is inexcusable to be developing a rulebook (codex) with rules that have errata in beta and to wait until 2 weeks after the release of your new product to make the changes. It is inexcusable to make a Codex with a glaringly wrong ToC. It is inexcusable to advertise in pre-release hype that rules will do something awesome and then immediately change them after release when people buy, and then offer no apology. Even after they took back the Haarken erata, they tried to make it out like they had never put the idea in our heads that he would buff all Raptors and they just did it because so many people thought it would be cool. I don't think they even bothered to address that they got rid of Daemon strats being used on DAEMON CSM even though THEY were the ones to tell us we could in the first place. It is inexcusable to correct major rules issues in the Index, then not carry those changes over to the Codex of that army. It is inexcusable to "forget" that certain Warbands need to have a certain god keywords upon release. Further it is a slap in the face to make the faction you do this to be the only faction to receive an updated Codex [2] that is really more of a Codex [1.9] before you start making the actual upgraded Codexes and supplements. Edited August 21, 2019 by Doom Herald DominikB, Gederas, Marshal Loss and 8 others 11 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Skeleton Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) Strength and competitive play go hand in hand though. Another example, old GK were also strong and appeared in top places in competitive tournaments as a result. Eldar codex in 8th, if it was designed to be competitive, it is a result strong- which it is. Talking about strength and competitiveness in miniwargaming are interchangeable terms that mean essentially the same thing. 8th ed Eldar isn't a strong book, its just got a few combos that keep it playable at high tier despite most of the options being completely outclassed by Orks, Knights and Dark Eldar. Its more of an Astra Milatarum tier book (except AM actually get to put thought into choosing their subfaction), it just feels strong if you're a space marine. Even at the height of Eldar meta domination it was stuff outside of the actual codex making it work. Mixed Chaos is well above Eldar at ITC with the Eldar basically limited to their airforce list to do well. HEY! THE EYE OF THE GODS TABLE WAS AMAZING! IT MADE THE GAME RANDOM - NOTHING MORE CHAOS!!!! No, seriously, who ever thought waiting to get to the table to find out how strong your army was is a good idea? Eye of the gods was basically irrelevant, it was very unlikely to change the face of a game until they started throwing in the ability to start with multiple bonus on beat stick characters after release. Edited August 21, 2019 by Closet Skeleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Father Ferrum Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Eye of the Gods was also a WFB rule outside the scope of the Bolter and Chainsword. Let's not dwell on it here, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher956 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 I still remember when they replaced the 3.5 codex with the 4th ed codex at the start of their new scaled back design filosophy that lasted for all of two codexes (poor DA had to share our fate) ...and then we had that codex for two whole editions... ...or the 6th ed codex with insane internal balance that we also had for two editions while the loyalists got a crapton of new formations and updates. The Legion book was a band-aid because of all the whining... So excuse me for not being convinced of GWs track record for chaos... You know I pointed out Chaos being skipped two whole editions twice and was told well Orks waited 7 years; so clearly there's no bias, GW does not favor C:SM over CSM. But you forgot to mention that we had to wait 18 months after C:SM got their OP Gladdius detachment to get our under-powered Traitor Legions book. Only to have it may obsolete in 6 months! Yeah you could have had a nice balanced 8th Ed Index list after years (and editions) of not having a codex (outside of WD or digital only!) only to be given a beta dex thats far worse....whilst everyone elses codexs get stronger....hrm... theres a reason why I'm look at abandoning the corpse god (lttle faith that the new dex will hold its own against SM, Craftworld, GSC, Nids, guard or Crons) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Skeleton Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Eye of the Gods was also a WFB rule outside the scope of the Bolter and Chainsword. Let's not dwell on it here, eh? I assume he meant the Chaos boon table which was the direct equivalent of that WFB rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vel'Cona Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 But what does any of this have to do with Shock Assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted August 29, 2019 Author Share Posted August 29, 2019 But what does any of this have to do with Shock Assault?A Good and valid question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now