There was an error in this gadget

Saturday, 12 September 2009

Bloody Dakka Mods. This is a post what I wrote, and never got to post.

Digganob's words in BLUE, my previous coments in RED.

No, not really. In fact, it's a silly comparison, especially given many things with rules have no models (Deathstrike Missile Launcher, anyone?)As if making these models would be unwelcome or unnecessary. If they make a mini for it, people will use it. Same with the rules - people got their Warsmith & Dark Apostle entries and they used them.
Iron Warriors were stupidly broken. Also, the loss of two options here, no big deal. I don't hear Night Lords players tell me they lost anything...nor EC players, nor Black Legion players, who actually benefitted...Arguably, the ability to take Oblits at will means EVERYONE benefited, except Iron Warriors.

And regardless of how 'silly' my comparison was, my point still stands: fluff and rules are not mutually exclusive. Yes, yes really. Because Cultists are crappy civilians. I'd sooner have generic CSM than T3 guys with no armour and a CCW, thanks. Cultists have to be made as good as Traitor Guard to be playable (-ish) and I contest that is less fluffy than simply not using them. What nonsense. My 'crappy civilians' did just fine, thank you.
And, regardless of whether that's 'nonsense' or not (what? I can use punctuation to imply my opponent's arguments are farcical and beneath my notice too?!?) the LatD Codex would be laughable in 5th Edition - and it wasn't even good upon release. Cool, yes. Good, no. I would happily let people use them now, except there'd be no challenge inherent in beating an army list that could reasonably expect to get tabled every game. You also failed to address my point that the Cultists as Traitor Guard aren't fluffy, btw. If you want to argue fluff, argue fluff. If you want to argue rules instead, do so. They may not be mutually exclusive in your eyes (why, exactly?) but they aren't the same thing, and can't be compared.

If you want to play purely for fluff reasons, do what Gav says and make it up. After all, the Codex doesn't deliver. I can easily call my Kharn counts-as a Dark Apostle. You're missing the point. The only reason to resort to counts-as here is because they removed the option to have a Dark Apostle in the first place. If they were still available, actual Dark Apostles would still be chosen over any counts-as unit - not that you couldn't stick to Kharn if you chose to.
I find that dubious. Dark Apostles would be roaming around with a basic Power Weapon, essentially being a Chaos Lord by another name. Woop. I'd still take a DP or Kharn every time, because they aren't shit. Chaos Lords ARE a rubbish HQ. Can't be denied. Dark Apostles wouldn't be any better.

What the Chaos Codex needs is better ranged capability and a Fast Attack or 3.

These are not things Phil Kelly's writing is known for.

Gav Thorpe = / = the problems with Chaos.

Your beloved fluff = Problems with Chaos.

Change of GW strategy = Problems with Chaos.

5th Edition = Problems with Chaos.

3 Problems, the guy above was right.

Also, HBMC - Comparing Chaos to Eldar or Orks, or Angels, fine. Comparing to IG, SM or Wolves, and expecting it to compete = stupid. Comparing it to WH, DH, Tau or any other Codex with a Wargear list, also stupid.
Post a Comment
There was an error in this gadget

Disclaimer.

Primarily, a blog to discuss the Games Workshop system Warhammer 40k, though not exclusively so. All GW IP used without permission, no challenge intended.

Pretty much everything here is my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you are welcomed to say so. If you don't like me, but like my opinion, feel free to say so. If you don't like me or my opinion, I don't need to hear it. Why even visit?