There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.
While they don't appear Nids/Quin broken at first glance, how about we wait until they have actually had tournaments with the army before we proclaim whether or not something was a success.
From what I have seen most of the complaints are about unit options and the fact that people have CSM armies that can’t play without amendment because their chaos lord can’t take a jump pack etc
But it think it’s too soon to say how powerful they are especially as some people might be changing up their armies with the new units so couldn’t be elbow deep in paint right now
bibotot wrote: There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.
Being balanced is a bad thing for a future. A super powerful codex can be nerfed changed, then rises up again for months or even years. When you get a balanced book, and you have to use it for the next 2-3 years, it can get really unfun 12 months down the line, specialy if new edition pops.
Define success. Not the word as such. But what context you’re using it in here.
A Codex being powerful/OP does not, even if it objectively is powerful/OP and not simply getting the New Hotness Boost, does not a successful Codex make.
Consider Chaos’ best regarded Codex - 3.5. That was a popular Codex for a number of reasons.
1. For those who’s main interest is a Powerful Army, it provided that.
2. Each Legion felt like a different army on the board. So it was most definitely a diverse offering.
3. Chaos was super popular as a result.
But
4. Not All The Legions Were Balanced. So, in terms of being good for the overall game? One could argue it wasn’t a success, as those interested in Powerful Armies tended to field relatively cookie cutter lists.
Please note none of this post should be taken as even suggesting anyone is doing their hobby wrong.
So….what’s the parameters here? If it’s doing well in competitive environments, is that the result of one or two super cheesy lists catching opponents with their pants down? Or has it elevated the majority of existing Chaos forces in terms of potential, resilience and damage output?
And most crucially…..sorry for the likely red rag….are long term Chaos players happy with their new Codex?/
Lots and lots of ways to define or debate success.
Well what book is more fun to play right now. The DE codex or lets say the balanced IF or if you want to have something newer the GSC book?
in 8th the GK was super internaly balanced, so balanced it didn't even matter that much what you played with. It came out at the start of 8th and had to last the GK player till 2/3ed of 9th. What do you think the fun would be for the GK players if their codex in 8th was on pair with lets say Eldar. Would the GK player have more fun or less fun.
The so called balanced books age really bad, and if they happen to be unlucky durning an edition switch, where one of their core rules or strenghts stops to work, they become very unfun to use. The "OP" books on the other had last for months, sometimes even years and are often still okey in the next edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: It's karol talk. To be expected from his imaginary gaming circle
yeah. I remember the 8th ed entry article for GK saying how they tried to balanced everything for them, give them baby smites etc to avoid making them to over powered, and then they started churrning out OP books. Was so fun to have a balanced book. Specialy when the only way for GW to fix stuff from a realy broken book is to put out a new codex. Which again means, that unless you are a marines player, the book you have has to last for years.
Hasn't it been out for like a week? Has anyone actually had a real chance to see what the Codex is like in a competitive environment?
Regardless competitive success is one marker for a good Codex and this one fails at the hurdle of established players having basic units invalidated.
People had been playing with the leaked version of it for over a month in my backwater part of the world. I have no doubt people playing closer to where ever the playtesters are could get their hands on the rules much sooner.
Well what book is more fun to play right now. The DE codex or lets say the balanced IF or if you want to have something newer the GSC book?
in 8th the GK was super internaly balanced, so balanced it didn't even matter that much what you played with. It came out at the start of 8th and had to last the GK player till 2/3ed of 9th. What do you think the fun would be for the GK players if their codex in 8th was on pair with lets say Eldar. Would the GK player have more fun or less fun.
The so called balanced books age really bad, and if they happen to be unlucky durning an edition switch, where one of their core rules or strenghts stops to work, they become very unfun to use. The "OP" books on the other had last for months, sometimes even years and are often still okey in the next edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: It's karol talk. To be expected from his imaginary gaming circle
yeah. I remember the 8th ed entry article for GK saying how they tried to balanced everything for them, give them baby smites etc to avoid making them to over powered, and then they started churrning out OP books. Was so fun to have a balanced book. Specialy when the only way for GW to fix stuff from a realy broken book is to put out a new codex. Which again means, that unless you are a marines player, the book you have has to last for years.
the DE codex is the most boring gak i've played since i started playing 40k. I'd much rather play a balanced army than get carried by my codex
They've got supply shortages, they've removed more models (not options in this case) from sale than they've actually released. Rules wise, it's a 7/10 because of the loadout and jump pack silliness. With distribution concerns and lack of supporting releases bundled in, easily a 3/10 imo.
Karol wrote: People had been playing with the leaked version of it for over a month in my backwater part of the world. I have no doubt people playing closer to where ever the playtesters are could get their hands on the rules much sooner.
And those people aren't going to be rocking up to big events with a Codex that hasn't been released are they Karol?
As much as I despise the competitive scene I admit it does give a rough idea of just how good or bad a Codex is.
I think Karol is just making the point that in this age of overwhelmingly power crept, rapid fire releases, having a balanced codex might as well mean having a weak codex because after 6 months of broken releases you'll be left in the dust.
Which is sorta how it was if you got a middle of the road book in the first half of 9th. The ones that aged the best are the busted ones, not the 'just good enough' ones.
Although it's not exactly a universal observation, a lot of strong books got nerfed to well below average.
Well, first of all the good stuff in w40k generaly isn't stuff which is hidden and takes years for people to find out. Although I must say that, people where I play were suprised by people going crazy over bladeguard and eradictors, when VV and MMAB were a thing. So maybe it does happen. For the regular w40k player I think it doesn't matter. It is summer right now people are playing 4-5 games a day, even if they are medium skilled players. The bad stuff out of the codex would be fished out very fast. Same with the very good stuff.
And the top tournament players , in the west, all know the playtesters or are or were playtesters and probably had and knew the rules even sooner. So they are covered. Now do I think, with my Zero expiriance in tournament play, that CSM are going to be the next tyranids or eldar etc ? No, I do not think so, and I also think that if they had to the options to do that, we would have already seen the combos and the armies. Same way we got to say void weavers day 1, DE liquifire builds, crusher stamped and then when the codex was out the warior spam list with MW etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ventus wrote: I think Karol is just making the point that in this age of overwhelmingly power crept, rapid fire releases, having a balanced codex might as well mean having a weak codex because after 6 months of broken releases you'll be left in the dust.
Which is sorta how it was if you got a middle of the road book in the first half of 9th. The ones that aged the best are the busted ones, not the 'just good enough' ones.
Although it's not exactly a universal observation, a lot of strong books got nerfed to well below average.
Power builds are not build equal. Ad mecha got nerfed and now only the best of the bast can efficiently use the army, which probably means the avarge player is not having a fun time playing the list. Orks were whacked hard. To "balance" GK all it took was to take out the double brotherhood options and they became mid tier, in their most optimal version of the army. But stuff like DE, eldar or harlis were nerfed multiple times. And the books have so much good stuff they stay at the top. DE were even wierder, because they were clearly kept in check by ad mecha and orks, when both of those got nerfed hard, DE had a renaissance as far as wins goes. And it was with a different, then the initial nerfed list , which ment the codex had more then 1 list working out of it.
Compare it something like marines with their 9000+unit choices and it really shows how old some armies get. DG are the same. MEQ stuff in general doesn't age well in w40k. Although I base this on only 2 editions, I saw.
bibotot wrote: There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.
Being balanced is a bad thing for a future. A super powerful codex can be nerfed changed, then rises up again for months or even years. When you get a balanced book, and you have to use it for the next 2-3 years, it can get really unfun 12 months down the line, specialy if new edition pops.
This 100%. Having a balanced, well-written book is actually bad with how GW does things now. You can't trust that the next codexes will be as balanced, so balanced will mean weak when GW decides to make the next codex stupid OP.
bibotot wrote: There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.
Well, in a lot of places this coming weekend will be the first time it's going to be legal for tournament play.
That being said, this seems to be in line with the Knight Codexes and appears to be pretty balanced. It has a long of strong options, but nothing oppressive (maybe Just Abbadon) at least of right now.
bibotot wrote: There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.
Well, in a lot of places this coming weekend will be the first time it's going to be legal for tournament play.
That being said, this seems to be in line with the Knight Codexes and appears to be pretty balanced. It has a long of strong options, but nothing oppressive (maybe Just Abbadon) at least of right now.
Honestly I disagree it has a lot of strong options. There's a few standout things sure (Black Rune being generic to take on Possessed or Terminators comes to mind) but in terms of power it's going to lack.
How does one even define "success" in this edition? If it gets within 10% of 50/50 W/L? If it places top 3rd, but not convincingly? If it doesn't have any glaring errors or day 1 patches?
Lets not set the bar too high, GW might trip over it.
Dudeface wrote: They've got supply shortages, they've removed more models (not options in this case) from sale than they've actually released. Rules wise, it's a 7/10 because of the loadout and jump pack silliness. With distribution concerns and lack of supporting releases bundled in, easily a 3/10 imo.
I think if the people like to play with the codex, specialy after a few new ones have came out, then the book is a succes. GK were , for a short time, popular. They are no longer popular. The DE book is popular multiple months after the book being out, there for the book is a success.
The worse books are those that never really took of. Some of the marine supplements, the gsc book, 1ksons to a degree. Those don't have to be weak or bad build books, the ideas behind them may even have been interested, but the way they were put down was bad.
And then there is the special case of DG, which to me, someone looking at them from the outside, has all the hallmarks of 8th ed GK. Including the meme like, new FAQ, new DG nerfs, each time, all the time.
No idea what DG did to the design team to deserv this fate.
It is fair to say the new CSM codex failed to be representative of chaos space marines.
It's also fair to say that due to the recent halfing of CP a lot of the balance mechanics around HQ and upgrades / are completely out of whack. So no, balance wise i think this codex already got a nerfbat to the knee before the party even started. Fun fact, due to a still existing double shoot stratagem we also got the prohibition to specialise legionaires with 2 of the same Heavy /special weapon.
fun: Oh boi, between inability of representing chaos marines as a whole (no custom traits), outright brainmelting datasheets (cultist mob, Mere mortals), the further existence of a double shoot and Votwl Stratagem (no matter how you slice it, those ARE unfun for your opponent and you)...
From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.
If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.
Blackie wrote: From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.
If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.
I wonder sometimes if you live in an alternate dimension to the rest of us and your posts are going to the wrong Dakka.
I would argue the codex exists to sell models, the models are not even available for pre-order. For the game, who knows if it's a success. From a business standpoint, heads should be rolling for a failure this bad.
Too early to figure out.
But I guess it's a quite strong 'dex.
If it was strong we would have a 20 page thread about csm right now and asking why the forgefiend with full weapon load out costs 95pts or something similar. It is a marine book, with stuff layered on it. But in the end it operates on meq stat line which right now doesn't really work. But maybe there is some vehicle/demonic stufff build no one thought of and we will only see it, when someone who tested the books builds for 2-3 months takes a big event with it. I have my doubts about it though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.
If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.
The thing is that is now how GW books look like. Not the good one at least. All the good armies in 9th, were undercosted by at least 15% and had multiple over lap buffs on top of rules which were breaking the normal core rules and how the game functions. And as I said before, book like that age bad.
And the books that are similar to csm are having a really bad time right now playing against those eldar, DE, tyranids etc armies.
the creations of bile looks cool. I am not surte it will be a supported army after a few editions, but i am excited to model it and seems power wise to be pretty good but not over the top. cool modeling project though to go nuts, getting some cool files and making a few of my own for the abominations to 3d print and slap on models that will be on the field
TwinPoleTheory wrote: I would argue the codex exists to sell models, the models are not even available for pre-order. For the game, who knows if it's a success. From a business standpoint, heads should be rolling for a failure this bad.
Yeah, including shadowspear and the chosen/warpsmith, the some of newest 6 (7?) units and 2 characters are simply unavailable to buy. That's a complete clusterfeth.
Voss wrote: Yeah, including shadowspear and the chosen/warpsmith, the some of newest 6 (7?) units and 2 characters are simply unavailable to buy. That's a complete clusterfeth.
Yes, I think calling it a 'success' in this case would require some truly convoluted metrics. I mean as long as you're not looking to get any new players for the faction, sure, I guess 'success' could be on the table.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're confusing "strong" or "good" with "unbalanced". These things are not synonymous.
I do not mix them up. If people run, lift, jump a certain high, then this is the benchmark to check other results against. You don't take a new codex, like csm and then compare it to the worse or mid tier books, because it doesn't show much. Well aside if it the books is mid against those, it being a hallmark of the book having some design problems. Also people can't say what is "unbalanced" when the rules for books are writen by GW with clear intention to work in a certain way. DE are strong and good, and can stay strong and good, because they were writen in a certain way. Eldar, in every edition are writen strong and good, and people can be sure to have fun with their new books every time. On the other side of design there are books that exist based on mechanic or rules interaction, they can be strong and good, but only for a short time. There are also books which are just put out, so GW can be done with them and move on to something else. Give an army X, Y and Z each army has in a given edition, and that is as much design is put in to them. Such book often end up really bad, specialy over time.
Again balanced books don't age well. When the so called unbalanced ones can have hights multiple times in an edition, and often have a good to mid tier expiriance next edition.
idk, on one hand i'm fething pissed at the wargear options being so jank and on Marks/Icons being weirdly restricted
On the other hand, it feels like the codex has so many more build options that are interesting compared to 8th's codex. For what its worth, i play mostly tempest of war so i don't feel the effects of the CP starvation of Nephilim
Blackie wrote:From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.
If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.
If we're evaluating this codex purely on external balance, I'd wait for more information before coming to a conclusion on that. They left plenty of jank in the faction, and we haven't had much time to see how it all shakes out.
As for "representing" CSM, I can only speak for my Legion, as players of other Legions should evaluate that for themselves. But this book is absolute for representing the 8th Legion. The removal of the HQs that both synergise with, and represent their preferred methods of warfare is a big hit, as is the almost complete removal of their most iconic and preferred melee weapon as an option. And the Legion trait is an unbalanced failure: utterly meaningless against some factions/units/builds and potentially dilipidating to others.
And it only looks worse when you consider that they were perfectly represented in the rules of another book released within weeks of this codex for another (and far superior rules wise IMO) game by the exact same company. The difference between the Night Lords rules in this book and the Liber Hereticus are stark, and all the more baffling considering how closely they were released, and therefore probably written.
Not Online!!! wrote:A good codex falls within the trifecta:
Balance
Fun
Representative of the faction.
It is fair to say the new CSM codex failed to be representative of chaos space marines.
It's also fair to say that due to the recent halfing of CP a lot of the balance mechanics around HQ and upgrades / are completely out of whack. So no, balance wise i think this codex already got a nerfbat to the knee before the party even started. Fun fact, due to a still existing double shoot stratagem we also got the prohibition to specialise legionaires with 2 of the same Heavy /special weapon.
fun: Oh boi, between inability of representing chaos marines as a whole (no custom traits), outright brainmelting datasheets (cultist mob, Mere mortals), the further existence of a double shoot and Votwl Stratagem (no matter how you slice it, those ARE unfun for your opponent and you)...
My impression of the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines is it okay. And can be considered a success by only the thinnest of margins. Like passing a class with a C- or maybe even a D+ depending on what the player values.
I think in optimized play, C:CSM will do mediocre. Good players will manage to be able to do some neat stuff with all the combinations and tactical play. Average and lesser players may struggle as the book doesn't seem to have much, "do this thing for more powah."
For better, or for worst, C:CSM's foundation is Legions (and others like the Creation of Bile). This is the starting point for building an army with everything branching off from there. However, I think there is a wide gulf between powerful legions and weak legions. I suspect in optimized play there will be a lot of Word Bearers and Black Legion but not a lot Alpha Legion and Night Lords doing well in tournaments.
Warlord Traits and Relics are a treasure trove of power. Almost to the point they feel like the reason the current GT pack limits pre-game CP expediture. Prior to this codex, I never went that deep with Traits/Relics beyond 1CP for Council of Traitors, which was more of a bargain getting 2 Traits for the price of one. Now I easily want to spend at least 4 CP on Warlord Traits and Relics.
Chaos Space Marines have always had, or wanted to give the player the impression of, stronger characters. I think this is very much the case with codex. It's kinda shame that they all crowd the HQ slot, which I think a CSM will be hard pressed to not use up all the HQ slots they have.
Troops options appear to continue to be pretty weak. Ranging from investing a fair amount of points (which is probably best spent elsewhere) to get something good to cheap but falls over in a stiff wind. Both wanting to make use of some stratagems that appear pretty good, but may still be worth the CP compared to other strats.
Elites has some pretty good stuff. However, like much of the rest of the codex, it is mostly geared toward melee. Which is fine to some extent. CSM are generally more melee to ranged focused. However, I think this codex may have over did things. I know I struggle to put down meaningful ranged firepower outside of Heavy Support. This is mostly tied to the restriction in infantry weapon loadouts, which defuse firepower concentration down to often being a consideration if it is even worth it.
Fast Attack is a surprisingly crowded area. To some extent, I don't think there are any bad options here. It just depends on what you want, and CSM players have a wide range of options to pick what they value.
Heavy Support (and Flyers) is an area I personally lean on heavier with the new codex, but I don't know if it is necessarily significantly more powerful. CSM tanks are marginally better than loyalist ones at the moment. I don't know if that is enough to make them worthwhile in optimized play. The same can be said about Daemon Engines.
Stratagems are good, but a lot of them seem overpriced. Or at very least, it feels the codex really wants CSM players to build bigger squads for more efficient use of many 2+ CP strats. As many of the infantry ones don't have a 1CP for minimum sized squads and 2 for bigger squads. This, combined with pre-game expenditures, leaves CSM starving for CP. I think I personally will be taking Trusted War-Leader most games to allow for more CP overall.
Spells and Prayers also seem excellent. Which ties into that crowded HQ spot, not really relieved by giving Legionaries spell tomes (at least by me so far).
***
So power wise, there's some stuff. But I don't think it is particularly easy to wield. Definitely not by a player at my level at least. Fluff wise, I think the codex is a mess. It wants to be Legion focused, but I can't say the book has any of them feel how I think the Chaos Legions operate. Take Black Legion, my army; +1 to hit is powerful, but it doesn't feel especially like Sons of Horus throwbacks or anything beyond it works well with any datasheet. Honestly, the most Black Legion things about this codex is Confluence of Traitors and Abaddon. And I would say Black Legion feel more like I think they should than most other Legions.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Take Black Legion, my army; +1 to hit is powerful, but it doesn't feel especially like Sons of Horus throwbacks or anything beyond it works well with any datasheet. Honestly, the most Black Legion things about this codex is Confluence of Traitors and Abaddon. And I would say Black Legion feel more like I think they should than most other Legions.
GW has made it pretty clear for awhile now that CSM is basically the Abaddon fan club and attendant groupies.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.
I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.
H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.
Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.
But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.
But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.
I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.
H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.
Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.
But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.
But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.
And what if every time you make a list or put your army on the table, you think "I'd rather be playing this army in Horus Heresy "?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.
I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.
H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.
Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.
But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.
But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.
And what if every time you make a list or put your army on the table, you think "I'd rather be playing this army in Horus Heresy "?
Can't it be both?
But specifically in the case of chaos legions / chaos space marines and customizability it's an issue of the faction rules design, therefore codex.
Not Online!!! wrote: Can't it be both?
But specifically in the case of chaos legions and customizability it's an issue of the faction rules design, therefore codex.
Spoiler:
I mean it can be both, but "does this 40k codex make you happy to use it" doesn't seem relevant if 40k as a core isn't something you like any more.
Not Online!!! wrote: Can't it be both?
But specifically in the case of chaos legions and customizability it's an issue of the faction rules design, therefore codex.
Spoiler:
I mean it can be both, but "does this 40k codex make you happy to use it" doesn't seem relevant if 40k as a core isn't something you like any more.
That goes back though to the issue of people preffering a setting over another no?
Setting wise is still adore 40k, granted some of the new lore is not enticing to me but still on an acceptable level.
Rulewise baseline 40k 9th edition i find lacking, same with 8th.
So i can still enjoy 40k and want to play matches but unlike in the past after 1-2 rounds i got enough and yearn for another system.
Dudeface wrote: Is that the codex or core rules at that point?
I don't mind the rules for 9th (just so it's clear I don't use the Tournament Packs) and there are things I really don't like about HH 2 (deepstriking comes to mind) but the massive gulf between the rules HH Night Lords get and 40k Night Lords get is astounding. When your army has rules that are ignored by about half the armies in the game (IIRC the last tally that was made), how are you meant to enjoy using that army? HH Night Lords don't have this at all. It's not the game that's the issue, it's the balance between armies and subfactions.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.
I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.
H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.
Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.
But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.
But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.
And what if every time you make a list or put your army on the table, you think "I'd rather be playing this army in Horus Heresy "?
Is that the codex or core rules at that point?
A little bit of both. I do prefer the HH core rules to 9th, and much of what makes Night Lords so much better in HH is how their rules interact with the core rules (as opposed to just stacking more rules onto the rules as most codexes in 9th do). But I do still enjoy 40k, even with my problems with 9th. Or at least I did. Thinking of playing my army without many of the things that have made it what it is for the last 2 decades just leaves me feeling cold. They've torn its guts out with this codex, and given it nothing but stratagems, Warlord traits, and other forms of poor compensation in trade.
VladimirHerzog wrote:My Night Lords are much more fun to play in OnePageRules anyway lol
Have you seen our HH rules Vlad? I can honestly say that they're the best, most fluffy rules we've ever had IMHO. Even better than 3.5. They're honestly that good.
VladimirHerzog wrote:My Night Lords are much more fun to play in OnePageRules anyway lol
Have you seen our HH rules Vlad? I can honestly say that they're the best, most fluffy rules we've ever had IMHO. Even better than 3.5. They're honestly that good.
i honestly havnt looked at them not to torture myself lol. Nobody locally seems to be down to try HH because "marines boring" (even if most of them own marines -.- ) I did glance at the HH1.0 rules at one point and yeah, the fluffyness was there
VladimirHerzog wrote:My Night Lords are much more fun to play in OnePageRules anyway lol
Have you seen our HH rules Vlad? I can honestly say that they're the best, most fluffy rules we've ever had IMHO. Even better than 3.5. They're honestly that good.
i honestly havnt looked at them not to torture myself lol. Nobody locally seems to be down to try HH because "marines boring" (even if most of them own marines -.- ) I did glance at the HH1.0 rules at one point and yeah, the fluffyness was there
That's a shame. Because HH2.0 has taken that fluffyness and cranked it up to 11. Not only do we get more ways to play the dirty fighters with A Talent For Murder, but the revamped Night Fighting rules and Night Lords ability to take Preysight (Night Vision) on everything (for a price now, and for good reason) truly makes the 8th Legion the "Lords of the Night". Nobody wants to deal with the 8th Legion after the sun sets.
Blackie wrote: From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.
There's more than power though. It lacks in customizability.
Blackie wrote: From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.
There's more than power though. It lacks in customizability.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: I would argue the codex exists to sell models, the models are not even available for pre-order. For the game, who knows if it's a success. From a business standpoint, heads should be rolling for a failure this bad.
I bought the codex to finally get updated rules to represent my CSM armies and inspire me to add to them. I barely got the former, thanks to all the excised loadouts, and certainly haven't gotten the latter. I think I'll wait a little bit for Codex:Chaos Daemons to hit and just play with my armies from that side of the spectrum, they've gotta be better represented and more exciting than what C:CSM 9E gave me.
Blackie wrote: From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.
If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.
I wonder sometimes if you live in an alternate dimension to the rest of us and your posts are going to the wrong Dakka.
I also wounder if every dakka player only plays at events against Siegler... it appears so sometimes. I do know for a fact that Dakka doesn't represent what the majority of players experiences. A lot of very active posters here don't even play.
I firmly believe that tournament level lists are not the standard meta for many players, especially in this age of frequent changes, when it's really hard to chase the flavour of the month. I have between 8 and 10k of orks and I could never field a fully optimized netlist in this edition (9 squigbuggies, 5 flyers, 3 kill rigs, etc...). Not even once.
I do live in a dimension in which pre-game talk is not only allowed but encouraged and where toning down or up the lists in order to have a more balanced game is the standard procedure between players who know each other.
But honestly do you believe the CSM codex is worse or much worse than the necrons, TS, GK, orks, SM and all of their supplements, adepta sororitas, deathguard, chaos knights, gen cults or the custodes ones? There are 3 or 4 books that are better the other ones, those top codexes should be nerfed, not the other way around where every new release has to be in line with the flavour of the month. And if CSM codex fails to be as good as the tyranids, aeldari, drukhari, tau codexs that's good news. Awesome news. It means less nerfs are needed to get a more balanced universe.
Blackie wrote: But honestly do you believe the CSM codex is worse or much worse than the necrons, TS, GK, orks, SM and all of their supplements, adepta sororitas, deathguard, chaos knights, gen cults or the custodes ones?
Yes I do believe it's worse than all of those codexes (well maybe not Thousand Sons or Death Guard), because I don't play at a high level and don't care about broken wombo combos but do care about insane restrictions on wargear and deletion of units.
I'm really unhappy with it. We have fewer units than in the 8e codex, and a lot of the remaining units have had their wargear options gutted. Comparing codex to codex directly, you could say the legion rules are a nice addition, but these were already available in supplements.
Marks that actually do something are nice to have, but only certain units can have them, and Icons have also been restricted to specific units now.
We've lost way more than we've gained, basically. Power aside (and I really don't care about such things) the new codex stinks.
Blackie wrote: But honestly do you believe the CSM codex is worse or much worse than the necrons, TS, GK, orks, SM and all of their supplements, adepta sororitas, deathguard, chaos knights, gen cults or the custodes ones?
Yes I do believe it's worse than all of those codexes (well maybe not Thousand Sons or Death Guard), because I don't play at a high level and don't care about broken wombo combos but do care about insane restrictions on wargear and deletion of units.
Samus666 wrote:I'm really unhappy with it. We have fewer units than in the 8e codex, and a lot of the remaining units have had their wargear options gutted. Comparing codex to codex directly, you could say the legion rules are a nice addition, but these were already available in supplements.
Marks that actually do something are nice to have, but only certain units can have them, and Icons have also been restricted to specific units now.
We've lost way more than we've gained, basically. Power aside (and I really don't care about such things) the new codex stinks.
Thirded.
It's just more cut content and streamlining, sadly GW insist on doing so to many a faction and people seem often to just accept it.
Well, my post was clearly an answer to someone that was comparing the CSM codex to the other books in terms of power.
Otherwise I can agree with you. In fact I think the drukhari codex is bad for the same reason you are disappointed for the CSM one. And the 8th edition one was bad as well, it actually made me sell my collection. And I could have fielded multiple OP lists with what I had, in fact I sold the models in an instant. For some posters saying that a codex is bad or not good when that faction is solid top tier (without even spamming anything) is something they can't possibly understand and accept. I'm glad not everyone thinks that way though.
I'm no expert of Chaos stuff, so my rating about the army is based on that. I think CSM can do pretty well and regardless of what they might have lost they have a nice wide roster. That makes a codex a good one for the game (even if die hard fans are disappointed), I mean compared to the other books, although maybe not so much compared to the faction's history.
Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.
Blackie wrote: Well, my post was clearly an answer to someone that was comparing the CSM codex to the other books in terms of power.
Otherwise I can agree with you. In fact I think the drukhari codex is bad for the same reason you are disappointed for the CSM one. And the 8th edition one was bad as well, it actually made me sell my collection. And I could have fielded multiple OP lists with what I had, in fact I sold the models in an instant. For some posters saying that a codex is bad or not good when that faction is solid top tier (without even spamming anything) is something they can't possibly understand and accept. I'm glad not everyone thinks that way though.
I'm no expert of Chaos stuff, so my rating about the army is based on that. I think CSM can do pretty well and regardless of what they might have lost they have a nice wide roster. That makes a codex a good one for the game (even if die hard fans are disappointed), I mean compared to the other books, although maybe not so much compared to the faction's history.
Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.
Then they should curb some options that make sense of factions that should be more standardised cue the main offender SM and not do it halfassed because GW can't be bothered to propperly playtest and NOT reimplement double shooting and Votwl stratagmes available to CSM squads and then turn around and in an haphazard attempt to stiffle issues remove doubling up as an option on a unit that already suffers severly for being unspecialisable.
as for the power thing, I think the issue is, considering the recent powerspikes, that the fact that it doesn't "break the game" is an sign that it will be outperformed very soonish.
The same could be said at the time for the GSC dex, which was fairly well balanced but between Tau and Custodes didn't have much to say.
as for the power thing, I think the issue is, considering the recent powerspikes, that the fact that it doesn't "break the game" is an sign that it will be outperformed very soonish.
The same could be said at the time for the GSC dex, which was fairly well balanced but between Tau and Custodes didn't have much to say.
I'm an optimist and I'd say that if it doesn't break the game is a sign that it will be top tiers very soonish. Since it's the current top tiers that will be nerfed.
Blackie wrote: But honestly do you believe the CSM codex is worse or much worse than the necrons, TS, GK, orks, SM and all of their supplements, adepta sororitas, deathguard, chaos knights, gen cults or the custodes ones?
Other than the lazy implementations, lack of representative models (NL can't field a jump lord for the first time since the introduction of the legion), and the fact that it's completely hostile to new players (who also can't buy the most competitive models in the codex because they're not even available for pre-order), the rules are fine.
If you're a long time CSM player, you probably have the models to represent what's in the codex pretty effectively. If you're a Black Legion/Abaddon fanboy, you're probably pretty happy. If you've got a small subset of models, you're probably variously happy with some of the other legions as long as you stay in your lane.
PenitentJake wrote: I think I will like the Codex because of my chosen play style, but I really do empathize with the dissatisfied players on this one.
I think the great tragedy of this dex is how stunningly easy it would have been to avoid the things about it that everyone hates.
Like really, more than half the complaints I've seen are about jump packs. How easy would it have been to not feth that up?
Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl aswell as not restricting CSM squads loadouts aswell as not removing the specialisation options via combiweapons for either Chosen and terminators.
Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks and finaly added customizability to the minor HQ as to make them integrate far easier into differing armies, especially for the aspiring champion,
And yeah, it certainly wouldn't have required a scientist to achieve that.
For sure- there are obviously more problems than just jump packs... I'm just saying that in particular is the complaint I've seen most frequently.
But yes, the load out stuff would have been just as easy to avoid- especially after seeing the community reaction to the Plague Marine load out.
I come to this dex and this army lucky- I've got a fair number of CSM models still in boxes, so I get to build my army using this dex- one of the other reasons I know I will likely still enjoy the book, despite its faults.
If my army had been built using a dex from another edition, I don't know if I'd be able to say that.
Blackie wrote: Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.
Blackie wrote: Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.
Those players are wrong, though.
They're not. GW just doesn't grasp the details and does things in the worst possible way.
PenitentJake wrote: Like really, more than half the complaints I've seen are about jump packs. How easy would it have been to not feth that up?
It would have been very difficult. Making new molds for plastic kits is expensive. There may not even be room on the sprue for a jump pack, so adding the option would mean either removing other options or adding an entire additional sprue with matching price increase. And then once the new kit is made you have all the logistics issues of getting it into stores and replacing stocks of the old kit. Balanced against that you have the far greater money to be made from putting an entirely new kit into that release slot. Is it really worth paying that cost just to satisfy a handful of players in an NPC faction?
PenitentJake wrote: Like really, more than half the complaints I've seen are about jump packs. How easy would it have been to not feth that up?
It would have been very difficult. Making new molds for plastic kits is expensive. There may not even be room on the sprue for a jump pack, so adding the option would mean either removing other options or adding an entire additional sprue with matching price increase. And then once the new kit is made you have all the logistics issues of getting it into stores and replacing stocks of the old kit. Balanced against that you have the far greater money to be made from putting an entirely new kit into that release slot. Is it really worth paying that cost just to satisfy a handful of players in an NPC faction?
They put a jump pack lord on rotation right before the codex came out.
And its trivially easy to kitbash.
No new model needed (though one would have been nice), they just... could have not taken it away.
PenitentJake wrote: Like really, more than half the complaints I've seen are about jump packs. How easy would it have been to not feth that up?
It would have been very difficult. Making new molds for plastic kits is expensive. There may not even be room on the sprue for a jump pack, so adding the option would mean either removing other options or adding an entire additional sprue with matching price increase. And then once the new kit is made you have all the logistics issues of getting it into stores and replacing stocks of the old kit. Balanced against that you have the far greater money to be made from putting an entirely new kit into that release slot. Is it really worth paying that cost just to satisfy a handful of players in an NPC faction?
It does get more complicated if you're thinking beyond the datasheet, given the inconsistent application of No Model No Rules. My assumption, when I wrote the post, was that GW could get away with just reprinting the datacard given the ease of conversion. I also wasn't sure if the former model was plastic or resin- it could have been kept if the former and rotated out if the later (as an end run around No Model No Rules).
You are correct though- thinking about the modeling piece does make it more complicated, which in the end is probably why they did it the way they did.
Kitbashing is not permitted anymore. There must be a precise 1:1 relation between the parts in the box and the unit rules.
The rules in the 9th edition CSM codex allow kitbashing for the following kits just off of the top of my head: Legionaries, Havocs, Bikers, and yes, Chaos Lords in power armour. Though you'd be getting closer to conversion territory if you wanted to arm the current "official" Chaos Lord model with anything but the provided plasma pistol + thunder hammer.
Of course they could have just written rules based on the Chaos Lord with Jump Pack model that they've been selling for the past 2 decades, instead of "rotating" it mere weeks before the release of the codex, and obviously far after it's actual writing, and most likely even printing.
Kitbashing is not permitted anymore. There must be a precise 1:1 relation between the parts in the box and the unit rules.
1. For years, there was a Chaos Lord with Jump Pack model available, and armed with Lightning Claws no less. I'm not sure what kind of time limit is fair to impose on OoP models, if indeed any at all, but it was newer than a lot of other kits still in production and supported in the rules.
2. The no-model-no-rules thing is extremely inconsistent in its application. Off the top of my head I can immediately think of all the Loyalist SM options with Bikes and Jump Packs, plus there is the Grand Master NDK. Even within the CSM book you can still take alternative Defiler loadouts, combi-options where the kit doesn't have them, and Bikers can have special weapons.
3. Right now, you can go to the official GW site and buy a Chaos Lord with a Combi-Flamer, and Sorcerers with Swords and Axes. Why were those options removed? It's such a miniscule thing that I cannot imagine it possibly affecting balance, and it just seems to have been done to save a line of space of a weapon table or to spite players holding on to old miniatures. Meanwhile, players are now left with the need to rearm 100% legitimate models or inform their opponent why their models are not WYSIWYG.
Mozzamanx wrote: 2. The no-model-no-rules thing is extremely inconsistent in its application. Off the top of my head I can immediately think of all the Loyalist SM options with Bikes and Jump Packs, plus there is the Grand Master NDK. Even within the CSM book you can still take alternative Defiler loadouts, combi-options where the kit doesn't have them, and Bikers can have special weapons.
I wouldn't get used to any of those things.
1. For years, there was a Chaos Lord with Jump Pack model available, and armed with Lightning Claws no less.
And now there isn't so there isn't an option in the codex anymore.
I do live in a dimension in which pre-game talk is not only allowed but encouraged and where toning down or up the lists in order to have a more balanced game is the standard procedure between players who know each other.
What do you do when one player insists that the reason he's winning is his superior skill, and the other says it's because the factions are unbalanced?
And what do you do when you both know the codexes are unbalanced but it would take hours of work to rebalance things?
Blackie wrote: Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.
But they haven't done that. Removing Jump Packs, Lightning Claws and Combi-Weapons as general options doesn't decrease bloat, it just decreases options. If they wanted to decrease bloat then they wouldn't have written a book with ninety-seven stratagems.
Meanwhile, streamlining all various forms of power weapons into a single profile yet at the same time putting kit-based restrictions on power fists, chain fists and combi-weapons does nothing but confuse matters, as with one hand you're attempting to simplify things, and with the other hand needlessly complicating matters.
Voss wrote: Even if I were to take you seriously, that's written where in the rules?
It's written in the rules where options that can't be built from a single box are removed. "No model, no rules" is what GW wants. If you can't build a squad with two plasma guns directly out of a single box because there's only one plasma gun on the sprue the unit's datasheet gets a ban on duplicate weapons. If the specific HQ box doesn't include a jump pack then the rules don't allow one. I'm not sure what you think is controversial here, this is clearly GW's intent for how 40k is going to work now. Options that can't be built directly out of a single box are living on borrowed time.
Voss wrote: Even if I were to take you seriously, that's written where in the rules?
It's written in the rules where options that can't be built from a single box are removed. "No model, no rules" is what GW wants. If you can't build a squad with two plasma guns directly out of a single box because there's only one plasma gun on the sprue the unit's datasheet gets a ban on duplicate weapons. If the specific HQ box doesn't include a jump pack then the rules don't allow one. I'm not sure what you think is controversial here, this is clearly GW's intent for how 40k is going to work now. Options that can't be built directly out of a single box are living on borrowed time.
It's also super inconsistently applied. For example, Deathwatch lost access to model options for NO specific reason. It clearly wasn't because of balance. Meanwhile, you can't do a Blightlord squad with all one melee weapon but somehow you're allowed to equip all of them per the datasheet. HOWEVER you only get one of each combi-weapon.
To be clear, I absolutely agree that it's a stupid decision by GW and NMNR needs to die. But it's the reason for why jump pack HQs are gone.
No, it isn't. The Chaos Lord kit also doesn't contain a power sword, powerfist, power axe, or"tainted" chainaxe, but all those are allowed. Legionaries don't come with lascannons, either in the current box, or the ETB kit from the old SC box, but those are an option. No power sword either. Havocs don't come with a power sword, powerfist, power axe, tainted chainaxe, or bolter for the Aspiring Champion, but those are all options as well. Raptor Aspiring Champions can't have lighting claws, despite there being 10 of them in the kit. Raptors can double up on specials while only having one of each per kit, Legionaries can't.
Some kitbashes/conversions are allowed, others not. This has nothing to do with NMNR. It's completely arbitrary.
And you're still ignoring the fact that the Chaos Lord with Jump Pack was on sale when this book was written and only "rotated out" weeks before its release.
The CSM kit doesn't contain duplicates of special weapons and neither does the Raptor kit. Yet, the Raptors can take duplicate weapons, whereas the CSM cannot. Meanwhile, Bikers can take things that aren't part of their kit and never have been outside of ancient metal conversion parts that are long OOP. And Chosen come with a Power Fist on the sprue, yet can't take one.
Gadzilla666 wrote: This has nothing to do with NMNR. It's completely arbitrary.
You can believe that. It's still not a convincing explanation when it's entirely in line with NMNR and there's no alternative explanation besides "LOLGW RANDUMB".
And you're still ignoring the fact that the Chaos Lord with Jump Pack was on sale when this book was written and only "rotated out" weeks before its release.
What about it? Do you not think that GW knew about the rotation before it happened? It may have been on sale as GW cleared out the last of the inventory but well before that point it would have been designated for retirement. The obvious answer here is that GW had made the decision to discontinue the model before the codex was handed off for printing and the available options in the codex reflect this plan.
Gadzilla666 wrote: This has nothing to do with NMNR. It's completely arbitrary.
You can believe that. It's still not a convincing explanation when it's entirely in line with NMNR and there's no alternative explanation besides "LOLGW RANDUMB".
Nope. To reiterate:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, it isn't. The Chaos Lord kit also doesn't contain a power sword, powerfist, power axe, or"tainted" chainaxe, but all those are allowed. Legionaries don't come with lascannons, either in the current box, or the ETB kit from the old SC box, but those are an option. No power sword either. Havocs don't come with a power sword, powerfist, power axe, tainted chainaxe, or bolter for the Aspiring Champion, but those are all options as well. Raptor Aspiring Champions can't have lighting claws, despite there being 10 of them in the kit. Raptors can double up on specials while only having one of each per kit, Legionaries can't.
None of this fits NMNR. It doesn't really fit anything.
And you're still ignoring the fact that the Chaos Lord with Jump Pack was on sale when this book was written and only "rotated out" weeks before its release.
What about it? Do you not think that GW knew about the rotation before it happened? It may have been on sale as GW cleared out the last of the inventory but well before that point it would have been designated for retirement. The obvious answer here is that GW had made the decision to discontinue the model before the codex was handed off for printing and the available options in the codex reflect this plan.
No, again. The model was "rotated out", which according to gw, means that it will eventually be rotated back in. And they're still selling the Night Lords Chaos Lord, with an illegal loadout (he's armed with a combi-weapon). So no, it isn't NMNR.
I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.
What do you do when one player insists that the reason he's winning is his superior skill, and the other says it's because the factions are unbalanced?
Ah, those who believe they are great master tacticians. I don't think they're that common outside overly competitive gaming, thankfully.
And what do you do when you both know the codexes are unbalanced but it would take hours of work to rebalance things?
I don't know what you mean, in my experience we always could pre-arrange a reasonably balanced game like Orks vs Eldar of 7th edition in 10 minutes. Like: max 6 scat bikes and no D weapons. Most of the times that was already enough. For SM? No free stuff. Done. Now it's definitely easier since things aren't as unbalanced as they were in 7th.
It's not the rating of the codexes that matter when you play the game, it's the lists. A non fully optimized list from a top codex is easily on par with an optimized one from a mid tier codex.
as for the power thing, I think the issue is, considering the recent powerspikes, that the fact that it doesn't "break the game" is an sign that it will be outperformed very soonish.
The same could be said at the time for the GSC dex, which was fairly well balanced but between Tau and Custodes didn't have much to say.
The power thing isn't just a now problem. It is mostly a future problem. Factions have to wait years to get book updates, so what ever you get now you will have to use 12-24 months down the line. And if the codex is bad or a copy past of a prior bad codex, this can turn in to years of a faction not being fun. It is also the main reason why so many people last only one edition. If someone gets a codex that is unfun to play with, within the edition it came out, then the chance it will get better next edition is rather low. Tau had the shield drone farm codex in 8th. Not a fun book to play against, and one would really have to like drones to like playing with it. When 9th dropped and shield drones stopped to work, they stopped even having that "OP" tournament list.
IG in 8th would cram other armies inside theirs and it worked okey. then 9th came and IG became borderline unfun. Knight had the uber castellan, all it took to take the army out of the game is to change the rules in a such a way that they get shot from behind terrain without the ability to shot back.
The fall off for "balanced" armies is just bigger, and that is all. Of course if someone owns 6-9 armies each with 6k+pts it maybe a bit different. But when the investment in to an army is a substential thing, spread over months if not years, then gettting a balanced book is a problem. Some people don't even get to play with the unablanced rules, because how long it takes sometimes, to get obscure models. getting 15 assault centurions was a real thing, but I have seen people switch from RG or other marines to IH or WS,just because to have fun with those, they didn't need to buy any extra models.
Sim-Life wrote: I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.
No, that would be you being a toxic donkey-cave and having some weird vendetta instead of reading what I actually wrote. NMNR is a stupid policy but it's clearly the reason jump pack HQs were removed. Nowhere in there am I arguing "on behalf of GW".
Sim-Life wrote: I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.
No, that would be you being a toxic donkey-cave and having some weird vendetta instead of reading what I actually wrote. NMNR is a stupid policy but it's clearly the reason jump pack HQs were removed. Nowhere in there am I arguing "on behalf of GW".
Again though, IF it were then as Gad has pointed out half the book would need more curbing.
AS it stands it's not even explainable by NMNR, the only really reasonable answer is , last minute phoned in garbage with no QA .
Blackie wrote: Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.
But they haven't done that. Removing Jump Packs, Lightning Claws and Combi-Weapons as general options doesn't decrease bloat, it just decreases options. If they wanted to decrease bloat then they wouldn't have written a book with ninety-seven stratagems.
Meanwhile, streamlining all various forms of power weapons into a single profile yet at the same time putting kit-based restrictions on power fists, chain fists and combi-weapons does nothing but confuse matters, as with one hand you're attempting to simplify things, and with the other hand needlessly complicating matters.
i don't mind the power weapon streamlining that much, it was indicative that something fishy was going on at the time, what i take issue with though is the chosen power fist is also a accursed weapon.
NVM, it is hillarious that the CSM book alone has that much stratagems, but somehow we can't have a lord with a jumppack, or a sorcerer, or a bike for a MoP, or for the aspiring.
Or lord forbid an way to run an all mortal chaos army.
Or make our own warband...
I'd gladly trade 90 stratagems to get such customizablity...
Ah, those who believe they are great master tacticians. I don't think they're that common outside overly competitive gaming, thankfully.
So you will make no attempt to account for that situation and will pretend it doesn't exist? Good to know that your method of play is actually unworkable.
I don't know what you mean, in my experience we always could pre-arrange a reasonably balanced game like Orks vs Eldar of 7th edition in 10 minutes. Like: max 6 scat bikes and no D weapons. Most of the times that was already enough. For SM? No free stuff. Done. Now it's definitely easier since things aren't as unbalanced as they were in 7th.
It's not the rating of the codexes that matter when you play the game, it's the lists. A non fully optimized list from a top codex is easily on par with an optimized one from a mid tier codex.
Uh huh. How were you doing it with release Tyranids in 9e?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Im not so bothered about squads of models but non customability of characters is slowly ruining a big part of this game/hobby/company for me.
Customizability of non-Astartes characters is a NPE for GE. They want all of them to be disposable, interchangeable punching bags for Astartes to beat.
So you will make no attempt to account for that situation and will pretend it doesn't exist? Good to know that your method of play is actually unworkable.
I was talking about friendly games, not random pick up games between players who desire to prove each other. I honestly don't care about balancing pick up games, as I believe those should be only intended for competitive gaming and competitive gaming is already reasonably (for the standards of 40k at least) balanced. So no, I don't think that situation exists.
Uh huh. How were you doing it with release Tyranids in 9e?
I played with and against tyranids multiple times in this edition. Never had a problem. Again, just avoid the flavour of the month and field "highlinder-ish" style forces. I had much more problems in 8th. Check a few of the most popular youtube channels that release battle reports, you'll find plenty of balanced games involving tyranids.
Getting exact 50/50 games is not the goal here, a balanced game means that if I play against the tyranid player, out of 10 games, at least 7-8 of them end up pretty close, regardless of the outcome.
Sim-Life wrote: I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.
No, that would be you being a toxic donkey-cave and having some weird vendetta instead of reading what I actually wrote. NMNR is a stupid policy but it's clearly the reason jump pack HQs were removed. Nowhere in there am I arguing "on behalf of GW".
Again though, IF it were then as Gad has pointed out half the book would need more curbing.
AS it stands it's not even explainable by NMNR, the only really reasonable answer is , last minute phoned in garbage with no QA .
Blackie wrote: Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.
But they haven't done that. Removing Jump Packs, Lightning Claws and Combi-Weapons as general options doesn't decrease bloat, it just decreases options. If they wanted to decrease bloat then they wouldn't have written a book with ninety-seven stratagems.
Meanwhile, streamlining all various forms of power weapons into a single profile yet at the same time putting kit-based restrictions on power fists, chain fists and combi-weapons does nothing but confuse matters, as with one hand you're attempting to simplify things, and with the other hand needlessly complicating matters.
i don't mind the power weapon streamlining that much, it was indicative that something fishy was going on at the time, what i take issue with though is the chosen power fist is also a accursed weapon.
NVM, it is hillarious that the CSM book alone has that much stratagems, but somehow we can't have a lord with a jumppack, or a sorcerer, or a bike for a MoP, or for the aspiring.
Or lord forbid an way to run an all mortal chaos army.
Or make our own warband...
I'd gladly trade 90 stratagems to get such customizablity...
still... 97 stratagems...
I disagree, a phoned in lazy last minute book would be a copy paste of entries and wargear from the last book. They actively altered some entries, which suggests they took more time on them than is likely reasonable.
The QA part is interesting, what's the acceptance criteria for the book? Because a QA could have done a stellar job if their purpose was basically male sure the book is laid out as expected, contains the expected entries and is easy to use in isolation. What you're discussing is more of a product team decision ove rthe jump packs, a QA likely will be told "we took them out, make sure they're not there" and lo and behold they did a good job in that regard.
Genuinely curious though what the acceptance threshold or criteria for a GW book is internally and how it gets past QA.
My main inclination as to why i assume we didn't have any QA testing involved is the fact of the absurd state of possessed, marks and Icons.
Aswell as the further existence of a double shooting and Votwl stratagem.
Good QA testing would've caught both, one as very wierd and the other as an unfun mechanic.
Not Online!!! wrote: My main inclination as to why i assume we didn't have any QA testing involved is the fact of the absurd state of possessed, marks and Icons.
Aswell as the further existence of a double shooting and Votwl stratagem.
Good QA testing would've caught both, one as very wierd and the other as an unfun mechanic.
They would unless they were told that was intentional, they might have simply been overruled.
how many chaos legions are there 7 or 8, plus corsairs, plus renegades even if each got only 5 specific stratagems we would be looking at 40-50, then the obligatory extra relic, extra warlord trait, smoke for rhinos etc and getting to 70 is not that hard.
So you will make no attempt to account for that situation and will pretend it doesn't exist? Good to know that your method of play is actually unworkable.
I was talking about friendly games, not random pick up games between players who desire to prove each other. I honestly don't care about balancing pick up games, as I believe those should be only intended for competitive gaming and competitive gaming is already reasonably (for the standards of 40k at least) balanced. So no, I don't think that situation exists.
Then I don't think you're using any of the terminology the same way anyone else is.
Lack of common terms is often a big problem in threads here. For me a friendly game is any game played outside of tournament, maybe even noob store events, where not everyone has optimised lists. For Blacky, I think, a friendly game is one where you can change the rules, scenarios, stats or even army compositions on the spot on a game per game basis, And if you can't do it, then the game ain't friendly.
Sim-Life wrote: I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.
Bob's response (in OT) to the JWST space images:
Spoiler:
CadianSgtBob wrote: Lies and CGI. The universe is not billions of years old, and I wish we'd stop spending taxpayer money on fake atheist "science". But I guess this forum's ban on religion only applies to Christians.
It isn't possible to have a good faith discussion with someone who has abandoned evidence-based thinking, just ignore and move on. This thread has seen a lot of interesting and nuanced discussion so far, I'd hate for it to get derailed in the same manner as so many others.
Not Online!!! wrote: My main inclination as to why i assume we didn't have any QA testing involved is the fact of the absurd state of possessed, marks and Icons.
Aswell as the further existence of a double shooting and Votwl stratagem.
Good QA testing would've caught both, one as very wierd and the other as an unfun mechanic.
They would unless they were told that was intentional, they might have simply been overruled.
but at that stage, wouldn't you agree, that you may aswell don't have a QA at all?
For the record , i am not blaming QA, if it exists, i blame the multimillion dollar international company not getting its gak together in its processes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Lack of common terms is often a big problem in threads here. For me a friendly game is any game played outside of tournament, maybe even noob store events, where not everyone has optimised lists. For Blacky, I think, a friendly game is one where you can change the rules, scenarios, stats or even army compositions on the spot on a game per game basis, And if you can't do it, then the game ain't friendly.
one isn't that far off the other Karol, and neither are they mutualy exclusive, at the end its a hobby that is supposed to make fun. Since 2 parties are in general involved that requires a tad of negotiating always, atleast to settle down what the game shall be.
after all many a homebrew campaign has started as just outside games with unoptimised lists.
Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl aswell as not restricting CSM squads loadouts aswell as not removing the specialisation options via combiweapons for either Chosen and terminators.
Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks and finaly added customizability to the minor HQ as to make them integrate far easier into differing armies, especially for the aspiring champion,
And yeah, it certainly wouldn't have required a scientist to achieve that.
VotLW is still in the dex (although nerfed)
Are you really saying that double shooting + votlw shouldve stayed in the dex? it was most of the reason why the 8th ed codex was gak to play
Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl aswell as not restricting CSM squads loadouts aswell as not removing the specialisation options via combiweapons for either Chosen and terminators.
Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks and finaly added customizability to the minor HQ as to make them integrate far easier into differing armies, especially for the aspiring champion,
And yeah, it certainly wouldn't have required a scientist to achieve that.
VotLW is still in the dex (although nerfed)
Are you really saying that double shooting + votlw shouldve stayed in the dex? it was most of the reason why the 8th ed codex was gak to play
No i am saying that they should^ve been removed, there's still a double shooting for csm if i am not mistaken no?
So i played three games with the new NL yesterday. Felt fething terrible, anything NL-specific felt much worst than in the 8th editon codex + PA and my trait wasn't active except against things that i didnt need it to be (woohoo, wounding skitariis on 2+ with my WarpTalons that already wipe the squad anyway)
The datasheet are stronger, the marks do something now but the fluff feels like gak.
Played a game with creations of bile and it felt more like NL than the actual NL rules.
@Gadzilla at least i started planting the seeds about trying HH 2.0 with a few players so i got that going for me
Doesn't matter, it's still a double shooting, it shouldn't exist, period, and i am half willing someone realised that 8 boltguns and 2 reaper chaincannons may be an issue if they got on demand doubled and curbed the specialisation.
Not Online!!! wrote: Doesn't matter, it's still a double shooting, it shouldn't exist, period, and i am half willing someone realised that 8 boltguns and 2 reaper chaincannons may be an issue if they got on demand doubled and curbed the specialisation.
you can't have 2 chaincannons but yeah, its dumb that its still there but at least being restricted to legionnaires means the rest of the codex isnt priced assuming its gonna be double shooting all game
Not Online!!! wrote: Doesn't matter, it's still a double shooting, it shouldn't exist, period, and i am half willing someone realised that 8 boltguns and 2 reaper chaincannons may be an issue if they got on demand doubled and curbed the specialisation.
you can't have 2 chaincannons but yeah, its dumb that its still there but at least being restricted to legionnaires means the rest of the codex isnt priced assuming its gonna be double shooting all game
No i think they realised that it is bad enough on legionaires and that is the reason why we are prohibited to have double heavies and specials.
So i played three games with the new NL yesterday. Felt fething terrible, anything NL-specific felt much worst than in the 8th editon codex + PA and my trait wasn't active except against things that i didnt need it to be (woohoo, wounding skitariis on 2+ with my WarpTalons that already wipe the squad anyway)
The datasheet are stronger, the marks do something now but the fluff feels like gak.
Played a game with creations of bile and it felt more like NL than the actual NL rules.
@Gadzilla at least i started planting the seeds about trying HH 2.0 with a few players so i got that going for me
No i am saying that they should^ve been removed, there's still a double shooting for csm if i am not mistaken no?
oh ok, missed what you meant.
The double shooting is only for legionnaires now, so at best you're double shooting 2 different Heavy/special weapons and 8 boltguns
I'm sorry to hear about your experience with the codex Vlad, but glad to hear you're working on getting some HH games in. I think you'll enjoy the Core rules more than 40k's as well, and not just the NL rules. Good luck in getting that done.
Interesting that you consider CoB more like Night Lords than the actual Night Lords rules. For my part, I think that the Alpha Legion rules are far closer to what Night Lords were in 3.5 than the actual Night Lords rules, myself.
I think you've missed Not Online's point again, however. What he's getting at is that many people are theorizing that at least one of the reasons for Legionaries being unable to double up on any one special/heavy weapon is the double shoot/fight strategem. Basically, it was seen as too strong with things like ×2 chaincannons/plasma guns, so instead of removing the strategem, they just removed the ability to double up on specials/heavies.
Interesting that you consider CoB more like Night Lords than the actual Night Lords rules. For my part, I think that the Alpha Legion rules are far closer to what Night Lords were in 3.5 than the actual Night Lords rules, myself.
well i started playing 40k with 8th so i never got to experience the mythical 3.5e dex. For me night lords are all about striking fast from the unseen. PA had buffs for charges which made our deepstrike charges more reliable. Now that these are gone, CoB's +1 movement and Advance+charge strat means that i can kinda do the same thing (raptors/warp talons moving 13"+D6 before charging kinda feels like striking from the unseen). And the +1S effectively acts like the +1 to wound against factions for which it matters (Loyalists) where our trait wouldnt actually activate.
I think you've missed Not Online's point again, however. What he's getting at is that many people are theorizing that at least one of the reasons for Legionaries being unable to double up on any one special/heavy weapon is the double shoot/fight strategem. Basically, it was seen as too strong with things like ×2 chaincannons/plasma guns, so instead of removing the strategem, they just removed the ability to double up on specials/heavies.
gotcha. yeah, the wargear restrictions feel terrible in the book (and the icon/marks while more interesting than before having more restrictions as to who can use them is dumb as feth)
GW's NMNR Policy is filled with exceptions of many sorts. Figuring it out would be like decipher ancient text and even then you would find many exceptions. A few things I've seemed to notice out of late are:
Troops Squads - What's in the Box and built using the assembly rules is what you can build with a few exceptions like:
constructed kit cross-compatibility: AS Battle can use the Power Maul and Multi-Melta from the Retibutor Box
Chaos Legionaries: There are two models that can have special/heavy weapons (an a third the can have a flamer) but they decided 2 that are not the same rather than give truly stupid limits (one model can have a meltagun, missile launcher, or chain cannon; another model can have Plasma gun or a heavy Bolter; another model can have a flamer)
Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support Squads - These tend to come in minimum squad boxes that can be doubled up to make a full squad. They also often have 1 of each extra weapon. They therefore allow you to have up two 4 of the same weapon. Not universally true:
Havoks are in a max squad box but don't have enough weapons to actually take the maximum allowed.
Retributors need 2 boxes to maximize the number of a single weapon option, which is allowed, but has no bolters included to actually build a max squad from two boxes. You have to mix and match models with a Battle Sister Box to get a full legal unit.
Old Kits - When old modular kits are still available, you tend to get the full range of options, like Chaos Bikers who were modular with the older CSM and Havok kits not to mention loyalist marine kits.
HQs - Tend to keep their options until they have a new kit available with all the options. Since the only Chaos Lord is a mono-build kit, you get to keep using your OG Chaos Lords. Same for SM Captains. Except for the Chaos Champion - He only gets the new model options (aka none).
So as always, GW is consistently inconsistent in how they apply rules.
Not Online!!! 806046 1140175 wrote:one isn't that far off the other Karol, and neither are they mutualy exclusive, at the end its a hobby that is supposed to make fun. Since 2 parties are in general involved that requires a tad of negotiating always, atleast to settle down what the game shall be.
after all many a homebrew campaign has started as just outside games with unoptimised lists.
For the few years I have been online I have learned that most arguments very fast devolved to such esoteric levels of understanding of terms and language, combined with 100% assumption the other side defines them the same, that one would have to start with a few pages of explaining of such terms as I, We, do, not do etc.
"fun" as a goal or main entice of a game is a hard thing to both use as a measurable term. Too many variables, too many moments where a person can just think or voice a no. Enjoyment of a thing, in this case an army, with in an existing game system is, in my opinion a much better thing. But the system has to be stable. It can't change from game to game, and it can't be dependent on the other person saying yes. Now on top of that one can build anything. Plus the rule set isn't just one. Just like a school bout isn't the same as a world champs, a narrative game doesn't have to be a matched played one etc.
On top of that there is a financial aspect, and I think a generational one too and I hope it is called that way in english too. 100% unoptimised, as in pick what ever models you like, happens only if someone has the financial strenght to do it. A new player who can get 2000pts army, who has to paint the army, and wants to play with it, may not afford a 2000$ top shelf OP, but he is not going to buy an army made out of scouts either. All in all most arguments seem to be very academical and based on personal dislikes of other armies, people or games etc.
Good to learn new words, not so much if one really expects to convince the other side of anything.
I think the only thing where real progress happens is talk about general mechanics, and I mean like above even the IGYG thing. Stuff like can one make a game with skirmish and RPG style rules, which works, but at the same time uses a battle game number of models. Or how to balance to enjoyment between having a fully paid army, and a new player needing months or years to paint an army to full.
Blackie wrote: I was talking about friendly games, not random pick up games between players who desire to prove each other. I honestly don't care about balancing pick up games, as I believe those should be only intended for competitive gaming and competitive gaming is already reasonably (for the standards of 40k at least) balanced. So no, I don't think that situation exists.
The idea that "friendly" games are ones in which the players are not invested in having a fair game is a straight lie. You're using it to evade responsibility for your "just talk it out" farce. No - just talking it out doesn't work. If you don't care about balancing pick up games, why do you *ever* talk it out? Don't you just accept when you get beaten 100 times in a row by the new Tyranid codex that that's cool?
I played with and against tyranids multiple times in this edition. Never had a problem. Again, just avoid the flavour of the month and field "highlinder-ish" style forces. I had much more problems in 8th. Check a few of the most popular youtube channels that release battle reports, you'll find plenty of balanced games involving tyranids.
Getting exact 50/50 games is not the goal here, a balanced game means that if I play against the tyranid player, out of 10 games, at least 7-8 of them end up pretty close, regardless of the outcome.
Sure, and you will not get 7-8 that are pretty close with the new Tyranids codex. The youtube channels have cherry-picked army lists to make the game seem more interesting than it is; they're not going to post the ones that are just blowouts as often.
Interesting that you consider CoB more like Night Lords than the actual Night Lords rules. For my part, I think that the Alpha Legion rules are far closer to what Night Lords were in 3.5 than the actual Night Lords rules, myself.
well i started playing 40k with 8th so i never got to experience the mythical 3.5e dex. For me night lords are all about striking fast from the unseen. PA had buffs for charges which made our deepstrike charges more reliable. Now that these are gone, CoB's +1 movement and Advance+charge strat means that i can kinda do the same thing (raptors/warp talons moving 13"+D6 before charging kinda feels like striking from the unseen). And the +1S effectively acts like the +1 to wound against factions for which it matters (Loyalists) where our trait wouldnt actually activate.
I wasn't aware that CoB had an advance + charge stratagem. Yeah, I can definitely see how that feels more like the 8th edition codex + Faith and Fury. And I agree, those rules felt more fun than these, even with the 1W infantry.
I see the Alpha Legion rules as being closer to Night Lords 3.5 because their -1 to hit rule is the closest thing to the +1 to cover saves granted by the "Night Lords only" Veteran Skill Stealth Adept (later replicated in Traitor Legions simply by giving our infantry the Stealth USR), and their fallback + charge rule replicates Raptors having Hit and Run, which was very important for how Night Lords played, because we were the only Legion that could have more than 1 squad. Either way though, definitely feels like a step down.
The idea that "friendly" games are ones in which the players are not invested in having a fair game is a straight lie. You're using it to evade responsibility for your "just talk it out" farce. No - just talking it out doesn't work. If you don't care about balancing pick up games, why do you *ever* talk it out? Don't you just accept when you get beaten 100 times in a row by the new Tyranid codex that that's cool?
What's the difference bewteen a friendly game and a game from a tournament? By your definitions they're exactly the same.
In my idea of friendly games players are extremely invested in having a fair game. In fact in such context having a fair game is much more important than winning or proving players' skills. To achieve that pre-game talk is one fo the most common tools.
In my opinion blind games, random pick up games, or whatever you want to call them are not friendly games. I mean, it's a format that is not good for friendly games, in fact it's the format that is used in tournaments. For a good reason. Pick up games can be "friendly" only if pretty much every players know each other and each other's armies so everyone knows exactly what to bring in to keep up with the meta or to avoid dominating it. People that want to prove something are playing the competitive game, there's nothing friendly in their attitude. For this people the pre-game talk invalidates their success, that's why they hate it. They can't brag about how good they are then.
My idea of a friendly game is: I call someone to play, or write on a chat. Cool, I know I'll going to play Player X. Now I know approximately what he/she has, she/he knows approximately what I have. Not what army I'll bring, definitely not the exact list. But still with little or even no pre-game talk we'd definitely be able to bring reasonably on par lists. If the game ends up one sided then next times we'll try to play with more knowledge about the lists, toning them up/down before meeting if necessary. Another example: I know I'm going to play against a noob so I'll just bring all the units I typically don't use, or maybe the army with the lowest rate I currently have. I'm more experience and skilled, I don't need to win against him/her and playing with something that is usually shelved is fun and also a challenge. Alternatively: I show up at the store, knowing what the local meta is so I bring a list according to that. If someone with different goals in mind (aka he brought a netlist and can't tone it down or refuse to do it) ask me to play I politely refuse, simply because there would be no point of playing that game.
Sure, and you will not get 7-8 that are pretty close with the new Tyranids codex. The youtube channels have cherry-picked army lists to make the game seem more interesting than it is; they're not going to post the ones that are just blowouts as often.
Naaah, at this point I just assume you are one of those posters who don't even play the game and only comment based on the numbers they read on the internet. I don't believe that everyone plays the netlists. Most competitive lists I see on goonhammer max out multiple specific units, and they're nowhere near what I see in real life. They're nowhere near what I can field as well. Those cherry-picked army lists are what I think average collections are, what the majority of players actually has, and how I believe the majority of games are actually played.
This would be my last reply about this matter though, since this discussion is no longer connected with the CSM codex.
Blackie wrote: What's the difference bewteen a friendly game and a game from a tournament? By your definitions they're exactly the same.
In a tournament there's a time limit, there are different expectations of sportsmanship, one wouldn't rewind a game state or allow "take-backs" as easily, and most importantly in a tournament there's a TO who's the final authority on things. In a friendly game there are just two players.
Blackie wrote: In my idea of friendly games players are extremely invested in having a fair game. In fact in such context having a fair game is much more important than winning or proving players' skills. To achieve that pre-game talk is one fo the most common tools.
Skills can only be proven in a fair game, so you're drawing a distinction where there isn't on, meaningfully.
Blackie wrote: In my opinion blind games, random pick up games, or whatever you want to call them are not friendly games. I mean, it's a format that is not good for friendly games, in fact it's the format that is used in tournaments. For a good reason. Pick up games can be "friendly" only if pretty much every players know each other and each other's armies so everyone knows exactly what to bring in to keep up with the meta or to avoid dominating it. People that want to prove something are playing the competitive game, there's nothing friendly in their attitude. For this people the pre-game talk invalidates their success, that's why they hate it. They can't brag about how good they are then.
In order to have a meaningful "pre-game talk" you *also* must keep up with the meta, otherwise you won't know what to change.
Also, your denigration of people who play "competitive" smacks of catty, scrubby behavior, and is anti-growth mindset. It's very common to agree to a test of wits with your friends, which is what a good strategy game *should* be. It's the mental equivalent of play wrestling, which every mammal from rodents to humans does; being phobic of competing in an environment where you can't be hurt is something you should work on, and is likely a result of some kind of insecurity. It's not unsportsmanlike to try your best to beat your opponent, as long as you follow the rules of the game and are gracious in your demeanor.
Blackie wrote: My idea of a friendly game is: I call someone to play, or write on a chat. Cool, I know I'll going to play Player X. Now I know approximately what he/she has, she/he knows approximately what I have. Not what army I'll bring, definitely not the exact list. But still with little or even no pre-game talk we'd definitely be able to bring reasonably on par lists. If the game ends up one sided then next times we'll try to play with more knowledge about the lists, toning them up/down before meeting if necessary. Another example: I know I'm going to play against a noob so I'll just bring all the units I typically don't use, or maybe the army with the lowest rate I currently have. I'm more experience and skilled, I don't need to win against him/her and playing with something that is usually shelved is fun and also a challenge. Alternatively: I show up at the store, knowing what the local meta is so I bring a list according to that. If someone with different goals in mind (aka he brought a netlist and can't tone it down or refuse to do it) ask me to play I politely refuse, simply because there would be no point of playing that game.
I have too many gaming buddies to know all their collections by heart. Also, the only way to match up lists to be "on par" is to have extensive knowledge of the current meta, which changes week-to-week, and is something *you* decried in this very post I'm replying to.
Naaah, at this point I just assume you are one of those posters who don't even play the game and only comment based on the numbers they read on the internet. I don't believe that everyone plays the netlists. Most competitive lists I see on goonhammer max out multiple specific units, and they're nowhere near what I see in real life. They're nowhere near what I can field as well. Those cherry-picked army lists are what I think average collections are, what the majority of players actually has, and how I believe the majority of games are actually played.
Given you exist in some sort of magical realm where people both are so casual they don't follow tournaments and are capable of rebalancing the game on the fly to a better degree of precision than GW themselves, I think it's more likely you don't play that often yourself. fething *everything* in the Tyranid codex is off the chain.
As far as maxing out specific units goes... it's not that uncommon. Some people just like, say, dreadnoughts or terminators. When Iron Hands were bonkers one of my friends who was an Iron Hands fan went from having an anemic list to having a crazy powerful one overnight. I like Mega-armor, I think the models are cool; if they were overpowered I'd be stomping people flat with them as I've fielded 3 units of them fairly often.
Yeah theme lists have always been potential problems and that is where pre game talks come in. You dont have to be absolutely on top of the meta to know a certain skew is overpowered.
Either the weaker player can throw in some stronger units if they own them or the stronger players can weaken the list or a mix of both but for good times something may have to give at times. Its all about compromise.
Blackie, your approach is flawed in such a way that there are too many conditions that need to be met in order to create such a "friendly" game.
1) at least one of the players needs to have a very in-depth knowledge of how the game works
2) one or both player need to have a large collection to swap around parts of their army
3) toning down or up for enough to the level of the other army is possible
4) at least one player can properly evaluate the other player's abilities
5) either both or neither player is trying to win game to the best of their abilities
If any of those 5 conditions are not met, the game crashes and burns and there are plenty reasons why each of them might not be true.
1) Is actually by far the biggest one. In our group the vast majority of players are seeking friendly games, yet many lack the knowledge to properly assess unit and army strength. Whenever two less informed player match, there is an extremely high chance of the game being a one-sided curb-stomp.
2) Two words: new players. Tim and Jake join your group at the same time, both buy a combat patrol of their favored army, Tim starts with the drukhari box, Jake starts with the BA box and both add a few models they like. Unless the miracle happens, Tim will always walk all over Jake unless one of them buys, paints and builds more models. And it's not just limited to new players, there are a lot of people who just own 2-3k of ten different armies. There is a good chance that their collection ends up to be too powerful for the average highlander army, no matter what they build.
3) One issue are just extremely weak codices or armies. For example, there was no way for an 8th edition WE army to have a fighting chance against 9th edition orks or DG unless I was deliberately tossing the game. Another issue are armies like harlequins, knights, custodes and to some extend GK, TS or DG - there just aren't many ways to build those armies, so there is naturally little room for tuning your game.
4) This is something which happens to me from time to time. I play against someone who is great at playing a certain army, or talks a lot about 40k tactics and list building, so I assume they are somewhat adept at the game. And then they field some janky list fully of weird units or just completely suck at playing their army and despite holding back as much as I can, I totally curb-stomp them. You can even artificially have this effect when someone tones down their list because they have read that orks are a weak army, while you are bringing your a-game to match the power of their army.
5) If one player is at the table to yell "blood for the blood god!" and charge everything he can while scoring 0 VP and the other player is trying to have a close game for the win, one of them will be going home unsatisfied.
I'm also someone always trying make those "friendly game" happen, but claiming it's easy or even shifting the blame for games not happening that way onto the players is not honest at all. Enabling and facilitating friendly games clearly lies with GW, and they are to blame for making the hurdles for such games as high as they are.
Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
Proxy and get models as and when you can afford. Its what we did as teens?
When you play at the store, the option to "proxy" in w40k is maybe a thing if you play your first 2-3 games. If 2-3 months down the roads, you try the same the store owner will just not let you play, probably giving you a fair number of warrning before that.
On top of that it is heck of confusing. My army is bad aka I like and use models which are bad for my faction. Could I take my dudes call each termintors either a strike or a interceptors and both my dreads NDKs? FOr 2 editions? People would just say that I either have to rebuy the army, or they won't play me.
And yeah there maybe differences, you are liked at the store, have many friends. One of the veterans or store owners is your uncle, dad, brother etc But if you are a fresh new player who starts the game mid edition or at the end, like now, there is no huge 20+ people wave of other new people to play against. People are streamlined in to a way of playing and will expect you to get proficient at it in a resonable amount of time.
As the "get models" things goes for some people this can be an edition of collecting a specific army, only for GW to nerf it when the new edition starts. Not many people who buy their armies are willing to do that. Unless again, they have income which makes a cost of a w40k or AoS non impactful.
Try explaining to your parent, who makes 600$, why you need 1000$ for plastic soldiers in a span of 6-9 months, assuming a power faction picked and not something that dips in 2-3 months, And why you will need another 1000$, in 2-3 years to update or switch the army, if it gets too unfun to play with. Confusion is the best thing you could expect, followed by an assumption you have high fever or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the fetish of GW for overpriced charachter centerpieces like Magnus is anyway an unhealthy way to start any army...
Try playing GK without 4, 5 at the start of 9th ed codex run. Or DE/Harlis without their opent top transports and tanks etc.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.
Karol wrote: The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.
Why would he want to do that? He spent real money on his models, hey he maybe even likes the magnus model. All of those actions make you no longer play a game, but rather some sort of play pretend. Makes winning or losing meaningless, and by virtute of that the whole game like that too. And if on top of that there are activities he has to do to play, which he doesn't like, it makes it even worse. Don't like painting models. Paint your magnus anyway. Now your opponent tells you, you can't use it. Come to a game, your opponent not only says what units you can or can not use , but you also have to pay the rent fee for the table etc. You litteraly would have to have a whole gigantic extra layer of things one would have to care about for such a way of playing to work.
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
You know that sounds like someone telling you to not use throwns durning training, because they are bad at taking or countering them. Turns the whole thing in to a mockery of the actual thing. Also you shouldn't have to be forced to invent stuff on your own. The game rules and models ain't free.
How would you even do those thing? The 30 year old player will not care about someone who has a X in 10 chance to drop out at the end of an edition, specialy when he can have a game with one of the veterans and not need to adjust anything. The teen dudes would have to first agree on something, and again what if they don't, what if the agreeing takes so much time, someone else rents out the table and then you can wait for 2+ hours and hope no one rented it for later gamers. Guess you can do it on zoom. but the problem with online opponent finding is that they tend to not show up. Specialy when they are local and have 10min walk to the store, while you take a 2 hour trip to another town to play. All those sit down and invent your own games is something don't do. And basing an entire game on it only favours those who already do it and don't care about such stuff as game rules, structure etc.
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the fetish of GW for overpriced charachter centerpieces like Magnus is anyway an unhealthy way to start any army...
Many people get drawn to the game or armies by those models though. We just had an eldar player return after a 20 year hiatus just because of the new Avatar and Maugan Ra, another player started TS just because of Magnus.
Not Online!!! wrote: Doesn't change the fact that it IS an unhealthy way to start an army.
NVM that gw can't into balance and such models always skew and are overly problematic (OP /UP)
Is it unhealthy because they are centerpiece models or is it unhealthy because big models have their rules written in a way that they can't function in small games?
There is a reason why you don't see any threads where people complain about Helbrecht, Lelith or the Triumph of St. Catherine, but you do see people complaining about redemptors all the time.
Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.
I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.
So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.
After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.
Sarigar wrote: Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.
I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.
So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.
After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.
GW got me again with a new release.
Master of executions feels like the dumbest unit in the dex right now. So many ways to kit him out where he's an absolute monster in combat. Played a few games with him last weekend and he was killing more than twice his cost in points per turn, no matter his loadout
Dysartes wrote: Could we agree on it being a game that we all want to enjoy, perhaps?
Yes.
However, the frustration is real.
Aye. Especially when the biggest roadblock to that enjoyment is because gw made one. Stupid. Pointless. And absolutely mean spirited, decision.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sarigar wrote: ... but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition...
Lash Prince was 4th. It was not in the 3.5 'Dex.
This has to be the most common mistake about 3.5. Lash Prince was the 4th edition codex. 3.5 was the Siren Prince. And only two, out of nine Legions could do it. And yet we all continue to pay the price.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And only two, out of nine Legions could do it. And yet we all continue to pay the price.
Siren prince wasn't even the strongest list of 3.5
But I would bet real money that GW doesn't take the 3.5 into account when writing their current rulesets. I have to wonder at this point how many of the designers at GW have even seen the book.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And only two, out of nine Legions could do it. And yet we all continue to pay the price.
Siren prince wasn't even the strongest list of 3.5
But I would bet real money that GW doesn't take the 3.5 into account when writing their current rulesets. I have to wonder at this point how many of the designers at GW have even seen the book.
None.
They went into the 5/6th edition progress of writing the codex for CSM in wd at the time.... touting how great the 4th edition dex was... all we got there was a uniqe looking warpsmith unlike the new one incoming which is just a primaris techmarine an apostle model that also was better than the current one and dino bots aswell as the hellturkey.
Dai wrote: Yeah theme lists have always been potential problems and that is where pre game talks come in. You dont have to be absolutely on top of the meta to know a certain skew is overpowered.
I think you do.
Dai wrote: Either the weaker player can throw in some stronger units if they own them or the stronger players can weaken the list or a mix of both but for good times something may have to give at times. Its all about compromise.
"My units aren't overpowered. I'm just a better player than you."
How do you deal with this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
And what if it turns out it's not fun to play because you both have no idea what you're doing trying to rebalance the game?
And what if one player is just bad, like the stereotypical "complains about competitive players but throws a hissy-fit if their opponent doesn't let them win" CAAC git? And their idea of "fun" is one in which their opponent doesn't have a fair chance?
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's a shame. Because HH2.0 has taken that fluffyness and cranked it up to 11. Not only do we get more ways to play the dirty fighters with A Talent For Murder, but the revamped Night Fighting rules and Night Lords ability to take Preysight (Night Vision) on everything (for a price now, and for good reason) truly makes the 8th Legion the "Lords of the Night". Nobody wants to deal with the 8th Legion after the sun sets.
What are the night fighting rules now? I would think that something that is situational and usually only in turns 1/2 wouldn't be quite so useful even if it's on point for the legion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl
Uhhh...good riddance. What a crutch that was.
Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks
Personally, I find that it's pretty clear as to why some units get icons/marks and others don't as a matter of both internal and external balance.
Hecaton wrote: "My units aren't overpowered. I'm just a better player than you."
How do you deal with this?
"Then being a better player surely you can cope with running a slightly softer list"?
Blackie's proposals undoubtedly work better for a relatively small group of friends playing garagehammer, as against going to a store and playing a stranger you will likely never meet again.
But a lot of people do play the former over the later, and I don't think its that much of a bar. Mainly because so much power in 40k often comes from combos.
Take the majority of lists in 40k. Change chapter A to chapter B. Change Relic/WLT/Psychic power choices from A to B. At a stroke its likely seemingly quite a bit worse and we have not yet begun messing with unit choices. Maybe at some point this seems so irrational you are "throwing" the game - but probably not. After all, you are the better player, running the better faction.
I don't think that means someone who's played the game twice is going to have an equal chance against someone who is serious, plays in tournaments every other week etc. But two players of roughly equal interest in the game shouldn't be so far apart.
What are the night fighting rules now? I would think that something that is situational and usually only in turns 1/2 wouldn't be quite so useful even if it's on point for the legion.
NF means a 24" max range unless a unit has a rule or equipment that ignores NF. It also reduces BS and Ld by1 as well.
NL have a RoW that can force NF for at least two turns and makes it easier for a 3rd IIRC.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's a shame. Because HH2.0 has taken that fluffyness and cranked it up to 11. Not only do we get more ways to play the dirty fighters with A Talent For Murder, but the revamped Night Fighting rules and Night Lords ability to take Preysight (Night Vision) on everything (for a price now, and for good reason) truly makes the 8th Legion the "Lords of the Night". Nobody wants to deal with the 8th Legion after the sun sets.
What are the night fighting rules now? I would think that something that is situational and usually only in turns 1/2 wouldn't be quite so useful even if it's on point for the legion.
Any player can call Night Fighting in a mission that allows it, which is currently 5/6 of the missions in the BRB. If they do, Night Fighting takes affect Turn 1 on a roll of a 2+, and continues in Turn 2 on a roll of a 4+, then ends on Turn 3. Night Lords can guarantee Night Fighting Turns 1 and 2 with it carrying over to Turn 3 on a 4+ by taking the Terror Assault RoW. During Night Fighting everything is -1BS and Leadership and can only draw LoS out to 24". Barrage weapons must reroll any rolls of a "hit" on the scatter dice.
Some optional equipment can avoid some of the penalties: Augury Scanners (available to some infantry) and searchlights (most vehicles, not dreadnoughts though) avoid the 24" LoS restriction, Nuncio Voxes avoid the -1 to Leadership. Any Night Lords unit can take Preysight for 15 points, which allows them to ignore ALL of the restrictions, as well as the Shrouded USR (the major component of one of the standard defensive Reactions) and Shroud Bombs. Note that the bonus for Preysight is on a "per unit" basis, while things like Augury Scanners and Nuncio Voxes are "per model", which means my snipers can remove your Night Fighting mitigation by killing single models, while you have to kill the entire unit to remove mine. And only Night Lords can get Dreadnoughts that avoid the restrictions.
That -1 to Leadership makes it easier to Pin a unit, especially when there's a Night Lords unit with Fear within 12" for an additional -1. And Night Lords get +1 to wound against anything that's Pinned (also against anything falling back or outnumbered) in both melee and shooting. And any Night Lords unit with Bloody Murder (Night Lords only rule) gets +1A and to charges against Pinned units.
Let that all sink in, and then look at the mess that the 9th edition CSM codex handed to the 8th Legion.
Not Online!!! wrote: Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl
Uhhh...good riddance. What a crutch that was.
Not Online was lamenting that double shooting/fight was left in the 9th edition CSM codex, not removed. We kept that, and almost 100 other stratagems, but lost core unit options we've had for decades in payment. That's a raw deal.
Blackie's proposals undoubtedly work better for a relatively small group of friends playing garagehammer, as against going to a store and playing a stranger you will likely never meet again.
They wouldn't work for my local gaming group down at the lgs. They're basically unworkable and *he* has the temerity to tell people they're doing it wrong? bs.
Take the majority of lists in 40k. Change chapter A to chapter B. Change Relic/WLT/Psychic power choices from A to B. At a stroke its likely seemingly quite a bit worse and we have not yet begun messing with unit choices. Maybe at some point this seems so irrational you are "throwing" the game - but probably not. After all, you are the better player, running the better faction.
Throwing the game isn't necessary for it to be unfun, just giving one player an unearned advantage is enough. When you have two players of unequal skill, the less skilled player demanding that his opponent purposefully handicap himself so the less skilled player has an advantage is peak casual player/scrub entitlement. It's disrespectful, selfish, and shouldn't be indulged.
I don't think that means someone who's played the game twice is going to have an equal chance against someone who is serious, plays in tournaments every other week etc. But two players of roughly equal interest in the game shouldn't be so far apart.
A player who has played twice is still in the learning stages. I'm talking about players who have played for a year or more.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's a shame. Because HH2.0 has taken that fluffyness and cranked it up to 11. Not only do we get more ways to play the dirty fighters with A Talent For Murder, but the revamped Night Fighting rules and Night Lords ability to take Preysight (Night Vision) on everything (for a price now, and for good reason) truly makes the 8th Legion the "Lords of the Night". Nobody wants to deal with the 8th Legion after the sun sets.
What are the night fighting rules now? I would think that something that is situational and usually only in turns 1/2 wouldn't be quite so useful even if it's on point for the legion.
Nightfighting is flat -1 on morale, no Los over 24 " It is requestable in most missions for the first and second turn. If you play against nightlords then the Nightlords can guarantee 2 turns of Night fighting through RoW and a 3rd on a 50/50. Also remember we are talking about actual Tables here, not dinky 40k mini wannabee tables introduced trough GW:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl
Uhhh...good riddance. What a crutch that was.
Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks
Personally, I find that it's pretty clear as to why some units get icons/marks and others don't as a matter of both internal and external balance.
We still got double shooting and Votwl in the codex, the codex didn't improve a damn thing design wise.
And then the icons and mark thingy balance decision...
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.
Karol wrote: The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
Why does the player using Magnus need to compromise?
Sarigar wrote: Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.
I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.
So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.
After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.
GW got me again with a new release.
Master of executions feels like the dumbest unit in the dex right now. So many ways to kit him out where he's an absolute monster in combat. Played a few games with him last weekend and he was killing more than twice his cost in points per turn, no matter his loadout
And here we have it, people complaining about the Master of Executions. The guy moving 6" a turn.
Wait until you guys find out what the duelist equivalents from the Loyalist codex can do!
I'm strictly an EC player so that plays a big part of my disappointment with this Codex. GW has made EC a sort of "oh yeah, them." Legion. The Legion trait isn't bad but it's not all that great. The fight first rule for the mark is too easily negated by the fact if my opponent only charges me with one unit then my mark is worthless. I can have a unit of Legionaires that is, in every way, the equivalent of my Noise Marines and yet they cost less to field. 10 Marines with CCW and BP and Mark of Slaneesh is 200 pts [giving Champ Plas Pistol]. The same load out on 10 Noise Marines is 215 pts. They are literally the same units but the Noise Marines cost 15 points more. It's not the amount of points that bothers me. It's the idiocy of GW charging more points for the exact same thing.
Its also that GW took away the second blast master for units of 10. Someone in another thread told me it's because with the new rules blastmasters are approximately twice as good as before. While this may be true I'm not a fan of having to go out and replace my second blast master with a sonic blaster when I've used the same unit for years. There is no reason for GW to make this arbitrary decision. It's not like I don't pay a hefty point cost to get the blastmaster or that I can "load up" on them. But for some reason having two of them in one unit is too much.
Overall I'm just not impressed with this Codex. It's too restrictive for me both in terms of model choice(s) and equipment choice(s) not to mention all of the weird decisions like "In this unit a power sword is a power sword but in this unit a power sword uses a different set of modifiers and rules". All in all I'm just tired of GW's dumping on Chaos.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.
Karol wrote: The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
Why does the player using Magnus need to compromise?
Sarigar wrote: Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.
I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.
So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.
After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.
GW got me again with a new release.
Master of executions feels like the dumbest unit in the dex right now. So many ways to kit him out where he's an absolute monster in combat. Played a few games with him last weekend and he was killing more than twice his cost in points per turn, no matter his loadout
And here we have it, people complaining about the Master of Executions. The guy moving 6" a turn.
Wait until you guys find out what the duelist equivalents from the Loyalist codex can do!
I legitimately don't know, what can they do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm strictly an EC player so that plays a big part of my disappointment with this Codex. GW has made EC a sort of "oh yeah, them." Legion. The Legion trait isn't bad but it's not all that great. The fight first rule for the mark is too easily negated by the fact if my opponent only charges me with one unit then my mark is worthless. I can have a unit of Legionaires that is, in every way, the equivalent of my Noise Marines and yet they cost less to field. 10 Marines with CCW and BP and Mark of Slaneesh is 200 pts [giving Champ Plas Pistol]. The same load out on 10 Noise Marines is 215 pts. They are literally the same units but the Noise Marines cost 15 points more. It's not the amount of points that bothers me. It's the idiocy of GW charging more points for the exact same thing.
Its also that GW took away the second blast master for units of 10. Someone in another thread told me it's because with the new rules blastmasters are approximately twice as good as before. While this may be true I'm not a fan of having to go out and replace my second blast master with a sonic blaster when I've used the same unit for years. There is no reason for GW to make this arbitrary decision. It's not like I don't pay a hefty point cost to get the blastmaster or that I can "load up" on them. But for some reason having two of them in one unit is too much.
Overall I'm just not impressed with this Codex. It's too restrictive for me both in terms of model choice(s) and equipment choice(s) not to mention all of the weird decisions like "In this unit a power sword is a power sword but in this unit a power sword uses a different set of modifiers and rules. All in all I'm just tired of GW's dumping on Chaos.
That's all fair, I can see why it's not for everyone's taste.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.
Karol wrote: The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
Why does the player using Magnus need to compromise?
Sarigar wrote: Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.
I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.
So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.
After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.
GW got me again with a new release.
Master of executions feels like the dumbest unit in the dex right now. So many ways to kit him out where he's an absolute monster in combat. Played a few games with him last weekend and he was killing more than twice his cost in points per turn, no matter his loadout
And here we have it, people complaining about the Master of Executions. The guy moving 6" a turn.
Wait until you guys find out what the duelist equivalents from the Loyalist codex can do!
I legitimately don't know, what can they do?
They have a Bolt Pistol and Relic Blade (S+3, AP-3, D2). They reroll wounds against characters, and on a wound roll of six they inflict 2 Mortal Wounds and the attack sequence ends. I literally only use one because Red Corsairs. Otherwise, what Loyalists can do is significantly better.
Not Online!!! wrote: We still got double shooting and Votwl in the codex, the codex didn't improve a damn thing design wise.
Yes, but it's nowhere what it used to be to the point that it isn't an issue.
And then the icons and mark thingy balance decision...
Spoiler:
Super cereal.
Icons on Terminators would make them the de-facto unit in the book above all else / Marks on Obliterators would force you to take units of 3 for the cost savings and would make them pretty silly with T5 2+ AOC and INFANTRY / Icons on Havocs changes a lot of the basic considerations to favor Nurgle / etc.
Any player can call Night Fighting in a mission that allows it, which is currently 5/6 of the missions in the BRB. If they do, Night Fighting takes affect Turn 1 on a roll of a 2+, and continues in Turn 2 on a roll of a 4+, then ends on Turn 3. Night Lords can guarantee Night Fighting Turns 1 and 2 with it carrying over to Turn 3 on a 4+ by taking the Terror Assault RoW. During Night Fighting everything is -1BS and Leadership and can only draw LoS out to 24". Barrage weapons must reroll any rolls of a "hit" on the scatter dice.
Some optional equipment can avoid some of the penalties: Augury Scanners (available to some infantry) and searchlights (most vehicles, not dreadnoughts though) avoid the 24" LoS restriction, Nuncio Voxes avoid the -1 to Leadership. Any Night Lords unit can take Preysight for 15 points, which allows them to ignore ALL of the restrictions, as well as the Shrouded USR (the major component of one of the standard defensive Reactions) and Shroud Bombs. Note that the bonus for Preysight is on a "per unit" basis, while things like Augury Scanners and Nuncio Voxes are "per model", which means my snipers can remove your Night Fighting mitigation by killing single models, while you have to kill the entire unit to remove mine. And only Night Lords can get Dreadnoughts that avoid the restrictions.
That -1 to Leadership makes it easier to Pin a unit, especially when there's a Night Lords unit with Fear within 12" for an additional -1. And Night Lords get +1 to wound against anything that's Pinned (also against anything falling back or outnumbered) in both melee and shooting. And any Night Lords unit with Bloody Murder (Night Lords only rule) gets +1A and to charges against Pinned units.
Let that all sink in, and then look at the mess that the 9th edition CSM codex handed to the 8th Legion.
That's all pretty cool and I dare say potentially meta warping, but I have no experience in the new HH rules to really follow through on that statement.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.
Karol wrote: The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
Why does the player using Magnus need to compromise?
Sarigar wrote: Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.
I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.
So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.
After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.
GW got me again with a new release.
Master of executions feels like the dumbest unit in the dex right now. So many ways to kit him out where he's an absolute monster in combat. Played a few games with him last weekend and he was killing more than twice his cost in points per turn, no matter his loadout
And here we have it, people complaining about the Master of Executions. The guy moving 6" a turn.
Wait until you guys find out what the duelist equivalents from the Loyalist codex can do!
I legitimately don't know, what can they do?
They have a Bolt Pistol and Relic Blade (S+3, AP-3, D2). They reroll wounds against characters, and on a wound roll of six they inflict 2 Mortal Wounds and the attack sequence ends. I literally only use one because Red Corsairs. Otherwise, what Loyalists can do is significantly better.
No, sorry, what can the loyalist ones do that's better?
And here we have it, people complaining about the Master of Executions. The guy moving 6" a turn.
Wait until you guys find out what the duelist equivalents from the Loyalist codex can do!
I legitimately don't know, what can they do?
They have a Bolt Pistol and Relic Blade (S+3, AP-3, D2). They reroll wounds against characters, and on a wound roll of six they inflict 2 Mortal Wounds and the attack sequence ends. I literally only use one because Red Corsairs. Otherwise, what Loyalists can do is significantly better.
I'm not complaining, just pointing out that he's a brutal melee unit, and no, you can kit him out to have a lot more damage output than what loyalists can do. Also, 6" isnt exactly slow when the current mission design basically makes every game into a midfield slapfest anyway.
In my nights lords with no external buffs i can get him :
6+D3 attacks with exploding 6's all game
S8 -3 2 D3+2 damage
Exploding 6's means he basically deals 2 mortals in addition to the regular damage
and thats far from the most output you can get out of that 80pts model.
slap Demonic strength on top and he's now at 8+D3 S10 attacks
Speaking personally, I bought the 7th and 8th ed CSM books, but won't be buying the 9th ed one. I don't like the overall direction of 9th ed books. Should I play chaos I will play either an older edition or get the rules some other way.
Insectum7 wrote: Speaking personally, I bought the 7th and 8th ed CSM books, but won't be buying the 9th ed one. I don't like the overall direction of 9th ed books. Should I play chaos I will play either an older edition or get the rules some other way.
i'm done buying codexes altogether. The formatting in them sucks too much and theyre a pain to navigate.
I'm not complaining, just pointing out that he's a brutal melee unit, and no, you can kit him out to have a lot more damage output than what loyalists can do. Also, 6" isnt exactly slow when the current mission design basically makes every game into a midfield slapfest anyway.
But with the number of shoting armies around, MW spam , a meq stated character with a milion of attacks is not going to reach melee, unless the opposing army is melee centric only. 6" means that against some of the top armies, he is never going to be in melee unless they want it, and that may mean your opponent thinks he can kill the executioner.
I'm not complaining, just pointing out that he's a brutal melee unit, and no, you can kit him out to have a lot more damage output than what loyalists can do. Also, 6" isnt exactly slow when the current mission design basically makes every game into a midfield slapfest anyway.
But with the number of shoting armies around, MW spam , a meq stated character with a milion of attacks is not going to reach melee, unless the opposing army is melee centric only. 6" means that against some of the top armies, he is never going to be in melee unless they want it, and that may mean your opponent thinks he can kill the executioner.
i don't know what world you live in where reaching the midfield with a character isnt possible
Any player can call Night Fighting in a mission that allows it, which is currently 5/6 of the missions in the BRB. If they do, Night Fighting takes affect Turn 1 on a roll of a 2+, and continues in Turn 2 on a roll of a 4+, then ends on Turn 3. Night Lords can guarantee Night Fighting Turns 1 and 2 with it carrying over to Turn 3 on a 4+ by taking the Terror Assault RoW. During Night Fighting everything is -1BS and Leadership and can only draw LoS out to 24". Barrage weapons must reroll any rolls of a "hit" on the scatter dice.
Some optional equipment can avoid some of the penalties: Augury Scanners (available to some infantry) and searchlights (most vehicles, not dreadnoughts though) avoid the 24" LoS restriction, Nuncio Voxes avoid the -1 to Leadership. Any Night Lords unit can take Preysight for 15 points, which allows them to ignore ALL of the restrictions, as well as the Shrouded USR (the major component of one of the standard defensive Reactions) and Shroud Bombs. Note that the bonus for Preysight is on a "per unit" basis, while things like Augury Scanners and Nuncio Voxes are "per model", which means my snipers can remove your Night Fighting mitigation by killing single models, while you have to kill the entire unit to remove mine. And only Night Lords can get Dreadnoughts that avoid the restrictions.
That -1 to Leadership makes it easier to Pin a unit, especially when there's a Night Lords unit with Fear within 12" for an additional -1. And Night Lords get +1 to wound against anything that's Pinned (also against anything falling back or outnumbered) in both melee and shooting. And any Night Lords unit with Bloody Murder (Night Lords only rule) gets +1A and to charges against Pinned units.
Let that all sink in, and then look at the mess that the 9th edition CSM codex handed to the 8th Legion.
That's all pretty cool and I dare say potentially meta warping, but I have no experience in the new HH rules to really follow through on that statement.
It's modified (personally, I'd say fixed) 7th edition rules Daed. I think you can work it out. But what it all amounts to, in addition to the stuff that I left out (like that A Talent For Murder also adds +1 to Penetration rolls if you can get it to proc. Or that all of the Night Lords special units, something that we don't get in 40k, rock. Or, most important, our characters get to keep their jump packs and lightning claws), is that the HH writers wrote the 8th Legion the best rules they've ever had. And the 9th edition CSM gives us possibly the worst (I'd kick it up to 4th-5th if it wasn't for what they did to our HQs).
Insectum7 wrote:Speaking personally, I bought the 7th and 8th ed CSM books, but won't be buying the 9th ed one. I don't like the overall direction of 9th ed books. Should I play chaos I will play either an older edition or get the rules some other way.
And I've bought every codex and applicable supplement since I started in late 3rd (so: 3.5, 4th, 6th, and 8th edition codexes + Eye of Terror, IA13, Traitor Legions, Faith and Fury, and the Imperial Armour Compendium). But if they don't fix what they did to my characters, then they can eat their codex for all I care.
i don't know what world you live in where reaching the midfield with a character isnt possible
Oh you can reach or try to reach it, but a foot meq character is going to die. In fact I could say the reverse , how can you play vs eldar or tyranids or necron or bloody rose and have your dude not just not die, but trade efficiently. Same with DE, maybe it would work vs orks and ad mecha, espcialy if the ad mecha are played by a bad or avarge player.
And how I know it? I don't use NDKs, all my characters are termintors and they are faster, because they can teleport in.
i don't know what world you live in where reaching the midfield with a character isnt possible
Oh you can reach or try to reach it, but a foot meq character is going to die. In fact I could say the reverse , how can you play vs eldar or tyranids or necron or bloody rose and have your dude not just not die, but trade efficiently. Same with DE, maybe it would work vs orks and ad mecha, espcialy if the ad mecha are played by a bad or avarge player.
And how I know it? I don't use NDKs, all my characters are termintors and they are faster, because they can teleport in.
stick him in a transport, surround him with resilient stuff like terminators, apply pressure with other units that your opponent has to deal with.
Oh and if he does end up dead without connection, its not a big deal since he's 80points.... And you can kit him out where he gets a 2+/4++/ignores first damage per turn if you really want him to survive
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.
Karol wrote: The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.
Why does the player using Magnus need to compromise?
Sarigar wrote: Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.
I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.
So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.
After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.
GW got me again with a new release.
Master of executions feels like the dumbest unit in the dex right now. So many ways to kit him out where he's an absolute monster in combat. Played a few games with him last weekend and he was killing more than twice his cost in points per turn, no matter his loadout
And here we have it, people complaining about the Master of Executions. The guy moving 6" a turn.
Wait until you guys find out what the duelist equivalents from the Loyalist codex can do!
I legitimately don't know, what can they do?
They have a Bolt Pistol and Relic Blade (S+3, AP-3, D2). They reroll wounds against characters, and on a wound roll of six they inflict 2 Mortal Wounds and the attack sequence ends. I literally only use one because Red Corsairs. Otherwise, what Loyalists can do is significantly better.
No, sorry, what can the loyalist ones do that's better?
Depends the route you want me to really explain. Loyalists have three duelist characters off the top of my head:
Chapter Champion
Emperors Champion
Judiciar
The second one is not exactly generic of course, but I'll count it since it replaces one of the entries out right if going the Templar route.
The Relic and Warlord Trait access is just astronomically more. Ad I said, if it weren't for the Red Corsairs trait, I wouldn't even look at the Master. Meanwhile, every Marine chapter can make some use of the Champs even if not necessary for the army.
Depends the route you want me to really explain. Loyalists have three duelist characters off the top of my head:
Chapter Champion
Emperors Champion
Judiciar
The second one is not exactly generic of course, but I'll count it since it replaces one of the entries out right if going the Templar route.
The Relic and Warlord Trait access is just astronomically more. Ad I said, if it weren't for the Red Corsairs trait, I wouldn't even look at the Master. Meanwhile, every Marine chapter can make some use of the Champs even if not necessary for the army.
just post a loadout that outperforms the master of execs
i don't know what world you live in where reaching the midfield with a character isnt possible
Oh you can reach or try to reach it, but a foot meq character is going to die. In fact I could say the reverse , how can you play vs eldar or tyranids or necron or bloody rose and have your dude not just not die, but trade efficiently. Same with DE, maybe it would work vs orks and ad mecha, espcialy if the ad mecha are played by a bad or avarge player.
And how I know it? I don't use NDKs, all my characters are termintors and they are faster, because they can teleport in.
stick him in a transport, surround him with resilient stuff like terminators, apply pressure with other units that your opponent has to deal with.
Oh and if he does end up dead without connection, its not a big deal since he's 80points.... And you can kit him out where he gets a 2+/4++/ignores first damage per turn if you really want him to survive
But that's the thing. You said initially no external buffs, but that's what you're using. Meanwhile, the Judiciar has a 4++ in melee and won't allow any attacking until he fought first.
i don't know what world you live in where reaching the midfield with a character isnt possible
Oh you can reach or try to reach it, but a foot meq character is going to die. In fact I could say the reverse , how can you play vs eldar or tyranids or necron or bloody rose and have your dude not just not die, but trade efficiently. Same with DE, maybe it would work vs orks and ad mecha, espcialy if the ad mecha are played by a bad or avarge player.
And how I know it? I don't use NDKs, all my characters are termintors and they are faster, because they can teleport in.
stick him in a transport, surround him with resilient stuff like terminators, apply pressure with other units that your opponent has to deal with.
Oh and if he does end up dead without connection, its not a big deal since he's 80points.... And you can kit him out where he gets a 2+/4++/ignores first damage per turn if you really want him to survive
But that's the thing. You said initially no external buffs, but that's what you're using. Meanwhile, the Judiciar has a 4++ in melee and won't allow any attacking until he fought first.
external buffs meaning : strats/psychic/auras. I don't count stuff that he himself brings to the table as external, so Relic/Trait is fine.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
So simple:
If I take Magnus out, you take out the same number of points.
<DONE>
Note: You may have to pull a rubric out of the squad to use as a Lord if you only brought 1 HQ.
Depends the route you want me to really explain. Loyalists have three duelist characters off the top of my head:
Chapter Champion
Emperors Champion
Judiciar
The second one is not exactly generic of course, but I'll count it since it replaces one of the entries out right if going the Templar route.
The Relic and Warlord Trait access is just astronomically more. Ad I said, if it weren't for the Red Corsairs trait, I wouldn't even look at the Master. Meanwhile, every Marine chapter can make some use of the Champs even if not necessary for the army.
just post a loadout that outperforms the master of execs
That's a tough one to specifically do since there's a ton I'd rather take. Off the top of my head you can do I did a while back:
Judiciar
. Black Templar
. Warlord Trait: Champion of Humanity
. Relic: Tanhausers Bones
. Vow: Depends on enemy composition, but for that game I did Accept Any Challenge.
So he's always swinging at 5 attacks with the relic blade that does an extra mortal wound on a 6 to wound with the Vow bringing those main attacks to AP-4. Warlord Trait gives the extra attack vs enemy characters and +1 to hit and wound them. Lastly, he has the Bones to turn all attacks into D1. Couple in the core abilities he already has (4++ in melee and force opponent to strike last) and being a Black Templar, you got a lot of bang for your buck. That's a lot better than your "throw everything at the Master to make him strike at S10".
And I did this more casually. If I tried stacking everything I could on the Judiciar it's no contest.
VladimirHerzog wrote: The formatting in them sucks too much and theyre a pain to navigate.
What?!, the codex is so brilliantly laid out. I mean GW 'editors' plopped the crusade rules right in the middle of strats, spells, and other generic rules splitting them from datasheets and weapon stats by like 20 pages.
That's soo great. Because even if you are playing Crusade, you still get to pass over those rules anytime you want to look up, for example; how many attacks Raptors have now, then check to see what stratagems (perhaps in both Legion specific AND generic potentially which are expertly also in different spots) only to flip past all the Crusade rules again to check on datasheet or weapon info. The genius of wedging in 20 pages (many of which look like the regular legion rules sections) that even players playing that mode has to skip over is simply amazing!
It's just sooo fantastic of GW to place the Crusade rules there like a commercial TV break in literature form to entice players to play Crusade... Or as a sort of flash cards when you are playing Crusade, and you have to flip back-and-forth between datasheets and weapons and the rest of the rules. Par Excellence!
I mean, I must be soooo stupid, and would have put the crusade rules either before or after the rules players would most commonly refer to during games, so the codex is easier to use. Obviously, I lack foresight of GW 'editors' to chuck a bunch of pages that most players aren't even going to use when playing that mode. Just so everyone has to pass over them all the time using the book during a game!
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
So simple:
If I take Magnus out, you take out the same number of points.
<DONE>
Note: You may have to pull a rubric out of the squad to use as a Lord if you only brought 1 HQ.
Or they still use Magnus. Why should any player have to remove a model from their army just because the opponent has a hissyfit?
Depends the route you want me to really explain. Loyalists have three duelist characters off the top of my head:
Chapter Champion
Emperors Champion
Judiciar
The second one is not exactly generic of course, but I'll count it since it replaces one of the entries out right if going the Templar route.
The Relic and Warlord Trait access is just astronomically more. Ad I said, if it weren't for the Red Corsairs trait, I wouldn't even look at the Master. Meanwhile, every Marine chapter can make some use of the Champs even if not necessary for the army.
just post a loadout that outperforms the master of execs
That's a tough one to specifically do since there's a ton I'd rather take. Off the top of my head you can do I did a while back:
Judiciar
. Black Templar
. Warlord Trait: Champion of Humanity
. Relic: Tanhausers Bones
. Vow: Depends on enemy composition, but for that game I did Accept Any Challenge.
So he's always swinging at 5 attacks with the relic blade that does an extra mortal wound on a 6 to wound with the Vow bringing those main attacks to AP-4. Warlord Trait gives the extra attack vs enemy characters and +1 to hit and wound them. Lastly, he has the Bones to turn all attacks into D1. Couple in the core abilities he already has (4++ in melee and force opponent to strike last) and being a Black Templar, you got a lot of bang for your buck. That's a lot better than your "throw everything at the Master to make him strike at S10".
And I did this more casually. If I tried stacking everything I could on the Judiciar it's no contest.
How does strike first and last cancel out these days? If it helps mark of slaanesh, if not, mark of tzeentch. Assuming slaanesh, intoxicating elixir means the judiciar literally can't kill him and add on gaze of the gods for a 4++ and permanent wantons. In return the master drops 6+d3 attacks, call it 7 hits, you should be able to fish 4 MW out, and 2 more wounds. And with some luck that's a dead judiciar that turn, if not the next.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
So simple:
If I take Magnus out, you take out the same number of points.
<DONE>
Note: You may have to pull a rubric out of the squad to use as a Lord if you only brought 1 HQ.
alternatively : OK, i'll play Magnus as a demon prince
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
So simple:
If I take Magnus out, you take out the same number of points.
<DONE>
Note: You may have to pull a rubric out of the squad to use as a Lord if you only brought 1 HQ.
Or they still use Magnus. Why should any player have to remove a model from their army just because the opponent has a hissyfit?
Because Magnus + Start collecting is a lot more points than most other big models + start collecting.
Depends the route you want me to really explain. Loyalists have three duelist characters off the top of my head:
Chapter Champion
Emperors Champion
Judiciar
The second one is not exactly generic of course, but I'll count it since it replaces one of the entries out right if going the Templar route.
The Relic and Warlord Trait access is just astronomically more. Ad I said, if it weren't for the Red Corsairs trait, I wouldn't even look at the Master. Meanwhile, every Marine chapter can make some use of the Champs even if not necessary for the army.
just post a loadout that outperforms the master of execs
That's a tough one to specifically do since there's a ton I'd rather take. Off the top of my head you can do I did a while back:
Judiciar
. Black Templar
. Warlord Trait: Champion of Humanity
. Relic: Tanhausers Bones
. Vow: Depends on enemy composition, but for that game I did Accept Any Challenge.
So he's always swinging at 5 attacks with the relic blade that does an extra mortal wound on a 6 to wound with the Vow bringing those main attacks to AP-4. Warlord Trait gives the extra attack vs enemy characters and +1 to hit and wound them. Lastly, he has the Bones to turn all attacks into D1. Couple in the core abilities he already has (4++ in melee and force opponent to strike last) and being a Black Templar, you got a lot of bang for your buck. That's a lot better than your "throw everything at the Master to make him strike at S10".
And I did this more casually. If I tried stacking everything I could on the Judiciar it's no contest.
How does strike first and last cancel out these days? If it helps mark of slaanesh, if not, mark of tzeentch. Assuming slaanesh, intoxicating elixir means the judiciar literally can't kill him and add on gaze of the gods for a 4++ and permanent wantons. In return the master drops 6+d3 attacks, call it 7 hits, you should be able to fish 4 MW out, and 2 more wounds. And with some luck that's a dead judiciar that turn, if not the next.
This was a TAC list. So I'm not specifically gearing out just to kill the Master of Executions in the same way you're getting to choose MoT vs MoS.
Dysartes wrote: Could we agree on it being a game that we all want to enjoy, perhaps?
Yes.
However, the frustration is real.
Aye. Especially when the biggest roadblock to that enjoyment is because gw made one. Stupid. Pointless. And absolutely mean spirited, decision.
Just ONE?? I'm sure that the count has to be higher than that....
Notice that I said the "biggest" roadblock. I can deal with having a Legion trait (been doing that since 8th edition), I can deal with the stupid loadout restrictions (ok, I guess all of my Aspiring Champions just have power fists with pointy fingers and blades on them now), but no jump pack Characters in a Night Lords army? That's the last straw.
VladimirHerzog wrote: stick him in a transport, surround him with resilient stuff like terminators, apply pressure with other units that your opponent has to deal with.
Oh and if he does end up dead without connection, its not a big deal since he's 80points.... And you can kit him out where he gets a 2+/4++/ignores first damage per turn if you really want him to survive
If he's so good, what are the odds he ends up in a list that top 4s a tournament within the next month? I mean he's so killy how could top players not run him.
VladimirHerzog wrote: stick him in a transport, surround him with resilient stuff like terminators, apply pressure with other units that your opponent has to deal with.
Oh and if he does end up dead without connection, its not a big deal since he's 80points.... And you can kit him out where he gets a 2+/4++/ignores first damage per turn if you really want him to survive
If he's so good, what are the odds he ends up in a list that top 4s a tournament within the next month? I mean he's so killy how could top players not run him.
Quite frankly I find it weird to even give him a mark since he's one of the better targets for the Individed Daemon Weapon.
VladimirHerzog wrote: stick him in a transport, surround him with resilient stuff like terminators, apply pressure with other units that your opponent has to deal with.
Oh and if he does end up dead without connection, its not a big deal since he's 80points.... And you can kit him out where he gets a 2+/4++/ignores first damage per turn if you really want him to survive
If he's so good, what are the odds he ends up in a list that top 4s a tournament within the next month? I mean he's so killy how could top players not run him.
Night Lords player with two of them went 4-1 this past weekend.
Pros: All the 30k terminators with unique melee weapons can be fielded as accursed weapons, marks/icons actually do something, daemon weapons are worth using, 2 wounds, and updated traits/relics. 54% winrate according to the metamonday post on reddit so it is playable.
Cons:The codex is hyper sold out everywhere including ebay, 10+ datasheets that couldn't be purchased on launch, massive reduction in build options including illegal loadout models that are currently being sold, and multiple FW datasheets are now broken due to missing keywords.
Doesn't sound like a bonafide success, but overall it should be fixable after a month or two of releases/faqs.
VladimirHerzog wrote: stick him in a transport, surround him with resilient stuff like terminators, apply pressure with other units that your opponent has to deal with.
Oh and if he does end up dead without connection, its not a big deal since he's 80points.... And you can kit him out where he gets a 2+/4++/ignores first damage per turn if you really want him to survive
If he's so good, what are the odds he ends up in a list that top 4s a tournament within the next month? I mean he's so killy how could top players not run him.
Night Lords player with two of them went 4-1 this past weekend.
Yes... in a 31 player slightly larger than RTT event. This isn't like a mid sized GT event or anything.
Let's see that in a larger event before we start celebrating the success.
I am very frustrated with this release enough that I returned the book. There's some really nice entries but overall they just don't outweigh what I lost. And now over 80 percent of my army is illegally modelled. There's so little customization for unit and character entries it'd sickening. This has always been one of the main draws of 40k for me. Losing this aspect not only kills my drive to brew but I feel will reduce longevity of the book from a competitive standpoint.
The book is linear it lacks variety and credible ranged options. It leans heavily on the immortal terminators and mop synergies but when the durability stacking is inevitably faq'd away the book will be left weak. And that's actually my last concern.
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community at the expense of everyone else. Better to make a separate rules set to limit abuse rather than handcuff the entire thing.
I consider it overall worse than what we had and much of that subtle so may not even be apparent to some players yet. And they couldn't even put AOC in the book lolz.
It could have been stellar with some reasonable changes. If they hadn't leaned on the durability stacking so hard, removed customization in nearly every entry, deleted classic popular wargear, increased strat costs and even nerfed many entries on top of it all.
My main hope now is they pull another traitor legions and print a completely new one in 2 months. Happened before..
Also, your denigration of people who play "competitive" smacks of catty, scrubby behavior, and is anti-growth mindset. It's very common to agree to a test of wits with your friends, which is what a good strategy game *should* be. It's the mental equivalent of play wrestling, which every mammal from rodents to humans does; being phobic of competing in an environment where you can't be hurt is something you should work on, and is likely a result of some kind of insecurity. It's not unsportsmanlike to try your best to beat your opponent, as long as you follow the rules of the game and are gracious in your demeanor.
I have too many gaming buddies to know all their collections by heart. Also, the only way to match up lists to be "on par" is to have extensive knowledge of the current meta, which changes week-to-week, and is something *you* decried in this very post I'm replying to.
I havent't decried anything, nor I denigrated competitive people. I just say play with people sharing your own mindset. I sometimes play competitive games, but I need to know in advance I'm going to play such kind of games. Because, as I said, there's no point in playing 40k games when one list is much better than the other one. I believe it'd be a waste of time, that's it. I avoid this kind of unbalance with pre-game talk. I wish I didn't have to do it, but at least I need much less effort now than in previous editions, including the last one. It's one of the reasons why I like 9th edition, definitely more than anything post 5th.
But unlike you I have a very different idea of a friendly game. That's ok, no problem. I'm not even against blind games, I simply believe they only work for competitive people who are willing to chase to flavour of the month. So if someone is not willing to do it, that player should simply try to avoid playing such kind of games, simple. 40k is everyone's game, people do seek different goals in their hobby, there isn't a best way to play 40k.
Going back to CSM, I finally read the codex. The whole 97 stratagems is a bit disingenuous since most of them are either legion of god locked. Yeah, the codex has tons of rules, but during the game one player has a set of 20ish stratagems available, not the whole hundred.
Generally speaking I like the idea of giving different rules/tools for different subfaction, that's not the bloat I'd like to be reduced. It's wargear and datasheets that I'd like to be merged. And army wide rules also.
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
So is the community only interested in easy win books or do they prefer something to be balanced and middle of the road?
I agree it doesn't seem to pander to anyone but don't give the competitive community the wrong image.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: I am very frustrated with this release enough that I returned the book. There's some really nice entries but overall they just don't outweigh what I lost. And now over 80 percent of my army is illegally modelled.
Is 80% of your army jump lords and Terminators with combi-Plas and/or dual lightning claws?
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
So is the community only interested in easy win books or do they prefer something to be balanced and middle of the road?
I agree it doesn't seem to pander to anyone but don't give the competitive community the wrong image.
indeed. However the Moe specifically is wasted design space.
the fact that the MoE exists, and isn't just another loadout option for an aspiring champion is already a design failure, the fact that like the aspiring champion he has no options to speak of beyond relics or WLT^'s is... euugh.
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
I think he meant that it panders to the competitive side by being simplified and stripped of options so that it would be easier to balance, not that GW ever does anything to balance the game other than show intent to surgically balance then preform that surgery with a sledgehammer.
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
So is the community only interested in easy win books or do they prefer something to be balanced and middle of the road?
I agree it doesn't seem to pander to anyone but don't give the competitive community the wrong image.
I don't think it's that close to middle of the road to be frank. I keep going over the codex and things just don't mesh well. It means I have to go back to writing lists as Carcharodons or Black Templars, but I ain't complaining. After all, if you make your Marines any color you want you aren't relegated to a specific codex. However, anyone wanting to use Chaos Marines, be it in a casual or competitive setting, is going to be pretty disappointed with the performance AND options in both mindsets.
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
I think he meant that it panders to the competitive side by being simplified and stripped of options so that it would be easier to balance, not that GW ever does anything to balance the game other than show intent to surgically balance then preform that surgery with a sledgehammer.
Strange, as the "too many options" complaint wasn't heard once with Tau.
Strange, as the "too many options" complaint wasn't heard once with Tau.
I'm going to assume you mean neither competitive player or casual complained about too many option, which they didn't because it's not clear what you're refering to. All player love options, its about the only time casual and competitive people will agree. But GW thinks simplified rules (in terms of variety such as with Chaos terminator power weapons) are easier to balance. Thats why most special rules now are now some form of +/-1 modifier, reroll aura or whatnot. Balance is something competitive players demand and casual players are fairly "ech" about.
Dudeface wrote: Is 80% of your army jump lords and Terminators with combi-Plas and/or dual lightning claws?
Combi-weapon Chosen, any of the Cult Marines that are now not in the Codex, Mutilators, and while yes every single person who did duplicate weapons on their CSM or used 20 man units now just has more squads, it's not a solution to the problem and forces those players into MSU.
Didn't the CSM 'dex include something that allowed the Cult units no longer in the book to still be used in Heretic Astartes detachments without breaking 'dex-special-rules?
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
So is the community only interested in easy win books or do they prefer something to be balanced and middle of the road?
I agree it doesn't seem to pander to anyone but don't give the competitive community the wrong image.
indeed. However the Moe specifically is wasted design space.
the fact that the MoE exists, and isn't just another loadout option for an aspiring champion is already a design failure, the fact that like the aspiring champion he has no options to speak of beyond relics or WLT^'s is... euugh.
it's just not a good datasheet.
It's weird how they went so far to reduce actual equipment options and then tried to replace them with relics/traits, only to have that particular plan fall apart under the Nephalim rules. This codex was nerfed before it even hit the table.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Be sure to write to GW about your decision and how they've invalidated so much of your army.
I encourage all Chaos players to do the same.
Once I've finished my runthrough of the book I'll be collecting my thoughts in a letter as well.
Seconded. Just complaining on Dakka won't accomplish much. Let gw know what you think of this book people.
Looking forward to your review H.B.M.C.. Will you be comparing this codex to any other recent gw publications that also cover the Traitor Legions in it? I think that might be Interesting.
Dysartes wrote: Didn't the CSM 'dex include something that allowed the Cult units no longer in the book to still be used in Heretic Astartes detachments without breaking 'dex-special-rules?
Sure let me just spend another £90 on three more Codexes for the one unit per book.
Dysartes wrote: Didn't the CSM 'dex include something that allowed the Cult units no longer in the book to still be used in Heretic Astartes detachments without breaking 'dex-special-rules?
Sure let me just spend another £90 on three more Codexes for the one unit per book.
So they would be in the "not invalidated" section when it comes to units, then? Glad to hear we're on the same page, Gert.
"Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
I mean if you have 1600 points of combi weapon chosen/terminators, jump lords, raptor champions with claws and cult units you don't want to buy other rules for, that sucks. But its far from ordinary.
I was more thinking of a comparison to the Liber Hereticus, as the difference is both stark and surprising, considering how closely in time the two books were released and most likely written. But I guess I did a bit of that up thread already.
Gert wrote:
Dysartes wrote: Didn't the CSM 'dex include something that allowed the Cult units no longer in the book to still be used in Heretic Astartes detachments without breaking 'dex-special-rules?
Sure let me just spend another £90 on three more Codexes for the one unit per book.
I'm beginning to think that gw is trying to get Chaos players to buy a small library to get the "full Chaos experience". You need 4 codexes just to get all of the Cult Marines in your CSM army, and it's looking like this book and the Daemons codex are designed to work together as well, considering we've already got a keyword in the CSM codex that's apparently useless without the Daemons codex. So, you want all of the units that we had as recently as the 8th edition codex (minus everything that was just removed, of course)? You'll need:
1: Codex: Chaos Space Marines - The basic "Chaos Undivided" stuff + Noise Marines.
2: Codex: Death Guard - Plague Marines.
3: Codex: Thousand Sons - Rubric Marines.
4: Codex: World Eaters - Khorne Berzerkers.
5: Codex: Chaos Daemons - Any Daemons you want to summon.
And that's just to get what used to be the "basics". If you want any Chaos Knights or HH units/more Daemon Engines you'll need to throw in the Chaos Knights codex and Imperial Armour Compendium as well. I'm waiting for gw to offer it all as a package deal (with no discount), and call it the "Encyclopedia Chaotica".
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
I mean if you have 1600 points of combi weapon chosen/terminators, jump lords, raptor champions with claws and cult units you don't want to buy other rules for, that sucks. But its far from ordinary.
Excuse me? There's a book that has rules for my: "Combi-weapon Chosen/Terminators, Jump Lords, and Raptor Champions with claws"? When is/was that released? In 40k I mean. I already have the book that does that for 30k.
Dudeface wrote: I mean if you have 1600 points of combi weapon chosen/terminators, jump lords, raptor champions with claws and cult units you don't want to buy other rules for, that sucks. But its far from ordinary.
The only other Codex that had this was GSC with Brood Brothers, which you needed the Guard Codex for if you wanted anything that wasn't the Russ, Troop unit, Chimera, or Sentinel. Even with that the limitations on Brood Brothers are that you can't use units without the <Regiment> keyword or units with a pre-ordained <Regiment>, which means no NCs, Commissars, Priests, Techpriests, Ogryns, or aircraft. This leaves literally every other option in the Codex from Infantry squads to Baneblades.
In comparison, CSM lost all but Noise Marines and only gets access to Plague Marines, Rubrics, and Berzerkers from those respective Codexes/Index. Hardly "ordinary" is it?
And as for the quip at the start, my Terminators aren't legal, most my 10-man units of CSM now have to be split into 5 which means less space for other Troop options, I need to buy 3 times as many Codexes just to use my main Elites choices, my Chosen have an illegal loadout, as does my Exalted Champion. So that leaves me with a Lord, a MoE, some Sorcerers, two 10-man units of CSM down from 4, 2 Helbrutes, and a Land Raider.
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Still does not change the fact they are not invalidated. The fact GW wants you to pay an arm and a leg for that privilege is irrelevant.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Be sure to write to GW about your decision and how they've invalidated so much of your army.
I encourage all Chaos players to do the same.
Once I've finished my runthrough of the book I'll be collecting my thoughts in a letter as well.
i already complained to them about the loss of my jump pack HQs and about the weird restrictions on combi weapons / power fists /chain fists. I did note that accursed weapons was a good idea IMO tho, i just wish it had been applied to every datasheet so we wouldnt have power axe/maul/sword anymore in the whole dex
indeed. However the Moe specifically is wasted design space.
the fact that the MoE exists, and isn't just another loadout option for an aspiring champion is already a design failure, the fact that like the aspiring champion he has no options to speak of beyond relics or WLT^'s is... euugh.
it's just not a good datasheet.
IMO the codex should have 3 Character datasheet
Exalted Legionnaire
Exalted Cultist
Demon Prince
and then each of them should have ALL relevant weapon/armor/mount/special ability listed on them.
Wanna make a psyker on helstalker, a lord on bike or an exalted champion with two plasma pistol, go for it
Strange, as the "too many options" complaint wasn't heard once with Tau.
I'm going to assume you mean neither competitive player or casual complained about too many option, which they didn't because it's not clear what you're refering to. All player love options, its about the only time casual and competitive people will agree. But GW thinks simplified rules (in terms of variety such as with Chaos terminator power weapons) are easier to balance. Thats why most special rules now are now some form of +/-1 modifier, reroll aura or whatnot. Balance is something competitive players demand and casual players are fairly "ech" about.
power weapons being merged into accursed weapons was a great idea IMO, Axe/Maul/Sword were too similar anyway, now we actually get more freedom to model them as we want to match the fluff of our legion.
The real annoyance is the limitations on combi-weapons/power fists/chain fists and the fact that we can't take a pair of accursed weapons on every termi. I hate mixed loadouts like that, makes resolving an attack so much longer for no good reason
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Didn't the CSM 'dex include something that allowed the Cult units no longer in the book to still be used in Heretic Astartes detachments without breaking 'dex-special-rules?
yes it does, you can add cult marines but they don't benefit from legion traits
Sure let me just spend another £90 on three more Codexes for the one unit per book.
just go on wahapedia and print the datasheet (since thats the only relevant part of these codexes for your situation) Or ask a local player that owns these codexes to scan the datasheet. Or use battlescribe. Or manually transcribe the datasheet into excel.
Plenty of ways to have these units in your armies without paying gak to GW
Yeah, the Legends doc restores Jump Packs to various things, Lightning Claws to characters, Bolt Pistols and Combi-Weapons to Warpsmiths, and actual options to Exalted Champions, even if he does have to keep a combi-weapon and can never choose not to have one...
... all in an unofficial, non-tournament legal manner that most people who just play the meta at pickup games will see as "gaining an advantage" or even "cheating" and thus never be allowed outside of groups playing at home.
And it still doesn't let Raptor Champs take Lightning Claws, Chosen take fists, or remove the infuriating and utterly unnecessary quagmire of weapon combinations that Terminators are allowed/not allowed to take.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, the Legends doc restores Jump Packs to various things, Lightning Claws to characters, Bolt Pistols and Combi-Weapons to Warpsmiths, and actual options to Exalted Champions...
... in an unofficial, non-tournament legal manner that most people who just play the meta at pickup games will see as "gaining an advantage" or even "cheating" and thus never be allowed outside of groups playing at home.
And it still doesn't let Raptor Champs take Lightning Claws, Chosen take fists, or remove the infuriating and utterly unnecessary quagmire of weapon combinations that Terminators are allowed/not allowed to take.
yeah its not perfect but its something. For me its fine since everyone at my LGS is fine with legends. So at least my characters will make a comeback
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, the Legends doc restores Jump Packs to various things, Lightning Claws to characters, Bolt Pistols and Combi-Weapons to Warpsmiths, and actual options to Exalted Champions, even if he does have to keep a combi-weapon and can never choose not to have one...
... all in an unofficial, non-tournament legal manner that most people who just play the meta at pickup games will see as "gaining an advantage" or even "cheating" and thus never be allowed outside of groups playing at home.
It's funny how those people were all fine with you taking a Chaos Lord with jump pack yesterday (meaning the day before the new Codex arrived) but today, now that the same option is available via Legends, they're all opposed to it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, the Legends doc restores Jump Packs to various things, Lightning Claws to characters, Bolt Pistols and Combi-Weapons to Warpsmiths, and actual options to Exalted Champions...
... in an unofficial, non-tournament legal manner that most people who just play the meta at pickup games will see as "gaining an advantage" or even "cheating" and thus never be allowed outside of groups playing at home.
And it still doesn't let Raptor Champs take Lightning Claws, Chosen take fists, or remove the infuriating and utterly unnecessary quagmire of weapon combinations that Terminators are allowed/not allowed to take.
yeah its not perfect but its something. For me its fine since everyone at my LGS is fine with legends. So at least my characters will make a comeback
Until next edition, where they will be so disfunctional that nobody will accept them, because legends is just a dishonest squating on time. Sincerly former R&H player
ccs wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, the Legends doc restores Jump Packs to various things, Lightning Claws to characters, Bolt Pistols and Combi-Weapons to Warpsmiths, and actual options to Exalted Champions, even if he does have to keep a combi-weapon and can never choose not to have one...
... all in an unofficial, non-tournament legal manner that most people who just play the meta at pickup games will see as "gaining an advantage" or even "cheating" and thus never be allowed outside of groups playing at home.
It's funny how those people were all fine with you taking a Chaos Lord with jump pack yesterday (meaning the day before the new Codex arrived) but today, now that the same option is available via Legends, they're all opposed to it.
Well, maybee not tommorow, but watch next edition inevitably come around and you will only get ire if you want to bring legends.
That legends update is insulting. They fixed Lord weapons and jump pack options, but Chosen and Terminators are still borked and they didn't add Mutilators (and I'm sure there's more that's still screwed up besides those things). Feth me GW, do you think you never sold Mutilators?!?
Just always the absolute bare fething minimum to mollify the loudest complaints. What a load of crap.
Until next edition, where they will be so disfunctional that nobody will accept them, because legends is just a dishonest squating on time. Sincerly former R&H player
well my lord on steed of slaanesh is still legal even if it's been in legends since 8th. Even if my lord on jumppack gets squatted, i'll keep playing him anyway, feth GW's dumbass decisions.
Until next edition, where they will be so disfunctional that nobody will accept them, because legends is just a dishonest squating on time. Sincerly former R&H player
well my lord on steed of slaanesh is still legal even if it's been in legends since 8th. Even if my lord on jumppack gets squatted, i'll keep playing him anyway, feth GW's dumbass decisions.
Sure, however at some point People will also, especially in not close knit groups decide to feth you and your legends models
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gene St. Ealer wrote: That legends update is insulting. They fixed Lord weapons and jump pack options, but Chosen and Terminators are still borked and they didn't add Mutilators (and I'm sure there's more that's still screwed up besides those things). Feth me GW, do you think you never sold Mutilators?!?
Just always the absolute bare fething minimum to mollify the loudest complaints. What a load of crap.
I wonder when GW will finally take away Space marine bike HQ and Jumppack HQ, clearly some of them aren't in production anymore and they could provide an unfair advntage...
Oh wait, that's not how this works.
It's mindboggling and i hope GW will get gak on for this, but then again the community dind't give to gaks when three whole factions got Legended, watch the community at large being A O K with this aswell
Gene St. Ealer wrote: That legends update is insulting. They fixed Lord weapons and jump pack options, but Chosen and Terminators are still borked and they didn't add Mutilators (and I'm sure there's more that's still screwed up besides those things). Feth me GW, do you think you never sold Mutilators?!?
Just always the absolute bare fething minimum to mollify the loudest complaints. What a load of crap.
pretty sure mutilators were merged with oblits now that they have actual melee weapons
I wonder when GW will finally take away Space marine bike HQ and Jumppack HQ, clearly some of them aren't in production anymore and they could provide an unfair advntage...
Oh wait, that's not how this works.
It's mindboggling and i hope GW will get gak on for this, but then again the community dind't give to gaks when three whole factions got Legended, watch the community at large being A O K with this aswell
And you want to know why the community at large didnt throw a fit when R&H, corsairs and whatever the third one is got squatted? because the community at large doesn't play these factions (or know people that play these factions). It sucks but people will rarely go on "crusades" for things that don't directly affect them.
pretty sure mutilators were merged with oblits now that they have actual melee weapons
GW may consider it that way, but mutilator models (including my converted ones) have never had ranged weapons, so that's a pretty gakky way to squat them.
Not Online!!! wrote: carefull you could enter HH level customisation level which would confuse players and facilitate:
- kitbashing
- actual army lists with an actual strategy and tactic in the field
-and by extention allow 3rd parties again to slip in, wait Monopose already made it easier
oh, HH deals with their characters like that? I was basing myself off OPR's way to design characters
yeah,i really gotta take a look at HH
Centurion 3 variants (normal PA, Cataphractii and tartaros), basically is either:
Big medic,
Duelist,
Bannerbearer
Psyker
Assasin.
Special legion centurions, etc.
big Options of the normal centurion:
Jetbike
Jumppack
bike.
Not even all of the things.
Yeah, that's just six out of sixteen optional Centurion builds. There's also: Master Sniper, Master Scout, Chaplains, Multiple Tech Marine HQs, and one that specializes in Daemon summoning.
HH does soooo many things better than 40k. Terrain, cover, LoS, vehicles, Initiative instead of fights first/last confusion.
Infantry can even Embark in Buildings. Wasn't that something you were pushing for recently, Vlad?
VladimirHerzog wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, the Legends doc restores Jump Packs to various things, Lightning Claws to characters, Bolt Pistols and Combi-Weapons to Warpsmiths, and actual options to Exalted Champions...
... in an unofficial, non-tournament legal manner that most people who just play the meta at pickup games will see as "gaining an advantage" or even "cheating" and thus never be allowed outside of groups playing at home.
And it still doesn't let Raptor Champs take Lightning Claws, Chosen take fists, or remove the infuriating and utterly unnecessary quagmire of weapon combinations that Terminators are allowed/not allowed to take.
yeah its not perfect but its something. For me its fine since everyone at my LGS is fine with legends. So at least my characters will make a comeback
Yeah, sure, but why couldn't they have just, y'know, put this stuff in the codex? If this stuff is perfectly fine here, why not there? Legends are completely ok for all types of play, right? So why wasn't this ok for the damned codex?
pretty sure mutilators were merged with oblits now that they have actual melee weapons
GW may consider it that way, but mutilator models (including my converted ones) have never had ranged weapons, so that's a pretty gakky way to squat them.
Genuinely asking: arent oblits and mutilator the same deal in the lore? Dudes with the techno something virus, that can manifest any weapon from their bodies? I'd say its weird if a dude can spawn a chainsword but not a heavy bolter (or vice-versa)
Yeah, sure, but why couldn't they have just, y'know, put this stuff in the codex? If this stuff is perfectly fine here, why not there? Legends are completely ok for all types of play, right? So why wasn't this ok for the damned codex?
oh for sure it shouldve been in the codex, its dumb as feth to remove them
ccs wrote: It's funny how those people were all fine with you taking a Chaos Lord with jump pack yesterday (meaning the day before the new Codex arrived) but today, now that the same option is available via Legends, they're all opposed to it.
People are leery of unintended consequences. I don't think there are any with a JP Lord though since a DP can take everything they can, I believe.
Daedalus81 wrote: People are leery of unintended consequences. I don't think there are any with a JP Lord though since a DP can take everything they can, I believe.
Except a ranged weapon and a number of limitations on Relic weapons.
Dudeface wrote: I mean if you have 1600 points of combi weapon chosen/terminators, jump lords, raptor champions with claws and cult units you don't want to buy other rules for, that sucks. But its far from ordinary.
The only other Codex that had this was GSC with Brood Brothers, which you needed the Guard Codex for if you wanted anything that wasn't the Russ, Troop unit, Chimera, or Sentinel. Even with that the limitations on Brood Brothers are that you can't use units without the <Regiment> keyword or units with a pre-ordained <Regiment>, which means no NCs, Commissars, Priests, Techpriests, Ogryns, or aircraft. This leaves literally every other option in the Codex from Infantry squads to Baneblades.
In comparison, CSM lost all but Noise Marines and only gets access to Plague Marines, Rubrics, and Berzerkers from those respective Codexes/Index. Hardly "ordinary" is it?
And as for the quip at the start, my Terminators aren't legal, most my 10-man units of CSM now have to be split into 5 which means less space for other Troop options, I need to buy 3 times as many Codexes just to use my main Elites choices, my Chosen have an illegal loadout, as does my Exalted Champion. So that leaves me with a Lord, a MoE, some Sorcerers, two 10-man units of CSM down from 4, 2 Helbrutes, and a Land Raider.
It wasn't a quip, it sucks if your 2k list was made out of 1600 points of stuff that isn't a valid loadout or easy access, but I seriously doubt that's the bulk of chaos players. At no point did I say any of this was "ordinary" before you take it too personally for whatever reason.
Genuine suggestions and attempt to help:
- If you took the time to make a full unit of powerfist combi-plas terminators then yes that definitely sucks but if they all have identical ranged weapons - but if they all have identical melee weapons and or ranged weapons bar the specials, then play them as all armed with accursed weapons and/or combi-bolters. They're not a total write off.
- You have 4 X 5 man marine units assuming you have 4 of the same special weapon, not ideal but you can work round that as noted. You mentioned that it reduced the number of available slots, how many units of cultists did you run? Even if it was 4 in a battalion then you wouldn't any more probably due to the cultists restrictions. I don't see the slots as an issue here.
- Buying the additional codex does suck, no way round that one, given I'm anti-piracy and I'm saying just source that however you need should say a lot. Failing that, zerkers = melee legionnaires with MoK, Rubrics = legionnaires with MoT & balefire tome etc.
- Chosen, again if it's all combi weapons of the same combi-weapon, run them as bolters if needs be, the melee weapons are pretty easily covered now unless it was all dual claws or something, but even then just say they have default loadout
- Exalted champion has a fixed loadout now so it literally doesn't matter what you gave him, or use him as a lord.
None of that is ideal but my point is it's hardly much imagination needed to use those models without having to rip 20 arms off or anything drastic.
Not Online!!! wrote: Piracy is a Service problem and NOT a custommer problem.
Gabe Newell.
Gw brought this to themselves, same with 3rd parties and chinacast being favoured in countries suffering from magic GW currency exchange rates.
yeah, as a customer, i don't give 2 gaks about the money big corporations like GW make. If they can't provide me with good content, i'm not gonna pay for it
Dudeface wrote: It wasn't a quip, it sucks if your 2k list was made out of 1600 points of stuff that isn't a valid loadout or easy access, but I seriously doubt that's the bulk of chaos players. At no point did I say any of this was "ordinary" before you take it too personally for whatever reason.
Who said anything about a 2k list? I'm talking about the army I spent the last year and a half building from rescues and abandoned projects being made redundant. The army was to be a revival of my many CSM and SM projects of the past into one cohesive force with the characters I made from some of these armies given new life.
As for the suggestions:
- There are multiple combinations of weapon options that are no longer valid and our group likes to play WYSIWYG to prevent confusion. I could run one unit of Terminators with the many options I made but not two or a unit of 10.
- With the Force Org slots point, sure. Yet now my vision for my army has been changed because of arbitrary reasons. Each unit is modeled in a specific way to tie them together with a narrative.
- Except all of my Cult units were made to stand out from the regular lads using the new bigger models (Plague Marines) or converting other models (Blood Warriors into Zerkers). So now the whole point of converting the units is wasted.
- The whole unit has Claws.
- A fixed loadout that doesn't match what my model has. Again, this isn't just about losing options its the fact that my narrative has been chucked out because GW can't write a good CSM Codex. I don't need another Chaos Lord, I needed my Champion to not be restricted based on a model that both doesn't get sold at general retail and doesn't technically even exist.
Legends are completely ok for all types of play, right?
Nope. Legends are binned things that people can say no to, and will simply be left to decay over time without outright admitting its abandonware.
Yeah, I know. But that's the "official" gw line about Legends, and it's .
Daedalus81 wrote:
ccs wrote: It's funny how those people were all fine with you taking a Chaos Lord with jump pack yesterday (meaning the day before the new Codex arrived) but today, now that the same option is available via Legends, they're all opposed to it.
People are leery of unintended consequences. I don't think there are any with a JP Lord though since a DP can take everything they can, I believe.
Besides the aforementioned weapon/Relics there's deep strike. There, now you have to convince your opponent that it's totally ok. Your buddy that you play garagehammer with? Probably cool with it. Someone at a PUG? Iffy. Tournament? No way. See the problem?
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart". Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Boy, do I wish that my ork units would get invalidated in the same way as your cult troops are.
There are plenty of solutions which don't involve copyright infringements, but those don't lend themselves well to hyperbole.
Until next edition, where they will be so disfunctional that nobody will accept them, because legends is just a dishonest squating on time. Sincerly former R&H player
well my lord on steed of slaanesh is still legal even if it's been in legends since 8th. Even if my lord on jumppack gets squatted, i'll keep playing him anyway, feth GW's dumbass decisions.
Sure, however at some point People will also, especially in not close knit groups decide to feth you and your legends models
That's fine, that's one of the ways you determine who's worth playing with & who's not. Especially in not-close-knit-groups.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: That legends update is insulting. They fixed Lord weapons and jump pack options, but Chosen and Terminators are still borked and they didn't add Mutilators (and I'm sure there's more that's still screwed up besides those things). Feth me GW, do you think you never sold Mutilators?!?
Just always the absolute bare fething minimum to mollify the loudest complaints. What a load of crap.
I wonder when GW will finally take away Space marine bike HQ and Jumppack HQ, clearly some of them aren't in production anymore and they could provide an unfair advntage...
Oh wait, that's not how this works.
It's mindboggling and i hope GW will get gak on for this, but then again the community dind't give to gaks when three whole factions got Legended, watch the community at large being A O K with this aswell
As an original Squat player, NO, I'm not ok with your army being dropped. But at least you do have Legends rules for it. Where's my Squats? Gone for 24 years.
Did you know back in 4e they had a WD article with rules for making your own Ab-Humans? Hey, guess what the only combo of stats you couldn't make happened to be?
Spoiler:
That's right, the typical Squat profile.
But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
Until next edition, where they will be so disfunctional that nobody will accept them, because legends is just a dishonest squating on time. Sincerly former R&H player
well my lord on steed of slaanesh is still legal even if it's been in legends since 8th. Even if my lord on jumppack gets squatted, i'll keep playing him anyway, feth GW's dumbass decisions.
Sure, however at some point People will also, especially in not close knit groups decide to feth you and your legends models
That's fine, that's one of the ways you determine who's worth playing with & who's not. Especially in not-close-knit-groups.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: That legends update is insulting. They fixed Lord weapons and jump pack options, but Chosen and Terminators are still borked and they didn't add Mutilators (and I'm sure there's more that's still screwed up besides those things). Feth me GW, do you think you never sold Mutilators?!?
Just always the absolute bare fething minimum to mollify the loudest complaints. What a load of crap.
I wonder when GW will finally take away Space marine bike HQ and Jumppack HQ, clearly some of them aren't in production anymore and they could provide an unfair advntage...
Oh wait, that's not how this works.
It's mindboggling and i hope GW will get gak on for this, but then again the community dind't give to gaks when three whole factions got Legended, watch the community at large being A O K with this aswell
As an original Squat player, NO, I'm not ok with your army being dropped. But at least you do have Legends rules for it. Where's my Squats? Gone for 24 years.
Did you know back in 4e they had a WD article with rules for making your own Ab-Humans? Hey, guess what the only combo of stats you couldn't make happened to be?
Spoiler:
That's right, the typical Squat profile.
But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? [/b]Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
[u] yeah, it's almost like a litmus test for donkey-caves...
right? Complain to those that can do something about it. Or, controversial thought, DONT PAY THEM(tourney, gw, whomever) MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS LITTLE TO NO VALUE FOR YOU.
As an original Squat player, NO, I'm not ok with your army being dropped. But at least you do have Legends rules for it. Where's my Squats? Gone for 24 years.
Did you know back in 4e they had a WD article with rules for making your own Ab-Humans? Hey, guess what the only combo of stats you couldn't make happened to be?
Spoiler:
That's right, the typical Squat profile.
But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
Yes, i am going to blame the multi-billion dollar company that actually owns the IP before the players, which rightfully in some cases point to legends as dysfunctional and for brevitys sake want to avoid them. Same for players of those armies, and yes i can field legends because i got a group, but frankly i don't want too wuth the legends ruleset, because it's just that disfunctional that there is borderline no way to make the game fun.
Frankly there's an easy solution going back some editions which we did and do on occaision.
But that is not a solution of all the owners of such armies.
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Boy, do I wish that my ork units would get invalidated in the same way as your cult troops are.
There are plenty of solutions which don't involve copyright infringements, but those don't lend themselves well to hyperbole.
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Boy, do I wish that my ork units would get invalidated in the same way as your cult troops are.
There are plenty of solutions which don't involve copyright infringements, but those don't lend themselves well to hyperbole.
Okay, name the plenty of solutions.
1. Buy them
2. Communal/store copies
3. Borrow from friend
4. Counts as to nearest compatible unit
I'm not going to lie, that's basically 3 options and 2 of them are maybe the same thing.
There's ways around it but they're not great.
Honestly it's a god awful crossover point in the games history, they're evidently on the cusp of having god based books and "everyone else" and I think they went hard on the "everyone else" book wayyyy too soon. I fully understand why they've done it and I can empathise with the devs on this one, but without a soft lead time or run up, it's always going to be bad. The only mitigation they could do is "this edition when we tackle chaos marines we will be be separating out cult units for xy&z, here's a pdf until such time.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.
So simple:
If I take Magnus out, you take out the same number of points.
<DONE>
Note: You may have to pull a rubric out of the squad to use as a Lord if you only brought 1 HQ.
or just not use any HQs and agree by mutural consent to treat the army as still being battle forged. Rules in games are ultimately simply suggestions, it's EXPECTED for people to occasionally house rule things if it leads to a better more entertaining game
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: When you play at the store, the option to "proxy" in w40k is maybe a thing if you play your first 2-3 games. If 2-3 months down the roads, you try the same the store owner will just not let you play, probably giving you a fair number of warrning before that.
On top of that it is heck of confusing. My army is bad aka I like and use models which are bad for my faction. Could I take my dudes call each termintors either a strike or a interceptors and both my dreads NDKs? FOr 2 editions? People would just say that I either have to rebuy the army, or they won't play me.
And yeah there maybe differences, you are liked at the store, have many friends. One of the veterans or store owners is your uncle, dad, brother etc But if you are a fresh new player who starts the game mid edition or at the end, like now, there is no huge 20+ people wave of other new people to play against. People are streamlined in to a way of playing and will expect you to get proficient at it in a resonable amount of time.
As the "get models" things goes for some people this can be an edition of collecting a specific army, only for GW to nerf it when the new edition starts. Not many people who buy their armies are willing to do that. Unless again, they have income which makes a cost of a w40k or AoS non impactful.
Try explaining to your parent, who makes 600$, why you need 1000$ for plastic soldiers in a span of 6-9 months, assuming a power faction picked and not something that dips in 2-3 months, And why you will need another 1000$, in 2-3 years to update or switch the army, if it gets too unfun to play with. Confusion is the best thing you could expect, followed by an assumption you have high fever or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the fetish of GW for overpriced charachter centerpieces like Magnus is anyway an unhealthy way to start any army...
Try playing GK without 4, 5 at the start of 9th ed codex run. Or DE/Harlis without their opent top transports and tanks etc.
so your local player base aren't just colossal donkey-caves but so is your local store owner?
honestly at this poiint Karol I;m beginning to wonder if you've actually ENCOUNTERED this stuff or are just making up worst case scenerios in your head because you have so little faith in other people being decent
honestly at this poiint Karol I;m beginning to wonder if you've actually ENCOUNTERED this stuff or are just making up worst case scenerios in your head because you have so little faith in other people being decent
If you've never experienced a real cabal of a**holes it might sound far fetched. Unfortunately there are a lot of them out there and some of them wield power.
It panders to the competitive community at the expense of everyone else.
I don't disagree with your post as a whole, and I'm not trying to invalidate your point of view. But given that this is the fist dex of the 9th edition to content bespoke Crusade content for every subfaction in the book, I can't get behind this statement.
ccs wrote: But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
No, get mad at GW for writing error-filled garbage for the legends rules and never bothering to update them. People and events that ban legends rules do so because of the incredibly poor quality of those rules, if they weren't so completely broken they'd see a lot more use.
ccs wrote: But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
No, get mad at GW for writing error-filled garbage for the legends rules and never bothering to update them. People and events that ban legends rules do so because of the incredibly poor quality of those rules, if they weren't so completely broken they'd see a lot more use.
???
What is broken (in a strong way) in legends? Most of the stuff in there is underpowered so wouldnt break anything
ccs wrote: But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
No, get mad at GW for writing error-filled garbage for the legends rules and never bothering to update them. People and events that ban legends rules do so because of the incredibly poor quality of those rules, if they weren't so completely broken they'd see a lot more use.
???
What is broken (in a strong way) in legends? Most of the stuff in there is underpowered so wouldnt break anything
Some of the point values are crazy, for one. Yes it's therefore underpowered, but it speaks to the lack of attention/care of legends. I think there are some odd rules interactions too because of outdated datasheets, but the details I can't recall.
ccs wrote: But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
No, get mad at GW for writing error-filled garbage for the legends rules and never bothering to update them. People and events that ban legends rules do so because of the incredibly poor quality of those rules, if they weren't so completely broken they'd see a lot more use.
???
What is broken (in a strong way) in legends? Most of the stuff in there is underpowered so wouldnt break anything
Legends units being broken is an urban myth, if they're "broken" it's because they're either woefully poor or missing some keywords that are needed to function, it seemingly never gives an op outcome that I know of.
Dudeface wrote: Legends units being broken is an urban myth, if they're "broken" it's because they're either woefully poor or missing some keywords that are needed to function, it seemingly never gives an op outcome that I know of.
There's a greater potential for things in legends to become broken as the sheets and keywords decay or if rare weapon loadouts suddenly become very good ( e.g. sonic dreadnought ). Still, the vast majority wouldn't be a problem.
We're more than happy to use Legends, as it at least gives us rules for our R&H player to use. It's not mind blowing or loaded with strats and combos, but the units have flavour and it's fun to play.
Honestly, speaking for myself, I could use the Core Rules, R&H Legends (and associated other rules), toss in Theaters of War (for different planets, etc being invaded by Chaos), and you could run so many different armies, with their own flavour, playstyle, and themes.
VladimirHerzog wrote: What is broken (in a strong way) in legends? Most of the stuff in there is underpowered so wouldnt break anything
Tau units that still have the old markerlight weapon profile, to give one obvious example. When I say "broken" I mean rules that literally do not function and can not be used without house ruling a solution, not just balance errors. Then there's all the assorted missing keywords, rules that technically work but do so in a very counter-intuitive way because they haven't been fixed, etc. For example, DKoKLRBTs can take sponson lascannons (a option that has never existed in previous rules) that count as a turret weapon (and can therefore fire twice) because of how GW formatted the list of options. It doesn't technically cause the game to break trying to handle the rule like the old markerlight profile but it's obviously stupid and isn't working as intended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Honestly, speaking for myself, I could use the Core Rules, R&H Legends (and associated other rules), toss in Theaters of War (for different planets, etc being invaded by Chaos), and you could run so many different armies, with their own flavour, playstyle, and themes.
And you still only have what, half of the original R&H list? Unless you get the IG codex and IA:Compendium to fill in all the missing units?
(Plus needing other books to have the defending armies, at which point the Chaos invasion never wins because R&H is a joke list.)
This Legends update still doesn't fix the core problems with the inconsistencies of the new Chaos 'Dex. It is a band-aid, and grody old used one at that.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This Legends update still doesn't fix the core problems with the inconsistencies of the new Chaos 'Dex. It is a band-aid, and grody old used one at that.
Yep, it's just a way to make it seem like GW feels bad about invalidating people's old models. Does nothing to actually improve the situation.
Setting the modeling and options issues of the Codex aside, it sure does have a lot of rules. Depending on your army and sub-faction, many of those rules will hardly ever come up. There's a handful of strats that are very good and will be used very often, and many more that will never be used, or used rarely.
If "Being a 9th edition Codex" is considered a 'bona fide success', then yep, it sure does look like a 9th edition codex. Rules bloat, wonky stratagems, and a very clear power boost to the models they want to sell.
In terms of balance, being internally and externally balanced should be expected. I can deal with a little bit of codex creep, but the situation with Tyranids and Harlequins, and way early in 9th ed the Admech and Drukhari, were simply outlying failures. The fact that Chaos Knights and Chaos Marines finally feel 'right' is indeed a good thing, but the swinging of power and associated nerf bats to other codexes has really never been this wild or bad before.
And yes, I lived through 8 years of Imperial Guard Leafblower lists dominating the meta.
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
So is the community only interested in easy win books or do they prefer something to be balanced and middle of the road?
I agree it doesn't seem to pander to anyone but don't give the competitive community the wrong image.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: I am very frustrated with this release enough that I returned the book. There's some really nice entries but overall they just don't outweigh what I lost. And now over 80 percent of my army is illegally modelled.
Is 80% of your army jump lords and Terminators with combi-Plas and/or dual lightning claws?
I could care less about easy win. My favorite book of all time is DE 6th edition. fething fantastic book. And honestly the cookies they added to the legends rules is enough to get me playing the book because my bros are cool. But its still a shitshow.
Lol sorta. I typically ran 9-10 plasma terminators, 2 jump characters one a second lord now invalid, terminator lord, 2x5 plasma chosen with option for dreadclaw or termite, 2x5 berzerkers with lightning claw champions, a heldrake and blob of cultists for the redeploy.. among other things. It might not be top tier but could really catch people out with potential for 60+ plasma and lots of deployment/redeployment options. Thats almost all gone for now. I include the heldrake because threatening long bomb charges is the only reason it made the cut.
And agreed. I was indeed speaking of GW choosing to take the balanced road to the extreme. The book leans into a few broken mechanics which will end up nerfed like "insert X codex" and then were lame and already linear. I see some pumpers around the web including this site and all I can think is these guys are on the payroll. Thats how its done nowdays.
A Bonafide success it is not. It panders to the competitive community
Like hell it does. It isn't even that powerful!
I think he meant that it panders to the competitive side by being simplified and stripped of options so that it would be easier to balance, not that GW ever does anything to balance the game other than show intent to surgically balance then preform that surgery with a sledgehammer.
It panders to the competitive community at the expense of everyone else.
I don't disagree with your post as a whole, and I'm not trying to invalidate your point of view. But given that this is the fist dex of the 9th edition to content bespoke Crusade content for every subfaction in the book, I can't get behind this statement.
thats fine opinions will vary. theres some real nice entries in the book I admit that. However they went too far with the rebalance. And as a former outsider who has watched CSM get the shaft every 3 years ish I'm not optimistic.
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Boy, do I wish that my ork units would get invalidated in the same way as your cult troops are.
There are plenty of solutions which don't involve copyright infringements, but those don't lend themselves well to hyperbole.
Okay, name the plenty of solutions.
1. Buy them
2. Communal/store copies
3. Borrow from friend
4. Counts as to nearest compatible unit
I'm not going to lie, that's basically 3 options and 2 of them are maybe the same thing.
There's ways around it but they're not great.
Borrow, codex, take a picture with your phone. If you hate technology, print it, put it in your book.
Pen&Paper
Copy machine
Create your own version of the datasheet
Get the app code from someone not using the app
Borrow codex when you need to bring the actual thing for an event
You know, the same things people have been doing for the last ten years or so when the rules for their units were no longer available because GW spread them across three white dwarfs, a FW book not available in your country and tattoo on Robbin Cruddance's hip.
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Boy, do I wish that my ork units would get invalidated in the same way as your cult troops are.
There are plenty of solutions which don't involve copyright infringements, but those don't lend themselves well to hyperbole.
Okay, name the plenty of solutions.
1. Buy them
2. Communal/store copies
3. Borrow from friend
4. Counts as to nearest compatible unit
I'm not going to lie, that's basically 3 options and 2 of them are maybe the same thing.
There's ways around it but they're not great.
Borrow, codex, take a picture with your phone. If you hate technology, print it, put it in your book.
Pen&Paper
Copy machine
Create your own version of the datasheet
Get the app code from someone not using the app
Borrow codex when you need to bring the actual thing for an event
You know, the same things people have been doing for the last ten years or so when the rules for their units were no longer available because GW spread them across three white dwarfs, a FW book not available in your country and tattoo on Robbin Cruddance's hip.
Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.
ccs wrote: But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ??? You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
No, get mad at GW for writing error-filled garbage for the legends rules and never bothering to update them. People and events that ban legends rules do so because of the incredibly poor quality of those rules, if they weren't so completely broken they'd see a lot more use.
???
What is broken (in a strong way) in legends? Most of the stuff in there is underpowered so wouldnt break anything
Legends units being broken is an urban myth, if they're "broken" it's because they're either woefully poor or missing some keywords that are needed to function, it seemingly never gives an op outcome that I know of.
People denying legends is also an urban myth, in every poll on that topic and whenever it is discussed in any community, people are fine with you bringing your old miniatures as WYSIWYG unless it's a competitive event.
But if you really want an example for units in legends which are "too good" - big meks on bikes and MA warbosses from legends are currently strictly better than any of their codex counter-parts because they didn't receive any of the nerfs balance improvements. 81 points for a 5++ KFF or SAG on bike with a free KMB added on top is nice, right? There are also some wargear shenanigans like free killsaws on koptas and combi-skorchas for spannas, not to mention the option to equip a kopta with both a "bigbomm" and a "big bomb".
So there actually is quite a good case to be made for not using abandoned rules from last edition, which is the prime reason why I am not using legends for my models. It just doesn't feel right to gain an advantage over my opponent because of such things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.
According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws. As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.
In many western countries photocopying a few pages (actually signficant portions of the books like 10%) is not copyright infringement, it's perfectly legal. It's making profit out of that copies that is copyright infringement.
And manually rewriting is definitely not copyright infringement, anywhere in the world. Unless, again, you make profits out of it.
Gert wrote: "Those units aren't invalid you just have to buy three other Codexes. I am very smart".
Without resorting to piracy, those units are going to be invalid for anyone who doesn't have money to drop on 2 more Codexes and a WD supplement that will be replaced by another Codex. So yeah, pretty invalid IMO.
Boy, do I wish that my ork units would get invalidated in the same way as your cult troops are.
There are plenty of solutions which don't involve copyright infringements, but those don't lend themselves well to hyperbole.
Okay, name the plenty of solutions.
1. Buy them
2. Communal/store copies
3. Borrow from friend
4. Counts as to nearest compatible unit
I'm not going to lie, that's basically 3 options and 2 of them are maybe the same thing.
There's ways around it but they're not great.
Borrow, codex, take a picture with your phone. If you hate technology, print it, put it in your book.
Pen&Paper
Copy machine
Create your own version of the datasheet
Get the app code from someone not using the app
Borrow codex when you need to bring the actual thing for an event
You know, the same things people have been doing for the last ten years or so when the rules for their units were no longer available because GW spread them across three white dwarfs, a FW book not available in your country and tattoo on Robbin Cruddance's hip.
Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.
Nah, that's legal in the US. The information contained within isn't classified lol.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, the Legends doc restores Jump Packs to various things, Lightning Claws to characters, Bolt Pistols and Combi-Weapons to Warpsmiths, and actual options to Exalted Champions, even if he does have to keep a combi-weapon and can never choose not to have one...
... all in an unofficial, non-tournament legal manner that most people who just play the meta at pickup games will see as "gaining an advantage" or even "cheating" and thus never be allowed outside of groups playing at home.
It's funny how those people were all fine with you taking a Chaos Lord with jump pack yesterday (meaning the day before the new Codex arrived) but today, now that the same option is available via Legends, they're all opposed to it.
One legit issue is that these will be locked like this forever and with points changing constantly that does result in gap between them.
pretty sure mutilators were merged with oblits now that they have actual melee weapons
GW may consider it that way, but mutilator models (including my converted ones) have never had ranged weapons, so that's a pretty gakky way to squat them.
Well whole point of oblitrators and mutilators was fluffiwise they adapt and change on the fly? So at least you have way to use the models as obliterators.
And seeing price of obliterator models at least you can save up cash
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'm beginning to think that gw is trying to get Chaos players to buy a small library to get the "full Chaos experience". You need 4 codexes just to get all of the Cult Marines in your CSM army, and it's looking like this book and the Daemons codex are designed to work together as well, considering we've already got a keyword in the CSM codex that's apparently useless without the Daemons codex. So, you want all of the units that we had as recently as the 8th edition codex (minus everything that was just removed, of course)? You'll need:
BTW I really like how AOS does ally/etc stuff in that regard. The basic warscroll is freely available. It's the faction specific bonuses(which allies don't get) you need book for. So in AOS I don't need to get whole book for one stinking unit from other faction I want to add to my army. GW provides all I need for free...No rules I would need to use the model is missing. Literally everything in book besides the warscroll would be unusable any way.
I only need book when I invariably expand my small ally collection to full force
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'm beginning to think that gw is trying to get Chaos players to buy a small library to get the "full Chaos experience". You need 4 codexes just to get all of the Cult Marines in your CSM army, and it's looking like this book and the Daemons codex are designed to work together as well, considering we've already got a keyword in the CSM codex that's apparently useless without the Daemons codex. So, you want all of the units that we had as recently as the 8th edition codex (minus everything that was just removed, of course)? You'll need:
BTW I really like how AOS does ally/etc stuff in that regard. The basic warscroll is freely available. It's the faction specific bonuses(which allies don't get) you need book for. So in AOS I don't need to get whole book for one stinking unit from other faction I want to add to my army. GW provides all I need for free...No rules I would need to use the model is missing. Literally everything in book besides the warscroll would be unusable any way.
I only need book when I invariably expand my small ally collection to full force
In the grimdark future of mankind, there is only rules painted on dead trees.
Dai wrote: GW wont have "interns" in the american sense. That would be considered illegal here.
Given the poor quality of the legends rules I wouldn't be surprised if they had an intern somewhere in the US branch that got the project dumped on them. Even GW's actual game design employees, as hilariously incompetent as they are, normally produce better work.
ccs wrote: But you want people to give GW gak because now instead of no one getting to use their jump pack chaos lords, some people who don't play with do? ???
You're mad you don't get to use your R&H or whatever other Legends pieces you own? Then be upset with those you choose to play with who tell you no. Get pissed off at those tourneys you attend that tell you no.
No, get mad at GW for writing error-filled garbage for the legends rules and never bothering to update them. People and events that ban legends rules do so because of the incredibly poor quality of those rules, if they weren't so completely broken they'd see a lot more use.
???
What is broken (in a strong way) in legends? Most of the stuff in there is underpowered so wouldnt break anything
Legends units being broken is an urban myth, if they're "broken" it's because they're either woefully poor or missing some keywords that are needed to function, it seemingly never gives an op outcome that I know of.
People denying legends is also an urban myth, in every poll on that topic and whenever it is discussed in any community, people are fine with you bringing your old miniatures as WYSIWYG unless it's a competitive event.
But if you really want an example for units in legends which are "too good" - big meks on bikes and MA warbosses from legends are currently strictly better than any of their codex counter-parts because they didn't receive any of the nerfs balance improvements. 81 points for a 5++ KFF or SAG on bike with a free KMB added on top is nice, right?
There are also some wargear shenanigans like free killsaws on koptas and combi-skorchas for spannas, not to mention the option to equip a kopta with both a "bigbomm" and a "big bomb".
So there actually is quite a good case to be made for not using abandoned rules from last edition, which is the prime reason why I am not using legends for my models. It just doesn't feel right to gain an advantage over my opponent because of such things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Rewriting it, photocopying or creating your own in an exact likeness are all copyright infringement still.
According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.
If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.
The copy stuff is wildly confusing to me. you can read and make notes in a library, but they can't make copies of pages from a book for you, but you can openly do pictures of each page for yourself and this is somehow legal, but if you post it online it suddenly is not legal.
Karol wrote: The copy stuff is wildly confusing to me. you can read and make notes in a library, but they can't make copies of pages from a book for you, but you can openly do pictures of each page for yourself and this is somehow legal, but if you post it online it suddenly is not legal.
It might be confusing because each country has its own laws about it. Here's perfectly legal to copy stuff from book you don't own, you're just limited to how many pages you can print all at once.
If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.
But if you lend a book to a friend and he makes the copy for himself then it's for personal use.
tneva82 wrote: BTW I really like how AOS does ally/etc stuff in that regard. The basic warscroll is freely available. It's the faction specific bonuses(which allies don't get) you need book for. So in AOS I don't need to get whole book for one stinking unit from other faction I want to add to my army. GW provides all I need for free...No rules I would need to use the model is missing. Literally everything in book besides the warscroll would be unusable any way.
I only need book when I invariably expand my small ally collection to full force
AoS has 40k quality of experience beat in almost every way, at least as far as the way units are presented and their approach to the equivalent of strategies. The Nephilim CP changes seems to suggest 40k may be moving that direction in the future, which can only be good for the game in my opinion. Honestly, I kind of agree with the FLG article recently where they suggested getting rid of strats (1 free relic/warlord trait) entirely in the competitive environment, at the very least it would speed things up and dramatically reduce the number of gotcha moments on the table.
Karol wrote: The copy stuff is wildly confusing to me. you can read and make notes in a library, but they can't make copies of pages from a book for you, but you can openly do pictures of each page for yourself and this is somehow legal, but if you post it online it suddenly is not legal.
It might be confusing because each country has its own laws about it. Here's perfectly legal to copy stuff from book you don't own, you're just limited to how many pages you can print all at once.
If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.
But if you lend a book to a friend and he makes the copy for himself then it's for personal use.
It's not as he hasn't copied something he owns, otherwise every codex pdf online is just someone lending someone their book to copy.
It's not as he hasn't copied something he owns, otherwise every codex pdf online is just someone lending someone their book to copy.
Is it specified in the UK laws that you must own the original book you want to copy? I mean, is it flat out illegal to copy something you don't own? If the answer's yes you're right.
It's not as he hasn't copied something he owns, otherwise every codex pdf online is just someone lending someone their book to copy.
Is it specified in the UK laws that you must own the original book you want to copy? I mean, is it flat out illegal to copy something you don't own? If the answer's yes you're right.
Here's the government guidance:
Spoiler:
Fair dealing
Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.
‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?
Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:
does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair
is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used
The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.
The bold bit is key here, no you don't have to own it, but if you're circumventing the market by copying it (via removing the need to purchase) it isn't legal. The other caveats around this that make it legal sometimes is if its for studying, press use etc. so recreational hobbies and copying to save buying a book = bad.
Speaking of legends models getting updated profiles that make them fairly OP, the sonic dread wields 2x Blastmasters+1 Doom Siren at the same cost of a standard multimelta.
According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.
If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.
That's not how it works
If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.
You can add the codex scan to your research materials and even properly cite it in your materials if you really want to be particular. Personally I find Chicago style most useful, but a number of people prefer Turabian.
Dudeface wrote: Legends units being broken is an urban myth, if they're "broken" it's because they're either woefully poor or missing some keywords that are needed to function, it seemingly never gives an op outcome that I know of.
There's a greater potential for things in legends to become broken as the sheets and keywords decay or if rare weapon loadouts suddenly become very good ( e.g. sonic dreadnought ). Still, the vast majority wouldn't be a problem.
Right, but you still have to separate the "problems" from the "not problems", and convince your opponent that whatever Legends unit you're wanting to use is one of the "not problems". Sure, you or I might say "+25 points for FLY, +6 movement, and deep strike? Cool, no problem". But someone else might say "Gw removed that from the Codex for a reason. It's obviously broken when used with [INSERT STRATAGEM, LEGION TRAIT, RELIC, WARLORD TRAIT]. No dice". So dumping this stuff into Legends doesn't really fix the problem for everyone.
tneva82 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'm beginning to think that gw is trying to get Chaos players to buy a small library to get the "full Chaos experience". You need 4 codexes just to get all of the Cult Marines in your CSM army, and it's looking like this book and the Daemons codex are designed to work together as well, considering we've already got a keyword in the CSM codex that's apparently useless without the Daemons codex. So, you want all of the units that we had as recently as the 8th edition codex (minus everything that was just removed, of course)? You'll need:
BTW I really like how AOS does ally/etc stuff in that regard. The basic warscroll is freely available. It's the faction specific bonuses(which allies don't get) you need book for. So in AOS I don't need to get whole book for one stinking unit from other faction I want to add to my army. GW provides all I need for free...No rules I would need to use the model is missing. Literally everything in book besides the warscroll would be unusable any way.
I only need book when I invariably expand my small ally collection to full force
Really? So, since Cult Marines don't get faction specific bonuses (Legion traits), why couldn't they just do that for CSM?
AoS, 40k, Specialist Games. How can all of these parts of the same company be so different in their approach to rules availiabilty?
According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.
If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.
That's not how it works
If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.
Dudeface wrote: Which has what to do with photocopying a page out of a codex? Who am I acknowledging for the copied page?
I love how you didn't actually read what you posted.
If you read the various sections, I can make solid arguments for photocopies under at least 3 other sections of that page, outside of the one I mentioned in my previous post.
There's enough wiggle room in there to photocopy a page in a book for use in a game you're not specifically selling as a product to someone.
According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.
If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.
That's not how it works
If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.
Google gives me all these university libraries disagreeing with you, including a surprising number of universities that I've actually heard about. Forgive me for taking their word over yours.
According to the UK's copyright act, you are allowed to create a single copy for personal uses - which is a lot more strict than most countries' laws.
As you just need a single page, you aren't in danger of breaking any of the other limitations.
If I photocopy my codex and keep it for myself, that is for personal use. If I photocopy my codex and give you the copy so you don't need to buy it, that is not personal use.
That's not how it works
If I lend you my DG codex, you are allowed to make a copy of the one page containing the plague marine datasheet for your personal use.
Google gives me all these university libraries disagreeing with you, including a surprising number of universities that I've actually heard about. Forgive me for taking their word over yours.
So are you suggesting that the Universities don't utilise the books for personal study and teaching, which are listed exceptions in the rules?
Dudeface wrote: Which has what to do with photocopying a page out of a codex? Who am I acknowledging for the copied page?
I love how you didn't actually read what you posted.
If you read the various sections, I can make solid arguments for photocopies under at least 3 other sections of that page, outside of the one I mentioned in my previous post.
There's enough wiggle room in there to photocopy a page in a book for use in a game you're not specifically selling as a product to someone.
Nobody in the real world will give a gak, but there isn't. Please outline your 3 points where you can justify circumventing the rules.
The bold bit is key here, no you don't have to own it, but if you're circumventing the market by copying it (via removing the need to purchase) it isn't legal. The other caveats around this that make it legal sometimes is if its for studying, press use etc. so recreational hobbies and copying to save buying a book = bad.
So just create a blog where you review various Cult Troops performance on the table, call your 4 copied entries "Research" and you're good.
Dudeface wrote: Nobody in the real world will give a gak, but there isn't.
See, this is a perfect point. Strangely this goes both ways, you assume that GW or maybe some arm of UK law enforcement will want to expend the resources to justify, investigate, prosecute, and enforce this as a result of the rampant photocopying of Plague Marine datasheets (perhaps this is one of the more contentious and dangerous trends plaguing the British Isles). I contend that they will not, clearly, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Dudeface wrote: Please outline your 3 points where you can justify circumventing the rules.
Non-commercial research and private study
Text and data mining for non-commercial research
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Teaching
Helping disabled people
Parody, caricature and pastiche
Fair dealing
There you go, I gave you 7. Could someone put you in front of a judge and make an argument against you? Possibly. Is it likely? Again, I contend that no, it's not likely. Given that this would involve getting lawyers and scheduling court dates, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to expend this level of effort to stop your wild Plague Marine photocopying spree.
I’m quite enamoured with the Cultist and Possessed type kits.
How doable is a Possessed and Cultist and Gribbly Mutant army?
Not fussed if it sucks on the board or not. Just interested if it’s possible to construct such a list, with an effective list being a pleasant bonus.
You will struggle with the 'Mere Mortals' rule as you cannot have more Cultist units than you do Core Infantry. This does not apply to Possessed which means that you must counter every unit of Cultists with another unit of Legionaries, Chosen, Terminators, Raptors or Havocs.
Dudeface wrote: Nobody in the real world will give a gak, but there isn't.
See, this is a perfect point. Strangely this goes both ways, you assume that GW or maybe some arm of UK law enforcement will want to expend the resources to justify, investigate, prosecute, and enforce this as a result of the rampant photocopying of Plague Marine datasheets (perhaps this is one of the more contentious and dangerous trends plaguing the British Isles). I contend that they will not, clearly, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Dudeface wrote: Please outline your 3 points where you can justify circumventing the rules.
Non-commercial research and private study
Text and data mining for non-commercial research
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Teaching
Helping disabled people
Parody, caricature and pastiche
Fair dealing
There you go, I gave you 7. Could someone put you in front of a judge and make an argument against you? Possibly. Is it likely? Again, I contend that no, it's not likely. Given that this would involve getting lawyers and scheduling court dates, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to expend this level of effort to stop your wild Plague Marine photocopying spree.
So your entire argument is that you can lie about the reason you copied protected material? That was obviously always a "solution", but that's not remotely close to arguing in good faith.
Using the copy in place of the actual work (without owning it, of course) to play the game fits into none of these, therefore it's a copyright violation.
Teaching, just to pick one example, would STILL involve you buying the codex, but then photocopy one or two essential pages for an event where you teach newbies how to play the game.
for representing the 8th Legion. The removal of the 
