Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 07:28:08


Post by: Gadzilla666


Ok, I was pretty hacked off when ca2019 came out. Gw dropped csm to 11ppm, one point less than loyalist tacticals. Obviously that meant that gw considers csm to be inferior marines, cheaper and less effective than their doctrine equipped loyalist cousins.

Then I remembered csm were exactly one point cheaper than tacticals in a previous edition, 3rd. Back then csm were cheaper because you could spend points to make them better with veteran abilities and marks. Could this be gw's plans for a new Chaos Space Marines codex 2.0? A return to paying for veteran abilities and marks that are more meaningful than the ones we currently have? Or does gw just expect csm to be "Spaceius Marinicus Inferialus"?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 07:33:16


Post by: tneva82


You WANT to pay same or more than loyalists who have more special rules?

They HAVE less rules and abilities. They don't have doctrines for starters. They need to cost less. You don't pay more for ability to add optional upgrades so those coming don't explain it. What explains is they are worse.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 07:41:15


Post by: Crispy78


We had codex 2.0 already, you reckon there's going to be another one??


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 07:55:00


Post by: tneva82


Eventually yes Albeit not in a hurry


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 08:15:38


Post by: ccs


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, I was pretty hacked off when ca2019 came out. Gw dropped csm to 11ppm, one point less than loyalist tacticals. Obviously that meant that gw considers csm to be inferior marines, cheaper and less effective than their doctrine equipped loyalist cousins.


Given GWs recent bought of sloppiness with points & ever shifting errata, I wouldn't put $ on that.
For all you know csm could cost 11ppm simply because they wrote it on a Tue.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 08:16:02


Post by: Gadzilla666


Crispy78 wrote:
We had codex 2.0 already, you reckon there's going to be another one??

Just theorizing. That wasn't a 2.0, barely a 1.5. And of course there will be another round of codexes. There's money in it.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 08:17:33


Post by: Not Online!!!


ccs wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, I was pretty hacked off when ca2019 came out. Gw dropped csm to 11ppm, one point less than loyalist tacticals. Obviously that meant that gw considers csm to be inferior marines, cheaper and less effective than their doctrine equipped loyalist cousins.


Given GWs recent bought of sloppiness with points & ever shifting errata, I wouldn't put $ on that.
For all you know csm could cost 11ppm simply because they wrote it on a Tue.


The sad Part is, that maybee true, infact is more likely then any deliberate thought going into balance from the whole team.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 10:25:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


tneva82 wrote:
You WANT to pay same or more than loyalists who have more special rules?

They HAVE less rules and abilities. They don't have doctrines for starters. They need to cost less. You don't pay more for ability to add optional upgrades so those coming don't explain it. What explains is they are worse.

That was the question. Did ca2019 make csm cheaper than tacticals because:

A: There worse than tacticals, and gw plans to keep it that way.

B: They intend to implement an upgrade system similar to what was in the 3.5 edition codex so they made them one point cheaper like they were in 3rd edition.

Or I guess I should have added:

C: Gw's probably just fethed up the points again hurhurhur.

I'll put you down for A.

(This is what I get for looking at my old codex).


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 12:07:10


Post by: mrFickle


I think that standard CSM vs standard SM should be slightly less effective on the battlefield. CSM are not the slick organised well oiled fighting machine that SM are. But what they do have is the papers of chaos and mutations and stuff. Otherwise if they are even as a simple power armour, bolter and knife marine then you can’t, points wise, add as much of the crazy chaos stuff in, which I hope is the way GW go with CSM.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 13:25:39


Post by: A.T.


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Obviously that meant that gw considers csm to be inferior marines, cheaper and less effective than their doctrine equipped loyalist cousins.
Makes sense if you consider the regular CSM to be ex-loyalist renegades, and the long serving CSM to be among the ranks of the chosen and faction specific options like plague marines.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 14:58:49


Post by: the_scotsman


Yeah, that 1ppm on one troop unit and identical points for every other unit shared between the loyalist and CSM codex really balances out those doctrines

Oh, and chapter tactics, when it comes to all the vehicles.

Reminder: An Iron Hands Land Raider with a multimelta upgrade beats 2 CSM land raiders if the IH land raider takes the first shot.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 15:03:59


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Gadzilla666 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
You WANT to pay same or more than loyalists who have more special rules?

They HAVE less rules and abilities. They don't have doctrines for starters. They need to cost less. You don't pay more for ability to add optional upgrades so those coming don't explain it. What explains is they are worse.

That was the question. Did ca2019 make csm cheaper than tacticals because:

A: There worse than tacticals, and gw plans to keep it that way.

B: They intend to implement an upgrade system similar to what was in the 3.5 edition codex so they made them one point cheaper like they were in 3rd edition.

Or I guess I should have added:

C: Gw's probably just fethed up the points again hurhurhur.

I'll put you down for A.

(This is what I get for looking at my old codex).

LOL the upgrade system never helped, seriously. If you have to pay points over to be almost the same effectiveness, it is still not upgrading is it?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/03 19:43:45


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 00:02:22


Post by: Gadzilla666


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
You WANT to pay same or more than loyalists who have more special rules?

They HAVE less rules and abilities. They don't have doctrines for starters. They need to cost less. You don't pay more for ability to add optional upgrades so those coming don't explain it. What explains is they are worse.

That was the question. Did ca2019 make csm cheaper than tacticals because:

A: There worse than tacticals, and gw plans to keep it that way.

B: They intend to implement an upgrade system similar to what was in the 3.5 edition codex so they made them one point cheaper like they were in 3rd edition.

Or I guess I should have added:

C: Gw's probably just fethed up the points again hurhurhur.

I'll put you down for A.

(This is what I get for looking at my old codex).

LOL the upgrade system never helped, seriously. If you have to pay points over to be almost the same effectiveness, it is still not upgrading is it?

So the upgrade system for traits, marks, equipment, etc for units and characters in the 3.5 codex didn't make csm any more effective? The 4th edition codex and everything after haven't been downgrades for the faction?

Okiedokie. Whatever you say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.

That how I see it as well. I was just theorizing on how gw would go about improving on csm and the fact that they are currently 1ppm cheaper than tacticals like in 3rd made me wonder if they were planning something similar to that. Apparently I'm the only one who sees any parallels.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 03:25:50


Post by: Smirrors


I think 8th edition is so bogged down in rules faqs and erratas that it makes the most sense for the next wave of codex to come out after a new edition. For now it makes enough sense to tweak around and let the dust settle.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 03:26:00


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I thought GW's plans for Chaos was the same as their plans for all NPC races: Keep dying to the wonderful Marines!


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 04:26:39


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
You WANT to pay same or more than loyalists who have more special rules?

They HAVE less rules and abilities. They don't have doctrines for starters. They need to cost less. You don't pay more for ability to add optional upgrades so those coming don't explain it. What explains is they are worse.

That was the question. Did ca2019 make csm cheaper than tacticals because:

A: There worse than tacticals, and gw plans to keep it that way.

B: They intend to implement an upgrade system similar to what was in the 3.5 edition codex so they made them one point cheaper like they were in 3rd edition.

Or I guess I should have added:

C: Gw's probably just fethed up the points again hurhurhur.

I'll put you down for A.

(This is what I get for looking at my old codex).

LOL the upgrade system never helped, seriously. If you have to pay points over to be almost the same effectiveness, it is still not upgrading is it?

So the upgrade system for traits, marks, equipment, etc for units and characters in the 3.5 codex didn't make csm any more effective? The 4th edition codex and everything after haven't been downgrades for the faction?

Okiedokie. Whatever you say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.

That how I see it as well. I was just theorizing on how gw would go about improving on csm and the fact that they are currently 1ppm cheaper than tacticals like in 3rd made me wonder if they were planning something similar to that. Apparently I'm the only one who sees any parallels.

They were actually mostly useless, yes. One extra attack was unneeded most of the time, and yet that was the second best one. People mostly just want the +1T again and that's it. Your 5++ did not matter most of the time, nor did the I5. The REAL downgrade is how the codex is being written itself.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 04:32:35


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Gadzilla666 wrote:


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.

That how I see it as well. I was just theorizing on how gw would go about improving on csm and the fact that they are currently 1ppm cheaper than tacticals like in 3rd made me wonder if they were planning something similar to that. Apparently I'm the only one who sees any parallels.


I'd certainly like something like that to come back, but I don't think it can really work the same way it did in 3.5. We haven't seen any cases of "Buy special rule for X per model" since then. And part of that is because its very difficult to balance, and points just aren't granular enough. Things cost a lot less now than they used to, so you end up having less to work with when deciding what to price things. And then you run into problems like do you price everything the same for all unit types? Or should costs vary for elite units vs troops?

I'm not saying it couldn't work, but I can see why it'd be considered a difficult thing to do.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 04:45:36


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.

That how I see it as well. I was just theorizing on how gw would go about improving on csm and the fact that they are currently 1ppm cheaper than tacticals like in 3rd made me wonder if they were planning something similar to that. Apparently I'm the only one who sees any parallels.


I'd certainly like something like that to come back, but I don't think it can really work the same way it did in 3.5. We haven't seen any cases of "Buy special rule for X per model" since then. And part of that is because its very difficult to balance, and points just aren't granular enough. Things cost a lot less now than they used to, so you end up having less to work with when deciding what to price things. And then you run into problems like do you price everything the same for all unit types? Or should costs vary for elite units vs troops?

I'm not saying it couldn't work, but I can see why it'd be considered a difficult thing to do.

Book keeping would be my concern. Armies are a lot bigger now. It would probably have to work on a per detachment basis. Probably for cp instead of points knowing gw's current preferences.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 06:07:08


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.

That how I see it as well. I was just theorizing on how gw would go about improving on csm and the fact that they are currently 1ppm cheaper than tacticals like in 3rd made me wonder if they were planning something similar to that. Apparently I'm the only one who sees any parallels.


I'd certainly like something like that to come back, but I don't think it can really work the same way it did in 3.5. We haven't seen any cases of "Buy special rule for X per model" since then. And part of that is because its very difficult to balance, and points just aren't granular enough. Things cost a lot less now than they used to, so you end up having less to work with when deciding what to price things. And then you run into problems like do you price everything the same for all unit types? Or should costs vary for elite units vs troops?

I'm not saying it couldn't work, but I can see why it'd be considered a difficult thing to do.

Book keeping would be my concern. Armies are a lot bigger now. It would probably have to work on a per detachment basis. Probably for cp instead of points knowing gw's current preferences.


There's a lot of ways they could approach it. It'd be nice to see them get new, 2 part traits that also help vehicles, and custom traits like everyone else. Then there needs to be something equivalent to Doctrines and Super Doctrines, but that works differently. Marks would probably be a good option.

Marks could provide a bonus like -1 ap, +1 to a stat, etc. Perhaps even allow multiple marks per God, and a couple for Undivided. They could be bought for CP on the whole detachment, but the whole detachment has to be the same God. And if your whole army is the same God, you get them for free (bonus for whole army being the same faction, like super doctrine.) Black Legion would have a trait that lets them mix Marks/Gods within the same detachment.

Alternatively, Marks could be for character only and give them more auras, or upgrade their existing auras. For example, a Lord with Mark of Khorne could give full re-rolls to Khorne units.

I'm just speculating of course. But the point is there's a lot of ways this could be done.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 06:33:27


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Spoiler:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.

That how I see it as well. I was just theorizing on how gw would go about improving on csm and the fact that they are currently 1ppm cheaper than tacticals like in 3rd made me wonder if they were planning something similar to that. Apparently I'm the only one who sees any parallels.


I'd certainly like something like that to come back, but I don't think it can really work the same way it did in 3.5. We haven't seen any cases of "Buy special rule for X per model" since then. And part of that is because its very difficult to balance, and points just aren't granular enough. Things cost a lot less now than they used to, so you end up having less to work with when deciding what to price things. And then you run into problems like do you price everything the same for all unit types? Or should costs vary for elite units vs troops?

I'm not saying it couldn't work, but I can see why it'd be considered a difficult thing to do.

Book keeping would be my concern. Armies are a lot bigger now. It would probably have to work on a per detachment basis. Probably for cp instead of points knowing gw's current preferences.


There's a lot of ways they could approach it. It'd be nice to see them get new, 2 part traits that also help vehicles, and custom traits like everyone else. Then there needs to be something equivalent to Doctrines and Super Doctrines, but that works differently. Marks would probably be a good option.

Marks could provide a bonus like -1 ap, +1 to a stat, etc. Perhaps even allow multiple marks per God, and a couple for Undivided. They could be bought for CP on the whole detachment, but the whole detachment has to be the same God. And if your whole army is the same God, you get them for free (bonus for whole army being the same faction, like super doctrine.) Black Legion would have a trait that lets them mix Marks/Gods within the same detachment.

Alternatively, Marks could be for character only and give them more auras, or upgrade their existing auras. For example, a Lord with Mark of Khorne could give full re-rolls to Khorne units.

I'm just speculating of course. But the point is there's a lot of ways this could be done.

As long as the less chaos aligned legions are represented well I'd be happy. My Night Lords don't do daemons. Rules are important but gw has never quite gotten the feel of the legions as right as they did in the 3.5 codex, though Faith and Fury was a step in the right direction.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 15:14:19


Post by: mrFickle


I think GW have to bring CSM in line with SM don’t they? A CSM codex, an extra codex for at least 4 legions (EC, TS, DG, WE) and the. Supplements for all the other legions. And some demon primarchs.

Especially with the great rift now in existence, it feels like they are moving to the galaxy being 50% under the rule of chaos


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 15:41:51


Post by: Gadzilla666


mrFickle wrote:
I think GW have to bring CSM in line with SM don’t they? A CSM codex, an extra codex for at least 4 legions (EC, TS, DG, WE) and the. Supplements for all the other legions. And some demon primarchs.

Especially with the great rift now in existence, it feels like they are moving to the galaxy being 50% under the rule of chaos

In terms of support? Yes. Raw power? No. I don't want midnight blue power armour to be the new black power armour. I just want the legions to be distinct from each other and not all Black Legion in different colors.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 17:25:07


Post by: Insectum7


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, I was pretty hacked off when ca2019 came out. Gw dropped csm to 11ppm, one point less than loyalist tacticals. Obviously that meant that gw considers csm to be inferior marines, cheaper and less effective than their doctrine equipped loyalist cousins.

Then I remembered csm were exactly one point cheaper than tacticals in a previous edition, 3rd. Back then csm were cheaper because you could spend points to make them better with veteran abilities and marks. Could this be gw's plans for a new Chaos Space Marines codex 2.0? A return to paying for veteran abilities and marks that are more meaningful than the ones we currently have? Or does gw just expect csm to be "Spaceius Marinicus Inferialus"?

That'd be great, I'm all on board! Marks were great, veteran abilities were great, Cult Terminators were great. So much of Chaos 3.5 was fantastic. A little overboard here and there, but the spirit of the book was top-notch.

Otherwise, cheer up! 100 CSMs costs only 1100 points to field, which is sorta amazing. I'm looking forward to fielding 100 CSMs with 20 Heavy Weapons, and then just filling the rest of the list for flavor. I should count my models though, I may need more to fill the ranks. (darn). I just bought a few more heavy weapons off ebay. I'll probably get some of the HH boxes to add MkIIIs and IVs to my Chaos army, too.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 21:10:04


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.


I don't think it'll happen soon, between Vigilus, Codex 2.0 and PA Chaos got a lot even if it all seemed lagging.
GW could also plan to break up the whole CSM codex, EC and WE should be a given, Blackstone Fortress hinted at Chaos beastmen and traitor guard and other stuff that could potentially be in a total reworked Chaos codex together with the unaligned/ undivided legions and renegades - possibly even throwing out Cult units entirely. Just theorizing of course.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 21:40:23


Post by: Gadzilla666


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.


I don't think it'll happen soon, between Vigilus, Codex 2.0 and PA Chaos got a lot even if it all seemed lagging.
GW could also plan to break up the whole CSM codex, EC and WE should be a given, Blackstone Fortress hinted at Chaos beastmen and traitor guard and other stuff that could potentially be in a total reworked Chaos codex together with the unaligned/ undivided legions and renegades - possibly even throwing out Cult units entirely. Just theorizing of course.

What's this codex 2.0 you speak of? I don't remember a codex 2.0. I remember a reprint with a couple new data sheets. Do you consider a remastered album new?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 22:52:25


Post by: Eonfuzz


What are their plans for CSM?

None lmao


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 23:23:59


Post by: Continuity


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm expecting that we'll see a big CSM overhaul. Dunno if it'll be a new Codex or come in some other book. CSM are currently conspicuously behind. They are missing a second trait rule and vehicle traits. They are missing an equivalent to doctrines (or big points drops to compensate for not having them at all.) And they are missing custom traits that everyone else got in PA.

My guess is the 2nd Chaos Codex was the end of a previous dev cycle, and then Space Marines Codex 2 was the beginning of a new design philosophy. They couldn't put out a 3rd CSM book right away, but I'll bet its been planned for awhile and just waiting for a place in the release cycle. Probably after PA finishes.


I don't think it'll happen soon, between Vigilus, Codex 2.0 and PA Chaos got a lot even if it all seemed lagging.
GW could also plan to break up the whole CSM codex, EC and WE should be a given, Blackstone Fortress hinted at Chaos beastmen and traitor guard and other stuff that could potentially be in a total reworked Chaos codex together with the unaligned/ undivided legions and renegades - possibly even throwing out Cult units entirely. Just theorizing of course.

What's this codex 2.0 you speak of? I don't remember a codex 2.0. I remember a reprint with a couple new data sheets. Do you consider a remastered album new?


It's a remaster that didn't even include all the new content since it excludes everything from Vigilus.

CSM 2.0 is a scam


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 23:26:50


Post by: Daedalus81


 Continuity wrote:


It's a remaster that didn't even include all the new content since it excludes everything from Vigilus.

CSM 2.0 is a scam


It was never billed as a 2.0. It literally just added units and they told you that you could use the old book with a PDF or get the "new" one. Problem was the PDF had no points.

They even literally told you not to buy it if you owned the previous one.

Spoiler:


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 23:29:21


Post by: Continuity


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Continuity wrote:


It's a remaster that didn't even include all the new content since it excludes everything from Vigilus.

CSM 2.0 is a scam


It was never billed as a 2.0. It literally just added units and they told you that you could use the old book with a PDF or get the "new" one. Problem was the PDF had no points.


There's a big fat "II" symbol on the codex cover


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 23:31:54


Post by: Daedalus81


 Continuity wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Continuity wrote:


It's a remaster that didn't even include all the new content since it excludes everything from Vigilus.

CSM 2.0 is a scam


It was never billed as a 2.0. It literally just added units and they told you that you could use the old book with a PDF or get the "new" one. Problem was the PDF had no points.


There's a big fat "II" symbol on the codex cover


WHC called it "Codex: Chaos Space Marines – the Updated Edition". This is the first time I've ever noticed the two, so it really isn't all that big and fat, it seems.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 23:39:42


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Continuity wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Continuity wrote:


It's a remaster that didn't even include all the new content since it excludes everything from Vigilus.

CSM 2.0 is a scam


It was never billed as a 2.0. It literally just added units and they told you that you could use the old book with a PDF or get the "new" one. Problem was the PDF had no points.


There's a big fat "II" symbol on the codex cover


WHC called it "Codex: Chaos Space Marines – the Updated Edition". This is the first time I've ever noticed the two, so it really isn't all that big and fat, it seems.

You're right. Gw never claimed it was csm 2.0. It was everybody else that started calling it that, and using that to claim that csm shouldn't get a 2.0 codex because we already had one. That's why I started a thread speculating on what a csm 2.0 would look like, based on some parallels I saw to 3rd eg csm and chosen both being cheaper than their loyalist counterparts.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 23:45:04


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea, I'd be ok with marks and expanded traits that also affect vehicles. It will probably be a while though - it seems GW caught CSM at precisely the wrong time during their transition into a bigger design space.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/04 23:49:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, I'd be ok with marks and expanded traits that also affect vehicles. It will probably be a while though - it seems GW caught CSM at precisely the wrong time during their transition into a bigger design space.

That assumes gw considers csm 2 as an actual update, and not just an attempt to consolidate some new data sheets. They said themselves it wasn't required remember?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 00:09:15


Post by: Argive


Its almost like ya'll want to have new models AND good rules... WHo do you think you are? sme kind of special marines?

Get back in yo cage npcs..!!!


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 00:23:58


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Argive wrote:
Its almost like ya'll want to have new models AND good rules... WHo do you think you are? sme kind of special marines?

Get back in yo cage npcs..!!!

Yes, right next to those lovely new banshees. Apparently new models doesn't equal new rules, unless the word "primaris " is involved.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 00:49:14


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Its almost like ya'll want to have new models AND good rules... WHo do you think you are? sme kind of special marines?

Get back in yo cage npcs..!!!

Yes, right next to those lovely new banshees. Apparently new models doesn't equal new rules, unless the word "primaris " is involved.


Well, yeah. New Primaris models ARE new units. They are obviously going to have new rules. We were expecting disco lords to be Chaos Lords riding Maulter Fiends? And even that would still be a new data sheet.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 01:16:51


Post by: Argive


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Its almost like ya'll want to have new models AND good rules... WHo do you think you are? sme kind of special marines?

Get back in yo cage npcs..!!!

Yes, right next to those lovely new banshees. Apparently new models doesn't equal new rules, unless the word "primaris " is involved.


Well, yeah. New Primaris models ARE new units. They are obviously going to have new rules. We were expecting disco lords to be Chaos Lords riding Maulter Fiends? And even that would still be a new data sheet.


I meant get massive releases AND have great rules generally.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 02:04:38


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Its almost like ya'll want to have new models AND good rules... WHo do you think you are? sme kind of special marines?

Get back in yo cage npcs..!!!

Yes, right next to those lovely new banshees. Apparently new models doesn't equal new rules, unless the word "primaris " is involved.


Well, yeah. New Primaris models ARE new units. They are obviously going to have new rules. We were expecting disco lords to be Chaos Lords riding Maulter Fiends? And even that would still be a new data sheet.

That becomes a problem when one faction gets the vast majority of new releases. You think it's good for the game when space marines keep getting new and improved units while other factions units are left to languish in their old stat lines merely because they're not new? And new units had nothing to do little to do with the mountain of new rules sm got in c:sm 2.0 and the supplements. Those boosted old units right along with the new.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 03:45:23


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Its almost like ya'll want to have new models AND good rules... WHo do you think you are? sme kind of special marines?

Get back in yo cage npcs..!!!

Yes, right next to those lovely new banshees. Apparently new models doesn't equal new rules, unless the word "primaris " is involved.


Well, yeah. New Primaris models ARE new units. They are obviously going to have new rules. We were expecting disco lords to be Chaos Lords riding Maulter Fiends? And even that would still be a new data sheet.

That becomes a problem when one faction gets the vast majority of new releases. You think it's good for the game when space marines keep getting new and improved units while other factions units are left to languish in their old stat lines merely because they're not new? And new units had nothing to do little to do with the mountain of new rules sm got in c:sm 2.0 and the supplements. Those boosted old units right along with the new.


Because my space marine army is only Primaris, I don't personally consider it so much a new and improved models/rules as much as I consider it a a new faction. A faction that pre-splits into 4 (Codec Compliant, BA, DA, SW) to 5 (Death Watch) factions at release. Very commercially popular ones at that. So again, I don't see it as the majority of releases as much as a model kit that fleshes out 4 to 5 new factions at the same time. I am not going to argue that those factions shouldn't just be subfaction because I mostly agree. Just as the game is, they should be considered separate factions that just so happen to use the same model kits.

I take issue with your comment insinuating that Primaris marines getting new rules is some how bad even though they are new units for basically a new group of factions. It smells of hating Primaris to hate Primaris which has become all too common and tiring as a fan of them. And as fan of them, I have become rather defensive from the constant onslaught of insinuations and overt disdain others have expressed toward them such as your comment. I have become ever more calloused to the issues of 'languished older units' or anything else others might have issue with elsewhere in 40k So feel free to express your contempt toward Primaris marines, understand you do yourself no favors from fans such as myself even if I happen to agree that older units could use a refresh. I grow colder to those issues with every jab.

It wasn't until Shadowspear that I felt Primaris could really stand on their own without Firstborn. Even today, because Primaris don't directly compete, in nearly all cases, with Firstborn (which also suffer from languished stat lines) there are a number of gaps in my space marine army even with all these releases. Strangely enough, I don't feel those gaps nearly as much with my Genestealer Cult where I would be hard pressed to think of something more I would want for that faction. I also think improved is a loaded way of talking about Primaris. They weren't that great before the new codex (and definitely not at release) and even now I can tell you the 15 Reivers (or any number of Infiltrators/Incursors) I put in my army aren't destroying my local meta. Not to mention the Primaris stat line hasn't really changed from its inception. It is still basically +1 Attack, +1 Wound. And the mountain of special abilities marines have largely been applied to all marines loyal and traitor alike.

I have a Chaos Space Marine army. It was my first 40k army. The Black Legion subfaction trait is awful. I don't remember the last time either parts came up in a game I was playing. Marks and Icons barely do anything at all. The rules are a mess strewn across I can't say how many books. I like running three 10 man squads of CSM for my troops, and it really doesn't work that well even at the casual level that I play. Haarken is a bizarre case of 'what were they thinking?' As he doesn't work well in any sense of what GW was going for even after they 'fixed' him to basically non-functional. Chaos Terminators only kinda work because they have cheap options to keep losses to you army not as bad. The Land Raider continues to be a giant point sink in most games. A number of other issues that result in rather underwhelming performances from what should be solid CSM tent-pole units. I wouldn't be upset if an actual new Codex: Chaos Space Marines turned up to consolidate the mess and get the faction closer to what the loyalists marines enjoy. Nothing making the OP. More like what happen with Slaves to Darkness and their new Battletome: better but still kinda underwhelming but has a fighting chance of winning now.

A lot of of the power boost in the new Codex: Space Marines was done, I believe, to bring them back in competition with other factions. Certainly, they were over-tuned and that is slowly being addressed. Almost none of it had to do with Primaris and specifically Primaris stat lines. As someone that plays a few different armies, I am glad GW didn't bring down the nerf hammer like they usually do. I can't speak about the supplements as my army doesn't use one. I can tell you I already basically played Doctrines as the FAQ forces me to. It just seems like they want marines conduct war and worked for how I built my Primaris army anyways. I still think Bolter Displine need addressing more to keep marine players from castling up with static gunlines which I don't feel is how even the shooty-est of marine chapters want to operate. But I like the idea of letting the latest FAQ sink in before making additional adjustments over the more typical that faction had their fun on top now exterminatus them back to low tier for awhile.

None of that has to do with Primaris stat lines though.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 04:23:58


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Its almost like ya'll want to have new models AND good rules... WHo do you think you are? sme kind of special marines?

Get back in yo cage npcs..!!!

Yes, right next to those lovely new banshees. Apparently new models doesn't equal new rules, unless the word "primaris " is involved.


Well, yeah. New Primaris models ARE new units. They are obviously going to have new rules. We were expecting disco lords to be Chaos Lords riding Maulter Fiends? And even that would still be a new data sheet.

That becomes a problem when one faction gets the vast majority of new releases. You think it's good for the game when space marines keep getting new and improved units while other factions units are left to languish in their old stat lines merely because they're not new? And new units had nothing to do little to do with the mountain of new rules sm got in c:sm 2.0 and the supplements. Those boosted old units right along with the new.


Because my space marine army is only Primaris, I don't personally consider it so much a new and improved models/rules as much as I consider it a a new faction. A faction that pre-splits into 4 (Codec Compliant, BA, DA, SW) to 5 (Death Watch) factions at release. Very commercially popular ones at that. So again, I don't see it as the majority of releases as much as a model kit that fleshes out 4 to 5 new factions at the same time. I am not going to argue that those factions shouldn't just be subfaction because I mostly agree. Just as the game is, they should be considered separate factions that just so happen to use the same model kits.

I take issue with your comment insinuating that Primaris marines getting new rules is some how bad even though they are new units for basically a new group of factions. It smells of hating Primaris to hate Primaris which has become all too common and tiring as a fan of them. And as fan of them, I have become rather defensive from the constant onslaught of insinuations and overt disdain others have expressed toward them such as your comment. I have become ever more calloused to the issues of 'languished older units' or anything else others might have issue with elsewhere in 40k So feel free to express your contempt toward Primaris marines, understand you do yourself no favors from fans such as myself even if I happen to agree that older units could use a refresh. I grow colder to those issues with every jab.

It wasn't until Shadowspear that I felt Primaris could really stand on their own without Firstborn. Even today, because Primaris don't directly compete, in nearly all cases, with Firstborn (which also suffer from languished stat lines) there are a number of gaps in my space marine army even with all these releases. Strangely enough, I don't feel those gaps nearly as much with my Genestealer Cult where I would be hard pressed to think of something more I would want for that faction. I also think improved is a loaded way of talking about Primaris. They weren't that great before the new codex (and definitely not at release) and even now I can tell you the 15 Reivers (or any number of Infiltrators/Incursors) I put in my army aren't destroying my local meta. Not to mention the Primaris stat line hasn't really changed from its inception. It is still basically +1 Attack, +1 Wound. And the mountain of special abilities marines have largely been applied to all marines loyal and traitor alike.

I have a Chaos Space Marine army. It was my first 40k army. The Black Legion subfaction trait is awful. I don't remember the last time either parts came up in a game I was playing. Marks and Icons barely do anything at all. The rules are a mess strewn across I can't say how many books. I like running three 10 man squads of CSM for my troops, and it really doesn't work that well even at the casual level that I play. Haarken is a bizarre case of 'what were they thinking?' As he doesn't work well in any sense of what GW was going for even after they 'fixed' him to basically non-functional. Chaos Terminators only kinda work because they have cheap options to keep losses to you army not as bad. The Land Raider continues to be a giant point sink in most games. A number of other issues that result in rather underwhelming performances from what should be solid CSM tent-pole units. I wouldn't be upset if an actual new Codex: Chaos Space Marines turned up to consolidate the mess and get the faction closer to what the loyalists marines enjoy. Nothing making the OP. More like what happen with Slaves to Darkness and their new Battletome: better but still kinda underwhelming but has a fighting chance of winning now.

A lot of of the power boost in the new Codex: Space Marines was done, I believe, to bring them back in competition with other factions. Certainly, they were over-tuned and that is slowly being addressed. Almost none of it had to do with Primaris and specifically Primaris stat lines. As someone that plays a few different armies, I am glad GW didn't bring down the nerf hammer like they usually do. I can't speak about the supplements as my army doesn't use one. I can tell you I already basically played Doctrines as the FAQ forces me to. It just seems like they want marines conduct war and worked for how I built my Primaris army anyways. I still think Bolter Displine need addressing more to keep marine players from castling up with static gunlines which I don't feel is how even the shooty-est of marine chapters want to operate. But I like the idea of letting the latest FAQ sink in before making additional adjustments over the more typical that faction had their fun on top now exterminatus them back to low tier for awhile.

None of that has to do with Primaris stat lines though.

Nice novella. I'm thrilled that you run your army as pure primaris, but just because you see them as a new faction and play them so doesn't make it fact. Primaris are part of the loyalist space marine faction, and that faction has hands down the largest and most complete selection of units in the game. Any holes in your army are of your own choosing, I understand that as I refuse to run daemons in my own army of Night Lords.

But you're not the only sm player, most use everything available to them, and the rules they've recently received makes almost every single option a good one. Most armies don't have that luxury right now.

Yes space marines needed help competitively, and they got it. Sorry if players of other factions thinking that maybe gw should do a little to bring their army some of the support they've shown space marines over the past few months bothers you.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 04:27:12


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


It only bothers me with people use crab mentality and/or dump on Primaris irrationally. Which I think complaining that Primaris as new unit and having new stat lines is.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 04:27:25


Post by: Eonfuzz


Speaking of more marine support, looks like there's *another* new primaris statline coming on the way.

[Thumb - received_613875899460059.jpeg]


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 04:30:26


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It only bothers me with people use crab mentality and/or dump on Primaris irrationally. Which I think complaining that Primaris as new unit and having new stat lines is.

It isn't the fact that primaris has a new stat line that bothers players, or me at least, it's the fact that gw doesn't seem to have any interest in improving anything else beyond throwing strategems at them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eonfuzz wrote:
Speaking of more marine support, looks like there's *another* new primaris statline coming on the way.

You got a name for that source other than Reddit?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 04:35:41


Post by: techsoldaten


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It only bothers me with people use crab mentality and/or dump on Primaris irrationally. Which I think complaining that Primaris as new unit and having new stat lines is.

Think of it more like a reaction to a virus.

There aren't many baseline infantry that shoot 30" at AP -1. And have 2 wounds. If they were 46ppm, I would not care. At their current cost, it feels like GW is screwing with every other faction.

I realize GW needed to do something to get people using Primaris Marines, but there's something unsettling about the rules. They outrange other factions, they have more wounds than other factions, they have special mechanics that go beyond those of other factions, and they have tanks that outshoot anything from other factions.

I hate to think what GW will eventually need to do with them to achieve better balance.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 04:47:17


Post by: Eonfuzz


Found it in one of the discords just floating around, looked for source and it was "Some italian facebook page".

Could be real, could not. But in any case mehreens getting more stuff sounds about right.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 04:54:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Speaking of more marine support, looks like there's *another* new primaris statline coming on the way.
So another AUD$390 box I presume. I mean if the Orks are just Ghaz + 3-6 Meganobz it'll be a complete wash.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It only bothers me with people use crab mentality and/or dump on Primaris irrationally. Which I think complaining that Primaris as new unit and having new stat lines is.
I prefer to dump on Primaris rationally: They're super-duper Marines that look like they belong to a different scale of game, and their fluff rubs me the wrong way. I think they look cool though (especially Eliminators), I just wish they weren't newer betterer Marines.

I also know that Primaris exist because GW had no worlds left to conquer when it came to Marines (except plastic Thunderfire Cannons, Tech-Marines and Servitors, for which I will forever be sad that we never got), so they needed to invent new Marines from whole cloth and break their entire universe to justify their existence.

Of course, hearing you talk about them makes me want to get a small faction of them...





Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:01:39


Post by: Daedalus81


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Speaking of more marine support, looks like there's *another* new primaris statline coming on the way.


Omgomgomg new MANZ. SQUUUUEEEEE.

Here's hoping they become the Paladins of Orks.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:06:27


Post by: Crimson


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're super-duper Marines that look like they belong to a different scale of game,

You mean a game using the sort of scale where marines are actually bigger than normal humans?

and their fluff rubs me the wrong way. I think they look cool though (especially Eliminators), I just wish they weren't newer betterer Marines.
Just forget that the minimarines exist and then the primaris are just marines.


As for actual topic, GW should just give at least the more veteran CSM the primaris statline. This is what marines need to function and some ancient warp-fuelled monstrosities should be at least as tough as primaris and probably more. I really have no interest in playing spiky wimp marines.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:09:03


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Found it in one of the discords just floating around, looked for source and it was "Some italian facebook page".

Could be real, could not. But in any case mehreens getting more stuff sounds about right.

Well damn, that's some solid reporting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Eonfuzz wrote:
Speaking of more marine support, looks like there's *another* new primaris statline coming on the way.


Omgomgomg new MANZ. SQUUUUEEEEE.

Here's hoping they become the Paladins of Orks.


Stop it. This is probably 2w cult troops all over again. Do you actually think they'd lock something like fething Ghaz in a box for six months?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:12:53


Post by: Crimson


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do you actually think they'd lock something like fething Ghaz in a box for six months?

Like they did with Jain Zar and Drazhar? Absolutely.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:16:02


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Crimson wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do you actually think they'd lock something like fething Ghaz in a box for six months?

Like they did with Jain Zar and Drazhar? Absolutely.

No offense to the Eldar, but there's several Phoenix Lords but only one Prophet of the Wwwaaaaggghhh!!!

This would be like sticking Failbaddon in a box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're super-duper Marines that look like they belong to a different scale of game,

You mean a game using the sort of scale where marines are actually bigger than normal humans?

and their fluff rubs me the wrong way. I think they look cool though (especially Eliminators), I just wish they weren't newer betterer Marines.
Just forget that the minimarines exist and then the primaris are just marines.


As for actual topic, GW should just give at least the more veteran CSM the primaris statline. This is what marines need to function and some ancient warp-fuelled monstrosities should be at least as tough as primaris and probably more. I really have no interest in playing spiky wimp marines.

Ok, how do they bend the lore around that? Every traitor marine isn't a chaos worshiper remember? And we've already gotten new models and they're bigger but still not primaris sized.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:23:52


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 techsoldaten wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It only bothers me with people use crab mentality and/or dump on Primaris irrationally. Which I think complaining that Primaris as new unit and having new stat lines is.

Think of it more like a reaction to a virus.

There aren't many baseline infantry that shoot 30" at AP -1. And have 2 wounds. If they were 46ppm, I would not care. At their current cost, it feels like GW is screwing with every other faction.

I realize GW needed to do something to get people using Primaris Marines, but there's something unsettling about the rules. They outrange other factions, they have more wounds than other factions, they have special mechanics that go beyond those of other factions, and they have tanks that outshoot anything from other factions.

I hate to think what GW will eventually need to do with them to achieve better balance.


Intercessors might be a little too point efficient even after the FAQ. I could definitely see their ppm creeping back to old costs. I think the 30" range is only an issue due to Bolter Discipline exacerbated by the Tactical Doctrine AP buff. I mean no one was really bothering with Stalker Bolt Rifles pre-current codex. I suspect now that marines can't stall out in Devastator, the number of Stalker Bolter Intercessors will also reside. Same goes for regular Bolt Rifles. I haven't seen the range be that much of an issue unless terrain is relatively sparse allows more lanes of medium-long range fire and can made worst by no where to find cover. I mean Thousand Sons warp bolters throw that kind of fire power standard, and I haven't really seen nearly as much blow back from it.

I think if this combination of range, AP was so dangerous I would think Heavy Bolter teams/Havocs would be more viable. Or at very least CSM MSU with Heavy Bolters. Again, I think that comes down to Intercessors being a not enough points for what they do and Bolter Discipline turning all marines into gun turrets. Funny enough, I feel for a good deal of targets I get the same amount of work out of Auto Bolt Rifles which also have the same range with a Move, better range with an Advance, with a high rate-of-fire but lower AP. Which for my army that has to foot slog good portion of its infantry is much better as I start to capture territory/objectives. And I don't see nearly as many complaints about that compared to the Bolt Rifle Intercessor.

As for tanks, Repulsors are huge point sinks. I don't think they generally work on their own as well as you might think. Maybe a marine supplement such as the Iron Hands have a way to get work out them, but my codex only army doesn't get as much out of them as I would like since I have very limited Anti-Tank. I know I certainly don't like tangling with Imperial Guard armored armies because if feels like I have a Tiger versus too many Sherman Fireflies to win. And once my repulsor(s) is down, I don't have much left let alone anti-tank.

Again, I think a lot people on Dakka Dakka are over exaggerating the power of the Intercessor. Before the new Codex, the Bolt Rifle Intercessor was a middling Troop choice that received points drops. Even now, I am not entirely convince that Tacticals can't provide the same amount of threat but in a different more deliberate way. However, they aren't as overt with Raw stats to reveal it as easy as Intercessors through Mathhammer. So I think somewhere before Bolter Discipline was a beta rule and now is where fair power of Intercessors can be found. Most of these arguments concerning Intercessors have been on things they have had since their introduction but weren't that big of an issue two years ago, but suddenly are now.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:31:47


Post by: Eonfuzz


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do you actually think they'd lock something like fething Ghaz in a box for six months?

Like they did with Jain Zar and Drazhar? Absolutely.

No offense to the Eldar, but there's several Phoenix Lords but only one Prophet of the Wwwaaaaggghhh!!!

This would be like sticking Failbaddon in a box.


Are you ready for Failgaz? I'll bet my teeth this is the lore:
1. Gaz lands on wolfy mc wolferson planet
2. Gaz feths gak up
3. Ragnar shows up and tries to boop gaz
4. Rag loses, retreats and in order to survive must become a primaris
5. Rag returns and bashes gaz
6. Mid combat Rag remembers he's actually Leman Russ, unlocking his full 10 attacks one one shotting Gaz



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're super-duper Marines that look like they belong to a different scale of game,

You mean a game using the sort of scale where marines are actually bigger than normal humans?

and their fluff rubs me the wrong way. I think they look cool though (especially Eliminators), I just wish they weren't newer betterer Marines.
Just forget that the minimarines exist and then the primaris are just marines.


As for actual topic, GW should just give at least the more veteran CSM the primaris statline. This is what marines need to function and some ancient warp-fuelled monstrosities should be at least as tough as primaris and probably more. I really have no interest in playing spiky wimp marines.

Ok, how do they bend the lore around that? Every traitor marine isn't a chaos worshiper remember? And we've already gotten new models and they're bigger but still not primaris sized.


CSM should have access to pre-horus wargear.
Aint no one enjoying the snowflakiness of current mehreens.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:46:24


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
As for tanks, Repulsors are huge point sinks. I don't think they generally work on their own as well as you might think. Maybe a marine supplement such as the Iron Hands have a way to get work out them, but my codex only army doesn't get as much out of them as I would like since I have very limited Anti-Tank. I know I certainly don't like tangling with Imperial Guard armored armies because if feels like I have a Tiger versus too many Sherman Fireflies to win. And once my repulsor(s) is down, I don't have much left let alone anti-tank.

Eh, I prefer using a Mause on them myself.

Again, I think a lot people on Dakka Dakka are over exaggerating the power of the Intercessor. Before the new Codex, the Bolt Rifle Intercessor was a middling Troop choice that received points drops. Even now, I am not entirely convince that Tacticals can't provide the same amount of threat but in a different more deliberate way. However, they aren't as overt with Raw stats to reveal it as easy as Intercessors through Mathhammer. So I think somewhere before Bolter Discipline was a beta rule and now is where fair power of Intercessors can be found. Most of these arguments concerning Intercessors have been on things they have had since their introduction but weren't that big of an issue two years ago, but suddenly are now.

Y'know we had a whole thread on tacticals vs intercessors. Went on for days.

Look, like I said, I think most people's problem with loyalist marines is that gw has been paying loads of attention on them while mostly ignoring others, especially some xenos factions. I'd just like them to stop playing with their new toys for long enough to give my bitter old veterans some attention. I got no problem with primaris, they die just like everything else.

Except rievers. They're a complete rippoff of terror squads. Feth those guys.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:46:42


Post by: Argive


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It only bothers me with people use crab mentality and/or dump on Primaris irrationally. Which I think complaining that Primaris as new unit and having new stat lines is.

Think of it more like a reaction to a virus.

There aren't many baseline infantry that shoot 30" at AP -1. And have 2 wounds. If they were 46ppm, I would not care. At their current cost, it feels like GW is screwing with every other faction.

I realize GW needed to do something to get people using Primaris Marines, but there's something unsettling about the rules. They outrange other factions, they have more wounds than other factions, they have special mechanics that go beyond those of other factions, and they have tanks that outshoot anything from other factions.

I hate to think what GW will eventually need to do with them to achieve better balance.


Intercessors might be a little too point efficient even after the FAQ. I could definitely see their ppm creeping back to old costs. I think the 30" range is only an issue due to Bolter Discipline exacerbated by the Tactical Doctrine AP buff. I mean no one was really bothering with Stalker Bolt Rifles pre-current codex. I suspect now that marines can't stall out in Devastator, the number of Stalker Bolter Intercessors will also reside. Same goes for regular Bolt Rifles. I haven't seen the range be that much of an issue unless terrain is relatively sparse allows more lanes of medium-long range fire and can made worst by no where to find cover. I mean Thousand Sons warp bolters throw that kind of fire power standard, and I haven't really seen nearly as much blow back from it.

I think if this combination of range, AP was so dangerous I would think Heavy Bolter teams/Havocs would be more viable. Or at very least CSM MSU with Heavy Bolters. Again, I think that comes down to Intercessors being a not enough points for what they do and Bolter Discipline turning all marines into gun turrets. Funny enough, I feel for a good deal of targets I get the same amount of work out of Auto Bolt Rifles which also have the same range with a Move, better range with an Advance, with a high rate-of-fire but lower AP. Which for my army that has to foot slog good portion of its infantry is much better as I start to capture territory/objectives. And I don't see nearly as many complaints about that compared to the Bolt Rifle Intercessor.

As for tanks, Repulsors are huge point sinks. I don't think they generally work on their own as well as you might think. Maybe a marine supplement such as the Iron Hands have a way to get work out them, but my codex only army doesn't get as much out of them as I would like since I have very limited Anti-Tank. I know I certainly don't like tangling with Imperial Guard armored armies because if feels like I have a Tiger versus too many Sherman Fireflies to win. And once my repulsor(s) is down, I don't have much left let alone anti-tank.

Again, I think a lot people on Dakka Dakka are over exaggerating the power of the Intercessor. Before the new Codex, the Bolt Rifle Intercessor was a middling Troop choice that received points drops. Even now, I am not entirely convince that Tacticals can't provide the same amount of threat but in a different more deliberate way. However, they aren't as overt with Raw stats to reveal it as easy as Intercessors through Mathhammer. So I think somewhere before Bolter Discipline was a beta rule and now is where fair power of Intercessors can be found. Most of these arguments concerning Intercessors have been on things they have had since their introduction but weren't that big of an issue two years ago, but suddenly are now.


My post was comparing Space marines to chaos space marines as a species/faction. As long as Primaris are in the space marines codex they are space marines. I honestly don't care about primaris or old marines. Both get the same rules/startegems and are led by the same chapter masters giving re-roll everything auras.. Power armour is power armour to me. Only one power armour faction/sepcies is getting all fo the models releases and all of the rules currently. Its the paradigm.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:50:37


Post by: Eonfuzz


Dude it's 30" AP-2 basic troops with 2 wounds.
What else do you want lmfao


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 05:57:41


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It only bothers me with people use crab mentality and/or dump on Primaris irrationally. Which I think complaining that Primaris as new unit and having new stat lines is.
I prefer to dump on Primaris rationally: They're super-duper Marines that look like they belong to a different scale of game, and their fluff rubs me the wrong way. I think they look cool though (especially Eliminators), I just wish they weren't newer betterer Marines.

I also know that Primaris exist because GW had no worlds left to conquer when it came to Marines (except plastic Thunderfire Cannons, Tech-Marines and Servitors, for which I will forever be sad that we never got), so they needed to invent new Marines from whole cloth and break their entire universe to justify their existence.

Of course, hearing you talk about them makes me want to get a small faction of them...


I can agree that the scale of Primaris makes it very hard to inter-mix them with Firstborn. The scale difference of the model compared to the lore is jarring in a way I think most could forgive with Space Marines and Guardsmen.

As for the Fluff, yeah; they were kinda ham fisted in. But in a setting where technology is regressing and worked on with superstitious rituals and rites such as 40k, it really paints expanding stuff into a corner. There isn't a whole lot of things beyond: We had it all along, it was always in use in ______ previously unknown sector, the Emperor/a Primarch said we could, etc. I mostly gloss past the genesis of of Primaris . Because like Patton Oswald, I don't care where the stuff I like comes from I just want to like it. Or something like that. I focus on my chapter's lore from the Indomitus Crusade as grey shields to their exploits in the latest Battle of Baal where they learned a harsh lesson that even some of their own battle brothers (the Blood Angels in this case) despise and mistrust them even after shedding blood for them. I mention it, because few people online really mention how some Ultima founding chapters must feel as they know are looked down upon by some of the Firstborn as much as they looked up to them holding the line for 10,000 years. I like the grim dark of Primaris literally slowed, and even stopped it for a time, the doomsday clock and were hated for it by their own battle brothers. That must be hard to take in even for a psycho-indoctrinated super soldier from a different time.

Plus, I really like the models.

Again, I think it is best to think of the Primaris as a whole new faction that is actually 4 to 5 factions. The large number of releases make far more sense that way especially considering how popular space marines are. I also think that the new Codex: Space Marines signaled a point where a Primaris only army can work. I want the same for my Black Legion army as well as my Genestealer Army. Both of which I think are really struggling along with a few other factions. I don't think trying to tear down Primaris is the way to do it. I mean I left the supplements on the shelf, because I felt codex was enough power (and it didn't fit my chapter's lore as they are Unknown successors). Certainly some nerfs can be in order. I am fine with that. Increasing the cost of Intercessors a point or two. That isn't going to change my army much. I usually have a couple of Reivers I tack on making odd sized squads that I could cut back on. I want all players to feel they have a fighting chance at winning most games before the first die is thrown. I don't know if that will ever be the case. I think concerning this thread CSM got a long way to go if they want to rock and roll.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 06:03:29


Post by: Crimson


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, how do they bend the lore around that? Every traitor marine isn't a chaos worshiper remember?

The ones represented by Codex Chaos Space Marines certainly are! If you want to play non-chos traitor marines you can just use the vanilla marine codex.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 06:11:58


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Just what Chaos players want: To have to use another Codex to rep their armies again.

 Crimson wrote:
You mean a game using the sort of scale where marines are actually bigger than normal humans?
It ain't Marines that are out of scale. It's the Guardsmen. So sayeth Jes Goodwin.

 Crimson wrote:
Just forget that the minimarines exist and then the primaris are just marines.
I won't be forgetting Marines exist. No thanks.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 06:16:39


Post by: Insectum7


 Crimson wrote:
Just forget that the minimarines exist and then the primaris are just marines.


No Rhinos, Land Raiders, Tactical Squads, Jump Pack troopers with Chainswords, no Bikes and no Terminators? No deal.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 06:18:42


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
As for tanks, Repulsors are huge point sinks. I don't think they generally work on their own as well as you might think. Maybe a marine supplement such as the Iron Hands have a way to get work out them, but my codex only army doesn't get as much out of them as I would like since I have very limited Anti-Tank. I know I certainly don't like tangling with Imperial Guard armored armies because if feels like I have a Tiger versus too many Sherman Fireflies to win. And once my repulsor(s) is down, I don't have much left let alone anti-tank.

Eh, I prefer using a Mause on them myself.

Again, I think a lot people on Dakka Dakka are over exaggerating the power of the Intercessor. Before the new Codex, the Bolt Rifle Intercessor was a middling Troop choice that received points drops. Even now, I am not entirely convince that Tacticals can't provide the same amount of threat but in a different more deliberate way. However, they aren't as overt with Raw stats to reveal it as easy as Intercessors through Mathhammer. So I think somewhere before Bolter Discipline was a beta rule and now is where fair power of Intercessors can be found. Most of these arguments concerning Intercessors have been on things they have had since their introduction but weren't that big of an issue two years ago, but suddenly are now.

Y'know we had a whole thread on tacticals vs intercessors. Went on for days.

Look, like I said, I think most people's problem with loyalist marines is that gw has been paying loads of attention on them while mostly ignoring others, especially some xenos factions. I'd just like them to stop playing with their new toys for long enough to give my bitter old veterans some attention. I got no problem with primaris, they die just like everything else.

Except rievers. They're a complete rippoff of terror squads. Feth those guys.


I don't know if it has been ignoring the other factions so much as they just over tuned marines with the latest codex while trying to renew their most popular faction with an entirely new line. I don't agree with SlayerFan123 often, but I agree that the Chapter Supplements rules boosts, particularly super doctrines, was a misstep.

I on the model side of things for Chaos Space Marines I have been relatively happy. I mean I still pine for new Khorne Berserkers, Possessed and/or Noise Marines, but I have been content enough with CSM, Havocs and Abbadon. At this point, I think their are other factions that could use more of a refreshing of their model line. Rules wise, I agree that Chaos Space Marines are in a dire place. I might lose worse and faster with my GSC, but I feel losses with my Black Legion are less about me being bad at the game and more about the army being hobbled.

I point to my limited experience with Age of Sigmar. I started playing Slaves to Darkness (also in Black Legion colors) about a month before the new Battletome. I suffered crushing defeats that I wasn't even sure it was possible to win without incredible luck. Now, I have been winning more games than losing and that is with a largely meh tier, or at least the units I take are meh, book. I don't even think CSM are at meh. Which is a shame, and I hope gets fixed sooner rather than later. Until then, I will still shout, "Death to False Emperor!" and do the best with what I have.

As far as I am concerned, you can have Reivers' terror tactics. So far, it has scared a handful of guardsmen into running away for me. But Reivers are awesome with their silly skull masks.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 06:24:55


Post by: Crimson


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just what Chaos players want: To have to use another Codex to rep their armies again.

People who play non-chaos traitors are by definition not playing chaos space marines.


It ain't Marines that are out of scale. It's the Guardsmen. So sayeth Jes Goodwin.

That ship sailed a long time ago. There are now a crazy number of different normal human models that are as tall or taller than the minimarines. And Jes seems to have moved with the times too, considering that he was in charge of designing the primaris.


I won't be forgetting Marines exist. No thanks.

Not marines. Just minimarines. The primaris are the marines now. You probably are not spending a lot of time agonising over the fact that marines are no longer penal legionaries* and represented by tiny beakie models either. I for one am glad that marines finally look and play like proper super soldiers. The problem with chaos is that despite improved the new models in the rules they're still wimp marines.

(* Granted, that actually was a cool piece of fluff and I like it more than the current venerated semi-divine champions.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:

No Rhinos, Land Raiders, Tactical Squads, Jump Pack troopers with Chainswords, no Bikes and no Terminators? No deal.

Tanks have improved replacements, Intercessors are tacticals and the bikes are coming. I agree that chainsword assault unit would be welcome. I gave my reivers chainswors though, so I kinda got that covered.




Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 06:31:40


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Crimson wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, how do they bend the lore around that? Every traitor marine isn't a chaos worshiper remember?

The ones represented by Codex Chaos Space Marines certainly are! If you want to play non-chos traitor marines you can just use the vanilla marine codex.

All the legions don't worship chaos. Some use it as a weapon but without worshipping it. Unless the new codex threw away all the lore from previous editions.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 06:49:02


Post by: Insectum7


 Crimson wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just what Chaos players want: To have to use another Codex to rep their armies again.

People who play non-chaos traitors are by definition not playing chaos space marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

No Rhinos, Land Raiders, Tactical Squads, Jump Pack troopers with Chainswords, no Bikes and no Terminators? No deal.

Tanks have improved replacements, Intercessors are tacticals and the bikes are coming. I agree that chainsword assault unit would be welcome. I gave my reivers chainswors though, so I kinda got that covered.


If you ain't playing Land Raiders and Tacticals, then by definition you ain't playing Land Raiders and Tacticals, etc.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 07:44:14


Post by: Daedalus81


Gadzilla666 wrote:

Stop it. This is probably 2w cult troops all over again. Do you actually think they'd lock something like fething Ghaz in a box for six months?


Hype train has no brakes! DOOT DOOOOOT!

They locked JZ and DZ. Why not capitalize on like literally every Ork player out there?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 09:42:48


Post by: Not Online!!!


honestly, the biggest issue is, imo, as soon as you run out of CP you are just black legion with a slightly diffrent trait. No rewards for mono legion, no customtraits, allways minimum souping, questionale stratagem design reaching from why the hell waste ink printing it too stupid combo enablers to outrifht stupid design.

Also traits still sucking and beeing restricted to a point where all our vehicles, half off our troop choices, etc don't profit from any varation on it. Even though GW has shown to be capable at writing seperate vehicle effects with the IG codex which is how old at this point excactly?

Spoiler:
not to mention the lack of customtraitssystem hurting warband players



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 09:46:01


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Not Online!!! wrote:
honestly, the biggest issue is, imo, as soon as you run out of CP you are just black legion with a slightly diffrent trait. No rewards for mono legion, no customtraits, allways minimum souping, questionale stratagem design reaching from why the hell waste ink printing it too stupid combo enablers to outrifht stupid design.

Also traits still sucking and beeing restricted to a point where all our vehicles, half off our troop choices, etc don't profit from any varation on it. Even though GW has shown to be capable at writing seperate vehicle effects with the IG codex which is how old at this point excactly?

Spoiler:
not to mention the lack of customtraitssystem hurting warband players


Warbands shouldn't be in the main Chaos Marine codex anyway. The focus should be Legions first and foremost. Let the main Marine codex handle any Renegades. This lack of focus keeps hurting the codex writing process to begin with.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 09:47:19


Post by: mrFickle


Yeah my issue with CSM is most of the models look like black legion and are visually compatible with running another legion that doesn’t have its own codex. I was looking at one of the models and to buy but it has the eye of Horus on it and no other option


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 09:51:03


Post by: Not Online!!!


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
honestly, the biggest issue is, imo, as soon as you run out of CP you are just black legion with a slightly diffrent trait. No rewards for mono legion, no customtraits, allways minimum souping, questionale stratagem design reaching from why the hell waste ink printing it too stupid combo enablers to outrifht stupid design.

Also traits still sucking and beeing restricted to a point where all our vehicles, half off our troop choices, etc don't profit from any varation on it. Even though GW has shown to be capable at writing seperate vehicle effects with the IG codex which is how old at this point excactly?

Spoiler:
not to mention the lack of customtraitssystem hurting warband players


Warbands shouldn't be in the main Chaos Marine codex anyway. The focus should be Legions first and foremost. Let the main Marine codex handle any Renegades. This lack of focus keeps hurting the codex writing process to begin with.


i frankly don't care either way, personally it is high time for faction consolidation.
yes that means bigger books with multiple factions in it.

But it would also finaly curb the fething rulesources bloat. I mean common, the situation right now is ridicoulus.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrFickle wrote:
Yeah my issue with CSM is most of the models look like black legion and are visually compatible with running another legion that doesn’t have its own codex. I was looking at one of the models and to buy but it has the eye of Horus on it and no other option


As someone that owns enough of the new CSM, you can easily bypass it on all the models, due to it mostly beeing stuck on shoulderpads.
What you can't bypass though, is the lack of standard equipment in all the new CSM boxes.
You get 8 bolters no more no less. you get 8 chainswords / pistols. but you get 12 backpacks. ...

Not to mention the terminator kit: Yeah chainaxes and Combibolters are standard equipment. You only get ONE chainaxe, but would you be interested in some fences for them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

Stop it. This is probably 2w cult troops all over again. Do you actually think they'd lock something like fething Ghaz in a box for six months?


Hype train has no brakes! DOOT DOOOOOT!

They locked JZ and DZ. Why not capitalize on like literally every Ork player out there?


By throwing ghaz and ragnar in a box chokefull of nonsense? And at a insane pricepoint? Sounds right and is fully expected


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 13:59:57


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
honestly, the biggest issue is, imo, as soon as you run out of CP you are just black legion with a slightly diffrent trait. No rewards for mono legion, no customtraits, allways minimum souping, questionale stratagem design reaching from why the hell waste ink printing it too stupid combo enablers to outrifht stupid design.

Also traits still sucking and beeing restricted to a point where all our vehicles, half off our troop choices, etc don't profit from any varation on it. Even though GW has shown to be capable at writing seperate vehicle effects with the IG codex which is how old at this point excactly?

Spoiler:
not to mention the lack of customtraitssystem hurting warband players


That's exactly the problem. Gw acts like they don't know how to make the legions unique, we know better. This insistence on tying everything to cp for csm while loyalists get improved chapter tactics and other bonuses simply for existing means loyalists actually have options for how they organize their army, whereas heretics are stuck with double battalions if we want to both function as a legion and actually be able to compete past turn two.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 14:15:46


Post by: Daedalus81


Not Online!!! wrote:

By throwing ghaz and ragnar in a box chokefull of nonsense? And at a insane pricepoint? Sounds right and is fully expected


Yea it is definitely on brand for them to do. I'd bet the MANZ are probably the old kit, but if I can part it out on eBay I'm headed straight for dropping money on 20 to 30 of them.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 14:51:05


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
i frankly don't care either way, personally it is high time for faction consolidation.
yes that means bigger books with multiple factions in it.

But it would also finaly curb the fething rulesources bloat. I mean common, the situation right now is ridicoulus.

I don't see why the books would need to be that much bigger. The current codex is 168 pages vs 80 for 3.5. And 3.5 had all the legions in it. Which one do you think gave us more options on how to run our armies?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 14:56:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


3.5 may not have been balanced, but man did it give us Chaos players some variety.


Still, I wonder what a set of custom "build your own" Renegade Marine forces. I mean, I like being able to advance and charge, and I like being rewarded for taking basic troops. Red Corsairs has had me covered for a while now. I've not built a list that didn't have them as the core component.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 16:30:29


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3.5 may not have been balanced, but man did it give us Chaos players some variety.


It remains one of the best codexes GW has ever released in terms of tone and customization.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 16:35:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3.5 may not have been balanced, but man did it give us Chaos players some variety.


It remains one of the best codexes GW has ever released in terms of tone and customization.

Strongly seconded.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 19:53:56


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3.5 may not have been balanced, but man did it give us Chaos players some variety.


It remains one of the best codexes GW has ever released in terms of tone and customization.


Be careful what you wish for. The same thing could be said of the marine supplements.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 20:15:58


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3.5 may not have been balanced, but man did it give us Chaos players some variety.


It remains one of the best codexes GW has ever released in terms of tone and customization.


Be careful what you wish for. The same thing could be said of the marine supplements.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Customization is well and good, but there is such a thing as too much and letting false options take center stage, or just options that don't make a lick of sense. Take the current Marine system going on. Iron Hands successors really should not be Stealthy and being able to charge after falling back. It's terribly silly.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 20:25:37


Post by: BrianDavion


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Speaking of more marine support, looks like there's *another* new primaris statline coming on the way.


despite the use of the word infiltrators, BOLS has found a likely canidate for an example of the art and this actually looks like a gravis unit. my guess is this'll come in a box set and towards the end of the year we'll see the long expected "gravis wave"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3.5 may not have been balanced, but man did it give us Chaos players some variety.


It remains one of the best codexes GW has ever released in terms of tone and customization.


Be careful what you wish for. The same thing could be said of the marine supplements.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Customization is well and good, but there is such a thing as too much and letting false options take center stage, or just options that don't make a lick of sense. Take the current Marine system going on. Iron Hands successors really should not be Stealthy and being able to charge after falling back. It's terribly silly.


ok, rules aside, why? why shou;dn't iron hands sucessors be able to be stealthy? what if my ideal chapter (we're talking lore and background here not "what stuff can I choose to be the most broken) is one with a bit of a cyberpunk flair of small detachments of individuals cybered out of the gills running special operations and stealth missions, hitting and fading?

....... actually that sounds like a neat idea for a truely DISTINCT iron hands sucessor.

this is the problem of course with chapter tactics period, not all of them are equal, and for some people they choose the one that fits their lore, ohers just wanna power game and lore be damned


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 20:32:55


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3.5 may not have been balanced, but man did it give us Chaos players some variety.


It remains one of the best codexes GW has ever released in terms of tone and customization.


Be careful what you wish for. The same thing could be said of the marine supplements.


What did I wish for?

The 3.5 Chaos Codex is one book, paperback and was maybe 25$ new. Not 7 books with way more options than necessary/flavorful, etc. 3.5 book Also included Daemons.

Best Marine book was 4th Ed. Marine, which had chapter customization, included successor chapters, and no Primaris.

Maybe what I "wished for" was a codex style that covered all the necessary options and flavor in one book. More options, more flavor, fewer pages. Concision.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 20:35:30


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea, that's fair, and I am not opposed to it. It's just that the more there is the greater the risk to balance.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 20:49:55


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, that's fair, and I am not opposed to it. It's just that the more there is the greater the risk to balance.


Shiver me timbers! Options! There's going to be balance issues regardless, and there have been issues even when the game was super-streamlined with fewer options than ever (3rd Ed.) Stand-out issues can always be addressed. GW is doing it now with CA, GW could have done it with 3.5 if they were inclined to. It's not rocket science.

The bottom line is, would you rather a single book with all your stuff? Or four books? CSM, Daemons, Thousand Sons, Death Guard. Not to mention PA.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 21:23:40


Post by: Daedalus81


I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 21:48:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.

It may be difficult to throw daemons, and possibly dg and 1ksons in, but I see no reason we couldn't have good flavorful rules for the other legions contained in one book, instead of spreading it out like the current situation.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 22:27:15


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.


Yes you could.
Death guard and TS back.
Stratagems, curbing of the useless specific anti x stratagems.

Apply Limits to datasheet availability (no sorcerers for we f.e. Limited assault optional for dg specific aligned Units for them, not that dificult) and Modification as appropriate (f.e. DG lords gain t 5 and fnp , TS havocs become rubricaed.)

Add in the formations.


So successfully lowered required books for Chaos legions by 4.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 22:37:22


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 22:46:12


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
Just trim the fat.

How many unique units are added with Thousand Sons and Death Guard anyways? Between the three books there are still fewer Terminator options than the normal Space Marine book. Let's count up the sheets and see if all together they have significantly more units than the Space Marine book. I don't have those books myself, just the CSM one.

edit: inja'd. Thanks H.B.M.C



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 23:31:01


Post by: ArcaneHorror


I wonder if we're ever going to get rules for the renegades mentioned in the CSM codex who weren't in Vigillus Ablaze, like the Invocators, Magma Hounds, and Cleaved.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/05 23:59:20


Post by: pelicaniforce



Insectum7 wrote:
The 3.5 Chaos Codex is one book, paperback and was maybe 25$ new. Not 7 books with way more options than necessary/flavorful, etc. 3.5 book Also included Daemons.

Best Marine book was 4th Ed. Marine, which had chapter customization, included successor chapters, and no Primaris.

Maybe what I "wished for" was a codex style that covered all the necessary options and flavor in one book. More options, more flavor, fewer pages. Concision.


The 2002 dex didn’t cover all the options. It covered the models really well, like the daemon prince and the raptors, and some say the daemonettes. Except in the rules raptors didn’t really work. The “concision” of being really good in the army list construction phase of the game meant that just getting raptors to fit in an army, or the various types of chosen (all-champion cavalry, or Tzeentch anything) was never worked out. Cult armies couldn’t even take raptors, despite the fact that they were supposedly a separate, allied cult unit even in undivided armies. Mainly their rules just didn’t mean anything and that’s probably why they continue to have such weird treatment, eg the silly lightning claw unit and the hapless mook unit.

They had the tools, the codex could have made raptors daemonic beasts with flight, then they’d have been slightly weak and super fast, but what they were instead was high pointed plasma caddies that nobody needed and often weren’t allowed anyway.

And like, rubric units were a mess. I and most of the TS players I met ended up using them as close combat units, where their two wounds allowed them to slowly grind out a cc victory with their one warp time power fist. These are fluffy players after all, that’s the only kind of TS player there is really. Those were the glory days and even then the basic mechanics of the unit were just stupid.

Fourth edition space marines I think set boundaries on creativity for some people. Yeah I think the customization or role playing kind of element was mechanized. From a hobby perspective it only offered so much too. I can build some outrageous conversions and then all the traits did was give them furious charge. Like, the models didn’t really need that in order to become game legal. There was good stuff about it I guess



Insectum7 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Just forget that the minimarines exist and then the primaris are just marines.


No Rhinos, Land Raiders, Tactical Squads, Jump Pack troopers with Chainswords, no Bikes and no Terminators? No deal.


Crimson is an A-tier hobbyist, I’m really just going to go with it.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 06:13:40


Post by: ccs


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


But, but, but.... To include that several pages of craptastic fluff & recycled art might have to be cut!


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 06:24:48


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


But, but, but.... To include that several pages of craptastic fluff & recycled art might have to be cut!

Which is part of the problem. The Angels don't have that much fluff that hasn't been covered in the same manner as other Chapters. The fact GW thinks there's a need for this many codices is ridiculous.
#saynotobloat


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 06:32:12


Post by: Daedalus81


ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


But, but, but.... To include that several pages of craptastic fluff & recycled art might have to be cut!


So you just arbitrarily decide that no Chaos player wants fluff in their book(s)?

Are we also dumping daemons?

Daemons - pages 84 to 136 for all units, traits, strats, artefacts, powers, points, and objectives. 52 pages.
Thousand Sons - pages 66 to 104. 38 pages.
Death Guard - pages 68 to 104. 36 pages.
CSM - pages 118 to 176. 58 pages.
F&F (or did you forget?) - pages 56 to 95. 39 pages.
Vigilus (whoops, you forgot again) - pages 180 to 200. 20 pages.
RotD (ooops) - pages 76 to 86. 10 pages.
PA for DG???

253 pages on just rules. Even if you could reduce that by 20 or 40 it is still larger than any other codex, doesn't have ANY fluff, and doesn't address how many interactions and unit selections would be forbidden among the more isolated legions.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 07:26:53


Post by: Insectum7


pelicaniforce wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
The 3.5 Chaos Codex is one book, paperback and was maybe 25$ new. Not 7 books with way more options than necessary/flavorful, etc. 3.5 book Also included Daemons.

Best Marine book was 4th Ed. Marine, which had chapter customization, included successor chapters, and no Primaris.

Maybe what I "wished for" was a codex style that covered all the necessary options and flavor in one book. More options, more flavor, fewer pages. Concision.


The 2002 dex didn’t cover all the options. It covered the models really well, like the daemon prince and the raptors, and some say the daemonettes. Except in the rules raptors didn’t really work. The “concision” of being really good in the army list construction phase of the game meant that just getting raptors to fit in an army, or the various types of chosen (all-champion cavalry, or Tzeentch anything) was never worked out. Cult armies couldn’t even take raptors, despite the fact that they were supposedly a separate, allied cult unit even in undivided armies. Mainly their rules just didn’t mean anything and that’s probably why they continue to have such weird treatment, eg the silly lightning claw unit and the hapless mook unit.

They had the tools, the codex could have made raptors daemonic beasts with flight, then they’d have been slightly weak and super fast, but what they were instead was high pointed plasma caddies that nobody needed and often weren’t allowed anyway.

And like, rubric units were a mess. I and most of the TS players I met ended up using them as close combat units, where their two wounds allowed them to slowly grind out a cc victory with their one warp time power fist. These are fluffy players after all, that’s the only kind of TS player there is really. Those were the glory days and even then the basic mechanics of the unit were just stupid.

Fourth edition space marines I think set boundaries on creativity for some people. Yeah I think the customization or role playing kind of element was mechanized. From a hobby perspective it only offered so much too. I can build some outrageous conversions and then all the traits did was give them furious charge. Like, the models didn’t really need that in order to become game legal. There was good stuff about it I guess


Afaik the Cult armies with their own books can't take Raptors either, no? Are they in the Death Guard or Thousand Sons codex? I don't think so, in which case the 3.5 Codex disallows Cult Raptors by design because there aren't supposed to be any. I'm not sure there's a beef to be had if it's still not an option out of three current CSM-related codexes.

As for Thousand Sons in 3.5, using them for CC duty seems like not the greatest use, but then again I don't know the folks you played with. The extra wound wouldn't help against an enemy Power Fist because of Instant Death. I'm sure it was helpful that they were Fearless though. I mean, sure there were limits to what you could do with Cult armies (and there are still limits), but that was sorta the whole point. You give a number of upgrades but it comes at a cost (unlike the current SM supplements, which seem to just add). There's work done toward flavor, but balanced out by restrictions, and that encourages certain forms of army depending on the chosen Legion.

I also find it real strange that you seem to accuse 3.5 for limiting creativity when it had much more available customization than the first 3rd Ed. Codex before it and the 5th Ed one that came right after.

pelicaniforce wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Just forget that the minimarines exist and then the primaris are just marines.


No Rhinos, Land Raiders, Tactical Squads, Jump Pack troopers with Chainswords, no Bikes and no Terminators? No deal.


Crimson is an A-tier hobbyist, I’m really just going to go with it.


Not sure what that means.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 07:47:48


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Thousand Sons - pages 66 to 104. 38 pages.
Death Guard - pages 68 to 104. 36 pages.
Ok, now you're actually being disingenuous. As stated by more than one person already, there's a lot of redundancy in these books. You're also including full page photos as "pages of rules".

Yes, there are 38 pages in the Death Guard book from 68 to 104, but pages 93, 94 and 95 are full page photos. You're also doubling and in some cases tripling up on units.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 10:10:16


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:
ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


But, but, but.... To include that several pages of craptastic fluff & recycled art might have to be cut!


So you just arbitrarily decide that no Chaos player wants fluff in their book(s)?

Are we also dumping daemons?

Daemons - pages 84 to 136 for all units, traits, strats, artefacts, powers, points, and objectives. 52 pages.
Thousand Sons - pages 66 to 104. 38 pages.
Death Guard - pages 68 to 104. 36 pages.
CSM - pages 118 to 176. 58 pages.
F&F (or did you forget?) - pages 56 to 95. 39 pages.
Vigilus (whoops, you forgot again) - pages 180 to 200. 20 pages.
RotD (ooops) - pages 76 to 86. 10 pages.
PA for DG???

253 pages on just rules. Even if you could reduce that by 20 or 40 it is still larger than any other codex, doesn't have ANY fluff, and doesn't address how many interactions and unit selections would be forbidden among the more isolated legions.


Which is preciscly why you'd exclude Daemons.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Thousand Sons - pages 66 to 104. 38 pages.
Death Guard - pages 68 to 104. 36 pages.
Ok, now you're actually being disingenuous. As stated by more than one person already, there's a lot of redundancy in these books. You're also including full page photos as "pages of rules".

Yes, there are 38 pages in the Death Guard book from 68 to 104, but pages 93, 94 and 95 are full page photos. You're also doubling and in some cases tripling up on units.


Also this, rubrics are allready normally available in the regular book, same with any other cult marine.

It'd expand the elite section though by a bit. Which isn't somthing bad. further we'd finally have more units for these legions that make sense to have them, because why the feth do DG and TS not have havocs? etc.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 10:12:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


And all the duplicate redundant entries that he somehow forgot to remove...


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 10:17:04


Post by: Not Online!!!


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And all the duplicate redundant entries that he somehow forgot to remove...


Like all the basic cultmarines and daemons that are all allready in the csm book?



also it would finally fix up the obvious missing units for DG and TS, like havocs, or lords with T5 and FNP, if done correctly that is.


Also another point against this.
IA 13 had the R&H list with the capability to represent 8 differing styles of rebelions and warlords, on top of 6 god /non specific subvariations, from Dark mech, to hive world revolutions, and the funny thing is it was better balanced internaly and externally then the whole rest of the books in 7th.
So yes, you can absolutely represent any and all of the legions with adaptable rules aswell, and have it better balanced then the gakshow the chaos dexes are now.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 10:21:34


Post by: ccs


 Daedalus81 wrote:
ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


But, but, but.... To include that several pages of craptastic fluff & recycled art might have to be cut!


So you just arbitrarily decide that no Chaos player wants fluff in their book(s)?

Are we also dumping daemons?

Daemons - pages 84 to 136 for all units, traits, strats, artefacts, powers, points, and objectives. 52 pages.
Thousand Sons - pages 66 to 104. 38 pages.
Death Guard - pages 68 to 104. 36 pages.
CSM - pages 118 to 176. 58 pages.
F&F (or did you forget?) - pages 56 to 95. 39 pages.
Vigilus (whoops, you forgot again) - pages 180 to 200. 20 pages.
RotD (ooops) - pages 76 to 86. 10 pages.
PA for DG???

253 pages on just rules. Even if you could reduce that by 20 or 40 it is still larger than any other codex, doesn't have ANY fluff, and doesn't address how many interactions and unit selections would be forbidden among the more isolated legions.


Nope. I didn't forget anything. But I'm 100% certain that with better layout you could excise a bunch of wasted space.
Let's take a look at DG (the only Chaos book I've got handy atm) for ex....
P.68 - 50% dedicated to a picture.
P.69 - 50% dedicated to a picture.
P.74 - about 60% dedicated to a picture.
P.76 - 3" of NOTHING.
P.77 - 2"-2.5" of fluff.
P.78 - 1.5" of NOTHING/little horned nugel head pic
P.79 - another "1.5" of fluff.
P.80 - 1.5" of nothing.
P.82 - 3" of, wait for it.... NOTHING!
P.83 - 3" of pic/fluff.
P.87 - 4" of picture.
P.88 - 1.5" of NOTHING/little horned nugel head pic - exact same as p.78 btw
P.89 - 3" of pic/fluff
P.91 - 4.5" of picture
P.93 - 100% full page art. Not a single word/# of either fluff nor rules.
P.94 & 95 - two page full art spread/pic with tiny caption.
P.96 - 4" of picture
P.102 - 3" square chunk of nothing.
P.103 - a nice big L shaped chunk of nothing/incidental art 6"x6"(x2.5"high at it's smallest point)
{but P.102 & 103 - the pts pages - are redundant because the errata/FAQs & CA you all worship have rendered them outdated)

So let's say a Codex page has 9" window of space (that seems close to the average of what I see used when a page is "full rules").
If I get rid of all the above waste I've saved between 9 - 11 PAGES. From 1 book!
And that's not counting some wasted margin space, simply shrinking an entry here & there, or moving something to standardize everything to fit a 9" window.
Pages 1 - 67? All pics/art/fluff. Not touched at all.

And that's only 1 out of the 8 books you've listed. I'm sure a comparable % can be reclaimed from each of those without depriving any of us fluff & pics.




Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 14:12:25


Post by: Gadzilla666


ccs wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


But, but, but.... To include that several pages of craptastic fluff & recycled art might have to be cut!


So you just arbitrarily decide that no Chaos player wants fluff in their book(s)?

Are we also dumping daemons?

Daemons - pages 84 to 136 for all units, traits, strats, artefacts, powers, points, and objectives. 52 pages.
Thousand Sons - pages 66 to 104. 38 pages.
Death Guard - pages 68 to 104. 36 pages.
CSM - pages 118 to 176. 58 pages.
F&F (or did you forget?) - pages 56 to 95. 39 pages.
Vigilus (whoops, you forgot again) - pages 180 to 200. 20 pages.
RotD (ooops) - pages 76 to 86. 10 pages.
PA for DG???

253 pages on just rules. Even if you could reduce that by 20 or 40 it is still larger than any other codex, doesn't have ANY fluff, and doesn't address how many interactions and unit selections would be forbidden among the more isolated legions.


Nope. I didn't forget anything. But I'm 100% certain that with better layout you could excise a bunch of wasted space.
Let's take a look at DG (the only Chaos book I've got handy atm) for ex....
P.68 - 50% dedicated to a picture.
P.69 - 50% dedicated to a picture.
P.74 - about 60% dedicated to a picture.
P.76 - 3" of NOTHING.
P.77 - 2"-2.5" of fluff.
P.78 - 1.5" of NOTHING/little horned nugel head pic
P.79 - another "1.5" of fluff.
P.80 - 1.5" of nothing.
P.82 - 3" of, wait for it.... NOTHING!
P.83 - 3" of pic/fluff.
P.87 - 4" of picture.
P.88 - 1.5" of NOTHING/little horned nugel head pic - exact same as p.78 btw
P.89 - 3" of pic/fluff
P.91 - 4.5" of picture
P.93 - 100% full page art. Not a single word/# of either fluff nor rules.
P.94 & 95 - two page full art spread/pic with tiny caption.
P.96 - 4" of picture
P.102 - 3" square chunk of nothing.
P.103 - a nice big L shaped chunk of nothing/incidental art 6"x6"(x2.5"high at it's smallest point)
{but P.102 & 103 - the pts pages - are redundant because the errata/FAQs & CA you all worship have rendered them outdated)

So let's say a Codex page has 9" window of space (that seems close to the average of what I see used when a page is "full rules").
If I get rid of all the above waste I've saved between 9 - 11 PAGES. From 1 book!
And that's not counting some wasted margin space, simply shrinking an entry here & there, or moving something to standardize everything to fit a 9" window.
Pages 1 - 67? All pics/art/fluff. Not touched at all.

And that's only 1 out of the 8 books you've listed. I'm sure a comparable % can be reclaimed from each of those without depriving any of us fluff & pics.



Nice breakdown. I don't think a lot of people realize just how much of modern codexes are taken up by pure filler. 3.5 represented the legions better in 80 pages than the current codex does in 166, twice the page count. Imagine what we'd have if the design philosophy of 3.5 was stretched out to 166 pages.

Still the question remains, what needs to be done to make csm to behave like the elite veterans their supposed to be? Would just improved legion traits do it? Or should the current stat line for csm be scrapped in favor of the chosen stat line? Or something else?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 14:17:58


Post by: Daedalus81


Great guys - you got me! We'll just make the CSM book a fething encyclopedia.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 14:38:20


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Great guys - you got me! We'll just make the CSM book a fething encyclopedia.


Lol as if you'd not need to carry one right now if you wanted to use csm anyways.gimme a break
Might aswell have one book.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 14:55:47


Post by: Daedalus81


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Great guys - you got me! We'll just make the CSM book a fething encyclopedia.


Lol as if you'd not need to carry one right now if you wanted to use csm anyways.gimme a break
Might aswell have one book.



I mean in terms of being absolutely devoid of images and fluff.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 15:17:36


Post by: The Salt Mine


Cult marines and chosen getting 2 wounds, the daemon engines ignoring the penalties to moving and shooting, updated legion traits, and legion traits on all models are all I want.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 15:26:35


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Great guys - you got me! We'll just make the CSM book a fething encyclopedia.


Lol as if you'd not need to carry one right now if you wanted to use csm anyways.gimme a break
Might aswell have one book.



I mean in terms of being absolutely devoid of images and fluff.

*Sigh* Ok, just made a quick count, 3.5 has a total of 16 pages which are either full page artwork or fluff. That's not counting the images and fluff accompanying the rules and unit entries or the 15 pages of models. So we could have all that plus the rules content of 3.5 plus another 86 pages of rules if we just kept the codex the same size as the current one. Still not enough fluff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Salt Mine wrote:
Cult marines and chosen getting 2 wounds, the daemon engines ignoring the penalties to moving and shooting, updated legion traits, and legion traits on all models are all I want.

Sounds good. But chosen would need to be moved to troops in order to give the chaos undevided legions a troops choice that could compete with primaris.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 15:33:08


Post by: The Salt Mine


Chosen moving to troops is an interesting idea. Would allow legions that can't take the cult options as troops some elite troop choices. But I think the options available to chosen would need to be curtailed a bit.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 15:49:17


Post by: Gadzilla666


The Salt Mine wrote:
Chosen moving to troops is an interesting idea. Would allow legions that can't take the cult options as troops some elite troop choices. But I think the options available to chosen would need to be curtailed a bit.

I could see that, if they were given two wounds. How exactly would curtail their options?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 15:58:07


Post by: A.T.


Gadzilla666 wrote:
So we could have all that plus the rules content of 3.5 plus another 86 pages of rules if we just kept the codex the same size as the current one.
8th edition requires at least a half page of unit entry to put a jump pack on a single model. You'd need at least a dozen pages for just the bare bones entries of the chaos lord/sorcerer/prince page from the 3.5 dex...


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 16:06:48


Post by: Not Online!!!


A.T. wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
So we could have all that plus the rules content of 3.5 plus another 86 pages of rules if we just kept the codex the same size as the current one.
8th edition requires at least a half page of unit entry to put a jump pack on a single model. You'd need at least a dozen pages for just the bare bones entries of the chaos lord/sorcerer/prince page from the 3.5 dex...


Or take notes from ist 13 which had exactly 36 pages of rules with place to spare for more then enough customization...


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 16:16:12


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
A.T. wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
So we could have all that plus the rules content of 3.5 plus another 86 pages of rules if we just kept the codex the same size as the current one.
8th edition requires at least a half page of unit entry to put a jump pack on a single model. You'd need at least a dozen pages for just the bare bones entries of the chaos lord/sorcerer/prince page from the 3.5 dex...


Or take notes from ist 13 which had exactly 36 pages of rules with place to spare for more then enough customization...

Exactly. 8th edition codex unit entries are inefficiently written. Gw needs to learn from its past.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 16:39:34


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Gadzilla666 wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you can smash it all in one book. There is just way, way too much that has been added since the 3.5 days. You're talking about a 300 to 400 page book as there is incredibly littler overlap.
For real? The Marine Codex has 76 entries (I'm specifically not including special characters/units from the Marine supplements). Combined, removing duplicates, Chaos/1KSons/Death Guard have 81 units.

Marines are one book. Chaos could easily be one book, even adding 5 new unique units (each) for Slaanesh and Khorne could still be one book.


But, but, but.... To include that several pages of craptastic fluff & recycled art might have to be cut!


So you just arbitrarily decide that no Chaos player wants fluff in their book(s)?

Are we also dumping daemons?

Daemons - pages 84 to 136 for all units, traits, strats, artefacts, powers, points, and objectives. 52 pages.
Thousand Sons - pages 66 to 104. 38 pages.
Death Guard - pages 68 to 104. 36 pages.
CSM - pages 118 to 176. 58 pages.
F&F (or did you forget?) - pages 56 to 95. 39 pages.
Vigilus (whoops, you forgot again) - pages 180 to 200. 20 pages.
RotD (ooops) - pages 76 to 86. 10 pages.
PA for DG???

253 pages on just rules. Even if you could reduce that by 20 or 40 it is still larger than any other codex, doesn't have ANY fluff, and doesn't address how many interactions and unit selections would be forbidden among the more isolated legions.


Nope. I didn't forget anything. But I'm 100% certain that with better layout you could excise a bunch of wasted space.
Let's take a look at DG (the only Chaos book I've got handy atm) for ex....
P.68 - 50% dedicated to a picture.
P.69 - 50% dedicated to a picture.
P.74 - about 60% dedicated to a picture.
P.76 - 3" of NOTHING.
P.77 - 2"-2.5" of fluff.
P.78 - 1.5" of NOTHING/little horned nugel head pic
P.79 - another "1.5" of fluff.
P.80 - 1.5" of nothing.
P.82 - 3" of, wait for it.... NOTHING!
P.83 - 3" of pic/fluff.
P.87 - 4" of picture.
P.88 - 1.5" of NOTHING/little horned nugel head pic - exact same as p.78 btw
P.89 - 3" of pic/fluff
P.91 - 4.5" of picture
P.93 - 100% full page art. Not a single word/# of either fluff nor rules.
P.94 & 95 - two page full art spread/pic with tiny caption.
P.96 - 4" of picture
P.102 - 3" square chunk of nothing.
P.103 - a nice big L shaped chunk of nothing/incidental art 6"x6"(x2.5"high at it's smallest point)
{but P.102 & 103 - the pts pages - are redundant because the errata/FAQs & CA you all worship have rendered them outdated)

So let's say a Codex page has 9" window of space (that seems close to the average of what I see used when a page is "full rules").
If I get rid of all the above waste I've saved between 9 - 11 PAGES. From 1 book!
And that's not counting some wasted margin space, simply shrinking an entry here & there, or moving something to standardize everything to fit a 9" window.
Pages 1 - 67? All pics/art/fluff. Not touched at all.

And that's only 1 out of the 8 books you've listed. I'm sure a comparable % can be reclaimed from each of those without depriving any of us fluff & pics.



Nice breakdown. I don't think a lot of people realize just how much of modern codexes are taken up by pure filler. 3.5 represented the legions better in 80 pages than the current codex does in 166, twice the page count. Imagine what we'd have if the design philosophy of 3.5 was stretched out to 166 pages.

Still the question remains, what needs to be done to make csm to behave like the elite veterans their supposed to be? Would just improved legion traits do it? Or should the current stat line for csm be scrapped in favor of the chosen stat line? Or something else?

Absolutely scrapping the current stats for Chosen to be troops and making everything Vet stats at minimum. That's a start but obviously we need reworked traits. I'm also in favor of consolidated Thousand Sons and Death Guard.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 20:43:53


Post by: BrianDavion


consolidation isn't going to happen. it's clear GW's looking at expanding their armies not chopping it down


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 20:46:10


Post by: TheAvengingKnee


BrianDavion wrote:
consolidation isn't going to happen. it's clear GW's looking at expanding their armies not chopping it down


It would be nice if they fleshed out some of the big legions a little better 1k sons and DG could use some more toys.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 21:01:51


Post by: Not Online!!!


BrianDavion wrote:
consolidation isn't going to happen. it's clear GW's looking at expanding their armies not chopping it down


Correction consolidation isn't happening because more books to sell


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 21:06:53


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
consolidation isn't going to happen. it's clear GW's looking at expanding their armies not chopping it down


Correction consolidation isn't happening because more books to sell

Bingo. Calling what Death Guard got an "expansion" is fething laughable. They lost WAY more than they gained. That's not even debatable. You can even say the same for Thousand Sons too.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/06 21:25:26


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Great guys - you got me! We'll just make the CSM book a fething encyclopedia.
Stop being so melodramatic. As already stated, the Marine Codex has roughly the same amount of units as the combined CSM/DG/1KSons books, and it's not an encyclopedia.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 00:28:24


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


AND it has several places where things could be cut in entries. No, you don't need 9+ different Captain entries.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 02:15:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Exactly. You don't need an entry for a Captain, Captain on Bike, Captain in Terminator Armour, Captain in Cataphractii Armour, Captain on Skakeboard, Captain on Rollerblades, Captain in a Camaro and so on.

Captain.
Primaris Captain.

Then they can buy different armour types from the Wargear list like it used to be.

The exact same thing should be applied to "Chaos Lords" and "Chaos Sorcerers". No need for Adjective Nounverb snowflake units (Malignant Plaguecasters and whatever the Lord equivalent is called), and it cuts out the idiocy of a Death Guard lord not having Death Guard special rules because it's not specifically a Death Guard Lord miniature. If they can do it with Daemon Princes, they can do it with anything.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 05:47:27


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Great guys - you got me! We'll just make the CSM book a fething encyclopedia.
Stop being so melodramatic. As already stated, the Marine Codex has roughly the same amount of units as the combined CSM/DG/1KSons books, and it's not an encyclopedia.


And where do you find the fluff, strats, traits, and so forth for IH?

Marines have 76 sheets. Of which a bunch are some sort of captain.

Chaos has around 129 unique. That's 70% more and it's quite likely we'll see more expansion.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 06:10:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You keep trying to squish Chaos Daemons in this to make some sort of point.

You know what a "false dilemma" is, right?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 06:15:06


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You keep trying to squish Chaos Daemons in this to make some sort of point.

You know what a "false dilemma" is, right?


Wasn't that the point of "getting back to 3.5"? This is what people were arguing for is it not?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 06:57:35


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You keep trying to squish Chaos Daemons in this to make some sort of point.

You know what a "false dilemma" is, right?


Wasn't that the point of "getting back to 3.5"? This is what people were arguing for is it not?


You know what 3.5 did? Squashed all daemons of the same type into one 'datasheet'. Horrors, Bloodletters, Daemonettes and Plague Bearers were all one item, for example. Things can be plenty condensed of you wanted it.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 13:56:52


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You keep trying to squish Chaos Daemons in this to make some sort of point.

You know what a "false dilemma" is, right?


Wasn't that the point of "getting back to 3.5"? This is what people were arguing for is it not?

We're arguing for a return to the design philosophy of 3.5 for chaos space marines. A new codex could contain a few daemon entries, but if someone wants access to the full selection of daemonic units they can run them as soup with the chaos daemons codex.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 18:36:36


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:


You know what 3.5 did? Squashed all daemons of the same type into one 'datasheet'. Horrors, Bloodletters, Daemonettes and Plague Bearers were all one item, for example. Things can be plenty condensed of you wanted it.


Lots of stuff can be squished if you wanted to, but I think you'd have a hard time making such different units fit on one sheet - especially horrors.

You could sacrifice the weapon lists, but then I have to flip between a datasheet for a damage table and the back of the book and scan all the weapons to find the one I want.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/07 21:22:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


You know what 3.5 did? Squashed all daemons of the same type into one 'datasheet'. Horrors, Bloodletters, Daemonettes and Plague Bearers were all one item, for example. Things can be plenty condensed of you wanted it.


Lots of stuff can be squished if you wanted to, but I think you'd have a hard time making such different units fit on one sheet - especially horrors.

You could sacrifice the weapon lists, but then I have to flip between a datasheet for a damage table and the back of the book and scan all the weapons to find the one I want.

But how many daemons would you expect to be included in a csm codex? Your original page count included all the units, strategems, etc from the daemons codex. Wouldn't that be a bit much? Would you include all of the Custodes codex in a guard codex because they can be used as allies?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 00:54:23


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 01:04:09


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 01:21:41


Post by: BrianDavion


Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
consolidation isn't going to happen. it's clear GW's looking at expanding their armies not chopping it down


Correction consolidation isn't happening because more books to sell


potato potatoe. GW is a company and thus wants to make more money, right now they've detirmined the best avenue to that is a host of books, allowing for more focused armies. a decade from now they could indeed detirmine that consolidation is most important, but at the end of the day they're a mini gaming company and that means having gak to sell.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 01:55:12


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 02:18:39


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


That's not what Chosen are though. You're looking for there to be a distinction between Legionnaires and Renegades, which there ought to be. But there's still a difference between Elite Legionnaires and regular ones. 'Chosen' is a higher rank even among older troops that denotes veteran skills, gifts, etc.

The proper solution is to have separate profiles for Legionnaires and Renegades, with the difference being a few points and a stat point here or there, and perhaps what Strats they can access. Chosen should be left as the elite units they are meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


There's several things that are needed. But first, there has always been a lot of similarity between the basic roster of chaos and loyalist marine infantry. This is fine. Its fine for CSM and Tacs to be basically the same units but with slightly different rules. There's so many other units out there now for both armies, and traits, strats and relics are so different, that we're in no danger of being just spikey marines, as was often complained about in the past. However, I think splitting CSM into Renegades and Legionnaires would address this problem. Renegades should be a bit cheaper than Tacs but with less special rules, and Legionnaires should be slightly more powerful.

Now, on to the problems that need addressing:

First, we need CSM infantry to catch up to where loyalist infantry is. For that, we need new, 2 part traits like they have. And we need something equivalent to doctrines. IE, roughly the equivalent of -1 AP, but in a less flexible form. And then some super doctrine equivalent if the whole army is Chaos Marines. Marks are an obvious option. Either on troops providing small buffs, or perhaps on characters buffing their auras (making Chaos more character-centric than loyalists, which would be appropriate.) For example, a normal lord gives re-roll 1's to hit to anything. But you could have the option to give the lord Mark of Khorne, which would boost them to full re-rolls, but only for <Khorne> <Legion> units (and perhaps khorne daemons.) Or instead of full re-rolls, perhaps re-roll 1's to wound instead as well as 1's to hit (but again, with new restrictions.)

Second, there's the problem that veteran units aren't viable. This is a problem for both loyalists and chaos actually. Even if CSM got what I say above, Chosen still won't be great. And we know that because Veterans aren't good for Loyalists. To fix this, we need a new veteran traits system for both loyalists and chaos. Or just give both another wound or something. The point is that this isn't just a Chaos problem, this is still a Marine problem.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 02:35:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


With perhaps a better mono faction bonus for the legions who don't worship chaos and wouldn't take specific chaos marks?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 03:15:09


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Gadzilla666 wrote:
With perhaps a better mono faction bonus for the legions who don't worship chaos and wouldn't take specific chaos marks?


Something like that. The Legions vary so much that they basically each need their own mechanic.

Black Legion could use an existing Mark/Alignment system, and just ignore the restrictions of mixing units, etc.
Word Bearers should be able to align but not mark units, but get some really nice undivided bonuses.
Night Lords, Alpha Legion, and Iron Warriors ought to have their own mechanics, but still have the option to align/mark units, but maybe at extra cost because it'd be stacking on their other bonuses.

This can be most easily handled by a 3.5 style system where you pay some price per model or per unit for rules, and then you can vary the price or even give it free if the army meets certain requirements. But I doubt GW is going to return to this model of rules because it'll be hard to make it work now that everything is cheaper, and they haven't used it anywhere else. And its a bunch of book keeping (although other things are too.)

I think it's more likely that whatever we get won't be this tailored to the specific legions. If we got Marks, it'd probably work the same on every legion, despite the fluff violations. Which wouldn't be ideal, but better than nothing still.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 07:16:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
With perhaps a better mono faction bonus for the legions who don't worship chaos and wouldn't take specific chaos marks?


Something like that. The Legions vary so much that they basically each need their own mechanic.

Black Legion could use an existing Mark/Alignment system, and just ignore the restrictions of mixing units, etc.
Word Bearers should be able to align but not mark units, but get some really nice undivided bonuses.
Night Lords, Alpha Legion, and Iron Warriors ought to have their own mechanics, but still have the option to align/mark units, but maybe at extra cost because it'd be stacking on their other bonuses.

This can be most easily handled by a 3.5 style system where you pay some price per model or per unit for rules, and then you can vary the price or even give it free if the army meets certain requirements. But I doubt GW is going to return to this model of rules because it'll be hard to make it work now that everything is cheaper, and they haven't used it anywhere else. And its a bunch of book keeping (although other things are too.)

I think it's more likely that whatever we get won't be this tailored to the specific legions. If we got Marks, it'd probably work the same on every legion, despite the fluff violations. Which wouldn't be ideal, but better than nothing still.

Agreed. A 3.5 type system would be best, but probably more work than gw would want to put into it. Guess we'll take what we can get.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 11:02:14


Post by: Dysartes


I'm of the opinion that people being interviewed to work at the GW Design Studio should be presented with a copy of the 3.5 Chaos Codex and left to read it for an hour.

As part of the following interview, they should then be asked if there are any elements they would look to use from it in modern design work.

If they answer with a yes, they should promptly be shown the door.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 11:19:08


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Dysartes wrote:
I'm of the opinion that people being interviewed to work at the GW Design Studio should be presented with a copy of the 3.5 Chaos Codex and left to read it for an hour.

As part of the following interview, they should then be asked if there are any elements they would look to use from it in modern design work.

If they answer with a yes, they should promptly be shown the door.


ha and why is that?

From a design perspective it grasped perfectly what CSM should be.

What it also shows is the utter failure commonly associateable with GW at balance.


An better alternative, from the same company no less, one which still could easily teach GW a thing or two would be the IA 13 list that does preciscly that for Renegades and does so in a manner that is even dare i say, balanced no less in 7th edition?



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 11:45:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Dysartes wrote:
I'm of the opinion that people being interviewed to work at the GW Design Studio should be presented with a copy of the 3.5 Chaos Codex and left to read it for an hour.

As part of the following interview, they should then be asked if there are any elements they would look to use from it in modern design work.

If they answer with a yes, they should promptly be shown the door.

Show us on the bear where the Iron Warrior touched you.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 11:53:16


Post by: Lord Damocles


 Dysartes wrote:
I'm of the opinion that people being interviewed to work at the GW Design Studio should be presented with a copy of the 3.5 Chaos Codex and left to read it for an hour.

As part of the following interview, they should then be asked if there are any elements they would look to use from it in modern design work.

If they answer with a yes, they should promptly be shown the door.

BuT Meh EthEr LanCE is FlUfFy!


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 15:37:43


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


That's not what Chosen are though. You're looking for there to be a distinction between Legionnaires and Renegades, which there ought to be. But there's still a difference between Elite Legionnaires and regular ones. 'Chosen' is a higher rank even among older troops that denotes veteran skills, gifts, etc.

The proper solution is to have separate profiles for Legionnaires and Renegades, with the difference being a few points and a stat point here or there, and perhaps what Strats they can access. Chosen should be left as the elite units they are meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


There's several things that are needed. But first, there has always been a lot of similarity between the basic roster of chaos and loyalist marine infantry. This is fine. Its fine for CSM and Tacs to be basically the same units but with slightly different rules. There's so many other units out there now for both armies, and traits, strats and relics are so different, that we're in no danger of being just spikey marines, as was often complained about in the past. However, I think splitting CSM into Renegades and Legionnaires would address this problem. Renegades should be a bit cheaper than Tacs but with less special rules, and Legionnaires should be slightly more powerful.

Now, on to the problems that need addressing:

First, we need CSM infantry to catch up to where loyalist infantry is. For that, we need new, 2 part traits like they have. And we need something equivalent to doctrines. IE, roughly the equivalent of -1 AP, but in a less flexible form. And then some super doctrine equivalent if the whole army is Chaos Marines. Marks are an obvious option. Either on troops providing small buffs, or perhaps on characters buffing their auras (making Chaos more character-centric than loyalists, which would be appropriate.) For example, a normal lord gives re-roll 1's to hit to anything. But you could have the option to give the lord Mark of Khorne, which would boost them to full re-rolls, but only for <Khorne> <Legion> units (and perhaps khorne daemons.) Or instead of full re-rolls, perhaps re-roll 1's to wound instead as well as 1's to hit (but again, with new restrictions.)

Second, there's the problem that veteran units aren't viable. This is a problem for both loyalists and chaos actually. Even if CSM got what I say above, Chosen still won't be great. And we know that because Veterans aren't good for Loyalists. To fix this, we need a new veteran traits system for both loyalists and chaos. Or just give both another wound or something. The point is that this isn't just a Chaos problem, this is still a Marine problem.

Which means you still fall into the trap of making them mirror factions still under your logic.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 19:22:51


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


That's not what Chosen are though. You're looking for there to be a distinction between Legionnaires and Renegades, which there ought to be. But there's still a difference between Elite Legionnaires and regular ones. 'Chosen' is a higher rank even among older troops that denotes veteran skills, gifts, etc.

The proper solution is to have separate profiles for Legionnaires and Renegades, with the difference being a few points and a stat point here or there, and perhaps what Strats they can access. Chosen should be left as the elite units they are meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


There's several things that are needed. But first, there has always been a lot of similarity between the basic roster of chaos and loyalist marine infantry. This is fine. Its fine for CSM and Tacs to be basically the same units but with slightly different rules. There's so many other units out there now for both armies, and traits, strats and relics are so different, that we're in no danger of being just spikey marines, as was often complained about in the past. However, I think splitting CSM into Renegades and Legionnaires would address this problem. Renegades should be a bit cheaper than Tacs but with less special rules, and Legionnaires should be slightly more powerful.

Now, on to the problems that need addressing:

First, we need CSM infantry to catch up to where loyalist infantry is. For that, we need new, 2 part traits like they have. And we need something equivalent to doctrines. IE, roughly the equivalent of -1 AP, but in a less flexible form. And then some super doctrine equivalent if the whole army is Chaos Marines. Marks are an obvious option. Either on troops providing small buffs, or perhaps on characters buffing their auras (making Chaos more character-centric than loyalists, which would be appropriate.) For example, a normal lord gives re-roll 1's to hit to anything. But you could have the option to give the lord Mark of Khorne, which would boost them to full re-rolls, but only for <Khorne> <Legion> units (and perhaps khorne daemons.) Or instead of full re-rolls, perhaps re-roll 1's to wound instead as well as 1's to hit (but again, with new restrictions.)

Second, there's the problem that veteran units aren't viable. This is a problem for both loyalists and chaos actually. Even if CSM got what I say above, Chosen still won't be great. And we know that because Veterans aren't good for Loyalists. To fix this, we need a new veteran traits system for both loyalists and chaos. Or just give both another wound or something. The point is that this isn't just a Chaos problem, this is still a Marine problem.

Which means you still fall into the trap of making them mirror factions still under your logic.


The marine statline is supposed to be the same for both, because they are both marines. Basically nothing else is mirrored. This was a silly complaint even in 5th when lots of the units were analogous, because the armies still played totally differently. And its even sillier now that there are primaris, daemon engines, cultists, allies, and tons of different traits, strats, and relics.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 21:30:17


Post by: The Salt Mine


Gadzilla666 wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
Chosen moving to troops is an interesting idea. Would allow legions that can't take the cult options as troops some elite troop choices. But I think the options available to chosen would need to be curtailed a bit.

I could see that, if they were given two wounds. How exactly would curtail their options?


I would just reduce the amount of special weapons they can take. So 1 special per 5 models taken instead of just being able to take 4.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 22:09:33


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


The Salt Mine wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
Chosen moving to troops is an interesting idea. Would allow legions that can't take the cult options as troops some elite troop choices. But I think the options available to chosen would need to be curtailed a bit.

I could see that, if they were given two wounds. How exactly would curtail their options?


I would just reduce the amount of special weapons they can take. So 1 special per 5 models taken instead of just being able to take 4.

Nobody would call Hellblasters broken if they were troops, so I doubt this would be an actual issue.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 22:11:51


Post by: ArcaneHorror


Undivided princes could be limited to only the smite power and denying enemy psychics, but to make up for it, they could have an option to take a weapon with the same stats as a maulerfiend's magma cutter but with a 24' range and being Assault D3 instead of Pistol 1, as well as maybe having a unique relic. Speaking of maulerfiends, they could also have the forge's daemon jaws attack on top of their other stuff, with the rules stating that they can make one additional attack with them in addition to the tendrils and fists. I don't think that it would make them OP, just improve them by a bit. As for forgefiends, there could be a rule that if they kill a model in a unit with their jaws, they can then immediately shoot again at any units within six inches of them, including the one they are in combat with. This fits with their fluff I think that they generate ammo through doing just that. This would obviously be most beneficial against infantry units, but could also unleash a nasty surprise against a unit that thinks it's safe, and would go a long way in upping the forgefiend's mediocre firepower.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/08 22:12:13


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


That's not what Chosen are though. You're looking for there to be a distinction between Legionnaires and Renegades, which there ought to be. But there's still a difference between Elite Legionnaires and regular ones. 'Chosen' is a higher rank even among older troops that denotes veteran skills, gifts, etc.

The proper solution is to have separate profiles for Legionnaires and Renegades, with the difference being a few points and a stat point here or there, and perhaps what Strats they can access. Chosen should be left as the elite units they are meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


There's several things that are needed. But first, there has always been a lot of similarity between the basic roster of chaos and loyalist marine infantry. This is fine. Its fine for CSM and Tacs to be basically the same units but with slightly different rules. There's so many other units out there now for both armies, and traits, strats and relics are so different, that we're in no danger of being just spikey marines, as was often complained about in the past. However, I think splitting CSM into Renegades and Legionnaires would address this problem. Renegades should be a bit cheaper than Tacs but with less special rules, and Legionnaires should be slightly more powerful.

Now, on to the problems that need addressing:

First, we need CSM infantry to catch up to where loyalist infantry is. For that, we need new, 2 part traits like they have. And we need something equivalent to doctrines. IE, roughly the equivalent of -1 AP, but in a less flexible form. And then some super doctrine equivalent if the whole army is Chaos Marines. Marks are an obvious option. Either on troops providing small buffs, or perhaps on characters buffing their auras (making Chaos more character-centric than loyalists, which would be appropriate.) For example, a normal lord gives re-roll 1's to hit to anything. But you could have the option to give the lord Mark of Khorne, which would boost them to full re-rolls, but only for <Khorne> <Legion> units (and perhaps khorne daemons.) Or instead of full re-rolls, perhaps re-roll 1's to wound instead as well as 1's to hit (but again, with new restrictions.)

Second, there's the problem that veteran units aren't viable. This is a problem for both loyalists and chaos actually. Even if CSM got what I say above, Chosen still won't be great. And we know that because Veterans aren't good for Loyalists. To fix this, we need a new veteran traits system for both loyalists and chaos. Or just give both another wound or something. The point is that this isn't just a Chaos problem, this is still a Marine problem.

Which means you still fall into the trap of making them mirror factions still under your logic.


The marine statline is supposed to be the same for both, because they are both marines. Basically nothing else is mirrored. This was a silly complaint even in 5th when lots of the units were analogous, because the armies still played totally differently. And its even sillier now that there are primaris, daemon engines, cultists, allies, and tons of different traits, strats, and relics.

Actually everything else becomes mirrored because of that exact problem, and are priced based on that. The exceptions are not the norm to look for.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/09 00:50:38


Post by: Gadzilla666


The Salt Mine wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
Chosen moving to troops is an interesting idea. Would allow legions that can't take the cult options as troops some elite troop choices. But I think the options available to chosen would need to be curtailed a bit.

I could see that, if they were given two wounds. How exactly would curtail their options?


I would just reduce the amount of special weapons they can take. So 1 special per 5 models taken instead of just being able to take 4.

But keeping the ability to take a cc weapon in addition for all models? So primaris would win in a shootout but chosen would win in cc? I can see that thematically, but in game terms primaris would be superior because of how inferior cc is compared to shooting in 8th.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/09 02:00:00


Post by: Insectum7


Used to be that all CSM could have bolter, bolt pistol and chainsword. I'd go back to that model and make the additional boltgun/chainsword cost a point.

As for Chosen, I don't see why they're limited in Combi/Special Weapons etc. when Sternguard and Command Squads are not.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/09 08:26:16


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


That's not what Chosen are though. You're looking for there to be a distinction between Legionnaires and Renegades, which there ought to be. But there's still a difference between Elite Legionnaires and regular ones. 'Chosen' is a higher rank even among older troops that denotes veteran skills, gifts, etc.

The proper solution is to have separate profiles for Legionnaires and Renegades, with the difference being a few points and a stat point here or there, and perhaps what Strats they can access. Chosen should be left as the elite units they are meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


There's several things that are needed. But first, there has always been a lot of similarity between the basic roster of chaos and loyalist marine infantry. This is fine. Its fine for CSM and Tacs to be basically the same units but with slightly different rules. There's so many other units out there now for both armies, and traits, strats and relics are so different, that we're in no danger of being just spikey marines, as was often complained about in the past. However, I think splitting CSM into Renegades and Legionnaires would address this problem. Renegades should be a bit cheaper than Tacs but with less special rules, and Legionnaires should be slightly more powerful.

Now, on to the problems that need addressing:

First, we need CSM infantry to catch up to where loyalist infantry is. For that, we need new, 2 part traits like they have. And we need something equivalent to doctrines. IE, roughly the equivalent of -1 AP, but in a less flexible form. And then some super doctrine equivalent if the whole army is Chaos Marines. Marks are an obvious option. Either on troops providing small buffs, or perhaps on characters buffing their auras (making Chaos more character-centric than loyalists, which would be appropriate.) For example, a normal lord gives re-roll 1's to hit to anything. But you could have the option to give the lord Mark of Khorne, which would boost them to full re-rolls, but only for <Khorne> <Legion> units (and perhaps khorne daemons.) Or instead of full re-rolls, perhaps re-roll 1's to wound instead as well as 1's to hit (but again, with new restrictions.)

Second, there's the problem that veteran units aren't viable. This is a problem for both loyalists and chaos actually. Even if CSM got what I say above, Chosen still won't be great. And we know that because Veterans aren't good for Loyalists. To fix this, we need a new veteran traits system for both loyalists and chaos. Or just give both another wound or something. The point is that this isn't just a Chaos problem, this is still a Marine problem.

Which means you still fall into the trap of making them mirror factions still under your logic.


The marine statline is supposed to be the same for both, because they are both marines. Basically nothing else is mirrored. This was a silly complaint even in 5th when lots of the units were analogous, because the armies still played totally differently. And its even sillier now that there are primaris, daemon engines, cultists, allies, and tons of different traits, strats, and relics.

Actually everything else becomes mirrored because of that exact problem, and are priced based on that. The exceptions are not the norm to look for.


I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What has become mirrored?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 03:44:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 05:47:49


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Gadzilla666 wrote:
New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Don't think it means anything to CSM's problems as far as I've been describing them here. Bile could come with a new option for enhancing CSM (or enhanced CSM unit), which could be fun. But even if its a good unit on its own, it won't address the overall problem of the faction. And it would be a shame if CSM infantry wasn't good normally, but was good with Bile's enhancement, as that would pigeonhole people into running Bile.

He could also mean new Noise Marine sculpt, which has been rumored. That'd be great to see, but also probably won't fix the overall state of CSM.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 06:22:30


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


That's not what Chosen are though. You're looking for there to be a distinction between Legionnaires and Renegades, which there ought to be. But there's still a difference between Elite Legionnaires and regular ones. 'Chosen' is a higher rank even among older troops that denotes veteran skills, gifts, etc.

The proper solution is to have separate profiles for Legionnaires and Renegades, with the difference being a few points and a stat point here or there, and perhaps what Strats they can access. Chosen should be left as the elite units they are meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


There's several things that are needed. But first, there has always been a lot of similarity between the basic roster of chaos and loyalist marine infantry. This is fine. Its fine for CSM and Tacs to be basically the same units but with slightly different rules. There's so many other units out there now for both armies, and traits, strats and relics are so different, that we're in no danger of being just spikey marines, as was often complained about in the past. However, I think splitting CSM into Renegades and Legionnaires would address this problem. Renegades should be a bit cheaper than Tacs but with less special rules, and Legionnaires should be slightly more powerful.

Now, on to the problems that need addressing:

First, we need CSM infantry to catch up to where loyalist infantry is. For that, we need new, 2 part traits like they have. And we need something equivalent to doctrines. IE, roughly the equivalent of -1 AP, but in a less flexible form. And then some super doctrine equivalent if the whole army is Chaos Marines. Marks are an obvious option. Either on troops providing small buffs, or perhaps on characters buffing their auras (making Chaos more character-centric than loyalists, which would be appropriate.) For example, a normal lord gives re-roll 1's to hit to anything. But you could have the option to give the lord Mark of Khorne, which would boost them to full re-rolls, but only for <Khorne> <Legion> units (and perhaps khorne daemons.) Or instead of full re-rolls, perhaps re-roll 1's to wound instead as well as 1's to hit (but again, with new restrictions.)

Second, there's the problem that veteran units aren't viable. This is a problem for both loyalists and chaos actually. Even if CSM got what I say above, Chosen still won't be great. And we know that because Veterans aren't good for Loyalists. To fix this, we need a new veteran traits system for both loyalists and chaos. Or just give both another wound or something. The point is that this isn't just a Chaos problem, this is still a Marine problem.

Which means you still fall into the trap of making them mirror factions still under your logic.


The marine statline is supposed to be the same for both, because they are both marines. Basically nothing else is mirrored. This was a silly complaint even in 5th when lots of the units were analogous, because the armies still played totally differently. And its even sillier now that there are primaris, daemon engines, cultists, allies, and tons of different traits, strats, and relics.

Actually everything else becomes mirrored because of that exact problem, and are priced based on that. The exceptions are not the norm to look for.


I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What has become mirrored?

The basic troop itself was mirrored, which therefore leads to the rest of the codex being based on that mirrored troop. CSM just being worse Loyalists as usual means that most of the tools and units from that statline end up being worse than the Loyalist counterparts. Not sure how that doesn't make sense.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 06:29:19


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Because part of the problem is treating the two factions as mirrors. A rewrite of Chosen being troops establishes the lower numbers of the Legions but them being more elite as well.


That's not what Chosen are though. You're looking for there to be a distinction between Legionnaires and Renegades, which there ought to be. But there's still a difference between Elite Legionnaires and regular ones. 'Chosen' is a higher rank even among older troops that denotes veteran skills, gifts, etc.

The proper solution is to have separate profiles for Legionnaires and Renegades, with the difference being a few points and a stat point here or there, and perhaps what Strats they can access. Chosen should be left as the elite units they are meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.

Limiting the options for chosen was predicated on them going to two wounds. But more rules could fix the problem, assuming gw doesn't give us another gak show like they did with loyalists.

What would you suggest? We don't just want a reprint of c:sm but with more spikes, after all.


There's several things that are needed. But first, there has always been a lot of similarity between the basic roster of chaos and loyalist marine infantry. This is fine. Its fine for CSM and Tacs to be basically the same units but with slightly different rules. There's so many other units out there now for both armies, and traits, strats and relics are so different, that we're in no danger of being just spikey marines, as was often complained about in the past. However, I think splitting CSM into Renegades and Legionnaires would address this problem. Renegades should be a bit cheaper than Tacs but with less special rules, and Legionnaires should be slightly more powerful.

Now, on to the problems that need addressing:

First, we need CSM infantry to catch up to where loyalist infantry is. For that, we need new, 2 part traits like they have. And we need something equivalent to doctrines. IE, roughly the equivalent of -1 AP, but in a less flexible form. And then some super doctrine equivalent if the whole army is Chaos Marines. Marks are an obvious option. Either on troops providing small buffs, or perhaps on characters buffing their auras (making Chaos more character-centric than loyalists, which would be appropriate.) For example, a normal lord gives re-roll 1's to hit to anything. But you could have the option to give the lord Mark of Khorne, which would boost them to full re-rolls, but only for <Khorne> <Legion> units (and perhaps khorne daemons.) Or instead of full re-rolls, perhaps re-roll 1's to wound instead as well as 1's to hit (but again, with new restrictions.)

Second, there's the problem that veteran units aren't viable. This is a problem for both loyalists and chaos actually. Even if CSM got what I say above, Chosen still won't be great. And we know that because Veterans aren't good for Loyalists. To fix this, we need a new veteran traits system for both loyalists and chaos. Or just give both another wound or something. The point is that this isn't just a Chaos problem, this is still a Marine problem.

Which means you still fall into the trap of making them mirror factions still under your logic.


The marine statline is supposed to be the same for both, because they are both marines. Basically nothing else is mirrored. This was a silly complaint even in 5th when lots of the units were analogous, because the armies still played totally differently. And its even sillier now that there are primaris, daemon engines, cultists, allies, and tons of different traits, strats, and relics.

Actually everything else becomes mirrored because of that exact problem, and are priced based on that. The exceptions are not the norm to look for.


I'm not clear on what you're saying here. What has become mirrored?

The basic troop itself was mirrored, which therefore leads to the rest of the codex being based on that mirrored troop. CSM just being worse Loyalists as usual means that most of the tools and units from that statline end up being worse than the Loyalist counterparts. Not sure how that doesn't make sense.


And its only a problem because they are worse loyalists. Mirrored stat lines wasn't a problem in 5th when they weren't worse. Which is why I'm advocating that CSM get rules to make them equivalent to what loyalists are again, as they have always been before.

It would be entirely possible for CSM infantry to NOT be mirrors of loyalist and still not be as good. The mirroring is not the issue.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 06:47:18


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Maybe stop quoting the quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote if you're just going to write 2 line replies.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 06:54:40


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Don't think it means anything to CSM's problems as far as I've been describing them here. Bile could come with a new option for enhancing CSM (or enhanced CSM unit), which could be fun. But even if its a good unit on its own, it won't address the overall problem of the faction. And it would be a shame if CSM infantry wasn't good normally, but was good with Bile's enhancement, as that would pigeonhole people into running Bile.

He could also mean new Noise Marine sculpt, which has been rumored. That'd be great to see, but also probably won't fix the overall state of CSM.

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe stop quoting the quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote if you're just going to write 2 line replies.

Or just hide the wall of quotes in a spoiler. That stuff makes me feel like I'm playing that old nes game where you bomb the xenos ziggurats.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 07:28:56


Post by: Insectum7


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Don't think it means anything to CSM's problems as far as I've been describing them here. Bile could come with a new option for enhancing CSM (or enhanced CSM unit), which could be fun. But even if its a good unit on its own, it won't address the overall problem of the faction. And it would be a shame if CSM infantry wasn't good normally, but was good with Bile's enhancement, as that would pigeonhole people into running Bile.

He could also mean new Noise Marine sculpt, which has been rumored. That'd be great to see, but also probably won't fix the overall state of CSM.

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.

Yeaahh. "Chaos Primaris" will be a big fat disappointed yawn from me.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 07:35:52


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Insectum7 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Don't think it means anything to CSM's problems as far as I've been describing them here. Bile could come with a new option for enhancing CSM (or enhanced CSM unit), which could be fun. But even if its a good unit on its own, it won't address the overall problem of the faction. And it would be a shame if CSM infantry wasn't good normally, but was good with Bile's enhancement, as that would pigeonhole people into running Bile.

He could also mean new Noise Marine sculpt, which has been rumored. That'd be great to see, but also probably won't fix the overall state of CSM.

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.

Yeaahh. "Chaos Primaris" will be a big fat disappointed yawn from me.

It would definitely show a lack of creativity and understanding of what csm are about.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 07:59:59


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


I'd be surprised if we saw a line of Chaos Primaris units because we just got new sculpts of regular chaos marines. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a unit called "Mutant Marines" or something that have the primaris statline, but them some whacky special rules or downsides like bile enhanced marines of the past. And I'd be fine with those existing.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 08:24:28


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'd be surprised if we saw a line of Chaos Primaris units because we just got new sculpts of regular chaos marines. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a unit called "Mutant Marines" or something that have the primaris statline, but them some whacky special rules or downsides like bile enhanced marines of the past. And I'd be fine with those existing.

So basically possessed with ranged weapons and without the daemon keyword and daemon save? I could see that, but would prefer rules changes to make our current units more viable. I don't like mutants and daemons in my Night Lords, course that's just my hang up.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 11:58:05


Post by: mrFickle


Looks like a new Fabius model is about to launch, v excited as I am building my EC army at the minute. Hopefully this means a EC codex is gonna drop


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 12:03:07


Post by: Not Online!!!


mrFickle wrote:
Looks like a new Fabius model is about to launch, v excited as I am building my EC army at the minute. Hopefully this means a EC codex is gonna drop


ec and WE are nearly 100% guaranteed considering that GW decries beeing a model company yet just prints more and more rulebooks

What does make me question it though is, why is a primaris sized helper harvesting a primaris for fabius.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 12:20:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
Looks like a new Fabius model is about to launch, v excited as I am building my EC army at the minute. Hopefully this means a EC codex is gonna drop


ec and WE are nearly 100% guaranteed considering that GW decries beeing a model company yet just prints more and more rulebooks

What does make me question it though is, why is a primaris sized helper harvesting a primaris for fabius.


I think we can guess at some possible reasons for that. And I really don't like one of them.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 13:21:46


Post by: mrFickle


Not Online!!! wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
Looks like a new Fabius model is about to launch, v excited as I am building my EC army at the minute. Hopefully this means a EC codex is gonna drop


ec and WE are nearly 100% guaranteed considering that GW decries beeing a model company yet just prints more and more rulebooks

What does make me question it though is, why is a primaris sized helper harvesting a primaris for fabius.



Fabius is the only plausible link to getting primaris CSM. I don’t like this idea, the only thing I liked about primaris was the added difference between CSM and SM armies.

If they do this primaris CSM should be restricted to EC armies containing Fabius and they should be primaris + Fabius enhancements, total genetic freaks. Maybe they are enthralled to him as part of his clone army.

If GW jus relaunch CSM with primaris like they have done with SM I will stop buying their stuff


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 13:29:08


Post by: Not Online!!!


mrFickle wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
Looks like a new Fabius model is about to launch, v excited as I am building my EC army at the minute. Hopefully this means a EC codex is gonna drop


ec and WE are nearly 100% guaranteed considering that GW decries beeing a model company yet just prints more and more rulebooks

What does make me question it though is, why is a primaris sized helper harvesting a primaris for fabius.



Fabius is the only plausible link to getting primaris CSM. I don’t like this idea, the only thing I liked about primaris was the added difference between CSM and SM armies.

If they do this primaris CSM should be restricted to EC armies containing Fabius and they should be primaris + Fabius enhancements, total genetic freaks. Maybe they are enthralled to him as part of his clone army.

If GW jus relaunch CSM with primaris like they have done with SM I will stop buying their stuff


i doubt we get primaris.
Nor do i think EC would accept primaris in their ranks.

What we probably will see though is freaks made out of primaris stuff, allbeit i'd have loved if we got access to stolen bolt rifles and consorts.
as for the primaris themselves, i dunno, but they make nice chosen, and their bolter are better then what we have right now, (looks wise) not to mention that you even get 10 of them in a 10 men box. Yes i am still salty about the 8 boltguns 8 chainsword /pistols in the csm box.
and better not talk about csm terminators with me.
Spoiler:
fething fences, i don't need a new garden fence GW I JUST DON'T


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 13:29:42


Post by: Voss


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Don't think it means anything to CSM's problems as far as I've been describing them here. Bile could come with a new option for enhancing CSM (or enhanced CSM unit), which could be fun. But even if its a good unit on its own, it won't address the overall problem of the faction. And it would be a shame if CSM infantry wasn't good normally, but was good with Bile's enhancement, as that would pigeonhole people into running Bile.

He could also mean new Noise Marine sculpt, which has been rumored. That'd be great to see, but also probably won't fix the overall state of CSM.

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.

Well, that'd be wrong. His 'New Men' are his gland hounds, which are already seeded on dozens of worlds, and aren't marines in any real sense.
Unless of course GW wants to create a complete disconnect between the fiction and the game...

However, that doesn't prevent GW tossing in some primaris chaos marine units that he worked on as a side project to see what they were capable of (or fix his own issues)
Truthfully, if they wanted to, GW could start a completely new 'chaos' faction with Bile, and just go crazy with it.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 13:34:10


Post by: mrFickle


I think it’s only a matter of time before a primaris chapters turns renegade and over to chaos.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 13:38:13


Post by: Not Online!!!


mrFickle wrote:
I think it’s only a matter of time before a primaris chapters turns renegade and over to chaos.


TBF that wouldn't bother me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Don't think it means anything to CSM's problems as far as I've been describing them here. Bile could come with a new option for enhancing CSM (or enhanced CSM unit), which could be fun. But even if its a good unit on its own, it won't address the overall problem of the faction. And it would be a shame if CSM infantry wasn't good normally, but was good with Bile's enhancement, as that would pigeonhole people into running Bile.

He could also mean new Noise Marine sculpt, which has been rumored. That'd be great to see, but also probably won't fix the overall state of CSM.

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.

Well, that'd be wrong. His 'New Men' are his gland hounds, which are already seeded on dozens of worlds, and aren't marines in any real sense.
Unless of course GW wants to create a complete disconnect between the fiction and the game...

However, that doesn't prevent GW tossing in some primaris chaos marine units that he worked on as a side project to see what they were capable of (or fix his own issues)
Truthfully, if they wanted to, GW could start a completely new 'chaos' faction with Bile, and just go crazy with it.


Maybee we are all wrong, get indeed a bile army, which get's generic superhumans / gland hounds, so mostly power armor less. and all kinds of wierd misshaps etc.
infact it would probably make a nice minidex.

And we all know how GW loves these mindexes atm sadly.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 13:48:22


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
I think it’s only a matter of time before a primaris chapters turns renegade and over to chaos.


TBF that wouldn't bother me.

As long as they keep them out of the legions I could live with that.




Voss wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
New Fabius Bile spotted at GAMA. Think this means anything other than a refresh of his sculpt?


Don't think it means anything to CSM's problems as far as I've been describing them here. Bile could come with a new option for enhancing CSM (or enhanced CSM unit), which could be fun. But even if its a good unit on its own, it won't address the overall problem of the faction. And it would be a shame if CSM infantry wasn't good normally, but was good with Bile's enhancement, as that would pigeonhole people into running Bile.

He could also mean new Noise Marine sculpt, which has been rumored. That'd be great to see, but also probably won't fix the overall state of CSM.

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.

Well, that'd be wrong. His 'New Men' are his gland hounds, which are already seeded on dozens of worlds, and aren't marines in any real sense.
Unless of course GW wants to create a complete disconnect between the fiction and the game...

However, that doesn't prevent GW tossing in some primaris chaos marine units that he worked on as a side project to see what they were capable of (or fix his own issues)
Truthfully, if they wanted to, GW could start a completely new 'chaos' faction with Bile, and just go crazy with it.



Maybee we are all wrong, get indeed a bile army, which get's generic superhumans / gland hounds, so mostly power armor less. and all kinds of wierd misshaps etc.
infact it would probably make a nice minidex.

And we all know how GW loves these mindexes atm sadly.

That could be interesting. And yes, these attempts to bring factions up to loyalist marines level with a few strategems, relics, etc is definitely not cutting it. We need new codexes.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 14:08:13


Post by: Not Online!!!


What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

As long as they keep them out of the legions I could live with that.


Do you really think the legions would care beyond more fodder?

BL would just pick them up and throw them at the enemy,
IW would be grumbly but not also not be bothered because attrition rates need replacement.

DG, WE, EC cult marines all can be made achieved via modification and support of respective gods. So that would also not be a real issue.

The renegades wouldn't care anyways.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 14:11:05


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.

That's something we've agreed on for a while.

Now only if we could convince gw of our infinite wisdom.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 14:14:22


Post by: Not Online!!!


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.

That's something we've agreed on for a while.

Now only if we could convince gw of our infinite wisdom.

Spoiler:

i gave GW statistics off over 70 games about R&H and unit performance, they didn't bother.
Infact they bothered so not that R&H still has baseline non faqed issues to this day since the start of 8th. Like command voxes not working due to the random morale of the unit carrying it.
Too interactions of enforcers and morale rules, etc yadda yadda.


Nope because their mess right now makes them money.

Do you honestly think that will happen.
Otoh we also got a new old rumor from BOLS, make of that what you want, over in the PA thread.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 14:18:55


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:


Do you really think the legions would care beyond more fodder?

BL would just pick them up and throw them at the enemy,
IW would be grumbly but not also not be bothered because attrition rates need replacement.

DG, WE, EC cult marines all can be made achieved via modification and support of respective gods. So that would also not be a real issue.

The renegades wouldn't care anyways.

Yes, wb would just see them as better vessels for daemons, al would see them as more operatives, 1ksons would just see opportunities for bigger spawn.

Just leaves one bunch of hardheaded psychopaths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.

That's something we've agreed on for a while.

Now only if we could convince gw of our infinite wisdom.

Spoiler:

i gave GW statistics off over 70 games about R&H and unit performance, they didn't bother.
Infact they bothered so not that R&H still has baseline non faqed issues to this day since the start of 8th. Like command voxes not working due to the random morale of the unit carrying it.
Too interactions of enforcers and morale rules, etc yadda yadda.


Nope because their mess right now makes them money.

Do you honestly think that will happen.
Otoh we also got a new old rumor from BOLS, make of that what you want, over in the PA thread.

I guess my sarcasm doesn't translate well to type.

And I take anything from BOLS with an Atlantic ocean sized grain of salt.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 14:25:10


Post by: Not Online!!!


oh i perfectly understood that it was sarcasm, but at this point not even sarcasm makes me understand/ stomach GW's balancing and rules policy.

Also on the whole primaris schtick, look at eliminators and infiltrators and tell me you don't just see AL units.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 14:28:52


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
oh i perfectly understood that it was sarcasm, but at this point not even sarcasm makes me understand/ stomach GW's balancing and rules policy.

Also on the whole primaris schtick, look at eliminators and infiltrators and tell me you don't just see AL units.


Yeah I see that.

And I know damn well those reivers should have some fething lightning bolts on their armour.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 16:34:00


Post by: Daedalus81


Gadzilla666 wrote:

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.


Nah. I think he'll just get a better buffing ability.

Possessed already fill the "Primaris" spot and I doubt GW would go an murder the investment they made on molds for CSM.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 16:35:37


Post by: Togusa


Not Online!!! wrote:
What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

As long as they keep them out of the legions I could live with that.


Do you really think the legions would care beyond more fodder?

BL would just pick them up and throw them at the enemy,
IW would be grumbly but not also not be bothered because attrition rates need replacement.

DG, WE, EC cult marines all can be made achieved via modification and support of respective gods. So that would also not be a real issue.

The renegades wouldn't care anyways.


What I would rather see is every ability applicable to a unit on their data sheet, with points at the bottom. Get rid of Warlord traits and just give characters a generic ability printed on their card. Get rid of the objective secured rule having 400 different names and just make it a basic "Troops have Objective Secured 9pg. xx of the BRB".

I really, really like the warscrolls from AoS and to be honest I like a AoS alot more than 40K. The games are a lot more swingy, which is something I like. I really enjoy suspense. There is nothing worse than looking at my opponents 40K army with his three Leviathan Butcher dreadnoughts and seeing exactly how the game will go on turn 1 if he get's to shoot first.

But I've had games of AoS where I was pummeling my opponent, and then out of nowhere a good maneuver or a few good die rolls and everything is flipped. Now I'm on the defensive and trying to find a way out of a trap or a bad spot. 40K just feels like "Spend XXX$, Win the game 80% of the time you play."


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 17:24:38


Post by: mrFickle


Not Online!!! wrote:
What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

As long as they keep them out of the legions I could live with that.


Do you really think the legions would care beyond more fodder?

BL would just pick them up and throw them at the enemy,
IW would be grumbly but not also not be bothered because attrition rates need replacement.

DG, WE, EC cult marines all can be made achieved via modification and support of respective gods. So that would also not be a real issue.

The renegades wouldn't care anyways.


Black legion will accept marines from any chapter or legion that will throw their lot in with chaos. There is a total mix of gene seed I the BL.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 17:57:12


Post by: techsoldaten


If they were thinking about Primaris CSM, I'd rather see better Chosen. Give them the extra wound, buff their shooting and close combat attacks.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 18:01:11


Post by: Not Online!!!


 techsoldaten wrote:
If they were thinking about Primaris CSM, I'd rather see better Chosen. Give them the extra wound, buff their shooting and close combat attacks.


Why i speculated in the other thread we will get a chosen / possessed / new human kits?

TBF Chosen and the defiler are like possessed overdue for an release.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 19:34:41


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Not Online!!! wrote:
What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

As long as they keep them out of the legions I could live with that.


Do you really think the legions would care beyond more fodder?

BL would just pick them up and throw them at the enemy,
IW would be grumbly but not also not be bothered because attrition rates need replacement.

DG, WE, EC cult marines all can be made achieved via modification and support of respective gods. So that would also not be a real issue.

The renegades wouldn't care anyways.

Or they can redo the Legion traits so they're more even. An individual price tag on everything is obnoxious.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/10 23:17:16


Post by: Gadzilla666


mrFickle wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
What we need is a pricetag on traits.
Want to play Al, better be prepared for a higher pricetag.etc.

Which would be better for obvious reasons for balance then the completly unbalanceable stratagem system and trait system we got now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

As long as they keep them out of the legions I could live with that.


Do you really think the legions would care beyond more fodder?

BL would just pick them up and throw them at the enemy,
IW would be grumbly but not also not be bothered because attrition rates need replacement.

DG, WE, EC cult marines all can be made achieved via modification and support of respective gods. So that would also not be a real issue.

The renegades wouldn't care anyways.


Black legion will accept marines from any chapter or legion that will throw their lot in with chaos. There is a total mix of gene seed I the BL.


That's because bl is the vanilla option. They're the Ultramarines of chaos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
If they were thinking about Primaris CSM, I'd rather see better Chosen. Give them the extra wound, buff their shooting and close combat attacks.


Why i speculated in the other thread we will get a chosen / possessed / new human kits?

TBF Chosen and the defiler are like possessed overdue for an release.

We need new Chosen. But they shouldn't be mutants or half daemons, they should be veterans. The true veterans of the long war.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/12 22:11:01


Post by: mrFickle


From the codex I can’t see the point in chosen at all


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/12 22:14:34


Post by: Not Online!!!


mrFickle wrote:
From the codex I can’t see the point in chosen at all


Chosen are basically the future exalted champions.

Normally also got chosen by their god or are just equivalents for such Units in secular fashion.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 02:26:22


Post by: Eldarain


If it was up to me the plan would be to return them to spectres of the past back to haunt their loyalists brothers.

Almost everything should be heresy era tech with the touch of chaos warping and changing them.

They should be a twisted mirror walking out of the warp reminding the Imperium and the Astartes of their past and what a lack of vigilance can lead to.

Or they can be the silly wombo combo dinobot Renegades I guess


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 15:45:31


Post by: Tycho


Bingo. Calling what Death Guard got an "expansion" is fething laughable. They lost WAY more than they gained. That's not even debatable. You can even say the same for Thousand Sons too.


I'm not super familiar with TSons, but am an avid Death Guard player. I'm not sure how you can seriously make this statement.

What we got:

- Poxwalkers
- Multiple new/fluffy characters (several of them even good in a competitive list)
- Multiple new and effective demon engines
- Plagueburst crawlers
- Multiple ways to play the army in a way that feels propelry "Death Guard" like
- and what else .... oh yeah - a PRIMARCH

What we lost
- nothing. Literally nothing. You can take an allied detachment of whatever you need from the main CSM book


So explain to me how we lost more than we gained? Does the army need fleshed out a little more? Yes. Does it need an update? Yes. Even still, your statement is pretty far off from what actually happened IMO



If it was up to me the plan would be to return them to spectres of the past back to haunt their loyalists brothers.

Almost everything should be heresy era tech with the touch of chaos warping and changing them.

They should be a twisted mirror walking out of the warp reminding the Imperium and the Astartes of their past and what a lack of vigilance can lead to.


So much this. Waaaaaaay back in the day - like late 2nd edition, early third, the fluff around CSM revolved around the fact that most of the Imperial Citizenry (even including a lot of people in the IG) didn't know Chaos existed. At best your average Imperial citizen might have heard of things like Chaos Demons and/or CSM as legends, myths, fairytales, etc. Even the Horus Heresy was not widely known. So when someone did come into contact with CSM, it was that much more traumatic for them. One of the very early GW novels was about a Rogue Trader ship. At one point, there's a passage where one of the characters is on a ship that gets attacked and boarded by CSM. The passage describing what he goes through in realizing that these are the monsters his parents told him stories about (but that all these years later he had completely forgotten) is so well written. He basically goes through, confusion, recognition, denial, and then insanity just from SEEING a Chaos Space Marine. No magic or weapons or anything involved. Just the sight of a CSM was enough to drive him to insanity. I love that angle.

Obviously with Abby splitting the warp wide open, Chaos is now more of a thing than it was in those days, but I'd love a return to that kind of feel, rather than the Saturday Morning cartoon villians we have now. Heresy Era weapons, older Armor marks, a stronger familiarity with the warp ... sign me up!


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 17:13:50


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Tycho wrote:
Bingo. Calling what Death Guard got an "expansion" is fething laughable. They lost WAY more than they gained. That's not even debatable. You can even say the same for Thousand Sons too.


I'm not super familiar with TSons, but am an avid Death Guard player. I'm not sure how you can seriously make this statement.

What we got:

- Poxwalkers
- Multiple new/fluffy characters (several of them even good in a competitive list)
- Multiple new and effective demon engines
- Plagueburst crawlers
- Multiple ways to play the army in a way that feels propelry "Death Guard" like
- and what else .... oh yeah - a PRIMARCH

What we lost
- nothing. Literally nothing. You can take an allied detachment of whatever you need from the main CSM book


Well, if you take Traitor Legions into consideration, we lost fnp on our lord, possessed and terminator sorcerer


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 17:42:14


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.


Nah. I think he'll just get a better buffing ability.

Possessed already fill the "Primaris" spot and I doubt GW would go an murder the investment they made on molds for CSM.


Given primaris are exclusively ranged and can be used in every FOC slot, and possessed are elites-only, melee-only, I'm not sure how possessed could be considered to fill the primaris 'spot.'
Fluffwise they seem opposites- 'Even more marine' marines vs 'less' marines.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 17:48:28


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.


Nah. I think he'll just get a better buffing ability.

Possessed already fill the "Primaris" spot and I doubt GW would go an murder the investment they made on molds for CSM.


Given primaris are exclusively ranged and can be used in every FOC slot, and possessed are elites-only, melee-only, I'm not sure how possessed could be considered to fill the primaris 'spot.'
Fluffwise they seem opposites- 'Even more marine' marines vs 'less' marines.



Just because they don't carry the same weapons / slots doesn't mean they aren't "enhanced" super soldiers.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 17:52:35


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Voss wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

I hope you're right. There's been speculation that his "new men" could be primaris chaos marines, which is a concept I hate. His assistant harvesting a primaris marine's progenoid doesn't bode well.


Nah. I think he'll just get a better buffing ability.

Possessed already fill the "Primaris" spot and I doubt GW would go an murder the investment they made on molds for CSM.


Given primaris are exclusively ranged and can be used in every FOC slot, and possessed are elites-only, melee-only, I'm not sure how possessed could be considered to fill the primaris 'spot.'
Fluffwise they seem opposites- 'Even more marine' marines vs 'less' marines.



Just because they don't carry the same weapons / slots doesn't mean they aren't "enhanced" super soldiers.


No, they're not enhanced super soldiers because they're daemons wearing a marine as a suit- they're less than they were before.

The fact that they do exactly none of same things with absolutely no overlap mean they aren't equivalent.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 17:58:24


Post by: Daedalus81


I don't think you understand. The goal isn't to make CSM a perfect analogue of Marines. Hence daemon engines.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 18:19:08


Post by: Tycho


Well, if you take Traitor Legions into consideration, we lost fnp on our lord, possessed and terminator sorcerer


IDK if I'd call possessed a "loss", but those three things you listed hardly add up to Slayer-Fan's point of "Lost more than gained", and my point still stands that if you need those things, you can take an allied detachment and run them w/out issue.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 19:17:22


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tycho wrote:
Well, if you take Traitor Legions into consideration, we lost fnp on our lord, possessed and terminator sorcerer


IDK if I'd call possessed a "loss", but those three things you listed hardly add up to Slayer-Fan's point of "Lost more than gained", and my point still stands that if you need those things, you can take an allied detachment and run them w/out issue.

Except you're wrong, because that's not Death Guard and don't benefit from Death Guard character abilities or auras or Strats. So you're 100% wrong.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 19:46:26


Post by: Tycho


Except you're wrong, because that's not Death Guard and don't benefit from Death Guard character abilities or auras or Strats. So you're 100% wrong.


I don't really need them to. I can get some overlap by running The Purge and having some keywords in common (for things like Waptiming DG units, etc), and, were DG to stay in the main book, these limitations would still likely have stayed in place, so I'm still not sure where you're coming from with your point. Additionally, that allied detachment will run without penalty. It will still have its own abilities, strats, etc. Will they have DG traits? No. And this would have remained true were they to stay in the main book.

It's hyperbole for hyperbole's sake. Maybe you're right for Thousand Sons - I don't know anything about them, and their book seems crazy thin, but to say it's not even debatable that DG lost more than they gained is on the extreme side don't you think?

Even in the much vaunted 3.5 'dex, they added similar limitations, so keeping them in the same book would likely have just meant that they got fewer new units ...

Edited because I can't type today ...


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 20:23:35


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tycho wrote:
Except you're wrong, because that's not Death Guard and don't benefit from Death Guard character abilities or auras or Strats. So you're 100% wrong.


I don't really need them to. I can get some overlap by running The Purge and having some keywords in common (for things like Waptiming DG units, etc), and, were DG to stay in the main book, these limitations would still likely have stayed in place, so I'm still not sure where you're coming from with your point. Additionally, that allied detachment will run without penalty. It will still have its own abilities, strats, etc. Will they have DG traits? No. And this would have remained true were they to stay in the main book.

It's hyperbole for hyperbole's sake. Maybe you're right for Thousand Sons - I don't know anything about them, and their book seems crazy thin, but to say it's not even debatable that DG lost more than they gained is on the extreme side don't you think?

Even in the much vaunted 3.5 'dex, they added similar limitations, so keeping them in the same book would likely have just meant that they got fewer new units ...

Edited because I can't type today ...

The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again. If you need to run two separate codices to run an army you already had, you lost stuff. And yes Death Guard lost more than they gained, unless you think some gak character with a fixed loadout that lets you reroll 1s for FNP is somehow a gain LOL


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 20:28:03


Post by: Tycho


The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again.


Show me where I said it was?

And again, we've already seen what it looks like when they're all in one book. Each specific Legion (DG, TSons, IW, ETC) gets similar limitations to the ones already in their unique books, but with way fewer new units. Keeping them all in one book also limits how far you can expand on those sub factions in the future, and if your concern is that you have to bring two books ... sadly, you're playing the wrong game.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 20:28:32


Post by: Octopoid


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again. If you need to run two separate codices to run an army you already had, you lost stuff. And yes Death Guard lost more than they gained, unless you think some gak character with a fixed loadout that lets you reroll 1s for FNP is somehow a gain LOL


"I'm defining Death Guard in an incredibly narrow way, nevermind that that leads to a situation I don't like and want to complain about, ALSO nevermind that someone is showing me RIGHT NOW how I can have my cake and eat it too, and I refuse to be swayed from my negative opinion or self-inflicted definition. Anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG."


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 20:32:45


Post by: Tycho


"I'm defining Death Guard in an incredibly narrow way, nevermind that that leads to a situation I don't like and want to complain about, ALSO nevermind that someone is showing me RIGHT NOW how I can have my cake and eat it too, and I refuse to be swayed from my negative opinion or self-inflicted definition. Anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG."


Exalted. The system isn't absolutely perfect, but I've played Chaos since Rogue Trader (as much as you COULD play RT lol), and this is the first time in years that I've felt like GW has Chaos in a generally decent place. Could they all be better? Yes, and they could all stand to get a better update, but over-all, I feel like there's just a lot of crazy hyperbole at a time when GW has actually *generally speaking* finally been working towards giving us Chaos players what we've been asking for since 4th edition ...


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 21:23:09


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


These Death Guard arguments are silly. If I may quote myself from earlier:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Don't lose sight of the real goal. Being spread over multiple books is annoying, but it doesn't really matter if we get decent rules. And nobody will care how optimized a book is if the faction isn't worth playing.

What matters is getting basic marine troops worth using again. Why talk of stuff like making chosen troops, but giving them less options? That's called a Chaos Marine, guys. They are already troops. How about making CSM good as troops, and Chosen good as elites? Don't reinvent the wheel, fix it.

And the fixes are another layer of special rules, just like vanilla marines got. And perhaps some point changes. Those special rules need to give some increases to firepower, and then there should be options for either more defensive, or further increases to firepower.


Its not really a matter of how exactly you define Death Guard, or even what they gained or lost. What matters is: Are Death Guard good? And do they play like Death Guard are supposed to? And the answer is no and no, because at the end of the day, their basic and most defining units aren't good and don't work.

Remember how Death Guard are famous for grinding waves of implacable infantry winning through attrition? Back in 5th, Plague Marines were a great unit and played correctly. But of course, the rest of the death guard army was missing. But now we have the Plague Terminators, and even extra durable vehicles, and poxwalkers, etc. But the only types of DG armies that are working well are those that function much like other successful Chaos lists: Funky mixes of allies that emphasize Big single model units and chaff.

You won't see a proper, fluffy DG list that takes advantage of lots of plague marines because plague marines can't kill anything. And plague marines can't kill anything for the same reason that all the other marine infantry in the game can't kill anything (unless it has doctrines): S4 ap 0 sucks, both in shooting and melee. In 5th ed, plague marine's bolters ignored light armor like guard, ork, and gaunts. Now they don't. And 2 meltas in a 5 man squad was great anti-vehicle. And a powerfist champ could kill anything in the game, and was well defended by tough ablative wounds from the rest of the squad. Now they have none of that. Plasma got a bit stronger proportionally, and blight launchers are a good deal for what they do. But neither is enough to make up for the dead weight bolters and lack of melee. Hateful assault helps with their attacks, but its not enough with how assault rules changed. And Bolter Drill doesn't make up for S4 ap0. And Rhinos aren't good, so they are hard to get around.

The problem with Death Guard isn't their roster, and it isn't that some of their HQs are missing out on t5 and 5+++(silly as that is.) At the end of the day, the problem with Death Gaurd is that they are heavily defined by space marine infantry units, and space marine infantry isn't good in 8th because of system-wide changes. It requires a ton of special rules stacked on those classic marine statlines, and only loyalists have those so far. If these problems were addressed properly, death guard would get quite interesting, despite whatever other small issues we can complain about. A point of ap on bolters, or perhaps plague weapon rules, or a source of re-rolling 1's to wound, and suddenly everything changes.

So stop going after each other for these tangent issues, and focus on what has been the real problem for everyone since this edition came out.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 22:16:50


Post by: Tycho


Agreed. Marines of all (Chaos) flavors need to be better. Whether that means points drops, better rules, whatever. It's almost always better to take cultists in the CSM book, and/or Poxwalkers in the DG book (again, don't know enough about Tsons to have an opinion), but disagree with your points on how DG play.

Yeah, they have the fluff reputation of long, slow, grinding assaults. You CAN do that. I have even won tournaments doing that WITH marines. The DG marines don't NEED to kill anything. They're about being difficult to kill themselves, and they accomplish that well enough when used correctly. I completely agree that it's a shame they aren't better, and that you're almost always better off taking walkers/cultists, but that said, the core DG units absolutely DO function like they're supposed to. Would my marine heavy list win at a place like LVO? No. Or at least not with ME playing them, but a solo DG list isn't likely to win at a big event like that regardless of who's playing it. They are a solid mid-tier army.

On the subject of making the marines themselves better, in terms of DG, I would suggest either keeping the points where they currently sit, but giving an extra wound, OR keeping them as they are but dropping a few more points. I don't really have a good suggestion for fixing standard CSM. I feel like they're hurting pretty bad ...


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 22:37:54


Post by: Not Online!!!


Na, Standard csm need to be built around, they are not point and click.
But not Bad either, until you Run into marines with doctrines that is.
Think of them as Horde sisters in a way.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 23:08:01


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tycho wrote:
The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again.


Show me where I said it was?

And again, we've already seen what it looks like when they're all in one book. Each specific Legion (DG, TSons, IW, ETC) gets similar limitations to the ones already in their unique books, but with way fewer new units. Keeping them all in one book also limits how far you can expand on those sub factions in the future, and if your concern is that you have to bring two books ... sadly, you're playing the wrong game.

You said they lost nothing, except they DID lose a bunch of stuff, and then you say ally in a bunch of non-Death Guard, which means they did lose stuff.
Also you have zero info on what Emperors Children and World Eaters have. Hell, World Eaters have access to Obliterators! Your attitude is also what allows GW to create the garbage that IS Psychic Awakening, which is the worst form of paid update we've seen in the game quite frankly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Octopoid wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again. If you need to run two separate codices to run an army you already had, you lost stuff. And yes Death Guard lost more than they gained, unless you think some gak character with a fixed loadout that lets you reroll 1s for FNP is somehow a gain LOL


"I'm defining Death Guard in an incredibly narrow way, nevermind that that leads to a situation I don't like and want to complain about, ALSO nevermind that someone is showing me RIGHT NOW how I can have my cake and eat it too, and I refuse to be swayed from my negative opinion or self-inflicted definition. Anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG."

Pray tell what's the narrow way I've defined them? I'm pretty sure GW gave the more narrow definition and like a good boy you've lapped it up.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 23:12:13


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Not Online!!! wrote:
Na, Standard csm need to be built around, they are not point and click.
But not Bad either, until you Run into marines with doctrines that is.
Think of them as Horde sisters in a way.


They're not bad until you compare them to the things they are supposed to be equal to?

I see, I see! **nods head vigorously**


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 23:12:17


Post by: Octopoid


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again. If you need to run two separate codices to run an army you already had, you lost stuff. And yes Death Guard lost more than they gained, unless you think some gak character with a fixed loadout that lets you reroll 1s for FNP is somehow a gain LOL


"I'm defining Death Guard in an incredibly narrow way, nevermind that that leads to a situation I don't like and want to complain about, ALSO nevermind that someone is showing me RIGHT NOW how I can have my cake and eat it too, and I refuse to be swayed from my negative opinion or self-inflicted definition. Anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG."

Pray tell what's the narrow way I've defined them? I'm pretty sure GW gave the more narrow definition and like a good boy you've lapped it up.


Ah, good, the "You're a GW fanboy" argument. I think I'll just opt not to engage with that one.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 23:15:45


Post by: Karol


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Na, Standard csm need to be built around, they are not point and click.
But not Bad either, until you Run into marines with doctrines that is.
Think of them as Horde sisters in a way.


They're not bad until you compare them to the things they are supposed to be equal to?

I see, I see! **nods head vigorously**

That is like being told by your mom your smart too, when reality your siblings are in good schools and you had to be put in to a school that would take you. Being bad only vs marines, when marines make a large, if not the largest chunk of armies played, is kind of equal to being bad in general.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/13 23:52:25


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Octopoid wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again. If you need to run two separate codices to run an army you already had, you lost stuff. And yes Death Guard lost more than they gained, unless you think some gak character with a fixed loadout that lets you reroll 1s for FNP is somehow a gain LOL


"I'm defining Death Guard in an incredibly narrow way, nevermind that that leads to a situation I don't like and want to complain about, ALSO nevermind that someone is showing me RIGHT NOW how I can have my cake and eat it too, and I refuse to be swayed from my negative opinion or self-inflicted definition. Anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG."

Pray tell what's the narrow way I've defined them? I'm pretty sure GW gave the more narrow definition and like a good boy you've lapped it up.


Ah, good, the "You're a GW fanboy" argument. I think I'll just opt not to engage with that one.

It's the only excuse to defend the crap that is the Death Guard codex. They lost more units than they gained, the ones gained are overall bad, and there are TONS of inconsistencies in unit entries. So what's the defense for the Death Guard codex otherwise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Na, Standard csm need to be built around, they are not point and click.
But not Bad either, until you Run into marines with doctrines that is.
Think of them as Horde sisters in a way.

Except far worse at it.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 01:17:28


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you understand. The goal isn't to make CSM a perfect analogue of Marines. Hence daemon engines.


?? I have no idea how this fits in to your claim that Possessed and Primaris fill the same 'spot.' Hence... tea cups?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 06:02:48


Post by: BrianDavion


 Octopoid wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again. If you need to run two separate codices to run an army you already had, you lost stuff. And yes Death Guard lost more than they gained, unless you think some gak character with a fixed loadout that lets you reroll 1s for FNP is somehow a gain LOL


"I'm defining Death Guard in an incredibly narrow way, nevermind that that leads to a situation I don't like and want to complain about, ALSO nevermind that someone is showing me RIGHT NOW how I can have my cake and eat it too, and I refuse to be swayed from my negative opinion or self-inflicted definition. Anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG."


I bet he also hates that they diod a chaos deamons codex and seperated them from CSM too


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 06:17:01


Post by: Dai


Tycho wrote:


So much this. Waaaaaaay back in the day - like late 2nd edition, early third, the fluff around CSM revolved around the fact that most of the Imperial Citizenry (even including a lot of people in the IG) didn't know Chaos existed. At best your average Imperial citizen might have heard of things like Chaos Demons and/or CSM as legends, myths, fairytales, etc. Even the Horus Heresy was not widely known. So when someone did come into contact with CSM, it was that much more traumatic for them. One of the very early GW novels was about a Rogue Trader ship. At one point, there's a passage where one of the characters is on a ship that gets attacked and boarded by CSM. The passage describing what he goes through in realizing that these are the monsters his parents told him stories about (but that all these years later he had completely forgotten) is so well written. He basically goes through, confusion, recognition, denial, and then insanity just from SEEING a Chaos Space Marine. No magic or weapons or anything involved. Just the sight of a CSM was enough to drive him to insanity. I love that angle.

This sounds great! I'd love to read this if anybody has quick access to a scan or ability to cntrl+v!


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 06:47:04


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Tycho wrote:
Well, if you take Traitor Legions into consideration, we lost fnp on our lord, possessed and terminator sorcerer


IDK if I'd call possessed a "loss", but those three things you listed hardly add up to Slayer-Fan's point of "Lost more than gained", and my point still stands that if you need those things, you can take an allied detachment and run them w/out issue.


Indeed. And I'm with you on the whole matter. My Obliterators, Bikes, raptors and Rapiers have moved to a different detachment, but that's just on paper. A friend of mine said I should change the background of my army because I'm playing them as renegades now, I told him just because GW changes units arbitrarily from one codex to another one doesn't change my background.
Overall I'm enjoying DG in 8th, even though it got much more vehicle heavy than before, but that's also because vehicles in general sucked in 6th and 7th. I can't complain about Plague Marines at all, they're doing good work with their Blight launchers and I can bring a bunch of them since they're pretty cheap in 8th.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 07:10:35


Post by: Insectum7


Tycho wrote:

What we lost
- nothing. Literally nothing. You can take an allied detachment of whatever you need from the main CSM book


If you have to take allies to get something that your army used to not require allies to get . . .then you've lost something. UM don't "get" Thunderwolf Cavalry just because I can ally in Space Wolves and get some.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 07:37:13


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


BrianDavion wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Purge is not Death Guard, so you're wrong again. If you need to run two separate codices to run an army you already had, you lost stuff. And yes Death Guard lost more than they gained, unless you think some gak character with a fixed loadout that lets you reroll 1s for FNP is somehow a gain LOL


"I'm defining Death Guard in an incredibly narrow way, nevermind that that leads to a situation I don't like and want to complain about, ALSO nevermind that someone is showing me RIGHT NOW how I can have my cake and eat it too, and I refuse to be swayed from my negative opinion or self-inflicted definition. Anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG."


I bet he also hates that they diod a chaos deamons codex and seperated them from CSM too

You can't even RUN Daemons in any of the codices without breaking your own damn Legion rules, so thanks for bringing that up.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 09:03:49


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Nurgle Deamons show up in an army dedicated to Nurgle and the Deathguard forget who they are.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 11:49:59


Post by: BrianDavion


can you not run a seperate detachment?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 15:00:21


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Na, Standard csm need to be built around, they are not point and click.
But not Bad either, until you Run into marines with doctrines that is.
Think of them as Horde sisters in a way.


They're not bad until you compare them to the things they are supposed to be equal to?

I see, I see! **nods head vigorously**

Yes, csm should be equal to loyalist marines, but not the same. If gw can differentiate sm chapters from each other, yet make them all strong, then there is no reason they can't do the same for csm. Faith and Fury showed they still know how to make the legions feel right, they just need to take it a step further and allow them to do so without using flashy strategems, as that approach means they stop playing as they should as soon as the cp runs out, at which point everyone returns to playing like Black Legion with a different color scheme. And they should never be a horde.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you understand. The goal isn't to make CSM a perfect analogue of Marines. Hence daemon engines.

I don't think anyone wants csm to be simply a mirror of loyalist marines. But there are better ways to differentiate them than forcing the use of underwhelming units like daemon engines.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 15:15:20


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


BrianDavion wrote:
can you not run a seperate detachment?

Why should that be necessary in the first place? Is that really the best defense for that you got?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 15:58:52


Post by: The Salt Mine


As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.

This is made even more galling by the fact that every single loyalist space marine release in 8th has been here are all these units you didn't have access too in your specialist SM army that now you do have access too!!! Why can I not take all the new stuff that buffs daemon engines in my 1ksons army when half of my fething codex is all the daemon engines.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 16:03:05


Post by: auticus


As a primary chaos player... who primarily played death guard and thousand sons, this is one reason why my 40k stuff was sold off.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 16:12:49


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
can you not run a seperate detachment?

Why should that be necessary in the first place? Is that really the best defense for that you got?
The idea that there can be units inside your own Codex that makes it so you can't use the rules in your own Codex is blatantly silly.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 16:59:44


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


The Salt Mine wrote:
As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.

This is made even more galling by the fact that every single loyalist space marine release in 8th has been here are all these units you didn't have access too in your specialist SM army that now you do have access too!!! Why can I not take all the new stuff that buffs daemon engines in my 1ksons army when half of my fething codex is all the daemon engines.


That is certainly a raw deal you were dealt. I mean you could also run your army as some custom warband devoted to Nurgle/Tzeentch respectively. But even that is a lesser, option to just having a your models used how they always had been. Still, I think it could be fun to come up with your own splinter warband that disagreed so vehemently with what their parent legion was doing as to completely dissociate with them. It isn't even like you couldn't make use of Plague Marines. They would just be an Elites option. You would also get your pick of legion traits since it is your warband. Sure, Codex: Space Marine successor chapter tactics choices would be preferred, but I could see going with Alpha Legion as your warband is constantly enveloped in plague flies making getting a clear shot difficult or any other to given ideas to how they might work.

There is no good answers as I could potentially see vanilla CSM players, at least the non-Black Legion ones, could be unhappy that DG/TS gets their codex plus C:CSM. It would also work if GW gave all Chaos legions special units, but we know that isn't happening on any sensible timeline. I have a Night Lords player I still apologize to as I think Haarken should have been for them. I think even that could have been avoided if all Legions had signature units made Troop options. But that isn't what GW did. Unlike loyalists, the legion split is so recent that many players would have armies that are no longer valid like yours.

All I can offer is if you happened to play me I have no issue with units that are C:CSM but not CG or C:TS can be taken as if they were, or you run detachments or a custom warband, whatever you think would best fit your vision for your army. I personally don't think DG/TS having all the CSM options is going to make that big of a difference as with Allies, it mostly just saves a detachment anyways. Again, no good answers without GW doing something, which I never think grumbling on a 3rd party forum is going to affect GW.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 17:41:41


Post by: Tycho


As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.


But you can still play ... that ... exact ... army. Just give them the keyword "14th" or similar. That army still plays EXACTLY how it played in previous editions. You don't get all the new DG stuff in the same detachment, but then, you never had all the new DG stuff sooooooo ....... What did you lose?

I'm not saying it's a perfect system but damn .... "HALF MY ARMY IS INVALIDATED! RAAAAAAAAR!!!!!" No. It isn't. At one point going from fifth to sixth half of my CSM truly DID get invalidated as models were removed from the game entirely, and/or drastic rules shifts made things not work right anymore. THAT sucks, but it's entirely different than this.

It's also less than perfect that you can't give the CSM units the "Death Guard" keyword. Agree on that. But your army is still entirely playable as it was previously. You didn't ACTUALLY lose a thing .... My units that were painted up as DG are now Purge, and work great. There's even some good synergy between the too (to a degree). BUT on top of that, I now ALSO have access to a bunch of awesome fun stuff .... not sure how I can personally look at that and say "WE LOST SO MUCH!", but to each his own. I'm sorry for your loss.

You said they lost nothing, except they DID lose a bunch of stuff, and then you say ally in a bunch of non-Death Guard, which means they did lose stuff.


Ok.

Also you have zero info on what Emperors Children and World Eaters have. Hell, World Eaters have access to Obliterators!


I have no idea what you mean by this ...

Your attitude is also what allows GW to create the garbage that IS Psychic Awakening, which is the worst form of paid update we've seen in the game quite frankly.


Sincerest apologies. I had no idea!

Back when the travesty of a codex that was the 6th ed. CSM book was released, and all the CSM players (myself included) railed against how terrible it was on every level, I get very tired of hearing "BUT CHAOS PLAYERS ARE JUST NEVER HAPPY! YOU JUST WANT TO PoWerGaME!". Which, at the time, I found rediculous. Most of us just wanted a better codex that made sense for the edition it was in, didn't outright suck on the table (or actually punish the player for using it), and be a decent example of how CHaos works in the fluff. I feel like we're finally getting that, and everyone is STILL up in arms over it. Maybe it is impossible to please us? I mean, yeah, the difference in the design strategy between this book and the marine stuff is pretty drastic, and the loyalist books are for certain handled way better, but the longer we go, the more convinced I am that we, as the CSM player base, truly will, never be happy ...

Good luck with the rest of the thread.





Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 17:56:17


Post by: The Salt Mine


No I can't play THAT EXACT army because I CAN"T TAKE RUBRICS OR PLAGUE MARINES AS TROOPS in any other army but DG and 1KSONS. Half my army did get invalidated because IF I WANT TO PLAY WITH MY RUBRICS AND PLAGUEMARINES AS TROOPS LIKE I HAVE FOR YEARS I CAN NO LONGER TAKE THEM WITHOUT WASTING POINTS AND DETACHMENTS ON gak I NEVER HAD TO BEFORE. How hard is that to understand?

Also lets not even mention most events require you to have 100% of the models in your army be of a single faction if you want to be counted as that faction. I want to play my 1ksons whelp cant take those oblits and havocs I converted up.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 18:22:24


Post by: mrFickle


The Salt Mine wrote:
As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.

This is made even more galling by the fact that every single loyalist space marine release in 8th has been here are all these units you didn't have access too in your specialist SM army that now you do have access too!!! Why can I not take all the new stuff that buffs daemon engines in my 1ksons army when half of my fething codex is all the daemon engines.


Why can’t you just use units from the CSM codex and give then the Death Guard keyword in the legion slot. Does the DG codex explicitly deny this? Because I’m pretty sure you can play a death guard army straight from the CSM codex as plague bearers are in there and you can give any unit any legion in the legion keyword


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/14 18:44:09


Post by: Not Online!!!


mrFickle wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.

This is made even more galling by the fact that every single loyalist space marine release in 8th has been here are all these units you didn't have access too in your specialist SM army that now you do have access too!!! Why can I not take all the new stuff that buffs daemon engines in my 1ksons army when half of my fething codex is all the daemon engines.


Why can’t you just use units from the CSM codex and give then the Death Guard keyword in the legion slot. Does the DG codex explicitly deny this? Because I’m pretty sure you can play a death guard army straight from the CSM codex as plague bearers are in there and you can give any unit any legion in the legion keyword



No , you can not thanks to the keywords system


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 01:50:57


Post by: Table


Tycho wrote:
As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.


But you can still play ... that ... exact ... army. Just give them the keyword "14th" or similar. That army still plays EXACTLY how it played in previous editions. You don't get all the new DG stuff in the same detachment, but then, you never had all the new DG stuff sooooooo ....... What did you lose?

I'm not saying it's a perfect system but damn .... "HALF MY ARMY IS INVALIDATED! RAAAAAAAAR!!!!!" No. It isn't. At one point going from fifth to sixth half of my CSM truly DID get invalidated as models were removed from the game entirely, and/or drastic rules shifts made things not work right anymore. THAT sucks, but it's entirely different than this.

It's also less than perfect that you can't give the CSM units the "Death Guard" keyword. Agree on that. But your army is still entirely playable as it was previously. You didn't ACTUALLY lose a thing .... My units that were painted up as DG are now Purge, and work great. There's even some good synergy between the too (to a degree). BUT on top of that, I now ALSO have access to a bunch of awesome fun stuff .... not sure how I can personally look at that and say "WE LOST SO MUCH!", but to each his own. I'm sorry for your loss.

You said they lost nothing, except they DID lose a bunch of stuff, and then you say ally in a bunch of non-Death Guard, which means they did lose stuff.


Ok.

Also you have zero info on what Emperors Children and World Eaters have. Hell, World Eaters have access to Obliterators!


I have no idea what you mean by this ...

Your attitude is also what allows GW to create the garbage that IS Psychic Awakening, which is the worst form of paid update we've seen in the game quite frankly.


Sincerest apologies. I had no idea!

Back when the travesty of a codex that was the 6th ed. CSM book was released, and all the CSM players (myself included) railed against how terrible it was on every level, I get very tired of hearing "BUT CHAOS PLAYERS ARE JUST NEVER HAPPY! YOU JUST WANT TO PoWerGaME!". Which, at the time, I found rediculous. Most of us just wanted a better codex that made sense for the edition it was in, didn't outright suck on the table (or actually punish the player for using it), and be a decent example of how CHaos works in the fluff. I feel like we're finally getting that, and everyone is STILL up in arms over it. Maybe it is impossible to please us? I mean, yeah, the difference in the design strategy between this book and the marine stuff is pretty drastic, and the loyalist books are for certain handled way better, but the longer we go, the more convinced I am that we, as the CSM player base, truly will, never be happy ...

Good luck with the rest of the thread.





I think this is a great post and I agree with you mostly. After a decade or more of inept design choices and uncaring on GW's part to make us anything other than a punching bag for loyalists, alot of us have taken on a bit of a victim complex. Myself included. In truth this edition is the best we have had since the glory days. But that does not mean somethings are still gaf. For instance, and my favorite personal bitching point, is no drop pods in a army that is crying for ways to transport their melee heavy force outside of walking and rhinos. My point being is the faction is still thrown bones by GW and our releases, when we get them, are poorly planned and end up offering us nothing to fix what is wrong.

Now, as a chaos player I feel that other chaos players need to understand that Chaos is NEVER going to be on the level of loyalists. Ever. If you have a problem with this you need to find another army. I accept I am playing a sub optimal force but that doesnt prevent me from calling out the issue. I try to keep the bitching local to threads were it is warranted. I think it is possible to please us. But GW will not expend the effort to do so. Our sales just are not there.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 13:48:28


Post by: The Salt Mine



I think this is a great post and I agree with you mostly. After a decade or more of inept design choices and uncaring on GW's part to make us anything other than a punching bag for loyalists, alot of us have taken on a bit of a victim complex. Myself included. In truth this edition is the best we have had since the glory days. But that does not mean somethings are still gaf. For instance, and my favorite personal bitching point, is no drop pods in a army that is crying for ways to transport their melee heavy force outside of walking and rhinos. My point being is the faction is still thrown bones by GW and our releases, when we get them, are poorly planned and end up offering us nothing to fix what is wrong.

Now, as a chaos player I feel that other chaos players need to understand that Chaos is NEVER going to be on the level of loyalists. Ever. If you have a problem with this you need to find another army. I accept I am playing a sub optimal force but that doesnt prevent me from calling out the issue. I try to keep the bitching local to threads were it is warranted. I think it is possible to please us. But GW will not expend the effort to do so. Our sales just are not there.


CSM in 8th are infinitely better than the gak show that was 6th and 7th edition for sure. And to be completely honest for a good portion of 8th CSM were actually way better than the loyalists. I think the big thing that is causing so much butthurt at the moment for chaos players and xenos player to an extent is the blatant favoritism being displayed towards IOM forces right now. For instance as I mentioned earlier almost every SM release in 8th has been here are all the things from the base SM codex your special SM codex never had access too. Where as the two new CSM codex last access to all the things they had access to from when they were in the CSM codex which was hugely frustrating for many people. Another example is the gak show that has been "Psychic Awakening" which may as well have been called "Loyalist Space Marine Awakening". Now its even more annoying as another IOM army is getting an entirely whole new set of models (admech). There are so many more armies that are both older than admech and IMO more important that admech that need new models and updates Necrons come to mind here. And lets not even get into the disparity between CSM codex 2.0 and SM codex 2.0 which was so broken it totally reshaped the competitive 40k scene over night.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 14:23:54


Post by: Not Online!!!


The Salt Mine wrote:

I think this is a great post and I agree with you mostly. After a decade or more of inept design choices and uncaring on GW's part to make us anything other than a punching bag for loyalists, alot of us have taken on a bit of a victim complex. Myself included. In truth this edition is the best we have had since the glory days. But that does not mean somethings are still gaf. For instance, and my favorite personal bitching point, is no drop pods in a army that is crying for ways to transport their melee heavy force outside of walking and rhinos. My point being is the faction is still thrown bones by GW and our releases, when we get them, are poorly planned and end up offering us nothing to fix what is wrong.

Now, as a chaos player I feel that other chaos players need to understand that Chaos is NEVER going to be on the level of loyalists. Ever. If you have a problem with this you need to find another army. I accept I am playing a sub optimal force but that doesnt prevent me from calling out the issue. I try to keep the bitching local to threads were it is warranted. I think it is possible to please us. But GW will not expend the effort to do so. Our sales just are not there.


CSM in 8th are infinitely better than the gak show that was 6th and 7th edition for sure. And to be completely honest for a good portion of 8th CSM were actually way better than the loyalists. I think the big thing that is causing so much butthurt at the moment for chaos players and xenos player to an extent is the blatant favoritism being displayed towards IOM forces right now. For instance as I mentioned earlier almost every SM release in 8th has been here are all the things from the base SM codex your special SM codex never had access too. Where as the two new CSM codex last access to all the things they had access to from when they were in the CSM codex which was hugely frustrating for many people. Another example is the gak show that has been "Psychic Awakening" which may as well have been called "Loyalist Space Marine Awakening". Now its even more annoying as another IOM army is getting an entirely whole new set of models (admech). There are so many more armies that are both older than admech and IMO more important that admech that need new models and updates Necrons come to mind here. And lets not even get into the disparity between CSM codex 2.0 and SM codex 2.0 which was so broken it totally reshaped the competitive 40k scene over night.


Not even called for for Admech or Sisters tbh. That atleast is Fresh and actually new, and not just upscalled better because 10$ pricier marine stuff.

However, faction wide fillling up slots and auxilia would do them some favour.

F.e. R&H got completly cut out of the picture, making any attempt at building lost and the damned ( a HUGE PART OF THE LORE MIND YOU) basically impossible thanks to internal politicking.

We have yet to see an allied Race to TAU. that is actually you know, allied.

CSM still lack codex coverage, heck we got IW and daemonforges, yet we can't figure out to build a greater HAVOC hwacha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha nor do we have any actual infiltraiting units, even though we got AL supposedly.

Eldar have everything but it's ancient, or in the case of the new banshees just outright taking the piss pricewise. And i am betting my hat on it that it is actually done to drive a point home in GW, aka selling new Eldar kits is not worht the effort.

Ghazkull is so geniously written atm, the new one that he can't even Waaagh! propperly. Like WTF?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 14:52:55


Post by: techsoldaten


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
can you not run a seperate detachment?

Why should that be necessary in the first place? Is that really the best defense for that you got?

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
can you not run a seperate detachment?

Why should that be necessary in the first place? Is that really the best defense for that you got?
The idea that there can be units inside your own Codex that makes it so you can't use the rules in your own Codex is blatantly silly.

The datasheets are not there so you can use them in detachments. The datasheets are there so you can use Daemonic Ritual without needing to buy another book.

I think that was stated in a WC blog post or designer's commentary or something.

The Salt Mine wrote:As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.

This is made even more galling by the fact that every single loyalist space marine release in 8th has been here are all these units you didn't have access too in your specialist SM army that now you do have access too!!! Why can I not take all the new stuff that buffs daemon engines in my 1ksons army when half of my fething codex is all the daemon engines.

Nothing is ever gained by comparing CSM to SM. Just more frustration.

DG and TS did lose a lot by getting their own Codex. Long term, it's probably a gain - having their own Codex means GW will eventually expand their line with unique units. But I would hate to have invested in a bunch of Deredeos and Leviathans and not be able to use them.

Unlike my poor Black Legion. All we get are characters. We don't even have the conversion compulsion characteristic of armies without unique characters.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 15:28:59


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


The Salt Mine wrote:

I think this is a great post and I agree with you mostly. After a decade or more of inept design choices and uncaring on GW's part to make us anything other than a punching bag for loyalists, alot of us have taken on a bit of a victim complex. Myself included. In truth this edition is the best we have had since the glory days. But that does not mean somethings are still gaf. For instance, and my favorite personal bitching point, is no drop pods in a army that is crying for ways to transport their melee heavy force outside of walking and rhinos. My point being is the faction is still thrown bones by GW and our releases, when we get them, are poorly planned and end up offering us nothing to fix what is wrong.

Now, as a chaos player I feel that other chaos players need to understand that Chaos is NEVER going to be on the level of loyalists. Ever. If you have a problem with this you need to find another army. I accept I am playing a sub optimal force but that doesnt prevent me from calling out the issue. I try to keep the bitching local to threads were it is warranted. I think it is possible to please us. But GW will not expend the effort to do so. Our sales just are not there.


CSM in 8th are infinitely better than the gak show that was 6th and 7th edition for sure. And to be completely honest for a good portion of 8th CSM were actually way better than the loyalists. I think the big thing that is causing so much butthurt at the moment for chaos players and xenos player to an extent is the blatant favoritism being displayed towards IOM forces right now. For instance as I mentioned earlier almost every SM release in 8th has been here are all the things from the base SM codex your special SM codex never had access too. Where as the two new CSM codex last access to all the things they had access to from when they were in the CSM codex which was hugely frustrating for many people. Another example is the gak show that has been "Psychic Awakening" which may as well have been called "Loyalist Space Marine Awakening". Now its even more annoying as another IOM army is getting an entirely whole new set of models (admech). There are so many more armies that are both older than admech and IMO more important that admech that need new models and updates Necrons come to mind here. And lets not even get into the disparity between CSM codex 2.0 and SM codex 2.0 which was so broken it totally reshaped the competitive 40k scene over night.

LOL they're not better. Heldrake spam in 6th is still better than what we have now because at least that was an extremely dangerous model, on top of flying Daemon Princes to boot. Even as more AA came in by 7th, they still had use as allies, and then the Legion supplement was released, as imbalanced as it was. Compare that to the gak show now and to say CSM is in a better spot is, like, just WRONG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
can you not run a seperate detachment?

Why should that be necessary in the first place? Is that really the best defense for that you got?

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
can you not run a seperate detachment?

Why should that be necessary in the first place? Is that really the best defense for that you got?
The idea that there can be units inside your own Codex that makes it so you can't use the rules in your own Codex is blatantly silly.

The datasheets are not there so you can use them in detachments. The datasheets are there so you can use Daemonic Ritual without needing to buy another book.

I think that was stated in a WC blog post or designer's commentary or something.

The Salt Mine wrote:As someone who played 1ksons and DG for years I agree with Slayer-Fan123 on the fact that they lost more than they gained with their codecies. Half of my armies for them became unplayable. For Deathguard I lost my bikers, havocs, obliterators, and terminators that I spent hundreds of $$ and a lot of time converting to be Deathguard. For 1ksons it was even worse since that codex is just a filler codex that zero effort was put into it. And no "JuSt TaKe An CsM dEtAtChMeNt!!!" isn't the answer as now I have to spend even more points on HQ units and other filler units that I wouldn't have had to before. My armies literally became illegal and unplayable over night and I was forced to spend even more money to make them playable.

This is made even more galling by the fact that every single loyalist space marine release in 8th has been here are all these units you didn't have access too in your specialist SM army that now you do have access too!!! Why can I not take all the new stuff that buffs daemon engines in my 1ksons army when half of my fething codex is all the daemon engines.

Nothing is ever gained by comparing CSM to SM. Just more frustration.

DG and TS did lose a lot by getting their own Codex. Long term, it's probably a gain - having their own Codex means GW will eventually expand their line with unique units. But I would hate to have invested in a bunch of Deredeos and Leviathans and not be able to use them.

Unlike my poor Black Legion. All we get are characters. We don't even have the conversion compulsion characteristic of armies without unique characters.

What's the long term though you're willing to wait for said expansion? Honest question.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 16:02:08


Post by: The Salt Mine



LOL they're not better. Heldrake spam in 6th is still better than what we have now because at least that was an extremely dangerous model, on top of flying Daemon Princes to boot. Even as more AA came in by 7th, they still had use as allies, and then the Legion supplement was released, as imbalanced as it was. Compare that to the gak show now and to say CSM is in a better spot is, like, just WRONG.


Umm what? Heldrake spam was good for like the first month of 6th ed. For the rest of 6th ed and 7th ed CSM were the worst codex in the game. Competitive chaos lists were daemons and renegade guard or bust. Even with traitor legions CSM had nothing to compete with all the 2++ rerollable deathstars rolling around in the competitive scene or Taudar or playing against a 3000 point SM list with 2000 points of CSM because FREE gak detachments. Hell my competitive list for the tail end of 7th ed had a screamer bomb, Magnus, and Fateweaver all rolling around with 2++ rerollable invuln saves it was the dumbest list I have ever played and there was nothing in the CSM codex that could touch that.

For the majority of 8th ed CSM were better than the loyalists until the 2.0 SM codex came out not sure how this is even arguable as Chaos soup lists were dominating pretty solidly right before SM 2.0 came out. Most competitive Chaos lists had many elements from the CSM codex. The only SM elements I remember seeing from Imperial soup lists were BA smash captains. Hell even know CSM can put up some pretty competitive builds such as possessed bomb. Its just that the SM are still so absurdly broken and warping the meta that its stupid. Once the April faq comes around and brings more nerfs to the SM I think Chaos will be able to compete pretty well again.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 17:20:41


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


The Salt Mine wrote:

LOL they're not better. Heldrake spam in 6th is still better than what we have now because at least that was an extremely dangerous model, on top of flying Daemon Princes to boot. Even as more AA came in by 7th, they still had use as allies, and then the Legion supplement was released, as imbalanced as it was. Compare that to the gak show now and to say CSM is in a better spot is, like, just WRONG.


Umm what? Heldrake spam was good for like the first month of 6th ed. For the rest of 6th ed and 7th ed CSM were the worst codex in the game. Competitive chaos lists were daemons and renegade guard or bust. Even with traitor legions CSM had nothing to compete with all the 2++ rerollable deathstars rolling around in the competitive scene or Taudar or playing against a 3000 point SM list with 2000 points of CSM because FREE gak detachments. Hell my competitive list for the tail end of 7th ed had a screamer bomb, Magnus, and Fateweaver all rolling around with 2++ rerollable invuln saves it was the dumbest list I have ever played and there was nothing in the CSM codex that could touch that.

For the majority of 8th ed CSM were better than the loyalists until the 2.0 SM codex came out not sure how this is even arguable as Chaos soup lists were dominating pretty solidly right before SM 2.0 came out. Most competitive Chaos lists had many elements from the CSM codex. The only SM elements I remember seeing from Imperial soup lists were BA smash captains. Hell even know CSM can put up some pretty competitive builds such as possessed bomb. Its just that the SM are still so absurdly broken and warping the meta that its stupid. Once the April faq comes around and brings more nerfs to the SM I think Chaos will be able to compete pretty well again.


This is correct. Though I'd argue that heldrake spam was viable a bit longer it never was as competitive as Chaos lists are today and obviousely saying the CSM codex in 6th was good is like saying the tyranid codex was good when effectively both of these codizes had just one OP model (heldrake and flyrants respectively) that tried to carry the codex. Yes, Nurgle CSM could still hold their own in 6th and 7th but they were outclassed by Necrons, SM, Eldar, Tau, Space Wolves, Mechanicus and Daemons - like most codizes were.
Competitive chaos lists still mean soup just like in prior editions, unfortunately. But since many tournament players don't seem to care about fluff anyway judging from dakka posts, that might be a minor complaint.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 17:35:43


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:

LOL they're not better. Heldrake spam in 6th is still better than what we have now because at least that was an extremely dangerous model, on top of flying Daemon Princes to boot. Even as more AA came in by 7th, they still had use as allies, and then the Legion supplement was released, as imbalanced as it was. Compare that to the gak show now and to say CSM is in a better spot is, like, just WRONG.


Umm what? Heldrake spam was good for like the first month of 6th ed. For the rest of 6th ed and 7th ed CSM were the worst codex in the game. Competitive chaos lists were daemons and renegade guard or bust. Even with traitor legions CSM had nothing to compete with all the 2++ rerollable deathstars rolling around in the competitive scene or Taudar or playing against a 3000 point SM list with 2000 points of CSM because FREE gak detachments. Hell my competitive list for the tail end of 7th ed had a screamer bomb, Magnus, and Fateweaver all rolling around with 2++ rerollable invuln saves it was the dumbest list I have ever played and there was nothing in the CSM codex that could touch that.

For the majority of 8th ed CSM were better than the loyalists until the 2.0 SM codex came out not sure how this is even arguable as Chaos soup lists were dominating pretty solidly right before SM 2.0 came out. Most competitive Chaos lists had many elements from the CSM codex. The only SM elements I remember seeing from Imperial soup lists were BA smash captains. Hell even know CSM can put up some pretty competitive builds such as possessed bomb. Its just that the SM are still so absurdly broken and warping the meta that its stupid. Once the April faq comes around and brings more nerfs to the SM I think Chaos will be able to compete pretty well again.


This is correct. Though I'd argue that heldrake spam was viable a bit longer it never was as competitive as Chaos lists are today and obviousely saying the CSM codex in 6th was good is like saying the tyranid codex was good when effectively both of these codizes had just one OP model (heldrake and flyrants respectively) that tried to carry the codex. Yes, Nurgle CSM could still hold their own in 6th and 7th but they were outclassed by Necrons, SM, Eldar, Tau, Space Wolves, Mechanicus and Daemons - like most codizes were.
Competitive chaos lists still mean soup just like in prior editions, unfortunately. But since many tournament players don't seem to care about fluff anyway judging from dakka posts, that might be a minor complaint.

Heldrake spam at its peak was absolutely more viable than the current lists, and was still viable onwards even in 7th (hence why they're allied in often enough), and since neither are focused on CSM themselves it's impossible to argue the current codex writing is any better. Simply because it isn't.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 17:47:54


Post by: Dysartes


 techsoldaten wrote:
DG and TS did lose a lot by getting their own Codex. Long term, it's probably a gain - having their own Codex means GW will eventually expand their line with unique units. But I would hate to have invested in a bunch of Deredeos and Leviathans and not be able to use them.

I don't have the Chaos IA, but do the Hellforged Deredeos & Leviathans not have <MARK OF CHAOS> as a keyword?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 18:19:37


Post by: The Salt Mine



Heldrake spam at its peak was absolutely more viable than the current lists, and was still viable onwards even in 7th (hence why they're allied in often enough), and since neither are focused on CSM themselves it's impossible to argue the current codex writing is any better. Simply because it isn't.


I mean your more than entitled to think that but you are so unbelievably wrong its hilarious.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 20:27:19


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


The Salt Mine wrote:

Heldrake spam at its peak was absolutely more viable than the current lists, and was still viable onwards even in 7th (hence why they're allied in often enough), and since neither are focused on CSM themselves it's impossible to argue the current codex writing is any better. Simply because it isn't.


I mean your more than entitled to think that but you are so unbelievably wrong its hilarious.

Well pray tell all the viable lists for the current writing that have wowed us. It will be surprisingly short.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 20:55:30


Post by: The Salt Mine


https://nightsatthegametable.com/slaanesh-tournament-winning-list-warhammer-40k/

https://www.40kstats.com/gowix

https://www.40kstats.com/cagbashxiii

These are just from a quick google search all lists that made it to the top 4. There is also the triple lord of skulls list kicking that has been doing well. I saw another event that a chaos player took second in that had a large blob of rubrics and noise marines. There are a lot more that I have seen. All pretty varied and way more than just triple hell drake. Do some basic research before posting nonsense claims.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some more lists that made it to the top 4 for a lot of factions if you want to look through them.

https://www.40kstats.com/topfactionlists


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 22:17:40


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


The Salt Mine wrote:
https://nightsatthegametable.com/slaanesh-tournament-winning-list-warhammer-40k/

https://www.40kstats.com/gowix

https://www.40kstats.com/cagbashxiii

These are just from a quick google search all lists that made it to the top 4. There is also the triple lord of skulls list kicking that has been doing well. I saw another event that a chaos player took second in that had a large blob of rubrics and noise marines. There are a lot more that I have seen. All pretty varied and way more than just triple hell drake. Do some basic research before posting nonsense claims.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some more lists that made it to the top 4 for a lot of factions if you want to look through them.

https://www.40kstats.com/topfactionlists

Wow, imagine thinking something happens once or twice and that's the data point you want to use LOL, all you shown is they're an inconsistent army that does something once and then it's THAT easily encountered that it never bothers to pop up again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, spoiler alert, we all know about 40k stats. It collects data from basically ANYTHING slightly organized, including small tournaments nobody cares about.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 22:35:53


Post by: The Salt Mine


Makes outrageous wrong claims gets proven wrong by facts has no other argument other than lol you are wrong. yep no point arguing with someone this delusional.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/15 23:28:25


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


The Salt Mine wrote:
Makes outrageous wrong claims gets proven wrong by facts has no other argument other than lol you are wrong. yep no point arguing with someone this delusional.

It's not anymore an outrageous claim than the one time Rubric Marines + Ahriman topped sar one tournament in 6th and someone proclaiming that as evidence they're good. Little anecdotal evidence is essentially not having evidence at all. Consistency is the name of the game, which is why tactics that rely rely on randumb aren't good.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 01:20:17


Post by: Gadzilla666


The Salt Mine wrote:
https://nightsatthegametable.com/slaanesh-tournament-winning-list-warhammer-40k/

https://www.40kstats.com/gowix

https://www.40kstats.com/cagbashxiii

These are just from a quick google search all lists that made it to the top 4. There is also the triple lord of skulls list kicking that has been doing well. I saw another event that a chaos player took second in that had a large blob of rubrics and noise marines. There are a lot more that I have seen. All pretty varied and way more than just triple hell drake. Do some basic research before posting nonsense claims.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some more lists that made it to the top 4 for a lot of factions if you want to look through them.

https://www.40kstats.com/topfactionlists

All those lists prove is that csm can be competitive when used in soup and when using gimmicks like possessed bombs and triple klos. That's not new information. If the csm codex were actually designed right you wouldn't need soup or gimmicks. I know that doesn't bother hardcore competitive players but it does bother those of us who prefer not to resort to such things.

Csm should be viable without soup or gimmicks.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 02:26:21


Post by: Argive


The Salt Mine wrote:
https://nightsatthegametable.com/slaanesh-tournament-winning-list-warhammer-40k/

https://www.40kstats.com/gowix

https://www.40kstats.com/cagbashxiii

These are just from a quick google search all lists that made it to the top 4. There is also the triple lord of skulls list kicking that has been doing well. I saw another event that a chaos player took second in that had a large blob of rubrics and noise marines. There are a lot more that I have seen. All pretty varied and way more than just triple hell drake. Do some basic research before posting nonsense claims.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some more lists that made it to the top 4 for a lot of factions if you want to look through them.

https://www.40kstats.com/topfactionlists


I played against Phils triple lord of skulls last friday and got absolutely crushed... in T1 I had no real army left lol. You might thing its a a gimmick outlier etc. And yeah it sort of is.. BUT it does not make it a bad list/army
Hes currently ranked 3rd globaly on BCP and is #1. chaos player. I made a thread about how people would fight it because quite frankly, Eldar have no real answer.

We spoke about out and it seems like such a silly unit etc. but as soon as you have three of them and all the new PA/shadow spear buffs and relics all of a sudden its just savage.. Apprently Vik said hes the only army that managed to kill the pre-nerf IH levi.. that the kind of firepower you are dealing with.. It seems nobody considered those units when handing out the relics, strats and auras..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
https://nightsatthegametable.com/slaanesh-tournament-winning-list-warhammer-40k/

https://www.40kstats.com/gowix

https://www.40kstats.com/cagbashxiii

These are just from a quick google search all lists that made it to the top 4. There is also the triple lord of skulls list kicking that has been doing well. I saw another event that a chaos player took second in that had a large blob of rubrics and noise marines. There are a lot more that I have seen. All pretty varied and way more than just triple hell drake. Do some basic research before posting nonsense claims.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some more lists that made it to the top 4 for a lot of factions if you want to look through them.

https://www.40kstats.com/topfactionlists

All those lists prove is that csm can be competitive when used in soup and when using gimmicks like possessed bombs and triple klos. That's not new information. If the csm codex were actually designed right you wouldn't need soup or gimmicks. I know that doesn't bother hardcore competitive players but it does bother those of us who prefer not to resort to such things.

Csm should be viable without soup or gimmicks.


EVERY FACTION in 8th thus far had "one or two gimmicks/soups" that worked competitively above all else.. Its not a chaos only phenomenon. (apart from marines.. but lets not start that discussion we all know what it is).


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 02:49:55


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Argive wrote:
EVERY FACTION in 8th thus far had "one or two gimmicks/soups" that worked competitively above all else.. Its not a chaos only phenomenon. (apart from marines.. but lets not start that discussion we all know what it is).

Yes but csm rely on the really big overly contrived ones more than most. And my point was that although such lists may be ok for strictly competitive they aren't what most people would like to play in more casual games. I'm personally sick of csm being the wombo combo faction. The army should work without such tricks.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 02:59:24


Post by: Argive


I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 03:20:18


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..

I'll give you the argument on strategems, but csm have the same limit on warlord traits and relics as everyone else except sm have. And you have to be joking about traits.

Agreed the whole combo thing sucks.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 03:25:22


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..


I think most armies are in a very good spot right now. Its just the SM bs is so ridiculously oppressive that it hold a lot of gak back but again as was said earlier that is a different topic. I do think its funny that you can compare the entirety of the Chaos faction to just the SM faction and not be far off though lol.

As far as wombo combos and such I have to agree with stratagems and keywords working the way they do that is kind of the name of the game for every army now a days.

In an ideal world every codex would be viable by itself but that is just not the way the armies that can ally with one another have been designed. With the exception of SM of course but that should have never been allowed to happened and was either complete incompetence that that codex was allowed to release or a money grab either of which are not good for the game.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 04:12:03


Post by: Gadzilla666


The Salt Mine wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..


I think most armies are in a very good spot right now. Its just the SM bs is so ridiculously oppressive that it hold a lot of gak back but again as was said earlier that is a different topic. I do think its funny that you can compare the entirety of the Chaos faction to just the SM faction and not be far off though lol.

As far as wombo combos and such I have to agree with stratagems and keywords working the way they do that is kind of the name of the game for every army now a days.

In an ideal world every codex would be viable by itself but that is just not the way the armies that can ally with one another have been designed. With the exception of SM of course but that should have never been allowed to happened and was either complete incompetence that that codex was allowed to release or a money grab either of which are not good for the game.


I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the codexes were designed for soup? If so do you think when knights were designed to be an army of a few powerful models with a few powerful strategems but limited cp, that something like the loyal 32 circumvention that was planned? Or that the designers planned for ba to be used just for smash captains?

I don't think soup lists were planned when writing codexes. But like I said, I may be misunderstanding your point.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 04:32:23


Post by: The Salt Mine




I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the codexes were designed for soup? If so do you think when knights were designed to be an army of a few powerful models with a few powerful strategems but limited cp, that something like the loyal 32 circumvention that was planned? Or that the designers planned for ba to be used just for smash captains?

I don't think soup lists were planned when writing codexes. But like I said, I may be misunderstanding your point.


I think it was a little bit of both honestly. I think they definitely designed them to with soup in mind. But I also think there were some interactions that definitely slip through the cracks. For example the daemon stratagems only being allowed to work on codex daemon units when almost every other codex strats can affect models if they have the keywords. This was faqqed into existence because at the time people thought the deep striking strat would be absurd on the 2 Primarchs. But I think when the codex was originally designed GW had intended for those strats to be usable on CSM daemon units. But again there are so many interactions that can go on in this game its impossible for them to catch everything when designing and play testing.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 04:34:12


Post by: Argive


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..

I'll give you the argument on strategems, but csm have the same limit on warlord traits and relics as everyone else except sm have. And you have to be joking about traits.

Agreed the whole combo thing sucks.


Can you not take multiple warlord traits in chaos post PA ?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 05:12:31


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Argive wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..

I'll give you the argument on strategems, but csm have the same limit on warlord traits and relics as everyone else except sm have. And you have to be joking about traits.

Agreed the whole combo thing sucks.


Can you not take multiple warlord traits in chaos post PA ?

Alpha Legion can have one extra. The other legions cannot.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 06:10:25


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..

I'll give you the argument on strategems, but csm have the same limit on warlord traits and relics as everyone else except sm have. And you have to be joking about traits.

Agreed the whole combo thing sucks.


Can you not take multiple warlord traits in chaos post PA ?

Alpha Legion can have one extra. The other legions cannot.

I made an Alpha Legion list with three before. Raptorial Host dude, a Sniper guy, and then a Disco Lord that's apparently Alpharius. I'm working on trying to create a list with more sticking as many of those silly Specialist detachments in there as possible.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 06:31:23


Post by: Gadzilla666


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..

I'll give you the argument on strategems, but csm have the same limit on warlord traits and relics as everyone else except sm have. And you have to be joking about traits.

Agreed the whole combo thing sucks.


Can you not take multiple warlord traits in chaos post PA ?

Alpha Legion can have one extra. The other legions cannot.

I made an Alpha Legion list with three before. Raptorial Host dude, a Sniper guy, and then a Disco Lord that's apparently Alpharius. I'm working on trying to create a list with more sticking as many of those silly Specialist detachments in there as possible.

That's 2cp a pop. Considering how cp hungry csm armies are you could gimp yourself. Be interested in how it works out.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 07:05:42


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Argive wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..

I'll give you the argument on strategems, but csm have the same limit on warlord traits and relics as everyone else except sm have. And you have to be joking about traits.

Agreed the whole combo thing sucks.


Can you not take multiple warlord traits in chaos post PA ?


No, only one subfaction can pick one more trait.
And that is Alpha legion..
Atmost therefore you see 2 warlord traits.

Because some people here seem to foget that A : special detachments cost a cp as does field commander which is Stuck ob detachment warlord traits . Also 3 cp for 2 good and one meh warlord trait for 1 subfaction is a Bad turnout.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 07:44:08


Post by: Gadzilla666


Which is made more frustrating because strong characters has usually been a strength for csm. It was the options for characters in 3.5 that gave csm a lot of their strength.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 11:03:17


Post by: Not Online!!!


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Which is made more frustrating because strong characters has usually been a strength for csm. It was the options for characters in 3.5 that gave csm a lot of their strength.


It's why for all the good F&F brought, you don't see many changes overall.

F.e. WB etc would love to bring more then ONE trait for a warlord to make some of the new stuff actually work. yet they can't.

The biggest profiteurs off F&F were AL and IW. To a degree WB but there's only upwards from rockbottom anyways.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 11:42:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Which is made more frustrating because strong characters has usually been a strength for csm. It was the options for characters in 3.5 that gave csm a lot of their strength.


It's why for all the good F&F brought, you don't see many changes overall.

F.e. WB etc would love to bring more then ONE trait for a warlord to make some of the new stuff actually work. yet they can't.

The biggest profiteurs off F&F were AL and IW. To a degree WB but there's only upwards from rockbottom anyways.

Aye, it still galls me that they actually gave us A Talent for Murder but split it between a warlord trait and a stratagem....


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 14:00:28


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Not Online!!! wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Which is made more frustrating because strong characters has usually been a strength for csm. It was the options for characters in 3.5 that gave csm a lot of their strength.


It's why for all the good F&F brought, you don't see many changes overall.

F.e. WB etc would love to bring more then ONE trait for a warlord to make some of the new stuff actually work. yet they can't.

The biggest profiteurs off F&F were AL and IW. To a degree WB but there's only upwards from rockbottom anyways.

Exalted Possession should've been a Strat that could be used multiple times, just like with Death Visions. That alone would've been a better boost. After all, they can't be bothered to fox the Legion traits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Argive wrote:
I don't agree... I don't think its more than most. Combo wombo is the name of the game... Sadly... For everyone.

The wealth of options in terms of traits, relics, strats available to Chaos rivals only that of SM. hence you get Triple Klos nonsense appearing..

I'll give you the argument on strategems, but csm have the same limit on warlord traits and relics as everyone else except sm have. And you have to be joking about traits.

Agreed the whole combo thing sucks.


Can you not take multiple warlord traits in chaos post PA ?

Alpha Legion can have one extra. The other legions cannot.

I made an Alpha Legion list with three before. Raptorial Host dude, a Sniper guy, and then a Disco Lord that's apparently Alpharius. I'm working on trying to create a list with more sticking as many of those silly Specialist detachments in there as possible.

That's 2cp a pop. Considering how cp hungry csm armies are you could gimp yourself. Be interested in how it works out.

The 3 Warlords at a time one was overall just okay. I did adjustments I hadn't posted and of course the primary issue is points being an issue, as always with the army, as the moment CSM run low on CP they're worse than other armies.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 14:33:51


Post by: techsoldaten


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Nothing is ever gained by comparing CSM to SM. Just more frustration.

DG and TS did lose a lot by getting their own Codex. Long term, it's probably a gain - having their own Codex means GW will eventually expand their line with unique units. But I would hate to have invested in a bunch of Deredeos and Leviathans and not be able to use them.

Unlike my poor Black Legion. All we get are characters. We don't even have the conversion compulsion characteristic of armies without unique characters.

What's the long term though you're willing to wait for said expansion? Honest question.

I'm willing to wait. No specific amount of time, figure it will take a couple editions.

I play multiple armies, like soup, and avoid tournaments. All this may have something to do with my increased tolerance.

Dysartes wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
DG and TS did lose a lot by getting their own Codex. Long term, it's probably a gain - having their own Codex means GW will eventually expand their line with unique units. But I would hate to have invested in a bunch of Deredeos and Leviathans and not be able to use them.

I don't have the Chaos IA, but do the Hellforged Deredeos & Leviathans not have <MARK OF CHAOS> as a keyword?

Yeah, I could have put that better. Deredeos and Leviathans have the appropriate keywords.

My comment was more about radical change, I'd hate to have these models and no longer be able to fit them into lists. If they took the option away entirely, I'd walk away from 40k forever.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the codexes were designed for soup? If so do you think when knights were designed to be an army of a few powerful models with a few powerful strategems but limited cp, that something like the loyal 32 circumvention that was planned? Or that the designers planned for ba to be used just for smash captains?

I don't think soup lists were planned when writing codexes. But like I said, I may be misunderstanding your point.

I'm pretty sure GW planned for soup, especially for Chaos.

That's the reason we have faction keywords, that's the reason we have detachments. It's only been recently that GW put some restrictions in place for how those keywords could be used together in the same detachment.

We had the allies chart in 6th edition, this is just simpler and more straightforward. You don't have to worry about weird rules for factions that aren't besties in the same army.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Can you not take multiple warlord traits in chaos post PA ?

No, only one subfaction can pick one more trait.
And that is Alpha legion..
Atmost therefore you see 2 warlord traits.

Because some people here seem to foget that A : special detachments cost a cp as does field commander which is Stuck ob detachment warlord traits . Also 3 cp for 2 good and one meh warlord trait for 1 subfaction is a Bad turnout.

Black Legion can take up to 3 Warlord Traits using Council of Traitors.

Any CSM Legion can take additional Warlord traits using Field Commander and the specialist detachments in Vigilus Ablaze.

Saying you don't like the Warlord Traits (or that you don't like paying CP for them) is does not mean a different player cannot choose to take them.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 14:49:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


 techsoldaten wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the codexes were designed for soup? If so do you think when knights were designed to be an army of a few powerful models with a few powerful strategems but limited cp, that something like the loyal 32 circumvention that was planned? Or that the designers planned for ba to be used just for smash captains?

I don't think soup lists were planned when writing codexes. But like I said, I may be misunderstanding your point.

I'm pretty sure GW planned for soup, especially for Chaos.

That's the reason we have faction keywords, that's the reason we have detachments. It's only been recently that GW put some restrictions in place for how those keywords could be used together in the same detachment.

We had the allies chart in 6th edition, this is just simpler and more straightforward. You don't have to worry about weird rules for factions that aren't besties in the same army.

They may have planned for soup when writing the keyword and detachment rules, but the people writing most of the codexes didn't seem to factor it into their writing. Too many obviously unplanned interactions, cp generation being the most obvious.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 14:59:10


Post by: Not Online!!!


Black Legion can take up to 3 Warlord Traits using Council of Traitors.

Any CSM Legion can take additional Warlord traits using Field Commander and the specialist detachments in Vigilus Ablaze.

Saying you don't like the Warlord Traits (or that you don't like paying CP for them) is does not mean a different player cannot choose to take them.


Sorry to say this, but beyond BL, no other legion has access to more then one of their actual good traits of their chosing beyond AL.
The only trait worth the CP in regards to the detachments is sadly raptorial host. So yes unlike SM most CSM factions have comparatively low possibility to gain warlord traits, a main selling point of PA.
Beyond the fact that as you yourself mentioned that the traits just are not working.
Not to mention that build a trait is also somehow not allowed for reasons unknown.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 15:19:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


Also not mentioning the "improved character" strategems loyalists got in Faith and Fury.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 16:00:01


Post by: techsoldaten


Not Online!!! wrote:
Sorry to say this, but beyond BL, no other legion has access to more then one of their actual good traits of their chosing beyond AL.

This is where you lose me.

Daemon Bombs are one of the most effective tactics for CSM right now, and Shepherd of the True Faith magnifies its impact immensely. Mortal Wounds on 6+ for models with 4+ attacks on the charge, that's enough to kill multiple Knights in melee.

It's one of the best WLTs. Armour Bane and Exultant Preacher have a similar impact relative to their detachment units.

I guess you could say they are more specific, but there's no reason to say they're not good. All of them are available to any Legion in addition to a standard choice.

So maybe I don't know what you mean when you say good, that's not how most people would use the word.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 16:33:23


Post by: Not Online!!!


 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Sorry to say this, but beyond BL, no other legion has access to more then one of their actual good traits of their chosing beyond AL.

This is where you lose me.

Daemon Bombs are one of the most effective tactics for CSM right now, and Shepherd of the True Faith magnifies its impact immensely. Mortal Wounds on 6+ for models with 4+ attacks on the charge, that's enough to kill multiple Knights in melee.

It's one of the best WLTs. Armour Bane and Exultant Preacher have a similar impact relative to their detachment units.

I guess you could say they are more specific, but there's no reason to say they're not good. All of them are available to any Legion in addition to a standard choice.

So maybe I don't know what you mean when you say good, that's not how most people would use the word.


And yet i'd rather pick my Legion specific traits to Make my legions work and not possessed spam .


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 16:50:23


Post by: techsoldaten


Not Online!!! wrote:
And yet i'd rather pick my Legion specific traits to Make my legions work and not possessed spam .

You made your preference clear earlier in this thread.

And yet you don't realize your opinion does not speak for every player. Or even that sticking with Legion-specific WLTs would be sub-optimal for most Legions.

So please stop stating your opinion as if it is rules. Legions can take more than one WLT, subject to some restrictions around detachments.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 17:01:28


Post by: Argive


So you still have options.

Consider that a lot of factions are stuck with one crappy warlolrd trait and that's it.. plus no new starts etc. CHAOS in general is in an ok place, comparable to others (not SM)


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 17:34:02


Post by: Not Online!!!


 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
And yet i'd rather pick my Legion specific traits to Make my legions work and not possessed spam .

You made your preference clear earlier in this thread.

And yet you don't realize your opinion does not speak for every player. Or even that sticking with Legion-specific WLTs would be sub-optimal for most Legions.

So please stop stating your opinion as if it is rules. Legions can take more than one WLT, subject to some restrictions around detachments.


Lol, you facilitate excactly ONE subtype of list with one special detachment that is atm the only one that is competitvly showing up.

And frankly, you can't tell me that ANY player regardless of faction is happy, (beyond maybee SM which have some diffrent builds ) that only one build seems to work, with no runner ups in sight.

And truth is, sadly that beyond BL and AL, you don't get additional normal traits, which would actually you know help facilitate some other playstyles and models on the field. Take IW for exemple or even WB.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Argive wrote:
So you still have options.

Consider that a lot of factions are stuck with one crappy warlolrd trait and that's it.. plus no new starts etc. CHAOS in general is in an ok place, comparable to others (not SM)


truth be told,the whole PA stick was a desaster for everyone not beeing a Loyalist marine so far.

DE, got build a trait, and only that.
Others didn't get build a trait but stratagems, and comparatively CSM indeed got better off then many others but it is frankly absurd at this stage how it went down.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 17:44:40


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Argive wrote:
So you still have options.

Consider that a lot of factions are stuck with one crappy warlolrd trait and that's it.. plus no new starts etc. CHAOS in general is in an ok place, comparable to others (not SM)

For extra warlord traits? Sure, with specialist detachments. Which orks, cw eldar, and gsc also have. And tau have "promising pupil" which works just like the loyalist marines extra warlord trait strategem. Course all those specialist detachment wt aren't what you want, same as csm.

So do we continue arguing over who got shafted worse compared to loyalists and tau? As usual?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/16 20:06:26


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Not Online!!! wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Sorry to say this, but beyond BL, no other legion has access to more then one of their actual good traits of their chosing beyond AL.

This is where you lose me.

Daemon Bombs are one of the most effective tactics for CSM right now, and Shepherd of the True Faith magnifies its impact immensely. Mortal Wounds on 6+ for models with 4+ attacks on the charge, that's enough to kill multiple Knights in melee.

It's one of the best WLTs. Armour Bane and Exultant Preacher have a similar impact relative to their detachment units.

I guess you could say they are more specific, but there's no reason to say they're not good. All of them are available to any Legion in addition to a standard choice.

So maybe I don't know what you mean when you say good, that's not how most people would use the word.


And yet i'd rather pick my Legion specific traits to Make my legions work and not possessed spam .

Possessed bomb is not scary. The fact it's winning is actually kinda comical and it will disappear soon. It does prove that Alpha Legion are the only ones worth it as usual though.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 00:28:11


Post by: techsoldaten


Not Online!!! wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
And yet i'd rather pick my Legion specific traits to Make my legions work and not possessed spam .

You made your preference clear earlier in this thread.

And yet you don't realize your opinion does not speak for every player. Or even that sticking with Legion-specific WLTs would be sub-optimal for most Legions.

So please stop stating your opinion as if it is rules. Legions can take more than one WLT, subject to some restrictions around detachments.


Lol, you facilitate excactly ONE subtype of list with one special detachment that is atm the only one that is competitvly showing up.

And frankly, you can't tell me that ANY player regardless of faction is happy, (beyond maybee SM which have some diffrent builds ) that only one build seems to work, with no runner ups in sight.

And truth is, sadly that beyond BL and AL, you don't get additional normal traits, which would actually you know help facilitate some other playstyles and models on the field. Take IW for exemple or even WB.


In response, your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the rules around warlord traits.

You're wrong, I'm right. Whine all you want.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Possessed bomb is not scary. The fact it's winning is actually kinda comical and it will disappear soon. It does prove that Alpha Legion are the only ones worth it as usual though.

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised how much people are able to do with it.

At the end of the day, it's a single unit. One would think would be hard counters that are easy to employ. Moving backwards, for example, to put them out of aura / spell range from the HQ units. Or send up some sacrificial units while they burn up CPs on Conceal.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 02:10:36


Post by: The Salt Mine


 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
And yet i'd rather pick my Legion specific traits to Make my legions work and not possessed spam .

You made your preference clear earlier in this thread.

And yet you don't realize your opinion does not speak for every player. Or even that sticking with Legion-specific WLTs would be sub-optimal for most Legions.

So please stop stating your opinion as if it is rules. Legions can take more than one WLT, subject to some restrictions around detachments.


Lol, you facilitate excactly ONE subtype of list with one special detachment that is atm the only one that is competitvly showing up.

And frankly, you can't tell me that ANY player regardless of faction is happy, (beyond maybee SM which have some diffrent builds ) that only one build seems to work, with no runner ups in sight.

And truth is, sadly that beyond BL and AL, you don't get additional normal traits, which would actually you know help facilitate some other playstyles and models on the field. Take IW for exemple or even WB.


In response, your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the rules around warlord traits.

You're wrong, I'm right. Whine all you want.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Possessed bomb is not scary. The fact it's winning is actually kinda comical and it will disappear soon. It does prove that Alpha Legion are the only ones worth it as usual though.

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised how much people are able to do with it.

At the end of the day, it's a single unit. One would think would be hard counters that are easy to employ. Moving backwards, for example, to put them out of aura / spell range from the HQ units. Or send up some sacrificial units while they burn up CPs on Conceal.


I've messed around with it a bit its pretty amazing how durable the unit can be, 3+/5++ with the posibility of getting up to a 4++ and a 6+++ from powers with 2 wounds a pop. ITC helps it out a bit by being able to block line of sight. Its also surprisingly fast with the ability to advance and charge if you are slaneesh. You can also warptime them and advance again. If you make them Nurgle you can stack up to a -3 to hit on them and double their damage output. You also don't need to get the whole unit into combat to murder whatever they touch so you can conga line them back to stay inside the auras. If your opponent deploys far away from them then they are just handing you board control and you can hopefully build up such a large lead early on that they hopefully can't come back from it. I was very skeptical when I saw possessed being used as well because for the last well forever ago they have just been pretty much hot garbage.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 10:09:23


Post by: Not Online!!!


 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
And yet i'd rather pick my Legion specific traits to Make my legions work and not possessed spam .

You made your preference clear earlier in this thread.

And yet you don't realize your opinion does not speak for every player. Or even that sticking with Legion-specific WLTs would be sub-optimal for most Legions.

So please stop stating your opinion as if it is rules. Legions can take more than one WLT, subject to some restrictions around detachments.


Lol, you facilitate excactly ONE subtype of list with one special detachment that is atm the only one that is competitvly showing up.

And frankly, you can't tell me that ANY player regardless of faction is happy, (beyond maybee SM which have some diffrent builds ) that only one build seems to work, with no runner ups in sight.

And truth is, sadly that beyond BL and AL, you don't get additional normal traits, which would actually you know help facilitate some other playstyles and models on the field. Take IW for exemple or even WB.


In response, your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the rules around warlord traits.

You're wrong, I'm right. Whine all you want.



Wow normally i respect you, but frankly this statement is low .

First off: Again you can get excactly with two legions warlord traits that are not detachment ones to even facilitate a real change in setup or gameplan. Meaning that F&F's impact was in many a way not really desiered, it helped to an extent but it did not do enough for the underdogs contrary it reinforced the position of AL overall as the top CSM dog.

Secondly: About field commander, there are 2 detachments that work, the daemonbomb one, the other raptorial host, mostly however this ones limited by the units it affects. These allow you their specific warlord trait. They don't facilitate an real alternate playstyle simply put in most cases that work.

And thirdly what you don't seem to understand: IW, f.e. would really like to have some more off their aura traits wouldn't they? Maybee even facilitate a propper gunline? NOPE.
This it the point i am making, the Traits would be there, just not available enough to actually facilitate other playstyles.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 10:30:33


Post by: Canadian 5th


Not Online!!! wrote:
Wow normally i respect you, but frankly this statement is low .

First off: Again you can get excactly with two legions warlord traits that are not detachment ones to even facilitate a real change in setup or gameplan. Meaning that F&F's impact was in many a way not really desiered, it helped to an extent but it did not do enough for the underdogs contrary it reinforced the position of AL overall as the top CSM dog.

Secondly: About field commander, there are 2 detachments that work, the daemonbomb one, the other raptorial host, mostly however this ones limited by the units it affects. These allow you their specific warlord trait. They don't facilitate an real alternate playstyle simply put in most cases that work.

And thirdly what you don't seem to understand: IW, f.e. would really like to have some more off their aura traits wouldn't they? Maybee even facilitate a propper gunline? NOPE.
This it the point i am making, the Traits would be there, just not available enough to actually facilitate other playstyles.

When you boil it down every single faction/army/codex only has one or two top tier viable build options and some factions won't even get there with any build in certain metas. That's just the reality of games that are as complicated as 40k. MtGs meta, both pro tour and FNM, tends to boil down to 3 or 4 top decks, a couple budgeted variations, and then brews which may or may not work in the meta. Your favoured subfaction and playstyle might not be viable currently, that sucks but either play through the suck or get some new models and expand your collection.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 10:46:39


Post by: Not Online!!!


I have 4 diffrent armies, i don't need more.

Secondly, i didn't ask for perfect balance, i asked for viable alternatives, something other games far more complex achieve.

Further, there are now over 100+ rules sources, of which half are paywalled, don't you think that that should warrant some quality controll to avoid something like IH at release or Ynnari, or or or?


As an aside i did state that most factions suffer from this above.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 11:16:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Wow normally i respect you, but frankly this statement is low .

First off: Again you can get excactly with two legions warlord traits that are not detachment ones to even facilitate a real change in setup or gameplan. Meaning that F&F's impact was in many a way not really desiered, it helped to an extent but it did not do enough for the underdogs contrary it reinforced the position of AL overall as the top CSM dog.

Secondly: About field commander, there are 2 detachments that work, the daemonbomb one, the other raptorial host, mostly however this ones limited by the units it affects. These allow you their specific warlord trait. They don't facilitate an real alternate playstyle simply put in most cases that work.

And thirdly what you don't seem to understand: IW, f.e. would really like to have some more off their aura traits wouldn't they? Maybee even facilitate a propper gunline? NOPE.
This it the point i am making, the Traits would be there, just not available enough to actually facilitate other playstyles.

When you boil it down every single faction/army/codex only has one or two top tier viable build options and some factions won't even get there with any build in certain metas. That's just the reality of games that are as complicated as 40k. MtGs meta, both pro tour and FNM, tends to boil down to 3 or 4 top decks, a couple budgeted variations, and then brews which may or may not work in the meta. Your favoured subfaction and playstyle might not be viable currently, that sucks but either play through the suck or get some new models and expand your collection.

Yes, top competitive players will always find the strongest builds for a faction and play those. But everyone isn't trying to play top tables. Variety and options for builds make for better, more interesting games. Most people don't want to play with or against the same lists over and over. If that's fine with you ok, but it isn't what everyone wants.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 13:13:50


Post by: techsoldaten


Not Online!!! wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
In response, your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the rules around warlord traits.

You're wrong, I'm right. Whine all you want.



Wow normally i respect you, but frankly this statement is low .

First off: Again you can get excactly with two legions warlord traits that are not detachment ones to even facilitate a real change in setup or gameplan. Meaning that F&F's impact was in many a way not really desiered, it helped to an extent but it did not do enough for the underdogs contrary it reinforced the position of AL overall as the top CSM dog.

Secondly: About field commander, there are 2 detachments that work, the daemonbomb one, the other raptorial host, mostly however this ones limited by the units it affects. These allow you their specific warlord trait. They don't facilitate an real alternate playstyle simply put in most cases that work.

And thirdly what you don't seem to understand: IW, f.e. would really like to have some more off their aura traits wouldn't they? Maybee even facilitate a propper gunline? NOPE.
This it the point i am making, the Traits would be there, just not available enough to actually facilitate other playstyles.

Low is probably the wrong word.

You made some statements about how there's only one Legion that can take more than one Warlord trait. I pointed out that, factually, this is not correct, all Legions (including Renegades) can take more than one WLT. If there's a 3 detachment limit, every Legion can take up to 4.

The conversation then turned to the quality of the warlord traits and whether or not they come from detachments. Which has nothing to do with facts, it's just your opinion and seemed like an attempt to obscure the original point.

While you're free to believe whatever you want, I'd say the majority of Legion-specific warlord traits aren't very useful. But most detachment-specific WLTs grant benefits that are directly relevant to the units that get the detachment keyword.

So I don't understand what point you are trying to prove here. Like, are you saying if I play Emperor's Children Daemon Engines, I'm going to be better off with Unbound Arrogance / Intoxicating Musk instead of Master of the Soulforges? That makes no sense, you get more out of faster Fiends / Crawlers than you do from d3 extra attacks on a Warlord. Or if I play World Eater's Cultists, I'm going to be better off with Violent Urgency / True Berzerker instead of Exultant Preacher? That makes no sense, you're trading reroll charges on large blobs of Cultists for reduced damage on the Warlord, that's a lot of wasted potential.

You could make the same argument for every detachment WLT. It's not like no one takes these other units, you may not find them as exciting as Possessed and Raptors but people have a use for them. The detachment WLTs enable people to play with other playstyles while making certain units more effective.

Personally, I'm happy with WLTs and appreciate the fact I can pay a CP to give a character more buffs. A laissez-faire system where every character gets a WLT would probably be a bad idea. If every character got one, what's the point? Your opponents are just going to throw their WLT buffed characters at yours, neither side actually sees a benefit relative to the other.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 13:47:34


Post by: Nurglitch


On the bright side, the novels about Chaos Space Marines are generally pretty good.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 13:51:51


Post by: Not Online!!!


No your statement is low, as it is an adhominem, aka a low blow.

I am also not for this:

Personally, I'm happy with WLTs and appreciate the fact I can pay a CP to give a character more buffs. A laissez-faire system where every character gets a WLT would probably be a bad idea. If every character got one, what's the point? Your opponents are just going to throw their WLT buffed characters at yours, neither side actually sees a benefit relative to the other.


And it absolutely would be a bad system,however, i do think that for most legions the availability is too stingy. A general stratagem as preface or a limit cap improvement if run mono, (maybee one / detachment f.e.) would be a better solution, especially considering that mono bonuses seem to be back on the menu, well kinda.

Also, i have never seen the cultists one in action beyond some lists using massed DA as a substitute for sorcerers. it worked not really.

As for the detachment special ones. Truth is, most of the detachments are not good, or saddled with not good enough units.
Soulforged pack is one exemple. Nice and all but only really affects all melee Daemonengines.

Cult of the damned reroll is great and all, except do you really want to blob up with cultists in melee? (also why not use the better faction for that one, it isn't like R&H do anything else well) Further, why not instead pick cult leader and assault rifle squads? Or cold and bitter for an IW list . both of which better alternatives for cultist play. (infact i had decent success surprsingly with a setup for that, without the need for the detachment.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 15:23:09


Post by: techsoldaten


Not Online!!! wrote:

I am also not for this:

Personally, I'm happy with WLTs and appreciate the fact I can pay a CP to give a character more buffs. A laissez-faire system where every character gets a WLT would probably be a bad idea. If every character got one, what's the point? Your opponents are just going to throw their WLT buffed characters at yours, neither side actually sees a benefit relative to the other.


Okay, you're not for that.

Doesn't change the fact that, if all characters had warlord traits, the power level of every army goes up. Assuming WLTs are equal for every army, you're not really getting an advantage relative to your opponent.

Not Online!!! wrote:

And it absolutely would be a bad system,however, i do think that for most legions the availability is too stingy. A general stratagem as preface or a limit cap improvement if run mono, (maybee one / detachment f.e.) would be a better solution, especially considering that mono bonuses seem to be back on the menu, well kinda.

Again, if you do it for every faction, where's the benefit?

It may be a good time to point out most Xenos armies don't get detachment-specific WLTs, nor do most Imperial factions. This definitely add something extra for Chaos, makes some bad units playable as the meta progresses.

This doesn't mean every unit is OP, or that it's going to become the main threat in your army. It means you have something that will do better in specific circumstances, which is a decent approach.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Also, i have never seen the cultists one in action beyond some lists using massed DA as a substitute for sorcerers. it worked not really.

As for the detachment special ones. Truth is, most of the detachments are not good, or saddled with not good enough units.
Soulforged pack is one exemple. Nice and all but only really affects all melee Daemonengines.

Cult of the damned reroll is great and all, except do you really want to blob up with cultists in melee? (also why not use the better faction for that one, it isn't like R&H do anything else well) Further, why not instead pick cult leader and assault rifle squads? Or cold and bitter for an IW list . both of which better alternatives for cultist play. (infact i had decent success surprsingly with a setup for that, without the need for the detachment.

I'm not really sure what to say about that.

Cultists do make their way to the tabletop, even in tournaments. Nick Navarati was getting some work done with them until a few years ago. He was using them in melee to swamp objectives. I haven't been watching tournament lists closely, but I imagine people are taking advantage of the rerolls to charges - it's just too good if you are going that way.

The majority of Daemon Engines - everything except Defilers - are close combat, even the Forgeworld ones. I'm not sure what to say about your comments there.

Sure, there's benefits to running Cultists as different Legions, but - if you really wanted to use Iron Warriors, wouldn't it be better to have Cold and Bitter plus Exultant Preacher? You'd get morale immunity plus rerolls to charge through WLTs, you'd just need 2 HQs.

If you don't want to play Iron Warriors, you can still get the benefit of rerolls to charge with Cult of the Damned. This gives you a lot of tactical flexibility if you want to go with Cultists.

So what is it exactly you would want to change? Just allow Field Commander to plug in Legion-specific WLTs at the expense of bonuses to specific units?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 15:36:45


Post by: Not Online!!!


Massed cultists don't really work anymore for csm.

Defilers, forgefiends, decimators, are all Ranged, or hybrids. as is the venomcrawler, same is true to a degree to the hellturkey.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

So what is it exactly you would want to change? Just allow Field Commander to plug in Legion-specific WLTs at the expense of bonuses to specific units?


Meh, i'd probably go with something akin to the AL stratagem but yes either way.

Alternatively if you go mono you get 1 additional.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 16:05:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


The point is csm, and xenos factions (except tau, who already have a superior version, because "tau"), should have the same option to take an extra wt for 1cp just like loyalist marines. Same goes for relics. Gw has showered loyalists enough with advantages. Time for some parity.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 16:23:00


Post by: techsoldaten


Gadzilla666 wrote:
The point is csm, and xenos factions (except tau, who already have a superior version, because "tau"), should have the same option to take an extra wt for 1cp just like loyalist marines. Same goes for relics. Gw has showered loyalists enough with advantages. Time for some parity.

How does extra WLTs compare with doctrines? Or including every unit in legion traits? Or the range / AP of bolters?

If you are seeking parity, there are a number of other points of arguable benefits we don't have. How would you order them, and how would you tone down the areas where CSM have benefits other factions don't?

My take is the current schemes around Stratagems / WLTs / Relics / Legion Traits / etc have missed the mark. I wouldn't want more of them, I would want the basic mechanics of the game of give a more even match. 5th edition was more balanced than 8th is now.

Right now, Space Marine line troops have guns that fire AP negative rounds and have a distance bonus equal to how far our guys move. They have tanks that can fire 40 shots a turn and cost the same as ours that can fire up to 8. They have multiple units that can snipe our characters, they have units with 12" deep strike denial, they have other abilities on basic troops that make many of ours redundant. There's just these layers upon layers of slight advantages that add up like an avalanche for fighting Chaos armies.

It's great that you want to buff this specific aspect of the game that generally provides a single character model with a slight improvement. I mean, maybe it matters in those games where your Warlord doesn't get blown away turn 1 by something 72" away that you can't even shoot back at.

But I don't know how WLTs compare with everything else that's imbalanced at the moment. You don't get parity by making your trash heap equal in height to that other trash heap over there. You get it by moving out the trash and getting back to a level playing field.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 16:49:12


Post by: Gadzilla666


 techsoldaten wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
The point is csm, and xenos factions (except tau, who already have a superior version, because "tau"), should have the same option to take an extra wt for 1cp just like loyalist marines. Same goes for relics. Gw has showered loyalists enough with advantages. Time for some parity.

How does extra WLTs compare with doctrines? Or including every unit in legion traits? Or the range / AP of bolters?

If you are seeking parity, there are a number of other points of arguable benefits we don't have. How would you order them, and how would you tone down the areas where CSM have benefits other factions don't?

My take is the current schemes around Stratagems / WLTs / Relics / Legion Traits / etc have missed the mark. I wouldn't want more of them, I would want the basic mechanics of the game of give a more even match. 5th edition was more balanced than 8th is now.

Right now, Space Marine line troops have guns that fire AP negative rounds and have a distance bonus equal to how far our guys move. They have tanks that can fire 40 shots a turn and cost the same as ours that can fire up to 8. They have multiple units that can snipe our characters, they have units with 12" deep strike denial, they have other abilities on basic troops that make many of ours redundant. There's just these layers upon layers of slight advantages that add up like an avalanche for fighting Chaos armies.

It's great that you want to buff this specific aspect of the game that generally provides a single character model with a slight improvement. I mean, maybe it matters in those games where your Warlord doesn't get blown away turn 1 by something 72" away that you can't even shoot back at.

But I don't know how WLTs compare with everything else that's imbalanced at the moment. You don't get parity by making your trash heap equal in height to that other trash heap over there. You get it by moving out the trash and getting back to a level playing field.

Yes, all those other things need to be addressed, and have been discussed in this thread. It just seems that currently warlord traits are on the table. If you dismiss that, then why not dismiss everything else? Yes loyalists have many advantages, if you want to talk about others besides their stronger characters due to being able to take extra warlord traits then go ahead. That's why I started this.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 17:14:58


Post by: techsoldaten


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, all those other things need to be addressed, and have been discussed in this thread. It just seems that currently warlord traits are on the table. If you dismiss that, then why not dismiss everything else? Yes loyalists have many advantages, if you want to talk about others besides their stronger characters due to being able to take extra warlord traits then go ahead. That's why I started this.

This is silly. I never said Warlord Traits should be dismissed, I've been arguing they should be preserved - including the detachment WLTs.

The question I asked is, relative to all those other mechanics, what would you rather have? Because you're not getting all of them.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 17:32:49


Post by: Gadzilla666


 techsoldaten wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, all those other things need to be addressed, and have been discussed in this thread. It just seems that currently warlord traits are on the table. If you dismiss that, then why not dismiss everything else? Yes loyalists have many advantages, if you want to talk about others besides their stronger characters due to being able to take extra warlord traits then go ahead. That's why I started this.

This is silly. I never said Warlord Traits should be dismissed, I've been arguing they should be preserved - including the detachment WLTs.

The question I asked is, relative to all those other mechanics, what would you rather have? Because you're not getting all of them.

The original argument pertaining to wt was that all legions should have a 1cp strategem like al for a character to gain an extra wt. It seemed you were arguing that we didn't need that because we could spend 2cp to get the limited wt provided by the specialist detachments. Perhaps you've been misunderstood.

As for your question obviously the legion traits must be addressed first, as they should affect the entire army, without adding cost in points or cp.

Then we need an equivalent to doctrines. I'd prefer this come in the form of customizable veteran abilities and marks similar to what we had in the 3.5 codex.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 19:01:43


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


 techsoldaten wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, all those other things need to be addressed, and have been discussed in this thread. It just seems that currently warlord traits are on the table. If you dismiss that, then why not dismiss everything else? Yes loyalists have many advantages, if you want to talk about others besides their stronger characters due to being able to take extra warlord traits then go ahead. That's why I started this.

This is silly. I never said Warlord Traits should be dismissed, I've been arguing they should be preserved - including the detachment WLTs.

The question I asked is, relative to all those other mechanics, what would you rather have? Because you're not getting all of them.


No, we should get all of them. If loyalists get extra warlord traits, Chaos should get that too. If they get doctrines, Chaos should get an equivalent. Same for 2 part chapter traits, and chapter traits on vehicles.

Rules don't have to be identical, but overall rules parity needs to exist if the game is going to be balanced and not generate resentment.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 19:08:21


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, all those other things need to be addressed, and have been discussed in this thread. It just seems that currently warlord traits are on the table. If you dismiss that, then why not dismiss everything else? Yes loyalists have many advantages, if you want to talk about others besides their stronger characters due to being able to take extra warlord traits then go ahead. That's why I started this.

This is silly. I never said Warlord Traits should be dismissed, I've been arguing they should be preserved - including the detachment WLTs.

The question I asked is, relative to all those other mechanics, what would you rather have? Because you're not getting all of them.


No, we should get all of them. If loyalists get extra warlord traits, Chaos should get that too. If they get doctrines, Chaos should get an equivalent. Same for 2 part chapter traits, and chapter traits on vehicles.

Rules don't have to be identical, but overall rules parity needs to exist if the game is going to be balanced and not generate resentment.


chaos not having traits on vehicles is completely slowed. I've been "cheating" for a while because i just assumed that it worked for every other army i've ever played (admech, drukhari, eldar, harlequin and knights) and thought that vehicles also benefitted. When i learned it wasnt the case it got me pretty pissed off.

So many vehicles would actually be playable if they worked with the traits. Imagine running flawless host maulerfiends, or the purge predators, or night lords hell blade / hell drake. so many cool options (not OP ones) that we are denied for whatever reason.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 19:18:42


Post by: Gadzilla666


No reason gw can't just release a FAQ saying the legion traits affect everything. Wouldn't make much difference for most.

Guess my fellblade could be scary and wb tanks would be really brave.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 20:38:16


Post by: Not Online!!!


The whole traits not on vehicles is in general just stupid, consideriing IG got two part traits one for vehicles and the other part for infantry for those traits that would make no sense on tanks like morale or scary.



Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 21:39:21


Post by: Gadzilla666


It basically comes down to the fact that with the release of space marines 2.0 we've got the oldest codex in 8th. No, csm "2" isn't new, even gw said if you already had the original codex you didn't need csm "2".

And when fething gw actually tells people not to buy something that's a pretty big statement.


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/17 22:04:30


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Like anyone was gonna get 2.0 for Haarkan the World Failure and Smash-Lord-With-No-Utility-or-Mobility. Seriously, who thought the Master of Executions was properly executed?


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/18 08:20:36


Post by: BrianDavion


I feel obliged to not AL isn't the only legion that can get multiple warlord traits, Black Legion can too, granted the BL it's conditional


Gw"s future plans for csm  @ 2020/03/18 09:08:33


Post by: Gadzilla666


BrianDavion wrote:
I feel obliged to not AL isn't the only legion that can get multiple warlord traits, Black Legion can too, granted the BL it's conditional

*Sigh* Ok, time for my broken record impersonation: that helps the other legions how?