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.
I definitely want a flamer squad of some kind. It feels right.
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.
I think you won't be able to tell for certain which are removed if it is a stop gap. It's as likely to change for a codex as the legion rule is.
I think you won't be able to tell for certain which are removed if it is a stop gap. It's as likely to change for a codex as the legion rule is.
True. They could keep them for now and then lose them.
But if they lose them now, they aren't getting back and I no longer have to care or pay attention to the dribs and drabs of information.
(I've got plans for the HH models, and if a dual 30k/40k force isn't viable for a legion, I'm scratching it from consideration).
I think you won't be able to tell for certain which are removed if it is a stop gap. It's as likely to change for a codex as the legion rule is.
True. They could keep them for now and then lose them.
But if they lose them, now they aren't getting back and I no longer have to care or pay attention to the dribs and drabs of information.
(I've got plans for the HH models, and if a dual 30k/40k force isn't viable for a legion, I'm scratching it from consideration).
I'm in a similar boat, I can't quite tandem HH into red corsairs so it'd need to be some other legion I can double up with and other was going to be world eaters initially.
I like how the asterisk at the bottom "* They may take skulls for Khorne, but they’re not fans of losing their own heads." doesn't seem to match up with any text in the article.
Anyway, this might end up the first White Dwarf I've bought in about 16 years. And I used to collect the things - I still have my complete 15+ year run from WD 99 to the mid 2000's.
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.
Yet everyone pines for the 3.5 edition codex where Mark of Khorne prevented power armor marines from taking special and heavy weapons.
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.
Yet everyone pines for the 3.5 edition codex where Mark of Khorne prevented power armor marines from taking special and heavy weapons.
You're replying to the wrong person for that. I think 3.5 is pure nostalgia goggles, I'd rather go back to RoC for fluff cues.
So 'everyone' can wander off to the graveyard of pointless rhetoricals.
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.
I definitely want a flamer squad of some kind. It feels right.
Khorne did have most of the daemon engines. As a stand alone book there's definitely potential for the Cannon of Khorne, Doomblasters, Bloodreapers and the Cauldron of Blood, perhaps even a plastic Brass Scorpion and alternative builds for the Lord of Skulls like the Deathdealer (the LoS is a mix of this and the Lord of Battle, but a transport/gunnery version rather than the tanks could work).
I could also see both more martial cultists/traitor guard or more fanatical ones that are the guys dedicated to getting the World Eaters berserkers from one slaughter to the next.
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.
Yet everyone pines for the 3.5 edition codex where Mark of Khorne prevented power armor marines from taking special and heavy weapons.
That confuses me because Teeth of Khorne was a cool concept that got buried for no reason.
I may be wrong here, but my take on this 'temp world eater codex' is that it will simply be the new chaos codex, but with the new traits, warlord options etc and the berserkers.
Everything that can have mark of khorne or similar will be available from the codex.
I don't think this will be anything like the real World eater codex, bar maybe the legion trait, relics and warlord traits. And even those I wouldn't be sure will not change.
Basically unit wise I don't expect the real codex to have same units as what people can take in this temp codex.
Some will be new and some will be gone. I wouldn't necessarily take the temp codex as much of a guide for unit selection.
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.
Yet everyone pines for the 3.5 edition codex where Mark of Khorne prevented power armor marines from taking special and heavy weapons.
No it didn't?
DG/Mark of Nurgle was really restrictive with Heavy weapons, but MoK was just unable to be applied to Havocs (and Raptors but that applied to all the marks bar Undivided). You could take special and heavy weapons in MoK squads otherwise though.
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.
Yet everyone pines for the 3.5 edition codex where Mark of Khorne prevented power armor marines from taking special and heavy weapons.
You're replying to the wrong person for that. I think 3.5 is pure nostalgia goggles, I'd rather go back to RoC for fluff cues.
So 'everyone' can wander off to the graveyard of pointless rhetoricals.
Little fuzzy, but pretty sure that only meant you could not take Havocs.
But Berzerkers could disembark from a Rhino, move, advance instead of shooting, then charge. Up through 5th edition, Rhino Rushes were anything but pointless or rhetorical.
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.
Yet everyone pines for the 3.5 edition codex where Mark of Khorne prevented power armor marines from taking special and heavy weapons.
No it didn't?
DG/Mark of Nurgle was really restrictive with Heavy weapons, but MoK was just unable to be applied to Havocs (and Raptors but that applied to all the marks bar Undivided). You could take special and heavy weapons in MoK squads otherwise though.
Page 47, under "Weaponry of the Followers of Khorne".
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.
Yet everyone pines for the 3.5 edition codex where Mark of Khorne prevented power armor marines from taking special and heavy weapons.
While you couldn't RAW play a 'true' World Eaters army (since every unit had to have a Mark of Khorne) - there was nothing stopping you from taking units of Havocs in an army where everything else had Mark of Khorne and painting them as World Eaters. The only actual benefit to bringing a RAW World Eaters army is free unit champions and bonuses to summoning Daemons iirc.
Tastyfish wrote: I thought "all world eaters are berserkers though not all berserkers are world eaters" was still canon? After Skalathrax and Kharn's betrayal
It hasn't specifically been retconned, but it's not explicitly stated anywhere in current publications.
Personally, I've been playing WE for 20+ years, and I've always interpreted the whole 'all WE are Berzerkers' thing as not necessarily referring to the unit 'Khorne Berzerkers' but rather a style of combat. WE Havocs (once we could start taking them again, of course) are just Berzerkers whose Nails are sated by the thudding of heavy weaponry; WE Bikers are just Berzerkers on bikes, that sort of thing. The unit 'Khorne Berzerkers' was just the most exemplary of that combat style. Otherwise, you literally couldn't take a full WE army, since you always had to have an HQ of some sort.
The Black Legion book series features a fully nailed-up Bezerker who is the leader of a heavy weapon squad of Devestator and then later becomes a proper officer in the legion. He is able to retain enough control over himself to strategise, dictate commands, and restrain himself from simply running into battle.
blood reaper wrote: The Black Legion book series features a fully nailed-up Bezerker who is the leader of a heavy weapon squad of Devestator and then later becomes a proper officer in the legion. He is able to retain enough control over himself to strategise, dictate commands, and restrain himself from simply running into battle.
The Bile trilogy has a fully nailed up World Eaters Apothecary who talks to the skulls of his dead legion brothers, but he keeps himself on a cocktail of drugs so he stays levelheaded and not falling to the nails.
Dudeface wrote: Martial prowess appeals to Khorne, marksmanship and good kill rate with a weapon are all smiled upon in theory.
When we were doing the various "Tome" books for Black Crusade, I wrote up a Khorne-dedicated sniper called a Bloodsworn Assassin. Had a whole backstory of a temple where they go to train that you can't find, it finds you. Crazy stuff like that.
Sadly wasn't enough room in the final book to include it, but he still has the quote at the start of the armoury chapter:
"Target sighted. Three hundred metres. Khorne guide my shot. Blood for the Blood God."
That is btw spot on the issue with GW and Khorne. They got stuck in this ,Khorne followers are dumb barbarians who smash everything with an Axe’ mentality for 40k and AoS.
Meanwhile there is so much unused potential for rewriting Khorne to a mich deeper, much more satisfying faction. Having more aspects that satisfy Khorne rather than just simple meele murder would already give it a lot of cool flair as others mentioned already. Also viewing the Nails as Curse/Blessing could provide a fresh take. Making Khorne some sort of hunter god, driven by the desire to find his prey and kill it, would also add up a load of possible new depth. Shedding more light on the context of Khorne hating psykers is another pathway to go.
I have really the hope that the upcoming rework of the WE will also give more depth to Khorne.
Tastyfish wrote: I thought "all world eaters are berserkers though not all berserkers are world eaters" was still canon? After Skalathrax and Kharn's betrayal
This is my current understanding as well, with the caveat that any khornate berserker marine has the potential to become a World Eater - see Zhufor the Impaler, Butcher of Vraks, lord of the Skulltakers warband of the World Eaters... who was previously known as Balzach, Sergeant of the Storm Lords Chapter of Space Marines until he was severely wounded, captured, tortured, drugged, mutilated, and brainwashed by the World Eaters until he himself became a World Eaters Khornate berserker who then ascended through the ranks until he took the lead of the warband.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: That is btw spot on the issue with GW and Khorne. They got stuck in this ,Khorne followers are dumb barbarians who smash everything with an Axe’ mentality for 40k and AoS.
Meanwhile there is so much unused potential for rewriting Khorne to a mich deeper, much more satisfying faction. Having more aspects that satisfy Khorne rather than just simple meele murder would already give it a lot of cool flair as others mentioned already. Also viewing the Nails as Curse/Blessing could provide a fresh take. Making Khorne some sort of hunter god, driven by the desire to find his prey and kill it, would also add up a load of possible new depth. Shedding more light on the context of Khorne hating psykers is another pathway to go.
I have really the hope that the upcoming rework of the WE will also give more depth to Khorne.
Yep, the WE book is a good opportunity for GW to correct this misconception/perception issue...
...but they won't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: In Realms of Chaos, Khorne dudes weren't even allowed to kill non-combatants.
Also yep, in older fluff there was something about Khorne viewing the slaughter of civilians as being dishonorable...
...but I think that boat sailed when "Khorne cares not from where blood flows, so long as it flows".
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: That is btw spot on the issue with GW and Khorne. They got stuck in this ,Khorne followers are dumb barbarians who smash everything with an Axe’ mentality for 40k and AoS.
Meanwhile there is so much unused potential for rewriting Khorne to a mich deeper, much more satisfying faction. Having more aspects that satisfy Khorne rather than just simple meele murder would already give it a lot of cool flair as others mentioned already. Also viewing the Nails as Curse/Blessing could provide a fresh take. Making Khorne some sort of hunter god, driven by the desire to find his prey and kill it, would also add up a load of possible new depth. Shedding more light on the context of Khorne hating psykers is another pathway to go.
I have really the hope that the upcoming rework of the WE will also give more depth to Khorne.
Khorne is creatively starved, moreso than any other Chaos faction. To really explore his following in greater depth, more war cries are necessary.
I might be being naive here, but I expected a chaos marines article this week after the Sunday summary? I'm not counting world eaters as that's a white dwarf preview.
Dudeface wrote: I might be being naive here, but I expected a chaos marines article this week after the Sunday summary? I'm not counting world eaters as that's a white dwarf preview.
Dudeface wrote:I might be being naive here, but I expected a chaos marines article this week after the Sunday summary? I'm not counting world eaters as that's a white dwarf preview.
Well, the week isn't over, yet. So there still might be something. Or gw might disagree with you, and consider the WE preview as "enough" Chaos content for one week. They wouldn't want CSM players to start thinking that we actually matter, would they?
DreadfullyHopeful wrote:Maybe the possessed/mutant weapon profiles ?
I'd much rather something on what exactly "Let the Galaxy Burn" is. Let's see if it really is "Spiky Doctrines", and rip that particular bandaid off.
Dudeface wrote: I might be being naive here, but I expected a chaos marines article this week after the Sunday summary? I'm not counting world eaters as that's a white dwarf preview.
Maybe the possessed/mutant weapon profiles ?
T'was last Friday good sir, but maybe that means an article tomorrow.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: That is btw spot on the issue with GW and Khorne. They got stuck in this ,Khorne followers are dumb barbarians who smash everything with an Axe’ mentality for 40k and AoS.
Meanwhile there is so much unused potential for rewriting Khorne to a mich deeper, much more satisfying faction. Having more aspects that satisfy Khorne rather than just simple meele murder would already give it a lot of cool flair as others mentioned already. Also viewing the Nails as Curse/Blessing could provide a fresh take. Making Khorne some sort of hunter god, driven by the desire to find his prey and kill it, would also add up a load of possible new depth. Shedding more light on the context of Khorne hating psykers is another pathway to go.
I have really the hope that the upcoming rework of the WE will also give more depth to Khorne.
Khorne is creatively starved, moreso than any other Chaos faction. To really explore his following in greater depth, more war cries are necessary.
Blood for the Blood God!
Skulls for the Skull Throne!
Scalps for Khorne's Rug!
Spines for the Brass Side Table!
Fibulas for the Spiked Ottoman!
Ribs for the Torment Brush!
The problem is also Khorne World Eater's delivery systems. What are the ways you can deliver your units into close combat where you want them to be.
Rhino transports? Just run up the board? Deep strike?
A melee army can only succeed if it is either
1) Fast enough to get up the board, or
2) is durable enough to tank shooting before it gets up the board.
But ... World Eaters are not "known" for either trait. They are not known to be the "jump pack" or "fly" army, nor are they death guard (known for durability). And yet, since they are known for being a melee army, they tend to give up or have worse shooting than comparable legions or factions. And in addition to this, they also give up psychic.
So, we have a legion that is worse at shooting, gives up psychic, and yet, it can't get up the board fast or reliably enough to get into close combat where it wants to be. Nor is it durable enough to just move up the board while tanking all the shooting. World Eaters never had any problems killing stuff once they are actually in close combat. The problem is getting their units into combat in the first place.
charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote: That is btw spot on the issue with GW and Khorne. They got stuck in this ,Khorne followers are dumb barbarians who smash everything with an Axe’ mentality for 40k and AoS.
Meanwhile there is so much unused potential for rewriting Khorne to a mich deeper, much more satisfying faction. Having more aspects that satisfy Khorne rather than just simple meele murder would already give it a lot of cool flair as others mentioned already. Also viewing the Nails as Curse/Blessing could provide a fresh take. Making Khorne some sort of hunter god, driven by the desire to find his prey and kill it, would also add up a load of possible new depth. Shedding more light on the context of Khorne hating psykers is another pathway to go.
I have really the hope that the upcoming rework of the WE will also give more depth to Khorne.
Iirc, in earlier editions Khorne also represented martial honor and prowess. Hence why the aversion to sorcery and firearms, because those are "dishonorable" and "lazy."
Then GW flanderized him into being a murder-hobo.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... so rather than having set Daemon Weapons, you apply the Daemon Weapon to the weapon you have.
I like that idea.
Of course, it won't mean much if the majority of our weapons turn into "Accursed Weapons", but it's a neat concept in and of itself.
I'm more shocked I can shove them into the warp smiths Mechadentrites.
I can just see it now, shove the Tzeentch Daemon into them, they challenge the opponent to a game of Rock Paper Scissors, if Chaos wins, the opponent takes a Mortal Wound. If the opponent wins, the chaos warp smith implodes.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... so rather than having set Daemon Weapons, you apply the Daemon Weapon to the weapon you have.
I like that idea.
Of course, it won't mean much if the majority of our weapons turn into "Accursed Weapons", but it's a neat concept in and of itself.
indeed, still though, knowing my rolls those things will turn my HQ's into sudoku commiting doubles.
Hence why you have the choice of just not attacking with that demon weapon.
You could take the hits and continue to attack, or you can avoid damage and fight with a different weapon or your fists.
Ok, I like those rules, and love the fact that you can apply them to any melee weapon the model has. I wonder if you can give them to Daemon Princes? A Slaaneshi Prince with talons upgraded with Thaa'ris and Rhi'ol would be an absolute blender.
Edit: derped and forgot that this is already a thing currently. Still, 2D3 > 1D6.
Sooooo......you have to roll equal or less than the character's leadership on 2d6. That's very familiar. It seems like how Daemon Weapons worked in a certain previous codex, but better because you now have the option to avoid the MW. Interesting. Now, can we see the Legion relics? I want to know what they've done to Claws of the Black Hunt.
Cheex wrote: Ok, I like those rules, and love the fact that you can apply them to any melee weapon the model has. I wonder if you can give them to Daemon Princes? A Slaaneshi Prince with talons upgraded with Thaa'ris and Rhi'ol would be an absolute blender.
Edit: derped and forgot that this is already a thing currently. Still, 2D3 > 1D6.
I was thinking the same thing regarding a Daemon Prince but I don't understand your Edit. If you buy 2 warp talons and give him the relic(s) then he would get 8 + 2d3 attacks per round (9 with daemonic strength). I don't know where you are getting the 1d6 from. And all of this doesn't include if GW upped the attacks of the DP like they did the Lord.
BTW is there any other model in Slaanesh that uses 2 melee weapons and can still shoot? I think Slaanesh needs to get a couple of Grey Knights to give up their wrist mounted stormbolters if he/she is going to only give daemonic weapons in pairs.
Cheex wrote: Ok, I like those rules, and love the fact that you can apply them to any melee weapon the model has. I wonder if you can give them to Daemon Princes? A Slaaneshi Prince with talons upgraded with Thaa'ris and Rhi'ol would be an absolute blender.
Edit: derped and forgot that this is already a thing currently. Still, 2D3 > 1D6.
I was thinking the same thing regarding a Daemon Prince but I don't understand your Edit. If you buy 2 warp talons and give him the relic(s) then he would get 8 + 2d3 attacks per round (9 with daemonic strength). I don't know where you are getting the 1d6 from. And all of this doesn't include if GW upped the attacks of the DP like they did the Lord.
BTW is there any other model in Slaanesh that uses 2 melee weapons and can still shoot? I think Slaanesh needs to get a couple of Grey Knights to give up their wrist mounted stormbolters if he/she is going to only give daemonic weapons in pairs.
old Rapacious talons gave you additionnal attacks equal to what you got on your demon roll (so 1d6 extra attacks, with a minimum of 2)
Crimson wrote: World Eater, like a lot of things in 40k, have becomes so stupidly flanderised that it limits the design space.
There is nothing about Khorne that should limit the effective use of ranged weaponry.
Martial prowess appeals to Khorne, marksmanship and good kill rate with a weapon are all smiled upon in theory.
At the same time however, Khorne valued physical strength and overcoming obstacles through your own skills and strength. Excessive reliance on technology was seen as "cheating" or "lazy" in the same way that magic is seen as unfair/lazy by Khorne. That is why the Epic Daemon Engines of Khorne were generally limited to short to medium range, albeit with lots of shots. This meant they had to get up close and expose themselves to risk, though the daemon engines also fought the best in close combat. The only outlier was the Cannon of Khorne which had long range but inaccurate fire, and with a significant chance of blowing itself up from misfiring. I always saw that as Khorne imposing a trade off for the long range, and demanding some form of risk to the wielder.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... so rather than having set Daemon Weapons, you apply the Daemon Weapon to the weapon you have.
I like that idea.
Of course, it won't mean much if the majority of our weapons turn into "Accursed Weapons", but it's a neat concept in and of itself.
indeed, still though, knowing my rolls those things will turn my HQ's into sudoku commiting doubles.
Hence why you have the choice of just not attacking with that demon weapon.
You could take the hits and continue to attack, or you can avoid damage and fight with a different weapon or your fists.
If i feel like fielding a daemonweapon then i may aswell go the full length
but yeah atleast nowadays you can avoid Sudoku, which is good design imo
As I noted in my post just a little earlier, based on past units by GW in Epic, Khorne's guns seem to require the wielder to be exposed to risk as a tradeoff. So they tend to be short ranged, requiring the wielder to get close and be exposed to enemy fire or risk of close combat, or if long ranged, they carry the risk of explosive misfire. Khorne seems to be against safe killing from a distance, against push button sterile warfare, and for up close visceral combat or at least some skin in the game from unreliable ranged weapons.
Eldenfirefly wrote: The problem is also Khorne World Eater's delivery systems. What are the ways you can deliver your units into close combat where you want them to be.
Rhino transports? Just run up the board? Deep strike?
A melee army can only succeed if it is either
1) Fast enough to get up the board, or
2) is durable enough to tank shooting before it gets up the board.
But ... World Eaters are not "known" for either trait. They are not known to be the "jump pack" or "fly" army, nor are they death guard (known for durability). And yet, since they are known for being a melee army, they tend to give up or have worse shooting than comparable legions or factions. And in addition to this, they also give up psychic.
So, we have a legion that is worse at shooting, gives up psychic, and yet, it can't get up the board fast or reliably enough to get into close combat where it wants to be. Nor is it durable enough to just move up the board while tanking all the shooting. World Eaters never had any problems killing stuff once they are actually in close combat. The problem is getting their units into combat in the first place.
All elite melee armies suffer from delivery problems, not just World Eaters. All the attacks in the world don't matter if they never get into combat.
For World Eaters, delivery masks a bigger problem with mobility. Consider the following for an all melee PA army:
- When the game starts and there's nothing within 18" to charge. They just lost a turn in a 5 turn game.
- When they charge a single unit instead of multi-charging 2 units and overkill occurs. They just lost significant offensive potential in the only phase that matters.
- When they wipe out something in combat and the next nearest enemy unit is 18"+ away. They just lost 1 turn in a 5 turn game.
- When they wipe out something in combat and there's no way to consolidate into cover or LOS blocking terrain. They just left an expensive, elite PA unit exposed for doing what it's designed to do.
A successful WE Codex would offer an answer to each of these problems. It's more than a matter of getting there, it's also being effective once you're there.
Also interesting to note that Ul'o'cca can only be equipped by a CHAOS UNDIVIDED model. Seems that they may have gotten around that particular hangup, finally.
They drilled into us that there was no such thing, it was always Chaos unaligned (small 'u'). Whomever was keeping that alive at the studio must be long gone!
I rather like the idea of applying this to a Lightning Claw along with as many attack boosting buffs as I can lay my hands on.
Eh, it doesn't say 6s though, just straight up successful wounds. Thunder Hammer is still better here I wager but I didn't math it out.
It depends, I think.
If you're hunting infantry, you'll want claws.
If you're hunting larger targets, you'll want the hammer.
Do mortal wounds spill over? If so, claws can be a nasty little squad clearer.
S8 vs S4 rerolling wounds comes out to S8 wounding more still. The caveat is how many more mortal wounds you get from that extra attack from the lightning claw.
I rather like the idea of applying this to a Lightning Claw along with as many attack boosting buffs as I can lay my hands on.
Eh, it doesn't say 6s though, just straight up successful wounds. Thunder Hammer is still better here I wager but I didn't math it out.
It depends, I think.
If you're hunting infantry, you'll want claws.
If you're hunting larger targets, you'll want the hammer.
Do mortal wounds spill over? If so, claws can be a nasty little squad clearer.
S8 vs S4 rerolling wounds comes out to S8 wounding more still. The caveat is how many more mortal wounds you get from that extra attack from the lightning claw.
Also the lightning claws hit better too.
I would definitely lean on this daemon weapon being best on whatever can generate the most separate wounds to get the most out of the mortal wounds it generates.
They drilled into us that there was no such thing, it was always Chaos unaligned (small 'u'). Whomever was keeping that alive at the studio must be long gone!
Yes, I remember you telling me that about your time working on the FF games.
We haven't had the option to take a Mark of Chaos Undivided since 3.5. And the new Daemon Weapons rules seem like an "improved" version of the old Mastery Test from the same book. Could they have finally pulled their heads out and started looking at the rightCSM codex for inspiration? It seems like an unlikely hope......
Aesyn wrote: Anyone else think Ul'O'Cca the black is kind underwhelming? It's a Master crafted weapon that deals it's extra 1 damage more often...
It's not a master crafted weapon, it generates mortal wounds in addition to normal damage, so that's ignoring invulns and will spill over to other models, it's pretty damn amazing really.
Aesyn wrote: Anyone else think Ul'O'Cca the black is kind underwhelming? It's a Master crafted weapon that deals it's extra 1 damage more often...
It's not a master crafted weapon, it generates mortal wounds in addition to normal damage, so that's ignoring invulns and will spill over to other models, it's pretty damn amazing really.
I'm assuming the weapon it's upgrading retains its traits, so if you put it on a lightning claw it has -2AP and rerolls to wound. However, I don't think you can have it on a pair of lightning claws. Maybe you can still get the attack bonus if you have one daemon lightning claw and one normal.
I would think the slaanesh daemon weapon is meant to be put on lightning claws because it requires a paired weapon.
S8 vs S4 rerolling wounds comes out to S8 wounding more still. The caveat is how many more mortal wounds you get from that extra attack from the lightning claw.
Yeah, but the thunder hammer suffers from a hit penalty and deals 3 damage, making it less optimal against groups of units. That D3 is wasted on 2W and less models.
I'm very impressed by the Berserkers. Sure, they cost 22 ppm and they lost access to a lot of options and the double fight thing.
However, they still have an impressive 6 Attacks per model on charge at Strength 6 and most importantly, they have easy access to AP-3 melee Attacks (Icons cost only 5 points). They even get to AP-4 with the reprinted stratagem "Wild Fury".
Also Kharn can now reroll all of his Attacks. About damn time.
EDIT :
Kharn cannot reroll his own Attacks. Also, I added the Warlord Traits page.
Aesyn wrote: Anyone else think Ul'O'Cca the black is kind underwhelming? It's a Master crafted weapon that deals it's extra 1 damage more often...
It's not a master crafted weapon, it generates mortal wounds in addition to normal damage, so that's ignoring invulns and will spill over to other models, it's pretty damn amazing really.
I'm assuming the weapon it's upgrading retains its traits, so if you put it on a lightning claw it has -2AP and rerolls to wound.
However, I don't think you can have it on a pair of lightning claws. Maybe you can still get the attack bonus if you have one daemon lightning claw and one normal.
I would think the slaanesh daemon weapon is meant to be put on lightning claws because it requires a paired weapon.
I think that it would work as 1 lighting claw being the Daemon Weapon, and the other "normal". So if you pass your Daemon Weapon "test", you make all of your attacks for the Daemon Weapon, then you get your +1 attack with your "normal" lighting claw. If you fail the test, you have the option to take d3 MWs and attack with it anyway, or just make your normal attacks with the "normal" lighting claw, and avoid the MWs entirely.
So, assuming a Chaos Lord has 6A, it would work:
Pass Daemon Weapon Test:
7A with the Daemon Weapon (6+1 because it's a lightning claw) with the MWs on successful wounds, then 1A with the "normal" lightning claw.
Fail Daemon Weapon Test, either:
1: Take the d3MWs, and do the previous. Or:
2: Don't take the MWs and make 7A (6+1 because it's a lightning claw) with the "normal" lighting claw.
6 attacks is nice, but... Well, Kharn could roll PERFECTLY and not even kill a Dread or Carnifex. Hell, even with the important S6 breakpoint, he only averages one and a half dead Plague Marines.
Wait-Kharn still fights twice.
Okay, so he kills three Plague Marines on a normal round of combat. But less than 3 damage to a T7 Dread or Carnifex. It does increase to just shy of 5 damage. That's... I dunno. It feels low.
Edit: He doesn't kill a RHINO on the charge. That feels really weak for Kharn.
I'm very impressed by the Berserkers. Sure, they cost 22 ppm and they lost access to a lot of options and the double fight thing.
However, they still have an impressive 6 Attacks per model on charge at Strength 6 and most importantly, they have easy access to AP-3 melee Attacks (Icons cost only 5 points). They even get to AP-4 with the reprinted stratagem "Wild Fury".
Also Kharn can now reroll all of his Attacks. About damn time.
They lost access to the double fighting because the attacks are basically incorporated into the profile. That's actually a good thing and less clunky.
Selfcontrol wrote: The current Kharn is also gak against Monsters/Vehicles tbh. Even more so than thanks to the old "The Betrayer".
The "new one" is still better but yeah, I think that Gorechild should have been D3 flat damages instead of D2. Especially for a named HQ.
Given the power creep, I was expecting at least D3 on Gorechild.
And actually, the current Kharn is BETTER against any -1 Damage target than the new Kharn. Not only does d3 damage occasionally let you take two wounds off instead of one, he also gets one more attack per fight thanks to Hateful Assault. The exception is T7 models (which is, admittedly, pretty common) since he's only S6, while new Kharn is S7 on the charge.
Oh, but he also gets Death To The False Emperor. So...
Old Kharn-16 attacks, 16 hits
New Kharn-14 attacks, 11.67 hits
Against T5 or less, old Kharn is better by about 37%, assuming damage doesn't matter.
Against T8 or more, old Kharn is better by the same amount, assuming damage averages out.
Against T6, old Kharn is fractionally better. Like, 3% ish.
Against T7, old Kharn is about 10% worse.
All this assumes new Kharn charged to get S7. Otherwise, old Kharn is just better, unless you're specifically dealing with W2 models without -1 Damage. And even then, I'm not sure that new Kharn is better.
I think we both agree that Kharn is a bit underwhelming.
The loss of Hateful Assault and Death to the False Emperor was a given though (even though it is partially compensated by the new chaosy-like doctrines where you get exploding 6s but it's only on turn 4-5 if I remember the leaks correctly).
Ok, GW.... seriously. No.
Pick a profile. Don't make a unit that is somewhere between
S5, AP2, 5 attacks and S7 AP4 and 6 attacks depending on how many layers of buffs you've got going on. (plus whatever wanton slaughter does)
Also:
Blood for the Blood God: fight one additional time
Blood for the Blood God! auto pass morale tests.
Swapping a colon for an exclamation point is not sufficient. Call one something else. They're next to each other on the page, for feth's sake!
Gadzilla666 wrote: Stoke the Nails puts the target unit in "Wanton Slaughter". Uughh.....we're really getting "Spiky Doctrines".
For now. My guess is that this is to hold over for the initial CSM codex release, and then the full World Eaters codex is a bit after that. Keep in mind we DID see a preview of the new weapons that Berserker Marines will have (at least a 3D print rendering anyway) and there was a larger Chainaxe amongst them.
There'd be no way that World Eaters would follow a very rigid structure like the doctrines but Death Guard just...don't. I'd actually say patience on this one.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Stoke the Nails puts the target unit in "Wanton Slaughter". Uughh.....we're really getting "Spiky Doctrines".
For now. My guess is that this is to hold over for the initial CSM codex release, and then the full World Eaters codex is a bit after that. Keep in mind we DID see a preview of the new weapons that Berserker Marines will have (at least a 3D print rendering anyway) and there was a larger Chainaxe amongst them.
There'd be no way that World Eaters would follow a very rigid structure like the doctrines but Death Guard just...don't. I'd actually say patience on this one.
That might be true for World Eaters, but not for the 6 Legions that remain in the CSM codex, and apparently, follow the Codex Astartes, in gw's opinion. Just with exploding 6s instead of extra AP.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Stoke the Nails puts the target unit in "Wanton Slaughter". Uughh.....we're really getting "Spiky Doctrines".
For now. My guess is that this is to hold over for the initial CSM codex release, and then the full World Eaters codex is a bit after that. Keep in mind we DID see a preview of the new weapons that Berserker Marines will have (at least a 3D print rendering anyway) and there was a larger Chainaxe amongst them.
There'd be no way that World Eaters would follow a very rigid structure like the doctrines but Death Guard just...don't. I'd actually say patience on this one.
That might be true for World Eaters, but not for the 6 Legions that remain in the CSM codex, and apparently, follow the Codex Astartes, in gw's opinion. Just with exploding 6s instead of extra AP.
Whilst I understand and agree the general purpose of Marines in combat regardless of legion, chapter or era is a blitzkrieg over application of force on a key target, so if its meant to represent that I can respect it, albeit as a lazy approximation.
Voss wrote: Ok, GW.... seriously. No.
Pick a profile. Don't make a unit that is somewhere between
S5, AP2, 5 attacks and S7 AP4 and 6 attacks depending on how many layers of buffs you've got going on. (plus whatever wanton slaughter does)
Also:
Blood for the Blood God: fight one additional time
Blood for the Blood God! auto pass morale tests.
Swapping a colon for an exclamation point is not sufficient. Call one something else. They're next to each other on the page, for feth's sake!
Wow, that's like a new low when it comes to rules name. We gave up USRs for this?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Stoke the Nails puts the target unit in "Wanton Slaughter". Uughh.....we're really getting "Spiky Doctrines".
For now. My guess is that this is to hold over for the initial CSM codex release, and then the full World Eaters codex is a bit after that. Keep in mind we DID see a preview of the new weapons that Berserker Marines will have (at least a 3D print rendering anyway) and there was a larger Chainaxe amongst them.
There'd be no way that World Eaters would follow a very rigid structure like the doctrines but Death Guard just...don't. I'd actually say patience on this one.
That might be true for World Eaters, but not for the 6 Legions that remain in the CSM codex, and apparently, follow the Codex Astartes, in gw's opinion. Just with exploding 6s instead of extra AP.
I'm not defending the Doctrine mechanic CSM at all, but "wait and see" is unfortunately the correct answer here at least for World Eaters. We have NO info about the official codex for World Eaters besides that it's coming. Not even playtest rules that were leaked.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Stoke the Nails puts the target unit in "Wanton Slaughter". Uughh.....we're really getting "Spiky Doctrines".
For now. My guess is that this is to hold over for the initial CSM codex release, and then the full World Eaters codex is a bit after that. Keep in mind we DID see a preview of the new weapons that Berserker Marines will have (at least a 3D print rendering anyway) and there was a larger Chainaxe amongst them.
There'd be no way that World Eaters would follow a very rigid structure like the doctrines but Death Guard just...don't. I'd actually say patience on this one.
That might be true for World Eaters, but not for the 6 Legions that remain in the CSM codex, and apparently, follow the Codex Astartes, in gw's opinion. Just with exploding 6s instead of extra AP.
Whilst I understand and agree the general purpose of Marines in combat regardless of legion, chapter or era is a blitzkrieg over application of force on a key target, so if its meant to represent that I can respect it, albeit as a lazy approximation.
See, it's that "lazy" part that gets me. They took the time and effort to come up with all of these other interesting thematic rules for other factions: Crossfire, Adaptations, Contagions, etc, etc. But for CSM? "Just give them the same thing as loyalists. But exploding 6s, because that's more random. And Chaos = Random." It just shows that they didn't try. It might work, and be effective, but it completely lacks any imagination.
I am just going to use my Horus Heresy infantry with Bolters and Chain Bayonets as Khorne Bezerkers and because I have the blessing of playing with normal people, they will accept the wargear as Chainaxes/Chainswords/etc.
blood reaper wrote: I am just going to use my Horus Heresy infantry with Bolters and Chain Bayonets as Khorne Bezerkers and because I have the blessing of playing with normal people, they will accept the wargear as Chainaxes/Chainswords/etc.
You mean you used models in a manner that was discussed with someone in a conversational and civil manner to work around a problem or reach a mutual understanding? Careful now. Some people will call you a shilling white knight GW apologist because the players shouldn't need to compromise for GW such as not having bolter armed berzerkers.
I guess it's to be expected for a WD ruleset, and given the lack of models it wouldn't be able to match the Harlequins or Crusher Stampede in terms of viability, though you'd think GW would at least make the wargear a bit more meaningful for the key unit of the legion.
I'm kicking myself for not picking up the master of possession for $12 on ebay a month ago. Now that the combat patrol is coming, the price has skyrocketed.
So, generally happy with the basic improvement to how daemon weapons work, but it seems yet again Chaos pays a risk to get a worse relic than other factions.
So I can upgrade a Daemon Prince's sword to do 1 MW on a succesful wound, in return I have to pass a Ld test to use it.
Or, I can go Tyranids and upgrade a Hive Tyrant's sword to do 1 MW on a sucessful wound and ignore wound cap limits (Ghaz, C'tan, etc). No pesky Ld test required.
It makes no sense, the daemon weapon has a downside, so should be a better upgrade when you pass the test.
GW fails properly when it comes to reasonable chaos rules. I have the feeling that GW doesn't know how to deal with chaos. Everything seems to be planned without a theme and thoughtless.
They just scavenged some rules from the SM codex and changed them a bit (i.e. made them worse, because Chaos...). Many units seem to be below the level of other codices. Also the many randomness and weaknesses, without really strong compensation leave a sallow taste.
Instead of Chaos being a powerhouse with clear lines, it seems more like a weak Frankenstein. Here I miss the proper rules implementation of the background where chaos is supposed to be the big enemy.
I really hope that there will be some positive surprises in the final codex, but I can't believe that.
On the world eaters stuff, Zerks look decent, Khârn is still bad. On the other hand, still having the red butchers strat is a nice and unexpected. With the new "accursed weapons" plus that... not too bad at all.
blood reaper wrote: I am just going to use my Horus Heresy infantry with Bolters and Chain Bayonets as Khorne Bezerkers and because I have the blessing of playing with normal people, they will accept the wargear as Chainaxes/Chainswords/etc.
You mean you used models in a manner that was discussed with someone in a conversational and civil manner to work around a problem or reach a mutual understanding? Careful now. Some people will call you a shilling white knight GW apologist because the players shouldn't need to compromise for GW such as not having bolter armed berzerkers.
I mean I don't think the players should have to compromise - it's just in this case I don't care about WYSIWYG and it's a very easy proxy - the KB statline is the same across every model with the exception of the sergeant. There isn't any wargear I need to remodel or change, there isn't any adjustments I need to make. Rather than 9 dudes with a Chainaxe/Chainsword and Bolt Pistol, plus 1 extra mean dude with a Chainaxe/Chainsword and Bolt pistol, it's 9 dudes with Bolters, and one extra mean dude with Bolter.
Also I just think guys with bolters and chain bayonets look cool. I don't really wanna have to buy a bunch of additional arms and bolt pistols, and knowing GWs tendency to change up rulesets, I might as just model them as I say fit and say "everyone has a combi-plasma" or whatever.
blood reaper wrote: I am just going to use my Horus Heresy infantry with Bolters and Chain Bayonets as Khorne Bezerkers and because I have the blessing of playing with normal people, they will accept the wargear as Chainaxes/Chainswords/etc.
You mean you used models in a manner that was discussed with someone in a conversational and civil manner to work around a problem or reach a mutual understanding? Careful now. Some people will call you a shilling white knight GW apologist because the players shouldn't need to compromise for GW such as not having bolter armed berzerkers.
That's not why people argue regarding GW's rules and you damn well know that.
blood reaper wrote: I am just going to use my Horus Heresy infantry with Bolters and Chain Bayonets as Khorne Bezerkers and because I have the blessing of playing with normal people, they will accept the wargear as Chainaxes/Chainswords/etc.
You mean you used models in a manner that was discussed with someone in a conversational and civil manner to work around a problem or reach a mutual understanding? Careful now. Some people will call you a shilling white knight GW apologist because the players shouldn't need to compromise for GW such as not having bolter armed berzerkers.
That's not why people argue regarding GW's rules and you damn well know that.
I considered responding to their initial comment more critically but I've come to the view there really isn't value in debate on forums. I will say for one, I doubt anyone is going to call me a shill or white knight for saying I plan to proxy. They may call me a shill or white knight if I suggest this is a compromise everyone should be willing to make and that there isn't an issue in the first place; in that case, they'd probably be correct.
Also in all honesty I just think guys running forward chain bayoneting people is cool. Plus Bolters have pistol grips and are made to be used in one hand (if trained properly enough) - I am sure plenty of Khorne Bezerkers have run around wildly firing Bolters while swinging chain axes - horrendously reducing their accuracy and effective fire to something similar to a bolt pistol.
Bit of an emotional roller coaster ride on those Berzerkers for me.
Starting off: ok, same PL cost.
Low: I can't run 20-strong blobs any more. I was starting to enjoy that.
High: that's a lot of attacks.
Plateau: they lose BftBG. That's fine, I was expecting it.
Low: Champions lost all their wargear options. Well, bugger me and my 10+ converted Champions, I guess.
High: wait, they all get AP-2 weapons and the icon gives them another -1. I guess the champion doesn't need a special melee weapon.
blood reaper wrote: I am just going to use my Horus Heresy infantry with Bolters and Chain Bayonets as Khorne Bezerkers and because I have the blessing of playing with normal people, they will accept the wargear as Chainaxes/Chainswords/etc.
You mean you used models in a manner that was discussed with someone in a conversational and civil manner to work around a problem or reach a mutual understanding? Careful now. Some people will call you a shilling white knight GW apologist because the players shouldn't need to compromise for GW such as not having bolter armed berzerkers.
That's not why people argue regarding GW's rules and you damn well know that.
I considered responding to their initial comment more critically but I've come to the view there really isn't value in debate on forums. I will say for one, I doubt anyone is going to call me a shill or white knight for saying I plan to proxy. They may call me a shill or white knight if I suggest this is a compromise everyone should be willing to make and that there isn't an issue in the first place; in that case, they'd probably be correct.
Also in all honesty I just think guys running forward chain bayoneting people is cool. Plus Bolters have pistol grips and are made to be used in one hand (if trained properly enough) - I am sure plenty of Khorne Bezerkers have run around wildly firing Bolters while swinging chain axes - horrendously reducing their accuracy and effective fire to something similar to a bolt pistol.
It was obviously meant in jest, no need to be critical or get your knickers in a twist there EviscerationPlague.
In all seriousness its a fair proxy and I'd have no issues at all playing against that, nor would anyone else being reasonable.
Auspex Tactics made a video about the WE Index but he also has the relics !
- Crimson Killer : a better plasma pistol => S9 AP-3 D3 and 1 MW inflicted on 4+ ;
- Banner of Rage : priest only => once per game, +1 Attack for World Eaters within 6" at the start of the Combat Phase ;
- Gorefather : replaces a power axe or exalted power axe => S+2 AP-2 D3 and a wound roll of 6 (unmodified) cause 3 MW instead of normal damages ;
- Berserker Glaive : replaces power axe or exalted power axe => S+2 AP-3 D2 and the bearer has a 5+ FNP (note : better stat than the one from PA/Charadon) ;
- Helm of Furore : infantry only => gives +2S to the bearer but he has to declare charge against unit within 8" if he can ;
- Bloodhunger : each slain model gives you one Wound back on a roll of 5+ (maximum 6 per turn) (note : it's a nerf).
What's interesting to me is the reference to an "exalted power axe". I think it is a fair guess to think it is the chaos equivalent of mastercrafted weapons. What I'm really curious is if Daemon Weapons can be applied to exalted weapons. If that is the case, they can definitely slap very very hard.
Same loadout as the model (power axe, combi melta & pistol)
Is elite and is now a lieutenant (rerolls 1 to wound @6")
Cannot change loadout
Hits better, more wounds, more attacks
I'm guessing that an "Exalted Power Axe" is the D2 power axe that we saw in the Chaos Lord in Terminator Armour instructions. Probably a "character only" thing.
Cons: All my lovingly kitbashed Berzerkers are technically illegal now. GW's devotion to this idiotic 'no models = no rules' (or more specifically 'no options in the kit = no options in the rules') paradigm is gradually killing my enthusiasm for 40K.
Pros: Like blood reaper, I play with sane human beings who don't view official GW rules as unbreakable religious tenets, so nobody will mind that my Berzerkers don't have pistols and the champion has a power fist.
*Shrugs*: We all know these rules will get completely changed again once the WE codex comes out with a new Berzerker kit. Powerfisting champions (and maybe even chainaxe+chainsword Berzerkers) might well become legal again, depending on what's in the new kit. So none of this matters, really.
I feel sorry for anyone whose models have just become illegal and who play with people who insist on strict WYSIWYG and adherence to GW's crackpot 'official' rules, though. If I was in that position, I'd have quit GW years ago.
Duskweaver wrote: Cons: All my lovingly kitbashed Berzerkers are technically illegal now. GW's devotion to this idiotic 'no models = no rules' (or more specifically 'no options in the kit = no options in the rules') paradigm is gradually killing my enthusiasm for 40K.
Pros: Like blood reaper, I play with sane human beings who don't view official GW rules as unbreakable religious tenets, so nobody will mind that my Berzerkers don't have pistols and the champion has a power fist.
*Shrugs*: We all know these rules will get completely changed again once the WE codex comes out with a new Berzerker kit. Powerfisting champions (and maybe even chainaxe+chainsword Berzerkers) might well become legal again, depending on what's in the new kit. So none of this matters, really.
I feel sorry for anyone whose models have just become illegal and who play with people who insist on strict WYSIWYG and adherence to GW's crackpot 'official' rules, though. If I was in that position, I'd have quit GW years ago.
I thought the assumption was that if they come with the equipment automatically (like grenades) then even if you don't model it, they still have it.
EightFoldPath wrote: So, generally happy with the basic improvement to how daemon weapons work, but it seems yet again Chaos pays a risk to get a worse relic than other factions.
So I can upgrade a Daemon Prince's sword to do 1 MW on a succesful wound, in return I have to pass a Ld test to use it.
Or, I can go Tyranids and upgrade a Hive Tyrant's sword to do 1 MW on a sucessful wound and ignore wound cap limits (Ghaz, C'tan, etc). No pesky Ld test required.
It makes no sense, the daemon weapon has a downside, so should be a better upgrade when you pass the test.
"Other factions" here just meaning.... Tyranids.
They are not a reasonable barometer to be comparing anything to.
No other faction, to my knowledge, gets a relic that just lets you do MW's on a successful wound without a specific dice result needed first.
That daemon weapon specifically sounds monstrously powerful as-is. Daemon Princes with Swords are going to be doing like 6 MW's to anything they touch on top of any actual damage from failed saves.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can I please have my Berzerker Champion options back?
GW: "But of course, here are three options to build them from the new box: - Power fist and plasma pistol - Chain axe and bolt pistol - Greater chain axe
No mixing and the bits fit with none of the other models. Also the model is mono-pose mid-jump from a pile of skulls"
EightFoldPath wrote: So, generally happy with the basic improvement to how daemon weapons work, but it seems yet again Chaos pays a risk to get a worse relic than other factions.
So I can upgrade a Daemon Prince's sword to do 1 MW on a succesful wound, in return I have to pass a Ld test to use it.
Or, I can go Tyranids and upgrade a Hive Tyrant's sword to do 1 MW on a sucessful wound and ignore wound cap limits (Ghaz, C'tan, etc). No pesky Ld test required.
It makes no sense, the daemon weapon has a downside, so should be a better upgrade when you pass the test.
"Other factions" here just meaning.... Tyranids.
They are not a reasonable barometer to be comparing anything to.
No other faction, to my knowledge, gets a relic that just lets you do MW's on a successful wound without a specific dice result needed first.
That daemon weapon specifically sounds monstrously powerful as-is. Daemon Princes with Swords are going to be doing like 6 MW's to anything they touch on top of any actual damage from failed saves.
It's also a pretty bad comparison if you're aware that a Hive Tyrant is a ~200pt model about to receive a points hike, and is limited to one per detachment.
Meanwhile daemon weapons seem like they can go onto a fairly wide range of units and weapons. It's probably fair to assume that there will be some combination that allows for much more than the HT's 5 base attacks.
We also don't know if Daemon Princes are going to get a datasheet overhaul when their new kit is finally released.
EightFoldPath wrote: So, generally happy with the basic improvement to how daemon weapons work, but it seems yet again Chaos pays a risk to get a worse relic than other factions.
So I can upgrade a Daemon Prince's sword to do 1 MW on a succesful wound, in return I have to pass a Ld test to use it.
Or, I can go Tyranids and upgrade a Hive Tyrant's sword to do 1 MW on a sucessful wound and ignore wound cap limits (Ghaz, C'tan, etc). No pesky Ld test required.
It makes no sense, the daemon weapon has a downside, so should be a better upgrade when you pass the test.
"Other factions" here just meaning.... Tyranids.
They are not a reasonable barometer to be comparing anything to.
No other faction, to my knowledge, gets a relic that just lets you do MW's on a successful wound without a specific dice result needed first.
That daemon weapon specifically sounds monstrously powerful as-is. Daemon Princes with Swords are going to be doing like 6 MW's to anything they touch on top of any actual damage from failed saves.
Kurnous' Bow does MWs on a successful wound roll, smack it on a Farseer who is BS2, give her Mark of the Incomparable Hunter for +1 Str and 6s to wound inflict 1 MW in addition, Hail of Doom for Shuriken on 6s to hit (2 MWs) and then Blade Storm for exploding 6s to hit as its a shuriken weapon, all from 18" away with Battle Focus either on a jetbike or on foot. Believe the max MWs it can do is 12 MWs and you can pump it with Fate Dice to get a higher spike from it, on average its around 2-3 MWs without it jumping to 4 MWs with a single SoF hit.
ClockworkZion wrote: I thought the assumption was that if they come with the equipment automatically (like grenades) then even if you don't model it, they still have it.
Oh, quite possibly. My powerfist champion is still technically illegal, though. Nobody in my gaming group is likely to object to me keeping the fist anyway, especially as these are just 'get-you-by' rules until the WE codex appears.
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
I was raising an eyebrow too, don't see how stacking 4-odd buffs is analogous. Totally apples to oranges.
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
I was raising an eyebrow too, don't see how stacking 4-odd buffs is analogous. Totally apples to oranges.
Yeah, that's not comparing one relic option to another, that's comparing HQ choices with all the buffs you can stack on top of them.
I do hope we see some HH vehicles put into CSM, I think tooling up land raiders/spartans to actually be good would help alot. Maybe give the land raider half damage and spartan only takes so many a phase.
I would also like normal drop pods back for CSM as its annoying 99% of all chaos transports are just rhinos.
I never understand why people want "normal" drop pods for Chaos. Dreadclaws are one of the few instances where what Chaos gets is actually superior to what loyalists get. And they're also one of the few instances where we get access to a Heresy era unit that loyalists don't also get. They just need to put them in the right FOC slot.
@ClockworkZion: You mentioned earlier in the thread that Warcom had asked the devs about the Kratos being available to Chaos. Do you know if they ever mentioned getting a response?
Gadzilla666 wrote: I never understand why people want "normal" drop pods for Chaos.
Because Dreadclaws are an expensive resin kit that can only be bought from Forge World and cost more than two standard Drop Pod kits.
So you should be asking for a full plastic Dreadclaw kit. Which would be an easy add to the current HH releases, as the kit isn't an actual full resin kit, it's a plastic drop pod kit with a few resin conversion pieces. It would be an easy thing for gw to do in 100% plastic. And it wouldn't take CSM even further down the road to being nothing but loyalists but "Spiky".
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
I was raising an eyebrow too, don't see how stacking 4-odd buffs is analogous. Totally apples to oranges.
Yeah, that's not comparing one relic option to another, that's comparing HQ choices with all the buffs you can stack on top of them.
Thank you for your help team. Could someone tell me what strategems I need to use to activate "Each time an attack is made with this weapon, if that attack successfully wounds the target, it inflicts 1 mortal wound on the target and the attack sequence ends." on the Bow relic?
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
I was raising an eyebrow too, don't see how stacking 4-odd buffs is analogous. Totally apples to oranges.
Yeah, that's not comparing one relic option to another, that's comparing HQ choices with all the buffs you can stack on top of them.
Thank you for your help team. Could someone tell me what strategems I need to use to activate "Each time an attack is made with this weapon, if that attack successfully wounds the target, it inflicts 1 mortal wound on the target and the attack sequence ends." on the Bow relic?
You don't, it's a 3 shot pistol with a damage characteristic of - so max of 3 mortal wounds.
A chaos lord now with a lightning claw would do 6 attacks on the charge with exploding 6's to hit, ws 2+ and rerolls of 1, then reroll of wound rolls, so even on a bad day likely to rack up 3 mw the same + the possible damage from the claw itself.
No legion trait, Mark, warlord trait, strats or even using improved 9th profiles.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I never understand why people want "normal" drop pods for Chaos. Dreadclaws are one of the few instances where what Chaos gets is actually superior to what loyalists get. And they're also one of the few instances where we get access to a Heresy era unit that loyalists don't also get. They just need to put them in the right FOC slot.
@ClockworkZion: You mentioned earlier in the thread that Warcom had asked the devs about the Kratos being available to Chaos. Do you know if they ever mentioned getting a response?
Nothing yet. They also commented that they were passing it up on Facebook but I have yet to see a follow up.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I never understand why people want "normal" drop pods for Chaos.
Because Dreadclaws are an expensive resin kit that can only be bought from Forge World and cost more than two standard Drop Pod kits.
The biggest pain I think, is the fact the Loyalists Drop Pods are dedicated transports and Dreadclaw's come out of Chaos's fast attack slot's. Also it's 25 points too expensive (IMHO).
Gadzilla666 wrote: I never understand why people want "normal" drop pods for Chaos.
Because Dreadclaws are an expensive resin kit that can only be bought from Forge World and cost more than two standard Drop Pod kits.
The biggest pain I think, is the fact the Loyalists Drop Pods are dedicated transports and Dreadclaw's come out of Chaos's fast attack slot's. Also it's 25 points too expensive (IMHO).
Yeah, like I said: They need to put Dreadclaws in the right FOC slot.
The really annoying thing is: they actually did put Dreadclaws in the Dedicated Transports slot in the first CA of 9th edition (2020?). But then the Compendium comes out aaaannndd......it's back in FA again, with deployment rules that didn't work correctly. They've since fixed the latter problem, but not the former. And they don't appear to be in any kind of a rush to get it done.
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
Yea I agree. I play Eldar and I would gladly give up the bow pistol (which I have used and it is better on paper then in game) for an ability to take ANY close combat weapon and add 1 mortal wound for every wound roll keeping the underlying damage, even if it required an old school leadership test. I use scroprions as well, which do a mortal on a 6 to wound and it adds up quick. Personally, I would bet this relic gets nerfed 6-8 months from now with a mortal wound cap.
The fact is the Slannesh one looks under powered to me as it just adds more attacks.
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
Yea I agree. I play Eldar and I would gladly give up the bow pistol (which I have used and it is better on paper then in game) for an ability to take ANY close combat weapon and add 1 mortal wound for every wound roll keeping the underlying damage, even if it required an old school leadership test. I use scroprions as well, which do a mortal on a 6 to wound and it adds up quick. Personally, I would bet this relic gets nerfed 6-8 months from now with a mortal wound cap.
The fact is the Slannesh one looks under powered to me as it just adds more attacks.
Extra attacks for TWO weapons though. If you wanted to be really extra and equip a Lord with two Thunder Hammers, this would be extra LOLZ
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
Yea I agree. I play Eldar and I would gladly give up the bow pistol (which I have used and it is better on paper then in game) for an ability to take ANY close combat weapon and add 1 mortal wound for every wound roll keeping the underlying damage, even if it required an old school leadership test. I use scroprions as well, which do a mortal on a 6 to wound and it adds up quick. Personally, I would bet this relic gets nerfed 6-8 months from now with a mortal wound cap.
The fact is the Slannesh one looks under powered to me as it just adds more attacks.
Extra attacks for TWO weapons though. If you wanted to be really extra and equip a Lord with two Thunder Hammers, this would be extra LOLZ
On average its +4 attacks that not bad on an EC Daemon Prince with two Malefic Talons, not taking into account warlord traits. While we don't know anything other than the DP can still take wings, the new models needs to sell so he'll probably have a boosted stat line as well.
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
Yea I agree. I play Eldar and I would gladly give up the bow pistol (which I have used and it is better on paper then in game) for an ability to take ANY close combat weapon and add 1 mortal wound for every wound roll keeping the underlying damage, even if it required an old school leadership test. I use scroprions as well, which do a mortal on a 6 to wound and it adds up quick. Personally, I would bet this relic gets nerfed 6-8 months from now with a mortal wound cap.
The fact is the Slannesh one looks under powered to me as it just adds more attacks.
Extra attacks for TWO weapons though. If you wanted to be really extra and equip a Lord with two Thunder Hammers, this would be extra LOLZ
On average its +4 attacks that not bad on an EC Daemon Prince with two Malefic Talons, not taking into account warlord traits. While we don't know anything other than the DP can still take wings, the new models needs to sell so he'll probably have a boosted stat line as well.
Actually, forget the EC Prince. Think about the EC Lord with two Hammers instead.
The really annoying thing is: they actually did put Dreadclaws in the Dedicated Transports slot in the first CA of 9th edition (2020?). But then the Compendium comes out aaaannndd......it's back in FA again, with deployment rules that didn't work correctly. They've since fixed the latter problem, but not the former. And they don't appear to be in any kind of a rush to get it done.
Well it getting good rules is dependant on getting plastic model. As long as it's fw kit good rules would be result of gw designer's incompetence.
EightFoldPath wrote: Wow, I bet such a powerful relic requires a leadership test from the farseer to use each turn!
It just takes their faction ability with some luck to get a 6 or pool of, a warlord trait and 2 stratagems to have a chance of doing as many as a lightning claw lord, oh heavens how poorly done to chaos is.
I was raising an eyebrow too, don't see how stacking 4-odd buffs is analogous. Totally apples to oranges.
Yeah, that's not comparing one relic option to another, that's comparing HQ choices with all the buffs you can stack on top of them.
The relic in question also does not do any extra damage outside of the mortal wounds; the attack sequence ends.
It's also reliant on a custom craftworld trait that is getting nerfed into oblivion in the next dataslate.
I know Chaos players like to whine but Ulloca looks really powerful. It's main drawback will probably be needing to be on a Undivided model as iirc we don't know what that mark does yet, compared with the other 4.
Regardless if we take the DGDP as a barometer, CSMDP's will be getting 6 attacks base. Pop that relic on a Sword and that's 6 S8 ap3 D3 attacks where every successful wound is a MW in addition. Certain set-ups like Word Bearers (rr hits and additional MW's in their superdoctrine on 6's to wound) or Night Lords (+1 to wound in superdoc) will blend stuff.
xeen wrote: Yea I agree. I play Eldar and I would gladly give up the bow pistol (which I have used and it is better on paper then in game) for an ability to take ANY close combat weapon and add 1 mortal wound for every wound roll keeping the underlying damage, even if it required an old school leadership test. I use scroprions as well, which do a mortal on a 6 to wound and it adds up quick. Personally, I would bet this relic gets nerfed 6-8 months from now with a mortal wound cap.
The fact is the Slannesh one looks under powered to me as it just adds more attacks.
They would have to nerf the far superior Tyranid relic first.
The Slaanesh one looks "ok". It sounds like you have to take two leadership tests, one for each weapon. It boils down to +4 attacks. You can currently take a double powerfist loadout on a Lord/Terminator Lord or a double thunder hammer/chainfist depending on armour type. You will probably want to take one of each to vary your damage profile. A +4 attack power fist seems good, but when I try to find a comparable relic, they usually have + 2/3 attacks and other improvements, e.g. Triptych Whip is +3 attacks, +1 damage, +2 to wound. Still +2 attacks on a DP sword, +2 attacks on a DP talon does sound "ok".
It does just feel that GW (and some commenters) are missing the point that if you give a relic a downside, you should be looking at comparable relics and making sure your upside is better. This is often an issue with all the Chaos factions, they remember to do the downside/upside thing, but then for other factions seem to forget the downside part. Although I will allow Orks (and 9th ed Necrons) to be honourary members of the Chaos super faction for this, as they also seem to get a good old whacking with the downside stick for their rules.
For maximum power I think these relics if they are all weapon neutral will nearly always go on a Daemon Prince (Sword and Talon equals two weapons) or Lord Discordant (new profile probably still has main weapon and mechatendrils) rather than a Chaos Lord/Terminator Lord/Master of Executions, unless those two datasheets are excluded from using them.
xeen wrote: Yea I agree. I play Eldar and I would gladly give up the bow pistol (which I have used and it is better on paper then in game) for an ability to take ANY close combat weapon and add 1 mortal wound for every wound roll keeping the underlying damage, even if it required an old school leadership test. I use scroprions as well, which do a mortal on a 6 to wound and it adds up quick. Personally, I would bet this relic gets nerfed 6-8 months from now with a mortal wound cap.
The fact is the Slannesh one looks under powered to me as it just adds more attacks.
They would have to nerf the far superior Tyranid relic first.
The Slaanesh one looks "ok". It sounds like you have to take two leadership tests, one for each weapon. It boils down to +4 attacks. You can currently take a double powerfist loadout on a Lord/Terminator Lord or a double thunder hammer/chainfist depending on armour type. You will probably want to take one of each to vary your damage profile. A +4 attack power fist seems good, but when I try to find a comparable relic, they usually have + 2/3 attacks and other improvements, e.g. Triptych Whip is +3 attacks, +1 damage, +2 to wound. Still +2 attacks on a DP sword, +2 attacks on a DP talon does sound "ok".
It does just feel that GW (and some commenters) are missing the point that if you give a relic a downside, you should be looking at comparable relics and making sure your upside is better. This is often an issue with all the Chaos factions, they remember to do the downside/upside thing, but then for other factions seem to forget the downside part. Although I will allow Orks (and 9th ed Necrons) to be honourary members of the Chaos super faction for this, as they also seem to get a good old whacking with the downside stick for their rules.
For maximum power I think these relics if they are all weapon neutral will nearly always go on a Daemon Prince (Sword and Talon equals two weapons) or Lord Discordant (new profile probably still has main weapon and mechatendrils) rather than a Chaos Lord/Terminator Lord/Master of Executions, unless those two datasheets are excluded from using them.
Well since you can't take e.g. a relic bonesword on any Chaos models, nor can you take a daemon weapon on a hive tyrant the entire comparison is moot. Relics are more a topic of internal balance and on this occasion they seem to have done well. You can have a tame relic push an already deadly profile over the top, you can also have a killer relic that can only be given to stuff with a dire profile. You can't ignore the list of potential wielders for a factions relics.
The really annoying thing is: they actually did put Dreadclaws in the Dedicated Transports slot in the first CA of 9th edition (2020?). But then the Compendium comes out aaaannndd......it's back in FA again, with deployment rules that didn't work correctly. They've since fixed the latter problem, but not the former. And they don't appear to be in any kind of a rush to get it done.
Well it getting good rules is dependant on getting plastic model. As long as it's fw kit good rules would be result of gw designer's incompetence.
Eh, I don't think that expecting them to put Dreadclaws in the right FOC slot is a big "ask".
That's also an interesting take in a CSM thread, as the faction has leaned fairly hard on our fw units since 7th edition, mostly because they have better rules than their plastic equivalents. A Sicaran is better than any of our plastic tanks, fw dreads are better than Hellbrutes, and an Achilles makes a standard Land Raider look like an absolute punk. But, you do you.
ClockworkZion wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ah, ok. Well, thanks for keeping on top of this for everyone Zion.
I mean it affects me too so of course I'm paying attention!
Yes, I know. But you don't have to bring any information you get here for the rest of us. And I thank you for doing so.
They would have to nerf the far superior Tyranid relic first.
The Slaanesh one looks "ok". It sounds like you have to take two leadership tests, one for each weapon. It boils down to +4 attacks. You can currently take a double powerfist loadout on a Lord/Terminator Lord or a double thunder hammer/chainfist depending on armour type. You will probably want to take one of each to vary your damage profile. A +4 attack power fist seems good, but when I try to find a comparable relic, they usually have + 2/3 attacks and other improvements, e.g. Triptych Whip is +3 attacks, +1 damage, +2 to wound. Still +2 attacks on a DP sword, +2 attacks on a DP talon does sound "ok".
It does just feel that GW (and some commenters) are missing the point that if you give a relic a downside, you should be looking at comparable relics and making sure your upside is better. This is often an issue with all the Chaos factions, they remember to do the downside/upside thing, but then for other factions seem to forget the downside part. Although I will allow Orks (and 9th ed Necrons) to be honourary members of the Chaos super faction for this, as they also seem to get a good old whacking with the downside stick for their rules.
For maximum power I think these relics if they are all weapon neutral will nearly always go on a Daemon Prince (Sword and Talon equals two weapons) or Lord Discordant (new profile probably still has main weapon and mechatendrils) rather than a Chaos Lord/Terminator Lord/Master of Executions, unless those two datasheets are excluded from using them.
All this could be moot anyway as daemon weapons might and could be limited to infantry characters anyway. Orkz have relics restricted in the same way in that it has to be specified for a vehicle to have one, same thing with Ironhand vehicles. I don't expect a Disco Lord to be allowed a daemonweapon and I'm not really feeling daemon prince's having them either, they've never had them in the past?
They would have to nerf the far superior Tyranid relic first.
The Slaanesh one looks "ok". It sounds like you have to take two leadership tests, one for each weapon. It boils down to +4 attacks. You can currently take a double powerfist loadout on a Lord/Terminator Lord or a double thunder hammer/chainfist depending on armour type. You will probably want to take one of each to vary your damage profile. A +4 attack power fist seems good, but when I try to find a comparable relic, they usually have + 2/3 attacks and other improvements, e.g. Triptych Whip is +3 attacks, +1 damage, +2 to wound. Still +2 attacks on a DP sword, +2 attacks on a DP talon does sound "ok".
It does just feel that GW (and some commenters) are missing the point that if you give a relic a downside, you should be looking at comparable relics and making sure your upside is better. This is often an issue with all the Chaos factions, they remember to do the downside/upside thing, but then for other factions seem to forget the downside part. Although I will allow Orks (and 9th ed Necrons) to be honourary members of the Chaos super faction for this, as they also seem to get a good old whacking with the downside stick for their rules.
For maximum power I think these relics if they are all weapon neutral will nearly always go on a Daemon Prince (Sword and Talon equals two weapons) or Lord Discordant (new profile probably still has main weapon and mechatendrils) rather than a Chaos Lord/Terminator Lord/Master of Executions, unless those two datasheets are excluded from using them.
All this could be moot anyway as daemon weapons might and could be limited to infantry characters anyway. Orkz have relics restricted in the same way in that it has to be specified for a vehicle to have one, same thing with Ironhand vehicles. I don't expect a Disco Lord to be allowed a daemonweapon and I'm not really feeling daemon prince's having them either, they've never had them in the past?
Daemon Princes have had the ability to take Daemon Weapons in the past. I started in 7th, and ran (for a time) a Black Mace Prince.
Pretty sure I saw plenty of pairs of Daemon Prince legs swinging the berserker glaive before the 4th ed codex blanderized Chaos beyond recognition. There's nothing to stop a daemon from having a daemon weapon other than the whims of GW's rules writers.
They would have to nerf the far superior Tyranid relic first.
The Slaanesh one looks "ok". It sounds like you have to take two leadership tests, one for each weapon. It boils down to +4 attacks. You can currently take a double powerfist loadout on a Lord/Terminator Lord or a double thunder hammer/chainfist depending on armour type. You will probably want to take one of each to vary your damage profile. A +4 attack power fist seems good, but when I try to find a comparable relic, they usually have + 2/3 attacks and other improvements, e.g. Triptych Whip is +3 attacks, +1 damage, +2 to wound. Still +2 attacks on a DP sword, +2 attacks on a DP talon does sound "ok".
It does just feel that GW (and some commenters) are missing the point that if you give a relic a downside, you should be looking at comparable relics and making sure your upside is better. This is often an issue with all the Chaos factions, they remember to do the downside/upside thing, but then for other factions seem to forget the downside part. Although I will allow Orks (and 9th ed Necrons) to be honourary members of the Chaos super faction for this, as they also seem to get a good old whacking with the downside stick for their rules.
For maximum power I think these relics if they are all weapon neutral will nearly always go on a Daemon Prince (Sword and Talon equals two weapons) or Lord Discordant (new profile probably still has main weapon and mechatendrils) rather than a Chaos Lord/Terminator Lord/Master of Executions, unless those two datasheets are excluded from using them.
All this could be moot anyway as daemon weapons might and could be limited to infantry characters anyway. Orkz have relics restricted in the same way in that it has to be specified for a vehicle to have one, same thing with Ironhand vehicles. I don't expect a Disco Lord to be allowed a daemonweapon and I'm not really feeling daemon prince's having them either, they've never had them in the past?
Daemon weapons are Character Keyoworded, so the Lord Discordant and Daemon Prince can both "technically" take one. The issue in the current codex is you have the apropriate weapon to swap for it, and the Disco Lord doesn't. So, we'll have to see what the do.
They would have to nerf the far superior Tyranid relic first.
The Slaanesh one looks "ok". It sounds like you have to take two leadership tests, one for each weapon. It boils down to +4 attacks. You can currently take a double powerfist loadout on a Lord/Terminator Lord or a double thunder hammer/chainfist depending on armour type. You will probably want to take one of each to vary your damage profile. A +4 attack power fist seems good, but when I try to find a comparable relic, they usually have + 2/3 attacks and other improvements, e.g. Triptych Whip is +3 attacks, +1 damage, +2 to wound. Still +2 attacks on a DP sword, +2 attacks on a DP talon does sound "ok".
It does just feel that GW (and some commenters) are missing the point that if you give a relic a downside, you should be looking at comparable relics and making sure your upside is better. This is often an issue with all the Chaos factions, they remember to do the downside/upside thing, but then for other factions seem to forget the downside part. Although I will allow Orks (and 9th ed Necrons) to be honourary members of the Chaos super faction for this, as they also seem to get a good old whacking with the downside stick for their rules.
For maximum power I think these relics if they are all weapon neutral will nearly always go on a Daemon Prince (Sword and Talon equals two weapons) or Lord Discordant (new profile probably still has main weapon and mechatendrils) rather than a Chaos Lord/Terminator Lord/Master of Executions, unless those two datasheets are excluded from using them.
All this could be moot anyway as daemon weapons might and could be limited to infantry characters anyway. Orkz have relics restricted in the same way in that it has to be specified for a vehicle to have one, same thing with Ironhand vehicles. I don't expect a Disco Lord to be allowed a daemonweapon and I'm not really feeling daemon prince's having them either, they've never had them in the past?
Daemon weapons are Character Keyoworded, so the Lord Discordant and Daemon Prince can both "technically" take one. The issue in the current codex is you have the apropriate weapon to swap for it, and the Disco Lord doesn't. So, we'll have to see what the do.
According to the article, and the two Daemon Weapons we've seen, they can be slapped on to just about any melee weapon, including mechandrites, as long as they aren't a named relic already. So it sounds like the Disco Lord's chainglaive should be good, unless they make Disco Lords a unique character, and do the same thing with his chainglaive.
Big bundle of stuff going up for preorder next week. Pretty much all the AoS and a bunch of Necromunda stuff that was pre-ordered.
They're really running out of things that they've revealed that they can stuff in front of the Chaos Marines coming out, so here's hoping it's the following week.
As for Daemon Weapons... interesting stuff. The idea that you have a character that benefits from a Warlord Trait, Relic, Legion Trait, and then a Daemon Weapon could be really nasty indeed.
A Terminator Lord with dual Lightning Claws and the Slaanesh Daemon Weapon and Mark of Slaanesh... Then throw them in Night Lords and give them the Warlord Trait that's +d3 attacks and always in slaughter phase and then the Relic that gives him a once-per-battle regain 3 wounds, +d3 attacks, +3" to aura abilities...
You get a Terminator Lord that likely gets something like 6+4d3 attacks with +1 to wound, +1 to advances/charges, fights first, ap-2, 1 damage, re-rolling wounds.
Not sure that's issue. If you can't have relic and daemon weapon there wouldn't have need to specfically exclude relic weapons as candinate for daemon weapon upgrade?
You can't have two relics, can you? So they have to specify that daemon weapons are relics so you can't have both because they don't want you to have both.
They may have to specify that you can't upgrade a relic to daemon weapon to avoid circumventing that restriction by turning a relic into a relic, thereby only having one relic but with unintended power boost.
The article specifically calls them out as Relics, capital R, and even directly contrasts them to other weapon Relics in that Daemon Weapons aren't tied to a specific weapon type.
Hmm, even without the relic, you're still at 6+d3 attacks.
It's a bit clumsily worded. If you look at it from an order-of-operations perspective, then the weapon only becomes a relic after you assign it a 'daemon weapon'. If you give a character a relic beforehand, and then assign a daemon weapon, it's not giving the character an extra relic. The weapon -then becomes- a relic for rules purposes.
idk, probably bupkis, but it's all clumsily worded anyway.
I have a very very low opinion of the GW rules writers, but even I think they might have managed to word their rules so you can't double up on a relic and daemon weapon. I do think they will just be a fluffy relic type for CSM.
Although the strange wording in the previewed rules did make me wonder if maybe you buy them using points rather than CP/strategem.
It also might be connected to either a generic master crafted upgrade (that can't go on relics/daemon weapons) or something to do with relics on champion models within units.
I've hit one of the later stages of grief now, and I'm just hoping WarCom have done the traditional preview of a couple of below average new rules and the really good stuff is still to come.
EightFoldPath wrote: I have a very very low opinion of the GW rules writers, but even I think they might have managed to word their rules so you can't double up on a relic and daemon weapon. I do think they will just be a fluffy relic type for CSM.
Although the strange wording in the previewed rules did make me wonder if maybe you buy them using points rather than CP/strategem.
It also might be connected to either a generic master crafted upgrade (that can't go on relics/daemon weapons) or something to do with relics on champion models within units.
I've hit one of the later stages of grief now, and I'm just hoping WarCom have done the traditional preview of a couple of below average new rules and the really good stuff is still to come.
All downhill from here.
A big thing that could be coming, especially with the new tournament pack, is that warlord traits and relics may be limited to 1 each per army. Daemon Weapons could get around that by not technically being a relic purchase, giving Chaos something that helps them stand out in the new missions.
I just need to know one thing, and I don't care if it's from a Warcom article or a verifiable leak (as in an actual codex picture): Can our characters take jump packs. I can deal with whatever else they hit us with, but that will make or break the codex for me.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I just need to know one thing, and I don't care if it's from a Warcom article or a verifiable leak (as in an actual codex picture): Can our characters take jump packs. I can deal with whatever else they hit us with, but that will make or break the codex for me.
I hear you. Seems like such a small thing but I feel exactly the same.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I just need to know one thing, and I don't care if it's from a Warcom article or a verifiable leak (as in an actual codex picture): Can our characters take jump packs. I can deal with whatever else they hit us with, but that will make or break the codex for me.
I'm in the same boat wanting to see actual unit champion options.
I know some people don't think it matters but I'm double dipping with my HH legion so the more I know I can transfer between the two the easier it makes my life.
Working solidly on my iron warriors backlog and very much want to paint my chosen but have no idea how to equip them. Is the malefic weapons thing legit or not ? Everything else is basically painted but just those dudes are waiting for some attention.
Rogerio134134 wrote: Working solidly on my iron warriors backlog and very much want to paint my chosen but have no idea how to equip them. Is the malefic weapons thing legit or not ? Everything else is basically painted but just those dudes are waiting for some attention.
No picture confirmation yet, just some playtester leaks that don't really tell us what the final version has.
Rogerio134134 wrote: Working solidly on my iron warriors backlog and very much want to paint my chosen but have no idea how to equip them. Is the malefic weapons thing legit or not ? Everything else is basically painted but just those dudes are waiting for some attention.
If it is likely to be important to the way you play then I would wait. Keep in mind that whatever is good (or reasonable) in the 9th edition codex, will completely unsuspiciously be bad (or unreasonable) in the 10th edition codex. So you'll get 1~3 years of a good loadout then might need more Chosen.
I think that you're being overly optimistic. If we get something real good then it will be FAQ'd/Errata'd within a couple of months. Chaos isn't allowed to have nice things, only spikey things.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I think that you're being overly optimistic. If we get something real good then it will be FAQ'd/Errata'd within a couple of months. Chaos isn't allowed to have nice things, only spikey things.
I'm not expecting good things. I'm just expecting *something* to exist and I'm just waiting to see what that is.
H.B.M.C. wrote: One way or another, we'll end up being more Codex-adherent than many of the Loyalist Chapters.
From the sounds of things Guilliman is moving back to the Legion organization, so it'll make us less codex compliant, but instead we'll get to be less legion compliant instead. Yay?
H.B.M.C. wrote: One way or another, we'll end up being more Codex-adherent than many of the Loyalist Chapters.
From the sounds of things Guilliman is moving back to the Legion organization, so it'll make us less codex compliant, but instead we'll get to be less legion compliant instead. Yay?
Yeah! Because noCSM player wants to play a Legion. I mean, gw has been telling us that for *checks current year* fifteen years now! /s
(I know you're not advocating for that Zion. Just making the point .)
H.B.M.C. wrote: One way or another, we'll end up being more Codex-adherent than many of the Loyalist Chapters.
From the sounds of things Guilliman is moving back to the Legion organization, so it'll make us less codex compliant, but instead we'll get to be less legion compliant instead. Yay?
Yeah! Because noCSM player wants to play a Legion. I mean, gw has been telling us that for *checks current year* fifteen years now! /s
(I know you're not advocating for that Zion. Just making the point .)
As someone who is building a HH Legion and using them in 40k....yes I clearly want to play a codex compliant chapter of Night Lords.
H.B.M.C. wrote: One way or another, we'll end up being more Codex-adherent than many of the Loyalist Chapters.
From the sounds of things Guilliman is moving back to the Legion organization, so it'll make us less codex compliant, but instead we'll get to be less legion compliant instead. Yay?
Yeah! Because noCSM player wants to play a Legion. I mean, gw has been telling us that for *checks current year* fifteen years now! /s
(I know you're not advocating for that Zion. Just making the point .)
Word Bearers have been espousing the Chaotic Truth of codex compliance for a while now, so it's only fitting that they'd make everyone else follow suit like with the Heresy.
That's the real reason Black Legion are losing Cult Troops, Erebus stabbed Abaddon with a magic dagger then read the Codex Astartes to him word for word.
It's not a coincidence that the Word Bearers' home world shares its name with a certain Ultramarines captain *tinfoil hat*
And my comments about following the Codex were not about deviating form Legion organisation, more that it's weird how our squads have to act like Tactical Squads. Why can't we take 2 special weapons or even 2 heavy weapons in larger squads? We used to be able to...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the answer is "be less restrictive".
And my comments about following the Codex were not about deviating form Legion organisation, more that it's weird how our squads have to act like Tactical Squads. Why can't we take 2 special weapons or even 2 heavy weapons in larger squads? We used to be able to...
But this would then mean you could easily represent BOTH Renegade and Legion style squads! This is a terrible idea./s
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the answer is "be less restrictive".
And my comments about following the Codex were not about deviating form Legion organisation, more that it's weird how our squads have to act like Tactical Squads. Why can't we take 2 special weapons or even 2 heavy weapons in larger squads? We used to be able to...
But this would then mean you could easily represent BOTH Renegade and Legion style squads! This is a terrible idea./s
Whilst I agree with you guys because I'll no doubt get impacted by all this too, 10 marines with 2 heavy weapons isn't legion nor codex doctrine, it's just randomly something they permitted. Even going back I'm fairly sure the special/heavy weapon guys were there just to make your chaos troop units feel like effective all comers rather than anything else.
I don't see why chaos tactical troops couldn't just take 2 heavy or special weapons per 10 models. That way you could have 2 special weapons if you wanted or 2 heavy weapons or the old one of each per full 10 man squad.
Originally I was thinking that it wouldn't be terrible to merge Tacticals with Havocs. Meaning up to 4 heavy/special weapons per 10 man squad but then I remembered that, in the old days, you could take 10 man Havoc squads but the extra 5 guys were just ablative wounds and chosen could have 4 special weapons in their squads.
Rogerio134134 wrote: Working solidly on my iron warriors backlog and very much want to paint my chosen but have no idea how to equip them. Is the malefic weapons thing legit or not ? Everything else is basically painted but just those dudes are waiting for some attention.
If it is likely to be important to the way you play then I would wait. Keep in mind that whatever is good (or reasonable) in the 9th edition codex, will completely unsuspiciously be bad (or unreasonable) in the 10th edition codex. So you'll get 1~3 years of a good loadout then might need more Chosen.
No, that is not how things go. It is possible for such a result to occur, but not particularly more so than the best loadout remaining the best (or even getting better) or there being no change at all. Players should not be fearing a nonexistant trend when assembling their models.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the answer is "be less restrictive".
And my comments about following the Codex were not about deviating form Legion organisation, more that it's weird how our squads have to act like Tactical Squads. Why can't we take 2 special weapons or even 2 heavy weapons in larger squads? We used to be able to...
Quite frankly it's utterly dumb Tactical Marines can't do the same to begin with.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guess GW finally plugged that leak seeing as CSM is the only book this year we know is comong but can't get images from.
I mean, you say that, but we've gotten leaks for the stratagem card pack for Leagues of Votann, and images of the Astra Militarum upcoming release, all of which -should- be coming *after* Chaos Marines...
It's very strange the things that seem to be selectively leaked out.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guess GW finally plugged that leak seeing as CSM is the only book this year we know is comong but can't get images from.
I mean, you say that, but we've gotten leaks for the stratagem card pack for Leagues of Votann, and images of the Astra Militarum upcoming release, all of which -should- be coming *after* Chaos Marines...
It's very strange the things that seem to be selectively leaked out.
If it's GW doing the leaking as suspected by some, it makes you wonder how bad the book is if they won't leak it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guess GW finally plugged that leak seeing as CSM is the only book this year we know is comong but can't get images from.
I mean, you say that, but we've gotten leaks for the stratagem card pack for Leagues of Votann, and images of the Astra Militarum upcoming release, all of which -should- be coming *after* Chaos Marines...
It's very strange the things that seem to be selectively leaked out.
If it's GW doing the leaking as suspected by some, it makes you wonder how bad the book is if they won't leak it.
Or good, if they've "over corrected" to the OP side in any way, although that's not apparent from what we know.
Saying that, someone did leak a pic of the finished book, that's how we saw the cover early. So they are out there.
I don't think GW has the level of insight required to even know if a book they've written is good or bad. They definitely don't have the insight to selectively leak things based on how good or bad they are gonna be lol
ClockworkZion wrote: Guess GW finally plugged that leak seeing as CSM is the only book this year we know is comong but can't get images from.
I mean, you say that, but we've gotten leaks for the stratagem card pack for Leagues of Votann, and images of the Astra Militarum upcoming release, all of which -should- be coming *after* Chaos Marines...
It's very strange the things that seem to be selectively leaked out.
If it's GW doing the leaking as suspected by some, it makes you wonder how bad the book is if they won't leak it.
Or good, if they've "over corrected" to the OP side in any way, although that's not apparent from what we know.
Saying that, someone did leak a pic of the finished book, that's how we saw the cover early. So they are out there.
Being "too good" certainly didn't stop Nids, Eldar, etc from being leaked. I doubt it's either, and more of a case of the codex not falling into the "right" hands.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guess GW finally plugged that leak seeing as CSM is the only book this year we know is comong but can't get images from.
I mean, you say that, but we've gotten leaks for the stratagem card pack for Leagues of Votann, and images of the Astra Militarum upcoming release, all of which -should- be coming *after* Chaos Marines...
It's very strange the things that seem to be selectively leaked out.
If it's GW doing the leaking as suspected by some, it makes you wonder how bad the book is if they won't leak it.
Or good, if they've "over corrected" to the OP side in any way, although that's not apparent from what we know.
Saying that, someone did leak a pic of the finished book, that's how we saw the cover early. So they are out there.
Being "too good" certainly didn't stop Nids, Eldar, etc from being leaked. I doubt it's either, and more of a case of the codex not falling into the "right" hands.
Good or bad, they need to shove it out the door.
Enthusiasm pretty much peaked with the preview show, and its been a long slide downhill since then.
Feels like they decided to have it compete with Horus Heresy and lose, badly. Now all that matters is Guard, World Eaters and Squats. (and presumably Daemons will wander in late as another stray also-ran after that bunch- in fact, I suspect the new daemon prince will come as the '1 model' for the daemons book, right on the heels of the Slaves to Darkness release for AoS).
At this point, even if it is good, I don't think many people will believe it.
Voss wrote: Good or bad, they need to shove it out the door.
Enthusiasm pretty much peaked with the preview show, and its been a long slide downhill since then.
Feels like they decided to have it compete with Horus Heresy and lose, badly. Now all that matters is Guard, World Eaters and Squats. (and presumably Daemons will wander in late as another stray also-ran after that bunch).
At this point, even if it is good, I don't think many people will believe it.
Aye. They need to just go ahead and tear off the bandaid and get it over with. Good, bad, whatever, we've waited long enough. And there are others waiting in the wings behind CSM that need their own codexes as well.
Voss wrote: Good or bad, they need to shove it out the door.
Enthusiasm pretty much peaked with the preview show, and its been a long slide downhill since then.
Feels like they decided to have it compete with Horus Heresy and lose, badly. Now all that matters is Guard, World Eaters and Squats. (and presumably Daemons will wander in late as another stray also-ran after that bunch).
At this point, even if it is good, I don't think many people will believe it.
Aye. They need to just go ahead and tear off the bandaid and get it over with. Good, bad, whatever, we've waited long enough. And there are others waiting in the wings behind CSM that need their own codexes as well.
From white dwarf and the new mission book we can infer they were meant to be out by now (if not a while ago), does make you wonder what changed. Either way I'm just happy corsairs seem to be getting the legion treatment and I'm not stuck playing as *insert rando legion company*. So it looks like it'll be at least an upgrade for me assuming there's more than 1 relic and WLT.
I do think at some point either CSM or SM 2.0 got internally "tested" at Nottingham into Tyranids or Harlequins or Craftworlds and someone realised their massive error.
This seems more likely if we assume GW test by playing a more casual bring one of what you fancy list, because Tyranids look like a very good highlander codex.
I think that is where Armour of Contempt came from.
Perhaps they are waiting to drop the new points onto the top 3/4 factions before CSM come out.
In light of the terrible datasheet, plus the fact it didn't actually have chaos rules yet I decided to cancel my order of the kratos today and get some other bits instead. I wanted it as the centerpiece for my iron warriors but I just don't see the point of having a big paperweight which I'll never use.
Voss wrote: Good or bad, they need to shove it out the door.
Enthusiasm pretty much peaked with the preview show, and its been a long slide downhill since then.
Feels like they decided to have it compete with Horus Heresy and lose, badly. Now all that matters is Guard, World Eaters and Squats. (and presumably Daemons will wander in late as another stray also-ran after that bunch- in fact, I suspect the new daemon prince will come as the '1 model' for the daemons book, right on the heels of the Slaves to Darkness release for AoS).
At this point, even if it is good, I don't think many people will believe it.
Feels like it should have dropped pre-HH but shipping delays somewhere kept that from being a realistic date.
Regardless this week feels like they're playing catch up, or moving things around to accommodate the delayed CSM release.
Perhaps they are waiting to drop the new points onto the top 3/4 factions before CSM come out.
That will be exciting. A codex created with the old point system in place will be dropped splat into the middle of a completely changed meta.
What could possibly go wrong?
Perhaps they are waiting to drop the new points onto the top 3/4 factions before CSM come out.
That will be exciting. A codex created with the old point system in place will be dropped splat into the middle of a completely changed meta.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, if the leaks are true, it's already getting a nerf in the new CA, or at least Night Lords are. That "Reserves arrive 1 turn earlier" strategem? Yeah, suddenly doesn't look quite as good, does it?
Nope, I definitely don't think any of the changes in the new CA have anything to do with this codex, or vice-versa.
I'm really curious to see what the rules are going to be for the Tormented and possessed cultists, as we've never really had units like that before. Also, I'm interested to see what the rules are for the new daemon prince's gun, since it looks pretty powerful visually. The current warp bolter is ok, but nothing to write home about.
Perhaps they are waiting to drop the new points onto the top 3/4 factions before CSM come out.
That will be exciting. A codex created with the old point system in place will be dropped splat into the middle of a completely changed meta.
What could possibly go wrong?
That also assumes they haven't tweaked the CSM points in the balance slate like they had for custodes. It's a similar position to be in.
Not just covid/supply chain issues, but the leaked Iron Warriors trait clashes with AOC so they might have delayed the book to reprint it with tweaked IW rules.
Bosskelot wrote: Not just covid/supply chain issues, but the leaked Iron Warriors trait clashes with AOC so they might have delayed the book to reprint it with tweaked IW rules.
Ehhhh.....yeeaaahh....no. Remember, those leaks are coming from an old playtest doc, so it's possible that they fixed it before the codex went to print. But if they didn't? Expect a day 1 FAQ. Gw isn't doing a reprint to fix one non-functional rule. We've got plenty of evidence of that.
Bosskelot wrote: Not just covid/supply chain issues, but the leaked Iron Warriors trait clashes with AOC so they might have delayed the book to reprint it with tweaked IW rules.
Ehhhh.....yeeaaahh....no. Remember, those leaks are coming from an old playtest doc, so it's possible that they fixed it before the codex went to print. But if they didn't? Expect a day 1 FAQ. Gw isn't doing a reprint to fix one non-functional rule. We've got plenty of evidence of that.
More importantly if they re-ran to fix the trait they likely re-ran to include AoC in the book.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guess GW finally plugged that leak seeing as CSM is the only book this year we know is comong but can't get images from.
I mean, you say that, but we've gotten leaks for the stratagem card pack for Leagues of Votann, and images of the Astra Militarum upcoming release, all of which -should- be coming *after* Chaos Marines...
It's very strange the things that seem to be selectively leaked out.
If it's GW doing the leaking as suspected by some, it makes you wonder how bad the book is if they won't leak it.
Or good, if they've "over corrected" to the OP side in any way, although that's not apparent from what we know.
Saying that, someone did leak a pic of the finished book, that's how we saw the cover early. So they are out there.
Being "too good" certainly didn't stop Nids, Eldar, etc from being leaked. I doubt it's either, and more of a case of the codex not falling into the "right" hands.
You know you're all made to wait because of me, right? I just want a box of Cultists, but GW isn't in the habit of giving me what I want. You'll have to wait until GW is convinced that I lost interest. Like with Sisters of Battle. I waited for plastic Sisters literally for decades. Then I stopped playing 40k and a month later GW announced them.
Is it me? It looks like Kharn is going to clock in at around 140 pts (PL7). That's bigger than Chaos Lords in Terminator Armor. If this is the case we're in for a large bit of HQ inflation because no way is Kharn that much better than the Lord Teminator (if at all).
I'm not that convinced that +1" move, +2 S and, +2(1) A is worth 35 points. My Termie Lord has a combi bolter and Chain fist and clocks in at 105 points. Base A is 4 but I get one more if charging, charged, etc.. So yeah, not impressed.
So they are all getting an extra attack on charge/charged/intervention from the legion trait, as well as a point of strength from MoK, then Kharn will double those attacks since he fights twice.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Is it me? It looks like Kharn is going to clock in at around 140 pts (PL7). That's bigger than Chaos Lords in Terminator Armor. If this is the case we're in for a large bit of HQ inflation because no way is Kharn that much better than the Lord Teminator (if at all).
H.B.M.C. wrote: But wouldn't it be... I dunno... Furiosa Astartes or something, for 'Zerkers/World Eaters. Not "Traitoris"?
World Eaters will probably only be "Traitoris Astartes" in this supplement, so that they can properly interact with the stuff in the CSM codex. Once they get their own Codex, they'll probably get their own version of "(X) Astartes" keyword.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So what we're saying is that Traitoris Astartes is to Heretic Astartes in the same way that Hive Tendril is to Tyranid?
Still could'a come up with a less redundant name.
More like how Bubonic Astartes applies to actual Astartes in the Death Guard codex but not non-Astartes Heretic Astartes units like the various Daemon Engines.
So...a word bearers warlord gets a 4+ invul and more strength, movement, wounds and attacks. For free. With no downsides.
The only way that could make sense balance wise is if the Word Bearer's trait is absolute gak and the only strong point they have is the warlord, or if the daemon trait has a huge weakness. Or maybe both.
The Iron warriors secondary objective sounds interesting though.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So...a word bearers warlord gets a 4+ invul and more strength, movement, wounds and attacks.
For free. With no downsides.
The only way that could make sense balance wise is if the Word Bearer's trait is absolute gak and the only strong point they have is the warlord, or if the daemon trait has a huge weakness.
Or maybe both.
The Iron warriors secondary objective sounds interesting though.
Umh. That's warlord trait so for one costs cp. And of course no other warlord trait. It's not extra rule all word bearers have.
That's like "damn that marine captain hands out obsec for free"
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: The last thing is both really bloody weird and not particularly flavourful
How do you figure? He's basically Possessed: The HQ.
I meant the Warlord Trait. I don't see how a game of picking the higher number plays into Emperor's Children or Arrogance.
It's being arrogant enough to try and steal as much of an advantage as you dare, but I agree it feels more Tzeentch.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will add the "teeheehee we did something with agents of bile!" comment is annoying given we can see them in the table of contents for a book that's up for sale this weekend.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So...a word bearers warlord gets a 4+ invul and more strength, movement, wounds and attacks.
For free. With no downsides.
The only way that could make sense balance wise is if the Word Bearer's trait is absolute gak and the only strong point they have is the warlord, or if the daemon trait has a huge weakness.
Or maybe both.
The Iron warriors secondary objective sounds interesting though.
Umh. That's warlord trait so for one costs cp. And of course no other warlord trait. It's not extra rule all word bearers have.
That's like "damn that marine captain hands out obsec for free"
Since when did warlord traits cost CP? Is that a Chapter Approved change? I do not recall seeing that in the 9th ed rulebook.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: The last thing is both really bloody weird and not particularly flavourful
How do you figure? He's basically Possessed: The HQ.
I meant the Warlord Trait. I don't see how a game of picking a number plays into Emperor's Children or Arrogance.
Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing it. A funnier arrogance/overconfidence rule would be to guess the number of hits before you roll your melee attacks. If you exceed your chosen number, you get to make that many extra attacks. If you're below it, you suffer a number of wounds equal to that difference.
Not sure I like that ECWL trait. I mean now I have to essentially play rock, paper, scissor with my opponent each time my WL wants to attack in combat? Seems to unnecessarily slow the game.
The best thing that they could find to show off for the 8th Legion is the stratagem that we got in the 8th edition codex.
Now that's salesmanship! "Hey, look Night Lords players! It's the same thing you've had for the past 5 years! See how hard we've been working on the new codex?".
It feels pointless. Its effectively d4-1, but more complicated. Now, of course, current 40k doesn't use other dice, but a warlord trait giving nothing is a bit too much of the 'chaos=random nonsense' punishment anyway.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
Just likely to be a huge disappointment. The CSM datasheet isn't going to let you build 10 with bolters and 10 with CCW weapon because you cant build that out of a box of CSM. the tease has gone on for too long that unless this book is amazing (and I dont expect it will be) its going to be a dissapointment.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
Even without the tourney pack your first pick relic probably won't be hydra's wail, it could even be a special free extra relic and by just being a relic instead of a strat in your back pocket it'd be slightly worse and vulnerable to being taken out before use. Also raises the question if the relics effect still functions after the user is killed.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
So it doesn't. Fair enough then.
It's literally one of the current EC Warlord Traits.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So...a word bearers warlord gets a 4+ invul and more strength, movement, wounds and attacks.
For free. With no downsides.
The only way that could make sense balance wise is if the Word Bearer's trait is absolute gak and the only strong point they have is the warlord, or if the daemon trait has a huge weakness.
Or maybe both.
Starting next week it'll cost them 1CP.
The Iron warriors secondary objective sounds interesting though
Im curious if the secondaries in the book will even be legal for use, considering that (again, starting next week) the new Chapter Approved is overwriting all the codex secondaries with new chapter approved ones.
Aesyn wrote: Turning Hydra's wail into a 1CP cost relic version of a 0 CP Stratagem for other factions... Woof.
If you play using the new tournament pack.
The vast majority of us will, even if we don't really want to, because playing with the latest tournament pack is the default behavior of the dominant player group within the community from which all gameplay related social norms follow.
chaos0xomega wrote: Im curious if the secondaries in the book will even be legal for use, considering that (again, starting next week) the new Chapter Approved is overwriting all the codex secondaries with new chapter approved ones.
Given that the CA leak shows secondaries for each legion I would bet they will have simply been reprinted there.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
So it doesn't. Fair enough then.
Those aren't "Pink Marines" but Noise Marines. The poster boys of EC and the cult units of Slanesh.
I can't help but think I already saw this WLT somewhere though.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
So it doesn't. Fair enough then.
It's literally one of the current EC Warlord Traits.
In regards to the pick-a-number trait, IMO the biggest problem is simply that a flat +d3 attacks wouldn't even be that good as a trait, let alone one with the additional chance of failure. Close second is slowing the game down without a good reason.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
techsoldaten wrote: The Black Legion Legion Trait differs from the one in the rumors.
The one in the rumors was exploding 5s for rapid fire and assault.
The one on Warcom are +1 to hit the closest unit and +1 to hit on the charge.
This may mean other rules are different from the ones circulated in the rumors.
You're confusing the leaked Legion trait with the leaked "super doctrine". The trait in the article is almost exactly the same as the leaked one (the only difference that I can see is that you no longer need to charge the closest unit to get the bonus). The exploding 5s was the leaked super doctrine. It's beginning to look like the playtesting changed very little.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
It definitely is an ECWL trait; it one of the ones from Faith & Fury. It wasn't taken before and no one will pay to take now either.
There has never been a better example of "GW has no idea what the feth it is doing" than "The Word Bearer becomes a mini-Daemon Prince for free, the Emperor's Children lord *maybe* gets 3 additional attacks."
blood reaper wrote: There has never been a better example of "GW has no idea what the feth it is doing" than "The Word Bearer becomes a mini-Daemon Prince for free, the Emperor's Children lord *maybe* gets 3 additional attacks."
I don't mind the Word Bearers trait, especially if the 'first warlord/relic costs a CP and you only start with 6' becomes the norm.
The EC one is lame, underpowered, and slows the game down dramatically. Just take the slaanesh daemon weapon and you get +2d3 without a stupid mini-game in the middle of the game.
We just need this book to come out already so we can get over it, get the rest of the 9th ed codexes, and then have it all squatted back into indexes in 10th and THEN maybe we'll be able to enjoy a game of 40k again.
It gives a 4++ vs shooting, but you would hope that you are giving it to something with a 4++ already. Like most half decent HQs get in most decent codexes. E.g. I hope DPs/Disco Lords have a 4++ already.
The best characters are likely to be DPs and Disco Lords, so they get DAEMONKIN from the sounds of it, but may not be able to pick up too many of the buffs related to DAEMONKIN as they are a MONSTER/VEHICLE. If you put it on a lesser character, then you get less out of the rest of the trait.
That being +1S/+1A/+1W/+2Mv. Which isn't bad.
It is no PRECISION OF THE HUNTER, BRUTAL BUT KUNNIN’, COMPETITIVE EDGE, HEIGHTENED SENSES or CHAMPION OF THE IMPERIUM but it maybe gets in the same conversation as those (which seems good and fair for the personal power is key faction).
If there is some significant keyword synergy to be found it can maybe compete with those warlord traits mentioned above.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Now that's salesmanship! "Hey, look Night Lords players! It's the same thing you've had for the past 5 years! See how hard we've been working on the new codex?".
If you're using that tournament pack. And I, for one, am getting sick of this "Tournament Edition 40k" bull gak. I'm tired of a few people in the US tournament circuit causing changes for everyone else.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Now that's salesmanship! "Hey, look Night Lords players! It's the same thing you've had for the past 5 years! See how hard we've been working on the new codex?".
If you're using that tournament pack. And I, for one, am getting sick of this "Tournament Edition 40k" bull gak. I'm tired of a few people in the US tournament circuit causing changes for everyone else.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In regards to the pick-a-number trait, IMO the biggest problem is simply that a flat +d3 attacks wouldn't even be that good as a trait, let alone one with the additional chance of failure. Close second is slowing the game down without a good reason.
I do wish it was something like numbers different = effect A, numbers the same = effect B. Though that might change the game theory a bit.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In regards to the pick-a-number trait, IMO the biggest problem is simply that a flat +d3 attacks wouldn't even be that good as a trait, let alone one with the additional chance of failure. Close second is slowing the game down without a good reason.
I do wish it was something like numbers different = effect A, numbers the same = effect B. Though that might change the game theory a bit.
While not the best rule I've ever seen, it definitely has the read of Unbound Arrogance. You know you want 3 additional attacks. Your opponent knows you want 3 additional attacks. Are you arrogant enough to pick 3 when all they have to do is pick 3 to deny you 3? Or will you pick 2, hoping they haven't decided you aren't arrogant enough to pick 3 and picked 2 themself? Buy why would you pick 2 when you can pick 3? Are you one of the most perfect astartes to live or not?
techsoldaten wrote: The Black Legion Legion Trait differs from the one in the rumors.
The one in the rumors was exploding 5s for rapid fire and assault.
The one on Warcom are +1 to hit the closest unit and +1 to hit on the charge.
This may mean other rules are different from the ones circulated in the rumors.
You're confusing the leaked Legion trait with the leaked "super doctrine". The trait in the article is almost exactly the same as the leaked one (the only difference that I can see is that you no longer need to charge the closest unit to get the bonus). The exploding 5s was the leaked super doctrine. It's beginning to look like the playtesting changed very little.
I didn't look so closely into the leaks because at that time, no one knew how "valid" those leaks are, and these are subject to change upon the actual codex release anyway. But exploding 5s sound really tasty!
I think a lot will depend on whether armor of contempt is still a thing for the chaos space marines after their new codex release. If armor of contempt is still a thing, I think CSM will be a decent codex. Not OP like nids or the other top tier codices right now, but a balanced and fun one like knights.
Yes, some of the rules are similar to the ones we have already gotten over the years in faith and fury. But those were all pretty fluffy anyway. CSM's problem was in its datasheets. We didn't have enough power in our datasheets to do anything. Everything just melted once any decent unit so much as looked at it. But now, with armor of contempt, and 2W, we will at least have some durability to do stuff.
Calling it now, we won't be mad crazy like how Nids or Harlequins, or Tau were, but that's fine. I prefer a balanced, A tier codex that we can play without feat of being nerfed as opposed to a S tier codex that everyone is crying out for nerfs on at codex launch.
The only thing that might swing the codex over to crazy levels would be if some datasheet of a CSM specific unit is crazy OP. There aren't many of those actually. We already seen all the demon engines stats, and the new possessed stats. There is basically only the Lord of skulls and Obliterators. Based on the leaks (if they were true), the oliterators are not going to anything too OP. I bet they totally forgot about the Lord of skulls and don't change anything about it at all.
Oh, there is Abaddon too. I heard rumors some crazy changes to Abbadon. Which is fine. I mean, one character is not going to break a whole codex. And he is a guy who moves 6 inches per turn. No matter how OP he is, he is not going to break the CSM codex.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So...a word bearers warlord gets a 4+ invul and more strength, movement, wounds and attacks.
For free. With no downsides.
The only way that could make sense balance wise is if the Word Bearer's trait is absolute gak and the only strong point they have is the warlord, or if the daemon trait has a huge weakness.
Or maybe both.
The Iron warriors secondary objective sounds interesting though.
Umh. That's warlord trait so for one costs cp. And of course no other warlord trait. It's not extra rule all word bearers have.
That's like "damn that marine captain hands out obsec for free"
Since when did warlord traits cost CP? Is that a Chapter Approved change? I do not recall seeing that in the 9th ed rulebook.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Maybe if the trait was doing D6 instead of D3 for attacks, it'd be a lot better. For THAT small a benefit though? Pass.
Eh, it's probably a balance thing. 1/3 chance of it not working feels a lot fairer than 1/6 chance. Especially when in the case of the D6 you can get 6 attacks. Then again, your opponent is probably always going to for 6 anyway, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Come to think of it, why is it a Slaanesh trait? With the amount of mind games at play here it should really be a Tzeentch thing.
It doesn't say it's an EC warlord trait. It just has a picture over it of some pink marines so people are assuming that the rule is related to the picture. People should know by now that GW doesn't always match pictures to text.
Umm picture of warlord trait on section:
Emperor’s Children
The Emperor’s Children, on the other hand, are all about being seen. These sinister sensationalists are true maestros in the art of combat, each a dark reflection of their Primarch’s obsessive perfectionism… and while their skills are immaculate, the Unbound Arrogance of their greatest champions can get them in serious trouble. Are you ready to gamble for greatness?
It says Emperor's Children(slaanesh). It names the warlord trait(Unbound Arrogance) on "their greatest champpion".
Requires some serious mind twisting to assume that's not EC warlord trait...
CthuluIsSpy wrote: It kind of is the default though. Matched play is closer to how the game used to be played.
The grand tournament mission pack isn't the only form of matched play.
Oh you mean tournaments specifically. Yeah I don't really follow tournies that much, so all of that is pretty alien to me.
Yeah the thread has been chopped up and truncated by people replying out of context or chopping quotes out, but it was basically "who would pay 1cp for that?" "I won't because I don't play tournament rules" that kicked off the train of conversation.
And the tournament rules tends to get defaulted anyway because it's easier to have default game mode in flgs than for every game prediscuss everything. Show up with 2k army and play is lot easier and quicker.
The other issue is that if you and a majority of other people (forum users) play using the "full" published rules, while a small but vocal minority of people play using a mixture of the published rules, it makes effective communication about the game impossible.
E.g. Before starting a post about 40k on the forum you should state something like:
"I use the full published matched play rules with all errata and FAQs."
or
"I use the original 9th edition core rules, the following 4 FAQs A, B, C & D, 3 erratas D, E & F, I use some of the rules from Nachmund, don't use the rules from Nephilim, oh yeah and I also use house rule G."
Of course people don't want to post the second thing because they know other readers will most likely just ignore them.
The game is far too complicated to have a discussion and find out 5 posts in that the other person plays a different but similar game to you. It is hard enough discussing the "full" game because no single person (including me) fully knows and understands all the rules.
Torments seem pretty nice. Bit swingy on the attacks, and could do with an in-game WS buff. Nice that you can keep returning Mutants to the unit though.
This bonus also helps your ranged attacks – the new Chaos Cultists kit is loaded with brutal blades and cudgels, but your Cultists Mobs can still blast away with assorted firearms and special weapons. The Cultists of the Abyss models are armed for a firefight, and fit right in with the whole “masks and rags” aesthetic.
Seems to confirm momopose or single load out cultists.
Hmmm. Points matter etc, but I think the concern would be that they are potentially slow. Buffs may help there I guess - but not if you were going to bring multiple squads.
The mutants confirmed for me what I expected to happen, they simple can't really coexist with spawn. One or the other will always be slightly better whilst having a identical use case as far as I can see.
techsoldaten wrote: The Black Legion Legion Trait differs from the one in the rumors.
The one in the rumors was exploding 5s for rapid fire and assault.
The one on Warcom are +1 to hit the closest unit and +1 to hit on the charge.
This may mean other rules are different from the ones circulated in the rumors.
You're confusing the leaked Legion trait with the leaked "super doctrine". The trait in the article is almost exactly the same as the leaked one (the only difference that I can see is that you no longer need to charge the closest unit to get the bonus). The exploding 5s was the leaked super doctrine. It's beginning to look like the playtesting changed very little.
I didn't look so closely into the leaks because at that time, no one knew how "valid" those leaks are, and these are subject to change upon the actual codex release anyway. But exploding 5s sound really tasty!
I think a lot will depend on whether armor of contempt is still a thing for the chaos space marines after their new codex release. If armor of contempt is still a thing, I think CSM will be a decent codex. Not OP like nids or the other top tier codices right now, but a balanced and fun one like knights.
For the time being, Armor of Contempt will be a thing no matter what, regardless of whether it is or isn't in the codex.
Currently the dataslate applies it to entire armies, so until that is revised again in a few months, armor of contempt simply exists (it isn't on any datasheet or special rules section of any book, currently).
Going by timelines (of both the codex and dataslate), it seems unlikely to actually be in the codex (as far as I can tell the dataslate and codex overlapped in development, or the dataslate is entirely after the codex, depending on how delayed the codex is from its original intended publication window).
It would also say weird things about the dataslate as a balancing/testing tool if they went ahead with AoC as a codex change before the dataslate really shook out. It'd be a little too obvious that their process isn't driven by data from games. (Though the custodes point changes already made that pretty obvious)
It's very hard to get excited about More Bloody Stratagems™.
And yeah, so the Cultist kit has one config for each model because the ranged weapons are in a different box? Well, at least they're not mono-pose, 'cause we know that's a myth!
We already knew that. During the preview, no model armed with an autogun was shown and the articles never said they could be built with a different loadout.
We already knew that. During the preview, no model armed with an autogun was shown and the articles never said they could be built with a different loadout.
Not showing an autogun isn't the same as not putting them in the box, assumptions were made they wouldn't be dumb enough to sell a core troops with half the options missing outright unless you buy a random bsf box that isn't a game legal unit.
Edit: in the stream they answered a question and explicitly called out cultists would still have ranged options, so it wasn't a clear answer either way.
We already knew that. During the preview, no model armed with an autogun was shown and the articles never said they could be built with a different loadout.
Not showing an autogun isn't the same as not putting them in the box, assumptions were made they wouldn't be dumb enough to sell a core troops with half the options missing outright unless you buy a random bsf box that isn't a game legal unit.
Edit: in the stream they answered a question and explicitly called out cultists would still have ranged options, so it wasn't a clear answer either way.
You did a mistake there.
The Cultist unit (as in, the actuel datasheet) will have ranged options. But here, I'm talking about the models.
GW didn't lie when they said cultists will still have access to ranged options. However they didn't answer (imo on purpose) the true meaning of the question. Of course the question's true meaning was "Do these new models have options for autoguns ?". However it wasn't phrased like that and as a result, GW answer wasn't a lie
I already knew that there would be no autoguns for the new models. Warco always say during a preview if a new model has access to some options (sometimes they show an example with a picture, sometimes they simply write it without showing a picture, but they always say it).
So... cultists (from yesterdays article) get legion keywords, but don't get legion benefits, have their own keyword, don't have rifles unless you bought a _lot_ of the cultists of the abyss and we don't know yet if the traitor guard have the cultist keyword or a different one. Awesome. Even with previews this still feels like a mess.
Though it'd be weird if Cult Leader or Fanatic Zealotry didn't let AL or WB legions affect traitor guard, right? That isn't just me?
Especially alpha legion, who'd prioritize traitor guardsmen? Right?
Seriously. If that's the case, these will be sitting on shelves. That would be such a stupid waste.
Voss wrote: So... cultists (from yesterdays article) get legion keywords, but don't get legion benefits, have their own keyword, don't have rifles unless you bought a _lot_ of the cultists of the abyss and we don't know yet if the traitor guard have the cultist keyword or a different one. Awesome. Even with previews this still feels like a mess.
Though it'd be weird if Cult Leader or Fanatic Zealotry didn't let AL or WB legions affect traitor guard, right? That isn't just me?
Especially alpha legion, who'd prioritize traitor guardsmen? Right?
I genuinely hope that isn't the case. That would feel like such a gakky move.
Could use them as the basis for more mutants if you're inclined to go that way. The handful of monopose mutants simply aren't sufficient for a horde unit.
Cultists of all flavors are really going to depend on points to see if they are worth it.
I like the Accursed kit, but the Torments look really bad to me. Wish they had gone the route of more of the Possessed look than whatever they decided to go with.
I wonder if its because we have traitor guard now?
Likely plays into it, but sprue layout (and cost) is probably the bigger culprit.
I would suspect that during the planning stages, when they decided to actually do cultists AND mutants AND traitor guard that they decided to minimize some of the costs (so I won't be shocked if the cultists are a two-sprue kit)
Likely plays into it, but sprue layout (and cost) is probably the bigger culprit.
I would suspect that during the planning stages, when they decided to actually do cultists AND mutants AND traitor guard that they decided to minimize some of the costs (so I won't be shocked if the cultists are a two-sprue kit)
Similarly, I wouldn't be shocked if the Abyss box gets rolled into the non-cursed Cultists box.
what, are customers going to not buy a 
