Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
EightFoldPath wrote: Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
Yeah but thats ok because Tau are bad at close combat, sometimes, when they aren't able to shoot in it, and assuming you even get close enough to charge......
Gadzilla666 wrote: More rumours from B&C courtesy of Clockworkchris. And I remind everyone that these are rumours, and the person providing them says they're coming from early playtest rules, not an actual codex:
Possessed are M9
All "standard weapons", IE bolters, chainswords, lascannons, are the same profile as current.
New stratagems:
+1 to hit for Terminators and Chosen.
Fire Frenzy: Shooting Phase - if a HELLBRUTE has been hit, it can fire at the unit that hit it or the closest enemy unit. (I assume that this is in the opponent's Shooting Phase).
Of course Fire Frenzy would be a strat I guess it's to be expected that Lazcannons wouldn't get a glow up. But how much do you want to bet that Space Marine 2.0 will have something better ?
Gadzilla666 wrote: More rumours from B&C courtesy of Clockworkchris. And I remind everyone that these are rumours, and the person providing them says they're coming from early playtest rules, not an actual codex:
Possessed are M9
All "standard weapons", IE bolters, chainswords, lascannons, are the same profile as current.
New stratagems:
+1 to hit for Terminators and Chosen.
Fire Frenzy: Shooting Phase - if a HELLBRUTE has been hit, it can fire at the unit that hit it or the closest enemy unit. (I assume that this is in the opponent's Shooting Phase).
Of course Fire Frenzy would be a strat I guess it's to be expected that Lazcannons wouldn't get a glow up. But how much do you want to bet that Space Marine 2.0 will have something better ?
And if it does? How much do you want to bet it won't apply to CSM? At least for a loooong time.
Can't let too many things have their own special rules. Have to turn ultra-specific rules that apply to only one unit type into a strat. It's easier for the players. #BESPOKE!!!
DreadfullyHopeful wrote: I guess it's to be expected that Lazcannons wouldn't get a glow up. But how much do you want to bet that Space Marine 2.0 will have something better ?
Las-Talons will get the glow-up. Only* Primaris Marines have them.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And if it does? How much do you want to bet it won't apply to CSM? At least for a loooong time.
Well of course not. Chaos Marines don't have Las-Talons. Only the Legions of Cawl have those.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I really hope those possessed stats are ported over to the Death Guard.
Even chance they just get cut because they're not Death Guard Possessed.
I hope that doesn't happen, but I doubt it will. The fact that the Death Guard ones got rules updates tells me that they're gonna be around. I honestly don't mind if the greater possessed become the normal ones, though I will miss the unique rules and fluff that came them. I just hope that we get a handful of new models to go along with the two others, which the rumors do seem to be suggesting.
I'm prepared for space marine bolt weapons to go up by an extra strength and ap across the board and for that to not apply to Chaos Marines for another 2 years.
drbored wrote: I'm prepared for space marine bolt weapons to go up by an extra strength and ap across the board and for that to not apply to Chaos Marines for another 2 years.
After the fleshborer update ? Wouldn't be surprised.
EightFoldPath wrote: Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
Almost like you agree that a buffed large wound heavy blob is durable and hard to remove, much like the point you were laughing at?
tneva82 wrote: Except tau unit is hard to remove. 2w basic marines. It's as if actually being tough is being tough.
Not to mention tau unit is also major threat.
You mean crisis suits are a poor example because they need nerfing right now? Oddly people aren't taking blast weapons for them either.
Fwiw 20 nurgle marines according to the rumours can be -1 to hit and to wound with transhuman so hardly easy to shift, harder to gauge what threat they'd pose right now.
EightFoldPath wrote: Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
And then you look at the tournament results and see what an absolute problem that setup is.
EightFoldPath wrote: Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
And then you look at the tournament results and see what an absolute problem that setup is.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
EightFoldPath wrote: Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
And then you look at the tournament results and see what an absolute problem that setup is.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
+ Z aura + A icon + B psychic power + C payers + D strat + E legion trait + F not-doctrine
EightFoldPath wrote: Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
And then you look at the tournament results and see what an absolute problem that setup is.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
+ Z aura + A icon + B psychic power + C payers + D strat + E legion trait + F not-doctrine
Yes, probably, which is exactly what I'm afraid of.
And adding to that subject: MORE RUMOURS FOR THE RUMOUR GOD!!! Same source, same "It's a rumour" and "Early playtest rules" disclaimers:
All tanks are the same, and Land Raiders are "still bad ". (BOOOOO. HISSSS. BOOOOO.)
Possessed take up two spaces in transports. (New models on 40mm bases?)
Mark of Tzeentch ability "once per turn per unit".
Mark of Nurgle ability: -1 to wound only IF S=T or S/2>=T. ( Ok, can anyone translate "S/2>=T" ?)
EightFoldPath wrote: Seems possible the Greater Possessed model will become the new Possessed model with that statline.
Also, I just want to make a moment to laugh out loud at the poster saying it would be ludicrous to have a 40 wound unit in the game. How many wounds does a unit of 6 Crisis Battlesuits and 12 Shield Drones have?
Oh, but it must be because they don't have psykers and can't buff the unit up. I too would feel sorry for any unit that can only receive 5+++ FNP, -1 to be hit, -2 to be charged, ignore all hit modifiers, re-roll all hits, re-roll all wounds, +1 to hit, +1 AP, +1 AP (not a typo), fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, gain obsec, advance 8", shoot and move, shoot and do actions.
And then you look at the tournament results and see what an absolute problem that setup is.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
But making combos is also one of the things that makes playing the game fun ? I mean, I agree that when it's overpowered it becomes dismal for everyone involved but how units and rules interact with each-other is important. And from the leaks, looks like we'll have plenty of that.
Mark of Nurgle ability: -1 to wound only IF S=T or S/2>=T. ( Ok, can anyone translate "S/2>=T" ?)
As written? If the attack's strength divided by two is greater than or equal to the targets toughness.
So, a T4 model with the mark of nurgle is -1 to wound, if the strength of the attack is 4 OR 8 or greater. If they're T5 (like the possessed), then S5 or S10 or greater (maybe S9 if you round up).
Its.... really weird and fairly dumb.
Basically a nurgle marine is wounded:
S3 = 5+
S4 = 4+ but -1, so 5+ (because S=T)
S5-S7 = 3+
S8+ = 2+ but -1 so 3+ (because S/2 >= T)
So either 5+ or 3+, always. 5+ for S=T or less, 3+ for strength greater than toughness. I can kinda see what they were going for, but I have absolutely no idea what the fluff justification is. Its helpful against bolters, but also AT-rounds but not heavy machine guns or the lighter lasguns or autoguns.
Also, it seems such a clumsy idea, I'd say there's a greater than average chance that a game of telephone is happening and it isn't quite this stupid. On the other hand, I can see what the aim is (5+ or 3+) and clumsily written rules are GW's whole thing, so... yeah.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Mark of Nurgle ability: -1 to wound only IF S=T or S/2>=T. ( Ok, can anyone translate "S/2>=T" ?)
Written like that it's nonsense. If you flip the arrow around you get "if half weapon strength is smaller or equal to target's toughness, you get to use the ability". Which I assume is what's meant, as double number or double number +1 is the kind of rule GW likes to use for discrimination.
Mark of Nurgle ability: -1 to wound only IF S=T or S/2>=T. ( Ok, can anyone translate "S/2>=T" ?)
As written? If the attack's strength divided by two is greater than or equal to the targets toughness.
So, a T4 model with the mark of nurgle is -1 to wound, if the strength of the attack is 4 OR 8 or greater. If they're T5 (like the possessed), then S5 or S10 or greater (maybe S9 if you round up).
Its.... really weird and fairly dumb.
Basically a nurgle marine is wounded:
S3 = 5+
S4 = 4+ but -1, so 5+ (because S=T)
S5-S7 = 3+
S8+ = 2+ but -1 so 3+ (because S/2 >= T)
So either 5+ or 3+, always. 5+ for S=T or less, 3+ for strength greater than toughness. I can kinda see what they were going for, but I have absolutely no idea what the fluff justification is. Its helpful against bolters, but also AT-rounds but not heavy machine guns or light lasguns or popguns.
Also, it seems such a clumsy idea, I'd say there's a greater than average chance that a game of telephone is happening and it isn't quite this stupid. On the other hand, I can see what the aim is (5+ or 3+) and clumsily written rules are GW's whole thing, so... yeah.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Clockworkchris just wrote it down wrong. Hopefully we'll get some clarification.
The funny thing is, I can see this aimed at addressing the idea that DG rules are supposed to represent their ability to shrug off small arms fire but don't.
So this does address S4 fire (but not 3), while still being really dumb about volcano cannons and crap. Its a weird half measure to fix a problem in another codex that doesn't really fix it (or even apply to the original problem, because its in another codex!)
Voss wrote: The funny thing is, I can see this aimed at addressing the idea that DG rules are supposed to represent their ability to shrug off small arms fire but don't.
So this does address S4 fire (but not 3), while still being really dumb about volcano cannons and crap. Its a weird half measure to fix a problem in another codex that doesn't really fix it (or even apply to the original problem, because its in another codex!)
Hmmm. Maybe it's supposed to be S/2 = OR <T? So the cutoff for the ability working on a T4 model would be S9 or greater (assuming we're rounding up)? That would make some sense. Still odd that you could shrug off bigger guns, but not smaller.>
Automatically Appended Next Post:
clockworkchris9 wrote: The rule is if the attackers S is equal to or doubles (or more) the tougness you gain -1 to wound.
So any 4+ to wound or 2+ to wound get hit with a -1 to wound.
The mathematical equation just felt more natural to me since I work in STEM, and am lazy when it comes to typing on my phone.
Also he says that is is rounding up so s9 and s10 will get -1 to wound vs t5.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also thanks gadzilla for taking the time to share the info from B&C
Balance had to be made for gaining a wound. I know someone is going to immediately reply and say 20 model blobs weren't a problem, but at 40 wounds they would be a problem.
Dudeface wrote: Almost like you agree that a buffed large wound heavy blob is durable and hard to remove, much like the point you were laughing at?
If we accept the following statements:
(A) 9th edition is the power creep edition. The later the codex the more powerful it is.
(B) There are already several examples in 9th edition of 40 wound units.
It seems entirely logical that we can conclude that:
(C) There is no real reason to cap Legionaries at 10 for balance or gameplay reasons. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Black Templar Crusaders - not broken OP.
Tau Crisis Suits - broken OP currently but fixable with a points increase.
CSM Legionaries - if they are broken OP will also be fixable with a points increase.
Interesting statline when you think about it. A 30pts Skorpekh Destroyer is M8 S5 T5 3A 3W 3+. It lacks the invulnerable. SDs weapons are either +1A AP3 D2 or +2S AP4 D3. Possesed are AP2 D2. Both WS3 but SDs have re-roll 1s to hit. Both CORE, INFANTRY. So if they come in at 30 points per model I think with two psychic trees and the dark apostle buffs, better chapter tactics than Necrons, better command protocols, then they should be very good.
I do think if CSM are going to power creep earlier codexes it will be via their unique datasheets, so Daemonkin and Daemon Engines.
The other area for power creep will be if Marks of Chaos are undercosted. So Legionaries might be as weak as Intercessors currently in terms of points to raw stats, but Marks might be so cheap they put the unit back into OP territory.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
I'll challenge you on the anything. Force multipliers multiply based on bodies. Two or three battlesuits would not be so problematic as five.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
I'll challenge you on the anything. Force multipliers multiply based on bodies. Two or three battlesuits would not be so problematic as five.
Possibly, but people will obviously take "enough" to be a problem. And I'd much rather limit the number of buffs that units can have applied to them than start cutting squad sizes. Which would you prefer?
Mark of Nurgle ability: -1 to wound only IF S=T or S/2>=T. ( Ok, can anyone translate "S/2>=T" ?)
But whyyyyyy ?! I mean, I'm all for creative rules but damn ! How come Space Marines (which are obviously the base for our rules) get "if your unit is <thing> spend CP to -1 to wound" while we get this ?
That's the same hammer but used with boxing gloves. It adds nothing !
As we say in France "Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué ?". Guess the design team took it to heart
Balance had to be made for gaining a wound. I know someone is going to immediately reply and say 20 model blobs weren't a problem, but at 40 wounds they would be a problem.
Dudeface wrote: Almost like you agree that a buffed large wound heavy blob is durable and hard to remove, much like the point you were laughing at?
If we accept the following statements:
(A) 9th edition is the power creep edition. The later the codex the more powerful it is.
(B) There are already several examples in 9th edition of 40 wound units.
It seems entirely logical that we can conclude that:
(C) There is no real reason to cap Legionaries at 10 for balance or gameplay reasons. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Black Templar Crusaders - not broken OP.
Tau Crisis Suits - broken OP currently but fixable with a points increase.
CSM Legionaries - if they are broken OP will also be fixable with a points increase.
Other stuff is broken so it's fine if this is broken is not great logic.
Mark of Nurgle ability: -1 to wound only IF S=T or S/2>=T. ( Ok, can anyone translate "S/2>=T" ?)
But whyyyyyy ?! I mean, I'm all for creative rules but damn ! How come Space Marines (which are obviously the base for our rules) get "if your unit is <thing> spend CP to -1 to wound" while we get this ?
That's the same hammer but used with boxing gloves. It adds nothing !
As we say in France "Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué ?". Guess the design team took it to heart
As I keep reminding everyone: according to Clockworkchris' source, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS COMING FROM EARLY PLAYTEST RULES. So, it's entirely possible that they hadn't gotten the wording "quite right" in the rules yet. It may work differently in the final version. Or not. It is gw, after all.
clockworkchris9 wrote: Exactly what gadzilla said. What i get from this is we are getting a -1 to wound ability. When it is applied might be subject to change.
To be fair I'm more confused then anything. But yeah, let's hope so.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
I'll challenge you on the anything. Force multipliers multiply based on bodies. Two or three battlesuits would not be so problematic as five.
Possibly, but people will obviously take "enough" to be a problem. And I'd much rather limit the number of buffs that units can have applied to them than start cutting squad sizes. Which would you prefer?
Fair. Part of it comes down to Abaddon and ignore morale. If that stays in the 20 mans would be hard to get right especially if they get the firstborn discount.
Anything that can have that many buffs is going to be a problem. Here's hoping that WOMBO COMBO is massively toned down for CSM. The only combo that should matter is what you get when you combine (X) unit + (Y) Mark.
I'll challenge you on the anything. Force multipliers multiply based on bodies. Two or three battlesuits would not be so problematic as five.
Possibly, but people will obviously take "enough" to be a problem. And I'd much rather limit the number of buffs that units can have applied to them than start cutting squad sizes. Which would you prefer?
Fair. Part of it comes down to Abaddon and ignore morale. If that stays in the 20 mans would be hard to get right especially if they get the firstborn discount.
Huh? I wasn't arguing for/against the new squad limit for "Legionaries", I was arguing against the absolutely ridiculous amount of buffs that the rules currently allow people to stack on their units. It is beyond out of hand, and if gw ever expects to return any sort of semblance of "balance" to the game, it needs to be reigned in.
DreadfullyHopeful wrote: But whyyyyyy ?! I mean, I'm all for creative rules but damn ! How come Space Marines (which are obviously the base for our rules) get "if your unit is <thing> spend CP to -1 to wound" while we get this? That's the same hammer but used with boxing gloves. It adds nothing !
Because Codices are written in a vaccum. That's why each one has new concepts/mechanics that make you scratch your head.
If I gotta do that sorta math when playing the game, I just won't use Mark of Nurgle on anything, no matter how good it may or may not be.
I dig wombo combos sometimes, but there's a limit to what I'll tolerate. The whole wombo-combo grenade strat that the Death Guard with one of their characters gets is pretty neat. It's relatively straightforward, needing a strat or two and a character being within a certain range.
The more clarifications, restrictions, math, or other things you have to consider, the worse that wombo-combo is.
drbored wrote: If I gotta do that sorta math when playing the game, I just won't use Mark of Nurgle on anything, no matter how good it may or may not be.
The wording is... wordy, but the game effect is simple (and doesn't really involve math on the fly). If strength is more than toughness, than it wounds on a 3+. Otherwise it wounds on a 5+. That's it.
Well...upside the Tzeentch and Nurgle marks aren't actually better than Khorne and Slaanesh... Balance!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting, the 2W Legionnaire stat line only have 2 attacks not the rumored 3. but its Warhammer community they probably just Photoshop'd in the 2W.
Well...upside the Tzeentch and Nurgle marks aren't actually better than Khorne and Slaanesh... Balance!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting, the 2W Legionnaire stat line only have 2 attacks not the rumored 3. but its Warhammer community they probably just Photoshop'd in the 2W.
Maybe? But it also had the buffed Leadership of 8 for the Legionaries, and 9 for the Aspiring Champion. If it is 2A, and we lose Hateful Assault as expected, then we'll be behind loyalists in melee. That ain't right.
Edit: And bolters, bolt pistols, and chainswords are exactly as they are currently. So worse in melee and at shooting than Cawl's overgrown goons.
Voss wrote: No idea why you'd expect the chaos codex in the Adepticon preview. I mean, absolutely none.
This aged well didn't it Voss.
Yep. A picture of a statline and a jumble of pics is definitely the codex.
Was it a nice surprise? Sure.
But lets look at the full quote, shall we:
No idea why you'd expect the chaos codex in the Adepticon preview. I mean, absolutely none. They're in mid-hype about the tyranid book, and rumors point to knights before marines (and said rumormonger has been reliable to a fault so far). At best, I expect a short roadmap of the next three codex releases, but only a vague mention by super faction (imperial, chaos, xenos)
Hmmm, weird.
They did exceed my expectations, but only by a little.
Voss wrote: No idea why you'd expect the chaos codex in the Adepticon preview. I mean, absolutely none.
This aged well didn't it Voss.
Yep. A picture of a statline and a jumble of pics is definitely the codex.
Was it a nice surprise? Sure.
But lets look at the full quote, shall we:
No idea why you'd expect the chaos codex in the Adepticon preview. I mean, absolutely none. They're in mid-hype about the tyranid book, and rumors point to knights before marines (and said rumormonger has been reliable to a fault so far). At best, I expect a short roadmap of the next three codex releases, but only a vague mention by super faction (imperial, chaos, xenos)
Hmmm, weird.
They did exceed my expectations, but only by a little.
Credit where it's due; this is solid spin on being almost completely wrong.
Is he wrong though? Why would anyone expect the Chaos Codex? It's not the next book. It's not even the book after that (or the one after that, as it turns out).
Generally GW previews one thing per game system. BB got a team. Underworld got a Warband. Necromunda got the next box. Horus Heresy almost got a product reveal, and to make up for that AoS got 2 ( ). 40k got Knights, and amazingly, both books, probably because they're coming out at the same time.
How or why should anyone expect more than that, given GW's track record? Remember that one time the Kill-Team preview that was a silly little trailer that showed sweet feth all and maybe hinted at Flayed Ones? Yeah, they're experts at at showing nothing. Expectations go out the window.
I expected a tease because there's not much time left to fit in what is "known" from the leaked schedule for 40k. Not the full Codex but something that would give an indication of an imminent (global issues aside) release. With Nids and the Knights up next that takes us to May for 40k releases which means CSM would have to be June to avoid a clash with HH which has now clearly been pushed back alongside the rest of the 40k schedule.
If we match up a few of the things to the previous rumors of what's coming, then there's my predictions.
New units rumored: New Chaos Cultist unit, Chaos Cultist HQ with bodyguard, Chaos Cultist Icon Bearer, Chaos Marine Possessed, Chaos Marine Bikers, and Chaos Cultist Mutated.
Spoiler:
-Chaos Biker. Only unit with a normal-looking face/chest/shoulder chaos marine.
Spoiler:
-Could be the chaos bodyguard, an icon-bearer in the Cultist unit, or an icon that the Possessed can take.
Spoiler:
-Chaos Cultist
Spoiler:
-Possessed
Spoiler:
-Rumored Cultist Icon bearer, the fanciest icon we've seen so far.
Spoiler:
-Possessed - it's got a normal-looking hand but a very weird looking kneepad.
Spoiler:
-Possessed - a backpack vent with an eye perhaps?
Spoiler:
-Rumored mutated cultists that were supposed to be 'monstrously horrible' according to rumors. Fits the bill.
Well...upside the Tzeentch and Nurgle marks aren't actually better than Khorne and Slaanesh... Balance!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting, the 2W Legionnaire stat line only have 2 attacks not the rumored 3. but its Warhammer community they probably just Photoshop'd in the 2W.
Maybe? But it also had the buffed Leadership of 8 for the Legionaries, and 9 for the Aspiring Champion. If it is 2A, and we lose Hateful Assault as expected, then we'll be behind loyalists in melee. That ain't right.
Edit: And bolters, bolt pistols, and chainswords are exactly as they are currently. So worse in melee and at shooting than Cawl's overgrown goons.
Confirms the 5-10 cap as well and power level 6 is about 120, so points for 2 wounds are about right.
Well...upside the Tzeentch and Nurgle marks aren't actually better than Khorne and Slaanesh... Balance!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting, the 2W Legionnaire stat line only have 2 attacks not the rumored 3. but its Warhammer community they probably just Photoshop'd in the 2W.
Maybe? But it also had the buffed Leadership of 8 for the Legionaries, and 9 for the Aspiring Champion. If it is 2A, and we lose Hateful Assault as expected, then we'll be behind loyalists in melee. That ain't right.
Edit: And bolters, bolt pistols, and chainswords are exactly as they are currently. So worse in melee and at shooting than Cawl's overgrown goons.
Confirms the 5-10 cap as well and power level 6 is about 120, so points for 2 wounds are about right.
Should be noted that Tactical Marines and both kinds of Troop Intercessors are Power Level 5, though this is probably just GW putting the cost of marks and icons into the base PL of the Legionaires and not a sign that they'll have a higher base cost than Intercessors
drbored wrote: If we match up a few of the things to the previous rumors of what's coming, then there's my predictions.
New units rumored: New Chaos Cultist unit, Chaos Cultist HQ with bodyguard, Chaos Cultist Icon Bearer, Chaos Marine Possessed, Chaos Marine Bikers, and Chaos Cultist Mutated.
Spoiler:
-Chaos Biker. Only unit with a normal-looking face/chest/shoulder chaos marine.
Spoiler:
-Could be the chaos bodyguard, an icon-bearer in the Cultist unit, or an icon that the Possessed can take.
Spoiler:
-Chaos Cultist
Spoiler:
-Possessed
Spoiler:
-Rumored Cultist Icon bearer, the fanciest icon we've seen so far.
Spoiler:
-Possessed - it's got a normal-looking hand but a very weird looking kneepad.
Spoiler:
-Possessed - a backpack vent with an eye perhaps?
Spoiler:
-Rumored mutated cultists that were supposed to be 'monstrously horrible' according to rumors. Fits the bill.
Thanks for the overview ! I agree with you except for the hand holding the helmet. I'd say it's from the biker kit !
Praying to the Ruinious Powers they show at least one model for the Monday Preview. Though we're probably due for a Warhammer+ subscriber model reveal, which is also chaos marine themed.
I never cared for the BSF Cultist of the Abyss models, which is what it looks like we're getting (and rumors hinted at). Definitely more of a fan of the Dark Vengeance models, though at least the new cultist have flame icons all over them so they'd be great for WBs
You know I should be mad that our Codex is now after both Nids and Knights, but I got into an argument with a Redditor who assured me we would be getting our Codex in April and I should "stop bitching", so its gonna be real nice to tell him how wrong he was
Interestingly enough some of these rumors like the 3 attacks base are being disproven, here's fingers crossed that the no Jumppacks for lords and weird equipment rules are wrong too. The equipment rules for chosen would shelf 4 of my squads but the no Jumppacks for Lords would absolutely kill me, I don't have a single power armored lord without wings or a jetpack
Sorry might have missed it in the many pages of this thread, but is there any indication that traitor guard like the ones in BSF will be included in the codex or is it just cultists still?
Lokuste wrote: Sorry might have missed it in the many pages of this thread, but is there any indication that traitor guard like the ones in BSF will be included in the codex or is it just cultists still?
Supposedly traitor guard are part of the dex, along the line of BSF style cultists.
--------------
Tbh, i found the trailer gak.
Also getting memed for the 2 wounds is really low, the cultists were a bunch of worthless backsides and considering we kinda have to go on with no traits for them, why bother ?
Well...upside the Tzeentch and Nurgle marks aren't actually better than Khorne and Slaanesh... Balance!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting, the 2W Legionnaire stat line only have 2 attacks not the rumored 3. but its Warhammer community they probably just Photoshop'd in the 2W.
Maybe? But it also had the buffed Leadership of 8 for the Legionaries, and 9 for the Aspiring Champion. If it is 2A, and we lose Hateful Assault as expected, then we'll be behind loyalists in melee. That ain't right.
Edit: And bolters, bolt pistols, and chainswords are exactly as they are currently. So worse in melee and at shooting than Cawl's overgrown goons.
Personally, I think First Born are more flexible and useful than Primaris. The only reason we don't see them more is because mostly, because people like new models and marine infantry isn't making waves. At the very least it means we'll get a slight discount on points, which is great for loading up on specials and heavies.
Well...upside the Tzeentch and Nurgle marks aren't actually better than Khorne and Slaanesh... Balance!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting, the 2W Legionnaire stat line only have 2 attacks not the rumored 3. but its Warhammer community they probably just Photoshop'd in the 2W.
Maybe? But it also had the buffed Leadership of 8 for the Legionaries, and 9 for the Aspiring Champion. If it is 2A, and we lose Hateful Assault as expected, then we'll be behind loyalists in melee. That ain't right.
Edit: And bolters, bolt pistols, and chainswords are exactly as they are currently. So worse in melee and at shooting than Cawl's overgrown goons.
Personally, I think First Born are more flexible and useful than Primaris. The only reason we don't see them more is because mostly, because people like new models and marine infantry isn't making waves. At the very least it means we'll get a slight discount on points, which is great for loading up on specials and heavies.
Eh, I think you're partially correct. If my math is right, and so are the rumours for what the various Marks and Icons do, then a properly Marked + Icon unit of "Legionaries" will be able to beat intercessors in a fistfight. So they'll probably be cheaper base (possibly even cheaper than TACs), but once you start spending points on "extras" they'll be better than loyalists. So you can go "cheaper but worse", or "more expensive, but better". Sounds.... familiar.
Lokuste wrote: Sorry might have missed it in the many pages of this thread, but is there any indication that traitor guard like the ones in BSF will be included in the codex or is it just cultists still?
Supposedly traitor guard are part of the dex, along the line of BSF style cultists.
--------------
Tbh, i found the trailer gak.
Also getting memed for the 2 wounds is really low, the cultists were a bunch of worthless backsides and considering we kinda have to go on with no traits for them, why bother ?
I think one of the reasons I resent being memed for this is because GW is drawing attention to one of their own glaring flaws: consistency.
There wouldn't be a meme if they had just kept Chaos Marine wound-count consistent with the rest of the game. Two years ago they could have updated the wound and points in a chapter approved. Instead, they strung us along and have us as one of the last codexes of the edition. Tyranids, Chaos Knights, and Imperial Knights will come out ahead of us, and then only Chaos Daemons and Astra Militarum will be left afterwards.
GW really needs to address their own internal consistency when it comes to supporting their own product and game. If they want us to buy all those extra books they keep pumping out, then they need to make sure its worthwhile to do so.
alextroy wrote: Depends on how many special/heavy weapons you can put in a 5 model squad. And don’t forget the KT specialist.
Yeah, it's kinda hard to judge points by power level, because they assume you'll be taking some optional stuff. Still interesting to note that Plague Marines, Rubrics, and Grey Knights Strikes are also all 6 PL, considering how many special rules those units have "baked in". Maybe there's something else further down that datasheet that we haven't seen yet?
Power level factors in cost of all possible upgrades, so between marks and unit equipment it could be possible for a CSM squad to have a higher cost than loyalist
I surely miss the days of 3 weapon Chaos marines. I also wish Khorne Berserkers could take bolters again, just for us old farts with vintage collections
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Should be noted that Tactical Marines and both kinds of Troop Intercessors are Power Level 5, though this is probably just GW putting the cost of marks and icons into the base PL of the Legionaires and not a sign that they'll have a higher base cost than Intercessors
Eh, I think you're partially correct. If my math is right, and so are the rumours for what the various Marks and Icons do, then a properly Marked + Icon unit of "Legionaries" will be able to beat intercessors in a fistfight. So they'll probably be cheaper base (possibly even cheaper than TACs), but once you start spending points on "extras" they'll be better than loyalists. So you can go "cheaper but worse", or "more expensive, but better". Sounds.... familiar.
Eh so you are better than objective campers. Whoo. How about actual threat? Basic marines are there to be obsec bodies on objective you trade for vp's. Not for killing.
Dudeface wrote: Via a friend of a poster on B&C (because we never get our own news on dakka) who was in attendance for the Q&A at the preview.
CSM may be after the army set, but before the Knights codices
This does confuse me greatly NGL.
If I understand this: Nid dex -> New Knights in a box with a limited release of the knight dex -> csm dex -> actual knight dex
Aye gotta milk fomo with the knight codex box and allow for preorder milking...
Gotta love GW pulling a worst practices study on the videogaming industry and then adopting them...
Dudeface wrote: Via a friend of a poster on B&C (because we never get our own news on dakka) who was in attendance for the Q&A at the preview.
CSM may be after the army set, but before the Knights codices
This does confuse me greatly NGL.
If I understand this: Nid dex -> New Knights in a box with a limited release of the knight dex -> csm dex -> actual knight dex
I envisioned that given the size of the CSM release it'll be a 2-3 week job or 2 waves, so it might be Nids > Army box > CSM wave 1 > Knights & chaos knights > CSM wave 2 maybe. Either way it looks like May as a guess.
Aye gotta milk fomo with the knight codex box and allow for preorder milking...
Gotta love GW pulling a worst practices study on the videogaming industry and then adopting them...
Yes, because FOMO is totally going to be a thing with an all-in-one army set done two months before general release. That will probably be left to rot on shelves and end up having to get sent back, like the previous army sets have.
Dudeface wrote: Via a friend of a poster on B&C (because we never get our own news on dakka) who was in attendance for the Q&A at the preview.
CSM may be after the army set, but before the Knights codices
This does confuse me greatly NGL.
If I understand this: Nid dex -> New Knights in a box with a limited release of the knight dex -> csm dex -> actual knight dex
Yeah, a big gap between the limited relase 'Dex and the actual 'Dex was how it went the last time a 'Dex was shoved into an army box, aka the 9th ed Ork one.
Aye gotta milk fomo with the knight codex box and allow for preorder milking...
Gotta love GW pulling a worst practices study on the videogaming industry and then adopting them...
Yes, because FOMO is totally going to be a thing with an all-in-one army set done two months before general release. That will probably be left to rot on shelves and end up having to get sent back, like the previous army sets have.
Preorder practices are still gak and have said effect kan.
Aye gotta milk fomo with the knight codex box and allow for preorder milking...
Gotta love GW pulling a worst practices study on the videogaming industry and then adopting them...
Yes, because FOMO is totally going to be a thing with an all-in-one army set done two months before general release. That will probably be left to rot on shelves and end up having to get sent back, like the previous army sets have.
Preorder practices are still gak and have said effect kan.
How is anyone "missing out" when GW now produce enough army boxes to cover all the orders placed, leaving scalpers with way less incentive to buy all the stock?
The only thing that would even incentivize FOMO is if there's a really nice limited codex included, or they do what they've never done with any of these boxes and released some exclusive model that can only be obtained from the box.
drbored wrote: \There wouldn't be a meme if they had just kept Chaos Marine wound-count consistent with the rest of the game. Two years ago they could have updated the wound and points in a chapter approved.
Even if they had these posts would instead be talking about having to wait for the codex as CSM would still be comparatively underpowered.
GW really needs to address their own internal consistency when it comes to supporting their own product and game. If they want us to buy all those extra books they keep pumping out, then they need to make sure its worthwhile to do so.
Eh, I think you're partially correct. If my math is right, and so are the rumours for what the various Marks and Icons do, then a properly Marked + Icon unit of "Legionaries" will be able to beat intercessors in a fistfight. So they'll probably be cheaper base (possibly even cheaper than TACs), but once you start spending points on "extras" they'll be better than loyalists. So you can go "cheaper but worse", or "more expensive, but better". Sounds.... familiar.
Eh so you are better than objective campers. Whoo. How about actual threat? Basic marines are there to be obsec bodies on objective you trade for vp's. Not for killing.
It's more of a "thematic" thing. Basically "My objective campers can beat your objective campers". Hopefully that will carry over into the other "equivalent" units. Point taken, though.
There was a little over a month between army set to general release there.
But has this happened before? IE: Army Set for faction (X), then codex/model release for faction (Y), then stand alone codex for faction (X)? I can't really remember at this point.
There was a little over a month between army set to general release there.
But has this happened before? IE: Army Set for faction (X), then codex/model release for faction (Y), then stand alone codex for faction (X)? I can't really remember at this point.
Pretty sure yes?
We've had 4 army sets, all told. Lumineth were the first ones, Sisters of Battle were the second, Beast Snaggas third, and Black Templars fourth.
There was a little over a month between army set to general release there.
But has this happened before? IE: Army Set for faction (X), then codex/model release for faction (Y), then stand alone codex for faction (X)? I can't really remember at this point.
Pretty sure yes?
We've had 4 army sets, all told. Lumineth were the first ones, Sisters of Battle were the second, Beast Snaggas third, and Black Templars fourth.
And all but the Sisters one sat around for forever. I literally just bought a Templar one yesterday for cost because stores here are just sitting on useless stock.
Disco lord
-Is now 9w
-the melee weapons have changed to be additional attacks with claws and tail (dont quite understand this one, asking for more detail)
Cultist HQ -its a squad, with a banner, a priest and a psyker, + some extra bullet catchers
Disco lord
-Is now 9w
-the melee weapons have changed to be additional attacks with claws and tail (dont quite understand this one, asking for more detail)
Interesting. At 9 wounds, I take it there is no degrading profile?
additional attacks sounds like chainswords or scything talons. (and the tails on the carnifex- +x attacks and only those attacks at a different profile)
Cultist HQ -its a squad, with a banner, a priest and a psyker, + some extra bullet catchers
Ooooo Here's to hope.
This also gives some hope for Guard and getting command squads back, rather than the current disjointed mess.
Disco lord
-Is now 9w
-the melee weapons have changed to be additional attacks with claws and tail (dont quite understand this one, asking for more detail)
Cultist HQ -its a squad, with a banner, a priest and a psyker, + some extra bullet catchers
No commander? Just a priest and a psyker.
yay
so more regression
Disco lord
-Is now 9w
-the melee weapons have changed to be additional attacks with claws and tail (dont quite understand this one, asking for more detail)
Cultist HQ -its a squad, with a banner, a priest and a psyker, + some extra bullet catchers
No commander? Just a priest and a psyker.
yay
so more regression
I don't think calling it a regression is fair, this isn't codex renegades and heretics, or traitor guard. Chaos marines haven’t lost a chaos company commander, it's not something they'd regressed on per se.
Disco lord
-Is now 9w
-the melee weapons have changed to be additional attacks with claws and tail (dont quite understand this one, asking for more detail)
Cultist HQ -its a squad, with a banner, a priest and a psyker, + some extra bullet catchers
Thanks for the news ! The cultist HQ team is something I would've liked for a troupe choice for TS. I'm curious about about what the sculpts will be like.
Disco lord
-Is now 9w
-the melee weapons have changed to be additional attacks with claws and tail (dont quite understand this one, asking for more detail)
Cultist HQ -its a squad, with a banner, a priest and a psyker, + some extra bullet catchers
alextroy wrote: Depends on how many special/heavy weapons you can put in a 5 model squad. And don’t forget the KT specialist.
Chaos Space Marines have strictly followed the Codex Astartes since the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was released.
Of all the many complaints I've had about their approach to Chaos, nothing compares to how bland and rigid the options have been for what should be the most eclectic and varied faction
Thanks ! They look nice and aren't that expensive... wait ! Why only 8 ?! I mean, I know it's because they come from blackstone. But still...
Also, one of them has a different base size to the rest, and is vaguely taller than them (because he was originally a unique enemy in BSF instead of a generic cultist).
ArcaneHorror wrote: I'm hoping that we get a new terminator Lord soon. I like the old model, but it's definitely showing its age.
Yeah agreed. I'd prioritise a power armoured lord ala Autarch/Canoness as the priority though
It would be really nice if it remained a dual build kit with a Terminator Sorcerer as well.
With options? Preferably!
But the new pricetag will probably be insane.
Some options would be fine, but honestly I'd prefer to have the game condensed. For gameplay, nothing is worse than 1-2 alpha choices and 10 useless bits that never get even passable rules.
Thanks ! They look nice and aren't that expensive... wait ! Why only 8 ?! I mean, I know it's because they come from blackstone. But still...
I'm guessing that when the new cultist kit comes out, two new models that we haven't seen yet will be coming out alongside these ones.
clockworkchris9 wrote:Some new info
No unit with the bodyguard rule
Disco lord
-Is now 9w
-the melee weapons have changed to be additional attacks with claws and tail (dont quite understand this one, asking for more detail)
Cultist HQ -its a squad, with a banner, a priest and a psyker, + some extra bullet catchers
While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
On the flipside, losing those 3 wounds actually improves his chances of making it into combat.
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
On the flipside, losing those 3 wounds actually improves his chances of making it into combat.
Agreed.
Losing 3 wounds for no degrading stats is usually a slight buff for a standard vehicle.
Losing 3 wounds for no degrading stats and getting look out sir protection is a massive buff for a character vehicle.
So I still don't understand on how the bundle boxes are fear-of-missing-out product. I understand the buy-all-this-other-stuff-to-get-the-new-thing angle, but what is the thing people are afraid of missing that generates extra sales?
Like don't get me wrong it's still douchey and pointlessly so because they could release the component individually alongside the bundle and the bundles would still sell out, but I don't see the FOMO aspect.
If these boxes are like the Knight boxes of a couple of years ago then I can understand the FOMO. I don't recall the details of the deal but it was something like BOGO or buy 2 get one free. It was a great deal and it was for a limited time only.
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
On the flipside, losing those 3 wounds actually improves his chances of making it into combat.
Agreed.
Losing 3 wounds for no degrading stats is usually a slight buff for a standard vehicle.
Losing 3 wounds for no degrading stats and getting look out sir protection is a massive buff for a character vehicle.
The worst part is always degrading movement. Especially in the IGOUGO setup, you can just kill a vehicle 2/3 the way and be safe because it can't move to catch up with you.
While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
Its worth pointing out that several things that 'lost' wounds recently also got damage reduction. Dunno if that will be the case here, but it makes a difference, especially against the 'quantity' antitank guns like heavy bolters and autocannons, which are neutered severely.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Some designer over at GW must be getting paid a little too much given the obvious CAD assets reuse.
I'm going out on a limb and saying it's an intentional choice to tie the new models in with the BSF ones so people can mix the sets without a clash of visuals.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Some designer over at GW must be getting paid a little too much given the obvious CAD assets reuse.
I'm going out on a limb and saying it's an intentional choice to tie the new models in with the BSF ones so people can mix the sets without a clash of visuals.
The original (and so far very accurate) Big Rumordump said that both the Cultists and Traitor Guardsmen were "Blackstone Fortress style", so I'd say that's a fairly sturdy limb.
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.
If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.
If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?
That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.
One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.
If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?
That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.
One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.
But there's already faction favoritism. By humongous leaps and bounds. If you're not Space Marine, you're going to be sitting on your thumbs for 5+ years hoping that you'll get an update to the section of your model line that's still resin/ancient plastic this edition or next.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So I still don't understand on how the bundle boxes are fear-of-missing-out product. I understand the buy-all-this-other-stuff-to-get-the-new-thing angle, but what is the thing people are afraid of missing that generates extra sales?
Like don't get me wrong it's still douchey and pointlessly so because they could release the component individually alongside the bundle and the bundles would still sell out, but I don't see the FOMO aspect.
Just the fact that once the box will be released the accompanying warcom article and web page will be plastered with: "Limited time offer ! Get it while you can !!TM(C)(R)" is enough to make it a dodgy practice. Whether or not the products are actually limited afterward. But what pushes it over the edge for me is that there also will be the caveat of: "Get your codex 1 and an half/2 months before anyone else !"
What do TOs do in that situation? I mean you have a few people with the "newest" rules but those rules aren't "officially" released to the general public. So if Player A comes in with the new rules (and presumably points) and Player B comes into the event with the "current" rules which player is told "No, you can't use those rules."?
That wasn't my question. Let me put it this way- A TO states that only rules released prior to April 30 will be used. GW releases the new limited edition box set April 29. The release includes new points/rules. The release of the new Codex isn't until sometime in June (after the event). Most people won't have access to an "official copy" of these new rules due to the low number of copies available. When 2 players show up with 2 different "official rule books" what is the TO supposed to do?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: That wasn't my question. Let me put it this way- A TO states that only rules released prior to April 30 will be used. GW releases the new limited edition box set April 29. The release includes new points/rules. The release of the new Codex isn't until sometime in June (after the event). Most people won't have access to an "official copy" of these new rules due to the low number of copies available. When 2 players show up with 2 different "official rule books" what is the TO supposed to do?
Iirc with orks they enforced the old book until general release, but that wasn't uniformal and is ofc at the TO discretion.
dan2026 wrote: Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex? Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.
Given that everything but Demons and Guard have been released/announced, I'd say dead last.
GW are probably taking their time working out wtf they want to do with Daemons They're the only faction in the game that doesn't have subfactions in the same way the others do, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear if someone wanted that changed
EDIT: I'm fully expecting the Warp Storm chart to return as their mono-faction bonus though
dan2026 wrote: Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex?
Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.
Given that everything but Demons and Guard have been released/announced, I'd say dead last.
GW are probably taking their time working out wtf they want to do with Daemons
They're the only faction in the game that doesn't have subfactions in the same way the others do, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear if someone wanted that changed
EDIT: I'm fully expecting the Warp Storm chart to return as their mono-faction bonus though
Seeing the state of 9th, I'd wager for an army wide 4++ at this point !
dan2026 wrote: Has there been any rumours as to when Daemons might be getting a new codex?
Feels like they have been kind of forgotten.
Given that everything but Demons and Guard have been released/announced, I'd say dead last.
GW are probably taking their time working out wtf they want to do with Daemons
They're the only faction in the game that doesn't have subfactions in the same way the others do, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear if someone wanted that changed
EDIT: I'm fully expecting the Warp Storm chart to return as their mono-faction bonus though
Seeing the state of 9th, I'd wager for an army wide 4++ at this point !
I'm going with the whole faction ignoring invuls and having life steal like the Nightbringer. GD up to toughness 8 and 4++.
You'll get more psychic boosts now. I don't see how GW can put out a daemon codex with GD not having T8 and a 4++, might as well not have them in this era of 40k otherwise!
You'll get more psychic boosts now. I don't see how GW can put out a daemon codex with GD not having T8 and a 4++, might as well not have them in this era of 40k otherwise!
I ain't gonna complain about it being easy to shoot Bloodthirsters or Great Unclean Ones off the table.
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.
If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?
That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.
One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.
But there's already faction favoritism. By humongous leaps and bounds. If you're not Space Marine, you're going to be sitting on your thumbs for 5+ years hoping that you'll get an update to the section of your model line that's still resin/ancient plastic this edition or next.
That's true, I'm just worried that creating different wound degradation levels for different models would create unnecessary friction in the community.
What I'm really looking forward to are the ways that one can create a custom warband. I wonder what new traits and relics we might see?
ArcaneHorror wrote: While I like the fact that the Lord Discordant won't be degrading, cutting away three wounds sounds a bit excessive. I would prefer if the number of wounds one lost before degrading was raised to ten. It's not a major issue, though.
I'd prefer if it they gave degrading statlines to things that they felt deserved them, and regular statlines to things that they felt deserved those, and lost this arbitrary 10 and above nonsense.
If everything is bespoke these days, how come that facet of the rules is so rigidly enforced when it is something they could ignore on a whim?
That's a good point, but I'm worried that alot of people would start complaining about it creating more imbalance and lead to accusations of faction favoritism.
One thing I want to see in the new codex is for the Master of Executions to be give an invuln save or FNP. For being a unit meant to be in the thick of it, he's pretty fragile.
But there's already faction favoritism. By humongous leaps and bounds. If you're not Space Marine, you're going to be sitting on your thumbs for 5+ years hoping that you'll get an update to the section of your model line that's still resin/ancient plastic this edition or next.
That's true, I'm just worried that creating different wound degradation levels for different models would create unnecessary friction in the community.
What I'm really looking forward to are the ways that one can create a custom warband. I wonder what new traits and relics we might see?
I have already released quite a few custom warbands traits.
GW needs to decide if DoC are an army, or if the daemons of each god are an army. They have had mixed daemons work in the past, in AoS they put daemons and mortals of the same god each in their own book (analogous to DG+DoN, WE+DoK, etc) and it works really well. The approach of having four half-armies in the same book with counter-synergy between them does not work.
IMO it ties back to them deciding Undivided would not longer be a thing (a mistake IMO). But they don't even seem totally sure on that either. How are they going to manage Peterabo anyways?
They should either follow the AoS model and do "Forces of Tzeentch", "Forces of Khorne", etc. mixed with their corresponding mortals (Thousand Sons, Tzaangors, etc.) or split Daemons into 4 codecies (Daemons of Tzeentch, Daemons of Khorne, etc.).
I am not confident that Daemons can ever really be balanced or get the attention they need to function within the monogod identity construct that GW has been pursuing thus far if they leave them in one book. The mixed god armies have all either been OP or underpowered to the point of being borderline unplayable, or otherwise struggled from massive internal balance issues that made the units of specific gods basically useless.
Going off of Total War Warhammer 3, Daemons don't have enough depth to be 4 separate armies. There just aren't enough Daemonic units in the game to allow them to function that way.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Going off of Total War Warhammer 3, Daemons don't have enough depth to be 4 separate armies. There just aren't enough Daemonic units in the game to allow them to function that way.
A solution easily remedied by a company that constantly produces new and often semi-redundant model kits in order to keep the wheels of commerce turning. It would take all of 2-3 new kits per God in order to adequately flesh them out as properly balanceable mid-tier standalone monogod factions.
In any case its kind of a moot point, because as it stands they are already 4 separate armies sharing a common codex - I can't take khorne juggernauts to support my Tzeentch army without losing access to my Tzeentch detachment/army special rules, remember?
Crimson wrote: Daemons should have never been a separate army.
Do you also say Space Wolves and all the other Marine Chapters that had their own Codecs should never have been separate armies?
I do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean at this point the genie is out of the bottle, but my preference would have been to leave "space marines" as a single faction with special characters and additional chapter special rules to represent their differences rather than spinning off all of these armies that have generally negligible distinctions from one another. Codex Supplements strike me as a better way to have handled a really distinctive SM variant like Space Wolves (whereas I'm not sure that Blood Angels or Dark Angels are really distinctive enough to warrant the same treatment). I think Deathwatch and Grey Knights are probably the only two that could really justify their own separate books.
chaos0xomega wrote: A solution easily remedied by a company that constantly produces new and often semi-redundant model kits in order to keep the wheels of commerce turning. It would take all of 2-3 new kits per God in order to adequately flesh them out as properly balanceable mid-tier standalone monogod factions.
That's a lot of kits to flesh out a thin army. Remember Harlis just got folded back into the Eldar Codex. I think Daemons should have the same thing done to them with the upcoming Chaos 'Dex. They won't, but they should.
chaos0xomega wrote: In any case its kind of a moot point, because as it stands they are already 4 separate armies sharing a common codex - I can't take khorne juggernauts to support my Tzeentch army without losing access to my Tzeentch detachment/army special rules, remember?
That's just the end result of GW's eyes being too big for their stomach. They want to make mono-God armies, but don't produce enough to warrant such armies existing (in 40k), but put it in anyway, leaving us with the hollow lists we have now.
It's not a problem in AoS, because Daemons and Mortals are in the same book. If you could do mono-God armies of Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons, 1KSons and Tzeentchian Daemons, then we'd be onto something.
Crimson wrote: Daemons should have never been a separate army.
Do you also say Space Wolves and all the other Marine Chapters that had their own Codecs should never have been separate armies?
I do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean at this point the genie is out of the bottle, but my preference would have been to leave "space marines" as a single faction with special characters and additional chapter special rules to represent their differences rather than spinning off all of these armies that have generally negligible distinctions from one another. Codex Supplements strike me as a better way to have handled a really distinctive SM variant like Space Wolves (whereas I'm not sure that Blood Angels or Dark Angels are really distinctive enough to warrant the same treatment). I think Deathwatch and Grey Knights are probably the only two that could really justify their own separate books.
Alright. That's fair-I appreciate the consistency.
Crimson wrote: Daemons should have never been a separate army.
Do you also say Space Wolves and all the other Marine Chapters that had their own Codecs should never have been separate armies?
I do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean at this point the genie is out of the bottle, but my preference would have been to leave "space marines" as a single faction with special characters and additional chapter special rules to represent their differences rather than spinning off all of these armies that have generally negligible distinctions from one another. Codex Supplements strike me as a better way to have handled a really distinctive SM variant like Space Wolves (whereas I'm not sure that Blood Angels or Dark Angels are really distinctive enough to warrant the same treatment). I think Deathwatch and Grey Knights are probably the only two that could really justify their own separate books.
Alright. That's fair-I appreciate the consistency.
That's not the person you asked though LOL
Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.
I’m optimistic Emperors Children / Noise Marines will be boosted and overall CSM balanced and boosted as well. I’m pretty happy with where my Craftworld are at and it seems the need codexes are decent. Sure there will be FAQ for any OP stuff but that’s alwYs how they do it. Should be in a good place
warpedpig wrote: I’m optimistic Emperors Children / Noise Marines will be boosted and overall CSM balanced and boosted as well. I’m pretty happy with where my Craftworld are at and it seems the need codexes are decent. Sure there will be FAQ for any OP stuff but that’s alwYs how they do it. Should be in a good place
Well, EC/NM are inherently getting a nerf if rumors are true. Losing the shoots twice strat is bad for them (even though I don't think anyone should get that). I don't think they'll recover until they get their own book (for good or bad).
Codex as a whole.. eh. Too early to tell, despite all the rumors, they're in pieces which makes it hard to judge the whole thing.
They don't share the majority of their unit options, for starters...
At any rate, DoC don't work as their own book unless mixed god armies are made viable. And we should remember that was very much the concept of the original books; the different specialized units covered different roles and allowed the army as a whole to function. Their rosters were clearly designed to support that, the fluff included portions explicitly explaining it, and it is a facet that still runs strongly. In AoS they got the new direction to work (quite well, I might add) by combining the dedicated mortal & daemon sides. I don't know why they are so reluctant to do the same thing in 40k, especially considering how well received it has been.
warpedpig wrote: I’m optimistic Emperors Children / Noise Marines will be boosted and overall CSM balanced and boosted as well. I’m pretty happy with where my Craftworld are at and it seems the need codexes are decent. Sure there will be FAQ for any OP stuff but that’s alwYs how they do it. Should be in a good place
Well, EC/NM are inherently getting a nerf if rumors are true. Losing the shoots twice strat is bad for them (even though I don't think anyone should get that). I don't think they'll recover until they get their own book (for good or bad).
Codex as a whole.. eh. Too early to tell, despite all the rumors, they're in pieces which makes it hard to judge the whole thing.
Eh, ignoring all negative modifiers to hit, getting +1AP on 6s to wound, and getting double exploding 6s in melee while "in doctrine" sounds pretty good. Though that might just be because of what I'm comparing it too.
Definitely agreed about judging the codex as a whole based off of these piecemeal leaks. Especially since we've already seen some stuff has already changed since they were playtested.
Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.
6-fishing (or crit fishing, if you prefer), just doesn't appeal to me. Too much luck, not enough strategy. Bad rolls make it feel bad, and good rolls (especially if you're doubling or tripling down on it) just feel extraordinarily oppressive for the opponent. Its pretty much the opposite of fun for somebody no matter which way it breaks.
Voss wrote: Ah. Its a design philosophy thing for me.
Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.
6-fishing (or crit fishing, if you prefer), just doesn't appeal to me. Too much luck, not enough strategy. Bad rolls make it feel bad, and good rolls (especially if you're doubling or tripling down on it) just feel extraordinarily oppressive for the opponent. Its pretty much the opposite of fun for somebody no matter which way it breaks.
I wouldn't mind Daemons playing a more important role in the Chaos Marine codex, but because they already have their own codex (and we see how GW is really trying not to print the same datasheet in multiple codices), I don't see that happening.
The best thing they can do right now is to have Daemons be their own Codex. None of the factions are big enough in 40k to warrant their own Codex. They work in AoS because half of each battletome is made up of extra mortals that fill things out nicely.
AoS also has Slaves to Darkness, which is where all the Undivided stuff gets lumped into. 40k doesn't really have that yet. Even Chaos Marines as it will be will still have Noise Marines and Emperor's Children baked in, so it's not fully 'undivided' and won't be until Emperor's Children gets their own thing.
And even if it does, Chaos Marines doesn't represent all the other forms of chaos, like renegades and heretics, which SHOULD be its own thing.
For GW to apply AoS logic to 40k would bean that the Chaos Daemons would each be baked into their respective Chaos Marine Codex (Nurgle Daemons in Death Guard, etc), and then have a Renegades and Heretics book that has everything from Cultists to Traitor Guard to Chaos Marines filling out the 'undivided' (just like they have cultists, marauders, and chaos knights in AoS)
Trouble with that is the same issue someone has in AoS when they want to play multiple gods: they need multiple dexes, which just gets cumbersome FAST if you want to do undivided chaos daemons.
It's a mess, and not one that I would want to be in charge of handling, because no matter what you do, people won't be happy. Either you keep everything in one book and have a bunch of arbitrary 'fluffy' rules that strips synergy out of the entire faction, or you break it all up long-term, making people with undivided armies have to buy 4x the number of books to play the same army.
JWBS wrote: I suppose they really need some sort of undivided unit then that can sit in all or multiple factions (Furies and such).
Not giving Furies an undivided mark instead of making them god aligned was such a mistake. Their whole shtick is supposed to be that their unaligned scavengers instead of any major force of Chaos.
Voss wrote: Ah. Its a design philosophy thing for me.
Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.
This definitely irks me too. I'd have preferred that the rule is to ignore the first negative modifier to hit and that we had more negative modifiers + more units with a higher BS/WS instead of the GW coward way of not exploring more values.
drbored wrote: Trouble with that is the same issue someone has in AoS when they want to play multiple gods: they need multiple dexes, which just gets cumbersome FAST if you want to do undivided chaos daemons.
There isn't soup in AoS, so those would be separate armies. No different than a player needing two Codex in order to have an Ork army and a Necron army. The bonuses assigned to mono-faction detatchments and from army purity in 40k are all rolled into army choice in AoS. To translate, if 40k worked like AoS currently does;
-One codex each for DG+DoN, TS+DoT, WE+DoK, EC+DoS. Each of these has a set of bonuses army-wide that apply to both the marine and daemon portions.
-If someone wants to run just marines or just daemons from the above they can, though it is more of a narrative choice and isn't quite as effective due to loss of options.
-If someone wants to add in a handful of units from another god they can (as long as it isn't an opposed god) but those units are allies--they do not get the army-wide bonuses of the codex being used, nor any of the army-wide bonuses from their own codex (on the other hand, they do not disrupt any sort of purity bonus either). All a player needs to do this is the (free in the app) dataslates because...
-A given army only gets one codex of detachment/purity bonuses, artifacts, stratagems, etc. Campaign books may still add to it, but there is no way to be getting bonuses from (and thus never any requirement for) multiple army books. Though 40k's codex supplements would be the exception here (AoS has no equivalent).
-Fully mixed-god armies are still a thing but only through Be'Lakor's special army rules (which replace those from a Codex).
-CSM would be more or less the same, the cult-specific units would be stripped out but still usable via allies (as above) and vice versa.
-Traitor Guard would be their own codex. (In AoS generic Chaos mortals are all in one book but AoS has no equivalent to CSM; the beefy Chaos dudes were once regular humans that have accumulated gifts over long service to the dark gods. What AoSdoes have is an equivalent on the opposite side; Stormcast are humans who have been remade and 'upgraded' to super-human levels. And they are a different book than the normal human factions, though each has the ability to take a limited quantity of units from the other.)
Don't know how much sense that all makes, hope someone finds it helpful
Voss wrote: Ah. Its a design philosophy thing for me.
Rules that are 'I counter your thing (if you have that thing to counter)' are a waste most of the time (unless its really common). I hate that concept, simply because you're paying at least an opportunity cost for something that may not even matter.
This definitely irks me too. I'd have preferred that the rule is to ignore the first negative modifier to hit and that we had more negative modifiers + more units with a higher BS/WS instead of the GW coward way of not exploring more values.
There is some hope here; with AoS 3rd edition they also adopted a limitation on bonuses/penalties to hit/wound/saves, but they counterbalanced it quite well by handing out those bonuses and penalties more freely. For example; stacking two -1 to hit bonuses will never give an enemy -2, but since everyone has ready access to +1 to hit it remains a relevant tactic without being oppressive.*
*There is some debate about stacked bonuses to saves being a problem (or an asset, opinions vary) but that gets into gameplay dynamics different from 40k.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Going off of Total War Warhammer 3, Daemons don't have enough depth to be 4 separate armies. There just aren't enough Daemonic units in the game to allow them to function that way.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but each mono god has more none foregworld kits than Harlequins and comes close to Grey Knights.
Tzeentch has
Kairos
Lord of Change
Daemon Prince
Herald
Herald on Disc
Herald on Chariot
Blue Scribes
Changeling
Horrors
Exalted Flamer
Flamers
Screamers
Burning Chariot
The problem is two-fold.
First, they've put 8 of those datasheets into the HQ slot, 1 troops, 2 elite, 1 fast attack, 1 heavy and then they've made the rules far too similar to each other. Exalted Flamer, Flamers, Burning Chariot are all very similar. Horrors aren't much different and then most of the HQs do almost exactly the same thing. The Changeling is supposedly a galactic master of manipulation, deceit and misdirection, he/she/it should be a Callidus Assassin on steroids. Lord of Change - 2 casts... I weep.
Second, the 8th edition Daemons codex is terrible, each datasheet is so bland. Flamers and Exalted Flamers have no special rules, Screamers have one special rule and it is the worst implemented "fly over and do mortals ability" you can write, Burning Chariot like the other flamers has no special rules relating to flames, doesn't have the Screamers special rule (despite having two) but instead gets one of the weakest anti psyker rules (if you pay points for it). Lord of Change, longer range smites. the Heralds, in a way the +1S locus is actually just taking 1 strength off all the other datasheets then putting it here.
There is a huge amount of design space to write a very good four god Daemon codex. Even the GW clowns should be able to significantly improve on 8th edition. Also, assuming they stick with their current design philosophy I am looking forward to my Assault 3 S5 AP1 Pink Horrors that cost 10 points.
Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.
In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.
Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.
In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.
Ah, so exactly how it works in AoS? Because it works well there, but only because there's much more actual mono-god non-daemon units in AoS than in 40k. I mean compare what non-daemon units Khorne or Slaanesh get in 40k vs AoS, there's no competition there, GW really needs to flesh out World Eaters and Emperor's Children. And Thousand Sons, hopefully.
Personally speaking, I always preferred daemons as an add on to CSM. I can get behind them having one single and seperate codex as then they can be played a standalone pure daemons army too but only so long as they can be summoned/used in any CSM army without removing mono-faction bonus'. The iidea of having a god specific book annoys me in the same way as we have all these new supplements and DG/TS codexs. It's just a money grab for what CSM 3.5 codex proved could be done in one book.
For 9th the ships has sailed, but for next edition I'd like them to throw out god-specific books with the relevant CSM, Daemons, mortals and Knights (just 1 profile for the small and the larger one, focus on allying 1 marked knight to your force).
Then put a Daemon incursion detachment in a WD/CA/campaign book (or, let's wishlist here, as a free download on warcom) that allows for a mixed daemon army so players who collected a mix of daemons don't need 4 books to play.
The other problem with Mono-god codexes is that it leaves Word Bearers alone and confused, and they have as strong if not arguably stronger ties to daemons than even the 4 Cult Legions
Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.
In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.
Custodes have 2 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Fast Attack, 4 Elites, and 1 Heavy Support barring FW. That's enough for a codex. Harlequins have even less.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They should do Daemons exactly like they did Harlis in the new Eldar book:
You can bring them without breaking your "purity" bonus, but they can exist as a standalone force just as well.
I was going to suggest the same thing. You can have a X Daemon detachment that doesn't break your purity bonus if your army includes only X units. CSM Legions that don't have a fixed mark can bring a Chaos Daemon detachment without breaking their purity bonus but can only bring units that match Marks in their list, unless they have no marks at all (or Chaos Undivided if that comes back). These rules exist in Codex Chaos Daemons just like the rules for Agent of the Imperium exist in their rules.
So your Thousand Sons can also have a Tzeetch Daemon detachment. Your World Eaters can have a Khorne Daemon detachment. Your World Bearers army can have all sorts of daemons in their Chaos Daemons detachment.
Pure Chaos Daemon armies have a Chaos Incursion purity ability. It is not anything like the Warp Storm ability of yesteryear. Detachments in that army have detachment abilities that are either allegiance based if all of one allegiance or a different Chaos Undivided bonus for a mixed detachment. Detachment abilities are retained when allied into CSM armies.
Having Daemons act like Travelling Players would be the ideal solution however unlike Travelling Players it would absolutely need a points requirement/limit.
The lack of either is a very real issue with the implementation of mixed Aeldari armies right now and one which I don't think should be replicated.
Bosskelot wrote: Having Daemons act like Travelling Players would be the ideal solution however unlike Travelling Players it would absolutely need a points requirement/limit.
The lack of either is a very real issue with the implementation of mixed Aeldari armies right now and one which I don't think should be replicated.
I get that Harlequins have a totally borked balance, but I disagree that you should be forced to have small Harlies/Daemons with a larger force of Eldar/CSM.
What's wrong with a Sorcerer, a Dark Apostle, their Chosen bodyguards, and a small force of Cultists leading a true Daemonic horde?
I was really hoping that they'd actually fix summoning. It used to be a viable option. But seeing as how Incursion isn't one of the powers available to the MoP in the rumours, it looks like it might not be an option at all.
Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.
In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.
Custodes have 2 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Fast Attack, 4 Elites, and 1 Heavy Support barring FW. That's enough for a codex. Harlequins have even less.
The problem is a lot of those demon units do the exact same thing. There's very little role-diversity within each God's own force, and when there is diversity GW tends to penalise them so they aren't as good or efficient as that of the god whose toes are being stepped on.
Each god's daemons weren't designed to work on their own, their concepts and roles were put together within the context of mixed-god armies being the way the army was supposed to work. Even if that concept has changed, the fundamental design features of each god's lineup being specialized and having deliberate weaknessess are still there.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Going off of Total War Warhammer 3, Daemons don't have enough depth to be 4 separate armies. There just aren't enough Daemonic units in the game to allow them to function that way.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but each mono god has more none foregworld kits than Harlequins and comes close to Grey Knights.
Tzeentch has
Kairos
Lord of Change
Daemon Prince
Herald
Herald on Disc
Herald on Chariot
Blue Scribes
Changeling
Horrors
Exalted Flamer
Flamers
Screamers
Burning Chariot
The problem is two-fold.
First, they've put 8 of those datasheets into the HQ slot, 1 troops, 2 elite, 1 fast attack, 1 heavy and then they've made the rules far too similar to each other. Exalted Flamer, Flamers, Burning Chariot are all very similar. Horrors aren't much different and then most of the HQs do almost exactly the same thing. The Changeling is supposedly a galactic master of manipulation, deceit and misdirection, he/she/it should be a Callidus Assassin on steroids. Lord of Change - 2 casts... I weep.
Second, the 8th edition Daemons codex is terrible, each datasheet is so bland. Flamers and Exalted Flamers have no special rules, Screamers have one special rule and it is the worst implemented "fly over and do mortals ability" you can write, Burning Chariot like the other flamers has no special rules relating to flames, doesn't have the Screamers special rule (despite having two) but instead gets one of the weakest anti psyker rules (if you pay points for it). Lord of Change, longer range smites. the Heralds, in a way the +1S locus is actually just taking 1 strength off all the other datasheets then putting it here.
There is a huge amount of design space to write a very good four god Daemon codex. Even the GW clowns should be able to significantly improve on 8th edition. Also, assuming they stick with their current design philosophy I am looking forward to my Assault 3 S5 AP1 Pink Horrors that cost 10 points.
Daemon are very HQ heavy but the mono-god roster is pretty easy to fix. First take a page from their first codex and make Daemon Princes heavy support again. They created fluff to support it before with true neverborne despising ascended mortals, just bring it back. Then the Herald on Disc can go to fast attack, the Herald on Chariot and Exalted Flamer can go to elites. Taking another page from the 4th edition codex chariots need to be seriously buffed. Taking a Herald on a chariot back then was nearly as powerful as taking a Greater Daemon. For the lesser chariots allow them to be taken in units of 2-3. Then its just a matter or either giving units daemonic gifts to makeup for specific weakness. Daemons don't have much wargear besides hand weapons; but no new models or conversion are needed to represent any additions. Either make them upgrades available on their datasheets to limit them; or make a list for players to choose from. Psychic powers/Khornate Prayers need to be more powerful. Other Psykers use the warp, but daemons are the warp. They need to either know more spells, or be able to cast or deny more spells. Maybe go back to units of lesser daemons count as Psykers again.
Give the Greater Daemon a 4++ save, and innate damage reduction to help against all the rules out there that can shutdown invulnerable saves. Throw in the piercing and sweeping attacks they be granting lately and their set. For troops just make an "exalted" variant for each lesser daemon. It wouldn't take much +1A/+1W/+1LD and and extra ability or two. Finally bring over the remain AOS daemons over to 40K. They already brought Horticulous Slimux and Syll'Esske over so why not the Gaunt Summoners and the Slaanesh Twins?
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
Preaching to choir, but since this non-sense is out their, Chaos Daemons need away to defeat it. Without their invulnerable saves daemons are all relying on t-shirt saves.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
Preaching to choir, but since this non-sense is out their, Chaos Daemons need away to defeat it. Without their invulnerable saves daemons are all relying on t-shirt saves.
Especially since they are mainly a melee army. Speaking of, since "the thing" with armies in 9th is shouting down half of the opposing army in one turn. I wonder how the design team will go about making the army completely busted
Well, but we already got it, so might as well follow up on it.
Honestly, an easy way to fix this is to give Daemons a save that's not an invulnerable save.
Call it a 'Warp Save'. Then, anything that ignores invul saves doesn't ignore warp saves, and daemons immediately become a counter to invul-countering armies.
I also like the idea of Chaos Daemons being treated like Harlequins in the Chaos Marine Codex. Of course, it wouldn't really be a 'Chaos Marine' Codex at that point.. probably more a 'Forces of Chaos' Codex... which I"m not totally opposed to.
Well, but we already got it, so might as well follow up on it.
Honestly, an easy way to fix this is to give Daemons a save that's not an invulnerable save.
Call it a 'Warp Save'. Then, anything that ignores invul saves doesn't ignore warp saves, and daemons immediately become a counter to invul-countering armies.
Until 10th, where Gray Knights, Sisters of Silence, 'Nids and probably a bunch of random bastards start getting rules where they ignore Warp Saves.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
Preaching to choir, but since this non-sense is out their, Chaos Daemons need away to defeat it. Without their invulnerable saves daemons are all relying on t-shirt saves.
Especially since they are mainly a melee army. Speaking of, since "the thing" with armies in 9th is shouting down half of the opposing army in one turn. I wonder how the design team will go about making the army completely busted
The army doesn't deploy - it all materializes in via deep strike turn one.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
Preaching to choir, but since this non-sense is out their, Chaos Daemons need away to defeat it. Without their invulnerable saves daemons are all relying on t-shirt saves.
Especially since they are mainly a melee army. Speaking of, since "the thing" with armies in 9th is shouting down half of the opposing army in one turn. I wonder how the design team will go about making the army completely busted
Here's hoping that they don't. I'd rather not hear everyone screaming that CSM need to be "NERFED! NERFED RIGHT NOW!!".
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Until 10th, where Gray Knights, Sisters of Silence, 'Nids and probably a bunch of random bastards start getting rules where they ignore Warp Saves.
Especially Rail Guns, who will ignore this because they shoot a piece of metal really fast.
I never want Daemons to go back to that. Never made any damned sense. My full army just showed up to this empty field/city/whatever and then, suddenly, Daemons!
Also Daemons having a separate codex makes WAY more sense than 4-5 Marine codices.
In a sense that they have their own units, but thematically it is still weird. And the daemons have not enough units for properly functioning monogod armies. It just makes more sense if mortal followers of god X and daemons of god X are the same army. The most likely occurrence of daemons is them being summoned by mortal chaos adherents, so separating these in two different forces makes little sense.
Custodes have 2 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Fast Attack, 4 Elites, and 1 Heavy Support barring FW. That's enough for a codex. Harlequins have even less.
The problem is a lot of those demon units do the exact same thing. There's very little role-diversity within each God's own force, and when there is diversity GW tends to penalise them so they aren't as good or efficient as that of the god whose toes are being stepped on.
Yep. About 80% of each gods units are basically identical in terms of their combat capability and only really vary on speed or number of attacks rolled or toughness/save/wound count, etc. but not in terms of the strength/ap/damage capability of the attacks made. Seekers of Slaanesh are ultimately just faster Daemonettes insofar as your opponents ability to survive an attack from them, for example. I think thats why Tzeentch tends to be the most capable of the monogod armies (depending on the edition) as they tend to have a more diverse set of capability which is able to handle a wider degree of foes and scenarios, etc.
Thats why I think 2-3 kits per god would fix a lot of problems - and it would be roughly the same number of kits that Aeldari just got (9) or that CSM seem likely to get in the future. The alternative is to bulk out the "undivided" side of the house with 3-6 kits (plus the existing furies, daemon princes, and soul grinders) to offer all 4 armies a solid and capable roster of "universal" daemon units that can be taken with any god that are capable of filling some of the holes that the various factions suffer from.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's bad enough that there are rules that ignore other rules. We definitely don't need rules that ignore the rule that ignores the other rule.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
Preaching to choir, but since this non-sense is out their, Chaos Daemons need away to defeat it. Without their invulnerable saves daemons are all relying on t-shirt saves.
Especially since they are mainly a melee army. Speaking of, since "the thing" with armies in 9th is shouting down half of the opposing army in one turn. I wonder how the design team will go about making the army completely busted
Here's hoping that they don't. I'd rather not hear everyone screaming that CSM need to be "NERFED! NERFED RIGHT NOW!!".
With the trend throughout all of 9th edition, where new codexes are super-powered and then get nerfed back a few months later, I honestly can't expect any other outcome. We see it happening with Eldar and people are already freaking out about leaks for Tyranids and Knights. It'll happen with Chaos Marines, just in time for the new edition to make all of the rules that make us special to be irrelevant.
But hey, at least we might get a full year to use the codex before the new edition this time around.
drbored wrote: It'll happen with Chaos Marines, just in time for the new edition to make all of the rules that make us special to be irrelevant.
Given how much we're losing, I doubt that we'll get that brief moment of superiority.
But hey, maybe in the next 2 editions we might finally get a multi-part chaos lord right? And then it'll all be ok... right?
Yeah, my chaos marines are gunna be going into deep storage while I work on other things. Like my Sisters of Battle. At least they're all plastic and new sculpts, except the priests.
Cultist HQ squad
-The banner:rerolls 1s to hit for cultists & +2Ld to cultists
-psyker: cast 1 deny 1
-priest: knows the basic prayer and another, always lands prayer on a 3+
-squad of 5 models
Disco lord:
-Techno virus injector: in engagement range all weapons get +1 damage vs VEHICULES
-impaler chainglaive: Suser ap3 d2; on the charge +1 to wound
-the melta mouth weapon is a melta pistol
-6a base
-claws and tail are 4 additional attacks @ S6 ap2 d2
-mechadentritees: 4x s4 ap0 d1
-ability to wound vehicules: you can corrupt a vehicule: roll a d6 for every wound that a vehicule has on a 6s=1MW (maximum of 6)
-if you kill an ennemy vehicule in melee you can corrupt 2 different vehichles instead of just 1. The double corruption ability is gained for the rest of the game.
Night lord stratagems:
-no fall back strat (seems unchanged)
-fall back and charge(seems unchanged)
--1 to hit if fired upon (seems unchanged)
- rerolls to hit if Ld is higher then ennemies (used to be +1 to hit)
-there are no more stratagems that influences moral
-lost the stratagem that gives +2 to the charge and +1 to hit in melee from terrain
clockworkchris9 wrote: Cultist HQ squad
-The banner:rerolls 1s to hit for cultists & +2Ld to cultists
-psyker: cast 1 deny 1
-priest: knows the basic prayer and another, always lands prayer on a 3+
-squad of 5 models
n
clockworkchris9 wrote: Cultist HQ squad
-The banner:rerolls 1s to hit for cultists & +2Ld to cultists
-psyker: cast 1 deny 1
-priest: knows the basic prayer and another, always lands prayer on a 3+
-squad of 5 models
n
No option to add bodies?
pft.
Yeah...
I was initially enthused by a cultist command squad, but a buff banner, a psyker and a priest buff bot is just such a high priority target that there's zero reason not to just reach out and remove it from the table.
If there aren't any defensive abilities, any 9th edition army can just... do that. Its basically auto-delete.
Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Eh I wouldn't jump that far just yet. If it's dirt cheap and can be hidden out of LoS it becomes reasonably viable by being a higher investment of resources for the opponent to kill than it took to actually bring.
Laughing Man wrote: Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Remind me-is Assassinate 3 Points per Character UNIT or MODEL?
Because if it's per Model... That one squad is a full 15 VP, assuming they're all characters.
Laughing Man wrote: Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Remind me-is Assassinate 3 Points per Character UNIT or MODEL?
Because if it's per Model... That one squad is a full 15 VP, assuming they're all characters.
Laughing Man wrote: Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Remind me-is Assassinate 3 Points per Character UNIT or MODEL?
Because if it's per Model... That one squad is a full 15 VP, assuming they're all characters.
They're a squad, even in the unlikely event 5 guys were a singular character, that's still a unit so 3 points for the unit.
Laughing Man wrote: Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Remind me-is Assassinate 3 Points per Character UNIT or MODEL?
Because if it's per Model... That one squad is a full 15 VP, assuming they're all characters.
Laughing Man wrote: Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Remind me-is Assassinate 3 Points per Character UNIT or MODEL?
Because if it's per Model... That one squad is a full 15 VP, assuming they're all characters.
They're a squad, even in the unlikely event 5 guys were a singular character, that's still a unit so 3 points for the unit.
Laughing Man wrote: Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Remind me-is Assassinate 3 Points per Character UNIT or MODEL?
Because if it's per Model... That one squad is a full 15 VP, assuming they're all characters.
Laughing Man wrote: Might work if they make them Characters. LOS doesn't care if you've got more than one model in the unit, just that you've got a Wounds stat of 9 or less.
Remind me-is Assassinate 3 Points per Character UNIT or MODEL?
Because if it's per Model... That one squad is a full 15 VP, assuming they're all characters.
They're a squad, even in the unlikely event 5 guys were a singular character, that's still a unit so 3 points for the unit.
Unless that's an edited picture, it's per Model.
So 15 Points.
Then the logical conclusion is that a unit of 5 guys isn't a character? Not sure why it'd have the character key word. Nearest parallel is the guard command squads which aren't characters but have a vox, medic, standard, heavy and special weapon in.
They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
Edit: unless we get chimera thrown in.
Since when has gw ever tried to justify whatever ridiculous that they decide to saddle CSM with?
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
Edit: unless we get chimera thrown in.
Since when has gw ever tried to justify whatever ridiculous that they decide to saddle CSM with?
I dunno, I imagine they want to sell their new units but if they're stuck as 1 per heretic astartes and get no support in any manner then they'll beat doa and they won't want half the new kits to be dead weight.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
Edit: unless we get chimera thrown in.
Since when has gw ever tried to justify whatever ridiculous that they decide to saddle CSM with?
This, unless of course gw decides to put an actual Latd /R&H list in there (complete one) then i just don't see these working.
Further they pretty much are Doa, they don't get traits / synergy seemingly, a banner with +2 for ld is not gonna make cultists work and neither will it make traitor guardsmen work
It's possible that the squad of cultists won't have the [character] keyword, dunno if that was covered yet. They may also have something that gives them the bodyguard rule if they're surrounded by cultists, which makes it a lot easier to protect them.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
Edit: unless we get chimera thrown in.
Since when has gw ever tried to justify whatever ridiculous that they decide to saddle CSM with?
I dunno, I imagine they want to sell their new units but if they're stuck as 1 per heretic astartes and get no support in any manner then they'll beat doa and they won't want half the new kits to be dead weight.
Yes, they'll want to sell the new kits, but how many times have they put out a shiny new kit and then end up giving it lackluster rules? New models doesn't equal good rules, you know that just as well as I do. CSM Cultists will have the same restriction as Death Guard and Thousand Sons Cultists. It's a pattern.
Not Online!!! wrote:This, unless of course gw decides to put an actual Latd /R&H list in there (complete one) then i just don't see these working.
Further they pretty much are Doa, they don't get traits / synergy seemingly, a banner with +2 for ld is not gonna make cultists work and neither will it make traitor guardsmen work
I'm still wondering why those Traitor Guardsmen haven't shown up in these rumours yet. Maybe they hadn't figured out what to do with them when they wrote these playtest rules?
Edit: Speaking of things that are missing.
@Clockworkchris: I noticed that Raptor Strike isn't in those leaked Night Lords stratagems. Do you mind asking if we're keeping it, and if we are, is it staying the same?
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
Edit: unless we get chimera thrown in.
Since when has gw ever tried to justify whatever ridiculous that they decide to saddle CSM with?
I dunno, I imagine they want to sell their new units but if they're stuck as 1 per heretic astartes and get no support in any manner then they'll beat doa and they won't want half the new kits to be dead weight.
Yes, they'll want to sell the new kits, but how many times have they put out a shiny new kit and then end up giving it lackluster rules? New models doesn't equal good rules, you know that just as well as I do. CSM Cultists will have the same restriction as Death Guard and Thousand Sons Cultists. It's a pattern.
Oh I know, but given we're about to have 4 "cultist" units in theory, that's not really going to work or make sense in the context of the army. They need to handle them differently then roll the same out to DG/Tsons maybe next time round.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Until 10th, where Gray Knights, Sisters of Silence, 'Nids and probably a bunch of random bastards start getting rules where they ignore Warp Saves.
In a weird way I love how bad the state of the game is that you can post something like this and not a single fanboi will even attempt to argue against it.
Thanks for the continuing leaks clockworkchris.
My predictions for 9th edition CSM strength:
(1) There will be a strong Daemon Engine list right out of the gates. Lord Discordant, Warpsmith (maybe), 6~9 Daemon Engines, maybe 3 Volkite Contemptors (assuming the CSM codex comes out before the next Chapter Approved) if they get the +1 to hit from the Warpsmith.
(2) There will also be a strong Daemonkin list right out of the gates. Master of Possession(s), 30 Possessed, 30 Warp Talons, 6 Obliterators.
(3) You might see these two souped with a small amount of Daemons to get advance and charge or re-roll charges, giving up the CSM doctrines. Basically, the doctrines might be weak enough for this to be a better option.
(4) The mortal portion of the army (Apostle, Sorcerer, Cultists, Mutants, Legionaries, Chosen, Terminators, Bikers, Raptors, Havocs) will be strong-ish but overshadowed by the daemon engines/kin. Think GSC vs. Tau/Custodes or CWE vs. Harlies.
I'm basically confident the power creep will continue and that certain datasheets are just not going to be costed correctly compared to earlier codexes.
I'm not sure what Legion is going to be best though. I think this is partially as I can't actually comprehend a daemon engine with an extra rule beyond it's datasheet after being burned for so long by 8th edition CSM and then the 9th edition DG/TS codexes. I just can't believe they will get the Legion trait and doctine/super doctrine until I see it in writing.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
Edit: unless we get chimera thrown in.
Since when has gw ever tried to justify whatever ridiculous that they decide to saddle CSM with?
I dunno, I imagine they want to sell their new units but if they're stuck as 1 per heretic astartes and get no support in any manner then they'll beat doa and they won't want half the new kits to be dead weight.
Yes, they'll want to sell the new kits, but how many times have they put out a shiny new kit and then end up giving it lackluster rules? New models doesn't equal good rules, you know that just as well as I do. CSM Cultists will have the same restriction as Death Guard and Thousand Sons Cultists. It's a pattern.
Oh I know, but given we're about to have 4 "cultist" units in theory, that's not really going to work or make sense in the context of the army. They need to handle them differently then roll the same out to DG/Tsons maybe next time round.
Eh, I'm wondering if it's going to end up being more like 2. The "Mutant" and "Possessed" Cultists might end up just being the same thing (remember, there are BIG Mutants and SMALL Mutants), and the complete absence of the Traitor Guardsmen from these rumours has me wondering if they'll be in their own R&H/LatD codex, or in a separate list in the CSM codex like Harlequins are in the CWE codex.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Until 10th, where Gray Knights, Sisters of Silence, 'Nids and probably a bunch of random bastards start getting rules where they ignore Warp Saves.
In a weird way I love how bad the state of the game is that you can post something like this and not a single fanboi will even attempt to argue against it.
Thanks for the continuing leaks clockworkchris.
My predictions for 9th edition CSM strength:
(1) There will be a strong Daemon Engine list right out of the gates. Lord Discordant, Warpsmith (maybe), 6~9 Daemon Engines, maybe 3 Volkite Contemptors (assuming the CSM codex comes out before the next Chapter Approved) if they get the +1 to hit from the Warpsmith.
(2) There will also be a strong Daemonkin list right out of the gates. Master of Possession(s), 30 Possessed, 30 Warp Talons, 6 Obliterators.
(3) You might see these two souped with a small amount of Daemons to get advance and charge or re-roll charges, giving up the CSM doctrines. Basically, the doctrines might be weak enough for this to be a better option.
(4) The mortal portion of the army (Apostle, Sorcerer, Cultists, Mutants, Legionaries, Chosen, Terminators, Bikers, Raptors, Havocs) will be strong-ish but overshadowed by the daemon engines/kin. Think GSC vs. Tau/Custodes or CWE vs. Harlies.
I'm basically confident the power creep will continue and that certain datasheets are just not going to be costed correctly compared to earlier codexes.
I'm not sure what Legion is going to be best though. I think this is partially as I can't actually comprehend a daemon engine with an extra rule beyond it's datasheet after being burned for so long by 8th edition CSM and then the 9th edition DG/TS codexes. I just can't believe they will get the Legion trait and doctine/super doctrine until I see it in writing.
As a red corsair player, having built in advance & charge has always been nice for my disco lords, if it applied to crawlers and fiends too it'll be happy go fun time.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
All invul negation does is act as mortal wounds that don't spill over across units.
EDIT: And honestly Daemons have always had issues with things that ignored invuls. They never really felt like they were extra-dimensional since they follow the physical laws of the universe far too well.
Maybe just turn their invul into an armour save that ignores AP. Mortals would still skip through but "ignores invuls" wouldn't be a thing anymore.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
All invul negation does is act as mortal wounds that don't spill over across units.
EDIT: And honestly Daemons have always had issues with things that ignored invuls. They never really felt like they were extra-dimensional since they follow the physical laws of the universe far too well.
Maybe just turn their invul into an armour save that ignores AP. Mortals would still skip through but "ignores invuls" wouldn't be a thing anymore.
Soooo.......some kind of save.....that is, uhhh.....invulnerable, to AP? That kinda thing?
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
All invul negation does is act as mortal wounds that don't spill over across units.
EDIT: And honestly Daemons have always had issues with things that ignored invuls. They never really felt like they were extra-dimensional since they follow the physical laws of the universe far too well.
Maybe just turn their invul into an armour save that ignores AP. Mortals would still skip through but "ignores invuls" wouldn't be a thing anymore.
Soooo.......some kind of save.....that is, uhhh.....invulnerable, to AP? That kinda thing?
No, think more like Nighthaunt from AoS who have an armour save that can't be increased or reduced by any modifiers. It's still an armour save so anything that ignores armour would still get through but if they get an armour save then it can't be modified by AP or any other rules.
Yeah, high AP ignore invul is just MWs with pointless extra complexity. A simple rule of the MWs only being dealt to one model would be much easier for everyone involved.
Of course making it so damage boils over by default and is counterbalanced by attacks being inherently unable to deal damage greater than the target's wound characteristic would make a lot of things easier for everyone involved.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
All invul negation does is act as mortal wounds that don't spill over across units.
EDIT: And honestly Daemons have always had issues with things that ignored invuls. They never really felt like they were extra-dimensional since they follow the physical laws of the universe far too well.
Maybe just turn their invul into an armour save that ignores AP. Mortals would still skip through but "ignores invuls" wouldn't be a thing anymore.
Soooo.......some kind of save.....that is, uhhh.....invulnerable, to AP? That kinda thing?
No, think more like Nighthaunt from AoS who have an armour save that can't be increased or reduced by any modifiers. It's still an armour save so anything that ignores armour would still get through but if they get an armour save then it can't be modified by AP or any other rules.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yeah, high AP ignore invul is just MWs with pointless extra complexity. A simple rule of the MWs only being dealt to one model would be much easier for everyone involved.
Of course making it so damage boils over by default and is counterbalanced by attacks being inherently unable to deal damage greater than the target's wound characteristic would make a lot of things easier for everyone involved.
EviscerationPlague wrote: We don't need rules negating thr negation of Invul. We need no negation of Invul to begin with, or at least total negation.
All invul negation does is act as mortal wounds that don't spill over across units.
EDIT: And honestly Daemons have always had issues with things that ignored invuls. They never really felt like they were extra-dimensional since they follow the physical laws of the universe far too well.
Maybe just turn their invul into an armour save that ignores AP. Mortals would still skip through but "ignores invuls" wouldn't be a thing anymore.
Soooo.......some kind of save.....that is, uhhh.....invulnerable, to AP? That kinda thing?
No, think more like Nighthaunt from AoS who have an armour save that can't be increased or reduced by any modifiers. It's still an armour save so anything that ignores armour would still get through but if they get an armour save then it can't be modified by AP or any other rules.
That is exactly how invul saves work.
I understand that is how invuls save. This isn't my first edition of 40k. I'm speaking of them having a special rule that makes their armour save behave in the same manner while still being an armour save and not an invul save. It's much simpler to impliment than adding a fourth type of save to the game (counting armour, invul and FnP as kinds of saves).
You could have certain things like "Cannot be reduced below X regardless of save modifiers", but ultimately when something can have an Invul save and a regular save, what would be the point? It'd just be a redundant rule.
I don't think there's a problem with stratifying saves. When we did our own set of 40k rules we ended up with:
1. Armour saves (can be ignored via AP). 2. Invulnerable saves (cannot be ignored except by things that ignore invulnerables, which were rare, and Hammerhead Rail Guns were not one of them). 3. Ignore Injury saves (what we would call Feel No Pain). 4. Psychic Saves (only usable against actual psychic attacks/weapons, because it's possible you can be resistant to psychic powers but not have a force field). 5. Dodge Saves (cannot be ignored - basically there for the things that are so skilled/elite that they should be able to just get out of the way of incoming attacks, so that was basically Assassins, Harlis and Lictors in our rules, I believe - plus this could easily apply to thinks like "jink" saves, where some psychic blast attack that ignores invuls wouldn't suddenly ignore your ability to dodge out of the way).
Now with most psychic powers causing Mortal Wounds, the Psychic Save isn't especially necessary, as Feel No Pain takes care of that. That said, GW has included ignore MW saves that only work against psychic attacks, which is basically the same thing, even if it's not a codified rule and just another example of their grab-bag of bespoke nonsense.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You could have certain things like "Cannot be reduced below X regardless of save modifiers", but ultimately when something can have an Invul save and a regular save, what would be the point? It'd just be a redundant rule.
It'd get around "ignores invul" without requiring another save mechanic being added to the game.
Yeah but what you're describing is a weapon-based rule, not a save-based rule. You'd have to have a weapon that has "Reduces Invuls by X".
This is why they just should've had USRs from the beginning. Allows you to make tons of scaling (X) rules that avoid the need to reinvent the wheel every time you do something.
Superlative Penetration (X) - A weapon with this special quality reduces Invulnerable saves by the amount listed in place of the 'X'.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but what you're describing is a weapon-based rule, not a save-based rule. You'd have to have a weapon that has "Reduces Invuls by X".
This is why they just should've had USRs from the beginning. Allows you to make tons of scaling (X) rules that avoid the need to reinvent the wheel every time you do something.
Superlative Penetration (X) - A weapon with this special quality reduces Invulnerable saves by the amount listed in place of the 'X'.
No, because I'm talking about getting around the problem that Daemons are often on the short end of where they can't take an invul save at all. It's a trick GW loves going back to edition after edition and often hurts Daemons the most. Switching them to an unmodifiable armour save would protect them from that gimmick.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but what you're describing is a weapon-based rule, not a save-based rule. You'd have to have a weapon that has "Reduces Invuls by X".
This is why they just should've had USRs from the beginning. Allows you to make tons of scaling (X) rules that avoid the need to reinvent the wheel every time you do something.
Superlative Penetration (X) - A weapon with this special quality reduces Invulnerable saves by the amount listed in place of the 'X'.
No, because I'm talking about getting around the problem that Daemons are often on the short end of where they can't take an invul save at all. It's a trick GW loves going back to edition after edition and often hurts Daemons the most. Switching them to an unmodifiable armour save would protect them from that gimmick.
Outside of Mortal Wounds, what actually ignores Invulnerable saves?
It's really not much-look, Daemons have issues. But Invulns being ignored isn't common enough to matter against the real problems.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but what you're describing is a weapon-based rule, not a save-based rule. You'd have to have a weapon that has "Reduces Invuls by X".
This is why they just should've had USRs from the beginning. Allows you to make tons of scaling (X) rules that avoid the need to reinvent the wheel every time you do something.
Superlative Penetration (X) - A weapon with this special quality reduces Invulnerable saves by the amount listed in place of the 'X'.
No, because I'm talking about getting around the problem that Daemons are often on the short end of where they can't take an invul save at all. It's a trick GW loves going back to edition after edition and often hurts Daemons the most. Switching them to an unmodifiable armour save would protect them from that gimmick.
Outside of Mortal Wounds, what actually ignores Invulnerable saves?
It's really not much-look, Daemons have issues. But Invulns being ignored isn't common enough to matter against the real problems.
GW has started tapping that mechanic again with the railgun, and now that the cat is out of the bag it's clear they're going to go back to it in the future much like how they've sprinkled it about in the past.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but what you're describing is a weapon-based rule, not a save-based rule. You'd have to have a weapon that has "Reduces Invuls by X".
This is why they just should've had USRs from the beginning. Allows you to make tons of scaling (X) rules that avoid the need to reinvent the wheel every time you do something.
Superlative Penetration (X) - A weapon with this special quality reduces Invulnerable saves by the amount listed in place of the 'X'.
No, because I'm talking about getting around the problem that Daemons are often on the short end of where they can't take an invul save at all. It's a trick GW loves going back to edition after edition and often hurts Daemons the most. Switching them to an unmodifiable armour save would protect them from that gimmick.
Outside of Mortal Wounds, what actually ignores Invulnerable saves?
It's really not much-look, Daemons have issues. But Invulns being ignored isn't common enough to matter against the real problems.
GW has started tapping that mechanic again with the railgun, and now that the cat is out of the bag it's clear they're going to go back to it in the future much like how they've sprinkled it about in the past.
This is the issue yeah, is that things like this will ramp up. Let's take for example the 'ability to turn off auras' as an example.
There's such an ability in the Sisters of Battle codex, one of the earlier 9th ed codexes in the grand scheme of things.
You could give your characters a "Blessing of the Faithful" that cost extra points. One of those blessings, "Divine Deliverance" cost 15 points and reads as such:
'At the start of your opponent's Command phase, select one enemy unit within 6" of this model and select one Aura ability that unit has. Roll 3d6: if the result is equal to or greater than that enemy unit's Leadership characteristic, then until the start of your opponent's next Command phase, that enemy unit loses that Aura ability.'
Not game-breaking. Your character has to be 6" away from the enemy, you've got to pass a roll, and you've gotta choose (and pay for) that ability over other things in your codex. Sisters of Battle characters are also not known for being super tanky, and if your opponent knows you have something like this, there are many ways they can play around it.
Now, there's an entire Harlequin subfaction that just turns off re-rolls against some of their units. Let's be frank, most auras are just that: re-rolls to hit.
That same arms race has applied to many different abilities, from toughness of units to strength of their guns to AP and then to the damage of their weapons, and now we're seeing even more things... There have been instances where the creep gets way out of hand (remember 8th edition Salamanders and the 40+ mortal wounds their flamers could pump out? that was the beginning of limiting how many mortal wounds something could do, and now it's a normal rule) and then it gets tamped back down rather dramatically, but then another game rule rears its ugly head. It's due to some of this that we no longer have ways to take multiple Hive Tyrants, Tau Commanders, Space Marine Captains, and that things across the board are limited to the Rule of 3, because of how ridiculous some rules and units are over others.
JNAProductions wrote: They're either Characters (and so benefit from LoS), not Characters but have a rule that lets them use LoS or otherwise stay safe, or they're just dead.
Given GW's track record with CSM, I'm guessing option 1 or 3.
I'd wager 3 tbh, I'd hope they're cheap enough to not really matter though. Does make you wonder if they can use rhinos however.
Doubtful. Death Guard Rhinos can only carry BUBONIC ASTARTES units and Thousand Sons Rhinos can only carry ARCANA ASTARTES units, which are both all Marines. Apparently the mortals are expected to walk.
With cultists, renegade guard (maybe) and mutants ontop of a cultist HQ, it'll be really hard to justify treating all those units like they do in the other books though.
Edit: unless we get chimera thrown in.
Since when has gw ever tried to justify whatever ridiculous that they decide to saddle CSM with?
I dunno, I imagine they want to sell their new units but if they're stuck as 1 per heretic astartes and get no support in any manner then they'll beat doa and they won't want half the new kits to be dead weight.
Yes, they'll want to sell the new kits, but how many times have they put out a shiny new kit and then end up giving it lackluster rules? New models doesn't equal good rules, you know that just as well as I do. CSM Cultists will have the same restriction as Death Guard and Thousand Sons Cultists. It's a pattern.
Oh I know, but given we're about to have 4 "cultist" units in theory, that's not really going to work or make sense in the context of the army. They need to handle them differently then roll the same out to DG/Tsons maybe next time round.
Could be kroot style. For every marine unit 1 of each cultist units.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but what you're describing is a weapon-based rule, not a save-based rule. You'd have to have a weapon that has "Reduces Invuls by X".
This is why they just should've had USRs from the beginning. Allows you to make tons of scaling (X) rules that avoid the need to reinvent the wheel every time you do something.
Superlative Penetration (X) - A weapon with this special quality reduces Invulnerable saves by the amount listed in place of the 'X'.
No, because I'm talking about getting around the problem that Daemons are often on the short end of where they can't take an invul save at all. It's a trick GW loves going back to edition after edition and often hurts Daemons the most. Switching them to an unmodifiable armour save would protect them from that gimmick.
Outside of Mortal Wounds, what actually ignores Invulnerable saves?
It's really not much-look, Daemons have issues. But Invulns being ignored isn't common enough to matter against the real problems.
GW has started tapping that mechanic again with the railgun, and now that the cat is out of the bag it's clear they're going to go back to it in the future much like how they've sprinkled it about in the past.
There's three source of invuln ignoring damage in the Eldar book alone.
Tau also has more than just the Railgun; Bor'kan has a strat the gives any single weapon Invul Ignore and there's also the unqiue Prototype Plasma Rifle any Sept can have
Some bits from Clockworkchris on B&C that I think we missed:
Regards lord loadouts
Just got confirmation, basic loadout is the blackstone fortress loadout (hammer, plasma pistol) but he has access to all melee weapons.
More disco lord info:
Oh and also disco lord now has 6a base
Yes its for every wound on that vehicules datasheet. Leaker said for example you cant double corrupt a knight to go fishing for 12 MW.
Also quick reminder that discolords are characters so they can get marks. Mark of khorne says hello.
Dudeface wrote: Some bits from Clockworkchris on B&C that I think we missed:
Regards lord loadouts
Just got confirmation, basic loadout is the blackstone fortress loadout (hammer, plasma pistol) but he has access to all melee weapons.
*Looks at all my Chaos Lords armed with NOT Plasma Pistols*
Well, at least you aren't required to WYSIWYG mandatory equipment, I GUESS.
Lol, the old 3rd Ed metal Chaos Lords I have are about to get a glow up. Never thought they'd make their way back to the tabletop (still might not but it'll be an interesting mini-project now I am a better painter and 20 years older!)
So a Latd Command squad / R&H command squad, except where once we had the option to make the demagogue into any of the options we got now, we get a squad of a priest a banner bearer and psyker.... everytime, that can't be more than 5?!? in a game where atm the average LoS ignoring firepower will just casually wipe that squad
Chaos lords that somehow chose to not use combiweapons anymore`, because shooting is for loyalists?
cursed weaponry as a catch all and lost heavy weapon slots on chosen.
Nothing about the "new traitorguard/ cultists" in regards to equipment options seemingly?
Accursed cultists
-T4 1w
- 3-6 big models per unit
- 5-10 small models per unit
Vanilla cultists
- 10-20
IW stratagem
5+++ vs MW --1 damage for core infantry & daemonkin.
NL stratagem
So i got clarification on the forst turn deepstrike strat
-units in deepstrike or strategic reserves count themselves as 1 turn earlier. 1cp fo infantry & bikers; 2cp for daemonkin
ArcaneHorror wrote: Just putting it out there that the rumor did not specifically say that the Lord cannot take any other guns.
How many guns does the Chaos Lord kit cone with?
None, but then it doesn't come with any other melee weapons either. I'd wager either the plasma pistol is free now so no net loss beyond ripping a hand off, or you can still swap the pistol out for a bigger gun.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Just putting it out there that the rumor did not specifically say that the Lord cannot take any other guns.
How many guns does the Chaos Lord kit cone with?
It only comes with the pistol, but in the Death Guard, the vanilla Chaos Lord can take all weapons, with the exception of the hammer being replaced with the balesword. And that basically makes conversion a necey.
clockworkchris9 wrote:Accursed cultists
-T4 1w
- 3-6 big models per unit
- 5-10 small models per unit
Vanilla cultists
- 10-20
IW stratagem
5+++ vs MW --1 damage for core infantry & daemonkin.
NL stratagem
So i got clarification on the forst turn deepstrike strat
-units in deepstrike or strategic reserves count themselves as 1 turn earlier. 1cp fo infantry & bikers; 2cp for daemonkin
So it isn’t just for jump pack units? Interesting. Weird that it costs more for Daemonkin. That's oddly arbitrary.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
NL stratagem
So i got clarification on the forst turn deepstrike strat
-units in deepstrike or strategic reserves count themselves as 1 turn earlier. 1cp fo infantry & bikers; 2cp for daemonkin
So it isn’t just for jump pack units? Interesting. Weird that it costs more for Daemonkin. That's oddly arbitrary.
Oblits are daemonkin, though. And if Warp Talons can tie down the enemy, deep striking them in straight away turn 1 (with a +1 to charge because Night Lords) seems really nasty.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
NL stratagem
So i got clarification on the forst turn deepstrike strat
-units in deepstrike or strategic reserves count themselves as 1 turn earlier. 1cp fo infantry & bikers; 2cp for daemonkin
So it isn’t just for jump pack units? Interesting. Weird that it costs more for Daemonkin. That's oddly arbitrary.
Oblits are daemonkin, though. And if Warp Talons can tie down the enemy, deep striking them in straight away turn 1 (with a +1 to charge because Night Lords) seems really nasty.
Fair point. I'm definitely looking forward to using Warp Talons with that new ability.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
Dark Apostles already can't have jump packs. This change would specifically apply to Chaos Lords and Sorcerers, both of which have been able to have jump packs for over 20 years. I don't see how it would be a balance issue now. Especially given that many other factions have similar units with high mobility. I'd say that your former explanation makes more sense. At least "gw sense" anyways.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
What do you think people kitbash options with? It isn't older direct-only or oop sculpts. Allow a Dark Apostle to take Terminator armor and people will buy the character AND a terminator character/unit to do the conversion.
NinthMusketeer wrote: What do you think people kitbash options with? It isn't older direct-only or oop sculpts. Allow a Dark Apostle to take Terminator armor and people will buy the character AND a terminator character/unit to do the conversion.
GW logic is not my logic. I do exactly the same with my conversions. A lot of the time it is because you don't really want to field two identical Dark Apostles, so you will need a second kit to bash onto a Dark Apostle, or a second model as the base with chaos bits put on the top. It is different for my Necrons though, as they are robots I am much more comfortable fielding three copies of the same exact thing (3 Plasmancers, 3 Skorpekh Lords, 3 Reanimators, 18 Skorpekhs are 6 x 3 sculpts, 40 Warriors are basically 4 x 10 of the same model, etc).
I do think this is the way GW wants us to do it, you buy their kits (from them at full price if they can get you to do it), build them exactly how they are meant to be built, paint them, play with them, post social media to give them free advertising, buy more... consume more...
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
So why is it gameplay balance for Dark Apostles but not Chaplains, whom get Jump Pack access and a LOT more litanies to spew?
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
So why is it gameplay balance for Dark Apostles but not Chaplains, whom get Jump Pack access and a LOT more litanies to spew?
So why is it gameplay balance for the Flying Librarian Dreadnought or Chaplain Dreadnoughts to exist?
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
So why is it gameplay balance for Dark Apostles but not Chaplains, whom get Jump Pack access and a LOT more litanies to spew?
I think you missed the dripping sarcasm there, given the oblique reference to the Primaris Chaplain on Bike.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It's in their best financial interests to have the best units be a recent kit to drive sales, having the best unit be a potentially OOP model or require kitbashing instead of buying a new stand-alone makes it harder to sell the new thing.
I've got the BSF models but I've also got three other Chaos Lords and I'll have to see which are legal now. I'm hoping jetpack lords don't go away.
Dudeface wrote: Some bits from Clockworkchris on B&C that I think we missed:
Regards lord loadouts
Just got confirmation, basic loadout is the blackstone fortress loadout (hammer, plasma pistol) but he has access to all melee weapons.
*Looks at all my Chaos Lords armed with NOT Plasma Pistols*
Well, at least you aren't required to WYSIWYG mandatory equipment, I GUESS.
I don't think I have a single chaos lord with a plasma pistol lol
I always considered them overpriced and always stuck to the bolt pistol, unless my Lord had twin claws.
The same as there's no good reason to upgrade their ranged weapon. That said if he can't take a bolt pistol they can't even take the codex EC relic Blissgiver. I mean its ass but still.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I remember when fears about a new codex did not include losing half a model's wargear options.
No kidding. The whole "characters don't get jump packs" thing would invalidate every character that I have except for my ONE Terminator Lord. That bit of "no model no rules" insanity could be a deal breaker for me.
It is very GW though. They want you to buy the new HQs they made in the last few years, Dark Apostle, Lord Discordant, Master of Possessions, Sorcerer on Foot, Monopose Chaos Lord. A new Warpsmith has also just been added. They don't want the best HQs to be Kitbashed Jump Sorc and Legacy Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.
There is some gameplay balance behind it too, e.g. limiting a powerful buff character like a Dark Apostle to just a foot build is very sensible. Could you imagine if GW was run by fools and they released a Dark Apostle on a huge 90mm oval base and gave him a move characteristic of 14" so he could apply his buffs too easily? You would probably not see the foot version in a game again.
So why is it gameplay balance for Dark Apostles but not Chaplains, whom get Jump Pack access and a LOT more litanies to spew?
I think you missed the dripping sarcasm there, given the oblique reference to the Primaris Chaplain on Bike.
We have people on this forum that unironically defend GW on this. So I would miss it.
Yeah it has nothing to do with game balance, lol. The idea that there is game balance that you would need to worry about when it comes to a few character options is already pretty laughable.
GW had, for a solid decade ahead of 9th edition, a small but vocal group of people that were complaining about the cost of having to kit-bash things like Techmarines on Bikes and Sorcerers with Jump Packs. After all, that meant that in order to get those things, you'd have to buy two kits! On top of that, by using one kit to boost another, the first kit often can't then make a full squad!
Enter price hikes, the new mantra of 'rules fit the box', and other things and it makes an awkward sort of sense that GW would pull these options. Now, it only makes an 'awkward sense' because in the back room where they hide all of the designers, they could absolutely tell the guys and gals 'we need a chaos lord with a few new options' and set them to task. I don't believe that GW's entire business model is driven by the whims of their designers. There is definitely some creative direction, else we wouldn't ever have gotten the Eldar sculpts that we've gotten.
THAT is what stings about this the most. It's not that these options for jump packs and various weapons have been take away, it's that the company never deigned it worthwhile to make a new kit with some new options in it. We know they can. The new Autarch, the Sisters of Battle Canoness, the new Space Marine Gravis Captain, etc. But they haven't, and instead they've pulled the Jump Pack Lord, stripped all those options, and tell us:
'make do with this one chaos lord with an ugly topknot, thunder hammer that nobody else in the army can have, and a plasma pistol and literally nothing else.'
Now, we still haven't seen the full release. There could, somehow, somewhere, be a new Chaos Lord lurking in there that the rumors and the playtests didn't have, and gosh I really hope they've been keeping that secret close to their chest...
The 'no-model-no-rules' policy started coming into effect after the Chapterhouse Lawsuit, well before GW started keeping tabs on the community again. Remember that before 2016 GW did not do market research and had come to believe their own alternate reality so much that they launched Age of Sigmar with four-page rules and no balance mechanism at all.
And even then, for every person complaining about that sort of thing there were two coming back that it was better than not having the option at all. Even considering the already unlikely scenario that it was a feedback based decision, it wouldn't have been based on all feedback but rather a specific subset. I don't see the theory as having much ground to stand on.
The Eldar Autarch is a good example of what to do. Once the codex is out and we know what restrictions are in place, we just need to push back hard (but politely) on one or two easily fixable problems.
Hopefully if this keeps happening by 10th edition we might see GW start to reverse the trend and allow weapon options back onto models.
All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
custom legion traits
-as like every other codex, pick 2 to build you own warband unless the trait is all encompassing then you only get the one
-undivided trait is all encompassing
Chosen
-the rule is simply pick a trait from the custom legion traits, if the unit is markless it can pick any custom trait except the marked ones, if the unit is marked it can pick its mark specific one or any of the markless ones
-chosen cannot use an all encompassing trait as their extra trait
Generic WLT -for the puposes of CA ennemy units always count as if at half strength
Generic stratagems
-for bolt rounds +6" & +1ap for the unit
BL stratagems
-1 unit can be considered destruction/massacre/slaughter at the same time, core units only
EC info
-noise marine weapons are GOOD, i wont push him more, he is clesrly not ready to share this
-EC dont need to pay for slaanesh marks
EC stratagems
-honour the prince is still there
-the sonic weapons strat does mortal wounds now, no longer +1s +1d
WB stratagems
-no more strat for possessed +1d
-the auto pass psyker spell is still there
-the auto save strat has been changed to take 0 damage instead
-they have 2 strats that affect daemonkin or possessed
IW stratagems
-reduce incoming ap strat is gone
-cultist bodyguards are still therw
NLWLT -+1 CA to ennemies & always consolidate 3" in any direction, even if touching base to base
NL stratagems
-if you slay the ennemy warlord, +1 CA to ennemies for the rest of the game
clockworkchris9 wrote: All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
I am content, 9 times out of 10 I'm taking one of these two ranged weapons, rarely bother with anything else.
Good for you. Everyone else? Not so much. What happened to "basic loadout is plasma pistol + hammer, but has access to all melee weapons"? And where's the bolt pistol coming from? The Chaos Lord kit only includes a plasma pistol. What? We're allowed to kitbash a bolt pistol, but nothing else?
Edit: And "Yay!", more ways for Night Lords to stack up Combat Attrition modifiers. That's great....if you ignore the fact that the most common faction in the game ignores all Combat Attrition modifiers.
Yeah I had been running a Chaos Lord with a combi-bolter and taking that awesome Alpha Legion sniper relic, but now it's gone, like tears in the rain - or bloody pee in a storm drain.
NL relics
-claws of the black hunt are back but jave been renamed, S+1 ap3 D2, does not gain reroll wounds instead gains ennemies canoot use rules that ignore wounds
-vox daemonicus is 12" no deepstrike & ennemies must pass a leadership test or cannot perform actions or psychic actions
- flayer is still there and seem to be exactly the same
If you want a laugh, leaker pointed out in terms of weapons names the book is a mess. Lightning claws appear 3 times under different names
-Warpclaws (for warp talons, dont worry they -are lightning claws in everything but name)
Accursed weapons
-And actual lightning claws
clockworkchris9 wrote: All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
I am content, 9 times out of 10 I'm taking one of these two ranged weapons, rarely bother with anything else.
Good for you. Everyone else? Not so much. What happened to "basic loadout is plasma pistol + hammer, but has access to all melee weapons"? And where's the bolt pistol coming from? The Chaos Lord kit only includes a plasma pistol. What? We're allowed to kitbash a bolt pistol, but nothing else?
Edit: And "Yay!", more ways for Night Lords to stack up Combat Attrition modifiers. That's great....if you ignore the fact that the most common faction in the game ignores all Combat Attrition modifiers.
I mean that tracks right? The faction that relies on fear tactics won't have an effect on the faction that knows no fear.
clockworkchris9 wrote: All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
I am content, 9 times out of 10 I'm taking one of these two ranged weapons, rarely bother with anything else.
Good for you. Everyone else? Not so much. What happened to "basic loadout is plasma pistol + hammer, but has access to all melee weapons"? And where's the bolt pistol coming from? The Chaos Lord kit only includes a plasma pistol. What? We're allowed to kitbash a bolt pistol, but nothing else?
Edit: And "Yay!", more ways for Night Lords to stack up Combat Attrition modifiers. That's great....if you ignore the fact that the most common faction in the game ignores all Combat Attrition modifiers.
I mean that tracks right? The faction that relies on fear tactics won't have an effect on the faction that knows no fear.
They do more than "fear tactics". And it's another reason why basing a faction on leadership shenanigans doesn't work in a game where a large number of factions and units are either fearless or effectively fearless. The codex writers in earlier editions realized that, and emphasized other aspects of the Legion instead.
And nice to see that Claws of the Black Hunt are getting nerfed. I guess they were just a little too OP for gw.
clockworkchris9 wrote: All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
I am content, 9 times out of 10 I'm taking one of these two ranged weapons, rarely bother with anything else.
Good for you. Everyone else? Not so much. What happened to "basic loadout is plasma pistol + hammer, but has access to all melee weapons"? And where's the bolt pistol coming from? The Chaos Lord kit only includes a plasma pistol. What? We're allowed to kitbash a bolt pistol, but nothing else?
Edit: And "Yay!", more ways for Night Lords to stack up Combat Attrition modifiers. That's great....if you ignore the fact that the most common faction in the game ignores all Combat Attrition modifiers.
I mean that tracks right? The faction that relies on fear tactics won't have an effect on the faction that knows no fear.
They do more than "fear tactics". And it's another reason why basing a faction on leadership shenanigans doesn't work in a game where a large number of factions and units are either fearless or effectively fearless. The codex writers in earlier editions realized that, and emphasized other aspects of the Legion instead.
And nice to see that Claws of the Black Hunt are getting nerfed. I guess they were just a little too OP for gw.
Can't have rerolling wounds, that'd be too powerful!
NL relics
-claws of the black hunt are back but jave been renamed, S+1 ap3 D2, does not gain reroll wounds instead gains ennemies canoot use rules that ignore wounds
-vox daemonicus is 12" no deepstrike & ennemies must pass a leadership test or cannot perform actions or psychic actions
- flayer is still there and seem to be exactly the same
If you want a laugh, leaker pointed out in terms of weapons names the book is a mess. Lightning claws appear 3 times under different names
-Warpclaws (for warp talons, dont worry they -are lightning claws in everything but name)
Accursed weapons
-And actual lightning claws
Query on the accursed weapon bit - according to earlier leaks those don't reroll wounds like lightning claws do, so they're actually not the same, right?
NLWLT - the horrible warlord trait of once per battle you can reroll 1 dice for hit, wounds, advance, charge and saves has been changed. It is now once per turn you can auto 6 a dice for hit, wound, advance or saves
-+D3 attacks & warlord is considered always in the slaughter phase... this is evil on a disco lord
-+1 to armor and invul saves in terrain is GONE
-fall back and charge + -1 to hit is GONE
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah i meant thst in the sense that accursed weapons use ligntning claws visually. Accursed are just powerd swords +1a nothing else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NL relic
-stormbolt plate, infantry only, 2+ save and untargetable beyond 12"
-vox daemonocus is infantry only
I got super excited earlier browsing the CSM range and thought the banner included a tease of the upcoming models. Unfortunately, it was just alternate versions of the new chosen kit. It makes me once again question why GW chose to have the spotlight on the two terrible bald head options for Eldritch Omens, when they had these much nicer version painted up and ready to go
clockworkchris9 wrote: NLWLT - the horrible warlord trait of once per battle you can reroll 1 dice for hit, wounds, advance, charge and saves has been changed. It is now once per turn you can auto 6 a dice for hit, wound, advance or saves
-+D3 attacks & warlord is considered always in the slaughter phase... this is evil on a disco lord
-+1 to armor and invul saves in terrain is GONE
-fall back and charge + -1 to hit is GONE
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah i meant thst in the sense that accursed weapons use ligntning claws visually. Accursed are just powerd swords +1a nothing else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NL relic
-stormbolt plate, infantry only, 2+ save and untargetable beyond 12"
-vox daemonocus is infantry only
Thanks for the news !
Could you ask if EC have a way to make Noise marines troupes ? The free Slanesh mark gives me hope.
clockworkchris9 wrote: All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
I am content, 9 times out of 10 I'm taking one of these two ranged weapons, rarely bother with anything else.
Good for you. Everyone else? Not so much. What happened to "basic loadout is plasma pistol + hammer, but has access to all melee weapons"? And where's the bolt pistol coming from? The Chaos Lord kit only includes a plasma pistol. What? We're allowed to kitbash a bolt pistol, but nothing else?
I assumed he was talking only about ranged options there and that the "but has access to all melee weapons" still applies, which is why I said I'm content. It lets me keep the builds I actually used. If its really a choice of bolt pistol or plasma pistol and I'm stuck with the hammer then I'm not content anymore - that would suck.
See what I mean when I said earlier people unironically defend GW on these things?
How the feth does saying "I am happy at the options still available to me because they align with what I use" at all approaching "defending GW"? feth off you muppet.
Rydria wrote: Not having to pay for mark of slaanesh, as emperor’s children is super nice.
Indeed. With Noise Marines being "GOOD" and Excruciating Frequencies going to MW, along with Honor the Prince remaining in some fashion we'll be doing alright for Chaos at least.
clockworkchris9 wrote: All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
I am content, 9 times out of 10 I'm taking one of these two ranged weapons, rarely bother with anything else.
Good for you. Everyone else? Not so much. What happened to "basic loadout is plasma pistol + hammer, but has access to all melee weapons"? And where's the bolt pistol coming from? The Chaos Lord kit only includes a plasma pistol. What? We're allowed to kitbash a bolt pistol, but nothing else?
I assumed he was talking only about ranged options there and that the "but has access to all melee weapons" still applies, which is why I said I'm content. It lets me keep the builds I actually used. If its really a choice of bolt pistol or plasma pistol and I'm stuck with the hammer then I'm not content anymore - that would suck.
See what I mean when I said earlier people unironically defend GW on these things?
How the feth does saying "I am happy at the options still available to me because they align with what I use" at all approaching "defending GW"? feth off you muppet.
Ah yes, the attitude of "I built my Lord the way GW wants so I don't care if there's no option for a Combi-Weapon". Not bring critical of the profile is defending it, whether you like it or not.
clockworkchris9 wrote: All right roller coaster ride of a morning, I will start woth the bad news
Chaos lord
-can only have bolt or plasma pistol
I am content, 9 times out of 10 I'm taking one of these two ranged weapons, rarely bother with anything else.
Good for you. Everyone else? Not so much. What happened to "basic loadout is plasma pistol + hammer, but has access to all melee weapons"? And where's the bolt pistol coming from? The Chaos Lord kit only includes a plasma pistol. What? We're allowed to kitbash a bolt pistol, but nothing else?
I assumed he was talking only about ranged options there and that the "but has access to all melee weapons" still applies, which is why I said I'm content. It lets me keep the builds I actually used. If its really a choice of bolt pistol or plasma pistol and I'm stuck with the hammer then I'm not content anymore - that would suck.
See what I mean when I said earlier people unironically defend GW on these things?
How the feth does saying "I am happy at the options still available to me because they align with what I use" at all approaching "defending GW"? feth off you muppet.
Ah yes, the attitude of "I built my Lord the way GW wants so I don't care if there's no option for a Combi-Weapon". Not bring critical of the profile is defending it, whether you like it or not.
Agreed. The Hellbrute one looks interesting, at least. But I'm not going to go adding a Hellbrute to my army just to use it.
ain't right. 
). 
