Chaos rumour Compilation

[Ikterus]

Hey!

I must say I join Rabbit in his positive thinking about the new codex. Change is fun. Now we get to change our way of playing without changing army. Playing the same way for years is boring.

For me the changes above will be great and fun. I play an all infantry Death Guard (I consider Dreads infantry, they walk after all don't they...)

Now I can field all my PMs (much more resilient than before), maybe some PM havocs, three Dreads AND possibly three marked Obliterators. Oh Joy!

I just hope my precious Nurglings make it through the GW cog wheels...

Edit: By the way, are the holy numbers of the gods still in the rules?

[Piglet1014]

I think it would be lame if they make daemons and Greater Daemons not god specific, and the same goes for the weapons & wargear. What I liked about chaos was that they were so easy to personalise, I don't care if my daemon weapon is now better, because what I wanted was something to suit my background, not give me another tiny advantage against players.
What I would like is a chaos list that accurately reflected the background: that there are 4 chaos gods, not one generic god, and I'd like the space marines with the marks to reflect the background of the legion. If this is what GW is doing then I'm all in favour, but it seems to me that they aren't.

P.S. Handbag of Joy: if you're going to act like a prick then don't talk about things you have no idea about, the only sign GW care about is £. You just look like an idiot, so don't slag people off when you are so clearly deficient yourself. Just a tip from someone looking out for you.
Piglet

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Piglet1014

I think it would be lame if they make daemons and Greater Daemons not god specific, and the same goes for the weapons & wargear. What I liked about chaos was that they were so easy to personalise, I don't care if my daemon weapon is now better, because what I wanted was something to suit my background, not give me another tiny advantage against players.

I really don't think this is the plan. As far as I've heard, G.W. plans on keeping the daemons with their respective god.

From what it sounds like, there's going to be a lot of unit types placed in 'templates,' such as the lesser daemon. Then each template will have further upgradable options.

Daemon weapons will be much the same, but the upgrade options will be pre-configured. So, each daemon weapon will have a base of d6 attacks, with each god-specific weapon having an additional confered mechanic.

Originally Posted by Piglet1014

P.S. Handbag of Joy: if you're going to act like a prick then don't talk about things you have no idea about, the only sign GW care about is £. You just look like an idiot, so don't slag people off when you are so clearly deficient yourself. Just a tip from someone looking out for you.
Piglet

Alright now. Le'ts keep our cool about this. Mud-slinging in response to a bad post does nothing but promote the tension (not relieve it)

[Vlorlich]

I have a rather large IW army and these changes kinda kill the army.

So with that.

I do love the eldar codex. I am sure some long time eldar players hate it. I was not an eldar player prior to the new codex so I don't have a history in the old codex and really I don't care much. Why? Cause I love this one. Its easy, the units are solid (so far), and seems very well handled/balanced. At least it has been for my wife and I.

So if GW gives the Chaos Codex the same work it gave the Eldar Codex, I am sure I will be happy with it.

PS. I think this new codex really just gave me a reason to completely redo my chaos army which may be why I am handling it fairly well. ha!

[Katie Drake]

Originally Posted by Piglet1014

P.S. Handbag of Joy: if you're going to act like a prick then don't talk about things you have no idea about, the only sign GW care about is £. You just look like an idiot, so don't slag people off when you are so clearly deficient yourself. Just a tip from someone looking out for you.
Piglet

Um... heh. Perhaps someone needs a reminder about what sort of stuff is appropriate on LO. In case you're yet to figure it out, what I've quoted above is most certainly not the kind of stuff that we put up with here.

If I catch you with this kind of attitude again, I'm going to personally ensure that you never visit this site again as a member. Don't make it too easy for me.

P.S. When you post blatantly offensive stuff like what you've posted above, it makes you look like the prick. I suggest that you stop and think before committing finger to keyboard in the future so as to avoid looking like an idiot.

Thanks for your time,

The Drake :wub:

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Vlorlich

I have a rather large IW army and these changes kinda kill the army.

So with that.

I do love the eldar codex. I am sure some long time eldar players hate it. I was not an eldar player prior to the new codex so I don't have a history in the old codex and really I don't care much. Why? Cause I love this one. Its easy, the units are solid (so far), and seems very well handled/balanced. At least it has been for my wife and I.

So if GW gives the Chaos Codex the same work it gave the Eldar Codex, I am sure I will be happy with it.

PS. I think this new codex really just gave me a reason to completely redo my chaos army which may be why I am handling it fairly well. ha!

G.W. certainly did everything right with the new Eldar Codex. I hope we're half as lucky. From what I hear everything in the Eldar codex is now a playable option. Well, almost everything.

[studentochaos]

I am very happy with the Eldar codex so I see no problem being more like that. They maintained the craftworld identity without crazy special rules and gave the army strong troop choices.

I won't judge the chaos codex until it comes out.

Defiler will likely still have indirect. All lists have similarities and to drop the indirect option off the chaos list one revision after they added it seems odd. That said, I wouldn't be suprised if it was set up to let you pick CC defiler or shooty defiler.

[Perturabo]

Some of those don't sound too bad. I'm in favour of non-cult Marked Marines being 'less favoured', because I think it makes sense fluffwise.

The only thing I'm really worried about is the possibility of seeing cookie-cutter Lords and Princes, due to the lack of a Wargear section.

On the whole, I think the Codex is looking like it will probably come out Ok. I'm just happy I'll finally have a reason to paint Berzerkers in metallic colours for my assaulty Iron Warriors.

[Karmoon]

Originally Posted by Perturabo

Some of those don't sound too bad. I'm in favour of non-cult Marked Marines being 'less favoured', because I think it makes sense fluffwise.

The only thing I'm really worried about is the possibility of seeing cookie-cutter Lords and Princes, due to the lack of a Wargear section.

On the whole, I think the Codex is looking like it will probably come out Ok. I'm just happy I'll finally have a reason to paint Berzerkers in metallic colours for my assaulty Iron Warriors.

Good point,.. but a bit moot if you think about it.

The problem with many current codicies is that, while it gives the illusion of choice, they are infact so badly balanced that it's obvious which choices you should take.

For example - Nurgle's daemonic weapons. Are you really going to take the pants-demic staff? Or the juicy Mr. Manreaper?

I'm stretching the point a bit to illustrate one - so please no one challenge me on my knowledge of the Chaos codex.
But, I also am know thoroughly looking forward to the new codex and the opportunities it may bring

[Rabbit]

From what I've heard, the Defiler will lose indirect fire. G.W. has never been happy with the Defiler. Makes sense too, because it looks and feels like a raging machine gone bad, but then, it sits in the back and lobs pie plates. G.W. wants to make the Defiler a quick moving c.c. fiend, and personally, I'm very enthused about it.

Wargear: Even if the new codexe loses the wargear section, we'll likely just see all the options listed under each section. In the end, it's not *that* bad then.