Storm of Smurfs

Trazyn has Creed in his pokeball.

There is actually a warlord titan

So how does Geedubs most likely want to to win? I guess we push for the other one, then.

>ultramarines
>chaos space marines
oh yes I do wonder who they want to win

Chaos then, like in every campaign?

It doesn't matter. Only chaos or the Imperium can win and it's false stakes. If Imperials win, Chaos gets pushed back to the rift or whatever and continue business as usual. If chaos wins, they get a highway to Macragge where they'll be repelled in a campaign book that isn't player dictated and everything continues business as usual

Showing my age here, but I liked the Albion campaign a lot. You had an evil druid and a good druid who would fight on opposite sides and there were some interesting missions.

Storm of Chaos had alternate army lists, which was cool. Chaos was pretty shit at the time(Chaos Warriors had 1 attack and heavy armor and were pretty useless for their points) so the Good side would have wiped Chaos from the Earth if GW actually cared about the campaign results.

The 40K ones were always shit. Like there was one where they made up a planet for everyone to fight over and the only release was the Vostroyans.

Albion was probably the best of them. Largely because the models were great and could be used by literally any army.

There were a load of experimental rules and new units added in via white dwarf as well, which were kinda neat. That's where saurus cavalry first became a thing.

I remember being new as shit and reading a battle report in a white dwarf where both sides had Truthsayers and being confused as shit.

Medusa V also had Cityfight and the Vostroyans were amazing, so it was the second best campaign after Armageddon in my book.

It's too bad Cityfight didn't really catch on. It had all sorts of common sense kinda rules like measuring weapon range at a 90 degree angle so you didn't lose range for being up high.

I remember really liking the Armageddon battle reports in WD. There was one where they had a big central table and also subtables with Black Templars trying to take over a space hulk and speed freaks trying to take out the Imperium's artillery

So Ghazkull is going to kick Abaddon in the penis?
>no xenos victory possible
At least try to pretend that you give a shit about anything but space marines GW.

What gets me is that they are just going to pretend whatever faction they chose anyway will win.

They might as well pretend someone else could

I doubt theyes have a predetermined winner. Mostly because like said, this campaign has irrelevancy built in

Well it is another
>1/500th of the Ultramarine worlds are in danger! Thats 0.2%!
>DECIDE THE FATE OF A SINGLE WORLD IN A SINGLE SYSTEM
Who gives a fuck who wins or loses

Chaos was absolutely not shit. Hordes made is way better, but you could play a good list back then.
Albion was good because of the atmosphere, the mystery, and the fact that most, if not all armies were Ravening Hordes - probably the most balanced WH ever.

Yeah, I remember Chaos being pretty good back then and the Hordes players were relentlessly whining about it, even though Beasts got the hilariously short end of the stick.

Chaos in 6th was good, no idea about those idiots.
Ravening Hordes was good, Hordes of Chaos made warrios a true rapetrain.
I played undivided with lots of light and heavy cavalry, plus furies and screamers (1 tzeentch minor character allowed me to put the screamers).
I even refrained to use the most brokn stuff, like eye + dragon (we played with european tournaments restriction, well made - limits to slots - anti spam, to magic dice).
Beats was minor, but in that edition skirmishers were godlike so units that could skirmish when convenient hand have ranks when useful were still very good.
And ALL OF THREE could be combined. I never had so much fun with chaos, and I will never have again.

7th, I did not like the WoC and I switched to Daemons.
7th edition daemon book, a little jewel of design by its own, absolute rapetrain in the context of the game. I won gams with people way more expert and competent than me.
I gave up with Fantasy right there, just 1-2 games with 8th but was not for me.

God I miss 6th edition.

Beasts were okay in 6th but over-all kinda on the weakish side. In 7th they got completely shafted until their new book, which shafted them again.
And let's not talk about Demons 7th Edition, it's one of the things that killed WHFB.

>Hordes of Chaos made warrios a true rapetrain.

Oh please, Hordes had gimped warriors.

How?

Lowered weapon skill, ballistic skill, initiative and attacks.

And Leadership.

It was still more than high enough to reflect them being Chaos Warriors in relation to all the other Ravening Hordes lists.

Nope. They turned into gimps that hit like a wet noodle for their points.
You know why Chaos performed so poorly in Storm of Chaos? Hordes was dogshit.

Ahaha ho my. Did you guys ever played 5th? You could barely use warriors because of how war machines worked.

For us, the 5th ---> 6th move was a blessing, those after the "nerfs" the warriors would still beat the ever-loving shit out every ELITE of other armies, but they were cheap enough to be taken in 1-2 decently sized units (if not for the 6th edition cavarly fetish).

If you really wanted to kill every motherfucker in the room, you had 0-1 chosen.

>Ravening Hordes
>In Storm of Chaos (2004)

BOI

>after the "nerfs" the warriors would still beat the ever-loving shit out every ELITE of other armies

No they wouldn't. Their raw stats remained comparatively impressive but they were much too expensive for only one attack. They were also too fragile.

That's why they were buffed in subsequent editions. It got to the point were no one took any warriors despite them being the face of the army.

Horde of Chaos, which had the same dogshit warriors.

You could equip and mark them properly.
You could argue that the meta pushed out infantry, but then is valid for ANY infantry.

See, this is how I know you are full of shit and never played 6th edition or in Storm of Chaos.

>You could equip and mark them properly.

More points. They were already expensive base.

They were universally know as dogshit.
Why did subsequent editions buff them? It's not because they were doing fine.

Because Chaos players were relentlessly bitching and whining which lead to Chaos Warriors being one of the strongest armies in the 7th and consequently Demons being completely overbuffed and killing the game entirely.

Next you are going to argue that the legbreaking taken to the Orcs was completely justified in 7th.

Th subsequent edition buffed them a bit but not substantially. A better banner, chosen had WS6.
Yes they got 2 attacks but many elites got this buff in 7th. 6th was just slower-paced, (luckily) it was still a game in which flanking, banners and ranks had a value not just roll buckets of dice 8th edition style.

If you really wanted to go all-out, you go full Khorne (so you can add up magic resistance dice, and you don't care that the killy unit is baited because of Fury, since ALL your units are the killy ones).

But hes right, you brought marauders. Warriors were fucking 14 points and came with zero equipment other than heavy armor.

You could bring 7 point great weapon marauders.

Chosen Knights were the shit however.

>Because Chaos players were relentlessly bitching

Uh-huh. Because Warrior, the face of the army, were shit.
>Th subsequent edition buffed them a bit but not substantially. A better banner, chosen had WS6.
>Yes they got 2 attacks

The loss of the attack hurt them the most from their gimping, while they never recovered to their full glory, they did get Chaos Armour as standard and cheaper options, including Marks.

>you don't care that the killy unit is baited because of Fury, since ALL your units are the killy ones

Unless you just get kited armour with fast units and shot to bits.

You had excellent fast units, too; marauder horsemen were an hidden gem, both with flails and throwing axes.

>while they never recovered to their full glory
from this sentence, I get you just wanted the 5th edition warriors. That is not possible (barring, perhaps, 7th edition chosen).
You see 6th edition CW in 7th and later light, but back than was ok.
You would not have the points to build more than 1 uber unit, so 0-1 chosen with Chaos Armour, 2 attacks, and the like was perfect (you could have another uber-unit in the knights).
If you wanted mor, just 10 men units with 2 weapons or khorne and halberds.

>from this sentence, I get you just wanted the 5th edition warriors.

No, I'm just pointing out that Hordes of Chaos did not make Warriors into "a true rapetrain."
They were the weakest and most pathetic Chaos Warriors there ever was.
Warriors went on to recover a bit and gain their fearsome reputation back a little, but they would forever after live in the shadow of Hordes.

>If you really wanted to go all-out, you go full Khorne

Don't get me started on Khorne.
6e gimped frenzy.
Used to double attacks.

The army was not just Chaos Warriors.
We had units able to use Fear but not gimped as the undead ones. Good magic (but the castrs were generally killier).
The book was good and the army held its own very well.

>Used to double attacks.
And you do think was reasonable to leave it like that?
Nevermind

>And you do think was reasonable to leave it like that?

Maybe not, but aren't we talking about whether or not warriors were gimped or rapetrain?
They were for sure gimped.

>The army was not just Chaos Warriors.

They were the face of the army. And they're the topic at hand in any case.

Overall Hordes was a very weak book, but it's truly tragic what it did to Chaos Warriors.

This, Khorne Warriors used to be a real rape train. 6e turned them into rambunctious fags who would run in, get the taste slapped out of their mouths and run away.

I said Warriors as an army. This included screamers, throwing axe marauders and Eye Dragon. Sorry about that.
I think I lived in a parallel reality, then.
Also, you had the point for 1 infantry and 1 chavalry of chosen. Would have been pointless to have more, too elite and costly.
You filled the rest with either worse quality CW, demons, skirmsishers, light cavalry and hounds, or whatever the fuck you wanted.

I.. I don't even..

>10 attacks lord of Khorne was fine

I see why you guys felt 6th edition was bad.
You are at the same level of the taufags that now complain about their riptide wings.

Albion was the last time i played warhammer. :(

>I said Warriors as an army.

Warriors did not exist as an army at that point.

>This included screamers, throwing axe marauders and Eye Dragon.

Screamers weren't anything to write home about. Throwing axes were a meme before anyone knew the word. Any dragon was cannon bait.

>Would have been pointless to have more

Nope, Chaos used to be playable as an elite army. Horde turned them either unplayable or a bunch of Marauder coming back home from a game of Football.

>riptide
The real casualty was battlesuits, riptides can still park next to sniper drones and spam nova.

6e was bad.
Not just because it neutered Chaos, but because of what it did to the game.
The whole thing devolved into a bunch of MSU try to grapple each other so a MSU of cavalry could smack one in the flank and send everyone running.

The Hordes of infantry that came from later editions (which ultimately killed the game) were a direct reaction to this, and they were welcomed at the time.

>msus are bad
Oh boy, I sure love buying 3 boxes for one single unit.

I enjoyed the first 6ed period, but I see your point.
For later editions, is the usual GW over-fixing stuff, plus their greed coming in the way.

>Warriors did not exist as an army at that point.
What does this even fucking mean
>Screamers weren't anything to write home about.
I think I will end the discussion here. Have a nice day

Yeah, just buy three boxes for three units, two of which will run off the board when the other one gets smakced in the flank by a MSU cav unit.

People liked Fantasy for the glorious regiments and heroes. 6e essentially smacked both into the ground and replaced it with smalls knots of men eyeing each other, daring one to move into charge range so that their "cleverly" positioned MSU cavalry could get of a flank charge while they were held in position.

>it actually made tactics and manouvers a thing
>this is bad
Yes, big grinding fights full of spells removing fistfuls of guys per round that last all game are so much better.

Characters still had a good role. They just were not the unstoppable murdermachines of 5th. Thankfully, I add.

You could build an infantry block, but you needed movement. Too much, I admit, but the bst was 1 big block, 1-2 supports of 1-2 lines, the rest monsters, flyers, skirmishers, heavy cav, light cav.

And yeah, the positioning and flanking, no measuring, was part of the fun. My best gams were with an High Elf friend of mine with a close mindset. Shame 6th ruined his codex.

>manoeuvring is bad REEEEE
>where are my 60 men units and broken spells
8th ed fags, everyone. Now I start to understand AoSfags even too well. Compared to this bullshit, AoS is a paradise.

>two of which will run off the board
Is for people like you that we reached the point in which in GW games morale was a travesty

Not even Ass of Sperg is that bad.

>tactics

More like tactic.

>8th ed fags

But I'm not an 8efag, I'm just pointing out the flaws of 6e. That you can't see that only marks you as a dirty 6efag.

Because I don't like that entire units could run off the board because some horsies ran into the side of some other men?
Fuck you.

Yes, that`s bad, but user, it will be pretty nice to see some ultrasmurf deads, wouldn`t it?

>outmanouvering your opponent and guessing ranges correctly are all bad
And long grindy melees between 40+ wound blocks isn't?
Also maybe you should position your men so a rout doesn't panic and break your entire army.

>And long grindy melees between 40+ wound blocks isn't?

It's better for infantry to have some staying power yes.

>Also maybe you should position your men so a rout doesn't panic and break your entire army.

Maybe if you were playing on a table the size of a football pitch. But with all the little units around requiring space it's very hard to avoid a leg it cascade.

>put infantry within range of general
Wow, so difficult.
Unless you're something like skaven, in which case HAHA.

This conversation convinced me that we utterly and completely deserve all the contempt that GW holds for us.

I thought Age of Sigmar doing well was enough proof.

Fair enough.
wakemeup.jpg

When will they just learn to accept that the imperium and chaos are the main factions of the setting and that they're just bit players? They should be glad they even have armies, not all xenos are so lucky.

But you'd have to get more units to make up the same sized army wouldn't you, how does that make any difference?

As a starter, you don't have to spend so much money on the same copies of the same model for your 40-men unit.

MSU stands for Multiple Small Units right? That's what it means? If so what you're saying makes no sense, why does it matter how many units your army's been split into if you're still paying for the same number of models?

There is a point limit. You can diversify enough instead of buying 40 models of the same unit.
Above, I had 1 unit of Furies and 1 of Screamers as flyers/

BTW, screamers were so strong that even Matt Ward in 7th nerfed them. Anyone saying the opposite CANNOT be taken seriously.

Isn't it Minimum Strength Unit?

Close, MSU means Minimum Size Units, which was taken for many speedbump units in 6th Edition.
Since you'd usually go with a musician + banner + sometimes champion with it, you'd spend more points that way. In addition, armies were generally smaller because everything was more expensive. The standard battle size was 1500 to 2000 points, not 2000 to 2250 in 7th and 3000 in 8th edition. Your rank and file would usually still be fielded in 16 man units, because 4 ranks of 4 gave you maximum rank bonus.

It stands for minimum size unit

>4 ranks of 4 gave you maximum rank bonus.
Fuck I forgot about this.
Fucking GW

>People liked Fantasy for the glorious regiments and heroes
>[being full of shit intensifies]

Infantry was utterly and completely irrelevant before 6th. You were right on the heroes, because most armies were one decked out superlord on the fattest monster you could muster and some chaff to fill out the minimum requirements.

6th Edition is by no means flawless, but it's by far the best Edition past 5th. 1 through 5 are different games than 6 through 8th (+9th Age). The sanest way is to use 6th and apply the better ideas of 7th and 8th, like removing casualties from the back and Magic from 7th, while ignoring the dumb shit like the 5 man ranks or everything about magic from 8th Edition.

You weren't buying that many units.
Also
>no difference from one 80 man unit to 4 20 man units

>6th Edition is by no means flawless, but it's by far the best Edition past 5th. 1 through 5 are different games than 6 through 8th (+9th Age). The sanest way is to use 6th and apply the better ideas of 7th and 8th, like removing casualties from the back and Magic from 7th, while ignoring the dumb shit like the 5 man ranks or everything about magic from 8th Edition.

This matches perfectly my experience as well. 6th needed fixes, but they did the wrong things. Also, they gave codex to people that could not give lees than a shit, see Thornton for HEs.

I remember reading at quote at some point that was something like 'The boss came down and saw us playing, and said that the units didn't look good with the regular guy on only one side, there should be one on the other side, and that's why we made it so you have to be five wide to get rank bonuses because it looks better'

yeah but this forced people into mega-units.

Also, in base of the unit and its role, you could actually choose.
A 6x12 executioners unit played completely differently from a 4x4 with command one.

They want chaos to win because it's chaoa and if chaos wins they can sell us three $60 War for Macragge campaign books

No matter who wins, it'll be primaris vs chaoslets and plaguechads.

Am I doomed to be an NPC if I like the nids?

>xenos
You brought it on yourself.
If humans like the bolter bitches don't get love, why would you stand to hope to have a snowball's chance in the Sahara?

We Tyranid players take on the mantle of the NPC from the beginning.
This is not a bad thing inherently. It is only a bad thing when GW decides to make our rules match that (like with the Cruddexes).
We will never take a major planet, and that's alright - because that would be eliminating someone else's favorite guys.
That said, going 'fuck you for choosing anything other than chaos or marines (because when they say imperium, you know they mean marines)' is dumb, and they should've given some sort of reason for xenos factions to get excited for this other than to rain on everyone else's parade.

what if all the xenos players send in reports on both sides so neither get to do anything

They'll just decide whichever of the two has the least negative score is the winner.
If Chaos is at -400 and Imperial at -399 Imperial wins because it has more points.

then it must be made to be the exact same negative number

Yeah we'll only know if this is SoCII if GW blatantly disregard the results, then massage them to make it look like the baddies are winning and then finally they just pretend it didn't happen.