By now I am bring up the caboose on this topic, but here are my two cents.
When a game developer’s ego gets hurt, he gets defensive, and when he gets defensive they often rant.
This is one such story…
Once upon a time before he went to the Gary Gygaz & Kevin J Anderson school for novelists, there was a Games Workshop developer named Gav Thorpe. He was an important part of many codices, he will be remembered most for his last one. The latest incarnation of Chaos Space Marines. Never before had a codex been spurred with such derision and scorn. Released in 2007, it is only now that Gav Thorpe has chosen to answer his critics on his blog. I love the current Codex (one of the few), my issue is with Gav honesty about the situation. I also understand the other issues people have with the codex and one person in particular illustrates that group of people’s feelings clearly. Before I get to the comment, it is time to analyze Gav’s post.
To start with, let’s make one thing clear. Reasoned criticism of a work is one thing, attacks on the creator of that work are another. I’m fine with the first, I am not fine with the second, in any arena. The internet does not entitle somebody to conduct themselves without the usual consideration and manners I hope they would employ in other forms of communication. It is also too easy for some folks to forget that quite often they are expressing their opinion, not objective fact. It is entirely possible that other people have a different opinion, and it is usually of little use arguing opinions rather than explaining how those opinions were formed. I firmly believe that an informed opinion is far better than an uninformedone, even if that opinion differs from mine. I have had many players contact me or talk to me expressing their approval of the revised Codex: Chaos Space Marines and their preference for the approach that was taken. For example: http://bootae.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=10574
Gav are you new? The Internet was made for people to conduct themselves in a manner they could never get away within any other setting. I can attack you as a creator of a work that displays your ability as a game designer, so if I feel you are a crappy designer, then I have every right to call them as they are. As for my opinion, it is an impression of how I believe the world works and how that has affected the way you designed your last GW Codex.
To that end, here’s some of the thinking behind the changes that were made. They were not done on a whim and the decisions were taken with some thought and consideration.
An army (and a Codex) are more than just a set of rules. In the scheme of things, rules come and go; they are an abstract mechanical representation of something else. The exact rules representation may change from edition to edition, but hopefully they fundamentally represent the same thing. The previous edition of the Codex was over-the-top on rules, trying to legislate for every eventuality on the tabletop and trying to represent in detail every aspect of a player’s miniature army.
Let me use my simple cave man brain to translate this, so rules are meaningless, but what is important? What exactly is this something else you speak of? Holy Crap this is 40k, not an esoteric journey into abstractions. I understand you think you have a bigger brain (comes with being English), but also please make sense or at the very least explain your point more clearly. Yes there was a lot of rules in the old edition, but more often then not they were a closer representation of the fluff and thus closer to the idea of what people felt was canon.
This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so.
The second problem with this approach is at the opposite end of the scale. By having a minutiae of rules covering very detailed elements of a players army, it can also trigger the response, ‘I can’t do this because the rules don’t say I can’. By listing very specific allowances and restrictions, the old Codex essentially presented very narrow interpretations of the background, again removing the choice from the players. This is particularly the case with the Legions and Power-specific lists. While they did introduce some cool new options (which I’ll get back to later) the majority of those sub-lists were about restriction, not choice. It presented a very defined view of what was and was not possible in the vast galaxy of the 41st millenium. Some troop types never, ever appeared on the battlefield together according to the previous iteration of the rules. Some Legions never, ever used certain types of wargear. These restrictions removed lots of ‘What if…?’ situations, cementing a very rigid and literal interpretation of the background within the mechanics of collecting an army. They were unrepresentative of the anarchic and fluctuating nature of Chaos forces.
Did you know the largest market of players are Americans, we are the most litigious country in the world. Combo that with the fact we think the universe should have some sense of fair play. So when you dramatically change things, there is a potential of creating some very angry people. You are right GW is about a framework to sell miniatures, not sell rule books. You do understand that by giving options even “restricted” ones caters to players that enjoy that particular restricted army style?
Warning uninformed opinion I doubt none of this had to do with GW stock taking a noise dive and spreading themselves too thin, and forcing the Dev team under a budget to trim down available armies? I could have sworn that 25% of GW stores closed around that time and the cancellationof the full bitz line. The budget was no factor in influencing your design decisions what so ever? I wish I could live in Gav’s fantasy land. I am surprised we even got rules in the first place. Why not just write stories and just sell the figures for those stories (oh wait that was LoTR) so I can relive my childhood, where I just made shit up.
As for your second problem, really? I can remember in my gaming group the problem was, you could do too much stuff! What you called restrictions, I called adhering to fluff and background. I think you might of gotten too creative for yourself or just down right lazy.
Warning uninformed opinion I am going to side with lazy, you were directed by on high to streamline the codex not because you wanted to free the players from the bonds of restrictions, but because the previous codex went overboard with variation, especially with the Eye of Terror and Chapter Approved. So instead of producing a codex that united everything, you went and made a bland imitation of what came before. If it was not for all the options that had been built before, then I think players would not of brought out the pitchforks.
It is also important to consider the Codex in the context in which it was created – a broad platform for a typical Chaos Space Marines army. In both Warhammer and 40K, Chaos has always had an immensely diverse background, with many, many different troop types, war engines, characters and so forth. The decision was taken, as it was in Warhammer, that such diversity couldn’t be given a proper treatment in just a single volume. Rather than dismiss some of the most entertaining parts of the background (and potential miniatures) as footnotes, it was decided that they should be given books of their own, to delve into their histories and personalities and armies with separate volumes (and, of course, cool new miniatures). I don’t work in the Studio anymore, so I can’t say whether that is still the strategy, or how plans for this are continuing. I can say that a the time we were working on Codex: CSM there was a lot of enthusiasm for the possibilities this approach allowed – new god-specific troop types and war engines, in-depth background of the various Legions and what they’ve been up to, renegade Chapters and warbands that had dedicated themselves to one god. Bear in mind that a lot of the variant armies people associate with the old Codex were not in fact from the Codex, but from the Index Astartes articles, which themselves made up two extra volumes (if one dismisses all of that Loyalist stuff!). As a lot of those tweaks and variants weren’t in Codex: CSM, the possibility of extra Codexes addresses that issue in a way that would be far more satisfying than a few pages in a White Dwarf. I hope that it is still the intent of GW to go down this route at some stage, I think there’s immense scope for some exciting and unique armies out there.
You do have a good point here. GW has dropped the ball after you left all we have is Codex Daemons and we are still waiting for a Chaos Legions book which looks to very far down the road. The problem is the portion you chose to handle is nowhere near adequate to what Chaos players wanted or expected.
Which kind of brings us to Daemons. There’s a simple argument for why Daemons were given their own Codex. In the huge sweep of galactic history, there are countless occasions when Space Marines and Imperial Guard have fought on the same battlefield. However, why isn’t GW inundated with complaints that you can’t take Imperial Guard in a Space Marines army? The same is true of cultists and the Lost and the Damned list – there are all sorts of other Imperial troops like the Arbites, Sisters of Battle, Planetary Defence forces, Assassins, navy crews, Adeptus Mechanicus and many others. Yet I never received a complaint that these could not be used in a Space Marines army… The book was briefed as Codex: Chaos Space Marines, and therefore deals with Chaos Space Marines. The outlook on this seems to come from a purely traditional approach – that there was a Daemons list and a cultists list in the 2nd edition 40K Codex: Chaos. Even then, they were separate lists! They were only folded into the Chaos Space Marines in the previous version of the Codex.
The reason GW has not been inundated about Imperial mixing is because, the ability of cross codexing have not been used since 2nd edition and the beginning of 3rd. For Chaos, GW gave everyone options over a three year period, then all of sudden took it away! So people built up their armies to fit what fluff they liked and then in one day everything they had worked on was gone. Also, the fluff supports Space Marines fighting alone. They are “supported” by the other groups, but for the most part they act independent of other forces. Besides is that not what Apocalypse games are for, to have large “good guys” vs “bad guys”?
Warning uninformed opinion Now I have a question, did you read your own title? CHAOS SPACE MARINES, all I found was Death Guard, Emperor’s Children, World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and associated groupies waving flags. Where are all the other traitor legions? At the very least add ten pages and give us one character from the other major factions. For crying out loud Space Marines get entire codices for Dark Angels and Space Wolves, but you cannot take the time to give me a few more characters.
I’m a very flexible gamer, I have no problem with people trying out stuff for the hell of it. If you want to take a force of Chaos Space Marines and have a few Daemons joining the fun, I’d be happy to play you. By the same token, I’d happily play against your Space Marines and Sisters of Battle allies, or your ‘Traitor Guard’ army with a few squads of Black Legion. Got a Basilisk in Iron Warriors’ colours? Bring it on! This goes back to my second point – using your imagination and doing what you want with your toy soldiers is your choice, not the games developer’s. I’d like to see more in WD and on the GW website reminding players that they are perfectly entitled to do this sort of thing.
So you are trying to tell me that you made a codex that only appeals to 12 year old boys and the most casual of casual gamers? Was this your idea or some marketing guru? One major problem with the new CSM codex is that you gave players so few options and guidelines. Instead, you really want me to believe it was your intention all along, for players to ask other players if they can use models that are invalid in the rules?
Warning uninformed opinion You seem to not grasp that people like some direction and as long as you point them in a direction they will usually can figure things out for themselves. I am guessing this is some sort of attempt to cover you ass.
Somebody is bound to bring up the subject of tournaments at this stage. Tournaments are an artificial environment, laying down restrictions and criteria to provide a competitive environment. I’ll reiterate my point that with both GW-organised and independent tournaments, by far the most army list mistakes (often costing the payer concerned valuable tournament points) occurred with the old Codex far more than any other book around at the same time – including Witch Hunters, Craftworld Eldar and other complex multi-volume armies.
I could not agree more; the old codex was abused. It is not an excuse to go overboard and stomp out the essence of the forces of Chaos.
Random selection of cool Chaos stuff I’ve just found with a Google image search:
http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/fsym.html
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Ian%27s_Slaaneshi_Chaos_Marines
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=1279
http://www.area52.com.au/galleries/ttg/army_focus/matt_clifford_death_guard.htm
http://media.photobucket.com/image/chaos%20space%20marines%20%20%252522counts%20as%252522/Xardian1/Chaos%20Marines/Raptorswithchamp-unpainted.jpg
(Oh dear! He’s got that awesome axe, but there aren’t any rules for it… What are we to do?)
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=150542
Word Bearers – with Cultists! I think the cultists-as-summoned daemons is one of the best ‘Counts As’ intepretations around.
If Daemons didn’t have their own Codex, you wouldn’t be able to have battles likes this one:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/229220.page
If I have a regret about Codex: Chaos Space Marines, it would be not having the space and resources to showcase more of this kind of stuff – in the book and White Dwarf. The creativity of players doesn’t need justification by rules – it’s treating (and showing!) 40K as the broad hobby it is, not just a game with a set of rules
Gav did you ask any of these people that painted such awesome miniatures if they were happy with the changes in order to fit their armies in the context of your codex?
I’ll finish by saying that I’m not writing this with the illusion that the current Codex: Chaos Space Marines is perfect. It does the job it was intended to do, in the context of the brief that was given at the time and the ongoing strategy that was being considered. I’m not writing this to say that some people are wrong in their opinion, it’s just a matter of two very different approaches to addressing the same issue – the sheer Chaosness of Chaos armies! The former Codex was a very rules-driven attempt to encapsulate the wildness of Chaos, the current Codex is about a very simple foundation that allows players to make hobby-based, aesthetic decisions regarding their army without worrying about the gaming implications.
Some people prefer the first approach, some the second. That’s the way the world is, and long may it continue that way.
Here is the most telling part of Gav’s post and you might just miss it. “It does the job it was intended to do, in the context of the brief that was given at the time and the ongoing strategy that was being considered.” What does this mean? It means Gav had limited choice, he was dealt the cards given to him from on high. I am really curious on what these briefs are. It is rather like NASA, which every year is given a budget that is less than the previous year and asked to do more with it. Luckily for NASA they have brilliant scientists and working under such restrictions can produce some creative solutions. The team that worked on CSM Codex are not brilliant. What we got was a half ass Codex that kicks the ball down the road to other teams to pick up.
And I am not done!
The best critique of Gav’s post is done by a gentleman going as HBMC here is a cut and paste of it. Please it is worth the read.
Hmm… where to start. Ok, simple disclaimer.
Gav, I own the following Chaos armies:
Word Bearers (loads of Marines & Daemons – my first Chaos army, started in 2nd Ed)
Alpha Legion (loads of Marines & Cultists)
World Eaters (follows the fluff to the letter with Sacred Number units and so on)
Death Guard (7 units of 7 troops, all modelled very nicely, using a mix of 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed and even Forge World models – I like my Death Guard army)
Iron Warriors (filled with Havocs and siege weapons and bands of fire-support warriors)
Lost & The Damned (a mass of Mutants and Traitors backed up by Night Lord infantry, tanks and Defilers – I /really/ like my LatD army)Now, looking at what armies I play you can probably guess that I am one of those people who have a few issues with the current ‘Chaos’ Codex. And by a ‘few issues’ I mean ‘despise with a unyielding fury’. However, rather than spewing bile and personal attacks at you, I feel this discussion would be better served with an open look at exactly where my dislike of your Codex comes from (and I say ‘your’ because you are credited as the writer – I am well aware that there is much more that goes into a Codex than just what you write personally).
But before we do this, as in any great debate or discussion, I need to directly address a couple of areas in your words above where I disagree.
Daemons:
Specifically these words of yours – “They were only folded into the Chaos Space Marines in the previous version of the Codex.”
I’m sorry to say this Gav, but there are only three possible explanations for why you’d say what you said here:
A). You’re being forgetful.
B). You have a selective memory.
C). You’re lying.Why? Well, your comment simply isn’t true.
What Chaos Codices/Army Books have included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Realms of Chaos – Slaves to Darkness
2. Realms of Chaos – The Lost & The Damned
3. Codex Army Lists – 2nd Ed (can’t find my copy, but as the specific Daemon profiles are in Codex Imperialis, I have to assume that they were included in the place-holder Codex that came with 2nd Ed)
4. Codex Chaos – 2nd Ed
5. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Jervis’ one)
6. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Pete Haines’ one)What Chaos Codices/Army Books have NOT included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Your Codex.So really, the inclusion of Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine list isn’t recent, or just something that happened in the last Codex (Pete Haines’ Codex). It’s all of them – except yours. Even in Jervis’ original very thin and very uninspired 3rd Ed Codex (a Codex that has bears several striking similarities to yours), where the Daemons were a single entry, there were rules that allowed you to modify their statline to show the different types of Daemons.
Now, yes, the 2nd Ed Codex – a glorious style of book that we can only wish GW would go back to – did have a Daemon World list in it, but it wasn’t the only list to have Daemons, it was simply the list you used to represent Daemons World Armies. The Codex also had a Chaos Cult army list. Can you imagine if, say, 4th Ed Tyranids had rolled around and Genestealers had been removed from the book, only to emerge in a Genestealer Cult Codex 8 months later, and the reason by the writer given was ‘Oh, they had their own list in another addition, so including Genestealers with the main ‘Nid list is more of a recent thing’? Tyranid players would have gone crazy. The same thing applies to Daemons.
To put it another way – you took something away from Chaos that they had always had. Think about that.
Restrictions vs Flexibility:
As someone who has been quite vocal about my distaste for the ‘Chaos’ Codex, I have often come across the argument that the previous Codex was too restrictive and that this new Codex removed those restrictions therefore giving us more flexibility. This line of thinking is /technically/ true, but is actually quite disingenuous.
How can I best explain this? I know: With ice cream!
Say rather being a book with different Legions, it’s actually an ice-cream store with many different flavours. Say the flavours are:
1. Chocolate ice cream.
2. Strawberry ice cream.
3. Honeycomb ice cream.
4. Rocky Road ice cream.Mmm… sounds good, don’t it? And so much choice! But say that you could only have one flavour at a time. Aww! No fair. That’s so restrictive. But, at the very least, I can have all the different types, just not all at the same time.
Now let’s say your Codex is also an ice cream store. The flavours you have are:
1. Vanilla.
But there’s no limit on how much vanilla I can have. I can have a little bit of vanilla, I can have a lot, I can have two scoops in two different bowls, three in eight bowls – any combination of vanilla that I want.
But it’s still only vanilla.
If I want Chocolate I can’t, and while I might have been restricted to only having one flavour at a time, at least I had the choice. Now I only have one choice. And having only one choice is the same as having /no/ choice. To extend the metaphor, all the Legions are now are different coloured tubs for vanilla ice cream.
The idea that the old Chaos Codex was ‘restrictive’ and that the new one ‘frees up’ players and gets them away from proscribed gaming simply doesn’t hold water. I have always been of the opinion that fluff and rules should be congruous, and for the most part, Haines’ Codex got that right. It wasn’t balanced – not by any means, but what GW Codex is? – but the rules stuck to the fluff quite well, and so an army that followed the fluff made good use of the apparently ‘restrictive’ rules. Essentially I think you’re looking at it backwards. You’re trying to say that the old Codex forced you down a certain path – you play World Eaters hey, then you /must/ play this way and this way only!!!!! – but that wasn’t the case. It was often a case of I want to play World Eaters, what is their fluff, oh, they have that sort of formation do they, what do the rules say, oh, the rules are set up in such a way as to let you play as the fluff describes.
And then, at its core, the previous Chaos Codex had the standard list which had no restrictions on units other than the rivalries between the Chaos Gods. You could have an army that had Plague Marines, and Thousand Sons in it, or Noise Marines and Berzerkers just by playing the standard list. At no point where you ‘forced’ or ‘restricted’ to play a specific Legion – the Black Legion covered everything!!!
Your Codex doesn’t free anyone up or somehow release them from proscriptive or restrictive gaming. Why? Because it removed all the options. It’d be like being a star athlete who’s been confined in a small room and is finally let out, only to have his arms and legs cut off. In other words, what good is a lack of restrictions if there’s no choice to be had – you can have any flavour you like as long as it’s vanilla?
So with that out of the way, I want to look at a few specific items within the Codex (and I’ll leave Daemons alone as they’ve been covered already).
I’ve written ‘Chaos’ Codex a few times, rather than Chaos Codex, and the bunny-ears are intentional. The reason for that, as mentioned when I talked about Daemons, you have taken away things that Chaos has never or should never have lost.
Daemonic Gifts are a good example.
I know what you’re probably thinking – “Half the Daemonic Gifts weren’t even being used!” or perhaps “The system of limitations on gifts was too complex”.
But you took Daemonic Gifts away from Chaos. You made them into Loyalist Marines with a Wargear List and nothing to make them Chaos besides a generic Daemon weapon and Marks. This isn’t a case of “there’s no rules for that axe” it’s a case of “there’s no way to represent the corruption inherent in worshiping Chaos… I just have all the same options a Loyalist Marine Captain has – what about this makes me a Chaos Commander?”.
Daemonic Gifts, and the mutations/boons/curses given by the Chaos Gods has been part of Chaos since their inception – you know this, I don’t need to tell you. Realms of Chaos had D1000 – Dee-One-Thousand FFS – tables for mutations. Now I’m certainly not saying that we need or even should go back to such a level of granularity but consider Gav – you took one of the very things that makes Chaos /Chaos/ away! They’re not there any more. They’re gone. Hence ‘Chaos’.
Your argue that you should need rules for various mutations etc.. I argue that mutations etc. are part of the fluff, and the rules should follow the fluff, therefore there should be rules for mutations etc.
Marks vs Icons
Why do squads of Marines forget whom they worship when the guy with the Icon dies? Why are there no Cult Terminators/Havocs/Bikers/Chosen? Why, if your aim was to remove restrictions, did you remove the options that had been previously restricted? Why does a Deathguard army now consist of some actual Plague Marines, and some Marines who may or may not forget what God they’re dedicated to?
What was so bad about the Marks system? And is it too cynical to say that the reason it was changed to Icons was because the new Chaos Marine kit included a nice new plastic Icon and GW wanted people to buy said kit for said Icon ie. the models drove the rules in this instance?
Possessed
I very keenly remember Pete Haines’ designer notes in White Dwarf describing that the change to Possessed came about as people didn’t like the random nature. I thought it was a great idea – made Possessed instantly viable. Then we get the new one and they’re back to random again. Why?
And, while we’re on the subject of Possessed please, Gav, tell us all – why do you roll /after/ deployment? Did you not ever stop and think that maybe rolling before deployment might be the better option, y’know, let plays have an inkling of what their Possessed are going to be able to do before they set them down on the table? Yes, no, maybe?
Daemon Princes
Now I saw your comment above that maybe you went too far, but why are the glorious veterans of thousands of battles, the champions of the Gods who have ascended to Daemonhood through their vile acts of slaughter limited to… wings or not wings. They can’t even get Daemon Weapons for crying out loud! It goes back to my ‘taking the Chaos out of Chaos’ thing, and why it’s a ‘Chaos’ Codex.
I think a lot of people celebrated what could be done with Daemon Princes in Haines’ Codex, as it was such a big relief from the mono-dimensional boring choices from Jervis’ original 3rd Ed Codex. Then we get yours and it’s very similar to Jervis’ original entry. Was that by accident?
Defilers
WS3? They’re as skilled as Guardsmen in HTH are they? I’ve never understood this. Please explain it so I know.
Lash of Torment
I think you’ve probably heard enough on this subject, but really, how was the power of this… power… not caught in play testing?
I realise now that I’m nitpicking, but those last two were something I had to ask. Getting back to my main point:
The legacy of the current Chaos Codex is that it took the Chaos out of Chaos Space Marines. ‘Loyalists w/Spikes’ or ‘When Good Marines Go Bad’ is about the best way to describe the current Codex. You can better represent the various Legions using the current Loyalist Marine Codex than you can the ‘Chaos’ one, and that to me is a huge problem.
Daemons are gone. You have to play a different army to have them now. Having a group that allows the mixing of Codices isn’t a way to explain away this problem either – not all groups are flexible, some groups are very large and need the structure of proscribed rulebooks to avoid arguments, and tournaments and leagues certainly can’t have custom armies.
Daemonic Gifts and all those very Chaos-y upgrades and choices are gone.
Legions are gone, reduced to paint schemes and fluff.
/Chaos/ is gone.
Being restricted to one of four options is better than having unlimited choice with one option.
– HBMC
As of the day of this post, Gav has posted a general response to all the comments made about this topic. After patting himself on his back, he tries to defend himself, I want you all to be the judge and let me know what you all think.