Sorry Just Dave, I will have to complain. The Autarchs never becomes Exarchs - Exarch are trapped on their particular path and can never go away. I don't think Autarchs with Exarch weaponry is a good idea. More likely, some different wargear made for commanders.
I have to say the codex is pretty awesome, from what I have seen. I've actually been using your codex to make a few of my homebrew characters, but thats a different thing entirely.
I'd LOVE to offer criticism... But... I honestly know very little about balancing, and all that jazz to comment :I I can say, though, I look forward to seeing more. Especially if you plan to do a Tyranid one in the future
redkommando wrote:Sorry if I'm missing something, but there is no points cost for Cypher.
Look at the "chosen" page.
woodbok made a nicer reply than what I would have replied : "maybe if you had paid more attention to spelling & punctuation, as per the Dakka rules, you would have noticed it's "Cypher", not "Chyper", which could have explained why you couldn't find the related points cost."
Saintspirit wrote:Sorry Just Dave, I will have to complain. The Autarchs never becomes Exarchs - Exarch are trapped on their particular path and can never go away. I don't think Autarchs with Exarch weaponry is a good idea. More likely, some different wargear made for commanders.
IIRC, the current official codex has exarch weaponry for Autarchs too. Plus Autarchs are masters of every path, so it only stands to reason that they could use all the equipment.
Plus this is good to hear, as I've always liked Eldar, but without the crap codex.
Saintspirit wrote:Sorry Just Dave, I will have to complain. The Autarchs never becomes Exarchs - Exarch are trapped on their particular path and can never go away. I don't think Autarchs with Exarch weaponry is a good idea. More likely, some different wargear made for commanders.
IIRC, the current official codex has exarch weaponry for Autarchs too. Plus Autarchs are masters of every path, so it only stands to reason that they could use all the equipment.
Plus this is good to hear, as I've always liked Eldar, but without the crap codex.
Not true. They can f.ex. use a Reaper launcher (common DR weapon) but not tempest launcher - it's the same with the other exarch weaponry. Only aspect warrior weaponry.
It is true though that they have mastered a lot of warrior paths without becoming trapped, but Exarch weaponry is still reservated for exarchs.
Still, is this the right topic to discuss this on? I recall Just Dave have a similar about the eldar codex he's writing.
Amanax wrote:I was the one inquiring about the Eldar codex
Thank you for the sneak peak!
So, judging from what I have seen there, it looks like you will be including a most likely updated version of the craftworld rules?
You really expect me to say what I have planned? Let me put it like this; the design is fairly similar to my CSM dex in lots of ways I think...
I'll try to put up another sneak-peak sometime in the near future, just done the Phoenix Lords though.
megabambam wrote:Oh Dave you beautifull man! I love the codex :3 and will be playtesting a list (which i'm about to make) in a couple of weeks.. I'll be updating you on how it'll end :3
Ha! Thanks man, much appreciated. Particularly the beautiful part. I'd love to hear how any playtesting goes, thanks a lot!
Artanis wrote:Great work Dave, I enjoyed reading that.
Especially liked the customizability you've added to our walkers and that Kharn is EW. Very polished unlike that abomination we call the current codex..
Thanks man, appreciate the feedback.
Saintspirit wrote:Sorry Just Dave, I will have to complain. The Autarchs never becomes Exarchs - Exarch are trapped on their particular path and can never go away. I don't think Autarchs with Exarch weaponry is a good idea. More likely, some different wargear made for commanders.
Thanks for the honesty Saint, I admit, it was partially an oversight, but as someone pointed out, Autarchs have trained on at least one warrior path and have access to aspect warrior wargear. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to have access to some of the best in the Eldar armoury, even if some of it is exarch wargear. They are not necessarily exarchs themselves just because they have their wargear (it won't have the same affect as donning their armour for example), whilst in game-terms, Autarchs do need some more and better wargear.
I've since removed some of the more unique and specialist options that truly are one aspects, such as scorpions claws, but others have remained, like executioners. It doesn't fit the fluff perfectly, I fully admit, but it doesn't exactly contradict it IMHO.
Takeshishin wrote:I have to say the codex is pretty awesome, from what I have seen. I've actually been using your codex to make a few of my homebrew characters, but thats a different thing entirely.
I'd LOVE to offer criticism... But... I honestly know very little about balancing, and all that jazz to comment :I I can say, though, I look forward to seeing more. Especially if you plan to do a Tyranid one in the future
That's fine; don't worry, all feedback - particularly positive - is appreciated. Don't worry about not providing criticism; kind words are always nice, particularly with the amount of work put into it! Cheers.
Don't put money on me doing a 3rd though! Jesus man, one was enough work!
Thanks for the honesty Saint, I admit, it was partially an oversight, but as someone pointed out, Autarchs have trained on at least one warrior path and have access to aspect warrior wargear. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to have access to some of the best in the Eldar armoury, even if some of it is exarch wargear. They are not necessarily exarchs themselves just because they have their wargear (it won't have the same affect as donning their armour for example), whilst in game-terms, Autarchs do need some more and better wargear.
I've since removed some of the more unique and specialist options that truly are one aspects, such as scorpions claws, but others have remained, like executioners. It doesn't fit the fluff perfectly, I fully admit, but it doesn't exactly contradict it IMHO.
Yeah that makes sense I guess, after all the PL of reapers has an exec. too...
I think though that it would be nice for them to have some wargear fro commanders (as I stated before), one thing I came up with was a shuriken pistol firing power shurikens (Ap2)... Hm?
Long long ago in the far off years of 2009, I smoked up an oddball design for a standard Eldar rifle, which went something like this:
24/12" S2 AP3 Assault 2/3
I did some mathhammer and it came out fairly balanced, the increased shot count compensated for the lowered strength and the AP3 made it much more useful against high-armor targets (Space Marines and Incubi), and emphasized the flavor of shooting light, small but razor sharp blades. It got dismissed as one of my many crackpot ideas, but I thought I'd give it a shot shoving it in here.
Right, there is a 'competition' of sorts, no real prize of note, don't hold your breath.
Could someone please pick me a number between (and including) 3 and 34. The first person to post their selected number, alongside a WAAC army list using my CSM Fandex, will be the 'winner'. I.e. Their number will be chosen. The reasoning behind this will be revealed in the near future...
Thanks, [Just] Dave.
-----
Saintspirit:
Glad that sounds OK to you, and yes, I've been creating some exarch-specific wargear too (e.g. Disruption/Vibro Blade). I'm not sure about an AP2 Shuriken pistol though, as you could just use the Str8 AP1 fusion pistol instead, for example. I'm working on it, but there's a lot of existing and competing wargear...
Crazypskyo:
I can believe that is balanced against some targets, but it would ultimately be worse against most standard infantry who don't have a 3+ save, whilst I'm not sure where (i.e. which unit) it could be applied to...
Praxiss:
Corrrr! That Landraider looks LOVELY man, really nice job there! Well done man, really originally done (particularly the turret). I look forward to hearing how it does in action, hopefully it won't draw your opponents attention too much or they'll be loathe to destroy such a nice model! Cracking job man.
After reading through some Night Lords fluff, I just had a little idea that sprung to mind. Including the rules for their Icon, why not give them Night Vision as well? They are stated to have excellent eyesight in absolute darkness in the fluff, far above that of the normal Space Marine implants.
Just a little extra to give people a little more incentive while not drastically changing much of anything.
Hello, I haven't yet had a chance to sit and kick out a WAAC list with your codex yet, so I'll post one I've played.
HQ: Chaos Lord, Icon of Word Bearers, Dark Apostle, Blessing of Chaos, Power Weapon, Personal Icon - 180
Troop: 8x Khorne Berzerkers, Skull Champion with power fist and personal icon - 214
Heavy Support: Chaos Land Raider with dozer blade - 245
2x Troops: 10x Chaos Space Marines, meltagun, flamer, marks of chaos undivided. Aspiring Champion with power fist, personal icon - 200 (so 400 when x2)
Elite: Chaos Dreadnaught with mark of chaos undivided and twin-linked autocannon - 130
Total points: 1498
Basically its a 'rush right at your enemies' list, with 3 units of lesser daemons to come in off any of the 4 icons where needed to tip the scales in assaults. The Dark Apostle rule on the word bearer chaos lord is the key, as it allows you to +1/-1 on your reserve rolls, so you can get the daemons right when you need them. The blessing of chaos on the lord (eternal warrior) is to keep him alive long enough to make use of it, even though hes pretty safe in the land raider with the zerkers. Another benefit to the list is running 6 troop choices for objective games.
you've made oblits even better. I'd gladly pay 5 pts extra for firing 2 weapons per turn (6 deep-striking TL meltaguns will ruin any tank's day)
Also, while reading the Hell Talon entry I found what I think is a small error.
Each turn, a Hell Talon Dive-bomber may drop a single bomb (Incendiary or Krak. Warp Bombs can only be used once per game in the following manner)
should probably be
Each turn, a Hell Talon Dive-bomber may drop a single bomb (Incendiary or Krak. Warp Bombs can only be used once per game) in the following manner.
And a question: The Icon of the Iron Warriors says I can take the 'Basilisk unit'. but there isn't really a Basilisk unit, just an 'Ordnance Battery' within which you can pick a Basilisk. Does this mean you can take 1 Basilisk or 3 per entry? And do you get to pick the upgrades the Ordnance Battery gets?
Right, in response to Yggsie choosing number '7', here is another teaser from my intended Eldar Codex:
Another of these 'pick a number' 'competitions' will be run next week for anyone interested...
A little be of investigation/observation should reveal how I chose which entry to preview, so someone could probably try to seek out a specific unit entry next time...
KilroyKiljoy wrote:After reading through some Night Lords fluff, I just had a little idea that sprung to mind. Including the rules for their Icon, why not give them Night Vision as well? They are stated to have excellent eyesight in absolute darkness in the fluff, far above that of the normal Space Marine implants.
Just a little extra to give people a little more incentive while not drastically changing much of anything.
It's a nice idea, but I think there are a few flaws in it: A) Not all Night Lord Warbands are either compromised of Night Lords (so some non-heresy Marines may have been recruited), B) Non-Night Lord warbands may be using the Night Lord rules and hence not have the improved night-sight and C) Whilst wearing helms, all astartes vision is pretty equal AFAIK.
It's a nice idea and I really did consider it, but I don't think I shall include it for the above reasons and being happy with their existing options...
Yggdrasil wrote:Ok, here's my take... *snip!*
Magic number = Nurgle-7 !
[edit : I don't really know if this is a real WAAC list, as I don't play in tournaments, and my lists usually go on the fluffy or fun side...]
I agree, it's really not a WAAC list! However, I'll take '7' on account of you being the 1st respondent!
Viper217 wrote:Hello, I haven't yet had a chance to sit and kick out a WAAC list with your codex yet, so I'll post one I've played.
HQ: Chaos Lord, Icon of Word Bearers, Dark Apostle, Blessing of Chaos, Power Weapon, Personal Icon - 180
Troop: 8x Khorne Berzerkers, Skull Champion with power fist and personal icon - 214
Heavy Support: Chaos Land Raider with dozer blade - 245
2x Troops: 10x Chaos Space Marines, meltagun, flamer, marks of chaos undivided. Aspiring Champion with power fist, personal icon - 200 (so 400 when x2)
Elite: Chaos Dreadnaught with mark of chaos undivided and twin-linked autocannon - 130
Total points: 1498
Basically its a 'rush right at your enemies' list, with 3 units of lesser daemons to come in off any of the 4 icons where needed to tip the scales in assaults. The Dark Apostle rule on the word bearer chaos lord is the key, as it allows you to +1/-1 on your reserve rolls, so you can get the daemons right when you need them. The blessing of chaos on the lord (eternal warrior) is to keep him alive long enough to make use of it, even though hes pretty safe in the land raider with the zerkers. Another benefit to the list is running 6 troop choices for objective games.
Oh and for a number: 8
Thanks for the feedback and the list man; unfortunately Yggsie beat you to the number. Thanks for the list. You said you played with the list; mind if I ask how it went?
TiB wrote:Sorry to be 'that' guy, but just to see if it would still work:
1848/1850
HQ 230
Chaos Sorcerer 115
Icon of the Black Legion, Mark of Slaanesh, Lash of Submission, Warp Rift
Chaos Sorcerer 115
Icon of the Black Legion, Mark of Slaanesh, Lash of Submission, Warp Rift
you've made oblits even better. I'd gladly pay 5 pts extra for firing 2 weapons per turn (6 deep-striking TL meltaguns will ruin any tank's day)
No need to apologise at all! I'm really happy you posted that list actually, it's good to be able to compare it to the 'best' of what the current CSM 'dex can do. Thanks man, seriously.
Honestly, I wouldn't really fear that list; it's still only got 3 troops and 4 vehicles at 1850pts, whilst you have invested A LOT of points into the obliterators.
I think the 5pts increase for the firepower is countered by it being short-ranged and leaving you vulnerable to assault. That was my intention anyway. I think people would be reluctant to pay any more for them to be honest...
Also, while reading the Hell Talon entry I found what I think is a small error.
Each turn, a Hell Talon Dive-bomber may drop a single bomb (Incendiary or Krak. Warp Bombs can only be used once per game in the following manner)
should probably be
Each turn, a Hell Talon Dive-bomber may drop a single bomb (Incendiary or Krak. Warp Bombs can only be used once per game) in the following manner.
And a question: The Icon of the Iron Warriors says I can take the 'Basilisk unit'. but there isn't really a Basilisk unit, just an 'Ordnance Battery' within which you can pick a Basilisk. Does this mean you can take 1 Basilisk or 3 per entry? And do you get to pick the upgrades the Ordnance Battery gets?
There is a Basilisk Unit, it's on page 45, hence only Iron Warriors can take this unit. It's a seperate 'unit' (but pretty much the same within fluff/feel etc) to an Ordnance Battery, so try to avoid thinking about the IG version for anything other than comparison, I'd advise.
Regarding the Hell-talon bit, I think it makes sense both ways or even without the 'in the following manner' bit altogether! I'm going to look into it a bit more, but it appears to me that it makes sense both ways.
Thanks for the feedback man!
I know it's all first draft stuff, but here is what I noticed on that sneak peak of your seer council.
Cost. It's 70 points for 2 warlocks AND a farseer, but it's 35 points to add another warlock? Yay free farseer? Though noticing the wording of the jetbike note, I am guessing they are intended to work as they do now, where they are really their own unit, but one can only be taken per farseer?
Love the fact you gave them the extra attack and plasma grenades. Now if only Witchblade rules really reflected their fluff. :(
Thanks for the feedback and the list man; unfortunately Yggsie beat you to the number. Thanks for the list. You said you played with the list; mind if I ask how it went?
It went really well, though that was more due to everything going exactly as planned and better than avg rolling. I played vs an IG player who outflanked maybe 1/2 of his stuff (spearhead deployment) so I split each vehicle off toward each of the 3 groups of enemies, the land raider going up the mid. Each transport luckily survived to reach their targets, and as I disembarked all 3 of the units of daemons came in, allowing me to assault twice or more the amount of units I would have without them. The IG folded in CC as expected and their vehicles were popped by either the dread, LR, or power fist champs. As it was an annihilate game, I ended up winning 10-2, with only 2 daemon units fully lost. It could have gone alot worse, but pretty much every essential roll worked, such as glancing front armor of the IG leman russ with land raider on approach, shaking it, or other lucky things.
I think I've played using your codex 6 times now, winning almost all of the games. I think this is due to noone in my group of 8 friends play SW, BA, GK, or DE, so while this codex seems to be balanced vs those (as it should be I think) it is very strong at exploiting the weaknesses of older codexes. It has lots of mobility to catch tau, enough CC to beat orks straight up, and enough shooting to at least give a solid chance vs IG. The sheer variety of units in the codex (which is by far its best asset, including legion rules in that variety) lets you adapt your list to fight any opponent, or make a great all-comers list.
I am really enjoying using the codex, I don't ever plan on using the 'normal' CSM dex unless I am forced now. Playing fluffy, competitive, and fun lists all at the same time is too awesome to stop. Keep up the great work Dave, and I will definitely tell my eldar playing friend about your work in progress codex!
Just Dave wrote:I agree, it's really not a WAAC list! However, I'll take '7' on account of you being the 1st
respondent!
Well, what's wrong with it ? It has cheap Troops for holding objectives (Heretics & Daemons), some resilient Plague
Marines to carry the fight to the enemy, some mobile AT units (Termicide, melta bikers, Oblits), some anti-horde
stuff (Chaos Sorcerer w/ Nurgle's Rot - S4 might be a bit too powerful, btw?, Hellfire
Predator, Defiler)...
Is that because I didn't include the "mandatory" Lash Prince ?
Amanax wrote:I know it's all first draft stuff, but here is what I noticed on that sneak peak of your seer council.
Cost. It's 70 points for 2 warlocks AND a farseer, but it's 35 points to add another warlock? Yay free farseer?
Though noticing the wording of the jetbike note, I am guessing they are intended to work as they do now, where they
are really their own unit, but one can only be taken per farseer?
Love the fact you gave them the extra attack and plasma grenades. Now if only Witchblade rules really reflected
their fluff. :(
I think the Farseer is not included in the cost (as there is no stat line for it). But I agree, the wording "2
Warlocks (& Farseer)" is pretty misleading...
What's with the fluff of the Witchblades ?
Also the sneak peak doesn't show what's special with upgrading Warlocks for Spiritseer or Warseer. Should they deserve a specific statline ? Or specific gear / psychic powers / rules?
Yggdrasil wrote:
Warlocks (& Farseer)" is pretty misleading...
What's with the fluff of the Witchblades ?
I am intrigued...
Well, according to the Eldar codex out now:
"A Warlock not only learns the runes of war but also how to wield the witchblade, a powerful Eldar force weapon. Witchblades write and twist with living runes, and focus the power of the warlock's mind into destructive energy through a helical psychic matrix running through the blade. In the hands of a warlock, a witchblade strikes with a devastating burst of force that can incinerate a foe where he stands"
I mean yeah, the wounds on a 2+ and is S9 against vehicles is awesome, but I would expect at least the ability to ignore armour with a "Powerful Eldar Force Weapon" wouldn't you? You'd just be trading easier hits and tank threat for instant death capability.
Amanax wrote:
Well, according to the Eldar codex out now:
*snip*
I mean yeah, the wounds on a 2+ and is S9 against vehicles is awesome, but I would expect at least the ability to ignore armour with a "Powerful Eldar Force Weapon" wouldn't you? You'd just be trading easier hits and tank threat for instant death capability.
Well, TBH, I think the "2+ wounds" and "S9 against AV" looks more frightening to me than an instant death ability.
Plus, when I think of instant death weapons (e.g force weapons) I imagine the psyker leeching on the struck foe's lifeforce & soul, until he is no more than a dessicated husk, and it doesn't scream "Eldar" to me...
But I guess there are other ways to "instant death" a living being - surging a shockwave through his nervous system, for instance...
Personally, I'd gladly trade the instant death out for the wounds on 2+ just to make them appear different. Though I'm sure if they became power weapons, people would be up in arms over it, despite the fact that the only other unit in the codex with power weapons as a unit are howling banshees which are pretty much useless without a farseer to support them.
I guess I just am of the belief that since Eldar is a specialized army, the units who specialize in whatever, should do their role better than a jack-of-all trades unit.
Yeah, but Warlocks (IMO) do not specialize in CC, they specialize in warmongering psychic powers.
So they need to be good in CC, but they are not Scorpions Exarchs either !
And, the Eldar being such an unusual race, I think the whole 'wound on 2+ / S9 vs. AV" definitely makes them stand out from other races.
When I read the rules of Witchblades, I just tell myself "Wow, this looks so cool!", whereby if it was a "mere" force weapon, I'd be like "Well, they are psykers, so expecedly they get force weapons. Great..."
Just my take uh, I can understand people getting upset about it, & thinking that the "lowly" pyskers of the most advanced psychic race might all wield force weapons isn't unthinkable either...
Yggdrasil wrote:Yeah, but Warlocks (IMO) do not specialize in CC, they specialize in warmongering psychic powers.
So they need to be good in CC, but they are not Scorpions Exarchs either !
And, the Eldar being such an unusual race, I think the whole 'wound on 2+ / S9 vs. AV" definitely makes them stand out from other races.
When I read the rules of Witchblades, I just tell myself "Wow, this looks so cool!", whereby if it was a "mere" force weapon, I'd be like "Well, they are psykers, so expecedly they get force weapons. Great..."
Just my take uh, I can understand people getting upset about it, & thinking that the "lowly" pyskers of the most advanced psychic race might all wield force weapons isn't unthinkable either...
Agreed. I don't expect them to out perform Scorpions, or banshees, on a melee level without the support of their psychic presence. It just feels that overall they are a bit lack luster these days. The extra base attack might be enough to counter balance that though, and just win them over with shear weight of number.
The only reason I would want Witchblades to ignore armour though, would probably be just to keep up with codex creep. But like I said, they might be able to tip the scales into their favor through shear weight of attacks. Maybe just making it so they re-roll to-hit rolls in close combat on top of the wounds on 2+/S9 instead of normal force weapons?
My biggest question, however, is: Dave, what, if anything, are you planning to do in order to balance Seer Councils in general? Are you going to move them more towards the deathstar unit they were before psychic defense became so abundant, or are you going to let them fall back to more of a force manipulator, or a mix of both?
Amanax wrote:I know it's all first draft stuff, but here is what I noticed on that sneak peak of your seer council.
Cost. It's 70 points for 2 warlocks AND a farseer, but it's 35 points to add another warlock? Yay free farseer? Though noticing the wording of the jetbike note, I am guessing they are intended to work as they do now, where they are really their own unit, but one can only be taken per farseer?
Love the fact you gave them the extra attack and plasma grenades. Now if only Witchblade rules really reflected their fluff. :(
Cheers man. They also have an additional point of leadership too btw.
I'll definitely clarify the pricing of the seer council in the finalised version, but for reference, it does state in the Farseer entry that a seer council (consisting of 2 warlocks) may be purchased for 70pts; so you'd have to buy the Farseer 1st. But yeah; I'll definitely make sure it's clear in the final version.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with Witchblades, I agree they could be better, but Str9/2+ wounding is still very good and more original than just force weapons and in-game rules notoriously weaken the fluff descriptions as it were... Maybe that's just me though, but I see what you're saying.
Cheers for the feedback man.
Viper217 wrote:
Just Dave wrote:
Thanks for the feedback and the list man; unfortunately Yggsie beat you to the number. Thanks for the list. You said you played with the list; mind if I ask how it went?
It went really well, though that was more due to everything going exactly as planned and better than avg rolling. I played vs an IG player who outflanked maybe 1/2 of his stuff (spearhead deployment) so I split each vehicle off toward each of the 3 groups of enemies, the land raider going up the mid. Each transport luckily survived to reach their targets, and as I disembarked all 3 of the units of daemons came in, allowing me to assault twice or more the amount of units I would have without them. The IG folded in CC as expected and their vehicles were popped by either the dread, LR, or power fist champs. As it was an annihilate game, I ended up winning 10-2, with only 2 daemon units fully lost. It could have gone alot worse, but pretty much every essential roll worked, such as glancing front armor of the IG leman russ with land raider on approach, shaking it, or other lucky things.
I think I've played using your codex 6 times now, winning almost all of the games. I think this is due to noone in my group of 8 friends play SW, BA, GK, or DE, so while this codex seems to be balanced vs those (as it should be I think) it is very strong at exploiting the weaknesses of older codexes. It has lots of mobility to catch tau, enough CC to beat orks straight up, and enough shooting to at least give a solid chance vs IG. The sheer variety of units in the codex (which is by far its best asset, including legion rules in that variety) lets you adapt your list to fight any opponent, or make a great all-comers list.
I am really enjoying using the codex, I don't ever plan on using the 'normal' CSM dex unless I am forced now. Playing fluffy, competitive, and fun lists all at the same time is too awesome to stop. Keep up the great work Dave, and I will definitely tell my eldar playing friend about your work in progress codex!
Thanks for the kind words man - it's really appreciated - and thanks for the in-game feedback too! I can see what you're saying about the game vs/ IG, and if he reserves his units like that it could really reduce the amount of shooting he can put out, allowing even more of your units to arrive intact IMHO. That's the problem I'm finding is that many of the play-test games have had external influences, like weak lists or good rolling which can affect the feedback.
I agree though, I would love to hear about how it goes vs. the new 'dexs.
Thanks for the feedback!
On that note, IF ANYONE COULD PLAYTEST A GAME VS. A NEWER, MORE COMPETITIVE CODEX OR ENVIRONMENT, SUCH AS AGAINST GREY KNIGHTS/ SPACE WOLVES/ COMPETITIVE LISTS, THAT'D BE REALLY APPRECIATED. THANKS.
Yggdrasil wrote:
Just Dave wrote:I agree, it's really not a WAAC list! However, I'll take '7' on account of you being the 1st
respondent!
Well, what's wrong with it ? It has cheap Troops for holding objectives (Heretics & Daemons), some resilient Plague
Marines to carry the fight to the enemy, some mobile AT units (Termicide, melta bikers, Oblits), some anti-horde
stuff (Chaos Sorcerer w/ Nurgle's Rot - S4 might be a bit too powerful, btw?, Hellfire
Predator, Defiler)...
Is that because I didn't include the "mandatory" Lash Prince ?
Not quite that man! Heck, you couldn't really do that anyway! I think the problem with it from a WAAC perspective is that it's not too focussed and includes a bit of everything rather than specialising at all. It's a nice list, honestly, but I don't think it's the most competitive out there!
Nurgles Rot is Str4 as in it's current incarnation it's seen as a bit 'weak', whilst it's worth more now - i.e. it's effectively undergone a price increase - so I upped the strength to make it a bit better all-round.
Also the sneak peak doesn't show what's special with upgrading Warlocks for Spiritseer or Warseer. Should they deserve a specific statline ? Or specific gear / psychic powers / rules?
I am intrigued...
Such is the point of a sneak-peak Yggsie!
Amanax wrote:My biggest question, however, is: Dave, what, if anything, are you planning to do in order to balance Seer Councils in general? Are you going to move them more towards the deathstar unit they were before psychic defense became so abundant, or are you going to let them fall back to more of a force manipulator, or a mix of both?
Well, the Seer Council ultimately fulfils a role of both IMHO. The Farseer itself is a force-multiplier, however Warlocks are not unless leading a squad. If warlocks could affect units outside of their own they'd probably be a bit too good IMHO.
As you noticed, they pack more of a punch individually now, but a seer council would probably still form an anchor/heart type role within the force, as both a hard-unit/deathstar-light and a force-multiplier.
I don't think this role(s) is necessarily wrong IMHO, nor would it be an easy thing to change...
Well you officially have me curious Dave. I have often pondered on what will happen with the next codex to help fix the jumbled HQ choices and broken units of the currant dex.
Though, I find I have to ask, have you read Path of the Warrior and / or Path of the Seer, and if so, are they influencing any of the changes you'll be making for your Fandex?
that's good to hear man, these teasers were supposed to spark curiosity! Hopefully I my fandex will prove satisfactory at solving any qualms with the current 'dex...
I finished Path of the Seer just last night, and will probably re-read Path of the Warrior soon; so yes, I have read them!
As to any influence they may have, you have already glimpsed a few pieces of wargear inspired by the latest book - as well as the runes in general - whilst the Crystalline Armour (mentioned on the Autarch preview) linked to a brief mention - I'm not going to say what - of some fellows within Path of the Warrior. There you go, some fairly subtle hints for you!
Ultimately however, I don't think they've influenced me that much, or as much as I thought they would before I read them, although I was sure to pick them up for any additional insight and inspiration...
Thanks for the (great) question Amanax, cheers man!
LoneLictor wrote:I don't know why I didn't read this Codex before, but I have now and its great! Thank you for making it!
Cheers man, much appreciated!
Amanax wrote:Fair enough. Still can't wait.
Any ETA on when you will be getting the first draft completed? I'm ready to start test playing already
Ha! Well, all the units are pretty much done, so that leaves the wargear/special rules sections and going over all the units again (and again) before it's done; honestly, don't expect it within the month.
---------
Going to make a couple of Tzeentch-based changes: - Ahriman will no longer auto-cast, but will instead be able to re-roll a single D6 for any psychic test. As no-one else auto-casts and it may be too powerful.
- Inferno Bolts will (probably) not receive negative modifiers on the damage table for glancing hits. As Rubric Marines need a bit of a boost against tanks, but it still wouldn't affect anything more than AV10.
Samus_aran115 wrote:The biggest fault I'm finding with this codex is....
I can't find anyone who'll let me play them with it :*(
alabamaheretic wrote:samus i know what you mean none of tyhe regulars i play with will even consider iti might be able to hoodwoink some one with it eventually
Man, you guys have a rough crowd of gamers. I know myself and any of my friends would be cool with, well, just about anything so long as it was just a friendly game and it wasn't totally over the top. At one point we were even doing an ongoing campaign type thing where we were making our own characters based off of an experience gain system. Some of those ended up borderline overpowered, yet we still had fun.
Maybe look into hooking up with some other Dakkanauts through Vassal to get some games going? It's not perfect, but better than nothing.
I tried play testing the Land Raider Marauder yesterday.....unfortunately it got popped in the second shot of turn one and i didn't even get to move it!
The first shot of turn one killed my Brass Scorpion.....HORRIBLE game.
Looking over some of the comments above, I would be willing to test and play against this codex on vassal (so far I haven't found anyone to ask) but shoot me a PM sometime if you want a test game, and I would be happy to play you.
Vassal is a program designed for table top wargaming. You download vassal and the appropriate rules plugins, and you can play that game over the internet, or on your computer. Its kinda clunky, but it gets the job done.
For another preview of the upcoming Eldar Codex, could someone please pick me any number between 3 & 34 (including 3 & 34). One person who does this, alongside posting a 1850pts Chaos Space Marine army with the Icon of the Alpha Legion, will have their number chosen for the next preview. Ze 'closing date' is Friday (21st October).
Cheers! Dave.
--------
Also, I am also working on another project (again for proposed rules), titled Chapta Approved...
--------
Samus_aran115 wrote:The biggest fault I'm finding with this codex is....
I can't find anyone who'll let me play them with it :*(
alabamaheretic wrote:samus i know what you mean none of tyhe regulars i play with will even consider iti might be able to hoodwoink some one with it eventually
That is a bugger. Have you tried giving them a copy of the 'dex itself for them to look at and see it for themselves? You could always refer them to myself or the positive comments in my sig if they need convincing...
Praxiss wrote:I tried play testing the Land Raider Marauder yesterday.....unfortunately it got popped in the second shot of turn one and i didn't even get to move it!
Glad to see the play-testing went well! At the very least they surely liked your model!
Lord Magnus wrote:Looking over some of the comments above, I would be willing to test and play against this codex on vassal (so far I haven't found anyone to ask) but shoot me a PM sometime if you want a test game, and I would be happy to play you.
That'd be great! If you do so, please let me know how it goes! Cheers!
Soo about his thousand sons cant have bikers thing. I think it is kinda limiting in a unnessesary way. Your argument is that i doesent fit the fluff perfectly, but i still think that about 1k sons having bikers,
Just Dave wrote:It doesn't fit the fluff perfectly, I fully admit, but it doesn't exactly contradict it IMHO.
Wait... Where have I heard that before? And 1k sons also represent all tzench warbands, soo. There are also some others simlar limitations wich are a tad unnessesary and i think you should get rid of (OFC all limitarions like no khorne sorcerers arent bad) but some seem unecesary as they dont counterdict the fluff and build mostly on assumtions and the fact that there are no records about them.
Anyway, great fandex and i will defenetly play the Eldar ( but i cant play the chaos one scince i dont play chaos) fandex when it comes out!
For another preview of the upcoming Eldar Codex, could someone please pick me any number between 3 & 34 (including 3 & 34). One person who does this, alongside posting a 1850pts Chaos Space Marine army with the Icon of the Alpha Legion, will have their number chosen for the next preview. Ze 'closing date' is Friday (21st October).
Cheers! Dave.
MrTau wrote: Soo about his thousand sons cant have bikers thing. I think it is kinda limiting in a unnessesary way. Your argument is that i doesent fit the fluff perfectly, but i still think that about 1k sons having bikers,
Just Dave wrote:It doesn't fit the fluff perfectly, I fully admit, but it doesn't exactly contradict it IMHO.
Wait... Where have I heard that before? And 1k sons also represent all tzench warbands, soo. There are also some others simlar limitations wich are a tad unnessesary and i think you should get rid of (OFC all limitarions like no khorne sorcerers arent bad) but some seem unecesary as they dont counterdict the fluff and build mostly on assumtions and the fact that there are no records about them.
Anyway, great fandex and i will defenetly play the Eldar ( but i cant play the chaos one scince i dont play chaos) fandex when it comes out!
Thanks man, appreciated.
Regarding the Thousand Sons thing; a single unit-restriction was imposed upon all of the god-specific Legions in order to counter their otherwise more-numerous bonuses, that it restricts a single unit doesn't make it overwhelming IMHO, whilst these are also units that were infrequent in appearance anyways. Someone asked me about this before, asking "And why do the warbands have such arbitrary restrictions? No bikers for Tzeentch? No Vindicators for Slaanesh? Where's the fluff behind those, or did each legion just HAVE to have something they can't bring?", to which I responded: "Both. Have you ever heard of The Thousand Sons using Bikers? Can you imagine when they were taken from prospero by Tzeentch he took their bikes with them too? It's seemingly unheard of in the fluff and doesn't suit their playstyle.
Vindicators are a very blunt, crude instrument. Slaanesh and the Emperors children appear to prefer grace and flow; enjoying the pleasure and delicacy of an enemy being methodically picked apart, rather than smashed into pieces. Quite simply a Vindicator doesn't appear to suit Slaanesh or the Emperors Children. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong. "
I wasn't corrected. Ultimately, I believe the same answer applies for your query; it doesn't exactly limit them in gameplay, nor does it oppose the fluff. Think of all the retcons encountered with codices, this wouldn't even register on such a radar IMHO and I believe, that yes, it doesn't contradict the fluff, whilst it may or may not be a perfect fit...
So yes, that was my reasoning behind it; mainly for balance, but the change is very reasonable within the 40K background IMHO.
Just curious though Dave, I'm at work right now so I don't have your codex in front of me. Do you have an HQ that has infiltrate, or one that can be granted infiltrate through Alpha Legion sillyness? If so, a pure outflank army could be interesting.
That better man? Seriously though, I'm not disappointed, just informing you who your choice would be. Admittedly, there's not really anything new that can be shown off with the Hawks, but it's all the luck of the draw man!
Regarding Infiltrating Characters? No. There is not. There's several deepstriking options though or Steeds/Bikes/Jump Packs which could compensate...
Amanax wrote:Really? No answer for how to make hawks worth while? :(
I was looking forward to the hawks to see your answer for them.
Oh no, of course I'm intending to 'solve' the Hawks, but it's not necessarily going to be evident from that 1 page... Of course I'm hoping for every unit in the 'dex to be worthwhile.
Hurricane wrote:I'm posting my ultra spammy Alpha Legion list mainly because I don't want to see swooping hawks . Comes out to 1850 on the dot.
I will choose #3 since I want to see more about the HQ choices (hopefully they are near the front)
Aaah, put some thought into that one? Clever...
That is Phoenix Lords Page 1.
Ah now I feel bad heheh. I enjoy playing really spammy lists, so I decided to make another one that is more Alpha Legioney while maintaining a style of play I would enjoy. Same number as before though please.
Chaos Lord
--Icon of the Alpha Legion
--Alpha Lord
--Chaos Space Marine Bike
--Power Fist
--Chaos Armor
--Mark of Khorne
Chaos Bikersx9
--Meltagunx3
--Mark of Nurgle
--Aspiring Champion
--6 CC weapons instead of bolt pistols
Everything infiltrates as far forward as possible while maintaining cover and sticking to one side of the opponents army. Use Alpha Lord to reposition chosen based upon where I want to hit the enemy hard (It said chosen MAY be taken as a troop choice with infiltrate so I kept them as elites). I thought a giant CC force would be really fun to plow through the enemy. T6 bikers and a super killy lord sounds fun to me. Comes out to 1847.
Hurricane unfortunately your list is illegal, operatives may be taken with alpha legion warband but it does not override the fact they are auxiliaries. You must have 1 normal troop for each auxiliary fielded, so you could drop 3 operatives, move the chosen to troops, then add in some other stuff with the extra points.
Ah damn did not notice that. Well despite the contest ending, I'll make one more list and amend my previous post with it. Leaving home now so I can't update it, but I imagine that it may end up just taking away a single elite chosen unit and putting in three more chosen units instead of three operative units.
Latest teaser for my Upcoming Eldar Codex: The Phoenix Lords.
Enjoy!
----
Thanks for the input Hurricane & Amanax; I went with Hurricane's choice in the end. The Phoenix Lords are seeing a greater change than the Swooping Hawks and whilst I personally don't like spam, such a list is really quite helpful for trying to determine balance.
Cheers guys!
----
Heck, I've decided to include the Swooping Hawks too; enjoy enjoy!
As ever, this is all WiP and nothing is final; wording and points costs in particular are subject to change.
I love what I can make out for the phoenix lords. The fact you have incorporated an invulnerable save will give them a little more survivability, which is good, and the fact that they will at most only take one HQ slot means they might see a bit more use since they won't be competing quite as much with the Autarchs and Farseers.
The swooping hawks, from what I can tell, are having a complete overhall. While they will still be able to perform their pieplate drops, they will only be limited to at most, two drops per game. This will be traded out for their Mark of Guilt, and the use of their webway wargear. Depending on what exactly you do with those, it could very well be what they need to see some more use (Plus the point reduction helps too )
However! I must say, I am a bit saddened to see that the Phoenix Lords have lost their 2+ armour save, and am curious why you changed that? Also, have you considered making the Phoenix Lords not count against the FoC at all, like Techpriests from the IG codex?
It also means that people could potentially run 6 Phoenix Lords at 1500pts; that's frickin' cool! But as ever, in all likelihood wouldn't be competitive. I intend to keep them occupying a FOC slot though; that means people could still run them as the generals of their army, without having to have another model leading it.
I expected someone to comment on the loss of the 2+; the reasons are 3-fold: 1) 3+4++ is better. 2) 2+ doesn't really suit the Eldar IMHO; they don't have AV14 either and no Eldar units will have a 2+ save in my 'dex. 3) Ultimately, they can't have everything; I'm trying to give them a whole mass of improvements and if they lose 2+ in the process then so be it...
Regarding the 'hawks; they're not really having a complete overhaul IMHO; they're still supposed to fill the same roles, but hopefully that can actually manage it now! Skyleap will not 'be traded out' for Mark of Guilt or the Webway gear however; it will be an inherent, permanent ability for the Swooping Hawks.
The Eldar codex looks good, Just Dave, but out of interest, what page do I have to randomly pick in order to have a look at Lasblasters and Hawk Grenade Pack (Considering that Hawks are a weaker form of jump pack Dire Avengers without changes there)?
AlmightyWalrus: the rules as specifically written does have Banshees end up striking last when assaulting through terrain, but I'd peg anyone down to a neck-beard rules-lawyer if they tried arguing such to be how to play.
(Although the FAQ regarding "rules that seem to have no effect" is dubious to be applied in this case, and the use of benefit versus drawback is in common speech often interchangeable - and it's the sort of language GW uses to write rules.)
Walrus: Ze rules state it also negates an initiative bonus conferred by cover or grenades, so no grenades are needed.
Mahtamori: Thanks man, appeciated! You could just ask nicely for me to tell you the profile for the Lasblaster... The grenade pack is staying largely the same however.
Just Dave wrote:It also means that people could potentially run 6 Phoenix Lords at 1500pts; that's frickin' cool! But as ever, in all likelihood wouldn't be competitive. I intend to keep them occupying a FOC slot though; that means people could still run them as the generals of their army, without having to have another model leading it.
I expected someone to comment on the loss of the 2+; the reasons are 3-fold: 1) 3+4++ is better. 2) 2+ doesn't really suit the Eldar IMHO; they don't have AV14 either and no Eldar units will have a 2+ save in my 'dex. 3) Ultimately, they can't have everything; I'm trying to give them a whole mass of improvements and if they lose 2+ in the process then so be it...
Regarding the 'hawks; they're not really having a complete overhaul IMHO; they're still supposed to fill the same roles, but hopefully that can actually manage it now! Skyleap will not 'be traded out' for Mark of Guilt or the Webway gear however; it will be an inherent, permanent ability for the Swooping Hawks.
Hmm, while I agree that 2+ isn't really an Eldar thing, and they can't have everything, the Phoenix Lords should be an exception. Exarch armour is heavier than normal Aspect armour, and the Phoenix Lord armour is supposed to be heavier than Exarch armour. Their armour is also crafted from the time before the fall (as they were the first exarchs to be trained after the fall) so these guys are the best of the best. Is it completely out of the realm of the possible for the Eldar to have their greatest champions running in Grey Knight HQ equivalent armour. while still keeping their mobility? It's your codex, so if you disagree, so be it. I just think these guys with all they have done throughout the story could easily be seen with 2+ armour and a 4++ invuln, especially if you're paying 210 points a piece for them.
What I meant by trading out skyleap for Mark of Guilt or Webway gear, is that in the sneak peak you showed, skyleap is only usable once per game, so you have removed their ability to "yo-yo" though you have made it so they hop during the assault phase, so now they can shoot before leaping away, which is cool, even if a one time use. I was commenting on the "trade" of the yo-yo strat to something else in the form of their Mark of Guilt and webway gear, not literally trading skyleap. Sorry for being unclear
Or... Since the armour is ancient and of better quality than exarch armour, it could confer a 4++!
3+ is still a good save and still notable for the Eldar. A Phoenix Lord would be tougher than Ragnar Blackmane or your typical Captain/Chapter Master! So it's not exactly a change that leaves a Phoenix Lord vulnerable, particularly since they would almost always be escorted by a unit of aspect warriors too.
Hell, they're even tougher if I give them a resurrection-type ability.
I get you know Amanax! I was tempted to allow Skyleap to be used more than once, but I didn't want Swooping Hawks to be impossible to catch or to spend more time off the board than on it too!
-------
In other news, I considered a change for Lucius' Eternal Warrior; whereby if he was killed in close combat, the model that slew him would suffer a wound each successive turn (on a 4+ or failed Ld or automatically) and if they are killed by this, then they are replaced by a 1-wound Lucius. Therefore, more accurately displaying his resurrection. This would not affect vehicles or monstrous creatures however.
HOWEVER, I've decided against this as it's not really a fun rule for the opponent who either has their model killed by Lucius, or to turn into Lucius later on, making it a lose-lose situation and therefore not something I intend to include.
I don't know Dave. Make people think about how they are going to kill lucious
If you removed his eternal warrior and replaced it with that rule, I could see it being fair. The answer would be to shoot him up instead of just running head first and smashing your face against him until he dies. Means both sides would be playing a bit of cat and mouse with that model. Could be fun, and this is coming from someone who usually plays against chaos, not for them
Lucius' transformation is meant to take weeks though (at least the original one did), so it might be more accurate to have them taking a single wound representing Lucius' spirit latching on.
The problem there is, Amanax, that IMHO shooting up a 3-wound, T4 3+ character and his inevitable escort - so another 9 wounds? - and his transport isn't the easiest thing to do. Then there's the even greater problem of the armies that don't typically shoot; such as Orks, Tyranids, Daemons, Blood Angels and even Black Templars. Then, as Durza said, it's not that fluffy IMHO.
As such, I intend to keep him as Eternal Warrior, because he has/will be fighting for eternity...
It must be the people I play, because it seems the marines around here ALL tend to die to shooting, even against the less shooty armies. To each their own though.
I've considered it, however I decided against it, mainly for three reasons:
1) They'll rarely be used because a single powerfist attack isn't really that notable.
2) They'll rarely be used because no-one really wastes a turn trying to repair a vehicle it seems; look at techmarines for example.
3) They're not really needed IMHO; they would be only available to one Legion, to a small number of units/characters and have a limited impact in game whilst also being uncommon in fluff.
As I said, I considered it, but decided against it, mainly for the above reasons. Ultimately, Daemonic Mutation, Unholy Strength or a simple Powerfist would be an appropriate counts-as IMHO...
1) Expand the marks so that they allow some specialization amongst the units, examples:
Units with mark of Khorne can turn close combat weapons into chain axes for 1 or 2 points. Units with mark of Slaanesh can change their bolters for sonic blasters for 3 points and autocannons for blastmaster for 5 points. That way a slaanesh force can have blastmaster havoks and khorne can have chainaxe bikers; and so on.
2) Is there some concern that simply taking the daemons from codex daemons would be overpowering? I would consider an unaligned greater and lesser daemon entry that would allow for modification - options that can be purchased. And permit marked units to have their own god’s daemons taken from codex chaos daemons.
3) Bring back chaos cultists, beastman, mutants, zombies ect. Floods of deranged chaos followers herded towards the enemy were once a huge part of the chaos MO - I think it should be brought back.
4) Here’s a radical thought, how about removing fearless from the cult units and dropping their price? I was going to suggestion that units like bikers and havoks taken in a cult army could purchase fearless. So that a EC army wouldn’t be in a situation were they have fearless troops but heavies and fast units that will break and run - even though they are from the same legion. But it seems just taking fearlessness out of the equation is a more sensible solution to me.
sorry if any of this is redundant I skimmed the 23 pages of commentary.
As ever, all feedback, play-testing and comments are welcome. Cheers!
Grunt13 wrote:Really nice.
Some things to consider:
1) Expand the marks so that they allow some specialization amongst the units, examples:
Units with mark of Khorne can turn close combat weapons into chain axes for 1 or 2 points. Units with mark of Slaanesh can change their bolters for sonic blasters for 3 points and autocannons for blastmaster for 5 points. That way a slaanesh force can have blastmaster havoks and khorne can have chainaxe bikers; and so on.
Well, Slaanesh CAN have Blastmaster Havocs and Chosen can take Chainaxes. I didn't want to do this too much, as I fear it can become over-complicated, saturated with unnecessary options and even lessen the role of the cult units.
2) Is there some concern that simply taking the daemons from codex daemons would be overpowering? I would consider an unaligned greater and lesser daemon entry that would allow for modification - options that can be purchased. And permit marked units to have their own god’s daemons taken from codex chaos daemons.
Yes, this was a massive concern, as I detailed in the 'why' section of the Codex, which I've copied and pasted here for ease, which basically explains my reasoning behind how I constructed the daemons section:
Daemons were one of the biggest hurdles I came across doing this. Whilst it would make sense to copy the entries from the Chaos Daemons Codex, I believe this would make them far too powerful. I feel the balancing factors for the Daemons Codex is that they have to weather a turn of shooting and their arrival can be hindered via deep-strike defences such as tightly packed units; both these factors wouldn’t be present with the Chaos Space Marine method of summoning. Similarly, Greater Daemons also have to weather a turn of firepower, and can take wings, however within the current Chaos Codex, a balancing factor for greater Daemons is their lack of manoeuvrability; which would therefore be countered by wings and well as being able to assault on the turn they’re summoned. Hence they have received a Marks system, which provides character, increases options and fits with the rest of the Codex.
3) Bring back chaos cultists, beastman, mutants, zombies ect. Floods of deranged chaos followers herded towards the enemy were once a huge part of the chaos MO - I think it should be brought back.
I hope Heretics can represent a wide range of Chaos followers; being ranged like a standard guardsman or close combat like beastmen/cultists/mutants etc. too. I did originally include Zombies, but they're fairly infrequent in the fluff it seems and would occupying another FoC despite being an auxiliary, expendable unit for a single Legion, they're also quite awkward to balance.
I completely agree with what you're saying, but hopefully Heretics/Lesser Daemons/Operatives can represent these chaotic followers with fairly stream-lined ease, without diluting the Space Marine aspect of the Codex.
Personally, the only ones from the list there that I feel would be poorly represented here are the zombies and to an extent, mutants. I would hope the Heretics are quite flexible and suitable for the roles you mention...
4) Here’s a radical thought, how about removing fearless from the cult units and dropping their price? I was going to suggestion that units like bikers and havoks taken in a cult army could purchase fearless. So that a EC army wouldn’t be in a situation were they have fearless troops but heavies and fast units that will break and run - even though they are from the same legion. But it seems just taking fearlessness out of the equation is a more sensible solution to me.
sorry if any of this is redundant I skimmed the 23 pages of commentary.
It's OK, I can't say I blame you! The 'why' section may have cleared up some concerns though...
I'm not sure why Cult Units shouldn't be fearless to be honest; they're the best of the best really and fully dedicated to malevolent, chaotic and frankly evil beings, I would've thought fearless is pretty appropriate. As for using this to drop their cost; I have actually made all Cult units 23pts to increase their elite characteristic and prevent them being an auto-include instead of the 'basic' Chaos Space Marine, who should remain the typical core unit IMHO...
Just Dave wrote:Well, Slaanesh CAN have Blastmaster Havocs and Chosen can take Chainaxes. I didn't want to do this too much, as I fear it can become over-complicated, saturated with unnecessary options and even lessen the role of the cult units.
I am not seeing a rule in the v2.6 codex saying that there can be a unit that has multiple blastmasters. The noise marine entry says only one per squad and the havoc entry lacks a blastmaster option - If you removed the one per squad restriction it would effectively allow a noise marine unit to become a blastmaster havoc unit I mentioned. Also EC had terminators, bikers, vehicles, ID, and etc; all could upgrade to sonic weaponry at one time. It would be fairly easy using your warband rules to put a line under Icon of EC that stated “bolters and twin linked bolters may be exchanged for sonic blasters for 5 points and autocannons can be exchanged for blastmasters for 10 points (just making up values here)”. But I understand if you want to keep it simple.
One last concern on my part; I don’t think the sonic blaster should be the standard armament for noise marines. I would start them off with bolters and allow them to upgrade to the sonic blasters same way as dark eldar true born can upgrade to splinter carbines. Reason: A lot of people, like myself, have EC armies with bolter equipped noise marines. IIRC the box set even sells the unit with only one sonic blaster. It could be a harlequin kiss like situation for these armies that possessing one in the squads means they all count as having it, but because it was an upgrade optional weapon there are going to be armies with noise marines that do not possess any models with sonic blasters that will be adversely effected by their forced inclusion.
Either way I going to do out an army list for my EC under your rules - Its not like I could use my four blastmasters havoc squad under the current GWS codex anyway.
That's strange... I'd swear I had included a rule where Havocs with the Icon of the Emperors Children could replace their Autocannon for a Blastmaster for 10pts. Odd...
I'll see about adding that back in.
The idea of more wide-spread sonic blasters is nice, but is complicated in lessening the role of Noise Marines, that they're seemingly uncommon in fluff and most of all, a similar option would be needed for other warbands, which is a tricky implementation. I'll certainly think about it (for Autocannons & TL Bolters largely), but I really wouldn't hold your breath tbh, but as I said, I'll consider it man!
I'm not sure why Sonic Blasters SHOULDN'T be the standard armament for Noise Marines to be honest. It's their iconic weapon and ultimately, I cannot see why you wouldn't take them in this 'dex; they're better than a boltgun and a Noise Marine isn't really worth it without, unless you're just buying them for the 1 blastmaster... I would imagine the vast majority of people would have Sonic Blasters on their NM's, whilst they could otherwise just be used as a normal CSM if they don't. It'd be a very small loss in the grand-scheme of things, particularly if compared to something like the loss of Stormtroopers in GK's for example.
Honestly, I just don't see why it wouldn't be the standard armament, for fluff and game reasons. I don't think that many people would really be affected by the change, or unable to perform a weapon swap/move them to CSM...
Thanks though man, appreciate the feedback. Hopefully you can understand my reasoning rather than think I'm just rejecting other opinions.
Fluff wise not all the EC marines are equipped with sonic weapons. The sonic blasters are a weapon that Slaanesh marines use, but not exclusively. They didn’t throw out their bolters: in the HH book Fulgrin, the majority of the chapter keeps their bolters and only the marines that were particularly moved to that type of weaponry embraced the sonic blaster and blastmasters. Typical marine weaponry remained in the legion. Based on previous sources all EC are noise marines in the sense that they are fearless and have the mark of slaanesh and the option to equipped with sonic blasters, but many of those marines; in fact the majority of the chapter, stuck with their bolters.
Solutions to this issue that could work with your codex:
1) Allowing EC non-Noise marine units to upgrade their bolters to sonic blasters and autocannons to blastmasters and buy Doom Sirens for their champions. Which would create a situation where noise marine weaponry could exist in the unit while allowing some marines to keep their bolters. In this case the Noise Marine could remain sonic blaster exclusive, fearless units and Slaanesh EC marines could have some sonic weaponry.
2) Allow the Noise Marine entry to have a mix of bolters and sonic blasters like previous rules.
3) Say that one sonic blaster in the unit represents that all bolter armed marines have sonic blasters. - this will still cause problems with some armies.
4) Tell many players their armies are no longer valid under your codex.
I like option 1. It allows EC players to have a mix of sonic weaponry in their army while avoiding the issue of why their troops are fearless, but their terminators, bikers, and heavies are not. One of my issues is that EC with sonic blasters are fearless but EC with other equipment are not - this creates a logic inconsistency that irks me - having a gun makes you fearless, switch it with another weapon and you lose your fearlessness. Under option 1, Noise marines remain are a pure force of dedicated fearless marines while other forces in the EC have access to noise marines weaponry and enough sense to run from battle every now and then. Which seems to work with the fluff.
In second edition noise marines were able to generate anti-psych discord with their instruments. Just mentioning this if you are considering selecting option 1 but worried about removing the usefulness/uniqueness of pure noise marines.
I can see how heretics are able to be used for an array of different roles like traitor guard, cultist, beastman. Here’s a suggestion in the line of that thought. Instead of giving them the scout universal rules allow the heretic squad to pick one of three options:
1) Scouts
2) Furious Charge
3) Fearless and rage
Option one allows the heretics to represent traitor guard, spies, or chaos loyalist turning against their planet. Option two represents beastmen, mutants, other form of enhanced warrior. Option three represents the stereotypical crazed chaos cultists who are driven towards the enemy.
Only one small suggestion in that I would let Khorne Bezerkers and Kharne take flamers. There is a the story of Kharne grabbing a flamer and letting loose on his own legion (and the Emperors Children) I think that would be cool and in character. Just a small idea
Only one small suggestion in that I would let Khorne Bezerkers and Kharne take flamers. There is a the story of Kharne grabbing a flamer and letting loose on his own legion (and the Emperors Children) I think that would be cool and in character. Just a small idea
The only thing that has struck me as overpowered is the needle-weapon of fabius bile. I think AP3 is not fitting for this weapontype, while everything else (12", Assault 3, Poison 4+, ID inflicting) seems okay to me. Maybe AP5?
The rest of the codex seems to be okay to me, maybe I get my csm-pals to test this kind of dex for our internal games so they can get the fun out of their armies back again.
MrTau wrote:@Grunt13 standard CSM can represent EC without Noise wepons scince noise marines are ECs elite soldiers.
Not really, take a look at the link in my last post. There are four Slaanesh armies on DakkaDakka. The last entry uses is a theme army with sisters of battle as normal CSM and contains berserkers - so it really isn’t a Slaanesh army in game play, but in background. Out of the other three armies presented, all three are invalid under the codex’s rules; that’s a pretty big deal. And, like I said before the Emperor’s Children box set came with only one sonic blaster - that should be a pretty big indicator that requiring a sonic blaster exclusive unit is a bit much to impose on Slaanesh players. This wouldn’t be a problem if ECCSM could have noise marine weaponry, like I suggested.
In my experiences if you have noise marines, chances are you have a slaanesh themed force - this codex is taking a hammer to those armies. My suggestion permits JustDave’s noise marines to exist as they are; but allows EC marines to take noise marine weaponry effectivity preventing that from happening. It is just basically one more step from what the codex already grants - dreadnaught and defilers can take noise weaponry and JustDave stated that he intended to have havoc’s be able to take Blastmasters. The codex basically gives Slaanesh armies what they been requesting from GWS for years in a Chapter Approved Legions, but then takes away their armies. It’s like gifting a cowboy with a much needed saddle, but then stealing his horse. I also believe that it would be suitable to have similar change effect the Khorne armies allowing WECSM to exchange their bolters for chainaxes which would address the flamer issue without altering the current berserkers.
In those armies berserkers would keep their special rules that remove them from the normal marines with their weaponry, but allows for theme armies to exist. Only their legion would be effected under the Warband rules which would would prevent confusion from having sonic weapons CSM standing next to Deathguard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is basically what I am suggesting:
Under the Icon of Emperor’s Children
Any unit with the mark of slaanesh can exchange have its models exchange their boltguns for sonic blasters for 5 points, twin linked bolters for sonic blasters for 3 points, or their autocannons for blastmasters for 10 points. Aspiring champions, lords, sorcerers, and daemon prices can take doom siren for 15 points.
Under the Icon of World Eaters.
Any non vehicle unit with the mark of Khorne can exchange their bolter for a chainaxe for free.
Only one small suggestion in that I would let Khorne Bezerkers and Kharne take flamers. There is a the story of Kharne grabbing a flamer and letting loose on his own legion (and the Emperors Children) I think that would be cool and in character. Just a small idea
Overall fantastic job!
Agree!
I have been considering allowing Khorne Bezerkers to take a hand flamer, so I will think about this a bit more I guess... I think it's worth noting however that Kharne picking up a flamer once in background doesn't really suggest it's a common trend for him, let alone the rest of the World Eaters, nonetheless, I'll probably add the option for hand flamers!
Hellgore wrote:The only thing that has struck me as overpowered is the needle-weapon of fabius bile. I think AP3 is not fitting for this weapontype, while everything else (12", Assault 3, Poison 4+, ID inflicting) seems okay to me. Maybe AP5?
The rest of the codex seems to be okay to me, maybe I get my csm-pals to test this kind of dex for our internal games so they can get the fun out of their armies back again.
Thanks Hellgore. It was originally AP4, however this really reduces the weapons potency. I can understand your concern, however as it is, it still only kills 1.25 MeQ's, which is not much AT ALL for a 12" weapon. At AP4 or less this then drops to 0.417 which is even less. Again, I fully understand your concern, but when you factor in the short range, not particularly impressive poison/4+ the weapon doesn't really have that much damage output (only marginally more than a Plasma Pistol).
--------
Gruntz:
I really think the gift-horse analogy is a baaaad metaphor. It's more like giving the horse a saddle but it being initially uncomfortable.
Something like completely removing the option for cultists (like Alpha Legion suffered from previously) is like taking the horse away. Same for Storm Troopers in Grey Knights.
I think claiming this makes your army invalid is a large stretch to be honest.
There are several solutions for your predicament with my current rules:
- Use them as Chaos Space Marines/Chosen/Havocs.
- Perform a weapon swap.
- Use them as counts-as.
- Stop using your bolter-marines for Noise Marines. I counted them in your army; you'd lose 6 marines. Six. All of whom could just do one of the above. Your army wouldn't be invalid.
The problem I see with your proposed changes are:
- I've never heard of Sonic Weapons being that widespread.
- Makes Noise Marines less unique.
- Means that ideally World Eaters, Death Guard and Thousand Sons all need similar options, which is difficult to implement. This would then make the warbands rule more complicated and favour god-dedicated armies.
- Replacing Bolters for chainaxes isn't really a difficult choice considering the World Eater preference for close combat.
- You speak like it was the actual Codex, if it was then it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the Noise Marines would get a new kit, with appropriate amounts of sonic weaponry.
- Allowing non Noise-Marine units to use Sonic Blasters doesn't change your Noise Marine units.
Part of my intentions with this Codex was to not force fluff upon the player and not restrict them, but to allow them to create characterful armies that can follow the fluff as stringently as they like, or not. I still believe this has been achieved and I don't think your proposed rules will change this to be completely honest.
Again, hopefully you can understand the problem here from a designers perspective and that I'm not refuting other peoples suggestions, but genuinely considering them and whether they should and/or can be implemented within reason.
Just Dave wrote: Gruntz: I really think the gift-horse analogy is a baaaad metaphor. It's more like giving the horse a saddle but it being initially uncomfortable. Something like completely removing the option for cultists (like Alpha Legion suffered from previously) is like taking the horse away. Same for Storm Troopers in Grey Knights. I think claiming this makes your army invalid is a large stretch to be honest.
The problem I see with your proposed changes are: - I've never heard of Sonic Weapons being that widespread. - Makes Noise Marines less unique. - Means that ideally World Eaters, Death Guard and Thousand Sons all need similar options, which is difficult to implement. This would then make the warbands rule more complicated and favour god-dedicated armies. - Replacing Bolters for chainaxes isn't really a difficult choice considering the World Eater preference for close combat. - You speak like it was the actual Codex, if it was then it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the Noise Marines would get a new kit, with appropriate amounts of sonic weaponry. - Allowing non Noise-Marine units to use Sonic Blasters doesn't change your Noise Marine units. [/b]
My suggestions for the EC and WE were represented in the 3.5 edition codex. see below. And in a pre-CA ruleset released in white dwarf.
From a slaanesh player allow me to expand upon the horse metaphor for clarity. Once upon a time there existed a CA listing which permitted an EC list I have described. The pre-CA rules for all the Legions released in white dwarf included the world eaters, deathguard and thousand sons. The EC list had the options that I have been pushing, world eaters also had their chainaxes IIRC. This was under the really old 3th edition chaos codex.
When the 3.5 rules came out EC players created their armies with noise weapon equipped havocs, vehicles, bikes, terminators, and characters. Then the new 4th codex came out which threw out all the legion rules and crammed all the legions back into one codex. Some EC players were forced into a situation where they have vehicles, heavies, fast and HQ that with weapons that they can’t have. That is not a major problem as blastmasters became missile launchers when mounted on vehicles and so on and havocs, bikers and terminators, and etc that were once fearless noise marines lost their nerve and started being effected by ld test. The EC were brought back in the form of an Apocalypse datafax I posted above. The dakka slaanesh armies clearly displayed this - other units equipped with noise weaponry. So the EC army concept I am advocating spanned three generations of chaos codices, 3th, 3.5, and the current 4th edition codex. Getting their sonic weapons back for their peripheral units is a number one on Slaanesh marine players’ wishlist. This was the saddle I in which I was referring which you gave in the sense that vehicles, characters, and perhaps havocs can get some sonic weaponry in your codex.
The horse are the noise marines. Noise marines under their current and previous rules give a large degree of flexibly. Their fearless, high initiative, and access to a doom siren makes them decent assault units. But it is a waste if they are loaded up with sonic weaponry and better off firing than stuck in assault. There are assault armies that feature only a champion with a doom siren. On the other end their are units with the only the blastmaster, and than there are units with a careful mix for optimum tactical ability. Noise marines could be customize by deciding exactly how much sound weaponry their squad contained to suit both tactical and modeling tastes. If a player wanted every model in the unit to have a sonic blaster the player could make that squad, if the player wanted a squad with no noise weapons that option was available as well - as was everything between those two extremes. Forcing players to take sonic blasters just removes a wealth of options that were and are currently enjoyed by Slaanesh armies. A slaanesh player that would likely want to take blastmasters on their dreadnaught or havocs because it fits their slaanesh theme army like those I linked. The players want those options because it goes with their invalid noise marine armies; they get there saddle, but lose their horse.
My 2500 point army has 6 sonic blasters, 7 blastmasters, and 6 aspiring champions 4 of which have doom sirens - none of the champions have the required sonic blaster. So all my champions are out, then due to the amount of sonic blasters I go from an army of noise marines to a single unit without a champion. Lets say I take all my bolter marines and make them CSM. So now I have a heap of marines without special or heavy weapons because that role was previous held by the sonic weapons within their squads. Basically all EC marine players will be in the same exact situation as me.
Grunt, you need to work with me here, right now you don't appear to be IMHO. I've highlighted solutions to yours and others 'problems' - which can support the idea it doesn't need changing - and the difficulties with implementing army-wide sonic blasters like you suggest - which can conflict with the idea you propose:
Just Dave wrote:There are several solutions for your predicament with my current rules:
- Use them as Chaos Space Marines/Chosen/Havocs.
- Perform a weapon swap.
- Use them as counts-as.
- Stop using your bolter-marines for Noise Marines. I counted them in your army; you'd lose 6 marines. Six. All of whom could just do one of the above. Your army wouldn't be invalid.
- Edit: let me clarify, for WYSIWYG purposes, the CCW & BP marines are perfectly legal, which includes ALL of your champions. Hence, you would only 'lose' 6 marines.
The problem I see with your proposed changes are:
- I've never heard of Sonic Weapons being that widespread.
- Makes Noise Marines less unique.
- Means that ideally World Eaters, Death Guard and Thousand Sons all need similar options, which is difficult to implement. This would then make the warbands rule more complicated and favour god-dedicated armies.
- Replacing Bolters for chainaxes isn't really a difficult choice considering the World Eater preference for close combat.
- You speak like it was the actual Codex, if it was then it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the Noise Marines would get a new kit, with appropriate amounts of sonic weaponry.
- Allowing non Noise-Marine units to use Sonic Blasters doesn't change your Noise Marine units.
I am aware that this was in the 3.5 Codex (but not the 3rd or 4th!), I am aware of the apocalypse formation and you reminding me of them doesn't change the above circumstances. Despite what many may think, the 3.5 Codex was not perfect and it was limiting, overcomplicated or overpowered in several circumstances and I have no desires to emanate this Codex. Again, re-hashing your argument/belief doesn't work if you don't try to work with me and address the above (quoted) issues.
Grunt, couldn't you just make a single Noise Marine unit out of the ones with Blasters and use the others as normal Chaos Marine units? Whenever you take up a new codex, there's some adjustments that need to be made. If you're not willing to make them, you could just play a different codex. Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of a jerk, but I think the codex works great as is.
My storm trooper units still exist in the rules and I still play the squads I made for daemon hunters under IG; numerous squads and models (the clear majority in my case) depicted in the browser window are not permitted in your codex. Of the three EC armies displayed on dakka there are 15 noise marine units between them. Only 3 out of those 15 meet your requirements. So 80% of the units are going to require major revisions and probably remodeling to meet the demands of your codex - the players basically have to remake a whole new army. I am currently converting my radical daemon hunters over to IG; a process that doesn’t require me to modify my squads, state that my storm troopers count as another unit, or break off weapons. It looks like you are mandating the sonic blasters to justify the 23 point cost per noise marine to match the point values of the other cult marines. If that is the case, it seems bit arbitrary to expect people to perform major revisions on their armies just so the values line up. It would mean practically nothing to the codex to say the Noise marines are 20 points with bolter, but can upgrade to sonic blaster for 3 points - that that little bit of difference matters a lot to all EC players.
I first suggested was that noise marines were allowed to keep the options the EC armies enjoyed for that last three chaos codices. When you stated that you were dead set on keeping Noise marines sonic weapons exclusive, I made the suggestion that the ECCSM could exchange their weapons for noise weapons which would allow EC players to keep their armies intact at the cost of their fearlessness; something that would not effect the other 11 warbands’ use of NMs. That was a pretty big compromises on the part of Slaanesh players which has zero impact on any other warband other than EC. I just think the codex causes a completely unnecessary upset to EC armies.
Durza wrote:Grunt, couldn't you just make a single Noise Marine unit out of the ones with Blasters and use the others as normal Chaos Marine units? Whenever you take up a new codex, there's some adjustments that need to be made. If you're not willing to make them, you could just play a different codex. Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of a jerk, but I think the codex works great as is.
Those are my thoughts. First off, it's a fandex, you don't NEED to use it. If you have a problem with it, go use the one produced by GW. I'm sure it'll suit your needs well enough Also, I think Dave has done a god job trying his best to work with you, which is a hell of a lot more than GW does. So ease up. If your buddies are letting you use the fandex, I'm sure they wouldn't mind a whole six marines pretending to use sonic blasters. If you want to play an EC army still, and want to represent those guys that don't use sonic weapons, go go slaanesh marked CSM. Problem solved.
I don't really see how much of an upset it would be to EC armies to give them sonic weapons as standard, but then again, I've never seen the point of using Noise Marines without sonic weapons either.
Googling Noise Marine Squads achieves nothing, although many of the results are really nice looking and the vast majority of them are equipped with Sonic Weaponry it seems.
Gameplay-wise, I still see no reason why Noise Marines should take Bolters and I'm yet to be shown one if I'm honest. Non-gameplay-wise I'm sorry if you're unhappy with it and don't like the mandatory Sonic Blasters, I am, but it's a small sacrifice, one that has a relatively minor effect on modelling but fits with fluff and gameplay A LOT more IMHO.
As Durza said, every army faces changes with Codex revisions, heck you even have to change your entire Codex for your Storm Troopers (yet seem more concerned about weapon swaps on 6 NM's) and as Amanax said, this isn't forced.
Note: a Codex (e.g. to change your Storm Troopers to an IG) force costs £20, without any additions needed to make an army legal/good. A set of 6 Sonic Weapons costs £13 (which is ALL that would be needed here).
Again, I need you to work with me here; you are still repeating your argument without addressing the issues I keep raising with the idea, which again, I have quoted here:
Just Dave wrote:There are several solutions for your predicament with my current rules:
- Use them as Chaos Space Marines/Chosen/Havocs.
- Perform a weapon swap.
- Use them as counts-as.
- Stop using your bolter-marines for Noise Marines. I counted them in your army; you'd lose 6 marines. Six. All of whom could just do one of the above. Your army wouldn't be invalid.
- Edit: let me clarify, for WYSIWYG purposes, the CCW & BP marines are perfectly legal, which includes ALL of your champions. Hence, you would only 'lose' 6 marines.
The problem I see with your proposed changes are:
- I've never heard of Sonic Weapons being that widespread.
- Makes Noise Marines less unique.
- Means that ideally World Eaters, Death Guard and Thousand Sons all need similar options, which is difficult to implement. This would then make the warbands rule more complicated and favour god-dedicated armies.
- Replacing Bolters for chainaxes isn't really a difficult choice considering the World Eater preference for close combat.
- You speak like it was the actual Codex, if it was then it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the Noise Marines would get a new kit, with appropriate amounts of sonic weaponry.
- Allowing non Noise-Marine units to use Sonic Blasters doesn't change your Noise Marine units.
I have never said that I am dead set on keeping Noise Marines Sonic Weapons exclusive, I have simply said (and still do so) that I see little (that little being modelling) reason why they shouldn't and you keep arguing the same point rather than address this or the other issues I've raised. I repeatedly say I'm not refuting your opinion and I welcome all feedback, but again, I need you to work with me here; reiterating your complaint doesn't change it without addressing the issues I keep raising.
Honestly, I'm trying to be very patient here and I have a lot of other things to do, and I AM willing to listen to your opinion, but I need you to work with me and address the issues I raise, not just your own.
Some time in the near future GWS releases 6th edition rulebook and a 6th edition codex space marine soon follows. The space marine codex is appealing to the masses because it better handles the new edition and resolves some issues that were long standing complaints about the 5th edition codex; scout marines can now take specialist weaponry and imperial guard can fight along marines, and each primary chapter are given specialized rules. One issue of strong concern was that in the new codex space marines squads lost the ability to take flamers and multi-meltas. A group of marine players brought this issue to a GWS representative:
Space Marine Player: Listen, we have some concern that our marine squads are not allowed to have multi-meltas or flamers anymore.
GWS: Flamers, multi-meltas, why would you want them? Plasma rifles and lascannons are much better options.
Space Marine Player: Well, it is just that many of us use them in our squads and we don’t know why that option was taken away from us. Many salamander marine players were heavily encouraged in the past to take these weapons via background fluff and our armies are heavily based on this theme.
GWS: Those weapons are completely inferior to the other options available to the marines. This is only a minor change that is for the best of the new codex and most people won’t be effected.
Space Marine Player: Well I know I field six squads of marines with flamers and multi-meltas. In fact my entire army is kind of heavily reliant on those squads - in appearance, my established background, and the way I conduct it in a game.
GWS: So say the multi-meltas are lascannons and the flamers are plasma rifles problem solved.
Space Marine Player: That really doesn’t appeal to me, I like playing WYSIWYG.
GWS: So do a weapon swap, I don’t see why this is so difficult for you.
Space Marine Player: Well I like my models the way I made them. And that doesn’t address the fact that I don’t want to change my flamers to plasma rifles. I always had the option of taking a plasma rifle and went with the flamer. This change is really messing with my current army and the armies of other marine players.
GWS: Why are you making such a big deal over six models, so what if you can’t have flamer armed marines anymore? Just work with us here. Put the multi-melta marines into two devastator squads problem solved.
Space Marine Player: That’s not really the point. I created my Salamander army so the units could to operate together on the table, my squads were outfitted with their equipment for a reason with the entire army in mind. I, as well as other space marine players, kinda want to know why we can’t do this anymore.
GWS: Just work with us, the changes of a new codex can upset some armies, adapting to those changes is just part of the progress. If you need to have the flamer models just use them as scouts. One of the changes we made in the new codex is that we gave marine scouts the ability to take flamers - Just put your flamer armed models in scout units.
Space Marine Player: Well first off I don’t have scouts and I don’t really want to play them. My flamer models are space marines, I want to use them in my space marine squads.
GWS: You are making a big deal about nothing, this codex is far better than the 5th edition codex and resolves many issues that 6th edition introduces.
Space Marine Player: This really isn’t about the codex as a whole, its just that this one change has a very big negative impact on our armies and it seems really easy to fix. If you don’t want to impact the dark angels, templars, and white scar armies, and all the rest of the chapters why not just make a small rule so the salamander chapter squads can switch out their plasma rifles for flamers for 5 points and their heavy bolters for multi-meltas for 10 points; that is a compromise that allows there players who really want those weapons to keep them in their army and not impact the other chapters in anyway.
GWS: Just work with us here.
Space Marine Player: Look all we are really asking for is that under space marines you give the option for them to purchase multi-meltas and flamers. These were options in the last codices and it is very much established in the fluff that marine squads are armed with flamers and multi-meltas - We really don’t see why these weapons were taken from us. And we really don’t see why it is such a big deal that space marines squads be allowed to have flamers and multi-meltas.
GWS: Come on who really uses marines with flamers. Just change your army to match the new codex. Or play counts as, or do a weapon swap, why are you being so difficult here? Codices change all the time; Grey Knights can’t have stormtroopers anymore, that’s a much bigger change than taking away your flamers and like we said before just put all your multi-meltas into devastators or use them as lascannons. See all these solutions we thought of for this issue? How about some compromise on your part?
Space Marine Player: Listen, my army is constructed the way I like it. My army composition is based on my tactical approach and based heavily on well established fluff as a theme army. These changes you keep advocating might allow me keep my miniatures on the table but it completely alters my army’s appearance, forces me to use units I have no desire to play, and completely changes how my army will operate in a game. Many if not most marine armies are hurt by this change; in fact I just ran a poll and 80% of all the salamander marine squads have either a flamer or multi-melta, all these units are no longer permitted in the new codex. The marine kits are sold with flamers - the picture of the box art even depicts a marine model equipped with a flamer. There doesn’t seem to be any point in depriving the marines of this weapon - which has always been consider a basic armament for them.
GWS: We already gave you many options on how to resolve your problem and we might get get around to changing the kit.
Space Marine Player: Look perhaps if you were to explain why we can’t have flamers or multi-meltas in our squads. All you did was remove an option. Who does it hurt that we can use these weapons? In what way is this new codex negatively effected by our marines keeping their weaponry? In short what is your justification for telling us that we have to change our armies to this new paradigm of flamerless, multi-meltaless marines? Where is the benefit in this change?
GWS: You’re really not listening to us here, we really can’t go on like this with you ignoring our points. It’s only six marines after all.
Space Marine Player: Well I guess I said as much as I possible can be said regarding this issue. Looks like I am going to stick to playing the 5th edition codex or the salamander datafax until the 6.5 codex comes out.
orz192 wrote:@JustDave
Could you make a new thread for your Codex Eldar?
Thanks
Yeah, don't worry man, I will do when it's closer to release as it were of course. As it is, I'm just dropping a few teasers in here (and people are welcome to ask questions about it) and then when the Codex is closer to 'release' I'll create a new thread for it.
------------
Grunt, again, don't reply in some obtuse manner that doesn't address the issues I raise.
Some hypothetical example isn't the point in question, things like that make assumptions about my viewpoint and reasoning (akin to 'strawman' arguments), whereas you could simply address the issues I raised rather than indirectly avoid them.
I have repeatedly raised issues with the idea you propose (which, again, I have quoted here) and you haven't addressed them.
Spoiler:
The problem I see with your proposed changes are:
- I've never heard of Sonic Weapons being that widespread.
- Makes Noise Marines less unique.
- Means that ideally World Eaters, Death Guard and Thousand Sons all need similar options, which is difficult to implement. This would then make the warbands rule more complicated and favour god-dedicated armies.
- Replacing Bolters for chainaxes isn't really a difficult choice considering the World Eater preference for close combat.
- You speak like it was the actual Codex, if it was then it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the Noise Marines would get a new kit, with appropriate amounts of sonic weaponry.
- Allowing non Noise-Marine units to use Sonic Blasters doesn't change your Noise Marine units.
You almost addressed the modelling solutions I raised just now, but are still yet to comment on things from my, the developers, perspective and frankly, I've considered your viewpoint and have apologised for your issues and I've pointed out why I'm reluctant to change it, but considered doing so. And this is what I get as a response?
Finally, you say:
Grunt13 wrote: Look perhaps if you were to explain why we can’t have flamers or multi-meltas in our squads.
I have.
I've just spent most of the day working and am now going to attend to the upcoming Eldar Codex, what you're saying isn't beneficial to me, you or solving the solution you've raised. If you want me to change this Codex like you describe, then you need to address the issues I raise rather than just your own.
Grunt, no flamers or multimeltas is a big change of playstyle and strongly counters the fluff of salamanders. I would complain about that. But noise wepons as a standard wepon is a good change because then you dont have to mix wepons in a squad. Instead of having Noise Marines - [mixed mepon type] you can have Noise Marines - [Sonic Weponry] and Chosen w/ mark of Slaanesh (count as Noise Marines) - [Bolters] wich is more comfortable gamewise and fits the fluff ok. And as kenshin620 pointed out its a FanDex and not in any way official. Just make your own change to it.
Latest Version of the Codex is up in the opening post.
A few changes are included:
- Ahriman no longer auto-casts, but may re-roll any D6 for a psychic test.
- Inferno Bolts don't receive negative modifiers for glancing hits.
- Khorne Bezerkers may take 2 flamers for 5pts.
- Any Havoc Unit within an Emperors Children warband may replace their Warp Cannon with a Blast Master for free.
-----------
As ever, all feedback, comments and constructive criticism are welcome.
VERY well written. Simply brilliant stuff here! Love the special rules, like Death Guardian, Serpents Head, that really bring out the character of the legions with their unique special rules.
Sqallum
Thanks guys, I really appreciate the kind words! I'm glad you like it. Thanks!
VIth Legion, the twin-linked Bolter option was removed, both as an oversight and then in retrospect, no-one really took them (particularly compared to some other options) as it was anyway. May I ask if you used them?
I hope so! while i think theres too many chaos icons available and some of the lords choices of equipment gets quite heavy... I will say the CSM dex needs a bit of an overhaul or at least point adjustments.
I will never take Noise marines, their far too expensive.
i will never take Tzneetch marines, far too expensive.
I will always take khorne berzerkers, their my best CC.
I will always take plague marines, their my best ranged.
CSM are iffy, they just die the moment they see something coming at them.
I've read the new Dark Eldar Codex, and the new Necron Codex, and I play with a lot of Orkz and Space Marine players and I feel they get some really neat things, very cool things.. that do not cost very much. Every Chaos HQ is very expensive and often does not benefit his unit what so ever.
I love everything about chaos but I'll say I feel to be competitive I can't be anything but a Demon Prince, or Khorne/Plague marines. Forget trying to shoot things, with thunderfury cannons, plasma cannon devestators, HQ's that can best me in CC and get orbital bombardments and blood talons mess me up. I know we have older versions of the loyalists gear.. But wheres my plague dreadnaught? noise-a-naught?
I'm going to assume that you're talking about Dave's codex here, decoste. As such I will point out:
Noise Marines are actually two points cheaper than in the other dex. They also out-shoot Plague Marines.
The Thousand Sons have a 8/9 success rate against anything which doesn't ignore their armour. And a Sorcerer.
CSM are pretty versatile and will only die if the thing coming at them is GK or something.
I'm talking about this Codex vs the actual CSM codex. When i saw blast masters I got excited =) Things that make chaos feel more chaotic... cult dreadnoughts =) And Noise should outshoot plague marines anyday, their meatshield
thevirus wrote:So has GW contacted you yet to work on the new CSM codex?
Not YET...
Durza wrote:I'm going to assume that you're talking about Dave's codex here, decoste. As such I will point out:
Noise Marines are actually two points cheaper than in the other dex. They also out-shoot Plague Marines.
The Thousand Sons have a 8/9 success rate against anything which doesn't ignore their armour. And a Sorcerer.
CSM are pretty versatile and will only die if the thing coming at them is GK or something.
Dreadnoughts can be equipped with Blastmasters.
Cheers for the response Durze, appreciate it man!
-----------
The PDF Codex has been updated to include a Twin-linked Boltgun option for HQ's and Aspiring Champions.
The Eldar Codex is also coming along very well, with lots of progress being made recently. My prediction for it being out before December should stand true...
The Eldar Codex is also coming along very well, with lots of progress being made recently. My prediction for it being out before December should stand true...
Oh yeah, it's almost entirely finished. 99% of the army list is done, I've done most of the wargear etc. I've got to add special rules and equipment, but it should be done by December I hope.
I have created a thread (here) for my Eldar Codex. The Codex itself is not posted yet; for now they're just previews, so for those that have been keeping track it's nothing new.
However, it is confirmation that it is coming. Soon.
Which coincidentally, is what she said.
Before beginning I wanted to congratulate with you for your work and for the simplicity with which you have gone beyond to the last Codex, that was, still playable, but too much simple and sometimes out of BG. The edition 3.5 rules you have bought again in, by changing Army Choices, Equipment and Overall Army Rules, in only 59 pages give you the opportunity to represent and play all the Traitor\Renegade Legions\Forces, and to characterize them not only by painting but by rules, and in consequence of this, in style of play an overall strategies. So, again, compliments!
Of course there are some points I would like to discuss with you, because sometimes, writing a Fandex, the situation can slip off your hands and some units become too much powerful or unbalanced or simply out of BG. But, I repeat, should GW use your Codex as new CSM Codex, I would buy it immediately!!!
So here we go!
ICONS
Icon of the Black Legion: maybe you should choose one Veteran Skill only and for the entire battle, representing the Warlord choosing the most appropriate Veterans for the task.
Icon of the Iron Warriors: BS 5 bonus will still be good, counting that a Basilisk has a BS of 3 only!
Icon of the Nightlords: another idea for the Nightlord could be to give to Fast Attack choices Hit and Run USR.
Icon of the Renegade: I suggest only D3+1 Units should gain Scout USR, maybe stating that also their dedicated transports gain it.
Icon of the Death Guard: only 5+ Cover Save and still counting in Cover.
Icon of the Emperors Children: Fleet and Furious Charge together are a bit redundant, counting also that Slaneesh Marked models have +1 Initiative. So I suggest you to give them Fleet only.
UNITS
Special & Unique Characters: I think you made a great work here, not changing them too much and giving more Background flavor to them, like the Justaerin Spearhead for Abaddon, Icon of the Renegade for Huron, or the Duellist rule for Lucius. Also I liked very much the idea of Fabius Bile as an Elite choice and not HQ: this represents Fabius offering his allegiance and not being interested in command, very good!
Daemon Prince: even though fascinating, most of the opponent will oppose to your Fandex if you want to give a Daemon Weapon to a Daemon Prince. This could happen on the 1st Edition Realm of Chaos and The Lost and the Damned but it was a case (with the exception of the Bloodthirster, that had a Daemon Wp with another Bloodthirster inside it, and another, and another…) given by the D1000 roll table. I think that you did the most important thing by giving a brief selections of Gifts and special Mark traits to characterize more the Daemon Prince.
Chaos Terminators: maybe you should discard the option of giving them Daemonic Speed, which is really against their bulky nature. But very good the Stubborn USR!!!
Chaos Dreadnought: I too think that the Fire Frenzy rule (I mean the risk of you Dreddy firing twice on your units) adds an unpredictable taste to this unit. But this I Chaos! So I think the Dreadnought should still had this risk.
Chaos Dreadnought Magnate: maybe it is too much for it to ignore the first penetration each turn. It should be once per battle, maybe for 2 hits, one Penetrating and one Glancing.
Sorcerers Warcoven: why WS 5? Maybe BS 5, but even that I think that this Unit should be treated as a single Psyker, like the Grey Knights. So you may modify the models’ cost and the Psi-Power costs, and give the chance to still choose one power per model but giving the chance to cast only one-two (as they are marked by Tzeentch) per turn.
Plague Marines: by reading the BG and Apocalipse Heresy Data Sheets I think that was peculiar of this Legion to have 20 men squad, so I think this limit should be kept.
Berserkers: discard Counter-Attack USR in my opinion. They should gain it only by selecting the Icon of the World Eaters and Chief Slaughterer option and having that character within 6”.
Rubric Marines: same question that I made for Sorcerers Coven. For the Aspiring Sorcerer maybe better BS 5 rather than WS 5. And, I know, Relentless is better than Slow and Purposeful, but this latter adds the taste of an automaton, mindless unit at the command of the Aspiring Sorcerer.
Raptors: they could well be restored to the 3.5 Codex version and given the Hit and Run USR.
Chaos Spawn: I think they should remain Beasts and, as they are the negation of Daemonhood for a Chaos Champion, they should not have the Invulnerable Save: an increase to 4 Wounds should be enough to represent their resilience to damage. I understand that these Spawns do occupy a Fast Attack choice so their number could be increased (maybe exchanging this for the additional wound, keeping them to 3 W) to 1-8 (Chaos number!!!). Good the idea of the Marks option: they were champions, so should they hadn’t retained their former powers???
Obliterators: it is difficult here to be sure. You gave them the ability to morph two weapons and to fire with both. Of course if they morph the special TL weapons, they give up the chance to have a Power Fist in HtH, and this is good for a tactical choice of the players. But I think that they are already very powerful! Maybe they should be Cult Units and be limited to 0-1 in one army other than for the Iron Warriors, but still can say. In the way you propose, there will be always armies with the terrible combo 9-Oblis+2-Demon Lash Princes, very, too much, powerful!
Basilisk: this should be operated by traitor Guardsmen and retain a BS of 3, in my opinion.
Greater Daemon: I think that Fleet for the GD of Khorne is too much and out of BG (it’ more Slaneeshi), maybe you should give to all these daemons (maybe excluding Nurgle and Slaneesh) the option to purchase Wings, changing the cost.
PSI-POWERS
Doombolt: the increase to St 5 maybe doesn’t justify the AP2. I think better St 4 AP2 or St 5 AP3.
Wind of Chaos: this a powerful power and I think it should be kept as it is now.
Warp Flare: this justify what I told you about the Warcoven. They should be treated as a single Psyker mind, gaining more power through their number, and not having the chance to use one power per model.
WARGEAR & WEAPONS
Ether Cannon, Warp Cannon, Vomit Cannon, Warp Bomb and Open Topped: as these are new weapons and never descripted in the official BG, I think you should encourage players to make conversions to represent them, as a fixed and express RULE, never to be represented by saying “this counts as”.
Grenade Launcher: Krak profile should be the same as in the rest of the BG so with St 6.
Chain Axe: another idea is to make these axes Rending.
Daemon Weapons: no objections! More saying, a good Chaos Codex should include also a Daemonic\Chaos Property\Talents for its Daemonic Blades, like the one you find in the Codex Grey Knights: why Inquisitors can use that powers and Chaos Lords cannot????
Daemonic Steeds: the Khorne’s mount, the bulky Jugger, is too much heavy have Fleet and should remain as it is. The Disk of Tzeentch should also be considered as a Jet Bike in my opinion, and be given as an option to the entire Sorcerers Warcoven, resurrecting the old Disk Raiders of Tzeentch. Palanquine of Nurgle could gain Relentless, to represent the character sitting confortably and firing at will...
Daemonic Visage: another option for this Gift is to inflict -1 to enemies Morale\Ld.
Daemonic Speed: this could be interpreted in many ways. Another way is +1 I and Fleet, or Fleet and ignore terrains. It should be therefore stated that this ability could not be granted to Terminator armored models.
Just to let people know, an update to the Codex will soon be implemented, including two new units: A Drop Pod and this:
"When the towering walker first crashed through the rockcrete wall, we thought it was a Defiler – a fearsome enemy in itself – but, when the streams of energy began to dissipate from its armour, infused with the infernal colours of the warp, we knew it wasn’t a conventional Defiler.
It was then it opened fire, a wicked scream and blinding flash came from the monstrosity. Captain Brustein’s Command Chimera and the pair of Leman Russ beside it disappeared in a howling warp rift, as the energies of another, terrible dimension tore into the battlefield and swallowed the Company Command.
We quickly turned our guns onto the infernal construct, its armour withstanding a prolonged salvo of autocannons, missiles and lascannon, the monstrosity continuing to unleash salvos of missiles into the men. Finally, the thing gave way, its armour rent in several places and leaking the energy of the aether. But rather than collapsing to the ground, the monstrosity convulsed, before exploding, fracturing another warp tear into the world and swallowing a trio of Traitor Astartes."
Report on target designated ‘Warp Stalker’, post-action summary on the Battle of Callon City.
D.U. -M41.
Anglachel wrote:
Obliterators: it is difficult here to be sure. You gave them the ability to morph two weapons and to fire with both. Of course if they morph the special TL weapons, they give up the chance to have a Power Fist in HtH, and this is good for a tactical choice of the players. But I think that they are already very powerful! Maybe they should be Cult Units and be limited to 0-1 in one army other than for the Iron Warriors, but still can say. In the way you propose, there will be always armies with the terrible combo 9-Oblis+2-Demon Lash Princes, very, too much, powerful!
Basilisk: this should be operated by traitor Guardsmen and retain a BS of 3, in my opinion.
PSI-POWERS
Doombolt: the increase to St 5 maybe doesn’t justify the AP2. I think better St 4 AP2 or St 5 AP3.
Daemonic Steeds: the Khorne’s mount, the bulky Jugger, is too much heavy have Fleet and should remain as it is. The Disk of Tzeentch should also be considered as a Jet Bike in my opinion, and be given as an option to the entire Sorcerers Warcoven, resurrecting the old Disk Raiders of Tzeentch. Palanquine of Nurgle could gain Relentless, to represent the character sitting confortably and firing at will...
...official Chaos codex? "Too powerful"?
Basilisk: Hayll naw! Iron Warriors don't give big guns to weak mortals; we take the big guns FROM weak mortals and use them ourselves!
Doombolt: Too many termies and 2+ armor dudes running around compared to when the 'official' dex came out. Leave it AP2!
Daemonic Steeds: Assault units pretty much HAVE to have fleet in 5th ed. I don't use Khorne Lords on Steeds right now because of how slow they are!
Fluff for Deathrain, Warp Stalker and Open-topped Rhinos added.
Raptors up 5pts as their units base cost, gaining Move Through Cover (read AD-B's Night Lords series, for A) understanding of this and B) awesomeness) and gain the option for purchasing Hit and Run
Chaos Attack Bike added.
Move Through Cover added to the Infiltrate Veteran Skill, to reduce the kick in the teeth to Infiltrating Chosen.
[list]Rubric Marines changed to have a 5+ FNP, rather than re-roll armour saves; cost of Aspiring Sorcerer reduced to compensate and The Sorcerer Commands now includes Ahriman and Sorcerers. As someone pointed out to me, re-rollable 3+ was actually tougher than Plague Marines in most situations, whereas now they have an additional 5+ save under all ranged situations and their other bonuses.
Chaos Spawn charge range reduced, price upped 2pts each, but can embark in Dreathrains and Land Raiders.
Price of Heavy Bolters on Predator increased 5pts as...
... The Heavy Bolter has been slightly boosted. This change will also be implemented in my upcoming Space Marine Codex.
Defiler's have gained AV13 and the ability to fire other heavy weapons on top of their battle cannon, with a points increase to match.
And I think that's about it.
As ever, changes have been made to improve the experience for the player(s) and keep it characterful, changing things where needed to try and keep it a balanced Codex full of viable options.
As ever, all feedback is welcome.
I don't intend to make any more changes after this unless to fix any issues or to bring it in-line with 6th Edition.
All C&C is welcome.
Thanks!
P.S. Feel free to check out my Eldar Codex, which has also been largely well received, and keep an eye out for my Codex: Space Marines which will be finished within the next couple of months.
Basilisk: Hayll naw! Iron Warriors don't give big guns to weak mortals; we take the big guns FROM weak mortals and use them ourselves!
Doombolt: Too many termies and 2+ armor dudes running around compared to when the 'official' dex came out. Leave it AP2!
Daemonic Steeds: Assault units pretty much HAVE to have fleet in 5th ed. I don't use Khorne Lords on Steeds right now because of how slow they are!
You're pretty much in-line with my reasoning here Kepora, except that Doombolt is as it is, mainly due to the short range, requiring to-hit and how rarely Smite is taken, whilst Juggernaut's also loose Fleet in the likelihood of them being run within another unit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the current Codex Thousand Sons only have a 5++, rather than 4++.
Ultimately, in my 'dex, Rubric Marines gain the following for 8pts more than a standard CSM:
- Fearless
- Relentless
- Inferno Bolts
- 5+ Invulnerable Save
- 5+ FNP (against shooting)
- Relatively cheap Aspiring Sorcerer
Albeit with some disadvantages:
- Reliance on a/the Sorcerer
- Somewhat reduced mobility & cannot go-to-ground.
To me, this is a pretty fair deal, whilst separating them also from the likes of the other cult units and the Sorcerer can provide a lot of gameplay options; Enemy Leadership manipulation, anti-tank, improved manoeuvrability, anti-cover, increased firepower, close combat defence etc.
I think, finally, I'm pretty happy with Rubric Marines.
Just Dave wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the current Codex Thousand Sons only have a 5++, rather than 4++.
Ultimately, in my 'dex, Rubric Marines gain the following for 8pts more than a standard CSM:
- Fearless
- Relentless
- Inferno Bolts
- 5+ Invulnerable Save
- 5+ FNP (against shooting)
- Relatively cheap Aspiring Sorcerer
Albeit with some disadvantages:
- Reliance on a/the Sorcerer
- Somewhat reduced mobility & cannot go-to-ground.
To me, this is a pretty fair deal, whilst separating them also from the likes of the other cult units and the Sorcerer can provide a lot of gameplay options; Enemy Leadership manipulation, anti-tank, improved manoeuvrability, anti-cover, increased firepower, close combat defence etc.
I think, finally, I'm pretty happy with Rubric Marines.
Not taking sides here, but I thought I would point out that the current rendition of thousand sons have the following -
Slow & purposeful (Which includes relentless)
Fearless
4++ save
Inferno bolts
They still have a reliance on the sorcerer, or other IC, as without one they only roll 1d6 for Slow & Purposeful
They CAN go to ground, though not much reason to with that constant 4++ (I mean you could potentially gain that 3+ cover, but at a loss of firepower, so take your pick)
But the sorcerer is expensive (So are the sons) and no reliable anti-tank.
Lightning Shadows wrote: most special characters were boosted in cost for no apparent reason??
How many special characters in their existing Codex are actually used with any regularity?
Next to none it seems. Occasionally Kharn and occasionally Abaddon and that's about it.
All is Dust is a little overpowered
All is Dust itself isn't. Rubric Marines themselves could be.
I really like your codex for the CSM....it is really well tough and very well describe and the images add that bit of chaos rather that just plains words.....
things i like to point out...these is a first glance only just a quick look...
I think the dreadnought is to overpower for the point cost, these may be even better than a venerable dreadnought with the ability to fire twice in the shooting fase, either these rule should include the possibility of firing to your troops or allies nearest too you, or just eliminated.....i know is a bummer but chaos also implicates the risks and benefits..
the general tought that a codex allows you to view your army as different legions is a fantastic idea rather than just have a Hq that changes your especial rule like combat tactics for an other rule , lik in normal marines, but it can be a bit messy and confusing trying to coordinate your HQ's with your army since there are only 5 mayor cults leaders o chaos lords avalible abbadon,ahriman,kharn,lucious and typhus....but the idea is great to allow you to play as the legions where intended too, with ther special tactics and stuff, after all they where also space marines....
i will also review the psychic powers, as the standard issue in the original codex have been improved in yours......and that may have cause tha some of them are overpower, and they seem to bit a lot more options that in other codex, these allow flexibility yes but also produce overpower in units that cast psychic powers, i will suggest cutting some of the down...or introduce more buff/debuff ones
last and least and these is mi partially compromised selfish tough that Ahriman still lack's of what it best in him, casting shooting powers, ill just give him the chance that he can cast 2 the same power in the shooting fase and it can be the same shooting powers instead of 3 stadart powers breaking the general psychic rule, and maybe allow him to automatically pasts hes test..... that's it for now...ill add more later.....
Automatically Appended Next Post: I love the deathrain drop pod, but i will loose the melta charge special rule i think is to over power, instead i will try to balance the scattering rule, i think that +1D6'' for each unit that is a little bit too much ill just said it will add 1'' for each unit that survived wich is a lot.....
jakingo wrote:I really like your codex for the CSM....it is really well tough and very well describe and the images add that bit of chaos rather that just plains words.....
things i like to point out...these is a first glance only just a quick look...
the general tought that a codex allows you to view your army as different legions is a fantastic idea rather than just have a Hq that changes your especial rule like combat tactics for an other rule , lik in normal marines, but it can be a bit messy and confusing trying to coordinate your HQ's with your army since there are only 5 mayor cults leaders o chaos lords avalible abbadon,ahriman,kharn,lucious and typhus....but the idea is great to allow you to play as the legions where intended too, with ther special tactics and stuff, after all they where also space marines....
Hey, thanks man. I appreciate the kind words, thanks.
I will 'warn' you however, that I'm not longer looking for masses of suggestions as feedback; the Codex has been refined to about as far as it can be IMHO so you may wish to be 'conservative' with what you suggest as it were. It's a point I'm very happy with and is a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
That said, feedback is welcome as ever.
I think the dreadnought is to overpower for the point cost, these may be even better than a venerable dreadnought with the ability to fire twice in the shooting fase, either these rule should include the possibility of firing to your troops or allies nearest too you, or just eliminated.....i know is a bummer but chaos also implicates the risks and benefits..
I can understand you saying that, but IMHO it's still pretty well balanced, as what you loose in control you MAY gain in hitting power. So whilst Rage or Fire Frenzy may be a benefit depending on the circumstances, they can also be a hindrance as ultimately you loose control of the dreadnought. And I think we all know that something like that always happens at the worst possible time! Personally, I don't like the friendly fire aspect of Fire Frenzy; considering the dread hallucinates etc and is prone to firing at shadows etc. that he fires on his own troops seems odd and is a questionable game mechanic.
I've tried to keep a random element to many areas of this Codex, as i feel that befits chaos. But rather than this random-aspect potentially crippling you by sheer ill-luck, it can instead really help you or simply hinder. I feel this represents Chaos well and is a much more fun mechanic for the player.
i will also review the psychic powers, as the standard issue in the original codex have been improved in yours......and that may have cause tha some of them are overpower, and they seem to bit a lot more options that in other codex, these allow flexibility yes but also produce overpower in units that cast psychic powers, i will suggest cutting some of the down...or introduce more buff/debuff ones
Actually - and this is something I've considered a lot - I genuinely don't think the psychic powers are overpowered, except for potentially Winds of Chaos, which is likely going to be changed anyway.
In the current Codex, the only worthwhile powers are usually perceived as LoS, Warptime (pre-FAQ) and occasionally winds of chaos. As such, I've improved all powers except for LoS and Warptime and I really don't think any are overpowered, particularly if compared to recent Codices.
As I said, the only one I fear may be overpowered is Winds of Chaos, but then it has such a short range and can pale in comparison to the GK equivalent which requires an Initiative Test or flat-out removes from play!
last and least and these is mi partially compromised selfish tough that Ahriman still lack's of what it best in him, casting shooting powers, ill just give him the chance that he can cast 2 the same power in the shooting fase and it can be the same shooting powers instead of 3 stadart powers breaking the general psychic rule, and maybe allow him to automatically pasts hes test..... that's it for now...ill add more later.....
Ahriman can cast 2 powers in the shooting phase; Master Psyker states "These two Psychic powers may both be cast in the shooting phase – at the same target only – and can be the same power". Furthermore, with Sorcerers Tomes, this powers can be even further improved, so Ahriman is, as you would like, a psychic and shooting beast.
Originally he could auto-pass psychic tests, but that was a bit too much for my - and some others - liking, particularly with 3 powers a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I love the deathrain drop pod, but i will loose the melta charge special rule i think is to over power, instead i will try to balance the scattering rule, i think that +1D6'' for each unit that is a little bit too much ill just said it will add 1'' for each unit that survived wich is a lot.....
Thanks man, it's nice to have some feedback on the Deathrain!
To clarify, if enemy models remain alive under its template, then it scatters D6" (+1" for each surviving model), which combined with the inability to mishap, means it's still fairly reliable.
I don't think Melta Charges are overpowered to be honest, as the enemy will have at least a turn to flee from any models that disembark, whilst they also suffer from the restrictions associated with grenades.
Personally, I feel if anything that the Deathrain is over-costed; as once it lands, it no longer contributes except to contest objectives, provide cover or sacrifice kill points. Whereas loyalist counterparts can at least shoot their Stormbolter or Deathwind.
Kairos wrote:So using this Codex, what would be some competitive builds besides dual lash\oblit spam?
I like the codex, but it still seems that the best build remains the same.
Well, considering Dual Lash/Oblit spam can only be done using the Icon of the Black Legion, it might not be the best.
Hell, that's probably the most user friendly build, but with almost all units being viable (hopefully all, but I'm trying to play it safe here) it should be relatively easy to create competitive builds and I'm sure if it was an official codex, tournament players could create more specialised builds that are more competitive than the more versatile plague/lash build that we know.
But still, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the best, and in a way, why shouldn't it be? However, if anything it's more expensive to do now.
I don't intend to list every possible competitive build to be honest, but they're out there.
Using Night Lords, you can create MSU Rhino's with a special weapon & combi-weapon, which combined with other units can create a strong vehicle spam.
Powerful Daemon-bomb armies can be created, Assault Troops can be delivered in a variety of manners, Deep Striking is more reliable, units are more competitively priced, the list goes on.
Again, I don't have the time atm to go through a list of competitive builds - although I intend to in the future - but needless to say, with the much improved units and options throughout the Codex, a variety of competitive builds are there. Will they be better than Plague/Lash/Oblit? Who knows? But they'll certainly still be competitive builds in themselves.
Yes, but A) that's not automatic, it would have to stack on top of other invulnerable save bonuses and B) please identify to me where in the Codex it is possible to make a 2+ invulnerable save*.
cheapbuster wrote:ok, well it should say minimum also your warp mask needs to say "12 and 2" it say 12 and 1 ATM.
I don't represent Dave at all, and I do understand that Games Workshop makes a point to usually do so. Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save, let alone try and abuse it for a "ZOMG! 1++!!!!" moment.
Perhaps it's just the late night, but this is me trying to say "Hey dude, maybe you should try and phrase things a little nicer"
Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. Especially when your previous post was an accusation for bad rules (in essence). Just something to keep in mind.
Now, to defend Dave's wording. In the Warhammer 40k tabletop, armor values are actually better the number is. Therefor "Maximum" implying the greatest the number can be would be a lower number, such as a 2++
This mentality is backed up by the current official Chaos codex (Under the Mark of Tzeentch actually). I don't know if it is used elsewhere, but as the official version of this codex has been in print for awhile and hasn't really been complained about, I doubt it's an overall concern.
Back up to my initial point of it not even needing to be present, in my quick curious search in the Grey Knight codex to see if their Nemesis Force Swords used the "Minimum" and "Maximum" terminology (Aka, checking to see if Ward had canceled out my argument for Dave's wording) I actually discovered that the Nemesis Force Sword states that it does in fact increase the wearer's invulnerable save in close combat by 1, however it does not state that there is a limit to the improvements effect. I assume that is because there is no instance where its' effect would cause any problems (Such as a 1++ save). By this logic, the point is mute, and Dave could in all reality axe the line right out of his codex without concern!
cheapbuster wrote:ok, well it should say minimum also your warp mask needs to say "12 and 2" it say 12 and 1 ATM.
I don't represent Dave at all, and I do understand that Games Workshop makes a point to usually do so. Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save, let alone try and abuse it for a "ZOMG! 1++!!!!" moment.
Perhaps it's just the late night, but this is me trying to say "Hey dude, maybe you should try and phrase things a little nicer"
Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. Especially when your previous post was an accusation for bad rules (in essence). Just something to keep in mind.
What are you on about?
He was saying that it's not possible to get a 1 on a 2 DICE PSYCHIC TEST so he should maybe rephrase things a little.
Perhaps it's just me being a bit hungover, but I think you are trying to troll his point here, it was a fair comment yet this does not make any reference to what he just said about rolling 1 on 2 dice, this is just talking about saves.
Amanax wrote: Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save,
Dave (just dave...no one else) wrote:Models with a Mark of Tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+).
I believe Amanax's comment more refers to the way in which some feedback has been said, including in his mind, cheapbuster's.
As far as I could see - although even I'll admit Amanax, it was a bit incomprehensible! - he was commenting on how, rather than a suggestion or expression of an opinion, the feedback seemed to be phrased more as a demand or command.
--------------------------------------
The Maximum/minimum issue is subjective, in my mind, as 2++ is the maximum (in regards to quality of armour save), maximum is the correct phrasing. However, as 2++ is also the lowest number, minimum could also make sense.
However, the rule is self-explanatory, the player knows it's intention and meaning and it may even be 'correct', so I don't see the point in demanding a change or arguing over it; the intention is obvious.
Same goes for the Warp Mask; the intention and phrasing of the rule is obvious. The use of "12 or 1" is just to further clarify things, and whilst incorrect, it still does that, showing the essence of the rule. The rule and its example makes sense and anyone reading it should understand it, despite the "12 or 1" example being not entirely correct.
However, cheapbuster, you are correct and it will be changed, and it is a valid comment on your part to make.
-------------------------------------
I think in essence, Amanax was trying to say, and did say, "Perhaps it's just the late night, but this is me trying to say "Hey dude, maybe you should try and phrase things a little nicer"
Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. "
And frankly I agree.
This IS NOT directed at anyone in particular (including you, cheapbuster), however I agree with him. When I've created this Codex through my own time and effort, for other peoples use and enjoyment, it is frustrating when people either demand changes or don't show common courtesy.
If people want to make their own Codex, they're welcome to, and they're welcome to try and make it better than mine, as big-headed as that may sound. However, if people were to comment on my works, or someone else's works, then phrasing things as a suggestion or politely should be a pretty basic principle IMHO and hell, it is rule #1.
I admit, it is frustrating when people come along and demand a change, show rudeness or aggression, or make lines and lines of changes that they feel would be better, even if it goes against these established works or intentions, or wouldn't in actuality be a positive change.
Basically, I'd much rather people said "you could change" or "I'd suggest changing", rather "than should change" or "uhhhh, so my Defilers are now more expensive, REALLY?!".
It's a relatively minor point, but it's appreciated and as Amanax said "Words like "Should" and "have to" when referring to someone's hard worked on project are usually not taken kindly. "
That said, I've always [tried to] remained polite when responding to feedback, even if they were neither polite nor constructive, as an example (and that was one of my snarkier moments):
Spoiler:
Just Dave wrote:
Iandroid wrote:Man. A chaos space marine should not be better and cheaper than a regular space marine. You get leadership 10?? All of them have close combat weapons and bolt pistols and bolters? They are better in every way, it's a little broken. In fact a lot of stuff in here is broken. A dreadnought that ignores a pen every turn??? For 155pts?!?? That's way better than a venerable. Also the dreadnoughts crazed rule has no drawback now. And you've got leadership 10 on like everything. All is dust is waaaay too good too. Same with raptors. Same price as an assault marine with leadership 10 for free. Even two lightening claws are 5 points cheaper. Why? This codex seems intentionally imbalanced.
Maybe the opposite is true and the Space Marines Codex is imbalanced? But not in a good way.
The Chaos Space Marine statline is no different from their existing version and you don't hear people complaining about that. Note that the loyalist Space Marines have ATSKNF and Combat Tactics included in their points cost. Chaos Space Marines are veterans that in many cases fought in the Horus Heresy and alongside the Primarch Demi-gods and even the Emperor, they spend their time in the Eye of Terror facing what any sane man would consider hell; I think a high leadership is justified and compensates for the lack of ATSKNF.
The Dreadnought Magnate does have potential to be too good I admit, however all you have to do is penetrate or glance it twice and it's not tougher; for 50pts more. It's like the venerable dreadnought which itself is considered a very dubious choice and is arguably tougher.
The Crazed rule is still a drawback in that you don't have control of your machine. What if your Dread goes running off after a unit of Grots? Starts shooting its lascannon at these grots? Stays still when you want it to be charging? Charging when you want it to be shooting? I don't imagine even Chaos Dreadnoughts being insane enough to shoot their own guys; they could equally shoot at nothing or trees in hallucinations.
All is Dust costs you 23pts on a unit that is no tougher (infact weaker) in assault than a standard CSM. Or, you just shoot them with AP3 weapons. Thousand Sons are supposed to be highly resilient to small arms, this reflects that whilst leaving them with a definable weakness: Assault and AP3 weapons. They also cost more than a Grey Knight.
As for the Lightning Claws; I don't really see many people taking them; hence their reduced cost. Same with Plasma Pistols. It's simply to give the player viable options. Do you think 2 lightning claws for 30pts is too much?!
Raptors don't have Ld10 as standard, furthermore they also don't have ATSKNF or Combat Tactics and Assault Marines are often considered a weak unit; hence the difference. They also don't have any of the benefits that BA's can get.
My Codex may appear to you as intentionally imbalanced, but your statement appears to me as unintentionally naive and ill-informed.
I've said several times I welcome all constructive feedback, particularly if it's polite. I feel yours was neither.
And again, I have done nothing but welcome feedback. Even if rudely phrased or poorly worded in some peoples opinions, feedback has been welcomed and incorporated.
I've repeatedly emphasised that all feedback is welcome, particularly if polite or constructive. Whether it's critical or positive doesn't bother me.
cheapbuster wrote:
Amanax wrote: Hell, I haven't even read the most current rendition of Dave's codex here, and it might have this! However;
Why SHOULD it say there is a minimum? There is no possible way in the codex (If I am to believe Dave, which at this point I should as it's his codex) there is no possible way to even reach a 2++ save,
Dave (just dave...no one else) wrote:Models with a Mark of Tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+).
Maybe you should read the codex first...
However, as he said, I did say:
Just Dave wrote:please identify to me where in the Codex it is possible to make a 2+ invulnerable save*.
You don't think Rubric Sons with special ammo are a little too good? I know they have their weaknesses but you get a really durable platform for shooting that has an incredible success rate against all sorts of infantry, and packs options to help deal with anything else or disrupt shooting.
I really like some of what you've got going though. The costs of things raise my eye brows sometimes and the breadth feels a little overwhelming without obvious rationale but I think it's a move in an interesting direction. I'm a bigger fan of 5ths style chaos dex than the mess of 4ths though.
Just Dave wrote:please identify to me where in the Codex it is possible to make a 2+ invulnerable save*.
*hint: it's not possible
...what has this got to do with the fact that you put maximum?
It's simply to clarify things and prevent attempts to abuse the rules. Like with the warp mask, its simply to try and further clarify and precede people asking needless questions such as "so I could make a 1++ save?!" or "how does the warp mask work?"
Furthermore IIRC the wording is exactly the same as it is in the official Codex.
Lucre wrote:You don't think Rubric Sons with special ammo are a little too good? I know they have their weaknesses but you get a really durable platform for shooting that has an incredible success rate against all sorts of infantry, and packs options to help deal with anything else or disrupt shooting.
Honestly, I wonder that myself sometimes; that they may be a little too good, however I do think they remain balanced or close to balanced. They still remain the most expensive through the Sorcerer and the price of a 9-man squad, they are vulnerable to assault and still rely on a psyker to keep them going.
I think its quite hard for many to shake off the image of them as being a poor choice too.
Nonetheless, I'll look into them a bit more closely to double-check I'm happy with them.
I really like some of what you've got going though. The costs of things raise my eye brows sometimes and the breadth feels a little overwhelming without obvious rationale but I think it's a move in an interesting direction. I'm a bigger fan of 5ths style chaos dex than the mess of 4ths though.
Just to clarify, the Codex and army list is smaller than the Space Marine Codex.
I've tried throughout to keep the options and character people like with Chaos, but to keep it concise and balanced, such as limiting gifts to 1-per-person etc.
Gotta say that I love this fandex, it's an extremely well-thought out and useful set of rules. I love that all units seem to have a purpose somewhere, and there is a nearly endless set of combinations, even for mono-god lists like my World Eaters. That's a great achievement in itself!
I just have a couple of suggestions I'd like you to consider:
The Deathrain Drop Pod. The rules here seem a little convoluted, I know you wanted to distance it from the Imperial DP but what happens if you fail to kill all enemy models under the Havoc Charges blast marker (minor suggestion: change all references to "blast templates" to "blast markers") and you scatter, but land on the same enemy unit? I assume this is a mishap? It's just not covered explicitly by your rules.
My suggestion: just make it land more or less in the same way as an Imperial Drop Pod, but when it lands (and before troops disembark), it makes an automatic out-of-sequence S5 AP5 shooting attack against the closest enemy unit within 12" (or friendly unit if there are no enemies!) using a large blast marker that does not scatter. This might be a little quicker and easier to resolve in an actual game?
Dreadnoughts. Should they have access to Rhino transports? As cool as it is to think of a Dreadnought surfing on the back of a Rhino, and I know Dreadnoughts could ride in Rhinos back in 2nd edition, I don't know if this is strictly necessary with the Deathrain addition. Plus, there is no actual rule allowing non-infantry units to embark in a transport, and the Rhino gives no exception (unlike, say, the Storm Raven), so there is no way for the Dreadnought to embark on its own dedicated transport. And if they could, what then happens to the Crazed rule?
Warp Stalker. I LOVE this thing. It is an amazing representation of pure Chaos; this is exactly what Chaos should be like! It provides the army with some much-needed powerful ranged anti-tank, and can also lend support with the Summoned Daemons (last-minute objective grabs, anyone?).
My only concern is that it's perhaps a little *too* useful for its points - I mean, you get an average of 10 Daemons per shot, adding another 110pt scoring unit to your army for free. I would suggest adding an "instability" rule to these Daemons - they suffer D3 unsaved wounds at the end of each Chaos turn as the energy from the miniature warp rift starts seeping away. This allows them to be useful as desperate reinforcements/objective holders, but they can't just be spawned all over the place without risk.
Those are the only things that have jumped out at me so far, I'll provide more feedback as I read through the list in more detail and write some army lists with them With any luck, I may be able to convince my gaming group to let me try them out, too.
Cheexsta wrote:Gotta say that I love this fandex, it's an extremely well-thought out and useful set of rules. I love that all units seem to have a purpose somewhere, and there is a nearly endless set of combinations, even for mono-god lists like my World Eaters. That's a great achievement in itself!
Thanks a lot man, I appreciate it. Seriously, thanks.
My intentions have always been to create a balanced, 5th edition Codex with every unit being usable and customisable to a level between that of the 3.5 and 4th edition Codices.
I just have a couple of suggestions I'd like you to consider:
The Deathrain Drop Pod. The rules here seem a little convoluted, I know you wanted to distance it from the Imperial DP but what happens if you fail to kill all enemy models under the Havoc Charges blast marker (minor suggestion: change all references to "blast templates" to "blast markers") and you scatter, but land on the same enemy unit? I assume this is a mishap? It's just not covered explicitly by your rules.
At that point, you enact the "Should this cause the Drop Pod to scatter on top of impassable terrain or another unit (friend or foe), then reduce the distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." of the rule; so basically you've got lucky as you're Drop Pod makes it shooting attack and more or less lands where you wanted it to. Does that make sense?
My suggestion: just make it land more or less in the same way as an Imperial Drop Pod, but when it lands (and before troops disembark), it makes an automatic out-of-sequence S5 AP5 shooting attack against the closest enemy unit within 12" (or friendly unit if there are no enemies!) using a large blast marker that does not scatter. This might be a little quicker and easier to resolve in an actual game?
That's a neat suggestion man. If the current rules don't seem to work, I'll consider that. Thanks.
Dreadnoughts. Should they have access to Rhino transports? As cool as it is to think of a Dreadnought surfing on the back of a Rhino, and I know Dreadnoughts could ride in Rhinos back in 2nd edition, I don't know if this is strictly necessary with the Deathrain addition. Plus, there is no actual rule allowing non-infantry units to embark in a transport, and the Rhino gives no exception (unlike, say, the Storm Raven), so there is no way for the Dreadnought to embark on its own dedicated transport. And if they could, what then happens to the Crazed rule?
Whoops! No, that's not intentional. I'll edit that out; good spot, thanks.
Thankfully, that can't be abused because, as you said, Dread's can't embark on a rhino (or surf on the back! ) but still, I best edit that out...
Warp Stalker. I LOVE this thing. It is an amazing representation of pure Chaos; this is exactly what Chaos should be like! It provides the army with some much-needed powerful ranged anti-tank, and can also lend support with the Summoned Daemons (last-minute objective grabs, anyone?).
My only concern is that it's perhaps a little *too* useful for its points - I mean, you get an average of 10 Daemons per shot, adding another 110pt scoring unit to your army for free. I would suggest adding an "instability" rule to these Daemons - they suffer D3 unsaved wounds at the end of each Chaos turn as the energy from the miniature warp rift starts seeping away. This allows them to be useful as desperate reinforcements/objective holders, but they can't just be spawned all over the place without risk.
That's a fair point with the Daemons and a good idea with the instability, I'll have to give this another look.
My intentions were for the Warp Stalker to be balance by having 1 weapon at a high points cost, rendering it VERY vulnerable to a weapon destroyed result (and it's potential explosion), whilst the Daemonic-summoning aspect is still subject to a potentially high scatter or creating very little damage output. So you may get lucky and you summon 10 Daemons where you want them, or you may summon 5 Daemons in the middle of no-where, or you may land a very unimpressive Str4 AP- hit on an enemy unit; therefore, it's all about risk and reward. You can risk summoning the Daemons in a position to assault, but risk scattering onto the enemy, or you can place them further away but risk the Daemons being left stranded.
That was my intention anyway; I'll have another look at the Daemonic summoning/numbers part though, because you've raised a fair point man. Thanks.
Those are the only things that have jumped out at me so far, I'll provide more feedback as I read through the list in more detail and write some army lists with them With any luck, I may be able to convince my gaming group to let me try them out, too.
Thanks man.
If you do create any army lists or play any games with the Codex, then please by all means post the results in here.
Cheers for the feedback; it was polite and were all valid points that I'll look into.
I just have a couple of suggestions I'd like you to consider:
The Deathrain Drop Pod. The rules here seem a little convoluted, I know you wanted to distance it from the Imperial DP but what happens if you fail to kill all enemy models under the Havoc Charges blast marker (minor suggestion: change all references to "blast templates" to "blast markers" and you scatter, but land on the same enemy unit? I assume this is a mishap? It's just not covered explicitly by your rules.
At that point, you enact the "Should this cause the Drop Pod to scatter on top of impassable terrain or another unit (friend or foe), then reduce the distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." of the rule; so basically you've got lucky as you're Drop Pod makes it shooting attack and more or less lands where you wanted it to. Does that make sense?
That only works if "reducing" the scatter would leave you in a valid deep strike position. I'll do a quick picture to explain what I mean:
In this situation, I have a Deathrain that has landed on top of a few Space Marines. Their mighty power armour has managed to shrug off the S5 hits, and I roll a nice, average '3' on my resulting scatter, for a total of a 6" scatter. Unfortunately, I manage to scatter directly on top of the same unit. In theory, the same thing could happen if it was a different unit or impassable terrain that was right next to the target point. No amount of reducing the scatter distance will allow me to avoid a mishap.
This could be fixed by saying that the Deathrain simply moves the minimum distance possible to land >1" from enemy models, and not over impassable terrain, or by using the solution I already suggested.
[list]Warp Stalker. I LOVE this thing. It is an amazing representation of pure Chaos; this is exactly what Chaos should be like! It provides the army with some much-needed powerful ranged anti-tank, and can also lend support with the Summoned Daemons (last-minute objective grabs, anyone?).
My only concern is that it's perhaps a little *too* useful for its points - I mean, you get an average of 10 Daemons per shot, adding another 110pt scoring unit to your army for free. I would suggest adding an "instability" rule to these Daemons - they suffer D3 unsaved wounds at the end of each Chaos turn as the energy from the miniature warp rift starts seeping away. This allows them to be useful as desperate reinforcements/objective holders, but they can't just be spawned all over the place without risk.
That's a fair point with the Daemons and a good idea with the instability, I'll have to give this another look.
My intentions were for the Warp Stalker to be balance by having 1 weapon at a high points cost, rendering it VERY vulnerable to a weapon destroyed result (and it's potential explosion), whilst the Daemonic-summoning aspect is still subject to a potentially high scatter or creating very little damage output. So you may get lucky and you summon 10 Daemons where you want them, or you may summon 5 Daemons in the middle of no-where, or you may land a very unimpressive Str4 AP- hit on an enemy unit; therefore, it's all about risk and reward. You can risk summoning the Daemons in a position to assault, but risk scattering onto the enemy, or you can place them further away but risk the Daemons being left stranded.
That was my intention anyway; I'll have another look at the Daemonic summoning/numbers part though, because you've raised a fair point man. Thanks.
Very true, it does seem pretty strong on paper but those balancing factors may well make it quite reasonable. I'll play a couple of games with it and see how it goes.
Thanks man.
If you do create any army lists or play any games with the Codex, then please by all means post the results in here.
Cheers for the feedback; it was polite and were all valid points that I'll look into.
You're very welcome I have a game against one of my friends organised for next Saturday, he's agreed to give these rules a go. I'll let you know.
Cheexsta wrote:That only works if "reducing" the scatter would leave you in a valid deep strike position. I'll do a quick picture to explain what I mean:
*handy picture*
In this situation, I have a Deathrain that has landed on top of a few Space Marines. Their mighty power armour has managed to shrug off the S5 hits, and I roll a nice, average '3' on my resulting scatter, for a total of a 6" scatter. Unfortunately, I manage to scatter directly on top of the same unit. In theory, the same thing could happen if it was a different unit or impassable terrain that was right next to the target point. No amount of reducing the scatter distance will allow me to avoid a mishap.
This could be fixed by saying that the Deathrain simply moves the minimum distance possible to land >1" from enemy models, and not over impassable terrain, or by using the solution I already suggested.
Very good point and well explained.
I'll change it to either move the minimum distance to land, or re-roll the scatter.
Very true, it does seem pretty strong on paper but those balancing factors may well make it quite reasonable. I'll play a couple of games with it and see how it goes.
Thanks man.
If you do create any army lists or play any games with the Codex, then please by all means post the results in here.
Cheers for the feedback; it was polite and were all valid points that I'll look into.
You're very welcome I have a game against one of my friends organised for next Saturday, he's agreed to give these rules a go. I'll let you know.
Excellent, I really look forward to hearing how it goes. Thanks again man. I'll probably think of an update for the Warp Stalker by then, so we'll see.
Lucre wrote:It's just an awful lot of options, and I think more things could be bundled together a little more. It's a bit overwhelming.
Could you please elaborate?
For HQ's the only real difference is the 'gifts' and Warband Icons, the latter of which isn't so much of an option, but a special rule.
As I've said before I created it to be "customisable to a level between that of the 3.5 and 4th edition Codices", hoping to achieve the right balance.
I think it may be worth stating that I've been working on doing a [loyalist] Space Marine Codex and have struggled to fit the Chapter Master on one page, unlike the Chaos Lord for example.
Your implementation of noise marines made me really happy though. The drug thing is pretty neat.
I'm not sure what the drug thing you refer to is, but thanks.
I also worry about the HQ choices. They've gotten pretty expensive, and it seems hard to make something efficient out of them.
Well, for the Chaos Lord, he's the same price as a Wolf Lord, but has Fearless and a 5++ as standard. The Sorcerer is 110pts due to Libby's etc. being so effective for 100pts, but lacking the BS5. The Daemon Prince needed a points increase, receiving a stat boost to justify this; this means he's more of an investment than before and no longer an automatic choice, but is still viable or freakin' powerful IMHO.
Those were my intentions and some of my reasoning at least. Thanks for the feedback.
When i criticized and lauded this codex before, I was looking at the other chaos fandex I had downloaded that week.
I actually really like this. It's pretty bare as chaos fandexs and codexs go, but it looks like it has a lot of potential for fun. Some things feel more like nods than being really woven into the codex, but I really dig how well you attempted to cover bases and some of the creative solutions to problems.
The obliterator fix is really inspired. I'm not sure how exciting they are at 80 points a pop for what seems most efficiently used as a termicide unit, but it's damn cool.
Love the concept for terminator champions too. Again, the price seems a little steep for the +1 attack and the ability to take more expensive upgrades, but I like that it's there. I just hate how often taking the veteran/champion options for chaos often are expensive points traps.
I guess that's my problem with most Chaos'Dex, I got into them only half because of the awesome banners and the allegiance fun, what I really liked about them was how they were seasoned and individualistic and resourceful. Half of them have been fighting since the heresy, and have been getting more and more idiosyncratic. In game terms this usually equates to having a lot of ability to bloat your squads, and their running away half the time. Something I really hope will change.
Despite this, I'm also pretty impressed with your costing of things, most of the chaos fandexes I've seen have some incredibly overpowered options buried in them that really shout "you really like X don't you".
Y'know, I'm taking almost all of that as a complement, intended or not! Thanks.
I'm glad to know that you were referring to another 'dex, as some of the previous feedback didn't exactly make sense.
All of my Codices have been designed as if they were an actual GW Codex/follow-up to an existing Codex. I had seen some Chaos fandex's before and believed many of them were far too complicated, overloaded with options or imbalanced (no offence to anyone reading this), bearing more similarities to the 3.5 Codex than others.
Furthermore, as you said, many Chaos Fandex's seemed more orientated to a specific god, or god-specific armies in general (rather than undivided armies for example) and therefore 'unfair' in some cases.
Ultimately, these I believed were flaws and something I could not see in an official Codex. So ultimately, I tried to avoid these pitfalls and in all honesty believe I did for the most part.
I aimed to keep the Codex relatively simple, giving the player the options needed to make a characterful army of their choosing, but without over-doing or biasing it. I wanted it to be something that could be seen as an official Codex and wouldn't be too confusing for the player or their opponents. My intentions behind the Warbands rule is an example of this. As I stated in the 'Why' section:
"However, you may notice that the changes made by the Chaos Warbands rule isn’t actually that significant in most cases; this was intended to provide the player to make their own choices and their own army; giving them a nudge in the direction of their armies character but leaving the rest up to them. I avoided restrictions so the player has the freedom to create the army he wants to create. This is also part of the reason for the HQ-only Warband special rules; which are intended to allow the player to make their army even more like their background should they want to, but ultimately they don’t have to. Altogether this was intended to keep it simple, balanced and true to the background, providing themes for each Legion that can be capitalised upon with the purchase of special rules and/or specific units. These changes are hopefully subtle in-game but allow the player to be as inventive, true-to-background or as ‘vanilla’ as they want."
I don't deny it, if I were to do this Codex again (see below) then I would change some things. I would make Terminator Champions better (probably more like Paladins), give an option for more experienced Chaos Marines and fiddle with the special characters and HQ's a bit. And I may yet update the Codex again...
And this is the relevant part:
Providing the official, apparently soon-to-be-released official/6th-edition Chaos Space Marine Codex is any good, then I will NOT be updating this Codex for 6th Edition.
However, if people are vocal with a criticism of the new Chaos Dex and/or people ask me to update this Codex for 6th, to be used instead of that one, then I will update this Codex as required.
This would include some of the above changes and rules for newly-added GW units [in the new Codex].
So basically, the future of this Fandex will likely depend on the quality of the official Codex. So we shall see...
As ever, all C&C is welcome*. Thanks.
*Including if people want me to update this to use instead of the official one, when it is released.
Ha, no it was intended, I get a little tangential sometimes and throw in more criticism than I want to.
I think I'm inclined to agree with you on most fronts.
This is great work, I can see why some many folks have heaped on the praise.
I agree with the warband rules too. It gets really messy trying to weave everything into cult or legion armies in organic ways. It would have felt missing if not, but I think the nod you provided is really sufficient.
Here's hoping for a juicy CSM book in sixth. With all the fixins
The greater daemon is too strong with your buffs man, they are really cool, and youve made them more viable, but they are just to strong. normally he has 5 attacks. one of your addons allowed for +2 attacks and i think one to strength! thats eight attacks on the charge with a WS of 8.. What you did made them as good as they are in fluff, and thats awesome more things should be but even a chaos lover like myself has to admit thats really powerful. Have you thought of allowing a Greater Daemon with Tzeentch upgrade to possibly take wings? Another cool idea is the thought of making Greater daemons more powerful per marine you sacrifice to the dark gods persay.
Example your champion is sacrificed and you summon a greater daemon.
The chaos player has the option to add upgrades ontop of the Greater daemon per +1 marine he/she sacrifices to the Gods, Buffing the Daemon per soul.
The buffs per soul could give them something like, 1 soul = 5+ Armour save. When you give two souls he gets a 5+ Armour save and makes any chaos units 12" from him fearless?
I know i said that the + 2 attacks was Op then i say you should do all this lol, i got carried away but nice work i enjoyed it
Frecklesonfire wrote:The greater daemon is too strong with your buffs man, they are really cool, and youve made them more viable, but they are just to strong. normally he has 5 attacks. one of your addons allowed for +2 attacks and i think one to strength! thats eight attacks on the charge with a WS of 8.. What you did made them as good as they are in fluff, and thats awesome more things should be but even a chaos lover like myself has to admit thats really powerful. Have you thought of allowing a Greater Daemon with Tzeentch upgrade to possibly take wings? Another cool idea is the thought of making Greater daemons more powerful per marine you sacrifice to the dark gods persay.
Example your champion is sacrificed and you summon a greater daemon.
The chaos player has the option to add upgrades ontop of the Greater daemon per +1 marine he/she sacrifices to the Gods, Buffing the Daemon per soul.
The buffs per soul could give them something like, 1 soul = 5+ Armour save. When you give two souls he gets a 5+ Armour save and makes any chaos units 12" from him fearless?
I know i said that the + 2 attacks was Op then i say you should do all this lol, i got carried away but nice work i enjoyed it
I'm honestly not sure what '+2 attacks' or 'eight attacks on the charge you're referring to'?
I mean, I made the thing and I can't see where that's possible! Is this another case of someone mistaking someone else's Codex for mine?
FWIW, I tried to use the Marks to buff the Greater Daemons whilst remaining similar to, but usually no-better-than, their Codex: Daemons counterparts...
Lucre wrote:Ha, no it was intended, I get a little tangential sometimes and throw in more criticism than I want to.
I think I'm inclined to agree with you on most fronts.
This is great work, I can see why some many folks have heaped on the praise.
I agree with the warband rules too. It gets really messy trying to weave everything into cult or legion armies in organic ways. It would have felt missing if not, but I think the nod you provided is really sufficient.
Here's hoping for a juicy CSM book in sixth. With all the fixins
Ha! Thanks man! Appreciate the kind words.
But yeah, I'm both apprehensive and looking forward to the new CSM Codex. Could be very interesting to see...
I've finally had a chance to go over your Chaos fandex. Most impressive. Our group has already changed the Space Marine dex and the Tyranids to our satisfaction, but I'm really glad you've tackled the Chaos dex so brilliantly and thoroughly. I don't agree with every detail... but it feels right.
Whatever 6th ed. brings you may be happy to know we'll be adopting your dex regardless of upcoming changes, because we've created our own WH40K rules set. Most of the improvements that seem to be on the way we've already incorporated to some degree. I know not everybody is able to just play a fandex due to their situation, but WE can and we'll be using yours. Thank you for your efforts!
Thanks a lot for the kind words man, much appreciated! I'm glad you like it and will be using it; thanks! I'd love to know how it does in some of your games?
So will you guys not be using the 6th Edition Chaos Codex or rules? If not, if you let me know some of the details of your rules, I can try and edit a copy to be more in-line with your groups rules for you?
Thanks again.
I know you said you've adjusted the SM Codex, so won't be needing mine, but I've also made an Eldar fandex if any of your friends are interested...
I believe our Eldar players would be very interested! I'm flattered you'd consider tweaking your fine dex to suit our house rules, but off the top I don't think it'd be necessary. If you'd like though, I could PM our rules version to you. We're having a game this weekend to test a few things (no Chaos though, unfortunately!).
amanita wrote:I believe our Eldar players would be very interested! I'm flattered you'd consider tweaking your fine dex to suit our house rules, but off the top I don't think it'd be necessary. If you'd like though, I could PM our rules version to you. We're having a game this weekend to test a few things (no Chaos though, unfortunately!).
Ha! I'm not quite being that kind! I was offering to create a version of the 'dex more suited for your rules, rather than change the proper/published 'dex itself! I look forward to hearing how the Codex goes though, thanks!
And yeah, if you want you can PM me a version of your rules, could be interesting to look at - thanks.
I'm not sure about an AP2 Shuriken pistol though, as you could just use the Str8 AP1 fusion pistol instead, for example. I'm working on it, but there's a lot of existing and competing wargear...
I'll edit that out; good spot, thanks.
