Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, some of the Mark abilities wouldn't work well with Cultists, same for vehicles. Which is why I was wondering if they'd be able to get something else, like they could in previous editions. Like being Dedicated to one of the Chaos Gods, or Legacies of Ruin. -1 to wound could be pretty ridiculous on a T8 2+ AoC vehicle, even if it does follow the weird rules from the playtest rules.
Honestly I doubt vehicles will get anything. It'd be nice if you could daemonify say a land raider, but they seem dead set on making vehicles worthless.
To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.
To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.
That was my understanding, which to be honest is still pretty decent given the volume of S4 out there.
To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.
There must be a simpler way to word this. Like; "The enemy suffers a -1 to their to wound rolls when the strength of an attack is equal to or less than your unit's toughness. Furthermore an unmodified wound roll of a 1 or 2 always fails."
To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.
There must be a simpler way to word this. Like; "The enemy suffers a -1 to their to wound rolls when the strength of an attack is equal to or less than your unit's toughness. Furthermore an unmodified wound roll of a 1 or 2 always fails."
Those do not say the same things, the equivalent would be:
In the event that the strength of an attack allocated to this model is either the same as, greater then or equal to double the models toughness then subtract one from the wound roll. For example a nurgle marked chaos marine is successfully hit by a S3, S4, S5 and S9 weapon, as the models toughness is 4, the S4 is equal and as a result the wound roll is at -1. As S9 is more than double the toughness of 4, the wound roll is worsened by 1. as S3 and S5 do not equal and are less than double the targets toughness, they roll to wound as normal.
Enjoy that clumsy inconsistent word salad, I've tried to keep as true to the GW format of changing wording for modifiers mid way through and long winded examples that aren't great.
Those do not say the same things, the equivalent would be:
In the event that the strength of an attack allocated to this model is either the same as, greater then or equal to double the models toughness then subtract one from the wound roll. For example a nurgle marked chaos marine is successfully hit by a S3, S4, S5 and S9 weapon, as the models toughness is 4, the S4 is equal and as a result the wound roll is at -1. As S9 is more than double the toughness of 4, the wound roll is worsened by 1. as S3 and S5 do not equal and are less than double the targets toughness, they roll to wound as normal.
Enjoy that clumsy inconsistent word salad, I've tried to keep as true to the GW format of changing wording for modifiers mid way through and long winded examples that aren't great.
That doesn't even make sense. If a weapon that's Str is twice the Tough of the model it suffers a negative modifier but if is 1 less it doesn't have a modifier? That means that in the instance above a S8 weapon wounds on a 3 but a stronger weapon also only wounds on a 3 therefore rendering it into a lesser weaon. If anything the modifier should be applied to anything that is double T or less and normal for greater than 2xT. I can just picture this scenerio- A shadowsword fires it's main gun at a Titan wounding it on a 2+ it then fires at a plague marine and only wounds him on a 3+. What's wrong with that picture?
Those do not say the same things, the equivalent would be:
In the event that the strength of an attack allocated to this model is either the same as, greater then or equal to double the models toughness then subtract one from the wound roll. For example a nurgle marked chaos marine is successfully hit by a S3, S4, S5 and S9 weapon, as the models toughness is 4, the S4 is equal and as a result the wound roll is at -1. As S9 is more than double the toughness of 4, the wound roll is worsened by 1. as S3 and S5 do not equal and are less than double the targets toughness, they roll to wound as normal.
Enjoy that clumsy inconsistent word salad, I've tried to keep as true to the GW format of changing wording for modifiers mid way through and long winded examples that aren't great.
That doesn't even make sense. If a weapon that's Str is twice the Tough of the model it suffers a negative modifier but if is 1 less it doesn't have a modifier? That means that in the instance above a S8 weapon wounds on a 3 but a stronger weapon also only wounds on a 3 therefore rendering it into a lesser weaon. If anything the modifier should be applied to anything that is double T or less and normal for greater than 2xT. I can just picture this scenerio- A shadowsword fires it's main gun at a Titan wounding it on a 2+ it then fires at a plague marine and only wounds him on a 3+. What's wrong with that picture?
Well, your version would be far too strong for one thing. Other than that it doesn't make much sense really, I just read the rumours and converted it into a horrid gw sentence.
ClockworkZion wrote: So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.
I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.
Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
ClockworkZion wrote: So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.
I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.
Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits
40k has done 1 and 2, HH is doing 3.
And I'm still waiting to see some proper codex leaks. With how far out actual images from books have been the lack of images from the book continues to be a surprise.
ClockworkZion wrote: So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.
I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.
Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits
40k has done 1 and 2, HH is doing 3.
And I'm still waiting to see some proper codex leaks. With how far out actual images from books have been the lack of images from the book continues to be a surprise.
Yeah, they seem to be doing an infuriatingly better job of keeping the CSM codex under wraps than earlier codexes. All we have so far is an early playtest doc and some rules from a few repackaged units. Seriously, where are our leaked codex pages like everyone else got?
Yeah, they seem to be doing an infuriatingly better job of keeping the CSM codex under wraps than earlier codexes. All we have so far is an early playtest doc and some rules from a few repackaged units. Seriously, where are our leaked codex pages like everyone else got?
Yeah, come on ! Doesn't our potential leaker want to share ?!
ClockworkZion wrote: Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating. I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions: 1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else 2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile 3. GW releases wargear kits
Or option four: You can just take whatever, regardless ofwhat'sinthekit.
Despite the Kill Team box coming out, the 'buzz' on the CSM seems to have entirely burnt out.
Is anyone really waiting with bated breath for the wound that should have been provided a year+ ago, or a muddle of equipment outrages? The cool new possessed aren't exactly shaking the trees after the first look.
ClockworkZion wrote: Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits
Or option four: You can just take whatever, regardless ofwhat'sinthekit.
Ranged weapons seem to operate under different rules than melee weapons, but point taken.
Tangentially related to the CSM book I sincerely hope GW gives CSM some of the HH legion options to represent the character of the legions proper and make the long war feel like the long war. That or let me take Accursed Weapons in every squad so I can run chainglaives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Despite the Kill Team box coming out, the 'buzz' on the CSM seems to have entirely burnt out.
Is anyone really waiting with bated breath for the wound that should have been provided a year+ ago, or a muddle of equipment outrages? The cool new possessed aren't exactly shaking the trees after the first look.
I've been waiting for a clearer image of what might be going on with wargear but I want to use HH models as the major core of my Night Lords mixed with some of the more "tainted" modern kits to represent those who have succumb to the influence of the Warp.
Yeha, that' smy thing. Out of the coming GW releases I'm almost entirely HH focused (and a little terrain-curious), and if I can build a 40k army out of it as well, that's a bonus.
They've pretty much killed my interest in anything else on the recent or upcoming list (either through wacky pricing or letting it sit in darkness too long), and this release is definitely falling into the second category. I'll do a heresy army that can moonlight with the codex that will actually get lasting support (and that can build an army a dozen different ways)...
ClockworkZion wrote: Tangentially related to the CSM book I sincerely hope GW gives CSM some of the HH legion options to represent the character of the legions proper and make the long war feel like the long war. That or let me take Accursed Weapons in every squad so I can run chainglaives.
Unfortunately, Chaos just seems to lose options as time goes on. They get new units, but the units they have are constantly curtailed and reduced.
There's every chance that we could see max 10-man squads of CSMs with the same weapon upgrade structure as tactical squads. 1 special/1 heavy, and that's it. I used to love my 12-man (Infiltrating!) CSM squads with twin flamers or twin Meltas. Or the rare time you took a big unit with two heavy weapons. But, they push Chaos more and more towards the Codex Astartes, and I don't think the addition a few weird specialists (the low-level psyker guy, the low level possessed buy, the dude with the double-handed Chainaxe) will make up for these inevitable losses.
It's a weird and completely different attitude than what I had towards the recent Tyranid Codex. I was excited for that. I'm dreading this one.
ClockworkZion wrote: Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits
Or option four: You can just take whatever, regardless ofwhat'sinthekit.
Ranged weapons seem to operate under different rules than melee weapons, but point taken.
Tangentially related to the CSM book I sincerely hope GW gives CSM some of the HH legion options to represent the character of the legions proper and make the long war feel like the long war. That or let me take Accursed Weapons in every squad so I can run chainglaives.
We're not getting any Legion options. Loyalists get those. Obviously gw thinks that it makes more sense for a full primaris army to be running around with things like Contemptors and volkites. But we can probably have some chainglaives, they'll just have the same rules as everything else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.
It does! Its... not quite a power fist (+4 S rather than x2 S and -4 AP rather than -3). Or an eviscerator (+4 vs +3 S) . Or a chainfist (2 damage rather than d3 or 3 vs vehicles)
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.
If you're going to make lazy rules, at least be consistent with them!
It does! And so does the "Daemon Blade". We know that from the one rules preview gw has allowed us to see. The only thing that gw is consistent about, is being inconsistent.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.
If you're going to make lazy rules, at least be consistent with them!
It does! And so does the "Daemon Blade". We know that from the one rules preview gw has allowed us to see. The only thing that gw is consistent about, is being inconsistent.
Mind you, the daemon blade looks even worse since the preview. +0 strength, -2AP (but armor of contempt), and 2 damage but additional mortal wound on 6 to wound makes it a pillow-fist against a lot of targets, and you'll lose either a damage point or the mortal wound (on the odd occasion it pops) against a variety of targets.
Remember when we had actual fething Daemon Weapons, and they did all sorts of crazy things like the Berzerker Glaive that made your Daemon Prince utterly uncontrollable (but also an absolute blender in melee that ignored half of what you threw at him!), or the Dread Axe that was (secretly) an anti-daemon Malal-based Daemon Weapon.
Or the Dark Blade. Oh the Dark Blade...
But nah, let's have yet another thing that causes Mortal Wounds on a 6. That's really innovative.
I imagine versions of the F&F daemon weapons will make it over. We won't have mechanics that do absurd things for fun, but maybe we'll get my old trusty tzeentch "bolter" daemon weapon back.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Remember when we had actual fething Daemon Weapons, and they did all sorts of crazy things like the Berzerker Glaive that made your Daemon Prince utterly uncontrollable (but also an absolute blender in melee that ignored half of what you threw at him!), or the Dread Axe that was (secretly) an anti-daemon Malal-based Daemon Weapon.
Oh, yeah. Chaos really needs to go back to the old days of "If you roll a one, the demonic weapon turns on you and you die."
H.B.M.C. wrote: Remember when we had actual fething Daemon Weapons, and they did all sorts of crazy things like the Berzerker Glaive that made your Daemon Prince utterly uncontrollable (but also an absolute blender in melee that ignored half of what you threw at him!), or the Dread Axe that was (secretly) an anti-daemon Malal-based Daemon Weapon.
Oh, yeah. Chaos really needs to go back to the old days of "If you roll a one, the demonic weapon turns on you and you die."
solkan wrote: Oh, yeah. Chaos really needs to go back to the old days of "If you roll a one, the demonic weapon turns on you and you die."
Except that's not how Daemon Weapons worked. Like, at all.
There was a Mastery Test to overcome a Daemon taking over, and if you failed, you suffered an single Strength D6 hit with no save. In the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex that changed to gaining D6 extra attacks, and if a 1 was rolled you took 1 wound and couldn't attack.
And then by the time of the next book, Daemon Weapons were gone and replaced with Relics.
So no, Daemon Weapons never just killed you on a roll of a 1.
Yup, and in 3rd/4th, a "Mastery Test" was a Leadership Test, and every CSM character was Leadership 10. So rolling a "1" was great, because there was no way that you could roll an 11 or 12 if one of your two dice came up as a 1.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.
If you're going to make lazy rules, at least be consistent with them!
It does! And so does the "Daemon Blade". We know that from the one rules preview gw has allowed us to see. The only thing that gw is consistent about, is being inconsistent.
Mind you, the daemon blade looks even worse since the preview. +0 strength, -2AP (but armor of contempt), and 2 damage but additional mortal wound on 6 to wound makes it a pillow-fist against a lot of targets, and you'll lose either a damage point or the mortal wound (on the odd occasion it pops) against a variety of targets.
To be fair, looks like Champs have 4 attacks. There isn't THAT small a chance to inflict a mortal wound, but yeah I'd rather still take a Power Fist.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yup, and in 3rd/4th, a "Mastery Test" was a Leadership Test, and every CSM character was Leadership 10. So rolling a "1" was great, because there was no way that you could roll an 11 or 12 if one of your two dice came up as a 1.
...if they managed to come up with a total of 1, Tzeentch needed to take a step back from the table.
Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
There is sooo much unused potential here. Either by tying CSM back up to HH a bit more or by pushing them more and more on the deamonic possesed design. Instead GW went full ,Space Mahrens but bad‘ train. Even the Accursed Weapons brought potential despite all controversy. Imagine different factions getting different buffs on that profile. People would then love to go wild on them. But no, just a weird inconsistent merge. I still hope some of the leaks will deviate from the final book because so far it looks like someone just desired to get it done. Or maybe the final book will look surprisingly better when we have the full access to it. Dunno.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
There is sooo much unused potential here. Either by tying CSM back up to HH a bit more or by pushing them more and more on the deamonic possesed design. Instead GW went full ,Space Mahrens but bad‘ train. Even the Accursed Weapons brought potential despite all controversy. Imagine different factions getting different buffs on that profile. People would then love to go wild on them. But no, just a weird inconsistent merge. I still hope some of the leaks will deviate from the final book because so far it looks like someone just desired to get it done. Or maybe the final book will look surprisingly better when we have the full access to it. Dunno.
As someone else in the thread put it, CSMs have been following the Codex Astartes since 4th edition - following it far closer than actual Space Marines do.
With some luck the book will be better than the leaks portray (but there is really no room for optimism here) - but so far the best thing defenders can point to is a single kit (the leaked Cultist warband) not matching up with play test rules?
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
Disheartened is a good way to put it.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
Disheartened is a good way to put it.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
Yeah. Plus, the doctrine would have passed way better if our dex came out way earlier into 9th.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
Disheartened is a good way to put it.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
I do feel it is a big problem, because it speaks to how fundamentally misaligned the design team is with what the community wants.
CSM may follow the Codex Astartes closer than loyalists, but loyalists have more pre-Heresy equipment! I think this is because loyalists are mostly primaris marines from the Heresy-era, but CSM are mostly firstborn who turned to the dark side much later.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
Disheartened is a good way to put it.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
I do feel it is a big problem, because it speaks to how fundamentally misaligned the design team is with what the community wants.
Yeah, giving CSM "Spiky Doctrines" is both incredibly uncreative, and not what many CSM players would want. They might be ok mechanically, but thematically, they're a complete miss IMO. Especially when compared to what the other Chaos factions released so far have, like Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Chaos Knights.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
There is sooo much unused potential here. Either by tying CSM back up to HH a bit more or by pushing them more and more on the deamonic possesed design. Instead GW went full ,Space Mahrens but bad‘ train. Even the Accursed Weapons brought potential despite all controversy. Imagine different factions getting different buffs on that profile. People would then love to go wild on them. But no, just a weird inconsistent merge. I still hope some of the leaks will deviate from the final book because so far it looks like someone just desired to get it done. Or maybe the final book will look surprisingly better when we have the full access to it. Dunno.
I mean Renegades followed the Codex, but the Legions definitely shouldn't be doing Doctrines and should be doing something else.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
There is sooo much unused potential here. Either by tying CSM back up to HH a bit more or by pushing them more and more on the deamonic possesed design. Instead GW went full ,Space Mahrens but bad‘ train. Even the Accursed Weapons brought potential despite all controversy. Imagine different factions getting different buffs on that profile. People would then love to go wild on them. But no, just a weird inconsistent merge. I still hope some of the leaks will deviate from the final book because so far it looks like someone just desired to get it done. Or maybe the final book will look surprisingly better when we have the full access to it. Dunno.
I mean Renegades followed the Codex, but the Legions definitely shouldn't be doing Doctrines and should be doing something else.
Time for me to butt in and say again Renegades and Traitor Chapters should be handled in the Loyalist Scum codex.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
There is sooo much unused potential here. Either by tying CSM back up to HH a bit more or by pushing them more and more on the deamonic possesed design. Instead GW went full ,Space Mahrens but bad‘ train. Even the Accursed Weapons brought potential despite all controversy. Imagine different factions getting different buffs on that profile. People would then love to go wild on them. But no, just a weird inconsistent merge. I still hope some of the leaks will deviate from the final book because so far it looks like someone just desired to get it done. Or maybe the final book will look surprisingly better when we have the full access to it. Dunno.
I mean Renegades followed the Codex, but the Legions definitely shouldn't be doing Doctrines and should be doing something else.
Time for me to butt in and say again Renegades and Traitor Chapters should be handled in the Loyalist Scum codex.
They don't belong in either is the issue, there is no right or wrong for how far down the chaos path they've gone. In reality an advanced build a faction that adds loyalist tech or daemon units based on how many corruption points you pick or something would be a good go between.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
There is sooo much unused potential here. Either by tying CSM back up to HH a bit more or by pushing them more and more on the deamonic possesed design. Instead GW went full ,Space Mahrens but bad‘ train. Even the Accursed Weapons brought potential despite all controversy. Imagine different factions getting different buffs on that profile. People would then love to go wild on them. But no, just a weird inconsistent merge. I still hope some of the leaks will deviate from the final book because so far it looks like someone just desired to get it done. Or maybe the final book will look surprisingly better when we have the full access to it. Dunno.
I mean Renegades followed the Codex, but the Legions definitely shouldn't be doing Doctrines and should be doing something else.
Time for me to butt in and say again Renegades and Traitor Chapters should be handled in the Loyalist Scum codex.
They don't belong in either is the issue, there is no right or wrong for how far down the chaos path they've gone. In reality an advanced build a faction that adds loyalist tech or daemon units based on how many corruption points you pick or something would be a good go between.
Aye. I think that a lot of the "Renegades belong in the Loyalist Scum Codex" folks always assume that all Renegades are recent Renegades, who have only been turned for a short time. But many Renegades will have been operating against the Imperium for a long time, and will have acquired many of the more typical "Chaos" units, while having lost some of the loyalist stuff that tends to break down in the Warp, like anti-grav tech. The CSM codex does a fairly decent job of representing these "older" Renegade warbands, but the loyalist codex would possibly be better for "newer" Renegades. The trick is getting the "in between" warbands right.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: Reading again through the rumours and leaks so far I am a bit disheartened by the fact that instead of creating a cool new Faction Rule GW choose to do a plain copy of Space Marine Codex Doctrines. Fluffwise this is an insult, considering that CSM never followed any Codex Astartes, but follow it closer than the damned Ultramarines. Also the Icons, Marks and Subfaction Rules all read like variations of the same buffs changed here and there. Especially the wanton rules are just bad design. Looking at how awesome the Chaos Knight Rules became with the Harbinger of Doom (in terms of new interactions and a faction feeling more unique) it feels so far like GW lacks any motivation to do CSM well.
There is sooo much unused potential here. Either by tying CSM back up to HH a bit more or by pushing them more and more on the deamonic possesed design. Instead GW went full ,Space Mahrens but bad‘ train. Even the Accursed Weapons brought potential despite all controversy. Imagine different factions getting different buffs on that profile. People would then love to go wild on them. But no, just a weird inconsistent merge. I still hope some of the leaks will deviate from the final book because so far it looks like someone just desired to get it done. Or maybe the final book will look surprisingly better when we have the full access to it. Dunno.
I mean Renegades followed the Codex, but the Legions definitely shouldn't be doing Doctrines and should be doing something else.
Time for me to butt in and say again Renegades and Traitor Chapters should be handled in the Loyalist Scum codex.
They don't belong in either is the issue, there is no right or wrong for how far down the chaos path they've gone. In reality an advanced build a faction that adds loyalist tech or daemon units based on how many corruption points you pick or something would be a good go between.
Aye. I think that a lot of the "Renegades belong in the Loyalist Scum Codex" folks always assume that all Renegades are recent Renegades, who have only been turned for a short time. But many Renegades will have been operating against the Imperium for a long time, and will have acquired many of the more typical "Chaos" units, while having lost some of the loyalist stuff that tends to break down in the Warp, like anti-grav tech. The CSM codex does a fairly decent job of representing these "older" Renegade warbands, but the loyalist codex would possibly be better for "newer" Renegades. The trick is getting the "in between" warbands right.
I haven't finished my SM Fandex (because nobody will play against it anyway) but the system I'd have is each founding Chapter (and its successors) has an automatic "unique" unit they have access to, and then can be customized with further unique units. No, your Ultramarines don't NEED a Calvary equivalent, but one of your Ultramarine successors might. Just don't use them if you don't want them, basically.
One unique unit would be "Mutants" which covers Wulfen equivalent. A renegade Chapter loses access to all unique units except said Mutants, and gains access to Furies, Daemon Prince, and....something else I haven't decided. It sounds like a lot until you realize I'm doing consolidation of many unit entries so there's theoretical space.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The trick is getting the "in between" warbands right.
IMO there wouldn't be a point as it would be a mess of restrictions and rule swaps that would cause more problems than it would solve. One or the other should be the choice for rules, models is down to the individual.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The trick is getting the "in between" warbands right.
IMO there wouldn't be a point as it would be a mess of restrictions and rule swaps that would cause more problems than it would solve. One or the other should be the choice for rules, models is down to the individual.
Yeah, it would be difficult to avoid just ending up with "CSM +1" (loyalist units/equipment), or "loyalists +1" (CSM units/equipment). For narrative purposes, I guess you could go with the 2nd edition Chaos Codex route and allow Renegades to use loyalist equipment and units, but at a significant price increase (+50%), maybe?
EviscerationPlague wrote: No, your Ultramarines don't NEED a Calvary equivalent, but one of your Ultramarine successors might. Just don't use them if you don't want them, basically.
No-one needs another Calvary - or another Calgary, for that matter. One of either was enough.
So, for Chaos Lords in Terminator armour at least, lighting claws are still lighting claws and power axes are still power axes. But, power axes are now D2? And +1 W, +1 Ld, and +2A?
Power creep (or GW clowns) in action, the Sorcerer Lord has 6W 5A vs. TS/DG with 5W 4A.
Some mixed feelings, as I've spent the whole time since those codexes came out saying the characters are all a wound (and sometimes attack) short of where they should be.
Adding in the missing W and A to TS/DG via dataslate would be nice. Adding master crafted Axe/Sword to Blightlords would be even nicer.
There has been a lot less hype for the CSM codex for the last two months as I think a lot of players just couldn't work out how they would keep the stats even between shared TS/DG/SM/CSM units and have the power level be anywhere close to the last five codexes.
EightFoldPath wrote: Power creep (or GW clowns) in action, the Sorcerer Lord has 6W 5A vs. TS/DG with 5W 4A.
Some mixed feelings, as I've spent the whole time since those codexes came out saying the characters are all a wound (and sometimes attack) short of where they should be.
Adding in the missing W and A to TS/DG via dataslate would be nice. Adding master crafted Axe/Sword to Blightlords would be even nicer.
Could be power creep or it could be differentiation in the Sorcerers between Codexes:
CSM: +1W and +1A
Death Guard: +1 T and Disgustingly Resilient
Thousand Sons: Thrall ability (more Sorcerers per detachment), two Psychic Disciplines of 9 powers each, and the Cult Psychic Power as an additional power (thus 3 know powers instead of 2)
Could be either, maybe the extra wound is to add some durability without the special rules that Death Guard and Thousand Sons have (Disgustingly Resilient, All is Dust), and the extra attack is to make the CSM Sorcerer more "fighty" than the more psychically powerful Thousand Sons, and tougher Death Guard Sorcerers. Or, it's just codex creep.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Could be either, maybe the extra wound is to add some durability without the special rules that Death Guard and Thousand Sons have (Disgustingly Resilient, All is Dust), and the extra attack is to make the CSM Sorcerer more "fighty" than the more psychically powerful Thousand Sons, and tougher Death Guard Sorcerers. Or, it's just codex creep.
'All is Dust' doesn't apply to characters, just Rubricae and Terminators.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Could be either, maybe the extra wound is to add some durability without the special rules that Death Guard and Thousand Sons have (Disgustingly Resilient, All is Dust), and the extra attack is to make the CSM Sorcerer more "fighty" than the more psychically powerful Thousand Sons, and tougher Death Guard Sorcerers. Or, it's just codex creep.
'All is Dust' doesn't apply to characters, just Rubricae and Terminators.
Really? I stand corrected. My apologies to Thousand Sons players.
Does anyone know if the rule stating that you can only have one Lord Discordant means that you can have only one per battalion or just one in the entire army?
ArcaneHorror wrote: Does anyone know if the rule stating that you can only have one Lord Discordant means that you can have only one per battalion or just one in the entire army?
Those rules have been by detachment, not by army. Presumably it'll also block lords. And then Daemon Princes will also have a similar rule (I doubt they'll block taking a lord+DP).
ArcaneHorror wrote: Does anyone know if the rule stating that you can only have one Lord Discordant means that you can have only one per battalion or just one in the entire army?
Those rules have been by detachment, not by army. Presumably it'll also block lords. And then Daemon Princes will also have a similar rule (I doubt they'll block taking a lord+DP).
Death guard cannot field a lord and a dp in the same detachment. The rule is called gelosia infernale in italian
ArcaneHorror wrote: Does anyone know if the rule stating that you can only have one Lord Discordant means that you can have only one per battalion or just one in the entire army?
Those rules have been by detachment, not by army. Presumably it'll also block lords. And then Daemon Princes will also have a similar rule (I doubt they'll block taking a lord+DP).
Death guard cannot field a lord and a dp in the same detachment. The rule is called gelosia infernale in italian
To my understanding this was changed in an FAQ as it removed the lord of the Death Guard from the data sheet of the DP
ArcaneHorror wrote: Does anyone know if the rule stating that you can only have one Lord Discordant means that you can have only one per battalion or just one in the entire army?
Those rules have been by detachment, not by army. Presumably it'll also block lords. And then Daemon Princes will also have a similar rule (I doubt they'll block taking a lord+DP).
Ok that makes sense. It's funny since in 8th edition, it was for a while the meta to take three disco lords or three princes
Gadzilla666 wrote: Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
Given you've preemptively started to gripe about it, I kinda hope that happens.
I could see a GYB datasheet being Loyalist only, though, only for the Kratos to show up in the CSM 'dex a little later, however.
Meh, just going by precedent. I don't personally care that much, beyond parity. I already have a Fellblade and two Sicarans, I don't have much interest in their awkward middle sibling.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
I hope not. I'm already planning on finding some nice flayed body models to pop all over mine. The nice thing about night lords is they work in both eras that way.
I also think they should probably just make the spartan a HS... but after the monolith I doubt they'd make anything even remotely sizable a HS anyway.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Meh, just going by precedent. I don't personally care that much, beyond parity. I already have a Fellblade and two Sicarans, I don't have much interest in their awkward middle sibling.
I want one for my CSM just so I can have an excuse to call the tank the 'Blades of Chaos'.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
Given you've preemptively started to gripe about it, I kinda hope that happens.
I could see a GYB datasheet being Loyalist only, though, only for the Kratos to show up in the CSM 'dex a little later, however.
Cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Every single time.
Ensuring that incessant complaining has consequences, more like.
And given the CSM is now probably a July/Aug release, it isn't that major anyway, especially if you confirm it when the GYB datasheet drops. You might need to do additional GYB ones for DG/TS/WE, though.
So with HH starting a two-week preorder period starting on the 4th, does that preclude any major, potentially spiky releases going up for preorder on the 11th? Been out of the loop for a while and I'm not sure how things are done these days.
"All I ever wanted were pics of the new Possessed sprues." -Lorgar, M31
RazakelXIII wrote: So with HH starting a two-week preorder period starting on the 4th, does that preclude any major, potentially spiky releases going up for preorder on the 11th? Been out of the loop for a while and I'm not sure how things are done these days.
"All I ever wanted were pics of the new Possessed sprues." -Lorgar, M31
Yes. No CSM codex in between. 18.6 is earliest preorder for it or anything else of note(aos ghb22, sylvaneth&skaven battletomes for myself that I'm waiting).
RazakelXIII wrote: So with HH starting a two-week preorder period starting on the 4th, does that preclude any major, potentially spiky releases going up for preorder on the 11th? Been out of the loop for a while and I'm not sure how things are done these days.
"All I ever wanted were pics of the new Possessed sprues." -Lorgar, M31
I don't remember a two week pre-order that added new pre-orders in the middle of it. The earliest we should expect Chaos Marines is pre-order on the 18th, release on the 25th. Unless GW wants to release something else first, like more Horus Heresy or some AoS stuff.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
I do feel it is a big problem, because it speaks to how fundamentally misaligned the design team is with what the community wants.
Yeah, giving CSM "Spiky Doctrines" is both incredibly uncreative, and not what many CSM players would want. They might be ok mechanically, but thematically, they're a complete miss IMO. Especially when compared to what the other Chaos factions released so far have, like Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Chaos Knights.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
I do feel it is a big problem, because it speaks to how fundamentally misaligned the design team is with what the community wants.
Yeah, giving CSM "Spiky Doctrines" is both incredibly uncreative, and not what many CSM players would want. They might be ok mechanically, but thematically, they're a complete miss IMO. Especially when compared to what the other Chaos factions released so far have, like Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Chaos Knights.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
Inclined to agree, the added ap on doctrines is the main attraction a lot of the time, people balance around and for ap-1 on a bolter (as seen in other threads) which makes them a big pillow fisted here, given the points for the 2nd wound you'll actually have lower bolter shot output than before anyway.
blood reaper wrote: 40k fans and GW apologists legit have the most bizarre and spiteful mindsets around.
Not any less bizarre and spiteful than those who spend their entire pastime posting toxic posts about a game they hate instead of simply walking away from it.
blood reaper wrote: 40k fans and GW apologists legit have the most bizarre and spiteful mindsets around.
Not any less bizarre and spiteful than those who spend their entire pastime posting toxic posts about a game they hate instead of simply walking away from it.
techsoldaten wrote: The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
Bold underline by me.
For the record it appears that you are including Cult troops since they are the only troops allowed to have Sonic Blasters AFAIK.
blood reaper wrote: 40k fans and GW apologists legit have the most bizarre and spiteful mindsets around.
Not any less bizarre and spiteful than those who spend their entire pastime posting toxic posts about a game they hate instead of simply walking away from it.
I can imagine your conception of 'toxic posting' is a very colourful and broad one.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
I do feel it is a big problem, because it speaks to how fundamentally misaligned the design team is with what the community wants.
Yeah, giving CSM "Spiky Doctrines" is both incredibly uncreative, and not what many CSM players would want. They might be ok mechanically, but thematically, they're a complete miss IMO. Especially when compared to what the other Chaos factions released so far have, like Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Chaos Knights.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
I'm not going to argue that you're wrong. It does seem like they've taken something that fits better for loyalists and just added a random element because "Chaos". Like I said, it's uncreative, and doesn't fit the faction. You're analysis just adds to that. I guess we can still hope that this is just a "placeholder" rule for the playtest doc, but right now it's all we've got, unfortunately.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
I'm not going to argue that you're wrong. It does seem like they've taken something that fits better for loyalists and just added a random element because "Chaos". Like I said, it's uncreative, and doesn't fit the faction. You're analysis just adds to that. I guess we can still hope that this is just a "placeholder" rule for the playtest doc, but right now it's all we've got, unfortunately.
The point of playtesting is to reveal parts of the game that need improvement.
Platuan4th wrote: The leaks say Noise Marines are still in unlike the other Cults.
They may be in the book, but the techsoldaten theorising being responded to stated it was under the assumption that superdoctrines wouldn't apply to Cult troops, with no proviso to exclude Noise Marines from the "Cult troops" label.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
I'm not going to argue that you're wrong. It does seem like they've taken something that fits better for loyalists and just added a random element because "Chaos". Like I said, it's uncreative, and doesn't fit the faction. You're analysis just adds to that. I guess we can still hope that this is just a "placeholder" rule for the playtest doc, but right now it's all we've got, unfortunately.
The point of playtesting is to reveal parts of the game that need improvement.
We can hope it worked!
Hope's the word !
Btw, chosen are now limited to combi-melta/plasma.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
I'm not going to argue that you're wrong. It does seem like they've taken something that fits better for loyalists and just added a random element because "Chaos". Like I said, it's uncreative, and doesn't fit the faction. You're analysis just adds to that. I guess we can still hope that this is just a "placeholder" rule for the playtest doc, but right now it's all we've got, unfortunately.
The point of playtesting is to reveal parts of the game that need improvement.
We can hope it worked!
Yes, we can. Which is why I keep trying to remind people that these leaked rules are coming from an old playtest doc, which seems to not even include some new units we've seen so far (the "Cultist Warband" and Traitor Guardsmen).
One thing I'm somewhat worried about is just how much of the core CSM book world eaters will be locked out of. I have a LOT of daemon engines, havocs, and standard bolter legionaires. I don't want to have to repaint too many.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
I think a funnier GW-ism will be the Kratos being available to both SM and CSM, but not having martial legacy. Remember, you must always shift course midway through an edition.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
I think a funnier GW-ism will be the Kratos being available to both SM and CSM, but not having martial legacy. Remember, you must always shift course midway through an edition.
I would be 100% happy with all plastic HH stuff losing martial legacy.
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
I do feel it is a big problem, because it speaks to how fundamentally misaligned the design team is with what the community wants.
Yeah, giving CSM "Spiky Doctrines" is both incredibly uncreative, and not what many CSM players would want. They might be ok mechanically, but thematically, they're a complete miss IMO. Especially when compared to what the other Chaos factions released so far have, like Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Chaos Knights.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
I think you are undervaluing the extra power Massacre gives bolters. Bolters are free and plentiful, exploding 6s are basically +1 to hit (but with side benefits such as can stack with another +1 to hit). Army wide +1 to hit on your bolters turn 2/3 seems solid.
Slaughter also seems a very solid boost for the same reasons.
The one unit you've not mentioned in your post - Terminators. 4 Bolter shots each, something like 3/4/5 attacks each, base profile S5 AP3 D1. The loyalist version costs 38 points with storm bolter and power fist. Terminators seem to have the classic 9th ed terminator strat to get +1 to hit, which means you'll often be turning 40 dice rolls to hit in shooting/melee into 40 hits on average with a CP and the right doctrine.
I'm still gloomy about the likelihood of the codex matching up to Nids/Eldar/Tau but 30 Terminators or 30 Possessed are possible things you'll see being used. They could still turn out on the level of Knights where the layered rules start to add up as you get to the 3rd or 4th layer and the doctrines are one part of that.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
I think a funnier GW-ism will be the Kratos being available to both SM and CSM, but not having martial legacy. Remember, you must always shift course midway through an edition.
Heh. I wouldn't put it past them, if nothing else than to sell more of the new models. But it would take some creative gymnastics to justify why this heretofore unseen HH pattern vehicle was suddenly more plentiful than the previously known ones, and on both sides. Did both Mars and Xana II suddenly discover unused stockpiles of them at the same time?
(Of course they could just completely bypass making any fluff justification at all.)
cole1114 wrote:I would be 100% happy with all plastic HH stuff losing martial legacy.
StarHunter25 wrote: One thing I'm somewhat worried about is just how much of the core CSM book world eaters will be locked out of. I have a LOT of daemon engines, havocs, and standard bolter legionaires. I don't want to have to repaint too many.
If Thousand Sons or Death Guard are anything to go by... its a very valid concern.
StarHunter25 wrote: One thing I'm somewhat worried about is just how much of the core CSM book world eaters will be locked out of. I have a LOT of daemon engines, havocs, and standard bolter legionaires. I don't want to have to repaint too many.
If Thousand Sons or Death Guard are anything to go by... its a very valid concern.
Noooooo you don't understand they need to be stripped of units like Obliterators and Raptors if you wanna be fluffy, otherwise you're just a power gamer!
Doctrines were novel and unique when they were introduced to the game. Giving CSM getting a tweaked version makes sense from the standpoint of symmetry, but it doesn't recognize the fact they are a fundamentally different faction that fights differently.
It's not a big problem, just a missed opportunity.
I do feel it is a big problem, because it speaks to how fundamentally misaligned the design team is with what the community wants.
Yeah, giving CSM "Spiky Doctrines" is both incredibly uncreative, and not what many CSM players would want. They might be ok mechanically, but thematically, they're a complete miss IMO. Especially when compared to what the other Chaos factions released so far have, like Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Chaos Knights.
Another question worth considering: will these superdoctrines make much of a difference for CSM armies?
Coming from the standpoint CSM generally field mid-range shooting, melee oriented lists. While the new Codex might introduce some new and unique playstyles, our unit selection is differs from Loyalist options in terms of weapon selection, range of shooting, and presence on the board. When you consider each doctrine on it's own, it seems like they're only situationally beneficial and only for certain lists.
The Destruction doctrine gives exploding 6s to heavy / grenade / rapid fire weapons. It applies turn 1. So Obliterators, Havocs, Helbrutes, Forgefiends, Predators, Land Raiders and Lord of Skulls can benefit from it. But Obliterators generally start in reserve, Forgefiends don't have great range, and Preds / LRs / LoS don't appear in too many lists. So this doctrine really only matters for lists with Havocs and Helbrutes, and it's only for one turn. Even so, things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers are single shot, you don't have a huge pool of dice to throw.
The Massacre doctrine gives exploding 6s to Rapid Fire / Assault / Pistol weapons. It applies turn 2 and possibly 3. Bolters, Sonic Blasters, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, and their pistol / combi variants are the guns that benefit from this doctrine. While Plasma / Melta guns are certainly great, the only unit we have that can take more than 2 are Chosen. We don't have equivalent units to Plasma Intercessors, who all carry a Plasma Gun. And unlike Bolt Carbines, with 30" range, we have to get to 24" / 12" to shoot. This doesn't benefit us the same way it would a Loyalist army because of the lack of weapons specialization, and it won't apply to as many models based on range.
The Slaughter doctrine gives exploding 6s to pistol / melee / assault attacks. It applies from turn 3 / 4 on. Various HQs, CSMs, Chosen, Possessed, melee Obliterators, Maulerfiends, melee Helbrutes, and Venomcrawlers will see the most benefit, they will have the large pools of dice that make exploding 6s matter most. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the list that would most benefit from this kind of doctrine would be a Possessed Bomb. Anything else would be less efficient. So great if you're footslogging large units that charge across the board to tear into opponents, but far less great for any other kind of list.
(For the record, I don't know if superdoctrines will apply to Cultists / Mutants / Cult troops. I'm assuming not.)
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, would love to hear. But my take is the superdoctrines are structured for an army more like Primaris Marines and offer far fewer benefits to CSM based on the units we actually have.
I think you are undervaluing the extra power Massacre gives bolters. Bolters are free and plentiful, exploding 6s are basically +1 to hit (but with side benefits such as can stack with another +1 to hit). Army wide +1 to hit on your bolters turn 2/3 seems solid.
Slaughter also seems a very solid boost for the same reasons.
The one unit you've not mentioned in your post - Terminators. 4 Bolter shots each, something like 3/4/5 attacks each, base profile S5 AP3 D1. The loyalist version costs 38 points with storm bolter and power fist. Terminators seem to have the classic 9th ed terminator strat to get +1 to hit, which means you'll often be turning 40 dice rolls to hit in shooting/melee into 40 hits on average with a CP and the right doctrine.
I'm still gloomy about the likelihood of the codex matching up to Nids/Eldar/Tau but 30 Terminators or 30 Possessed are possible things you'll see being used. They could still turn out on the level of Knights where the layered rules start to add up as you get to the 3rd or 4th layer and the doctrines are one part of that.
It is less impactful than Bolt Rifles going from AP-1 to AP-2 against Marines.
Platuan4th wrote: The leaks say Noise Marines are still in unlike the other Cults.
They may be in the book, but the techsoldaten theorising being responded to stated it was under the assumption that superdoctrines wouldn't apply to Cult troops, with no proviso to exclude Noise Marines from the "Cult troops" label.
Since Noise Marines are troops for the Emperor's Children, it would be incredibly debilitating for that army for Noise to not get superdoctrines. Personally, I hate the idea of Cult Marines in general losing them, as it's an unfair restriction and doesn't make sense. A Word Bearer Plague Marine is still a word Bearer, a Berserker Iron Warrior is still an Iron Warrior, an Alpha Legion Rubric Marines is still an Alpha Legionnaire, etc. They don't just forget how to do their Legion's stuff.
StarHunter25 wrote: One thing I'm somewhat worried about is just how much of the core CSM book world eaters will be locked out of. I have a LOT of daemon engines, havocs, and standard bolter legionaires. I don't want to have to repaint too many.
I know our WE player is currently selling everything that isn't a berzerker, Kharn, a rhino, rand raider or a spawn.
StarHunter25 wrote: One thing I'm somewhat worried about is just how much of the core CSM book world eaters will be locked out of. I have a LOT of daemon engines, havocs, and standard bolter legionaires. I don't want to have to repaint too many.
If Thousand Sons or Death Guard are anything to go by... its a very valid concern.
Noooooo you don't understand they need to be stripped of units like Obliterators and Raptors if you wanna be fluffy, otherwise you're just a power gamer!
It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
Dudeface wrote: It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
I agree, but if some units already fit the legions very well, they should keep them. For example, WE not getting access to the maulerfiend would be just as weird as DG not getting access to obliterators was.
I partly wonder if the delay was to print heresy stuff in the codex if it can indeed be taken? Would be nice not to have a day -whatever pdf of extras
Automatically Appended Next Post: Good news! Free mini of the month is a Chaos Marine, given that we're likely not getting the release out this month and they've now given away chaos marines and cultists already, they'll have to give away free rhinos or something next month I guess?
Dudeface wrote: It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
I agree, but if some units already fit the legions very well, they should keep them. For example, WE not getting access to the maulerfiend would be just as weird as DG not getting access to obliterators was.
Yeah, the dudes that deal in viruses not having access to a unit that exists as the result of a virus is a bit weird.
Personally, I expect World Eaters to get access to Slaughterbruters, which aren't daemon engines (or for that matter daemons), but its something. Defilers seem to be a shoe-in (based on DG and TS) alongside Land Raiders and Rhinos. Predators and demolishers are less clear - DG don't get them but TS do. Venomcrawlers seem a no-go (not even TSons get them), I would be surprised if they gave WE Maulerfiends but not Forgefiends, so they'll probably get both or neither. Helbrute seems a given, Heldrake is up in the air (pun fully intended). Berserker troops, a bespoke elite terminator unit, and a dedicated chaff unit of some sort (Khorngors, blood pact militia, etc.) plus some HQ/character types seem to be the bare minimum of what they will get for unique units, plus daemon primarch angron. Oh and the big bloodwhatever daemon engine lord of war, almost certainly will make the cut to the codex.
Dudeface wrote: It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
I agree, but if some units already fit the legions very well, they should keep them. For example, WE not getting access to the maulerfiend would be just as weird as DG not getting access to obliterators was.
Yeah, the dudes that deal in viruses not having access to a unit that exists as the result of a virus is a bit weird.
Personally, I expect World Eaters to get access to Slaughterbruters, which aren't daemon engines (or for that matter daemons), but its something. Defilers seem to be a shoe-in (based on DG and TS) alongside Land Raiders and Rhinos. Predators and demolishers are less clear - DG don't get them but TS do. Venomcrawlers seem a no-go (not even TSons get them), I would be surprised if they gave WE Maulerfiends but not Forgefiends, so they'll probably get both or neither. Helbrute seems a given, Heldrake is up in the air (pun fully intended). Berserker troops, a bespoke elite terminator unit, and a dedicated chaff unit of some sort (Khorngors, blood pact militia, etc.) plus some HQ/character types seem to be the bare minimum of what they will get for unique units, plus daemon primarch angron. Oh and the big bloodwhatever daemon engine lord of war, almost certainly will make the cut to the codex.
As per the heresy novels the first obliterator was a khorne blessed iron warrior was it not? I know other fluff has mortarion having a hand in the technovirus but it's not a product of the deathguard. Likewise the DG codex McGuffins the blight hauler into existence as a more loyal obliterator replacement iirc?
Volk was an Iron Warriors officer sacrificed by Perturabo to the Daemon that inhabited the Forge World of Sarum. Volk himself was not Khorne aligned, the Daemon Sa'ra'am was Khornate and claimed to have been born when the first weapon made to kill another mortal was crafted. It, however, was not a pawn of its master as its binding to Sarum had allowed its freedom from the Great Game. It possessed Volk who then became the first Obliterator.
Dudeface wrote: I partly wonder if the delay was to print heresy stuff in the codex if it can indeed be taken? Would be nice not to have a day -whatever pdf of extras
If they do actually do that, here's hoping that they restore some of their more "Chaos" oriented rules and equipment. Having Chaos units being just the same as loyalist units but "spiky" is rather boring.
Dudeface wrote: I partly wonder if the delay was to print heresy stuff in the codex if it can indeed be taken? Would be nice not to have a day -whatever pdf of extras
If they do actually do that, here's hoping that they restore some of their more "Chaos" oriented rules and equipment. Having Chaos units being just the same as loyalist units but "spiky" is rather boring.
Unfortunately GW's approach seems to be, we only sell HH models without Chaos mutations, so we only write rules that are loyalist vehicles with Chaos keyword. If it wasn't for sales and the Chaos Community I think they'd even prefer to not have Chaos rules at all because there's no "Chaos Contemptor" (TM) for sale.
Dudeface wrote: I partly wonder if the delay was to print heresy stuff in the codex if it can indeed be taken? Would be nice not to have a day -whatever pdf of extras
If they do actually do that, here's hoping that they restore some of their more "Chaos" oriented rules and equipment. Having Chaos units being just the same as loyalist units but "spiky" is rather boring.
Unfortunately GW's approach seems to be, we only sell HH models without Chaos mutations, so we only write rules that are loyalist vehicles with Chaos keyword. If it wasn't for sales and the Chaos Community I think they'd even prefer to not have Chaos rules at all because there's no "Chaos Contemptor" (TM) for sale.
Eh, I'm still putting down the copy-paste job that they did for all of the Chaos "relic" units as a matter of expediency and reduced effort, not malice. They have no problem telling Chaos Knights players to use loyalists kits for some of their units, with their own unique "Chaos" rules. As for them not selling a "Chaos Contemptor": have they never seen the Night Lords Contemptor? Or the Word Bearers Possessed Contemptor (sorry, I forget the actual name).
Dudeface wrote: It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
I agree, but if some units already fit the legions very well, they should keep them. For example, WE not getting access to the maulerfiend would be just as weird as DG not getting access to obliterators was.
Yeah, the dudes that deal in viruses not having access to a unit that exists as the result of a virus is a bit weird.
Personally, I expect World Eaters to get access to Slaughterbruters, which aren't daemon engines (or for that matter daemons), but its something. Defilers seem to be a shoe-in (based on DG and TS) alongside Land Raiders and Rhinos. Predators and demolishers are less clear - DG don't get them but TS do. Venomcrawlers seem a no-go (not even TSons get them), I would be surprised if they gave WE Maulerfiends but not Forgefiends, so they'll probably get both or neither. Helbrute seems a given, Heldrake is up in the air (pun fully intended). Berserker troops, a bespoke elite terminator unit, and a dedicated chaff unit of some sort (Khorngors, blood pact militia, etc.) plus some HQ/character types seem to be the bare minimum of what they will get for unique units, plus daemon primarch angron. Oh and the big bloodwhatever daemon engine lord of war, almost certainly will make the cut to the codex.
As per the heresy novels the first obliterator was a khorne blessed iron warrior was it not? I know other fluff has mortarion having a hand in the technovirus but it's not a product of the deathguard. Likewise the DG codex McGuffins the blight hauler into existence as a more loyal obliterator replacement iirc?
My understanding is that the obliterator technovirus was developed by Mortarion and Perturabo in the Eye of Terror following the heresy. Volk may have been the first Obliterator, but until the development of the technovirus the creation of new obliterators was basically random and the result of daemonic possession of those who obsessed over their weapons and equipment too much, etc. basically being damned over time. With the technovirus they were able to "mass produce" obliterators and could weaponize the virus to produce them en masse. Unless that fluff gets retconned out of existence, Mortarions involvement, to me, would justify their inclusion in DG armies.
StarHunter25 wrote: One thing I'm somewhat worried about is just how much of the core CSM book world eaters will be locked out of. I have a LOT of daemon engines, havocs, and standard bolter legionaires. I don't want to have to repaint too many.
If Thousand Sons or Death Guard are anything to go by... its a very valid concern.
Noooooo you don't understand they need to be stripped of units like Obliterators and Raptors if you wanna be fluffy, otherwise you're just a power gamer!
It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
StarHunter25 wrote: One thing I'm somewhat worried about is just how much of the core CSM book world eaters will be locked out of. I have a LOT of daemon engines, havocs, and standard bolter legionaires. I don't want to have to repaint too many.
If Thousand Sons or Death Guard are anything to go by... its a very valid concern.
Noooooo you don't understand they need to be stripped of units like Obliterators and Raptors if you wanna be fluffy, otherwise you're just a power gamer!
It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
They didn't NEED to be stand alone codices at all
In that case they also don't NEED stand alone kits either.
Dudeface wrote: It's more that if you want them to be a stand alone unique army with their own fluff units, you need to shake some stuff off to establish the identity, otherwise you end up with chaos marines +1 all the time. Which sounds a little power gamery if you want all the stuff from 1 faction, plus new bespoke stuff on top to make more optimised combos.
I agree, but if some units already fit the legions very well, they should keep them. For example, WE not getting access to the maulerfiend would be just as weird as DG not getting access to obliterators was.
Yeah, the dudes that deal in viruses not having access to a unit that exists as the result of a virus is a bit weird.
Personally, I expect World Eaters to get access to Slaughterbruters, which aren't daemon engines (or for that matter daemons), but its something. Defilers seem to be a shoe-in (based on DG and TS) alongside Land Raiders and Rhinos. Predators and demolishers are less clear - DG don't get them but TS do. Venomcrawlers seem a no-go (not even TSons get them), I would be surprised if they gave WE Maulerfiends but not Forgefiends, so they'll probably get both or neither. Helbrute seems a given, Heldrake is up in the air (pun fully intended). Berserker troops, a bespoke elite terminator unit, and a dedicated chaff unit of some sort (Khorngors, blood pact militia, etc.) plus some HQ/character types seem to be the bare minimum of what they will get for unique units, plus daemon primarch angron. Oh and the big bloodwhatever daemon engine lord of war, almost certainly will make the cut to the codex.
As per the heresy novels the first obliterator was a khorne blessed iron warrior was it not? I know other fluff has mortarion having a hand in the technovirus but it's not a product of the deathguard. Likewise the DG codex McGuffins the blight hauler into existence as a more loyal obliterator replacement iirc?
My understanding is that the obliterator technovirus was developed by Mortarion and Perturabo in the Eye of Terror following the heresy. Volk may have been the first Obliterator, but until the development of the technovirus the creation of new obliterators was basically random and the result of daemonic possession of those who obsessed over their weapons and equipment too much, etc. basically being damned over time. With the technovirus they were able to "mass produce" obliterators and could weaponize the virus to produce them en masse. Unless that fluff gets retconned out of existence, Mortarions involvement, to me, would justify their inclusion in DG armies.
I can understand both sides of this one, I honestly think they took them out purely to push the hauler. To be honest though, their fluff is so cross functional and confused that they've crossed a few threads now.
Following the same logic the PBC is essentially just an arquitor with a shield, so should chaos marines get the PBC?
To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
You aren't getting extra stuff if you remove more than you had access to.
To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
You aren't getting extra stuff if you remove more than you had access to.
OK, since your while stance is based on pedantry: I'm sure plenty of DG or Tsons players were thankful to have extra attention lavished upon their factions, receive expanded rules and be given alternate unique units to make them feel like they have a stronger identity.
That better, or do you wish to continue gaking on the decisions because you expected vanilla units + extras?
To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
You aren't getting extra stuff if you remove more than you had access to.
OK, since your while stance is based on pedantry: I'm sure plenty of DG or Tsons players were thankful to have extra attention lavished upon their factions, receive expanded rules and be given alternate unique units to make them feel like they have a stronger identity.
That better, or do you wish to continue gaking on the decisions because you expected vanilla units + extras?
You really can't put Death Guard and Thousand Sons on the same level of "attention".
Death Guard got a fully fledged relase with 19 brand new, unique kits, including a good few regular units, a few characters, an unique vehicle, a few daemon engines, and a large amount of characters.
Thousand Sons got 6 kits, three of which are a single character, and the rest of their lineup was hap-hazardly patched with Fantasy Beastmen with a low-effort ugprade kit tossed in, and some random things from the regular CSM 'dex.
[/spoiler]To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
You aren't getting extra stuff if you remove more than you had access to.
OK, since your while stance is based on pedantry: I'm sure plenty of DG or Tsons players were thankful to have extra attention lavished upon their factions, receive expanded rules and be given alternate unique units to make them feel like they have a stronger identity.
That better, or do you wish to continue gaking on the decisions because you expected vanilla units + extras?
[spoiler]
You really can't put Death Guard and Thousand Sons on the same level of "attention".
Death Guard got a fully fledged relase with 19 brand new, unique kits, including a good few regular units, a few characters, an unique vehicle, a few daemon engines, and a large amount of characters.
Thousand Sons got 6 kits, three of which are a single character, and the rest of their lineup was hap-hazardly patched with Fantasy Beastmen with a low-effort ugprade kit tossed in, and some random things from the regular CSM 'dex.
Couldn't have put it better
Definitely hope the WE will be on the DG side of the spectrum.
To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
You aren't getting extra stuff if you remove more than you had access to.
OK, since your while stance is based on pedantry: I'm sure plenty of DG or Tsons players were thankful to have extra attention lavished upon their factions, receive expanded rules and be given alternate unique units to make them feel like they have a stronger identity.
That better, or do you wish to continue gaking on the decisions because you expected vanilla units + extras?
It may not have been what was intended, but the original statement had quite a different meaning. There's no pedantic argument at hand here and the hostility just distracts from the point trying to be made.
To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
You aren't getting extra stuff if you remove more than you had access to.
OK, since your while stance is based on pedantry: I'm sure plenty of DG or Tsons players were thankful to have extra attention lavished upon their factions, receive expanded rules and be given alternate unique units to make them feel like they have a stronger identity.
That better, or do you wish to continue gaking on the decisions because you expected vanilla units + extras?
It may not have been what was intended, but the original statement had quite a different meaning. There's no pedantic argument at hand here and the hostility just distracts from the point trying to be made.
This is the original statement from the last page, EviscerationPlague just chopped the comment history off.
Noooooo you don't understand they need to be stripped of units like Obliterators and Raptors if you wanna be fluffy, otherwise you're just a power gamer!
Agree, sorry for any hostility but I didn't appreciate the intensively obtuse response. Yes Tsons and DG lost some units in exchange for elevation to bespoke faction, but I consider it a good thing and don't understand why someone would rather have just remained a 1 page CSM list of rules with no support.
Edit: also, drawing a line under it, some people happy legions become supported independent armies, some upset they're not just baked into chaos marines still.
The real question is how tightly they're going to pack HH releases. While a lot is coming up in the first wave, we know there's more.
If they space them out, Chaos marines might fill in the gaps, if they're pushing them out week after week, it could be a while.
Honestly, after the big teaser preview, I didn't expect them to be dropped on the back burner again. Figured GW would shove them out and go back to ignoring them (in 40k)
To each their own, I'm sure plenty of tsons and DG players enjoy the extra stuff their books gift them. You're welcome to keep playing generic nurgle/tzeentch warband with CSM book and get what you want I guess?
You aren't getting extra stuff if you remove more than you had access to.
OK, since your while stance is based on pedantry: I'm sure plenty of DG or Tsons players were thankful to have extra attention lavished upon their factions, receive expanded rules and be given alternate unique units to make them feel like they have a stronger identity.
That better, or do you wish to continue gaking on the decisions because you expected vanilla units + extras?
It may not have been what was intended, but the original statement had quite a different meaning. There's no pedantic argument at hand here and the hostility just distracts from the point trying to be made.
This is the original statement from the last page, EviscerationPlague just chopped the comment history off.
Noooooo you don't understand they need to be stripped of units like Obliterators and Raptors if you wanna be fluffy, otherwise you're just a power gamer!
Agree, sorry for any hostility but I didn't appreciate the intensively obtuse response. Yes Tsons and DG lost some units in exchange for elevation to bespoke faction, but I consider it a good thing and don't understand why someone would rather have just remained a 1 page CSM list of rules with no support.
Edit: also, drawing a line under it, some people happy legions become supported independent armies, some upset they're not just baked into chaos marines still.
Not every fething thing needs bespoke rules. All these bespoke rules are a PROBLEM.
The real question is how tightly they're going to pack HH releases. While a lot is coming up in the first wave, we know there's more.
If they space them out, Chaos marines might fill in the gaps, if they're pushing them out week after week, it could be a while.
Honestly, after the big teaser preview, I didn't expect them to be dropped on the back burner again. Figured GW would shove them out and go back to ignoring them (in 40k)
Also 2 aos books coming soonish as the box came out and books follow 1-2 months later so far. I'm constantly reminding csm might come before us as they started hyping them before sylvaneth&skaven
Erm. Chaos Bikers build instructions leaked. This is weird, because they're the same models, which makes this the first time that I'm aware of that the big model leak was wrong, and the rules don't match up with what was leaked by ClockworkChris:
Box stats always only show the weapon options in the actual kit.
It has been quite some time (decades!) since i build my bikers. But iirc they had no plastic melee/ Champion weapon options.
chaos0xomega wrote: They could have decided to hold new bikers for a future release, isn't the first time they've held stuff, won't be the last.
Doubtful since the timing of the leak would mean the codex would have already gone to print.
We never (to my knowledge) had a description of what the new bikers looked like, nor was there ever a statement that there were images of the new bikers in the codex, etc. Also the source for the new biker minis in the big rumordump is different from clockworkchris/ok_entrepreneur/codex content. Its entirely possible that the rumordump source was aware of details of model production, but not codex data (which makes sense since for the most part that source did not offer details about rules content, just minis, with the sole exception of some vague details about Black Templar rules).
As for the codex rumors themselves, hasn't it been said on multiple occasions that the info in the book was from an early playtest draft and was subject to change? That alone would imply that the publication status of the codex with regards to leak timing is irrelevant.
chaos0xomega wrote: They could have decided to hold new bikers for a future release, isn't the first time they've held stuff, won't be the last.
Doubtful since the timing of the leak would mean the codex would have already gone to print.
We never (to my knowledge) had a description of what the new bikers looked like, nor was there ever a statement that there were images of the new bikers in the codex, etc. Also the source for the new biker minis in the big rumordump is different from clockworkchris/ok_entrepreneur/codex content. Its entirely possible that the rumordump source was aware of details of model production, but not codex data (which makes sense since for the most part that source did not offer details about rules content, just minis, with the sole exception of some vague details about Black Templar rules).
As for the codex rumors themselves, hasn't it been said on multiple occasions that the info in the book was from an early playtest draft and was subject to change? That alone would imply that the publication status of the codex with regards to leak timing is irrelevant.
The VERY ACCURATE rumor dump clearly said new bikes. Even without a description of what they'd look like that's hard to misinterpret.
chaos0xomega wrote: They could have decided to hold new bikers for a future release, isn't the first time they've held stuff, won't be the last.
Doubtful since the timing of the leak would mean the codex would have already gone to print.
We never (to my knowledge) had a description of what the new bikers looked like, nor was there ever a statement that there were images of the new bikers in the codex, etc. Also the source for the new biker minis in the big rumordump is different from clockworkchris/ok_entrepreneur/codex content. Its entirely possible that the rumordump source was aware of details of model production, but not codex data (which makes sense since for the most part that source did not offer details about rules content, just minis, with the sole exception of some vague details about Black Templar rules).
As for the codex rumors themselves, hasn't it been said on multiple occasions that the info in the book was from an early playtest draft and was subject to change? That alone would imply that the publication status of the codex with regards to leak timing is irrelevant.
The VERY ACCURATE rumor dump clearly said new bikes. Even without a description of what they'd look like that's hard to misinterpret.
Maybe, those were for World Eaters? Or were getting a second "biker squad"?
chaos0xomega wrote: They could have decided to hold new bikers for a future release, isn't the first time they've held stuff, won't be the last.
Doubtful since the timing of the leak would mean the codex would have already gone to print.
We never (to my knowledge) had a description of what the new bikers looked like, nor was there ever a statement that there were images of the new bikers in the codex, etc. Also the source for the new biker minis in the big rumordump is different from clockworkchris/ok_entrepreneur/codex content. Its entirely possible that the rumordump source was aware of details of model production, but not codex data (which makes sense since for the most part that source did not offer details about rules content, just minis, with the sole exception of some vague details about Black Templar rules).
As for the codex rumors themselves, hasn't it been said on multiple occasions that the info in the book was from an early playtest draft and was subject to change? That alone would imply that the publication status of the codex with regards to leak timing is irrelevant.
The VERY ACCURATE rumor dump clearly said new bikes. Even without a description of what they'd look like that's hard to misinterpret.
Maybe, those were for World Eaters? Or were getting a second "biker squad"?
Or maybe it's for HH since those bikes are in resin and could stand a plastic update.
chaos0xomega wrote: They could have decided to hold new bikers for a future release, isn't the first time they've held stuff, won't be the last.
Doubtful since the timing of the leak would mean the codex would have already gone to print.
We never (to my knowledge) had a description of what the new bikers looked like, nor was there ever a statement that there were images of the new bikers in the codex, etc. Also the source for the new biker minis in the big rumordump is different from clockworkchris/ok_entrepreneur/codex content. Its entirely possible that the rumordump source was aware of details of model production, but not codex data (which makes sense since for the most part that source did not offer details about rules content, just minis, with the sole exception of some vague details about Black Templar rules).
As for the codex rumors themselves, hasn't it been said on multiple occasions that the info in the book was from an early playtest draft and was subject to change? That alone would imply that the publication status of the codex with regards to leak timing is irrelevant.
The VERY ACCURATE rumor dump clearly said new bikes. Even without a description of what they'd look like that's hard to misinterpret.
Yes. Which doesn't preclude the fact that new bikes are coming, just not with the codex. The same VERY ACCURATE rumor dump also said that chaos would come before aeldari and knights, and yet...
I don't think that the big rumordump mentioned any HH units, did it?
Anyways, we now have 4 kits (Raptors, Terminators, Cultist Warband, and Bikers) that have been reboxed with new rules and are out in the wild and available to purchase. So, does this mean that the codex is soon? Or that it was supposed to be, and has been delayed, for some reason?
Gadzilla666 wrote: I don't think that the big rumordump mentioned any HH units, did it?
Anyways, we now have 4 kits (Raptors, Terminators, Cultist Warband, and Bikers) that have been reboxed with new rules and are out in the wild and available to purchase. So, does this mean that the codex is soon? Or that it was supposed to be, and has been delayed, for some reason?
It seems fairly evident that it was intended to come out either end of last year or early this year, they drummed up the year of chaos in November, they ran previews for the new chaos stuff in the boxset in December and haven't so much as hinted at releasing the units individually yet.
The wave in January sticks out like a spre thumb at this point and I imagine they were meant to form a new release sandwich near Christmas with chaos and eldar, but due to the release scheduling issues couldn't fit them both in.
I thinknit was the eldar calendar leaker who said they thought it might be a dual release.
chaos0xomega wrote: They could have decided to hold new bikers for a future release, isn't the first time they've held stuff, won't be the last.
Doubtful since the timing of the leak would mean the codex would have already gone to print.
We never (to my knowledge) had a description of what the new bikers looked like, nor was there ever a statement that there were images of the new bikers in the codex, etc. Also the source for the new biker minis in the big rumordump is different from clockworkchris/ok_entrepreneur/codex content. Its entirely possible that the rumordump source was aware of details of model production, but not codex data (which makes sense since for the most part that source did not offer details about rules content, just minis, with the sole exception of some vague details about Black Templar rules).
As for the codex rumors themselves, hasn't it been said on multiple occasions that the info in the book was from an early playtest draft and was subject to change? That alone would imply that the publication status of the codex with regards to leak timing is irrelevant.
The VERY ACCURATE rumor dump clearly said new bikes. Even without a description of what they'd look like that's hard to misinterpret.
Yes. Which doesn't preclude the fact that new bikes are coming, just not with the codex. The same VERY ACCURATE rumor dump also said that chaos would come before aeldari and knights, and yet...
No it didn’t. It said Tau in January, and then ‘in no as-of-yet defined order’, CSM, Knights and Eldar.
I'd say 'at least bikers didn't get cut' but with what the kit looks like and what they've been reduced to, I'm actually thinking that would have been better. As opposed to leaving them there as not-really-a-unit that salts the wound with its presence.
tneva82 wrote: Combt patrols don't introduce new kits so far
Combat Patrol Orks had the new Deffkoptas, Warboss, and Ork Boyz.
I can't recall 100% if the Aeldari Guardians were available the same week as the Combat Patrol with them.
Marines (but not the KT sprue), Havocs, Dread, Apostle (and friends)
The May announcement of the CP is one of the reasons I'm baffled that the codex isn't on the horizon yet.
Ah yes I thought there had been something announced, not a chaos fan so hadn't registered it. Seems odd then with the reliable rumour list featuring them- maybe they'll come as World Eaters.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I don't think that the big rumordump mentioned any HH units, did it?
Anyways, we now have 4 kits (Raptors, Terminators, Cultist Warband, and Bikers) that have been reboxed with new rules and are out in the wild and available to purchase. So, does this mean that the codex is soon? Or that it was supposed to be, and has been delayed, for some reason?
It seems fairly evident that it was intended to come out either end of last year or early this year, they drummed up the year of chaos in November, they ran previews for the new chaos stuff in the boxset in December and haven't so much as hinted at releasing the units individually yet.
The wave in January sticks out like a spre thumb at this point and I imagine they were meant to form a new release sandwich near Christmas with chaos and eldar, but due to the release scheduling issues couldn't fit them both in.
I thinknit was the eldar calendar leaker who said they thought it might be a dual release.
I don't think that the models in the Chaos vs Eldar box were ever intended to be part of the main CSM codex release. Remember, all of the rules for those models included in the box were 8th edition rules. Those rules would have been printed ahead of time. So, I don't think it was ever meant to line up with the full release.
Voss wrote:
silverstu wrote: Well there's no Chaos Marine combat patrol - new bikes could be in a new Combat patrol box?
Marines (but not the KT sprue), Havocs, Dread, Apostle (and friends)
The May announcement of the CP is one of the reasons I'm baffled that the codex isn't on the horizon yet.
So, possibly they've had production/distribution problems? Maybe CSM were intended to be before HH, but they missed their release window, and don't want to take focus off of the big HH release with CSM?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Erm. Chaos Bikers build instructions leaked. This is weird, because they're the same models, which makes this the first time that I'm aware of that the big model leak was wrong, and the rules don't match up with what was leaked by ClockworkChris:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Erm. Chaos Bikers build instructions leaked. This is weird, because they're the same models, which makes this the first time that I'm aware of that the big model leak was wrong, and the rules don't match up with what was leaked by ClockworkChris:
It matches the boxed contents. There’s a chance the codex will still allow upgrade options, but that seems unlikely. This codex, aside from new kits, is looking pretty lame. Much remains to be seen but no model = no rules is not helping this army out. Lost almost all our options for gun upgrades, it seems like. Far fewer in a list, and not much to replace them with but boltguns.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But if they arrive with World Eaters, wouldn't they be "World Eater Bikers*"?
*Or "Slickblood Speedslashers" or whatever they end up being called.
Skullgrind Roadragers, of course.
I wonder if GW is holding bikes back for World Eaters but when they do release, they have a basic bike sprue and a specific sprue for both World Eaters and generic Chaos Marines, and for some reason releasing the generic box now would somehow give away their game and they'd rather wait until they're ready to show World Eater models.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Erm. Chaos Bikers build instructions leaked. This is weird, because they're the same models, which makes this the first time that I'm aware of that the big model leak was wrong, and the rules don't match up with what was leaked by ClockworkChris:
Perhaps there are "Primaris" bikes in addition to the old ones?
Why in the world would bikes get an 'upgraded' version? Let alone a 'primaris' equivalent that didn't happen for the rest of the army?
----
A WE unit seems much more likely
Not "primaris", but giving CSM a "+1" version of another unit wouldn't be something new. Chosen are basically "CSM +1", and Warp Talons are "Raptors +1", essentially.
Yeah, that's the kind of thing that I was thinking about. In the same way that Warp Talons are "Daemonic Raptors". Possibly melded to their bikes? Or, perchance to wonder, melded to HH pattern jet-bikes? Would you imagine the salt from loyalists?
CSM fans deserve that salt from loyalist fanbois tbh. They should do it just as an apology for all the crap CSM players have had to deal with since the 3.5 codex.
Obviously they're saving bikes for the Emperor's Children release, which will debut in a boxset with Doomrider. Maybe against white scars or speed freakz.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It matches the boxed contents. There’s a chance the codex will still allow upgrade options, but that seems unlikely. This codex, aside from new kits, is looking pretty lame. Much remains to be seen but no model = no rules is not helping this army out. Lost almost all our options for gun upgrades, it seems like. Far fewer in a list, and not much to replace them with but boltguns.
Yeah despite awesome new art and some cool cultists and model reworks (Prince/Possesed) there is little to nothing to look forward.
-Limited weapon options basically kill the old charm of optimising units through equipment
-Limiting CC Weapons to Accursed Weapons and leaving them as is takes away a lot of flexibility as well
-Playtest Leaks show that many rules have not been properly reworked but instead just translated. This is really a shame considering how almost all other 9th Ed books were really doing heavy reworks to distinguish the faction from 8th Ed rules. This hurts especially when viewing it in context of the recent aeldari rework.
-The rumoured Chaos doctrine approach would be simply a copy and adjust from loyalists. This again would really solidify the feel of GWdevs simply not caring about CSM. Make them like marines but with spikes and slightly altered rules
-New book already puts the faction in a bad spotlight regarding the meta. I see little to no real answers to vehicles. We can tickle the enemy to death with S5 -3 D1 attacks but in the end we will struggle to destroy a rhino or to finish that 5 man squad of primaris. Considering how everything became more killy this edition this agains leaves a very sour taste.
-WE players are in a bad spot as they propably will loose access to half their army. Once again some bad feels here.
It feels like the book was planned and balanced to come along the SM and Necron book and was delayed for some reason. As the 3-4th book of the edition it would be nuts and no one would complain to see a copy of the cool new marines doctrine we already know. Right now it feels rather like a slight insult, that for one of the last codexes they didn’t come up with something better than just a copy of an existing rule…in worse.
I also had the weird thought that they maybe just scrapped the cool ideas for the 10th Ed Codex which may come next year as some folks believe. Instead of wasting good new ideas they just reheat old stuff. Why bother doing creative work twice, huh?
GW releases for Chaos Factions were a mess in the recent past anyway. Releasing a 8th Ed Codex 2.0 because of so mich bloat, just to drop and invalidate a lot of it with a new edition and a gakload of campaign books later, was really a dickmove. I really feel like a repetition is incoming. They did btw similar to Slaves to Darkness in AOS, too. Released their first proper army book with rules that lacked any depths, only to release a lot of additions in a campaign 1 month later. The book was awfully off between fluff and rules, too.
It just seems GW has no designers with a spark of passion for Chaos.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It matches the boxed contents. There’s a chance the codex will still allow upgrade options, but that seems unlikely. This codex, aside from new kits, is looking pretty lame. Much remains to be seen but no model = no rules is not helping this army out. Lost almost all our options for gun upgrades, it seems like. Far fewer in a list, and not much to replace them with but boltguns.
Yeah despite awesome new art and some cool cultists and model reworks (Prince/Possesed) there is little to nothing to look forward.
-Limited weapon options basically kill the old charm of optimising units through equipment
-Limiting CC Weapons to Accursed Weapons and leaving them as is takes away a lot of flexibility as well
-Playtest Leaks show that many rules have not been properly reworked but instead just translated. This is really a shame considering how almost all other 9th Ed books were really doing heavy reworks to distinguish the faction from 8th Ed rules. This hurts especially when viewing it in context of the recent aeldari rework.
-The rumoured Chaos doctrine approach would be simply a copy and adjust from loyalists. This again would really solidify the feel of GWdevs simply not caring about CSM. Make them like marines but with spikes and slightly altered rules
-New book already puts the faction in a bad spotlight regarding the meta. I see little to no real answers to vehicles. We can tickle the enemy to death with S5 -3 D1 attacks but in the end we will struggle to destroy a rhino or to finish that 5 man squad of primaris. Considering how everything became more killy this edition this agains leaves a very sour taste.
-WE players are in a bad spot as they propably will loose access to half their army. Once again some bad feels here.
It feels like the book was planned and balanced to come along the SM and Necron book and was delayed for some reason. As the 3-4th book of the edition it would be nuts and no one would complain to see a copy of the cool new marines doctrine we already know. Right now it feels rather like a slight insult, that for one of the last codexes they didn’t come up with something better than just a copy of an existing rule…in worse.
I also had the weird thought that they maybe just scrapped the cool ideas for the 10th Ed Codex which may come next year as some folks believe. Instead of wasting good new ideas they just reheat old stuff. Why bother doing creative work twice, huh?
GW releases for Chaos Factions were a mess in the recent past anyway. Releasing a 8th Ed Codex 2.0 because of so mich bloat, just to drop and invalidate a lot of it with a new edition and a gakload of campaign books later, was really a dickmove. I really feel like a repetition is incoming. They did btw similar to Slaves to Darkness in AOS, too. Released their first proper army book with rules that lacked any depths, only to release a lot of additions in a campaign 1 month later. The book was awfully off between fluff and rules, too.
It just seems GW has no designers with a spark of passion for Chaos.
I agree, the rumors of Lords having no jet packs really pisses me off the most. Lords in general look like gak now, with no mobility or bodyguard blobs theyre going to be killed pretty much instantly.
All the other cuts like Chosen and Terms having weird options ruins so much of my current armies. My Night Lords are literally unplayable now unless I tear apart my Chosen and winged HQs.
We don't seem to be getting a big feth you unit either, we are back to being Space Marines Lite with just a dash of demon seasoning.
New models are really cool, but when I'm going to be putting them back in the bag on turn 2 is it even worth it?
I agree that what we've seen so far is disappointing, particularly "Spiky Doctrines" and the loss of jump packs for characters. But I still feel the need to remember that what we've seen is from an old playtest doc, and we've already seen that it was incomplete, lacking at least two new units. And since it's "old", it's entirely possible that this particular playtest doc does originate from early 9th, and therefore a lot of things could have been changed since then. In short, I'd like to see something more concrete before labeling the codex as DOA.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I agree that what we've seen so far is disappointing, particularly "Spiky Doctrines" and the loss of jump packs for characters. But I still feel the need to remember that what we've seen is from an old playtest doc, and we've already seen that it was incomplete, lacking at least two new units. And since it's "old", it's entirely possible that this particular playtest doc does originate from early 9th, and therefore a lot of things could have been changed since then. In short, I'd like to see something more concrete before labeling the codex as DOA.
That's a lot of words to say, 'wait and see'. You'll wind up becoming a pariah with that kind of talk!
Gadzilla666 wrote: I agree that what we've seen so far is disappointing, particularly "Spiky Doctrines" and the loss of jump packs for characters. But I still feel the need to remember that what we've seen is from an old playtest doc, and we've already seen that it was incomplete, lacking at least two new units. And since it's "old", it's entirely possible that this particular playtest doc does originate from early 9th, and therefore a lot of things could have been changed since then. In short, I'd like to see something more concrete before labeling the codex as DOA.
This. Goes hand in hand with my prior statement regarding bikers coming at a later date too.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I agree that what we've seen so far is disappointing, particularly "Spiky Doctrines" and the loss of jump packs for characters. But I still feel the need to remember that what we've seen is from an old playtest doc, and we've already seen that it was incomplete, lacking at least two new units. And since it's "old", it's entirely possible that this particular playtest doc does originate from early 9th, and therefore a lot of things could have been changed since then. In short, I'd like to see something more concrete before labeling the codex as DOA.
I sure hope so, but GW has conditioned me to never have faith in my army getting support. Hell I play my Blood Angels and Templars more than my Chaos Marines and both of those armies were my "just collecting for fun" armies
Gadzilla666 wrote: I agree that what we've seen so far is disappointing, particularly "Spiky Doctrines" and the loss of jump packs for characters. But I still feel the need to remember that what we've seen is from an old playtest doc, and we've already seen that it was incomplete, lacking at least two new units. And since it's "old", it's entirely possible that this particular playtest doc does originate from early 9th, and therefore a lot of things could have been changed since then. In short, I'd like to see something more concrete before labeling the codex as DOA.
I sure hope so, but GW has conditioned me to never have faith in my army getting support. Hell I play my Blood Angels and Templars more than my Chaos Marines and both of those armies were my "just collecting for fun" armies
Oh, I definitely understand that feeling, as the handling of CSM for the past 15 years after the loss of 3.5 haven't been very encouraging. But what we've seen so far has been incomplete and "weird" enough to make me think that at least some of it was a "work in progress". I fully expect that the "you get what's in the kit" weapon options for units like Terminators and Chosen to stick, as it's par for the course for gw in 9th edition codexes. But I have some (slight) hopes for our special rules and character options, as separating different character builds into separate datasheets is also par for the course for gw in 9th. So it's entirely possible that just like Traitor Guardsmen and the "Cultist Warband" those datasheets were just not included in the playtest doc.
Hopefully we'll see something solid soon, as the waiting is becoming a meme, at this point.
Edit: And finally they give us something. Thanks Chaos0xomega. Well spotted. Maybe now that the current HH hype is moving into "release mode" we'll finally get more CSM information.
And please, please, please, don't let "Let the Galaxy Burn" be "Spiky Doctrines".
Something interesting I just noticed in the article, the last photo at the bottom, the greater possessed minis are in the background of the shot, but not standing near/in coherency with the new minis. I wonder if that means that they will be in the codex when it releases after all as a standalone unit option rather than just being extra possessed minis that you can use to bulk up your unit.
I'm also wondering if the Master of Possession might have some Possessed specific buffs to dish out, maybe an Aura.
chaos0xomega wrote: Something interesting I just noticed in the article, the last photo at the bottom, the greater possessed minis are in the background of the shot, but not standing near/in coherency with the new minis. I wonder if that means that they will be in the codex when it releases after all as a standalone unit option rather than just being extra possessed minis that you can use to bulk up your unit.
I'm also wondering if the Master of Possession might have some Possessed specific buffs to dish out, maybe an Aura.
Considering that Greater Possessed are currently CHARACTER units that buff DAEMON (most likely to be changed to DAEMONKIN in the new codex), that would make sense. It would also really help out in building a pure/heavy DAEMONKIN army.
Voss wrote: Though... for a unit of explicitly up to 10, anyone spot _anything_ in the pics that suggests these models aren't a monopose set of five?
I don't think there's anything to spot. I doubt the studio has more than exactly those five models, regardless of whether they're monopose or have options. Best we can hope for in that regard is an article with employee/influencer models for a hint, or someone getting their hands on the sprues and posting them.
There's a particular wisdom behind the 'wait and see' point though.
You can't control the future and you can't change the past, so why worry? There's much gnashing of teeth and flapping of gums when it comes to Warhammer (I'm not immune to such proclivities), but less time fussing is more time living.
Possessed getting 26 attacks for a squad of 5 at str 5, ap -2, dam 2 is pretty juicy. That's base, not including marks, icons, legion traits, or doctrines.
drbored wrote: There's a particular wisdom behind the 'wait and see' point though.
No there isn't. The 'wait and see' crowd will keep saying 'wait and see' no matter how much information is available. Even when the book is out the FAQ becomes the next 'wait and see' point.
You can't control the future and you can't change the past, so why worry?
That's probably the most blighted, nihilistic viewpoint I've encountered in a while. Even confining it to a discussion about wargames, dumpstering planning and consideration of consequences feels real weird.
There's much gnashing of teeth and flapping of gums when it comes to Warhammer (I'm not immune to such proclivities), but less time fussing is more time living.
'Fussing' isn't a zero-sum game. Neither is discussion. Both are part of life, not in opposition to it.
Plus, sometimes people want to simply discuss things, not pretend they're changing corporate behavior or feel the need to gatekeep what other people are allowed to talk about.
Voss wrote: Plus, sometimes people want to simply discuss things, not pretend they're changing corporate behavior or feel the need to gatekeep what other people are allowed to talk about.
Well, if you're not gatekeeping, just let people wait and see what happens.
For what it's worth I seem to recall Custodes were worthless trash at release until they suddenly won everything?
Voss wrote: Plus, sometimes people want to simply discuss things, not pretend they're changing corporate behavior or feel the need to gatekeep what other people are allowed to talk about.
Well, if you're not gatekeeping, just let people wait and see what happens.
Let's not twist things. 'wait and see' almost always has a 'stop talking, haters' component to it.
Voss wrote: Plus, sometimes people want to simply discuss things, not pretend they're changing corporate behavior or feel the need to gatekeep what other people are allowed to talk about.
Well, if you're not gatekeeping, just let people wait and see what happens.
Let's not twist things. 'wait and see' almost always has a 'stop talking, haters' component to it.
Yeah in this case we genuinely don't have a complete picture and there's people claiming the codex is dead on arrival etc. We do actually need to wait and see to get a final verdict on how "good" it will be as a book, by all means postulate on what we do have, but we're lacking a lot of info right now still.
I think that the bottom picture is just using the 5 possessed figures, a dark apostle and, a starter set. I too was disappointed in the sonic link. I'm trying to look forward to making a slightly competitive EC army but the future is Grimdark.
These rules look amazing. I do hope that the Death Guard possessed get upgraded stats to match the CSM ones. Though they do get the plague weapons and DR abilities, not to these new possessed, the DG ones are looking a little weak.
Binabik15 wrote:I just love the models, I don't actually play. But if I did, I have a ton of converted possessed already *laughs in Word Bearer*
I wonder if World Eaters will keep them or get Megaslaughterer Mutationblooders instead.
Considering how prominent Khorne Daemonkin have been in the game and lore (there's a small section dedicated to them on pg. 51 of the current codex), I have no doubt that possessed will be there. Maybe we could get mutilators as well.
Voss wrote: Plus, sometimes people want to simply discuss things, not pretend they're changing corporate behavior or feel the need to gatekeep what other people are allowed to talk about.
Well, if you're not gatekeeping, just let people wait and see what happens.
For what it's worth I seem to recall Custodes were worthless trash at release until they suddenly won everything?
At the time there was basically a subsect of the Custodes player base - largely a causal, not a competitive one - which basically engaged primarily with many mediocre units in the Custodes range (and correctly) recognised a lot of Custodes units ... weren't actually all that great. Later on it became apparent Custodes had a strong selection of meta units, and these came to dominate the powerful 'winning every tournie' lists.
One thing I noticed is that in the bottom picture, the two greater possessed models are in the back. It's my hope that they get bundled with the Master of Possession, maybe as some kind of support or body bodyguard unit, like Zardu Layak's Blade Guard.
Ok, so, M9 to kinda sorta make up for those of us with units with full wings modelled.
I believe that the studio probably only has 1 set of these painted up, but I suspect that each Possessed mini will have a whopping two configurations of tentacles/spikes/heads. Certainly nothing like the current kit, or even something like the endlessly adaptable Spawn kit.
Of course now we have a division of rules for the same units between Codices. I doubt Death Guard will get an update. They get "old and busted" Possessed whilst CSM get the "new hotness" Possessed.
And yes, I did just make a Men in Black reference from 25 years ago.
Voss wrote: No there isn't. The 'wait and see' crowd will keep saying 'wait and see' no matter how much information is available. Even when the book is out the FAQ becomes the next 'wait and see' point.
Exactly. We've (waited and) seen the 'Wait an See' crowd say 'Wait and See' at every step of a journey up to and even after release. They appear to be terrified of committing to any sort of concrete opinion.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ok, so, M9 to kinda sorta make up for those of us with units with full wings modelled.
I believe that the studio probably only has 1 set of these painted up, but I suspect that each Possessed mini will have a whopping two configurations of tentacles/spikes/heads. Certainly nothing like the current kit, or even something like the endlessly adaptable Spawn kit.
Of course now we have a division of rules for the same units between Codices. I doubt Death Guard will get an update. They get "old and busted" Possessed whilst CSM get the "new hotness" Possessed.
And yes, I did just make a Men in Black reference from 25 years ago.
Voss wrote: No there isn't. The 'wait and see' crowd will keep saying 'wait and see' no matter how much information is available. Even when the book is out the FAQ becomes the next 'wait and see' point.
Exactly. We've (waited and) seen the 'Wait an See' crowd say 'Wait and See' at every step of a journey up to and even after release. They appear to be terrified of committing to any sort of concrete opinion.
Most of the time I see 'wait and see' in regards to FAQs that invariably end up coming. Remember Leviathan and Crusher Stampede? 'Wait and see' crowd was like "yeah wait to see what GW does with that, but I bet you they're going to disallow it" and sure enough, that's what happened. How about that.
Yes, the more we see, the more it confirms what's been leaked. As ever, the last thing we'll discover will be points values, and that usually is where various units will succeed or die.
But hey, gnash your teeth all you want, doesn't change my plan. I'll be buying the new possessed and enjoying the heck out of painting those wild dudes. Whether or not they are broken or balanced or useless matters a lot less to me, and I'll have saved myself a lot of high-blood-pressure-evenings worrying about what might be instead of what is.
I'm usually in the "wait and see" crowd until we have the full codex available because until then we're not looking at the actual full picture and we've been mislead by incomplete information before.
I am also in the "wait and See" crowd. This does not mean i do not have an opinion about some of the spoilerd rules ( don't like them at all) or models (nice!) .
But untill i have held them in my hands i will try to stand away from absolute and final judgement.
Because i have seem to many "broken" Rules/units that never made it and enough "ugly" models that i had to own once i had seen them live.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ok, so, M9 to kinda sorta make up for those of us with units with full wings modelled.
I believe that the studio probably only has 1 set of these painted up, but I suspect that each Possessed mini will have a whopping two configurations of tentacles/spikes/heads. Certainly nothing like the current kit, or even something like the endlessly adaptable Spawn kit.
Of course now we have a division of rules for the same units between Codices. I doubt Death Guard will get an update. They get "old and busted" Possessed whilst CSM get the "new hotness" Possessed.
And yes, I did just make a Men in Black reference from 25 years ago.
Voss wrote: No there isn't. The 'wait and see' crowd will keep saying 'wait and see' no matter how much information is available. Even when the book is out the FAQ becomes the next 'wait and see' point.
Exactly. We've (waited and) seen the 'Wait an See' crowd say 'Wait and See' at every step of a journey up to and even after release. They appear to be terrified of committing to any sort of concrete opinion.
Most of the time I see 'wait and see' in regards to FAQs that invariably end up coming. Remember Leviathan and Crusher Stampede? 'Wait and see' crowd was like "yeah wait to see what GW does with that, but I bet you they're going to disallow it" and sure enough, that's what happened. How about that.
Yes, the more we see, the more it confirms what's been leaked. As ever, the last thing we'll discover will be points values, and that usually is where various units will succeed or die.
But hey, gnash your teeth all you want, doesn't change my plan. I'll be buying the new possessed and enjoying the heck out of painting those wild dudes. Whether or not they are broken or balanced or useless matters a lot less to me, and I'll have saved myself a lot of high-blood-pressure-evenings worrying about what might be instead of what is.
Great. But 'your plan' wasn't the issue. It was the self-righteous 'wait and see, so stop discussing rumors, you aren't really living' proclamation that you started with. Whenever the 'wait and see' card is pulled at this point, its less about a theoretical 'people are overreacting' (because generally its the W & S folks over-reacting to hearing things they don't like) and more about shutting down discussion.
"Wait and see (we only have shreds of information and so any conclusion drawn at this point is speculative at most)."
"Wait and see (I see that your concerns are valid based on the evidence we have but there is a chance things will be different when we have the whole picture so we shouldn't pass judgement yet)."
"Wait and see (sometimes things end up being different than they initially appear so I am dismissing your concerns without acknowledging them)."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Its kind of the reality of the game, but you need to know all the buff architecture to judge a unit these days.
Call it 40~ points and its probably okay. Much lower and its getting obnoxious by obvious comparisons. Much higher and they are turning into a bad unit.
"Wait and see (we only have shreds of information and so any conclusion drawn at this point is speculative at most)."
"Wait and see (I see that your concerns are valid based on the evidence we have but there is a chance things will be different when we have the whole picture so we shouldn't pass judgement yet)."
"Wait and see (sometimes things end up being different than they initially appear so I am dismissing your concerns without acknowledging them)."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Four limbs and a bite, makes sense.
I'm usually on the first two.
And with CSM being Primaris +1 on the attack profile I see nothing off about Possesses being 5 attacks.
So what are we supposed to do with our greater possessed models? I'd be willing to bet that most people who own them have an even number of them and it's fewer than 5.
I'm hoping that there is an entry for greater possessed but keeps them as characters rather than units.
BTW how long have the greater possessed models been available? I don't think it's been that long so I don't see GW getting rid of them that quickly.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So what are we supposed to do with our greater possessed models? I'd be willing to bet that most people who own them have an even number of them and it's fewer than 5.
I'm hoping that there is an entry for greater possessed but keeps them as characters rather than units.
BTW how long have the greater possessed models been available? I don't think it's been that long so I don't see GW getting rid of them that quickly.
You buy a box of possessed and run 7 I guess? You're right, most people will have 2, so making them an easy add on to possessed boxes is a winner.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Do we know the minimum unit size for possessed? It could be 2 to allow for the greater possessed models to be used.
Didn’t the article say 5 to 10? With the new combat patrol, the start collecting may be discontinued and only a few of the models in it repackaged for individual or group sale
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ok, so, M9 to kinda sorta make up for those of us with units with full wings modelled.
I believe that the studio probably only has 1 set of these painted up, but I suspect that each Possessed mini will have a whopping two configurations of tentacles/spikes/heads. Certainly nothing like the current kit, or even something like the endlessly adaptable Spawn kit.
Of course now we have a division of rules for the same units between Codices. I doubt Death Guard will get an update. They get "old and busted" Possessed whilst CSM get the "new hotness" Possessed.
And yes, I did just make a Men in Black reference from 25 years ago.
Voss wrote: No there isn't. The 'wait and see' crowd will keep saying 'wait and see' no matter how much information is available. Even when the book is out the FAQ becomes the next 'wait and see' point.
Exactly. We've (waited and) seen the 'Wait an See' crowd say 'Wait and See' at every step of a journey up to and even after release. They appear to be terrified of committing to any sort of concrete opinion.
Most of the time I see 'wait and see' in regards to FAQs that invariably end up coming. Remember Leviathan and Crusher Stampede? 'Wait and see' crowd was like "yeah wait to see what GW does with that, but I bet you they're going to disallow it" and sure enough, that's what happened. How about that.
Yes, the more we see, the more it confirms what's been leaked. As ever, the last thing we'll discover will be points values, and that usually is where various units will succeed or die.
But hey, gnash your teeth all you want, doesn't change my plan. I'll be buying the new possessed and enjoying the heck out of painting those wild dudes. Whether or not they are broken or balanced or useless matters a lot less to me, and I'll have saved myself a lot of high-blood-pressure-evenings worrying about what might be instead of what is.
Great. But 'your plan' wasn't the issue. It was the self-righteous 'wait and see, so stop discussing rumors, you aren't really living' proclamation that you started with. Whenever the 'wait and see' card is pulled at this point, its less about a theoretical 'people are overreacting' (because generally its the W & S folks over-reacting to hearing things they don't like) and more about shutting down discussion.
So, yeah, if someone is saying 'wait and see, so quit discussing rumors' that's pretty lame, but I don't see that.
What I see happening instead is something like... Person A will be yammering on and on, inconsolable about some thing that is happening but they don't know for 100% certainty that it's happening.
Person B, C, D, and E come in and they really have nothing else to add to that conversation. Person A went on and covered all the points in their massive tirade, and it's clear that every other interaction with Person A has simply devolved into inane pedantery, but Person B, C, D, and E want to sort of... make their presence known?
In other words, I see 'wait and see', especially used in this topic, as a "Well, yeah, sucks, what else can you do?" or "I guess we'll see" or "yeah..................." Basically a non-answer to Person A's ongoing rambling.
If you think that my posts were self-righteous, then yes, they absolutely were, because at the end of the day I'm not fuming over what someone said on Dakkadakka to the point that I have to call out their self-righteousness
Obviously, this is the internet, any attempt at shutting down discussion is pointless. I can no more stop you from posting your personal attacks on me as I can stop the sun from shining, but what I *can* and often *do* do is step away and go build some plastic models or watch some YouTube or pet my cat or literally anything else, because it's generally more enjoyable.
My usual wait and see is more a "I see people getting spun up on X but we don't know Y or Z and assuming those points could mean this *seems* worse than it is".
Like, for example from earlier in the thread, we know they're taking certain melee options off the datasheets proper. What we don't know is what is on the melee weapons wargear list or who gets access to said list.
That said, I still respect that people are concerned about the worst case scenario I just try to not let myself ride the hyper train or the doom train too soon. I just don't have the mental energy to be that mad or excited all the time. Working retail is enough of a tax so I'd rather join in trying to unwravel things as we go and see what's coming while trying to keep my own knee jerk reactions under control.
Speaking of keeping things under control, listening to Primogenitor has me looking at those Traitor Guard and going "those would make nice Gland Hounds" so maybe what I really need to do is stop listening to 40k fiction.
Just FYI in case anyone missed it. At the bottom of the heresy per-order is this months white dwarf cover clearly shows it includes index world eater. So probably codex preorder by middle of month?
Just FYI in case anyone missed it. At the bottom of the heresy per-order is this months white dwarf cover clearly shows it includes index world eater. So probably codex preorder by middle of month?
There is a bunch of rumors floating around about the new CA coming out too. We also have the AoS books. I think it's a tossup in whatever order they come out, but it sure seems like they would push out the CSM dex with the WD coming out.
Just FYI in case anyone missed it. At the bottom of the heresy per-order is this months white dwarf cover clearly shows it includes index world eater. So probably codex preorder by middle of month?
There is a bunch of rumors floating around about the new CA coming out too. We also have the AoS books. I think it's a tossup in whatever order they come out, but it sure seems like they would push out the CSM dex with the WD coming out.
Based on previous behaviour I'd expect:
Today's preview to be a made-to-order filler week, thanks to the two-week HH preorder
Next week is AOS Battletomes that have already started with slow preview articles, with preorder on the 18th
CSM rules & kit previews gradually ramp up during June, with preorders on June 25th or 2nd July.
They may slot in something like new Necromunda stuff in between
"Wait and see (we only have shreds of information and so any conclusion drawn at this point is speculative at most)."
"Wait and see (I see that your concerns are valid based on the evidence we have but there is a chance things will be different when we have the whole picture so we shouldn't pass judgement yet)."
"Wait and see (sometimes things end up being different than they initially appear so I am dismissing your concerns without acknowledging them)."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Four limbs and a bite, makes sense.
Do Genestealers also have five attacks (four limbs and a bite)?
Garrac wrote: Um, are there rumours about the traitor guard? I would love to know how the corrupted comissar is going to be added to the codex
None yet. It seems that they were missing from the playtest doc from which most of the current leaks originate, possibly similar to how the Beastsnagga units were missing from the rules given to playtestors for Orks.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Based on the WD cover I'd say that WE are only gettng a Mini-Codex. I think that the way it's phrased means the Codex is in that issue.
Caveat- I don't speak British English so I may be wrong.
Yes, WD mini-Dex until their full Codex releases. GW stated that a while ago.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Based on the WD cover I'd say that WE are only gettng a Mini-Codex. I think that the way it's phrased means the Codex is in that issue.
Caveat- I don't speak British English so I may be wrong.
"Wait and see (we only have shreds of information and so any conclusion drawn at this point is speculative at most)."
"Wait and see (I see that your concerns are valid based on the evidence we have but there is a chance things will be different when we have the whole picture so we shouldn't pass judgement yet)."
"Wait and see (sometimes things end up being different than they initially appear so I am dismissing your concerns without acknowledging them)."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Four limbs and a bite, makes sense.
Do Genestealers also have five attacks (four limbs and a bite)?
They have 4, but they also cost a whole 13 points.
Ok_Entrepreneur3004 You can make a daemon force 25% of your force and it won't make you lose your legion rules
When asked if Death Guard and 1000 Sons were counted for this as well:
Any chaos faction
Also a pretty specific note to "wait for the Chaos Daemons book". The posts regarding Daemons seems to be implying heavily that Daemons are going to be a "Knights" style faction.
Ok_Entrepreneur3004
You can make a daemon force 25% of your force and it won't make you lose your legion rules
When asked if Death Guard and 1000 Sons were counted for this as well:
Any chaos faction
Also a pretty specific note to "wait for the Chaos Daemons book". The posts regarding Daemons seems to be implying heavily that Daemons are going to be a "Knights" style faction.
Ooh. So, Thousand Sons PLUS Daemons PLUS a Knight. Sounds... fun.
"Wait and see (we only have shreds of information and so any conclusion drawn at this point is speculative at most)."
"Wait and see (I see that your concerns are valid based on the evidence we have but there is a chance things will be different when we have the whole picture so we shouldn't pass judgement yet)."
"Wait and see (sometimes things end up being different than they initially appear so I am dismissing your concerns without acknowledging them)."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Four limbs and a bite, makes sense.
Do Genestealers also have five attacks (four limbs and a bite)?
Six limbs and a bite makes seven, but only one mind per body means it gets halved to 3.5, rounded up to 4. Possessed have two beings per body so don't have to half. The logic is very consistent.
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Not if their costed correctly. But its a new kit and they need them to move so they'll be under costed for at least a few months.
That said possessed are going to be crazy with the Malefic discipline, Legion Trait, Marks, Icons, and Stratagems.
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Not if their costed correctly. But its a new kit and they need them to move so they'll be under costed for at least a few months.
That said possessed are going to be crazy with the Malefic discipline, Legion Trait, Marks, Icons, and Stratagems.
I'm guessing they're probably gonna lose Icons, but who knows?
It looks like one. OtOH I would say that any model could be carrying an Icon since there's no definition of one in the game. An Icon IRL could be anything from a tooth of a Saint up to a banner or burial shroud. So if your opponent says I don't see an Icon on that unit you can always respond by saying it's in that model's pocket.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: It looks like one. OtOH I would say that any model could be carrying an Icon since there's no definition of one in the game. An Icon IRL could be anything from a tooth of a Saint up to a banner or burial shroud. So if your opponent says I don't see an Icon on that unit you can always respond by saying it's in that model's pocket.
Ehhh....I seriously doubt that's how gw will see it when they decide which units can and cannot take an Icon. H.B.M.C is probably right: if there isn't something that gw considers an "Icon" in the actual kit, they won't be able to take one, unfortunately.
Ok_Entrepreneur3004
You can make a daemon force 25% of your force and it won't make you lose your legion rules
When asked if Death Guard and 1000 Sons were counted for this as well:
Any chaos faction
Also a pretty specific note to "wait for the Chaos Daemons book". The posts regarding Daemons seems to be implying heavily that Daemons are going to be a "Knights" style faction.
Ooh. So, Thousand Sons PLUS Daemons PLUS a Knight. Sounds... fun.
I think the main thing is that the icons are very loose with their interpretation of what god they fall under.
The Chosen kit has a relatively small icon, but it does have the 4 chaos gods' symbols to swap out. The Chaos Marines, by comparison, have 2 icons that are both generic enough to be anything.
The Possessed looks like the latter, a generic chaos star that you can count as any of the icons.
At the very least, that means that if the icon rules change in the future, you won't have to go chopping icons off to swap them out or anything.
Yeah, if the relevant HH vehicles are in the chaos book I'm ready to forgive, but I'm not going to "wait and see" on that, because I'm pretty sure thats not the way its gonna go.
I just noticed that they didn't give the Kratos the Armor of Contempt rule on the datasheet - does that mean it doesn't get it?
I just noticed that they didn't give the Kratos the Armor of Contempt rule on the datasheet - does that mean it doesn't get it?
I don't think so. No datasheet has the AoC rule- its a property of the 'universal matched play rules' granted by the Q2 balance slate.
Like everything else in those factions, it gets AoC in any circumstance that dataslate is valid. AoC could drop off the next dataslate, or be part of the rules temporarily as long as dataslates last. Much like necron CORE changes carried over from the first dataslate to this one (it isn't actually an errata to the necron codex or FAQ).
Only way that will change, apparently, is the next codex.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, if the relevant HH vehicles are in the chaos book I'm ready to forgive, but I'm not going to "wait and see" on that, because I'm pretty sure thats not the way its gonna go.
I just noticed that they didn't give the Kratos the Armor of Contempt rule on the datasheet - does that mean it doesn't get it?
It's a big stretch but I'm hoping HH is the reason behind its delay now.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, if the relevant HH vehicles are in the chaos book I'm ready to forgive, but I'm not going to "wait and see" on that, because I'm pretty sure thats not the way its gonna go.
I just noticed that they didn't give the Kratos the Armor of Contempt rule on the datasheet - does that mean it doesn't get it?
Does it have relevant keywords? If yes then it has it.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
The Power Level and Points are odd... 22 PL would normally translate to about 440 points, but it is only 335 points for all upgrades. Feels like they forgot to include the points for most of the weapon swaps.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
The Power Level and Points are odd... 22 PL would normally translate to about 440 points, but it is only 335 points for all upgrades. Feels like they forgot to include the points for most of the weapon swaps.
The main gun is probably free, but the 4 secondary weapons and autocannon all have their own prices.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
The Power Level and Points are odd... 22 PL would normally translate to about 440 points, but it is only 335 points for all upgrades. Feels like they forgot to include the points for most of the weapon swaps.
The main gun is probably free, but the 4 secondary weapons and autocannon all have their own prices.
They do not. Everything is included in the base cost with the sole exceptions of the HK missile and if you pick a multimelta to bolt on the roof (but combi-flamer, combi-melta-, combi-plasma, combi-volkite, havoc launcher, heavy bolter, heavy flamer and twin bolter are all the same and free). For the sponsons and hull mounts, every paired option is free and interchangeable, even if some are flatly better (or worse).
Also @Eightfoldpath, its HS, not LOW, so technically his prediction is off. Though kudos for martial legacy and no chaos version ;(
While it not being available for Chaos sucks for you Traitors, I did note this and wonder if some sort of revision may be on the way for the Forge World units.
Martial Legacy: If your army is Battle-forged, then when this unit is included in a Detachment, increase that Detachment’s Command Cost by 1CP.
This means if you can refund the cost of the detachment, the Martial Legacy unit cost no CP.
I don't think there's any way to refund the cost of detachments? The "refund" often mentioned is actually written has "+X Command Points if your warlord is part of this detachment", where X is the usual cost of the detachment.
For a Patrol, it's +2, and patrols cost 2 CP. Making a Patrol cost 3 CP with Martial Legacy would not change that you gain +2CP if your warlord is in that Patrol detachment.
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
The Power Level and Points are odd... 22 PL would normally translate to about 440 points, but it is only 335 points for all upgrades. Feels like they forgot to include the points for most of the weapon swaps.
The main gun is probably free, but the 4 secondary weapons and autocannon all have their own prices.
Hmm. I see just base cost, multi melta and hunter killers. Where's rest of points?
cole1114 wrote: So with the confirmation Kratos can be taken in 40k, I wonder if they'll end up as HS or LOW.
I'm hoping for HS, mostly because I'm already planning on buying two anyway.
It's as big as a Spartan, so probably a LoW. And it'll have Martial Legacy.
Aaaannddd.........how much do you want to bet they give it to loyalists, but not Chaos?
The Power Level and Points are odd... 22 PL would normally translate to about 440 points, but it is only 335 points for all upgrades. Feels like they forgot to include the points for most of the weapon swaps.
The main gun is probably free, but the 4 secondary weapons and autocannon all have their own prices.
Hmm. I see just base cost, multi melta and hunter killers. Where's rest of points?
I was thinking the older style codex where the weapons poi ts were fixed, and not in each unit entry. Probably will get updated datasheet.
Rihgu wrote: I don't think there's any way to refund the cost of detachments? The "refund" often mentioned is actually written has "+X Command Points if your warlord is part of this detachment", where X is the usual cost of the detachment.
For a Patrol, it's +2, and patrols cost 2 CP. Making a Patrol cost 3 CP with Martial Legacy would not change that you gain +2CP if your warlord is in that Patrol detachment.
Correct. I don't see the basis of justification for a "refund".
Rihgu wrote: I don't think there's any way to refund the cost of detachments? The "refund" often mentioned is actually written has "+X Command Points if your warlord is part of this detachment", where X is the usual cost of the detachment.
For a Patrol, it's +2, and patrols cost 2 CP. Making a Patrol cost 3 CP with Martial Legacy would not change that you gain +2CP if your warlord is in that Patrol detachment.
I hate when I misremember my rules based on the common phrasing
Voss wrote: So the HH Kratos tank got a 40k datasheet...
but not for chaos.
Yeah, why would a side that can actually maintain it get access to it over one that in lore, has to scrounge the battlefield for a single discarded bolt shells or power armor gloves because your (relatively big and well off) warband has no means of producing stuff Imperial SM dump without a thought thanks to functioning supply lines. It's a mystery
If GW was actually true to its own lore, every single CSM vehicle heavier than Rhino should have martial legacy. No exceptions. Bigger, richer warbands like Red Corsairs and Black Legion already get extra CP to show their greater resources, there, problem solved. Small warbands can make do with daemon engines because that's exactly why they were developed in the first place. I miss the times where logistics and realistic limitations meant something for codex writers (not only CSM having limited access to modern gear, but also Tau being actually bad up close or Eldar wraith units having actual downsides, etc, etc).
I'm hoping this isn't an abjectly stupid oversight or blatant favoritism
Blatant favoritism is CSM being SM++ who not only have access to daemons, daemon weapons, daemon engines, and all the other gak like posessed and HQs no loyalist gets, but to also every single other SM unit. Funny how CSM players never complain about that part, eh?
If anything, I agree. There should be no favoritism, so zero anything that was developed post-Heresy for CSM, as well as no stuff that is expensive or complicated to maintain. None. CSM have their own gak to compensate, there is no reason for them to double dip. And certainly no comically stupid, fanfiction grade lists that even 30K legions at the height of their glory would struggle to field.
Voss wrote: So the HH Kratos tank got a 40k datasheet...
but not for chaos.
I'm hoping this isn't an abjectly stupid oversight or blatant favoritism, but means the HH vehicles were quietly added to the chaos codex.
Not holding my breath, though
It's possible that the Kratos and other HH units could be in the CSM codex, but yeah, don't hold your breath. It's also possible that they could cave in to popular pressure and release a CSM datasheet, the same way that they did for the Vindicator Laser Destroyer, or how they added rules to allow Death Guard and Thousand Sons to use all of the various Chaos units in the Compendium. But even if they do, don't forget that they made sure that loyalists got it first.
I really wish I hadn't been right about this. My condolences to any Heretic Astartes players that wanted to use this unit in their armies
The most likely reason for not having chaos datasheet now is not that it will be in the codex, but there are changed/new rules/keywords/etc in the new codex that the datasheet should reference, so they don't want now to release a datasheet that would soon be outdated. Hopefully they release one once the codex has been released though.
Crimson wrote: The most likely reason for not having chaos datasheet now is not that it will be in the codex, but there are changed/new rules/keywords/etc in the new codex that the datasheet should reference, so they don't want now to release a datasheet that would soon be outdated. Hopefully they release one once the codex has been released though.
Yeah, this is my thinking too. I don't know why something like a keyword would be such a big deal, but I bet they don't want to create a situation where, for the next 3-ish weeks, people can't play with their Kratos because it wouldn't have a keyword that's in the current CSM codex.
Even though the kratos doesn't actually get into people's hands for 2 weeks... and the new codex should be coming out right after...
Voss wrote: So the HH Kratos tank got a 40k datasheet...
but not for chaos.
Yeah, why would a side that can actually maintain it get access to it over one that in lore, has to scrounge the battlefield for a single discarded bolt shells or power armor gloves because your (relatively big and well off) warband has no means of producing stuff Imperial SM dump without a thought thanks to functioning supply lines. It's a mystery
If GW was actually true to its own lore, every single CSM vehicle heavier than Rhino should have martial legacy. No exceptions. Bigger, richer warbands like Red Corsairs and Black Legion already get extra CP to show their greater resources, there, problem solved. Small warbands can make do with daemon engines because that's exactly why they were developed in the first place. I miss the times where logistics and realistic limitations meant something for codex writers (not only CSM having limited access to modern gear, but also Tau being actually bad up close or Eldar wraith units having actual downsides, etc, etc).
I'm hoping this isn't an abjectly stupid oversight or blatant favoritism
Blatant favoritism is CSM being SM++ who not only have access to daemons, daemon weapons, daemon engines, and all the other gak like posessed and HQs no loyalist gets, but to also every single other SM unit. Funny how CSM players never complain about that part, eh?
If anything, I agree. There should be no favoritism, so zero anything that was developed post-Heresy for CSM, as well as no stuff that is expensive or complicated to maintain. None. CSM have their own gak to compensate, there is no reason for them to double dip. And certainly no comically stupid, fanfiction grade lists that even 30K legions at the height of their glory would struggle to field.
You do realize there are plenty of chaos warbands and remnants of legions who do infact have functioning supply lines, partnerships/alliances with the Dark Mechanicum and overall cohesion and armoury maintenance? and for a lot of chaos it's not been millenia since they had those tanks and toys, its been anywhere from weeks to a few years cause the Warp nonsense is everywhere and far reaching. Wouldn't surprise me if in some pocket of the warp its been 15 seconds since the heresy and those legionnaires dont know horus is dead and the Emp's is wounded.
Hell their biggest issue isn't their armour and weapon manufacturers complaining something isn't Omnissiah compliant, it's stopping them all being Ork Meks and creating random things and seeing how many Daemons they can shove into a hot plate before it resembles a melta bomb
Voss wrote: So the HH Kratos tank got a 40k datasheet...
but not for chaos.
Yeah, why would a side that can actually maintain it get access to it over one that in lore, has to scrounge the battlefield for a single discarded bolt shells or power armor gloves because your (relatively big and well off) warband has no means of producing stuff Imperial SM dump without a thought thanks to functioning supply lines. It's a mystery
If GW was actually true to its own lore, every single CSM vehicle heavier than Rhino should have martial legacy. No exceptions. Bigger, richer warbands like Red Corsairs and Black Legion already get extra CP to show their greater resources, there, problem solved. Small warbands can make do with daemon engines because that's exactly why they were developed in the first place. I miss the times where logistics and realistic limitations meant something for codex writers (not only CSM having limited access to modern gear, but also Tau being actually bad up close or Eldar wraith units having actual downsides, etc, etc).
.
Yeah no supply lines except for entire planets dedicated to producing wargear for heretic astartes. No supply lines at all...
Surely you don't claim to ignore that half the adeptus mechanicum rebelled and set up their own versions of hive worlds? And that they are more than capable of producing new stuff. And have access to prints loyalists don't have.
I mean SURELY you wouldn't be critizing GW for not following lore if you wouldn't know basics of said lore yourself? That would be unthinkable!
(actually above is silly question as answer is plain. You have no clue about lore you are talking about)
this always breaks down to what exactly the Chaos Codex wants to be
We have the remaining warbands of legions, that changed after the Heresy, re-organised themselves and invented new tech and supply, Black Legions, Iron Warriors and World Eaters as an example (WE broke up into small warbands, IW found a way to create new Marines and the BL got the good connections with the Dark Mechanicus going so far to create/design new Warships, something that was lost to the Imperium pre-Heresy, depending on the source)
There are those Warbands that are fresh out of the Heresy and have talked to Horus himself last week because "the warp"
and there are the traitor Marines, who fall to Chaos recently and have no connection to the original Legions at all
and depending on what the designers like they put the focus on one of the above and change it with the next Codex
the main problem for CSM is simply that one book needs to cover several different things, so you cannot just a a tank with heavy limitation on who is able to use it because of some niche within a niche but everything in the book must be there for everyone
So maybe we see the Kratos with Codex Black Legion or Codex Iron Warriors
kodos wrote: this always breaks down to what exactly the Chaos Codex wants to be
We have the remaining warbands of legions, that changed after the Heresy, re-organised themselves and invented new tech and supply, Black Legions, Iron Warriors and World Eaters as an example (WE broke up into small warbands, IW found a way to create new Marines and the BL got the good connections with the Dark Mechanicus going so far to create/design new Warships, something that was lost to the Imperium pre-Heresy, depending on the source)
There are those Warbands that are fresh out of the Heresy and have talked to Horus himself last week because "the warp"
and there are the traitor Marines, who fall to Chaos recently and have no connection to the original Legions at all
and depending on what the designers like they put the focus on one of the above and change it with the next Codex
the main problem for CSM is simply that one book needs to cover several different things, so you cannot just a a tank with heavy limitation on who is able to use it because of some niche within a niche but everything in the book must be there for everyone
So maybe we see the Kratos with Codex Black Legion or Codex Iron Warriors
You forgot all the trading of favors and resources as well which could justify just about anything you want to do with the army.
I still think its hilarious that Chaos is supposed to be full of Renegades as well, but no one brought their Razorbacks, storm bolters, assault cannons, grav weapons or any other goodies unique to the loyalists when they left.
Matter of more limited resources. Once you go Rogue, you give up your usual supply lines. And Chaos doesn’t given you anything for free.
So lower tech items for greater ease of maintenance and in some instances greater reliability would be the order of the day.
Assault Cannons for example? Require lots of ammo, and frequent replacement of the barrels. And those barrels can’t be made of just any old material either. Reaper Autocannon, for not that much loss of effectiveness do away with the barrel issue almost entirely, and require less ammo.
Even if you took your Techmarine with you? They still don’t have the same resources and supply they did. And there’s no guarantee they’ll stay loyal to you should another, more established renegade band decide to recruit him with the promise of greater treasures and secrets.
If GW could write functional or interesting rules, 'Renegades' would be a subfaction which gave you access to a limited amount of modern equipment, i.e., plasma cannons, assault cannons, razorbacks, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Matter of more limited resources. Once you go Rogue, you give up your usual supply lines. And Chaos doesn’t given you anything for free.
So lower tech items for greater ease of maintenance and in some instances greater reliability would be the order of the day.
Assault Cannons for example? Require lots of ammo, and frequent replacement of the barrels. And those barrels can’t be made of just any old material either. Reaper Autocannon, for not that much loss of effectiveness do away with the barrel issue almost entirely, and require less ammo.
Even if you took your Techmarine with you? They still don’t have the same resources and supply they did. And there’s no guarantee they’ll stay loyal to you should another, more established renegade band decide to recruit him with the promise of greater treasures and secrets.
This makes very little sense. My guys went Renegade two years ago and now they are operating like a force from 5,000 years in the past with equipment they would never have access to.
Just because the equipment will eventually disappear does not mean it will vanish overnight.
Some traitor chapters take their fortress monastery and their entire planetary fief with them when they go traitor, not having the same resources and supply is bs. Sure they may lose imports and trade from other Imperial wlrlds, but they gain imports and trade from other traitor worlds instead. The dark mechanicum have their own forgeworlds ffs, if they can manage that then they can manage to replace the barrels on some assault cannons and to stick some guns into a turret mounted on top of a rhino chassis.
DreadfullyHopeful wrote: Worth noting that it's something like the 3rd time Irbis make this post in this thread alone. At some point we ought to stop engaging.
Irbis is an excellent source of just utterly terrible takes but because we have so little to discuss in terms of rumours we have to collectively dump on his position.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So lower tech items for greater ease of maintenance and in some instances greater reliability would be the order of the day.
going that direction and Chaos Marines would use Lasguns instead of Bolters
a Bolter is the prime example of high maintenance special supply weapon and the main reason why the Guard is not using it, is because they need something with greater reliability that is easy to supply
if Renegade can use Bolters, Predators and Vindicators, there is no good fluff reason why they cannot use other modern equipment as well
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So lower tech items for greater ease of maintenance and in some instances greater reliability would be the order of the day.
going that direction and Chaos Marines would use Lasguns instead of Bolters
a Bolter is the prime example of high maintenance special supply weapon and the main reason why the Guard is not using it, is because they need something with greater reliability that is easy to supply
if Renegade can use Bolters, Predators and Vindicators, there is no good fluff reason why they cannot use other modern equipment as well
But to loop back round, there's no excuse they shouldn't be using older equipment, there's some 30k units that aren't available to chaos for reasons unknown before the Kratos, but if they're going down the "lose modern tech because too complicated" that seems anachronistic compared to the absence of the older tech they're meant to have.
No wonder Abby needed 13 attempts, every time he cracked out his whirlwinds he brought with him from terra but the cannons fall off, so he turns back to their supple of contemporary tanks, finds the Kratos halls empty but then turns and sees missiles streaking overhead and 3 looming tanks coming out the gloom as Calgar sits atop the central kratos waving his remaining pinkie finger.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Matter of more limited resources. Once you go Rogue, you give up your usual supply lines. And Chaos doesn’t given you anything for free.
There are endless worlds dedicated to the propagation of Chaos. The idea that going rogue means you suddenly don't have supply lines - that the forces of Chaos have been fighting The Long War without supply lines - is laughable.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Assault Cannons for example? Require lots of ammo, and frequent replacement of the barrels. And those barrels can’t be made of just any old material either.
Reaper Chaincannons on the other hand, well, those just come out of evil vending machines, right?
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'm glad Possessed got a huge upgrade but does anyone feel that 5 attacks each is a bit.....overkill?
Tyranid Warriors get 5 attacks at str 7 ap 2 damage 2 for 25pts.... or 7 str 5 ap 1 damage 1 attacks for the same cost, whilst also being troops. The edition is scaling up lethality real crazy. And whilst comparing anything to Tyranids is stupid as they are all undercosted and over ruled datasheets, it wasn't a long time ago people were going crazy about Outriders having like 6 attacks each, and Death Company can get to 7 when fed all the buffs?
Your humble dual LC Terminator or Vanguard Veteran has 5 attacks with Shock Assault. Possessed seem to me perfectly normal, it'll be the synergies and costing that make or break them.
The issue I see is just how the range grew historically and how it diverted from the lore they established in the meantime, especially through HH.
Initially GW just made CSM evil counterparts to Loyalists and it was quite fine. But Lore progressed for both 40k and 30k and described more and more how Marine Squads are based on the Codex Astartes, which made CSM squads following the same pattern weird a.f.. With HH expanding we also learnt how there were different historical tank patterns and a different was of warfare. While this expansion improved HH lore and deepened it, it twisted the state of 40k models and lore to the mess that we know currently. 40kCSM releases did care less about closing the consistency gaps rather than about expanding on new unique aspects like possesed or deamon engines for the past editions, although it seems like they currently start to adress this with the rename of the squads, new terminator design matching older armour types and so on. Yet there is still some mismatch like squad weapon loadouts or tank patterns. While squad loadouts would be fine by GW simply explaining it somehow reasonable in the lore or by introducing new units (like havocs in squads of 10), Tanks would require new models, which mean release slots. HH helps here a lot: Just release the new rhino with the chaos upgrade sprue in a new box and everyone is happy. Similar for the Kratos. It would be a free new product. For better logistic they could just start selling the Vehicle Upgrade Sprue on its own.
WarCom wrote:That’s right, Codex: World Eaters is coming – the iconic chainaxes of this bloodthirsty Legion were unveiled during Warhammer Fest, but the anticipation is more than we can bear – so to help quell the rage of the Butcher’s Nails, the White Dwarf team have made an offering to Khorne.
This issue boasts a brutal swathe of rules that you can use to reap a harvest of skulls in games of Warhammer 40,000 until the full codex arrives.
Welcome to a bumper blood-splattered Index Hereticus: World Eaters – eight pages of lore, six pages of rules, a short story starring Khârn the Betrayer. All of this plus a massive selection of blood-drenched World Eaters conversions, epic paint jobs, and a guide on how to create that classic brass and crimson colour scheme yourself.
You might recognise some of these rules from War Zone Charadon Act II: The Book of Fire, but they’re all collected here in one definitive source – and updated to work with the upcoming release of Codex: Chaos Space Marines. On top of their iconic Legion Trait, the Butcher’s Nails, you’ll find six furious Warlord Traits, six gory Relics, eight slaughterous Stratagems, and new datasheets for the unstoppable Khârn the Betrayer and the iconic Khorne Berzerkers.
Voss wrote: Wish I could read that section on 'World Eaters Units' that will make or break my interest right there.
Sorry being cynical but this:
You might recognise some of these rules from War Zone Charadon Act II: The Book of Fire
Killed mine, it says it's a lazy copy paste of what's there now with some small tweaks for keywords. the changes to the zerkers is really the only big thing at that point.
Voss wrote: Wish I could read that section on 'World Eaters Units' that will make or break my interest right there.
Sorry being cynical but this:
You might recognise some of these rules from War Zone Charadon Act II: The Book of Fire
Killed mine, it says it's a lazy copy paste of what's there now with some small tweaks for keywords. the changes to the zerkers is really the only big thing at that point.
Well, it is a stop-gap for the new codex until codex WE comes out. So a lazy copy-paste doesn't bother me that much.
For me its if it makes it clear that they're going to lose access to ranged (or other) units. Or not.
Because if its just axes all the time, I don't want Codex Flanderization.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Based on the length of that Legion rule, is it the same lazy "1 extra attack if you charged"?
Yeah I think so, the form of the blurred words looks to mention a 1 and the word charged so more than likely, seems a bit wordier though so not completely devoid of hope.
Why only the plastic ones?
