From the designer's notes of Codex: Chaos 2nd edition 40k:
Another interesting spin we came up with was to make Chaos Space Marines forces feel as if they had been exiled to the Eye of Terror ten millennia before the Imperium's "present" day. Though the technological advancement of the Imperium moves at the speed of an aged tortoise ten thousand years was bound to bring some changes. This suggested limiting the Traitor Legion's weaponry to some of the "older" types and making others dangerous, experimental precursors of the guns used by Imperial Space Marines. This, combined with the older patterns of power armour the designers have used, gives the Chaos Space Marines miniatures a dark, archaic feel which contrasts well with the clean, upright loyalist space marines.
This design philosophy seemed to stick for the two 3rd edition CSM codexes, and mostly in the 4th edition codex, but starting with the 6th edition codex gw seemed to be moving away from it and more towards an emphasis on more daemon engines and similar units to differentiate the Legions from loyalists.
Starting with 8th, we saw things like giving loyalists access to Cataphractii and Tartaros terminator armor, while not giving the same access to CSM. Fw, for their part, seemed to stick with the old paradigm by giving the Legions unfettered access to Heresy era units while restricting them for loyalists with the Relic rules.
Starting in 9th edition, both CSM and loyalists now have the exact same restrictions on Heresy era units. Loyalists continue to have access to "Relic Terminators", along with new access to volkite weaponry and even the formerly "for Heretics only " Reaper Autocannon. They also have unrestricted access to Contemptors through their codex.
So is this old method for differentiating the two forces now dead and buried? Or just less emphasized? And if so, is it a good thing?
I collected CSM in 2nd edition, and remember that they had older wargear. I think plasma guns were more likely to explode and the reaper autocannon was a precursor to the assault cannon used by loyalists.
I liked that aesthetic and it’s what still I think of regarding CSM. Probably because that’s when I played them. I dropped out of the hobby midway through 4th edition I think, and got back in during 8th, so didn’t see the introduction of modern equipment for CSM.
From what I’ve seen it seems the CSM fluff has moved on some (as has the rest of the background) and while I remember CSMs as almost all being veterans of the long war, with a few asides to more recent traitors (I think the tyrant of Badab was in 2nd Ed), it looks like the renegades and heretics aspect was expanded.
CSMs now appear to be less likely to have fought in the Horus heresy even for the original traitor legions as there are references to recruiting new ones and raids on the imperium for supplies etc.
I’ll always like the idea that CSMs are still fighting the Horus heresy and the warriors are by and large veterans of the original rebellion. I like the distinction between them and the loyalists, more so with the introduction of Primaris.
Already 4th edition did away with that ancient Warriors approach when it declared that most CSM are ragtag Renegades instead.
Concerning equipment it's hard to draw lines. I think it was a terrible decision in 7th to give the ancient Terminators to loyalists (and not to CSM) only to sell more of the HH sets. I'm okay with Dreadnoughts, these were always supposed to be relics. Adding gatling guns to CSM apparently was supposed to be a throwback to the old idea because Forgeworld introduced them in HH, but it doesn't really hold due to the Assault cannon being a gatling gun, too. So nowadays you have CSM with Assault cannons and SM with Autocannons (suppressors). But Primaris stole all the stubbers from IG, I guess they can steal our Autocannons, too.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Already 4th edition did away with that ancient Warriors approach when it declared that most CSM are ragtag Renegades instead. Concerning equipment it's hard to draw lines. I think it was a terrible decision in 7th to give the ancient Terminators to loyalists (and not to CSM) only to sell more of the HH sets. I'm okay with Dreadnoughts, these were always supposed to be relics. Adding gatling guns to CSM apparently was supposed to be a throwback to the old idea because Forgeworld introduced them in HH, but it doesn't really hold due to the Assault cannon being a gatling gun, too. So nowadays you have CSM with Assault cannons and SM with Autocannons (suppressors). But Primaris stole all the stubbers from IG, I guess they can steal our Autocannons, too.
I hadn’t realised the renegades were introduced so early, I’d moved on from CSM to tyranids by then, so wasn’t as well versed with them.
I think the "Relic Terminator Armour" datasheet is an outlier, not an indicator of future trends; both sides in 30k look a lot more like 40k loyalists than 40kCSM, so when they did the generic plastic kits they labeled the 40k rules for loyalists rather than traitors. That's really it.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Already 4th edition did away with that ancient Warriors approach when it declared that most CSM are ragtag Renegades instead.
Concerning equipment it's hard to draw lines. I think it was a terrible decision in 7th to give the ancient Terminators to loyalists (and not to CSM) only to sell more of the HH sets. I'm okay with Dreadnoughts, these were always supposed to be relics. Adding gatling guns to CSM apparently was supposed to be a throwback to the old idea because Forgeworld introduced them in HH, but it doesn't really hold due to the Assault cannon being a gatling gun, too. So nowadays you have CSM with Assault cannons and SM with Autocannons (suppressors). But Primaris stole all the stubbers from IG, I guess they can steal our Autocannons, too.
The 4th edition codex emphasized warbands, yes, but not entirely of Renegades:
However, within the Eye of Terror, time flows differently, and the same traitors who howled their praises to the Gods of Chaos before the Imperial Palace still live to this day. Their defeat gnaws at them like a cancer, and their hatred of the Imperium that they helped forge burns undimmed. These deadly warriors who were tall, powerful Space Marines, proud fighters clad in plasteel and ceramite armour, have become cynical and embittered reivers determined to destroy what they once protected. For these warriors the Heresy is not some distant, half-forgotten age, but a glorious war still in living memory - a war that is still being fought.
Codex: Chaos Space Marines: 4th edition, page 17
They also still used mostly old equipment and weapons. The only "new" thing being allowing everyone to use Vindicators, instead of just Iron Warriors. 4th did erase most distinctions between Legions though, reducing everyone to basically Black Legion with different paint schemes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: I think the "Relic Terminator Armour" datasheet is an outlier, not an indicator of future trends; both sides in 30k look a lot more like 40k loyalists than 40kCSM, so when they did the generic plastic kits they labeled the 40k rules for loyalists rather than traitors. That's really it.
So, no spikes, no CSM? What about imposing the same restrictions on HH units for both loyalists and the actual veterans of the Horus Heresy? As well as removing all of the CSM specific weapons and equipment from those units?
yukishiro1 wrote: These days CSM feel more like old dudes with bad weapons.
I’m not sure if you’re saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. Personally I’m in favour of it. CSM should be ancient warriors (old dudes) with antiquated (bad) equipment, holding a personal grudge against the imperium.
Throw in a few ancient relics and balance the obsolete and misfiring weaponry with chaos marks and daemonic power and I think CSMs would be in a good spot.
I meant more in the "confused old dude waving a stick at a cloud" kind of way. CSM are just sad right now. Even by GW's standards, letting them fester for more than a year without the updates loyalists got on day 1 of the new edition is quite remarkable, and not in a good way.
They've gone from terrifying central antagonists to more or less total irrelevance both in terms of rules and their place in the overall setting. Them and Eldar. It feels like GW has either run out of ideas or is just bored with what used to be the premier non-loyalist factions.
i think hes more complaining that the CSM armies, as a faction, are mostly much weaker than the loyalist marines, as a faction. "regular" CSM are deep in the pack, and Tsons are bottom 3 on tourney stats (with GSC and Tau), with only the death guard giving a good showing right now. the tsons will hopefully bounce up a lot when thier codex drops later this year, but still, they arent likely to get past "decent".
on topic, i think CSM are suffering form a long standing issue of trying to cram several mutually incompatible themes into a single codex. the traitor legions are just as varied as the the loyalist ones, if not more so, but 7 of them have to share a rulebook, and that rulebook has to try and represent armies as different as the "Chaos is God" Word Bearers, the "Chaos is a means to our ends" Night Lords, the mindless fury of the World Eaters mindless hedonism of the Emperors Children. Mostly, it cant do this and reduces most of those to Black Legion in different paint schemes.
I think it might be possible to do all those well in a single army book, but it would require much more variation in subfactions than any existing codex has thus far shown. So the CSM book is always going to be a bit of hot mess, or at best Codex: Black Legion (and friends)
edit: and i agree that they could have pushed out that second wound by now if they really wanted too. the recent points update would have been the perfect time to do so (espically since they dropped the updated Tsons values but held them "suspended" until the codex could be released. I know, I know, COVID, Brexit, GWs plans are all in pieces, etc, etc, but still, its not a secret, they have been planning to give CSM a 2nd wound since the start of 9th. they have proven they are willing to errata 9th ed changes into 8th ed rulebooks (see: changes to imperial weapons brought on by 9e codex: space marines), so IF THEY WANTED TO, they could have done it.
they haven;t , so i am left to guess they kinda want to let CSM fade a little for the time being, presumably until they finally bring out Codex: CSM with some new hotness and then everyone goes and buys more.
No he is complaining about the detirioation of the distinction through a diffrent armoury.
Mind right now loyalist have easier and better access to HH era Units than csm, which is absurd.
Also if gw would get its gak together they easily could do such a dex. Afterall gw did it in the past twice.
xerxeskingofking wrote: i think hes more complaining that the CSM armies, as a faction, are mostly much weaker than the loyalist marines, as a faction. "regular" CSM are deep in the pack, and Tsons are bottom 3 on tourney stats (with GSC and Tau), with only the death guard giving a good showing right now. the tsons will hopefully bounce up a lot when thier codex drops later this year, but still, they arent likely to get past "decent".
on topic, i think CSM are suffering form a long standing issue of trying to cram several mutually incompatible themes into a single codex. the traitor legions are just as varied as the the loyalist ones, if not more so, but 7 of them have to share a rulebook, and that rulebook has to try and represent armies as different as the "Chaos is God" Word Bearers, the "Chaos is a means to our ends" Night Lords, the mindless fury of the World Eaters mindless hedonism of the Emperors Children. Mostly, it cant do this and reduces most of those to Black Legion in different paint schemes.
I think it might be possible to do all those well in a single army book, but it would require much more variation in subfactions than any existing codex has thus far shown. So the CSM book is always going to be a bit of hot mess, or at best Codex: Black Legion (and friends)
They did it in 3.5, in only 80 pages. That's half the page count of the current CSM codex. It isn't that difficult of a task. They've just refused to do it for the last five editions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: No he is complaining about the detirioation of the distinction through a diffrent armoury.
Mind right now loyalist have easier and better access to HH era Units than csm, which is absurd.
Also if gw would get its gak together they easily could do such a dex. Afterall gw did it in the past twice.
Purely from a fluff perspective, we should really be seeing a little bit of everything represented in CSM.
- Horus Heresy era tech, some of which should essentially be as new, due to time being inconsistent in 'Eye-Space'.
- Straight copies of anything that the Imperium has. Taken from raids, off the dead, and from deserters (which include Astartes in numbers not infrequently).
- Unique technology that the Imperium does not have. Half of the Mechanicum is playing that side of the field, and they have none of the 'new technology' restrictions that the modern Mechanicus does, not to mention access to whatever unique STC's they possess.
Largely, outside of the advantage of pure organisation, I'd argue that it should generally be the Imperium that is playing catch up in terms of technology and advances. We see rather the opposite on the table these days.
I wonder how understood a lot of the current fluff with regard to CSM is in the player base as a whole. ADB's excellent 'Black Legion' books (not to mention his Night Lords entries), has really rebuilt and redefined much of how 'CSM' as a faction(s) really operate with regard to the lore. I'd highly recommend a reading of both series.
StrayIight wrote: - Unique technology that the Imperium does not have. Half of the Mechanicum is playing that side of the field, and they have none of the 'new technology' restrictions that the modern Mechanicus does, not to mention access to whatever unique STC's they possess.
Out of curiosity, when did the concept of the Dark Mechanicus come in? I don’t remember it from 2nd/3rd (I was gone from the hobby by the time the 3.5 Codex came out).
Gadzilla666 wrote: [
They did it in 3.5, in only 80 pages. That's half the page count of the current CSM codex. It isn't that difficult of a task. They've just refused to do it for the last five editions.
yeah, but it probably required a lot of work to write, and the designers on the book probably liked and wanted to play various chaos space marine armies. Nowadays you are lucky, if you get a designer like the DE got, that wanted them to work in a specific way, and gave them this one very good way to play. Sucks for those DE players, that wanted to footslog, but in general it is the design that counts as good. Because you can very much get a soulless book like the DW got for example.
StrayIight wrote: - Unique technology that the Imperium does not have. Half of the Mechanicum is playing that side of the field, and they have none of the 'new technology' restrictions that the modern Mechanicus does, not to mention access to whatever unique STC's they possess.
Out of curiosity, when did the concept of the Dark Mechanicus come in? I don’t remember it from 2nd/3rd (I was gone from the hobby by the time the 3.5 Codex came out).
they've been part of the lore since basically the 1st iterations of the Heresy have been in the early 90s, at least since the original Adeptus Titanicus stuff (as part of the reason both sides were using identical units), as it wasnt just half the marines that turned traitor, but simmilar amounts of the imperiums other armed forces as well.
For a very long time they were a "deep lore" thing that was mentioned offhand a few times with little else (to handwave why the chaos armies tech still worked if the imps needed the admech to make theirs work), but the fleshing out of the Horus Hersey form the book series brought them a bit more to the forefront. they're still pretty much a "background" element, though, only really getting a mention in works with chaos/traitor protagonists. I cant think of any dark mechanicus models in 40K (though i half expect to get corrected on that). A quick look at their wiki page makes it seem like a lot of the lore surrounding them seems to be form non table-top stuff like the Dark Heresy RPG and such.
Now, i think they'd make a badass chaos faction or sub faction on the TT (maybe something like the sisters of silence, ie a mini faction able to ally with other armies but not block purity bonuses),
The best lore source for the Dark Mechanicus is probably IA13. They feature quite a bit in the fluff in it, being how it's about the things they build and maintain (tanks, dreadnoughts, daemon engines, etc) for the Legions, themselves, and other Chaos forces like Renegades and Heretics. It even has a list of several Hellforges, with descriptions.
As for a Dark Mechanicus model? The model suggested by fw for a Chaos Hellwright was a Dark Mechanicus model from HH, but that unit is in Legends now.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I remember when the Mk.I Plasma Gun overheating rules got flanderised in 3rd (and beyond) to all Imperial-based plasma weaponry.
Initially as pretty much said in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex, the risk of blowing up was supposed to show how the CSM cared about power and did not care about safety or human life. The background was eventually the rate of Marine losses to plasma weapon malfunctions was judged too wasteful so the Adeptus Mechanicus increased the cooldown period. The Imperial versions in 2nd edition did not blow up but had to recharge for 1 turn. However that made them horrible weapon choices in an edition where games lasted 4 turns. In 2nd edition, not every plasma weapon malfunction resulted in instant death. Some resulted in survivable hits, which tilted the balance towards the unsafe Mk. 1 plasma weapons rather than safer Imperial ones.
When 3rd edition rolled around, it looks like in the attempt to minimize bookkeeping they decided to make all plasma weapons unsafe.
The thing is for 40K, older may or may not mean better. In 2nd edition, the Chaos Legions were described as going with older solidly reliable weapons rather than more temperamental, high maintenance, or just newly issued prototype equipment when they retreated into the Eye. That was why CSM had the Reaper instead of the Assault Cannon. In 2nd edition, the Assault Cannon had potentially higher fire rate, whereas the Reaper was less likely to jam. That same explanation was used as the explanation for why their Termiantor suits lacked targeters (too fragile and all gone after so many years of warfare in the Eye), and why they had no anti-grav vehicles like Land speeders (no access to the grav-plates and any remaining ones soon broke down).
The problem is there is also the competing paradigm of 40K being a fallen era even compared to 30K, and so some 30K equipment is better than 40K. The problem arises when in-universe, it gets justified that loyalists get these preserved relics, whereas the CSM don't, at least not rules-wise. Perhaps the explanation is that any surviving examples taken by the CSM would like their Terminator targeters, broke down or not survived all the warfare in the Eye's warped time. While it makes sense perhaps from a fluff perspective, from an out of universe player perspective it does make things uneven for the Chaos players in terms of equipment.
In BFG the reverse seems to have happened, with the Chaos fleets in general comprising older ships, however these older ships being generally faster and more long range guns than their Imperial counterparts. The idea being that Imperial ship technology gradually slipped leading to the phasing out of Grand Cruisers as a class, and reliance on simpler designs that used the expedient method of slapping on slabs of armor over the prow to compensate for their weaknesses of slower engines and shorter range guns.
Sadly GW seemed to think that there was more mileage in giveing Loyalists relics from 30k.
I genuinely think GW have never really known what they are doing with CSM as a faction, the codex should just be codex black legion and the idea that they are made from different groups of heretics for over 10k years works for the available models. Plus all the demonic machines etc. Abbadon controls the black legion and has changed them from a HH legion to a different fighting force a long time ago.
They should take all the traitor legion stuff out the codex and create codexes for some of the other traitor legions, as is commonly stated EC and WE.
I think both EC and WE are really well suited to having plenty of examples of remnants of the HH in their Arsenal and stuff like noise weapons and beserkers etc.
The fact that SM have old pattern terminator armour and DA have HH era plasma weapons (which contrary to the OPs copy and paste are better than 40K plasma) just doesn’t make sense.
Time doesn’t pass the same in the eye as the rest of the galaxy so it’s conceivable that they could have lots of HH era weapons that are not that well aged
Time doesn’t pass the same in the eye as the rest of the galaxy so it’s conceivable that they could have lots of HH era weapons that are not that well aged
While time in the Eye does not pass the same as the rest of the galaxy, the general depiction by GW is that it seems to pass more slowly in general as the CSM characters in the fiction report a longer subjective time in the Eye because all sorts of internecine wars are described. CSM may experience centuries for every year of realspace that passes, which is why they call themselves veterans of the Long War. Time enough for their weapons to break down, and their bodies and wargear to mutate, with some ascending to be daemon princes. The opposite cases where CSM experience a shortened subjective time has been the rarer depiction by GW. It wouldn't be the Long War if the majority of CSM had only experienced a few days or weeks since the end of the Heresy.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I remember when the Mk.I Plasma Gun overheating rules got flanderised in 3rd (and beyond) to all Imperial-based plasma weaponry.
Initially as pretty much said in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex, the risk of blowing up was supposed to show how the CSM cared about power and did not care about safety or human life. The background was eventually the rate of Marine losses to plasma weapon malfunctions was judged too wasteful so the Adeptus Mechanicus increased the cooldown period. The Imperial versions in 2nd edition did not blow up but had to recharge for 1 turn. However that made them horrible weapon choices in an edition where games lasted 4 turns. In 2nd edition, not every plasma weapon malfunction resulted in instant death. Some resulted in survivable hits, which tilted the balance towards the unsafe Mk. 1 plasma weapons rather than safer Imperial ones.
When 3rd edition rolled around, it looks like in the attempt to minimize bookkeeping they decided to make all plasma weapons unsafe.
The thing is for 40K, older may or may not mean better. In 2nd edition, the Chaos Legions were described as going with older solidly reliable weapons rather than more temperamental, high maintenance, or just newly issued prototype equipment when they retreated into the Eye. That was why CSM had the Reaper instead of the Assault Cannon. In 2nd edition, the Assault Cannon had potentially higher fire rate, whereas the Reaper was less likely to jam. That same explanation was used as the explanation for why their Termiantor suits lacked targeters (too fragile and all gone after so many years of warfare in the Eye), and why they had no anti-grav vehicles like Land speeders (no access to the grav-plates and any remaining ones soon broke down).
The problem is there is also the competing paradigm of 40K being a fallen era even compared to 30K, and so some 30K equipment is better than 40K. The problem arises when in-universe, it gets justified that loyalists get these preserved relics, whereas the CSM don't, at least not rules-wise. Perhaps the explanation is that any surviving examples taken by the CSM would like their Terminator targeters, broke down or not survived all the warfare in the Eye's warped time. While it makes sense perhaps from a fluff perspective, from an out of universe player perspective it does make things uneven for the Chaos players in terms of equipment.
In BFG the reverse seems to have happened, with the Chaos fleets in general comprising older ships, however these older ships being generally faster and more long range guns than their Imperial counterparts. The idea being that Imperial ship technology gradually slipped leading to the phasing out of Grand Cruisers as a class, and reliance on simpler designs that used the expedient method of slapping on slabs of armor over the prow to compensate for their weaknesses of slower engines and shorter range guns.
It doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective when we have fluff that says that the Dark Mechanicus can both build and maintain Heresy era units. IA13 says they can manufacture things all the way up to Fellblades, although in limited quantities. Some don't even need complete STCs, the Hellforge of Sarum manufactures Thunderhawks without them. The Dark Mechanicus doesn't have the same "religious issues" as the loyalist Mechanicus.
AnomanderRake wrote: I think the "Relic Terminator Armour" datasheet is an outlier, not an indicator of future trends; both sides in 30k look a lot more like 40k loyalists than 40kCSM, so when they did the generic plastic kits they labeled the 40k rules for loyalists rather than traitors. That's really it.
So, no spikes, no CSM? What about imposing the same restrictions on HH units for both loyalists and the actual veterans of the Horus Heresy? As well as removing all of the CSM specific weapons and equipment from those units?
We already know GW is more concerned with models than lore from "no kit, no rules", there's apparently a "yes kit, yes rules" corrolary to that. And the only CSM-specific item in either the Cataphracii or Tartaros kit is the autocannon (unless you want to get snippy about calling the storm bolter a combi-bolter, they're mechanically identical in 8th/9th), the plasma blaster, grenade harness, and volkite charger aren't on any other 40k units (where volkite still exists it's become almost entirely a Mechanicum thing), both sides still have combi-weapons and heavy flamers, and the melee weapons are all the same.
I am actually playing a Dark Mechanicus army on the tabletop with no actual CSM using the CSM (and legends) rules.
Well I do have one Master of Possession in the army, actually.
I do think they have hit the "dark Mechanicus comes out with new tech, unconstrained by religious doctrine" bit with all the new daemon engines, but it reads a bit hollow when the entire Loyalist Mechanicus book comes out with WAY MORE new technology.
I remember the old days when Mechanicus armies were just slightly better guardsmen (like the 6th edition fluff that the Skitarii of Ryza used executioner Leman Russes almost exclusively, no Onager Dunecrawlers in sight)
As people have said, Chaos seems to be a mix of:
"The old Traitor Legions still fighting a war the began 10,000 years ago".
"Dave who went rogue last week, and consequently lost access to all the new gear Marines have picked up since 5th edition (for reasons)."
and: "Daemons did it. Gib moar daemon stuff."
By degree this is arguably not a bad thing - since it allows for you to tailor your dudes as your dudes. But in practice I think you end up with a somewhat directionless mess in terms of equipment, faction special rules, character boosts from warlord traits and relics etc.
I don't feel a basic CSM is a 10,000 year veteran. And fluffwise I'm not sure I'm meant to. (He could after all just be a chump one of the Legions uplifted much more recently to make up numbers.)
But in terms of wargear - aside from the reaper autocannon, there's never really been much. Or at least not in vaguely recent history (3rd being what, 23 years ago?).
H.B.M.C. wrote: I remember when the Mk.I Plasma Gun overheating rules got flanderised in 3rd (and beyond) to all Imperial-based plasma weaponry.
Initially as pretty much said in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex, the risk of blowing up was supposed to show how the CSM cared about power and did not care about safety or human life. The background was eventually the rate of Marine losses to plasma weapon malfunctions was judged too wasteful so the Adeptus Mechanicus increased the cooldown period. The Imperial versions in 2nd edition did not blow up but had to recharge for 1 turn. However that made them horrible weapon choices in an edition where games lasted 4 turns. In 2nd edition, not every plasma weapon malfunction resulted in instant death. Some resulted in survivable hits, which tilted the balance towards the unsafe Mk. 1 plasma weapons rather than safer Imperial ones.
When 3rd edition rolled around, it looks like in the attempt to minimize bookkeeping they decided to make all plasma weapons unsafe.
The thing is for 40K, older may or may not mean better. In 2nd edition, the Chaos Legions were described as going with older solidly reliable weapons rather than more temperamental, high maintenance, or just newly issued prototype equipment when they retreated into the Eye. That was why CSM had the Reaper instead of the Assault Cannon. In 2nd edition, the Assault Cannon had potentially higher fire rate, whereas the Reaper was less likely to jam. That same explanation was used as the explanation for why their Termiantor suits lacked targeters (too fragile and all gone after so many years of warfare in the Eye), and why they had no anti-grav vehicles like Land speeders (no access to the grav-plates and any remaining ones soon broke down).
The problem is there is also the competing paradigm of 40K being a fallen era even compared to 30K, and so some 30K equipment is better than 40K. The problem arises when in-universe, it gets justified that loyalists get these preserved relics, whereas the CSM don't, at least not rules-wise. Perhaps the explanation is that any surviving examples taken by the CSM would like their Terminator targeters, broke down or not survived all the warfare in the Eye's warped time. While it makes sense perhaps from a fluff perspective, from an out of universe player perspective it does make things uneven for the Chaos players in terms of equipment.
In BFG the reverse seems to have happened, with the Chaos fleets in general comprising older ships, however these older ships being generally faster and more long range guns than their Imperial counterparts. The idea being that Imperial ship technology gradually slipped leading to the phasing out of Grand Cruisers as a class, and reliance on simpler designs that used the expedient method of slapping on slabs of armor over the prow to compensate for their weaknesses of slower engines and shorter range guns.
It doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective when we have fluff that says that the Dark Mechanicus can both build and maintain Heresy era units. IA13 says they can manufacture things all the way up to Fellblades, although in limited quantities. Some don't even need complete STCs, the Hellforge of Sarum manufactures Thunderhawks without them. The Dark Mechanicus doesn't have the same "religious issues" as the loyalist Mechanicus.
You realize we were talking about 2nd edition, from before the Dark Mechanicus was a really a fleshed out thing right? All of the stuff you mentioned came out long after 2nd edition.
However even then, the Dark Mechanicus is described as being more focused around delving into the areas of technology forbidden to the 30K Mechanicum, mostly the stuff that pertains to use of daemons and warp tech. The Dark Mechanicus would be less focused around maintaining 30K era tech as it was, than doing something to it that results in a new daemon engine or some warped half-flesh/half-metal hybrid like the Obliterator virus.
Out of universe, I think GW's position was to differentiate SM and CSM so that CSM equipment and vehicles are more than just adding spikes to SM kits. That was AFAIK the thinking behind introducing things like the Forgefiend.
xerxeskingofking wrote: I cant think of any dark mechanicus models in 40K (though i half expect to get corrected on that).
In the 8th ed FW indexes you had Helwrights and Helwrights on Dark Abeyants, no idea if they got rules in the 9th indexes or or Legended or whatever. There is also the Negavolt Cultists from BSF, which have the Dark Mechanicus keyword as well.
I just can't see the new CSM codex being able to truly bring out the flavour and power of the loyalist marines chapters unless the book is huge.
I mean, just comparing Blood Angels/Space Wolves to World Eaters. So three are traditional melee focused legions with very different styles and character. Looking at rules coverage, the two loyalist chapters have 4 pages of generic marine strategems plus 2 pages of chapter specific, their own psychic discipline on top of the 2 in the marine book, the saga/red mist mechanic plus god knows how many relics and warlord traits.
Can you see the chaos legions having even anything close to that much non generic rules? That would be like 14 pages of strategems alone. I honestly think we'll actually lost flavour and rules compared to what we have now with the faith and Fury supplement...
One could argue the Marines are overly-differentiated (i.e. distinction without difference) but I recognize that ship has sailed and agree that you won't see as much distinction in the CSM dex. OR... Gods I hope not!
Codex csm has always felt very silly because they've always been a "the rest of the game" faction, but they look like space marines, so we expect them to have SM-faction level support and attention.
GK are in the same boat right now. Theyve been relegated to the normal cycle of updates and balance and consideration rather than being on the special 3-month Space Marine attention rotation.
It's not so much just about differentiating for the sake of it, it's more whether GW give CSM players the tools to be able to play their choice of faction in a satisfying way.
If you are drawn to Iron Warriors, you clearly have a very different gameplay intention that someone who is drawn to World Eaters. It shouldn't just be seen as slight variations on a single theme (for instance people choosing Tau septs that are slightly more capable at melee etc).
Many of the Chaos Legions are fundamentally very different armies. To go back to World Eaters, the original CSM codex only gave them a single individualised strat to fight again, no ways to improve ability to get into melee or shut down interrupts, boost heroic interventions or consolidations etc. All the tricks you need to be able to really play a smart and effective melee army especially when sacrificing ranged and psychic attacks.
I think we need to remember that the Dark Mechanicum is just as fragmented and desperate as CSM warbands are. The Deamon-Forge Sarum may be able to produce Land Raiders but Xana II, known for creating the Hellblade and Helltalon aircraft, might be incapable of producing tanks.
As someone has already mentioned as well, the Mechanicum often delves into technology and areas of study forbidden by the Adeptus Mechanicus including Dark Age or even Xenos technology.
GW has to decide whether they want CSM to be carbon copies of the 30k Legions with extra spikes or if CSM embraces the "C" and goes all-in with Chaos nonsense.
The current CSM Codex portrays none of the Legions very well IMO.
There aren't siege units for IW so they have to rely on Havocs and Daemon-Engines. Word Bearers have the worst Legion Trait and the Master of Possessions makes their Daemon buff rules worthless when anyone can do it anyway. Emperor's Children and World Eaters are defined by a single unit each and they don't really have much IMO that would set different sub-factions apart. IMO the Black Legion and Red Corsair traits should be swapped around focussing the literal pirate faction on rapid movement and encouraging the supposed "in charge" faction to actually use the codex namesake unit over Cultists.
I think the only Legion that can represent itself well so far is the Night Lords combining Icons with units like Raptors and Talons to fill the scary jump-pack army niche.
The fact that the Renegade Chapter rules are superior to almost every single Legion is just sad.
So Xana I was able to produce Ordinatus engines when it was supplied by the Imperial warmachine. It was also razed by loyalist forces during the Heresy.
Xana II is a different place and is now supplied by CSM warbands.
Massive warmachine capable of supplying half the Galaxy at the same time VS raiders who have to steal to survive.
Aash wrote: I’ll always like the idea that CSMs are still fighting the Horus heresy and the warriors are by and large veterans of the original rebellion. I like the distinction between them and the loyalists, more so with the introduction of Primaris.
Completely agree, there's a lot of appeal to a faction that has never stopped fighting a war that started 10k years ago. It also brings about some great interactions where a CSM who's been alive since 30k will chastise a Black Templar since the Emperor never wanted to be seen as a God or divine.
When you compare Loyalists and CSM you would think that:
1. CSM would have better access to HH models and tech, since for those Veterans of the Long War, that's what they're used to using. They may also be attached to certain types as a reminder of the better days, especially those who see Chaos as a means to an end and abhor the daemonic infusions.
2. CSM would have strange and experimental versions of imperial tech. With the Dark Mechanicus not being restrained in the slightest, they can improve upon or modify STCs as much as they like.
Instead we get:
1. Loyalists have just as easy a time, if not easier, using HH models.
2. Imperium is rolling out new tech, new weapons, hover vehicles etc fast enough to put the Tau to shame. Meanwhile the Dark Mechanicus is still experimenting with how to combine a daemonic musk rat with a land raider while the legions are shaking their heads at the backlog of Drop pod conversions.
So lore wise we get the opposite of what we expect. Imperium sells really well so Imperium gets new toys and tech. Meanwhile, Chaos is left floating rudderless. They were supposed to be the great big bad of 8th edition, this resulted in a lot of nice refreshes on models and some beautiful Death Guard sculpts but for new chaos models it was almost entirely Daemonic models. Oh well, at least they don't have to deal with Orktober being the prime time to debut another Primaris Lieutenant.
The main problem is that in order to give everyone what they want concerning chaos space marines, you'd end up with Warhammer:40 Different Space Marine Books.
solkan wrote: The main problem is that in order to give everyone what they want concerning chaos space marines, you'd end up with Warhammer:40 Different Space Marine Books.
i know, i know, and frankly i think the codex range needs trimming a little myself (fold most of the codex marines back into codex marines, so IF, WS, IH, RG, Sal, etc)
But CSM it could be done better, at least somewhat. Give the legions more distinction than they have now, where the Iorn Hands the Imp Fists, two chapters that cleve close to the Codex mainline, have more distinctness than the legions of two diametrically opposed gods (ie world eaters and emps children). give each legion more than just a single trait, a few strats and a relic or two, let them play with the basic structure of the list more (for example, world bearers get to bring in deamons without losing purity bonuses, the iron warriors can ignore the CP tax on HH relics, etc, renegades can take a single loyalist marine unit as a elites option). that way you encourage list diversity, and let these supposedly different legions feel less like black legion in alternate colour schemes.
solkan wrote: The main problem is that in order to give everyone what they want concerning chaos space marines, you'd end up with Warhammer:40 Different Space Marine Books.
considering we have that for the far less distinctive loyalists (excluding DW and GK for... well obvious organisational reasons...)
The thing is I don't think it needs a whole bunch of extra books, they just need to acknowledge and accept that if they want a single CSM codex to successfully represent 7 different legions then it can't be light on the rules.
The main loyalist marine codex has something like 70 pages of datasheets compared to CSMs half that so there's plenty of space for them to work with. How many pages of Faith and Fury was devoted to heretic Astartes legion rules? I think maybe 5 pages per legion and that included a name generator for each.
But as I said, I can't see us coming away from the 9th ed CSM codex with anywhere near the level of rules support we have right now, and I'm inclined to say that's not enough as it is...
Iracundus wrote: While time in the Eye does not pass the same as the rest of the galaxy, the general depiction by GW is that it seems to pass more slowly in general as the CSM characters in the fiction report a longer subjective time in the Eye because all sorts of internecine wars are described. CSM may experience centuries for every year of realspace that passes, which is why they call themselves veterans of the Long War. Time enough for their weapons to break down, and their bodies and wargear to mutate, with some ascending to be daemon princes. The opposite cases where CSM experience a shortened subjective time has been the rarer depiction by GW. It wouldn't be the Long War if the majority of CSM had only experienced a few days or weeks since the end of the Heresy.
Let's be honest, some Chaos players just want to have their cake and eat it - they want to field these so-called "Veterans of the Long War", who have been kicking around for 10k years with a much reduced support structure, yet at the same time have them have all the gear they possessed when they fled Terra with their tails between their legs without those 10k years causing any problems - and that's before we get to the players that think they should also have access to all the SM gear the Imperium has (with or without Primaris, depending on player), and all the daemon engine stuff the crazies in the Dark Mechanicus come up with. All in one army list.
I know some people want to watch the world burn, but that's just ridiculous.
It's been said before, but there should probably be a split between Legion CSM and Renegade CSM. I'd even argue for each of the 7 Legions currently represented by the CSM book to get the same sort of support as the DG (and 1K Sons get a bit of a boost to the same level of model support). Bonus points if the Night Lords book makes use of lots of Daemons.
Not sure as to how I'd want a Renegade CSM book to be approached, though I know it shouldn't just be switching Imperium for Chaos in the keyword list of Codex: SM. I'd also have a rework of how the CSM units for FW are keyworded, with Legion ones maybe not having the 1CP additional cost they currently do - I'd want to hear the reasoning from the designers from a balance perspective on that one, first.
Dark Mech should be their own book, same as Ad Mech currently is.
i know, i know, and frankly i think the codex range needs trimming a little myself (fold most of the codex marines back into codex marines, so IF, WS, IH, RG, Sal, etc)
I get wanting to get rid of the insane monopoly SM have on the hobby but unless Firstborn get axed utterly then this isn't going to happen.
Spoiler:
But CSM it could be done better, at least somewhat. Give the legions more distinction than they have now, where the Iorn Hands the Imp Fists, two chapters that cleve close to the Codex mainline, have more distinctness than the legions of two diametrically opposed gods (ie world eaters and emps children). give each legion more than just a single trait, a few strats and a relic or two, let them play with the basic structure of the list more (for example, world bearers get to bring in deamons without losing purity bonuses, the iron warriors can ignore the CP tax on HH relics, etc, renegades can take a single loyalist marine unit as a elites option). that way you encourage list diversity, and let these supposedly different legions feel less like black legion in alternate colour schemes.
A couple of things here. The Iron Hands don't stick to the Codex Astartes in fact they are noted for their radically different company and command structures as well as their tactics. The Imperial Fists and Ultramarines would be a better example but I'm just being picky.
Why do people keep saying "all the Legions are just BL but different colours"? Do any of you actually play BL because having played EC, IW, WB and BL in 8th edition they ain't the same. All the CSM sub-factions are just worse versions of their Loyalist counterparts. Don't be mad at BL, be mad at bad Codex balance. Be mad that the namesake of the Codex is a trash unit.
Let's be honest, some Chaos players just want to have their cake and eat it - they want to field these so-called "Veterans of the Long War", who have been kicking around for 10k years with a much reduced support structure, yet at the same time have them have all the gear they possessed when they fled Terra with their tails between their legs without those 10k years causing any problems - and that's before we get to the players that think they should also have access to all the SM gear the Imperium has (with or without Primaris, depending on player), and all the daemon engine stuff the crazies in the Dark Mechanicus come up with. All in one army list.
I know some people want to watch the world burn, but that's just ridiculous.
It's been said before, but there should probably be a split between Legion CSM and Renegade CSM. I'd even argue for each of the 7 Legions currently represented by the CSM book to get the same sort of support as the DG (and 1K Sons get a bit of a boost to the same level of model support). Bonus points if the Night Lords book makes use of lots of Daemons.
Not sure as to how I'd want a Renegade CSM book to be approached, though I know it shouldn't just be switching Imperium for Chaos in the keyword list of Codex: SM. I'd also have a rework of how the CSM units for FW are keyworded, with Legion ones maybe not having the 1CP additional cost they currently do - I'd want to hear the reasoning from the designers from a balance perspective on that one, first.
Dark Mech should be their own book, same as Ad Mech currently is.
As blunt as it is, I agree with Dystartes post (mostly). There is no way in hell that the CSM Codex is going to be able to represent a 30k Legion force, an army of desperate raiders with broken-down gear, recently turned Renegades with all their normal SM stuff, and a full-on Caos corrupted army with Daemons and Daemon Engines galore. There has to be a middle ground where some of it happens or one is picked and none of the rest gets represented. For CSM to work the same way as SM, it would have to be done the same way as AoS where the God-aligned armies (WE, DG, TS, EC) were put in the same books as their Daemon counterparts and Codex CSM represented the remaining factions (BL, NL, WB, IW, AL, Renegades).
I think in order to show plausible fresh Renegades it would have been cool to dedicate some (or one) page in Codex:SM to that. Being able to take a loyalist Army with Chaos keyword. With all the anti-soup rules around since 9th I don't think the problems dysartes mentioned would be that bad.
Then you dedicate Codex CSM to Legions and the crazier stuff, like warbands that are around a long time but not since the heresy. This could partly avoid the obvious logic questions of why Chaos doesn't have access to x.
Do the same for Renegade and Heretics in the IG Codex, Chaos Knights in the Knights Codex and Fallen in the DA Supplement.
Yes, there's always going to be someone who's saying, My Iron Warriors rely on sieges so they need all artillery since the HH, they also use Daemons as cannon fodder so they should be able to ally in Daemons but still get all Boni, they also had a pact with Bile who cloned some Primaris for them and they stole equipment from an Admech Forgeworld.
No rulebook can include all of that. Do some nice conversion work and use the rules you got.
Renegades should be done with codex space marine supplement: Renegade marines. Some of the characters like Huron black heart could be in there.
As I always say the current codex CSM should just be for the black legion and they can go to great lengths to explain that the black legion probably has more marines in it that have turned away from the imperium after the HH or newly made marines than original sons of horus, which would help Make sense of the current range of units.
Then traitor legions should have their own codex as 2 already do
mrFickle wrote: Renegades should be done with codex space marine supplement: Renegade marines. Some of the characters like Huron black heart could be in there.
As I always say the current codex CSM should just be for the black legion and they can go to great lengths to explain that the black legion probably has more marines in it that have turned away from the imperium after the HH or newly made marines than original sons of horus, which would help Make sense of the current range of units.
Then traitor legions should have their own codex as 2 already do
I like your ambition but that's not a realistic goal IMO.
Renegades shouldn't be based on the SM Codex, at that point, you're just running SM and not CSM, and TBH Renegade Chapters have some of the strongest sub-faction rules so there's no issue there.
Yes, the God-aligned Legions should be expanded and mashed with Daemons to create what is essentially a Rotbringers/Hedonites style book where a player can run pure or mixed armies of the Gods.
One thing that needs to be clear about the Traitor Legions is that they are still fractions of their former strength. The Word Bearers aren't waltzing around with 100k Astartes anymore and the game should reflect that with the core of a CSM army represented with actual CSM with a couple of specialist units as well but the majority of support units should be dedicated to Cultists, Daemon Engines or other Chaos gribblies.
The rest of the Legions shouldn't have their own supplements. The Legion cultures haven't adapted as much as those of the SM have and the SM supplements are meant to provide rules to represent not only the Founding Chapters but their Successors as well. Any splinter of a Legion force is still going to be that Legion just with slightly altered colours. That isn't necessarily true for SM.
mrFickle wrote: Renegades should be done with codex space marine supplement: Renegade marines. Some of the characters like Huron black heart could be in there.
As I always say the current codex CSM should just be for the black legion and they can go to great lengths to explain that the black legion probably has more marines in it that have turned away from the imperium after the HH or newly made marines than original sons of horus, which would help Make sense of the current range of units.
Then traitor legions should have their own codex as 2 already do
There's definitely a tangible difference between a 'Chaos' Marine and 'Renegade' Marine in the fluff I think. Though seemingly you get a mix of both in a given Warband.
In the case of the Black Legion, things look very confused. Many players, and most of the lore focused wiki's have them as simply being The Son's of Horus rebranded. But that isn't really true. The most modern fluff has the SoH almost made extinct after being hunted down by the other Chaos/Renegade Legions post Heresy. While a core part of the Black Legion are the Son's of Horus that remain and were successfully recruited, you've got vast numbers of just about every flavour of Space Marine in there. Abaddon essentially went out of his way to take anyone who would flock to his banner - the Black Legion is literally an army at Legion strength because of that.
We don't see it on the table so much, but on the whole (there are exceptions) the other 'Legions' don't so much exist now. Independent Warbands with ties to those old Legions do.
In response to some of the other comments above. I think most people fully recognise that concessions have to be made to avoid bloat, and keep the game 'sensible' on the table top. I'm just laying out how the fluff functions (because there have been reboots of sorts in recent years), not making any demands that it be represented in a specific fashion in the rules.
I think the traitor legions have been replenishing their ranks over the years to some extent but I can’t site any evidence of this.
There some comment from GW where someone asked how many eldar there are and they said there will always be enough or something like that.
I think it’s true for the traitor legions, there will be some deus ex that keeps them in soldiers despite constantly loosing in the fluff.
Fabius came into ownership of a load of EC gene seed and was sorely tempted to rebuild the legion so there’s no reason why other legions haven’t been doing it. I bet mortarion is keeping the DG numbers up
CSM are certainly keeping their numbers at legitimate threat levels but even the smallest of the Traitor Legions was sitting at roughly 100k Astartes (100 Chapters worth). The losses they took in the Heresy were insane and then adding the Legion Wars on top of the that would leave them at a distinctly lower number than in their days as Imperials.
The Word Bearers Omnibus starts out with the 34th Host at roughly 200-300 Astartes but this is specifically noted as a rare situation.
Renegade Chapters will rarely even fill out the requirement for a Chapter of Astartes since the turning of an entire Chapter isn't going to either go:
A - Unnoticed
B - Unpunished
Rare high. The 34th's Dark Apostle took in another leaderless host (which said Apostle may or may not have killed) and groomed his own First Acolyte to take command of half the 34th when the time was right. Word Bearers hosts roughly follow the size of a Loyalist Company but depending on their standing they might be greater or lesser than this. For example, members of the Dark Council will likely have larger hosts than say a rank and file Lord or Apostle.
In the Storm of Iron we see a huge Iron Warriors force attack a planet but said force is made up of at least 4 Warbands/Companies plus Dark Mechanicum and Traitor Titan support.
To be a threat in open warfare a CSM force has to be facing a similarly small enemy (demi-company for example) or has to massively outnumber them.
DG is said to have larger numbers than during the heresy. That seems to be an outlier, though.
World Eaters were fractured at Skalathrax, Emperor's Children were hunted down during the Legion wars. I wouldn't be surprised if GW handwaved these losses away once they get their own Codex to legitimate them as complete factions The Black Legion is said to have more than 200K Marines before the Fall of Cadia, I'd have to reread Vigilus to know if there's a more recent number.
The BL having such large numbers makes sense to me since their recruitment actively takes Astartes away from the other Legions/Chapters. Hell the initial founders of the BL were Abbadon, a couple of Tson's sorcerers, a WE lord, a WB Apostle, an EC lord, and a Dark Mechanicum Priest and her pet IW.
There are pods of ways GW can up the numbers of any legion, primarchs are genius level and could probably recreate the process of creating astartes. Deals with Fabius, cloning making loyalist chapters stuck in the dark imperium turn traitor and so on. Whatever you can imagine.
Back to the OP, sort of, in the Fabius trilogy the clone of fulgrim fixes up the manufacturing plant on board Fabius’s HH era ship which allows him to create tech that no one else running those machines could have created. Either old STC or stuff he invented. So it’s another rout to CSM being able to take HH gear that SM wouldn’t have access to
Sgt. Cortez wrote: DG is said to have larger numbers than during the heresy. That seems to be an outlier, though.
World Eaters were fractured at Skalathrax, Emperor's Children were hunted down during the Legion wars. I wouldn't be surprised if GW handwaved these losses away once they get their own Codex to legitimate them as complete factions The Black Legion is said to have more than 200K Marines before the Fall of Cadia, I'd have to reread Vigilus to know if there's a more recent number.
the tsons numbers are large-ish as well. The Rubic has basically fosslised their numbers, even if a rubric marine is shot to pieces, they can be raised agian with the right spells (hell, thier strategem "risen rubicae" is basically just this, the Tsons bringing a dead bunch of themselves back that happened to be on the battlefield). So, they are somewhere in the thousands, at whatever strength they were when the Rubric was cast. I THINK (but i may be wrong) they have a very limited recruitment of new sorcerers for leadership but i;m not 100% on that.
Dysartes wrote: Not sure as to how I'd want a Renegade CSM book to be approached, though I know it shouldn't just be switching Imperium for Chaos in the keyword list of Codex: SM.
That actually was the 2nd edition chaos codex. They could take anything in the chaos codex, plus anything in the marine codex at a mark-up (taking the right character removed the mark-up), plus all the daemons.
Early chaos though weren't presented as having heresy gear because it was better, but because it was the remnants of what they had managed to keep in working condition after being forced to flee into the eye of terror abandoning most of their production facilities and heavy equipment. Half of the 3.5 codex was 0-1 per unit, countless disparate warbands with whatever resources and warriors a given lord had managed to secure for himself. But times change.
Gert wrote:So Xana I was able to produce Ordinatus engines when it was supplied by the Imperial warmachine. It was also razed by loyalist forces during the Heresy.
Xana II is a different place and is now supplied by CSM warbands.
Massive warmachine capable of supplying half the Galaxy at the same time VS raiders who have to steal to survive.
Xana II produces Hell Blades, Hell Talons, and Thunderhawks from an actual STC template. Land Raiders shouldn't be a problem, considering the Legions took most of the STCs for Land Raiders with them from Anvillus IX. The Dark Mechanicus produces most of the Land Raiders for the Legions, using it as a bargaining chip with the Legions.
Gert wrote:I think the only Legion that can represent itself well so far is the Night Lords combining Icons with units like Raptors and Talons to fill the scary jump-pack army niche.
Just using Icons, and the Marks needed to get those Icons, means they aren't being represented well. Night Lords are the least "religious" of the Legions, and avoid pacts with the Chaos Gods and Daemons. And "scary jump pack army" is a massive flanderization.
Gert wrote:Why do people keep saying "all the Legions are just BL but different colours"? Do any of you actually play BL because having played EC, IW, WB and BL in 8th edition they ain't the same. All the CSM sub-factions are just worse versions of their Loyalist counterparts. Don't be mad at BL, be mad at bad Codex balance. Be mad that the namesake of the Codex is a trash unit.
Because all of the Undivided Legions currently function how Black Legion has traditionally. Mixing Marks and different Cult Marines willy-nilly was always Black Legion's "thing". The others were always locked to either only Undivided in 3.5, or none in Traitor Legions (Word Bearers could take multiple marks in Traitor Legions, but no Cult Marines). A "little bit of everything" was always Black Legion's special thing, because they accepted everyone willing to pledge allegiance to their cause. Black Legion should be mad that everyone else is using their shtick.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Bonus points if the Night Lords book makes use of lots of Daemons.
Funny Dysartes.
Not sure as to how I'd want a Renegade CSM book to be approached, though I know it shouldn't just be switching Imperium for Chaos in the keyword list of Codex: SM. I'd also have a rework of how the CSM units for FW are keyworded, with Legion ones maybe not having the 1CP additional cost they currently do - I'd want to hear the reasoning from the designers from a balance perspective on that one, first.
Martial Legacy doesn't have anything to do with balance. It isn't applied to any other faction's fw units, only marines. And the units affected were already adjusted to be in line with codex units. Point me to one that would be unbalanced at its current price without the 1CP tax.
Xana II produces Hell Blades, Hell Talons, and Thunderhawks from an actual STC template. Land Raiders shouldn't be a problem, considering the Legions took most of the STCs for Land Raiders with them from Anvillus IX. The Dark Mechanicus produces most of the Land Raiders for the Legions, using it as a bargaining chip with the Legions.
The Hell-planes were an entirely new invention of the Dark Mechanicum, not an STC. The ability to produce fighter craft and gunships doesn't mean Xana can also produce sophisticated equipment such as Land Raiders. You wouldn't ask Lockheed to build an Abrams.
Just using Icons, and the Marks needed to get those Icons, means they aren't being represented well. Night Lords are the least "religious" of the Legions, and avoid pacts with the Chaos Gods and Daemons. And "scary jump pack army" is a massive flanderization.
The first Traitors on the wall at the Siege of Terra were NL jump troops and one of their two special units in 30k is a jump pack unit, it also says in the CSM Codex that many Raptor and Talon cults find refuge within the NL who value their abilities as terror troops. What I meant with my post was that you can accurately and easily field a NL army that uses morale modifiers on most, if not all of its units while also fielding units known to be present in large numbers within the Legion.
Because all of the Undivided Legions currently function how Black Legion has traditionally. Mixing Marks and different Cult Marines willy-nilly was always Black Legion's "thing". The others were always locked to either only Undivided in 3.5, or none in Traitor Legions (Word Bearers could take multiple marks in Traitor Legions, but no Cult Marines). A "little bit of everything" was always Black Legion's special thing, because they accepted everyone willing to pledge allegiance to their cause. Black Legion should be mad that everyone else is using their shtick.
So your fix for CSM is to disallow certain sub-factions access to specific units? Hardly fair is it. Traitor Legions was good in the sense that the Legions got rules but at the same time adding restrictions for no real reason just so the God-aligned Legions were artificially inflated for choice was a bad move. IW Plague Marines could be represented by heavy use of bionics, WB dedicate themselves to the Gods so why wouldn't some fall farther than others, NL Noise Marines might record the screams of their victims and turn it into a weapon. Restricting options, especially when those options are some of the strongest units an army has access to, isn't the way to make an army have character. Marks in the 8th system only serve to give access to certain strats/psychic powers/relics. A favourite of mine when running IW is to give my Havocs the Mark of Slaanesh and use the double shooting strat to represent IW heavy weapons teams being more effective.
As for how the unaligned Legions function, an IW list is served better with Obliterators/Havocs than a BL list because IW get buffs to shooting and strats that benefit these units. It's not a whole lot and I would absolutely love to see the Legions each expanded upon with better rules that actually suit their character but I could easily build a list that would work for each undivided Legion and each would play differently while also maintaining the character of the Legion.
Gert wrote: The Hell-planes were an entirely new invention of the Dark Mechanicum, not an STC. The ability to produce fighter craft and gunships doesn't mean Xana can also produce sophisticated equipment such as Land Raiders. You wouldn't ask Lockheed to build an Abrams.
They produce Thunderhawks using a STC, not the Hell-planes. And Xana II isn't Lockheed Martin, it's an entire planet producing arms and supplies for the forces of Chaos.
The first Traitors on the wall at the Siege of Terra were NL jump troops and one of their two special units in 30k is a jump pack unit, it also says in the CSM Codex that many Raptor and Talon cults find refuge within the NL who value their abilities as terror troops. What I meant with my post was that you can accurately and easily field a NL army that uses morale modifiers on most, if not all of its units while also fielding units known to be present in large numbers within the Legion.
And that's the flanderization. Using morale modifiers is something from 8th edition. The Legion wasn't "scary" before that. Most Night Lords armies were characterized by more veterans and jump troops than most, using little to no daemons and Marks, and being less disciplined than other Astartes.
So your fix for CSM is to disallow certain sub-factions access to specific units? Hardly fair is it. Traitor Legions was good in the sense that the Legions got rules but at the same time adding restrictions for no real reason just so the God-aligned Legions were artificially inflated for choice was a bad move. IW Plague Marines could be represented by heavy use of bionics, WB dedicate themselves to the Gods so why wouldn't some fall farther than others, NL Noise Marines might record the screams of their victims and turn it into a weapon. Restricting options, especially when those options are some of the strongest units an army has access to, isn't the way to make an army have character.
As for how the unaligned Legions function, an IW list is served better with Obliterators/Havocs than a BL list because IW get buffs to shooting and strats that benefit these units. It's not a whole lot and I would absolutely love to see the Legions each expanded upon with better rules that actually suit their character but I could easily build a list that would work for each undivided Legion and each would play differently while also maintaining the character of the Legion.
It's how they were handled in 3.5, generally regarded as the best codex CSM ever had, and one of the best codexes ever. It worked because each Legion got other things in compensation: Iron Warriors got Vindicators and Basilisks, Alpha Legion got Cultists, Night Lords had their own Veteran Ability that no one else could have, etc. And it was all done in 80 pages. Differentiating the Legions doesn't require massive bloat.
They produce Thunderhawks using a STC, not the Hell-planes. And Xana II isn't Lockheed Martin, it's an entire planet producing arms and supplies for the forces of Chaos.
Their manufacturing capability is still going to be much less than a Mechanicus Forgeworld that has the backing of the Imperium. Regardless CSM shouldn't get a free pass on things like Laser Destroyer Vindicators or Sicarans because they're old, these same weapons are going to be difficult to maintain for a Loyalist Chapter with access to the secrets of Mars let alone a CSM Warband who may or may not have a pact with Mechanicum Forges.
And that's the flanderization. Using morale modifiers is something from 8th edition. The Legion wasn't "scary" before that. Most Night Lords armies were characterized by more veterans and jump troops than most, using little to no daemons and Marks, and being less disciplined than other Astartes.
I must have missed the part where Konrad Curze turned his Legion into the ultimate terror weapon that would have planets surrendering merely at the mention of the NL. I must have missed the part where the NL adorn their armour and equipment with flayed skin, severed heads and body parts to incite terror in their enemies. The entire culture and tactics of the NL is based around fear and terror, pretending otherwise shows you have no idea what they are about.
It's how they were handled in 3.5, generally regarded as the best codex CSM ever had, and one of the best codexes ever. It worked because each Legion got other things in compensation: Iron Warriors got Vindicators and Basilisks, Alpha Legion got Cultists, Night Lords had their own Veteran Ability that no one else could have, etc. And it was all done in 80 pages. Differentiating the Legions doesn't require massive bloat.
Its how they were handled 6 editions ago in an entirely different game. Units that might have once been exclusive such as Vindicators and Cultists are freely available to any Legion or Chapter that wants them. I want to go back to my point as well. Why should the WB not get access to Plague Marines? Why should the IW not get access to Berzerkers? IW love sieges and breaching the walls and slaughtering the defenders within is a highlight of that. What if some CSM love the slaughter so much they dedicate themselves to Khorne to make that slaughter better?
I've never used the 3.5 Codex and I've only seen people on the internet rave about how it was perfect in every way. I'm going to take that with a grain of salt just like I take all opinions I see online.
However, if your solution to giving the Legions character is to strip choice from the player then your solution is bad.
Gert wrote: Their manufacturing capability is still going to be much less than a Mechanicus Forgeworld that has the backing of the Imperium. Regardless CSM shouldn't get a free pass on things like Laser Destroyer Vindicators or Sicarans because they're old, these same weapons are going to be difficult to maintain for a Loyalist Chapter with access to the secrets of Mars let alone a CSM Warband who may or may not have a pact with Mechanicum Forges.
The Dark Mechanicus has access to things that Mars doesn't. The Legions took a lot of STCs into the Eye with them, and destroyed the Imperial STCs on their way out, or filled them with so much static code that they were useless.
I must have missed the part where Konrad Curze turned his Legion into the ultimate terror weapon that would have planets surrendering merely at the mention of the NL. I must have missed the part where the NL adorn their armour and equipment with flayed skin, severed heads and body parts to incite terror in their enemies. The entire culture and tactics of the NL is based around fear and terror, pretending otherwise shows you have no idea what they are about.
The mechanic of reducing morale was introduced in 8th, having the FEAR USR was introduced in Traitor Legions, it didn't exist before that.
Its how they were handled 6 editions ago in an entirely different game. Units that might have once been exclusive such as Vindicators and Cultists are freely available to any Legion or Chapter that wants them. I want to go back to my point as well. Why should the WB not get access to Plague Marines? Why should the IW not get access to Berzerkers? IW love sieges and breaching the walls and slaughtering the defenders within is a highlight of that. What if some CSM love the slaughter so much they dedicate themselves to Khorne to make that slaughter better?
I've never used the 3.5 Codex and I've only seen people on the internet rave about how it was perfect in every way. I'm going to take that with a grain of salt just like I take all opinions I see online.
However, if your solution to giving the Legions character is to strip choice from the player then your solution is bad.
I didn't think you ever used 3.5, I see I was right. They didn't get those things because they were something for the Legions and warbands dedicated to those Gods, and Black Legion. Not getting everything is how factions are set apart. Do you want Sanguinary Guard for Dark Angels?
The Dark Mechanicus has access to things that Mars doesn't. The Legions took a lot of STCs into the Eye with them, and destroyed the Imperial STCs on their way out, or filled them with so much static code that they were useless.
So the Loyalists replaced the old ruined tech with new tech. And somehow 10k years in literal hell with actual demonic possessions means that CSM are fine and dandy to use ancient and complicated tech. Mk.
The mechanic of reducing morale was introduced in 8th, having the FEAR USR was introduced in Traitor Legions, it didn't exist before that.
So prior to 8th edition, the tactics and culture of the NL were badly represented. Cool.
I didn't think you ever used 3.5, I see I was right. They didn't get those things because they were something for the Legions and warbands dedicated to those Gods, and Black Legion. Not getting everything is how factions are set apart. Do you want Sanguinary Guard for Dark Angels?
Again, what prevents an IW from becoming a Berzerker? What stops a NL from becoming a Noise Marine? And no, unit restrictions are not what sets factions apart, rules that portray their culture and tactics are. IW are defined by their love and affinity of sieges, the WB dedicate themselves to the Gods, the NL are terror troops who revel in sowing fear, the AL are sneaky spies with vast cultist networks. The only sub-faction I can think of that actively prevents players from taking units is the Farsight Enclaves which can't take Ethereals because the Enclaves specifically exist because they reject the Ethereals.
Sanguinary Guard wouldn't make sense in the DA because you don't become a Sanguinary Guard by dedicating yourself to a God of Chaos unlike becoming a Berzerker or Plague Marine. A Sanguinary Guard is a 1st Company Veteran elevated to an even higher standing whereas a Berzerker could be some random mook who just got angry enough that they fell to Khorne.
I don't think any rule prevents an IW from becoming a Bezerker or a NL from becoming a Noise Marine. They just can't take those units as troops. AFAIK the only 2 CSM legions that are restricted in unit selection are Emp's Children and World Eaters.
I have no problem with limiting some choices from various Legions as long as there is some compensation for that restriction (either giving other exclusive choices or maybe lowering the cost of certain units/weapons for that particular Legion).Can you see Noise Marines in a NL detachment? Sure, but you should see more Noise Marines in an Emp's Children detachment than the NL detachment.
Gert wrote: So the Loyalists replaced the old ruined tech with new tech. And somehow 10k years in literal hell with actual demonic possessions means that CSM are fine and dandy to use ancient and complicated tech. Mk.
That's not how the Admech works and you know it. They don't "make new tech", they use what already exists or what they discover. Cawl is a different story, but he uses his own tech, not older tech. And yes, according to IA13, the Dark Mechanicus have preserved many of those older technologies in the Eye, and are still using them. Along with daemonic derived technology.
So prior to 8th edition, the tactics and culture of the NL were badly represented. Cool.
A matter of opinion. I preferred lots of Veteran Abilities, no Marks, and few to no daemons to Black Legion but SCARY myself. Your welcome to your opinion though.
Again, what prevents an IW from becoming a Berzerker? What stops a NL from becoming a Noise Marine? And no, unit restrictions are not what sets factions apart, rules that portray their culture and tactics are. IW are defined by their love and affinity of sieges, the WB dedicate themselves to the Gods, the NL are terror troops who revel in sowing fear, the AL are sneaky spies with vast cultist networks. The only sub-faction I can think of that actively prevents players from taking units is the Farsight Enclaves which can't take Ethereals because the Enclaves specifically exist because they reject the Ethereals.
Sanguinary Guard wouldn't make sense in the DA because you don't become a Sanguinary Guard by dedicating yourself to a God of Chaos unlike becoming a Berzerker or Plague Marine. A Sanguinary Guard is a 1st Company Veteran elevated to an even higher standing whereas a Berzerker could be some random mook who just got angry enough that they fell to Khorne.
Being a Berzerker requires worshipping Khorne, and all of the Legions don't worship the Chaos Gods, some just use them as tools.
You seem to prefer the paradigm that gw adopted in the 4th edition CSM codex and, unfortunately, stuck with. But some of us prefer what we had in 3.5. It's understandable, you can't miss the taste of ice cream if you've never tasted it.
Gert wrote:So Xana I was able to produce Ordinatus engines when it was supplied by the Imperial warmachine. It was also razed by loyalist forces during the Heresy.
Xana II is a different place and is now supplied by CSM warbands.
Massive warmachine capable of supplying half the Galaxy at the same time VS raiders who have to steal to survive.
Xana II produces Hell Blades, Hell Talons, and Thunderhawks from an actual STC template. Land Raiders shouldn't be a problem, considering the Legions took most of the STCs for Land Raiders with them from Anvillus IX. The Dark Mechanicus produces most of the Land Raiders for the Legions, using it as a bargaining chip with the Legions.
abd a bargining chip only remains one if you're being stingy with it. Chances are they only produce a small number of Land Raiders and dole those out only to select chaos warbands that do them favors. Also "we have the STC" doesn't really mean as much with the dark mechanicus as it does with the Imperium, as they're much more willing to experiment etc.
personally I see your average warband procuring stuff from the dark mech as going a little like this.
"Hi Welcome to DarkMech-Mart How may we help you today?"
"Hi, my Warband just had a rough fight with the Imperial and lost some hardware, I'm looking to get some replacements. we need 10 Predator Battletanks 5 Demolishers and 2 land raiders. I know you have the STCs for these thiungs so what do you wanna trade"
"We don't have any!"
"Wait what? but you have the STCs"
"Yeha we do, but they're boring so we don't make many, and the only land raiders we even made went to Killjoy the Slaughterer a month ago"
"Ok, so I'll go without land raiders, but can you fill the rest"
"eh I think we've got 4 predators and a demolisher.... but we came up with some MUCH more intreasting stuff.... like this"
".... that's a box you bolted some legs and a canon too!"
"AND THEN PUT A DEAMON INSIDE!"
"...... I don't think it'll even work!"
"IT DOES CAUSE OF THE DEAMON INSIDE!"
"..... ok so. this thing works cause it has deamons in it... I guess I can take some of those instead of demolishers..... but I still need those predators"
"we don't have eneugh but... HERE'S A GIANT DINOSAUR WITH GUNS AND A DEAMON INSIDE!!"
"......... *sighs*"
And thus the Warband of Tim the average replaced their predators and demolishers lost on the field of conflict with Forgefiends and Defilers
Gert wrote: So the Loyalists replaced the old ruined tech with new tech. And somehow 10k years in literal hell with actual demonic possessions means that CSM are fine and dandy to use ancient and complicated tech. Mk.
That's not how the Admech works and you know it. They don't "make new tech", they use what already exists or what they discover. Cawl is a different story, but he uses his own tech, not older tech. And yes, according to IA13, the Dark Mechanicus have preserved many of those older technologies in the Eye, and are still using them. Along with daemonic derived technology.
So prior to 8th edition, the tactics and culture of the NL were badly represented. Cool.
A matter of opinion. I preferred lots of Veteran Abilities, no Marks, and few to no daemons to Black Legion but SCARY myself. Your welcome to your opinion though.
Again, what prevents an IW from becoming a Berzerker? What stops a NL from becoming a Noise Marine? And no, unit restrictions are not what sets factions apart, rules that portray their culture and tactics are. IW are defined by their love and affinity of sieges, the WB dedicate themselves to the Gods, the NL are terror troops who revel in sowing fear, the AL are sneaky spies with vast cultist networks. The only sub-faction I can think of that actively prevents players from taking units is the Farsight Enclaves which can't take Ethereals because the Enclaves specifically exist because they reject the Ethereals.
Sanguinary Guard wouldn't make sense in the DA because you don't become a Sanguinary Guard by dedicating yourself to a God of Chaos unlike becoming a Berzerker or Plague Marine. A Sanguinary Guard is a 1st Company Veteran elevated to an even higher standing whereas a Berzerker could be some random mook who just got angry enough that they fell to Khorne.
Being a Berzerker requires worshipping Khorne, and all of the Legions don't worship the Chaos Gods, some just use them as tools.
You seem to prefer the paradigm that gw adopted in the 4th edition CSM codex and, unfortunately, stuck with. But some of us prefer what we had in 3.5. It's understandable, you can't miss the taste of ice cream if you've never tasted it.
yet again What stops an Iron Warrior from being a khorne Bezerker?
you seem to insist that "NO IRON WARRIOR CAN EVER FOLLOW A GOD" but that's not how it works. the unaligned legions aren';t notable for "being atheists" or "refusing to worship the gods" they just don't have a single god all of them follow.
There are ABSOLUTELY going to be Khornites among the iron warriors. there are ABSOLUTELY going to be Nurgle followers (plague and siege camps are old friends) absolutely followers of Slaanish etc.
Gert wrote: What's 9-3? If you want me to use something else, the game is entirely different from the one being played two decades ago.
The rules base has changed meaning one is not compatible with the other, but to call them "entirely different" simply isn't true. And quoting how long it's been since the book came out doesn't really change anything, especially given how quickly rules cycle through these days.
Essentially it's a kind of style over substance fallacy. Rather than talking about the points he raised, you just said "It's old!" and figured that was enough.
BrianDavion wrote: abd a bargining chip only remains one if you're being stingy with it. Chances are they only produce a small number of Land Raiders and dole those out only to select chaos warbands that do them favors. Also "we have the STC" doesn't really mean as much with the dark mechanicus as it does with the Imperium, as they're much more willing to experiment etc.
personally I see your average warband procuring stuff from the dark mech as going a little like this.
"Hi Welcome to DarkMech-Mart How may we help you today?"
"Hi, my Warband just had a rough fight with the Imperial and lost some hardware, I'm looking to get some replacements. we need 10 Predator Battletanks 5 Demolishers and 2 land raiders. I know you have the STCs for these thiungs so what do you wanna trade"
"We don't have any!"
"Wait what? but you have the STCs"
"Yeha we do, but they're boring so we don't make many, and the only land raiders we even made went to Killjoy the Slaughterer a month ago"
"Ok, so I'll go without land raiders, but can you fill the rest"
"eh I think we've got 4 predators and a demolisher.... but we came up with some MUCH more intreasting stuff.... like this"
".... that's a box you bolted some legs and a canon too!"
"AND THEN PUT A DEAMON INSIDE!"
"...... I don't think it'll even work!"
"IT DOES CAUSE OF THE DEAMON INSIDE!"
"..... ok so. this thing works cause it has deamons in it... I guess I can take some of those instead of demolishers..... but I still need those predators"
"we don't have eneugh but... HERE'S A GIANT DINOSAUR WITH GUNS AND A DEAMON INSIDE!!"
"......... *sighs*"
And thus the Warband of Tim the average replaced their predators and demolishers lost on the field of conflict with Forgefiends and Defilers
Ok, that's funny, I'll admit.
From their blasphemous foundries pour forth all manner of constructs, from recognizable patterns of vehicles such as the Rhino or Land Raider to terrifying engines of destruction entirely unknown to the machine cannon of the Mechanicus.
Imperial Armour 13: War Machines of the Lost and The Damned, page 16
Sounds like they make plenty of both. Unless "pours forth" is a synonym for "trickle".
yet again What stops an Iron Warrior from being a khorne Bezerker?
you seem to insist that "NO IRON WARRIOR CAN EVER FOLLOW A GOD" but that's not how it works. the unaligned legions aren';t notable for "being atheists" or "refusing to worship the gods" they just don't have a single god all of them follow.
There are ABSOLUTELY going to be Khornites among the iron warriors. there are ABSOLUTELY going to be Nurgle followers (plague and siege camps are old friends) absolutely followers of Slaanish etc.
No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
There were Iron Warrior berzerkers in Storm of Iron. And the Night Lords have used possessed before. Trying to put the different CSM factions into nice and tidy categories just doesn't work. And I like the idea of Games Workshop allowing the players to form new narratives. Why shouldn't I be able to have Rubric Alpha Legionnaires or Plague Marine Crimson Slaughter?
BrianDavion wrote: abd a bargining chip only remains one if you're being stingy with it. Chances are they only produce a small number of Land Raiders and dole those out only to select chaos warbands that do them favors. Also "we have the STC" doesn't really mean as much with the dark mechanicus as it does with the Imperium, as they're much more willing to experiment etc.
personally I see your average warband procuring stuff from the dark mech as going a little like this.
"Hi Welcome to DarkMech-Mart How may we help you today?"
"Hi, my Warband just had a rough fight with the Imperial and lost some hardware, I'm looking to get some replacements. we need 10 Predator Battletanks 5 Demolishers and 2 land raiders. I know you have the STCs for these thiungs so what do you wanna trade"
"We don't have any!"
"Wait what? but you have the STCs"
"Yeha we do, but they're boring so we don't make many, and the only land raiders we even made went to Killjoy the Slaughterer a month ago"
"Ok, so I'll go without land raiders, but can you fill the rest"
"eh I think we've got 4 predators and a demolisher.... but we came up with some MUCH more intreasting stuff.... like this"
".... that's a box you bolted some legs and a canon too!"
"AND THEN PUT A DEAMON INSIDE!"
"...... I don't think it'll even work!"
"IT DOES CAUSE OF THE DEAMON INSIDE!"
"..... ok so. this thing works cause it has deamons in it... I guess I can take some of those instead of demolishers..... but I still need those predators"
"we don't have eneugh but... HERE'S A GIANT DINOSAUR WITH GUNS AND A DEAMON INSIDE!!"
"......... *sighs*"
And thus the Warband of Tim the average replaced their predators and demolishers lost on the field of conflict with Forgefiends and Defilers
Ok, that's funny, I'll admit.
From their blasphemous foundries pour forth all manner of constructs, from recognizable patterns of vehicles such as the Rhino or Land Raider to terrifying engines of destruction entirely unknown to the machine cannon of the Mechanicus.
Imperial Armour 13: War Machines of the Lost and The Damned, page 16
Sounds like they make plenty of both. Unless "pours forth" is a synonym for "trickle".
yet again What stops an Iron Warrior from being a khorne Bezerker?
you seem to insist that "NO IRON WARRIOR CAN EVER FOLLOW A GOD" but that's not how it works. the unaligned legions aren';t notable for "being atheists" or "refusing to worship the gods" they just don't have a single god all of them follow.
There are ABSOLUTELY going to be Khornites among the iron warriors. there are ABSOLUTELY going to be Nurgle followers (plague and siege camps are old friends) absolutely followers of Slaanish etc.
No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
glad you found the story amusing seriously though, obviously the joke's a bit of a exaggeration, but I don't think the core thrust of it is likely 100% wrong in that the dark mech puts out a number of war machines but there's a lot of demand and production may not be able to meet it. and that the dark mech is more intreasted in persuing other lines of research etc then just producing more land raiders. especially as if Land Raiders are produced at just under the demand for them, then they'll be worth more.
glad you found the story amusing seriously though, obviously the joke's a bit of a exaggeration, but I don't think the core thrust of it is likely 100% wrong in that the dark mech puts out a number of war machines but there's a lot of demand and production may not be able to meet it. and that the dark mech is more intreasted in persuing other lines of research etc then just producing more land raiders. especially as if Land Raiders are produced at just under the demand for them, then they'll be worth more.
Concur. As I said on page 1:
...the Dark Mechanicus is described as being more focused around delving into the areas of technology forbidden to the 30K Mechanicum, mostly the stuff that pertains to use of daemons and warp tech. The Dark Mechanicus would be less focused around maintaining 30K era tech as it was, than doing something to it that results in a new daemon engine or some warped half-flesh/half-metal hybrid like the Obliterator virus.
The Dark Mechanicus are not the same as the Adeptus Mechanicus, and in particular have doubled down on the use of warp tech, though they also do other things like dabble with xeno tech. That is why instead of conventional fighter craft, they produce things like the Heldrake, or the Hell blades (which are rumored to use xeno tech), or the BFG Idolator escort (which is rumored to also use xeno tech for its lances which outperform Imperial ones). Producing run of the mill Rhinos, Predators, Land Raiders, etc... while done is probably seen as a bit "meh". Like Ork Mekboyz, I would see the Dark Mechanicus Tech Priests as readily offering to "improve" them.
I would say it is more a lack of rules allowing for more representation of daemon engines beyond the existing designs given by GW.
BrianDavion wrote: abd a bargining chip only remains one if you're being stingy with it. Chances are they only produce a small number of Land Raiders and dole those out only to select chaos warbands that do them favors. Also "we have the STC" doesn't really mean as much with the dark mechanicus as it does with the Imperium, as they're much more willing to experiment etc.
personally I see your average warband procuring stuff from the dark mech as going a little like this.
"Hi Welcome to DarkMech-Mart How may we help you today?"
"Hi, my Warband just had a rough fight with the Imperial and lost some hardware, I'm looking to get some replacements. we need 10 Predator Battletanks 5 Demolishers and 2 land raiders. I know you have the STCs for these thiungs so what do you wanna trade"
"We don't have any!"
"Wait what? but you have the STCs"
"Yeha we do, but they're boring so we don't make many, and the only land raiders we even made went to Killjoy the Slaughterer a month ago"
"Ok, so I'll go without land raiders, but can you fill the rest"
"eh I think we've got 4 predators and a demolisher.... but we came up with some MUCH more intreasting stuff.... like this"
".... that's a box you bolted some legs and a canon too!"
"AND THEN PUT A DEAMON INSIDE!"
"...... I don't think it'll even work!"
"IT DOES CAUSE OF THE DEAMON INSIDE!"
"..... ok so. this thing works cause it has deamons in it... I guess I can take some of those instead of demolishers..... but I still need those predators"
"we don't have eneugh but... HERE'S A GIANT DINOSAUR WITH GUNS AND A DEAMON INSIDE!!"
"......... *sighs*"
And thus the Warband of Tim the average replaced their predators and demolishers lost on the field of conflict with Forgefiends and Defilers
Ok, that's funny, I'll admit.
From their blasphemous foundries pour forth all manner of constructs, from recognizable patterns of vehicles such as the Rhino or Land Raider to terrifying engines of destruction entirely unknown to the machine cannon of the Mechanicus.
Imperial Armour 13: War Machines of the Lost and The Damned, page 16
Sounds like they make plenty of both. Unless "pours forth" is a synonym for "trickle".
yet again What stops an Iron Warrior from being a khorne Bezerker?
you seem to insist that "NO IRON WARRIOR CAN EVER FOLLOW A GOD" but that's not how it works. the unaligned legions aren';t notable for "being atheists" or "refusing to worship the gods" they just don't have a single god all of them follow.
There are ABSOLUTELY going to be Khornites among the iron warriors. there are ABSOLUTELY going to be Nurgle followers (plague and siege camps are old friends) absolutely followers of Slaanish etc.
No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
glad you found the story amusing seriously though, obviously the joke's a bit of a exaggeration, but I don't think the core thrust of it is likely 100% wrong in that the dark mech puts out a number of war machines but there's a lot of demand and production may not be able to meet it. and that the dark mech is more intreasted in persuing other lines of research etc then just producing more land raiders. especially as if Land Raiders are produced at just under the demand for them, then they'll be worth more.
But wouldn't the same be true for daemon engines? Wouldn't Defilers be worth more if they're produced just under the demand for them? And which is easier to produce? A tank, or a mechanical shell that needs to have a daemon bound to it before it can work?
But wouldn't the same be true for daemon engines? Wouldn't Defilers be worth more if they're produced just under the demand for them? And which is easier to produce? A tank, or a mechanical shell that needs to have a daemon bound to it before it can work?
More than likely. Without a significant external pressure to oversupply, they would likely do just that and maintain an artificial scarcity. after all, its not like they are on the same team as their customers, is it?
that kinda feeds into the HH tech issue, as well. sure, they might have the capability to repair it, but can the customers afford it? what can they offer to get that one Heratek who actually understands how to fix it to go do that, instead of mucking around trying to attach a minor deamon to a boltgun so it can be have a bayonet that bites the enemy,,,,,
what can they offer to get that one Heratek who actually understands how to fix it to go do that, instead of mucking around trying to attach a minor deamon to a boltgun so it can be have a bayonet that bites the enemy,,,,,
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"
What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"
What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?
What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
Yes because threatening the Master of a Daemon Forge on their own turf where all of their horrific experiments and Daemon Engines are is a great idea.
With your fleet above him and you being designed to wage war an subjugate, of course. If local mob can force compliance from local officials, factory owners and even police, why wouldn't a grand warlord force some inferior being to do what he wants. The costs of repairs of the FW, demonic or not, are much higher then doing what you are asked for. Same way as in real life, it is easier to pay the insurance money, then have your store combust one night.
Why wouldn't this Magos have a fleet of their own or orbital defences? They have all the gear a Warband could need so not even including the defensive pacts the Forge will have with other Warbands, it will at least be able to defend itself.
And if your forces end up destroying the Forge or killing the very people you need to fix your stuff then now you have a ruined Forge, no Adepts and even more stuff that is broken with no way to fix it.
For example:
"I am Gertus the Stabber, you will repair my ships and my tanks or you will die!"
"How will I die?"
"We will bombard you with our fleet and engage your forces in battle!"
"With your broken fleet and damaged tanks. OK LOL. I've got ten million murder servitors and thousands of Daemon Engines plus pacts of alliance with the Black Legion and Iron Warriors. If you harm this Forge you will be hunted down, your ships will be taken, your warriors slaughtered and you will be rendered unto ash. What did you want us to do again?"
"Please fix my stuff I have slaves and raw material to bargain with...."
"Excellent *happy binary noises*"
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
Why not give them both? The minus to Ld rules with some rules that give them some sort of stealth buffs and some rules that entice people to run more fast stuff like raptors, bikes etc. Considering what is coming out for other armies lately , maybe something like extra move or relocation for FA options pre game.
At the same time IW could get something that makes people playing them want to use tanks. Maybe for WB demon units don't break the "chapter tactic" and I mean the regular ally one, not the summoned stuff. GW could do it on a page or two for each legion, and make them more fun to play. And it wouldn't be more unbalanced then what the best armies have right now as regular rules.
What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
So your solution is to actively prevent those Legions from playing competitively? That's not fair nor is it going to ever happen.
The BL "thing" is poorly defined at best. They're the largest Legion but don't get benefits for including units of CSM in the army like Corsairs do, instead they can advance and still fire rapid fire weapons which feels more like White Scars.
As for restricting Marks and aligned units to one God per detachment, why? If the Warlord is undedicated then why shouldn't their troops be free to worship any God they want?
As for the NL, they're defined IN THE BACKGROUND by their capacity as terror troops, always have been. That the rules haven't reflected that is GW's fault. There is nothing to suggest that the NL would have any greater access to Veteran troops than any other Legion.
I think the problem is that you can't get your head out of the past and adapt to how things are now (except they've been that way for ages you just didn't look properly). Restricting units or competitive options to give character isn't a fair way to do so. Hobbyists and players should be given a base to work on and be able to make their vision of that base design. IW who use Sonic weaponry to crack open fortresses, WB who see combat as the truest worship of the Gods, NL who relish the fear of their enemies when they can shrug off mortal wounds, AL who use sorcery and magic to obscure their movements and actions. All of these and more should be options for a CSM player if they want them.
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
Why not give them both? The minus to Ld rules with some rules that give them some sort of stealth buffs and some rules that entice people to run more fast stuff like raptors, bikes etc. Considering what is coming out for other armies lately , maybe something like extra move or relocation for FA options pre game.
At the same time IW could get something that makes people playing them want to use tanks. Maybe for WB demon units don't break the "chapter tactic" and I mean the regular ally one, not the summoned stuff. GW could do it on a page or two for each legion, and make them more fun to play. And it wouldn't be more unbalanced then what the best armies have right now as regular rules.
If they want to throw it in as a freebie? Sure. But I want our Legion trait back. In 3.5 Night Lords were the only Legion that could take the STEALTH ADEPT Veteran Ability, which was +1 to cover saves, because we were the stealthy Legion. Then 4th edition happened, and the Legions got nothing. Same for the 6th edition codex. Then in Traitor Legions we got the STEALTH USR, which did the same thing as STEALTH ADEPT, plus FEAR, which was useless in a game where almost everything was effectively fearless. Then 8th edition, and we got stuck with the useless new trait, and suddenly the Alpha Legion, whose thing was always INFILTRATION, got the stealthy trait.
What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
So your solution is to actively prevent those Legions from playing competitively? That's not fair nor is it going to ever happen.
The BL "thing" is poorly defined at best. They're the largest Legion but don't get benefits for including units of CSM in the army like Corsairs do, instead they can advance and still fire rapid fire weapons which feels more like White Scars.
As for restricting Marks and aligned units to one God per detachment, why? If the Warlord is undedicated then why shouldn't their troops be free to worship any God they want?
As for the NL, they're defined IN THE BACKGROUND by their capacity as terror troops, always have been. That the rules haven't reflected that is GW's fault. There is nothing to suggest that the NL would have any greater access to Veteran troops than any other Legion.
I think the problem is that you can't get your head out of the past and adapt to how things are now (except they've been that way for ages you just didn't look properly). Restricting units or competitive options to give character isn't a fair way to do so. Hobbyists and players should be given a base to work on and be able to make their vision of that base design. IW who use Sonic weaponry to crack open fortresses, WB who see combat as the truest worship of the Gods, NL who relish the fear of their enemies when they can shrug off mortal wounds, AL who use sorcery and magic to obscure their movements and actions. All of these and more should be options for a CSM player if they want them.
Do you actually think Cacophony and Fury of Khorne will survive in the new codex? They've been removing stuff like that right and left. We're talking about what's next, not what's now.
And I just remember a better past. You've been feeding on watery gruel so long you've started to think it tastes good. Ask any CSM player who was around for 3.5 if they'd rather have it, with its restrictions, or what we've had since 4th. See how many choose the latter.
See now you're just being rude.
I also play 30k where the Legion rules are exceptional better than anything I've seen in 40k including your beloved 3.5 Codex.
When I play IW I can play 100 different lists that all get benefits from their Legion traits or Rites of War.
I'm fine having a civil discussion but I'm not going to engage with you if you're just going to be a prat.
yukishiro1 wrote: Like Elves in WHFB, there are exactly as many Chaos Space Marines as the story requires at that particular time.
Which, at the moment, is basically zero.
This basically. Its why arguments based on fluff are a bit meaningless.
At this point in the canon (which will be retconned tomorrow) I think all the old Legions are getting back together and organised, with one or two exceptions (Nightlords being one I think.)
I.E. Emperors Children were incredibly disorganized to the point of barely existing. But the recent fluff seems to be "Daddy Fulgrim's gonna get a new model soon (we promise), better fall in line".
yukishiro1 wrote: Like Elves in WHFB, there are exactly as many Chaos Space Marines as the story requires at that particular time.
Which, at the moment, is basically zero.
This basically. Its why arguments based on fluff are a bit meaningless.
At this point in the canon (which will be retconned tomorrow) I think all the old Legions are getting back together and organised, with one or two exceptions (Nightlords being one I think.)
I.E. Emperors Children were incredibly disorganized to the point of barely existing. But the recent fluff seems to be "Daddy Fulgrim's gonna get a new model soon (we promise), better fall in line".
Yes we know that Eidelon has been trying to get the legion back together for a long time. It firmly felt that the Fabius bile trilogy was creating the background to allow GW to create an EC army at any point they desire.
Uniting is a strong word. Some Warbands joined him in launching an attack on Ulthwe during the 13th Black Crusade and it was mentioned in Vigilus. However, there as as many NL Warbands that just want to go about murdering and sowing fear as those who want revenge for the death of Curze or whatever other grudges they hold.
Long scattered, they are uniting, warband by warband, in the name of some dire cause. It can spell only doom for the worlds of Mankind.
EMPIRE OF FIENDS
The Great Rift spreads panic and madness across the Imperium. The Night Lords are in their element, with many establishing small empires amongst the systems cut off from the Emperor's Light.
Codex: Chaos Space Marines, 8th edition, page 36 (both quotes)
Kind of vague. The first could be referring to the raids on Craftworld Ulthwe lead by Decimus.
From Vigilus Ablaze: Forces of the Night Lords:
"The Night Lords upon Vigilus were few, for the greater portion of their Legion was involved in an escalating war with the Asuryani, but they made their impact nonetheless."
Basically yes but no to the whole did the NL attack Ulthwe. Confirming they've gone to war with Craftworlders just not saying which ones.
I only skimmed the thread, so apologies if this was covered, but honestly, the biggest problem with Chaos (for quite a while now), is that there are too many people who have the opinion that "THIS is the ONE THING CSM should be."
Of all the armies in the game, CSM should be one of the most varied and flexible. Yet they are consistently LESS varied and flexible than their Imperial counterparts. It seems like each time they redo the book, they focus on ONE aspect of what "Chaos is", to the near exclusion of everything else.
Just look at this thread for evidence of this. "Chaos should have old, antiquated weaponry." Why? It's a HUGE part of the lore, that the Heresy Era tech is, by and large, SUPERIOR to modern tech. It's also a huge part of the lore that a lot of warbands are still sporting that tech. It's ALSO part of the lore that there are "Mad Max" style rag-tag warbands who don't have the ability to fix things, and really are running around with botlguns that have 2 rounds left, chainswords with no teeth left etc. So .... why should it be one or the other?
You also hear "YoU CAn'T MaKe THinGS iN tHe EyE oF TeRroR BecAUse DemONS!" Yet .... we see countless mentions of worlds given over to steady, stable production of war material. You also see so many mentions of warbands that have only recently gone traitor and would thus still have all of their Imperial gear in solid, working order. Where are they?
The whole thing about CSM form back in the day is that they were the scariest thing you could face due to how experienced they were, as well as how unpredictable they could be since they did not have to abide by the codex astartes and could bring ancient, terrible weaponry to bear. NOw they just have more spikes, worse leadership, and are, generally, less flexible.
TL;DR:
The problem with Chaos is that it's too often lumped into a single, general thing, and it's just not. We got some cool, fluffy rules in PA (albeit not all strong, but still - fun/fluffy). Hopefully the carry this trend through to the new codex so that CSM can finally be as varied and flexible as their Imperial counter-parts.
we can but hope. certainly, the 9e codexes so far seem to have given serious thought into making the armies fight like their lore says they should. Thus i am hopeful they will manage to give us a good codex CSM that supports multiple playstyles in a fun and fluffy way, even if not all of them are tourney competitive.
xerxeskingofking wrote:we can but hope. certainly, the 9e codexes so far seem to have given serious thought into making the armies fight like their lore says they should. Thus i am hopeful they will manage to give us a good codex CSM that supports multiple playstyles in a fun and fluffy way, even if not all of them are tourney competitive.
Same. I've said a few times that while they aren't the most competitive rules, I actually do enjoy the Iron Warriors rules from PA. It gives me a chance to field my silver baddies and have them actually feel like Iron Warriors. Competitive? Not so much. Fun? Absolutely.
Tycho wrote: Why? It's a HUGE part of the lore, that the Heresy Era tech is, by and large, SUPERIOR to modern tech.
Is it though?
Dark Age technology is far superior, doubtless.
Heresy era-tech on the other hand - the marines of the crusades were just starting to roll out the mk4 plate, the early models of terminator armour with twin-linked boltguns, experiments with mounting the power supply for a thunderhammer on something smaller than a dreadnought, and so on. And it was something of a plot point that much of the newer pre-heresy stuff was difficult to produce maintain without the resources of a stable Imperium.
I would say it depends on your definition of "better" as even in the Crusade this was an issue.
A Volkite Charger is more killy than a Bolter because it is a death ray, very fun, much choom. However, they were very expensive and difficult to produce/maintain compared to a Bolter. So while the Unification Wars saw large quantities of Volkite weapons used amongst the Legions, by the time the Imperium had expanded beyond Sol the Bolter was the standard issue weapon.
A Spartan Assault Tank might be better armoured, have more guns, more transport capacity and the ability to mount specialist gear such as Flare Shields but it is going to be 100 times harder to maintain than a bog-standard Land Raider and a CSM Warband would have to resort to more dangerous methods of maintenance like possession or letting the repairs be done by a Magos with a less than stable grip on sanity.
Gert wrote: I would say it depends on your definition of "better" as even in the Crusade this was an issue. A Volkite Charger is more killy than a Bolter because it is a death ray, very fun, much choom. However, they were very expensive and difficult to produce/maintain compared to a Bolter. So while the Unification Wars saw large quantities of Volkite weapons used amongst the Legions, by the time the Imperium had expanded beyond Sol the Bolter was the standard issue weapon. A Spartan Assault Tank might be better armoured, have more guns, more transport capacity and the ability to mount specialist gear such as Flare Shields but it is going to be 100 times harder to maintain than a bog-standard Land Raider and a CSM Warband would have to resort to more dangerous methods of maintenance like possession or letting the repairs be done by a Magos with a less than stable grip on sanity.
Well, I mean, a gun is harder to maintain than a stick as far as weapons go, but the gun is still better. So while you're right that there is some subjectivity here, simply saying "It's harder to maintain!11!!!!" isn't helpful.
Take, for example, Battlefleet Gothic.
Heresy era ships were faster and had longer-ranged Lances and guns, and additionally had better fire arcs. They were also more expensive points wise (generally). Were they better than the Imperial ships? Or are the Imperial ships better because they are cheaper?
Gert wrote: How dare you have fun playing CSM, hand in your tape measure and dice, you're off the team.
You're right I'm sorry! I forgot we aren't allowed to like anything that isn't 3.5!
I'll see myself out ....
I would say it depends on your definition of "better" as even in the Crusade this was an issue.
A Volkite Charger is more killy than a Bolter because it is a death ray, very fun, much choom. However, they were very expensive and difficult to produce/maintain compared to a Bolter. So while the Unification Wars saw large quantities of Volkite weapons used amongst the Legions, by the time the Imperium had expanded beyond Sol the Bolter was the standard issue weapon.
A Spartan Assault Tank might be better armoured, have more guns, more transport capacity and the ability to mount specialist gear such as Flare Shields but it is going to be 100 times harder to maintain than a bog-standard Land Raider and a CSM Warband would have to resort to more dangerous methods of maintenance like possession or letting the repairs be done by a Magos with a less than stable grip on sanity.
Exactly. The fluff has changed to where not everything from "back then" is just universally better, but way to o many people have jumped to "that means it's universally worse", which is also not accurate. Think about it from a pure logical standpoint. If the majority of CSM really were stuck using tech that is THAT inferior, and which cannot be reproduced or fixed ... they wouldn't be much a of a threat would they?
Sadly, that seems to be the viewpoint a lot of people have. For some odd reason ...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Back in the day, Heresy-era stuff was better (with rare exceptions that were specifically noted).
I can't offhand think of a single example from the early edition chaos or background books, save for the rarity of hover-based tech.
I guess it depends how far back in the day you go, forgeworld horus heresy stuff really ramped it up.
Second ed Codex Imperials, rule book excerpts, and I THINK the weapons manual. Then again in the Angels of Death Codex (I think this was specifically in reference to the DA section .... ironic ....) and the CSM codex for that edition. Plus numerous novels, I THINK the Witch Hunters codex makes mention of it as well (in passing), and also some Inferno pieces. The 3.5 CSM 'dex makes mention of some special relics as well I believe. Although what's "canon" now in terms of novels and things like Inferno is pretty much up in the air. lol
Tycho wrote: Second ed Codex Imperials, rule book excerpts, and I THINK the weapons manual.
Wargear book, you might be mixing it with the very similar pre 2nd ed battle manual. I dug them out before the previous post trying to find an old quote I remember regarding thunder hammers but it wasn't in either. Nothing in the way of heresy tech
The witch hunters stuff was all apostasy era (even their inferno pistols are described as artificier-made rather than relics), and the chaos 3.5 stuff was all daemonic gifts.
I think landspeeders, hoverbikes, and similar technologies were the first bits of superior heresy-era / lost technologies back in the early days but there wasn't much of it going around in the core game books. I do wonder where that thunder hammer quote comes from too (something about the march of imperial technology).
They produce Thunderhawks using a STC, not the Hell-planes. And Xana II isn't Lockheed Martin, it's an entire planet producing arms and supplies for the forces of Chaos.
Their manufacturing capability is still going to be much less than a Mechanicus Forgeworld that has the backing of the Imperium. Regardless CSM shouldn't get a free pass on things like Laser Destroyer Vindicators or Sicarans because they're old, these same weapons are going to be difficult to maintain for a Loyalist Chapter with access to the secrets of Mars let alone a CSM Warband who may or may not have a pact with Mechanicum Forges.
What makes you say that? Xana II is a single Hell Forge (and I see no reason why that shouldn't measure up - or likely surpass in truth - any Imperial Forge World in terms of capability). And there are many others. The number of Mechanicum members who joined Horus during the Heresy was vast - and included the Fabricator General of the time themselves. I'll guarantee that they made off with many of the 'secrets of Mars'. The one thing we know they absolutely left behind was the dogma around technology which was holding them back...
We don't know very much at all about the modern Dark Mechanicus. But we do know they've had ten thousand years to create, experiment, and advance - utterly unimpeded.
And you would have thought that ten thousand years of development and experimentation with no holds barred on test subjects, no morals, no rules. no traditions should have allowed the dark mechanicus to have come up with something good. lol
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"
What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?
What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
in fairness the Nightlords have always as long as I've been reading 40k been depicted as a legion of terror troops more then anything. that said it's obvious stealth is something they're good at too. IMHO they should get a stealth rule and a fear rule.
moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.
moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.
I tend to agree. It makes much more sense to me to provide players the tools to represent/create disparate Warbands, rather than focus on Legions which don't function in the fluff the way the rules seem to want to indicate. We've 30K for playing as Legions.
Perhaps (as a very, very rough example) you'd gain 'buffs' depending on which Legions your Warband draws members from.
Just a bunch of really well devised custom traits to draw from - like we see in other Codex's - would probably do the job in truth. Given enough thought and care. Allows someone like Gad to pick a 'stealth' based set of custom traits for his Night Lords rather than feeling shoe horned into a fear based army that he doesn't feel represents them.
moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.
I tend to agree. It makes much more sense to me to provide players the tools to represent/create disparate Warbands, rather than focus on Legions which don't function in the fluff the way the rules seem to want to indicate. We've 30K for playing as Legions.
Perhaps (as a very, very rough example) you'd gain 'buffs' depending on which Legions your Warband draws members from.
Just a bunch of really well devised custom traits to draw from - like we see in other Codex's - would probably do the job in truth. Given enough thought and care. Allows someone like Gad to pick a 'stealth' based set of custom traits for his Night Lords rather than feeling shoe horned into a fear based army that he doesn't feel represents them.
Spit balling obviously.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793076.page I made this post towards the start of 9th edition, it was sort of my presenting a proposal of what I'd like to see. feel free to take a look. generall the idea would be to borrow from the codex necrons which has two general charst and you mix and match from between them. the idea being you'd have a "orgin" and a legion.
so using Gad's example, he might choose Nightlords as his orgin and get the "terror troops" rule across his army. and then there might be a stealth rule he can choose as well to reflect that the lord who runs his warband tends to favor stealth tactics. Meanwhile I might have a nightlords' warband that is all about in your face scream and rush and thus take a ability that gives me +1 to my charges.
basicly I think they should do that rather then even have standard legion lists because EVERY warband is differant. and IMHO the rules need to reflect this.
Exactly. The fluff has changed to where not everything from "back then" is just universally better, but way to o many people have jumped to "that means it's universally worse", which is also not accurate. Think about it from a pure logical standpoint. If the majority of CSM really were stuck using tech that is THAT inferior, and which cannot be reproduced or fixed ... they wouldn't be much a of a threat would they?
Sadly, that seems to be the viewpoint a lot of people have. For some odd reason ...
I have the 2nd edition Chaos Codex. Obviously some stuff has changed since then but, the most relevant parts about CSM equipment is on p. 72-73. Basically among other things it mentions how the Terminator suits were too old to have integral targeters (and because targeters were bulky and prone to malfunction so CSM heavy weapons lacked targeters) and teleport homers fitted or that have subsequently broken down and never been repaired (part of keeping with the portrayal of CSM as somewhat ramshackle or run down hand to mouth raiders). It also mentioned how jump packs and skimmers involved more complex fabrication and maintenance and so were rarer proportionally than after the Heresy, and that the greater complexity led to the elimination of their usage among the Traitor Legions (obviously the bit about jump packs seems to have now been retconned).
On p. 73, it talks about how attempts to increase the power of Terminators resulted in the twin combi-bolter (and that combi-bolter/plasma did not come about until after the Heresy), and that after the Heresy this led to the Storm Bolter. Also that the Reaper was eventually replaced by the Assault Cannon.
When the Traitor Legions rebelled against the Emperor the far-flung Imperium was already in a state of flux as it tried to assimilate the lost knowledge and vast resources recaptured in the Great Crusade. The forces of the Adeptus Astartes were in the process of re-equipping their forces with the masses of newly forged armour and weaponry pouring out of the workshops of the Adeptus Mechanicus when Horus unleashed his Legions.
As a result, the forces battling in the Horus Heresy fought with a mixture of the sometimes archaic armaments which they had used during the Crusade and previously unknown weapons based on arcane ancient technologies. Because the Traitor Legions were the ones that had advanced furthest from Terra, they were among the last to receive new weapons and armour. This meant that the Space Marines fighting for Horus lacked many of the weapons which would be subsequently phased into the arsenals of the Imperium over the next millennia.
After Horus fell the Traitor Legions were driven into the Eye of Terror, untouched by the flow of time. Their weaponry and armour has been embellished and decorated with personalised schemes but otherwise it has stayed unchanged down the centuries as they fight the Long War. Innovation and invention have become anathema to Chaos Space Marines as they battle the hated Imperium. They preserve their bitter anger for the lost millennia forced on them by the Emperor and anything new serves only to drive the shards of their hatred deeper into their tortured minds.
p. 71, 2nd edition Chaos Codex
In BFG, the Imperium had a decline in technology after the Heresy. The Imperium is not unified in its technology. Every so often there may be a new rediscovery (or innovation that gets disguised or justified as a rediscovery or allowable variation) while in other areas there is decline and loss of knowledge.
Iracundus wrote:The Dark Mechanicus are not the same as the Adeptus Mechanicus, and in particular have doubled down on the use of warp tech, though they also do other things like dabble with xeno tech. That is why instead of conventional fighter craft, they produce things like the Heldrake, or the Hell blades (which are rumored to use xeno tech), or the BFG Idolator escort (which is rumored to also use xeno tech for its lances which outperform Imperial ones). Producing run of the mill Rhinos, Predators, Land Raiders, etc... while done is probably seen as a bit "meh". Like Ork Mekboyz, I would see the Dark Mechanicus Tech Priests as readily offering to "improve" them.
I would say it is more a lack of rules allowing for more representation of daemon engines beyond the existing designs given by GW.
Right, improve them. Like by adding Chaos derived weapons like Butcher Cannons and Soulburner Bombards to them, or powering them with warp energy so they can heal themselves by killing things in melee. Fw was headed down that route with the Hellforged vehicle rules in 8th edition. Unfortunately gw took that away when they took over the rules for our fw vehicles, deciding to just copy-paste the rules from the loyalist list instead.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"
What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?
What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
in fairness the Nightlords have always as long as I've been reading 40k been depicted as a legion of terror troops more then anything. that said it's obvious stealth is something they're good at too. IMHO they should get a stealth rule and a fear rule.
moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.
Yes, I remember that. It's a good idea, and a great way to make your dudes YOUR DUDES again. I think it would be a great way to handle CSM.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.
"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"
What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?
What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.
And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.
in fairness the Nightlords have always as long as I've been reading 40k been depicted as a legion of terror troops more then anything. that said it's obvious stealth is something they're good at too. IMHO they should get a stealth rule and a fear rule.
moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.
Yes, I remember that. It's a good idea, and a great way to make your dudes YOUR DUDES again. I think it would be a great way to handle CSM.
Funnily enough, CSM currently lack ANY "Make Your Own" subfaction traits. They have some renegade traits, but those are all set in stone.
xerxeskingofking wrote: I cant think of any dark mechanicus models in 40K (though i half expect to get corrected on that).
In the 8th ed FW indexes you had Helwrights and Helwrights on Dark Abeyants, no idea if they got rules in the 9th indexes or or Legended or whatever. There is also the Negavolt Cultists from BSF, which have the Dark Mechanicus keyword as well.
Renegade/Chaos Knights could have a 'Dark Mechanicus' Keyword until relatively recently also. It's still there in spirit really, but represented by the 'Infernal Household' choice.
Used to be you'd choose between 'Questor Traitorous' or 'Dark Mechanicus'. Now it's Iconoclast/Infernal.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793076.page I made this post towards the start of 9th edition, it was sort of my presenting a proposal of what I'd like to see. feel free to take a look. generall the idea would be to borrow from the codex necrons which has two general charst and you mix and match from between them. the idea being you'd have a "orgin" and a legion.
so using Gad's example, he might choose Nightlords as his orgin and get the "terror troops" rule across his army. and then there might be a stealth rule he can choose as well to reflect that the lord who runs his warband tends to favor stealth tactics. Meanwhile I might have a nightlords' warband that is all about in your face scream and rush and thus take a ability that gives me +1 to my charges.
basicly I think they should do that rather then even have standard legion lists because EVERY warband is differant. and IMHO the rules need to reflect this.
Yeah, this is great Brian, and I think probably the best way forward in terms of player agency, and the modern fluff. It'd help with rules bloat too potentially.
Honestly, we'll likely never see it, but it's a reasonably sensible direction for loyalists too quite frankly. Though I suspect that'd be a very hard sell to the Marine players.
It sounds very similar to the Successor Chapter traits SM players already have. Pick two of these to represent your Warband or you can pick a Legion/Chapter trait.
Gert wrote: It sounds very similar to the Successor Chapter traits SM players already have. Pick two of these to represent your Warband or you can pick a Legion/Chapter trait.
Yeah, somewhat.
I think the key thing would be to have quite an expansive list, and one that's written with the various perceptions of what the characteristics of the Legions are/were, in mind.
That'd be the trick. Having options that cause you to make tough choices about what you select, and not the usual 'x trait is clearly competitively superior, everyone then picks x trait'
I think the biggest issue will still be "CSM are all just copies of X SM Chapters", which I think is going to be difficult to shake. I dread to even think about balance because it's already not great. If for example, we take the SM traits Stalwart (can only be wounded on a 3+ regardless of weapon abilities) and Indomitable (auto pass Combat Attrition), a unit like Plague Marines would be nigh on impossible to kill. But at the same time, you could easily recreate something similar to the Night Lords with Fearsome Aspect (-1 Ld within 3") and Stealthy (light cover at more than 18"). I don't like just flat copy-pastes from the Loyalist book but in this case, it's such a good system both narratively and competitively that honestly, I would replace the Legion traits entirely with this sort of pick-and-choose mechanic.
You can make better versions of every single CSM Legion in the SM Codex which just makes me sad
Gert wrote: It sounds very similar to the Successor Chapter traits SM players already have. Pick two of these to represent your Warband or you can pick a Legion/Chapter trait.
obviously I borrowed from it but I was actually more inspired by the NECRONS 9th edition codex "custom subfaction" rules. I was a little suprised they didn't follow through with those rules for other factions as it was a nice way to balance out some traits conflicting withoiut having a ton of "you can't pick X and Y" exception rules.
the necrons have their traits divided into two catagories. Dynastic tradtions, which discuesses the character of the dynasty and it's tradtions. and "circumstances of awakening" which discuss how the dynasty awoke. I thought that'd be a good one.
xerxeskingofking wrote: I cant think of any dark mechanicus models in 40K (though i half expect to get corrected on that).
In the 8th ed FW indexes you had Helwrights and Helwrights on Dark Abeyants, no idea if they got rules in the 9th indexes or or Legended or whatever. There is also the Negavolt Cultists from BSF, which have the Dark Mechanicus keyword as well.
Renegade/Chaos Knights could have a 'Dark Mechanicus' Keyword until relatively recently also. It's still there in spirit really, but represented by the 'Infernal Household' choice.
Used to be you'd choose between 'Questor Traitorous' or 'Dark Mechanicus'. Now it's Iconoclast/Infernal.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793076.page I made this post towards the start of 9th edition, it was sort of my presenting a proposal of what I'd like to see. feel free to take a look. generall the idea would be to borrow from the codex necrons which has two general charst and you mix and match from between them. the idea being you'd have a "orgin" and a legion.
so using Gad's example, he might choose Nightlords as his orgin and get the "terror troops" rule across his army. and then there might be a stealth rule he can choose as well to reflect that the lord who runs his warband tends to favor stealth tactics. Meanwhile I might have a nightlords' warband that is all about in your face scream and rush and thus take a ability that gives me +1 to my charges.
basicly I think they should do that rather then even have standard legion lists because EVERY warband is differant. and IMHO the rules need to reflect this.
Yeah, this is great Brian, and I think probably the best way forward in terms of player agency, and the modern fluff. It'd help with rules bloat too potentially.
Honestly, we'll likely never see it, but it's a reasonably sensible direction for loyalists too quite frankly. Though I suspect that'd be a very hard sell to the Marine players.
with Marines it's a bit differant because I can point to the Ultramarines and say THAT is the Ultramarines. I can point to the Imperial fists and say "they are the Imperial fists" and their doctrines are relatively stable and reckongizable.
the traitor legions however, at the risk of sounding like everyone's favorite smurf, are more theory then practical. there's no one black Legion warband I can point to and say THEY are the black legion. the hounds opf Abaddon would be very differant from Sons of the Cyclops.
BrianDavion wrote: moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I'm tired of this "the legions are broken up so probably shouldn't get anything" Flanderisation.
There are more Iron Warriors than there are Ultramarines. There are more World Eaters than there are Ultramarines. There are more Night Lords than there are Ultramarines. There are more Word Bearers than there are Ultramarines. And so on. Ultramarines get rules, why the hell shouldn't those legions? Because they're "broken up". There's still thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of them out there.
Maybe if the SM Successor traits weren't better than 90% of the Legion traits it wouldn't be much of an issue. I'd rather pick and choose than be stuck with some of the awful trash GW decides on *cough*Word Bearers*cough*.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm tired of this "the legions are broken up so probably shouldn't get anything" Flanderisation.
There are more Iron Warriors than there are Ultramarines. There are more World Eaters than there are Ultramarines. There are more Night Lords than there are Ultramarines. There are more Word Bearers than there are Ultramarines. And so on. Ultramarines get rules, why the hell shouldn't those legions? Because they're "broken up". There's still thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of them out there.
Because that isn't strictly true.
It's more accurate to say there are more ex-Iron Warriors, or more ex-World Eaters than (insert loyalist chapter). Some groups of CSM in the modern fluff still wear their old colours and kick around with other members of their old legion. But almost invariably in smaller Warbands - they do not commonly operate as a Legion any more - with one or two possible exceptions.
There are many prominent examples of Warbands made up of mixed Legion elements, and also many Warbands whose members are drawn completely or largely from a single Legion, who are down right adversarial toward other members of their old Legion!
Personally I reject the term 'Flanderization' in this instance. Because there is no simplification occurring. The most recent fluff is more complex and nuanced by far than the old concept of 'all CSM belong to one of these Legions'.
On the table top on the other hand, if you want to play your guys as the unified World Eaters Legion, you are completely free to do so. I'd encourage you to do so if that's fun for you. But the current lore largely doesn't really support it as a concept.
Finally, I don't think anyone is saying Legions shouldn't get rules. What's being proposed (or so I believe) is a 'have your cake and eat it' scenario, where you could pick appropriate rules to represent a specific Legion - if you so wish, but also diverge from that and run something much more custom, and that better represents the modern 'CSM Warband' concept.
StrayIight wrote: It's more accurate to say there are more ex-Iron Warriors, or more ex-World Eaters than (insert loyalist chapter). Some groups of CSM in the modern fluff still wear their old colours and kick around with other members of their old legion. But almost invariably in smaller Warbands - they do not commonly operate as a Legion any more - with one or two possible exceptions.
Yes, they don't operate as 10,000+ strong Legions as a single cohesive force. But just because there aren't 15000 Word Bearers rocking around the galaxy as a single cohesive mega-army doesn't mean that the Word Bearers shouldn't be playable. A warband might have several hundred or even a thousand Word Bearers in there, who have broken off from the main group but remain Word Bearers, and in numbers enough to rival a decent sized Chapter. Why shouldn't they be represented?
StrayIight wrote: There are many prominent examples of Warbands made up of mixed Legion elements, and also many Warbands whose members are drawn completely or largely from a single Legion, who are down right adversarial toward other members of their old Legion!
And that's what Black Legion is for - for your mixed groups that have everything, same as the Ultramarines represent the standard 'Codex Chapter' that basically has everything except for the really esoteric chapter-specific stuff.
StrayIight wrote: Personally I reject the term 'Flanderization' in this instance. Because there is no simplification occurring. The most recent fluff is more complex and nuanced by far than the old concept of 'all CSM belong to one of these Legions'.
Fair enough on the word usage; I'll concede that.
What I won't concede however is the idea that just because some of the Legions aren't operating as a monolithic singular force that they are somehow too scattered, or two low in numbers to be represented in-game when tiny Marine Chapters get all the representation in the world.
StrayIight wrote: On the table top on the other hand, if you want to play your guys as the unified World Eaters Legion, you are completely free to do so. I'd encourage you to do so if that's fun for you. But the current lore largely doesn't really support it as a concept.
The World Eaters aren't unified, but who's to say that a broken section of the World Eaters isn't 1800 strong and out for revenge? They may have broken apart as a singular unified force, but that doesn't mean that they suddenly stop being World Eaters.
BrianDavion wrote: moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I'm tired of this "the legions are broken up so probably shouldn't get anything" Flanderisation.
There are more Iron Warriors than there are Ultramarines. There are more World Eaters than there are Ultramarines. There are more Night Lords than there are Ultramarines. There are more Word Bearers than there are Ultramarines. And so on. Ultramarines get rules, why the hell shouldn't those legions? Because they're "broken up". There's still thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of them out there.
keep in mind, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rules to make an Iron Warriors warband, but rather that you shouldn't just pick iron warriors, get your traits and call it a day. rather Being an Iron Warriors warband should be only a single piece of a greater identity. basicly rather then have Iron warriors be the ONLY tactic. each legion orgin would give a single rule and then you'd pick a second trait from a list. In short, it's work like this.
Honsou is putting together a warband, as he has decided that the bulk of his warband are Iron warriors, he selects the Iron Warriors orgin trait, which gives +1 to hit rolls with heavy weapons (just for example) then he looks through a list of other warband traits that can be used to tweek the culture and nature of his own warband. deciding that his warband is notable for heavy use of cybernetics, giving his army the transhuman physilogy trait of needing a 4 or better with any weapon to wound.
Meanwhile Krogaer is putting his own iron warriors warband together, but his band is a Khronite IW warband, so he picks the iron warriors orgin and then a trait that gives him +1 to charge rolls.
so two differant warbands, both iron warriors, but both have some differances, because not all legion warbands work the same.
The Word Bearers funnily enough, might actually be one of the exceptions mentioned, as fluff does call them out as being one of the few Legions who have remained mostly cohesive and together
I think you likely replied after my last edit, so forgive me for reiterating what I added here.
Broadly, I think we all agree actually. I don't think anyone is saying the Legions themselves shouldn't have representation in the rules. I wouldn't want that. I want you, or anyone else who chooses to field a pure, Legion force, to feel like they can. I think many of us would just also like to not feel like we're coerced into doing so.
If I can use Gad as an example? (Apologies Gad).
Gad plays Night Lords, but doesn't seem satisfied with their current crunch representation. I believe he feels they're too shoe-horned into being the 'fear' gimmick Legion currently.
We're saying, why not allow him to paint up his Night Lords Warband/Legion element, and choose the traits for them he feels, as a long time Night Lord player, represents them. Perhaps for examples sake he picks a Stealth based trait, and a Fear based one.
But maybe Gad would prefer to recreate the specific Warband from ADB's Night Lords trilogy. In this instance, at least one member was from (if memory serves)the Red Corsairs. Perhaps then he picks a Stealth based trait (NL's) and something that represents the RC's being the premier Astartes at boarding actions.
That same Warband, as a larger group, at one time had a portion of its make up who were profoundly Daemonically influenced, so perhaps he picks a trait instead that represents that side of them.
See, I think no one wants the Legions gone. Just a better way to represent how they now exist.
The issue with WB specifically is that all of the things they are known for (Dark Apostles, Possessed, summoning Daemons) everyone else can do anyway. On top of that their Legion trait is just flat out garbage. Honestly I'm not 100% sure how I would fix all the issues but as it stands the Legions are a worse choice than Renegade Chapters and the Loyalist Codex gives better options for accurately representing CSM forces than any of the CSM rules.
Other posters seem to have some good ideas regarding Warband origin + something else.
Gert wrote: The issue with WB specifically is that all of the things they are known for (Dark Apostles, Possessed, summoning Daemons) everyone else can do anyway. On top of that their Legion trait is just flat out garbage. Honestly I'm not 100% sure how I would fix all the issues but as it stands the Legions are a worse choice than Renegade Chapters and the Loyalist Codex gives better options for accurately representing CSM forces than any of the CSM rules.
Other posters seem to have some good ideas regarding Warband origin + something else.
You bring up another good point.
A system like Brian is describing neatly side steps the issue of being someone who wants to play as, say, Word Bearers, but is frustrated by having to deal with one or more editions worth of sub-par rules. You can pick something else to represent them.
I mean, we can argue you can run your Word Bearers as Ultramarines in a casual game if you wish - they're your guys. But some people don't want to do that. Or put up with the eye rolling you might get from an opponent. In the UK, if you're attending a GW run event, you have to run your army as the group they're painted as. (Unless their event rules have changed from the last set I saw pre-covid).
Gert wrote: The issue with WB specifically is that all of the things they are known for (Dark Apostles, Possessed, summoning Daemons) everyone else can do anyway. On top of that their Legion trait is just flat out garbage. Honestly I'm not 100% sure how I would fix all the issues but as it stands the Legions are a worse choice than Renegade Chapters and the Loyalist Codex gives better options for accurately representing CSM forces than any of the CSM rules.
Other posters seem to have some good ideas regarding Warband origin + something else.
You bring up another good point.
A system like Brian is describing neatly side steps the issue of being someone who wants to play as, say, Word Bearers, but is frustrated by having to deal with one or more editions worth of sub-par rules. You can pick something else to represent them.
I mean, we can argue you can run your Word Bearers as Ultramarines in a casual game if you wish - they're your guys. But some people don't want to do that. Or put up with the eye rolling you might get from an opponent. In the UK, if you're attending a GW run event, you have to run your army as the group they're painted as. (Unless their event rules have changed from the last set I saw pre-covid).
as I said I'd also have legion orgin rules in this system so obviously some legioons are gonna be better then others (you also have relics, stratigiums etc) but you'd at least ave a liittle more flexability so even if the word bearers specific stuff sucks, you might be able to find something that works for you.
The optimal case would be a trait determination system based on tiers:
Step one:
Origin (legions or Renegades) +
Step two:
Alegiances (all marked, monomarked, non marked) +
Step three:
Warband doctrine (reavers, ex companies of legions , order tactic)
Indeed since it's a pile it should come with some negatives aswell, like restrictions to certain units. Or indeed, dare i bring it up, slap a points cost on it? Like a certain other tiered list did...
Not Online!!! wrote: Indeed since it's a pile it should come with some negatives aswell, like restrictions to certain units.
Oh no. No, no, no. You put restrictions in there, then people will circumvent the entire system by choosing the restrictions that don't impact them in any way.
"Oh no, I can't take Raptors if I take this rule? Fine by me! I wasn't taking Raptors in my list anyway, so I don't lose anything."
Not Online!!! wrote: Indeed since it's a pile it should come with some negatives aswell, like restrictions to certain units.
Oh no. No, no, no. You put restrictions in there, then people will circumvent the entire system by choosing the restrictions that don't impact them in any way.
"Oh no, I can't take Raptors if I take this rule? Fine by me! I wasn't taking Raptors in my list anyway, so I don't lose anything."
And so what. the issue with restricions being circumvented was less the fact that people could do it but rather that the units they did circumvent were pointless and offered nothing, hence there was no opportunity cost associated to it.
take raptors as an exemple, nobody gave two gaks about them for most of their existence, because they were just that bad. Hence why a restrictions on raptors didnt hurt anyone... ergo the restriction was basically a free upgrade.
But then again since GW anyways nowadays hands out free upgrades because GW is stupid in that regard why even bother.
So what? It's a terrible way to write rules, that's what's what! You shouldn't intentionally create such badly designed rules.
Not Online!!! wrote: the issue with restricions being circumvented was less the fact that people could do it but rather that the units they did circumvent were pointless and offered nothing, hence there was no opportunity cost associated to it.
So, you agree with me then. 'Cause that's what I just said.
Not Online!!! wrote: take raptors as an exemple, nobody gave two gaks about them for most of their existence, because they were just that bad. Hence why a restrictions on raptors didnt hurt anyone... ergo the restriction was basically a free upgrade.
But then again since GW anyways nowadays hands out free upgrades because GW is stupid in that regard why even bother.
Again, that's what I just said. Why would you want that to be part of the rules?
Why would you want to create a system that allows for its downsides (ie. the balancing mechanics) to be circumvented?
You could roll for them, much like we often do with Burdens/Damnations on Knights. Pick your Benefits, but the penalty is random at the start of the game. You might get lucky and get something that doesn't affect you (essentially a design issue at that point), but you can't cheat the system altogether.
That or write better penalties. Make them affect values that are common to the game, rather than affect a specific unit:
'The first successful save roll each of your units makes each turn, always counts as failed'.
'If a units total wounds falls to below half it's starting value, it suffers a -1 penalty to all its hit rolls'
Just examples, but generic enough I can't see it being trivial to circumvent them.
StrayIight wrote: You could roll for them, much like we often do with Burdens/Damnations on Knights. Pick your Benefits, but the penalty is random at the start of the game. You might get lucky and get something that doesn't affect you (essentially a design issue at that point), but you can't cheat the system altogether.
I'm loathe to add yet another system of dice-rolling to an already massively top-heavy game, but yeah, that could work.
So what? It's a terrible way to write rules, that's what's what! You shouldn't intentionally create such badly designed rules.
The system isn't bad though. to the contrary a system that includes restricitons on unit types can facilitate and accomondate assymetrically balanced games quite well .... IF the core line is balanced good enough.
Not Online!!! wrote: the issue with restricions being circumvented was less the fact that people could do it but rather that the units they did circumvent were pointless and offered nothing, hence there was no opportunity cost associated to it.
So, you agree with me then. 'Cause that's what I just said.
No i disagree with you insofar as restrictions are bad design, they are not. The problem with them is the baseline as to what get's restricted and what doesn't.
Not Online!!! wrote: take raptors as an exemple, nobody gave two gaks about them for most of their existence, because they were just that bad. Hence why a restrictions on raptors didnt hurt anyone... ergo the restriction was basically a free upgrade. But then again since GW anyways nowadays hands out free upgrades because GW is stupid in that regard why even bother.
Again, that's what I just said. Why would you want that to be part of the rules?
Why would you want to create a system that allows for its downsides (ie. the balancing mechanics) to be circumvented?
Because the circumvention should have an opportunity cost associated to it. If i circumvent raptors f.e. as IW and profit from better tanks the fact that i lack Raptors should put me in the mobility department into an disadvantage, an disadvantage which i need to circumvent via play and i should feel that. The problem is, raptors were so bad and still are so bad, that not picking them is virtually BETTER in all lists. That isn't an issue with the system of restriction but rather an issue of the underlying unit design and faction design, which allows me to not have opportunity costs in regards to mobilty as an IW player in such a hypothetical system, because there's no opportunity for raptors to shine, ergo their "potential" value is 0, making the opportunity cost of picking IW 0.
Maybe instead of restrictions on what units you can take, there should just be downsides that come with the upsides, like in HH. Night Lords get A Talent For Murder, but that's offset by Nostroman Blood and Seeds of Dissent, which are downsides.
Or you could tie it to Not Online's "Step 2" for Marks. If you go All Marks, that's your advantage: you get your basic Legion abilities and get to choose the best Mark for each unit to optimize it. But no other bonuses. If you go Mono-Mark, then you get additional bonuses for patronizing that one particular Chaos God, but the Mark won't be as beneficial for all of your units. Khorne, for instance, wouldn't do much for shooty units. If you go No-Marks, you can choose from a list of additional benefits, just like not taking a Mark in 3.5 allowed you to take multiple Veteran Abilities instead of just one.
Of course, that would require making Marks more impactfull. They need to do more than just grant access to 1 strategem, 1 psychic power, and one icon. They need to have intrinsic benefits themselves.
I was thinking about something along the lines of this:
Replace the <Legion> keyword with <Warband>.
To gain Warband traits first select an Origin which would be one of the 7 Legions (maybe 5 if WE and EC get bumped up) or Renegade Chapter.
An Origin trait will be something like "<Warband> units in a detachment with the IW Origin may ignore the effects of Light Cover when shooting an enemy unit" or "Enemy units within 3" of Infantry/Biker/Helbrute units in a NL detachment must subtract 1 from their Ld when making Combat Attrition checks".
Next, choose a Tactics trait. This would be something like "Masters of Deception - <Warband> units in this detachment gain the benefit of Light Cover if more than 18" from an enemy unit" or "Daemonologists - Add 1 to the Strenght/Toughness/Attacks characteristic for <Daemon> units in this detachment. Only one characteristic may be chosen per detachment."
Obviously, this is just spitballing and is in no way near balanced but you could still get the basic ideas of the Legions/Renegade Chapters while also allowing the player to have freedom in creating their Warband. An IW detachment would still have their affinity for ranged combat but at the same time could be Daemon summoners or a NL detachment would still be terror troops but could gain stealth or combat buffs as well.
I get the feeling the CSM codex will have custom warband rules like the other codexes. So your Chapter / Dynasty / Order / Forgeworld has two traits with each trait being an option to take for the Custom Chapter/Dynasty etc. Sometimes the traits get watered down, sometimes a custom trait is extremely valuable like the Obsec one for Necrons.
If they go that route you could pick a Thousand Sons trait and a Red Corsairs trait if you wanted to run pirate sorcerers. The problem would be ensuring that legion traits (and their custom derivatives) are about the legion's fighting style and not a boon from a specific Chaos god. I suppose they could play the "this clearly nurgle trait cannot be combined with this other chaos god trait", but I'd prefer if the Legion traits focused more on the Legions fighting style with their Chaos gifts/allegiance as the icing on top. After all that's supposed to be why CSM are so dreaded right? All the benefits of a Space Marine with the corrupting power of Chaos on top of that.
Here's hoping they bring back Chaos Mark bonuses as a way to make CSM troops stand out.
Gert wrote: I was thinking about something along the lines of this:
Replace the <Legion> keyword with <Warband>.
To gain Warband traits first select an Origin which would be one of the 7 Legions (maybe 5 if WE and EC get bumped up) or Renegade Chapter.
Suggestion? Just to make some of the keyword targeting of things like strats, powers, etc, work better, keep [LEGION], then have [WARBAND] (or [TACTIC]) as a second variable keyword.
Same general principle - [LEGION] becomes one of n options (where n is lower than 9, but includes "Renegade Chapter"), then your [WARBAND] or [TACTIC] pick gives you some flavour (and, presumably, also access to strats, special equipment, or whatever).
The combinations would need some testing, of course, and you might have to stop some combos, but it is a framework that could work.
Arachnofiend wrote: Do people really want CSM to be the only codex that has drawbacks in their chapter tactic equivalent
But how else will they continue their eternal penance for the 3.5 dex that completely definitely brought Warhammer to its knees and shut down competitive play completely for an entire zero days?
Arachnofiend wrote: Do people really want CSM to be the only codex that has drawbacks in their chapter tactic equivalent
Solid pass on adding drawbacks outside of "if your army is World Eaters you can only use Mark of Khorne".
Yeah, I second that. GW is already too quick to hamstring CSM with weird, unhelpful rules that are almost openly antagonistic to the people playing the army. No need to encourage them.
The loyalist system works pretty well. I don't really think there's a need to make it any more complicated or different than what they have. "Here's a set of main, "Named Legions" (IW, BL, WB, etc.) and their doctrines/relics/abilities, and here's a set of doctrines and abilities to make your own theme. Whether it be a small warband or a splinter from a legion.
Also - I know this was discussed earlier in the thread, but too often I hear "But no CSM armies operate like full legion anymore!" followed by someone (sometimes even myself) saying "No. These handful of Legions still operate at that level", but really, both arguments are bad.
A full Legion is colossal by modern 40k terms and even includes Titans, Naval ships, IG, the works. Plus many many more marines on top of that than, say, a chapter? If all it takes for loyalist marines to get doctrines is to be at CHAPTER strength, then we don't even NEED to meet the "Legion" threshold. You just need around a 1000 marines (give or take) and some vehicles. Is anyone seriously going to argue we can't meet that requirement?
Or if it doesn't involve stupid limits about khorne stupidly only wanting to kill things in melee. I'm dreading a theoretical WE codex and getting hit with the rule: 'Durr, durr, berserker: lose all guns, havocs, oblits, etc.'
Khorne needs to go back to old fluff, where he's perfectly happy with snipers, guns, and any manner of killing. And daemons and marines updated accordingly.
I very much doubt that GW would start adding in restrictions at this stage for sub-factions, especially when the game is very loose when it comes to army building. Unless every single faction in the game was getting similar drawbacks then it would be super unbalanced and unfair.
Gert wrote: I very much doubt that GW would start adding in restrictions at this stage for sub-factions, especially when the game is very loose when it comes to army building. Unless every single faction in the game was getting similar drawbacks then it would be super unbalanced and unfair.
On the contrary, GW is excellent at changing horses mid-race. If someone gets it into their head that they need a sub-faction paradigm shift with Codices moving forward, then that's what we'll get.
The fact that it'd be Chaos bearing the brunt of it would be utterly unsurprising.
I think the current chapter tactics for space marines makes a good jumping off point for CSMs.
As it stands, importing the loyalist chapter tactics wholesale to CSM alone would make a marked improvement on the current CSM rules. It it were simply a copy and paste of the loyalist tactics I think the various legions and war bands could be pretty well served.
If we take the SM tactics as a starting point, then a fixed 2 part rule like for the named space marines chapters would work as legion traits (not necessarily the exact same 2-part rules, Night Lords for instance might have part stealthy, part fear/leadership debuffs). This would represent legions/warbands which follow closely to a particular archetype.
A system similar to the loyalist successor chapter system of custom traits where you can mix and match 2 abilities would be available if you wanted your army to deviate from the legion archetypes. (Possibly with a similar requirement of identifying a named parent legion).
Separate from the legion traits, as with other factions, CSM would have a special rule for playing mono-faction like SM doctrines. This is where I’d put the Marks of Chaos. If your whole army shares the same keyword for a chaos god they would receive this bonus rule. There would be 5, one for each god, and a fifth for undivided.
This would allow you to mix and match legion traits while having a separate unconnected bonus based on a chaos god.
As for an equivalent to super-doctrines, I’m not sure how that should work.
The Red Hobbit wrote: I get the feeling the CSM codex will have custom warband rules like the other codexes. So your Chapter / Dynasty / Order / Forgeworld has two traits with each trait being an option to take for the Custom Chapter/Dynasty etc. Sometimes the traits get watered down, sometimes a custom trait is extremely valuable like the Obsec one for Necrons.
If they go that route you could pick a Thousand Sons trait and a Red Corsairs trait if you wanted to run pirate sorcerers. The problem would be ensuring that legion traits (and their custom derivatives) are about the legion's fighting style and not a boon from a specific Chaos god. I suppose they could play the "this clearly nurgle trait cannot be combined with this other chaos god trait", but I'd prefer if the Legion traits focused more on the Legions fighting style with their Chaos gifts/allegiance as the icing on top. After all that's supposed to be why CSM are so dreaded right? All the benefits of a Space Marine with the corrupting power of Chaos on top of that.
Here's hoping they bring back Chaos Mark bonuses as a way to make CSM troops stand out.
Yes, Marks should definitely do more than just add a keyword and give access to a stratagem, psychic power, and icon. They should give a bonus just for being there. But it should also be a viable option to take no Marks. CSM aren't just feared for the powers granted to them by the Chaos Powers, but also because of the fact that most of them are very experienced warriors who have been fighting for a long time, and know how to do it well. Those CSM that don't worship the Chaos Gods should still be a terrifying proposition for their opponents.
The Red Hobbit wrote: That's a great point I hadn't considered. What would you suggest as a benefit CSM with no marks?
I personally prefer static bonuses but GW's current design trend usually goes "oh let's just give them a unit specific strategem"
Bring back Veteran Abilities. They could work like Dark Eldar Combat Drugs. A selection of optional bonuses that you can choose from or roll for. Or purchase with points.
Isnt Mark of Chaos Undivided the equivalent of having no Mark?
I always tought Chaos Undivided represents both extremes, Word bearers worshiping Chaos as a Whole and iron Warriors or kight lords kinda being there, using Chaos as a tool and just admitting his existence.
Undivided to me has always been the Word Bearer or Black Legion sense of it. You worship all of the Gods but don't stop your underlings from dedicating themselves as long as they keep the peace within the Warband, i.e the Khornates don't start fights with the sorcerers for kicks.
With the Iron Warriors, Chaos is definitely a tool but it varies from Warband to Warband about how they approach that tool. Some like Shon'Tu are fully into the worship of the Gods and actively make pacts with Daemons to bolster their forces, while others such as Honsou see Chaos as a weapon to be wielded but at a safe distance from oneself. You might ally with more devoted groups or even Daemons but you don't worship them.
The Night Lords I find are much the same but are also the go-to Legion for a less Warp shenanigans protagonist or antagonist.
Basically, being Undivided still makes you marked by the Gods but just not one in particular. An unmarked group would be something like the Relictors Chapter who are sort of maybe renegades, it depends on which source you go to, but categorically not CSM.
Galas wrote: Isnt Mark of Chaos Undivided the equivalent of having no Mark?
I always tought Chaos Undivided represents both extremes, Word bearers worshiping Chaos as a Whole and iron Warriors or kight lords kinda being there, using Chaos as a tool and just admitting his existence.
Depends on the edition. In 3.5 the Mark of Chaos Undivided allowed you to reroll morale checks, but you didn't have to take it if you were running one of the Legions that was limited to it. Instead you could skip it and take more Veteran Abilities, because if you took a Mark you could only have one, but if you didn't you could have multiple. So you could have a warband that didn't accept the Chaos Gods gifts, but instead leaned more heavily into their skills gained from being Veterans of the Long War. In later editions Undivided simply became "no Mark".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Undivided to me has always been the Word Bearer or Black Legion sense of it. You worship all of the Gods but don't stop your underlings from dedicating themselves as long as they keep the peace within the Warband, i.e the Khornates don't start fights with the sorcerers for kicks.
With the Iron Warriors, Chaos is definitely a tool but it varies from Warband to Warband about how they approach that tool. Some like Shon'Tu are fully into the worship of the Gods and actively make pacts with Daemons to bolster their forces, while others such as Honsou see Chaos as a weapon to be wielded but at a safe distance from oneself. You might ally with more devoted groups or even Daemons but you don't worship them.
The Night Lords I find are much the same but are also the go-to Legion for a less Warp shenanigans protagonist or antagonist.
Basically, being Undivided still makes you marked by the Gods but just not one in particular. An unmarked group would be something like the Relictors Chapter who are sort of maybe renegades, it depends on which source you go to, but categorically not CSM.
Not according to our codexes. Not taking a Mark has always been an option for CSM. In fact, taking one was usually an option you had to pay for.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Bring back Veteran Abilities. They could work like Dark Eldar Combat Drugs. A selection of optional bonuses that you can choose from or roll for. Or purchase with points.
Sounds perfectly reasonable. I hope GW puts something like that in the CSM codex.
Not according to our codexes. Not taking a Mark has always been an option for CSM. In fact, taking one was usually an option you had to pay for.
I was meaning in a background sense TBH. I know that Marks were a paid option back in 6th and 7th.
Even in the background that isn't the case.
Iron warriors f.e. only worship chaos in fringe groups
Night lords overwhelmingly don't worship chaos.
Alpha legion: nobody has an idea of their doctrine, probably they themselves neither.
Not according to our codexes. Not taking a Mark has always been an option for CSM. In fact, taking one was usually an option you had to pay for.
I was meaning in a background sense TBH. I know that Marks were a paid option back in 6th and 7th.
But there are examples in the fluff of CSM who don't swear allegiance to the Chaos Gods, Talos and Zso Sahaal being two. And the fact that most Night Lords find anyone who worships anything to be weaklings and fools has been reiterated from codex to codex.
And then you have the rules from 3.5 I just explained, that allowed you to create a warband with no Marks, not even Undivided. What do you think the writers of that codex were trying to represent with that?
Did peeps actually read what I wrote? I said it varied from Warband to Warband for the relationship with Chaos for the IW and NL. Krieg Abercus (?), Grendor Skraivok, and the Exalted are all examples of NL who embrace Chaos. Hell, even Talos is fine with Uzas and the Bleeding Eyes as long as they stay in line.
So even in GW publications "NL don't embrace Chaos" isn't a hard and fast rule and that should be represented by the rules. Let players use a baseline and work from there.
If you want to play with NL who are adverse to Chaos but someone else wants to play NL who have embraced the glorious slaughter worship of Khorne then both of those things should be options.
Gert wrote: Did peeps actually read what I wrote? I said it varied from Warband to Warband for the relationship with Chaos for the IW and NL. Krieg Abercus (?), Grendor Skraivok, and the Exalted are all examples of NL who embrace Chaos. Hell, even Talos is fine with Uzas and the Bleeding Eyes as long as they stay in line.
So even in GW publications "NL don't embrace Chaos" isn't a hard and fast rule and that should be represented by the rules. Let players use a baseline and work from there.
That I can agree with. You should be able to represent your dudes as YOUR DUDES. But can you agree that if doing so means representing them as not being sworn to the Chaos Gods, then that should be a viable option? Should you be able to run NO MARKS without hamstringing yourself?
Gert wrote: Did peeps actually read what I wrote? I said it varied from Warband to Warband for the relationship with Chaos for the IW and NL. Krieg Abercus (?), Grendor Skraivok, and the Exalted are all examples of NL who embrace Chaos. Hell, even Talos is fine with Uzas and the Bleeding Eyes as long as they stay in line.
So even in GW publications "NL don't embrace Chaos" isn't a hard and fast rule and that should be represented by the rules. Let players use a baseline and work from there.
That I can agree with. You should be able to represent your dudes as YOUR DUDES. But can you agree that if doing so means representing them as not being sworn to the Chaos Gods, then that should be a viable option? Should you be able to run NO MARKS without hamstringing yourself?
on the other hand chaos is tricky, you can actively try and avoid it and still end up marked because you're an unintentional tool of the gods anyway. there are more then a few stories about characters just like that. we see some good examples of those in the HHIIRC
Gert wrote: Did peeps actually read what I wrote? I said it varied from Warband to Warband for the relationship with Chaos for the IW and NL. Krieg Abercus (?), Grendor Skraivok, and the Exalted are all examples of NL who embrace Chaos. Hell, even Talos is fine with Uzas and the Bleeding Eyes as long as they stay in line.
So even in GW publications "NL don't embrace Chaos" isn't a hard and fast rule and that should be represented by the rules. Let players use a baseline and work from there.
That I can agree with. You should be able to represent your dudes as YOUR DUDES. But can you agree that if doing so means representing them as not being sworn to the Chaos Gods, then that should be a viable option? Should you be able to run NO MARKS without hamstringing yourself?
on the other hand chaos is tricky, you can actively try and avoid it and still end up marked because you're an unintentional tool of the gods anyway. there are more then a few stories about characters just like that. we see some good examples of those in the HHIIRC
Yes, but at that point you could argue for marking anything Undivided. Plenty of good meaning Imperials have fallen into that trap.
That I can agree with. You should be able to represent your dudes as YOUR DUDES. But can you agree that if doing so means representing them as not being sworn to the Chaos Gods, then that should be a viable option? Should you be able to run NO MARKS without hamstringing yourself?
That I can agree with. You should be able to represent your dudes as YOUR DUDES. But can you agree that if doing so means representing them as not being sworn to the Chaos Gods, then that should be a viable option? Should you be able to run NO MARKS without hamstringing yourself?
Yeah I already agreed that would be ideal.
Ah, I missed your edit. Good, we're making progress. Now, what about the question I raised in this thread: should you be able to represent your CSM as Ancient Warriors using archaic weaponry? Should CSM have greater access to Heresy era units and weapons than loyalists?
Yeah CSM should have some older tech but at the same time not more than Loyalists as I believe CSM should have more of their own inventions. However, I am in the camp of GW brought far too much 30k stuff into 40k. The fact that so much of the Legion arsenal is available to modern 40k armies strikes me as lazy and a blatant attempt to boost FW sales. Why are things like Stormbirds, craft were specifically replaced by the Chapters because they were expensive to produce and maintain, available to use? And a CSM Warlord isn't going to sacrifice precious transport craft.
Gert wrote: Yeah CSM should have some older tech but at the same time not more than Loyalists as I believe CSM should have more of their own inventions. However, I am in the camp of GW brought far too much 30k stuff into 40k. The fact that so much of the Legion arsenal is available to modern 40k armies strikes me as lazy and a blatant attempt to boost FW sales. Why are things like Stormbirds, craft were specifically replaced by the Chapters because they were expensive to produce and maintain, available to use? And a CSM Warlord isn't going to sacrifice precious transport craft.
More daemon engines (and preferably more insane daemon engines) would be nice, but there's no reason we couldn't have both. The HH models and their rules already exist, so it wouldn't require any extra resources be used. And if gw had stuck with the direction fw was going with them they would have definitely been more "Chaos". Loyalists already have more available to them, we'd just have less restrictions on the ones we have. And Stormbirds are $1200, how many of those have you ever even seen?
Its more on principle than logic. Obviously people aren't going to have Stormbirds all over the place but IMO they're supposed to be so rare and valued that they should never see the battlefield. Same with certain other 30k units.
Chaos Undivided is a weird concept that has gone back and forth several times.
I know when I was working on Black Crusade stuff for FFG the word 'Undivided' was verboten. If it was't one of the four Chaos Gods, it was always 'unaligned' (lower case U) and there was no 'mark' for that.
GW, for whatever reason, had it in their head that the MoCU from 3.5 wasn't something that should continue in the fluff. Now they seem to be doing the opposite of that. As always, gotta change horse as often as possible to keep ahead in the race...
It's like how before there weren't Inquisitorial Storm Troopers, then there were, then there weren't. And how there were Genestealer Cults, then there weren't, and now there are again. Or how Hot Shot Lasguns became Hellrifles and then became Hot Shot Lasguns again. Or how the Inquisition was a big deal, and then suddenly got completely marginalised to the point of basically not existing (on the tabletop). A lot of this can be traced to the influence (and sudden lack of influence) of one Alan Merrit.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Now, what about the question I raised in this thread: should you be able to represent your CSM as Ancient Warriors using archaic weaponry? Should CSM have greater access to Heresy era units and weapons than loyalists?
At the very least they should have the same level access to HH units and weapons as Loyalists do. I'm in the camp of they should probably have more access, although that access might result in some strange technological upgrades.
I like Daemon engines I just don't think they should be the only defining flavor of chaos and that kinda seems like the schtick for the last couple years. It would be nice to see both weapons 30k and also the ones that were corrupted, twisted or 'upgraded' since then. More strange forbidden tech and weapons, I think we've got enough daemon vehicles at this point.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or how Hot Shot Lasguns became Hellrifles and then became Hot Shot Lasguns again.
Wait are we back to Hot Shot Lasguns and Hell Rifles being different again?
Gert wrote: Yeah CSM should have some older tech but at the same time not more than Loyalists as I believe CSM should have more of their own inventions. However, I am in the camp of GW brought far too much 30k stuff into 40k. The fact that so much of the Legion arsenal is available to modern 40k armies strikes me as lazy and a blatant attempt to boost FW sales. Why are things like Stormbirds, craft were specifically replaced by the Chapters because they were expensive to produce and maintain, available to use? And a CSM Warlord isn't going to sacrifice precious transport craft.
More daemon engines (and preferably more insane daemon engines) would be nice, but there's no reason we couldn't have both. The HH models and their rules already exist, so it wouldn't require any extra resources be used. And if gw had stuck with the direction fw was going with them they would have definitely been more "Chaos". Loyalists already have more available to them, we'd just have less restrictions on the ones we have. And Stormbirds are $1200, how many of those have you ever even seen?
IMHO what GW should do with Chaos is look at the forge world HH stuff, sculpt a model that sort of resembles it but is clearly "mutated and changed" and make it a new deamon engine etc.
such as take the sdicarian tank hunter, and replace the gun barrel with some chaos deamony head, and have some clear fleshy mutations etc.
suddenly you've got a new and intreasting deamon engine, but is also something that you can look at and go "SO THATS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SICARIAN!"
Gert wrote:Its more on principle than logic. Obviously people aren't going to have Stormbirds all over the place but IMO they're supposed to be so rare and valued that they should never see the battlefield. Same with certain other 30k units.
See, that's the difference. Loyalists stick their Heresy era units in vaults in the bottom of their fortress monasteries and leave them there for millennia. CSM actually use theirs, because they have to use what they have. Even in the limited fluff in the Compendium the loyalist units are referred to as rare and rarely used, while the CSM units are said to have been being used for millennia, and are still being used. And something like a Stormbird should be rare, that's probably why they cost 1000 PPM, you'll only ever see them in larger games, not in typical 2000 point matches.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Chaos Undivided is a weird concept that has gone back and forth several times.
I know when I was working on Black Crusade stuff for FFG the word 'Undivided' was verboten. If it was't one of the four Chaos Gods, it was always 'unaligned' (lower case U) and there was no 'mark' for that.
GW, for whatever reason, had it in their head that the MoCU from 3.5 wasn't something that should continue in the fluff. Now they seem to be doing the opposite of that. As always, gotta change horse as often as possible to keep ahead in the race...
It's like how before there weren't Inquisitorial Storm Troopers, then there were, then there weren't. And how there were Genestealer Cults, then there weren't, and now there are again. Or how Hot Shot Lasguns became Hellrifles and then became Hot Shot Lasguns again. Or how the Inquisition was a big deal, and then suddenly got completely marginalised to the point of basically not existing (on the tabletop). A lot of this can be traced to the influence (and sudden lack of influence) of one Alan Merrit.
So, Merritt was the guy who wanted to downplay Chaos Undivided?
Couldn't say, but he's the one who didn't like GSC, and had a problem with Inquisi Stormies IIRC, and those things changed after he vanished. It's certainly possible.
Chaos Undivided manifests itself very in many, many ways. Lorgar and Perturabo, for example, are both Undivided daemon princes, but their approaches to serving Chaos are very different.
As for rules, I just hope that the non-Legion warbands get good, competitive rules. The Brazen Beast's rules are currently mediocre and don't much reflect their lore (heavy use of daemon engines) while the rules for the Crimson Slaughter are downright offensive.
Bryan Ansell has said that Chaos was modeled on the Death Dealer painting by frank frazetta, even more so than on moorcock. And that’s what chaos Undivided is. For example in the many sword & sorcery movies at the time, the buff main character has a lot of sex. It’s not debauched or slaaneshi, in fact it’s very conventional. Instead it’s a flex. It’s about how great the character is. He cuts off a lot of heads, not in a khornate way, but just because someone pumps into him or gets in his way.
You can say this is more of a Fantasy thing, but it’s totally the character of Horus. Even before Horus was poisoned on Davin, he and the legion were known for bullying their enemies, going mano a mano with the enemy hq, and then leaving behind a ruin that had to be cleaned up by someone else.
It’s IMO pretty straightforward. Someone with a mark is on or part of the path to glory. It’s been a game from GW, they’ve done multiple editions, they’ve adapted it to 40k as well. A champion can be on the path to glory and not do specific gods. he’s undivided.
A lot of this can be traced to the influence (and sudden lack of influence) of one Alan Merrit.
He seems so dysfunctional. He did that Insignium Astartes book that’s completely bloodless. It has these coloring book style illustrations, he copied and pasted the same text for multiple pages, quite deliberately. Everything has to be neat colors and 10x10 just to fit in neat boxes just because he likes neat colors and boxes.
You can contrast his not liking Inq storm troopers with Dan Abnett, where everyone has their own storm troopers. That’s much more like real life. It makes sense that it’s messy. Did you know that the US parks service, bureau of land management, and postal service each have their own SWAT teams with helicopters? And that each of those kinds of agencies usually have their own Inspector General to investigate themselves internally, which usually have yet more swat teams so that the postal inspector general’s swat team can arrest the regular postal swat team? That’s how empires work. But no, Alan Merrit says everything has to be color coded, and you can’t have anything messy like a kind of chaos mark that isn’t assigned to red blue pink or green.
Well, chaos marines are in a pretty bad place on the roster. Just above xenos factions and far below imperial ones. Since they are the direct foil to the imperials plot means they can never perform more than mediocre on the tabletop. Why does this matter? Now, chaos is probably the top represented of the non-imperial factions and that means they get a bit of attention (just not in the current addition) and with that attention means a shift in book authors and artists. It was only a matter of time before they veered off the intended path.
Chaos players better hope they do not get a codex this edition because mark my words, it will do more harm than good. Expect to lose the combos that keep them even semi comp and also expect havoc squads to be gutted and left for dead. Judging by past editions, you wont get anything better for those loss's.
Gert wrote: Yeah CSM should have some older tech but at the same time not more than Loyalists as I believe CSM should have more of their own inventions. However, I am in the camp of GW brought far too much 30k stuff into 40k. The fact that so much of the Legion arsenal is available to modern 40k armies strikes me as lazy and a blatant attempt to boost FW sales. Why are things like Stormbirds, craft were specifically replaced by the Chapters because they were expensive to produce and maintain, available to use? And a CSM Warlord isn't going to sacrifice precious transport craft.
More daemon engines (and preferably more insane daemon engines) would be nice, but there's no reason we couldn't have both. The HH models and their rules already exist, so it wouldn't require any extra resources be used. And if gw had stuck with the direction fw was going with them they would have definitely been more "Chaos". Loyalists already have more available to them, we'd just have less restrictions on the ones we have. And Stormbirds are $1200, how many of those have you ever even seen?
IMHO what GW should do with Chaos is look at the forge world HH stuff, sculpt a model that sort of resembles it but is clearly "mutated and changed" and make it a new deamon engine etc.
such as take the sdicarian tank hunter, and replace the gun barrel with some chaos deamony head, and have some clear fleshy mutations etc.
suddenly you've got a new and intreasting deamon engine, but is also something that you can look at and go "SO THATS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SICARIAN!"
*sigh* We've discussed this repeatedly in the past. If you want something like that, fine, but it can't be only that if you want to represent CSM warbands that don't swear allegiance to the Chaos Gods and don't use daemonic derived technology. We already have daemon engines, we already have Heresy era units, all we need is to get rid of the rules that actively punish you for using the latter.
Really, if you want what you describe, then we should bring back vehicle upgrades like Mutated Hull, Living Vehicle, Parasitic Possession, and just plain old Daemonic Possession. We had those in the past, I see no reason we couldn't have them back.
Table wrote:Well, chaos marines are in a pretty bad place on the roster. Just above xenos factions and far below imperial ones. Since they are the direct foil to the imperials plot means they can never perform more than mediocre on the tabletop. Why does this matter? Now, chaos is probably the top represented of the non-imperial factions and that means they get a bit of attention (just not in the current addition) and with that attention means a shift in book authors and artists. It was only a matter of time before they veered off the intended path.
Chaos players better hope they do not get a codex this edition because mark my words, it will do more harm than good. Expect to lose the combos that keep them even semi comp and also expect havoc squads to be gutted and left for dead. Judging by past editions, you wont get anything better for those loss's.
I'll gladly watch WOMBO COMBO go die in a fire. It's warped the army horribly.
And Havocs will be fine. Heavy weapons squads have escaped the new equipment limitations unscathed, see Retributors and Scourges. It's all of our other infantry units I'm worried about.....
I think there's some misunderstanding of how being 'Marked' works outside of the rules from what I'm reading in some replies. In addition to a certain level of further misunderstanding of how your average CSM views Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Tzeentch etc.
First, 'worship' of any of these entities is a stretch. It's not common. They aren't even typically viewed as 'gods'. Members of your average warband are people who live in and around the warp, they have a better understanding than most of how it operates. There are entities in the warp, some are inconsequential, some are vastly powerful. Few describe them as 'gods'. Where we see this, I think is more in lore being written from an Imperial perspective - they're a deeply religious society. The original CSM's are from the exceedingly secular period of the Horus Heresy. (Word Bearers aside here, obviously).
Secondly, just because you're marked, doesn't mean you chose to be, or that you sought it. It's not necessarily a voluntary thing, and is as likely to be inflicted on you, as it to be gratefully received.
Abaddon, for example, carries all four marks. He also hates the ruinous powers. He considers bowing to them to be the mistake Horus made, and one he has no intention of repeating.
There's a wonderfully interesting passage in one of ADB's novels, where Iskandar Khayon (one of Abaddons closest confidents and commanders) explains how much this infuriates K, N, S & Z - it makes them want to possess him more. He explains how the crusades themselves have become a dance where Abaddon achieves a certain amount of success, before they deliberately frustrate his efforts in order to force him to bow. It's a cycle that Abaddon is well aware of, and seeks to break.
Again, there is little going on that is as simple as 'CSM worship chaos', 'CSM get a mark from worshipping 'x' god'.
Gert wrote: Yeah CSM should have some older tech but at the same time not more than Loyalists as I believe CSM should have more of their own inventions. However, I am in the camp of GW brought far too much 30k stuff into 40k. The fact that so much of the Legion arsenal is available to modern 40k armies strikes me as lazy and a blatant attempt to boost FW sales. Why are things like Stormbirds, craft were specifically replaced by the Chapters because they were expensive to produce and maintain, available to use? And a CSM Warlord isn't going to sacrifice precious transport craft.
More daemon engines (and preferably more insane daemon engines) would be nice, but there's no reason we couldn't have both. The HH models and their rules already exist, so it wouldn't require any extra resources be used. And if gw had stuck with the direction fw was going with them they would have definitely been more "Chaos". Loyalists already have more available to them, we'd just have less restrictions on the ones we have. And Stormbirds are $1200, how many of those have you ever even seen?
IMHO what GW should do with Chaos is look at the forge world HH stuff, sculpt a model that sort of resembles it but is clearly "mutated and changed" and make it a new deamon engine etc.
such as take the sdicarian tank hunter, and replace the gun barrel with some chaos deamony head, and have some clear fleshy mutations etc.
suddenly you've got a new and intreasting deamon engine, but is also something that you can look at and go "SO THATS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SICARIAN!"
*sigh* We've discussed this repeatedly in the past. If you want something like that, fine, but it can't be only that if you want to represent CSM warbands that don't swear allegiance to the Chaos Gods and don't use daemonic derived technology. We already have daemon engines, we already have Heresy era units, all we need is to get rid of the rules that actively punish you for using the latter.
Really, if you want what you describe, then we should bring back vehicle upgrades like Mutated Hull, Living Vehicle, Parasitic Possession, and just plain old Daemonic Possession. We had those in the past, I see no reason we couldn't have them back.
Table wrote:Well, chaos marines are in a pretty bad place on the roster. Just above xenos factions and far below imperial ones. Since they are the direct foil to the imperials plot means they can never perform more than mediocre on the tabletop. Why does this matter? Now, chaos is probably the top represented of the non-imperial factions and that means they get a bit of attention (just not in the current addition) and with that attention means a shift in book authors and artists. It was only a matter of time before they veered off the intended path.
Chaos players better hope they do not get a codex this edition because mark my words, it will do more harm than good. Expect to lose the combos that keep them even semi comp and also expect havoc squads to be gutted and left for dead. Judging by past editions, you wont get anything better for those loss's.
I'll gladly watch WOMBO COMBO go die in a fire. It's warped the army horribly.
And Havocs will be fine. Heavy weapons squads have escaped the new equipment limitations unscathed, see Retributors and Scourges. It's all of our other infantry units I'm worried about.....
The wombo combo is one of the few things keeping the faction semi-comp. With it gone well be at the bottom. And I dont think well get much to make up for it.
Gert wrote: Yeah CSM should have some older tech but at the same time not more than Loyalists as I believe CSM should have more of their own inventions. However, I am in the camp of GW brought far too much 30k stuff into 40k. The fact that so much of the Legion arsenal is available to modern 40k armies strikes me as lazy and a blatant attempt to boost FW sales. Why are things like Stormbirds, craft were specifically replaced by the Chapters because they were expensive to produce and maintain, available to use? And a CSM Warlord isn't going to sacrifice precious transport craft.
More daemon engines (and preferably more insane daemon engines) would be nice, but there's no reason we couldn't have both. The HH models and their rules already exist, so it wouldn't require any extra resources be used. And if gw had stuck with the direction fw was going with them they would have definitely been more "Chaos". Loyalists already have more available to them, we'd just have less restrictions on the ones we have. And Stormbirds are $1200, how many of those have you ever even seen?
IMHO what GW should do with Chaos is look at the forge world HH stuff, sculpt a model that sort of resembles it but is clearly "mutated and changed" and make it a new deamon engine etc.
such as take the sdicarian tank hunter, and replace the gun barrel with some chaos deamony head, and have some clear fleshy mutations etc.
suddenly you've got a new and intreasting deamon engine, but is also something that you can look at and go "SO THATS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SICARIAN!"
*sigh* We've discussed this repeatedly in the past. If you want something like that, fine, but it can't be only that if you want to represent CSM warbands that don't swear allegiance to the Chaos Gods and don't use daemonic derived technology. We already have daemon engines, we already have Heresy era units, all we need is to get rid of the rules that actively punish you for using the latter.
Really, if you want what you describe, then we should bring back vehicle upgrades like Mutated Hull, Living Vehicle, Parasitic Possession, and just plain old Daemonic Possession. We had those in the past, I see no reason we couldn't have them back.
Table wrote:Well, chaos marines are in a pretty bad place on the roster. Just above xenos factions and far below imperial ones. Since they are the direct foil to the imperials plot means they can never perform more than mediocre on the tabletop. Why does this matter? Now, chaos is probably the top represented of the non-imperial factions and that means they get a bit of attention (just not in the current addition) and with that attention means a shift in book authors and artists. It was only a matter of time before they veered off the intended path.
Chaos players better hope they do not get a codex this edition because mark my words, it will do more harm than good. Expect to lose the combos that keep them even semi comp and also expect havoc squads to be gutted and left for dead. Judging by past editions, you wont get anything better for those loss's.
I'll gladly watch WOMBO COMBO go die in a fire. It's warped the army horribly.
And Havocs will be fine. Heavy weapons squads have escaped the new equipment limitations unscathed, see Retributors and Scourges. It's all of our other infantry units I'm worried about.....
The wombo combo is one of the few things keeping the faction semi-comp. With it gone well be at the bottom. And I dont think well get much to make up for it.
And that's a bad thing. You shouldn't have to stack strategems and psychic powers on a unit just to make it work, it should work by itself. And if you've been paying attention, that's what they've been doing in the 9th edition codexes. You can buff something with a stratagem, but you don't have to, the units can function just fine on their own. We should have that as well, instead of wombo combo.
Completely agree, needing a stratagem or psychic power to make a unit useful really sucks for game balance. Since if the game is balanced with "let's assume this unit is already buffed" then if you don't apply a psychic power or stratagem then the unit will more than likely suck.
I'm hopeful with the next few codexes we'll see units be useful on their own with stratagems be a slight improvement. Same for psychic powers since both CSM and Eldar have some units that are overly reliant on them.
Wombo combos are fun with friends but I hope we don't get shackled to them in the future.
I do not defend the wombo combo. I simply state that with GW's track record on Chaos Marines we should expect a pretty bad codex in 9th. Id LOVE to be wrong about this however. But for now. Doom and gloom. And as I have said. Losing the wombo combo is going to hit us harder on a comp level than anything they will give us. And we were already doing pretty bad outside DG. Poor poor Thousand Sons...on the way to squating.
The fact that there are more AoS ports in the Tsons Codex than actual newly designed Tsons units is just depressing. I don't have anything against AoS, I just want to know why the design team was able to make DG so good and have such a good range of kits then Tsons got like six kits and one of them was Tzaangors with an upgrade sprue.
Gert wrote: The fact that there are more AoS ports in the Tsons Codex than actual newly designed Tsons units is just depressing. I don't have anything against AoS, I just want to know why the design team was able to make DG so good and have such a good range of kits then Tsons got like six kits and one of them was Tzaangors with an upgrade sprue.
One was an experiment at a dedicated book/faction that took a sub0faction form a larger book (in this case the base Chaos codex) and the other was a total redesign to allow a faction to exist in a fresh starter box that created a new rule set (8th).
One of these two requires a lot more work to do properly than the other.
And Tsons got their 8th release after DG did and got half the Arcanites range ported over instead of actually fleshing out the faction. Even now into 9th it seems that DG still got a better deal on new kits if the preview for the GK vs Tsons box is anything to go by.
I get that Tsons came first so obviously their initial wave was "meh" but come one, when most of the army is shared with another game system its hardly fair.
Gert wrote: And Tsons got their 8th release after DG did and got half the Arcanites range ported over instead of actually fleshing out the faction. Even now into 9th it seems that DG still got a better deal on new kits if the preview for the GK vs Tsons box is anything to go by.
I get that Tsons came first so obviously their initial wave was "meh" but come one, when most of the army is shared with another game system its hardly fair.
I've started collecting pure/undivided Daemons. respectfully I disagree here.
Porting a model range from AoS to 40k because it can work as the 'weird cultist' equivalent for 1k Sons seems perfectly fine. Or would you say every AoS Daemon release should be locked out from Daemon players too?
No because Daemons have always been marketed as multigame armies and on the old boxes it had stamps for Chaos Daemons, 40k and WHFB.
Tsons are a 40k army that got 6 fully new kits for their army and a Tzaangor upgrade sprue. In 8th the army got more Tzaangors and the Mutalith. There is a difference between one cultist unit and 10/27 units in the Codex being Daemons/Tzaangors.
Gert wrote: And Tsons got their 8th release after DG did and got half the Arcanites range ported over instead of actually fleshing out the faction. Even now into 9th it seems that DG still got a better deal on new kits if the preview for the GK vs Tsons box is anything to go by.
I get that Tsons came first so obviously their initial wave was "meh" but come one, when most of the army is shared with another game system its hardly fair.
I've started collecting pure/undivided Daemons. respectfully I disagree here.
Porting a model range from AoS to 40k because it can work as the 'weird cultist' equivalent for 1k Sons seems perfectly fine. Or would you say every AoS Daemon release should be locked out from Daemon players too?
The problem is that trying to make tzaangors into weird cultists is a pretty serious "square peg round hole" scenario. The existence of Tzaangor Enlightened blessed with discs to ride on works just fine in AoS but is absurd in the context of a CSM army where we're supposed to see them models as gakky chaff. The initial tzaangors work okay as poxwalker equivalents but the Enlightened and Shaman were a mistake.
looking at the codices thus far, GW seems to mostly be toning the wombo-combo down but at the same time over all the codices are better over all. I have high hopes for the CSM 9th edition codex.
BrianDavion wrote: looking at the codices thus far, GW seems to mostly be toning the wombo-combo down but at the same time over all the codices are better over all. I have high hopes for the CSM 9th edition codex.
I hope you are right. But sadly, I think you will be wrong. Hope for the best and expect the worst, a chaos marine players mantra. The fact well be getting at the tail end of a edition is pretty bad regardless. We certainly needed more than most (personal bias).
As for the 1ksons. As a avid 1kson player (former) I can tell you they are in fact, not fine. On any level. On a hobby level they have a minimal amount of non ported kits and rules wise we are at the very bottom. 1ksons and Grey Knights needed their codexs first as the change to the psychic phase impacted them greatly (and a negative impact). But just like Papa chaos marines, well be getting our codex at the close of the edition if at all.
Imho, the treatment of 1ksons players by GW screams of a future squatting and refolding into the chaos marine codex. Which may not be such a bad idea to be honest. I would actually prefer this to happen as I am thinking about it.
1ksons will be getting their codex after Orks, along with Grey Knights, not at the end of the edition. That leaves only one group of Marines to go. Ever heard the saying: "Saving the best for last "? I can remember another time CSM got our codex at the end of an edition, and it was certainly worth the wait.....
Gadzilla666 wrote: 1ksons will be getting their codex after Orks, along with Grey Knights, not at the end of the edition. That leaves only one group of Marines to go. Ever heard the saying: "Saving the best for last "? I can remember another time CSM got our codex at the end of an edition, and it was certainly worth the wait.....
on the opther hand alst edition the last marines to get a dex where space wolves (well before the 8.5 'dexes) which was universally a "we waited this long for this?!"
BrianDavion wrote: looking at the codices thus far, GW seems to mostly be toning the wombo-combo down but at the same time over all the codices are better over all. I have high hopes for the CSM 9th edition codex.
I hope you are right. But sadly, I think you will be wrong. Hope for the best and expect the worst, a chaos marine players mantra.
Wisdom. The DG book is fantastic and I've had a blast playing them, and if the CSM book is of equivalent quality I'll be thrilled, but that is a hell of an "if".
BrianDavion wrote: looking at the codices thus far, GW seems to mostly be toning the wombo-combo down but at the same time over all the codices are better over all. I have high hopes for the CSM 9th edition codex.
I hope you are right. But sadly, I think you will be wrong. Hope for the best and expect the worst, a chaos marine players mantra.
Wisdom. The DG book is fantastic and I've had a blast playing them, and if the CSM book is of equivalent quality I'll be thrilled, but that is a hell of an "if".
so far just about every 9th edition codex has been pretty damn great so... I have high hopes for CSMs
BrianDavion wrote: looking at the codices thus far, GW seems to mostly be toning the wombo-combo down but at the same time over all the codices are better over all. I have high hopes for the CSM 9th edition codex.
I hope you are right. But sadly, I think you will be wrong. Hope for the best and expect the worst, a chaos marine players mantra.
Wisdom. The DG book is fantastic and I've had a blast playing them, and if the CSM book is of equivalent quality I'll be thrilled, but that is a hell of an "if".
so far just about every 9th edition codex has been pretty damn great so... I have high hopes for CSMs
So do I, but the "update" coming in the Charadon book, along with removing all of the "Chaos" rules from our fw units makes me start to wonder if they're putting any effort into CSM.
Table wrote: I wonder if I am going to be right and this is all chaos is going to get this edition. I have a sinking feeling there will be no codex.
There will be a codex, we just have to wait for:
Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Orks, Tyranids, Astra Militarum, Emperor's Children, World Eaters, Black Templar supplement and perhaps more before it comes.
Rihgu wrote: There will be a codex, we just have to wait for:
... Emperor's Children, World Eaters...
To be fair, getting these two first would only be a boon to regular CSM armies.
How so? As Death Guard indicates, we wouldn't get the benefits of any of the new rules for the units regular CSM have access to (Plague Marines, Daemon Engines). Unless you mean, CSM could soup with them?
Rihgu wrote: There will be a codex, we just have to wait for:
... Emperor's Children, World Eaters...
To be fair, getting these two first would only be a boon to regular CSM armies.
How so? As Death Guard indicates, we wouldn't get the benefits of any of the new rules for the units regular CSM have access to (Plague Marines, Daemon Engines). Unless you mean, CSM could soup with them?
More space in the codex for the remaining 5 Legions means more focus for them. More pages per Legion, basically.
Rihgu wrote: There will be a codex, we just have to wait for:
... Emperor's Children, World Eaters...
To be fair, getting these two first would only be a boon to regular CSM armies.
How so? As Death Guard indicates, we wouldn't get the benefits of any of the new rules for the units regular CSM have access to (Plague Marines, Daemon Engines). Unless you mean, CSM could soup with them?
moving the other two "cult" legions out of the "main" CSM dex would reduce the number of styles of marine it would need to support, thus making it easier to write a book which better represents the remaining 5 legions.
Alongside that, launching new brand new codexes (as opposed to 9th ed versions of existing ones) would likely come with significant numbers of new models, most of which would be "undivided CSM" compatible (as, say, "mark of X" units).
Mark of X units would only be compatible with the CSM book if EC and WEdon't get moved to their own codex. There's no real reason why The Purge couldn't have Poxwalkers but they don't because that's a Death Guard unit made to fill out the Death Guard codex. The best the CSM codex would get is just being able to use the upgraded plastic Zerkers/Noise Marines.
Rihgu wrote: How so? As Death Guard indicates, we wouldn't get the benefits of any of the new rules for the units regular CSM have access to (Plague Marines, Daemon Engines). Unless you mean, CSM could soup with them?
Others have pointed out the obvious design space issues, and how moving WE and EC out would allow for a greater focus on the remaining Legions (and Renegades, for that matter), but having WE/EC done prior to a new CSM Codex allows for complete rules to appear in the CSM book.
Think about it this way:
CSM Codex comes out. It has the word-for-word rules for Plague Marines and 1KSons from their respective books, and then it has Berzerker/Noise Marine rules based on the (ancient out-of-date) minis that currently exist. Then the WE/EC books hit with completely new 'Zerker and Noise Marine kits, full of new hats options that didn't exist before. Now you've got a CSM Codex that has half updated cult units, and half old cult units. The new CSM book is therefore already missing new rules, and we're in a Slaaneshi Daemons in 8th situation, where they're going to have to re-print them (maybe more than once) in supplement books to allow CSM armies to use these updated cult units without the need to soup.
Of course, GW could release a new Zerker and Noise Marine kit along side the new CSM kit, making the above moot, but it's more likely that they release those as headline releases alongside actual WE/EC books.
Table wrote: I wonder if I am going to be right and this is all chaos is going to get this edition. I have a sinking feeling there will be no codex.
Not a chance.
I mean, they won't get no Codex. They might get a copy-paste book with no new content, a few things that didn't have models deleted, and some uninspired Crusade rules.
seriously though, obviously the joke's a bit of a exaggeration, but I don't think the core thrust of it is likely 100% wrong in that the dark mech puts out a number of war machines but there's a lot of demand and production may not be able to meet it. and that the dark mech is more intreasted in persuing other lines of research etc then just producing more land raiders. especially as if Land Raiders are produced at just under the demand for them, then they'll be worth more.
They've been removing stuff like that right and left. We're talking about what's next, not what's now.
