MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:Just to clarify - these rumours are for the Renegades 'dex, yes? Or are we not sure that there are going to be separate books?

Not going to be separate books.

...When was that confirmed? D:

No one reputable has ever promised separate books.

Blood of Kittens Via Facebook wrote:It looks like my server overload wasn't what I thought it was. It turns out that it was a "denial of service attack" which basically means someone or a group of someones was trying to crash my site from out country. For what reasons I have no idea, but anyway will have to make some major fixes to my site for it work properly.

With BoK so desperately seeking attention, it is difficult to tell the truth about this.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:Just to clarify - these rumours are for the Renegades 'dex, yes? Or are we not sure that there are going to be separate books?

Not going to be separate books.

...When was that confirmed? D:

No one reputable has ever promised separate books.

That is not quite right:

straightsilver wrote:Alessio and Jervis have both said that they would like the CSM Codex to stay as Renegades, and to release another Codex which would address the Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, World Eaters, Emperor's Children etc.

I may of course be completely wrong, the next Codex might just be a rehash of the current one and replace it, but that's not what I have heard.

So at least this was the original intention. It seems certain that the book includes lists of at least 4 Legions (including either cultists, some traitor guardists or both), only issue is if it also replaces the old Codex. The dreadnought being replaced, if true, could just be a new unit called daemon engines (this is pure speculation of course).

Generally I am sceptical about the BoK rumours when they differ from current mainstream rumours (which include just one Codex this year), e.g. the dragon. But then again, I still don't accept the WD Sororitas Codex

What is Straightsilver's success record? And even if that story is accurate, how relevant is a second hand plan for a book released 6 years ago?

It never made sense to have the old 4th Chaos Codex stay as 'Renegade' book, as their is nothing uniquely renegade in it except Huron and, depending on your view on him, Ahriman, and about 2 pages in the hobby section on alternative paint schemes.The other 99% of that book are exclusively (ex-)Legion (as they are in the 41st century) fluff and rules. Besides that, there can be no renegades without grounding in the Legions as their origins and history. For the most part, Renegades ARE what has become of the Legions. Word Bearers turning to Khorne become the Sanctified. Night Lords and Word Bearers throwing their stuff together become Warriors of Aggannor.Skulltakes, commanded by a former Storm Lord, are arguably the biggest single organised contingent of World Eaters still around (allied with the former Death Guard known as the Apostles of Contagion). The biggest Word Bearer ship is commanded by Huron, etc... .

Go 40k bro, you won't regret it!

Chaos Space Marines exist in groups of ad hoc alliances to accomplish their goals. A Slaanesh Daemon Prince hiring/dominating a Plague Marine coven to further his goals, and both sides of the alliance are probably planning on pulling one over on the other.

Yet the books themselves say that rarely do they mix up, and usually it's because of a tzeentchian pulling them together.

You can't have "Rarely mixes together, hates each other, rarely makes full out alliances" suddenly becoming "Oh hey they team up all the time, the chaos gods and their followers are all bro's so they'll fight together"

4th edition book was an abomination, most of them aren't even renegades, with the exception of huron, Kharn, Bile, and Ahriman. And even than Kharn is accepted by the Khorne worshipers, and still teams up with his original, unlike the rest. Typhus still stops by the daemon planet with mortrarian, and Lucius hasn't even abandoned the emperors children.

BOK wrote:All Cult Marines are Elites
...
Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on)
...
Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)

So this is how Chaos dies: To thunderous stupidity.

Chaos Dreadnaught removed? Madness!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BOK wrote:All Cult Marines are Elites
...
Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on)
...
Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)

So this is how Chaos dies: To thunderous stupidity.

Chaos died years ago when the last "codex" was released. This is just them playing with its corpse like a bunch of necrophiliacs.

I also sense Jervis' touch on this upcoming "codex", with Cult Marines moving back to Elites.

Kind Regards,
Vladsimpaler

Zweischneid wrote:

Farmer wrote:

How is that anyless fluffy then a slannesh daemon prince in the same army as a bunch of plague marines? which is all the current codex has to offer.

Because Chaos by and large fight as mix-and-match warbands 99,9999% of the time. That's what makes them "different" to Loyalists. A uniform army that just switches out "red" for "blue" and "for the Blood God" for "for the Emperor" doesn't need a seperate Codex. You can use the marine book for that. What makes Chaos fluffy, distinct and worthy of their own book is the very fact that it's a motley, rowdy, infighting rag-tag warband that will fight each other almost as gladly as they fight the enemy across the board.

This has never been the case until the 4th edition codex, and that codex was an abomination that never should have been written. They removed all semblance of the enmity and divisions between chaos forces in favor of seriously dumbing down the codex, and in doing so, removed 90% of the character of the army.

Yes, most of the legions have been shattered into small warbands, and the World Eaters probably worst of all. But our 40k armies are no bigger than "warband" size. Mixing and matching marked units at the squad level would be uncommon, and the old restrictions represented this well. A chaos warband that resembled the typical builds from the 4th edition codex would be in the vast minority of warbands based on every other bit of chaos fluff that exists.

Edit: to get this post at least slightly back on topic, if these new rumors are correct, it sounds like they're at least bringing this back to some extent with the special character builds. Not totally happy about it though, especially since it leaves all but the big 4 god-dedicated legions out in the cold.

I hope that the one about no new SCs is wrong. Why don't the AL WB IW or NL get any love?

Dreadnought is probably just going to turn into Decimator.

Durza wrote:I hope that the one about no new SCs is wrong. Why don't the AL WB IW or NL get any love?

Personally, I don't think all the Legions should get special characters; it just reduces the emphasis or need on home-made/customised characters IMHO.

Dreadnought is probably just going to turn into Decimator.

Unlikely, they're two different things, game and fluff wise, whilst IIRC someone said GW aren't going to be 'stealing' FW units for their Codices anymore.

Just Dave wrote:

Durza wrote:I hope that the one about no new SCs is wrong. Why don't the AL WB IW or NL get any love?

Personally, I don't think all the Legions should get special characters; it just reduces the emphasis or need on home-made/customised characters IMHO.

Dreadnought is probably just going to turn into Decimator.

Unlikely, they're two different things, game and fluff wise, whilst IIRC someone said GW aren't going to be 'stealing' FW units for their Codices anymore.

While I do agree that some things should be customized, I would love to see an Iron Warriors Dreadnought HQ character. Since I can't exactly make one myself with the rules (Aside from using one as a DP)

Not to mention some of those armies would have rules you can't exactly customize into a mark system.

I agree that not every legion should need a special character, BUT if SCs are the only way to unlock legion-specific rules or builds, everyone else is kind of getting screwed if they don't have one.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BOK wrote:All Cult Marines are Elites
...
Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on)
...
Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)

So this is how Chaos dies: To thunderous stupidity.

I agree with this 100%.

The only way it could be worse is if Matt Ward wrote the codex.

LoneLictor wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BOK wrote:All Cult Marines are Elites
...
Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on)
...
Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)

So this is how Chaos dies: To thunderous stupidity.

I agree with this 100%.

The only way it could be worse is if Matt Ward wrote the codex.

Give it a rest, the only way it could be worse is if Jervis or Crudance wrote it.

LoneLictor wrote:
The only way it could be worse is if Matt Ward wrote the codex.

For non-chaos players, it could be worse if it returned to the same relative power level and feel as the codex that it replaced. That mess of broken and cummulative options led to the most unfun games of 3rd edition my local group ever had. Most of us simply stopped playing 40k on a regular basis after it came out due to the ridiculous combos it allowed in conjunction with the old 3rd edition (and trial assault) rules. Everything is relative depending on your perspective.

warboss wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:
The only way it could be worse is if Matt Ward wrote the codex.

For non-chaos players, it could be worse if it returned to the same relative power level and feel as the codex that it replaced. That mess of broken and cummulative options led to the most unfun games of 3rd edition my local group ever had. Most of us simply stopped playing 40k on a regular basis after it came out due to the ridiculous combos it allowed in conjunction with the old 3rd edition (and trial assault) rules. Everything is relative depending on your perspective.

That Codex was most certainly over powered, but it could've been fixed with some increased point costs and getting rid of one or two esp. bad rules. Instead they made that horrible, horrible, horrible Gav Thorpe Codex that pretty much was Games Workshop flipping all the Chaos players off.

And now we have this. Le sigh.....

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

This has never been the case until the 4th edition codex, and that codex was an abomination that never should have been written. They removed all semblance of the enmity and divisions between chaos forces in favor of seriously dumbing down the codex, and in doing so, removed 90% of the character of the army.

Yes, most of the legions have been shattered into small warbands, and the World Eaters probably worst of all. But our 40k armies are no bigger than "warband" size. Mixing and matching marked units at the squad level would be uncommon, and the old restrictions represented this well. A chaos warband that resembled the typical builds from the 4th edition codex would be in the vast minority of warbands based on every other bit of chaos fluff that exists.

Edit: to get this post at least slightly back on topic, if these new rumors are correct, it sounds like they're at least bringing this back to some extent with the special character builds. Not totally happy about it though, especially since it leaves all but the big 4 god-dedicated legions out in the cold.

That has always been the case. Rogue Trader Slaves of Darkness forced you to roll on a table (with a D10) if you summoned daemons or received chaos gifts. 1 or 2, Khorne, 3-4 Slaneesh, 5-6, Nurgle, 7-8, Tzeentch, 9-10 Undivided. You couldn't possibly avoid a mixed force. 2nd edition + introduced "animostity" precisely to set Chaos apart from the "more diciplined" and uniform chaos forces. Chaos would be infighting, but that was the point. It was what made chaos stand apart conceptually from the loyalist side (unfortunately, WAAC-players without regard for the fluff had a habit of trying to sidestep fluffy armies that used animostity to its fullest).

Mixed warbands have always been the norm. And always will be. Mono-lists are arguably possible. Just like its not unthinkable to have an Ultramarine force deploy entirely in Terminator armour or an Eldar force consiting only of Striking Scorpions. But it sure aint the norm. And it sure ain't the "typical" Ultramarine or Eldar way of fighting. Neither is that the case with Chaos. The proper and fluffy default Chaos army should be a mix of Gods and units, ideally one that highlights the "old" fluffy animosity infighting that made Chaos unique vis-a-vis the loyalists in 2nd Edition +. Mono-forces should be reserved to the few incidents of "historical" play, which are noted in 40K lore and specifically highlighted as unique and rare events.

If GW decided to make fluff that Chaos Legions, like the World Eaters are splintered, it did so with the assumption that this would be visibly represented in the armies on the table. Yes, in theory a rare World Eater force might consist of nothing but World Eaters. And a Space Marine army might consist of a mix-and-match of Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Ravenguards, etc.. all fighting together with a few Marines each. But by default, with the Chaos fluff noting the Legions as broken and the Loyalist Chapters as functionally sound, the expectation is that the "normal" armies will have a smattering of different Chaos Legions/Gods to represent this sundering and "uniform" loyalist armies to represent their organisational and military coherency.

Zweischneid wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

This has never been the case until the 4th edition codex, and that codex was an abomination that never should have been written. They removed all semblance of the enmity and divisions between chaos forces in favor of seriously dumbing down the codex, and in doing so, removed 90% of the character of the army.

Yes, most of the legions have been shattered into small warbands, and the World Eaters probably worst of all. But our 40k armies are no bigger than "warband" size. Mixing and matching marked units at the squad level would be uncommon, and the old restrictions represented this well. A chaos warband that resembled the typical builds from the 4th edition codex would be in the vast minority of warbands based on every other bit of chaos fluff that exists.

Edit: to get this post at least slightly back on topic, if these new rumors are correct, it sounds like they're at least bringing this back to some extent with the special character builds. Not totally happy about it though, especially since it leaves all but the big 4 god-dedicated legions out in the cold.

That has always been the case. Rogue Trader Slaves of Darkness forced you to roll on a table (with a D10) if you summoned daemons or received chaos gifts. 1 or 2, Khorne, 3-4 Slaneesh, 5-6, Nurgle, 7-8, Tzeentch, 9-10 Undivided. You couldn't possibly avoid a mixed force. 2nd edition + introduced "animostity" precisely to set Chaos apart from the "more diciplined" and uniform chaos forces. Chaos would be infighting, but that was the point. It was what made chaos stand apart conceptually from the loyalist side (unfortunately, WAAC-players without regard for the fluff had a habit of trying to sidestep fluffy armies that used animostity to its fullest).

Mixed warbands have always been the norm. And always will be. Mono-lists are arguably possible. Just like its not unthinkable to have an Ultramarine force deploy entirely in Terminator armour or an Eldar force consiting only of Striking Scorpions. But it sure aint the norm. And it sure ain't the "typical" Ultramarine or Eldar way of fighting. Neither is that the case with Chaos. The proper and fluffy default Chaos army should be a mix of Gods and units, ideally one that highlights the "old" fluffy animosity infighting that made Chaos unique vis-a-vis the loyalists in 2nd Edition +. Mono-forces should be reserved to the few incidents of "historical" play, which are noted in 40K lore and specifically highlighted as unique and rare events.

Hahahahahaha
Holy crap dude, are you wrong or what? You totally ignore my post in this thread proving you wrong, and you still come out of the woodwork and post this total bs. It was funny once or twice but now you're just proving to be intentionally obtuse with a best case scenario, or worst case scenario you're a moron.

Here's the post here which you conveniently ignored because you are wrong. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/443328.page#4161692
But let me quote it here so everyone can see it.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:
No. Just no. You keep bringing up this stupid gak into conversations and even after being told you're wrong, you still keep at it, don't you?

Originally when Chaos was introduced, you couldn't do mixed forces. The only force that allowed you to do this was Black Legion in RT era because they switched from god to god so often. Otherwise, there was animosity. You could not have Slaanesh dudes in a Khorne force. Full stop. Or if you could, you were at a disadvantage. Animosity is there for army balance, not to stop WAAC gamers.

What made Chaos unique was the fact that they did not obey the laws of nature. Possessed by daemons, granted Chaos attributes. Could summon Daemons. Were veterans of the Horus Heresy. That's what made Chaos Space Marines unique.

The essential design paradigm was that you chose one specific god and you dedicated your warband to them. That was that. If anything, the WAAC gamers are the ones who abuse the system and mix in the different gods, like using Skarbrand to give your Daemonettes a re-roll to hit.

Um. There was no Black Legion of that name in Slaves of Darkness yet, though they had introduced Horus. Also, there wasn't even animosity yet in slaves of darkness. Indeed, you couldn't even choose which Daemons/Possessions/etc. you got. In RT, you just rolled (D10 still back then) on a table with 1-2 getting you Khorne, 3-4 getting you Slaneesh, 5-6 Nurgle, 7-8 Tzeentch and 9-10 Independent every time you summoned thngs or got possessions. Unless you rolled constantly the same number, it was impossible in RT to have a "mono-God" force. By pure virtue of the fact that the game used dice, you were bound to get a mixture of things(who, in RT-days, weren't even afflicted by animosity).

Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Go check page 268 of Slaves to Darkness. Whaaat? Could it be? The Black Legion? Say it ain't so!
Only the Black Legion had the possibility having multiple Daemons from different gods, otherwise you were restricted to the god in your chosen army list. Otherwise, unless you took Black Legion, Daemons were subject to hatred of their opposed deity. Also, you have the World Eaters being subject to the hatred of followers of Slaanesh, and Emperor's Children subject to hatred of followers of Khorne.

Also, please direct me to the page number and book where you rolled to summon, because in Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned you paid the points and then you had to roll to see if they were even available.


And to stay on topic, I find the Daemon army to not be appealing at all, since they should be back with the Chaos Space Marines. Grey Knights used to appeal to me but their fluff nowadays just weirds me out.

:edit: I see what you're talking about with the D10, that's the Daemonic Intrusions table. That was totally independent of the army lists and only happened when daemons attempted to use a psyker as a gate to realspace.

Sure makes it easy to argue when you ignore the truth, huh?

Your stupid fething table that you keep blabbing about is where a GM could determine if Daemons used a psyker as a portal to the real world, and I even mentioned that in the post. . Otherwise, the only other faction that could summon daemons of multiple gods was the Black Legion. Even then, they had animosity against Daemons on the opposing side.

Seriously, stop posting your dumb gak. You're wrong. And guess what, you'll ignore this too. But now everyone can see that you are plainly wrong.

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:Yaaaaawn.

We need no more

Zweischneid wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

This has never been the case until the 4th edition codex, and that codex was an abomination that never should have been written. They removed all semblance of the enmity and divisions between chaos forces in favor of seriously dumbing down the codex, and in doing so, removed 90% of the character of the army.

Yes, most of the legions have been shattered into small warbands, and the World Eaters probably worst of all. But our 40k armies are no bigger than "warband" size. Mixing and matching marked units at the squad level would be uncommon, and the old restrictions represented this well. A chaos warband that resembled the typical builds from the 4th edition codex would be in the vast minority of warbands based on every other bit of chaos fluff that exists.

Edit: to get this post at least slightly back on topic, if these new rumors are correct, it sounds like they're at least bringing this back to some extent with the special character builds. Not totally happy about it though, especially since it leaves all but the big 4 god-dedicated legions out in the cold.

That has always been the case. Rogue Trader Slaves of Darkness forced you to roll on a table (with a D10) if you summoned daemons or received chaos gifts. 1 or 2, Khorne, 3-4 Slaneesh, 5-6, Nurgle, 7-8, Tzeentch, 9-10 Undivided. You couldn't possibly avoid a mixed force. 2nd edition + introduced "animostity" precisely to set Chaos apart from the "more diciplined" and uniform chaos forces. Chaos would be infighting, but that was the point. It was what made chaos stand apart conceptually from the loyalist side (unfortunately, WAAC-players without regard for the fluff had a habit of trying to sidestep fluffy armies that used animostity to its fullest).

Mixed warbands have always been the norm. And always will be. Mono-lists are arguably possible. Just like its not unthinkable to have an Ultramarine force deploy entirely in Terminator armour or an Eldar force consiting only of Striking Scorpions. But it sure aint the norm. And it sure ain't the "typical" Ultramarine or Eldar way of fighting. Neither is that the case with Chaos. The proper and fluffy default Chaos army should be a mix of Gods and units, ideally one that highlights the "old" fluffy animosity infighting that made Chaos unique vis-a-vis the loyalists in 2nd Edition +. Mono-forces should be reserved to the few incidents of "historical" play, which are noted in 40K lore and specifically highlighted as unique and rare events.

If GW decided to make fluff that Chaos Legions, like the World Eaters are splintered, it did so with the assumption that this would be visibly represented in the armies on the table. Yes, in theory a rare World Eater force might consist of nothing but World Eaters. And a Space Marine army might consist of a mix-and-match of Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Ravenguards, etc.. all fighting together with a few Marines each. But by default, with the Chaos fluff noting the Legions as broken and the Loyalist Chapters as functionally sound, the expectation is that the "normal" armies will have a smattering of different Chaos Legions/Gods to represent this sundering and "uniform" loyalist armies to represent their organisational and military coherency.

Very well spoken!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vladsimpaler, it is show of poor arguing skills when one turns to insulting the opposition with every second word.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BOK wrote:All Cult Marines are Elites
...
Special Characters will unlock Cult Marines as troops (Kharn for Berserkers and so on)
...
Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)

So this is how Chaos dies: To thunderous stupidity.

I agree with this 100%.

The only way it could be worse is if Matt Ward wrote the codex.

Give it a rest, the only way it could be worse is if Jervis or Crudance wrote it.

Or you guys could pay attention to his quote and agree that it could only be worse if George Lucas wrote the codex.
Don't worry HBMC, I followed ya.

Zweischneid wrote:
. The proper and fluffy default Chaos army should be a mix of Gods and units, ideally one that highlights the "old" fluffy animosity infighting that made Chaos unique vis-a-vis the loyalists in 2nd Edition +. Mono-forces should be reserved to the few incidents of "historical" play, which are noted in 40K lore and specifically highlighted as unique and rare events.

So...for the Legions that are largely whole, or at least splintered into factions that are larger than Chapters, or whose members don't tread down the path of any one god?

Remember, the Death Guard didn't split into hundreds of tiny warbands the way the World Eaters and Emperor's Children did, nor did the Thousand Sons, or Iron Warriors. The Death Guard are still largely cohesive, with one real primary break, and that's Typhus and his group which are more than large enough to portray in a force as a single unified Nurgle tabletop force, and those that didn't join him are still thousands strong, likewise the Thousand Sons and Ahriman's coven and the bulk of the Tsons forces. Other Legions like the Iron Warriors won't really have units dedicated to any god and thus likely wouldn't have anything but undivided units.

These forces are still plenty large enough on their own to fully justify mono-god lists, especially at the level a 40k game is played at with a few dozen troops at best.

I have a fluffy, mono God list of bolter carrying Plague Marines led by a Sorcerer. Even if the Death Guard were splintered into thousands of infighting warbands (which they aren't) it'd still be possible to have a force of maybe three dozen Plague Marines working together without assistance from other Traitor Legions.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

Durza wrote:I hope that the one about no new SCs is wrong. Why don't the AL WB IW or NL get any love?

Personally, I don't think all the Legions should get special characters; it just reduces the emphasis or need on home-made/customised characters IMHO.

Dreadnought is probably just going to turn into Decimator.

Unlikely, they're two different things, game and fluff wise, whilst IIRC someone said GW aren't going to be 'stealing' FW units for their Codices anymore.

While I do agree that some things should be customized, I would love to see an Iron Warriors Dreadnought HQ character. Since I can't exactly make one myself with the rules (Aside from using one as a DP)

Not to mention some of those armies would have rules you can't exactly customize into a mark system.

I think your avatar of My Little Pony as Horus is just adorable.

Even World Eaters can have armies that are larger than loyalist chapters. Like in the 38th millennium when Angron and his army of 50000 (yes, fifty thousand) khorne berserkers (the vast majority are most likely World Eaters) launched an attack at the Imperium.

pg 36 in the current Codex: Chaos Space Marines

Vladsimpaler wrote:Chaos died years ago when the last "codex" was released. This is just them playing with its corpse like a bunch of necrophiliacs.

And with these magic words, this thread deteriorates into the same old stupid whinery about the old Codex as every Chaos thread before. So predictable

Kroothawk wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Chaos died years ago when the last "codex" was released. This is just them playing with its corpse like a bunch of necrophiliacs.

And with these magic words, this thread deteriorates into the same old stupid whinery about the old Codex as every Chaos thread before. So predictable

Hey, someone had to do it, I took one for the team.
Also, strong whining about my post haha

:edit: Just so the thread isn't locked, what do I think about the rumors?
It would be cool of Chaos Dreads were Daemon vehicles. I'm excited if cultists/traitors are indeed in.

Kind Regards,
Vladsimpaler

Totalwar1402 wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

While I do agree that some things should be customized, I would love to see an Iron Warriors Dreadnought HQ character. Since I can't exactly make one myself with the rules (Aside from using one as a DP)

Not to mention some of those armies would have rules you can't exactly customize into a mark system.

I think your avatar of My Little Pony as Horus is just adorable.

That Pony's name is Luna. It is only fitting that she were the Primarch of the Luna Wolves.

For the rumours, I can't see Dreadnoughts being taken out and replaced with a catch all "Daemon Engine" category. It's more likely that Dreads will stay in and the other types of daemon engine get their own slots, even if they all come in the same plastic kit. I think that an entry covering multiple different units with different stats would be unnecessarily complicated when you can do it with several different entries. Some of the new daemon engines could be monstrous creatures as opposed to a walker vehicle so it would lead to needing several very different stat lines in the same section.

After all, would you group a Dreadknight and Dreadnought together and call them Marine Engines?

Why wouldn't all legions have at least 1 SC? Word Bearers (to name just one example) don't deserve a special character? Plenty of options for their SC...

I for one think the cult marines as elites, to be unlocked as troops by SCs can work out quite nicely

I think this topic is better suited for "40K General Discussion" now...

Requiem wrote:Why wouldn't all legions have at least 1 SC? Word Bearers (to name just one example) don't deserve a special character? Plenty of options for their SC...

I for one think the cult marines as elites, to be unlocked as troops by SCs can work out quite nicely

I think you just described, perfectly, why not all Legions don't "deserve"(such a loaded word here. The terminology used really should be "X Legions don't have" the character, not "deserve") special characters.

What would a Night Lords special character be? Alpha Legion? Word Bearers? Iron Warriors?

Of those, they would basically all be some small variation upon Abaddon when you looked at them in a broad sense. A Night Lords special character would be one who takes Abaddon's normal FOC and then adds a Hit and Run styled ability to his units. He'd probably boost up Raptors and normal Legionnaires/Bikers somehow.
Alpha Legion? Infiltrate and Cultists. Depending upon who you talk to, this might be a very sophisticated version of Cultists where they 'reveal' themselves within your opponent's units, or simply a unit of goons with Guard stats(my least favorite method for this).
Word Bearers? Abaddon's list, with more Daemons and Chaplains.
Iron Warriors? Abaddon's list, with artillery! And entrenchments!

The Legions which as of now do not have special characters aren't really "defined" enough to have anything which makes them exceedingly unique or that can be used to create an archetype for a special character.

Kanluwen wrote:

Requiem wrote:Why wouldn't all legions have at least 1 SC? Word Bearers (to name just one example) don't deserve a special character? Plenty of options for their SC...

I for one think the cult marines as elites, to be unlocked as troops by SCs can work out quite nicely

I think you just described, perfectly, why not all Legions don't "deserve"(such a loaded word here. The terminology used really should be "X Legions don't have" the character, not "deserve") special characters.

What would a Night Lords special character be? Alpha Legion? Word Bearers? Iron Warriors?

Of those, they would basically all be some small variation upon Abaddon when you looked at them in a broad sense. A Night Lords special character would be one who takes Abaddon's normal FOC and then adds a Hit and Run styled ability to his units. He'd probably boost up Raptors and normal Legionnaires/Bikers somehow.
Alpha Legion? Infiltrate and Cultists. Depending upon who you talk to, this might be a very sophisticated version of Cultists where they 'reveal' themselves within your opponent's units, or simply a unit of goons with Guard stats(my least favorite method for this).
Word Bearers? Abaddon's list, with more Daemons and Chaplains.
Iron Warriors? Abaddon's list, with artillery! And entrenchments!

The Legions which as of now do not have special characters aren't really "defined" enough to have anything which makes them exceedingly unique or that can be used to create an archetype for a special character.

For Iron Warriors I'd say they would have more Heavy Support slots but less of another slot (probably fast attack) They'd be required to field a minimum number of Heavy support options too. Changes to FOC accessed through an upgrade to a Chaos Lord or a special character if they come up with one.

Word Bearers would be the same minimum kind of thing but with Daemons instead of Heavy and they have to take a special HQ upgrade which makes him a chaplain or something along those lines or a special character, as above.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

For Iron Warriors I'd say they would have more Heavy Support slots but less of another slot (probably fast attack) They'd be required to field a minimum number of Heavy support options too. Changes to FOC accessed through an upgrade to a Chaos Lord or a special character if they come up with one.

Word Bearers would be the same minimum kind of thing but with Daemons instead of Heavy and they have to take a special HQ upgrade which makes him a chaplain or something along those lines or a special character, as above.

But why do you need to hard-code that into the rules? Presumably, anyone making an Iron Warrior list would start by including lots of HS. Everyone doing Word Bearers by including lots of daemons. They only ones who would "benefit" from such hard-coded differentiations are those not primarely interested in the fluff, but those who end up mathhammering out that the "iron warrior"-list (or whatever) happens to be the best in the book.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
For Iron Warriors I'd say they would have more Heavy Support slots but less of another slot (probably fast attack) They'd be required to field a minimum number of Heavy support options too.

And what happens when that slot is where people want to go anyways, no matter the Legion they play?
We already saw this back with Pete Haines' Chaos book. It was a no-brainer option for people to say they're playing "Iron Warriors", even when it was a 1:2 ratio where they had to give up two FA slots for 1 HS.

It's just a bad idea all around, and encourages too much in the way of cookie cutters. At the very least, if it were me writing the book?
We'd see a generic Warsmith character who is available to all the various Legions. The reason being that the various Warsmiths do seem to 'spread out' and get into all kinds of shenanigans.

Word Bearers would be the same minimum kind of thing but with Daemons instead of Heavy and they have to take a special HQ upgrade which makes him a chaplain or something along those lines.

Same thing goes as with the Warsmiths.

Swapping FOC slots around is a bad idea, because when you're giving up something you never intended to take in the first place (2 FA for 1 more HS) then you're not really giving anything up.

But that's not a 'Chaos' issue, that's an overall Codex design issue (3.5 Guard and 4th Marine had the same problems with Doctrines and Traits, respectively).

I didn't say that it was a good idea for them to do that for Iron Warriors but it is one of the few ways to get an army which fully fits their fluff.

3 Tanks is not going to be breaching the walls of the Terra any time soon, after all

Problem is, army lists aren't for breaching the walls of the Emperor's Palace on Terra.

They're for breaching the walls of Outpost Ascending Redemption 24.

New rumors up on Bell:

BoLS wrote:Chaos Marines
-The "flying dragon thingy" is coming. It is a flyer and one of two entirely new units added to the codex.
-The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight.
-The Chaos Dreadnought is indeed still there (take a breath people), but gets a new name, and a rules overhaul.
-Hardcover book (just like Fantasy army books)


6th Edition
-Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history

You can read for yourself here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/04/40k-rumors-on-chaos-marines-and-6th.html

Hopefully GW is using what works in Fantasy atm and not what's killing Fantasy atm..

I think 40k using a % system like fantasy would change the game a lot.

Seriously.. for a lot of armies having to field 1000 points of troops for a 2000 point list would be a real game changer.

I'm not sure that we need Psyker Lores, however.

Maybe it will be like 2nd ed
at least 25% troops
at most 50 % hq
at most 50 % hs etc.

I wouldn't put any faith in unsourced rumors posted on BOLS.

Hope Dragons and Baby carriers with spikes are made up rumours.
Magic in Fantasy 8th edition killed competitive play completely (Mat Ward's fix to cover his killing competitive play in 7th edition with his Daemon army book). Hope this 40k rumour is made up as well.

Kroothawk wrote:Hope Dragons and Baby carriers with spikes are made up rumours.
Magic in Fantasy 8th edition killed competitive play completely (Mat Ward's fix to cover his killing competitive play in 7th edition with his Daemon army book). Hope this 40k rumour is made up as well.

/shrug. There's alot of stuff out there for "competitive" play. Dust Warfare just hit the shelves with explicit tournament rules. Privateer Press gets ever more stifling and dull in their quest to eradicate any trace of possible ambiguity. Not to mention the global circus of Chess, Go, etc.. for those who are truly serious about competitively measuring their tactical skills.

GW has a strong niche and "core identity" as a product by sitting precisely in the "models & fun first" niche where all those others are not. It would strike me as sensible (over and beyond Mat Ward) to stick to your strengths and don't go "New Coke" by trying to turn 40K into something it never was intended to be.

So the only new units for chaos is the dragon and a dreadknight? Where is my juggernaut riders, my demonmancers?

If magic becomes a part of 40k as much as it is for fantasy, my black templars are going to have a lot of trouble unless they become the ultimate force of power stopping (burn the witch)

unmercifulconker wrote:So the only new units for chaos is the dragon and a dreadknight? Where is my juggernaut riders, my demonmancers?

If magic becomes a part of 40k as much as it is for fantasy, my black templars are going to have a lot of trouble unless they become the ultimate force of power stopping (burn the witch)

My Tau would also feel the pain of a 40k "magic phase".

Though that might be karma for me playing Dark Elves in Fantasy who can totally bulldoze the magic phase.

puma713 wrote:New rumors up on Bell:

BoLS wrote:Chaos Marines
-The "flying dragon thingy" is coming. It is a flyer and one of two entirely new units added to the codex.
-The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight.
-The Chaos Dreadnought is indeed still there (take a breath people), but gets a new name, and a rules overhaul.
-Hardcover book (just like Fantasy army books)


6th Edition
-Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history

You can read for yourself here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/04/40k-rumors-on-chaos-marines-and-6th.html

These rumors sounds really, really bad.

I can only hope that GW doesn't look towards WFB for much of anything for 40K.

I hope they take as much as possible from WFB. To hit modifiers, movement value instead of fifty different movement rules, a good armour system and % based armies.

BoLS wrote: -The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight.

Oh God...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BoLS wrote: -The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight.

Oh God...

Oh come on H.B.M.C.

Since the Grey Knights got the Dreadknight, Chaos gets the Hopeknight!

Nah I think that the possibilities for chaos for MCs are much better than the IoM. Something like a mix of a Defiler and a DP would be ok and much more fluffy than the Dreadknight.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Swapping FOC slots around is a bad idea, because when you're giving up something you never intended to take in the first place (2 FA for 1 more HS) then you're not really giving anything up.

But that's not a 'Chaos' issue, that's an overall Codex design issue (3.5 Guard and 4th Marine had the same problems with Doctrines and Traits, respectively).

Crazy idea... but with how butchered the FOC has become in the last edition with every possible combination of "counts as" scoring, troop, nothing, ____ and _____ ....maybe just maybe GW will do something to modify the core mechanics behind FOC? Maybe that's too rational for GW... but you never know.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BoLS wrote: -The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight.

Oh God...

Wasn't the dreadknight suppose to be the answer to the defiler? I guess the next grey knight codex will need an answer to this thing. OMG is the dreadknight going to be baby-carried by something bigger?

I think there is plenty of things from epic that are precedent for Chaos' bigger-than dreadknight toy.

Kanluwen wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BoLS wrote: -The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight.

Oh God...

Oh come on H.B.M.C.

Since the Grey Knights got the Dreadknight, Chaos gets the Hopeknight!

Its genius, I'll take twelve!


On a more relative note, yeah, I really am wary about the fantasy stuff. I did a list in a thread of RPG/Wargames I played over in Large sscale, roleplaying & Board Games, where I noted I stopped playing fantasy in 2011. There is a reason for that, and I hope its corrupting influence doesn't seep too deeply into 40K.

Gargantuan wrote:I hope they take as much as possible from WFB. To hit modifiers, movement value instead of fifty different movement rules, a good armour system and % based armies.

To hit modifiers and different armour system will not be a part of 40K, it's one of the ways the systems are different, In fantasy you have modifiers to hit meanwhile in 40K you have cover saves. And for armour 40K has the AP system and Fantasy has modifiers. Unless it becomes WHFB in space these changes won't happen. Different move valuse might work but would require a new FAQ for every codex.

Shadox wrote:Nah I think that the possibilities for chaos for MCs are much better than the IoM. Something like a mix of a Defiler and a DP would be ok and much more fluffy than the Dreadknight.

You mean like the soul grinder for the DoC?

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Shadox wrote:Nah I think that the possibilities for chaos for MCs are much better than the IoM. Something like a mix of a Defiler and a DP would be ok and much more fluffy than the Dreadknight.

You mean like the soul grinder for the DoC?

Nope the other way round

puma713 wrote:New rumors up on Bell:

BoLS wrote:Chaos Marines
-The "flying dragon thingy" is coming. It is a flyer and one of two entirely new units added to the codex.
-The second new unit is said to be a Chaos answer to the Grey Knight Dreadknight.
-The Chaos Dreadnought is indeed still there (take a breath people), but gets a new name, and a rules overhaul.
-Hardcover book (just like Fantasy army books)


6th Edition
-Many of the general concepts from magic from Warhammer Fantasy are coming to Warhammer 40,000.
-There will be "lore equivalents"
-Psychic powers will be generated randomly by psykers (like fantasy)
-Entirely new rules for constructing army lists (~Look at Fantasy for hints)
-The FOC may be history

You can read for yourself here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/04/40k-rumors-on-chaos-marines-and-6th.html

Darth Jervis: I am altering both Chaos and the 6th edition psychic system...pray I do not alter them any further.

This deal keeps getting worse all the time...

Actually to be honest I like the 6th edition rumors. When I was toying around with making a 6th edition rulebook one of the first things I did was I looked at the magic system from Fantasy and did my best to incorporate it into 40k

Farseers: Level 4
Chaos Sorcerer: Level 3 (can be level 4)
Aspiring Sorcerer: Level 1 (can be level 2)
Librarian: Level 2 (can be up to level 4)
Inquisitor: Level 1 (can be up to level 4)
Grey Knight Grandmaster: Level 3 (Can be up to level 4)
Grey Knight Terminator Squad: Level 2 (Can be up to level 4)
Grey Knight Strike Squad: Level 1 (can be up to level 4)

Items:
Collar of Khorne: Psionic Resistance 2
Psychic Hood: Generate an additional nullify dice
Force Weapon: May store a number of force dice up to the psyker’s level. Each one spent gives +1 S and -1 to the opponent’s save. These dice can’t be used for psychic powers.
Force Rod: May store up to 2 dice (force or nullify) for use in the next psychic phase
Runic Weapon: Generates an additional nullify dice.

Obviously some stuff is outdated like the Grey Knights and it's not an exhaustive list, but I think it could definitely work. There are force and nullify dice, akin to magic and dispel dice in fantasy, respectively.

As for the Chaos rumors, I don't mind the Chaos Dread overhaul nor do I mind the hardcover. The dragon and the "answer to the Dreadknight" just sound silly.

Kind Regards,
Vladsimpaler

A little too early to get all 'doom and gloom' over 6th ed possibly incorperating some 8th ed Fantasy ideas...
Considering the lamenting that's been going on about how borked the BRB lores are in 8th, I doubt we'll see anything like in 40k. Hell, look at all the 8th ed army books released so far - no insane spells in sight in the army specific lores! It honestly seems like GW has taken the hint that they went way too OTT in the rulebook, espeically considering jst how many tournies now comp the magic phase to reduce the power of the 'big 3' offending magic lores. (Life/Shadow/Death)

%-based list building is one of my personal hopes honestly. The current FOC is great when you're only playing upto 1500pts, becomes somewhat restrictive to at least a 1/3rd of the armies at 1750-1850 pts and is broken in favouring MEQ's by the 2k pts limit and above as everyone but marines starts to easily run out of slots!
Moving to a percentage system means no one is favoured anymore, and it'll really help out a number of armies who are currently heavily gimped by being limited to only 3 slots in certain areas. (Tyranids - I'm looking squarely at you guys and all your decent anti-tank being stuck in the Elites section!)
As in Fantasy, if 40k does move to a %-based system, I can forsee rules being added in to stop spam abuses - for example, no more than 3 of the same Elites choice or no more than 2 of the same Heavy, etc...



As for the current batch of Chaos rumors, I sencerily hope they're just alot of made-up BS myself... Especially the bit about requiring a named SC just to take a mono-god army. I mean, 1k sons for example are costly enough on their own, I don't need to gimp my list by being outright forced to add a 250+ pts character just to keep my theme going.

I honest to god would Love to see psyker spells being represented as they are in the fluff

I mean really, they are either okay or crap, when psykers are a HUGE part of the lore.

Plus it'd beef up black templars anti-psyker along with others, paving way for the ultimate anti-psyker the Sisters of Battle!

The Sisters of Battle aren't the "ultimate anti-psyker".

That was the Sisters of Silence, who as an organization (seemingly) no longer exist.

I'm confused.

Some ideas from WHFB could be good, IMO. Movement value would favour diversity (for example, eldar banshees move the same as an ork, what seems weird to me). Percentage army lists help to create armies with lots of little units. Who wants 3 sentinels in the same squadron if an immobilised means destroyed? They can die easily enought without help XD. Imagine Raven Guard armies with a few 5 men scout squads supported by lots of 5 men assault marines. The current FOC system makes small units unuseful.

About chaos....a mech dragon, or a "chaos answer to dreadknight" are too vague concepts. There are many things they can create to fulfill these roles, so I'm aware they choose an option I don't like (not meaning a bad option in general). Dreadnought still in is good, no doubt. Too iconic to be deleted. However it seems they are trying to enlarge the overall scale of the miniatures, makong them more credible when compared to infantry (Trygon, Triach stalker). They can't eliminate dreadnought, but maybe they are trying to migrate to something bigger and they start with chaos.

Kanluwen wrote:The Sisters of Battle aren't the "ultimate anti-psyker".

That was the Sisters of Silence, who as an organization (seemingly) no longer exist.

Currently they and the witch hunters are the most anti-psyker organization within the Imperium, and the closest thing that can match it is the Gray Knights, but they are more specific towards anti-daemon, so they have anti-psyker plans, but Witch Hunters and the SoB actively seek out heretics and psykers in general.

I could have sworn the sisters of silence still existed, what changed?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The Sisters of Battle aren't the "ultimate anti-psyker".

That was the Sisters of Silence, who as an organization (seemingly) no longer exist.

Currently they and the witch hunters are the most anti-psyker organization within the Imperium, and the closest thing that can match it is the Gray Knights, but they are more specific towards anti-daemon, so they have anti-psyker plans, but Witch Hunters and the SoB actively seek out heretics and psykers in general.

The Witch Hunters and Sororitas actively seek out heretics and "witches". There's a slight difference between those the Imperium labels "witches" and the catch-all term "psykers".
"Witches" might be psykers or they might be your average joe who has made deals with a Power(capital P) for powers beyond the scope of a mortal.

Oh, and mutants.

I could have sworn the sisters of silence still existed, what changed?

We don't exactly know what happened to them, but we have no canonical mention of them surviving past the Heresy. We will likely see it explored in the "Garro" thread of the Horus Heresy, but for the time being:
There are no Sisters of Silence in the 41st Millenium.

Kanluwen wrote:Since the Grey Knights got the Dreadknight, Chaos gets the Hopeknight!

No it'll be specific for the Night Lords - the Nightknight.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Since the Grey Knights got the Dreadknight, Chaos gets the Hopeknight!

No it'll be specific for the Night Lords - the Nightknight.

The Ironknight!

Stop before someone mentions Slaanesh

Kroothawk wrote:Stop before someone mentions Slaanesh

Nah, I'm more waiting for the Black Legion version of the 'Knight. It'll spawn endless Monty Python jokes, I'm sure

Cheexsta wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Stop before someone mentions Slaanesh

Nah, I'm more waiting for the Black Legion version of the 'Knight. It'll spawn endless Monty Python jokes, I'm sure

'Tis but a scratch!

Well, I'm pretty sure GW signed an exclusive deal with DC comics, so they're going to give it a cape and call it the DarkKnight.

I actually hope that, like the defiler, this daemon-knight anti-dreadknight isn't a god specific unit. That part of chaos is interesting and all but undivided needs more attention and allows a wider use by a greater variety of armies.

Gargantuan wrote:I hope they take as much as possible from WFB. To hit modifiers, movement value instead of fifty different movement rules, a good armour system and % based armies.

You mean like 2nd edition?

Hlain Larkin mk2 wrote:To hit modifiers and different armour system will not be a part of 40K, it's one of the ways the systems are different, In fantasy you have modifiers to hit meanwhile in 40K you have cover saves. And for armour 40K has the AP system and Fantasy has modifiers. Unless it becomes WHFB in space these changes won't happen. Different move valuse might work but would require a new FAQ for every codex.

It's been done already!

Incidentally, the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition was pretty unpopular, even though I can understand why they made the changes they did. I believe the most common phrase used at the time was 'dumbing down' and a large number of people (at least from my experience) stopped playing when 3rd edition was released. Me too in fact, despite my love for the miniatures and background, I just couldn't abide playing with such a bastard, stunted version of the game, especially with the second edition so fresh in my mind. I continued to play 2nd edition with my mates for a while after, and eventually we drifted away from it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Necromunda's appeal is down to the rule-set it uses, which are a slightly altered version of 2nd edition. The rules are just so much more intuitive, a lot less abstract, than 3rd edition 40k. People being shot as they run between buildings, throwing grenades through a window, a turret on a tank blowing off an landing on someone. Most gamers love that kind of stuff, and 3rd edition removed all of it, I'm guessing in an effort to make the game more accessible to a younger audience? The whole thing then became more abstract, to the point where it felt like it was straddling skirmish and platoon level gaming systems, but not really getting the best aspects from either one.

The only real complaint I think has any foundation of reality, rather than people just towing the company line of 'newer automatically means better', was the CC system (which was rather involved). But even then once you got used to it, you could wizz through combats in no time. It had a far more personal nature to it - your Striking Scorpion using her mandibles to blast one IG in the face, then parrying with her chainblade while killing another with a shuriken pistol. The whole thing was a lot more cinematic, and less abstract. '6 hours to play a game' I find incredible, and I can only summise that it is someone not remembering correctly. We used to play mammoth Apocalypse-size battles on 12ft wide tables and they didn't take that amount of time.

Pacific wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:I hope they take as much as possible from WFB. To hit modifiers, movement value instead of fifty different movement rules, a good armour system and % based armies.

You mean like 2nd edition?

Yes! 2nd Ed is pretty much better in every area except maybe the clunky melee combat.

If they start to use Fantasy's magic system, I weep. Tears of blood.

It'll slow the game down SO MUCH.

Then again, so would hit modifiers, armour modifiers and random charges.

Personally, if they just made 5th, but evened out vehicles, I'd be totally fine.

puma713 wrote:New rumors up on Bell:

Snip...

You can read for yourself here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/04/40k-rumors-on-chaos-marines-and-6th.html

I always have sucha difficult time trying to figure out if BigRed is a rumor compiler (like Kroot) or a Rumor Mounger (like Harry); very seldom does he quote sources, so I suppose one could infer that he is Rumor Mounger.

He is a rumour compiler not quoting his sources
And once in a while, I post original rumours as well.

Kroothawk wrote:He is a rumour compiler not quoting his sources

Ah, that is kinda frustrating. Do you happen to know who he is quoting in this instance...I can't seam to find those rumors on Warseer

Kroothawk wrote:I post original rumours as well.

Oh, I honestly wouldn't have known, unless you specificaly call it out in the thread. I usually assume you are quoting sources you have previously quoted numerous times in the same thread.

Like when someone asks for the 10th time if Tau are going to be in the starter set and you just state no.

I'd heard that the starter set was going to be Eldar v. Chaos Marines, but that's an old rumor that everyone's probably heard already. I wouldn't bet in it not having Ultramarines written into it somewhere...

AnomanderRake wrote:I'd heard that the starter set was going to be Eldar v. Chaos Marines, but that's an old rumor that everyone's probably heard already. I wouldn't bet in it not having Ultramarines written into it somewhere...

I believe Dark Angels for the starter are as close as you'll ever get to a confirmation from rumours. The new DA minis with DA-iconography sculpted on are already in the new paint-starter-box. Add to that the DA-White Dwarf spine. Dark Angels are almost certainly the new "face" of Space Marines in 6th. Most rumours seem to point towards DA vs. Chaos (with some cultist/non-PA units) in the starter.

Pacific wrote:
I'm pretty sure a lot of Necromunda's appeal is down to the rule-set it uses, which are a slightly altered version of 2nd edition. The rules are just so much more intuitive, a lot less abstract, than 3rd edition 40k. People being shot as they run between buildings, throwing grenades through a window, a turret on a tank blowing off an landing on someone. Most gamers love that kind of stuff, and 3rd edition removed all of it, I'm guessing in an effort to make the game more accessible to a younger audience? The whole thing then became more abstract, to the point where it felt like it was straddling skirmish and platoon level gaming systems, but not really getting the best aspects from either one.

I love playing Necro, the systems works so well but it's a question of using the right tool. if they were to re-hash 2nd ed styled rules the game would slow down so much as the rules work best at the skirmish level whereas the current rules does well for larger engagments

wyomingfox wrote:Ah, that is kinda frustrating. Do you happen to know who he is quoting in this instance...I can't seam to find those rumors on Warseer

OK, seems this time he had a birdy. But most of the time BolS gets it half right from other forums.

wyomingfox wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:I post original rumours as well.

Oh, I honestly wouldn't have known, unless you specificaly call it out in the thread. I usually assume you are quoting sources you have previously quoted numerous times in the same thread.

I usually quote sources. But sometimes, if I get direct info, it is better not to make a big thing about it, as the Inquisition also reads Dakka

Kroothawk wrote:I usually quote sources. But sometimes, if I get direct info, it is better not to make a big thing about it, as the Inquisition also reads Dakka

Oh, I didn't mean for people to quote thier private sources . Just a "My sources tell me" clause helps to alleviate confusion for me...cause I am old and easily confused . It would be much easier for me to take Big Red seriously as a rumor compiler if he did a better job either quoting his online sources or clarifying that the sources are his private ones.

The only things I hate about Necromunda are Overwatch and falling down when being hit, even if not wounded.

Those are bogus to me.

Can you imagine guard platoons on overwatch on a 40k table? You would have to add so much cover that everyone practically has a 4+ cover at all times.

You'd need to reduce cover to a 4+ / 5+ or something.

Did I mention I hate overwatch?

Well, I hate to say it but I think you are probably in the minority there !

There were quite a lot of smaller rules added to Necromunda (such as falling over when being shot - which makes perfect sense by the way!) which wouldn't translate into 40k.

About something being bogus, and adding layers of abstraction, try this one for size: An assault squad with jet packs flies over some trees, and lands in front of an enemy squad. That squad just stand there doing nothing, while the assault squad charges in to attack them. It's absolutely nuts if you think about it!

I don't think it would be too difficult to introduce some kind of 'defensive reaction to charges' mechanic in 40k.

Pacific wrote:Well, I hate to say it but I think you are probably in the minority there !

There were quite a lot of smaller rules added to Necromunda (such as falling over when being shot - which makes perfect sense by the way!) which wouldn't translate into 40k.

About something being bogus, and adding layers of abstraction, try this one for size: An assault squad with jet packs flies over some trees, and lands in front of an enemy squad. That squad just stand there doing nothing, while the assault squad charges in to attack them. It's absolutely nuts if you think about it!

I don't think it would be too difficult to introduce some kind of 'defensive reaction to charges' mechanic in 40k.

Hold, Flee or Stand and Shoot (with a to hit modifier) like in Fantasy?

Pacific wrote:Well, I hate to say it but I think you are probably in the minority there !

There were quite a lot of smaller rules added to Necromunda (such as falling over when being shot - which makes perfect sense by the way!) which wouldn't translate into 40k.

About something being bogus, and adding layers of abstraction, try this one for size: An assault squad with jet packs flies over some trees, and lands in front of an enemy squad. That squad just stand there doing nothing, while the assault squad charges in to attack them. It's absolutely nuts if you think about it!

I don't think it would be too difficult to introduce some kind of 'defensive reaction to charges' mechanic in 40k.

wait....this sounds familiar.... oh right.

infinity

just saying