Think the last few comments really show the problem with Chaos.
Over the years, they’ve been done in different ways. From literal coalitions of piratical warbands in Rogue Trader to “pretty much the Legion as it was”, and everything in between.
This has been exacerbated by GW’s uneven Chaos Codex history. Some, they’re just Spiky Marines. Others (mainly with 2nd Ed) they were different in organisation, but with antiquated weaponry. Others yet have them mental hard.
The trouble of course is that none of these incarnations are exactly wrong. But with it wobbling around over the years, Chaos means different things to different folk.
They just need a Codex to unify those different takes, and just leave it to the player.
Gert wrote: Yeah, the no marks for certain Legions was dumb when we've had specific examples of those Legions using Marks and Marked units. Storm of Iron had a whole Grand Company dedicated to Khorne, the Word Bearers 34th Host had Berzerkers, and I'm fairly certain there were Astartes in the Night Lords trilogy that were either marked or came very close to it.
Yeah, if my Night lords end up not being blessed by Slaanesh for their compulsive "skinning art"-making because GW decided they can't be marked, i'll be pretty sad :(
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Think the last few comments really show the problem with Chaos.
Over the years, they’ve been done in different ways. From literal coalitions of piratical warbands in Rogue Trader to “pretty much the Legion as it was”, and everything in between.
This has been exacerbated by GW’s uneven Chaos Codex history. Some, they’re just Spiky Marines. Others (mainly with 2nd Ed) they were different in organisation, but with antiquated weaponry. Others yet have them mental hard.
The trouble of course is that none of these incarnations are exactly wrong. But with it wobbling around over the years, Chaos means different things to different folk.
They just need a Codex to unify those different takes, and just leave it to the player.
Right, which means maximum customization. The trick is doing that and keeping it balanced. 3.5 was very customizable, but that customization had some balance issues.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
Gert wrote: Yeah, the no marks for certain Legions was dumb when we've had specific examples of those Legions using Marks and Marked units. Storm of Iron had a whole Grand Company dedicated to Khorne, the Word Bearers 34th Host had Berzerkers, and I'm fairly certain there were Astartes in the Night Lords trilogy that were either marked or came very close to it.
Yeah, if my Night lords end up not being blessed by Slaanesh for their compulsive "skinning art"-making because GW decided they can't be marked, i'll be pretty sad :(
Yeah, that should be an option, if you want it. 3.5 handled it pretty well with how it handled Marks and Veteran Abilities (you could have as many Veteran Abilities as you wanted IF you didn't take a Mark. If you took a Mark, you only got 1). They just goofed by saying that Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, and Word Bearers could ONLY take the Mark of Chaos Undivided. That kind of removed the "choice", especially for Night Lords, who generally just gave the Mark of Chaos Undivided a toss for the equally priced "Night Lords only" STEALTH ADEPT Veteran Ability.
On Marks: I think each should give benefits that can help different kinds of units. Basically, they should help the shooty and the stabby. Otherwise, you get what we have now where if it wants to SHOOT, it's Slaanesh, and if it wants to FIGHT, it's Khorne. Something like:
Mark of Khorne: Add +1 attack and +1S, this unit can reroll charges. If this unit makes a shooting attack, it gets +1 to hit if it makes ALL OF ITS ATTACKS against the CLOSEST ENEMY UNIT.
That way, it's useful for both melee units like Warp Talons, and shooty units like Havocs. Do similar rules for the other Marks. Make it a choice, not a no brainer.
Well, I think there does need to be some restraint.
Others have commented that certain Legions don’t have ready access to Marked units. That’s one form of restraint and differentiation.
Unit limitations have been largely done away with in current 40k, but were used in 3.5. However, kind of unevenly.
I’ll use my old Iron Warrior army as an example under that. I could exchange two Fast Attack slots for a fourth Heavy Support slot.
That…should’ve been a tougher decision than it was. See, many Fast Attack choices were Daemons, which I couldn’t take. If hazy memory serves, that left me Raptors, which were really really good at that point, but also natively 0-1. The other option was….erm….Bikers. So the whole sacrifice was a no-brainer. There was only one decent FA option, and I could only take it once anyways.
I think with some shaping up and toning down a return to 3.5 might be exactly what Chaos needs, in terms of reflecting the anarchic variety in Chaos forces.
On Marks: I think each should give benefits that can help different kinds of units. Basically, they should help the shooty and the stabby. Otherwise, you get what we have now where if it wants to SHOOT, it's Slaanesh, and if it wants to FIGHT, it's Khorne. Something like:
Mark of Khorne: Add +1 attack and +1S, this unit can reroll charges. If this unit makes a shooting attack, it gets +1 to hit if it makes ALL OF ITS ATTACKS against the CLOSEST ENEMY UNIT.
That way, it's useful for both melee units like Warp Talons, and shooty units like Havocs. Do similar rules for the other Marks. Make it a choice, not a no brainer.
I had a few ideas for that. They aren’t quite all encompassing but my design philosophy was to try to keep the bonuses simple and from being game breaking.
Spoiler:
Khorne needs to reflect martial proficiency in all forms of warfare, so possibly an extra attack and that crappy black legion trait that allows firing rapid fire weapons as though they were assault (to represent a hard and aggressive combat style that does something for both range and combat that is far from game breaking).
Slaanesh is tricky, but perhaps an ability that neuters always strikes first combat abilities to reflect perfection, and to reward better maneuvering of your army. Maybe an extra inch to charge and run moves as well... someone else has to have a better idea for slaanesh.
Mark of Tzeentch could award a free re-roll once per game to represent mastering fate. Or once per turn... maybe to represent the fickleness of the changer of ways, rolls of 1 from the re roll could trigger a mortal wound or leadership test or something.
Mark of Nurgle could grant a 5++ feel no pain to represent the resilience of the army, and the ability to fire bolters and combibolters as though they didn’t move (so generally always having rapid fire range at 24 inches). That way you can have an army constantly creeping forward.
Undivided could grant a selection of several special rules decided at list building, from scout redeployment to benefiting from friendly auras an extra one or two inches away to demonstrate being a particularly disciplined unit, for example.
Abaddon303 wrote:Definitely agree with statline enhancements for marks, they should have a decent cost and provide a decent modification to the unit in order to let you really diversify the basic CSM unit.
If you look at loyalists they have 6 different marine troop options ranging from 18 to 28pts per model intended to fill a reasonable variety of different roles.
Assault intercessors are a good example of why low cost, minor changes to the stats for the unit aren't really enough to make them interesting.
It would be nice to have khorne marked csm be genuinely scary on the charge so i'd be tempted to suggest strength, attacks and ap boosts, obviously for the right price per model.
Would say a 3ppm (21pts) upgrade to give chainsword CSM 4 attacks at S5 -2ap be reasonable? It would basically make them no more powerful than blood angels assault intercessors in assault doctrine but you're paying a couple of points extra per model for the greater variety of options...
The thing about Chaos Marks: they used to be squad based, not model based. So it cost the same to give a mark to a 5-man CSM squad as a 20-man CSM squad.
I don't know if this is the right approach for 9th, but I'd welcome it as a means of doing what you're suggesting: bringing CSM inline (power-wise) with Primaris variants.
I don't need a 5-man squad of Khorne CSM to be the exact equivalent of Assault Intercessors, just close to it. But when you scale to 10 men on the CSM side, the imbalance should favor CSM. Currently it does not. Marks could be a good solution for this.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Think the last few comments really show the problem with Chaos.
...
The trouble of course is that none of these incarnations are exactly wrong. But with it wobbling around over the years, Chaos means different things to different folk.
There's no 'right' way to do Chaos, they change with each edition along with every other faction in the game.
But I don't think it's a matter of different strokes for different folks. GW seems challenged to properly support the variety of factions that currently exist, and I don't think that's going to get any better.
It's a managing-the-ruleset problem. If you think about the various incarnations of Chaos, we've gone from infinite customizability in 3.5, to standardized Legion rules in 5th, to Legion-traits and bespoke rulesets for Legions in 8th.
9th ed CSM will resemble the other Codexes that currently exist in terms of structure, for good or for ill. I just hope we see some unique mechanics that introduce some variety in lists. Right now, I'm playing a Deathwatch army and keep thinking "CSM should have this level of customizability by default."
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, so far the 9th Ed Codexes, to the best of knowledge, are all relatively well balanced against each other, and none have absolute stinker units.
Others have commented that certain Legions don’t have ready access to Marked units. That’s one form of restraint and differentiation.
Unit limitations have been largely done away with in current 40k, but were used in 3.5. However, kind of unevenly.
I’ll use my old Iron Warrior army as an example under that. I could exchange two Fast Attack slots for a fourth Heavy Support slot.
That…should’ve been a tougher decision than it was. See, many Fast Attack choices were Daemons, which I couldn’t take. If hazy memory serves, that left me Raptors, which were really really good at that point, but also natively 0-1. The other option was….erm….Bikers. So the whole sacrifice was a no-brainer. There was only one decent FA option, and I could only take it once anyways.
I think with some shaping up and toning down a return to 3.5 might be exactly what Chaos needs, in terms of reflecting the anarchic variety in Chaos forces.
The problem is the restraints are always on every Legion except Black Legion. 3.5 made up for that by giving the other Legions their own things that only they got, Traitor Legions not so much. Right now, I'd say CSM are already under undue restraint for some of our units. Forcing the veterans of the Horus Heresy to pay CP for Horus Heresy era units is just backwards.
I think that people looking back on Traitor's Hate and Traitor Legions in such a positive light are doing so through rose-tinted goggles. There's nothing really that TL does that Faith & Fury doesn't do just as well, and the internal balance of the legion relics/stratagems/traits is far better and far more impactful than what we had access to in 7th. Don't get me wrong, TL was great, but I think that what we received in F&F is sufficient for our needs if superimposed over a good codex.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Forcing the veterans of the Horus Heresy to pay CP for Horus Heresy era units is just backwards.
That may no longer be an issue once the leaked 30k stuff is released and we have e.g. plastic Spartans & full Contemptor Dreadnought kits being actively sold in GW stores - it's not inconceivable that the rules team may more actively incorporate them into the game.
Marshal Loss wrote: I think that people looking back on Traitor's Hate and Traitor Legions in such a positive light are doing so through rose-tinted goggles. There's nothing really that TL does that Faith & Fury doesn't do just as well, and the internal balance of the legion relics/stratagems/traits is far better and far more impactful than what we had access to in 7th. Don't get me wrong, TL was great, but I think that what we received in F&F is sufficient for our needs if superimposed over a good codex.
I'd agree with that. For one thing, a LOT of the stuff in F&F came straight from Traitor Legions. For another, the 8th Legion made out like absolute bandits in it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Forcing the veterans of the Horus Heresy to pay CP for Horus Heresy era units is just backwards.
That may no longer be an issue once the leaked 30k stuff is released and we have e.g. plastic Spartans & full Contemptor Dreadnought kits being actively sold in GW stores - it's not inconceivable that the rules team may more actively incorporate them into the game.
I'm sure they will, just like they did with the first plastic Contemptor and Cataphractii and Tartaros terminators: by giving them to loyalists and not us.
In all seriousness, I don't think the units being from fw has anything to do with Martial Legacy. No other factions have a similar rule applied to their fw units, just marines. They were just trying to replicate the Relic rule from the 8th edition loyalist fw Index, and they just copy pasted it onto the CSM units without looking at the CSMfw Index or the 6th/7th edition Imperial Armour books. It explains why CSM received the CP tax despite having free access to the Hellforged units in 8th, the loss of ALL of their Chaos rules and equipment, and why the Chaos Land Raider Achilles was one of the few units that didn't get the Martial Legacy rule (it didn't have the Relic rule in the 8th edition loyalist fw Index, and the Compendium rules writers never bothered to look at its entry in IA13, where they would have seen that it was something that the Dark Mechanicus CAN'T build themselves. Which is why it was an Infernal Relic for CSM, but not a Relic for loyalists.). CSM pay CP for our Horus Heresy units simply because it was easier to copy paste their rules from the loyalist rules then look at the actual CSM rules for them in previous editions.
They DID go to the trouble to remove the MACHINE SPIRIT keyword from all of the relevant units though.
I think the incorporation of e.g. a Spartan, which can be tweaked easily with the same vehicle upgrade sprue used to turn Rhinos/Predators/Land Raiders into their Chaos equivalents, is far more likely than a monopose Contemptor which was never intended to be a core part of any range and Cataphractii/Tartaros which don't match CSM's 40k aesthetic.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No other factions have a similar rule applied to their fw units, just marines.
Because no other faction has quite the same relationship with millennia-old wargear as marines do (let alone the vast range of potential units). The designers spoke about this on stream last year.
Gadzilla666 wrote: CSM pay CP for our Horus Heresy units simply because it was easier to copy paste their rules from the loyalist rules then look at the actual CSM rules for them in previous editions.
CSM pay CP for it because, as with loyalists, these units are no longer widely available/easily maintained.
I'm sure there are real world reasons for them doing what they did - perhaps balance, perhaps laziness (the latter is certainly on display in some areas) - but the justification for the system being the way it is doesn't bother me in the slightest. I know that's probably not a popular view, but it makes thematic sense. Legions are no longer the forces they once were.
Do you remember what stream they discussed that in? I'd like to see it. Did they specifically say ALL marines?
And no, it doesn't make thematic sense. Unless they're retconning what Forge World wrote in Imperial Armour 13. The Dark Mechanicus can still build and maintain many of the Horus Heresy era units, according to it. They doubled down on that in the 8th edition CSMfw Index by removing all limitations on them, and even created a Dark Mechanicus character that specifically buffed them.
And if it's because of the antiquity of the units, why doesn't it apply to Dreadclaws and the Karybdis? Those are both Heresy era units. They didn't get it because they aren't available to loyalists, so couldn't be copy pasted.
No, I don't have the link saved, although I took notes (habit from grad school). They were talking about all marines. I'd have a dig but pretty sure I can't view old VODs without a Twitch subscription? Will check.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And no, it doesn't make thematic sense. Unless they're retconning what Forge World wrote in Imperial Armour 13. The Dark Mechanicus can still build and maintain many of the Horus Heresy era units, according to it.
You mean the same book that repeatedly talks about the steep cost of obtaining these units from the Dark Mechanicum and which gave most of these units the "Infernal Relic" rule, which limited the number you were able to take without including a character who justified the inclusion/maintenance of such units? Restrictions already existed, they were just different. The 8th ed index was the exception rather than the rule. So sorry, you're wrong, because this is easily thematically justifiable. I mean, the lore stresses this fact again and again and again:
Spoiler:
...jealously guarded by those champions of the Ruinous Powers fortunate enough to count one amongst their forces. They are coveted by rival warlords and are often the target of inter-warband raids, and word of an unclaimed Relic Predator being located or dug up on some ancient battlefield is sufficient to draw numerous would-be claimants, and it is not uncommon for large battles to be fought over their possession.
The Sicaran Battle Tank is one of the rarest of sights on the blood-soaked grounds of the 41st Millennium
With very few execptions, the Land Raider remains the most technologically advanced battle tank to be found serving the followers of Chaos
The Chaos Space Marines' super-heavy tanks saw ever less frequent use, for battle damage was often beyond their ability to repair and the construction of new examples all but impossible.
...those few which the Dark Magi have been able to construct since, invariably from the salvaged remains of many destroyed machines.
I could keep mining quotes, but you get the idea. These units are very rare. Yes, the Dark Mechanicum can produce select numbers of some units, but in limited quantities, and the costs involved are always steep. Many new examples can only be constructed from old wrecks. It's going to be a very rare warband indeed that rocks up with a fleet of infernal relics, which the current CP tax fairly represents.
To be clear, I'm not saying that I think CSM in their current state necessarily have sufficient access to corrupted or original heresy-era technology, just that I think that a tax on relic vehicles is perfectly fair and thematic because e.g. an Infernal Sicaran is harder to justify the inclusion of in a random warband than Bob the Night Lord having kept his volkite pistol handy.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And if it's because of the antiquity of the units, why doesn't it apply to Dreadclaws and the Karybdis? Those are both Heresy era units. They didn't get it because they aren't available to loyalists, so couldn't be copy pasted.
GW's inconsistency and lack of proof-reading speaks for itself. Mind you, Dreadclaws for example didn't have Infernal Relic in IA13, while the Kharybdis did.
Yes, many of them were Infernal Relics, but not all of them. Contemptors and none of the LOWs were. And they can still build some of them, just in limited quantities, but still more than the Imperial Admech. It's also important to note that CSM actually use theirs, instead of locking them into a vault for 10,000 years like loyalists. Even the little lore snippets in the 9th edition Compendium show that.
I would like to see that stream though. I'll try finding it.
There's nothing to suggest that the Dark Mechanicum can produce more antique wargear than the Adeptus Mechanicus. If that were the case then newer Chapters like the Minotaurs would not be able to field them in the numbers that they do.
As for Chapters keeping their relic vehicles in stasis, yes, they do this so said relics don't just rust away. The biggest problem with the FW Indexes was that they added far too many Heresy era units to both SM and CSM. There shouldn't need to be restrictions on how many Leviathans or Sicarans you can take because they should never have been added in the first place. Only units that were part of the FW range prior to the Heresy series should be in 40kIMO. Contemptors, Spartans, the specialist Land Raider variants, and Dreadclaws (for CSM only) for sure but things like the Leviathan, Sicaran's, or Fellblade variants, no. But of course, you've got to sell to the 40k crowd.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yes, many of them were Infernal Relics, but not all of them.
I said most, not all. Lords of War were already restricted by the nature of their detachment.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And they can still build some of them, just in limited quantities, but still more than the Imperial Admech.
That's supposition, not fact. There are no sources that I am aware of saying that the Dark Mechanicum can produce more relic wargear than the Adeptus Mechanicus. Besides, even if that were true, loyalists are obviously able to take better care of their remaining relics. CSM getting access to an extremely limited supply (that only the most powerful warbands are going to be able to afford; this is not the norm) probably averages out with the loyalist tendency to revere and maintain their relics while not living in a literal hellscape. Both sides should have limited access to relic vehicles.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's also important to note that CSM actually use theirs, instead of locking them into a vault for 10,000 years like loyalists.
That's more than a little hyperbolic.
It's also worth noting that you're not really taking into consideration how rare many of these vehicles were even at the time they were made. See e.g. the Sicaran, which was only just entering service at the time of the Horus Heresy.
At the end of the day, whether or not restrictions are a good thing is just a matter of opinion, but stating that there's no thematic reason for the restrictions is objectively wrong. If there's a thematic problem it is about the consistency and spread with which these restrictions are applied, or their severity, not whether or not they should exist.
edit: fixed a multitude of shameful grammatical errors
Ok, we're not going to agree on this, but if you think it makes sense thematically to limit CSM access to Hersey era units, why would having some of the kits available in plastic change that?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok, we're not going to agree on this, but if you think it makes sense thematically to limit CSM access to Hersey era units, why would having some of the kits available in plastic change that?
You'll have major plastic kits that required significant investment to produce taking up shelf space in GW stores, and I don't think it's inconceivable that GW might decide to put some of those kits in Space Marine or Chaos Marine books to boost their sales. The Imperial Armour Compendium isn't even sold on the Games Workshop website, let alone on the shelves of GW stores, it's a Forge World product. If something like a Spartan or a Sicaran ceases being a Forge World product then it would make sense for its 40k rules to be moved from one umbrella to another. I wouldn't expect GW products to be subject to the same kind of restrictions as FW products, see e.g. the difference in how Contemptor Dreadnoughts and Relic Contemptor Dreadnoughts are treated.
Some kits, e.g. the Spartan as I said in an above post, can be packaged up as a Chaos vehicle in the same way existing plastic vehicles are today, which is something you can't do with the existing BAC/BOP kits. This also has the bonus effect of selling "new" plastic firstborn kits to marine players who already own dreadnoughts/helbrutes and land raiders, etc.
But they're not Chaos units, they're Space Marine units. There would have to be some Chaos parts they could attach before they'd let them be in a different Codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But they're not Chaos units, they're Space Marine units. There would have to be some Chaos parts they could attach before they'd let them be in a different Codex.
Yeah, like the chaos vehicle upgrade sprue, thus this comment:
Some kits, e.g. the Spartan as I said in an above post, can be packaged up as a Chaos vehicle in the same way existing plastic vehicles are today, which is something you can't do with the existing BAC/BOP kits
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok, we're not going to agree on this, but if you think it makes sense thematically to limit CSM access to Hersey era units, why would having some of the kits available in plastic change that?
You'll have major plastic kits that required significant investment to produce taking up shelf space in GW stores, and I don't think it's inconceivable that GW might decide to put some of those kits in Space Marine or Chaos Marine books to boost their sales. The Imperial Armour Compendium isn't even sold on the Games Workshop website, let alone on the shelves of GW stores, it's a Forge World product. If something like a Spartan or a Sicaran ceases being a Forge World product then it would make sense for its 40k rules to be moved from one umbrella to another. I wouldn't expect GW products to be subject to the same kind of restrictions as FW products, see e.g. the difference in how Contemptor Dreadnoughts and Relic Contemptor Dreadnoughts are treated.
Some kits, e.g. the Spartan as I said in an above post, can be packaged up as a Chaos vehicle in the same way existing plastic vehicles are today, which is something you can't do with the existing BAC/BOP kits. This also has the bonus effect of selling "new" plastic firstborn kits to marine players who already own dreadnoughts/helbrutes and land raiders, etc.
That doesn't change anything thematically. If you think it makes sense for resin models then it makes sense for plastic models. Just because there's more on store shelves doesn't mean there's more in the 40k setting. I know that would be gw's reasoning, I was wondering why it would change your reasoning.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That doesn't change anything thematically. If you think it makes sense for resin models then it makes sense for plastic models. Just because there's more on store shelves doesn't mean there's more in the 40k setting. I know that would be gw's reasoning, I was wondering why it would change your reasoning.
It didn't change my reasoning, you're just conflating two different points. I never said it changed anything thematically, nor did I say it made thematic sense for resin models and not for plastic. That post is incredibly explicit in highlighting real-world reasons, not thematic ones, and I've mentioned GW's inconsistency in three of my above posts. I'm not sure how I can make this any more simple: regardless of why GW did what they did, there is thematic justification for CSM to have restricted access to relic vehicles, but I can see GW increasing access to some of these vehicles due to the incoming plastic release. I did not say once that increased access would be for thematic reasons, nor did I ever say that I thought such a change was required. These are two separate issues - I've been nothing but consistent.
I've edited this post to be as clear as possible, because we're just going in circles here.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That doesn't change anything thematically. If you think it makes sense for resin models then it makes sense for plastic models. Just because there's more on store shelves doesn't mean there's more in the 40k setting. I know that would be gw's reasoning, I was wondering why it would change your reasoning.
It didn't change my reasoning, you're just conflating two different points. I never said it changed anything thematically, nor did I say it made thematic sense for resin models and not for plastic. That post is incredibly explicit in highlighting real-world reasons, not thematic ones, and I've mentioned GW's inconsistency in three of my above posts. I'm not sure how I can make this any more simple: regardless of why GW did what they did, there is thematic justification for CSM to have restricted access to relic vehicles, but I can see GW increasing access to some of these vehicles due to the incoming plastic release. I did not say once that increased access would be for thematic reasons, nor did I ever say that I thought such a change was required. These are two separate issues - I've been nothing but consistent.
I've edited this post to be as clear as possible, because we're just going in circles here.
Ok, cool, got it. Agree to disagree on the thematic point. Hope you're right on the second point. No point arguing any more on either.
Yeah... I dunno if GW would take a brand new vehicle kit, throw this and this into it, and call it a day. I think thatGW is long gone.
They could always make a new accessory sprue I suppose, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing they'd do for Chaos. The last time they did an update for an existing kit, the price went up by 78%, despite having fewer sprues in the box. I dunno if we want that.
You're probably right on both counts. Still, we'll see - it's not even clear at this stage how far down the rabbit hole this 30k release will take us. Stranger things have happened.
To be honest I'd jump at a new upgrade sprue, prices be damned - I've already got enough of the existing ones for one lifetime. Not expecting that though. Hopefully they do a new one along with a redone Defiler at some point in the future.
Marshal Loss wrote: ... along with a redone Defiler at some point in the future.
Let's hope !
Amen, the defiler sculpt sucks ass. I'm considering learning 3d modeling to make one myself thats more in-line with the other demon engines
As for the plastic spartan, i don't care if it doesnt get a chaos vehicle sprue, i'm just gonna stick some 3d printed bodyparts and flesh on it to chaosify it
Marshal Loss wrote: ... along with a redone Defiler at some point in the future.
Let's hope !
Amen, the defiler sculpt sucks ass. I'm considering learning 3d modeling to make one myself thats more in-line with the other demon engines
As for the plastic spartan, i don't care if it doesnt get a chaos vehicle sprue, i'm just gonna stick some 3d printed bodyparts and flesh on it to chaosify it
I think the ship sailed for a new defiler, I was convinced it would be coming this edition and get the monolith "super heavy but shouldn't be" treatment. Sadly with the profiles in Tsons and DG being as they are they'd need to alter those too so seems unlikely.
I've now played some games with my BL in 9th against Daemons, Marines and Necrons.
Let's just say I'll be keeping the CSM in storage until the new Codex drops.
Gert wrote: I've now played some games with my BL in 9th against Daemons, Marines and Necrons.
Let's just say I'll be keeping the CSM in storage until the new Codex drops.
Our marines dying to throwaway shots really stings.
Gert wrote: I've now played some games with my BL in 9th against Daemons, Marines and Necrons.
Let's just say I'll be keeping the CSM in storage until the new Codex drops.
I feel you, I only use my iron warriors against extremely weak opponents who are on the same level. I've had 2 wins and a narrow loss so far using the actual rules in the codex, the victories were against Tau and a grot army lol....
I've played a few other games with them but we literally gave CSM 2 wounds and an extra attack and the same for terminators all for no points increase but I still managed to lose to Custodes and only narrowly beat necrons on points.
My blood angels have taken centre stage for now as I actually get enjoyable games with them.
Marshal Loss wrote: ... along with a redone Defiler at some point in the future.
Let's hope !
Let's not.
Let us instead hope that GW release a Venomcrawler in a separate kit. That they release Oblits as a separate box of 3 that can also make Mutilators. The Defiler has a model, these two have very specific models only available in one kit.
Oh God... Oblits are going to become 1-2 per squad, aren't they?
Marshal Loss wrote: ... along with a redone Defiler at some point in the future.
Let's hope !
Let's not.
Let us instead hope that GW release a Venomcrawler in a separate kit. That they release Oblits as a separate box of 3 that can also make Mutilators. The Defiler has a model, these two have very specific models only available in one kit.
Oh God... Oblits are going to become 1-2 per squad, aren't they?
But ... but, why not both ?
By the way, I wonder if the Defiler sculpt is really that unpopular. Personally I find it a bit crummy.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I think Deffy looks better than the fiends or the Crawler, you guys are talking pure heresy!
Actually judging by the room I think it is us that are the heretics for liking the defiler’s current model so
much. Then again this is a discussion about heretic astartes so maybe it’s not such a bad thing to be heretics here XD
I’m about to counts as my word bearers as space wolves running my csm squads as grey hunters, and my possessed as the wulfen and not bother using their aura and other buffs that I don’t feel represent possessed, and I get my bike lord option back =D and helbrute as the wulfen dreadnought. And chosen as some sort of veteran, they have a million different vets to choose from. The only downside is not having access to daemons or things like my defiler... but at least I can put my models on the table top and feel like I am actually playing my army instead of a half constructed codex.
One thing they need to really figure out, is how to make the actual chaos space marines fun and flavorful to use while not feeling like we are playing with one hand tied behind our backs.
I mean, the codex is called chaos space marines. How sad is it that most competitive lists play with zero chaos space marines (other than our HQs) unless they are world Eaters or emperor's children.
I mean, you can say whatever you like about chaos warbands, and how we have other stuff as well like spawn, cultists, demons allies, but it shouldn't be to the extent that our lists have zero chaos space marines...
Our codex is called chaos space marines, it isn't called chaos allies... chaos space marines should be front and center of the book.
I again don't understand why CSM ever bothered to turn traitor. It was supposed to be for more power, but instead, the average CSM model turned traitor to get half the wounds of a loyalist marine, forfeit lots of wargear, and gave up chapter tactics, and have nothing like the transhuman strat.
The chaos gods really did a bang up job in marketing and advertisement.
"Join chaos and get ultimate power!"
(For most of the chaos space marines ... in actual fact : joins chaos and got weaker). lol
Eldenfirefly wrote: One thing they need to really figure out, is how to make the actual chaos space marines fun and flavorful to use while not feeling like we are playing with one hand tied behind our backs.
I mean, the codex is called chaos space marines. How sad is it that most competitive lists play with zero chaos space marines (other than our HQs) unless they are world Eaters or emperor's children.
I mean, you can say whatever you like about chaos warbands, and how we have other stuff as well like spawn, cultists, demons allies, but it shouldn't be to the extent that our lists have zero chaos space marines...
Our codex is called chaos space marines, it isn't called chaos allies... chaos space marines should be front and center of the book.
I again don't understand why CSM ever bothered to turn traitor. It was supposed to be for more power, but instead, the average CSM model turned traitor to get half the wounds of a loyalist marine, forfeit lots of wargear, and gave up chapter tactics, and have nothing like the transhuman strat.
The chaos gods really did a bang up job in marketing and advertisement.
"Join chaos and get ultimate power!"
(For most of the chaos space marines ... in actual fact : joins chaos and got weaker). lol
In the end the Chaos gods failed before the strongest of foes: GW's prerogatives
But, no jokes, I think CSM will always suffer from the comparison to their loyalist counterpart. Or at least it will be the case until GW changes direction concerning choosing what gets released, how and when.
Sure CSM have the edge as far as fluff, theming and overall aesthetic is concerned (In my opinion). But at this point most of this fluff, thematic elements and aesthetic is years (sometimes even decades) old. Who knows how much is left amongst GW's creative teams of those who once created it ?
And it's something we can say for most factions in the game, in my opinion. I can easily imagine that rules designers, artists, marketing and so on are handed a portfolio every time they work on an army or a model. With inside it the ( more or less) broad strokes of what they cannot and can do. Which is of course necessary to keep the aesthetic coherency of each army. But I can't help but feel that creative are forced to follow strictly rules set decades before them.
What always surprised me was the absolute absence of auteurism in the hobby. Of course GW had and still has it's fair share of famous (and infamous) creators. But especially nowadays who can tell who worked on what ? No models are subtitled: "Designed by so and so under the direction of that person". Codexes and the illustration/short stories that populate them are left without even a footnote giving us the name of their authors. In this situation, who knows what room is left to individual's innovations and originality ? But I can't help but think it's a strange way to anonymise creators. To obscure them under the crushing mention of: "Made by Games Workshop"
Well I guess I went somewhat out of scope But that's what I feel about the situation.
TLDR: We shouldn't compare our spiky boys to the poster boys because we will only get hurt ? And we should hope our codex's next lead designer will love them as much as we do ? And that they are free to realize their vision ? idk
Eldenfirefly wrote: One thing they need to really figure out, is how to make the actual chaos space marines fun and flavorful to use while not feeling like we are playing with one hand tied behind our backs.
I mean, the codex is called chaos space marines. How sad is it that most competitive lists play with zero chaos space marines (other than our HQs) unless they are world Eaters or emperor's children.
I mean, you can say whatever you like about chaos warbands, and how we have other stuff as well like spawn, cultists, demons allies, but it shouldn't be to the extent that our lists have zero chaos space marines...
Hear, hear.
Honestly, they could make CSMs relevant again through the use of marks. Give them a statline buff that puts them at the level of some Primaris variants and call it a day.
The only thing keeping CSMs in any lists is ObSec. Can't remember the last time I did a wound with a Bolter. That go so far against the narrative it's not funny.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I again don't understand why CSM ever bothered to turn traitor. It was supposed to be for more power, but instead, the average CSM model turned traitor to get half the wounds of a loyalist marine, forfeit lots of wargear, and gave up chapter tactics, and have nothing like the transhuman strat.
The chaos gods really did a bang up job in marketing and advertisement.
"Join chaos and get ultimate power!"
(For most of the chaos space marines ... in actual fact : joins chaos and got weaker). lol
And Sorcerers. Why would anyone embrace the Dark Majesty of the Chaos Gods to have powers inferior to those of the average Librarian?
The vision for CSM has been screwed up since 5th edition, when they scaled down and simplified the Codexes. Whatever balance they need to bring to the tabletop, there should always be a reflection of the fluff. The absence of a power-driven incentive to be a traitor makes them seem weak by comparison.
Don't get me wrong, I love Chaos and will always have a CSM army. I just can't see why they took the threat level of Chaos down so far.
Meaningful Marks (as in doing more than just adding a keyword) and Veteran Abilities. Marks to show the power recieved from the Chaos Gods, and Veteran Abilities to show what they've learned from all those years of fighting.
Marshal Loss wrote: ... along with a redone Defiler at some point in the future.
Let's hope !
Let's not.
Let us instead hope that GW release a Venomcrawler in a separate kit. That they release Oblits as a separate box of 3 that can also make Mutilators. The Defiler has a model, these two have very specific models only available in one kit.
Oh God... Oblits are going to become 1-2 per squad, aren't they?
But ... but, why not both ?
By the way, I wonder if the Defiler sculpt is really that unpopular. Personally I find it a bit crummy.
I was really happy back in the day to field a unit which could fight in melee AND unleash a 5" template in the shooting phase. However the defiler caused the dreadnoughts and vindicators to look bad because it performed both of their roles.
Verdict: Sales driven rule design and thus bad.
What about the model itself? Looking at it's stats alone you would expect something about the size of a deadnought but it turned out to be gigantic in proportion to the rest of the minis in 3rd. So it really looked out of place and someone who would have no clue about the game would think that the defiler because of it's immense size would regularly take on IKs.
Kanluwen wrote: Veteran abilities are something I'm personally a bit iffy on.
Just because they've been around for awhile does not mean they'll be a veteran. They might also be a gibbering lunatic.
Yes, but that gibbering lunatic is also an Astartes so they at least have that going for them...
You could represent the lunacy by abilities that focus on berserk melee combat.
Or, if you want to represent someone who's 10,000 years old of chaos, but is more loony than what's good for them, just don't give them abilities. They've still got their baseline Astartes instincts and gear, but are too far gone to be much better.
Kanluwen wrote: Veteran abilities are something I'm personally a bit iffy on.
Just because they've been around for awhile does not mean they'll be a veteran. They might also be a gibbering lunatic.
Yes, but that gibbering lunatic is also an Astartes so they at least have that going for them...
You could represent the lunacy by abilities that focus on berserk melee combat.
Or, if you want to represent someone who's 10,000 years old of chaos, but is more loony than what's good for them, just don't give them abilities. They've still got their baseline Astartes instincts and gear, but are too far gone to be much better.
10,000 years of existence is going to make anyone a little crazy, never mind doing the time in the Warp.
Taking the less popular position here. A Vet is going to have more experience than a recent Renegade because he's had to survive the Warp. Harboring ancient bitterness plus insanity makes him positively lethal.
A recent Renegade is going to be concerned about raids, keeping the Warband together and not being murdered by an Aspiring Champion. A Vet is going to have a single-minded concern with sadistical acts of violence against an old foe. That Vet has already seen all the universe has to offer and laughed.
Kanluwen wrote: Veteran abilities are something I'm personally a bit iffy on.
Just because they've been around for awhile does not mean they'll be a veteran. They might also be a gibbering lunatic.
Yes, but that gibbering lunatic is also an Astartes so they at least have that going for them...
You could represent the lunacy by abilities that focus on berserk melee combat.
Or, if you want to represent someone who's 10,000 years old of chaos, but is more loony than what's good for them, just don't give them abilities. They've still got their baseline Astartes instincts and gear, but are too far gone to be much better.
10,000 years of existence is going to make anyone a little crazy, never mind doing the time in the Warp.
Taking the less popular position here. A Vet is going to have more experience than a recent Renegade because he's had to survive the Warp. Harboring ancient bitterness plus insanity makes him positively lethal.
A recent Renegade is going to be concerned about raids, keeping the Warband together and not being murdered by an Aspiring Champion. A Vet is going to have a single-minded concern with sadistical acts of violence against an old foe. That Vet has already seen all the universe has to offer and laughed.
And that vet might have also accumulated so many traumata in the warp that his mind is reduced to vegetable status. You can argue both ways.
Kanluwen wrote: Veteran abilities are something I'm personally a bit iffy on.
Just because they've been around for awhile does not mean they'll be a veteran. They might also be a gibbering lunatic.
Yes, but that gibbering lunatic is also an Astartes so they at least have that going for them...
You could represent the lunacy by abilities that focus on berserk melee combat.
Or, if you want to represent someone who's 10,000 years old of chaos, but is more loony than what's good for them, just don't give them abilities. They've still got their baseline Astartes instincts and gear, but are too far gone to be much better.
10,000 years of existence is going to make anyone a little crazy, never mind doing the time in the Warp.
Taking the less popular position here. A Vet is going to have more experience than a recent Renegade because he's had to survive the Warp. Harboring ancient bitterness plus insanity makes him positively lethal.
A recent Renegade is going to be concerned about raids, keeping the Warband together and not being murdered by an Aspiring Champion. A Vet is going to have a single-minded concern with sadistical acts of violence against an old foe. That Vet has already seen all the universe has to offer and laughed.
And that vet might have also accumulated so many traumata in the warp that his mind is reduced to vegetable status. You can argue both ways.
A vegetable won't last long-they'll be killed for their wargear in a minute.
In other words, they won't even hit the table-they'd be dead before the battle ever starts.
... y’all gonna hate me for this one, and I honestly feel like this really only helps chaos relative to the meta and not the entire meta... since rules bloat and codex creep is here to stay, why not hybridize the loyalist and heretic codices? For legion and warband traits, use the loyalist table (custom and otherwise, all traitors were loyal at some point and they don’t just forget how to kick butt in their unique way), for strats use the chaos codex, for cost use an equivalent in the space marine codex but use the data sheets in the chaos codex (but add the extra wound we waited forever for) and call it a day? Daemon engines will sadly be left unsupported (borrow a friends death guard or tsons codex to figure out how that changes) but, it would put chaos almost on the same footing as loyalists. Shouldn’t be that difficult to convince a space marine player to play you unless it really bugs them to play against their own rules. Also of course keep hateful assault and volleys and death to the false emperor, drop and they shall know no fear.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would like to say that my preferred solution is scaling back overall deadliness and rules bloat and making half the learning curve remembering how 5 different special rules on your model plus a strat synergize, and memorizing that many special rules, and knowing they can easily change by declaring a different sub faction key word before the game...
Strg Alt wrote: And that vet might have also accumulated so many traumata in the warp that his mind is reduced to vegetable status. You can argue both ways.
I don't find the Withering Prune of Chaos idea very compelling.
A Vet reduced to vegetable status would not be able to march to war. His compatriots despise weakness and would have made an example of him a long time ago. His Gods would have engineered his end to serve some dark purpose before the campaign began.
Veggie Marines may exist somewhere, perhaps in large numbers. But they're not the ones who go off to fight.
Hmmm, I think marks of chaos might be difficult to balance though. Its hard enough to make one mark competitive, it will be even harder to make four such marks all competitive. People will just gravitate to the best mark and it will then pigeon hole the CSM armies into monogod.
Its like how that shoot twice strategem basically pigeon holed all shooty lists to go slanaash because it only applied to units with mark of slanaash.
I want to play a Black Legion CSM army. I don't necessarily want to play a mark of slanaash army...
I hope they make give black legion something distinct in the new codex that makes them worthy of being one of the most feared traitor legions in the fluff. I mean, The black legion in the fluff is the largest traitor legion by far, and Abby has launched 13 massive black crusades. They took down Cadia too. Black legion shouldn't be a joke to be made fun of... :(
GW needs to realise that how important good villains are. If you make the arch nemesis a joke, it doesn't show off your power much does it? Luke Skywalker needs to have powerful arch nemesis like Darth Vadar, the rebellion needs to fight an OP Empire with Death stars. Imagine if Luke Skywalker and the rebellion had a weak joke of a villain to fight... that would have made original star wars trilogy far less epic.
Strg Alt wrote: And that vet might have also accumulated so many traumata in the warp that his mind is reduced to vegetable status. You can argue both ways.
I don't find the Withering Prune of Chaos idea very compelling.
A Vet reduced to vegetable status would not be able to march to war. His compatriots despise weakness and would have made an example of him a long time ago. His Gods would have engineered his end to serve some dark purpose before the campaign began.
Veggie Marines may exist somewhere, perhaps in large numbers. But they're not the ones who go off to fight.
No the ones in Helbrutes are just regular Marine Dreadnought candidates that have been driven mad from the lack of sensation of war.
Unlike Marine Dreads who are honoured and wise and slumber between campaigns, Chaos Dreads are chained up with no way to do anything between battles and go mad with the endless sensationless waiting. And then when they're in battle, even the stuff they kill makes them feel nothing. They are pitiable creatures, but not vegetables.
The life of a CSM is pretty "Darwinian". If you become a vegetable, you're useless, and you'll be killed and your wargear taken by someone stronger. If you become a "gibbering lunatic" you'll be turned into a Spawn or Possessed so that the daemon can do the thinking for you (Possessed were one of the few infantry units that couldn't have Veteran Skills in 3.5). Raptors that "go feral" become Warp Talons. Only the strongest survive and keep their sanity, that's the point. Every day is a potential fight, even if it's with the members of your own warband.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The life of a CSM is pretty "Darwinian". If you become a vegetable, you're useless, and you'll be killed and your wargear taken by someone stronger. If you become a "gibbering lunatic" you'll be turned into a Spawn or Possessed so that the daemon can do the thinking for you (Possessed were one of the few infantry units that couldn't have Veteran Skills in 3.5). Raptors that "go feral" become Warp Talons. Only the strongest survive and keep their sanity, that's the point. Every day is a potential fight, even if it's with the members of your own warband.
The issue is in Chaos, nothing is standard.
There are also chaos warbands who operate largely like in their legion days and DONT back stab their brothers in the back first opportunity (Not without orders ofc). Its impossible for the current CSM codex to cater to all different warband styles.
Iron Warriors are my first and only Chaos marine legion since 4th and I despise how poorly I feel I can play them in 9th compared to so many other armies and traits.
GW would have to find a way in the CSM Codex to make rules for:
5-7 Legions
6 renegade chapters/ warbands
Agents of Bile
Fallen
4-5marks of Chaos
This is just if they want to update all the things we got in 8th and before most things people in this thread would like to see. And before any connection to Daemons. I don't think GW can win this one
CREATIONS of bile and fallen, also along with a few others could be in 1 book called something like factions of chaos. They would only need a few specific models for each army and then you take data sheets from other books (which you don’t have to buy if you subscribe to The app or Warhammer +)
God I don’t want chaos to have to have 4 god aligned supplements for the 4 god legions, a legion codex and a renegade chapters codex, but I don’t think there is any other way to appease the masses. Creations of Bile and Fallen sounds like a renegade chapters supplement entry...
Anyways I decided to take on the challenge of making a fandex that is more interactive with the rules, closer in line with the loyalist codex, and a bit lighter on the special abilities (death to the false emperor and hateful assault? Why not just add 1 to attack on the profile and call it good). Also adding 1 wound to the profiles... I feel like I am failing craptastically at simplifying the codex and the internal balance is going to be way way off... and I am worried that some of my ideas like the mark of khorne adding exploding 6’s to other mark of khorne units after killing an enemy unit are too wordy to state in an upgrade and is too overpowered a buff even for a purchaseable upgrade but I like the idea of making khornate armies super aggressive and also rewarding the inclusion of shooting units in khorne lists.
macluvin wrote: God I don’t want chaos to have to have 4 god aligned supplements for the 4 god legions, a legion codex and a renegade chapters codex, but I don’t think there is any other way to appease the masses. Creations of Bile and Fallen sounds like a renegade chapters supplement entry...
Anyways I decided to take on the challenge of making a fandex that is more interactive with the rules, closer in line with the loyalist codex, and a bit lighter on the special abilities (death to the false emperor and hateful assault? Why not just add 1 to attack on the profile and call it good). Also adding 1 wound to the profiles... I feel like I am failing craptastically at simplifying the codex and the internal balance is going to be way way off... and I am worried that some of my ideas like the mark of khorne adding exploding 6’s to other mark of khorne units after killing an enemy unit are too wordy to state in an upgrade and is too overpowered a buff even for a purchaseable upgrade but I like the idea of making khornate armies super aggressive and also rewarding the inclusion of shooting units in khorne lists.
The reason not to want that configuration of Codecies: GW could never support it properly.
Nurgle Daemons were strong in 8th, Slannesh is strong in 9th. Now imagine that dynamic but with every Legion. World Eaters and Emperor's Children could both get an outstanding Codex for 9th, then get nerfed down to 4th Tier 6 months later when 10th comes around.
I have a feeling it's coming and we will have to deal with it. But having to pay CP for each detachment makes it hard to compensate for failings in one or more books. Somebody's army is always going to get battered with each edition.
WRT a fandex, you are always going to be chasing the meta. It's not worth it.
I see there is a new campaign book? Still no CSM or TS codex? Pretty much says it all where GW is concerned on Chaos. We are now a bottom tier concern. I guess worse things can or could happen..........like getting primaris.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The life of a CSM is pretty "Darwinian". If you become a vegetable, you're useless, and you'll be killed and your wargear taken by someone stronger. If you become a "gibbering lunatic" you'll be turned into a Spawn or Possessed so that the daemon can do the thinking for you (Possessed were one of the few infantry units that couldn't have Veteran Skills in 3.5). Raptors that "go feral" become Warp Talons. Only the strongest survive and keep their sanity, that's the point. Every day is a potential fight, even if it's with the members of your own warband.
The issue is in Chaos, nothing is standard.
In theory, maybe...
In practice...
Except for way back in the beginning, Chaos armies are rigidly organized and restricted.
The diversity of Chaos was defeated and eaten by the 'Recognizable IP' monster, with the excreted remains rigidly sculpted by the Flanderization Parasites.
Voss wrote: The diversity of Chaos was defeated and eaten by the 'Recognizable IP' monster, with the excreted remains rigidly sculpted by the Flanderization Parasites.
Table wrote: I see there is a new campaign book? Still no CSM or TS codex? Pretty much says it all where GW is concerned on Chaos. We are now a bottom tier concern. I guess worse things can or could happen..........like getting primaris.
At least the range is in plastic XD *looks nervously at 90% of the elder line*
Also they teased a chaos codex early 2022. So there is that...
But seriously supplements and campaign books are worthless without an up to date and functioning codex. Like whoop dee doo I can play my army and not feel like I am representing them properly on the tabletop and lose in even more ways now! That’s why I am making a fandex and trying to make sure it is at least slightly to noticeably weaker than the loyalist equivalent codex. Who knows maybe GW would convert it into a traitor legions supplement if I emailed it and offered them it for free XD no need to pay anyone. it still loses to marines 60 percent of the time I swear!
Voss wrote: The diversity of Chaos was defeated and eaten by the 'Recognizable IP' monster, with the excreted remains rigidly sculpted by the Flanderization Parasites.
H.B.M.C. wrote: TS? As in Thousand Sons? That came out a month or so ago.
Interesting. I mostly lurk these forums on breaks so I skim through the thread titles and I havent seen any (not to say there are not, just I havent seen any). Was it a terrible release? Did it fix any issues? Are they out of bottom tier?
H.B.M.C. wrote: TS? As in Thousand Sons? That came out a month or so ago.
Interesting. I mostly lurk these forums on breaks so I skim through the thread titles and I havent seen any (not to say there are not, just I havent seen any). Was it a terrible release? Did it fix any issues? Are they out of bottom tier?
It's a great codex and they're definitely out of the bottom tier. I don't think the internal balance is quite as good as the DG book but it's still very solid.
I was thinking about something while painting some chosen for my EC: How interesting/fair/good would it be to give all chaos space marines something like a "chaos bolter" with str4 AP-1 1dmg ?
Because at this point regular old bolters do kind of feel like pea shooters when I am playing against my pal's space wolves. (in the context of EC vs SW with homeruled 2w chaos marines) Weird for such an iconic weapons no ? Or is it just a sign of damage power creep in the game ?
DreadfullyHopeful wrote: I was thinking about something while painting some chosen for my EC: How interesting/fair/good would it be to give all chaos space marines something like a "chaos bolter" with str4 AP-1 1dmg ?
Because at this point regular old bolters do kind of feel like pea shooters when I am playing against my pal's space wolves. (in the context of EC vs SW with homeruled 2w chaos marines) Weird for such an iconic weapons no ? Or is it just a sign of damage power creep in the game ?
Honestly it's where I'd go with them, even if it is needless ap creep.
Primaris got AP-1 and +6 range, 1ksons got AP-2, Death Guard effectively got a +1 to wound against many statlines thanks to Contagions, and SoB got D2 stormbolters, so I expect CSM bolters to get something. AP-1 seems like the easiest, so most likely that.
I don’t think they care enough about chaos space marine bolters. I mean we got malicious volleys XD Adding an assault 2 12” profile in addition to the rapid fire might be kinda cool. Or assault 4 12” for combibolters... or ap -1. Or, we’ll get a 2cp strat to make bolters d2 (bonus if it ends up being applicable exclusively against imperium units).
H.B.M.C. wrote: TS? As in Thousand Sons? That came out a month or so ago.
Interesting. I mostly lurk these forums on breaks so I skim through the thread titles and I havent seen any (not to say there are not, just I havent seen any). Was it a terrible release? Did it fix any issues? Are they out of bottom tier?
It's a great codex and they're definitely out of the bottom tier. I don't think the internal balance is quite as good as the DG book but it's still very solid.
That is great! Very happy for the sons players. If GW does right by chaos marines proper I may come back. Crossing my fingers.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Primaris got AP-1 and +6 range, 1ksons got AP-2, Death Guard effectively got a +1 to wound against many statlines thanks to Contagions, and SoB got D2 stormbolters, so I expect CSM bolters to get something. AP-1 seems like the easiest, so most likely that.
I feel like if they enhance anything, it will be more CC than Bolters. Maybe an always on Ap -1 in CC? I don't see them doing that much with just plain bolters for CSM to be honest.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Primaris got AP-1 and +6 range, 1ksons got AP-2, Death Guard effectively got a +1 to wound against many statlines thanks to Contagions, and SoB got D2 stormbolters, so I expect CSM bolters to get something. AP-1 seems like the easiest, so most likely that.
I feel like if they enhance anything, it will be more CC than Bolters. Maybe an always on Ap -1 in CC? I don't see them doing that much with just plain bolters for CSM to be honest.
Astartes chainswords are already ap-1, if you're suggesting ap -1 fists then what would you do to chainswords?
How about making boltguns with chainswords attached? I mean a lot of older CSM models have bolters with something that looks like a bayonet attached to it so why not allow bolters to make melee attacks as though they were chainswords.
The proportions on the claw strike me as not something you would find on a normal power armored marine. I find the chaos knight explanation to be the best fit.
Good news though! Chaos is getting a knight that wins games on its own. Bad news is that the primaris knight that is getting released 3 months later will murder wreck it super efficiently
To go back to the core topic (not telling anyone off, just had a new thought to put out there)…
Can 40K benefit from the way Chaos is treated in Age of Sigmar?
In short, they’ve been split into multiple books, but can be fairly freely allied together.
Each God has a dedicated book. Undivided get Slaves to Darkness, then Beastmen and Skaven get their own books.
Now let’s push aside all discussion about whether said books are equal in terms of potency, and focus instead on the wider approach.
In 40K of course, there aren’t God specific books, so much as Former Legion specific books, because the focus is so squarely on CSM to the practical exclusion of all others.
Sure, Nurgle and Tzeentch both have some kind of Cultist rough equivalent. But one can’t exactly make an army solely using those units.
So what if they took the AoS route? Codex Tzeentch and so on.
Each would include the God Specific Former Legions, as well as God Specific mortal cult type units, or at least God Specific mortal cult rules for otherwise standard “everyone gets bog standard Chaos Cults and Traitor Guard units”.
Codex CSM would in turn be for non-aligned forces. Renegades, Undivided Legions, Black Legion etc, with various perks and privileges for piling it altogether. This would include your relatively standard Cult Units (Noise Marines, Berzerkers et al), but not the super dedicated Head Honcho’s Best units (Scarab Occult et al).
Each book should allow either purely Cultist or purely CSM forces, and every iteration in between.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: To go back to the core topic (not telling anyone off, just had a new thought to put out there)…
Can 40K benefit from the way Chaos is treated in Age of Sigmar?
In short, they’ve been split into multiple books, but can be fairly freely allied together.
Each God has a dedicated book. Undivided get Slaves to Darkness, then Beastmen and Skaven get their own books.
Now let’s push aside all discussion about whether said books are equal in terms of potency, and focus instead on the wider approach.
In 40K of course, there aren’t God specific books, so much as Former Legion specific books, because the focus is so squarely on CSM to the practical exclusion of all others.
Sure, Nurgle and Tzeentch both have some kind of Cultist rough equivalent. But one can’t exactly make an army solely using those units.
So what if they took the AoS route? Codex Tzeentch and so on.
Each would include the God Specific Former Legions, as well as God Specific mortal cult type units, or at least God Specific mortal cult rules for otherwise standard “everyone gets bog standard Chaos Cults and Traitor Guard units”.
Codex CSM would in turn be for non-aligned forces. Renegades, Undivided Legions, Black Legion etc, with various perks and privileges for piling it altogether. This would include your relatively standard Cult Units (Noise Marines, Berzerkers et al), but not the super dedicated Head Honcho’s Best units (Scarab Occult et al).
Each book should allow either purely Cultist or purely CSM forces, and every iteration in between.
That could work ! If we look at the ratio for 8th we have:
- Tzeentch: Tsons and the Scourged
- Nurgle: Death guard and the Purge
- Slanesh: Emperor's children and the Flawless host
- Khorne: World eaters and the Brazen beasts
- Undivided: Alpha legion, Black legion, World bearers, Crimson slaughter, Iron warriors, Night Lords and Red corsairs.
The undivided codex would be heavy but at least the themes would be clears. It might also help further differentiate mono god legions (ex: EC and flawless host).
The AoS Chaos approach would also remove the odd situation we currently have in 40k where if you take, say, Nurgle Daemons with Death Guard, your penalized. Honestly, I don't know why they don't handle 40k Chaos the same way they do AoS Chaos.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The AoS Chaos approach would also remove the odd situation we currently have in 40k where if you take, say, Nurgle Daemons with Death Guard, your penalized. Honestly, I don't know why they don't handle 40k Chaos the same way they do AoS Chaos.
I'd hope it was a simple matter of timing. They clearly won't humour anything with a god-specific focus for the marines until they have a range refresh to run alongside it, maybe once the noise marines and zerkers are polished off they'll be more likely to go this way.
...man if we get 5 codices to cover chaos we will never be fully updated each edition :( I mean it would be ideal but I would be hopeful that GW would be content letting us sit an edition without model releases at that point to support updates in future editions
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don’t think the Undivided book would be any heftier than the basic Space Marine Codex?
Certainly there’s plenty scope to pack in Cult and Renegade units alongside the existent CSM gubbins?
There isn't, mostly because GW pulls out all the stops to punish players when they start using cultists:
Point increases
Cultists start with but lose access to special army rules.
Don't count for X, Y, Z
Can't have more than 1 per 'Real Chaos Unit' (and this one is current to the 9th edition DG and TS books)
As far as GW is concerned, using cultists is Doing It Wrong, and must be stopped.
----
As to your wider point, GW has hamstrung itself when it comes to 40k chaos. Monogod armies don't work for chaos marines as they've been shaped as Their Own Thing over the course of 9 editions. Daemons have been kicked out and huddle together out of fear (and gaping holes in army capability if you dare do monogod). Real chaos forces (as described in the background) consisting of cultists and maybe a handful of marines and some summoned daemons basically would have to be created from the ground up (again).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don’t think the Undivided book would be any heftier than the basic Space Marine Codex?
Certainly there’s plenty scope to pack in Cult and Renegade units alongside the existent CSM gubbins?
There isn't, mostly because GW pulls out all the stops to punish players when they start using cultists:
Point increases
Cultists start with but lose access to special army rules.
Don't count for X, Y, Z
Can't have more than 1 per 'Real Chaos Unit' (and this one is current to the 9th edition DG and TS books)
As far as GW is concerned, using cultists is Doing It Wrong, and must be stopped.
well, the most believable rumors are saying that we're getting:
Cultists
Renegade Guard
Human mutants
possessed humans
cultists standard bearer
cultist character + bodyguard
so maybe GW wants cultists to be played in the undivided army
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don’t think the Undivided book would be any heftier than the basic Space Marine Codex?
Certainly there’s plenty scope to pack in Cult and Renegade units alongside the existent CSM gubbins?
There isn't, mostly because GW pulls out all the stops to punish players when they start using cultists:
Point increases
Cultists start with but lose access to special army rules.
Don't count for X, Y, Z
Can't have more than 1 per 'Real Chaos Unit' (and this one is current to the 9th edition DG and TS books)
As far as GW is concerned, using cultists is Doing It Wrong, and must be stopped.
well, the most believable rumors are saying that we're getting:
Cultists
Renegade Guard
Human mutants
possessed humans
cultists standard bearer
cultist character + bodyguard
so maybe GW wants cultists to be played in the undivided army
Maybe. But if all that's part of chaos marine codex, its a huge departure from the way they've treated non-marines in the TS and DG books, and their general attitude towards cultists for a long time now.
If it happens, I fear the nerfbat that will hit them when people just stop taking marines.
Its more believable as its own subfaction, even if that feels like not-genestealer-cults mk 2.
Maybe. But if all that's part of chaos marine codex, its a huge departure from the way they've treated non-marines in the TS and DG books, and their general attitude towards cultists for a long time now.
If it happens, I fear the nerfbat that will hit them when people just stop taking marines.
Its more believable as its own subfaction, even if that feels like not-genestealer-cults mk 2.
i'd be all for a R&H codex being brought back tbh, i hate running cultists even if theyre just better right now (in the CSM codex, glad they got bad in TS and DG)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don’t think the Undivided book would be any heftier than the basic Space Marine Codex?
Certainly there’s plenty scope to pack in Cult and Renegade units alongside the existent CSM gubbins?
There isn't, mostly because GW pulls out all the stops to punish players when they start using cultists:
Point increases
Cultists start with but lose access to special army rules.
Don't count for X, Y, Z
Can't have more than 1 per 'Real Chaos Unit' (and this one is current to the 9th edition DG and TS books)
As far as GW is concerned, using cultists is Doing It Wrong, and must be stopped.
well, the most believable rumors are saying that we're getting:
Cultists
Renegade Guard
Human mutants
possessed humans
cultists standard bearer
cultist character + bodyguard
so maybe GW wants cultists to be played in the undivided army
And nothing is stopping them from sticking the same "only 1 per each Astartes unit" on all of those like they did with Cultists, Poxwalkers, and Tzaangors. Or they could put the Renegade Guardsmen, Mutants, Human Possessed, and characters in their own separate list, like the old LatD list.
Gert wrote: The 1 Mortal per Astartes is a good thing, it's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Mortal fodder and some Daemon Engines.
That's certainly GW's take on it. At least.... for the game.
For the background, Chaos revolts are vastly mostly cultists, renegades and maybe 1-5 Traitor Marines acting as masterminds, advisors and brutes. If the game doesn't reflect the background, that's a GW problem of their own creation.
One that players shouldn't be punished for, just because they want to play what interests them.
When I make lists to play Flawless Host narratively it's mostly either cultists or Traitor guard that make up the bulk.
Generally it's;
Dark Apostle
Sorcerer
Noise Marines
Raptors
Then the rest is guard/cultists to taste.
If it's a PUG I generally go full csm just cuz I like how they look more than the Traitor cadians. Now if GW continues with the themes from BSF the new Renegade Guard has me optimistic for the upcoming chaos stuff.
Gert wrote: The 1 Mortal per Astartes is a good thing, it's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Mortal fodder and some Daemon Engines.
Yeah, but wouldn't it make more sense to make CSM actually good? Instead of arbitrary restrictions that tell people how they can/can't build their armies? I mean, I won't be running out to get any of those units to add to my Night Lords, but something like Voss described above definitely sounds fitting for Alpha Legion or Word Bearers. Or not, if you don't want that. But it should be an option if you do.
Racerguy180 wrote: Out of all the armies, CSM should be the most fluid in terms of how you can build it. Want daemons, done. Want mortals, done. Want neither, done.
You would think that GW would see that but...we are talking about James, so there's that to consider.
It never fails to be weird to me that Chaos armies are consistently some of the most rigid and unbending armies when it comes to what you're allowed to do.
The only saving grace for the next codex is the Shadowspear/Start Collecting CSM squad has weapons the standard unit box doesn't have (and havocs are now 'different models'), so they can't inflict the Death Guard/Ork Kommandos accounting schema on the standard CSM weapons loadout.
Racerguy180 wrote: Out of all the armies, CSM should be the most fluid in terms of how you can build it. Want daemons, done. Want mortals, done. Want neither, done.
You would think that GW would see that but...we are talking about James, so there's that to consider.
I’m still salty that we lost bike lords and sorcerers and mounted lords and sorcerers and every variation of dark apostle chosen and warpsmith, but loayalists kept theirs, added primaris equivalents across the board and gained stratagems to upgrade captains to chapter masters and what not...
Racerguy180 wrote:Out of all the armies, CSM should be the most fluid in terms of how you can build it. Want daemons, done. Want mortals, done. Want neither, done.
You would think that GW would see that but...we are talking about James, so there's that to consider.
Exactly: take what you want, leave what you don't. Don't apply your preferences on other Chaos players. The name of the faction is CHAOS, it shouldn't be so stringent on what you can and can't do.
Voss wrote:It never fails to be weird to me that Chaos armies are consistently some of the most rigid and unbending armies when it comes to what you're allowed to do.
The only saving grace for the next codex is the Shadowspear/Start Collecting CSM squad has weapons the standard unit box doesn't have (and havocs are now 'different models'), so they can't inflict the Death Guard/Ork Kommandos accounting schema on the standard CSM weapons loadout.
CSM and Havocs should be ok, but I'm still worried about our terminators.
I’m done with 40k if they pull that crap on terminators... even better yet why not just limit wysiwyg? In a unit like terminators make the rules for it be that the unit can either be homogenous (ranged) with the option of a heavy weapon, make power weapons uniform because honestly they aren’t as good as lightning claws 90% of the time and people pretty universally pick one; the game isn’t granular enough anyways for it to matter so let players model however... but make homogeny for melee weapons an option too. That will fix more or less wysiwyg and limited sprue options. Slap it on havocs too; let players state all heavy bolters are reaper chain cannons for example. All missile launchers are lascannons. Another one down...
Racerguy180 wrote:Out of all the armies, CSM should be the most fluid in terms of how you can build it. Want daemons, done. Want mortals, done. Want neither, done.
You would think that GW would see that but...we are talking about James, so there's that to consider.
Exactly: take what you want, leave what you don't. Don't apply your preferences on other Chaos players. The name of the faction is CHAOS, it shouldn't be so stringent on what you can and can't do.
Well yes but actually no. The faction isn't Chaos: Chaos Space Marines, it's Heretic Astartes: Chaos Space Marines. If you're playing Heretic Astartes: Chaos Space Marines, then the focus and core of the army should be Space Marines, not Cultists or Daemons. In a perfect world, there would be a list where you could play Chaotic mortal forces like Renegade Militia, Cult forces, and Traitor Guard but they should not be a part of CSM. I'm not saying the Cultist unit should be removed, I'm saying that they shouldn't be the automatic choice for Troops choices regardless of what Legion/Chapter you play. Alpha Legion should get bonuses to Cultists, maybe make them Obsec or benefit from the Legion trait but there needs to be balance so that a Black Legion or Red Corsair's force isn't getting ganked on because they took CSM over Cultists.
Just so it's clear BTW, both Tsons and DG can still take horde lists because each of the "mortal" units (Tzaangors and Poxwalkers) have different limitation rules due to keywords. For every unit of Rubrics or Plague Marines you get one each of Cultists and Tzaangors/Poxwalkers.
Las wrote: Chaos SHOULD be one book, though. Put it all together. Let supplements focus on restrictive trade offs. Chaos players need more tools.
Daemons and Astartes/Renegades in different books was the beginning of the slow decline anyway.
I'd be ok with the separate books if they put some leg work into letting them link together. Knight of the Cog is the only 9th ed rule bar inquisitors/assassins (I think?) that breaks normal army building compositions via encouraging an ally detachment. Kights of the Iron Cog goes a step further and merges them more or less.
Lets have some of that, by all means make all the different chaos books & supplements, but have a framework for chopping and choosing without excessive punishment.
Loose example, imagine a lost & damned army that allowed 1 heretic astartes or daemons patrol per lost & damned detachment without breaking army boni. If further limits are needed either a % points cap, or restrict the army bonus rule to only applying to the parent codex. Want Vraks L&D then your Night Lords are just chaos marine schmucks, or vice versa.
Racerguy180 wrote:Out of all the armies, CSM should be the most fluid in terms of how you can build it. Want daemons, done. Want mortals, done. Want neither, done.
You would think that GW would see that but...we are talking about James, so there's that to consider.
Exactly: take what you want, leave what you don't. Don't apply your preferences on other Chaos players. The name of the faction is CHAOS, it shouldn't be so stringent on what you can and can't do.
Well yes but actually no. The faction isn't Chaos: Chaos Space Marines, it's Heretic Astartes: Chaos Space Marines. If you're playing Heretic Astartes: Chaos Space Marines, then the focus and core of the army should be Space Marines, not Cultists or Daemons. In a perfect world, there would be a list where you could play Chaotic mortal forces like Renegade Militia, Cult forces, and Traitor Guard but they should not be a part of CSM. I'm not saying the Cultist unit should be removed, I'm saying that they shouldn't be the automatic choice for Troops choices regardless of what Legion/Chapter you play. Alpha Legion should get bonuses to Cultists, maybe make them Obsec or benefit from the Legion trait but there needs to be balance so that a Black Legion or Red Corsair's force isn't getting ganked on because they took CSM over Cultists.
But you're perfectly fine with saying the opposite, because... the name of the book?
You know that they changed that, right? And that once upon a time (not all that long ago), they sold the armies you're throwing under the bus?
This isn't like Codex Marines shifting scouts to a different slot in the book (they're still fieldable in the basic FOC organization in the same numbers), they've just scrawled a big 'NOPE!' over people's armies (and the in-universe background they're based on. Wanna fight the Sabbat Worlds crusade? Any of Cain's adventures? Sorry, the forces of chaos are not appearing in these wars, just a handful of traitor marines).
Racerguy180 wrote: Out of all the armies, CSM should be the most fluid in terms of how you can build it. Want daemons, done. Want mortals, done. Want neither, done.
100%. They should range from rabble to hyper-elite plus daemons for flavoring, at the players discretion.
Slaanesh would allow for Emperor’s Children, Slaanesh dedicated Renegades in general, Daemons plus things such as Pleasure Cults. So on and so forth for each God and their forces.
The options should be sufficient for a given player to be as mixy or purist as they see fit within the confines of that Codex.
Codex CSM then covers forces not dedicated to any specific God, but without entirely cutting out Cult Marine units.
Then introduce a unique way for us to comprise an army from smaller formations picked from across multiple books, to represent the Classic Warband Style.
6 books into total (four Gods, Undivided, Lost and the Damned).
Then you’re starting to get nearer to Imperium variety without needing everything separated out.
Pack the books full of options, let the player decide what their take on Chaos is. Because as this thread amply demonstrates, there are many different and equally valid (because internet, let’s make sure people know I’m being nice!) takes on what a Chaos force should be. And that’s down to GW never really settling on their own vision for it.
Maybe. But if all that's part of chaos marine codex, its a huge departure from the way they've treated non-marines in the TS and DG books, and their general attitude towards cultists for a long time now.
If it happens, I fear the nerfbat that will hit them when people just stop taking marines.
Its more believable as its own subfaction, even if that feels like not-genestealer-cults mk 2.
TBF, there's more than enough basis for not being guard or genestealer cult but spikey alone in most L&D / R&H lists that ever existed. And yes a own faction is more appropriate if CSM should be CSM . (one can discuss that theme to death with arguments for and against).
However, again, what is in there basically is 1/1 the IA13 options for units.
HQ as a command squad.
Elites, bigger mutants (probably ogryn sized)
etc.
Pack the books full of options, let the player decide what their take on Chaos is. Because as this thread amply demonstrates, there are many different and equally valid (because internet, let’s make sure people know I’m being nice!) takes on what a Chaos force should be. And that’s down to GW never really settling on their own vision for it.
I mean, yes, from a player perspective pretty please. And from a chaos in general pespective doubly so. (if done propperly)
But gw will not do so, when they instead can sell you 3-4 separate books instead.
To be fair we're talking about spanning Chaos across 6 books, 7 if you factor in a stand-alone Daemons book too. I think that's plenty for even the most avaricious of GWs bean counters.
Crispy78 wrote: To be fair we're talking about spanning Chaos across 6 books, 7 if you factor in a stand-alone Daemons book too. I think that's plenty for even the most avaricious of GWs bean counters.
How many Supplement books got space marines again last edition?
No, i think it is perfectly expectable for GW beancounters to shovel us books down the wazoo .
There are many suggestions here that would/ could work.
But we're definitely not fitting all of chaos into one book. The status quo is 5: CSM, Daemons, Knights and Ksons + DG.
If god-based books were a thing, I'd be worried about the feasibility of running pure CSM, pure Daemon, or pure Mortal/ Cult lists- all of which should be possible. If each god book was built on the DE model of Raiding Force rules, it could work. But as many have pointed out, counting on GW to get it right is a bit of a gamble.
If they are breaking out WE and EC as they have Ksons and DG, I feel like the god based books are somewhat redundant? I mean, I understand that not all followers of Slaanesh are EC, but I feel like an EC book + a Slaanesh book is a bit of a stretch. And since Ksons and DG are already done, this appears to be GW's way forward.
If WE and EC are pulled from CSM, I believe it gives CSM the opportunity to be a very strong book for the subfactions of CSM that remain.
Moreso if a mortal follower/ cultist book becomes available.
I also agree with the previous comment that the ability to ally between factions of Chaos needs to be examined and improved. Any separation in books is going to lead to the presence of a purity bonus, but it isn't feasibly to put ALL of chaos in one book and give units and subfactions the same amount of attention as they are getting under the current design standards for other dexes.
At this point all my hope for chaos rests in GW translating chaos from AoS to 40k because otherwise I don’t think they are ever going to get chaos undivided right... the monogods probably. But not undivided. There’s already too many factions for GW to manage as is.
Chaos books should just be:
- Codex: Chaos Mortals (Astartes, Lost & Damned)
- Codex: Chaos Daemons - Codex: Imperial Chaos Knights (the same rules as loyalist Knights, just with a different cover)
Lord Damocles wrote: Chaos books should just be:
- Codex: Chaos Mortals (Astartes, Lost & Damned)
- Codex: Chaos Daemons - Codex: Imperial Chaos Knights (the same rules as loyalist Knights, just with a different cover)
Six or seven books for Chaos is insane.
Since Chaos Knights are pretty limited and CSM pretty varied I'd say throw Lost & Damned + Knights together and leave CSM in one book.
As a monogod player I'd prefer the 5 book route, though. 1 book for every god + undivided with rules for CSM, Daemons, Renegades, and Knights in each.
Gert wrote: Question for all you "one book" folks. Have you used the 9th Ed Space Marine Codex and/or complained about it?
Maybe explain why you're asking this question, rather than laying in wait to spring what seems so obviously an attempt at a "gotcha" moment that shuts people down for wanting to change things.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe explain why you're asking this question, rather than laying in wait to spring what seems so obviously an attempt at a "gotcha" moment that shuts people down for wanting to change things.
Ok let's go.
So for CSM we've got 53 datasheets including the 4 Lesser Daemons. Add in all of the unique DG and Tsons units as well as the rest of the Daemon list, and Chaos Knights and whatever Cultisty additions are required to make a LaTD section.
The SM Codex has 90 pages of datasheets, how many do you think this all-encompassing Chaos book will have? How many repeated datasheets are there that use the same models but get different rules depending on the Codex they are featured in? How many unique subfactions and special rules are in each of the current Codexes? How are all of these armies going to interact within the same Codex?
If you're complaining about SM having a bad Codex with all of its rules, how can you say you want something far worse for Chaos forces?
Is the solution to just start removing subfactions or special rules? Is that not then removing player choice for Chaos armies? Are you suggesting that armies that were created less than an edition ago should get removed?
This one-book solution is such a poorly thought-out idea that's only based on nostalgia for a state of 40k that doesn't exist anymore.
For you specifically H.B.M.C, you seem to have this idea where I am fundamentally opposed to change. Have you read anything I've written in this thread where I specifically say that things need to change and that currently, the rules don't represent Chaos very well? I assume not because otherwise, you couldn't make your snide remark.
Change can be good and change can be bad. Proposing an idea purely based on nostalgia with no real way of actually making it work without significant changes to both 40k and the Chaos range is just stupid.
I kind of disagree with the idea its too many chaos books if we have the 4 gods and then an undivided (plus chaos knights) and chaos daemons. I mean, Loyalist Marines have even more than that.
So far, Tsons and DG have their own codex and not only do both have their own distinct way of playing, their own strengths and weaknesses, they are also very fluffy.
Like DG are resilient but slow. And they have their contangions. Very fluffy army. Tsons have now truly masters of the warp and they have all is dust. There are a lot of tactics to play with their rubrics and occults now. Very fluffy army to play as well.
If they can make EC and WE as distinct as Tsons and DG, it would be awesome really. And WE are basically the extreme melee killy version of a CSM army. So, its not hard to make WE distinct and fluffy (if it isn't already).
EC actually seems the most challenging to me to make fluffy and distinct. CSM as a faction has never been known to be extremely good in shooting, which is what EC seems to want to be. The basic CSM is pretty good in melee already and reasonably resilient (marine stats). The truly shooty factions are either fragile or bad at melee. At least they are supposed to give up something for being so so darn good at shooting.
If they raise EC to scary levels of shooting, while EC doesn't give up the typical marines statlines and melee killing power that typical marines have... I think we will have problems.
And Chaos knights are such a totally different unit from most other units they have their own style of playing. So they are fine.
This leaves just the generic CSM. Which is where I fear the problem is. Taking out the cult marines and making them their own codex makes generic CSM codex just feel "generic".
I agree that the Emperor's Children are the trickiest of the "big four" to make distinct, but they definitely do not want to be a pure shooting army. Slaanesh has sort of been the de facto shooting god for 4 years now thanks to Endless Cacophony but that'll inevitably get removed or tweaked, and EC have always had a lot of incentives to be in melee - and it's extremely fluffy for them to want to do so. There are all kinds of different angles they could lean into: the obvious sonic weapon spam, dueling (e.g. 40k-era Phoenix Guard/Palatine Blades), speed (e.g. the Jetbikes/Bikes that Fulgrim loved the imagery of, maybe with Doomrider thrown in for good measure), ludicrous amounts of combat drugs (possibly with some 3.5 style risks), or the writers could even look back further to 1988 era EC when they were infamous for their Possessed. They're also never going to possess the durability of DG/TS, and I don't see EC being significantly more dangerous at range than TS in any case.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe explain why you're asking this question, rather than laying in wait to spring what seems so obviously an attempt at a "gotcha" moment that shuts people down for wanting to change things.
Ok let's go.
So for CSM we've got 53 datasheets including the 4 Lesser Daemons. Add in all of the unique DG and Tsons units as well as the rest of the Daemon list, and Chaos Knights and whatever Cultisty additions are required to make a LaTD section.
The SM Codex has 90 pages of datasheets, how many do you think this all-encompassing Chaos book will have? How many repeated datasheets are there that use the same models but get different rules depending on the Codex they are featured in? How many unique subfactions and special rules are in each of the current Codexes? How are all of these armies going to interact within the same Codex?
If you're complaining about SM having a bad Codex with all of its rules, how can you say you want something far worse for Chaos forces?
Is the solution to just start removing subfactions or special rules? Is that not then removing player choice for Chaos armies? Are you suggesting that armies that were created less than an edition ago should get removed?
This one-book solution is such a poorly thought-out idea that's only based on nostalgia for a state of 40k that doesn't exist anymore.
For you specifically H.B.M.C, you seem to have this idea where I am fundamentally opposed to change. Have you read anything I've written in this thread where I specifically say that things need to change and that currently, the rules don't represent Chaos very well? I assume not because otherwise, you couldn't make your snide remark.
Change can be good and change can be bad. Proposing an idea purely based on nostalgia with no real way of actually making it work without significant changes to both 40k and the Chaos range is just stupid.
I'd personally rather one big book of everything than 5-10 small books, especially with the way purity bonuses are going since right now, unless I'm mistaken, Death Guard actually lose out on rules for bringing Nurgle Daemons into the field. One big book divied up into sections that have subrules/specific data sheets for specific units would be neat, if for no other reason than being able to make a chaos list of mixed mortals, marines, and daemons.
At most, as opposed to 1 book per legion, I'd say 1 book per god would be the next best. No need for bloating up too much by having 10+ books on Chaos - Undivided (includes some unique rules and units for the unaligned Traitor Legions and Renegade groups), Nurgle (Includes Deathguard), Tzeentch (Includes 1k Sons), Khorne (includes World Eaters) and Slaanesh (includes Emperor's Children) - include the rules for standard cultists and mortal armies in Undivided book with rule saying can be freely allied/slotted straight in to a god aligned book with a keyword swap and maybe losing their Undivided ability and having it replaced with a thematic one for their god.
Really the key thing is to be give the player the ability to play their Chaos warband as they like, whether its new Renegades, members of a Traitor Legion, a squad of Marines leading a cult or a renegade militia, or a list fully consisting of mortals or Daemons.
I don't know. They are already doing that to a certain extent. But nowadays the cult books get their own distinct "horde units" which may or may not be daemons.
So, Death Guard has pox walkers. While Tsons has Tzaangors.
So instead of mixing, they have a separate unit which you can go "horde" if you want to in those books. This way, the Daemons book can still be distinct in its own way.
I think that's probably the better way to go. So that strategems and buffs can be specifically for that book rather than cross over to another book.
So, when the WE book come out. They will have a cheap horde style unit like Blood Reaver for WE as a horde type option that is specifically WE. And they will have to come up with an equivalent for EC as well.
The way I see this.
DG gets to go horde poxwalkers.
Tsons get to go horde Tzaangors
WE get to go horde (Blood reavers?)
EC get to go horde (new horde daemon unit Slaangors?)
CSM gets to go horde (Renegade guardmen).
And all 5 get cultists, which are absolutely worst than each one of these, but are the cheapest.
And they don't have to worry about cross book mixing of strategems and buffs and what not. I think they do not want to have a strategem in the daemons book buffing something unintended in a CSM or a cult book just because it happens to have the "demon" keyword. So they rather create a new unit and give it the Tzaangor keyword so that there is absolutely zero chance of that happening.
macluvin wrote: At this point all my hope for chaos rests in GW translating chaos from AoS to 40k because otherwise I don’t think they are ever going to get chaos undivided right... the monogods probably. But not undivided. There’s already too many factions for GW to manage as is.
I've of the opinion (sadly) that GW will _never_ get Undivided right.
Some part of the studio, marketing, accounting or whoever absolutely hates the concept for whatever reason, and tries their hardest to squish it. Be'lakor is a unusual exception (probably because he's now a $140 model), but most undivided options are gone (must mark daemon princes, must mark soulgrinders, must mark frikkin' furies of all bloody things). I suspect simply because of the inherent IP protection that a proper name like Khorne, Slaanesh, etc provides over the generic Chaos concept that's just out there in fantasy/sci-fi.
That it survives to a large degree in AoS Slaves to Darkness is honestly a surprise, and if they could find a reasonable retcon to do it (and two more to 'balance' it), I'm very certain they'd slap Lorgar & Perturabo as some god's property. Other than a handful of named characters (Abaddon, Belakor, Lorgar and Perturabo) undivided chaos is functionally dead to GW, and worst case, I dread the day the remaining Legions gets raffled off to whichever gods or cut out of the background with a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' (or 'they were secret loyalists all along').
We aren't there yet, but someone in Nottingham seems to want that end.
I'm snipping most of your queries because they're less hypotheticals and more accusatory in their structure. "This won't work, so what would you do? Huh, tough guy??? Not so clever now, is ya?" is what I see when I read them.
The truth is I'm not sure how I'd structure Chaos. My line of thinking has also changed over time. I also tend to go back on "full supplements for all Traitor Legions" and "consolidation of as much as possible." Right now I think that the four God-specific Legions should have books, and everything else (barring Chaos Knights, as I'm not really including them in all this) should be in one book that can cover everything from Traitor Legions to Lost & The Damned. And I'm not so sure where or how Daemons fit into all of this either.
But... I'm trying! The people in this thread have come up with some great ideas, clarified things for me, and even pointed out where something I have thought won't work. I don't feel like anyone has come along and gone "Well that doesn't work, so why bother?". Well... almost anyone.
As I've mentioned a couple of times so far, almost every day I go for a walk that takes 30-40 minutes. I'm one of those weird people who doesn't listen to music when they exercise, instead choosing to just think about gak. And for weeks and weeks now I've been choosing a topic before I head out, and then trying to tackle what I think are the issues there. On Friday it was morale, and how it interacts with various exceptions to morale both past and present (Fearless, Stubborn, ATSKNF), and how it interacts with actions units could take, fall back mechanics, and strats. Did I come up with a definitive iron clad answer for this conundrum? Not at all, but when I got back home I wrote it all down into my ever-increasing spreadsheet of scattered madness and eventually I will collate it all into something a bit more useful, and then really see what works, what doesn't, and isn't necessary and what I may have missed. It's a fun process, and it's somewhat less fun to see someone occasionally stamping on a lively and positive discussion every now and again.
Gert wrote: For you specifically H.B.M.C, you seem to have this idea where I am fundamentally opposed to change. Have you read anything I've written in this thread where I specifically say that things need to change and that currently, the rules don't represent Chaos very well? I assume not because otherwise, you couldn't make your snide remark.
It doesn't take a genius to see that your question was a leading question, and was asked in bad faith. You had the above ready to go, but felt it better to ask people to step into your trap before springing it.
But to answer you specifically, you've said plenty, but you've also spent a good amount of word count shooting down people's ideas, which is a pattern I've noticed. And that would be fine, generally speaking, but you tend to phrase it as less "I don't think that would work, and here's my alternative solution" but more in a "I don't think this is a good idea, so let's not do it at all!". Granted, it's no where near as bad as Daed's continuous false dilemmas and "But if you just...?" hypotheticals that tend to cherry pick edge cases and try to present them as the norm, but really if you're going to get involved in a conversation on these kinds of topic, try to engage with the topic beyond "That won't work!!!".
I mean it's like the "Change 1 thing in the setting!" thread in the 40k background thread. Post after post of people discussing all manner of things, and your first attempt at contributing was a "Yay, more complaining about Primaris. Must be a day ending in Y." generalisation rather than engaging with the topic.
Gert wrote: Change can be good and change can be bad. Proposing an idea purely based on nostalgia with no real way of actually making it work without significant changes to both 40k and the Chaos range is just stupid.
I'm confused as to what changes people have suggested here that would require 'significant change' to 40k, or even just Chaos (outside of consolidating TS/DG into a single book, which I disagree with).
Lord Damocles wrote: Chaos books should just be:
- Codex: Chaos Mortals (Astartes, Lost & Damned)
- Codex: Chaos Daemons - Codex: Imperial Chaos Knights (the same rules as loyalist Knights, just with a different cover)
Six or seven books for Chaos is insane.
I think Codex Knights should just be one book with a Chaos Knight and an Imperial Knight fighting on the front cover, I do think each deserves to have their own unique relics etc. Doing this ensures that GW takes equal care of the two factions. Tying Lost & Damned to Astra Militarum would ensure that L&D don't get squatted and that AM and L&D are on par.
I don't think every CSM legion's rules and fluff can be covered in the same codex as the fluff and rules of Lost & Damned are covered, my ideal codex/index contains rules for FW as well, so maybe it'd be possible with a particularly large codex if FW stayed separated. Putting Chaos Daemons back with CSM would make more sense IMO.
The 8+ book method has several weaknesses, GW cannot even keep their current lot of codexes updated, there being too many SM supplements is probably part of that, adding another 2-5 codexes makes that worse. I personally hate the monogod book route, I think mixed Daemons is an important option to keep alive, shoving Nurgle Warbands into the Death Guard book wouldn't make anything better I don't think.
Gert wrote: Question for all you "one book" folks. Have you used the 9th Ed Space Marine Codex and/or complained about it?
I have not used it, I have complained about the supplements clogging up the early release schedule of 9th and SM getting too many updates too quickly. The 9th ed SM codex does seem pretty balanced compared to the second 8th edition SM codex and the 9th ed AdMech codex, so it might have been needed just because GW messed up SM 2.0 in 8th. I think CSM should be one book no matter what, I think CD, CK and L&D should be covered in different books unless GW makes something like Indexes again, I'd put several xenos races in the same index as well and every type of SM in one index and that worked out at the start of 8th.
I don't know the right answer as to how Chaos should organize its armies. There is something that appeals to me about forcing Rubrics to be Thousand Sons and make WE, TS, DG and EC Patrols 0CP if the WL is not from one of those legions. The lore is fraying under the strain of wanting to let people play with their minis from when it was decided that Chaos should be all unorganized warbands of mixed allegiance all the time. I really like detachments coming with an HQ to lead them as mercenaries instead of 3 units of Berzerkers joining a Night Lords Warband out of nowhere. At the same time, I think Chaos can have too little freedom, taking an L&D and a squad of Rubrics and a unit of Horrors led by a Khorne Chaos Lord and a Slaanesh Sorcerer would be pretty Chaos forward and could be a benefit that Chaos gets that Space Marines don't since they'd have to obey more strict detachment rules. The fear freedom like that generates is that people will take 0 Horrors and Rubrics and just take the cheap L&D and then spam whatever units are most efficient. If I was king of GW I'd ask around the studio what players wanted, before throwing it out on Facebook for a debate to tap into the hivemind. If the community didn't scream for Chaos to have the most freedom in list-building I'd probably lean towards the more restrictive thing GW has got going on ATM with Poxwalker limits etcetera because it'd be easiest to balance.
I'd put relics, chapter tactics, armies of renown etcetera into Chapter Approved whether Chaos has 1 Index or Chaos has 2 codexes and tagalongs in 2 Imperium codexes or Chaos has 10 codexes. Putting these rules into Chapter Approved makes balancing easier. Relics would be locked to certain factions, WL traits and Stratagems would all be generic and available to any unit in your army. I'd have a Crusade book with all the rules one could want for a crusade, every army covered at the same time, that would make more space in Codexes/Indexes as well.
Like DG are resilient but slow. And they have their contagions. Very fluffy army. Tsons have now truly masters of the warp and they have all is dust. There are a lot of tactics to play with their rubrics and occults now. Very fluffy army to play as well.
I don't think DG need a codex to be resilient but slow, besides if you just focus on the fast units then DG stop being slow and if an EC player just takes slow units then DG doesn't seem so slow in comparison. I don't love contagions, make DG relics grow more viral over the course of the game instead, make Necron relics require pre-programming, make Drukhari relics get power from pain. Why does Iron Warriors need the Spitespitter relic? It's just a boring up-gunned combi-bolter, most combi-bolters used by an Iron Warriors Character is some form of relic probably, for it to actually deserve relic rules IMO it should have rules that are relevant to the fluff of the army, that's how you world build with mechanics which enables the game to be tight and balanced. Crusade provides additional contagion rules and I think that's neat, let the bloat flow in that Crusade.
PBCs being DG only makes no sense IMO, aren't they opposite of a fluffy DG unit?
macluvin wrote: At this point all my hope for chaos rests in GW translating chaos from AoS to 40k because otherwise I don’t think they are ever going to get chaos undivided right... the monogods probably. But not undivided. There’s already too many factions for GW to manage as is.
I've of the opinion (sadly) that GW will _never_ get Undivided right.
Some part of the studio, marketing, accounting or whoever absolutely hates the concept for whatever reason, and tries their hardest to squish it. Be'lakor is a unusual exception (probably because he's now a $140 model), but most undivided options are gone (must mark daemon princes, must mark soulgrinders, must mark frikkin' furies of all bloody things). I suspect simply because of the inherent IP protection that a proper name like Khorne, Slaanesh, etc provides over the generic Chaos concept that's just out there in fantasy/sci-fi.
That it survives to a large degree in AoS Slaves to Darkness is honestly a surprise, and if they could find a reasonable retcon to do it (and two more to 'balance' it), I'm very certain they'd slap Lorgar & Perturabo as some god's property. Other than a handful of named characters (Abaddon, Belakor, Lorgar and Perturabo) undivided chaos is functionally dead to GW, and worst case, I dread the day the remaining Legions gets raffled off to whichever gods or cut out of the background with a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' (or 'they were secret loyalists all along').
We aren't there yet, but someone in Nottingham seems to want that end.
Are you trying to depress me Voss?
In all seriousness, I think there's a bit of a tug of war in gw about whether or not Chaos Undivided should be a thing. It goes back and forth. But remember, it's only been 5 years since they released a book that said three of the Legions couldn't have any Marks or Marked units at all. Which way they swing this time is anyone's guess.
I’d bet my life savings that no one in GW marketing or accounting knows wtf a “mark of chaos” is unless it comes across their desk as part of a brief or in a SKU name, let alone leverages that knowledge over the product side of the org.
More than likely the chaos gak show is a result of a lack of design vision and QA from GW’s insane release schedule. It’s a common problem in product companies.
There's definitely some hinting towards a World Eaters release in the first Octarius book. Some pretty cool art that I didn't recognize either of World Eaters rampaging.
Yeah I agree. World Eaters have been associated with Octarius since the beginning of 8th ed but the hinting is pretty overt. That art piece is indeed new though, and it is absolutely stunning.
Las wrote: I’d bet my life savings that no one in GW marketing or accounting knows wtf a “mark of chaos” is unless it comes across their desk as part of a brief or in a SKU name, let alone leverages that knowledge over the product side of the org.
More than likely the chaos gak show is a result of a lack of design vision and QA from GW’s insane release schedule. It’s a common problem in product companies.
Its certainly not from the release schedule. The lack of design vision for Chaos (and tug of war over Undivided) has lasted more than 20 years.
Gadzilla666 wrote: In all seriousness, I think there's a bit of a tug of war in gw about whether or not Chaos Undivided should be a thing.
Sure does.
When we were writing the various Black Crusade expansions, "Chaos Undivided" was not a thing. It was "Chaos unaligned", and that 'u' was not capitalised.
Kanluwen wrote: There's definitely some hinting towards a World Eaters release in the first Octarius book. Some pretty cool art that I didn't recognize either of World Eaters rampaging.
How nice ! Would someone be kind enough to tell me where I could find those ?
Really interesting about Chaos Undivided. Too close to Moorcock for comfort maybe? I think I am definitely in favour of consolidation, but the problem is once a power armoured faction gets their own book it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. If you consolidate thousand sons and death guard, that is gonna suck for those players.
Da Boss wrote: Really interesting about Chaos Undivided. Too close to Moorcock for comfort maybe? I think I am definitely in favour of consolidation, but the problem is once a power armoured faction gets their own book it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. If you consolidate thousand sons and death guard, that is gonna suck for those players.
or you consolidate propperly?
As in not needlessly culling the special stuff?
Instead just fold the equivalent units back together but allow for upgrades depending upon choice of legion?
that would also cut down on Ro3 bypass shenanigans aswell.
But that would hurt GW's bottom line due to less books sales.
Gadzilla666 wrote: In all seriousness, I think there's a bit of a tug of war in gw about whether or not Chaos Undivided should be a thing.
Sure does.
When we were writing the various Black Crusade expansions, "Chaos Undivided" was not a thing. It was "Chaos unaligned", and that 'u' was not capitalised.
Yeah, I remember my Night Lord character was "unaligned" . You've mentioned this before, did that come from gw or was it from Fantasy Flight? It seems kind of a semantic difference, as the description of "unaligned" was pretty similar to "Undivided" in 3.5.
Love those games btw. You guys did some great work.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, I remember my Night Lord character was "unaligned" . You've mentioned this before, did that come from gw or was it from Fantasy Flight? It seems kind of a semantic difference, as the description of "unaligned" was pretty similar to "Undivided" in 3.5.
I would have to assume it came from GW themselves, as they don't let anything happen without ok'ing it first. I just remember that it came up before I started writing for them, back when we were play testing Black Crusade. I made a note of 'unaligned' over 'Undivided', and had it explained to me that that was intentional.
I believe Unaligned with a capital shows up in Tome of Decay, but I put that down to editorial error... but that's a whole other story with that book.
Thanks. Spent the better part of an evening playing Black Crusade with some friends on Saturday. We got to learn what happens when you overkill a Defiler with a Bolt of Change. Turns out it nukes the area. 3 of our party died in the explosion. I'm a Nurgle Marine with a Toughness bonus of 12 and 33 wounds, so I shrugged it off.
Da Boss wrote: Really interesting about Chaos Undivided. Too close to Moorcock for comfort maybe?
Moorcock, Modesitt, D&D, others. That's at least part of problem. Having specifically 'Tzeentch daemons' (as an example) that are specifically this, that or that other thing.... that's an IP that they can claim. General 'Chaos' in the mutating fantasy sense sailed before GW really got going, it was one of many things they brought into their 'not D&D' wargame from the pop culture at the time.
Anyway, between chaos, tyranids and craftworlds, it will be interesting to see what next year's design paradigm is. I hope we'll continue to see more willingness to mess with profiles to make things worthwhile; but not a 'mid-edition' paradigm overhaul.
I get people wanting all their rules in one place, really I do, but the sheer size and unwieldiness of such a book seems pretty obvious to me.
Currently, we have the following datasheets for each Chaos army (removing duplicates):
Chaos Daemons - 59
Chaos Knights - 6
Chaos Space Marines - 54
Death Guard - 17
Thousand Sons - 10
Total - 146
The Space Marine Codex has 98 datasheets and it is a regular complaint that it is too large. It might be all well and good to have the rules in one place but it's only a perfect solution for people who specifically want to do whatever they want with Chaos armies. If you just want Tsons you need to wade through over 100 datasheets just to get your 10 unique units. Same with Chaos Knights.
The biggest problem I'm seeing 90% of the time here is for legacy CSM players who've been around since ye olde days when 40k was much much smaller than it is now. You want to be able to do whatever you want with whatever you want, and while that's cool and all, armies need to have structure to function and maintain a semblance of balance.
Death Guard are slow but that's balanced out with their toughness. If you could just add in fast units with no breaking of army rules or receive any negatives then those weaknesses might as well not be there.
I originally intended to write more and go into depth with people's discussions but I found myself basically saying the same things over and over.
As a last post in this topic from me, I genuinely hope this next CSM Codex does well for everyone and you get a semblance of what you want out of it.
Gert wrote: I get people wanting all their rules in one place, really I do, but the sheer size and unwieldiness of such a book seems pretty obvious to me.
Currently, we have the following datasheets for each Chaos army (removing duplicates):
Chaos Daemons - 59
Chaos Knights - 6
Chaos Space Marines - 54
Death Guard - 17
Thousand Sons - 10
Total - 146
The Space Marine Codex has 98 datasheets and it is a regular complaint that it is too large. It might be all well and good to have the rules in one place but it's only a perfect solution for people who specifically want to do whatever they want with Chaos armies. If you just want Tsons you need to wade through over 100 datasheets just to get your 10 unique units. Same with Chaos Knights.
146 is a lot, but how many of those datasheets are really unique?
Sorceror
Sorceror in Terminator Armour
EDIT: Master of Possession too!
Plague Caster
Sorceror in green Terminator Armour
Exalted Sorceror
Blue Sorceror
Sorceror in blue Terminator Armour
Infernal Master
could all easily be covered in a single entry.
Lord
Lord in Terminator Armour
Exalted Champion
Master of Executions
Green Lord
Lord in Green Terminator Armour
Lord of Contagion
Lord of Virulence
Felthius?
could similarly all be one entry
Knights should really only be three entries - Dominus, Questoris, Armiger chassis.
Tzaangors, Cultists, probably Poxwalkers (also Traitor Guardsmen, Cultists of the Abyss) could all be consolidated.
Consolidation of books would also allow for various forces to get access to units which they inexplicably can't take that the moment - what happened to the Death Guard's Havok squads? or their Vindicators? Are Thousand Sons really the only guys who employ giant warp spawns? It's a wonder that the Slaughterbrute doesn't already have 40K rules...
You could cover Chaos Marines, Plague Marines, Khorne Berzerkers, Noise Marines, Chosen in a single (admittedly larger) entry by expanding the rules for Marks and giving additional options.
Gert wrote:I get people wanting all their rules in one place, really I do, but the sheer size and unwieldiness of such a book seems pretty obvious to me.
Currently, we have the following datasheets for each Chaos army (removing duplicates):
Chaos Daemons - 59
Chaos Knights - 6
Chaos Space Marines - 54
Death Guard - 17
Thousand Sons - 10
Total - 146
The Space Marine Codex has 98 datasheets and it is a regular complaint that it is too large. It might be all well and good to have the rules in one place but it's only a perfect solution for people who specifically want to do whatever they want with Chaos armies. If you just want Tsons you need to wade through over 100 datasheets just to get your 10 unique units. Same with Chaos Knights.
The biggest problem I'm seeing 90% of the time here is for legacy CSM players who've been around since ye olde days when 40k was much much smaller than it is now. You want to be able to do whatever you want with whatever you want, and while that's cool and all, armies need to have structure to function and maintain a semblance of balance.
Death Guard are slow but that's balanced out with their toughness. If you could just add in fast units with no breaking of army rules or receive any negatives then those weaknesses might as well not be there.
I originally intended to write more and go into depth with people's discussions but I found myself basically saying the same things over and over.
As a last post in this topic from me, I genuinely hope this next CSM Codex does well for everyone and you get a semblance of what you want out of it.
Gert, who exactly are you arguing with? I just checked the last three pages of this thread, and the smallest number of proposed codexes for Chaos I could find was 3 from one poster. I couldn't find anyone arguing for one giant all encompassing Chaos Codex.
Do you just have a bone to pick with us "legacy CSM players"? Because the "everybody gets everything" approach started with the 4th edition CSM codex, which if you haven't noticed, we all HATE. The older books, like 3.5 which you can't stand us bringing up, were full of restrictions on who could take what. It still makes my skin crawl every time I see a Dark Apostle in anything but a Word Bearers army.
A single functioning book would be advocating for a return to the 3.5 codex which is every chaos players wet dream. I mean during those days you could have noise marine bikes.... and noise termis, bike smiths, etc. we could even make the codex more customizable than it was especially to consolidate the many different variations of death guard infantry and characters The down side is that the book had poor balance with itself and the rest of the game, but I would drool at the opportunity to have that level of customization of my forces again. I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibilities to consolidate every lord equivalent to one lord entry (alright 3 because bikes and terminator armor) and make marks of chaos unlock war gear options and upgrade options to make a lord into a lord of contagion for example.
If we have problems with the legion and unit restriction why can’t we rewrite 3.5 WITHOUT that part? And balance things like oblits better? Or we can return to the days of units having restrictions, but I sort of feel like that’s what the different detachment types are for.
I am fond of this approach because it consolidates books, brings back ultra customization, and it would speed up codex release cycles for that reason.
That being said, it is incredibly unrealistic that GW would do any such thing because splitting the faction across more books means selling more books, artificially inflating a sense of diversity of factions and players, and most importantly, opens up more opportunities to sell more models with the more codices, because they seem to like using codex launches as the time to update models and release new ones (for admittedly obvious and fair reasons).
From a business standpoint there simply is not much to gain from that consolidation of books. I also think that the curse of chaos is that no one Chaos player’s vision of chaos will ever be captured on the table top, aside form fans of the god aligned legions.
Las wrote: I’d bet my life savings that no one in GW marketing or accounting knows wtf a “mark of chaos” is unless it comes across their desk as part of a brief or in a SKU name, let alone leverages that knowledge over the product side of the org.
More than likely the chaos gak show is a result of a lack of design vision and QA from GW’s insane release schedule. It’s a common problem in product companies.
I think it's probably lack of vision as you said, but also GW painting itself into a corner with how the explanation of demons and Chaos itself has evolved. Because it seemed like as more and more was written about the warp and politics of the Big 4, the more the middle ground has been erased.
Iirc Belakor is implied in recent lore to be unique as an unaligned (all-aligned?) daemon prince because the big 4 are unable to cooperate so they refuse to uplift any more champions together. Ok, but then what about the Daemon Primarchs? I could maybe see Perturabo and Alpharius/Omegon (if they're alive) being mono-god but Lorgar certainly wouldn't make sense.
Ok, so maybe you have unaligned Chaos tapping into some B-list daemons? But what themes are even left that haven't been absorbed into the Big 4 already? Well Horus Heresy tried that with Samus, Drach'nyen, Madail, and the Daemons of the Ruinstorm... who are kind of interesting in their own right but not nearly as thematically evocative as the Big 4.
So that leaves the designers to try and make something unique and exciting out of a conceptual absence. Which is a much tougher ask than "it does the combat/durability/magic/finesse thing".
I dunno... I go back and forth with whether Cult Marines should just be Marines + Marks, or their own unique units. On one hand, it means you have to wrap every possible special rule into the Mark + Legion, and when it comes to Rubric Marines that creates a whole litany of extra extra rules. On the other hand, it cuts down on the amount of different units which overall creates less repeated stat lines (but on the other other hand, then all Chaos Marines, Cult or otherwise, have the same stat line... and is that good?).
Right now I'm in the "separate entries" camp, as I think it just makes things cleaner overall, especially if the rules for Marks are consistent across the board.
At this point I don’t care what they do with chaos, as long as it works. Change happens and I am ready to let go of how I envision chaos and what fraction of the faction I care most about. Just do something... give us back the 3.5 codex. Give me a spiky loyalist codex. Give me something bizarre. A dozen codices to cover every angle (preferably not that...) Anything besides the bland mush that we’ve had for too long.
I mean besides axing undivided. And using daemon engines to basically carry the whole faction. Anything but that.
I dunno... I go back and forth with whether Cult Marines should just be Marines + Marks, or their own unique units. On one hand, it means you have to wrap every possible special rule into the Mark + Legion, and when it comes to Rubric Marines that creates a whole litany of extra extra rules. On the other hand, it cuts down on the amount of different units which overall creates less repeated stat lines (but on the other other hand, then all Chaos Marines, Cult or otherwise, have the same stat line... and is that good?).
Right now I'm in the "separate entries" camp, as I think it just makes things cleaner overall, especially if the rules for Marks are consistent across the board.
Otoh, a single entry might be beneficial if done with upgrade for pts for internal balance.
Structured propperly:
IF you pick a lord and make it a warlord from "exemple" death guard or purge (or DIYS chaos warband mono aligned to nurgle):
Unlock Plague marine Upgrade for CSM squad. Increase T, lower M, Access to plague weapons, -1 Dmg trait.
This way you could use the "raiding" force type of deal to mix, or allow for greater purity boni if all detachments are specific to one subfaction.
Then you basically only have to tie the specific legion specialist units to "pure" detachments and you'd have atleast the baseline structure for all chaos legions and warbands.
Honestly, i am still surprised that we didn't get a DIYS trait system for csm to this day, its like the absolute nobrainer change that GW could've done with some effort to make a lot of players happy i feel.
I do wonder if Marks could be more closely linked to Unit Leaders?
Early on I suggested giving CSM players a choice in what rank their squad leader is, again to reflect my preferred concept of lots of smaller warbands working together.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rough example?
Slaaneshi Marked CSM. Their unit leader might be focussed on Martial Perfection, granting the squad a boost or re-roll on to hit rolls. Or they might instead get Always Strikes First type stuff.
My biggest issue is the nightmare of keeping track of which squad that’s marked with what god does what. I think it would be best IF WE WANT a customizable mark like that, to be basically one option that applies to every mark. For example, maybe slaanesh can either confer exploding 6’s in close combat and with bolt weapons, or offer always strikes first.
I thought of marks unlocking multiple rules upgrades but you quickly run into the same sort of issue as proxying like a jerk, except it’s supported by the rules this time.
Loyalists get 2 special rules from their chapter traits. Maybe chaos should get one from legion and war and traits and one from marks of chaos.
I dunno... I go back and forth with whether Cult Marines should just be Marines + Marks, or their own unique units. On one hand, it means you have to wrap every possible special rule into the Mark + Legion, and when it comes to Rubric Marines that creates a whole litany of extra extra rules. On the other hand, it cuts down on the amount of different units which overall creates less repeated stat lines (but on the other other hand, then all Chaos Marines, Cult or otherwise, have the same stat line... and is that good?).
Right now I'm in the "separate entries" camp, as I think it just makes things cleaner overall, especially if the rules for Marks are consistent across the board.
I'm in the "separate entries" camp as well. Mostly because a CSM with Mark (X) shouldn't be the same as Cult Marine (X). You're not a Berzerker without the Nails, but you can be dedicated to Khorne without them. You're not a Rubric Marine unless you're a Thousands Son, but you can be dedicated to Tzeentch without being a Thousands Son etc, etc.
Also, although I do want Marks to be impactful and available to everyone, I don't want them to be the end all to how we can improve our Marines. I want my Veteran Skills back. If that's tied to our squad Champions, fine. But please, throw an old Night Lords player a bone and let going Godless be a viable option again.
There is already icons for marked units that need a bit of extra flavour and icon of vengeance for unmarked units. I do think marks can be too important, like if certain units cannot have marks or becomes terrible for having the wrong one. I'm not sure how I feel about giving CSM Exarch powers, I think it could be a good idea. I'm a little concerned about every unit getting it though, that seems like a lot of extra things to keep track of and might be best suited as a Crusade mechanic.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly, i am still surprised that we didn't get a DIYS trait system for csm to this day, its like the absolute nobrainer change that GW could've done with some effort to make a lot of players happy i feel.
Do you mean like SM successor chapters?
Gert wrote: I get people wanting all their rules in one place, really I do, but the sheer size and unwieldiness of such a book seems pretty obvious to me.
Currently, we have the following datasheets for each Chaos army (removing duplicates):
Chaos Daemons - 59
Chaos Knights - 6
Chaos Space Marines - 54
Death Guard - 17
Thousand Sons - 10
Total - 146
The Space Marine Codex has 98 datasheets and it is a regular complaint that it is too large. It might be all well and good to have the rules in one place but it's only a perfect solution for people who specifically want to do whatever they want with Chaos armies. If you just want Tsons you need to wade through over 100 datasheets just to get your 10 unique units. Same with Chaos Knights.
The biggest problem I'm seeing 90% of the time here is for legacy CSM players who've been around since ye olde days when 40k was much much smaller than it is now. You want to be able to do whatever you want with whatever you want, and while that's cool and all, armies need to have structure to function and maintain a semblance of balance.
Death Guard are slow but that's balanced out with their toughness. If you could just add in fast units with no breaking of army rules or receive any negatives then those weaknesses might as well not be there.
I originally intended to write more and go into depth with people's discussions but I found myself basically saying the same things over and over.
As a last post in this topic from me, I genuinely hope this next CSM Codex does well for everyone and you get a semblance of what you want out of it.
Index Imperium 1 had 200ish datasheets, there is nothing legacy about 8th edition, splitting Chaos into 8 indexes risks some CSM having 2 wounds and others not having it which is really freaking dumb, it's a totally valid option if GW is willing to errata profiles when it is appropriate (like 12 months ago when CSM should have gotten their second wound).
Balancing soup can be done through CP cost, internal synergy, Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines, those can be shoved into Chapter Approved along with Relics, Strats and WL traits. Just because CSM, CK, DG, TS, CD and R&H are in the same index does not mean they cannot have the faction keywords and list building restrictions and rewards of today. You can already build mono-god Detachments, a Great Unclean One leading Nurgle Cultists backed up by Plagueburst Crawlers for example. Death Guard have plenty of moderately fast units, giving them M14 Plague Bikers wouldn't make them much stronger if the unit had an appropriate cost.
Would this weigh a lot more? Index Chaos was shorter than Codex CSM is and you only need one Chapter Approved per table, the latter being larger isn't a big deal I don't think, so in total it might weigh less. Would you have to flip through more pages to get what you are looking for? Not if fluff, dioramas and art was exorcised from rulebooks to be their own dedicated products.
I'm working on a different format for a fandex I'm writing at the moment that could compact rules a lot which would be ideal for printed material, it's also way easier to write than trying to copy GW's datasheet format. I think the datasheet format is more ideal for a digital format using hyperlinks and getting online pts updates when relevant.
vict0988 wrote: Death Guard have plenty of moderately fast units, giving them M14 Plague Bikers wouldn't make them much stronger if the unit had an appropriate cost.
It's amazing that everyone seems to have forgotten that only a few years ago most Death Guard armies were full of bikes and mechanised infantry...
vict0988 wrote: Death Guard have plenty of moderately fast units, giving them M14 Plague Bikers wouldn't make them much stronger if the unit had an appropriate cost.
It's amazing that everyone seems to have forgotten that only a few years ago most Death Guard armies were full of bikes and mechanised infantry...
^Yah. Chaos gets pulled in all sorts of directions because of a combination of changing design philosophies and wavering thematic guidance, it seems.
I dunno... I go back and forth with whether Cult Marines should just be Marines + Marks, or their own unique units. On one hand, it means you have to wrap every possible special rule into the Mark + Legion, and when it comes to Rubric Marines that creates a whole litany of extra extra rules. On the other hand, it cuts down on the amount of different units which overall creates less repeated stat lines (but on the other other hand, then all Chaos Marines, Cult or otherwise, have the same stat line... and is that good?).
Right now I'm in the "separate entries" camp, as I think it just makes things cleaner overall, especially if the rules for Marks are consistent across the board.
I'm in the "separate entries" camp as well. Mostly because a CSM with Mark (X) shouldn't be the same as Cult Marine (X). You're not a Berzerker without the Nails, but you can be dedicated to Khorne without them. You're not a Rubric Marine unless you're a Thousands Son, but you can be dedicated to Tzeentch without being a Thousands Son etc, etc.
Also, although I do want Marks to be impactful and available to everyone, I don't want them to be the end all to how we can improve our Marines. I want my Veteran Skills back. If that's tied to our squad Champions, fine. But please, throw an old Night Lords player a bone and let going Godless be a viable option again.
Either separate entries or super-bonus like 3.5. But yeah, MoK shouldn't mean Berzerker.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What is a non-Rubric Tzeentch-marked Marine then? Aside from Sorcerers and Possessed?
Yeah exactly. In fourth edition some of us did take basic marines in formerly pure TS lists, because rubrics were so clumsy. One problem is that even though the rules in 4th allowed for marked, non-cult units, a lot of people didn’t use the mark of tzeentch on their changemarines, because all it did was make them more expensive. There also wasn’t any coherent design or background for them. And I don’t think I want any sculpts or background that were invented because of a mechanistic niche that “should” exist.
There was one person online who gave his change marines the mark of Khorne. He wrote them off as having mutations, and seemed embarrassed about it. It definitely is embarrassing, because the idea all along was to play a list of rubrics and sorcerers and there should have just been useful rules for those instead of having to pad them out with mooks.
The Eye of Terror codex was really nice, because the mutants had optional upgrades that were kind of god aligned, but not really. The upgrade would be called goat-headed for +1 S, or hopping, floating, and leaping to move as cavalry - no mention of a god there. Then the description would say that khorne armies typically would feature goat-headed mutants, but there was nothing ruleswise khorne- aligned about them and you didn’t write “mark of khorne” on your list
I’m very skeptical of upgrade marks. I don’t think they need to be an option. If it’s a detachment-wide keyword the same as chapter tactic or other sub faction, that’s one thing. As for giving them to individual models, that’s not for me. Also in the background just because someone wants to be affiliated with a god, that doesn’t mean they deserve a mark.
I think marks offer an interesting compromise to the objectively worse legion traits vs. loyalist chapter traits and what not.
As for Tzeentch I would argue that a marine that secured his blessing would find that the changer of ways may change the way his bolter’s bolts go maybe to represent that each Tzeentch marked unit may reroll a single failed hit.
To be fair I would bet that a nurgle non plague marine would look like a sickly but not yet rotting or bloated marine. He may have poxes or pus oozing boils, or just pallid and droopy eyes. Maybe the corners of its mouth is smeared with dried blood from hemoragic disease or a diseased lung. Maybe he finds that a normal mortal wound for a space marine debilitated him temporary but doesn’t quite kill him. Maybe his eyes dull as he inches further from life. Maybe he more or less still looks like most marines, and especially or always so with a helmet on.
I am fairly certain that most nurgle dedicated marines will find their way to becoming a plague marine though. It seems like his followers crave his gifts.
As for Tzeentch, there are a few war bands to include the scourged that are not rubrics sorcerers or possessed/mutated to heavy degree.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What is a non-Rubric Tzeentch-marked Marine then? Aside from Sorcerers and Possessed?
A CSM that's dedicated to Tzeentch enough to recieve a blessing.
Yeah in the 1999 or 3.0 codex, only squad champions and higher could be “dedicated enough.” For troops, havocs, raptors etc, the champion could get a buff from marking but the basic guys didn’t get anything. Since they’re goons.
macluvin wrote: maybe to represent that each Tzeentch marked unit may reroll a single failed hit.
Yeah this is exactly what the design process for fourth was. They made up something arbitrary, just for the sake of having a rule, and it was useless. You could also buy an icon that was useless. They were rules for the sake of having a rule, just filling space in the codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
By the same token, what's a Nurgle-dedicated non-Plague Marine look like?
And if there’s no artwork or models or background of such a thing, then there isn’t a reason to make rules for it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wasn't the whole point of the Rubric to stop the endless mutations that were destroying all the non-Psyker Tzeentch-dedicated Marines?
Are there examples of Tzeentch Marines in the fluff that aren't either:
1. Rubrics.
2. Sorcerers.
3. Warp-touched in some significant fashion (eg. Possessed).
Not recently, but yes, there are examples. The thing with the Rubric is its specifically a Thousand Sons thing, because their geneseed was causing their bodies to rebel. It wasn't random mutation, but a specific failure in that legion.
The problem is a non 1000 Son Tzeentch marine historically is just a dude with a 6++... or a bonus with psychic powers he doesn't have, depending on the mark rules at the time.
By the same token, what's a Nurgle-dedicated non-Plague Marine look like?
Less bloated. But usually still tougher.
Like a lot of things, both of those (and EC and WE) got more and more Flanderized. It wasn't as noticeable with the TS and DG because they were written up as the Flanderization (barely) started, but the original write-up and army lists for both legions (in RoC: Lost and the Damned) had 'Traitor Marines' AND 'Thousand Son/Death Guard Marines' and neither of those were in their final form yet. The original rules for TS marines was an aura that nearby Wizard-Champions of Tzeentch could tap for d6 extra psychic points. Plague Marines could swap a random Chaos Attribute for A 'Gift of Mortarion' (a shorter random d100 table), which was random disease effects, Feels no Pain (d6 extra wounds for the model) or Bloat (+1 T and -1 I) or a gut tentacle (+1 A) or cosmetic effects that did nothing. (because GW loved random 'screw you' results for chaos)
By contrast the WE and EC army lists predated Berzerkers and Noise Marines entirely. All WE had frenzy and +1 to psychic saves, all EC had a bonus to psychology tests. Other than that, the differences were which daemons could be summoned and unit sizes (multiples of 6 or 8).
The format of 40k army lists changed a lot between those two books. They weren't quite incompatible, but they didn't look like they were from the same game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wasn't the whole point of the Rubric to stop the endless mutations that were destroying all the non-Psyker Tzeentch-dedicated Marines?
That was a problem with the Thousand Sons gene-seed specifically - the legion was nearly destroyed by mutation prior to Magnus' arrival, the problem just became 100x worse once they were sworn to Tzeentch. I don't think that means that a non-Thousand Son force dedicated to Tzeentch has to suffer from mutations to the same ruinous degree as the pre-Rubric TS.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Are there examples of Tzeentch Marines in the fluff that aren't either:
1. Rubrics.
2. Sorcerers.
3. Warp-touched in some significant fashion (eg. Possessed).
Yes, we even have rules for them - The Scourged. We've also got rules/art/background for renegade warbands dedicated to Khorne/Slaanesh/Nurgle.
Some interesting points raised over the last page or two. I think I'd probably prefer marks to be something you apply to an army or a detachment rather than a unit.
I honestly have no idea how GW are going to approach marks in our 9th edition book though, if I'm honest. We've got a few layers of rules to take into account: a legion/warband trait, whatever our mono army bonus is, and marks (assuming marks on a detachment level don't end up being our mono bonus).
Voss wrote: [
Not recently, but yes, there are examples. The thing with the Rubric is its specifically a Thousand Sons thing, because their geneseed was causing their bodies to rebel. It wasn't random mutation, but a specific failure in that legion.
The problem is a non 1000 Son Tzeentch marine historically is just a dude with a 6++... or a bonus with psychic powers he doesn't have, depending on the mark rules at the time.
By the same token, what's a Nurgle-dedicated non-Plague Marine look like?
Less bloated. But usually still tougher.
so what is that? Is there an iconic Jes Goodwin sculpt of that? An Adrian Smith color plate that we keep flipping back to in a codex?
pelicaniforce wrote: They were rules for the sake of having a rule, just filling space in the codex.
I think they were Gav's attempt at replicating Marks from 3.5, only poorly, leading to situations where the guy with the icon dies and everyone forgets who they worship.
pelicaniforce wrote: And if there’s no artwork or models or background of such a thing, then there isn’t a reason to make rules for it.
Well I never said that, but generally speaking I tend to try to work within the structure of what exists rather than inventing new things out of whole cloth.
Voss wrote: Not recently, but yes, there are examples. The thing with the Rubric is its specifically a Thousand Sons thing, because their geneseed was causing their bodies to rebel. It wasn't random mutation, but a specific failure in that legion.
Thank you for clarifying that.
Voss wrote: Less bloated. But usually still tougher.
Alright. I'm getting a sense of things now. I was thinking about this conundrum on my walk today (that got cut short by half my Gang Stronhold's showing up via courier, so I had to race home! ) and I'm having a few ideas when it comes to Cult Troops vs Marked Troops vs Dedicated to a Chaos God, and what role Champions and Chosen play in that, what is a unit upgrade vs an army-wide thing, and how that could even tie into Veteran Skills that a few people have brought up.
Marshal Loss wrote: We've got a few layers of rules to take into account: a legion/warband trait, whatever our mono army bonus is, and marks (assuming marks on a detachment level don't end up being our mono bonus).
I think rule layering can work if there are set defined layers (army/faction/unit), and if its consistent across the board. And if the layers build upon what came before (ie. Unit A gets Rule X, but Unit B gets Rule X & Y, and unit C gets Rule X & Y and Z).
This is also why USRs make things easier, as they allow you to compress rules boat by finding a lot of similar rules and find a middle ground rule that can even by dynamic to cover variance. For example, if you find several units that have some variation on +X" to advance and charge (+1" to charge, +"1 to charge and advance, +2" to charge and advance and so on, you just delete all of those and replace them with a new universal rule. Something like
Swift & Deadly (X):The unit always add a number of inches to its Advance and Charge moves equal to the number in parentheses.
One of the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many things I absolutely despise about the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was that the Marks... well... there were no Marks. Let's take a step back. I'll try to limit my extremely frusted anti-4th Edition outbursts.
The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex destroyed Chaos as a faction and salted the earth forevermore did away with the Marks of Chaos from the 3.5 book as well as everything else that made Chaos interesting replacing them with Icons of Chaos because the CSM kit, which I still love, had a banner pole and 5 different topper options. The legacy of these models is still seen today with the weird 'Take a Mark that does nothing so you can pay points for an Icon!" rules.
As I mentioned above, the Icon rules never made any sense to me because they were the only way, outside of Cult Troops (which was something else that accursed Codex ruined by eliminating Cult Bikers, Havocs, Terminators and so on from the rules) to have 'dedicated' forces, and when the Icon died, the whole unit just up and forgot who they worshipped.
But, this discussion has made me reconsider that perspective... slightly. As you and a couple others have said, what if it were linked to squad leaders? What if the Aspiring Champion is what gave the unit their dedication? I can see them 'losing faith', so to speak, as I did with GW when they put out that Jervisified 4th Ed book if the one leading them in their faith gets ganked.
This could even tie into Sacred Numbers, and even how different Legions react (Word Bearers might be all faithful, and thus do not need their Champions to maintain their faith). Would also be a nice differentiation for Chosen - if they're marked, they're all marked, befitting their status as the Chosen among the Chaos Lord's forces.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Slaaneshi Marked CSM. Their unit leader might be focussed on Martial Perfection, granting the squad a boost or re-roll on to hit rolls. Or they might instead get Always Strikes First type stuff.
You're kinda describing Exarch powers in a way, which in and of itself isn't a terrible idea to replicate. And I prefer to replicate existing rules structures than just invent new ones where possible.
Oh, and Grotsnik, wasn't it you who suggested a two-sided approach for Khorne? Blood for the Blood God for Shooting, and Skulls for the Skull Throne for HTH combat? Well, it's not exactly that, but Creative Assembly have thrown in a system that uses both of those for the TWW3 Khorne faction.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wasn't the whole point of the Rubric to stop the endless mutations that were destroying all the non-Psyker Tzeentch-dedicated Marines?
Are there examples of Tzeentch Marines in the fluff that aren't either:
1. Rubrics.
2. Sorcerers.
3. Warp-touched in some significant fashion (eg. Possessed).
By the same token, what's a Nurgle-dedicated non-Plague Marine look like?
Well I know there are Tzeentch marine models from Rogue Trader that are mutated, but also still wielding wargear unlike a Posessed marine. Missile Launchers, Lascannons, a Plasma Pistol and Flamer(?). They sometimes have the same mushroom lower body that Flamer-daemons have. Some of the cooler models from that era, imo.
Heh, there's also a Nurgle Marine with a Heavy Bolter in a pic in Chaos 3.5, a weapon which actual Deathguard Plague Marines could not get iirc.
Voss wrote: [
Not recently, but yes, there are examples. The thing with the Rubric is its specifically a Thousand Sons thing, because their geneseed was causing their bodies to rebel. It wasn't random mutation, but a specific failure in that legion.
The problem is a non 1000 Son Tzeentch marine historically is just a dude with a 6++... or a bonus with psychic powers he doesn't have, depending on the mark rules at the time.
By the same token, what's a Nurgle-dedicated non-Plague Marine look like?
Less bloated. But usually still tougher.
so what is that? Is there an iconic Jes Goodwin sculpt of that? An Adrian Smith color plate that we keep flipping back to in a codex?
Were there sculpts and pictures? Yeah, obviously. Not sure where this oddly aggressive 'pics or it didn't happen' comes from (especially when we had multiple editions before the everything was codified to the regimented version of the modern chaos range), but it isn't that hard to find pictures of old miniatures and art on the internet.
Voss wrote: Were there sculpts and pictures? Yeah, obviously. Not sure where this oddly aggressive 'pics or it didn't happen' comes from (especially when we had multiple editions before the everything was codified to the regimented version of the modern chaos range), but it isn't that hard to find pictures of old miniatures and art on the internet.
I long for mutant marines with ribbed armor. So, do they need to use the system of blue tzeentch marines get a fixed buff, and green nurgle marines get a fixed buff?
Because the mutations from the Eye of Terror codex is still an option, the ones that are implied to be god aligned, but don’t have any rules to that effect.
Before we get all excited I should add that a lot of these old sculpts also existed long before 40k went through it's mass rationalisation at the start of 2nd Ed.
They're from the "make whatever you feel" phase of 40ks history. Lots of half-baked ideas and stuff that wouldn't see full realisation for years to come, and some stuff that was thrown against the wall but didn't stick.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Before we get all excited I should add that a lot of these old sculpts also existed long before 40k went through it's mass rationalisation at the start of 2nd Ed.
They're from the "make whatever you feel" phase of 40ks history. Lots of half-baked ideas and stuff that wouldn't see full realisation for years to come, and some stuff that was thrown against the wall but didn't stick.
So they’re too old that means they’re not polished enough. What about https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/comments/pt3u2l/warp_ghosts_the_faction_you_hardly_hear_anything/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">the warp ghosts who as recently as 2017 were described as having totally unrecognizable armor and as being intermittently tangible and appearing from mist like a chaos analogue to legion of the damned? They might be a modern version of some of those RT era sculpts. That is, at least in the sense that they’re something with a distinct visual appearance and could be roughly “tzeentchian” without having to strictly be painted blue and lined up with some version of blue marines and Egyptian trimmings.
pelicaniforce wrote: And if there’s no artwork or models or background of such a thing, then there isn’t a reason to make rules for it.
Well I never said that, but generally speaking I tend to try to work within the structure of what exists rather than inventing new things out of whole cloth.
I’m sorry. did you mean this? I said that. I said that the reason to write rules is that there are existing models or background for a unit, and the rules come second. Sorry.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What is a non-Rubric Tzeentch-marked Marine then? Aside from Sorcerers and Possessed?
A CSM that's dedicated to Tzeentch enough to recieve a blessing.
Yeah in the 1999 or 3.0 codex, only squad champions and higher could be “dedicated enough.” For troops, havocs, raptors etc, the champion could get a buff from marking but the basic guys didn’t get anything. Since they’re goons.
macluvin wrote: maybe to represent that each Tzeentch marked unit may reroll a single failed hit.
Yeah this is exactly what the design process for fourth was. They made up something arbitrary, just for the sake of having a rule, and it was useless. You could also buy an icon that was useless. They were rules for the sake of having a rule, just filling space in the codex.
I ripped the idea from the loyalist book and figured that it being a rough equivalent of half a loyalist chapter tactic, and that it would make for a decent “free” rule to compliment the other half coming from legion/war and traits.
Besides, in a chaos space marine squad refilling a failed special weapon hit or a failed hidden power fist didn’t seem like that lame a buff. Above all else it is flexible enough to give a decent amount of freedom with list building.
A havoc squad rerolling a lascannon hit didn’t seem that bad either.
I really liked the idea of khorne getting a buff that triggered after a unit dies for the remainder of the player turn, and to attach shenanigans that really interact with the game like adding 3” to consolidate moves because being able to consolidate into new combat sounded like an interesting way to make an aggressive tempo army.
Point is I spent a bit of time exploring what had already been tried and I am trying to think about what space hasn’t been explored. On that note it’s a shame that combat seems as the most engaging phase a woefully unexplored mechanic.
There’s 30 monkeys in here throwing ideas around. Somebody has got to have written some Shakespeare in this thread by now.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wasn't the whole point of the Rubric to stop the endless mutations that were destroying all the non-Psyker Tzeentch-dedicated Marines?
Are there examples of Tzeentch Marines in the fluff that aren't either:
1. Rubrics.
2. Sorcerers.
3. Warp-touched in some significant fashion (eg. Possessed).
The Rubric was to stop the mutations in the Thousand Sons that started up again because of their exposure to the eye of terror. It was not because of Tzeentch dedication. That's where the disconnect seems to be coming from it seems given that the Thousand Sons had issues with mutations beforehand due to their genetics that with the newfound exposure it just caused it to grow again.
There are other bands of Tzeentch marked throughout but the rather common gifts of mutation Tzeentch likes to send out does tend to cause his followers to fall prey to becoming Chaos spawn in greater numbers then other gods.
H.B.M.C. wrote: One of the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many things I absolutely despise about the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was that the Marks... well... there were no Marks. Let's take a step back. I'll try to limit my extremely frusted anti-4th Edition outbursts.
The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex destroyed Chaos as a faction and salted the earth forevermore did away with the Marks of Chaos from the 3.5 book as well as everything else that made Chaos interesting replacing them with Icons of Chaos because the CSM kit, which I still love, had a banner pole and 5 different topper options. The legacy of these models is still seen today with the weird 'Take a Mark that does nothing so you can pay points for an Icon!" rules.
As I mentioned above, the Icon rules never made any sense to me because they were the only way, outside of Cult Troops (which was something else that accursed Codex ruined by eliminating Cult Bikers, Havocs, Terminators and so on from the rules) to have 'dedicated' forces, and when the Icon died, the whole unit just up and forgot who they worshipped.
But, this discussion has made me reconsider that perspective... slightly. As you and a couple others have said, what if it were linked to squad leaders? What if the Aspiring Champion is what gave the unit their dedication? I can see them 'losing faith', so to speak, as I did with GW when they put out that Jervisified 4th Ed book if the one leading them in their faith gets ganked.
This could even tie into Sacred Numbers, and even how different Legions react (Word Bearers might be all faithful, and thus do not need their Champions to maintain their faith). Would also be a nice differentiation for Chosen - if they're marked, they're all marked, befitting their status as the Chosen among the Chaos Lord's forces.
Funnily enough IA 13 tied Marks (covenants) to squad champions for R&H. The higher up the ladder of the army the bigger the impact aswell on unit choices and capabilities. (Mark your demagogue and behold, you get access to cultmarines, plague zombies, dreadnoughts, more spawn, etc, etc et all.)
It was a good system, that one, one of the many things GW shot because it seemingly was good for a chaos faction, in a long run of shooting good ideas for chaos factions which are tied to the identity of said chaos forces.
I also think as an aside, people need to drop the percieved need for an official Model for x unit type.
Aka just because i call it in the list i chose to make a "rubric", doesn't mean that the "rubric" i play is a rubric but rather a tzeentchian scourged CSM squad highly favoured by the changer.
Doubly problematic that insistence of sterilising and streamlining chaos is for units that are supposed to be HIGHLY individualistic or random/ changed.
Possessed have been brought up, which most of the time and still are , randumb standardised.
What they should be, is at the most basic level a blank slate datasheet with a core statline AND THEN the meat in choice of mutations. (heck you could even tie some mutations to specific gods , but imagine giving customizability to chaos players) What they are: A 2w 5++ csm with d3 + something attacks and a meh melee
Chosen are another one of those units that just... lack anything really to make them something worth their supposed baseline , next in ladder of taking over position due to personal merit that chosen are supposed to be. Instead, they are csm +1 A and having raided an armory.
Ironically i think that customizability and use x as y was what was intended with the 4th edition CSM codex, however, that would've required far more work especially in the general customizability sphere. And funnily enough we can see what happens when this idea get's executed well with IA13. In which a mere 3 troop choices could represent from dark mech thralls, to cultists, to traitor guard, to paramilitary, to pirates, to bloodpact death brigades, to daemon cults. With 3 standardised unit sheets which could be modified by the players for leader choices and in the sheets themselves.
I think I need to delve into my precious lovely Realm of Chaos books to see how Marks etc were handled in Rogue Trader.
You might think that’s something I’d know off the top of my head, but I don’t think I’ve ever really looked into it.
Certainly the main restrictions were on which Chapter (as they were then) could field what, much like the Orky armies in ‘Ere We Go (no, not Waaargh! The Orks. That had no rules at all ) and Freebooterz.
Of course, I’m not suggesting a direct transposition. The game has come a long way since RT, where many of the restrictions were a way to make a fairly small model range produce a greater variety in noticeably different armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: What is a non-Rubric Tzeentch-marked Marine then? Aside from Sorcerers and Possessed?
This is indeed The Biggest Question.
After all, all Khorne Berzerkers are dedicated to Khorne, but not all Khorne Dedicated CSM are Berzerkers.
As ever, I’m really out of touch with the modern game, so please take any all suggestions from me with a decent pinch of salt. If they’re cack or massively OP, it’s not deliberate! (This is to everyone, not HBMC specifically).
Certainly I feel generic CSM bearing a Mark should bring something to the table. Given Cult Units tend to be limited in equipment, having Generic Marked Marines could be a way to have a continuing theme in a force, without completely sacrificing list flexibility.
So a Khorne force should have a predisposition to HTH, but still have the option of including shooty units. Perhaps units with the Mark of Khorne, being more used to and more determined to reach Glorious Combat, can roll 3D6 for charge reach, picking the two highest (it doesn’t make them faster, but insulates against Banana Slipper charges).
Any unit with Veterans of the Long War should, perhaps, have an additional -1 to Armour Saves against Loyalist Marines, to represent of everyone in the Galaxy, they’re the most adept and knowledgable about where to place one’s blows/shots to take down an Astartes. Certainly it would go some way to redressing the balance of the frankly somewhat weedy Bolter now the goodies have Bolt Rifles.
Or, to represent their greater tenacity, tinker with how Battleshock affects them? Don’t know enough about how it currently works to elaborate or suggest further.
You might see a common theme here, that I’m placing “background into rules” over “is this really any good in the game?”. That’s just how I am, and my preference for game rules. That of course is no reason for anyone else to follow suit!
Why only Thousand Sons should be blessed by Tzeentch or Death Guard to Nurgle?
I mean. We have actual rules and background for a good number of renegade chaos marines that follow one or other god. Here you have the full list of all Chaos Space Marine organizations from warbands to renegade chapters to legions: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Chaos_Space_Marine_Legions_and_Warbands_(List)
And you had stuff like Nightlords following khorne. In 10000 years you don't believe you'll have word bearers, sons of horus, iron warriors, and the giant number of disorganized warbands made from a bunch of all legions + renegades + newly created chaos marines following this god and that god? I tought that was common knowledge.
And….ooooh crikey give us options for mutated Astartes.
Because looking at the range, you kind of wonder why Ahriman bothered with the Rubric, as Chaos is no longer gribbly and body horrory.
Even a specific unit would do. And don’t make it a random shifting benefit. By all means have a relatively generic benefit (decrease enemy Ld due to the horror show, or add an attack. Something distinct, but not overshadowing), with a Chaos Forsaken type kit where we can build them super gribbly or only slightly manky if you don’t mind the tentacles and eye stalks.
For those unfamiliar with the “only around for a short time, seemingly not a good time” Forsaken kit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Why only Thousand Sons should be blessed by Tzeentch or Death Guard to Nurgle?
I mean. We have actual rules and background for a good number of renegade chaos marines that follow one or other god. Here you have the full list of all Chaos Space Marine organizations from warbands to renegade chapters to legions: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Chaos_Space_Marine_Legions_and_Warbands_(List)
And you had stuff like Nightlords following khorne. In 10000 years you don't believe you'll have word bearers, sons of horus, iron warriors, and the giant number of disorganized warbands made from a bunch of all legions + renegades + newly created chaos marines following this god and that god? I tought that was common knowledge.
I think that’s HBMC’s question. Being Marked doesn’t make you a Cult Troop.
So what should a Marked, non-Cult unit of a given God look like rules wise? What benefits should that Mark confer?
We've had about 12 people reply to my "What's a non-Rubric Tzeentch Marine look like?" query. Thanks. You can all stop now.
Galas wrote: Why only Thousand Sons should be blessed by Tzeentch or Death Guard to Nurgle?
I don't think anyone's making that argument?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For those unfamiliar with the “only around for a short time, seemingly not a good time” Forsaken kit?
I still have two boxes of them. Untouched.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Being Marked doesn’t make you a Cult Troop. So what should a Marked, non-Cult unit of a given God look like rules wise? What benefits should that Mark confer?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Being Marked doesn’t make you a Cult Troop. So what should a Marked, non-Cult unit of a given God look like rules wise? What benefits should that Mark confer?
Exactly!
I think Not Online is on the right track:
Not Online!!! wrote:A Mark should be, if it is an upgrade, able to Turn a csm into a "half culti", so to speak.
They should be similar to what the Cult Marines of that particular God are, but not as powerful. A Nurgle Marked CSM, for example, would be tougher than a normal CSM, but not as tough as an actual Plague Marine. So maybe +1T, but no Disgustingly Resilient? Or maybe the other way around? Just spitballing.
But I have to ask:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Alright. I'm getting a sense of things now. I was thinking about this conundrum on my walk today (that got cut short by half my Gang Stronhold's showing up via courier, so I had to race home! ) and I'm having a few ideas when it comes to Cult Troops vs Marked Troops vs Dedicated to a Chaos God, and what role Champions and Chosen play in that, what is a unit upgrade vs an army-wide thing, and how that could even tie into Veteran Skills that a few people have brought up.
What are your ideas on Veteran Skills? C'mon, share.
Got to say I’m really enjoying this thread. I know it’s a bit like blowing my own trumpet given I’m the OP, but the conversation has been really constructive and interesting thus far!
OT? Yeah. There needs to some kind of distinction, something noticeable, between Cult, Marked and Agnostic CSM.
Cults to me absolutely should be Turbo Nutters in a way fitting to their God.
Marked should have perks lesser but akin to Cult units.
Agnostic? Look it’s a silly term but it helps split the three up. Those should, perhaps, have the widest range of equipment options, as without any level of specific dedication to a given God, they’re less inclined to a specific form of warfare.
By all means have Cult troops restricted in a Core CSM Codex. Perhaps allow them as Elites only, or only allow them in as an allied contingent. But make them truly terrifying. They are after all near immortal super beings of colossal intellect (the intelligence being an often over looked aspect of being an Astartes). And they’ve dedicated themselves to a specific way of life and warfare. They should be super deadly.
Marked Units? I view that more an expression of preference than outright dedication to a specific method of war.
Agnostic? Flexible in mindset, flexible in equipment.
Again exactly how to translate that into rules, I can’t really offer much weight,
This is also potentially a space where you can play around with the idea of lesser Chaos powers (Cult of Destruction, Great Horned Rat, etc). Something that's been mentioned lightly in 40k over the years, but never gets explored much beyond one-offs like Be'lakor.
This is also potentially a space where you can play around with the idea of lesser Chaos powers (Cult of Destruction, Great Horned Rat, etc). Something that's been mentioned lightly in 40k over the years, but never gets explored much beyond one-offs like Be'lakor.
We know of Chaos Daemon entities, that are not directly aligned to the big four that still wield quite big influence.
Black tontine contract enforcers come to mind, sheitan, etc.
Raptors specifically seem to have their own deity that turns them into Warptalons seemingly.
What if veteran skills was the equivalent of however we choose to treat god dedication, either through marks of chaos as a passive buff or a key to unlocking an additional one? The gods may bestow favor upon the devoted of their followers but those who wage the long war under chaos undivided had to develop their own favor; the sneakier warbandsmay have outflank or scout equivalent redeployment, or perhaps warbands May specialize in hunting tanks and monsterous creatures (add 1 to wound rolls or to the damage when targeting such targets) or your warband may be assault weapon specialists able to reroll attack and damage characteristics for assault weapons.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Being Marked doesn’t make you a Cult Troop. So what should a Marked, non-Cult unit of a given God look like rules wise? What benefits should that Mark confer?
Not Online!!! wrote:A Mark should be, if it is an upgrade, able to Turn a csm into a "half culti", so to speak.
They should be similar to what the Cult Marines of that particular God are, but not as powerful. A Nurgle Marked CSM, for example, would be tougher than a normal CSM, but not as tough as an actual Plague Marine. So maybe +1T, but no Disgustingly Resilient? Or maybe the other way around? Just spitballing.
That's pretty much exactly what we had from 4th to 7th though, which is at the same time the darkest time for CSM. With the Traitor Legions supplement a Nurgle marked CSM in a DG detachment became a Plague Marine without plague knife and blight grenades but otherwize exactly the same. I guess with all the unique weapons Plague Marines got in 8th there is room for Nurgle marked CSM with T5 and DR.
I think from a game design perspective, they tried to do that with Marks originally. Remember when Mark of Nurgle added +1 to touhgness. But that was so OP that most people just used Mark of nurgle because in most cases, +1 toughness is far more powerful than any other Mark. And if they made the other marks as powerful as Mark of Nurgle, and the marks were free, that in itself would create a problem because the models then run a risk of being undercosted in points.
Also it created some design issues too. You suddenly had T6 nurgle bikes running around. You could design a list spamming Nurgle T6 bikes. Like Nurgle wasn't intended to be fast and mobile, but slapping a mark of nurgle on a unit of CSM bikes made a super durable unit that was fast and shooty too.
So, there were several issues with this, which was maybe why they ended making marks just do very little except add flavour and enable different icons. Not saying that was the best solution. But its not easy to balance.
I think having "Agnostic" be more flexible was what they were going for in 3.5 with how Marks and Veteran Skills were handled, only it was "tactically" flexible instead of being flexible in equipment. Basically: if a unit had a Mark, it could have one Veteran Skill, but if it was unmarked, it could have as many as you were willing to pay for. And besides Tank Hunters and Furious Charge, which were just straight power buffs, most Veteran Skills were the more "tactical" stuff, like Move Through Cover, Skilled Riders, and Infiltrate. So an unmarked unit typically lacked the sheer power of a Marked unit, but could pull off more tactical tricks. As someone who played (and still plays) what could be argued as the most "Agnostic " Legion, I always loved that difference. An unmarked Night Lords army got by on their skills as veterans instead of relying on the favor of some God or warp shenanigans.
Of course it didn't hurt that we got access to a Veteran Skill that no one else did: Stealth Adept (+1 to cover saves), and it was the same price as the Mark of Chaos Undivided that you were giving a toss to in order to lean hard into the Veteran angle. I always considered that as a "soft push" from the rules writers to get Night Lords players to go unmarked.
Yeah that was nuts! I thought there was a way to delete posts, can't figure it out atm.
Dakka's system usually handles it. True "double posts" are exceedingly rare.
What usually happens is magically tricking Dakka into thinking the post is there twice but it really isn't, so don't ever edit them. If it's still up after 10 minutes it's a legit double post and probably had to do with a connection hiccup. When that happens? Yellow triangle that sucker and tag it as a "double post" for the moderators/Lego to handle.
Yeah that was nuts! I thought there was a way to delete posts, can't figure it out atm.
Dakka's system usually handles it. True "double posts" are exceedingly rare.
What usually happens is magically tricking Dakka into thinking the post is there twice but it really isn't, so don't ever edit them. If it's still up after 10 minutes it's a legit double post and probably had to do with a connection hiccup. When that happens? Yellow triangle that sucker and tag it as a "double post" for the moderators/Lego to handle.
Interesting, thanks. I'll flag them then I s'pose.
I’m getting a strong vibe for vet skills being a chaos undivided mark of chaos thing... I really think marks of chaos and for chaos undivided, veteran skills being free buffs would make for a wonderful compromise to legion and war and traits being half a-I mean half a chapter trait. Under the best of circumstances I mean...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m getting a strong vibe for vet skills being a chaos undivided mark of chaos thing... I really think marks of chaos and for chaos undivided, veteran skills being free buffs would make for a wonderful compromise to legion and war and traits being half a-I mean half a chapter trait. Under the best of circumstances I mean...
macluvin wrote: I’m getting a strong vibe for vet skills being a chaos undivided mark of chaos thing... I really think marks of chaos and for chaos undivided, veteran skills being free buffs would make for a wonderful compromise to legion and war and traits being half a-I mean half a chapter trait. Under the best of circumstances I mean...
Sounds ok, but I'm not sure about them being "free". I expect Veteran Skills will be handled like Deadly Pathogens and Legion Command for Death Guard and Thousand Sons are: With a points cost and on a unit by unit basis, and probably tied to squad Champions.
As far as what Mark of Undivided should do, it should give like a tiny bonus, but x4, whilst the Big 4 give a big bonus in their own way. FOR EXAMPLE:
Mark of Chaos Undivided gives: 6+ invuln save, +1 attack, +1 to charge rolls, and a 6+ "feel no pain" against 1 damage weapons.
Mark of Khorne gives fight twice.
Mark of Slaanesh gives Advance and Charge and +1 to both.
Mark of Tzeench gives a 5+ invuln
Mark of Nurgle gives a 5+ Feel No Pain against everything.
Unit1126PLL wrote: As far as what Mark of Undivided should do, it should give like a tiny bonus, but x4, whilst the Big 4 give a big bonus in their own way. FOR EXAMPLE:
Mark of Chaos Undivided gives: 6+ invuln save, +1 attack, +1 to charge rolls, and a 6+ "feel no pain" against 1 damage weapons.
Mark of Khorne gives fight twice.
Mark of Slaanesh gives Advance and Charge and +1 to both.
Mark of Tzeench gives a 5+ invuln
Mark of Nurgle gives a 5+ Feel No Pain against everything.
Nice concept but it's hard for undivided not to be an auto-take if that's the case unless you're pushing a fluff/list design skew.
It would be entirely appropriate if each turn you had to do something to trigger that specific caveat or if it were once per game or you had to choose to activate them or something.
Las wrote: I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.
What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?
Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?
I’ve said it before; I think they should be a free bonus to apply to units in the army. It would balance out the fact that no matter what, legion and warband traits are always at best going to be a mediocre half of a space marine chapter tactic and at worst so useless they may as well not exist. It annoys me to no end that a chaos space marine squad has always been a loyalist tac squad with no flavor and being even more fragile than their power armor because of the lacking of and they shall know no fear and without the extra punch of combat doctrines and useful chapter traits
Las wrote: I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.
What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?
Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?
The "why?" is:
CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.
On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.
Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit
Is the Mark Undivided I've proposed really that good?
The 6+ invuln is almost useless in power armor (only works against -4 or better AP)
The +1 attack is probably the best, but isn't nearly as good as "double your attacks, also pile in, also consolidate again" that Khorne gets for not undivided.
The +1 to charge distances is basically irrelevant (slight change to probabilities but this is hardly noticeable over the course of a whole game)
And the 6+ FNP against 1 Damage weapons is super niche, especially on 2 wound models (where the FNP doesn't even work against most of the efficient weapons that will target them).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Is the Mark Undivided I've proposed really that good?
The 6+ invuln is almost useless in power armor (only works against -4 or better AP)
The +1 attack is probably the best, but isn't nearly as good as "double your attacks, also pile in, also consolidate again" that Khorne gets for not undivided.
The +1 to charge distances is basically irrelevant (slight change to probabilities but this is hardly noticeable over the course of a whole game)
And the 6+ FNP against 1 Damage weapons is super niche, especially on 2 wound models (where the FNP doesn't even work against most of the efficient weapons that will target them).
It's honestly just a lot of crap to remember for one buff. I'd prefer to keep it simple. Then it leaves more space for other options too.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Is the Mark Undivided I've proposed really that good?
The 6+ invuln is almost useless in power armor (only works against -4 or better AP)
The +1 attack is probably the best, but isn't nearly as good as "double your attacks, also pile in, also consolidate again" that Khorne gets for not undivided.
The +1 to charge distances is basically irrelevant (slight change to probabilities but this is hardly noticeable over the course of a whole game)
And the 6+ FNP against 1 Damage weapons is super niche, especially on 2 wound models (where the FNP doesn't even work against most of the efficient weapons that will target them).
+1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of
Las wrote: I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.
What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?
Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?
The "why?" is:
CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.
On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.
Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit
With respect, the fluff reason here is kind of irrelevant. There are infinite potential ways to convey this theme on the tabletop that would have nothing to do with the mechanics of the Mark of Chaos as it has existed in the past and today.
In order to fix Chaos, the question of why - in gameplay terms - we need marks and if so, how best should they be designed to accomplish that goal, should be scrutinized more closely and purposefully. The question of "what bonuses should the marks give?" is based on an assumption that the marks should give be bonuses that apply to units in the first place.
A more design based approach would be: "What are our gameplay objectives with Chaos in order to reflect the lore and setting? How can we incentivize that play behaviour on the tabletop mechanically? How can we wrap those mechanics in lore-based terminology?"
From there, you might designate a mechanic through application of the "marks of chaos" terminology. But constantly working from foregone conclusions about mechanical concepts that existed in the past is, I think, a big part of why Chaos is in the place that it is. The faction needs fresh design thinking.
VladimirHerzog wrote: +1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of
My Daemonettes have had it since forever with their musician (and the ability to deep strike) and it really, really hasn't mattered that much.
It only matters if you roll an 8 on the dice (that's the only roll where a +1 means you make it when you otherwise wouldn't've). That's about 14% of the time, so not even once per game if you roll a charge from deep strike every turn, and about once per game if you roll it and then reroll it every turn.
VladimirHerzog wrote: +1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of
My Daemonettes have had it since forever with their musician (and the ability to deep strike) and it really, really hasn't mattered that much.
It only matters if you roll an 8 on the dice (that's the only roll where a +1 means you make it when you otherwise wouldn't've). That's about 14% of the time, so not even once per game if you roll a charge from deep strike every turn, and about once per game if you roll it and then reroll it every turn.
you go from ~28% chance to make the charge to ~42%, thats a pretty big improvement.
VladimirHerzog wrote: +1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of
My Daemonettes have had it since forever with their musician (and the ability to deep strike) and it really, really hasn't mattered that much.
It only matters if you roll an 8 on the dice (that's the only roll where a +1 means you make it when you otherwise wouldn't've). That's about 14% of the time, so not even once per game if you roll a charge from deep strike every turn, and about once per game if you roll it and then reroll it every turn.
you go from ~28% chance to make the charge to ~42%, thats a pretty big improvement.
with a CP reroll, it goes to ~47%/~66%
that's exactly a 14% improvement. (42-14=28).
Not even the equivalent of getting +1 on a d6.
IDK, maybe you value it more highly than I do (value is subjective) but if you make 5 charge moves in a game at 9", less than 1 will succeed as a result of having the +1 to charge (as opposed to ones that would have succeeded anyways, or fail regardless).
Las wrote: I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.
What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?
Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?
The "why?" is:
CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.
On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.
Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit
With respect, the fluff reason here is kind of irrelevant. . .
. . .
A more design based approach would be: "What are our gameplay objectives with Chaos in order to reflect the lore and setting?
How can we incentivize that play behaviour on the tabletop mechanically? How can we wrap those mechanics in lore-based terminology?"
From there, you might designate a mechanic through application of the "marks of chaos" terminology. But constantly working from foregone conclusions about mechanical concepts that existed in the past is, I think, a big part of why Chaos is in the place that it is. The faction needs fresh design thinking.
I don't think "fresh design thinking" here is the key. We have examples from the past where the book was much more fun and interesting to use in ways that were both mechanically interesting and incredibly lore-friendly.
I mean, fresh ideas are totally great too. But I think it needs to be understood WHY players loved the CSM 3.5 book so much, even when they weren't building the few examples of OP builds that were in there.
I did have an idea where the mark of khorne could generate buffs for killing enemy units (I was thinking rerolls or something)... what if it generated CP instead?
Mark of slaanesh could confer bonuses for receiving wounds and exploding 6’s.
Or, should we keep the chaos space marine codex closer to in design principle to death guard and Tsons? Because those codices kind of put non legion nurgle and Tzeentch forces in a weird spot with respect to the chaos space marine codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Khorne I feel like should be an aggressive tempo army, all about thriving off of momentum gained from spilling blood. I also wanted it to reward shooting to an extent because khornate havocs absolutely are a thing. The shooting phase could be an excellent phase to set up an aggressive fight phase, or you could rely on pure attrition from the fight phase. You could use the cp generated to make your units more durable or more aggressive.
Las wrote: I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.
What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?
Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?
The "why?" is:
CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.
On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.
Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit
With respect, the fluff reason here is kind of irrelevant. . . . . . A more design based approach would be: "What are our gameplay objectives with Chaos in order to reflect the lore and setting?
Um. . . Ok?
In your example, you're working backwards: "Some of them need to reflect that they've fallen to chaos, let's use marks for that," rather than forwards from an design objective "We want some units to play like this so that we can reflect this aspect of the lore . In order to encourage this type of play or list construction, what mechanics can we use to facilitate that?"
How can we incentivize that play behaviour on the tabletop mechanically? How can we wrap those mechanics in lore-based terminology?"
From there, you might designate a mechanic through application of the "marks of chaos" terminology. But constantly working from foregone conclusions about mechanical concepts that existed in the past is, I think, a big part of why Chaos is in the place that it is. The faction needs fresh design thinking.
I don't think "fresh design thinking" here is the key. We have examples from the past where the book was much more fun and interesting to use in ways that were both mechanically interesting and incredibly lore-friendly.
I mean, fresh ideas are totally great too. But I think it needs to be understood WHY players loved the CSM 3.5 book so much, even when they weren't building the few examples of OP builds that were in there.
I 100% agree with this part of your statement. I just believe that a design team would need to bring deeper design thinking in order to interrogate that "WHY." Game mechanics are tools, you don't pick up a tool until you know what you're trying to build. Otherwise it may not be useful at all.
In your example, you're working backwards: "Some of them need to reflect that they've fallen to chaos, let's use marks for that," rather than forwards from an design objective "We want some units to play like this so that we can reflect this aspect of the lore . In order to encourage this type of play or list construction, what mechanics can we use to facilitate that?"
Ah, well I don't see it as being backwards. I think the "game design is king" philosophy isn't applicable to a game where lore and setting are fundamental to peoples enjoyment in both the game and the hobby as a whole.
In fact, I particularly think that the tabletop experience itself is only half the design space, and I'd say that a player interacting with their codex is potentially the PRIMARY method of interaction with one's own army. The narrative a player builds about the army that they are creating is heavily influenced by what they can do with their codex. So to me, an option "feeling cool" is more important than filling some niche in the tabletop design space.
In your example, you're working backwards: "Some of them need to reflect that they've fallen to chaos, let's use marks for that," rather than forwards from an design objective "We want some units to play like this so that we can reflect this aspect of the lore . In order to encourage this type of play or list construction, what mechanics can we use to facilitate that?"
Ah, well I don't see it as being backwards. I think the "game design is king" philosophy isn't applicable to a game where lore and setting are fundamental to peoples enjoyment in both the game and the hobby as a whole.
In fact, I particularly think that the tabletop experience itself is only half the design space, and I'd say that a player interacting with their codex is potentially the PRIMARY method of interaction with one's own army. The narrative a player builds about the army that they are creating is heavily influenced by what they can do with their codex. So to me, an option "feeling cool" is more important than filling some niche in the tabletop design space.
I hear ya for sure. However, I'd argue that part of the reason why Chaos doesn't feel as cool as it should is because none of the rules coherently impact the tabletop in a way that reflects a cohesive design vision for the faction. The Marks as they've been these past editions definitely check a box that reflects what we love about the lore (I can make my guy marked by blood god!), but it doesn't feel cool cause it doesn't serve a playstyle incentive, therefore it doesn't have any impact on the table.
My idea for Marks was escalating abilities based upon what had the Mark.
1. Regular units (anything that isn't a Daemon basically).
2. Daemonic units (anything that is - possessed, etc.)
3. Exalted units (Greater Daemons, Heralds, Special Characters).
And keep it on a simple scale, for example:
Mark of Khorne Regular - Gain +1 Attack.
Daemonic - Gain +1 Attack, may Advance & Charge.
Exalted - Gain +1 Attack, may Advance & Charge, gain +2" to Advance/Charge rolls.
Mark of Tzeentch Regular - Gain +6 Invul (or add +1 to existing Invul save).
Daemonic - Gain 6+ Invul (or add +1 to existing), gain 6+ Psychic Save (or add +1 to existing)
Exalted - Gain 6+ Invul (or add +1 to existing), Gain 6+ Psychic Save (or add +1 to existing), gain +1 to Cast/Deny
And so on. The Cult Troops would be a bit different in that they'd have the basic level, plus their own rules (like All is Dust and whatnot).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Variety of unit leaders (Champion, Junior Warpsmith, Junior Dark Apostle, Junior Sorceror).
One thing you guys need to consider is that people may gravitate to the best marks. Like Mark of Nurgle giving +1 to toughness was usually much stronger than the other marks. So most people ended up picking that, unless they wanted to go shooty and then it was slaanash because of that strategem.
It also creates problems with some units. Because Nurgle Bikes with T6 was a thing.
Eldenfirefly wrote: One thing you guys need to consider is that people may gravitate to the best marks. Like Mark of Nurgle giving +1 to toughness was usually much stronger than the other marks. So most people ended up picking that, unless they wanted to go shooty and then it was slaanash because of that strategem.
It also creates problems with some units. Because Nurgle Bikes with T6 was a thing.
Nurgle bikes with a T6 would be much less of a thing in the current to-wound paradigm.
Also the double-fire Strat is dumb.
But yeah, as H.B.M.C. points out, a smart codex deals with outlier effects in a pretty reasonable way.
@H.B.M.C At first I thought your suggestion was too complicated, but looking again I think my first impression was wrong. I give it a "could work"!
H.B.M.C. wrote: My idea for Marks was escalating abilities based upon what had the Mark.
1. Regular units (anything that isn't a Daemon basically). 2. Daemonic units (anything that is - possessed, etc.) 3. Exalted units (Greater Daemons, Heralds, Special Characters).
And keep it on a simple scale, for example:
Mark of Khorne Regular - Gain +1 Attack. Daemonic - Gain +1 Attack, may Advance & Charge. Exalted - Gain +1 Attack, may Advance & Charge, gain +2" to Advance/Charge rolls.
Mark of Tzeentch Regular - Gain +6 Invul (or add +1 to existing Invul save). Daemonic - Gain 6+ Invul (or add +1 to existing), gain 6+ Psychic Save (or add +1 to existing) Exalted - Gain 6+ Invul (or add +1 to existing), Gain 6+ Psychic Save (or add +1 to existing), gain +1 to Cast/Deny
And so on. The Cult Troops would be a bit different in that they'd have the basic level, plus their own rules (like All is Dust and whatnot).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Variety of unit leaders (Champion, Junior Warpsmith, Junior Dark Apostle, Junior Sorceror).
Aspiring Apostle is hard to say.
The problem I raised is still valid. People will cherry pick the best marks for the suitable units and just pick those.
Like from your example, even with the restriction tables, probably nobody will ever pick mark of Tzeentch for regular units because a 6++ does nothing for most of our stuff which are already a 3+ armor save. Yet, the same min max player will absolutely pick mark of Tzeentch for demonic units, because all demonic units are already 5++. If marks are free, then basically, if I run a mostly demonic units CSM army, I suddenly have 4++ save across the board ... for free.
Also remember I posted before on this forum about stacking buffs? A +1 to invul save here already creates a 4++ demonic army, if you add any other way to further increase invul save, then soon you will hit 3++ or even 2++. Like, a simple weaver of fates psychic boosts this to a 3++ invul. A single psychic cursed earth also increases every Tzeentch marked daemon unit within a 6 inch bubble to a 3++. So, now you might be facing a mostly 3++ invul army with just 2 psychic going off. So, yeah ... 9 obliterators surrounding a master of possession rocking a 3++ save, with a unit of 20 possessed in front leading the charge also rocking a 3++ save... all for free too, without even requiring a single CP or strategem, just two psychics.
Now, we are in a very silly meta right now. We already have orc speed freak armies with planes, admech flyer armies, and drukhari. So who knows, maybe by the time the CSM codex comes out, this is perfectly fine. But from my perspective, it just encourages players to gravitate to the most obviously powerful mark because it all free anyway. So, if Tzeetch mark was the best for demonic units, and Nurgle was the best for regular ones, and Khorne or slanaash mark was the best for exalted units, then we will see the Min Max players do this.
And out of 4 marks, there will always be an "ideal" best mark for a certain unit type.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Like from your example, even with the restriction tables, probably nobody will ever pick mark of Tzeentch for regular units because a 6++ does nothing for most of our stuff which are already a 3+ armor save. Yet, the same min max player will absolutely pick mark of Tzeentch for demonic units, because all demonic units are already 5++. If marks are free, then basically, if I run a mostly demonic units CSM army, I suddenly have 4++ save across the board ... for free.
They wouldn't be free. Nothing I've listed would be free. That would be utterly absurd.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Also remember I posted before on this forum about stacking buffs? A +1 to invul save here already creates a 4++ demonic army, if you add any other way to further increase invul save, then soon you will hit 3++ or even 2++. Like, a simple weaver of fates psychic boosts this to a 3++ invul. A single psychic cursed earth also increases every Tzeentch marked daemon unit within a 6 inch bubble to a 3++. So, now you might be facing a mostly 3++ invul army with just 2 psychic going off. So, yeah ... 9 obliterators surrounding a master of possession rocking a 3++ save, with a unit of 20 possessed in front leading the charge also rocking a 3++ save... all for free too, without even requiring a single CP or strategem, just two psychics.
The issue is you're trying to apply the existing rules to these proposed ones. It'd be like changing Havoc Lascannons to S10 Dam D6+6. You'd say "But with the double shoot strat, that'd be bonkers overpowered!"... but who says the double shoot strat would even exist anymore?
Eldenfirefly wrote: Now, we are in a very silly meta right now. We already have orc speed freak armies with planes, admech flyer armies, and drukhari. So who knows, maybe by the time the CSM codex comes out, this is perfectly fine. But from my perspective, it just encourages players to gravitate to the most obviously powerful mark because it all free anyway. So, if Tzeetch mark was the best for demonic units, and Nurgle was the best for regular ones, and Khorne or slanaash mark was the best for exalted units, then we will see the Min Max players do this.
Yeah but they're going to do that anyway regardless of what the rules end up being.
Eldenfirefly wrote: And out of 4 marks, there will always be an "ideal" best mark for a certain unit type.
So? Different styles of warfare fit better with different Chaos Gods. Why is that a bad thing?
While HBMCs ideas for marks are nice, I think they're too far away from the 9th edition mindset. I'd like to present you guys an idea which I think is possible in 9th while recreating many aspects of CSM we would like to see. It takes inspiration from how custom chapters work for SM.
Every "legion trait" could consist of 3 parts.
part 1: actual legion trait
part 2: mark of chaos
part 3: legacy of the warband
So in part 1 you have rules that are special for one legion or warband.
In part 2 you (usually) have our 5 different marks.
Khorne: +1 to Hit when charging/ charged
Nurgle: -1D
Slaanesh: alway strike first
Tzeentch: +1 to cast, 6 to hit = +1D
Undivided: Obsec for all infantry but Cultists (can choose relics and strats from all marks)
In part 3 you can see how long these guys are part of Chaos, it would have 3 variants:
newly turned renegades (+6‘‘ to all shooting weapons because they have new imperial equipment)
famous renegades (advance and charge)
Veterans of the long war (+1LD, -1AP on 6's)
Examples of how these would be used:
Iron Warriors:
1: ignore safe bonus from cover
2: mark of Chaos undivided
3: Veterans of the long war
Night Lords:
1: LD debuff
2: on 4+ enemy can’t fall back
3: Veterans of the Long war
- yes, they don't have a mark but a second special
Fallen:
1: +1 to hit when standing still
2: transhuman for terminators
3: Veterans of the long war
The Purge:
1: +1 to hit after an enemy unit destroyed
2: mark of nurgle
3: famous renegades
Word Bearers:
1: Cultists have obsec, are Core, 5++ for Core
2: mark of chaos undivided
3: Veterans of the long war
Creations of Bile:
1: Creations of Bile Bonus
2: mark of Chaos undivided
3: Famous renegades
The named legions and renegade chapters may get their unique warlord trait, relic and strats, other than that you have relics, traits and strats that are connected to either a mark or a legacy (yes, even special relics for fresh renegades; maybe transhuman strat only for fresh renegades to represent Primaris CSM).
All of these can easily be tied to Custom CSM, where you have a list of abilities for part 1 and can connect these with part 2 and 3 (I'd even allow Veterans of the long war for custom chapters to show warbands that were once part of larger legions like the fractured WE and EC).
macluvin wrote: It annoys me to no end that a chaos space marine squad has always been a loyalist tac squad with no flavor and being even more fragile than their power armor because of the lacking of and they shall know no fear and without the extra punch of combat doctrines and useful chapter traits
"Always" is a strange way of saying "since the 2.0 SM 'dex in 8th edition" - or, at this point, for two years and two months, the majority of which has been during a global pandemic...
Insectum7 wrote: But I think it needs to be understood WHY players loved the CSM 3.5 book so much, even when they weren't building the few examples of OP builds that were in there.
Firstly you'd have to find people who can honestly say that - from memory, all the Chaos players around where I was playing at the time seemed to be ignoring the fluff stuff and going for the OP bullgak.
Insectum7 wrote: But I think it needs to be understood WHY players loved the CSM 3.5 book so much, even when they weren't building the few examples of OP builds that were in there.
Firstly you'd have to find people who can honestly say that - from memory, all the Chaos players around where I was playing at the time seemed to be ignoring the fluff stuff and going for the OP bullgak.
It would help if you could tell us exactly what you consider the "OP bullgak" to be. Did a Night Lords army with no Marks, lots of jump packs, Veteran Skills, and occasionally a tank or dreadnought count?
My own take would be something of the following: CSM get marks as their codex's mono bonus. In contrast to SM, who get doctrines to represent discipline and working together, CSM get marks to represent their individual blessings from the gods.
Mark of Khorne: +1A and +1" charges Mark of Nurgle: +1T Marke of Slaanesh: +1" for move and advance Mark of Tzeentch: +1AP Undivided: Access to all marks and strategems*
These don't apply to cult marines (who get their more prolific bonuses/warscrolls), as they represent marines who are now entirely owned, body and soul, by the relevant god. A mark, by contrast, represents a 'choice' (at least, from the perspective of the misguided servants); that first tragic step on the path that leads inevitably towards damnation.
*To explain this one: CSM don't get Core-based auras, but get mark based ones. In addition, they keep the 8th ed restrictions to the strategems: e.g. fight again is for Khorne units, shoot twice for Slaanesh. Except, Undivided has access to all of these (like every other army). Being free of the blessing of any indidivual god means that they won't grant you so much favour of their own, but you do have the tactical flexibility that comes with not restricting yourself to the character of any one god.
Likely some adaptation would need to be made for daemon engines and rhino-chassis, but I see this as appropriate and fun for infantry + hellbrutes.
I don’t think CSM being well hard is a bad thing, to be honest. They just need their points to match.
As for people just picking the best combination? At the risk of sounding bellendy, what’s new there? Some folk will embrace the proposed freedoms to make a Chaos army actually Chaotic. Other folk will number crunch it to buggery to see if they can find an ideal mix. Yet more folk will fall somewhere in the middle. Nobody in those examples is doing anything wrong whatsoever.
And that’s what we’ve broadly seen in 9th Ed Codecies. Very few outright stinkers of units, folk able to just pick what they like the look of without suffering in game disadvantage. Some combos are subjectively better, but rather than Good Picks giving a 9/10 and Less Good Picks a 6/10, it seems more 9/10 and 7.5/10. The gap between Best and Themed is narrowing. Still work to be done, of course.
That’s what Chaos needs. All the suggestions so far seem to embrace the ethos that as many decisions as possible should be in the hands of the individual player. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever, in an ideal world, that their Core Book (as in the central hodgepodge, non-God dedicated book, rather than one every CSM player needs before specialising into a God Dedicated Legion) can’t be expansive.
Let it contain CSM, Lost and the Damned and Daemon Units across most if not all slots. Get them all in there. Let us pick the bones out of it.
Bob might want to lean into Lost and The Damned, but with some CSM elements. Perhaps just a unit of Chosen amongst a sea of absolute spods.
Barry might want to go a bit Word Bearer Daemon Bomb, with relatively few initial units, relying on summoning in his daemonic support.
Kevin might want to do a recently turned Chapter, and forgo much of the gribbly Chaos stuff, fielding only cheapo basic CSM as a kind of semi-horde army.
Give all those options and more variations thereupon within the book. It’s the only way to unify the various incarnations of Chaos we’ve seen, and ensure nobody feels left out because the Chaos they first encountered has fallen by the wayside.
To my mind, we want Marks of Chaos to represent Astartes or mortals who have taken the first explicit step toward the service of one of the Gods. They should feel like aspirants vying for attention to climb a ladder, while filling roles on the table that make up for the heretic astartes' lack of specialization. They should encourage the type of play we associate with the lore. But they should also discourage lore-breaking play with the unit/army selection. I think we also want to restrict them to core unit types. I think we can assume fluff-wise that daemon princes, etc are already marked and favoured by their chosen god. Maybe there's an HQ specific alternate set of marks for extra utility and flavour, but for core:
Khorne: +1 Attack, +1 strength and re-roll hits on the charge.
Nurgle: +1 wound. -1 to hit in the open.
Slaanesh: -1 to enemy leadership within 3", +1 save in the first round of combat.
Tzeentch: 5+ invuln. May deny the witch on 1d6.
To my mind, we want Marks of Chaos to represent Astartes or mortals who have taken the first explicit step toward the service of one of the Gods. They should feel like aspirants vying for attention to climb a ladder, while filling roles on the table that make up for the heretic astartes' lack of specialization. They should encourage the type of play we associate with the lore. But they should also discourage lore-breaking play with the unit/army selection. I think we also want to restrict them to core unit types. I think we can assume fluff-wise that daemon princes, etc are already marked and favoured by their chosen god. Maybe there's an HQ specific alternate set of marks for extra utility and flavour, but for core:
Khorne: +1 Attack, +1 strength and re-roll hits on the charge. Nurgle: +1 wound. -1 to hit in the open. Slaanesh: -1 to enemy leadership within 3", +1 save in the first round of combat. Tzeentch: 5+ invuln. May deny the witch on 1d6.
The Khorne one is amazing! The Nurgle one is pretty good. The Tzeench one is basically just 1k sons.
To my mind, we want Marks of Chaos to represent Astartes or mortals who have taken the first explicit step toward the service of one of the Gods. They should feel like aspirants vying for attention to climb a ladder, while filling roles on the table that make up for the heretic astartes' lack of specialization. They should encourage the type of play we associate with the lore. But they should also discourage lore-breaking play with the unit/army selection. I think we also want to restrict them to core unit types. I think we can assume fluff-wise that daemon princes, etc are already marked and favoured by their chosen god. Maybe there's an HQ specific alternate set of marks for extra utility and flavour, but for core:
Khorne: +1 Attack, +1 strength and re-roll hits on the charge.
Nurgle: +1 wound. -1 to hit in the open.
Slaanesh: -1 to enemy leadership within 3", +1 save in the first round of combat.
Tzeentch: 5+ invuln. May deny the witch on 1d6.
The Khorne one is amazing!
The Nurgle one is pretty good.
The Tzeench one is basically just 1k sons.
Why is the Slaanesh one so utterly useless?
Haha, I suppose I should take my own advice and recenter on intent and build mechanics from there.
Khorne's rules should feel like a rush to the shortest possible route to hand-to-hand combat, which then hits hard.
Nurgle's should feel like a methodical force that corrupts things around it. (maybe it gives soft debuffs to enemy movement, enemy cant fall back?)
Slaanesh should feel like a graceful, prideful expert, perhaps with an element of temptation (what I was going for with the leadership debuff)
Tzeentch, i have to admit, is difficult from an objective setting point of view. How do you convey the feeling of planning and foresight in a meaningful way on the tabletop?)
What impact would the traits "graceful" and "prideful" have on the tabletop?
For that matter, what would "temptation" do?
The only think I can think of is 'expert' which implies he should have +1 WS or something because he's an 'expert' but that's .... kinda way worse than Khorne AND more in Khorne's arena.
Slaanesh is hard to capture on the tabletop unless you either go with "speed" (which in your case is apparently Khorne) or you write some really fantastical rules (like AOS Slaanesh).
Unit1126PLL wrote: What impact would the traits "graceful" and "prideful" have on the tabletop?
For that matter, what would "temptation" do?
Mechanics that would force the enemy to act in a way that makes them vulnerable (abstractly on the table). What I'd be trying to replicate is an enemy being struck or spellbound by the physical or expert beauty of the way a slaaneshi devotee looks or moves. Maybe they can't be interrupted, or gain the "always hit first" mechanic that orks use? Or if selected for a shooting/melee attack, roll X and the enemy has to target another unit if able.
Unit1126PLL wrote: What impact would the traits "graceful" and "prideful" have on the tabletop?
For that matter, what would "temptation" do?
Mechanics that would force the enemy to act in a way that makes them vulnerable (abstractly on the table). What I'd be trying to replicate is an enemy being struck or spellbound by the physical or expert beauty of the way a slaaneshi devotee looks or moves. Maybe they can't be interrupted, or gain the "always hit first" mechanic that orks use? Or if selected for a shooting/melee attack, roll X and the enemy has to target another unit if able.
Those make more sense, and are along the lines of both the Slaanesh Daemons rules (always strike first) and the AOS rules (reducing enemy attacks nearby/preventing pile in/etc)
macluvin wrote: It annoys me to no end that a chaos space marine squad has always been a loyalist tac squad with no flavor and being even more fragile than their power armor because of the lacking of and they shall know no fear and without the extra punch of combat doctrines and useful chapter traits
"Always" is a strange way of saying "since the 2.0 SM 'dex in 8th edition" - or, at this point, for two years and two months, the majority of which has been during a global pandemic...
Insectum7 wrote: But I think it needs to be understood WHY players loved the CSM 3.5 book so much, even when they weren't building the few examples of OP builds that were in there.
Firstly you'd have to find people who can honestly say that - from memory, all the Chaos players around where I was playing at the time seemed to be ignoring the fluff stuff and going for the OP bullgak.
I built the fluff stuff
My brother built the fluff stuff
My friends built the fluff stuff
Sometimes at local FLGSs I'd get the inevitable Iron Warriors lists. . . sure. Also, while irritating, I didn't find them so difficult to beat in play, so maybe your notion of OP is a little off?
Our proposal is to rebuild the fluff stuff and make it useable, and nerf egregious auto-takes. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
Slannesh should get a -1 to hit at range and a +1 WS in melee. Or some other combination of them dancing their way thru the battlefield vs the steamroller of berserker-ness of Khorne.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Yeah anything other then leadership mechanics. Unless your mechanics involving such are so mechanically overpowered they are just so lackluster.
Yes, they are. Take it from a Night Lords player. And yet, most people (including gw) seem to think we should be saddled with that for a Legion trait. Though our Faith and Fury rules seem to show they're moving away from that. At least I hope so.
TonyH122 wrote: My own take would be something of the following: CSM get marks as their codex's mono bonus. In contrast to SM, who get doctrines to represent discipline and working together, CSM get marks to represent their individual blessings from the gods.
Mark of Khorne: +1A and +1" charges
Mark of Nurgle: +1T
Marke of Slaanesh: +1" for move and advance
Mark of Tzeentch: +1AP
Undivided: Access to all marks and strategems*
These don't apply to cult marines (who get their more prolific bonuses/warscrolls), as they represent marines who are now entirely owned, body and soul, by the relevant god. A mark, by contrast, represents a 'choice' (at least, from the perspective of the misguided servants); that first tragic step on the path that leads inevitably towards damnation.
*To explain this one: CSM don't get Core-based auras, but get mark based ones. In addition, they keep the 8th ed restrictions to the strategems: e.g. fight again is for Khorne units, shoot twice for Slaanesh. Except, Undivided has access to all of these (like every other army). Being free of the blessing of any indidivual god means that they won't grant you so much favour of their own, but you do have the tactical flexibility that comes with not restricting yourself to the character of any one god.
Likely some adaptation would need to be made for daemon engines and rhino-chassis, but I see this as appropriate and fun for infantry + hellbrutes.
At this point I would rather they blow this edition up launch another index edition and then start thinking about how to give everyone unique toys to play with on the tabletop...
Anyone think we could really do with a recon unit? I know in the fluff the normal Astartes do jobs like that but would be very cool to see a marine unit equipped with some recce style stuff
With a chaos twist. Possibly some kind of daemonic optic thing akin to a Daemon host, a floating little eye out whatnot.
Total spitballing here but it makes sense to have something like that to me.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Like from your example, even with the restriction tables, probably nobody will ever pick mark of Tzeentch for regular units because a 6++ does nothing for most of our stuff which are already a 3+ armor save. Yet, the same min max player will absolutely pick mark of Tzeentch for demonic units, because all demonic units are already 5++. If marks are free, then basically, if I run a mostly demonic units CSM army, I suddenly have 4++ save across the board ... for free.
They wouldn't be free. Nothing I've listed would be free. That would be utterly absurd.
Well that's what is GW design paradim. Whatever chaos does for marks you can be sure it's free.
You don't pay points based on are you ultramarine or white scar do you?
Rogerio134134 wrote: Anyone think we could really do with a recon unit? I know in the fluff the normal Astartes do jobs like that but would be very cool to see a marine unit equipped with some recce style stuff
With a chaos twist. Possibly some kind of daemonic optic thing akin to a Daemon host, a floating little eye out whatnot.
Total spitballing here but it makes sense to have something like that to me.
It sounds like a cool idea for a model, but what benefits would it bring to the army on the tabletop? CSM don't really do long range non-LOS shooting. In past editions it might serve as a deep-strike marker but that's not really applicable any more.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Like from your example, even with the restriction tables, probably nobody will ever pick mark of Tzeentch for regular units because a 6++ does nothing for most of our stuff which are already a 3+ armor save. Yet, the same min max player will absolutely pick mark of Tzeentch for demonic units, because all demonic units are already 5++. If marks are free, then basically, if I run a mostly demonic units CSM army, I suddenly have 4++ save across the board ... for free.
They wouldn't be free. Nothing I've listed would be free. That would be utterly absurd.
Well that's what is GW design paradim. Whatever chaos does for marks you can be sure it's free.
You don't pay points based on are you ultramarine or white scar do you?
Marks aren't factions/subfactions for CSM, at least not in the way H.B.M.C is talking about. They're optional buffs, like equipment, that would cost points, like equipment. Just like in older editions. The factions/subfactions are Black Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc. Don't bring Loyalist Scum design paradigms into Chaos Space Marines.
Having played Chaos for my entire gaming career I think that the marks as simple upgrades work best, albeit not simple from a game development perspective. I'd like them to be more nuanced and meaningful but I think all that does is create a barrier to having them exist at all.
That's possibly why you'd want them to be derivative of existing, costed models that can be applied to similar models in a scaled way.
For example, if we know berserkers have a fight twice ability, an extra attack, extra WS and extra strength over an ordinary CSM for 6 points it would stand to reason that X ability = y points (you'd hope). As such, then you could apply the mark of khorne, adding in an extra attack for n pts per model. This would be more for terminators and less for cultists. You'd then attempt to avoid being able to mark specialised or vehicle models that differ too much from the evolution. IE, no marked defilers and no marked obliterators but these unmarkable units would not break the mono bonus. Lore is broad so I am sure some smoke and mirrors BS could be shovelled up to account for that.
Similarly for a 5++/+1 invul for Tzeentch, 6+ FNP for nurgle and extra movement or strike first in slannesh (I am sure there could be more relevant and balanced abilities but this is just to demonstrate).
Then there could be a mono-build bonus I guess. If every unit in this army is marked by khorne, the unit get s a 5+ FNP against MW caused by psychic powers. Nurgle could get something like all is dust but army wide, tzeentch -1 to hit at over 12" range, slannesh a 6+ FNP against non-MW damage. Not genuine suggestions, just space filling.
You could then throw on an extra boon via new summoning/possession mechanics whereby a unit dedicated to that god gets extra benefits doing so. A unit with the mark of khorne gets +1 to summoning a bloodthirster yadda yadda.
My thing with marks being a purchase-able upgrade is fine, but if we consistently have legion traits being worse than half a trait for loyalists, I don’t think it would change much to make buffs from marks of chaos free. We get a crappy half of a loyalist trait and a mark of chaos buff. Or, price our marines cheaper than a loyalist equivalent because they have better rules, then make the difference hover around the cost of a mark of chaos upgrade.
In that vein though, if we are making these buffs an upgrade that needs points paid for it, I was thinking that marks of chaos could be a keyword showing devotion to a god, and then having an upgrade buff like a “glory of <mark of chaos>”. The mark by itself unlocks wargear options (to include the glory that has the buff) as well as stratagems and what not. But the mark by itself does nothing else.
Side note, I really think that Khorne should bestow his favor on shooting as well as close combat. Such a thing would be entirely fluffy. I was considering maybe a buff that triggers after an enemy unit is wiped out, to incentivize both shooting and close combat in a khornate list without necessitating either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: New update has changed (?) Death to the False Emperor to getting an extra hit when you roll a 6 to hit in melee.
No idea how that affects things. Like. At all. I don’t even know what Death to the False Emperor does. Or did, I suppose.
Well it did the exact same thing but only to imperials I found the rule quite helpful - against imperials I guess it's nice but you know we're waiting for our 2nd wound GW...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: New update has changed (?) Death to the False Emperor to getting an extra hit when you roll a 6 to hit in melee.
No idea how that affects things. Like. At all. I don’t even know what Death to the False Emperor does. Or did, I suppose.
It was Imperium specific, but otherwise the same. Now chaos players get to shout 'Death to the false emperor!' at Eldar and Tyranids. But they can't have a second wound, because... screw you, that's why.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: New update has changed (?) Death to the False Emperor to getting an extra hit when you roll a 6 to hit in melee.
No idea how that affects things. Like. At all. I don’t even know what Death to the False Emperor does. Or did, I suppose.
It was Imperium specific, but otherwise the same. Now chaos players get to shout 'Death to the false emperor!' at Eldar and Tyranids. But they can't have a second wound, because... screw you, that's why.
Aye, we need that second wound a lot more than more killing power. Killing things isn't our problem, it's not getting killed ourselves. Guess CSM just have to focus on sheer murder power now. Just what the game needs......
YES ! Time for the Flawless Host to rise as the superior Slanesh legion
But seriously, I'm eager to try the new DTTFE with my EC !
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait. No it's way more of a buff !
Change the Death to the false Emperor ability to read:'Each time a model with this ability makes a melee attack, a hit roll of 6+ scores an additional hit.'
We don't need to roll to confirm the second hit ! Damn it's going to be real good for World Eaters !
Change the Death to the false Emperor ability to read:'Each time a model with this ability makes a melee attack, a hit roll of 6+ scores an additional hit.'
We don't need to roll to confirm the second hit ! Damn it's going to be real good for World Eaters !
What are the chances the disregard for the faction is the cause of this accidental improvement and it's changed again shortly?
Given it's altered functionality perhaps just renaming the whole thing "Let the Galaxy Burn" might have been considered. If it remains in the eventual codex hopefully they do something like that.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: New update has changed (?) Death to the False Emperor to getting an extra hit when you roll a 6 to hit in melee.
No idea how that affects things. Like. At all. I don’t even know what Death to the False Emperor does. Or did, I suppose.
It was Imperium specific, but otherwise the same. Now chaos players get to shout 'Death to the false emperor!' at Eldar and Tyranids. But they can't have a second wound, because... screw you, that's why.
Aye, we need that second wound a lot more than more killing power. Killing things isn't our problem, it's not getting killed ourselves. Guess CSM just have to focus on sheer murder power now. Just what the game needs......
It's REALLY silly that CSMs are still running around with 1w. Imo this new update should have applied that fix and it's really stupid that it didn't. Pick units, add wound, give point adjustment, done.
What are the chances the disregard for the faction is the cause of this accidental improvement and it's changed again shortly?
Given it's altered functionality perhaps just renaming the whole thing "Let the Galaxy Burn" might have been considered. If it remains in the eventual codex hopefully they do something like that.
Let's cross our fingers ! Personally I love rules like exploding 6s (when not over-tuned). It might be because of the small rush of dopamine with every roll of a six.
macluvin wrote: It annoys me to no end that a chaos space marine squad has always been a loyalist tac squad with no flavor and being even more fragile than their power armor because of the lacking of and they shall know no fear and without the extra punch of combat doctrines and useful chapter traits
"Always" is a strange way of saying "since the 2.0 SM 'dex in 8th edition" - or, at this point, for two years and two months, the majority of which has been during a global pandemic...
.
No 7th edition was a thing... it didn’t take much to make a chaos space marine squad just explode and run away. 6th edition too. 8th edition chapter tactics were way better than chaos traits as well, even in the 1.0 codex. Towards the end of 8th 11ppm csm squads were starting to look like they finally had some sort of advantage over loyalists but it was that you were trading decent rules for a dirt cheap power armor model. Chaos space marine equivalents of loyalists were almost always just drain the flavor out of loyalists and anything that might make them useful or surviveable and that’s what you get.
Rogerio134134 wrote: Anyone think we could really do with a recon unit? I know in the fluff the normal Astartes do jobs like that but would be very cool to see a marine unit equipped with some recce style stuff
With a chaos twist. Possibly some kind of daemonic optic thing akin to a Daemon host, a floating little eye out whatnot.
Total spitballing here but it makes sense to have something like that to me.
It sounds like a cool idea for a model, but what benefits would it bring to the army on the tabletop? CSM don't really do long range non-LOS shooting. In past editions it might serve as a deep-strike marker but that's not really applicable any more.
Yeah I'm not totally sure but I just remember from storm of iron when honsou and a few other marines infiltrate the bunker to take out the sentries and they had covered themselves in dust and dirt to be more stealthy. I really like the idea is iron warrior saboteur style marines getting forward with demo charges and mines etc.
Fingers crossed the new chosen unit will be able to infiltrate as the elite troops. Personally buzzing for the new chaos codex when it comes.
The Chaos Squad seems to be exactly what I wanted Chaos to be (as ever, there are many interpretations of what Chaos should be). Head canon them to VOTLW. Less a regimented squad, more a band of like minded psychos, each of whom has their own peccadillo and preference. Marauders rather than a military unit.
I’m excited to see how they fold into the main CSM Codex.
Voss wrote: That will be somewhat interesting to see, especially the possessed that just... isn't called that. Big Hand Boy doesn't really roll off the tongue.
With that tongue? I'm thinking that "The Anteater" fits pretty well.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: New update has changed (?) Death to the False Emperor to getting an extra hit when you roll a 6 to hit in melee.
No idea how that affects things. Like. At all. I don’t even know what Death to the False Emperor does. Or did, I suppose.
It was Imperium specific, but otherwise the same. Now chaos players get to shout 'Death to the false emperor!' at Eldar and Tyranids. But they can't have a second wound, because... screw you, that's why.
Aye, we need that second wound a lot more than more killing power. Killing things isn't our problem, it's not getting killed ourselves. Guess CSM just have to focus on sheer murder power now. Just what the game needs......
It's REALLY silly that CSMs are still running around with 1w. Imo this new update should have applied that fix and it's really stupid that it didn't. Pick units, add wound, give point adjustment, done.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My idea for Marks was escalating abilities based upon what had the Mark.
1. Regular units (anything that isn't a Daemon basically).
2. Daemonic units (anything that is - possessed, etc.)
3. Exalted units (Greater Daemons, Heralds, Special Characters).
And keep it on a simple scale, for example:
Mark of Khorne Regular - Gain +1 Attack.
Daemonic - Gain +1 Attack, may Advance & Charge.
Exalted - Gain +1 Attack, may Advance & Charge, gain +2" to Advance/Charge rolls.
Mark of Tzeentch Regular - Gain +6 Invul (or add +1 to existing Invul save).
Daemonic - Gain 6+ Invul (or add +1 to existing), gain 6+ Psychic Save (or add +1 to existing)
Exalted - Gain 6+ Invul (or add +1 to existing), Gain 6+ Psychic Save (or add +1 to existing), gain +1 to Cast/Deny
And so on. The Cult Troops would be a bit different in that they'd have the basic level, plus their own rules (like All is Dust and whatnot).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Variety of unit leaders (Champion, Junior Warpsmith, Junior Dark Apostle, Junior Sorceror).
Aspiring Apostle is hard to say.
The problem I raised is still valid. People will cherry pick the best marks for the suitable units and just pick those.
Like from your example, even with the restriction tables, probably nobody will ever pick mark of Tzeentch for regular units because a 6++ does nothing for most of our stuff which are already a 3+ armor save. Yet, the same min max player will absolutely pick mark of Tzeentch for demonic units, because all demonic units are already 5++. If marks are free, then basically, if I run a mostly demonic units CSM army, I suddenly have 4++ save across the board ... for free.
Also remember I posted before on this forum about stacking buffs? A +1 to invul save here already creates a 4++ demonic army, if you add any other way to further increase invul save, then soon you will hit 3++ or even 2++. Like, a simple weaver of fates psychic boosts this to a 3++ invul. A single psychic cursed earth also increases every Tzeentch marked daemon unit within a 6 inch bubble to a 3++. So, now you might be facing a mostly 3++ invul army with just 2 psychic going off. So, yeah ... 9 obliterators surrounding a master of possession rocking a 3++ save, with a unit of 20 possessed in front leading the charge also rocking a 3++ save... all for free too, without even requiring a single CP or strategem, just two psychics.
Now, we are in a very silly meta right now. We already have orc speed freak armies with planes, admech flyer armies, and drukhari. So who knows, maybe by the time the CSM codex comes out, this is perfectly fine. But from my perspective, it just encourages players to gravitate to the most obviously powerful mark because it all free anyway. So, if Tzeetch mark was the best for demonic units, and Nurgle was the best for regular ones, and Khorne or slanaash mark was the best for exalted units, then we will see the Min Max players do this.
And out of 4 marks, there will always be an "ideal" best mark for a certain unit type.
Then abolish no-brainer choices and get back to the drawing board.
Then marks shouldn't be free and instead be costed properly.
And maybe relics, Warlord traits and subfaction rules shouldn't be free, either to prevent seeing the same ones' over and over as well as putting three Warlord traits in every army which results in people regarding the Edition as bloated. But I guess that’s something for the "what would you like to see in 10th" debate .
)))
Gert, who exactly are you arguing with? I just checked the last three pages of this thread, and the smallest number of proposed codexes for Chaos I could find was 3 from one poster. I couldn't find anyone arguing for one giant all encompassing Chaos Codex.
