Adding a Chaos Primaris would even it out for the most part.
On the other hand, subtracting loyalist Primaris would also mostly even it out.
Although more seriously, I think an interesting move would be to allow Chaos to ally without losing their bonuses. That would immediately open up their options for builds and represent their more organic existence in comparisson to loyalists.
Not sure where you're going with this......
Insectum7 wrote:But in reality balance isn't related to just 'number of unit entries' anyways. My preference is to have fewer datasheets for Chaos, but load the datasheets with many more options. Chaos should be doctrinally much, much looser. A single Terminator entry with Heavy Weapons, Combi Weapons, a plethora of CC weapons (preferably the ability to take 2CC weapons each), Mark and Veterancy upgrades can be worth the four more rigid datasheets loyalists get. Imo this is the better way to go.
But I am soooo on the same page as you on this one. Bring back 3.5!
Adding a Chaos Primaris would even it out for the most part.
On the other hand, subtracting loyalist Primaris would also mostly even it out.
Although more seriously, I think an interesting move would be to allow Chaos to ally without losing their bonuses. That would immediately open up their options for builds and represent their more organic existence in comparisson to loyalists.
Not sure where you're going with this......
Does Chaos have a downside for allying in other detatchments the way that loyalists do? (I'm out of the loop on Chaos, I only have the fist Chaos book for 8th and switched to Nids as my non-primary army about a year into this edition.)
Anyways, the idea is that loyalists would be restricted to a single chapter for their bonuses, while Chaos would get their bonuses without that same restrictions. Say, Black Legion and Death Guard in the same army, or even same detatchments. Or Daemons, Renegades, Knights, etc. That blows the available unit options way open for Chaos in a way that the loyalists wouldnt have.
Ishagu wrote: The boost to survivability to the Guardsmen is still comparatively bigger. They start at a different point.
That's not true. Going from a 3+ to a 2+ save (taking 50% of the damage you normally would) is significantly better than going from a 5+ to a 4+ (taking 75% of the damage you normally would). Poxwalkers going from a 7+ to a 6+ take 83% the damage they normally would; they are not the winners here.
The current cover system disproportionately benefits high-armor armies. They receive a greater boost to their survivability. This is especially true when high-AP weapons are in play, and poorly-armored things like Guardsmen receive minimal (or no) benefit from cover.
Don't forget almost everything has -1ap now, so units with 7+ saves don't actually gain much benefit at all, and 2+/3+/4+ save units now gain a huge value.
But without AP/Ignore cover, its still not even especially if you look at unit costs. A Primaris getting +1 to save vs a IG, say vs Kabal warriors, it'll take 36 shots to kill 1 Primaris is cover, but that same 36 shots kills 6 of Guardsmen, equaling in 24pts. Marines still comes out on top with 1 dead at 17pts.
Ishagu wrote: The boost to survivability to the Guardsmen is still comparatively bigger. They start at a different point.
That's not true. Going from a 3+ to a 2+ save (taking 50% of the damage you normally would) is significantly better than going from a 5+ to a 4+ (taking 75% of the damage you normally would). Poxwalkers going from a 7+ to a 6+ take 83% the damage they normally would; they are not the winners here.
The current cover system disproportionately benefits high-armor armies. They receive a greater boost to their survivability. This is especially true when high-AP weapons are in play, and poorly-armored things like Guardsmen receive minimal (or no) benefit from cover.
Don't forget almost everything has -1ap now, so units with 7+ saves don't actually gain much benefit at all, and 2+/3+/4+ save units now gain a huge value.
But without AP/Ignore cover, its still not even especially if you look at unit costs. A Primaris getting +1 to save vs a IG, say vs Kabal warriors, it'll take 36 shots to kill 1 Primaris is cover, but that same 36 shots kills 6 of Guardsmen, equaling in 24pts. Marines still comes out on top with 1 dead at 17pts.
Assuming S4 AP0 D1 shots, I actually get 8 dead GEQ.
36 shots
24 hits
12 MEQ wounds, 16 GEQ wounds
4 (2) MEQ failed saves, 10.67 (8) failed GEQ saves
Numbers in parentheses are with cover.
Adding a Chaos Primaris would even it out for the most part.
On the other hand, subtracting loyalist Primaris would also mostly even it out.
Although more seriously, I think an interesting move would be to allow Chaos to ally without losing their bonuses. That would immediately open up their options for builds and represent their more organic existence in comparisson to loyalists.
Not sure where you're going with this......
Does Chaos have a downside for allying in other detatchments the way that loyalists do? (I'm out of the loop on Chaos, I only have the fist Chaos book for 8th and switched to Nids as my non-primary army about a year into this edition.)
Anyways, the idea is that loyalists would be restricted to a single chapter for their bonuses, while Chaos would get their bonuses without that same restrictions. Say, Black Legion and Death Guard in the same army, or even same detatchments. Or Daemons, Renegades, Knights, etc. That blows the available unit options way open for Chaos in a way that the loyalists wouldnt have.
Yeah, csm still get our sad legion traits if we ally in detachments of other chaos factions. The "new" codex was new in the same way as an album with a bonus track of a live version of a song already on the album.
Adding a Chaos Primaris would even it out for the most part.
On the other hand, subtracting loyalist Primaris would also mostly even it out.
Although more seriously, I think an interesting move would be to allow Chaos to ally without losing their bonuses. That would immediately open up their options for builds and represent their more organic existence in comparisson to loyalists.
Not sure where you're going with this......
Does Chaos have a downside for allying in other detatchments the way that loyalists do? (I'm out of the loop on Chaos, I only have the fist Chaos book for 8th and switched to Nids as my non-primary army about a year into this edition.)
Anyways, the idea is that loyalists would be restricted to a single chapter for their bonuses, while Chaos would get their bonuses without that same restrictions. Say, Black Legion and Death Guard in the same army, or even same detatchments. Or Daemons, Renegades, Knights, etc. That blows the available unit options way open for Chaos in a way that the loyalists wouldnt have.
Yeah, csm still get our sad legion traits if we ally in detachments of other chaos factions. The "new" codex was new in the same way as an album with a bonus track of a live version of a song already on the album.
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
Yeah, csm still get our sad legion traits if we ally in detachments of other chaos factions. The "new" codex was new in the same way as an album with a bonus track of a live version of a song already on the album.
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
So if you have a chaos space marine detachment and a daemon detachment facing off against a marine detachment and a guard detachment, exactly what kind of disadvantage is the loyalist player at here?
Like, I get that he's not at a massive advantage, because he didn't ditch the guard detachment and get a bunch of free gak for no reason, but it doesn't seem like allies vs allies the loyalist player is at an actual disadvantage at all.
Yeah, csm still get our sad legion traits if we ally in detachments of other chaos factions. The "new" codex was new in the same way as an album with a bonus track of a live version of a song already on the album.
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
Maybe on a top-level tournament scene.
But this game includes more than just those players-if I'm an Iron Warriors or Black Templar player, saying "Ally in Daemons" or "Switch to Iron Hands" isn't really a satisfactory solution.
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
But what about csm players who don't want to play soup? I don't want to run other legions or chaos factions with my Night Lords. If I play a pure army against a pure loyalist army I'm automatically at a disadvantage. Most xenos factions can't ally period. What do you say to an ork player who gets nothing while a loyalist player gets free rules for not doing something that the ork player can't do in the first place?
@JNA + scotsman: I don't disagree with either of those points. I'm just pointing out that there is an inbuilt limitation to the loyalist set-up that Chaos can sidestep. In my perfect world Chaos gets upgrades/legions/etc over what they currently have, but don't get the same mono-restrictions built in, with the probable exception of Legion focus, but leave the balance more in favor of free-form builds.
Example: Some sort of bonus/s to balance with the generic Doctrines, but no mono-restriction. Then, if you want to go hard Legion, some other bonus (though the loyalist superDoctrines are overdone), but then maybe a different set of restrictions. ( Cant use Marks of non-Legion-god, restrict the number of Cult units in detatchments, but maybe still leave the door open for Daemons or Knights or whatever. Vary the restrictions per legion.)
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
But what about csm players who don't want to play soup? I don't want to run other legions or chaos factions with my Night Lords. If I play a pure army against a pure loyalist army I'm automatically at a disadvantage. Most xenos factions can't ally period. What do you say to an ork player who gets nothing while a loyalist player gets free rules for not doing something that the ork player can't do in the first place?
As above, I'd promote options for monobuild too. Imo Chaos should have possibly the most build-style options of any faction.
Insectum7 wrote: @JNA + scotsman: I don't disagree with either of those points. I'm just pointing out that there is an inbuilt limitation to the loyalist set-up that Chaos can sidestep. In my perfect world Chaos gets upgrades/legions/etc over what they currently have, but don't get the same mono-restrictions built in, with the probable exception of Legion focus, but leave the balance more in favor of free-form builds.
Example: Some sort of bonus/s to balance with the generic Doctrines, but no mono-restriction. Then, if you want to go hard Legion, some other bonus (though the loyalist superDoctrines are overdone), but then maybe a different set of restrictions. ( Cant use Marks of non-Legion-god, restrict the number of Cult units in detatchments, but maybe still leave the door open for Daemons or Knights or whatever. Vary the restrictions per legion.)
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
But what about csm players who don't want to play soup? I don't want to run other legions or chaos factions with my Night Lords. If I play a pure army against a pure loyalist army I'm automatically at a disadvantage. Most xenos factions can't ally period. What do you say to an ork player who gets nothing while a loyalist player gets free rules for not doing something that the ork player can't do in the first place?
As above, I'd promote options for monobuild too. Imo Chaos should have possibly the most build-style options of any faction.
Yeah, I've advocated that legions that don't use daemons and worship chaos according to their fluff such as Night Lords and Alpha Legion should get bonuses for not using those things as well. All legions don't worship the chaos gods. Gw remembered that when they wrote Traitor Legions, but we didn't get to use that for very long.
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
But what about csm players who don't want to play soup? I don't want to run other legions or chaos factions with my Night Lords. If I play a pure army against a pure loyalist army I'm automatically at a disadvantage. Most xenos factions can't ally period. What do you say to an ork player who gets nothing while a loyalist player gets free rules for not doing something that the ork player can't do in the first place?
The soup Argument also doesn't really hold Water both the other Main factions (daemons and r&H) both suck in many cases bar some nurgle fringe cases which got more or less curbed and the two snowflake legions one is the Lowest gw dex winrate wise (DG) and the other is basically ally in a bunch of psyker.
Insectum7 wrote: @JNA + scotsman: I don't disagree with either of those points. I'm just pointing out that there is an inbuilt limitation to the loyalist set-up that Chaos can sidestep. In my perfect world Chaos gets upgrades/legions/etc over what they currently have, but don't get the same mono-restrictions built in, with the probable exception of Legion focus, but leave the balance more in favor of free-form builds.
Example: Some sort of bonus/s to balance with the generic Doctrines, but no mono-restriction. Then, if you want to go hard Legion, some other bonus (though the loyalist superDoctrines are overdone), but then maybe a different set of restrictions. ( Cant use Marks of non-Legion-god, restrict the number of Cult units in detatchments, but maybe still leave the door open for Daemons or Knights or whatever. Vary the restrictions per legion.)
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
But what about csm players who don't want to play soup? I don't want to run other legions or chaos factions with my Night Lords. If I play a pure army against a pure loyalist army I'm automatically at a disadvantage. Most xenos factions can't ally period. What do you say to an ork player who gets nothing while a loyalist player gets free rules for not doing something that the ork player can't do in the first place?
As above, I'd promote options for monobuild too. Imo Chaos should have possibly the most build-style options of any faction.
Yeah, I've advocated that legions that don't use daemons and worship chaos according to their fluff such as Night Lords and Alpha Legion should get bonuses for not using those things as well. All legions don't worship the chaos gods. Gw remembered that when they wrote Traitor Legions, but we didn't get to use that for very long.
Bonuses maybe, but I'd hate to see them be penalized for using daemons. Both legions are totally fractured, with tremendous variations in their approach to Chaos among the different warbands.
Insectum7 wrote:^Ideally thats a non issue since A: They should both be somewhat viable, and B: You could still soup within just the CSM book.
Imo it's something worth aiming for regardless of the current state of affairs.
They should be viable, but aren't. R&H are uniformly inferior than guard. They lack strategems, unique warlord traits, and orders, and their units have inferior stat lines compared to guardsmen, for equal or greater points.
Their is already no penalty for taking detachments of different legions, as stated previously.
Insectum7 wrote: @JNA + scotsman: I don't disagree with either of those points. I'm just pointing out that there is an inbuilt limitation to the loyalist set-up that Chaos can sidestep. In my perfect world Chaos gets upgrades/legions/etc over what they currently have, but don't get the same mono-restrictions built in, with the probable exception of Legion focus, but leave the balance more in favor of free-form builds.
Example: Some sort of bonus/s to balance with the generic Doctrines, but no mono-restriction. Then, if you want to go hard Legion, some other bonus (though the loyalist superDoctrines are overdone), but then maybe a different set of restrictions. ( Cant use Marks of non-Legion-god, restrict the number of Cult units in detatchments, but maybe still leave the door open for Daemons or Knights or whatever. Vary the restrictions per legion.)
Marines currently lose something that nobody else can even get if they take no allies wow such restriction very trade-off.
Well, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly loving current paradigm. I'm all for more/better options dor Chaos.
But it is a bit disingenuous to leave that fact out when comparing "unit availability". Marines are heavily incentivised to not stray from mono-dex-mono-subfaction.
But what about csm players who don't want to play soup? I don't want to run other legions or chaos factions with my Night Lords. If I play a pure army against a pure loyalist army I'm automatically at a disadvantage. Most xenos factions can't ally period. What do you say to an ork player who gets nothing while a loyalist player gets free rules for not doing something that the ork player can't do in the first place?
As above, I'd promote options for monobuild too. Imo Chaos should have possibly the most build-style options of any faction.
Yeah, I've advocated that legions that don't use daemons and worship chaos according to their fluff such as Night Lords and Alpha Legion should get bonuses for not using those things as well. All legions don't worship the chaos gods. Gw remembered that when they wrote Traitor Legions, but we didn't get to use that for very long.
Bonuses maybe, but I'd hate to see them be penalized for using daemons. Both legions are totally fractured, with tremendous variations in their approach to Chaos among the different warbands.
No, no penalties for using daemon units in those legions, but you should get a bonus for playing to their fluff and not taking daemon keyword units.
Insectum7 wrote:^Ideally thats a non issue since A: They should both be somewhat viable, and B: You could still soup within just the CSM book.
Imo it's something worth aiming for regardless of the current state of affairs.
They should be viable, but aren't. R&H are uniformly inferior than guard. They lack strategems, unique warlord traits, and orders, and their units have inferior stat lines compared to guardsmen, for equal or greater points.
Their is already no penalty for taking detachments of different legions, as stated previously.
Heard and understood. But what I'm saying is even with Renegades + Heretics being sub-Guard, loyalists can't soup with Guard without major sacrifice. Imagine a better CSM book, with new advantages that didn't rely on monobuilds, keeping the ability to soup with factions that, ideally, improve. That'd be my goal.
Insectum7 wrote:^Ideally thats a non issue since A: They should both be somewhat viable, and B: You could still soup within just the CSM book.
Imo it's something worth aiming for regardless of the current state of affairs.
They should be viable, but aren't. R&H are uniformly inferior than guard. They lack strategems, unique warlord traits, and orders, and their units have inferior stat lines compared to guardsmen, for equal or greater points.
Their is already no penalty for taking detachments of different legions, as stated previously.
Heard and understood. But what I'm saying is even with Renegades + Heretics being sub-Guard, loyalists can't soup with Guard without major sacrifice. Imagine a better CSM book, with new advantages that didn't rely on monobuilds, keeping the ability to soup with factions that, ideally, improve. That'd be my goal.
I get what you're saying, it's just not viable with the current rules for R&h. I'm still hoping that the new fw books will address that issue, but I'm not holding my breath.
And it's still annoying when certain loyalist players say that it's an advantage that other factions don't have special rules to lose by playing soup. It's like telling me I should be happy I'm not rich because figuring out what to spend all that money on is super stressful.
There should certainly be … hrm. "Style guides" for Chaos, with bonuses if you play to form.
So, Word Bearers woul dget more demon options.
The four aligned chapters get bonuses for their patron.
But you'd also have some renegades who didn't get access to demon stuff but who might get access to newer marine gear... in essence, they're not as corrupt, and are younger, so still have, say, Land Speeders, but they don't have Demon Princes or the like.
A tricky balance, and you'd likely need a couple of books to do it one... one for Chaos Patron Chapters (anyone with all the demon stuff) and one for The Renegade Legions, which would have the less demony options.
I don't think a full-on codex per chapter ala Space Marines is viable, but two? You should be able to do two.
Wakshaani wrote: There should certainly be … hrm. "Style guides" for Chaos, with bonuses if you play to form.
So, Word Bearers woul dget more demon options.
The four aligned chapters get bonuses for their patron.
But you'd also have some renegades who didn't get access to demon stuff but who might get access to newer marine gear... in essence, they're not as corrupt, and are younger, so still have, say, Land Speeders, but they don't have Demon Princes or the like.
A tricky balance, and you'd likely need a couple of books to do it one... one for Chaos Patron Chapters (anyone with all the demon stuff) and one for The Renegade Legions, which would have the less demony options.
I don't think a full-on codex per chapter ala Space Marines is viable, but two? You should be able to do two.
The 3.5 codex did it for all nine legions in one book, in less pages than the current codex, and better. Not that I would be opposed to multiple books if that's what it took.
I get what you're saying, it's just not viable with the current rules for R&h. I'm still hoping that the new fw books will address that issue, but I'm not holding my breath.
And it's still annoying when certain loyalist players say that it's an advantage that other factions don't have special rules to lose by playing soup. It's like telling me I should be happy I'm not rich because figuring out what to spend all that money on is super stressful.
Well, you know. . . I wouldn't take certain loyalist players too seriously.
No the Daemon Summoning rules are word for word the same and just as useless. An Ur-Example of the "Sins of the Father" approach GW took to writing 8th edition.
So little changed in the "new" codex that even gw said that if you already had the original codex you shouldn't buy the new one. So anyone who argues that csm got a new codex is either misinformed, or disingenuous.
Matt Swain wrote: I look at this thread and all I can think is "Why would chaos not want primaris marines?" I can't think of a single reason they wouldn't.
Because some of us care about our factions lore, as well as the fact that we don't want to continue with the "loyalists with spikes, but not as good" theme. We already have upsized csm, we don't need to copy loyalists, we just need rules to make what we already have better.
That is a strange argument. GW can make any lore they want, and their lore changes are based on what ever models they want to sell. I have not played prior to 8th edition, but I doubt many people in 7th or 6th were thinking about getting primaris, all the lore twists with Cawl, the marine phase out , which is more or less a soft removal of everything old marine. And it seems like the only thing that stoped GW from going full AoS change, is the reaction to AoS and stores full of merch GW wanted to sell.
So If GW decides to give chaos marines some sort of primaris style do over, it would be rather hard to say no it. Not that one has to like it, ton of people hate the new marine lore, yet still play with elimintors and intercessors.
Karol wrote: That is a strange argument. GW can make any lore they want, and their lore changes are based on what ever models they want to sell. I have not played prior to 8th edition, but I doubt many people in 7th or 6th were thinking about getting primaris, all the lore twists with Cawl, the marine phase out , which is more or less a soft removal of everything old marine. And it seems like the only thing that stoped GW from going full AoS change, is the reaction to AoS and stores full of merch GW wanted to sell.
So If GW decides to give chaos marines some sort of primaris style do over, it would be rather hard to say no it. Not that one has to like it, ton of people hate the new marine lore, yet still play with elimintors and intercessors.
Exactly Karol, you don't have decades invested into your factions history like some of us. A lot of us old heretics don't want it changed. I prefer my ancient embittered veterans of The Long War to thin blooded upstarts.
Yes, gw can just change the lore, aesthetics, and themes of csm if they want to. Just like Lucas did in the Phantom Menace. That was the last Star Wars movie I watched after being a fan for my entire life. If gw retcons csm to be nothing but chaos primaris and a few inferior members of the Old Guard I'll probably go the same way again.
Well not saying me investment in to w40k is the same as people that played longer then I live. It is still hard to imagine how someone could not use chaos primars, what ever GW decied them to be, if they end up the only thing with rules or lore. And as I said, I don't expect all people to be happy about it.
as certain loyalist players assure us, it's actually an advantage that we don't have those things to lose. 
