Since it's an inevitability that EC will be getting its own army, what units would you like to see be added to it? Fulgrim, Noise Marines and a new Lucius are a given, so what else should be added? For me, it would be:

Unique bike unit: This has already been rumored. I would love to see some form of biomechanical, creepy-looking bikes with the riders fused to them, armed with sonic weapons.
Unique Possessed: Similar to Eightbound, it would be cool to see some unique EC Possessed, preferably on 40mm bases and about the same size as regular Possessed to allow for kitbashing. Maybe they could have a more lithe, graceful body type, as opposed to the bulkier Possessed and Eightbound type.
Julius Kaesoron Daemon Prince: He could be the EC's answer to the Lord Invocatus.
Sonic Dreadnought: I'm somewhat mixed on this. While this is an iconic unit that needs to be brought back, I wouldn't want it to be added at the expense of the standard Helbrute.
Unique cultists: Normal humans working for the Emperor's Children aren't going to just be guys with weird gas masks and guns, but insane body horror slaves. There's a lot of potential for some very disturbing stuff.
Chaos Lord/Sorcerer on Steed: This could come in a kit where you can either build it or instead a Lord/Sorcerer on one of those Slaaneshi bikes I mentioned earlier.
Unique daemon engine(s): It would be cool to have a unique daemon engine with a Slaaneshi twist, possibly having a more liquid/graceful look, maybe with the ability to mess with enemy auras and morale.

I don't really need my EC (well, Slaaneshi marine who aren't fluffed as EC) to have a lot of new units. I mostly just want:

* Sonic dreads. Which could just be a weapon option rather than a new datasheet. Maybe the option to stick sonic weapons on a few other units in place of the usual special/heavy weapons, though I'm not sure how you'd do that without new kits.

* Fluffy and evocative sonic weapon rules. Some sort of detachment mechanic for letting you do something neat by crossing the streams of multiple sonic sonic weapons maybe?

* A detachment for combat drugs. Something reminiscent of how 3rd edition dark eldar drug dispensers worked could be cool.

* The option to field Slaaneshi daemons with the marines because honestly their abilities compliment one another really well. Plus, y'know, fluffy.

* A fluffy army-wide rule. Something less awkward than daemonic pacts.

* Fulgrim.

If anything, I kind of hope they don't go crazy with a bunch of bespoke units because I feel like trying to subdivide chaos into a bunch of different codices has probably done them more harm than good overall. Plus, y'know, bloat. You do you, but personally I feel like we don't need unique possessed for the same reason Space Wolves don't need Grey Hunters and Long Fangs in place of tactical marines and devastators.

After the complete Flanderisation of the World Eaters, I'm not even sure I want an EC book.

But I want Doomrider, but taken seriously and not done as a meme.

Let's cover the obvious bases shall we?

- Noise Marines
- Some sort of Noise Terminator
- Chaos Bikers (Just normal bikers so that they can use it as a excuse to update the aging CSM kit)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
After the complete Flanderisation of the World Eaters, I'm not even sure I want an EC book.

That's my biggest concern. The World Eaters Codex was such a low-effort phoned-in job I'm actually glad EC didn't get their own Codex at the end of 9th.

I want to see a good roster of units and not just a handful that equates to less than half a Codex. In all likelihood we'd get a proper Noise Marine kit, probably with a couple of extra weapon options. A Phoenix Guard Terminator unit would be good, as would some sort of sonic dreadnaught and maybe some fast-moving unit like bikes. Other than that, I think many of the current CSM units would still work, either as they are or as the basis for EC units. Possessed are fine as-is, I think. The same applies to Chosen, though maybe they'd get some EC-specific option. Most vehicles should still be an option.

I think in many ways less is more here. Don't strip out loads of stuff available in the CSM Codex for no reason, and just add in the key units that differentiate EC from regular Chaos. Also, remember that there's more to Slaanesh worship than sonic weaponry and bewbs. Things like Phoenix Guard and other units obsessed with martial perfection can fit the theme well, without being ludicrously mutated or focussing solely on the Noise Marine side of things.

A variety of Noise Marines.
Like a drummer. And a keyboard player. A horn player.
And a singer.
Maybe a DJ....
Who says all Noise Marines must play a guitar-bolter?
Thinking of the guitar player, I definitely want a guitar-flamer!


I want to mount these guys on a kitbashed Land Raider serving as a mobile stage. It's sponson weapons will be large speakers.

If they can mix the Fury Road speaker rig with some of the more lithe AoS stuff then I think it could work.
It needs to not just be Noise Marines with Noise Marines + or kinky versions of Heresy units.
I think they need to go for speed as the archetype so something like Centuar-esque Marines would be really cool IMO.

I want uncanny valley, not bewbs hur dur, I want the models to look a bit off, like say a Phoenix guard terminator that looks completely uncorrupted, perfect but its all slightly off centre, arm slightly too high in the shoulder, one eye slightly bigger than the other, things your brain notices but you do not quite get why its wrong.

I want subtle alongside garish, hellraiser cenobite next to the perfect warrior.

The AOS stuff has pulled this off very well I would say with Sigvald being that uncanny valley, the more you look at him the more you notice he is just a bit off.

Get ready for non-sonic Noise Marines to get purged.
No Possessed because the studio models aren't pink.
Probably some random Slanngor unit.
Four characters who are slight variations on generic units, but pink.

 Gert wrote:

I think they need to go for speed as the archetype so something like Centuar-esque Marines would be really cool IMO.

See, I want the speed side of things to come from some Slaaneshi daemons. I know that the Mark of Slaanesh used to grant a bonus to initiative, but I always took that to be more of a matter of heightened senses/reflexes rather than literal super speed. Think Dare Devil, not the Flash. Rather than making new centaur marines, let's just have easier access to our existing centaur-esque fiends of slaanesh.

As Slipspace said, I think less is more with the EC. (Ironic, I know.) From the stories I've read that feature them, they seem to have access to all the usual CSM units. Those units might have a Slaaneshi twist on them, but that's probably more of an aesthetic thing than something that needs to be represented by a unique datasheet. (See above about Grey Hunters and Long Fangs.) Like, EC land raiders can just be land raiders, I don't need a custom kit that for a land raider stuffed to the gills with sonic weapons. I kind of just want to give my squad leaders drug dispensers, maybe put the occassional sonic weapon on a vehicle, and to have daemonettes hanging out with noise marines.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Gert wrote:

I think they need to go for speed as the archetype so something like Centuar-esque Marines would be really cool IMO.

See, I want the speed side of things to come from some Slaaneshi daemons. I know that the Mark of Slaanesh used to grant a bonus to initiative, but I always took that to be more of a matter of heightened senses/reflexes rather than literal super speed. Think Dare Devil, not the Flash. Rather than making new centaur marines, let's just have easier access to our existing centaur-esque fiends of slaanesh.

As Slipspace said, I think less is more with the EC. (Ironic, I know.) From the stories I've read that feature them, they seem to have access to all the usual CSM units. Those units might have a Slaaneshi twist on them, but that's probably more of an aesthetic thing than something that needs to be represented by a unique datasheet. (See above about Grey Hunters and Long Fangs.) Like, EC land raiders can just be land raiders, I don't need a custom kit that for a land raider stuffed to the gills with sonic weapons. I kind of just want to give my squad leaders drug dispensers, maybe put the occassional sonic weapon on a vehicle, and to have daemonettes hanging out with noise marines.

They're not going to bake the daemons in any more than they have for the other legions, so you'll get your 500points to play about with, but they'll be in as allies as an educated guess.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
See, I want the speed side of things to come from some Slaaneshi daemons. I know that the Mark of Slaanesh used to grant a bonus to initiative, but I always took that to be more of a matter of heightened senses/reflexes rather than literal super speed. Think Dare Devil, not the Flash. Rather than making new centaur marines, let's just have easier access to our existing centaur-esque fiends of slaanesh.

You can already take Daemons in CSM armies (both generic and God-aligned) and EC aren't going to get Daemons in the Codex outside of a Princes.

As Slipspace said, I think less is more with the EC. (Ironic, I know.) From the stories I've read that feature them, they seem to have access to all the usual CSM units. Those units might have a Slaaneshi twist on them, but that's probably more of an aesthetic thing than something that needs to be represented by a unique datasheet. (See above about Grey Hunters and Long Fangs.) Like, EC land raiders can just be land raiders, I don't need a custom kit that for a land raider stuffed to the gills with sonic weapons. I kind of just want to give my squad leaders drug dispensers, maybe put the occassional sonic weapon on a vehicle, and to have daemonettes hanging out with noise marines.

When the Codex comes out the only generic units EC will retain are vehicles and possibly Lords/Sorcerers. Everything else will go. The initial release will be an HQ, Noise Marines, Cultist equivalent, and a Terminator equivalent minimum unless GW does this properly (which I don't believe for a second will happen) and EC gets a good release.

I suspect you're right, Gert. I was just sharing what I'm hoping for rather than what I expect. <3

Palatine Blades. "Generic CSM but with sonic weapons!" is a start, sure, but is that all the EC are?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Generic CSM but with sonic weapons!" is a start, sure, but is that all the EC are?

They're also pink.

Just like World Eaters are red and axes.

Hoping for and expecting are not the same.

My hopes:
Sonic Dread
Bikers
Noise Marines
Prince(both daemon and paisley park versions)
Phoenix Guard
Palatine


My expectations:
TS/DG/WE level of phoning it in and losing all variety

Racerguy180 wrote:
Hoping for and expecting are not the same.

My hopes:
Sonic Dread
Bikers
Noise Marines
Prince(both daemon and paisley park versions)
Phoenix Guard
Palatine


My expectations:
TS/DG/WE level of phoning it in and losing all variety

Putting my GW hat on:

- Legit
- Vanilla unit, but expect a fixed loadout, so 50/50 but not this release wave
- absolutely a given
- not a chance in hell
- maaayyybbbeee
- here's a cool chosen conversion!
- have a bonus primarch!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Palatine Blades. "Generic CSM but with sonic weapons!" is a start, sure, but is that all the EC are?

It's not, "all they are," but I feel like a lot of the cool aspects of EC lend themselves better to special rules/detachment abilities/wargear options for existing squads rather than new units. As I understand it, EC basically use the same sorts of units as most other CSM. Maybe those units tend to be dressed in pink and sprouting tentacles instead of fly eyes or bird beaks, but the basics are the same. Like, I'm not sure EC terminators behave so differently from every other chaos terminator that they need a special kit and bespoke rules. You could give them possessed that act like chunky, pseudo-slaaneshi daemons, but I'd personally rather we just use the normal possessed and actual slaaneshi daemon units. You could give their predators the option to take hallucinogenic gas launchers, but I wouldn't want to see a piece of the release schedule and shelves in the store dedicated to that.

Basically, the normal CSM units are mostly fine for representing EC. It would be cool if they maybe had slightly tweaked rules to nod to their Slaaneshi-brand tactics (different spells on the sorcerer for instance), but I don't want to see an EC-exclusive Slaaneshi Sorcerer kit that invalidates my existing sorcerer if I want to use EC rules.

I expect a unit of "duelists". Haughty sigvald types with "handsome squidward" type faces and really fancy swords in intricately ornate power armor - maybe a character unit, call them the three bolterteers or something.

Of course there needs to be noise marines and terminators or whatever, I expect a "Kakaphoni" type unit armed fully wiht sonic weapons (as opposed to noise marines that would carry bolters with sonic special weapons).

Regarding guitarboi - I hope that if they include instrument-themed weapons they go for something more classical/orchestral than a modern 3-4 piece band type setup. Something about the guitar/modern instruments makes it too kitschy and campy for my tastes.

Ah, but respectfully, chaos0xomega, those duelists could probably just be chosen with powerswords (unless chosen no longer have that option?), and last time I checked noise marines already had the option to have a sonic weapon on every model if you want it.

So while I agree that kakophoni and a unit of elite duelists (who have a name that escapes me) should be available in an EC army, I'd argue that we already have the tools to represent them. So while we certainly could get a unit of duelists that are basically chosen with fewer options and maybe a special "duelists" rule, I feel like that might fall into the category of "bloat."

I'm going to disagree with that because a unit is more than just its wargear, it's the rules that go along with it and the army it fits into.

After the WE codex, expecting HH-descended units and even terminators is clearly expecting too much.

So... noise marines, a noise marine LT, a commander that doesn't match any unit type, some cultists, and something weird so we remember its chaos.
And fulgrim, obviously, because every primarch has to be there for random skirmish #23,233

 Gert wrote:
I'm going to disagree with that because a unit is more than just its wargear, it's the rules that go along with it and the army it fits into.

Well, they can be. But the nuances between an EC terminator and a generic CSM terminator need to be significant enough to be worth writing rules for. Like, you can swap out the chosens' Chosen Marauders rule for some sort of duelist special rule. That would be fun and fluffy and redefine their preferred role within the army. But I'm not sure we need a new box of "Phoenix Duelist" models that are basically just melee chosen with an extra datasheet entry.

EC terminators probably behave pretty much the same as Red Corsairs terminators, and that's okay.

The sad part is that Slaanesh has a lot of thematic elements they could play into that goes just beyond Noise Marines, since the whole 7 deadly sins angle is something they should explore in more detail (and something they have definitely touched on more in AoS). It would be cool to see units that have that obsession/compulsion towards one particular sin, so one that is focused on gluttony (could be a potential Chaos Spawn variant), one focused on greed (objective denial/focus), and some of the more prominent sins like pride and wrath could be focused towards support or HQ characters.

Knowing GW though, they'll overdo the whole noise marine aspect to the detriment of all the other parts of the Emperor's Children.

Yeah, the failure to include red butchers off the bat was mind-blowing to me. SOTs were deemed to be distinctive enough to warrant their own kit and unit entry, as were Death Guard and Blightlord Terminators. World Eaters termies with dual chain axes and berserker rules, and phoenix guard terminators or whatever they are called with, I dunno power spears and sonic weapons, both strike me as different enough to warrant kits and inclusion as well, contrary to Wyldhunts pov.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, the failure to include red butchers off the bat was mind-blowing to me. SOTs were deemed to be distinctive enough to warrant their own kit and unit entry, as were Death Guard and Blightlord Terminators. World Eaters termies with dual chain axes and berserker rules, and phoenix guard terminators or whatever they are called with, I dunno power spears and sonic weapons, both strike me as different enough to warrant kits and inclusion as well, contrary to Wyldhunts pov.

See, unless there's something extra special about Blightlords that I'm not aware of, I feel like they probably didn't need to be their own unit. They're basically just power weapon terminators with Disgustingly Resilient, right? You could totally add power spear sonic weapon terminators, and those would probably warrant their own datasheet, but those aren't an established canon thing that's missing from the game are they? Like, if you want to add stuff just to add stuff/because you think it's cool, that's fair. But that's also basically the definition of bloat isn't it?

And then as you add more and more units like that over time, you end up with the marine problem where there are so many units competing to perform the same job, some of them inevitably end up being redundant/second-stringers.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Unique daemon engine(s): It would be cool to have a unique daemon engine with a Slaaneshi twist, possibly having a more liquid/graceful look, maybe with the ability to mess with enemy auras and morale.

House Devine Knights please.

I know, not actually part of EC, but it's the best excuse for producing them that's likely to appear and it's not like GW won't massage the fluff when it suits them.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I'm going to disagree with that because a unit is more than just its wargear, it's the rules that go along with it and the army it fits into.

Well, they can be. But the nuances between an EC terminator and a generic CSM terminator need to be significant enough to be worth writing rules for. Like, you can swap out the chosens' Chosen Marauders rule for some sort of duelist special rule. That would be fun and fluffy and redefine their preferred role within the army. But I'm not sure we need a new box of "Phoenix Duelist" models that are basically just melee chosen with an extra datasheet entry.

EC terminators probably behave pretty much the same as Red Corsairs terminators, and that's okay.

I somewhat agree. To take it further, the new Detachment system allows for a lot of flexibility around changing how an army functions without changing a single datasheet. If you treat EC as similar to BA/DA that'd probably be fine. Maybe one or two unique units and one character along with 5-6 EC inspired detachments but still with the ability to just play them as one of the regular CSM detachments if you want. If GW are going to insist on a "less is more" approach in the style of WE, I'd much rather they did so by utilising the Detachment system and integrating more closely with the CSM Codex rather than gutting the army and reducing it to a nonsensical collection of a dozen units.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
but those aren't an established canon thing that's missing from the game are they?

Why is that a prerequisite? We're talking about 40k where the company line to canon is "Everything is canon, nothing is true". By that logic nothing new should ever be added to the game because it wasn't "canon" before it got added. No new characters, no new units unless they explicitly are mentioned somewhere else in the background. There goes the Tyranids as a faction, and the T'au, and the Leagues of Votann because they aren't explicitly the old Squats. A solid chunk of the Necron and Ork additions need to go because they weren't "canon" before they got introduced. Actually, at one point Necrons didn't even exist so let's just bin them as well.
We should only ever be given redoes of kits that already exist because they're the only things that are "canon".
Oh, what your army hasn't had a new unit in five years? Sorry, we don't have any "canon" things for them so you'll just have to suck it up I guess.

But that's also basically the definition of bloat isn't it?

"Bloat" doesn't have a definition because to people like you, it means "units that are similar" but to others, it means "there should only be X profiles". It's a meaningless term bandied about by people who really want to say "I don't like new things, everything should be the same as it was when I most enjoyed 40k".

Adding Cult Terminators to the game isn't "bloat". Jesus...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Adding Cult Terminators to the game isn't "bloat". Jesus...

Depends on what the actual difference is from regular [marked] Terminators.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, the failure to include red butchers off the bat was mind-blowing to me. SOTs were deemed to be distinctive enough to warrant their own kit and unit entry, as were Death Guard and Blightlord Terminators. World Eaters termies with dual chain axes and berserker rules, and phoenix guard terminators or whatever they are called with, I dunno power spears and sonic weapons, both strike me as different enough to warrant kits and inclusion as well, contrary to Wyldhunts pov.

See, unless there's something extra special about Blightlords that I'm not aware of, I feel like they probably didn't need to be their own unit. They're basically just power weapon terminators with Disgustingly Resilient, right? You could totally add power spear sonic weapon terminators, and those would probably warrant their own datasheet, but those aren't an established canon thing that's missing from the game are they? Like, if you want to add stuff just to add stuff/because you think it's cool, that's fair. But that's also basically the definition of bloat isn't it?

And then as you add more and more units like that over time, you end up with the marine problem where there are so many units competing to perform the same job, some of them inevitably end up being redundant/second-stringers.

Blightlords weapon options are entirely non-standard, bubotic blades are not power swords, fails of corruption have no equivalent in the csm list, nor do Plague spewers and Blight launchers, technically Plague combi-bolters are distinct although that one is admittedly easy to translate.

As for power spear terminators, yes they exist in 30k. I guess technically they aren't spears but phoenix guard terminators are a unit that exist for emperors children. Just add sonic weapons to chaosify them a bit.

Slipspace wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I'm going to disagree with that because a unit is more than just its wargear, it's the rules that go along with it and the army it fits into.

Well, they can be. But the nuances between an EC terminator and a generic CSM terminator need to be significant enough to be worth writing rules for. Like, you can swap out the chosens' Chosen Marauders rule for some sort of duelist special rule. That would be fun and fluffy and redefine their preferred role within the army. But I'm not sure we need a new box of "Phoenix Duelist" models that are basically just melee chosen with an extra datasheet entry.

EC terminators probably behave pretty much the same as Red Corsairs terminators, and that's okay.

I somewhat agree. To take it further, the new Detachment system allows for a lot of flexibility around changing how an army functions without changing a single datasheet. If you treat EC as similar to BA/DA that'd probably be fine. Maybe one or two unique units and one character along with 5-6 EC inspired detachments but still with the ability to just play them as one of the regular CSM detachments if you want. If GW are going to insist on a "less is more" approach in the style of WE, I'd much rather they did so by utilising the Detachment system and integrating more closely with the CSM Codex rather than gutting the army and reducing it to a nonsensical collection of a dozen units.

Yeah. Strongly agree. I don't want it to be a situation where EC actually eventually lose a bunch of units because GW wanted to sell a dozen EC kits that are mostly just generic CSM kits with more Slaaneshi symbols on them. Warp talons and possessed and pretty much any generic CSM unit you care to name all feel at-home in an EC army. The main changes I'd be looking for would be special abilities/detachment rules/maybe a couple wargear options. But to my mind, you don't need a new kit for that sort of thing.

Gert wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
but those aren't an established canon thing that's missing from the game are they?

Why is that a prerequisite? We're talking about 40k where the company line to canon is "Everything is canon, nothing is true". By that logic nothing new should ever be added to the game because it wasn't "canon" before it got added.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Adding Cult Terminators to the game isn't "bloat". Jesus...

Depends on what the actual difference is from regular [marked] Terminators.

What Damocles said. Basically, I want us to avoid the loyalist marine situation of having 3 flavors of nearly identical terminator datasheets in one book plus the "special" faction-specific terminator variants in other books that are basically just normal termies with some extra wargear options. And to add to that, introducing ever-so-slightly-different versions of a unit means that you risk either:
A.) Having GW decide your old generic CSM unit is no longer allowed in an EC army because you should be buying the new EC-specific kit. Ex: Maybe they release some EC-specific warp talons, and now my old warp talons painted up to match my Slaaneshi army technically can't be used in that army.

B.) You risk making a similar datasheet into a second-stringer/never-take. I'm thinking of all the loyalist marine units that compete for the role as a melee unit (especially before assault marines were sent to Legends.) Between assault termies, reivers, assault marines, vanguard vets, assault centurions, assault intercessors, blade guard, and whatever faction-specific units your army might have, at least one of those units is probably stuck on the shelf because one of the other units does its job better.

But that's also basically the definition of bloat isn't it?

"Bloat" doesn't have a definition because to people like you, it means "units that are similar" but to others, it means "there should only be X profiles". It's a meaningless term bandied about by people who really want to say "I don't like new things, everything should be the same as it was when I most enjoyed 40k".

Respectfully, I feel like you're starting to put words in my mouth. I love seeing cool new units! I just want to avoid issues I detailed above. So if we're going to add a new unit to the game, I'd prefer it feel like it already has its own niche and feel significantly different from existing units.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Blightlords weapon options are entirely non-standard, bubotic blades are not power swords, fails of corruption have no equivalent in the csm list, nor do Plague spewers and Blight launchers, technically Plague combi-bolters are distinct although that one is admittedly easy to translate.

As for power spear terminators, yes they exist in 30k. I guess technically they aren't spears but phoenix guard terminators are a unit that exist for emperors children. Just add sonic weapons to chaosify them a bit.

Fair enough! And tbf, maybe sonic termies with lances are sufficiently distinct from generic termies to not run into problems. I'd just want to avoid having our new hypothetical sonic termies invalidate normal termies in some way; either by simply being the better option for most jobs or by literally becoming the only termies EC are allowed to field.

Bitter WE player here - expect disappointment...

I reckon it'll be a new Lucius (no-one mentioned him yet?), new Noise Marines, some disappointing cultists and something totally random that's shoe-horned in to the codex. Sonic dread will be missing, an unfathomable omission along the lines of the Red Butchers (or Teeth Of Khorne). Two thirds of the CSM codex will no longer be available.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

And then as you add more and more units like that over time, you end up with the marine problem where there are so many units competing to perform the same job, some of them inevitably end up being redundant/second-stringers.

That specifically isn't the way the Chaos books work, though. The three of the Big Four so far have had their access to normal units gutted. There is no 'same job' alternative that they can field. They just lose access to the majority of the chaos marine armory.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

As for power spear terminators, yes they exist in 30k. I guess technically they aren't spears but phoenix guard terminators are a unit that exist for emperors children. Just add sonic weapons to chaosify them a bit.

Fair enough! And tbf, maybe sonic termies with lances are sufficiently distinct from generic termies to not run into problems. I'd just want to avoid having our new hypothetical sonic termies invalidate normal termies in some way; either by simply being the better option for most jobs or by literally becoming the only termies EC are allowed to field.

Voss wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

And then as you add more and more units like that over time, you end up with the marine problem where there are so many units competing to perform the same job, some of them inevitably end up being redundant/second-stringers.

That specifically isn't the way the Chaos books work, though. The three of the Big Four so far have had their access to normal units gutted. There is no 'same job' alternative that they can field. They just lose access to the majority of the chaos marine armory.

What you're describing is what I meant by:

A.) Having GW decide your old generic CSM unit is no longer allowed in an EC army because you should be buying the new EC-specific kit. Ex: Maybe they release some EC-specific warp talons, and now my old warp talons painted up to match my Slaaneshi army technically can't be used in that army.

No disrespect to anyone who likes the idea of such units, but if the pitch for a new kit is basically to take unit X and then give it a relatively small twist... You end up either risking overlap (where one unit is always taken over the other) or risking GW deciding that you shouldn't retain access to the old unit.

So if we get possessed-but-make-them-Slaaneshi, how do you make them sufficiently different from normal possessed to avoid overlap? Ditto a hypothetical duelist unit compared to chosen or a hypothical sonic terminator squad and noise marines/normal termies? Not saying it can't work, but the introduction of an overly-similar unit makes me nervous. Plus, some of these ideas could just be done with detachment abilities or something. The duelists could literally just be a rule that you give to chosen. A detachment rule could just add/swap-out a special rule to possessed.

No new kits required and thus no risk of GW deciding your old units can't be used in your EC army any more. And no risk of the new duelist unit making chosen less desirable because the duelists are chosen.

That would only be true if Emperors Children or World Eaters or whomever had access to those units in the first place though, which they don't. There are no warp talons in the World Eaters book, nor in the Death Guard or Thousand Sons books. If GW released World Eaters specific Warp Talons, then that would only be a good thing because its a unit that they don't have now.

Emperors Children don't currently have a book at all, so anything that they get would automatically be more than what they have now, which is nothing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
That would only be true if Emperors Children or World Eaters or whomever had access to those units in the first place though, which they don't. There are no warp talons in the World Eaters book, nor in the Death Guard or Thousand Sons books. If GW released World Eaters specific Warp Talons, then that would only be a good thing because its a unit that they don't have now.

Emperors Children don't currently have a book at all, so anything that they get would automatically be more than what they have now, which is nothing.

Eh. I think we're looking at it from different angles. Currently, EC have access to all the generic CSM units. I don't think it would be a fun or fluffy change for them to suddenly lose access to most of those just like it wasn't a good change for World Eaters. Like, there probably should be warp talons in the WE and DG books, right? TS are a little bit of an odd duck because of the whole rubric thing.

Coming out with a handful of EC kits just so GW can restrict your unit selection and get you to buy EC-brand warp talons to replace the ones you already have just seems like a really undesirable outcome to me.

risking GW deciding that you shouldn't retain access to the old unit

That isn't a risk. That's the reality of what GW does with the chaos legions.

We're three books in. There's no room for doubt that they're going to do the same with book 4 of 4 [barring a sudden and extreme conversion of the entire management and design team to a completely different design philosophy]

They definitely are not going to do 'same kit but different rules.' That's counter to their entire design ethos and sales strategy.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Blightlords weapon options are entirely non-standard, bubotic blades are not power swords, fails of corruption have no equivalent in the csm list, nor do Plague spewers and Blight launchers, technically Plague combi-bolters are distinct although that one is admittedly easy to translate.

Eh.
Bubotic Blades might as well be standard Power Weapons (there's no need for axe/sword to have different rules). Plague Spewer is a plaguey Heavy Flamer. There's no reason Death Guard should be the only Legion to have retained their grenade/Blight Launchers and flails/two-handed melee weapons.

They're different because arbitrary differences have been imposed on them to sell variant rules and new models. What happened to all the Power Fists and Lightning Claws? It's funny that prior to the first Death Guard Codex nobody was bemoaning their inability to make Death Guard Terminators

See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.
Every single unit in that army is still perfectly legal and you can still absolutely play them as Emperor's Children because guess what? Nobody is stopping you.
The CSM Codex is still there and those units you claim you've lost access to aren't gone.
Don't like Blightlords and want to keep using your Nurgle bikes? Cool, don't use the Death Guard Codex. It's literally that goddamn easy.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
That would only be true if Emperors Children or World Eaters or whomever had access to those units in the first place though, which they don't. There are no warp talons in the World Eaters book, nor in the Death Guard or Thousand Sons books. If GW released World Eaters specific Warp Talons, then that would only be a good thing because its a unit that they don't have now.

Emperors Children don't currently have a book at all, so anything that they get would automatically be more than what they have now, which is nothing.

Eh. I think we're looking at it from different angles. Currently, EC have access to all the generic CSM units. I don't think it would be a fun or fluffy change for them to suddenly lose access to most of those just like it wasn't a good change for World Eaters. Like, there probably should be warp talons in the WE and DG books, right? TS are a little bit of an odd duck because of the whole rubric thing.

Coming out with a handful of EC kits just so GW can restrict your unit selection and get you to buy EC-brand warp talons to replace the ones you already have just seems like a really undesirable outcome to me.

No, currently CSM armies painted like EC have access to all of the generic CSM units. Thats not really the same thing.

 Gert wrote:
See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.
Every single unit in that army is still perfectly legal and you can still absolutely play them as Emperor's Children because guess what? Nobody is stopping you.
The CSM Codex is still there and those units you claim you've lost access to aren't gone.
Don't like Blightlords and want to keep using your Nurgle bikes? Cool, don't use the Death Guard Codex. It's literally that goddamn easy.

100% this.

Ideally, I'd like to be able to enjoy a hypothetical new sonic weapon detachment (or whatever) without also randomly having to give up a bunch of units that are perfectly fluffy for the faction.

Maybe GW won't make that possible, but it seems like a reasonable thing to want, no?

Yeah, and for now that's probably the better way of running my army. Can still use Berzerkers, and could get away with calling Kharn a Chaos Lord With Plasma Pistol And Accursed Weapon (TM). Lord On Juggernaut is still in Legends too. So yeah, that does sort me out - eightbound and jakhals don't especially appeal.

Kind of out there option?

Twin Bladesmen as what would once have been an Elite Choice.

Deploy as a unit of two. With sick HTH skills.

Models wise I’m thinking mirrored hermaphroditic aesthetic. So one is male on the left, the other male on the right. Really lean into that classic Slaaneshi look.

Gert wrote:See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.
Every single unit in that army is still perfectly legal and you can still absolutely play them as Emperor's Children because guess what? Nobody is stopping you.
The CSM Codex is still there and those units you claim you've lost access to aren't gone.
Don't like Blightlords and want to keep using your Nurgle bikes? Cool, don't use the Death Guard Codex. It's literally that goddamn easy.

Or hot take....
Just continue to use them

That's what I'm gonna do. Luckily i only play with people whom DO NOT SUCK, so we've already discussed this and it's not even remotely a problem.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Ideally, I'd like to be able to enjoy a hypothetical new sonic weapon detachment (or whatever) without also randomly having to give up a bunch of units that are perfectly fluffy for the faction.

Maybe GW won't make that possible, but it seems like a reasonable thing to want, no?

Then ally them in?

At the end of the day, GW dictates the fluff. If GW says EC don't have obliterators, then EC don't have obliterators, regardless of whether you think its fluffy or not, etc.

Also your objectives are at odds with themselves, you want to play with the sonic weapon units, but are arguing that hte sonic weapon units should not be implemented because they will render your generic units redundant. Basically, pick one, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Either GW introduces the bespoke units with the bespoke wargear options, or they don't.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Ideally, I'd like to be able to enjoy a hypothetical new sonic weapon detachment (or whatever) without also randomly having to give up a bunch of units that are perfectly fluffy for the faction.

Maybe GW won't make that possible, but it seems like a reasonable thing to want, no?

Then ally them in?

At the end of the day, GW dictates the fluff. If GW says EC don't have obliterators, then EC don't have obliterators, regardless of whether you think its fluffy or not, etc.

Fair enough. Just seems like an unfortunate hoop to have to jump through. Can we agree that ideally we'd be able to get new units without losing old ones or having the new ones render the old ones irrelevant?

Also your objectives are at odds with themselves, you want to play with the sonic weapon units, but are arguing that hte sonic weapon units should not be implemented because they will render your generic units redundant. Basically, pick one, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Either GW introduces the bespoke units with the bespoke wargear options, or they don't.

Eh. I suppose that's true. I know No Model No Rules is a thing now, but it doesn't seem like we should need a new bespoke kit just to give a chaos rhino a sonic blaster option. And if we got, say, a sonic dreadnaught, I think it would be reasonable to ask that it be designed in such a way that there's still a niche for a conventional hellbrute in the army.

Now you're asking too much lol, we've gone entire editions where hellbrutes haven't had a niche despite there not being any direct competition

 Gert wrote:
See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.

'Counts As' is never a solution.

GW officially disagrees with you

Legends: Legendary Units

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gert wrote:
See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.

'Counts As' is never a solution.

don't think of it as "Counts as" think of it as "two seperate ways to play the army"

My guess is EC's won't get a their own codex this edition, or if they do it'll be late 10th edition, more likely they'll get a detachment that focuses around it.

Taking a guess CSMs will get a slaanishi, Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzzetch and undivided detachments, the current detachment will, of course be the "black legionesque" in that it can run a mix.

EC are about perfection, so I'll suggest something we don’t see in other CSM: Snipers or A Sniper.
We don’t need to just flanderize the sonic thing all the time, but if we do, some blastmaster artillery thing could be interesting.

BrianDavion wrote:
Taking a guess CSMs will get a slaanishi, Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzzetch and undivided detachments, the current detachment will, of course be the "black legionesque" in that it can run a mix.

I hope we get a damn sight more than just five! Moreover, I'd like it if the "generic" detachment didn't have 5 God-locked enhancements, so if you're playing a themed force you basically can only ever take 1 enhancement.

 alextroy wrote:
GW officially disagrees with you

Cute.

But just taking the CSM 'Dex and saying "I'm playing World Eaters!" isn't really playing World Eaters. World Eaters have their own book, with their own rules, and own unique units (for good or for ill... mostly ill given the half-assed nature of that book).

What people want with EC is not a repeat of the WE book.

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gert wrote:
See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.

'Counts As' is never a solution.

don't think of it as "Counts as" think of it as "two seperate ways to play the army"

My guess is EC's won't get a their own codex this edition, or if they do it'll be late 10th edition, more likely they'll get a detachment that focuses around it.

Taking a guess CSMs will get a slaanishi, Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzzetch and undivided detachments, the current detachment will, of course be the "black legionesque" in that it can run a mix.

Valraks sources say late next year for EC as aheads up,which I think is the samesources who gave him the Leviathan info?

Dudeface wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gert wrote:
See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.

'Counts As' is never a solution.

don't think of it as "Counts as" think of it as "two seperate ways to play the army"

My guess is EC's won't get a their own codex this edition, or if they do it'll be late 10th edition, more likely they'll get a detachment that focuses around it.

Taking a guess CSMs will get a slaanishi, Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzzetch and undivided detachments, the current detachment will, of course be the "black legionesque" in that it can run a mix.

Valraks sources say late next year for EC as aheads up,which I think is the samesources who gave him the Leviathan info?

I suppose we'll find out when the CSM 'dex lacks noise marines

I like the idea of the Twinsouls from AoS, which sounds like instead of typical possession, is more of a pact with the two souls sharing the same body in a semi-equal relationship. Heck, even smooshing together a CSM and daemon soul together to create a truly unique being could be Slaanesh's interesting gimmick outside of noise marines.

Other than that, I doubt we'll see any 'new' or non standard weapons outside of sonic weaponry, but it'd be neat if they had access to non-standard munitions in limited quantities. Bolter shells that could force battleshock tests if they hit, a hypersonic missile that goes from the firing model to the edge of board and damages everything in that line, poison that can be applied to CCW's to give a unit anti infantry for a turn, things like that.

I feel like the problem here is 'Emperor's Children' and 'Noise Marines' are not synonymous, far moreso than any of the other cult legions - Thousand Sons canonically (I think?) are all sorcerers or animate armour full of dust, a Plague Marine is a pretty fair representation of a Death Guard legionary, Khorne's admittedly been flanderised to just 'carnage for carnage's sake' and martial valour and righteous fury have been shoved off to the side but basically a World Eater's a Berzerker... but Noise Marines' obsession with aural sense-freakery is just one possible aspect of Slaanesh, and honestly kind of a niche one, it's just that they happen to be more marketable, because it's easy to represent visually by just giving them mohawks and guitar guns and GW doesn't have to explain to concerned parents why little Timmy's come home with a box of drug-addicted rapists. Based on the existing cult codices Codex Emperor's Children is actually gonna be Codex Noise Marines (which is fine, give the Noise Marine cult a couple of extra troop options and characters and whatever), but I feel like there's so much more to the Emperor's Children than sound guns, there should be Emperor's Children legionaries even after 10,000 years who've gone off the deep end in entirely different ways and haven't become Noise Marines, and anecdotally I think many Emperor's Children players are attracted (ha) to that variety and bake it into their warbands both lore-wise and in how they build their armies on the tabletop, and the codex is inevitably going to disappoint them.

I've mentioned this before, but I think it's an error in marketing the lore to equate the legions to their cults exclusively - it's most obvious with the Emperor's Children/Noise marines and they stand to benefit most from avoiding the error, but my feeling is what GW should do is have legion army lists for all the legions in Codex CSM, including the big four and basic-troops rules for cult troops, then publish Codex Khorne Berzerkers, Codex Noise Marines, Codex Plague Marines, and Codex I dunno Rubricae or whatever they're called (I'm not that well versed on the other cults) where the cult troops get all the bells and whistles, to give players a choice of whether they want to go all-in on their god's specific cult, or just have a god-flavoured but still varied warband. I mean I'd love to see what Codex Noise Marines might have in store, but I never felt hamstrung just using the EC rules from Codex CSM in 9th, I felt like they gave my warband a specific and characterful flavour, and I don't see the problem of carrying on in that vein. EC players will still buy Noise Marines miniatures, most will probably still buy Codex Noise Marines just out of sheer relief at it finally being real - regular CSM players get the option of having 'basic' Noise Marines from Codex CSM if they want their army a little Slaaneshi but not a lot, or taking allies from Codex NM if they want to really get kinky but still be whatever other warband identity they're attached to, EC players can go all-sonic if they want or just keep whatever other flavour of nutcase perfection floats their boat and likewise have an allied NM contingent to use the new toys, and nobody gets pissed off by being told they're doing their army 'wrong'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
'Counts As' is never a solution.

Good thing it isn't "Counts As" then right because you aren't proxying units as other units, you're using them as they are. The only reason the God-Marked Chaos books use Legion names is because of branding.

Changed my mind.

I don’t want an Emperors Children Codex. At all. Or a World Eaters Codex. Or a Death Guard, Thousand Son, Chaos Space Marine, Chaos Knight Codex.

I. Want. A. CHAOS. Codex.

All in one. A tome so mighty if you dropped it there’s the chance it could kill a small child.

All of it. One volume. A book of gaming anarchy. And 10th is the time for it. Because we have no FOC restrictions.

Will that allow some seriously beardy and un-fun combos? Sure. But then…any Codex can do that. And it’s no reason to remove player choice from one of the most anarchic forces in the background.

Yes I’m 100% serious. One Codex To Stomp Them All.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
New Chaos force released into the game, such as Lost and Damned?

Do a supplement, sure. But have it all interact.

You can introduce some restraint via Detachment rules. But just wang it all in one book.

It's not Rogue Trader anymore Doc, there are way too many options for that to be even remotely in the realms of a possibility.

The balance would be non-existent both internally and as an opposing force. People wouldn't win due to luck or skill, they'd win because there would never be any downside to playing the army.

Complete freedom is the worst thing any designer can do to a game and restrictions are absolutely necessary to keep it with even a modicum of health. Even the proposed detachments would be worthless because the basic version that lets a player take everything would always be the better choice. And if restrictions have to be placed to keep balance in the first place, does that not mean that the army should be split? If you have to largely restrict options just to keep the army from being too powerful, then that army shouldn't be.

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
'Counts As' is never a solution.

Good thing it isn't "Counts As" then right because you aren't proxying units as other units, you're using them as they are. The only reason the God-Marked Chaos books use Legion names is because of branding.

So I have a DG army. If I take your advice & just run them as CSM, how do you propose I use my very DG specific units like drones, myphetic crawlers, & PBCs.?

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
'Counts As' is never a solution.

Good thing it isn't "Counts As" then right because you aren't proxying units as other units, you're using them as they are. The only reason the God-Marked Chaos books use Legion names is because of branding.

So I have a DG army. If I take your advice & just run them as CSM, how do you propose I use my very DG specific units like drones, myphetic crawlers, & PBCs.?

There should be a generic customisable & markable lesser daemon engine entry, and a generic customisable artillery tank entry...

ccs wrote:
So I have a DG army. If I take your advice & just run them as CSM, how do you propose I use my very DG specific units like drones, myphetic crawlers, & PBCs.?

Do you mean Death Guard units as opposed to CSM units? Yes, I would recommend using the Death Guard Codex to field those.

That point I was making was regarding armies made prior to the new Codexes and I know you know this. If you have chosen to buy newer kits from the newer Codexes then that's a different point altogether.
But if your Death Guard army didn't have any of those new things and you want to keep using your old stuff, then just do that. It's not like the CSM Codex has taken away Mark of Nurgle for Raptors or Bikes nor has it removed the option to take Plague Marines.
The only "issue", and I use the quotation marks for a good reason, is that certain units aren't in the base Codex but rather Legends, and for some stupid reason people still cling to the idiotic belief that Legends are not legal units despite GW being very clear that they are perfectly legal units.

Back when we had 9th's detachment system, it would have been easy enough to build a Slaanesh-marked CSM detachment and an Emperor's Children detachment and field both of them in the same army.

Or Nurgle-marked CSM + Deathguard.
Or Khorne-marked CSM + World Eaters.
Or Tzeench-marked CSM + Ksons.

But now that faction rules have been replaced by detachment rules and unit types are gone, single detachment armies are kinda baked into the core rules.

Another thing that 9th did better than 10th. Surprise!

 Gert wrote:

The only "issue", and I use the quotation marks for a good reason, is that certain units aren't in the base Codex but rather Legends, and for some stupid reason people still cling to the idiotic belief that Legends are not legal units despite GW being very clear that they are perfectly legal units.

Sure tell me how am I suppose to use the 3 dreadnoughts I have for GK with double heavy weapon load out that GW put in to legends, and then, as they promised, never updated? Or the psy melee dreadnought. or the psyback.

Karol wrote:
Sure tell me how am I suppose to use the 3 dreadnoughts I have for GK with double heavy weapon load out that GW put in to legends, and then, as they promised, never updated? Or the psy melee dreadnought. or the psyback.

You go to the downloads tab on Warhammer Community, select Warhammer 40k, go to the Grey Knights Legends datasheets and Legends points compendium, and then use them in a game.

Not difficult and also not relevant to the discussion being had.

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:

The only "issue", and I use the quotation marks for a good reason, is that certain units aren't in the base Codex but rather Legends, and for some stupid reason people still cling to the idiotic belief that Legends are not legal units despite GW being very clear that they are perfectly legal units.

Sure tell me how am I suppose to use the 3 dreadnoughts I have for GK with double heavy weapon load out that GW put in to legends, and then, as they promised, never updated? Or the psy melee dreadnought. or the psyback.

Ok, but you're not going to like the answer.

●Your psyback & psy-melee dread are in 10 Legends.
So just change how you play/who you play with. Once you ditch your stupid anti-Legends stance your 40k quality of life will improve (well, a little anyways - you are still playing GKs afterall. )
●your Mortis dreads though.... :( atm your SOL rules as written.

Crispy78 wrote:
Bitter WE player here - expect disappointment...

I reckon it'll be a new Lucius (no-one mentioned him yet?), new Noise Marines, some disappointing cultists and something totally random that's shoe-horned in to the codex. Sonic dread will be missing, an unfathomable omission along the lines of the Red Butchers (or Teeth Of Khorne). Two thirds of the CSM codex will no longer be available.

Expect Slaangors to be shoved down your throat forever


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gert wrote:
See all those people complainging the God-Marked books invalidate your armies, no it doesn't.

'Counts As' is never a solution.

don't think of it as "Counts as" think of it as "two seperate ways to play the army"

My guess is EC's won't get a their own codex this edition, or if they do it'll be late 10th edition, more likely they'll get a detachment that focuses around it.

Taking a guess CSMs will get a slaanishi, Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzzetch and undivided detachments, the current detachment will, of course be the "black legionesque" in that it can run a mix.

Nah, the detachment for CSM will most certainly be

Sneaky Tricky detachment (totally not Alpha legion)
Fortification is my mission (totally not Iron Warriors)
Spooky dudes (totally not Night Lords)
God i love demons (totally not Word bearers)
Piracy, babyyy (totally not Red Corsairs)
Excess for my mistress (Totally not Emperor's children)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Sure tell me how am I suppose to use the 3 dreadnoughts I have for GK with double heavy weapon load out that GW put in to legends, and then, as they promised, never updated? Or the psy melee dreadnought. or the psyback.

Can you for ONCE aknowledge that you understand that your local meta is particularly tryhard and probably the main source of your woes with 40k as a whole? Like PLEASE make us know we're not just wasting time copypasting the same answer every time you ask a question like that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Bitter WE player here - expect disappointment...

I reckon it'll be a new Lucius (no-one mentioned him yet?), new Noise Marines, some disappointing cultists and something totally random that's shoe-horned in to the codex. Sonic dread will be missing, an unfathomable omission along the lines of the Red Butchers (or Teeth Of Khorne). Two thirds of the CSM codex will no longer be available.

Expect Slaangors to be shoved down your throat forever

Sounds very much their cup of tea!

I actually love the AoS slaangor models and won't begrudge them at all if they end up in EC too. I did have high hopes for Jakhals, when all we knew about them was the name - but nope, just berserk cultists to go with the berserkers, super-berserkers and super-super-berserkers... *looks wistfully at old metal dog-faced Khorne beastmen*

Crispy78 wrote:

Sounds very much their cup of tea!

I actually love the AoS slaangor models and won't begrudge them at all if they end up in EC too. I did have high hopes for Jakhals, when all we knew about them was the name - but nope, just berserk cultists to go with the berserkers, super-berserkers and super-super-berserkers... *looks wistfully at old metal dog-faced Khorne beastmen*

i play Thousand Sons, i loathe how tzaangors take up half our legion exclusive range and a shoved as filler in most of our boxes too. The models themselves are nice, but damn do i wish we had more actual Thousand Sons units

Yeah I definitely get that side of things. Like how in 6th / 7th edition the best way to play CSMs was to... not take CSMs. But that's not what I signed up for!

So I play 3rd legion in heresy and wouldn't mind adding some 40k stuff if it came out. What I'd love to see is sticking to the themes of their heresy decline.

-swordsmen with a love of duels
-surgical augments
-obsessions going off the rails
-a dulling of sensory imput
-speed

Lots of cabels, inbuilt speakers and shrieking faces would be good, combat drug injectors built in all over the place. I guess take the design cues from Lucias and Bile then build upon them.

Possessed would be fun, but so would stitched together mutant monsters from Bile's labs. Acting like poorly refined eversor assasins, blowing up when killed in a spray of chems.

I think whips, swords and spears would be good signature weaponry to work with as well.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i play Thousand Sons, i loathe how tzaangors take up half our legion exclusive range and a shoved as filler in most of our boxes too. The models themselves are nice, but damn do i wish we had more actual Thousand Sons units

World Eater players have much the same thinking, only they didn't get anything like Khornagors to fill that gap. WE just got a half-Codex, rather than a Codex half-filled with goatmen.

Slaangors are pretty cool models though. Shame there are only 3 of them, and they have no posability/variation outside or maybe a sword/axe and a tabard.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Nah, the detachment for CSM will most certainly be

Sneaky Tricky detachment (totally not Alpha legion)
Fortification is my mission (totally not Iron Warriors)
Spooky dudes (totally not Night Lords)
God i love demons (totally not Word bearers)
Piracy, babyyy (totally not Red Corsairs)
Excess for my mistress (Totally not Emperor's children)

Too much credit by far. They're probably just going to be a mix of budget loyalist detachments and maybe some god-specific detachments. Sneaky Tricky= shadow masters, Bonuses for heavy weapons (IF=IW).
For 'future proofing' there probably won't even been a not!EC detachment.

No "totally not Black Legion" detachment?

Realistically I don't expect the detachments to align so closely to established subfactions, I think they will be more generalized and thematic. Its not like the Tyranid ones corresponded to specific hive fleets nor do the Space Marine ones really correspond to specific chapters either.

chaos0xomega wrote:
No "totally not Black Legion" detachment?

Realistically I don't expect the detachments to align so closely to established subfactions, I think they will be more generalized and thematic. Its not like the Tyranid ones corresponded to specific hive fleets nor do the Space Marine ones really correspond to specific chapters either.

the index detachment is the black legion one.

and the loyalist detachments align pretty closely to the chapters

I expect at least one Detachment to be Daemonkin.

 Gert wrote:
I expect at least one Detachment to be Daemonkin.

That's something I'd bet against you on, deamons are their own codex and I don't see them putting daemonkin into the CSM Codex, that's likely something we'll see towards the end of 10th as GW puts out story books with new rules and new detachments that allow for Hybriding

He might mean Daemonkin as in Possessed, Oblits and Daemon Engines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He might mean Daemonkin as in Possessed, Oblits and Daemon Engines.

fair I forgot about that, which is funny as I got the pack with em in it (marines and chaos marines? thats a box that adds to two of my armies!)

I just want them to release a separate box of Oblits and a proper Venomcrawler...

More likely in the 11th ed. Codex they legend cut the Venomcrawler entirely.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just want them to release a separate box of Oblits and a proper Venomcrawler...

The level that I want a stand-alone Venomcrawler Is staggering.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
More likely in the 11th ed. Codex they legend cut the Venomcrawler entirely.

Why? They had a phase of putting it in everything for a while and it's one of the better daemon engines in the range (sadly).

It needs a few options which has always been alluded to thanks to the random thorax hole that looks like a mounting point.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He might mean Daemonkin as in Possessed, Oblits and Daemon Engines.

Yes, basically all the Shadowspear stuff. It would be the not-Word Bearers detachment, if that's how it's going to get played out which is likely

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
More likely in the 11th ed. Codex they legend cut the Venomcrawler entirely.

Why? They had a phase of putting it in everything for a while and it's one of the better daemon engines in the range (sadly).

It needs a few options which has always been alluded to thanks to the random thorax hole that looks like a mounting point.

Same. I'd (at some point) expect a full kit and eventually a quiet retirement of the current dinobots and Defiler for models that are more in scale

Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yeah, and they look gooood.

Defiler (ideally with as a multikit for a Soul Grinder) NEEDS an update, make it fit with the other demon engines visually and get rid of that godawful "no base" style

Soul Grinder is only 10-15 years old as well IIRC, but it seems like something that should be multi-kitable. Defiler though is what 20-25 years? Feels like it was already an old kit when I started 20 years ago.

Amen on the base though.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yeah, and they look gooood.

Defiler (ideally with as a multikit for a Soul Grinder) NEEDS an update, make it fit with the other demon engines visually and get rid of that godawful "no base" style

The Defier remains the best of the plastic Daemon Engine line, IMHO. Could use a base though.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Soul Grinder is only 10-15 years old as well IIRC, but it seems like something that should be multi-kitable. Defiler though is what 20-25 years? Feels like it was already an old kit when I started 20 years ago.

Amen on the base though.

Isnt the soul grinder litterally just one sprue swap from the defiler?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Defier remains the best of the plastic Daemon Engine line, IMHO. Could use a base though.

well on THAT subject we have vastly different opinions then :p

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
More likely in the 11th ed. Codex they legend cut the Venomcrawler entirely.

Why? They had a phase of putting it in everything for a while and it's one of the better daemon engines in the range (sadly).

It needs a few options which has always been alluded to thanks to the random thorax hole that looks like a mounting point.

Same. I'd (at some point) expect a full kit and eventually a quiet retirement of the current dinobots and Defiler for models that are more in scale

If they stop producing the sprue it's on (maybe if they put out a proper Obliterator kit...) they'll drop it unceremoniously.

Not sure, been a long time sinceI built a Soul Grinder.

Agreed that the Defiler is the best Daemon Engine design (in plastic anyway). Its a thing of beauty (as long as its armed with a twin linked lascannon and a defiler scourge) and only needs a slight modernization and update to bring it up to par with more recent sculpts. That and a base.

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

Too much flesh, too little cable.

And for the love of khorne redo the venomcrawler, to be sold separately and be lesh fleshy.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure, been a long time sinceI built a Soul Grinder.

Agreed that the Defiler is the best Daemon Engine design (in plastic anyway). Its a thing of beauty (as long as its armed with a twin linked lascannon and a defiler scourge) and only needs a slight modernization and update to bring it up to par with more recent sculpts. That and a base.

I'd like to see them embrace their inner crab a bit more. Have it as a literal crab shaped engine thar scuttles sideways with loads of armour on top and I'll buy back into chaos.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

The old FW engines and the defiler are from a time when they were just ornate machines that looked other worldly and like they shouldn't work. It's only since 6th(?) That the daemon flesh-light-robots have become normal. But I don't think they're wrong either, it's just GW leaned a little too much on the toy/cartoon aesthetic, the nurgle drones both plastic and FW looked better as an example of that.

I suppose the LoS and PBC carry on the look of the machine engines though.

In terms of CSM I suspect we’ll get detachments for the non-mono-god legions. Ergo siege masters, terror legion, demon blessed, and lords of deception. I also wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see a cultist-horde focused detachment.

Personally, I find it interesting to think about what the mono god legions will get. Like, how do you get 6 different detachments for WE when they only have half a codex to begin with? T-sons already have a super thematic detachment, and while I can easily imagine one or two more (buffing psychic weapons, buffing rubrics), then what is there beyond that? Especially given, IIRC, we were told each codex would get 6 detachments.

EC at least seem to be the ‘easiest’ of the god-aligned legions to spread out. Their focus is simply obsession, so it’s not too difficult to parcel out different styles of warfare (melee, ranged, psychics, flanking / maneuver, overwhelming force) into the detachments.

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

It's age has nothing to do with it. It was just a "meh" sculpt the day it was released.
Now it's a discontinued "meh" sculpt.....

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

It's age has nothing to do with it. It was just a "meh" sculpt the day it was released.
Now it's a discontinued "meh" sculpt.....

It's not discontinued https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Chaos-Decimator-Daemon-Engine

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Forge / Maulerfiend are only, what, 10 years old? Not sure they'll be in scope for replacement yet...

Yes.

They are. Just as mutilators were.
For better daemonengines, look no further than the decimator, brass scorpions etc.

If you think that the Decimator is a great looking model..... :(

It's not bad looking and I'll take it over the helbrute, but it does show its age a little.

It's age has nothing to do with it. It was just a "meh" sculpt the day it was released.
Now it's a discontinued "meh" sculpt.....

It's not discontinued https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Chaos-Decimator-Daemon-Engine

Huh, I wonder why it didn't come up when I looked earlier.
Oh well, still a "meh" sculpt.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

I'll gladly join that club.

All Daemon Engines are beautiful, though I mostly prefer the ones that emphasize Engine over Daemon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

Personally I prefer the venom crawler, because its a more interesting design and actually looks like its in scale. Both the dinobots and defiler are about 15-20% too big.

For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Same. Give me more stuff that's weird, unique and not just "marines with a spikes sprue". Don't care if it looks like a dinobot or some bolted shut cistern with metallic limbs, just make it weird.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Too much flesh, too little cable.

There are some people who like Daemon Engines*, and some people who like Daemon Engines**. Appears we are both the latter.

*Like the Dinobots.
**Like the Defiler.

Both the dinobots and defiler are about 15-20% too big.

They really aren't. The Defiler at least is relatively small, it just takes up a large footprint on the table because of its legs. When you consider that the gun sticking out of its chest was orginally meant to be the same battlecannon used by a leman russ, the Defiler is appropriately sized for what its meant to be.

The maulerfiend and forgefiend are likewise sized well to what they are meant to be - the rules just suck and don't accurately reflect that. When they were originally conceived and released, both were statted up to be equivalent to a tank - and had damage output comparable to one as well. A single forgefiend or maulerfiend was a realistic threat to any vehicle or monstrous creature in the game at the time and could reasonably be expected to solo the toughest units in a single turn (such as the Land Raider and Monolith). As the rules currently stand today, they would seem too large relative to the actual capability they bring to the table, but the solution there is to buff them rather than make the models smaller.

chaos0xomega wrote:


The maulerfiend and forgefiend are likewise sized well to what they are meant to be - the rules just suck and don't accurately reflect that. When they were originally conceived and released, both were statted up to be equivalent to a tank - and had damage output comparable to one as well. A single forgefiend or maulerfiend was a realistic threat to any vehicle or monstrous creature in the game at the time and could reasonably be expected to solo the toughest units in a single turn (such as the Land Raider and Monolith). As the rules currently stand today, they would seem too large relative to the actual capability they bring to the table, but the solution there is to buff them rather than make the models smaller.

i'm confused as to what you're saying here, Forge/Maulers are both capable of going toe to toe with land raiders in 10th.

You guys, keep arguing about Daemon Engines, I'm team Plague Hulk

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Really thought we might have got a plastic one of them. Ho hum.

Crispy78 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Really thought we might have got a plastic one of them. Ho hum.

What? World Eaters getting one of their few unique units ported to plastic? Nah, best i can do is Berzerker variant #5.
(no bikes nor jumppack either, what do you think you are, some sort of space marine?)

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
You guys, keep arguing about Daemon Engines, I'm team Plague Hulk

that is the one exception to the flesh Daemon engines that actually looks good...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
For me the best "cabley" demon engine is the Blood Slaughterer, the hatch on its back where i assume the demon is shoved in and contained is so damn cool.

So i guess i'm on team Fleshy bits AND demon pod lol

Really thought we might have got a plastic one of them. Ho hum.

What? World Eaters getting one of their few unique units ported to plastic? Nah, best i can do is Berzerker variant #5.
(no bikes nor jumppack either, what do you think you are, some sort of space marine?)

Blood slaughterers are not unique to WE.

Red butchers would be, or teeth of khorne... alas.... GW sold WE players half a codex with only the berzerker side to it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


The maulerfiend and forgefiend are likewise sized well to what they are meant to be - the rules just suck and don't accurately reflect that. When they were originally conceived and released, both were statted up to be equivalent to a tank - and had damage output comparable to one as well. A single forgefiend or maulerfiend was a realistic threat to any vehicle or monstrous creature in the game at the time and could reasonably be expected to solo the toughest units in a single turn (such as the Land Raider and Monolith). As the rules currently stand today, they would seem too large relative to the actual capability they bring to the table, but the solution there is to buff them rather than make the models smaller.

i'm confused as to what you're saying here, Forge/Maulers are both capable of going toe to toe with land raiders in 10th.

They really aren't, at least not in terms of a high probability of "one-shot"-ing them unbuffed. Maulerfiend will average 9.5 wounds with Magma Cutters, even really hot rolls are unlikely to get you the 16 wounds you need to kill the LR. The Forgefiend is even worse and averages 2.6 wounds against a LR. You couldn't stack enough buffs on it to get you over the threshold.

In that regard though, the point is that a single model (as opposed to a unit) that can truly go toe-to-toe successfully with a land raider should logically be of a similar size to one, barring any sort of magic/tech disparity that enables a higher degree of lethality in a smaller package. The Maulerfiend and Forgefiend used to fit that criteria, they don't anymore.

 Gert wrote:
It's not Rogue Trader anymore Doc, there are way too many options for that to be even remotely in the realms of a possibility.

The balance would be non-existent both internally and as an opposing force. People wouldn't win due to luck or skill, they'd win because there would never be any downside to playing the army.

Complete freedom is the worst thing any designer can do to a game and restrictions are absolutely necessary to keep it with even a modicum of health. Even the proposed detachments would be worthless because the basic version that lets a player take everything would always be the better choice. And if restrictions have to be placed to keep balance in the first place, does that not mean that the army should be split? If you have to largely restrict options just to keep the army from being too powerful, then that army shouldn't be.

Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

I imagine the dark mechanicus would have just as many arguments as us over demon engine design. How fleshy or how close to a standard STC it should be.

Perhaps that's part of the charm. The individual techie/modeler can do as they please. Add more flesh? go for it. more cables? By all means.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:
It's not Rogue Trader anymore Doc, there are way too many options for that to be even remotely in the realms of a possibility.

The balance would be non-existent both internally and as an opposing force. People wouldn't win due to luck or skill, they'd win because there would never be any downside to playing the army.

Complete freedom is the worst thing any designer can do to a game and restrictions are absolutely necessary to keep it with even a modicum of health. Even the proposed detachments would be worthless because the basic version that lets a player take everything would always be the better choice. And if restrictions have to be placed to keep balance in the first place, does that not mean that the army should be split? If you have to largely restrict options just to keep the army from being too powerful, then that army shouldn't be.

Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

ya but not every 3 years reccuring revenue times X ammount of chaos books...

Alas, considerng the quality of the recent chaos books, that ain't a loss because the only correcting stage is the £$CHF € going to gw.

Also the whole can't be done.. HH has what 9 Legions / book in a multitude of ways? in a more complex system... Every single one is better than what follows in 40k.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

3.5 didn't have 5 additional armies worth of units though did it? It was just CSM with some Daemons.
Death Guard were a unit and a character, not 17 units plus the crossover CSM units like Land Raiders.
Base CSM have around 40 units if my maths is right and I think I'm missing some characters or something. And by my estimation half of those units didn't exist in 3rd. So even just going by basic CSM standards, the unit options have almost doubled and you think that adding five more Codexes worth of units and rules into an already large army is a good idea.
You have absolutely no right to ever complain about balance again my dude because you've proposed the least balanced thing since 7th Ed Ynarri Scatterbike spam.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also the whole can't be done.. HH has what 9 Legions / book in a multitude of ways? in a more complex system... Every single one is better than what follows in 40k.

Each Legion has a few unique units and characters alongside some special rules and maybe equipment if they're lucky. Most of the rules affect the greater part of the Legion list that is shared generic units.
That reason is why HH has far better balance between armies because those armies share 90% of the same units and rules.
There are no Death Guard Tactical Marines or Emperor's Children Despoilers, they're all the same basic stat line and equipment.
That isn't the case with the various CSM armies unless you really want to start removing options or turning every single datasheet into a genericised mess.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Totally doable, and of course the great Chaos 3.5 provides the template providing both a huge array of options while also placing limitations on their usage.

GW won't do it because GW likes to sell you as many $50 books as possible. But could it be done? Absolutely.

3.5 didn't have 5 additional armies worth of units though did it? It was just CSM with some Daemons.
Death Guard were a unit and a character, not 17 units plus the crossover CSM units like Land Raiders.
Base CSM have around 40 units if my maths is right and I think I'm missing some characters or something. And by my estimation half of those units didn't exist in 3rd. So even just going by basic CSM standards, the unit options have almost doubled and you think that adding five more Codexes worth of units and rules into an already large army is a good idea.

Remember when the Chaos Index fit all those armies into a book half the size of the 9th ed Space Marine one? I remember. I bet there was a lot of consolidation that could have been done on top of that too.

 Gert wrote:
You have absolutely no right to ever complain about balance again my dude because you've proposed the least balanced thing since 7th Ed Ynarri Scatterbike spam.

Hyperbole much? Set limits as 3.5 did. Meaningful ones . . . not boneheaded ones like Rule of Three.

Edit: Or just change the format of datasheets. Grimdark Future describes an army in like . . . 2 pages. It's not sorcery.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Remember when the Chaos Index fit all those armies into a book half the size of the 9th ed Space Marine one? I remember. I bet there was a lot of consolidation that could have been done on top of that too.

I also remember the 8th Indexes being worse than 7th Ed. It literally killed 40k in our group because the rules were so bland. Don't get me wrong subfaction stuff and the massive proliferation of Strategems got annoying when I started back up towards the end of 8th and into 9th but I would never go back to 8th Ed Index days.
Also, the Index didn't fit all that stuff because most of the Death Guard stuff wasn't out, more units got added to CSM in 9th, Chaos Knights weren't a thing, and as small as they are, WE weren't a thing either. I have long been a proponent of splitting Marines into Primaris and Firstborn books because of the unwieldy nature of the army as it stands.

Hyperbole much? Set limits as 3.5 did. Meaningful ones . . . not boneheaded ones like Rule of Three.

If you have to add huge restrictions to stop certain combos, then just make the various factions different Codexes. CSM players can still take Cult Marines, Daemons, and a Knight in their army thanks to the various Chaos ally mechanics.
The current way of things might be irritating for those who want to play all the Chaos armies but that's not most people and dumping a massive tome for people who only want to play Death Guard or Chaos Knights isn't a valid solution IMO.

I won't comment on the Grimdark Future stuff because I don't know anything about it.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Remember when the Chaos Index fit all those armies into a book half the size of the 9th ed Space Marine one? I remember. I bet there was a lot of consolidation that could have been done on top of that too.

I also remember the 8th Indexes being worse than 7th Ed. It literally killed 40k in our group because the rules were so bland. Don't get me wrong subfaction stuff and the massive proliferation of Strategems got annoying when I started back up towards the end of 8th and into 9th but I would never go back to 8th Ed Index days.
Also, the Index didn't fit all that stuff because most of the Death Guard stuff wasn't out, more units got added to CSM in 9th, Chaos Knights weren't a thing, and as small as they are, WE weren't a thing either. I have long been a proponent of splitting Marines into Primaris and Firstborn books because of the unwieldy nature of the army as it stands.

Not liking it doesn't make its doing impossible. And as for Index 8th YMMV. For many people the accessible Index format was part of what brought them back into the game after sitting out 7th (or longer).

Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

Rhino
Land Raider
Defiler
Predator Destructor
Predator Annihilator
Forgefiend
Maulerfiend
Hellbrute
Helldrake
Chaos Spawn
Daemon Prince
Daemon Prince with wings

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

 Gert wrote:

Hyperbole much? Set limits as 3.5 did. Meaningful ones . . . not boneheaded ones like Rule of Three.

If you have to add huge restrictions to stop certain combos, then just make the various factions different Codexes. CSM players can still take Cult Marines, Daemons, and a Knight in their army thanks to the various Chaos ally mechanics.
The current way of things might be irritating for those who want to play all the Chaos armies but that's not most people and dumping a massive tome for people who only want to play Death Guard or Chaos Knights isn't a valid solution IMO.

I won't comment on the Grimdark Future stuff because I don't know anything about it.

Why write rules when we can sell you more $50 books! You're GWs favorite kind of customer!

Grimdark Future is a easy way to get 40k models on the table using an AA format. It's not as crunchy as I'd prefer, but it's fun. It's also a fantastic example of brevity, and a great example of the possibilities for lowering page count by changing formats.

Yeah but those are "potential" units. It is like saying the GK have more unit options then 3, because GW added rhinos, storm ravens and other marine flyers to the codex.

A WE player is not going to take a predator, for some reason split in to two separate options, because it is a bad unit.

EC to be a real functioning army would have to have its own gimmik or set of special rules that work with each other. What ever those could be , besides sonic weapons, I do not know as I don't know much about EC.
Then the classic GW 2 characters 2 troops (normal+chaff), 1 fast, 1 heavy, 1 elite unit +big kit should happen. Everything else would be a bonus and based on how much the studio likes the EC and how much they think they would save, if the DT invested time and resources in to the army. If The DT decided yes and got a green light, then sky is the limit. Special terminator, more rank and file characters, maybe an extra heavy unit or a legion vehicle or a "legion" terrain model.

As for detachments for cult stuff I expect most of them to have an index one, a what ever is special elite in the army one, a " more demons" one, one build around the codex chaff and then maybe one build around one of the books special character.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

So that leaves:
44 CSM units
47 Daemon units
10 Chaos Knights units
18 Death Guard units
10 Tsons units
9 World Eaters units

That is a grand total of 138 datasheets which doesn't include things like detachments and army rules or background and also doesn't account for range expansion in the future, including the inevitable EC units which will likely sit around 10 more units added in. I don't know about you but I consider 138 unique datasheets to be a fairly unwieldy amount, especially when they are categorised as they are above. This isn't the HH Legion list where 90% of an army's units are all the same (except WE and Tsons who have both been done dirty by GW) with only a couple of unique units and characters.
The best solution is to do 40k Chaos the same way as AoS but I don't see that happening.

Why write rules when we can sell you more $50 books! You're GWs favorite kind of customer!

Why have a massive book with way too much stuff that you have to set so many restrictions on armies that it defeats the purpose of having the book be like that in the first place?
Why should I have to lug around a massive book to play World Eaters when I'm not going to use 90% of the content in that book?

Death Guard can't take the Forgefiend, Maulerfiend, or Heldrake.

Also being overlooked is that all those units listed there are actually distinct from book to book. A Death Guard Daemon Prince gives FNP to DG units, a Thousand Sons Daemon Prince gives a TSons unit stealth and Precision on their attacks as well as cabal points. etc.

 Gert wrote:

Why have a massive book with way too much stuff that you have to set so many restrictions on armies that it defeats the purpose of having the book be like that in the first place?
Why should I have to lug around a massive book to play World Eaters when I'm not going to use 90% of the content in that book?

Because that is how GW writes rules. People said marines are bloated, but most of the bloat was the 10000 cpts and Lt versions. Why can't it be single entry for a hero with the option to "buy bike/termintor/gravis/jump packs" etc for X point, then weapons for Y pts and for Z pts make him a cpt and for Z+pts make him a chapter master.Do the same for chaplains, librarians etc and suddenly the marine codex is half the size. Especialy if stuff like speeders, tanks that are the same tank with just a different turret etc become the same option too. I am mind blown that GW doesn't structure their books this way instead of claiming that phobos marine X and Y are two different units, instead of a different weapon load out. But I guess then they would have to bring back regular points.

^Exactly. Just change the format.

Also bring back the bold concept of paying for upgrades.

 Gert wrote:

10 Chaos Knights units

3 units with different weapon combinations...

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

So that leaves:
44 CSM units
47 Daemon units
10 Chaos Knights units
18 Death Guard units
10 Tsons units
9 World Eaters units

That is a grand total of 138 datasheets which doesn't include things like detachments and army rules or background and also doesn't account for range expansion in the future, including the inevitable EC units which will likely sit around 10 more units added in. I don't know about you but I consider 138 unique datasheets to be a fairly unwieldy amount, especially when they are categorised as they are above. This isn't the HH Legion list where 90% of an army's units are all the same (except WE and Tsons who have both been done dirty by GW) with only a couple of unique units and characters.
The best solution is to do 40k Chaos the same way as AoS but I don't see that happening.

There's 115 distinct units in the Liber Hereticus, though that's misleading, because 3 of those units are Legion Centurions, who are always taken as one of the several Legion Consuls options (in my experience). Subtracting those 3 (so 112) but adding the various Consul types available for each (16 for power armour Centurions, 10 each for each of the Terminator armored versions) gets us 148 units, all in one book. And that number grows even more when you consider that Jump Packs and bikes are equipment options, rather than unique units unto themselves.

So, yeah, it can be done, just with a different format, as others have said.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Btw, quick counting using the 10th ed points value lists gives a nice view into quick consolidation opportunities. The World Eaters list has a total of 23 units. Some of which are:

At a glance making more than half of the WE units shared across CSM, DG, TS and presumably any upcoming EC book. Not to mention Terminators, Lords, and other potentially easy consolidations to be had.

So that leaves:
44 CSM units
47 Daemon units
10 Chaos Knights units
18 Death Guard units
10 Tsons units
9 World Eaters units

That is a grand total of 138 datasheets which doesn't include things like detachments and army rules or background and also doesn't account for range expansion in the future, including the inevitable EC units which will likely sit around 10 more units added in. I don't know about you but I consider 138 unique datasheets to be a fairly unwieldy amount, especially when they are categorised as they are above. This isn't the HH Legion list where 90% of an army's units are all the same (except WE and Tsons who have both been done dirty by GW) with only a couple of unique units and characters.
The best solution is to do 40k Chaos the same way as AoS but I don't see that happening.

There's 115 distinct units in the Liber Hereticus, though that's misleading, because 3 of those units are Legion Centurions, who are always taken as one of the several Legion Consuls options (in my experience). Subtracting those 3 (so 112) but adding the various Consul types available for each (16 for power armour Centurions, 10 each for each of the Terminator armored versions) gets us 148 units, all in one book. And that number grows even more when you consider that Jump Packs and bikes are equipment options, rather than unique units unto themselves.

So, yeah, it can be done, just with a different format, as others have said.

Worth noting that while the Liber is way more space efficient than any modern 40K codex, it could still be trimmed down noticeably.

Combining the various Sicarians (like the predator entry), as well as the various iterations of praetors, centurians, and command squads are good places to start. Despoilers and Tacticals could be rolled together again. Destroyers could occupy a single entry. These changes alone would be about a 10% reduction in entries, and there are others that could be paired down as well.

They have some instances of consolidation in 10th.

The wraithknight for example. Were it in a knight list each weapon combination would be different unit (imperial knights are just a few chassis with locked weapon options).

You can take 5 distinct loadouts on that model each.

But they don't want you taking more than 3 so they're not separate. Which causes its own issues (dual wraith cannon should be far more expensive than sword and shield).

Yeah, but that is eldar. GW kills itself trying to give multiple load outs to WK or Autarchs. They do not do it for other factions. Eldar issues are always win more issues. While for armies like CSM or DG, the issues often are of the my army was designed for an edition that no longer exists or exists only in the mind of the designer or the designer really doesn't like my faction.

Karol wrote:
Yeah, but that is eldar. GW kills itself trying to give multiple load outs to WK or Autarchs. They do not do it for other factions. Eldar issues are always win more issues. While for armies like CSM or DG, the issues often are of the my army was designed for an edition that no longer exists or exists only in the mind of the designer or the designer really doesn't like my faction.

CSM are top tier in the current edition...
And DG after the buff are in a perfect spot to compete

Karol wrote:
Yeah, but that is eldar. GW kills itself trying to give multiple load outs to WK or Autarchs. They do not do it for other factions. Eldar issues are always win more issues. While for armies like CSM or DG, the issues often are of the my army was designed for an edition that no longer exists or exists only in the mind of the designer or the designer really doesn't like my faction.

given the eldar have for 30 years had squads with very little or no variation at all, while marines have had characters that can be customised to the extreme - terminator armour, gravis armour, phobos, jump packs, bikes, power weapons, fists, claws, hammers, pistols, plasma flamer combi etc for decades, you argument is ridiculous. It's so patently absurd that it sounds like trolling. Because you've chosen the one thing pretty much no one would argue - that eldar are the 'customisation' faction for 40k...

one character in the eldar army list now has some of the variety that marine characters got for decades and you cry the sky is falling. That's the height of privilege.

This is all I'm hearing from you: https://media.giphy.com/media/Cipj5jNsyTcxG/giphy.gif

Well, yeah, Karol hates Eldar. This isn't news.