Yeah I can't imagine a single reason why someone wouldn't be ok with 5 units (CSM, Bikers, Raptors, Terminators, Chosen) having vastly inconsistent weapon options despite the miniatures sharing almost all the same actual weapons.
Yeah I can't imagine a single reason why someone wouldn't be ok with 5 units (CSM, Bikers, Raptors, Terminators, Chosen) having vastly inconsistent weapon options despite the miniatures sharing almost all the same actual weapons.
None at all...
No I just hate the concept of change. It fills me with fury. All change is good actually, but the heckin' wargamers don't like it.
Yeah I can't imagine a single reason why someone wouldn't be ok with 5 units (CSM, Bikers, Raptors, Terminators, Chosen) having vastly inconsistent weapon options despite the miniatures sharing almost all the same actual weapons.
None at all...
It would be one thing if the differences between units amounted to something useful, like this one was anti-tank, this one was anti-character, this one was anti-horde.
But they're all anti-infantry. This is difference for difference sake. There's no reason for it.
As Auspex put it in his video, the changes to Terminators are there to simplify their melee weapon choices, both from a modelling and rules perspective.
And then...
... the Combi-Weapon restrictions completely negate the streamlined approach to melee weapons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: As Auspex put it in his video, the changes to Terminators are there to simplify their melee weapon choices, both from a modelling and rules perspective.
And then...
... the Combi-Weapon restrictions completely negate the streamlined approach to melee weapons.
Chaosistency!!!
I'm so looking forward to your full review of this book.
As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.
Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.
Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.
I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.
Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.
Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.
Interesting as well that the book still appears to have chainswords and chainaxes as separate weapons - and yet the berzerker rules released in WD have just equipped them with 'berzerker chain weapons'...
Crispy78 wrote: Interesting as well that the book still appears to have chainswords and chainaxes as separate weapons - and yet the berzerker rules released in WD have just equipped them with 'berzerker chain weapons'...
As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.
Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.
Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.
I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.
Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.
Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.
Ah. I did misunderstand- mind went off a tactical tangent, not a dice one. My bad.
That makes it so much worse... I'd hate to be on either side of that. 'Sorry, we've got to baby-step this so my rules even work' is a wretched gameplay experience.
As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.
Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.
Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.
I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.
Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.
Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.
Sure you can slow roll to gain advantage. Opponent can then decline fast rolling vs you ensuring super slow game. And ensures you can't fast roll when it saves. Fail lnv save on first attack? With no idea hoy many hits/wounds/failed saves no idea is it worth reroll,
Like with sisters if you get 3 past saves you could roll 2 and then decide miracle dice or not. But that gives you advantage and info over slow roll so if you do that opponent can simply say "slow rolls from now on".
Sword cuts both ways...
And if trait needs this gamey to be worth it lousy trait.
As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.
Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.
Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.
I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.
Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.
Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.
Ah. I did misunderstand- mind went off a tactical tangent, not a dice one. My bad.
That makes it so much worse... I'd hate to be on either side of that. 'Sorry, we've got to baby-step this so my rules even work' is a wretched gameplay experience.
Yup, agreed. It doesn't sound very fun at all. And the few extra wounds that you get probably won't make much of a difference. Sounds like Night Lords get another edition of pretending that we don't even have a Legion trait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: And if trait needs this gamey to be worth it lousy trait.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: But don't Night Lords love torture? With this rule you can slowly torture your opponent one attack at a time. Super fluffy. Great job GW!
Read in Southpark Carman voice: that is genius sir.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Just seems odd that they'd go out of their way to add a Cultist HQ and then not let you take Cultist armies.
I mean, Sisters of Silence got a provision in the Custodes book to run SoS-themed armies. Why couldn't Chaos get the same? Why couldn't they get a "Travelling Players" box ala Eldar, but to give us our Daemons back?
But we got some crazy mutants, so I guess it's ok...
Hopefully we'll see a Cultist army in a future Army of Renown.
Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos. Cultists and support was all 8th and early 9th, let’s hope they go all in an actual cultist army, and have people actually use chaos space marines in a chaos space marines army. They could have pushed cultists to elites like they did marine scouts, but chaos would need way more troop options than what they have now, unlike marines with their grocery superstore options.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Just seems odd that they'd go out of their way to add a Cultist HQ and then not let you take Cultist armies.
I mean, Sisters of Silence got a provision in the Custodes book to run SoS-themed armies. Why couldn't Chaos get the same? Why couldn't they get a "Travelling Players" box ala Eldar, but to give us our Daemons back?
But we got some crazy mutants, so I guess it's ok...
Hopefully we'll see a Cultist army in a future Army of Renown.
Not sure if sarcasm; or unhealthy desire to consoom.
bullyboy wrote: Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos. Cultists and support was all 8th and early 9th, let’s hope they go all in an actual cultist army, and have people actually use chaos space marines in a chaos space marines army. They could have pushed cultists to elites like they did marine scouts, but chaos would need way more troop options than what they have now, unlike marines with their grocery superstore options.
Or they could just make Cultists not have ObSec and then they don't function as normal Troops do but rather as a meatshield for your better units, which is what Cultists are supposed to be. They can be used as a distraction or as blocking units that take up time to kill, time that the rest of the army can use to do damage or secure objectives. GW also hasn't incentivised using Legionaries, Terminators or Chosen because they borked the equipment lists to once again haphazardly apply "What's in the box" rules.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
I *will* praise GW when they get something right.
I've said it many times, the core 9th edition rules are fantastic. The stratagem and rules bloat is where they've botched it.
The Chaos Marine Codex has some good rules in it, some fluffy stuff, and many new ways to build your army. The traits for most legions are far superior to what we had previously (though that wasn't a hard bar to surpass).
They botched it with the inconsistency of weapons and profiles between one datasheet and the next.
When you have a game that doesn't have this issue across any other faction, it gets very, very frustrating. Yes we saw it to a degree in Genestealer Cult, but they weren't calling a power fist something different in every single profile. Space Marines are very consistent despite handling both firstborn and primaris models. Admech with all their esoteric weapons aren't lumped together. Sisters of Battle have combi-weapons and power weapons galore for all their Superiors of different kinds, and it's the same weapon selection across most of the superiors.
It's not the end of the world, but it's *irksome*. Like a child asking 'are we there yet'. Every time a Chaos Codex strips an option or makes a mess of the other options, it's another 'are we there yet'. I could tune it out and do my best to enjoy the trip, even build an army that has none of those troublesome units, but it sure would be nice if that child would just shut up for an edition.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
We've got some real geniuses in this thread to say the least - some of the observations have been stunning. If this was another site, they'd be getting a LOT of upvotes right about now.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
We've got some real geniuses in this thread to say the least - some of the observations have been stunning. If this was another site, they'd be getting a LOT of upvotes right about now.
Heckin poggers telling the meanies they're wrong. I'd totally give you Reddit gold for that
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
I *will* praise GW when they get something right.
I've said it many times, the core 9th edition rules are fantastic. The stratagem and rules bloat is where they've botched it.
The Chaos Marine Codex has some good rules in it, some fluffy stuff, and many new ways to build your army. The traits for most legions are far superior to what we had previously (though that wasn't a hard bar to surpass).
They botched it with the inconsistency of weapons and profiles between one datasheet and the next.
When you have a game that doesn't have this issue across any other faction, it gets very, very frustrating. Yes we saw it to a degree in Genestealer Cult, but they weren't calling a power fist something different in every single profile. Space Marines are very consistent despite handling both firstborn and primaris models. Admech with all their esoteric weapons aren't lumped together. Sisters of Battle have combi-weapons and power weapons galore for all their Superiors of different kinds, and it's the same weapon selection across most of the superiors.
It's not the end of the world, but it's *irksome*. Like a child asking 'are we there yet'. Every time a Chaos Codex strips an option or makes a mess of the other options, it's another 'are we there yet'. I could tune it out and do my best to enjoy the trip, even build an army that has none of those troublesome units, but it sure would be nice if that child would just shut up for an edition.
Summed up my feelings as well. Like I can live with it and make it work, but it's getting in it's own way and keeping it from being a truly great book. It almost feels like there were two different teams responsible for the book, and the one doing the datasheets and they didn't talk at all and just turned in their work separately.
Thinking of this book's weird issues unless I missed something we have meltas and flamers for assault weapons but flamers get a flat +2 number of shots bonus, so the only assault weapon I'm aware of that benefits from our Wanton bonuses is the melta gun. Feels like more evidence of a disconnect in the team.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
I *will* praise GW when they get something right.
I've said it many times, the core 9th edition rules are fantastic. The stratagem and rules bloat is where they've botched it.
The Chaos Marine Codex has some good rules in it, some fluffy stuff, and many new ways to build your army. The traits for most legions are far superior to what we had previously (though that wasn't a hard bar to surpass).
They botched it with the inconsistency of weapons and profiles between one datasheet and the next.
When you have a game that doesn't have this issue across any other faction, it gets very, very frustrating. Yes we saw it to a degree in Genestealer Cult, but they weren't calling a power fist something different in every single profile. Space Marines are very consistent despite handling both firstborn and primaris models. Admech with all their esoteric weapons aren't lumped together. Sisters of Battle have combi-weapons and power weapons galore for all their Superiors of different kinds, and it's the same weapon selection across most of the superiors.
It's not the end of the world, but it's *irksome*. Like a child asking 'are we there yet'. Every time a Chaos Codex strips an option or makes a mess of the other options, it's another 'are we there yet'. I could tune it out and do my best to enjoy the trip, even build an army that has none of those troublesome units, but it sure would be nice if that child would just shut up for an edition.
Summed up my feelings as well. Like I can live with it and make it work, but it's getting in it's own way and keeping it from being a truly great book. It almost feels like there were two different teams responsible for the book, and the one doing the datasheets and they didn't talk at all and just turned in their work separately.
Thinking of this book's weird issues unless I missed something we have meltas and flamers for assault weapons but flamers get a flat +2 number of shots bonus, so the only assault weapon I'm aware of that benefits from our Wanton bonuses is the melta gun. Feels like more evidence of a disconnect in the team.
Yeah melta would be the main winner if it could be taken in any quantities anywhere (no fallen, restrictions on new chosen and new termies - there are no dedicated special weapon squads anymore). Sonic weapons other than the siren, the Venomcrawlers guns, Horus' talon and weirdly Haarken's spear all benefit, Haarken might need a FAQ though (does the beam hit twice on a 6?). 4 turns of doctrines affecting assault weapons though, so if you can find them it's kind of better than the loyalist marines tactical doctrine only for assault weapons.
bullyboy wrote: Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos.
Codex: Adeptus Custodes lets you do a Sisters of Silence army. The Eldar Codex lets you do a Harlequin army. This "It's Codex: CSM guys!!!" excuse doesn't hold water.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
I *will* praise GW when they get something right.
I've said it many times, the core 9th edition rules are fantastic. The stratagem and rules bloat is where they've botched it.
The Chaos Marine Codex has some good rules in it, some fluffy stuff, and many new ways to build your army. The traits for most legions are far superior to what we had previously (though that wasn't a hard bar to surpass).
They botched it with the inconsistency of weapons and profiles between one datasheet and the next.
When you have a game that doesn't have this issue across any other faction, it gets very, very frustrating. Yes we saw it to a degree in Genestealer Cult, but they weren't calling a power fist something different in every single profile. Space Marines are very consistent despite handling both firstborn and primaris models. Admech with all their esoteric weapons aren't lumped together. Sisters of Battle have combi-weapons and power weapons galore for all their Superiors of different kinds, and it's the same weapon selection across most of the superiors.
It's not the end of the world, but it's *irksome*. Like a child asking 'are we there yet'. Every time a Chaos Codex strips an option or makes a mess of the other options, it's another 'are we there yet'. I could tune it out and do my best to enjoy the trip, even build an army that has none of those troublesome units, but it sure would be nice if that child would just shut up for an edition.
Summed up my feelings as well. Like I can live with it and make it work, but it's getting in it's own way and keeping it from being a truly great book. It almost feels like there were two different teams responsible for the book, and the one doing the datasheets and they didn't talk at all and just turned in their work separately.
Thinking of this book's weird issues unless I missed something we have meltas and flamers for assault weapons but flamers get a flat +2 number of shots bonus, so the only assault weapon I'm aware of that benefits from our Wanton bonuses is the melta gun. Feels like more evidence of a disconnect in the team.
Yeah melta would be the main winner if it could be taken in any quantities anywhere (no fallen, restrictions on new chosen and new termies - there are no dedicated special weapon squads anymore). Sonic weapons other than the siren, the Venomcrawlers guns, Horus' talon and weirdly Haarken's spear all benefit, Haarken might need a FAQ though (does the beam hit twice on a 6?). 4 turns of doctrines affecting assault weapons though, so if you can find them it's kind of better than the loyalist marines tactical doctrine only for assault weapons.
Oh good, a few more assault weapons in the mix (forgot about Noise Marines because how do you sneak at 500db?). Still a pretty weak bonus since the most commonly affect weapon is a 1 shot weapon.
ClockworkZion wrote: So I haven't seen anyone talk about the wargear lists, so I dove into the GMG video review because I was still curious to see what options we could work with:
And my best screenshot at max resolution is a mess so let me do my best to translate that to something less pixellated:
Heavy Weapons Havoc autocannon
Heavy bolter
Lascannon
Missile Launcher
Reaper chaincannon
Melee Weapons Astartes chainsword
Power axe
Power fist
Power maul
Power sword
Tainted chainaxe (+1 S, AP-1, 2D for 5pts)
Special Weapons Flamer
Meltagun
Plasma gun
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would have been happy if they at least put an accursed weapon on that melee list for the Chaos Lord to have access to so we can represent random melee wargear choices. Oh well, guess my Chainglaives will be Tainted chainaxes instead.
I have two squads in my 2500+ point army that are still legal. thats it. I think I might be taking a break from this hobby for a while. build some gundams and play dnd maybe. I just dont have the heart to break apart my minis that I have been playing for years and spent huge chunks of time painting/converting.
bullyboy wrote: Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos. Cultists and support was all 8th and early 9th, let’s hope they go all in an actual cultist army, and have people actually use chaos space marines in a chaos space marines army. They could have pushed cultists to elites like they did marine scouts, but chaos would need way moa. re troop options than what they have now, unlike marines with their grocery superstore options.
. Naa chaos space marines simply means they should be the focus as in the strongest the leadership. Chaos should be strong chaos leaders backed by tuns of chaff aka cultists and supernatural support demons all bound to a core of superpower full chaos space marines. That's how I want my chaos space marines they should have the strongest heros and extremely powerful exulted, possesed, chosen, then a few up and comers that are around the same strength as space marines. That's the army I want to play.
thepowerfulwill wrote: I have two squads in my 2500+ point army that are still legal. thats it. I think I might be taking a break from this hobby for a while. build some gundams and play dnd maybe. I just dont have the heart to break apart my minis that I have been playing for years and spent huge chunks of time painting/converting.
I went through something similar when DG got their codex and my old DG stopped being a legal way to play (plus I didn't have half of the new wargear).
Honestly it took a while for me to come back to CSM when I decided to give my Sisters some much needed time off towards the tail end of 7th. If it wasn't for HH and the Night Lords omnibus creating an idea for what I wanted to do for an army I think I'd still be floundering on what I wanted to do right now.
thepowerfulwill wrote: I have two squads in my 2500+ point army that are still legal. thats it. I think I might be taking a break from this hobby for a while. build some gundams and play dnd maybe. I just dont have the heart to break apart my minis that I have been playing for years and spent huge chunks of time painting/converting.
I went through something similar when DG got their codex and my old DG stopped being a legal way to play (plus I didn't have half of the new wargear).
Honestly it took a while for me to come back to CSM when I decided to give my Sisters some much needed time off towards the tail end of 7th. If it wasn't for HH and the Night Lords omnibus creating an idea for what I wanted to do for an army I think I'd still be floundering on what I wanted to do right now.
Yeah, got a friend reading the Night Lords Omnibus. Should be a new convert soon enough.
I will likely treat this faction the way I treat many other factions that have half-love from GW. I won't buy any of the ancient or otherwise troublesome models. Bikers, Chaos Lords, Terminators, Chosen, just not going to touch them. I can make an army with a Master of Possession, Warpsmith, Possessed, Venomcrawlers, Helbrutes, a Forgefiend, and a few other models that I do still like from the range. Then, if GW does figure out what they're doing with this faction and gives us any sense of consistency, I can start adding in other updated options to fill out points. I'm not a competitive player at all, so an army of daemon engines and daemonkin sounds like fun.
I won't play them as Night Lords, because that's just pants. I'll probably go with... literally anything else for the moment, and return to my idea of converting up a custom warband so it can be whatever I want.
This just feels so much like a holdover era for Chaos Marines, and it's frustrating because we've already been waiting for a long time just to get the basic 2 wound treatment. We still don't have the rest of the Chaos kits out yet, no clue on how the Oblits and Venomcrawler are going to be packaged, and are still dealing with ancient Bikers, so... who knows? I've waited this long, I can wait another 15 years, health willing.
Oh, the 8th Legion got plenty of love. Just not in 40k. Not in this mess. Come have a look at our 30k rules drbored. See the rules that the 8th Legion should have always had.
thepowerfulwill wrote: I have two squads in my 2500+ point army that are still legal. thats it. I think I might be taking a break from this hobby for a while. build some gundams and play dnd maybe. I just dont have the heart to break apart my minis that I have been playing for years and spent huge chunks of time painting/converting.
I went through something similar when DG got their codex and my old DG stopped being a legal way to play (plus I didn't have half of the new wargear).
Honestly it took a while for me to come back to CSM when I decided to give my Sisters some much needed time off towards the tail end of 7th. If it wasn't for HH and the Night Lords omnibus creating an idea for what I wanted to do for an army I think I'd still be floundering on what I wanted to do right now.
This makes me sad. Losing as much as an army that got a full re-launch in return with nothing to show for it should never, ever happen. This is just as bad 7th's edition ork codex.
thepowerfulwill wrote: I have two squads in my 2500+ point army that are still legal. thats it. I think I might be taking a break from this hobby for a while. build some gundams and play dnd maybe. I just dont have the heart to break apart my minis that I have been playing for years and spent huge chunks of time painting/converting.
I went through something similar when DG got their codex and my old DG stopped being a legal way to play (plus I didn't have half of the new wargear).
Honestly it took a while for me to come back to CSM when I decided to give my Sisters some much needed time off towards the tail end of 7th. If it wasn't for HH and the Night Lords omnibus creating an idea for what I wanted to do for an army I think I'd still be floundering on what I wanted to do right now.
This makes me sad. Losing as much as an army that got a full re-launch in return with nothing to show for it should never, ever happen. This is just as bad 7th's edition ork codex.
Yeah, my Plague Marine units were legal, but my Obliterators weren't. I also had daemons that weren't legal to be in the army anymore (I haven't gone back through all my old stuff but I'm pretty sure I had other stuff going on that's no longer legal). I think the faction is in a better place now, but growing pains can really torpedo long standing armies.
The good news of dual building for 40k and 30k at the same time for my NL is that the models will always have use at least.
30k is a huge benefit yeah. I can safely build a bunch of Bolter armed and heavy weapons Emperor's Children and know I will always have use for them in a 30k army.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
We've got some real geniuses in this thread to say the least - some of the observations have been stunning. If this was another site, they'd be getting a LOT of upvotes right about now.
Yes, such geniuses that y'all completely missed the point.
You guys will complain no matter what, and if any attempt is made to try to fix it, you will complain even more. Why? Because everything is "bad for you" and every change is a "change for the worse". GW could make the exact changes that you guys demand and you will still complain about how its worse in a moment of "No, not like that".
thepowerfulwill wrote: I have two squads in my 2500+ point army that are still legal. thats it. I think I might be taking a break from this hobby for a while. build some gundams and play dnd maybe. I just dont have the heart to break apart my minis that I have been playing for years and spent huge chunks of time painting/converting.
I went through something similar when DG got their codex and my old DG stopped being a legal way to play (plus I didn't have half of the new wargear).
Honestly it took a while for me to come back to CSM when I decided to give my Sisters some much needed time off towards the tail end of 7th. If it wasn't for HH and the Night Lords omnibus creating an idea for what I wanted to do for an army I think I'd still be floundering on what I wanted to do right now.
This makes me sad. Losing as much as an army that got a full re-launch in return with nothing to show for it should never, ever happen. This is just as bad 7th's edition ork codex.
Yeah, my Plague Marine units were legal, but my Obliterators weren't. I also had daemons that weren't legal to be in the army anymore (I haven't gone back through all my old stuff but I'm pretty sure I had other stuff going on that's no longer legal). I think the faction is in a better place now, but growing pains can really torpedo long standing armies.
The good news of dual building for 40k and 30k at the same time for my NL is that the models will always have use at least.
It's going to be a pretty jarring experience going back and forth from Night Lords 30k rules to Night Lords 40k rules. Kinda like driving a well tuned car (30k) into town.....and then yanking off a couple of plug wires (40k) and driving it back home.
thepowerfulwill wrote: I have two squads in my 2500+ point army that are still legal. thats it. I think I might be taking a break from this hobby for a while. build some gundams and play dnd maybe. I just dont have the heart to break apart my minis that I have been playing for years and spent huge chunks of time painting/converting.
I went through something similar when DG got their codex and my old DG stopped being a legal way to play (plus I didn't have half of the new wargear).
Honestly it took a while for me to come back to CSM when I decided to give my Sisters some much needed time off towards the tail end of 7th. If it wasn't for HH and the Night Lords omnibus creating an idea for what I wanted to do for an army I think I'd still be floundering on what I wanted to do right now.
This makes me sad. Losing as much as an army that got a full re-launch in return with nothing to show for it should never, ever happen. This is just as bad 7th's edition ork codex.
Yeah, my Plague Marine units were legal, but my Obliterators weren't. I also had daemons that weren't legal to be in the army anymore (I haven't gone back through all my old stuff but I'm pretty sure I had other stuff going on that's no longer legal). I think the faction is in a better place now, but growing pains can really torpedo long standing armies.
The good news of dual building for 40k and 30k at the same time for my NL is that the models will always have use at least.
It's going to be a pretty jarring experience going back and forth from Night Lords 30k rules to Night Lords 40k rules. Kinda like driving a well tuned car (30k) into town.....and then yanking off a couple of plug wires (40k) and driving it back home.
Same car just with more miles on it was the thought that crossed my mind.
My thought was more that I'll never fail to have ways to play my models. Like the Axe Praetor from the starter is a good Master of Executions stand in for example, but he can also be a Praetor with a Headsman's Axe.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)
What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.
We've got some real geniuses in this thread to say the least - some of the observations have been stunning. If this was another site, they'd be getting a LOT of upvotes right about now.
Yes, such geniuses that y'all completely missed the point.
No the point is dumb as hell.
You guys will complain no matter what, and if any attempt is made to try to fix it, you will complain even more. Why? Because everything is "bad for you" and every change is a "change for the worse". GW could make the exact changes that you guys demand and you will still complain about how its worse in a moment of "No, not like that".
Except I and the others have said we've liked some of the changes. You're just disingenuous and instead of accepting there's any kind of issues, fall behind the argument of "ah well, you can't please everyone!"
chaos0xomega wrote: Yes, such geniuses that y'all completely missed the point.
You guys will complain no matter what, and if any attempt is made to try to fix it, you will complain even more. Why? Because everything is "bad for you" and every change is a "change for the worse". GW could make the exact changes that you guys demand and you will still complain about how its worse in a moment of "No, not like that".
Wut...
If GW made a Chaos Codex that wasn't randomly restricted with wargear, had the option to build a variety of CSM forces from full Legion Warbands to smaller groups leading hordes of Cultists, and didn't remove units because they're in other army books (Cult Marines), then I'd be very happy indeed. There's no reason the above can't be a thing.
More inconvenient, and a lot of the reviews are super unclear on how that really works, and whether you have to, in effect, pay twice for it. Or a premium. Or... whatever. Like I said, its really unclear.
Hopefully that will change as real people get the book and actually take the time to explain.
Daedalus81 wrote: When people are saying 'cult troops are gone' do they not see the rules to bring in cult troops or do they just find those rules too restrictive?
Pretty sure it's the "You have to buy another $50 book" and "They're not really part of your warband/no Legion trait" things.
Daedalus81 wrote: When people are saying 'cult troops are gone' do they not see the rules to bring in cult troops or do they just find those rules too restrictive?
Daedalus81 wrote: When people are saying 'cult troops are gone' do they not see the rules to bring in cult troops or do they just find those rules too restrictive?
They're still not in the book.
Yea, true. Though we all get around that easy enough.
Needlessly paying for a Mark and having weird Legion restrictions don't seem like "easy enough" to me.
It's just another thing on a long list of bs that this Codex is making us put up with.
I look forward to receiving my copy so that, like so many here, I can put together my letter to GW over all the book's deficiencies and especially it's rampant and flagrant inconsistencies.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Needlessly paying for a Mark and having weird Legion restrictions don't seem like "easy enough" to me.
It's just another thing on a long list of bs that this Codex is making us put up with.
I look forward to receiving my copy so that, like so many here, I can put together my letter to GW over all the book's deficiencies and especially it's rampant and flagrant inconsistencies.
Put it together? Mine is already ready to go. I'm just waiting for the codex to be released to pull the trigger.
Though, I am considering adding a bit of comparison between this mess, and another product from the same company. Or, it says that it's from the same company. It's really hard to believe actually........
Yea there's absolutely a reason they're not CORE or benefitting from traits. They'd be total monsters.
They are CORE.
Oh gak you're right...it says replace the faction keywords not all...oh boy...
The feth did you think was happening here? That they'd actually placed the restrictions in good fatih to avoid overpowered bs?
Sorry to burst your bubble . They ain't there for that, they are there to either A feth with the playerbase and counter specific models or B because the ruleswriters of this codex are not worth the meagre salary GW is providing them for their efforts.
Meanwhile i am willing to bet that there will be problem combinations in this book galore, provoked by oversights and carelessness just like the ork codex.
but fret not , as soon as SM vehicles get their insta FAQ i expect gw to fully nerf these combos into the ground and stamp out the oversights.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Though, I am considering adding a bit of comparison between this mess, and another product from the same company. Or, it says that it's from the same company. It's really hard to believe actually........
I don't have the HH rules, but that's probably a good idea to do that.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Needlessly paying for a Mark and having weird Legion restrictions don't seem like "easy enough" to me.
It's just another thing on a long list of bs that this Codex is making us put up with.
I look forward to receiving my copy so that, like so many here, I can put together my letter to GW over all the book's deficiencies and especially it's rampant and flagrant inconsistencies.
Wait, are you complaining about the Cult Units of the Chaos Gods having the MARK of their Chaos Gods? Because i certainly would complain if they did not!
Is it an unneccesarily complicated way of including them in the Codex? Absolutely. Should they just have reprinted them ( and potentially have to change the KB datasheet with the expected World Eaters Tome? Probably.
But quite frankly if i could play Rubic Marines WITHOUT the Mark of Tzeentch ( or not at all, which is what Rumours had us believe), THAT would be bs!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Needlessly paying for a Mark and having weird Legion restrictions don't seem like "easy enough" to me.
It's just another thing on a long list of bs that this Codex is making us put up with.
I look forward to receiving my copy so that, like so many here, I can put together my letter to GW over all the book's deficiencies and especially it's rampant and flagrant inconsistencies.
Wait, are you complaining about the Cult Units of the Chaos Gods having the MARK of their Chaos Gods? Because i certainly would complain if they did not!
Is it an unneccesarily complicated way of including them in the Codex? Absolutely. Should they just have reprinted them ( and potentially have to change the KB datasheet with the expected World Eaters Tome? Probably.
But quite frankly if i could play Rubic Marines WITHOUT the Mark of Tzeentch ( or not at all, which is what Rumours had us believe), THAT would be bs!
I think the main complaint with the mark is the inconsistency issue. They ALREADY have the Keyword and weird rules after all. So they get some rules in this codex they dont even get in their own respective Legion codex.
What's wrong with Cult Marines being Core? It makes it feel like they are a vital part of the army. Now if only they could take a Legion trait as well.
To me the idea that cult marines don't get legion traits actually seems reasonable. They're generally depicted in the background as either being mercenaries from outside the legion (such as a squad of World Eaters berzerkers tagging along with another warband for the chance of a good scrap) or as being legion members who are so far gone down their respective god-path that they're no longer really capable of rational thought, or who put their god before their legion.
pgmason wrote: To me the idea that cult marines don't get legion traits actually seems reasonable. They're generally depicted in the background as either being mercenaries from outside the legion (such as a squad of World Eaters berzerkers tagging along with another warband for the chance of a good scrap) or as being legion members who are so far gone down their respective god-path that they're no longer really capable of rational thought, or who put their god before their legion.
That's true for some, but not all by a long shot. Look at the Black Legion for example, they have the four divisions based around each of the four gods, and those guys are very much integrated into the Black Legion structure. There's also the case of Khorne Berzerkers being some of the earliest volunteers to the Crimson Slaughter; they were not mercenaries, they joined fully.
From a rules and fluff perspective, it leads to some nonsensical situations. For example, one of the traits for the Red Corsairs is that they can advance and charge in the same turn. As the rules are written, if there are Berzerkers in the army, they can't do that. This is absurd as if anyone should be advancing and charging, it's Berzerkers. For the Iron Warriors trait, why would Rubric Marines not be able to take advantage of the ignore cover from shooting rule? If anything, their nature should allow them to shoot better.
But yes, OBVIOUSLY not benefitting from Legion traits is a real balance mechanic there /s
Considering it cuts out...
5+++ vs MW Ignore cover and no reroll wounds
-1 to be hit and fallback and action
And those are all pretty spicy to durable models like that I would say it was an intentional cut. They also won't be default obsec nor will they have a 5++.
As I paw through the craziest thing I can find with them being CORE is being able to shoot into combat, but since they auto-hit they won't hit your own guys. Otherwise I see a 6+++ and the trans hit prayer going on them. The rest is stuff they could do already. If you really want to spend 300 points getting them reroll wounds against one model from Abby then that's a thing, too, but I doubt you'll have that AND the other buffs.
There's probably a bolter version of bolter rubrics with 4+ explodes in Word Bearers. That could be fun.
pgmason wrote: To me the idea that cult marines don't get legion traits actually seems reasonable. They're generally depicted in the background as either being mercenaries from outside the legion (such as a squad of World Eaters berzerkers tagging along with another warband for the chance of a good scrap) or as being legion members who are so far gone down their respective god-path that they're no longer really capable of rational thought, or who put their god before their legion.
That's true for some, but not all by a long shot. Look at the Black Legion for example, they have the four divisions based around each of the four gods, and those guys are very much integrated into the Black Legion structure. There's also the case of Khorne Berzerkers being some of the earliest volunteers to the Crimson Slaughter; they were not mercenaries, they joined fully.
From a rules and fluff perspective, it leads to some nonsensical situations. For example, one of the traits for the Red Corsairs is that they can advance and charge in the same turn. As the rules are written, if there are Berzerkers in the army, they can't do that. This is absurd as if anyone should be advancing and charging, it's Berzerkers. For the Iron Warriors trait, why would Rubric Marines not be able to take advantage of the ignore cover from shooting rule? If anything, their nature should allow them to shoot better.
That's part of the 'fun' of this. Rubrics are rented out (for favors) by the TS. They aren't really part of any other legion. On the other hand, home grown IW or RC berserkers can and do exist.
So this is wildly inconsistent in as many ways as possible, because its a one-size-fits all patch that's trying to bridge multiple books, different design directions and even future books.
pgmason wrote: To me the idea that cult marines don't get legion traits actually seems reasonable. They're generally depicted in the background as either being mercenaries from outside the legion (such as a squad of World Eaters berzerkers tagging along with another warband for the chance of a good scrap) or as being legion members who are so far gone down their respective god-path that they're no longer really capable of rational thought, or who put their god before their legion.
That's true for some, but not all by a long shot. Look at the Black Legion for example, they have the four divisions based around each of the four gods, and those guys are very much integrated into the Black Legion structure. There's also the case of Khorne Berzerkers being some of the earliest volunteers to the Crimson Slaughter; they were not mercenaries, they joined fully.
From a rules and fluff perspective, it leads to some nonsensical situations. For example, one of the traits for the Red Corsairs is that they can advance and charge in the same turn. As the rules are written, if there are Berzerkers in the army, they can't do that. This is absurd as if anyone should be advancing and charging, it's Berzerkers. For the Iron Warriors trait, why would Rubric Marines not be able to take advantage of the ignore cover from shooting rule? If anything, their nature should allow them to shoot better.
That's part of the 'fun' of this. Rubrics are rented out (for favors) by the TS. They aren't really part of any other legion. On the other hand, home grown IW or RC berserkers can and do exist.
So this is wildly inconsistent in as many ways as possible, because its a one-size-fits all patch that's trying to bridge multiple books, different design directions and even future books.
I've actually read that there are examples of non-Thousand Sons Marines becoming Rubric Marines for one reason or another, possibly to achieve some form of immortality or to be totally and utterly soldiers, with no humanity to distract them.
About Plague Marines, I know that they aren't Bubonic Astartes anymore, but I wonder if they still keep Nurgle's Gift ability to reduce enemy toughness within a certain area? I would think not, but I'm curious.
They shouldn't get the -1T Nurgle's Gift contagion, since that's the "only have Death Guard in the entire army" benefit, and if you're taking them in CSM detachments that's most certainly not the case.
Thariinye wrote: They shouldn't get the -1T Nurgle's Gift contagion, since that's the "only have Death Guard in the entire army" benefit, and if you're taking them in CSM detachments that's most certainly not the case.
Likewise, Rubric Marines in a CSM army won't have their invulnerable save.
pgmason wrote: To me the idea that cult marines don't get legion traits actually seems reasonable. They're generally depicted in the background as either being mercenaries from outside the legion (such as a squad of World Eaters berzerkers tagging along with another warband for the chance of a good scrap) or as being legion members who are so far gone down their respective god-path that they're no longer really capable of rational thought, or who put their god before their legion.
That's true for some, but not all by a long shot. Look at the Black Legion for example, they have the four divisions based around each of the four gods, and those guys are very much integrated into the Black Legion structure. There's also the case of Khorne Berzerkers being some of the earliest volunteers to the Crimson Slaughter; they were not mercenaries, they joined fully.
From a rules and fluff perspective, it leads to some nonsensical situations. For example, one of the traits for the Red Corsairs is that they can advance and charge in the same turn. As the rules are written, if there are Berzerkers in the army, they can't do that. This is absurd as if anyone should be advancing and charging, it's Berzerkers. For the Iron Warriors trait, why would Rubric Marines not be able to take advantage of the ignore cover from shooting rule? If anything, their nature should allow them to shoot better.
That's part of the 'fun' of this. Rubrics are rented out (for favors) by the TS. They aren't really part of any other legion. On the other hand, home grown IW or RC berserkers can and do exist.
So this is wildly inconsistent in as many ways as possible, because its a one-size-fits all patch that's trying to bridge multiple books, different design directions and even future books.
I've actually read that there are examples of non-Thousand Sons Marines becoming Rubric Marines for one reason or another, possibly to achieve some form of immortality or to be totally and utterly soldiers, with no humanity to distract them.
I do remember some hints around the idea, but they always read as 'we don't want to restrict creative people's army building' rather than 'this is a real thing that happened'
Where'd those writers go?
Thariinye wrote: They shouldn't get the -1T Nurgle's Gift contagion, since that's the "only have Death Guard in the entire army" benefit, and if you're taking them in CSM detachments that's most certainly not the case.
Likewise, Rubric Marines in a CSM army won't have their invulnerable save.
Which matters less when AoC AND All is Dust is a thing.
As I was working on building a Spartan I was mulling over this book and I really feel like if they just put Accursed Weapons on the melee list (and maybe even gave the weapon +1 attack if a model has two) a lot of the frustration would be gone because we'd have the freedom to do a lot with melee weapons on a number of models without any major issue to the rules.
Do that and let the Chosen Champion take a Power Fist and I feel like a good chunk of my frustration with this book would be sorted.
Still wouldn't be thrilled about not having jump packs, but I'd be happier about modelling. As it stands I'm starting to look at taking lighting claws on my Legionnaire Champs and running them as Daemon Blades. Sure, they won't get shred, but they'll basically have rending and will shank people at -2AP, 2 Damage which is good enough for me.
That said, I have to say the thing I'm starting to dislike the most about the NL rule is that the bonus to wound only works on melee weapons, which is a real shame honestly because that's such a flavorful thing from HH that shows how they'll fight dirty rather than just try and get into a straight up fight.
bullyboy wrote: Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos.
Codex: Adeptus Custodes lets you do a Sisters of Silence army. The Eldar Codex lets you do a Harlequin army. This "It's Codex: CSM guys!!!" excuse doesn't hold water.
haven't seen any sister silence armies anywhere. And as a harlequin player too, we didn't want to be plugged into the Aeldari Codex (notice it's not called Craftworlds so you're kinda reinforcing my point), but that's GWs decision.
bullyboy wrote: Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos. Cultists and support was all 8th and early 9th, let’s hope they go all in an actual cultist army, and have people actually use chaos space marines in a chaos space marines army. They could have pushed cultists to elites like they did marine scouts, but chaos would need way moa. re troop options than what they have now, unlike marines with their grocery superstore options.
. Naa chaos space marines simply means they should be the focus as in the strongest the leadership. Chaos should be strong chaos leaders backed by tuns of chaff aka cultists and supernatural support demons all bound to a core of superpower full chaos space marines. That's how I want my chaos space marines they should have the strongest heros and extremely powerful exulted, possesed, chosen, then a few up and comers that are around the same strength as space marines. That's the army I want to play.
I agree, but i saw way too many chaos space marine armies that didn't have any space marines in them. Cultists were taken as Troop tax and then everything but marines (although with the stats as they were, understandable). There should still be a core of chaos marines to an army, but I wish they'd add more options such as minotaurs, beasts, etc...purely chaotic stuff. Just keep the core of the force chaos marines unless you change the name to Codex; Chaos and just lump it all together.
bullyboy wrote: haven't seen any sister silence armies anywhere. And as a harlequin player too, we didn't want to be plugged into the Aeldari Codex (notice it's not called Craftworlds so you're kinda reinforcing my point), but that's GWs decision.
Neither of these points rebut anything I just said.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I was working on building a Spartan I was mulling over this book and I really feel like if they just put Accursed Weapons on the melee list (and maybe even gave the weapon +1 attack if a model has two) a lot of the frustration would be gone because we'd have the freedom to do a lot with melee weapons on a number of models without any major issue to the rules
Daedalus81 wrote: When people are saying 'cult troops are gone' do they not see the rules to bring in cult troops or do they just find those rules too restrictive?
GW has made pretty darn worthless to bring in allies anymore except for some specific like knights and even THOSE are hurting bad from being allies.
Sure you can in theory play. You can in theory play open play as well. Don't see that often around.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I was working on building a Spartan I was mulling over this book and I really feel like if they just put Accursed Weapons on the melee list (and maybe even gave the weapon +1 attack if a model has two) a lot of the frustration would be gone because we'd have the freedom to do a lot with melee weapons on a number of models without any major issue to the rules
Don't accursed weapons already have +1 attack?
Yeah they do, I'd forgotten about that while thinking how they could be used to represent lighting claws.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Though, I am considering adding a bit of comparison between this mess, and another product from the same company. Or, it says that it's from the same company. It's really hard to believe actually........
I don't have the HH rules, but that's probably a good idea to do that.
You don't? Well, if you have a friend who does, ask them to give you a look at them. Or find some of the leaked pages from the Liber Hereticus (pretty sure all of the Night Lords stuff was leaked). It puts this to shame, IMO. I can't speak for the other Legions but, IMO, the 30k Night Lords rules are the best rules we've ever had. They really nailed the 8th. The Night Lords rules in this codex are pretty sad in comparison.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I was working on building a Spartan I was mulling over this book and I really feel like if they just put Accursed Weapons on the melee list (and maybe even gave the weapon +1 attack if a model has two) a lot of the frustration would be gone because we'd have the freedom to do a lot with melee weapons on a number of models without any major issue to the rules.
But what would those Accursed Weapons represent? For example Chosen can't take Power Fists so any Power Fist you see on a Chosen must be an Accursed Weapon. But a Power Fist on a Terminator really is a Power Fist because Terminators can take both, so you can't use a Power Fist to represent an Accursed Weapon on a Terminator and still be WYSIWG. If you put Accursed Weapon on the melee weapons list then you couldn't represent it with any of the other options that appears on the list. Basically it would be a Lightning Claw (or some exotic weapon option that you converted, possibly with 3rd party bits, which is a BIG NO-NO!!! so let's ignore that possibility), at which point you might as well just put the Lightning Claw on the list.
I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this. A lot of the reviewers seem really bowled over by the legion traits, warlord traits, stratagems and relics. I could understand this if these were new things but they aren't. They are mostly just carried over from Psychic Awakening. I've seen reviews that gush about the fact that these are now included in the codex but ignore the inconveniance of having cult troops in different codexes. Having all the rules in one book is either important or it isn't - pick one!
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.
Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.
Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".
Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.
Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.
Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".
Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!
I'm gonna need a citation of anyone who lost early access by not giving positive reviews all the time.
There's evidence to the contrary as well, tabletop tactics utterly tore the nachmund pack apart and told people not to buy it.
You'll also note that the problems with the codex aren't, to the people reviewing it, a big deal necessarily. There's a lot of long time gorgnards on here who have old units invalidated and love to get angry.
I'm taking jump packs off my hqs before I use then next, it super happy about it, not going to call it a bad codex for that reason either. The no double special/heavy bothers me more than anything else, but that's workable.
I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.
So...do we know what Abaddon gets in a Supreme command detachment? Is it just his warlord traits/datasheet rules, or does he get his legion traits too?
pgmason wrote: To me the idea that cult marines don't get legion traits actually seems reasonable. They're generally depicted in the background as either being mercenaries from outside the legion (such as a squad of World Eaters berzerkers tagging along with another warband for the chance of a good scrap) or as being legion members who are so far gone down their respective god-path that they're no longer really capable of rational thought, or who put their god before their legion.
That's true for some, but not all by a long shot. Look at the Black Legion for example, they have the four divisions based around each of the four gods, and those guys are very much integrated into the Black Legion structure. There's also the case of Khorne Berzerkers being some of the earliest volunteers to the Crimson Slaughter; they were not mercenaries, they joined fully.
From a rules and fluff perspective, it leads to some nonsensical situations. For example, one of the traits for the Red Corsairs is that they can advance and charge in the same turn. As the rules are written, if there are Berzerkers in the army, they can't do that. This is absurd as if anyone should be advancing and charging, it's Berzerkers. For the Iron Warriors trait, why would Rubric Marines not be able to take advantage of the ignore cover from shooting rule? If anything, their nature should allow them to shoot better.
That's part of the 'fun' of this. Rubrics are rented out (for favors) by the TS. They aren't really part of any other legion. On the other hand, home grown IW or RC berserkers can and do exist.
So this is wildly inconsistent in as many ways as possible, because its a one-size-fits all patch that's trying to bridge multiple books, different design directions and even future books.
I've actually read that there are examples of non-Thousand Sons Marines becoming Rubric Marines for one reason or another, possibly to achieve some form of immortality or to be totally and utterly soldiers, with no humanity to distract them.
About Plague Marines, I know that they aren't Bubonic Astartes anymore, but I wonder if they still keep Nurgle's Gift ability to reduce enemy toughness within a certain area? I would think not, but I'm curious.
bullyboy wrote: Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos.
Codex: Adeptus Custodes lets you do a Sisters of Silence army. The Eldar Codex lets you do a Harlequin army. This "It's Codex: CSM guys!!!" excuse doesn't hold water.
I agree with you, but I think the way to fix that is limitations on types and also increasing the power of chaos marines, these guys should be badasses, almost no one in the imperium should even be close, I mean these dudes are juicin on chaos.
haven't seen any sister silence armies anywhere. And as a harlequin player too, we didn't want to be plugged into the Aeldari Codex (notice it's not called Craftworlds so you're kinda reinforcing my point), but that's GWs decision.
bullyboy wrote: Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos. Cultists and support was all 8th and early 9th, let’s hope they go all in an actual cultist army, and have people actually use chaos space marines in a chaos space marines army. They could have pushed cultists to elites like they did marine scouts, but chaos would need way moa. re troop options than what they have now, unlike marines with their grocery superstore options.
. Naa chaos space marines simply means they should be the focus as in the strongest the leadership. Chaos should be strong chaos leaders backed by tuns of chaff aka cultists and supernatural support demons all bound to a core of superpower full chaos space marines. That's how I want my chaos space marines they should have the strongest heros and extremely powerful exulted, possesed, chosen, then a few up and comers that are around the same strength as space marines. That's the army I want to play.
I agree, but i saw way too many chaos space marine armies that didn't have any space marines in them. Cultists were taken as Troop tax and then everything but marines (although with the stats as they were, understandable). There should still be a core of chaos marines to an army, but I wish they'd add more options such as minotaurs, beasts, etc...purely chaotic stuff. Just keep the core of the force chaos marines unless you change the name to Codex; Chaos and just lump it all together.
Dudeface wrote: There's a lot of long time gorgnards on here who have old units invalidated and love to get angry.
When a person has miniatures they have poured hours on hours of time and effort into and have been using for years suddenly invalidated, and invalidated in a completely nonsensical way at that, yes; they will get angry. That is a reasonable emotional response, so it does not provide evidence for a tendency or 'love' towards anger.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.
I assume it's perpeatuated by the stories of people bringing 9 grey Voidweavers to a tournament.
Daedalus81 wrote: When people are saying 'cult troops are gone' do they not see the rules to bring in cult troops or do they just find those rules too restrictive?
GW has made pretty darn worthless to bring in allies anymore except for some specific like knights and even THOSE are hurting bad from being allies.
Sure you can in theory play. You can in theory play open play as well. Don't see that often around.
Cult troops are not allies in this book. They are an available unit without a datasheet.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.
Yeah, there's many people that go to tournaments and spend -more- money on their army than the average player. Many that use a tournament as motivation to get their army fully painted, and likely have painted more armies or miniatures than many casual players.
At the end of the day, though, the codex's competitiveness will never be the issue, since that changes ALL. THE. TIME.
Yes, I am an older fan of this faction and would love to see it get treated properly. GW has made it clear through their business model that they are more focused on recruiting new players than keeping old ones, but player retention is an important factor too. If all you're selling are the starter boxes, why even make any other models, after all?
Agamemnon2 wrote: I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.
Yeah, there's many people that go to tournaments and spend -more- money on their army than the average player. Many that use a tournament as motivation to get their army fully painted, and likely have painted more armies or miniatures than many casual players.
At the end of the day, though, the codex's competitiveness will never be the issue, since that changes ALL. THE. TIME.
Yes, I am an older fan of this faction and would love to see it get treated properly. GW has made it clear through their business model that they are more focused on recruiting new players than keeping old ones, but player retention is an important factor too. If all you're selling are the starter boxes, why even make any other models, after all?
I mean, the new players might buy another box or two of models to start to be fair. When I started Necrons a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, after getting the codex I saved up enough for the Battleforce (which at the time was 20 something Warriors, 3 Destroyers, and the Scarabs that were with the Warriors), Necron Lord with Warscythe, 2 extra Destroyers + the Destroyer Lord, and 5 Immortals. That didn't break the bank in the very late 90s/very early 00s. Of course I used 5 of the Macragge Marines as an extra 5 Immortals for the time so I had a full block for Veiling
Agamemnon2 wrote: I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.
Yeah, there's many people that go to tournaments and spend -more- money on their army than the average player. Many that use a tournament as motivation to get their army fully painted, and likely have painted more armies or miniatures than many casual players.
At the end of the day, though, the codex's competitiveness will never be the issue, since that changes ALL. THE. TIME.
Yes, I am an older fan of this faction and would love to see it get treated properly. GW has made it clear through their business model that they are more focused on recruiting new players than keeping old ones, but player retention is an important factor too. If all you're selling are the starter boxes, why even make any other models, after all?
I mean, the new players might buy another box or two of models to start to be fair. When I started Necrons a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, after getting the codex I saved up enough for the Battleforce (which at the time was 20 something Warriors, 3 Destroyers, and the Scarabs that were with the Warriors), Necron Lord with Warscythe, 2 extra Destroyers + the Destroyer Lord, and 5 Immortals. That didn't break the bank in the very late 90s/very early 00s. Of course I used 5 of the Macragge Marines as an extra 5 Immortals for the time so I had a full block for Veiling
I hang out a lot at a Warhammer store so I see a lot of what people buy, the way the manager sells stuff, etc. The manager makes it clear with new customers that they're a 'recruitment store', his job is to get people into the hobby. Many of those people will go on to play with friends at other locations, which is all fine.
In that process, after you've gotten someone their glue, nippers, paint, and the models that their wallet is willing to bear that day, there's the hope that they're going to come back to buy more, right? That's the whole point of recruitment, to get a hobbyist that's going to buy some more later, and the more you recruit, the higher the chance that you're going to get more people to come back for that second shopping trip, and third, etc.
In order to motivate a customer to come back for more, you've got to not only supply a product that they want to buy, but as these models are for games, you've got to make sure that the game is compelling enough to participate in. If the way to expand an army is to dip into clunky 3rd edition models or the rules don't inspire you to build other entries in your codex, then that's a failure and you're working against your own recruitment goals.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I was working on building a Spartan I was mulling over this book and I really feel like if they just put Accursed Weapons on the melee list (and maybe even gave the weapon +1 attack if a model has two) a lot of the frustration would be gone because we'd have the freedom to do a lot with melee weapons on a number of models without any major issue to the rules.
But what would those Accursed Weapons represent? For example Chosen can't take Power Fists so any Power Fist you see on a Chosen must be an Accursed Weapon. But a Power Fist on a Terminator really is a Power Fist because Terminators can take both, so you can't use a Power Fist to represent an Accursed Weapon on a Terminator and still be WYSIWG. If you put Accursed Weapon on the melee weapons list then you couldn't represent it with any of the other options that appears on the list. Basically it would be a Lightning Claw (or some exotic weapon option that you converted, possibly with 3rd party bits, which is a BIG NO-NO!!! so let's ignore that possibility), at which point you might as well just put the Lightning Claw on the list.
Anything you want to model? It was more if I had Accursed Weapons as a general melee option I could at least WYSIWYG my models. And I'm using HH kits in my legion, so Chainglaives are an option.
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.
Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.
Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".
Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!
Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.
Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.
Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".
Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!
Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda
It’s like all the “don’t buy Nephilim” reviews just didn’t happen!
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.
Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.
Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".
Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!
Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda
It’s like all the “don’t buy Nephilim” reviews just didn’t happen!
Ah yes, ONE negative review out of how many for what should deserve negative reviews?
If all you can shout is "what about Nephilim" it goes to show how overly positive reviews are.
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.
Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.
Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".
Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!
Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda
It’s like all the “don’t buy Nephilim” reviews just didn’t happen!
Ah yes, ONE negative review out of how many for what should deserve negative reviews?
If all you can shout is "what about Nephilim" it goes to show how overly positive reviews are.
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this. A lot of the reviewers seem really bowled over by the legion traits, warlord traits, stratagems and relics. I could understand this if these were new things but they aren't. They are mostly just carried over from Psychic Awakening. I've seen reviews that gush about the fact that these are now included in the codex but ignore the inconveniance of having cult troops in different codexes. Having all the rules in one book is either important or it isn't - pick one!
Once again, "wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change". We've listened to several years of complaints now about how gakky borderline unplayable the current CSM book is (i.e. "the state of the game"). The new codex, despite a couple of key faults in it that don't generally harm the competitiveness of the army, is a *massive* improvement. Influencers are overwhelmingly positive with it because its worth being overwhelmingly positive about and makes the army more than playable - they have embraced the change recognizing that the new book is a net positive rather than a net negative, whereas a large segment of the community on dakka have missed the forest for the trees and are focusing only on the negative aspects they don't like, despite the fact that GW has overwhelmingly fixed many of the existing issues they have spent the last 3 years complaining about.
EightFoldPath wrote: Have we still not had a 40k Kratos datasheet for CSM/TS/DG?
No they have not secretly updated the datasheet without commenting on it publicly.
And thusly they continue to not sell as many as they might.
Round here all the local stores have completely sold out and restock orders are running on a 3 month delay, so somehow I don't think this is an actual issue.
If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.
Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.
EightFoldPath wrote: Have we still not had a 40k Kratos datasheet for CSM/TS/DG?
No they have not secretly updated the datasheet without commenting on it publicly.
And thusly they continue to not sell as many as they might.
Round here all the local stores have completely sold out and restock orders are running on a 3 month delay, so somehow I don't think this is an actual issue.
Of course it is, imagine all the chaos players buying them as well and maybe there'd be a 4-5 month backlog of sales. Just because it didn't struggle to sell doesn't mean they couldn't sell more.
chaos0xomega wrote: If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.
Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.
If your primary metric of evaluation is the playability of your current models/specific model you love, then no it's not the same. This book straight up deletes so many options people love and have themed their armies around or it's invalidated models they've put their time into building and painting. No amount of "Abaddon is strong", etc changes that.
Ok - anyone know how new codex effects Decimators?
Key words use old terminology RAW but wording looks like they should get legion traits?
Anyone noticed the Kratos miscellaneous datasheet has a reference for Havoc launchers? Am I clutching at straws or does this mean they were at least considering letting CSM take them?
chaos0xomega wrote: If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.
Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.
If your primary metric of evaluation is the playability of your current models/specific model you love, then no it's not the same.
This book straight up deletes so many options people love and have themed their armies around or it's invalidated models they've put their time into building and painting. No amount of "Abaddon is strong", etc changes that.
I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.
That seems like a feasible hypothesis. It's not like GW hasn't moving in that direction with their most prominent line - Primaris are a lot of things but a customizer's dream they ain't.
chaos0xomega wrote: If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.
Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.
If your primary metric of evaluation is the playability of your current models/specific model you love, then no it's not the same.
This book straight up deletes so many options people love and have themed their armies around or it's invalidated models they've put their time into building and painting. No amount of "Abaddon is strong", etc changes that.
I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.
It definitely does feel like GW geared this book up solely with the intent of making it easier to balance through removing options and easier for new players, but completely shafted long time players who have standing collections they put a lot of effort into.
Kinetochore wrote:Ok - anyone know how new codex effects Decimators?
Key words use old terminology RAW but wording looks like they should get legion traits?
Anyone noticed the Kratos miscellaneous datasheet has a reference for Havoc launchers? Am I clutching at straws or does this mean they were at least considering letting CSM take them?
I'm sure that Decimators and all of our other fw units will eventually get the proper keywords and such to work with the new codex. Anyone's guess as to how long it takes them to do it, though. And the Kratos getting Havoc Launchers doesn't mean anything. It's just another case of gw giving loyalists Chaos stuff. They've already had Reaper ACs for a while now.
ClockworkZion wrote:
BrianDavion wrote: so looking at my codex (I have it) anyone else feel like this feels like a "codex written for next edition"?
I have a feeling of that as well. 10th could very well be an AoS-ification of the army options even further than now.
Hmmm. All the more reason to move to a rule set with actual options and customization. Oh, and good rules for the Traitor Legions.
I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.
I DO have 100s of dollars worth of now illegal chaos termies. and can say without a doubt I am unhappy.
I even sent an email to GW asking them to faq this and explaining this will simply cause me and others like me to buy less models in the future not more, and I encourage anyone else upset about this to do the same. (Just dont be a dick about it)
H.B.M.C. wrote: We told chaos that the first time, but apparently he's back to completely miss the point all over again.
I'd assume bad faith/trolling at this point.
Yup. It was already explained to him by multiple people how off-base his assessment is. It is like the people who got politics banned; present a bogus theory, get shut down, wait a few pages, present bogus theory again.
Samus666 wrote: I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.
Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.
Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".
Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!
Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda
It’s like all the “don’t buy Nephilim” reviews just didn’t happen!
Ah yes, ONE negative review out of how many for what should deserve negative reviews?
If all you can shout is "what about Nephilim" it goes to show how overly positive reviews are.
Or that's just most recent so easy to note.
But blind people hell bent on their agenda always just ignore facts when they don't suit them.
I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.
I DO have 100s of dollars worth of now illegal chaos termies. and can say without a doubt I am unhappy.
I even sent an email to GW asking them to faq this and explaining this will simply cause me and others like me to buy less models in the future not more, and I encourage anyone else upset about this to do the same. (Just dont be a dick about it)
I expect what you'll here back is "You are free to play the game as you like, just consult the other player beforehand; or just play narrative. It's a great way to have fun with your minatures! Cheers." They'll will expect make more just supporting what's in the box over the long term, than what they'll loose in sales to old players angrey enough to stop purchasing.
BrianDavion wrote: so looking at my codex (I have it) anyone else feel like this feels like a "codex written for next edition"?
I have a feeling of that as well. 10th could very well be an AoS-ification of the army options even further than now.
I'm honestly iffy on whether or not it was (especially with the delays), but I 100% think we're going to be told that it was, especially by people outside of GW who have no idea one way or the other.
I'm still kinda curious what problems it 'fixed,' beyond the really obvious footnote that could have been slid into any FAQ or balance update years ago (+1 W, use point costs from Loyalist marines for same unit types)
Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.
Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.
Maybe this is more of a priority for Chaos platers than most others. Maybe it's just me. I dunno, it just feels like GW are gearing the rules further and further away from the way I like to play. Arguments can be made for using house rules and I probably will be doing so. But I'm getting a bit tired of having to write my own rules to play a game where narrative and army character are catered for. There are now many areas if the game where there are different rules for competitive play, so what I would really like them to do is start releasing codexes full to bursting with options and wargear choices and flavour, but with some of those options off limits to those who prioritise balance over personalising their armies. Surely this would please everyone.
Samus666 wrote: Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.
Maybe it's the rpg player in me.
You have to take the game with a grain of salt. Customization inherently makes a game more difficult to balance. It's not a big deal. GW always nukes their own products. It's part of their business plan. The best thing to do, which is what I've done and what our rather large community (50 players on the average showing up most weekends at one of our local stores) is to just buy multiple armies or other games. That's just how it is.
I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.
I DO have 100s of dollars worth of now illegal chaos termies. and can say without a doubt I am unhappy.
I even sent an email to GW asking them to faq this and explaining this will simply cause me and others like me to buy less models in the future not more, and I encourage anyone else upset about this to do the same. (Just dont be a dick about it)
I expect what you'll here back is "You are free to play the game as you like, just consult the other player beforehand; or just play narrative. It's a great way to have fun with your minatures! Cheers." They'll will expect make more just supporting what's in the box over the long term, than what they'll loose in sales to old players angrey enough to stop purchasing.
That's even better than what I got, the message I got back seemed honestly confused and said I should double check the rules, but hey, maybe we get enough of these we get an faq. or at least a token gesture.
Samus666 wrote: Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.
Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.
The idea of it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the specific way they decided to do it.
I don't care if there are mechanical differences between swords, axes and maces. (or as other WFB or WFRPG players know them, 'hand weapons'). When it comes to modelling, I actually like it that a cool-looking weapon isn't pigeon-holed into a statline that will change and become bad as editions change. The problem is they decided to be as inconsistent about it as possible, with some units getting exactly uniform weapons, some units keeping some (but not all) weapon options and other units (including the basic legionnaires) getting new 'unique' weapons that are... basically the same as an existing weapons (the heavy chainaxe and tainted chainax, which can pass as powerfists or mastercrafted weapons), or close enough that I personally don't care. If they did accursed weapons and heavy accursed weapons (x2 S) [and maybe even quickstab weapons (lightning claws)] and made it universal for all units... that would have honestly been fine. But instead its an unholy mess of 'sometimes.'
It feels like a compromise solution, but I have no idea how you get there with any sort of actual process.
And even then, that's something you decide for the entire edition in a design document in at the start of the edition. I can't overstate that enough. Plan. Ahead. For. Consistency.
I expect best case is we see some points drops on the more expensive units. A points drop on either Noise Marines or their Sonic Weapons would go a long way to making me happy. I can always just proxy in whatever models I think look cool.
You have to take the game with a grain of salt. Customization inherently makes a game more difficult to balance. It's not a big deal. GW always nukes their own products. It's part of their business plan. The best thing to do, which is what I've done and what our rather large community (50 players on the average showing up most weekends at one of our local stores) is to just buy multiple armies or other games. That's just how it is.
I don't have to do anything. And those of us who object to this are really tired of being told it's no big deal. We are entitled to our opinions. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to anyone else. And "just accept it and buy more" is terrible advice for dealing with anti-consumer practice.
Besides all of that, did you even read all my post? It wasn't even mainly about invalidated models, and I raised an obvious solution to the customization vs balance dilemma
The idea of it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the specific way they decided to do it.
I don't care if there are mechanical differences between swords, axes and maces. (or as other WFB or WFRPG players know them, 'hand weapons'). When it comes to modelling, I actually like it that a cool-looking weapon isn't pigeon-holed into a statline that will change and become bad as editions change. The problem is they decided to be as inconsistent about it as possible, with some units getting exactly uniform weapons, some units keeping some (but not all) weapon options and other units (including the basic legionnaires) getting new 'unique' weapons that are... basically the same as an existing weapons (the heavy chainaxe and tainted chainax, which can pass as powerfists or mastercrafted weapons), or close enough that I personally don't care. If they did accursed weapons and heavy accursed weapons (x2 S) [and maybe even quickstab weapons (lightning claws)] and made it universal for all units... that would have honestly been fine. But instead its an unholy mess of 'sometimes.'
It feels like a compromise solution, but I have no idea how you get there with any sort of actual process.
And even then, that's something you decide for the entire edition in a design document in at the start of the edition. I can't overstate that enough. Plan. Ahead. For. Consistency.
Ymmv regarding the mechanical differences between weapons. Again, I'm in it for the role play, so having a range of distinct weapon profiles is more important to me than whether particular weapon types are strong or weak. I do see where you're coming from though, it's one thing that's entirely a matter of personal preference. And I totally agree that it would be better (or at least a sign of them making an understandable design choice) if the design philosophy was at least consistent between units and between armies
Meanwhile I'm over here being salty GW didn't include the Traitor Guardsmen or the Commissar in the CSM Book, despite the article about them outright saying they're all going to be a great addition to a CSM army along all the other new Cultist stuff.
Like, I'm just sick of WarCom going "Sike! You thought we were actually telling the truth and not outright lying for the possibility of a 2-3% increase in sales!"
H.B.M.C. wrote: We told chaos that the first time, but apparently he's back to completely miss the point all over again.
I'd assume bad faith/trolling at this point.
More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.
Did the book fix many of the problems of the previous version? Yes.
Did it create some new problems along the way? Also yes.
These two facts are not mutually exclusive and don't cancel one another out. On the balance I feel that the pros outweigh the cons and the book is a net positive despite the problems I have with it and the invalidation of a portion of my army (which fir the most part Ill just counts as/ignore wysiwyg for until such time as the resultant issues are more properly addressed). So yeah, the state of the codex sucked and the new edition fixed most of the existing issues. While it brought some negative changes with it, those negative changes do not make the entire thing bad.
BrianDavion wrote: so looking at my codex (I have it) anyone else feel like this feels like a "codex written for next edition"?
I have a feeling of that as well. 10th could very well be an AoS-ification of the army options even further than now.
If it cuts back on rules layers then thats not a bad thing. That being said people said 8th and 9th would be AOS-ification and truthfully I don't really see it unless I swuint real hard and stretch what exavtly "AOS-ification" means.
Anyone noticed the Kratos miscellaneous datasheet has a reference for Havoc launchers? Am I clutching at straws or does this mean they were at least considering letting CSM take them?
WarCom already said a chaos Kratos was coming, they just didn't say when or how or why it was delayed etc.
I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.
Sure, thats definitely frustrating but I always struggle to shed a tear when someone loses the ability to spam a certain unit or build. Inevitably spam builds always get shafted, this happens to every army every edition (though granted usually by nerding the build through points increases and star chamges rather than making them outright illegal). Theres a degree of inevitability to it. If you've been around long enough I think you kind of know going in that your minis are at risk if you set them up in spam builds and you do so with the acceptance of that potentiality. The potential fix here is to keep some with dual LCs and those that can't have them keep one LC as an accursed weapon and swap the other out for a ranger weapon. It potentially means pulling arms off finished minis which sucks hard, but the alternative is leaving those minis on a shelf indefinitely, so pick your poison.
Ultimately this is not much different from when power weapons were split to axes/swords/mauls/lances nor any number of other such changes made in the past. This isnt the first time GW made a change that prompts people to pull weapons/arms off their minis, nor will it be the last. Im not fond of having to do so, but its hard to say that its particularly evil *this time* vs the dozens of other times the same thing has been done over the prior 8 editions. Im sure the guys who had space marines armed with shuriken rifles back in the day were annoyed when that option was taken away from them too. Unless this is your first rodeo, I think you kinda accept that this is part of the game if you continue to play it.
I DO have 100s of dollars worth of now illegal chaos termies. and can say without a doubt I am unhappy.
How are they illegal? i would think you'd be able to restructure your units in some way to make them fieldable (unless you also had 30 dual LC terms). If you had maybe 30 termies before with varied weapons in 3 units of 10, I would think now maybe youre looking at 2 units of 10 and maybe one other unit of 5 or something along those lines. Maybe you're able to buy one more box of termies and with that youd have 30 fieldable termies in units of 10 plus 5 extra weapon swaps or something.
Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.
I don't think endless customizability and balance can really coexist, there has to be some restrictions and limitations as to how far you can push levels of customization as a constraint for things like points systems and listbuilding to be structured against. RPGs can get away with it because they generally aren't competitive games where the interests of opposing players need to be counterbalanced against eachother but wargaming is a slightly different animal.
I don't care if there are mechanical differences between swords, axes and maces. (or as other WFB or WFRPG players know them, 'hand weapons'). When it comes to modelling, I actually like it that a cool-looking weapon isn't pigeon-holed into a statline that will change and become bad as editions change. The problem is they decided to be as inconsistent about it as possible, with some units getting exactly uniform weapons, some units keeping some (but not all) weapon options and other units (including the basic legionnaires) getting new 'unique' weapons that are... basically the same as an existing weapons (the heavy chainaxe and tainted chainax, which can pass as powerfists or mastercrafted weapons), or close enough that I personally don't care. If they did accursed weapons and heavy accursed weapons (x2 S) [and maybe even quickstab weapons (lightning claws)] and made it universal for all units... that would have honestly been fine. But instead its an unholy mess of 'sometimes.'
Yes, this more than anything else is what bothers me - that and the knowledge that the "accursed weapons" paradigm will likely be reversed another edition or two down the line and suddenly all these units are going to have weird specific weapons loadouts or otherwise be illegal again, etc. But ever since my first army (Tau) got screwed over by crisis suit weapon loadout changes I have built my minis with an eye towards the future - magnets and limited weapon upgrades that make it unlikely for my units to actually be made illegal. It still happens on occasion, but less frequently than others seem to have to deal with it and often the fix is easy enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Meanwhile I'm over here being salty GW didn't include the Traitor Guardsmen or the Commissar in the CSM Book, despite the article about them outright saying they're all going to be a great addition to a CSM army along all the other new Cultist stuff.
Like, I'm just sick of WarCom going "Sike! You thought we were actually telling the truth and not outright lying for the possibility of a 2-3% increase in sales!"
Yeah ive been quietly hoping that this means a traitor gusrd book is on the way, but I guess time will tell. Really gakky of them to say that when it clearly wasn't true - I don't even think its arguable as being "technically correct" as its not like you can run those models fully as cultists, etc either. Like what are you supposed to do w the traitor commissar and ogryn?
Samus666 wrote: Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.
I'm more irritated with the inconsistency of it. Take GSC for example, one of the best Codexes for Crusade content IMO, the custom Cult builder is good, and while HQ options are pretty bland equipment-wise the Troops units are really good for wargear. Neophytes can take 2 Special and 2 Heavy weapons per squad because the box comes with all the options but it isn't restricted to one of each. You can load up a unit of 10 with 2 Flamers and 2 Mining Lasers. It's a similar case with the Acolyte Hybrids. But CSM can't double up on Specials or Heavies despite enough being in the box to do so. Sternguard and Vanguard in the Marines book have more equipment freedom than Chosen do. It's easier to build a more background accurate CSM army with the Marine Codex than the CSM one because the latter is so strangely restrictive of wargear in random places.
I know that in some previews, we got to see rules for the Orb of Dessication, a Purge relic. Since Renegade rules aren't in the codex, are these relics like these in there or not?
ArcaneHorror wrote: I know that in some previews, we got to see rules for the Orb of Dessication, a Purge relic. Since Renegade rules aren't in the codex, are these relics like these in there or not?
Do you have a link to this preview?
chaos0xomega wrote: More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.
When someone accused you of bad faith/trolling I wasn't willing to accept that, as it would infer a level of malice in your posts. But then you went and said that, so, yeah, you really don't get it...
Book officially came out TODAY, let's keep in mind.
For all we know, we could get the Traitor Guard datasheet any time in the next week or so. Just like the Novitiates, I'll bet they'll come out as their own datasheet that you'll be able to get online. I'm not ready to jump on the hate train on this one quite yet.
As for the AoS-ification of 40k.. honestly? Bring it on. Simplify this mess. Plenty of people poo-poo AoS but frankly the rules system is great. Having leaders give a particular buff to units wholly within their aura (limiting daisy-chaining) and the various "stratagems" being impactful, easy to understand, and generic as well, makes it far superior to the hodgepodge of "This gives you +1 to hit in this circumstance." and "this gives you +1 in another circumstance, but only for these specific units." I will not miss all these stratagems and such at all.
In terms of flattening options for units, great! Bring it on! I don't mind. It gives me more impetus to build the models however I want. But let's also, while we're at it, flatten the 50 kinds of Bolt Rifles that Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors get. Let's flatten the Predator and Gladiator into one datasheet again. Let's get some CONSISTENCY across what gets flattened and why.
I have seen far more questions about 'which tiny zit-sized magazine bit represents the auto bolt rifle versus the stalker bolt rifle?' than I've EVER seen about the difference between lightning claws, power swords, and power axes.
Chaos needs more bits in their boxes. Or remove extraneous crap like power mauls and power axes and just give us the standard chainswords, power swords, lightning claws, so that at least we can build a kit with themed weapons. ffs GW.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We told chaos that the first time, but apparently he's back to completely miss the point all over again.
I'd assume bad faith/trolling at this point.
More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.
Did the book fix many of the problems of the previous version? Yes.
Did it create some new problems along the way? Also yes.
These two facts are not mutually exclusive and don't cancel one another out. On the balance I feel that the pros outweigh the cons and the book is a net positive despite the problems I have with it and the invalidation of a portion of my army (which fir the most part Ill just counts as/ignore wysiwyg for until such time as the resultant issues are more properly addressed). So yeah, the state of the codex sucked and the new edition fixed most of the existing issues. While it brought some negative changes with it, those negative changes do not make the entire thing bad.
Yeah, that's pretty subjective, and has a big "Depends on the Legion" qualifier in it. This codex absolutely gutted Night Lords. The Legion trait is slightly better than the old one, but it's incredibly unbalanced depending on which faction you're playing against. It'll be fairly ludicrous against some, and completely useless against others. And that's just bad design. Couple that with all of our best stratagems either being nerfed or just flat out removed, and the fact that some of the most thematic unit and wargear options for the Legion also went bye bye, and you have a big, greasy hair right in the middle of the "chicken nuggies and a side of fries" that is the 9th edition CSM codex for anyone who plays Night Lords. And it looks even worse compared to the "exquisite ethnic cuisine" laid out on our plate by the HH writers. Seriously, I'd like anyone to give me a reason why any Night Lords player shouldn't just take a walk from this dumpster fire for the greener pastures of HH and the Liber Hereticus.
EviscerationPlague wrote: The trophy racks taking up as much space as they do for the new Chaos Terminator kit is a goddamn crime.
That, plus the idea that we, for some reason, needed a chain axe and power maul instead of an extra pair of lightning claws.
And the idiocy of locking CSM out of the "Relic Terminators" kits, which would give us the "in the kit" options for paired lighting claws (or Accursed Weapons), full power fists, or full chainfists. Or any combination of those.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I know that in some previews, we got to see rules for the Orb of Dessication, a Purge relic. Since Renegade rules aren't in the codex, are these relics like these in there or not?
Do you have a link to this preview?
chaos0xomega wrote: More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.
When someone accused you of bad faith/trolling I wasn't willing to accept that, as it would infer a level of malice in your posts. But then you went and said that, so, yeah, you really don't get it...
It's actually called the Orb of Unlife, my mistake. And it was one of the leaks from about a month ago.
drbored wrote: As for the AoS-ification of 40k.. honestly? Bring it on. Simplify this mess.
Yeah I totally weapon weapons that have a set To Wound value regardless of target!
Honestly? It helps flatten the game. It means you aren't punished for taking themed lists, and you're not punished when your opponent takes themed lists. Your opponent's tank-only army versus your conscript only army? You might be able to actually clog up the treads enough to stop them dead.
Is it fluffy? Heck no. Is it good? Meh, it's still got issues. Does it make the game simpler and reduce a lot of charts and toughness ridiculousness? Absolutely.
Samus666 wrote: Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.
Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.
Maybe this is more of a priority for Chaos platers than most others. Maybe it's just me. I dunno, it just feels like GW are gearing the rules further and further away from the way I like to play. Arguments can be made for using house rules and I probably will be doing so. But I'm getting a bit tired of having to write my own rules to play a game where narrative and army character are catered for. There are now many areas if the game where there are different rules for competitive play, so what I would really like them to do is start releasing codexes full to bursting with options and wargear choices and flavour, but with some of those options off limits to those who prioritise balance over personalising their armies. Surely this would please everyone.
not I sir I like the new wepon profile I would like to see ranged move in the same direction. The new melle profile replacing sword maces and axes is great now I can model whatever I want and not worry about the swords being better Than the maces and suck probably should be noorr than 4-5 melle profiles. And the same number of ranged profiles. I hate having to model for what's plays good over what looks good.
Now having said that they could have implemented it better without in validating model, just make lightning claws the Same as swords and axes and give plus one attack for having 2 melle wepons of any kind this opens more modeling opportunities.
I saw a rumor at some point that daemons could be taken without breaking traits. Similar to guard in GSC. Was this just a false rumor? I've not seen any codex previews mention this. Kinda lame that they then would again split CSM and Daemons with all the restrictions that 9th I bringing to souping from different books. I really liked how 8th allowed for mixed armies.
Us3Less wrote: I saw a rumor at some point that daemons could be taken without breaking traits. Similar to guard in GSC. Was this just a false rumor? I've not seen any codex previews mention this. Kinda lame that they then would again split CSM and Daemons with all the restrictions that 9th I bringing to souping from different books. I really liked how 8th allowed for mixed armies.
If true, this would show up in the Demons codex, much like Knights.
This book just... feels bad. Like mechanically it's strong, whatever, I do not play 40k competitively so that doesn't matter to me. It just lacks the stuff that made me love CSM in the first place. Being the army of wild customization, where every unit could feel unique in a variety of ways. The army where you could take twenty marines to a unit, with veteran tactics and marks and icons and all different kinds of weapon choices. And then on top of that my legion would give me bonuses as well.
We just spent years being one of the weakest armies in the game, one where even non-competitive play was painful and we didn't feel anything like we did in previous editions. Now we're a good army that still doesn't feel right at all because they've decided to chop away so many of our customization options. Throwing us marks back as some kind of a pittance, and then not even letting us give them to a huge chunk of our book.
Having spent yesterday going through the book, I’m going against the tide here, I really like this book.
I feel there are still plenty of options available to customize your force outside of the few glaring errors (jump pack lord, terminator claws etc).
I feel there are many units I actually want to use but I’m having to make sacrifices. For my Iron Warriors it’s head and shoulders above the previous book(s). I have so many HQs I want to try, but just don’t have the slots to make it happen. The only new thing I’ll get is the possessed, not feeling the mutants at al. I’m looking forward to getting my vindicators back on the table, plus building a land raider for my terminators.
This may not be the book for many, but it is far from a dumpster fire.
bullyboy wrote: Having spent yesterday going through the book, I’m going against the tide here, I really like this book.
I feel there are still plenty of options available to customize your force outside of the few glaring errors (jump pack lord, terminator claws etc).
Sorry i call bs, when the baseline legionaires can't even double up on a special or heavy to do a job anymore then that is NOT customizable but just stupid.
I feel there are many units I actually want to use but I’m having to make sacrifices. For my Iron Warriors it’s head and shoulders above the previous book(s). I have so many HQs I want to try, but just don’t have the slots to make it happen. The only new thing I’ll get is the possessed, not feeling the mutants at al. I’m looking forward to getting my vindicators back on the table, plus building a land raider for my terminators.
This may not be the book for many, but it is far from a dumpster fire.
see above, i own 50 of the new CSM sculpts, even more if you count my chosen conversions, all of which are now illegal set ups and no i ain't switching things out for squads that were purposely specialised to do something.
Us3Less wrote: I saw a rumor at some point that daemons could be taken without breaking traits. Similar to guard in GSC. Was this just a false rumor? I've not seen any codex previews mention this. Kinda lame that they then would again split CSM and Daemons with all the restrictions that 9th I bringing to souping from different books. I really liked how 8th allowed for mixed armies.
If true, this would show up in the Demons codex, much like Knights.
Wait... we've lost all mechanics for using demons too? Can anyone confirm this?
Samus666 wrote: Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.
Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.
Maybe this is more of a priority for Chaos platers than most others. Maybe it's just me. I dunno, it just feels like GW are gearing the rules further and further away from the way I like to play. Arguments can be made for using house rules and I probably will be doing so. But I'm getting a bit tired of having to write my own rules to play a game where narrative and army character are catered for. There are now many areas if the game where there are different rules for competitive play, so what I would really like them to do is start releasing codexes full to bursting with options and wargear choices and flavour, but with some of those options off limits to those who prioritise balance over personalising their armies. Surely this would please everyone.
Absolutely. It just makes the universe so much smaller. I feel similarly about the vague-ness of AoS. It's intended to expand individual customizationoptions, but has the effect of limiting them instead.
It feels like a compromise solution, but I have no idea how you get there with any sort of actual process.
And even then, that's something you decide for the entire edition in a design document in at the start of the edition. I can't overstate that enough. Plan. Ahead. For. Consistency.
drbored wrote: As for the AoS-ification of 40k.. honestly? Bring it on. Simplify this mess.
Yeah I totally want weapons that have a set To Wound value regardless of target!
You know, I had real misgivings about that at first, but the more I've played AoS, the less I feel like it's been a problem or a disadvantage for either player. In many ways, it reduces the variables that GW struggles to balance currently and they still have a number of methods to make tougher units feel tougher in the game. Obviously it's subjective, but I have definitely been turned around on it, and I started out very skeptical.
Us3Less wrote: I saw a rumor at some point that daemons could be taken without breaking traits. Similar to guard in GSC. Was this just a false rumor? I've not seen any codex previews mention this. Kinda lame that they then would again split CSM and Daemons with all the restrictions that 9th I bringing to souping from different books. I really liked how 8th allowed for mixed armies.
If true, this would show up in the Demons codex, much like Knights.
Wait... we've lost all mechanics for using demons too? Can anyone confirm this?
Demon summoning is still a thing, because those rules are still in the current Demons Codex. There was a rumor that CSM would be able to take a certain amount of Demons without breaking their purity bonus (much like Knights), but that would most likely be in the next Demons book rather than a CSM rule.
You know, I had real misgivings about that at first, but the more I've played AoS, the less I feel like it's been a problem or a disadvantage for either player. In many ways, it reduces the variables that GW struggles to balance currently and they still have a number of methods to make tougher units feel tougher in the game. Obviously it's subjective, but I have definitely been turned around on it, and I started out very skeptical.
Call me crazy, but if I'm a regular human with a sword, there should be pretty significant difference between trying to wound a goblin and trying to would a dragon.
Can’t wait for the usual suspects to lose their minds again when they see that this week there are classic made to order sorcerers going on sale with weapons that cannot be taken on the data sheet.
bullyboy wrote: Can’t wait for the usual suspects to lose their minds again when they see that this week there are classic made to order sorcerers going on sale with weapons that cannot be taken on the data sheet.
I'm tempted to get one for the nostalgia hit, literally nobody will dispute that axe being a "staff" for the sakes of a game.
bullyboy wrote: Can’t wait for the usual suspects to lose their minds again when they see that this week there are classic made to order sorcerers going on sale with weapons that cannot be taken on the data sheet.
TBH, looking at the latest releases, I start to think that GW thinks their target audiance of CSM players is a bunch of masochists, that buy more models the more they are being mistreated. First they release a Codex with wonky rules and no new models along with it for the what....first time in years it must be. And that despite the fact that they showed previews of multiple sets just months ago. Not even a half hearted apology of, sorry production delays (not to speak of the soon to be invalid Demon Prince rules). And not one week later they put models out of hibernation that can not even be played by their own wonky rules, just to raise an even bigger middle finger to the CSM players. That is really putting insult to injury. Poor guys, I feel sorry for you. But then, maybe GW is right and you secretly enjoy it?
The made to order stuff is as infuriating as it is funny. They offer a couple sorceror models with illegal options as a middle finger. Then someone must've remembered they stopped selling the exalted champion, which is the model they based their "No kit no rules" on like 3 years ago, so some intern was scrambled to find the old molds for it to get them going asap. So unless a new CSM player gets ol Vrash Tattersoul in the next few weeks, there will be no "official model" for it.
KidCthulhu wrote: The more I read this thread, the more I want to go back to 2nd Edition...
This is the path of wisdom.
Next hilarious thing I spotted while reading the Chosen entry: Apparently they get boltguns, bolt pistols, and chainswords, unlike Legionaries. And they keep their boltguns if they swap for plasma pistols. Same idea with the combi-weapons, they keep their bolt pistols. So extra shooting from them, I guess? I wonder how many people even model a boltgun onto a model if it has a plasma pistol?
And is there a rule I am missing somewhere that the champions cannot have the icon? Because I don't see anywhere that says they can't.
GW doesn't remember their own releases. The article says that the Exalted Champion was "first seen back in the classic Dark Vengeance boxed set", but it was actually an Aspiring Champion released with the 6th edition Codex.
Santtu wrote: GW doesn't remember their own releases. The article says that the Exalted Champion was "first seen back in the classic Dark Vengeance boxed set", but it was actually an Aspiring Champion released with the 6th edition Codex.
They used Dark Vengeance as a starter twice. Once it came with Vrosh, the other time with the DA chaplain. I cant recall which was first though.
You know, I had real misgivings about that at first, but the more I've played AoS, the less I feel like it's been a problem or a disadvantage for either player. In many ways, it reduces the variables that GW struggles to balance currently and they still have a number of methods to make tougher units feel tougher in the game. Obviously it's subjective, but I have definitely been turned around on it, and I started out very skeptical.
Call me crazy, but if I'm a regular human with a sword, there should be pretty significant difference between trying to wound a goblin and trying to would a dragon.
Do you level the same criticism against 40k? After all a regular human with a gun should have a pretty significant difference between hitting a tank and hitting a grot.
Santtu wrote: GW doesn't remember their own releases. The article says that the Exalted Champion was "first seen back in the classic Dark Vengeance boxed set", but it was actually an Aspiring Champion released with the 6th edition Codex.
You know, I had real misgivings about that at first, but the more I've played AoS, the less I feel like it's been a problem or a disadvantage for either player. In many ways, it reduces the variables that GW struggles to balance currently and they still have a number of methods to make tougher units feel tougher in the game. Obviously it's subjective, but I have definitely been turned around on it, and I started out very skeptical.
Call me crazy, but if I'm a regular human with a sword, there should be pretty significant difference between trying to wound a goblin and trying to would a dragon.
Do you level the same criticism against 40k? After all a regular human with a gun should have a pretty significant difference between hitting a tank and hitting a grot.
I'm gonna stretch here and argue that I'm not shooting at a grot but rather a whole bunch of them, which would increase my chances.
But yes, I do miss WHFB having the Large Target rule to take that into account.
You know, I had real misgivings about that at first, but the more I've played AoS, the less I feel like it's been a problem or a disadvantage for either player. In many ways, it reduces the variables that GW struggles to balance currently and they still have a number of methods to make tougher units feel tougher in the game. Obviously it's subjective, but I have definitely been turned around on it, and I started out very skeptical.
Call me crazy, but if I'm a regular human with a sword, there should be pretty significant difference between trying to wound a goblin and trying to would a dragon.
Do you level the same criticism against 40k? After all a regular human with a gun should have a pretty significant difference between hitting a tank and hitting a grot.
I'm gonna stretch here and argue that I'm not shooting at a grot but rather a whole bunch of them, which would increase my chances.
But yes, I do miss WHFB having the Large Target rule to take that into account.
Game doesn't distinguish between a grot or 10 grots or 100. And even then, is it the same difficulty to hit, say, a dozen grots rather than a titan?
It is an entirely valid criticism to make, I just find it worth pointing out that 40k is not so far off AoS in that respect; people are just used to the hit roll being fixed and so they don't think about it. AoS toughness is factored into wounds/FnP anyways, both of which show up in FAR more abundance.
Some classic Sorcerers, that's neat, good for people that liked those sculpts.
No new Chaos Models, but the super-limited-loadout Exalted Champion is... Made-to-Order.
My shop also got a woefully small number of the Chaos Marine codex in stock compared to previous releases. Manager says its due to the paper shortage, but I honestly wonder if GW thought that they really might not sell all that many.
That's the big question. I'd've thought that they'd be this week - it's not like there are many new releases for CSM - but I guess not.
Weirdly I'm more interesting in the Slaves to Darkness release. I don't even play AoS, but I want that new DP and a box of those awesome looking Chosen.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's the big question. I'd've thought that they'd be this week - it's not like there are many new releases for CSM - but I guess not.
Weirdly I'm more interesting in the Slaves to Darkness release. I don't even play AoS, but I want that new DP and a box of those awesome looking Chosen.
Yeah, it's really weird that they haven't been released yet, despite being the stand-out models for the new edition. And yeah, the Chosen look amazing, and especially the daemon prince. When exactly will the Slaves to Darkness book be released?
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's the big question. I'd've thought that they'd be this week - it's not like there are many new releases for CSM - but I guess not.
Weirdly I'm more interesting in the Slaves to Darkness release. I don't even play AoS, but I want that new DP and a box of those awesome looking Chosen.
Yeah, it's really weird that they haven't been released yet, despite being the stand-out models for the new edition. And yeah, the Chosen look amazing, and especially the daemon prince. When exactly will the Slaves to Darkness book be released?
The slaves to darkness are slated for the winter of this year, so not for another 4 months at least.
As for the rest of the chaos marine models, who knows? It's not like we're the favorite faction, clearly. Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
Hey! Hey! Guys! They are giving us a (limited) opportunity to get an Exalted Champion with the official totally bestest and most playtested(TM) loadout! What more do you want?/s
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
Hey! Hey! Guys! They are giving us a (limited) opportunity to get an Exalted Champion with the official totally bestest and most playtested(TM) loadout! What more do you want?/s
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
Hey! Hey! Guys! They are giving us a (limited) opportunity to get an Exalted Champion with the official totally bestest and most playtested(TM) loadout! What more do you want?/s
In a world of multi Primaris Lts, a single aspiring champ with his single loadout is all you need!
Stop being greedy, there is a price for treachery after all.
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
I also don't think people know how bad those sorcerers are as models (I have the sword one somewhere). They're squat and even for old marines, the proportions are even worse than normal.
These are weird guys to bring back for a MTO, for a whole host of reasons.
When someone accused you of bad faith/trolling I wasn't willing to accept that, as it would infer a level of malice in your posts. But then you went and said that, so, yeah, you really don't get it...
If I'm accused of being a bad-faith actor or a troll, I'm going to defend myself. The malice I put out is a reflection of the malice that I receive, I'm not big on that "when they go low, we go high" bs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I also don't see how you get from "you're malicious" to "you don't get it". I "get it" perfectly fine, I just don't agree with your perspective.
Yeah, that's pretty subjective, and has a big "Depends on the Legion" qualifier in it. This codex absolutely gutted Night Lords. The Legion trait is slightly better than the old one, but it's incredibly unbalanced depending on which faction you're playing against. It'll be fairly ludicrous against some, and completely useless against others. And that's just bad design. Couple that with all of our best stratagems either being nerfed or just flat out removed, and the fact that some of the most thematic unit and wargear options for the Legion also went bye bye, and you have a big, greasy hair right in the middle of the "chicken nuggies and a side of fries" that is the 9th edition CSM codex for anyone who plays Night Lords. And it looks even worse compared to the "exquisite ethnic cuisine" laid out on our plate by the HH writers. Seriously, I'd like anyone to give me a reason why any Night Lords player shouldn't just take a walk from this dumpster fire for the greener pastures of HH and the Liber Hereticus.
I don't think its quite that subjective. Yes, the book may have gutted Night Lords (thats a stretch, Rob from Goonhammer is a big NL fan and has quite a different opinion on the matter), but that just makes Night Lords bad (if you buy into that), it doesn't make the entire book bad - which is my main point here. Everyone is freaking out because influencers are generally positive on the book and jumping to silly conspiracy nonsense to try to explain it. They are generally positive because its actually generally a good book - a couple of weak units, underpowered strategems, a dud subfaction, and a couple of fethed up datasheets with limited options doesn't change that. Pretty much every codex has those same issues, its nothing new, not everything in a Codex is going to be great, but that doesn't mean that on the whole the Codex isn't great.
cole1114 wrote: This book just... feels bad. Like mechanically it's strong, whatever, I do not play 40k competitively so that doesn't matter to me. It just lacks the stuff that made me love CSM in the first place. Being the army of wild customization, where every unit could feel unique in a variety of ways. The army where you could take twenty marines to a unit, with veteran tactics and marks and icons and all different kinds of weapon choices. And then on top of that my legion would give me bonuses as well.
We just spent years being one of the weakest armies in the game, one where even non-competitive play was painful and we didn't feel anything like we did in previous editions. Now we're a good army that still doesn't feel right at all because they've decided to chop away so many of our customization options. Throwing us marks back as some kind of a pittance, and then not even letting us give them to a huge chunk of our book.
I will miss the 20 man squads, but other than that I don't think the army is as rigidly uncustomizable now as you feel it is. Yes, weapon options in many cases are more restrictive than before, but excessive options go hand in hand with bad balance. If you wanted the army not to be bottom of the barrel then you kind of have to accept the loss of some of those options as a casualty of the efforts to better balance the rules and make units that ended up overpriced and underpowered as a result of them having an excessive menu of options to select from (many people don't realize this but to some extent the cost of additional options is front-loaded into the cost of the unit itself in order to accommodate for a degree of "margin of error" in the units performance resulting from variability in its loadout, this is true even if you don't make use of those options). Its also worth pointing out that a lot of the stuff you're upset about losing is stuff that most people complained about - i.e. layered rules. You want to take your unit, stack vet tactics, marks, icons, and legion bonuses on there, not to mention strategems and combat doctrines, etc. and its a lot. Most people wanted to see these layers of rules cut back and flattened out, and... well... this is what that looks like in practice.
Sorry i call bs, when the baseline legionaires can't even double up on a special or heavy to do a job anymore then that is NOT customizable but just stupid.
Is it stupid? Or is it fluffy because the guys fighting a 10,000 year long war without a solid and consistent industrial base don't have enough weapons to go around to make sure everyone is consistently armed? For all this talk about how the army is supposed to be "chaotic", I feel like people are actually complaining that the army isn't ordered enough. Make no mistake - doubling up on weapons is not chaos, its order and organization, the exact opposite of chaos.
Anyway, Legionnaires having constraints on the options they can take doesn't make the entire book less customizable, it makes one unit *maybe* less customizable, if you ignore the fact that they still have plenty of options that allow you to tailor them to different rolls and that they have additional customization options that they didn't have before like the ability to make a model a psyker and likewise being one of the few units that can do Icon + Mark.
see above, i own 50 of the new CSM sculpts, even more if you count my chosen conversions, all of which are now illegal set ups and no i ain't switching things out for squads that were purposely specialised to do something.
I'm up to over 150 of the new sculpts myself. Yknow, if we're using that as a metric for how much someones opinion matters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's the big question. I'd've thought that they'd be this week - it's not like there are many new releases for CSM - but I guess not.
Weirdly I'm more interesting in the Slaves to Darkness release. I don't even play AoS, but I want that new DP and a box of those awesome looking Chosen.
To release still:
Warpsmith
Commune
Chosen
Possessed
Cultists
Accursed cultists
Repack of oblits + venomcrawler
Release of master of possessions
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
Hey! Hey! Guys! They are giving us a (limited) opportunity to get an Exalted Champion with the official totally bestest and most playtested(TM) loadout! What more do you want?/s
A codex that doesn't crap on us
I like what CSM got but I don't feel like it was a net gain.
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
Hey! Hey! Guys! They are giving us a (limited) opportunity to get an Exalted Champion with the official totally bestest and most playtested(TM) loadout! What more do you want?/s
A codex that doesn't crap on us
I like what CSM got but I don't feel like it was a net gain.
I think its mechanically better but it lost a LOT of its fun factor. :/
My shop also got a woefully small number of the Chaos Marine codex in stock compared to previous releases. Manager says its due to the paper shortage, but I honestly wonder if GW thought that they really might not sell all that many.
Drove 50 miles to the closest GW on Saturday to pick up my pre-ordered English copy of the Codex cause I wanted to make sure I had it before I took my family on holiday to a place that's even further away from anything 40k than where I live. More fool me. There are four GWs in the greater Berlin area, not one of them actually had an English copy (guy in the shop phoned around for me) and in total they got five German copies. There's deffo a shortage of something, though paper might not have been the only thing grumble grumble incompetent buffoons grumble.
My shop also got a woefully small number of the Chaos Marine codex in stock compared to previous releases. Manager says its due to the paper shortage, but I honestly wonder if GW thought that they really might not sell all that many.
Drove 50 miles to the closest GW on Saturday to pick up my pre-ordered English copy of the Codex cause I wanted to make sure I had it before I took my family on holiday to a place that's even further away from anything 40k than where I live. More fool me. There are four GWs in the greater Berlin area, not one of them actually had an English copy (guy in the shop phoned around for me) and in total they got five German copies. There's deffo a shortage of something, though paper might not have been the only thing grumble grumble incompetent buffoons grumble.
Yeah, my manager said that a lot of the other stores he knows about also got small shipments of the book. Of course, lot of fat good the book will do when we don't even have some of the models to buy for it.
Even during the big contrast paint bundle online thing, it was botched for North America, so 2 minutes in it showed 'sold out' despite all the paints being available. Just a mess. There was apparently even another distribution issue that the CEO and CFO were involved in to get fixed.
These, plus like 2 or 3 instances of the warehouse robots being borked due to system issues and whatnot... GW is really struggling to keep their own product flowing, and for a company that relies on their own product getting into people's hands, they seem to be tripping on a lot of things. Not all of them are their own fault, but some of them seem to be.
My shop also got a woefully small number of the Chaos Marine codex in stock compared to previous releases. Manager says its due to the paper shortage, but I honestly wonder if GW thought that they really might not sell all that many.
Drove 50 miles to the closest GW on Saturday to pick up my pre-ordered English copy of the Codex cause I wanted to make sure I had it before I took my family on holiday to a place that's even further away from anything 40k than where I live. More fool me. There are four GWs in the greater Berlin area, not one of them actually had an English copy (guy in the shop phoned around for me) and in total they got five German copies. There's deffo a shortage of something, though paper might not have been the only thing grumble grumble incompetent buffoons grumble.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The copies from the place I ordered it from were all dinged up on the corners, so they're getting replacements in rather than send those out.
EviscerationPlague wrote: I think y'all overestimate the power. I don't think its going to be very amazing outside a couple niche builds.
I don't really care if it's powerful.
I only care that it's another Chaos Codex that has taken more than it has given.
I'm not sure it's fair to say it hasn't given a lot, the issue is that the stuff it has given (baked in legion stuff, functional marks, improved units) are all stuff that the faction had before and had been stripped out. If you only started 8th onward this codex is a break even at worst, its just a net loss for older/longer players.
If only there was a solution that would allow GW to produce rules without suffering from paper shortages, shipping issues and inventory mismanagement...
Jidmah wrote: If only there was a solution that would allow GW to produce rules without suffering from paper shortages, shipping issues and inventory mismanagement...
But that would distract from all of GWs fool proof business strategies! Such as starting streaming services, and selling models without rules!
Yes, weapon options in many cases are more restrictive than before, but excessive options go hand in hand with bad balance. If you wanted the army not to be bottom of the barrel then you kind of have to accept the loss of some of those options as a casualty of the efforts to better balance the rules
30K Liber Traitor book says otherwise.
They eviscerated what Chaos in 40K has. All I needed to see was that nearly every Chaos player in my local meta posted their armies for sale since Friday. Only three out of 12 are keeping their army. Actions speak louder than words.
Sorry i call bs, when the baseline legionaires can't even double up on a special or heavy to do a job anymore then that is NOT customizable but just stupid.
Is it stupid? Or is it fluffy because the guys fighting a 10,000 year long war without a solid and consistent industrial base don't have enough weapons to go around to make sure everyone is consistently armed? For all this talk about how the army is supposed to be "chaotic", I feel like people are actually complaining that the army isn't ordered enough. Make no mistake - doubling up on weapons is not chaos, its order and organization, the exact opposite of chaos.
Anyway, Legionnaires having constraints on the options they can take doesn't make the entire book less customizable, it makes one unit *maybe* less customizable, if you ignore the fact that they still have plenty of options that allow you to tailor them to different rolls and that they have additional customization options that they didn't have before like the ability to make a model a psyker and likewise being one of the few units that can do Icon + Mark.
Chaos doesn't mean randumb or outright short on brainhalfes, people that accept this are half the reason why GW keeps getting away with such gak.. And the darkmech exists, as does slave labour. And what does it matter if i can mark and icon a squad of legionaires as i should, when i can't do so for possessed? Why can't i strap a balefire book ontop of a chosen champion?
oh and lets not kid ourselves the limit on not doubling up on heavies is because GW fethed up with a certain weapon that comes with havocs 1 / 5, and gw insiting that double shooting is a acceptable stratagem. its not.
see above, i own 50 of the new CSM sculpts, even more if you count my chosen conversions, all of which are now illegal set ups and no i ain't switching things out for squads that were purposely specialised to do something.
I'm up to over 150 of the new sculpts myself. Yknow, if we're using that as a metric for how much someones opinion matters.
Good for you, i am sure that you are happy since you have shown repeatedly that stupid nonsense is acceptable to you as long as Daddy GW tells you to say yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote:
Yes, weapon options in many cases are more restrictive than before, but excessive options go hand in hand with bad balance. If you wanted the army not to be bottom of the barrel then you kind of have to accept the loss of some of those options as a casualty of the efforts to better balance the rules
30K Liber Traitor book says otherwise.
They eviscerated what Chaos in 40K has. All I needed to see was that nearly every Chaos player in my local meta posted their armies for sale since Friday. Only three out of 12 are keeping their army. Actions speak louder than words.
it's also a ridicoulus claim, because GW would have the option to fine tune a whole lot of things including but not limited stats of weapons and points and profiles, they just choose not to, in order to sell a solution to a problem they themselves created with the next edition. Remember this one was praised as more CP for everyone compared to the former and now we are at less CP.
H.B.M.C. wrote:And who said anything about excessive options?
Take the Exalted Champion. He no longer has options!!! Just one set loadout that cannot be changed. At all.
And that's just one example or so many, none of which were 'excessive'.
But we can customize them with traits and Stratagems.
Lord forbid we create datasheets that could pick a model of transportation, with an associated pricetag, better to make that cost CP which varies HEAVILY in opportunity cost, truly it is a measurement unit that works WONDERS.
we now got what another X relics and stratagems for x legions, but that is good bloat? meanwhile handing the champion a jumpack and twin lighning claws is somehow bad bloat? i am sure the former is far superior and has no issues at all compared to the later... nope that couldn't be, it isn't as we had relics that were just always picked, nope we didn't have that, same with traits, right?
MTO is super hit and miss tbh. Like, was anyone really asking for these Sorcerer figures (who we've had already?) I guess it's down to what moulds are available, and off the top of my head I can't think of any other figures they could do. Maybe the old limited edition CSM Army Champion?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a complete aside? Is this the first MTO plastic model for 40K? I think LOTR may have had some?
No, the plastic 3rd ed Dark Eldar and Marine sprues were MTOed a little while ago.
God knows why they picked those either.
On the plus side, the sorcerers have already been MTOed once in 2019. So if we can have MTOs more than once, can we please have the Diaz Deamonettes and Seekers again please. Those still fetch a bundle on Ebay even after their MTO.
Or some of the other obvious MTOs that have never been done - the metal chaos icon toppers, the Praetorian XXIV, the metal Legion of the Damned, Eldar Bonesingers, Angkor Phrok, Gorkamorka grots, pretty much any of the models from the Blackstone Fortress expansions, OG Necromunda bulkheads, a bunch of WFB stuff (especially Brettonia and Tomb Kings)...
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
Hey! Hey! Guys! They are giving us a (limited) opportunity to get an Exalted Champion with the official totally bestest and most playtested(TM) loadout! What more do you want?/s
My bloody Traitor Guard to be playable with the new CSM Codex, just like how GW promised.
drbored wrote: Much more important to show off ancient Skaven models.
And illegal/invalid Sorcerers.
I also don't think people know how bad those sorcerers are as models (I have the sword one somewhere). They're squat and even for old marines, the proportions are even worse than normal.
These are weird guys to bring back for a MTO, for a whole host of reasons.
Yeah, the Sorcerers are 2nd ed models that predate even the 3rd ed Marine anatomy. They are slightly chunkier and have no necks, so they look compressed compared to 3rd ed Marine models, let alone modern revised anatomy.
The Phazer wrote: On the plus side, the sorcerers have already been MTOed once in 2019. So if we can have MTOs more than once, can we please have the Diaz Deamonettes and Seekers again please. Those still fetch a bundle on Ebay even after their MTO.
Or some of the other obvious MTOs that have never been done - the metal chaos icon toppers, the Praetorian XXIV, the metal Legion of the Damned, Eldar Bonesingers, Angkor Phrok, Gorkamorka grots, pretty much any of the models from the Blackstone Fortress expansions, OG Necromunda bulkheads, a bunch of WFB stuff (especially Brettonia and Tomb Kings)...
I'd throw a lot of money at GW if they did a Tomb Kings made to order, which is the number one reason why they won't do it.
At the very least, the exalted champion doesn't have half his foot fused to the base, so that swapping him to a larger base isn't an issue. (Strange that the sculpted base has a dead necron, since he was released around the time of DV, but good on GW for variety.)
The arms not being fused also make it easier for conversion (though once again, the model will be noticeably smaller than current CSMs, so why bother?)
Still, makes you wonder why a one week MTO model is codex worthy, but a jump pack chaos lord who is only on "range rotation" got the axe? It's honestly harder to kitbash an exalted champion, because although it's easy to find axe and knife arms, 90% of CSM melee weapons are left handed, and you still need to attach the combi bolter. Its much easier to make a jumppack lord....
Yeah, that's pretty subjective, and has a big "Depends on the Legion" qualifier in it. This codex absolutely gutted Night Lords. The Legion trait is slightly better than the old one, but it's incredibly unbalanced depending on which faction you're playing against. It'll be fairly ludicrous against some, and completely useless against others. And that's just bad design. Couple that with all of our best stratagems either being nerfed or just flat out removed, and the fact that some of the most thematic unit and wargear options for the Legion also went bye bye, and you have a big, greasy hair right in the middle of the "chicken nuggies and a side of fries" that is the 9th edition CSM codex for anyone who plays Night Lords. And it looks even worse compared to the "exquisite ethnic cuisine" laid out on our plate by the HH writers. Seriously, I'd like anyone to give me a reason why any Night Lords player shouldn't just take a walk from this dumpster fire for the greener pastures of HH and the Liber Hereticus.
I don't think its quite that subjective. Yes, the book may have gutted Night Lords (thats a stretch, Rob from Goonhammer is a big NL fan and has quite a different opinion on the matter), but that just makes Night Lords bad (if you buy into that), it doesn't make the entire book bad - which is my main point here. Everyone is freaking out because influencers are generally positive on the book and jumping to silly conspiracy nonsense to try to explain it. They are generally positive because its actually generally a good book - a couple of weak units, underpowered strategems, a dud subfaction, and a couple of fethed up datasheets with limited options doesn't change that. Pretty much every codex has those same issues, its nothing new, not everything in a Codex is going to be great, but that doesn't mean that on the whole the Codex isn't great.
Yeah, that guy said that gw had "done right by Night Lords". But then he turned right around and said "Capping out at -3 isn't terrible, but it does mean that you'll struggle to get your fun effects off against Ld9+ targets, which make up an infuriatingly large percentage of the game's units for no particular reason". So even your example of a "positive reviewer" recognizes the problem.
And it's very subjective. Everyone isn't looking for the same things. Some of us would much rather have actual options and customization rather than shoot/fight twice stratagems. It especially makes a difference whether or not you play the "dud subfaction".
At the very least, the exalted champion doesn't have half his foot fused to the base, so that swapping him to a larger base isn't an issue. (Strange that the sculpted base has a dead necron, since he was released around the time of DV, but good on GW for variety.)
The arms not being fused also make it easier for conversion (though once again, the model will be noticeably smaller than current CSMs, so why bother?)
Still, makes you wonder why a one week MTO model is codex worthy, but a jump pack chaos lord who is only on "range rotation" got the axe? It's honestly harder to kitbash an exalted champion, because although it's easy to find axe and knife arms, 90% of CSM melee weapons are left handed, and you still need to attach the combi bolter. Its much easier to make a jumppack lord....
Likely because they have model plans or know that the model was in excessive circulation. The AdMech book features the Technoarchaeologist from Combat Arena/BSF: Escalation...but not the Servitor that came with them. It's a heck of a bit more of an issue to make a conversion when two of the loadout pieces(Servo-Arc Claw and Eradication Pistol) are not available anywhere else.
All of that said:
It wouldn't be that difficult to make an Exalted Champion. There's a power axe in the main CSM box for the Aspiring Champion. There's also one in the yet to be released Chosen kit. The combi-bolter is probably the hardest part to be sure.
At the very least, the exalted champion doesn't have half his foot fused to the base, so that swapping him to a larger base isn't an issue. (Strange that the sculpted base has a dead necron, since he was released around the time of DV, but good on GW for variety.)
The arms not being fused also make it easier for conversion (though once again, the model will be noticeably smaller than current CSMs, so why bother?)
Still, makes you wonder why a one week MTO model is codex worthy, but a jump pack chaos lord who is only on "range rotation" got the axe? It's honestly harder to kitbash an exalted champion, because although it's easy to find axe and knife arms, 90% of CSM melee weapons are left handed, and you still need to attach the combi bolter. Its much easier to make a jumppack lord....
Likely because they have model plans or know that the model was in excessive circulation. The AdMech book features the Technoarchaeologist from Combat Arena/BSF: Escalation...but not the Servitor that came with them. It's a heck of a bit more of an issue to make a conversion when two of the loadout pieces(Servo-Arc Claw and Eradication Pistol) are not available anywhere else.
All of that said:
It wouldn't be that difficult to make an Exalted Champion. There's a power axe in the main CSM box for the Aspiring Champion. There's also one in the yet to be released Chosen kit. The combi-bolter is probably the hardest part to be sure.
It isn't difficult to make a Jump Lord either. Every Raptors/Warp Talons kit comes with five models that you can use. And they can be freely kitbashed with whatever weapons, arms, heads, or shoulder pads that you want for the Legionaries, Havocs, or Chosen kits. Same goes for Harkon. Anything that fits those kits will fit him.
chaos0xomega wrote: I will miss the 20 man squads, but other than that I don't think the army is as rigidly uncustomizable now as you feel it is. Yes, weapon options in many cases are more restrictive than before, but excessive options go hand in hand with bad balance. If you wanted the army not to be bottom of the barrel then you kind of have to accept the loss of some of those options as a casualty of the efforts to better balance the rules and make units that ended up overpriced and underpowered as a result of them having an excessive menu of options to select from (many people don't realize this but to some extent the cost of additional options is front-loaded into the cost of the unit itself in order to accommodate for a degree of "margin of error" in the units performance resulting from variability in its loadout, this is true even if you don't make use of those options). Its also worth pointing out that a lot of the stuff you're upset about losing is stuff that most people complained about - i.e. layered rules. You want to take your unit, stack vet tactics, marks, icons, and legion bonuses on there, not to mention strategems and combat doctrines, etc. and its a lot.
"An excessive menu of options"? Oh yeah let me look at the fewer options the Legionaries have than Imperial Marines, or the Sternguard, or the 3 types of Terminator unit Imperials have *in the base Codex*. Wow that's really excessive that CSM had options for their units.
I'm sure we all rememeber when Chosen were OP when they had access to duplicate weapons, or when the Codex was broken because we had Exalted Champions with options or Chaos Lords with Jump Packs. Multiple choices for wargear is not "layered rules".
Is it stupid? Or is it fluffy because the guys fighting a 10,000 year long war without a solid and consistent industrial base don't have enough weapons to go around to make sure everyone is consistently armed? For all this talk about how the army is supposed to be "chaotic", I feel like people are actually complaining that the army isn't ordered enough. Make no mistake - doubling up on weapons is not chaos, its order and organization, the exact opposite of chaos.
Legionaries now have the same limitations on Special and Heavy weapons as Imperial Astartes who literally follow a rulebook telling them how to work. You're making the mistake of thinking that being a CSM means utter insanity with no thought for tactics or viable weaponry and you couldn't be more wrong.
My shop also got a woefully small number of the Chaos Marine codex in stock compared to previous releases. Manager says its due to the paper shortage, but I honestly wonder if GW thought that they really might not sell all that many.
Drove 50 miles to the closest GW on Saturday to pick up my pre-ordered English copy of the Codex cause I wanted to make sure I had it before I took my family on holiday to a place that's even further away from anything 40k than where I live. More fool me. There are four GWs in the greater Berlin area, not one of them actually had an English copy (guy in the shop phoned around for me) and in total they got five German copies. There's deffo a shortage of something, though paper might not have been the only thing grumble grumble incompetent buffoons grumble.
from a German Retailer on FB:
Kurzes Update zur Neuheiten-Welle von letztem Samstag (Chaos SM Codex und co.).
Dies betrifft viele Händler in Deutschland.
"I am afraid that the order is on a trailer that is still pending delivery to UPS in France, we are chasing K&N for an update but there are a lot of other customer orders on that trailer and it's currently stuck in a customs hold-up. I will let you know when we have some news."
Guten Start in die Woche Euch!
At the very least, the exalted champion doesn't have half his foot fused to the base, so that swapping him to a larger base isn't an issue. (Strange that the sculpted base has a dead necron, since he was released around the time of DV, but good on GW for variety.)
The arms not being fused also make it easier for conversion (though once again, the model will be noticeably smaller than current CSMs, so why bother?)
Still, makes you wonder why a one week MTO model is codex worthy, but a jump pack chaos lord who is only on "range rotation" got the axe? It's honestly harder to kitbash an exalted champion, because although it's easy to find axe and knife arms, 90% of CSM melee weapons are left handed, and you still need to attach the combi bolter. Its much easier to make a jumppack lord....
Likely because they have model plans or know that the model was in excessive circulation. The AdMech book features the Technoarchaeologist from Combat Arena/BSF: Escalation...but not the Servitor that came with them. It's a heck of a bit more of an issue to make a conversion when two of the loadout pieces(Servo-Arc Claw and Eradication Pistol) are not available anywhere else.
All of that said:
It wouldn't be that difficult to make an Exalted Champion. There's a power axe in the main CSM box for the Aspiring Champion. There's also one in the yet to be released Chosen kit. The combi-bolter is probably the hardest part to be sure.
Isn't there one in the Chosen kit?
No silly, the Chosen box only has Accursed Weapons that can't be used for anything else. GW says so
I literally called out that there's a power axe in the Chosen kit...I'm assuming they are referring to the Combi-Melta.
Which is a good shoutout, but they have a lot of "kit specific" detailing making them harder to utilize elsewhere. You're better off just grabbing the Legion Combi-Weapons from FW.
Kanluwen wrote: I literally called out that there's a power axe in the Chosen kit...I'm assuming they are referring to the Combi-Melta.
Which is a good shoutout, but they have a lot of "kit specific" detailing making them harder to utilize elsewhere. You're better off just grabbing the Legion Combi-Weapons from FW.
Yep, just checked, the Chosen kit comes with two Combi-weapons, and you can build both as Combi-Melta. They're both two-handed though, so you'd have to be a bit creative with the Power Axe placement. At least it does theoretically mean you can get make Aspiring Champ out of just the Chosen kit.
I am curious as to what older players really find to be a significant issue rather than just an annoyance.
Legionaries now look decent, but no longer can be taken up to 20 strong and the duplicate special and heavy weapon change seemed arbitrary. However, does the unit still offer enough out the gate for players?
2 types of cultists now, plus a new HQ, so that’s a step forward.
HQ options being removed is probably the biggest issue IMHO but I don’t recall seeing many take Aspiring Champions at all. What HQ are people really thinking of using? Lords, DPs, discos, MoP, warpsmith. In todays limited spots for characters I’m not sure the champ would have been taken anyway. Will probably use mine in a chosen squad.
So my question is to the older players: what are you truly going to miss rather than just be annoyed at the changes?
bullyboy wrote: I am curious as to what older players really find to be a significant issue rather than just an annoyance.
Legionaries ow look decent, but no longer can be taken up to 20 strong and the duplicate special and heavy weapon seemed arbitrary. However, does the unit still offer enough out the gate for players?
2 types of cultists now, plus a new HQ, so that’s a step forward.
HQ options being removed is probably the biggest issue IMHO but I don’t recall seeing many take Aspiring Champions at all. What HQ are people really thinking of using? Lords, DPs, discos, MoP, warpsmith. In todays limited spots for characters I’m not sure the champ would have been taken anyway. Will probably use mine in a chosen squad.
So my question is to the older players: what are you truly going to miss rather than just be annoyed at the changes?
I think it's rather clear that people are missing the option to play vast parts of their collections, especially since many issues can't just be resolved by switching around weapon specialists or counts-as'ing some weapons as similar ones.
When Gert gets angry at GW, it's kind of like your canary dying while shoving rocks in a coal mine.
Gert wrote: Legionaries now have the same limitations on Special and Heavy weapons as Imperial Astartes who literally follow a rulebook telling them how to work. You're making the mistake of thinking that being a CSM means utter insanity with no thought for tactics or viable weaponry and you couldn't be more wrong.
Actually, in the interest of being fair, Chaos Legionnaires (which would've been a much better name than Legionaries) have more options than Tactical Marines, who cannot take two Special Weapons or two Heavy Weapons like their Chaos counterparts. The inability to double-up is obviously an arbitrary decision based on "What's in the box?!" and still stupid, but still more flexible than their closest comparable unit.
bullyboy wrote: I am curious as to what older players really find to be a significant issue rather than just an annoyance.
Legionaries now look decent, but no longer can be taken up to 20 strong and the duplicate special and heavy weapon change seemed arbitrary. However, does the unit still offer enough out the gate for players?
2 types of cultists now, plus a new HQ, so that’s a step forward.
HQ options being removed is probably the biggest issue IMHO but I don’t recall seeing many take Aspiring Champions at all. What HQ are people really thinking of using? Lords, DPs, discos, MoP, warpsmith. In todays limited spots for characters I’m not sure the champ would have been taken anyway. Will probably use mine in a chosen squad.
So my question is to the older players: what are you truly going to miss rather than just be annoyed at the changes?
Chunks of my army are unplayable as-is unless I tear them apart or buy new models.
Your issue is thinking people only ever take the optimised choices rather than what they like.
The new Cult models I really like, except I'm not going to expand my Word Bearers because I'd have to buy loads more Marines, which was what I was trying to avoid with the force. It was to be a Dark Apostle, his First Acolyte, a unit of Chosen and some Possessed/Greater Possessed with the teaming masses of the Apostles congregation. The teaming masses isn't an option while also taking stuff that isn't just the spam unit because I need a 1/1 ratio of Marine units to Cult units now.
Jidmah wrote: When Gert gets angry at GW, it's kind of like your canary dying while shoving rocks in a coal mine.
Hey, no trashtalking about the old chaos sorcs! They might be "old and ugly" but they are MY kind of old and ugly xD
They faithfully served me since i was a little boy and that makes them a classic ( They also are too small to work with modern minis. Be warned)
bullyboy wrote: I am curious as to what older players really find to be a significant issue rather than just an annoyance.
Legionaries now look decent, but no longer can be taken up to 20 strong and the duplicate special and heavy weapon change seemed arbitrary. However, does the unit still offer enough out the gate for players?
2 types of cultists now, plus a new HQ, so that’s a step forward.
HQ options being removed is probably the biggest issue IMHO but I don’t recall seeing many take Aspiring Champions at all. What HQ are people really thinking of using? Lords, DPs, discos, MoP, warpsmith. In todays limited spots for characters I’m not sure the champ would have been taken anyway. Will probably use mine in a chosen squad.
So my question is to the older players: what are you truly going to miss rather than just be annoyed at the changes?
My Chaos Lord's lightning claws and jump pack. My Sorcerer's force sword and jump pack. Allllll of the various combi-weapons and lightning claws spread throughout all of my Aspiring Champions. My full chainfist Terminator squad, and the other one that's all double lightning claws. And finally, the hope that gw would finally pull their heads out of their and give Night Lords a fully functional Legion trait.
Wait, that last one isn't exactly right. Gwdid give Night Lords fun, fluffy, and effective rules. It just wasn't the 40kgw. It was the 30kgw. Well, guess we know where they keep all of the competent rules writers now.
bullyboy wrote: I am curious as to what older players really find to be a significant issue rather than just an annoyance.
Legionaries now look decent, but no longer can be taken up to 20 strong and the duplicate special and heavy weapon change seemed arbitrary. However, does the unit still offer enough out the gate for players?
2 types of cultists now, plus a new HQ, so that’s a step forward.
HQ options being removed is probably the biggest issue IMHO but I don’t recall seeing many take Aspiring Champions at all. What HQ are people really thinking of using? Lords, DPs, discos, MoP, warpsmith. In todays limited spots for characters I’m not sure the champ would have been taken anyway. Will probably use mine in a chosen squad.
So my question is to the older players: what are you truly going to miss rather than just be annoyed at the changes?
fun fact about those added cultists:
the traitor guard are not in the dex The commune may be an HQ but you still lack other options for cultists such as AT.
oh and "mere mortals" basically kills off any fun you could've had with a LatD / R&H type list you'd planned anyways
NVM the datasheets of the cultists are actually somehow WORSE than plague marines or Kommandos, which are allready bad enough to make players loose braincells.
The Legionaires not being able to double up on either specials or heavies, has to do with the fact that GW still fethed up with 1 specific weapon, namely the reaper chaincannon and insists on leaving a shoot double stratagem in the dex, ergo to avoid twin reaper chaincannons firing double on legionaires ontop of 7 bolters and a combi bolter the options for the later were removed and the former severly limited. Baseline GW bad design strikes again and we still have double shooting nonsense
Btw, fun fact, its only legionaires that are seemingly able to read books, everyone else (like chosen you know, the next in line of the hierarchy ) are too stupid to have one for their champion. Nvm Chaos lords?
As for the aspiring champion, the reason why he was never picked, was simply due to a lack of delivery options since his inception, he never got access to either jumpacks or bikes, hence compared to the chaos lord and sorcerer he was always obsolete in 6-7th. In 8th he technically had a nice aura but since transports sucked and still do he still wasn't able to be delivered propperly and now, he somehow got even worse with a fixed loadout.
See, I’m not buying all of the “my models can no longer be used” line. I have older chaos marines too, and they just need to be retasked. Multiple aspiring champions? Guess what leads each legionaries squad? Or put them in a chosen squad if you don’t want them to do that. Legionary aspiring champs can take daemon blades (great name for a lightning claw if you’ve modeled one), as well as your typical mix of fist, mail, sword etc. Have a pair of claws on one, stick him in a chosen squad, or two of them if you go 10 strong.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently. It’s not like we don’t just have extra models sat around as options and expect to use all the models all the time.
The complaint about jump packs on characters is probably the strongest I feel, and I hope GW changes their mind in this approach. Not holding my breath though. I feel there is a work around for most other issues though.
CoALabaer wrote: Hey, no trashtalking about the old chaos sorcs! They might be "old and ugly" but they are MY kind of old and ugly xD
They faithfully served me since i was a little boy and that makes them a classic ( They also are too small to work with modern minis. Be warned)
Anyway: when new Mutants?
Still a 2 week preorder on the paints, so the best you'll get is chaos models on the upcoming preview this Sunday for a preorder the following Saturday, giving a release of 23rd July. This is the absolute best that can be hoped for.
So my question is to the older players: what are you truly going to miss rather than just be annoyed at the changes?
Truth be told, I'll be able to work around most of the limitations, especially as I'm still right at the beginning of transitioning to the new models. Most of my collection dates back to Rogue Trader/early 2nd, so mixing the new and the old aesthetic just isn't gonna fly because of scale creep - the old 1989/1990 models just look ridiculous next to the new guys.
But my Jump Lord with lightning claw, that stings, badly. Lord Malkyre has been my army's figurehead in almost every single game of 40k I've ever played. He started off as a converted Space Crusade Chaos Commander mini with wings from a Heroquest Gargoyle. But, what with scale creep and the new aesthetic, I decided it was time to bring him into the new millennium at last and remade him, using a Havoc Champion and wings I got from a guy on Etsy. That was at the beginning of April. I've managed to use the new Lord Malkyre in three games and now he's going to have be... what? Dunno yet. A Possessed Champion? A Chosen Champion? Raptor Champ won't cut it, the stats just aren't good enough, and anyway, he's armed with a, yeah, a lightning claw.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently.
You mean only from what's in the box like Skitarii and Plague Marines? Great defense for the codex, I'm impressed.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently.
You mean only from what's in the box like Skitarii and Plague Marines? Great defense for the codex, I'm impressed.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
It absolutely is based on whats in the box. Or do you think it's just a balance mechanic that Chosen and Terminators dont have the Psyker upgrade?
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently.
You mean only from what's in the box like Skitarii and Plague Marines? Great defense for the codex, I'm impressed.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
It absolutely is based on whats in the box. Or do you think it's just a balance mechanic that Chosen and Terminators dont have the Psyker upgrade?
Please direct me to the autocannons and lascannons location on the sprue.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently.
You mean only from what's in the box like Skitarii and Plague Marines? Great defense for the codex, I'm impressed.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
It absolutely is based on whats in the box. Or do you think it's just a balance mechanic that Chosen and Terminators dont have the Psyker upgrade?
Please direct me to the autocannons and lascannons location on the sprue.
Shadowspear came with a Chaos Space Marine lugging around an Autocannon in your regular CSM squad.
Call me crazy, but if I'm a regular human with a sword, there should be pretty significant difference between trying to wound a goblin and trying to would a dragon.
And you do. But the difference isn't in a single dice roll. It's the same end result, but not trying to cram it into the wound roll specifically.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently.
You mean only from what's in the box like Skitarii and Plague Marines? Great defense for the codex, I'm impressed.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
It absolutely is based on whats in the box. Or do you think it's just a balance mechanic that Chosen and Terminators dont have the Psyker upgrade?
Please direct me to the autocannons and lascannons location on the sprue.
Shadowspear came with a Chaos Space Marine lugging around an Autocannon in your regular CSM squad.
But they're not in the box (also oop) and the options are apparently limited to those in the box. Given the balefire tome was brought up as an example and then compared to terminators, so completely unrelated, tells me that it was a vapid excuse to post something negative rather than anything grounded in genuine discussion.
bullyboy wrote: See, I’m not buying all of the “my models can no longer be used” line.
I have 30 Chaos Terminators. Ten of the old models and 20 of the new ones. In the 8th ed codex, I could run all 30 in three 10 man squads. It wasn't pretty and poorly optimized, but possible. However, I did run all 30 on occasion. I even ran a 1000pt all Chaos Terminator list of those 30 Terminators, Abaddon and a Sorcerer in Terminator armor.
With the new codex, I can still run 3 squads, but only in about 6 or 7 marines. This is largely due to me having 5 with combi-melta and powerfists. Which also happens to be my most used unit in all of 40k, as I love my Termicide unit. I also went with a fair number of powerfists with regular combi-bolters. And all of this butts up against the Rule of 3, which I do think is a good rule to prevent spamming even if the unit isn't OP, but just to allow variance. I know I would occasionally run like 50 Chaos Terminators if I could, because I think they're neat, but I am glad the game has a system in place to field different stuff.
That said, I'll admit; I am more annoyed about it than upset. If I really wanted to, I think I could get some of my regular opponents to allow me to break these loadout restrictions for a game. I also didn't get too far with lots of any particular loadout. I wanted a squad of 5 double lightning claw Terminators, but never got around to it. So I only have 2 with that load out.
But I also know that I am very much on the low side of that kind of thing as a CSM player. Most CSM players that have been at it as long or longer than I are far more likely to have models made redundant by these changes in numbers that they can no longer be fielded in a single list at the same time. And I do think they are justified for not liking these new restrictions.
Not allowing terminators to have all fists is indeed dumb. Restrictions on combo weapons is reasonable as they are special weapons as such. I know the box set has limitations but someone could buy 2 boxes if they wanted all fists in one squad. I guess some of your fists will just have to be accursed weapons and how fun that will be explaining to opponent which is which. So it’s still possible to run them, just annoying in the nature of it.
I was fortunate that I picked up 5 terms cheap from eBay a while ago and most were armed with chain axes and one with a chainfist. So basically I’m all accursed weapons and a chainfist on champ. No combo weapons (just combo bolters) but that’s a simple fix with snipping the bolter barrel and adding either melta or flamer attachment.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently.
You mean only from what's in the box like Skitarii and Plague Marines? Great defense for the codex, I'm impressed.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
It absolutely is based on whats in the box. Or do you think it's just a balance mechanic that Chosen and Terminators dont have the Psyker upgrade?
Please direct me to the autocannons and lascannons location on the sprue.
Shadowspear came with a Chaos Space Marine lugging around an Autocannon in your regular CSM squad.
But they're not in the box (also oop) and the options are apparently limited to those in the box. Given the balefire tome was brought up as an example and then compared to terminators, so completely unrelated, tells me that it was a vapid excuse to post something negative rather than anything grounded in genuine discussion.
Exalted Champ aint for sale either and he has a fixed loadout. Whats the point you're trying to make?
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently.
You mean only from what's in the box like Skitarii and Plague Marines? Great defense for the codex, I'm impressed.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
It absolutely is based on whats in the box. Or do you think it's just a balance mechanic that Chosen and Terminators dont have the Psyker upgrade?
Please direct me to the autocannons and lascannons location on the sprue.
Shadowspear came with a Chaos Space Marine lugging around an Autocannon in your regular CSM squad.
But they're not in the box (also oop) and the options are apparently limited to those in the box. Given the balefire tome was brought up as an example and then compared to terminators, so completely unrelated, tells me that it was a vapid excuse to post something negative rather than anything grounded in genuine discussion.
Exalted Champ aint for sale either and he has a fixed loadout. Whats the point you're trying to make?
Bullyboy correctly pointed out legionnaires don't have the same special/heavy restrictions as loyalists and that their current implementation is different but there aren't any redundant weapons or options within the list of options.
Somehow you decided that was a defence of the codex and compared it to terminators not having balefire tomes. Likewise you claimed it was due to "what was in the box" which is also incorrect.
Holy gak. Let me retrack your argument for you: the fact that you can still use all special and heavy weapons in chaos marine units, albeit in different combinations, is a poor defense of the codex. They are like this because you can only build the unit with what is in the box. This is why terminators can't have the balefire tome. The Exalted champion is oop like the autocannon model but is still in the book. It has a fixed loadout.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: I can see why many here picked chaos as their faction, just angry at the world!
Tell me about it, tzeentch is at work the with the utter incoherence of these arguments.
chaos: I don't know if anyone's told you this yet, but you can't dig up!
I have no idea what this is supposed to imply?
It's almost like the 4th Ed book all over again.
Yes, that was a functional Codex.
Yes, it had a lot of power.
And, yes, it took away the fun of Chaos.
It was functional, but I never really thought of it as powerful (certainly no moreso than the book that it replaced). How much of the hate for that codex was due to it being the book that removed daemons from CSM and made them their own faction, as well as the loss of having extremely distinct legions that came with custom force orgs and custom units that weren't available to the other legions, etc? Also lets take a brief trip down memory lane here, CSM squads in that book were limited to just 1 special weapon - if you scaled up to 10-20 models in the unit could get a second special weapon OR a single heavy weapon. The other option they had was no Mark-Icon/yes Mark-Icon (Icons back then gave the unit the mark and served no other purpose). The ACs options were bolter/twin-linked bolter/combi-bolter, ccw/power weapon/power fist, bolt pistol/plasma pistol, no meltabombs/yes meltabombs. By comparison, the new Legionnaires datasheet is a fair bit more customizable than it was back then - which in terms of the arguments being used by some in this thread should translate to the units being more "chaotic" and fluffy.
30K Liber Traitor book says otherwise.
They eviscerated what Chaos in 40K has. All I needed to see was that nearly every Chaos player in my local meta posted their armies for sale since Friday. Only three out of 12 are keeping their army. Actions speak louder than words.
Its a bit of a different situation when 90% of the units in 80% of the armies being played are pretty much the same and have access to all the same stuff.
And who said anything about excessive options?
Take the Exalted Champion. He no longer has options!!! Just one set loadout that cannot be changed. At all.
And that's just one example or so many, none of which were 'excessive'.
Yes, that one hurts because all three of my Exalteds are now not WYSIWYG, but it won't stop me from continuing to use them.
Chaos doesn't mean randumb or outright short on brainhalfes, people that accept this are half the reason why GW keeps getting away with such gak.. And the darkmech exists, as does slave labour. And what does it matter if i can mark and icon a squad of legionaires as i should, when i can't do so for possessed? Why can't i strap a balefire book ontop of a chosen champion?
oh and lets not kid ourselves the limit on not doubling up on heavies is because GW fethed up with a certain weapon that comes with havocs 1 / 5, and gw insiting that double shooting is a acceptable stratagem. its not.
Missed the point entirely.
Good for you, i am sure that you are happy since you have shown repeatedly that stupid nonsense is acceptable to you as long as Daddy GW tells you to say yes.
No, I have shown repeatedly that I'm not chicken little throwing an internet temper tantrum because some things changed. I think I've been pretty clear in saying I was unhappy with a number of changes over the course of this thread. Its only at the point that supposedly grown-ass adults started saying "this book is an irredeemable dumpster fire and so GW must have bought off any influencer or content creator that utters a single positive thought about the book" that I broke ranks with the forum malcontent bandwagon. Grow up, move on.
So even your example of a "positive reviewer" recognizes the problem.
Sure, but my argument is not and has not been that the book is perfect, I have on multiple occasions pointed out I don't like things about it. My argument essentially is that the world is not black and white and that the presence of some negatives doesn't make the entire book negative.
And it's very subjective. Everyone isn't looking for the same things. Some of us would much rather have actual options and customization rather than shoot/fight twice stratagems. It especially makes a difference whether or not you play the "dud subfaction".
Its really not subjective at all. The statement you are claiming to be subjective is: "While it brought some negative changes with it, those negative changes do not make the entire thing bad." I know that seems like a subjective statement because things involving good/bad are typically thought of in terms of subjectivity, but this is actually an objective statement. Lets rewrite it in maybe clearer terms: "While some people may find the new book to have bad aspects to it, those bad aspects/the perception that some aspects are bad do not make all things in the book bad to all people." Thats an objective statement of fact - your subjective perception of the book (in part or in full) does not make the book objectively bad. This is why others have positive opinions of the book. Its not that complex or complicated.
By claiming that my previous statement is subjective, you are essentially arguing that nobody is allowed to like the book as a whole if they dislike any aspect of the book in part, and more broadly that nobody is allowed to like the book if one person dislikes any aspect of it. As you said, not everyone is looking for the same things. The fact that what you are looking for is bad (in your eyes) does not make the entire book bad, which is why other people looking for things different from you (or even the same thing) can find the book good - hence why there are reviewers giving the book positive accolades. Your subjective dislike of the book does not render the entire book bad to others, which is a concept that some of here seem to be struggling with based on how people have reacted to positive reviews.
Oh yeah let me look at the fewer options the Legionaries have than Imperial Marines, or the Sternguard, or the 3 types of Terminator unit Imperials have *in the base Codex*. Wow that's really excessive that CSM had options for their units.
You will note that all these things are different datasheets though. I wouldn't be opposed to Chaos Legionnaires and Terminators being split up into a half dozen different datasheets to enable better balance correction for all the potential builds you could make, but I'd actually much rather the datasheets in the SM codex be consolidated down because I think most of the differences there are fairly trivial and very few of the options they have are actually being made use of.
I'm sure we all rememeber when Chosen were OP when they had access to duplicate weapons, or when the Codex was broken because we had Exalted Champions with options or Chaos Lords with Jump Packs. Multiple choices for wargear is not "layered rules".
No, but in the case of the person I was actually responding to, veteran tactics, marks, icons, and legion bonuses are all layers of rules. Stop conflating different arguments together and pay attention to what is actually being discussed in each different quote reply.
Legionaries now have the same limitations on Special and Heavy weapons as Imperial Astartes who literally follow a rulebook telling them how to work. You're making the mistake of thinking that being a CSM means utter insanity with no thought for tactics or viable weaponry and you couldn't be more wrong.
I'm not making that mistake - the people arguing that CSM Legionnaires should be able to be fielded where every model in the squad basically has a different weapon loadout are the ones making that mistake.
I am curious as to what older players really find to be a significant issue rather than just an annoyance.
Legionaries now look decent, but no longer can be taken up to 20 strong and the duplicate special and heavy weapon change seemed arbitrary. However, does the unit still offer enough out the gate for players?
As I said previously, some people are just complaining because things changed. A more generous take is that they are complaining because they had options that were taken away from them, but if you go back far enough you find many of the options that were taken away didn't exist in the books they hold up as examples of what the book should be like. The loss of 20 man units sucks, I'm not happy about it (even though I can count on one hand the number of times I ever took more than 10 marines in a squad in my 20 years playing the game), but the weapon restriction is less than its being made out to be. While it is more restrictive than the immediately preceding codex, its not much different than the way the 3.5 ed and 4th ed codex worked (as I illustrated previously). In the past you could get 1 special and 1 heavy weapon, or 2 special weapons (in which case both special weapons could be the same). Now you can get 2 special, 2 heavy or 1 special 1 heavy, with the restriction that the weapons selected can't be duplicated. That gives the unit way more flexibility than it had in those codexes, any way you slice it, but significantly less flexibility than they had in the immediately preceding edition (which is a book that everyone hated, ironically enough). No, you can't have 2 of the same special weapon like you could in the past, nor can you have 2 of the same heavy weapon (which you couldn't do at all until more recently), but you at least have the option of having a second heavy weapon if you want it.
2 types of cultists now, plus a new HQ, so that’s a step forward.
But no traitor guard and the cultists have limitations relative to the number of CSM squads in the book, so its all bad, apparently.
HQ options being removed is probably the biggest issue IMHO but I don’t recall seeing many take Aspiring Champions at all. What HQ are people really thinking of using? Lords, DPs, discos, MoP, warpsmith. In todays limited spots for characters I’m not sure the champ would have been taken anyway. Will probably use mine in a chosen squad.
The primary complaint here is loss of jump pack options and loss of flexible wargear loadouts for several of the character options (EXALTED champions being locked into one specific build rather than having a few weapon swaps they could choose from).
My full chainfist Terminator squad, and the other one that's all double lightning claws.
If you mix and match a bit here (and maybe squint a little) you might be able to get one usable unit out of these.
See, I’m not buying all of the “my models can no longer be used” line. I have older chaos marines too, and they just need to be retasked. Multiple aspiring champions? Guess what leads each legionaries squad? Or put them in a chosen squad if you don’t want them to do that. Legionary aspiring champs can take daemon blades (great name for a lightning claw if you’ve modeled one), as well as your typical mix of fist, mail, sword etc. Have a pair of claws on one, stick him in a chosen squad, or two of them if you go 10 strong.
Special weapons, heavy weapons, all can be used, just differently. It’s not like we don’t just have extra models sat around as options and expect to use all the models all the time.
Agreed. It really seems like if you are using marines from 3rd through 5th (maybe 6th/7th too, took a break round that time don't have the codex for reference) era your collection generally shouldn't be too badly effected (you might have some extra special weapons though). It wasn't really until more recently that many of the options currently being discussed came into being.
Firstly stop this polarising black and white gak you do for literally everything, you use "defend" or "attack" for every single position, item, topic. It's possible to have an opinion or make an observation or comment that isn't "defending" anything but is simply a statement.
Amen.
Secondly that's wrong, there are no lascannons for example in the legionnaires box, so it's not limiting you to the contents of the box at all, it's just trying to encourage you to build using the contents if at all. It is an utterly bizarre limitation but it isn't the usual "in the box" junk.
To be fair, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, the fact that its *not* in the kit makes me reluctant to make use of that option, lest it be removed in the future for not being in the kit.
Shadowspear came with a Chaos Space Marine lugging around an Autocannon in your regular CSM squad.
That covers one of two options available, but the shadowspear kit is OOP and no longer available, so its still not in the kit that CSM players can go out and buy today.
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
BrianDavion wrote: I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
Yeah, I could see that happening. But, they could add rules for Xenos factions. They're up to the Siege, so, Scouring is next, right? Eldar, Orks, etc would be coming back, what with the Imperium in shambles and everything. I could definitely see that happening as well. All it would take is gw seeing some $$$$ in it.
BrianDavion wrote: I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
Yeah, I could see that happening. But, they could add rules for Xenos factions. They're up to the Siege, so, Scouring is next, right? Eldar, Orks, etc would be coming back, what with the Imperium in shambles and everything. I could definitely see that happening as well. All it would take is gw seeing some $$$$ in it.
War of the beast could have some great ork content
And it isn't HH, in fact, it's two thousand years after the Scouring let alone the Heresy. People seem to forget an awful lot that the Legions were turned into Chapters only 4 years post-Heresy and even during the Scouring they were very much not Legions anymore.
I don't mind if people want to use HH as a way to play the Great Crusade, I always wanted to try it with the old ruleset but anything post-Heresy just isn't on the cards.
And it isn't HH, in fact, it's two thousand years after the Scouring let alone the Heresy. People seem to forget an awful lot that the Legions were turned into Chapters only 4 years post-Heresy and even during the Scouring they were very much not Legions anymore.
I don't mind if people want to use HH as a way to play the Great Crusade, I always wanted to try it with the old ruleset but anything post-Heresy just isn't on the cards.
Fair enough, I dont know that much about the lore post heresy, pre 40k.
Essentially, anything after the Heresy (i.e. after the Emperor gets throned and Horus dies) is 40k.
From the Betrayal at Isstvan and the Burning of Prospero until the end of the Siege of Terra is HH.
Pre-Isstvan and Prospero is the Great Crusade.
It's a common misconception due to the fact that a lot of people refer to HH as 30k as it is related to 40k which makes it easier for 40k people to have a brief understanding of what it is. The issue is that 30k is technically every single event from 01.M31 until 999.M40 which encompasses more of the events in 40k than in the years of 001.M41 onwards.
No, I have shown repeatedly that I'm not chicken little throwing an internet temper tantrum.
Grow up, move on.
Why do you care so much? lol, take your own advice and move on.
Because when I say I like the codex, I get called a shill, etc. by mouthbreathers and neckbears with zero perspective beyond their own small minds.
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.
BrianDavion wrote: I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
Yeah, I could see that happening. But, they could add rules for Xenos factions. They're up to the Siege, so, Scouring is next, right? Eldar, Orks, etc would be coming back, what with the Imperium in shambles and everything. I could definitely see that happening as well. All it would take is gw seeing some $$$$ in it.
In addition to what Gert said, you need to separate the novels from the game - the novels are up to the siege, but the game is nowhere close to that yet. We don't have daemon primarchs or any of the hallmarks of the late Heresy era yet (other than arguably Mk6 armor, but even Mk6 armor wasn't as "late war" as its made out to be). Rumors indicate that GW is going to spend quite some time releasing campaign books for 30k covering different campaigns and conflicts running the length and breadth of the heresy (with an Istvaan book being among those rumored), so Siege doesn't appear to be coming soon, nor does Scouring for that matter. On that note, the game may not be configured for the Scouring as some sources indicate that the adoption of the Codex Astartes occurred during the scouring itself, which would mean the legion based faction structure that the game currently has wouldn't entirely work for that period. The Great Crusade is a more likely candidate for expansion, I think, as it allows for the inclusion of new and existing xenos factions with limited inclusion of some of the existing ones, but even that might not happen because why compete a side project against your flagship?
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.
Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.
DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.
40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.
Simplification only works if you simplify everything.
If you cut down on unique weaponry for a unit by reducing all its unique melee weapons into a single generic profile, but then at the same time go and put weird sprue-based limitations on all the combi-weapons and non-generic melee weapons, then you haven't simplified anything, you've just created a new complicated inconsistency.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Simplification only works if you simplify everything.
If you cut down on unique weaponry for a unit by reducing all its unique melee weapons into a single generic profile, but then at the same time go and put weird sprue-based limitations on all the combi-weapons and non-generic melee weapons, then you haven't simplified anything, you've just created a new complicated inconsistency.
This.
I was watching WintersSEO stream earlier and he was talking about WYSIWYG, and how that's effectively gone in 40k 9th ed as it stands. One Leman Russ tank may be a regular tank, but another, built the same way and with the same loadout and with no particular painting to set it differently, might be a Tank Commander, or Tank Ace. One squad of Kabalites are just Warriors. The other are Trueborn. One squad of Chaos Marines has the Icon of Wrath. The other has the Icon of Despair. There's no god-specific icons in the base kit. You just declare which one is which.
And of course we can apparently apply that to melee weapons on Terminators and Chosen, but only sometimes, and a Chosen Power Fist is an Accursed weapon, but not a Terminator Power fist or a Raptor Power Fist. It spits in the face of WYSIWYG, so why not just go all the way and apply it to ranged weapons as well?
It's really weird that GW would do this half-measure, going against one of their oldest held concepts to take modeling and apply rules to it. Without WYSIWYG, a lot of things simply cease being important.
But then, I'm 100% for simplifying the entire game. Get rid of all the ridiculous ways that one thing could count as A, B, or C. Bring back WYSIWYG so you don't run into more of those 'feels bad' or 'gotcha' moments.
Also, whenever chaos0x posts, I just skip past the entire thing and save myself a lot of time.
And it isn't HH, in fact, it's two thousand years after the Scouring let alone the Heresy. People seem to forget an awful lot that the Legions were turned into Chapters only 4 years post-Heresy and even during the Scouring they were very much not Legions anymore.
I don't mind if people want to use HH as a way to play the Great Crusade, I always wanted to try it with the old ruleset but anything post-Heresy just isn't on the cards.
Ok. I was just trying to think of a way that Xenos players could get to play their armies in what is, IMHO, a far better ruleset. But I'm sure they'll be fanmade stuff for that. But gw could put them in a Crusade era book, or a "Xenos Hordes" style book. Just because the Orks and Eldar are a bit "suppressed" in the Crusade/Heresy era doesn't mean that they can't still be kicking about and causing trouble.
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.
Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.
DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.
40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.
Aye. "Complex" doesn't necessarily mean "Deep". Right now 40k is very complex, but it isn't deep.
I think 40k's fairly deep right now - certainly the deepest its ever been. The problem is its sufficiently deep its hard to have a conversation about it.
For example (with a nod to Reddit), "should you take a sorcerer?" Well you can say "nah, Dark Hereticus is inferior to Malefic, MoP 4 Life", the sorcerer therefore sucks.
Which seems a legitimate response. Although some additional ranged mortal wound output may supplement heavily melee skewed lists. You'd probably want to look at the meta and decide how valuable Death Hex is. Warptime may also be useful because of how objectives and secondaries work etc.
Which is where a lot of the depth is. If you want someone to do Warpcraft Secondaries, you probably don't want it to be your Master of Possession. You want them free to be doing their powers rather than losing them on psychic actions - so an additional sorcerer is potentially of interest. But this requires a judgement of whether Warpcraft Secondaries are worth it (and therefore whether you should build your list to achieve them). Is this an absolute judgement - or do you consider your opponent, how easily they can deny you etc (which I feel is what you should do)?
And if they are worth going for, do you instead want a Daemon Prince, or the Dark Commune (when its out) to stand in for this job? The Daemon Prince after all only gives up one cast when it does an action rather than 2. But then a tricked out daemon prince is getting pricy - approaching double the points of the Sorcerer.
All of this is complexity - and I think depth - but its also hard to offer a view on without lots of experience (which I don't think anyone has yet, due to new rules, new book, etc).
Its certainly deeper than "take the best mathhammer units, throw them at each other, see what the dice decide, last model standing by turn 5-7 wins."
Tyel wrote: I think 40k's fairly deep right now - certainly the deepest its ever been. The problem is its sufficiently deep its hard to have a conversation about it.
For example (with a nod to Reddit), "should you take a sorcerer?" Well you can say "nah, Dark Hereticus is inferior to Malefic, MoP 4 Life", the sorcerer therefore sucks.
Which seems a legitimate response. Although some additional ranged mortal wound output may supplement heavily melee skewed lists. You'd probably want to look at the meta and decide how valuable Death Hex is. Warptime may also be useful because of how objectives and secondaries work etc.
I mean yeah it does suck - out of six powers maybe two are usable, so you just bring a second MoP.
Death Hex is great but it's a difficult to cast power which will necessitate either a re-roll (or the use of the WB autocast strat). A single model purely to cast one power is a terrible deal.
Likewise Warptime is indeed now a 'may be useful' power (because it was massively nerfed into the ground, and is no longer always useful, it is now sometimes useful).
Compare this with a MoP where nearly every power is useful.
There's very little 'depth' because you can just take a second MoP. You're paying a total of 10 points more to get a figure which is just outright better in every conceivable way.
JNAProductions wrote: Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.
DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.
40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.
Conversations might be more constructive if we could remove the judgement words.
Chess and Go are remarkable games, and I agree with your point that depth is something to strive for.
But Complexity also has it's place. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it's bad, just because something is simple doesn't mean it's good. While that may not have been the precise point you were looking to make, it can certainly come across that way.
Personally, I'm with HMBC about the new Codex. It's incoherent. The simple / complex paradigm doesn't apply, GW didn't move the book in one direction or the other. It feels like they tried to improve over 8th edition with stat boosts while handicapping lists with restrictions on loadouts.
If anything, it's uneven. That doesn't mean it's a terrible book, or that it's unplayable. It just doesn't succeed on all levels.
I am of the opinion that 40k is being simplified, and will become more and more simplified, while GW aims the HH at people who liked "old school" 40k with customization etc. the real victims of this are going to be the xenos players who like deep customization sadly.
I dunno, I think 40k is the most complex it has ever been. Say what you will about the chaos codex, it is still far more complex than any other CSM codex released to date, only the 3.5 codex comes close but falls short because it doesn't have nearly as much rules layering.
Here's the thing-complexity isn't GOOD.
It's a necessary evil, but a simpler system that achieves the same depth is preferable to a more complex one.
DEPTH is good. A game like Chess or Go, with pretty simple rules but lots of depth to them, is something to strive for.
40k is very complex, but also pretty shallow. So praising something for adding complexity is not really something one should do.
I didn't say it was a good thing, nor did I praise it? Like, what would make you think that I was doing so? Other dude said that he thought 40k was being simplified, I pointed out that the game is more complex now than its ever been. Thats not a value judgement about whether or not complexity, etc. is a good thing, merely a statement that the game isn't simple and theres no indication of it being simplified.
(That being said, there is a difference between complexity and complication - complexity can be good if its implemented in the right places using the right means, complication is never good)
Also, whenever chaos0x posts, I just skip past the entire thing and save myself a lot of time.
Your loss. You can just put me on ignore and save yourself the trouble though.
blood reaper wrote: I mean yeah it does suck - out of six powers maybe two are usable, so you just bring a second MoP.
Death Hex is great but it's a difficult to cast power which will necessitate either a re-roll (or the use of the WB autocast strat). A single model purely to cast one power is a terrible deal.
Likewise Warptime is indeed now a 'may be useful' power (because it was massively nerfed into the ground, and is no longer always useful, it is now sometimes useful).
Compare this with a MoP where nearly every power is useful.
There's very little 'depth' because you can just take a second MoP. You're paying a total of 10 points more to get a figure which is just outright better in every conceivable way.
That's a fair argument. The sorcerer could have probably done with some special rules to make him stand out. I guess I could switch to the Sorcerer in Terminator armour, as you can get a combi weapon and familiar.
But I was really trying to make the point that secondary selection, and its implications on list building, isn't that shallow.
blood reaper wrote: I mean yeah it does suck - out of six powers maybe two are usable, so you just bring a second MoP.
Death Hex is great but it's a difficult to cast power which will necessitate either a re-roll (or the use of the WB autocast strat). A single model purely to cast one power is a terrible deal.
Likewise Warptime is indeed now a 'may be useful' power (because it was massively nerfed into the ground, and is no longer always useful, it is now sometimes useful).
Compare this with a MoP where nearly every power is useful.
There's very little 'depth' because you can just take a second MoP. You're paying a total of 10 points more to get a figure which is just outright better in every conceivable way.
That's a fair argument. The sorcerer could have probably done with some special rules to make him stand out. I guess I could switch to the Sorcerer in Terminator armour, as you can get a combi weapon and familiar.
But I was really trying to make the point that secondary selection, and its implications on list building, isn't that shallow.
Honestly though, that last sentence IS part of the issue, when you can just solve that issue in the list building stage then, well we aren't looking at a mechanically deep game.
Further it just highlights the 10/10 GW design, last edition Sorcerers > MoP, this time around MoP > sorcerer.
meanwhile the decision should rest within the rest of the army, if i field daemonkin i should expect the MoP being superior to a sorcerer, if i don't field daemonkin i should expect the sorcerer to be superior.
On the field that should be then decided in the specific situation, not by merely checking the lists of the spells and pts and what i field.
Also, MoP not having the option to buy wings and removed jumppack is still annoying. but that is a whole other debate, but i think if players wanted to not merely run possessed but rather a big flock of Warp talons then the later would be a welcome addition. Alas options are for suckers, here do you want another warlord trait instead?
Ok. I was just trying to think of a way that Xenos players could get to play their armies in what is, IMHO, a far better ruleset. But I'm sure they'll be fanmade stuff for that. But gw could put them in a Crusade era book, or a "Xenos Hordes" style book. Just because the Orks and Eldar are a bit "suppressed" in the Crusade/Heresy era doesn't mean that they can't still be kicking about and causing trouble.
It always sounds really pretentious when I say it and I really don't mean it that way. It's more just down to the fact that while absolutely during the Great Crusade mankind was fighting Xenos and human enclaves by the dozen, the reason the Heresy was important was the "brother vs brother" idea of the conflict. Humanity was able to have this monumental civil war because the various Xenos were beaten and not a threat.
Even the Scouring was about getting rid of those who sided with Horus and the only direct conflict with Xenos mentioned in the period is when the Khan goes missing chasing some Drukhari into the Webway.
I'm opposed to Xenos in HH from a background perspective and just tend to get a bit irritated when people say Xenos were involved when they very clearly weren't.
Garrac wrote: I wonder what new units will the World Eaters have. Im obsessed with this particular paragraph:
That’s not all – the codex will contain old favourites, dark legends, and some things that you’ve never seen before…
I supose Angron counts as an old favorite, but, what will the dark legends be? Will we finally see khornegors?
I'd expect "old favorites" would refer to units we've already had miniatures and rules for, like Berzerkers and Juggernaut cavalry. "Dark legends" would be more fitting for Angron, or perhaps one of the Khorne daemon engines like the Blood Slaughterer, Brass Scorpion, or Cauldron of Blood. And the final third is for completely newly-invented units without prior appearances in the spinoff games or backstory.
Ok. I was just trying to think of a way that Xenos players could get to play their armies in what is, IMHO, a far better ruleset. But I'm sure they'll be fanmade stuff for that. But gw could put them in a Crusade era book, or a "Xenos Hordes" style book. Just because the Orks and Eldar are a bit "suppressed" in the Crusade/Heresy era doesn't mean that they can't still be kicking about and causing trouble.
It always sounds really pretentious when I say it and I really don't mean it that way. It's more just down to the fact that while absolutely during the Great Crusade mankind was fighting Xenos and human enclaves by the dozen, the reason the Heresy was important was the "brother vs brother" idea of the conflict. Humanity was able to have this monumental civil war because the various Xenos were beaten and not a threat.
Even the Scouring was about getting rid of those who sided with Horus and the only direct conflict with Xenos mentioned in the period is when the Khan goes missing chasing some Drukhari into the Webway.
I'm opposed to Xenos in HH from a background perspective and just tend to get a bit irritated when people say Xenos were involved when they very clearly weren't.
I completely understand your position. I just want as many people to get to play with the HH rules as possible, and everyone doesn't dig marines. So, maybe early Crusade rules?
Gadzilla666 wrote: I completely understand your position. I just want as many people to get to play with the HH rules as possible, and everyone doesn't dig marines. So, maybe early Crusade rules?
Yeah, the Crusade is a much better period for those who want to use Xenos, the only real issue comes down to some Traitor armies losing portions of their list, the Word Bearers especially lose every single unit besides Ashen Circle and maybe Lorgar.
Gert wrote: I'm opposed to Xenos in HH from a background perspective and just tend to get a bit irritated when people say Xenos were involved when they very clearly weren't.
The Legions were united in a conquest to exterminate all Xenos from Imperial territory. They were very successful.
It doesn't make sense Xenos armies would suddenly reappear and pick a side in the Heresy. Traitors and Loyalists alike would still want them stomped out of existence. The question is whether that would take priority over the revolution, and I say no. One campaign comes before all others.
It does make sense that Xenos armies would try to reclaim lost territory in the wake of an internecine conflict. This could include persecuting old grudges against Legions they especially hate. There's times battle is unavoidable and this could be worked into the game.
Part of the appeal of HH is the narrative around the missions. Skilled writers could find a way to make this work. It would not work unless it's aligned with the central narrative.
blood reaper wrote: I mean yeah it does suck - out of six powers maybe two are usable, so you just bring a second MoP.
Death Hex is great but it's a difficult to cast power which will necessitate either a re-roll (or the use of the WB autocast strat). A single model purely to cast one power is a terrible deal.
Likewise Warptime is indeed now a 'may be useful' power (because it was massively nerfed into the ground, and is no longer always useful, it is now sometimes useful).
Compare this with a MoP where nearly every power is useful.
There's very little 'depth' because you can just take a second MoP. You're paying a total of 10 points more to get a figure which is just outright better in every conceivable way.
That's a fair argument. The sorcerer could have probably done with some special rules to make him stand out. I guess I could switch to the Sorcerer in Terminator armour, as you can get a combi weapon and familiar.
It's pretty much universally agreed the Sorcerer Terminator is just outright superior to the base one because of the combi weapons, familiar, and deep strike capability. The points increase is pretty negligible for the increased durability, deployment options, etc.
...perhaps if the Sorcerer could've taken some kind of pack that permitted him longer jumps or could have ... driven himself there on a man vehicle - or even ridden upon say a flying monster, evil steed, or was carried into battle upon some kind of palanquin, he may have had a chance.
techsoldaten wrote: It does make sense that Xenos armies would try to reclaim lost territory in the wake of an internecine conflict. This could include persecuting old grudges against Legions they especially hate. There's times battle is unavoidable and this could be worked into the game.
Part of the appeal of HH is the narrative around the missions. Skilled writers could find a way to make this work. It would not work unless it's aligned with the central narrative.
The thing with Xenos is that as you pointed out the Imperium was very successful in ending Xenos threats to mankind. By the time of the Heresy (i.e. just before Isstvan and Prospero), we have two mentions of Orks. One is a fake threat made up by Horus to cause the Betrayal at Calth, and the other is the White Scars hunting Ork remnants after the Ullanor campaign. Indeed one of the big issues the Scars face is the loss of wild space for them to roam free and hunt.
Of the Xenos races present during the Crusade era we have:
Craftworlds - Very much content to just let the Imperium tear itself apart, Eldrad even tried to speed this up.
Orks - There weren't any Ork empires left to threaten the Imperium and they were very much beaten. This is very important because it forms the basis of why the War of the Beast is so deadly to the Imperium. The wider power base just leaves the Orks alone because they don't see them as a threat.
Necrons - Haven't woken up.
T'au - Haven't evolved.
Nids - Haven't shown up yet.
Drukhari - Some raiders might have taken advantage of outskirt planets but they were largely still building Commoragh at this time and having wars amongst themselves.
Personally I don't even think particularly skilled writers could make any sort of Xenos intervention work well with the overarching HH narrative *cough*Cabal*cough*.
JNAProductions wrote: "The new book is more powerful" is not the same as "The new book is better".
The new book is objectively better ( not that this was a high bar to beat ). I played with it this weekend and it was quite fun.
No, it isn't "objectively" better. It might be better for you, and lots of other people, but for some of us it isn't. Night Lords without a Jump Lord is complete .
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm a fan of converting every model to have every weapon, then they can never say you're wrong!
Ha! reminds me somewhere in my drawer of unused minis I have a chosen with a bolter, melta, and plasma rifle on his back, and a power lance and bolt piston in his hands.
JNAProductions wrote: "The new book is more powerful" is not the same as "The new book is better".
The new book is objectively better ( not that this was a high bar to beat ). I played with it this weekend and it was quite fun.
No, it isn't "objectively" better. It might be better for you, and lots of other people, but for some of us it isn't. Night Lords without a Jump Lord is complete .
Yea these sort of hyperbolic statements don't do it for me. The NL traits are all better. Some strats are powered down, but more flexible than just 3 ways to charge harder. The relics all appear to be improved other than losing 2+ on stormbolt.
But..."complete gak", I guess.
It's like reading those obnoxious new headlines. "Person SLAMS thing!" It's just over the top language.
You might be able to say “It’s objectively more powerful” but not “It’s objectively better”.
What's your barometer for enjoying a codex?
Cramming as many combi-meltas on terminators as you can...
...or doing interesting things with your units?
There's legit not a lot more "interesting things" to do with the units LOL
I mean a mark of slaanesh legionnaires unit with icon getting +1 to hit, fight first, fight twice via strat and the black mace on the champ and a balefire tome allowing diabolic strength isn't something interesting you could do before.
You might be able to say “It’s objectively more powerful” but not “It’s objectively better”.
What's your barometer for enjoying a codex?
Cramming as many combi-meltas on terminators as you can...
...or doing interesting things with your units?
What's the difference in "interesting" and "gimmicky"? When I look at what Dudeface said below, I think gimmicky. And I think the construction of this deck doubles down on the gimmicks, which is what people have hated about Chaos codexes since time immemorial.
You might be able to say “It’s objectively more powerful” but not “It’s objectively better”.
What's your barometer for enjoying a codex?
Cramming as many combi-meltas on terminators as you can...
...or doing interesting things with your units?
There's legit not a lot more "interesting things" to do with the units LOL
I mean a mark of slaanesh legionnaires unit with icon getting +1 to hit, fight first, fight twice via strat and the black mace on the champ and a balefire tome allowing diabolic strength isn't something interesting you could do before.
In before the fight twice strat is nerfed, the relics and daemon weapons become restricted to HQ or Elite options, balefire tome stops allowing you to take an extra power (you'll just get smite) etc.
All of those things are rules that are well beyond the models that you make, which means they can all be nerfed, removed, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to build your Legionaries and be able to know that their loadout will last a little longer than a single edition?
JNAProductions wrote: "The new book is more powerful" is not the same as "The new book is better".
The new book is objectively better ( not that this was a high bar to beat ). I played with it this weekend and it was quite fun.
No, it isn't "objectively" better. It might be better for you, and lots of other people, but for some of us it isn't. Night Lords without a Jump Lord is complete .
Yea these sort of hyperbolic statements don't do it for me. The NL traits are all better. Some strats are powered down, but more flexible than just 3 ways to charge harder. The relics all appear to be improved other than losing 2+ on stormbolt.
But..."complete gak", I guess.
It's like reading those obnoxious new headlines. "Person SLAMS thing!" It's just over the top language.
I'm sorry, did I say anything about the trait? Or stratagems? Or relics? Let me check........nope, didn't mention any of that crap. I was talking about Jump Lords. Y'know, those guys that practically every Night Lords player has? The guys that lead our armies? Because they can actually keep up with them?
My army has been led by a Chaos Lord, with paired lightning claws and a Jump Pack since I started it twenty years ago. And no amount of tacked on and CCG inspired nonsense is going to replace that. But go on, keep defending whatever gw decides to strip away from CSM, or anyone else, just because they threw more stratagems at us.
Just play with this model paying extra 15 points (?) for jump pack in friendly games.
Unless You plan to play tournaments with Night Lords (kudos!) then You'll be forced to play on-foot with this model.
Gert wrote: The thing with Xenos is that as you pointed out the Imperium was very successful in ending Xenos threats to mankind. By the time of the Heresy (i.e. just before Isstvan and Prospero), we have two mentions of Orks. One is a fake threat made up by Horus to cause the Betrayal at Calth, and the other is the White Scars hunting Ork remnants after the Ullanor campaign. Indeed one of the big issues the Scars face is the loss of wild space for them to roam free and hunt.
Of the Xenos races present during the Crusade era we have:
Craftworlds - Very much content to just let the Imperium tear itself apart, Eldrad even tried to speed this up.
Orks - There weren't any Ork empires left to threaten the Imperium and they were very much beaten. This is very important because it forms the basis of why the War of the Beast is so deadly to the Imperium. The wider power base just leaves the Orks alone because they don't see them as a threat.
Necrons - Haven't woken up.
T'au - Haven't evolved.
Nids - Haven't shown up yet.
Drukhari - Some raiders might have taken advantage of outskirt planets but they were largely still building Commoragh at this time and having wars amongst themselves.
Personally I don't even think particularly skilled writers could make any sort of Xenos intervention work well with the overarching HH narrative *cough*Cabal*cough*.
Never doubt the power of a skilled writer.
A greatly depleted Ork revivalist faction fights rearguard actions against a Legion, stripping it of materials and equipment during the rush to Terra. Legions are forced to fight their way through, delays enabling staunch defenses of Imperial positions.
A Warseer suddenly launches a brutal campaign against warring Legions to avert their path away from a shrouded Craftworld. Both sides are caught up in strategic conflicts that draw them to the edge of a contested sector, before the Eldar suddenly withdrawl.
The endless curiosity of some Explorator Majori investigating sites of the Rangdan Xenocides leads to the accidental awakening of some Necron dynasty, which proceeds to carry out hostile activities against Imperial worlds. Contact records are lost in the havoc of the HH, as Loyalists and Traitors alike are forced to fight in order to withdraw.
Stories like this could fit into the Heresy without diminishing the overall setting.
I'm sure they'd find some way to shoe-horn in a massive yet hitherto unknown massive alien invasion that took place during the same period that various Legions had to fight.
I mean, they made the HH responsible for bringing the Tyranids to the galaxy, so why not that?
JNAProductions wrote: "The new book is more powerful" is not the same as "The new book is better".
The new book is objectively better ( not that this was a high bar to beat ). I played with it this weekend and it was quite fun.
No, it isn't "objectively" better. It might be better for you, and lots of other people, but for some of us it isn't. Night Lords without a Jump Lord is complete .
Yea these sort of hyperbolic statements don't do it for me. The NL traits are all better. Some strats are powered down, but more flexible than just 3 ways to charge harder. The relics all appear to be improved other than losing 2+ on stormbolt.
But..."complete gak", I guess.
It's like reading those obnoxious new headlines. "Person SLAMS thing!" It's just over the top language.
I'm sorry, did I say anything about the trait? Or stratagems? Or relics? Let me check........nope, didn't mention any of that crap. I was talking about Jump Lords. Y'know, those guys that practically every Night Lords player has? The guys that lead our armies? Because they can actually keep up with them?
My army has been led by a Chaos Lord, with paired lightning claws and a Jump Pack since I started it twenty years ago. And no amount of tacked on and CCG inspired nonsense is going to replace that. But go on, keep defending whatever gw decides to strip away from CSM, or anyone else, just because they threw more stratagems at us.
There is a lot right with this codex as Daedalus implies, but there are some things not kosher. I believe the weapon restrictions are more of an annoyance but completely agree that the jump pack issue is more of a you move by GW that makes people sour. If they are willing to walk back on this (like the Eldar autarch), I think that would go a long way, even if it was just for the Lord.
The Eldar Titans were first introduced into the game of Adeptus Titanicus (the first version), which was set in the Heresy. The Eldar fought against Chaos, not necessarily for the Imperium. However I certainly could see some Eldar taking the view that all humans are the same and still attacking the Imperium, especially if it is in retribution for Imperial attacks on them during the Great Crusade.
A greatly depleted Ork revivalist faction fights rearguard actions against a Legion, stripping it of materials and equipment during the rush to Terra. Legions are forced to fight their way through, delays enabling staunch defenses of Imperial positions.
A Warseer suddenly launches a brutal campaign against warring Legions to avert their path away from a shrouded Craftworld. Both sides are caught up in strategic conflicts that draw them to the edge of a contested sector, before the Eldar suddenly withdrawl.
The endless curiosity of some Explorator Majori investigating sites of the Rangdan Xenocides leads to the accidental awakening of some Necron dynasty, which proceeds to carry out hostile activities against Imperial worlds. Contact records are lost in the havoc of the HH, as Loyalists and Traitors alike are forced to fight in order to withdraw.
Stories like this could fit into the Heresy without diminishing the overall setting.
Except we aren't writing a book, it's playing the game. As soon as a Xenos army shows up they have an equal chance to be played as any other faction (excluding the Legions) in the game and then we lose the point of the Heresy being the Heresy, it's now just 40k Lite. A short story or single game about the events you have described is an interesting story, having it be a possibility for every game played is not.
Spoiler:
tneva82 wrote: Besides how much non-crusade stuff there really is in HH? Aka how hard it would be to get aliens to HH game system by creating supplement for crusade.
Crusade involved lots of fighting vs aliens. And legions fought like legions as they weren't split yet.
Again, the Great Crusade is not an issue but IMO it then just becomes 40k with fewer options for Xenos players. As a community effort to help people transition from one ruleset to another I think it's fine but I don't see the point in doing it in any official capacity.
Cramming as many combi-meltas on terminators as you can...
...or doing interesting things with your units?
Not having half my army invalidated and not having very random restrictions placed on unit options.
Yep, and CSM 9e replaces your invalidated units and models with gimmicky wombo combo crap that we all seemed to have hated in 8e (I'm sure I could dig up scores of posts from folks in this thread on that topic), but the kneejerk contrarians have conveniently forgotten about all that.
Xyxel wrote: Just play with this model paying extra 15 points (?) for jump pack in friendly games.
Unless You plan to play tournaments with Night Lords (kudos!) then You'll be forced to play on-foot with this model.
On foot doesn't even work well because they removed lightning claws as a weapon option, too.
At that point you're basically proxying.
Where'd those writers go?
and give Night Lords a fully functional Legion trait. 
