Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Not really, it's hardly rocket science, e.g. just look at all the reused 30k SoH ability names functioning as Black Legion stratagems, reused 30k WB abilities functioning as WB stratagems, etc, etc. GW have routinely turned to 30k since at least Vigilus Ablaze as a source of inspiration for their traitor legion rules. GW gonna GW, no doubt about it, but let's not pretend that they're incapable of haphazardly lifting themes/translating rules from their own publications. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

And yet, they refuse to lift A Talent For Murder from HH and adapt it to 40k Night Lords, instead insisting on sticking with morale mechanics, no matter how many times they've been shown to be ineffective in the past. Faith and Fury gave me hope, because out of the 6 WTs, 8 stratagems, and 6 relics, only 1 stratagem and 1 relic focused on morale shenanigans, with the rest focusing on other aspects of the Legion. But it seems whoever it is on the design team who is obsessed with making Night Lords the "Scary Marines" managed to push that mess through, again.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be ceaselessly negative about their rumoured rules so far. The actual trait has two components; the morale/CA debuff and the bonus to advance and charge. While morale is a part of it, it's not all there is. And the actual doctrine bonus isn't necessarily morale dependent either:

Wanton Slaughter: When using a pistol/assault/melee vs below half strength unit or LD 6 and below = +1 to wound (Super doctrine)

This means against certain opponents you're going to get it by default, while against other tougher ones (e.g. Custodes) you can still activate it by weakening them before you pounce. Pretty much the only army it won't work against are Knights. That reads like a pretty reasonable translation of A Talent For Murder to me. I'd also point out that none of the other rumoured content for NL (1x trait, 2x strats, 1x relic) interact with morale at all, so the F&F theme may still hold true. It also goes without saying that there could be other parts of their lore translated in the form of relics/strats/traits etc; we don't have the full picture.

If you're simply going to hate any NL rules by default that involve any morale interaction at all then good for you, I'm not a fan of the mechanics either as I've been living with the old WB trait for nearly 5 years, but writing them off as a flanderised design failure is more than a little premature.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Not really, it's hardly rocket science, e.g. just look at all the reused 30k SoH ability names functioning as Black Legion stratagems, reused 30k WB abilities functioning as WB stratagems, etc, etc. GW have routinely turned to 30k since at least Vigilus Ablaze as a source of inspiration for their traitor legion rules. GW gonna GW, no doubt about it, but let's not pretend that they're incapable of haphazardly lifting themes/translating rules from their own publications. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

And yet, they refuse to lift A Talent For Murder from HH and adapt it to 40k Night Lords, instead insisting on sticking with morale mechanics, no matter how many times they've been shown to be ineffective in the past. Faith and Fury gave me hope, because out of the 6 WTs, 8 stratagems, and 6 relics, only 1 stratagem and 1 relic focused on morale shenanigans, with the rest focusing on other aspects of the Legion. But it seems whoever it is on the design team who is obsessed with making Night Lords the "Scary Marines" managed to push that mess through, again.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be ceaselessly negative about their rumoured rules so far. The actual trait has two components; the morale/CA debuff and the bonus to advance and charge. While morale is a part of it, it's not all there is. And the actual doctrine bonus isn't necessarily morale dependent either:

Wanton Slaughter: When using a pistol/assault/melee vs below half strength unit or LD 6 and below = +1 to wound (Super doctrine)

This means against certain opponents you're going to get it by default, while against other tougher ones (e.g. Custodes) you can still activate it by weakening them before you pounce. Pretty much the only army it won't work against are Knights. That reads like a pretty reasonable translation of A Talent For Murder to me. I'd also point out that none of the other rumoured content for NL (1x trait, 2x strats, 1x relic) interact with morale at all, so the F&F theme may still hold true. It also goes without saying that there could be other parts of their lore translated in the form of relics/strats/traits etc; we don't have the full picture.

If you're simply going to hate any NL rules by default that involve any morale interaction at all then good for you, I'm not a fan of the mechanics either as I've been living with the old WB trait for nearly 5 years, but writing them off as a flanderised design failure is more than a little premature.

Yes, it has another component, as do all of the other Legion traits. But only Night Lords have a main component that is either debilitating or practically non-existant depending on the opponent. And the "doctrine bonus" only kicks in on turns 4 and 5, if it works like loyalist doctrines. So, possibly too little, too late. And as I've already said, I don't want my Legion to be dependent on CP and stratagems just to function against some opponents. And no, I don't like morale mechanics, because I don't like the current morale rules which just equal "more dead models".

And I never said "fanderised". That was someone else.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And the "doctrine bonus" only kicks in on turns 4 and 5, if it works like loyalist doctrines. So, possibly too little, too late.

Incorrect; the Assault Doctrine kicks in on turn 3 or 4 onwards, not turns 4 or 5. And as with the SM book there will presumably be various ways to put units into different doctrines at different points. The SM book has fallen by the wayside thanks to power creep but past performance by factions like White Scars shows that factions built around the assault doctrine are not necessarily weak.

I appreciate that rules which are monstrous against some opponents and anemic against others are far from ideal, but these kinds of interactions are hard to avoid. Certain units in every army are effective against some opponents and ineffective against others. While you're pointing to the morale part of their trait/doctrine as the "main" component, their trait & doctrine still offer tangible and powerful bonuses that you can build a force around. And, as above, we don't have the full picture yet. There could be an Atramentar stratagem etc floating around or w/e. Who knows.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I never said "fanderised". That was someone else.

But you are repeatedly and prematurely writing them off as a design failure. Whatever makes you happy.

Fair points, and I guess I may be incorrect about when "Wanton Slaughter" kicks in. But right now, I'm thinking "whatever makes me happy" is going to hopefully be some nice custom traits.

It'd be cool for NL to fight first against chargers if they are in cover, like they lured the enemy into a trap. Also be cool to have stratagem to deal MWs to an enemy unit that charges cultists as a sort of 'booby trap' tactic, as well as dealing MWs to the cultists themselves of course.

Or a start-of-game stratagem to put out some markers that are worth a one-time CP bonus if the opponent captures them... except some portion of the markers are trapped and have a nasty effect instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve/force enemy units that are in reserve to deploy early. Obviously with PL limits but still.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve..

Everybody loved it when Alaitoc did that in 3rd ed! Let's do that again! What could possibly go wrong?

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And the "doctrine bonus" only kicks in on turns 4 and 5, if it works like loyalist doctrines. So, possibly too little, too late.

Incorrect; the Assault Doctrine kicks in on turn 3 or 4 onwards, not turns 4 or 5. And as with the SM book there will presumably be various ways to put units into different doctrines at different points. The SM book has fallen by the wayside thanks to power creep but past performance by factions like White Scars shows that factions built around the assault doctrine are not necessarily weak.

I appreciate that rules which are monstrous against some opponents and anemic against others are far from ideal, but these kinds of interactions are hard to avoid. Certain units in every army are effective against some opponents and ineffective against others. While you're pointing to the morale part of their trait/doctrine as the "main" component, their trait & doctrine still offer tangible and powerful bonuses that you can build a force around. And, as above, we don't have the full picture yet. There could be an Atramentar stratagem etc floating around or w/e. Who knows.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I never said "fanderised". That was someone else.

But you are repeatedly and prematurely writing them off as a design failure. Whatever makes you happy.

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve..

Everybody loved it when Alaitoc did that in 3rd ed! Let's do that again! What could possibly go wrong?

Reserves work the same way now as they did in 3rd?

posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

I just wanna know if Harkaan can use his fething STUPID SPEAR IN MELEE or at least if his claw gets Master Crafted.

Of course he can't--that spear is for sticking into planets, not people!

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

Hmm. Missed the part where Possessed can have icons. I wonder if that'll be a new option in the kit. Some backpack decoration like we've seen for Chosen and Chaos Marines.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

No offense, but this is some poster on a website I've never heard of before. How do we know this poster didn't make all of that up? Where is their credibility on display?

How verify?

 Togusa wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

No offense, but this is some poster on a website I've never heard of before. How do we know this poster didn't make all of that up? Where is their credibility on display?

How verify?

Welcome to the wonderful world of rumours, Togusa - the whole point is that we can't know whether this is correct or not until the book comes out.

And I've never seen a statement start with "No offense, but..." that wasn't intended to be offensive.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

Combat Attrition is something that happens after combat, something CSM are geared towards. BL ignoring CA is a very good trait that will benefit the whole army multiple times in a game.

Most, if not all, armies in 40k have ways of dealing Mortal Wounds. It's not nearly as good as the BL trait but still very useful, especially against a Psyker heavy army such as Tsons or GK.

If you aren't using terrain and cover then you aren't playing the game properly. The ability to ignore cover is not situational when cover is something that will be in every single game.

-1 to Hit when the shooter is more than 12" away means for a good portion of the game, AL units will be hit by ranged attacks less.

A full half of the NL traits have little to no effect on Space Marines (plus their 11 subtypes), Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Necrons, and Custodes. GW considers each of the Marine subtypes to be its own army so we have 17 armies that just flat out ignore the NL trait to a large degree. There are also loads of ways for other armies that might suffer more to reduce the effectiveness or even negate the effects of this part of the trait. The only other subfaction that I know of that has this sort of issue is Deathwatch and that's because they're specifically targeted at fighting Xenos.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ooo--or strats to forcibly put enemy units in reserve..

Everybody loved it when Alaitoc did that in 3rd ed! Let's do that again! What could possibly go wrong?

Reserves work the same way now as they did in 3rd?

The game is different to a degree, but that's a little like asking if some armies getting free units or more points than the opposing army can work in 9th ed. Sure, that failed horribly in the previous edition, and the one before that, and the one before that, but hey, if at first you don't succeed...

Some rules shouldn't exist. That's one of them. Aside from being a pretty egregious example of a rule that allows you to tell your opponent that he's not allowed to use his toys, which is not and has never been conducive to letting both players enjoy the game and have fun, it's a rule that screws with the foundations of how the game tries to achieve balance (insert derisive comment about GW and balance as needed). I'm not even going to go back to 3rd ed. Let's just stick with the present rules. 40k is listhammer and combohammer these days. If you give a player the unmitigated ability to take an opponent's unit out of the equation, you don't just take out the individual value of that unit but disrupt other units that build on and synergize with it. So even in the best case scenario, where you would have the stratagem limited to a single use, you are introducing a power discrepancy between the two armies before the game has even started, for the paltry price of a handful of command points.

You'd best think of this kind of rule as a different kind of alpha strike and an amplifier that increases your alpha strike potential if you go first since there is less of the enemy army you need to cripple to decrease the immediate potency of its retaliation, and it decreases the enemy army's alpha strike potential if you go second so that you may perform a delayed alpha strike that may otherwise not be potent enough to be considered that. In a game that already has to deal with considerable lethality issues, your proposed rule would only double down on an existing problem.

It doesn't necessarily provide a fluffy experience either. For every instance of a convoy or reserves moving to the frontline that got ambushed and delayed you'll have instances where your Night Lords snuck out the night before to hit Necrons on their tomb world on the other side of the galaxy. That's a narrative that needs forging real hard. The game implementation of the terror tactics part of the Night Lords' identity has always had this huge problem attached to it that for the most part their opponents are too fanatical, too crazy or too alien to suffer any psychological effect and the game's psychology rules for the last quarter of a century have been failed leadership check = models run away or have heart attacks. In my opinion GW should just give up trying to write the Night Lords' terror tactics identity into their legion rules or, these days, most of their stratagems either. As long as the game's rules don't support psychology in any meaningful way they'd be better off with getting actual functional rules and keep their spooky side as flavor for fluff and models.

 Gert wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

Combat Attrition is something that happens after combat, something CSM are geared towards. BL ignoring CA is a very good trait that will benefit the whole army multiple times in a game.

Most, if not all, armies in 40k have ways of dealing Mortal Wounds. It's not nearly as good as the BL trait but still very useful, especially against a Psyker heavy army such as Tsons or GK.

If you aren't using terrain and cover then you aren't playing the game properly. The ability to ignore cover is not situational when cover is something that will be in every single game.

-1 to Hit when the shooter is more than 12" away means for a good portion of the game, AL units will be hit by ranged attacks less.

A full half of the NL traits have little to no effect on Space Marines (plus their 11 subtypes), Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Necrons, and Custodes. GW considers each of the Marine subtypes to be its own army so we have 17 armies that just flat out ignore the NL trait to a large degree. There are also loads of ways for other armies that might suffer more to reduce the effectiveness or even negate the effects of this part of the trait. The only other subfaction that I know of that has this sort of issue is Deathwatch and that's because they're specifically targeted at fighting Xenos.

Again, Gert makes my point for me, and probably in a much nicer way than I would have.

Yes, those abilities are much less "situational" than the Night Lords trait. The Alpha Legion trait is basically the one that made them the "best Legion" for much of 8th edition. While the Night Lords trait will have little to no effect on many factions, not just units or certain situations in some games. That's why I'm hoping that either this is recognized in playtesting, and the trait gets reworked, or there's some nice custom traits that can be substituted in its place.

There needs to be much more of an internal balance of these traits or we'll all just end up using the Alpha Legion rules again.

Say what you will about the game being beer and pretzels and all that, but if we end up in a situation like we did before where the Night Lord Legion Trait was so bad by internal comparison that it should have been free, then it might as well not be in the book because it will be rarely used, if even, by Night Lords players who figure out how raw a deal they're getting.

I expect we should be getting better rules than the rumours are letting on, and GW have been getting better at doing their "second rounds" of attempts at rule sets (Like how Killteams 2nd edition is better, etc), but as a Night Lord fan we have be getting the bad end of the deal for a long time now regarding Legion traits (Alongside Word Bearers). There's a realistic fear that this will continue.

Edit: also as an addendum, killteam seriously needs actual new content and not the overpowered box sets we've been getting that can't be used against compendium teams. Everyone can tell that the box sets are OP once models are on the board and that we badly need a new Elites supplement, hopefully with Legion traits equivalents for all factions!

If this trait is causing fear in you, a fat guy, then it would seem to be effective...

 Dysartes wrote:
If this trait is causing fear in you, a fat guy, then it would seem to be effective...

I didn't think Games Workshop had started turning subfactions in meta-jokes!

Next we'll see a Harlequin trait that starts with "Paddy English man, Paddy Irish man and Paddy Scots man walk into a pub..."

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:

I am a night lord player and am loving, and i mean loving these rules. Just an additionnal thought, yeah the moral part of the rules are situationnal, but people complaining about this havent noticed that all the legions have a situational trait...

BL
ignore CA

WB
5+++ vs MW

IW
ignore cover

AL
-1 to hit from 12'', 10W @ 18''

They all have a situational ability

Combat Attrition is something that happens after combat, something CSM are geared towards. BL ignoring CA is a very good trait that will benefit the whole army multiple times in a game.

Most, if not all, armies in 40k have ways of dealing Mortal Wounds. It's not nearly as good as the BL trait but still very useful, especially against a Psyker heavy army such as Tsons or GK.

If you aren't using terrain and cover then you aren't playing the game properly. The ability to ignore cover is not situational when cover is something that will be in every single game.

-1 to Hit when the shooter is more than 12" away means for a good portion of the game, AL units will be hit by ranged attacks less.

A full half of the NL traits have little to no effect on Space Marines (plus their 11 subtypes), Grey Knights, Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Necrons, and Custodes. GW considers each of the Marine subtypes to be its own army so we have 17 armies that just flat out ignore the NL trait to a large degree. There are also loads of ways for other armies that might suffer more to reduce the effectiveness or even negate the effects of this part of the trait. The only other subfaction that I know of that has this sort of issue is Deathwatch and that's because they're specifically targeted at fighting Xenos.

Again, Gert makes my point for me, and probably in a much nicer way than I would have.

Yes, those abilities are much less "situational" than the Night Lords trait. The Alpha Legion trait is basically the one that made them the "best Legion" for much of 8th edition. While the Night Lords trait will have little to no effect on many factions, not just units or certain situations in some games. That's why I'm hoping that either this is recognized in playtesting, and the trait gets reworked, or there's some nice custom traits that can be substituted in its place.

Gert makes no point at all. They are all situational. Some armies have 0 to very little MW output, like astra militarum for example so the WB 5+++ serves no purpose against them.

If you enjoy BL but want to play mech or msu, you gain nothing from ignore CA.

AL have no ranged defense vs armies like GSC, custodes,drukhari, daemon, harlequins. They are either so fast or their effective range is close range shooting so the -1 is situational.

Ignore cover is totally situational because once your opponent knows you have it he he will change his gameplan unless he is playing jorgamandr or some faction that is alway in cover.

NL is in the same bucket as this and plays into the disruption warfare playstyle, sure it wont work on custodes, but is will work on standard marines, and it will force your opponent to blow 2cp on insane bravery which is 2 cp they will not use on some more valuable abilities.

Furthermore lets just run the numbers ssy you run into a 10 man tactical squad so ld8 becomes ld6, you manage to kill 5, at that point it is safe to say they will fail moral and lose an extra body. Thats an extra dead model for free.

Lastly also remember that these apply to everything apart from cultists. NL heldrakes and hellblades having a 9" morale bubble is a great added bonus along with baleflamers that get buffed by the super doctrine.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
Gert makes no point at all. They are all situational.

Never said any of these weren't situational apart from the IW one.

Some armies have 0 to very little MW output, like astra militarum for example so the WB 5+++ serves no purpose against them.

And I didn't say it would be good against every single army. Personally, I think it's still a bad trait just not as bad as the NL one.

If you enjoy BL but want to play mech or msu, you gain nothing from ignore CA.

Yes playing an entirely vehicle-based list would mean the army wouldn't benefit from the trait. That's the player's fault for doing that, not the Trait being bad. That's like saying the Ultramarines +1 Ld tactic bonus is bad because you took a vehicle army. It's a really bad point to make.

AL have no ranged defense vs armies like GSC, custodes,drukhari, daemon, harlequins. They are either so fast or their effective range is close range shooting so the -1 is situational.

And what about the other 24 armies in the game? Should we just pretend they don't exist?

Ignore cover is totally situational because once your opponent knows you have it he he will change his gameplan unless he is playing jorgamandr or some faction that is alway in cover.

So you agree the trait is good because it forces your opponent to alter their battleplans and playstyle because of an outside influence. Thank you for supporting the point about Ignores Cover being useful in all games.

NL is in the same bucket as this and plays into the disruption warfare playstyle, sure it wont work on custodes, but is will work on standard marines, and it will force your opponent to blow 2cp on insane bravery which is 2 cp they will not use on some more valuable abilities.

Furthermore lets just run the numbers ssy you run into a 10 man tactical squad so ld8 becomes ld6, you manage to kill 5, at that point it is safe to say they will fail moral and lose an extra body. Thats an extra dead model for free.

So if you fight a Tactical Squad and if you kill 5 models, this trait is actually super brilliant guys. Not quite the home run you think it is.

Lastly also remember that these apply to everything apart from cultists. NL heldrakes and hellblades having a 9" morale bubble is a great added bonus along with baleflamers that get buffed by the super doctrine.

Yeah awesome, NL will have to entirely rely on Daemon and FW units to make the army worth playing. Very cool.

Honestly, I think you're being very defensive about all of this. Are we only allowed to talk about these rumours if we say they're amazing? I'm not even criticising the validity, I'm just calling the rules garbage.
I've mostly tried to stay out of this because I've said I don't believe these rumours are true previously and only jumped in because I had the time to explain why people found the NL trait dissapointing. If these are the rules going into the next Codex then my last year and a half of CSM buildup has been a waste of time.

You are allowed to discuss as i am allowed to refute. Step on your soap box to say what you have to say and you can expect some will agree and others will disagree.

My main issue is your knee jerk reaction and what-about-ism style of argumentation. Cool if you dont believe the rumours and find the rules are garbage, but you can stop beating a dead horse.

To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
My main issue is your knee jerk reaction and what-about-ism style of argumentation. Cool if you dont believe the rumours and find the rules are garbage, but you can stop beating a dead horse.

I've made like 4 posts about the NL stuff in a thread with 30 pages. What dead horse am I beating when other posters were confused as to why people didn't like the NL trait. I don't think it's knee-jerking or "what-about-ism" to say that when around half the armies in the game can effectively ignore one of the parts of the NL trait, the trait is not good. The other traits are situational after the game has started, not before the army lists have even been written.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
Gert makes no point at all. They are all situational. Some armies have 0 to very little MW output, like astra militarum for example so the WB 5+++ serves no purpose against them.

Right, no good against the Guard. Unless one their vehicles blows up near your units. Or one of your vehicles does. Or one of your psykers Perils. But other than those, yeah, not great against the Guard.

If you enjoy BL but want to play mech or msu, you gain nothing from ignore CA.

Ok, if you run a specific build that completely avoids playing to the Legion's strengths, it doesn't help you. 100% correct, no argument.

AL have no ranged defense vs armies like GSC, custodes,drukhari, daemon, harlequins. They are either so fast or their effective range is close range shooting so the -1 is situational.

Right, absolutely none of those factions will ever try to shoot an Alpha Legion unit from further away than 12". Ever. Ok, Daemons probably won't, so I'll give you that. The rest will though, unless you're, again, not playing to the Legion's strengths.

Ignore cover is totally situational because once your opponent knows you have it he he will change his gameplan unless he is playing jorgamandr or some faction that is alway in cover.

Right, they'll change their game plan. By, not using cover, I suppose? So, either way, they're not getting any bonuses from the cover. The trait is doing its job. Good.

NL is in the same bucket as this and plays into the disruption warfare playstyle, sure it wont work on custodes, but is will work on standard marines, and it will force your opponent to blow 2cp on insane bravery which is 2 cp they will not use on some more valuable abilities.

Furthermore lets just run the numbers ssy you run into a 10 man tactical squad so ld8 becomes ld6, you manage to kill 5, at that point it is safe to say they will fail moral and lose an extra body. Thats an extra dead model for free.

Lastly also remember that these apply to everything apart from cultists. NL heldrakes and hellblades having a 9" morale bubble is a great added bonus along with baleflamers that get buffed by the super doctrine.

10 man TAC squads? Do people still use those? Loyalist are pretty much all msu all of the time in my experience nowadays. Except big blocks of Deathwing terminators. Who auto-pass morale checks.

Look, I've already said if this makes it through playtesting unchanged, I'm probably going with custom traits. If you like hit, have fun. Good luck. I hope you have a lot of success with it. But your not going to convince me that it's a good trait. After 20 years playing Night Lords, I know what works, and what doesn't, and the morale stuff never does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Oguhmek wrote:
To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Right. That's my biggest problem with this trait. It's debilitating against some opponents, and almost inconsequential against others. Neither of those sounds fun to me.

There's "situational, but you can create the situation yourself through list-building or tactics" and there's "situational, and whether the situation comes up is entirely out of your hands", and those are two very different things. The first one makes things more fun and interesting. The second just makes things more frustrating and removes the player's sense of agency.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
10 man TAC squads? Do people still use those? Loyalist are pretty much all msu all of the time in my experience nowadays. Except big blocks of Deathwing terminators. Who auto-pass morale checks.

10 man unit of Deathwatch Veterans. The firepower and combat strength is ungodly fun.

 Gert wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
10 man TAC squads? Do people still use those? Loyalist are pretty much all msu all of the time in my experience nowadays. Except big blocks of Deathwing terminators. Who auto-pass morale checks.

10 man unit of Deathwatch Veterans. The firepower and combat strength is ungodly fun.

Really? Haven't played against Deathwatch since they got their new supplement. I'll have to watch for that when I get the chance.

I usually run a block of 10 in a Redeemer with a support HQ like a Librarian or Chaplain. Competitive? Not at all. Fun? Oh yes.

Don't sleep on the +1 to charge and advance. I use that on my primaris sm. It has been very useful for me.

 Oguhmek wrote:
To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Because for all their bravado, Orks DO know fear, and Necrons are soulless robots. Besides, given the current meta, aren't Orks largely immune to morale these days?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Because for all their bravado, Orks DO know fear, and Necrons are soulless robots. Besides, given the current meta, aren't Orks largely immune to morale these days?

No mob rule has completely changed, this is the only edition where morale means a lot to them, stupidily more so. Its just that no one is taking troops or any unit in large enough quantities for it to matter for morale (as with most MSU units in 9th) and for what its worth Orkz are pretty damn fearless, infact they dont fear the same things we do. They arent scaried of dying or caring about their own safety, but they would be scared of loosing a fight or loosing a race. Nightlords wouldnt scare an Ork, to be frank not a lot of things outside of humans/t'au/craftworlders would be unsettled by whatever flaying the Nightlords put on display. Their primary victims is the Imperium not the myraid fearless xenos races that have seen/done more terrible things.

Horde really needs some sort of buff to counter the drawbacks to blast and morale

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Because for all their bravado, Orks DO know fear, and Necrons are soulless robots. Besides, given the current meta, aren't Orks largely immune to morale these days?

Fluff wise totally, but the problem is it leads to unfun gameplay. That is a mechanical issue in game design that is not insurmountable, but needs to be accounted for.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Horde really needs some sort of buff to counter the drawbacks to blast and morale

is it horde or is it just the fact that GW overcorrected pts for "horde" units like boys, grots, and guardsmen?

I personally think its the later, a shota boy is not worth 9 pts.
a choppa boy is maybee worth 7.

Meta wise, Ld 10 Necrons in units of 20 are more susceptible to NL morale debuffs than Ld 7 Orks in units of 5/6 (Kommandos, Storm Boyz).

I do think all the leaked CSM chapter tactic/super doctrine combos tend to have one frustratingly meh compenent, but looking at Space Marines, they also have the same issue with a lot of theirs.

There will definitely be at least one but probably three strong builds upon release. CSM have such a massive list of datasheets, play in all phases of the game and there are all these layers of rules (chapter tactic, doctrines, super doctrines, god marks, icons, spells, strats, relics, warlord traits). The GW rules writers are going to get the points costs on 1~3 datasheets wrong and those will form the core of the strong builds.

I'm currently eyeing Bikers, Raptors and Warp Talons as 3 possible culprits as speed is so important in this edition. Chosen are a dark horse pick if their upgrade options include a speed boosting choice.

I have my doubts as to whether the whole codex will be playably strong like some recent others have been.

But, there is a lot of unknowns. Will Daemon Engines really get Legion traits (unlike TS/DG)? Will they benefit from the super doctrines? Are those marks right, -1 to wound w/ Nurgle seems a bit of an outlier.

A positive if the accursed weapon rumour is true, the chaos terminator kit is no longer completely awful, it mega sucked that it only has 1 of each weapon except power fists and combi bolters.

As an emperor's children player I'll happily go 3 power fist, 1 chain fist, 1 reaper/combi plasma/flamer.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
To me morale based traits seem like just bad design because they hit different opponents in a very unbalanced way. For some reasons, my Orks will be very affected, while my Necrons mostly don't care. Why should my Orks fare worse against NL than Necrons? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Because for all their bravado, Orks DO know fear, and Necrons are soulless robots. Besides, given the current meta, aren't Orks largely immune to morale these days?

Fluff wise totally, but the problem is it leads to unfun gameplay. That is a mechanical issue in game design that is not insurmountable, but needs to be accounted for.

Either EVERYONE needs to be seriously impacted by morale, or it should be a Codex or Datasheet rule.

And I don't mean that "You lost some models, lose some more" malarky! That's just lazy.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Will Daemon Engines really get Legion traits (unlike TS/DG)?

Thousand Sons Daemon Engines don't need the Legion traits because they already have one of the benefits (5++) and the other would never apply unless the Engine somehow became a Sorcerer.

Another big factor to keep in mind is how the base game has changed drastically over the course of the editions.

Even just back in 8th edition, the size of the game was the same 6'x4' table and the objectives were still very much secondary to blowing your opponent off the table turn 1. Terrain rules and blast weapons and a few other things hadn't really been solidified into the ruleset.

In 9th edition, games tend to be more about jockeying for position on turn 1, maybe getting a cheeky charge off or managing to take out an enemy unit from range if you can get good line of sight, but the importance is more focused on the objectives. Taking those objectives, holding them for longer, performing actions on those objectives and in other portions of the table, and taking out enemy leaders. The table is also slightly smaller, meaning engagement happens a lot faster.

What does that mean? It means an 18" -1 to hit for Alpha Legion vehicles and monsters was awesome in 8th edition, but isn't as important now. After turn 1, if your opponent isn't moving up the table to take objectives, they're setting themselves up for a loss without considering any casualties anyway. It's why you don't see Ultramarine castles dominating the battlefield any more, and why it's so important that Tau crisis suits have some melee stats to help them against inevitable charges, or even to be able to counter charge.

I agree that the Alpha Legion ability is situational. It also is limited. Any further rules that would normally stack with a -1 to hit are now redundant and don't stack in 9th edition. With how close armies tend to get, and how close combat-focused Chaos Marines tend to be, a -1 to hit is.... indeed situational. Is it still good? Yeah, definitely, but it's nowhere near as good as back in 8th when that bonus could stack or when armies were more focused on sitting back and alpha-striking each other turn 1 and 2.

There's still issues with Night Lords having a leadership-based faction ability in a game that has never really gotten leadership-based rules quite right (remember pinning and how it didn't apply to space marines ever at all?), and there's definitely clearly some winners and losers in these rumored rules, as there always will be (like Bloody Rose versus Sacred Rose for Sisters, one is a clear winner and the other is a clear loser), and that's just GW's awful internal balance.

It bites particularly hard because lots of people do really love Night Lords and want to see their awesome bat-winged lightning boys do well on the tabletop, instead of once again being relegated to one of the worst subfactions in the game for another edition or three.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ork-en Man wrote:
Don't sleep on the +1 to charge and advance. I use that on my primaris sm. It has been very useful for me.

And yeah, this is still pretty good. Especially if it can be combined with other strats. Very much fits the ability of raptors and warp talons to drop in, and only needing an 8 to charge rather than a 9 is always a welcome boost.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Will Daemon Engines really get Legion traits (unlike TS/DG)?

Thousand Sons Daemon Engines don't need the Legion traits because they already have one of the benefits (5++) and the other would never apply unless the Engine somehow became a Sorcerer.

A Daemon Engine Sorcerer would be cool.

We'll see the points. If the TSon Forgefiend and the CSM Forgefiend cost the same points, have the same stats, but the CSM one has a Legion trait and a super doctrine it'll be a shame. Specifically a shame on the rules writers. Then again, it'll be a drop in the shame bucket they've built up this edition.

The TS legion trait has always annoyed my slightly on the models that already have an invlunerable via a Sigil of Corruption or Terminator Armour. Am I paying points (twice) for the same ability? Hard to tell currently.

The question is: does that +1 to charge mean we lose Raptor Strike? Because needing a 9 on 3 dice is a lot better than needing an 8 on 2.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The question is: does that +1 to charge mean we lose Raptor Strike? Because needing a 9 on 3 dice is a lot better than needing an 8 on 2.

Good question. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The rumor does mention
"All legions are getting 6 WT, 8 relics & 8 stratagems each (seems to be a lot from F&F but with some tweaks)
Each chaos god is getting a couple stratagems, 1 relic & 1 daemon weapon each"

which leaves plenty of room for extra stuff. iirc, the chaos marine codex of 8th edition had maybe 2 strats per legion and 1 relic per legion? So this will hopefully go a long way. There are a lot of subfactions that are effectively MADE by their combination of warlord traits and relics.

The 8th edition CSM codex had 1 stratagem and 1 relic per Legion. We'll see how much of the F&F stuff gets carried over, and if and how much they change. But it looks like there's some new stuff in that compiled leak list. Looks like jump troops get a MW and a -1 attack strategem. And Black Legion can make a unit another Legion for a turn?

 Rydria wrote:
A positive if the accursed weapon rumour is true, the chaos terminator kit is no longer completely awful, it mega sucked that it only has 1 of each weapon except power fists and combi bolters.

As an emperor's children player I'll happily go 3 power fist, 1 chain fist, 1 reaper/combi plasma/flamer.

Well, who wouldn't want to fight first with an unmodifiable 2+ to hit on power fists and chain fists, with exploding 6's for +2 hits and possibly +1AP on a wound roll of 6? Throw Excess of Violence on them for +1 attack per kill, potentially triggering even more hits. I imagine that Honor the Prince will get nerfed though so we'll have to see. Depending how Obliterators are handled they could be very scary in melee also.

Still...Emperor's Children don't look to bad at all in melee. Lucius looks worth taking now, but lets hope the +3 attacks w/ WS3+ is his updated Duelist Pride rule, and not his Warlord Trait. Even a unit 10x EC Legionnaires with bolt pistol/chainsword combo and an icon are hitting first with 41X attacks resulting in total 45 hits on average before any character auras, spells, or stratagems.

The only real concern is what they'll do with shooting, psychic powers, relics, and stratagems. Endless Cacophony is going to get nerfed for sure, dramatically reduce our firepower even before capping unit sizes at 10 model units. I really wish they'd update the profile on sonic weapons. It's kind of a shame the Noise Marine sonic blasters are the same as Primaris auto-bolt rifles, without ignore cover. They're chaos specific weapons so they don't have to match what loyalists have, but that not likely to change until with get new models for them.

Double shooting strats shouldn't exist at all to be fair.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Double shooting strats shouldn't exist at all to be fair.

Double-anything strats shouldn't exist... they tend to make a meh unit really good and a really good unit absolutely busted, and throw off internal balance, since the designers have to consider "ok but what if they shot twice?" and the end result is a nerf across the board.

I'd actually be thrilled if Endless Cacophony got removed or changed completely, since it would mean we wouldn't be obligated to take Mark of Slaanesh Obliterators or Havocs or whatever else. You could run other marks/icons/units and have them be just as potent or flavorful.

drbored wrote:
I'd actually be thrilled if Endless Cacophony got removed or changed completely, since it would mean we wouldn't be obligated to take Mark of Slaanesh Obliterators or Havocs or whatever else. You could run other marks/icons/units and have them be just as potent or flavorful.

Yeah, I think THIS is my biggest problem with Endless Cacophony: all CSM armies seem to be Slaanesh. If that stratagem was for EMPEROR'S CHILDREN instead of SLAANESH it wouldn't be nearly as popular.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Horde really needs some sort of buff to counter the drawbacks to blast and morale

They should start by changing what constitutes a 'horde' in 9th. 6+ models is a joke.

drbored wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Double shooting strats shouldn't exist at all to be fair.

Double-anything strats shouldn't exist... they tend to make a meh unit really good and a really good unit absolutely busted, and throw off internal balance, since the designers have to consider "ok but what if they shot twice?" and the end result is a nerf across the board.

I'd actually be thrilled if Endless Cacophony got removed or changed completely, since it would mean we wouldn't be obligated to take Mark of Slaanesh Obliterators or Havocs or whatever else. You could run other marks/icons/units and have them be just as potent or flavorful.

Oh I agree, I'd rather that the individual units be made stronger rather than having to rely on stratagems to function. We'll doubtless get something weaker; and given how unimaginative GW is with CSM it'll be something like exploding 6 to hit cause +1 hit. Hopefully what ever they do it won't be more melee.

Am I the only one who's pretty happy about the Renegade traits? It looks like I might finally be able to effectively field an effective Crimson Slaughter/Brazen Beasts army. I am sad that it looks like we might be losing the Purge's and Flawless Host's cool rules.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Am I the only one who's pretty happy about the Renegade traits? It looks like I might finally be able to effectively field an effective Crimson Slaughter/Brazen Beasts army. I am sad that it looks like we might be losing the Purge's and Flawless Host's cool rules.

I'm pretty happy about those. We may see some of what the Purge and Flawless Host had in the 'make a warband' traits that you can pick from. There's usually 2 pages worth of those traits, so we'll see what sorts of combos we can do.

Has there been any word on Chaos Bikes yet? Potential for a new kit? New rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

No offense, but this is some poster on a website I've never heard of before. How do we know this poster didn't make all of that up? Where is their credibility on display?

How verify?

Welcome to the wonderful world of rumours, Togusa - the whole point is that we can't know whether this is correct or not until the book comes out.

And I've never seen a statement start with "No offense, but..." that wasn't intended to be offensive.

It's hard to tell sometimes, on a Reddit thread I asked about one of the leaks last fall and people got really offended because "How dare I question the great leaker." When in reality I hadn't done much of anything with 40K in almost a full year and didn't know anything at all about the leaks at that time.

But I was unsure if this was the person who leaked all the Eldar and Tau stuff or someone else.

 Togusa wrote:
Has there been any word on Chaos Bikes yet? Potential for a new kit? New rules?

They're in the "new models" rumor list.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Am I the only one who's pretty happy about the Renegade traits? It looks like I might finally be able to effectively field an effective Crimson Slaughter/Brazen Beasts army. I am sad that it looks like we might be losing the Purge's and Flawless Host's cool rules.

Do we have a leak for the renegade traits?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Am I the only one who's pretty happy about the Renegade traits? It looks like I might finally be able to effectively field an effective Crimson Slaughter/Brazen Beasts army. I am sad that it looks like we might be losing the Purge's and Flawless Host's cool rules.

Do we have a leak for the renegade traits?

So far only two of the "custom" Renegade traits: +4 to all weapon ranges except for grenades and relics, and units count as being in all doctrines after killing an enemy unit. Red Corsairs and Creations of Bile are in the OP.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Has there been any word on Chaos Bikes yet? Potential for a new kit? New rules?

They're in the "new models" rumor list.

Ah, good to know!

I know there are probably some other Chaos Marine models that need a more dire update, but I really hope that we do get new Bikes. I have been wanting them for some time and the current models are just too stumpy and out of proportion for me to want to pick them up.

One of the only things I'm unhappy about from the rumours is that Noise Marines don't benefit from emperor's children legion traits and are always elites.

I understand it's for internal balance but it feels weird as hell when Death Guard and Thousand sons get their iconic troops as troops. At least emperor's children appear to be actually badass in melee now the potential 2+ to hit with even heavy melee weapons in cqc is really spicy.

 Rydria wrote:
One of the only things I'm unhappy about from the rumours is that Noise Marines don't benefit from emperor's children legion traits and are always elites.

I understand it's for internal balance but it feels weird as hell when Death Guard and Thousand sons get their iconic troops as troops. At least emperor's children appear to be actually badass in melee now the potential 2+ to hit with even heavy melee weapons in cqc is really spicy.

Wait what? I think I missed that part apparently.

 Rydria wrote:
One of the only things I'm unhappy about from the rumours is that Noise Marines don't benefit from emperor's children legion traits and are always elites.

I understand it's for internal balance but it feels weird as hell when Death Guard and Thousand sons get their iconic troops as troops. At least emperor's children appear to be actually badass in melee now the potential 2+ to hit with even heavy melee weapons in cqc is really spicy.

We don't know that. The leaks are far from comprehensive and may well be missing the proviso that the Emperor's Children move Noise Marines from elites to troops/that Noise Marines benefit from the Emperor's Children trait. I fully expect EC to get Noise Marines as troops.

 Togusa wrote:
Has there been any word on Chaos Bikes yet? Potential for a new kit? New rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
posted an update:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/371366-what-to-expect-from-9e-csm/page-41

No offense, but this is some poster on a website I've never heard of before. How do we know this poster didn't make all of that up? Where is their credibility on display?

How verify?

Welcome to the wonderful world of rumours, Togusa - the whole point is that we can't know whether this is correct or not until the book comes out.

And I've never seen a statement start with "No offense, but..." that wasn't intended to be offensive.

It's hard to tell sometimes, on a Reddit thread I asked about one of the leaks last fall and people got really offended because "How dare I question the great leaker." When in reality I hadn't done much of anything with 40K in almost a full year and didn't know anything at all about the leaks at that time.

But I was unsure if this was the person who leaked all the Eldar and Tau stuff or someone else.

Seemed like a valid and non-offensive question to me, fwiw.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
One of the only things I'm unhappy about from the rumours is that Noise Marines don't benefit from emperor's children legion traits and are always elites.

I understand it's for internal balance but it feels weird as hell when Death Guard and Thousand sons get their iconic troops as troops. At least emperor's children appear to be actually badass in melee now the potential 2+ to hit with even heavy melee weapons in cqc is really spicy.

We don't know that. The leaks are far from comprehensive and may well be missing the proviso that the Emperor's Children move Noise Marines from elites to troops/that Noise Marines benefit from the Emperor's Children trait. I fully expect EC to get Noise Marines as troops.

Noise Marine's will still be troops and benefit from the Legion trait just like Plague Marines and Rubics are currently. The only reason Noise Marines are still in the codex is apparently because EC are still in the book and need access to them.

How do you feel about Lucius? Having 9X attacks at S5/AP-3/Dam 3, he's averaging 10 hits and potentially 30 damage starting turn 3. Not counting another 3 extra attacks he might gains from Stimulated by Pain, for potentially 12 attacks! Delivery might still be a problem though with all the firepower around to pop Rhinos currently.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
One of the only things I'm unhappy about from the rumours is that Noise Marines don't benefit from emperor's children legion traits and are always elites.

I understand it's for internal balance but it feels weird as hell when Death Guard and Thousand sons get their iconic troops as troops. At least emperor's children appear to be actually badass in melee now the potential 2+ to hit with even heavy melee weapons in cqc is really spicy.

We don't know that. The leaks are far from comprehensive and may well be missing the proviso that the Emperor's Children move Noise Marines from elites to troops/that Noise Marines benefit from the Emperor's Children trait. I fully expect EC to get Noise Marines as troops.

I think I worded my post wrong I meant that it is the only thing I'm worried about, since the opening post looked rather absolute with the always elites thing, but it could just be in general for everyone else.

I generally expect the worst for things, I still remember them forgetting to allow them as troops in early 8th.

 Sersi wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
One of the only things I'm unhappy about from the rumours is that Noise Marines don't benefit from emperor's children legion traits and are always elites.

I understand it's for internal balance but it feels weird as hell when Death Guard and Thousand sons get their iconic troops as troops. At least emperor's children appear to be actually badass in melee now the potential 2+ to hit with even heavy melee weapons in cqc is really spicy.

We don't know that. The leaks are far from comprehensive and may well be missing the proviso that the Emperor's Children move Noise Marines from elites to troops/that Noise Marines benefit from the Emperor's Children trait. I fully expect EC to get Noise Marines as troops.

Noise Marine's will still be troops and benefit from the Legion trait just like Plague Marines and Rubics are currently. The only reason Noise Marines are still in the codex is apparently because EC are still in the book and need access to them.

How do you feel about Lucius? Having 9X attacks at S5/AP-3/Dam 3, he's averaging 10 hits and potentially 30 damage starting turn 3. Not counting another 3 extra attacks he might gains from Stimulated by Pain, for potentially 12 attacks! Delivery might still be a problem though with all the firepower around to pop Rhinos currently.

I think it is more overdue than anything, he's one of the characters whose lore never matched up with the table top he's supposed to be this feared duellist, but nearly every rules incarnation of him has been on the weakside.

If the rumours are true he's going to be a monster against heavy and elite infantry with 2/3 wounds. You could theoretically use him to babysit noise marines or other shooting units, providing them with his reroll 1 aura, then if anything comes close you unleash him upon them.

God specific spells
T 4+ inv
N -1 to hit
S 5+ fnp

You can't charge after warp time

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
God specific spells
T 4+ inv
N -1 to hit
S 5+ fnp

meh? I hope that's on entire units, and not just individual models, Even then I'm not terribly impressed unless you can take multiple sorcerers and pile them all up on a doom stack. Other people just get to walk around with those traits always on for free.

You can't charge after warp time

The secret to not getting nerfs is not talking about the good things. Warptime is one of the few things from the entire codex that I've ever heard people talk in a positive manner, so of course it got the chop.

One wonders what the point of Warp Time will be then... ?

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
God specific spells
T 4+ inv
N -1 to hit
S 5+ fnp

So Nurgle and Slaanesh are....just the same? Well that's boring.

You can't charge after warp time

Oh, for sake. That's not the same as the Thousand Sons version. At least tell me ours at least works on vehicles.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
God specific spells
T 4+ inv
N -1 to hit
S 5+ fnp

So Nurgle and Slaanesh are....just the same? Well that's boring.

You can't charge after warp time

Oh, for sake. That's not the same as the Thousand Sons version. At least tell me ours at least works on vehicles.

Yeah... I was feeling it coming when the did the same for the Eldars. Still, they are far more mobile the CSM in the first place. And as you've said TS kept it. Design shift between codexes ?

As for the spells themselves: They are very... vanilla ?

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:
And as you've said TS kept it. Design shift between codexes?

This is the paradigm shift I was worried about, where they decide that what they've been doing hasn't been working so make big changes to the newer Codices whilst still leaving the ones that were the problem completely alone. I was worried it would be Chaos or Tyranids that began this shift. Seems it's actually closer to Genestealer Cults, at least for the Jervisification of weapons/options, got worse in the Eldar book (lots of equipment turning into strats), and will only get worse with Chaos (Chosen/Terminator weaponry, having the same powers/abilities doing different things, etc.).

Don't worry, in about a years time GW will release a series of about a dozen books ala Psychic Awakening that are going give a bunch of updates to the factions that got books before the mid-edition shift, just in time to invalidate half their contents with the launch of 10th next summer.

I was expecting the warp time change because they've just done the same for both Craftworlds and Harlequins. So, that at least suggests CSM can be OP while losing some toys.

P.S. We will be losing double shoot I'm 99% certain.

Honestly, if they were a company that believed in consistency they should probably go back and change it for TSons. But that wouldn't make much sense in the current meta and of course the main reason is GW are complete hacks.

EightFoldPath wrote:
I was expecting the warp time change because they've just done the same for both Craftworlds and Harlequins. So, that at least suggests CSM can be OP while losing some toys.

P.S. We will be losing double shoot I'm 99% certain.

Honestly, if they were a company that believed in consistency they should probably go back and change it for TSons. But that wouldn't make much sense in the current meta and of course the main reason is GW are complete hacks.

Do thousand sons have a lot of melee units that greatly benefit from warptime and charge? Eldar and basic CSM have units that can get a lot more mileage out of it.

I find being able to double move (2 x 5"!) my 27 WS2 S5 AP3 D2 attacks pretty good... some of the time.

But, yes TS don't have the 12" move missile units that CSM have, Enlightened being able to charge after moving 24" is nice but not devastating.

Still very valuable for taking control of objectives. There was that Aussie TS player who ran lots of 10 Rubrics in Rhinos with the "combo" being 3" disembark, 6" move, 6" move, charge, sit on objective. Shoot the Rhino and it became 3" disembark, 6" move, free 3" from bringing a guy back, 6" move, charge, sit on objective.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I was expecting the warp time change because they've just done the same for both Craftworlds and Harlequins. So, that at least suggests CSM can be OP while losing some toys.

P.S. We will be losing double shoot I'm 99% certain.

Honestly, if they were a company that believed in consistency they should probably go back and change it for TSons. But that wouldn't make much sense in the current meta and of course the main reason is GW are complete hacks.

Do thousand sons have a lot of melee units that greatly benefit from warptime and charge? Eldar and basic CSM have units that can get a lot more mileage out of it.

I'd argue the Rubric Terminators are able to benefit greatly from it

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:
And as you've said TS kept it. Design shift between codexes?

This is the paradigm shift I was worried about, where they decide that what they've been doing hasn't been working so make big changes to the newer Codices whilst still leaving the ones that were the problem completely alone. I was worried it would be Chaos or Tyranids that began this shift. Seems it's actually closer to Genestealer Cults, at least for the Jervisification of weapons/options, got worse in the Eldar book (lots of equipment turning into strats), and will only get worse with Chaos (Chosen/Terminator weaponry, having the same powers/abilities doing different things, etc.).

So, basically a "reverse 5th edition", with all of the ridiculous codexes with tons of rules coming out first, and the later codexes being more "streamlined", and less powerful. I feared the same. It would be a hell of a thing to do to CSM in the same year that marks the 20th anniversary of the release of 3.5. Sounds like something gw would do.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:
And as you've said TS kept it. Design shift between codexes?

This is the paradigm shift I was worried about, where they decide that what they've been doing hasn't been working so make big changes to the newer Codices whilst still leaving the ones that were the problem completely alone. I was worried it would be Chaos or Tyranids that began this shift. Seems it's actually closer to Genestealer Cults, at least for the Jervisification of weapons/options, got worse in the Eldar book (lots of equipment turning into strats), and will only get worse with Chaos (Chosen/Terminator weaponry, having the same powers/abilities doing different things, etc.).

So, basically a "reverse 5th edition", with all of the ridiculous codexes with tons of rules coming out first, and the later codexes being more "streamlined", and less powerful. I feared the same. It would be a hell of a thing to do to CSM in the same year that marks the 20th anniversary of the release of 3.5. Sounds like something gw would do.

I dont think that the 20th anniversary of any particular codex is a thing GW even notices. Game editions or particular models sure, but not a single codex that some players are particularly attached to.

Using crappy CSM and Tyranid Codex to mark the change of style would be... let's go with 'something we're used to.'

Are they any rumors on what will happen to the Fallen yet? Will it just be a keyword for Legionnaires?

Tyranid rumors are suggesting they're getting rid of their double move + charge mechanic as well, so I'm not too surprised to see that change for Warp Time.

It'll turn it from a must-have spell to a maybe-take spell. Board control is always handy, but maybe some other spells will take the spotlight.

for some reason I cannot unseen that the slaanesh mark is still weak in some way
bye mutilators



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deathwolf wrote:
Are they any rumors on what will happen to the Fallen yet? Will it just be a keyword for Legionnaires?

idk, but probably nothing, remember the awful and awkward index of white dwarf. But I don't see the fallen using regular chaos units, more of a range limited divergent faction. (as the thousand sons, but less units) Obviously that's almost unthinkable for gw, too busy doing vanilla faction releases, it's been a while since we got the last subfaction exclusive character.

Yriel_71 wrote:
for some reason I cannot unseen that the slaanesh mark is still weak in some way
bye mutilators

Eh...its alright. Fighting first is still valuable, especially in a melee heavy army like CSM. Also many EC players have armies based around exploiting it. So, it's go to still have access to it despite our legion trait changing. I'd have rather had something like: advance and charge, or re-rolling charges, or some bonus to advance and/or charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deathwolf wrote:
Are they any rumors on what will happen to the Fallen yet? Will it just be a keyword for Legionnaires?

Fallen are probably just gone until they either get a codex supplement or a White Dwarf get you by codex.

What would the hypothetical difference be between running Fallen with dedicated rules and running them as Legionnaires using whatever rules they have for Renegade traits?

I’m curious because I have 30K DA and am thinking of running them as Fallen for some 40k stuff too.

 Deathwolf wrote:
What would the hypothetical difference be between running Fallen with dedicated rules and running them as Legionnaires using whatever rules they have for Renegade traits?

I’m curious because I have 30K DA and am thinking of running them as Fallen for some 40k stuff too.

My solution of Renegades and Traitor Chapters being folded into the SM codex fixes that issue. But no we GOTTA keep them separated.

Hmmm if the Eldar Codex can have 3 armies in 1 folded into it, I think our dex can have rules for renegade chapters, traitor guard, and the remaining legions that don't get their own books.

Are the eldar folded factions though getting a decent treatment? Afterall corsairs were an awesome list.
Same with traitor guard and if they were a separate list i reckon we would have heard by now about that.

 Deathwolf wrote:
What would the hypothetical difference be between running Fallen with dedicated rules and running them as Legionnaires using whatever rules they have for Renegade traits?

I’m curious because I have 30K DA and am thinking of running them as Fallen for some 40k stuff too.

I'd wait and see for the Codex.
If you want to prep for the release, there will be custom Warband rules along the lines of Chapter/Craftworld/Clan so you could just use those and the only thing you'll lose out on is Cypher but will then gain access to the entire CSM roster, as IIRC Fallen from their WD Index are restricted to the Fallen unit, Cypher, Sorcerers, and Rhinos.
That being said, if you aren't taking anything that couldn't be represented with Codex: SM then just use that instead. That is what inevitably, the discussion around Renegade Chapters comes down to, do you want to play CSM or SM because you aren't going to get all the toys from both.

I'm ready for the nearly 5 year wait for this book to end with a paradigm shift nerfing them after the trend has been power creep.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Are the eldar folded factions though getting a decent treatment? Afterall corsairs were an awesome list.
Same with traitor guard and if they were a separate list i reckon we would have heard by now about that.

I definitely don't see us getting anything like the R&H list if Traitor Guard is "folded into" the CSM dex. They could maybe do something similar to the old LatD list. But a R&H style list would require a separate codex. I'm worried that the rumored Traitor Guardsmen models will get a similar treatment as Corsairs got: "Here's some models, you can use them, but don't expect them to work as their own thing."

 nathan2004 wrote:
Hmmm if the Eldar Codex can have 3 armies in 1 folded into it, I think our dex can have rules for renegade chapters, traitor guard, and the remaining legions that don't get their own books.

To be fair, Ynarri should work via being like how Inquisition works. Small ass codex to supplement a few others with just some HQ entries, bodyguard. And that's it.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Hmmm if the Eldar Codex can have 3 armies in 1 folded into it, I think our dex can have rules for renegade chapters, traitor guard, and the remaining legions that don't get their own books.

After Codex: Aeldari I was starting to wonder if we'll see Codex: Chaos again; with regular CSM and daemons together.

Pretty sure at least one rumour would have nailed that by now though.

Rolling ynnari in made sense, since it was 3 characters and a set of rules. Harlequins was a bit more surprising since they got an expanded range, though they are 3 kits and 3 characters in total. Like Militarum tempestus getting rolled back in to guard.

I guess Ynnari players that want Drukhari allies will need another book and that the Dark Eldar codex will also have the same Ynnari and Harlequin units as well

 GaroRobe wrote:
I guess Ynnari players that want Drukhari allies will need another book and that the Dark Eldar codex will also have the same Ynnari and Harlequin units as well

The Drukhari Codex that's already been released you mean?
The requirements for fielding Ynnari in full used to be 3 Codexes and a WD supplement. Now it's 2 Codexes. This is a flat out win to the point where I am even considering an expansion of my Drukhari to include some Clowns and Craftworlds.

 Eldarain wrote:
I'm ready for the nearly 5 year wait for this book to end with a paradigm shift nerfing them after the trend has been power creep.

I'm ok with that, I want a deep book with options that encourage different play styles without being the tournament goers choice of book with a 65+% winrate week 1. Much rather end up near the GSC end of the scale.

Dudeface wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I'm ready for the nearly 5 year wait for this book to end with a paradigm shift nerfing them after the trend has been power creep.

I'm ok with that, I want a deep book with options that encourage different play styles without being the tournament goers choice of book with a 65+% winrate week 1. Much rather end up near the GSC end of the scale.

I think they did the GSC dex really well, capturing the essence of the faction, and making baseline most things usefull in specific ways.
However i do think that GW needs to add in more customizability to the GSC HQ's, its a bit depressing to see a primus and him always being the same.

Customizability is also something that chaos marines need. and on that front since a certain dex of a certain edition it hasn't looked good.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Rolling ynnari in made sense, since it was 3 characters and a set of rules. Harlequins was a bit more surprising since they got an expanded range, though they are 3 kits and 3 characters in total. Like Militarum tempestus getting rolled back in to guard.

It never left Guard in the first place. They just had an alternate list.

And frankly, I remain convinced to this day that someone screwed up the lists. It was bizarre that the Guard could take Platoons of Scions while the Scions only got fielded in Squads.

 Eldarain wrote:
I'm ready for the nearly 5 year wait for this book to end with a paradigm shift nerfing them after the trend has been power creep.

Coming out on the heels of codex Eldar and sharing a box with them. CSM probably aren't the start of the shift toward "balance". It just depends whether or not the codex writers actually gave a damn this time. I'd be more worried about Chaos Daemons missing out on their share of OP non-sense.

 Deathwolf wrote:
What would the hypothetical difference be between running Fallen with dedicated rules and running them as Legionnaires using whatever rules they have for Renegade traits?

I’m curious because I have 30K DA and am thinking of running them as Fallen for some 40k stuff too.

It'd definitely cause some issues for the DA codex if they're not in the new CSM book.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I'm ready for the nearly 5 year wait for this book to end with a paradigm shift nerfing them after the trend has been power creep.

I'm ok with that, I want a deep book with options that encourage different play styles without being the tournament goers choice of book with a 65+% winrate week 1. Much rather end up near the GSC end of the scale.

I think they did the GSC dex really well, capturing the essence of the faction, and making baseline most things usefull in specific ways.
However i do think that GW needs to add in more customizability to the GSC HQ's, its a bit depressing to see a primus and him always being the same.

Customizability is also something that chaos marines need. and on that front since a certain dex of a certain edition it hasn't looked good.

The sort of space that used to be filled by converting, before chapterhousim went too far and no-model-no-rules was expanded to no-option-no-rules.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I'm ready for the nearly 5 year wait for this book to end with a paradigm shift nerfing them after the trend has been power creep.

I'm ok with that, I want a deep book with options that encourage different play styles without being the tournament goers choice of book with a 65+% winrate week 1. Much rather end up near the GSC end of the scale.

I think they did the GSC dex really well, capturing the essence of the faction, and making baseline most things usefull in specific ways.
However i do think that GW needs to add in more customizability to the GSC HQ's, its a bit depressing to see a primus and him always being the same.

Customizability is also something that chaos marines need. and on that front since a certain dex of a certain edition it hasn't looked good.

The sort of space that used to be filled by converting, before chapterhousim went too far and no-model-no-rules was expanded to no-option-no-rules.

Eh, depends on what customization options we're talking about. Want your Chaos Lord to have a bike? Convert it. Want that squad of Chosen to have Daemonic Flight? Convert some jump packs or wings on them. Want that squad of CSM to have Infiltrate, Furious Charge, or Tank Hunters? Pay the points. Not all of the customization options required converting. But we lost those as well. They can bring those back without breaking their silly "no model, no rules" restriction. Those don't require any more modeling than things like Deadly Pathogens or Legion Command.

True that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I'm ready for the nearly 5 year wait for this book to end with a paradigm shift nerfing them after the trend has been power creep.

I'm ok with that, I want a deep book with options that encourage different play styles without being the tournament goers choice of book with a 65+% winrate week 1. Much rather end up near the GSC end of the scale.

I think they did the GSC dex really well, capturing the essence of the faction, and making baseline most things usefull in specific ways.
However i do think that GW needs to add in more customizability to the GSC HQ's, its a bit depressing to see a primus and him always being the same.

Customizability is also something that chaos marines need. and on that front since a certain dex of a certain edition it hasn't looked good.

The sort of space that used to be filled by converting, before chapterhousim went too far and no-model-no-rules was expanded to no-option-no-rules.

Eh, depends on what customization options we're talking about. Want your Chaos Lord to have a bike? Convert it. Want that squad of Chosen to have Daemonic Flight? Convert some jump packs or wings on them. Want that squad of CSM to have Infiltrate, Furious Charge, or Tank Hunters? Pay the points. Not all of the customization options required converting. But we lost those as well. They can bring those back without breaking their silly "no model, no rules" restriction. Those don't require any more modeling than things like Deadly Pathogens or Legion Command.

To an extent I agree with removing certain upgrades, because some were just obvious. Name one player that didn't buy Artificer Armor for their Captains/Chapter Masters that weren't in Terminator Armor after all.

MoP

Has a staff that causes perils in combat with a psyker
Cast 2 deny 1
When casting, can cause d3 mortals to a friendly non daemonkin unit to gain +2 to cast
Enemy psykers suffer one additional wound if they peril within 12"


Malefic dis

1. +1 to wound

2. Bring back a daemonkin model

3.4+ inv to Daemonkin units and enemy's take mortals if they charge

4. Beat the models toughness on d6 destroy it

5. 6's to hit auto wound for a daemonkin unit

6. +1 str or toughness (or both if rolled high on test)



The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.



MoE (elite slot)

Rerolls wounds v char
6" heroic intervene
Hits of six does two mortals and the attack ends
Axe got worse Doesn't reroll hits Doesn't explode (does with legion)
Gains a wound and an attack
Dank Apostle

all god specific prayers are entirely new

Big fan of those rumoured Master of Possession/Malefic changes.

 Sersi wrote:

Yriel_71 wrote:
for some reason I cannot unseen that the slaanesh mark is still weak in some way
bye mutilators

Eh...its alright. Fighting first is still valuable, especially in a melee heavy army like CSM. Also many EC players have armies based around exploiting it. So, it's go to still have access to it despite our legion trait changing. I'd have rather had something like: advance and charge, or re-rolling charges, or some bonus to advance and/or charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deathwolf wrote:
Are they any rumors on what will happen to the Fallen yet? Will it just be a keyword for Legionnaires?

Fallen are probably just gone until they either get a codex supplement or a White Dwarf get you by codex.

Fallen really should an army of reknown in similar style as Disciples of Be'Lakor. It allows the rules to be much more nuanced and gives could give them access to marine trueborn stuff.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Big fan of those rumoured Master of Possession/Malefic changes.

Eh, we might need to have the details first but this peril thing might be gimmicky. But the malefic discipline does look pretty good !

Wait and see for the MoE.

Bruh isn't there a Jump Pack Lord? They're really gonna take that away huh?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Bruh isn't there a Jump Pack Lord? They're really gonna take that away huh?

Actually this is good for players because it means there's less confusion in what they should buy. Convert it? Sounds like elitism/WAAC-mindset there buddy; adding a spare jump pack implies everyone has access to additional bits. You whiners should complain less./s

...I really hope you just forgot the /s there, blood reaper.

 Dysartes wrote:
...I really hope you just forgot the /s there, blood reaper.

I probably should add that in, but I promise you, there are people who will unironically make arguments like this.

Like I said: I'm less concerned with what we're getting, and more concerned about what we're losing.

We continue to lose.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Like I said: I'm less concerned with what we're getting, and more concerned about what we're losing.

We continue to lose.

accursed weapons are a major indication for more streamlining.

As if that was needed for chaos.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Like I said: I'm less concerned with what we're getting, and more concerned about what we're losing.

We continue to lose.

Cue a million "You're just a whiner" responses.

The game is going in a terrible direction IMO, and the problems of it are perfectly summarised by the new Codex. Everything is being 'streamlined' (which really just means there's a lot less options, conversions no longer are done for in-game reasons, and you should stick to official GW models and model units exactly as they come in the box).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Like I said: I'm less concerned with what we're getting, and more concerned about what we're losing.

We continue to lose.

At this point I just hope we can have fun with it !

At this point, I would not be surprised if the 10th edition rulebook explicitly states that GW's datasheets are only to be used to represent GW models assembled exactly per the official instructions in the kit and that you need your opponent's permission to use converted/kitbashed models.

Won't affect me, as I will continue to use GW purely as a source of cool models and look elsewhere for rules. GW hasn't been any good at producing rules since the early 2000s.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Big fan of those rumoured Master of Possession/Malefic changes.

Eh, we might need to have the details first

...well....yeah...obviously we need to have the details first for everything we're discussing here. It's a rumour thread, all verdicts are TBD.

Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

Uh-oh spaghettios.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.

WHAT?

A Legion trait, Raptors and Warp Talons can't have Icons, and now, Chaos Lords and Sorcerers can't have jump packs? What is this? The Night Lords edition?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

Uh-oh spaghettios.

This is good for new players. As we now, new players are mentally deficient and if they had options they might make a mistake.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

Uh-oh spaghettios.

This is good for new players. As we now, new players are mentally deficient and if they had options they might make a mistake.

God forbid, they might even buy a third party bit to represent an option!

Follow up question. How many Chaos Lords has GW released in the past 20 years that haven't been armed with a plasma pistol and accursed weapon?

Not counting of course the legion-specific ones that are going to be range-rotated out of availability and into Legends soon.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.

WHAT?

A Legion trait, Raptors and Warp Talons can't have Icons, and now, Chaos Lords and Sorcerers can't have jump packs? What is this? The Night Lords edition?

Damn ! Didn't even think about that ! Sorry for you and all the Night Lords players.

Damn the more I think about it, it's a really really dumb decision. Does it make Harkon the last Chaos Marine HQ who knows how to fly ?

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.

WHAT?

A Legion trait, Raptors and Warp Talons can't have Icons, and now, Chaos Lords and Sorcerers can't have jump packs? What is this? The Night Lords edition?

Damn ! Didn't even think about that ! Sorry for you and all the Night Lords players.

Damn the more I think about it, it's a really really dumb decision. Does it make Harkon the last Chaos Marine HQ who knows how to fly ?

The jump packs worn by raptors and warp talons are infused with daemonic machine spirits that are bonded to the souls of their wearers. These spirits power and maintain the jump packs and as a result Chaos Lords cannot use them. Harkon has the last functioning jump pack that hasn't been corrupted thusly. Or something like that.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.

WHAT?

A Legion trait, Raptors and Warp Talons can't have Icons, and now, Chaos Lords and Sorcerers can't have jump packs? What is this? The Night Lords edition?

Damn ! Didn't even think about that ! Sorry for you and all the Night Lords players.

Damn the more I think about it, it's a really really dumb decision. Does it make Harkon the last Chaos Marine HQ who knows how to fly ?

Not sure, but this doesn't make sense in context with the other rumours. Remember, one of the rumored Night Lords relics, from the same rumour source, is supposed to be a relic jump pack. Something is getting lost in translation here.

If you have a relic jumppack and supposedly no jumppack option that makes no sense at all.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.

WHAT?

A Legion trait, Raptors and Warp Talons can't have Icons, and now, Chaos Lords and Sorcerers can't have jump packs? What is this? The Night Lords edition?

Damn ! Didn't even think about that ! Sorry for you and all the Night Lords players.

Damn the more I think about it, it's a really really dumb decision. Does it make Harkon the last Chaos Marine HQ who knows how to fly ?

The jump packs worn by raptors and warp talons are infused with daemonic machine spirits that are bonded to the souls of their wearers. These spirits power and maintain the jump packs and as a result Chaos Lords cannot use them. Harkon has the last functioning jump pack that hasn't been corrupted thusly. Or something like that.

GW literally still sells a Resin Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you have a relic jumppack and supposedly no jumppack option that makes no sense at all.

Exactly. Something has gotten lost in translation in the game of "Telephone" between Clockworkchris and their source.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:
At this point I just hope we can have fun with it !

Your username couldn't be more perfect.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
GW literally still sells a Resin Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.

Yeah but for how much longer?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.

WHAT?

A Legion trait, Raptors and Warp Talons can't have Icons, and now, Chaos Lords and Sorcerers can't have jump packs? What is this? The Night Lords edition?

Damn ! Didn't even think about that ! Sorry for you and all the Night Lords players.

Damn the more I think about it, it's a really really dumb decision. Does it make Harkon the last Chaos Marine HQ who knows how to fly ?

The jump packs worn by raptors and warp talons are infused with daemonic machine spirits that are bonded to the souls of their wearers. These spirits power and maintain the jump packs and as a result Chaos Lords cannot use them. Harkon has the last functioning jump pack that hasn't been corrupted thusly. Or something like that.

GW literally still sells a Resin Chaos Lord with Jump Pack.

There's nothing requiring them to continue though. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the resin chaos lord models ended up range-rotated in the near future. If they're planning on doing it in conjunction with this codex release then you might see their rules removed from the codex and sent to Legends at the same time.

Necron destroyer lord and autarch on bike both didn’t mysteriously vanish

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

Uh-oh spaghettios.

This is good for new players. As we now, new players are mentally deficient and if they had options they might make a mistake.

God forbid, they might even buy a third party bit to represent an option!

3rd party bits are a WAAC option/too hard/increase complexity/etc.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Necron destroyer lord and autarch on bike both didn’t mysteriously vanish

Because if they're known for anything, GW is soooo known for being consistent in the way they handle things.

Literally all of my powered armor CSM lords have jump packs, this is mind numbing slowed. This company is a fething joke, I legit wouldn't be surprised if the next edition says you arent allowed to use anything but "official" paint schemes now too.

I got into this hobby because I loved conversions and creating my own guys, at this point I might as well stop playing entirely and just convert models for fun.

feth Games Workshop and feth anyone who supports this stupid ass company

CSM: Dude, where's my jump pack? edition codex.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

Uh-oh spaghettios.

This is good for new players. As we now, new players are mentally deficient and if they had options they might make a mistake.

I'm waiting for Kan to come into this thread and defend the decision like he did with the Autarchs LOL

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

Uh-oh spaghettios.

This is good for new players. As we now, new players are mentally deficient and if they had options they might make a mistake.

I'm waiting for Kan to come into this thread and defend the decision like he did with the Autarchs LOL

Patience. We're still in the "these are just rumors, we have to wait and see" stage of the Apologist Cycle. We have to start getting warcom articles and leaked scans before we get to the "this is actually a good thing and here's why" stage.

So the Night Lords relic is for the DP with wings only.

So just to clarify the Night Lords, you know the legion who is known for using jumppacks and not using demons as much as other legions cannot equip lords with jump packs and have a relic made for demon princes only......

I hate this company so much

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Is there a plastic power armored Chaos Lord currently available that isn't armed with a thunder hammer and plasma pistol?

Nope, unless you count the Termie one.

Uh-oh spaghettios.

You didn't really think they'd let us keep the that Smash Lord did you. We are the NPC faction after all. I'm not surprised about the jump pack loss. They never gave any of the other characters access to them, and the did legends all our bike characters. It's probably save to assume were gonna loose anything without direct model representation.

 warboss wrote:
CSM: Dude, where's my jump pack? edition codex.

8th and 9th are just "Dude, where's my options?"

2x210 wrote:
Literally all of my powered armor CSM lords have jump packs, this is mind numbing slowed. This company is a fething joke, I legit wouldn't be surprised if the next edition says you arent allowed to use anything but "official" paint schemes now too.

I got into this hobby because I loved conversions and creating my own guys, at this point I might as well stop playing entirely and just convert models for fun.

feth Games Workshop and feth anyone who supports this stupid ass company

I mean you could just use them as lords on foot? I get it sucks, but if you enjoy playing, keep playing.

Dudeface wrote:

2x210 wrote:
Literally all of my powered armor CSM lords have jump packs, this is mind numbing slowed. This company is a fething joke, I legit wouldn't be surprised if the next edition says you arent allowed to use anything but "official" paint schemes now too.

I got into this hobby because I loved conversions and creating my own guys, at this point I might as well stop playing entirely and just convert models for fun.

feth Games Workshop and feth anyone who supports this stupid ass company

I mean you could just use them as lords on foot? I get it sucks, but if you enjoy playing, keep playing.

This sort of thing has a tendency to curtail enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 warboss wrote:
CSM: Dude, where's my jump pack? edition codex.

8th and 9th are just "Dude, where's my options?"

It's been 'Dude, where are my options?' since 4th ed tbh.

2x210 wrote:
So the Night Lords relic is for the DP with wings only.

So just to clarify the Night Lords, you know the legion who is known for using jumppacks and not using demons as much as other legions cannot equip lords with jump packs and have a relic made for demon princes only......

I hate this company so much

Well, they've been ignoring the fluff for Night Lords for the past 14 years, while still putting it in the fluff section of every codex, so not surprising.

But.....the "source" is now saying that their version of the playtest rules is the earliest version. So all of this has to be taken with extra now. There's no telling how much of this all could have changed since then.

Do people Just generally not understand the grain of salt reference? Salt is the indicator of value in the reference. If you take it with plenty of salt, it would mean to take what’s said with more weight, not less. That’s why you take something spurious with” a grain of salt.” It’s fatiguing reading this simple truism get butchered on these boards again and again.

Dudeface wrote:

2x210 wrote:
Literally all of my powered armor CSM lords have jump packs, this is mind numbing slowed. This company is a fething joke, I legit wouldn't be surprised if the next edition says you arent allowed to use anything but "official" paint schemes now too.

I got into this hobby because I loved conversions and creating my own guys, at this point I might as well stop playing entirely and just convert models for fun.

feth Games Workshop and feth anyone who supports this stupid ass company

I mean you could just use them as lords on foot? I get it sucks, but if you enjoy playing, keep playing.

Thats thing the more I read these leaks the less I want to play. Its like GW actively hates my playstyle and army in general. I'll probably just go back to playing my Blood Angels or Templars since so far none of those guys have been made obsolete by stupid rules.

I legitimately think GW hates certian armies, I know we haven't seen the full leaks yet and this could all be nonsense but compare this to the Tau codex. Its not even in the same league. Hell their big screw you guns can pretty effectively delete my now footslogging lords in one shot and my options to get into close combat are extremely limited. My Night Lords might as well be shelved until next codex and my undivided army will need to be completely reworked to play. Especially since I heavily used both jump pack lords and special weapon chosen squads.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

2x210 wrote:
So the Night Lords relic is for the DP with wings only.

So just to clarify the Night Lords, you know the legion who is known for using jumppacks and not using demons as much as other legions cannot equip lords with jump packs and have a relic made for demon princes only......

I hate this company so much

Well, they've been ignoring the fluff for Night Lords for the past 14 years, while still putting it in the fluff section of every codex, so not surprising.

But.....the "source" is now saying that their version of the playtest rules is the earliest version. So all of this has to be taken with extra now. There's no telling how much of this all could have changed since then.

Bold to assume GW listens to their playtesters that don't exist.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

2x210 wrote:
So the Night Lords relic is for the DP with wings only.

So just to clarify the Night Lords, you know the legion who is known for using jumppacks and not using demons as much as other legions cannot equip lords with jump packs and have a relic made for demon princes only......

I hate this company so much

Well, they've been ignoring the fluff for Night Lords for the past 14 years, while still putting it in the fluff section of every codex, so not surprising.

But.....the "source" is now saying that their version of the playtest rules is the earliest version. So all of this has to be taken with extra now. There's no telling how much of this all could have changed since then.

Bold to assume GW listens to their playtesters that don't exist.

Well, they apparently listened to the ones that said that "Dd6 isn't good" for DE, and "they seem too weak" for Custodes.

There will probably be "Chaos Lord with Jump Pack" as its own datasheet instead of the option for a Chaos Lord to buy one.

 DO IT TO IT wrote:
There will probably be "Chaos Lord with Jump Pack" as its own datasheet instead of the option for a Chaos Lord to buy one.

And armed with 2 Accursed Weapons!

If they don't send it to Legends. I guess we'll see.

 DO IT TO IT wrote:
There will probably be "Chaos Lord with Jump Pack" as its own datasheet instead of the option for a Chaos Lord to buy one.

You've given me hope, not much hope, but some hope. A tiny amount of hope, a smidgen of hope if you will.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 DO IT TO IT wrote:
There will probably be "Chaos Lord with Jump Pack" as its own datasheet instead of the option for a Chaos Lord to buy one.

And armed with 2 Accursed Weapons!

If they don't send it to Legends. I guess we'll see.

As long as I can swap those Accursed Weapons for Claws of the Black Hunt.......

While I do not understand why the jump pack shall be removed, I have to say that limiting the options to what comes in the box seems like a valid step. It prevents people from chasing down and spam the one most efficient option from the kit. At least from the playgroups I know there are some players who always try to max out a squad while being annoyed how to get the option X times. I am not sad that those complains/issues to get the right bits will end, although this also sets the expectation that GW will get the balance right for the new setups

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
While I do not understand why the jump pack shall be removed, I have to say that limiting the options to what comes in the box seems like a valid step. It prevents people from chasing down and spam the one most efficient option from the kit. At least from the playgroups I know there are some players who always try to max out a squad while being annoyed how to get the option X times. I am not sad that those complains/issues to get the right bits will end, although this also sets the expectation that GW will get the balance right for the new setups

One of each weapon is fething ugly to look at. There's a good not-crunch reason for you to not support it.

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
While I do not understand why the jump pack shall be removed, I have to say that limiting the options to what comes in the box seems like a valid step. It prevents people from chasing down and spam the one most efficient option from the kit. At least from the playgroups I know there are some players who always try to max out a squad while being annoyed how to get the option X times. I am not sad that those complains/issues to get the right bits will end, although this also sets the expectation that GW will get the balance right for the new setups

as other ppinted out, you end up with a hodgepodge of worthless options. (especially chosen and termites i expect will be just 2 of x combi weapon that workls and then just nothing)
CHosen and termites will become unfocussed messes or just flat out not be played anymore.
It removes further customizability and making your dudes your dudes, which was one of the driving factors of this game and community hobbywise?=

Dread Master wrote:
Do people Just generally not understand the grain of salt reference? Salt is the indicator of value in the reference. If you take it with plenty of salt, it would mean to take what’s said with more weight, not less. That’s why you take something spurious with” a grain of salt.” It’s fatiguing reading this simple truism get butchered on these boards again and again.

That's not the etymology of "grain of salt." The salt is to help you choke down the awful tasting rumor.

This forum is so salty (with me obviously on the vanguard of saltiness), i doubt a single grain would change anything.

I just looked at the GW website and they are still selling the Lord with jump pack with the claws. However, they also still have mutilators on there as well, which are rumored to be out of the codex, so not really clear one way or the other but at least they are still selling him. What they don't have is a sorcerer with a jump pack so I would bet dollars to doughnuts that option will be out of the codex.

 clockworkchris9 wrote:
MoP

The is no longer a way to give characters a jump pack, only the daemon prince can still be equipped with wings.

"You see, by giving people options it means that they feel they can only do what they have options to do! But if we take away all options, then people have the option to transport themselves to the imaginative world of fairylands, where there are more options."
-Gav Thorpe, on CSM 4th

Gav Thorpe confirmed to write CSM 9th.

Dudeface wrote:
I mean you could just use them as lords on foot?

'Counts As' is never the solution.

 Laughing Man wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
Do people Just generally not understand the grain of salt reference? Salt is the indicator of value in the reference. If you take it with plenty of salt, it would mean to take what’s said with more weight, not less. That’s why you take something spurious with” a grain of salt.” It’s fatiguing reading this simple truism get butchered on these boards again and again.

That's not the etymology of "grain of salt." The salt is to help you choke down the awful tasting rumor.

No, it's likely it has something to do with salt being an antidote to poison, and a "grain" isn't a single particle of salt in this instance, but a reference to an old English weight.

So "taking something with a grain of salt" is dosing yourself against something that may be poisonous.

I remember and liked the days when power weapons were just power weapons bar some special exceptions. I'm OK with those being consolidated again, as I never liked needing to worry if the axe/mace/sword was the one with stats I wanted. Would like claws to stay claws, but could tolerate them being rolled in as long as fists and hammers stay distinct (though hammer being rolled into a 'large power weapon's category would be ok in my book).

It's still regular marines that need weapon consolidation far more though. What with two dozen different bolter variants...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean you could just use them as lords on foot?

'Counts As' is never the solution.

Aye, i could just count as my r&h either as guard or gsc, shame for the conversion and how the army was built and intended to play out with and against.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm OK with those being consolidated again, as I never liked needing to worry if the axe/mace/sword was the one with stats I wanted.

But they're not being consolidated into one weapon profile. They're being consolidated into one weapon profile in two specific squads types. The remainder get to keep them with the rules they have now.

As I've said a half dozen times already: It means one squad's Lightning Claws will be Lightning Claws, and another squad's Lightning Claws will not be Lightning Claws.

It's such an ass-backwards way of writing rules that it drives me fething crazy!

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
Do people Just generally not understand the grain of salt reference? Salt is the indicator of value in the reference. If you take it with plenty of salt, it would mean to take what’s said with more weight, not less. That’s why you take something spurious with” a grain of salt.” It’s fatiguing reading this simple truism get butchered on these boards again and again.

That's not the etymology of "grain of salt." The salt is to help you choke down the awful tasting rumor.

No, it's likely it has something to do with salt being an antidote to poison, and a "grain" isn't a single particle of salt in this instance, but a reference to an old English weight.

So "taking something with a grain of salt" is dosing yourself against something that may be poisonous.

Depends if you're looking at the Pompey or Pliny hypothesis. Pompey's was used to make the poison he was ingesting (to build up a tolerance) tolerable, while Pliny's was as part of the antidote.

A distinction without a difference in this context.

 Azreal13 wrote:
A distinction without a difference in this context.

Pretty much, yep. Either way, adding more salt to the rumor doesn't add credence.

Oh, no, can you imagine?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean you could just use them as lords on foot?

'Counts As' is never the solution.

No kidding. "See those two giant jet engines on that guy's back? Ignore those. He's out of gas."

No thank you.

What an unusual yet educational tangent.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean you could just use them as lords on foot?

'Counts As' is never the solution.

No kidding. "See those two giant jet engines on that guy's back? Ignore those. He's out of gas."

No thank you.

Normally I'd bring my apologetic bum in here and sit myself down and prepare a bunch of apologetic arguments.

Removing jump packs from sorcs and lords while creating a Night Lord relic that can only be taken by Daemon Princes, or separating the chaos lord into its own unit (which, based on the model that exists would ONLY be equipped with lightning claws (and, by the way, is on a laughably small base, which is another thing that GW has been fixing here and there. Remember the previous Warpsmith was on a 25mm) or, at best, two 'accursed weapons'...) is... not it, fam. That's just not it.

Yeah, I'm second-guessing all of my effort in converting and painting up Night Lords. It feels bad to feel punished for trying to collect, build, convert, and paint my favorite faction, but having been a fan of Seraphon and Emperor's Children for 15 years, I'm kind of used to this punishment at this point. All I need to do is get into a popular faction like Stormcast or Space Marines and then GW will shift their nerfing eyes on those factions for once, as that seems to be my curse.

All I can do is inject about a gallon of Hopium into my veins and pray that these 'early playtest' rumors have gone back on removing so many options.

There's no hope where Chaos is concerned.

All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.

Wait, it's pinch of salt surely?

 Tastyfish wrote:
Wait, it's pinch of salt surely?

Only in Britain. Us American Idiots use 'grain of salt'.

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
While I do not understand why the jump pack shall be removed, I have to say that limiting the options to what comes in the box seems like a valid step. It prevents people from chasing down and spam the one most efficient option from the kit. At least from the playgroups I know there are some players who always try to max out a squad while being annoyed how to get the option X times. I am not sad that those complains/issues to get the right bits will end, although this also sets the expectation that GW will get the balance right for the new setups

And I thought blood reaper was being heavy handed !

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
While I do not understand why the jump pack shall be removed, I have to say that limiting the options to what comes in the box seems like a valid step. It prevents people from chasing down and spam the one most efficient option from the kit. At least from the playgroups I know there are some players who always try to max out a squad while being annoyed how to get the option X times. I am not sad that those complains/issues to get the right bits will end, although this also sets the expectation that GW will get the balance right for the new setups

And I thought blood reaper was being heavy handed !

I can understand limiting, say, a space marine squad's options to one plasma gun if only one comes in the box to make it so you don't have to worry about buying a second box to have that extra plasma gun...

But taking away options like jump packs instead of just... giving us a new chaos lord with actual options... stings.

I'd really call on the creative director of GW's design team to get the team to work on some chaos lords if they haven't.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm OK with those being consolidated again, as I never liked needing to worry if the axe/mace/sword was the one with stats I wanted.

But they're not being consolidated into one weapon profile. They're being consolidated into one weapon profile in two specific squads types. The remainder get to keep them with the rules they have now.

As I've said a half dozen times already: It means one squad's Lightning Claws will be Lightning Claws, and another squad's Lightning Claws will not be Lightning Claws.

It's such an ass-backwards way of writing rules that it drives me fething crazy!

Oh yes, the inconsistency is of course absurd. I just evaluate that as an adjacent but independent issue. I prefer consolidated to split up, but I prefer either of those to inconsistency.

drbored wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
While I do not understand why the jump pack shall be removed, I have to say that limiting the options to what comes in the box seems like a valid step. It prevents people from chasing down and spam the one most efficient option from the kit. At least from the playgroups I know there are some players who always try to max out a squad while being annoyed how to get the option X times. I am not sad that those complains/issues to get the right bits will end, although this also sets the expectation that GW will get the balance right for the new setups

And I thought blood reaper was being heavy handed !

I can understand limiting, say, a space marine squad's options to one plasma gun if only one comes in the box to make it so you don't have to worry about buying a second box to have that extra plasma gun...

That's just because it's a legacy to have Tactical Marines have a max of one Special and one Heavy. This wasn't an issue for other armies (and arguably showed how Tactical Marines should've been designed instead) until now. Queue unit entries like the Plague Marine.

As long as it stays a legends option most players will be good, but it's still a stupid move. We lost our Bikes and steeds in 8th, our jump packs in 9th, I wonder what they take away in 10th?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
As long as it stays a legends option most players will be good, but it's still a stupid move. We lost our Bikes and steeds in 8th, our jump packs in 9th, I wonder what they take away in 10th?

Plague Marines, Rubrics, Zerkers, and Noise Marines will become exclusive to their respective legions and only Black Legion will be able to take them but the cult marines won't benefit from any purity bonuses the rest of the army gets.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean you could just use them as lords on foot?

'Counts As' is never the solution.

In that case the options are rip the backpacks off and put a normal one one, leave them on a shelf to collect dust or try and sell them.

In the grand scheme of things if I had a cool converted lord that no longer had rules, I'd rather counts as than not use it all or mutilate it, but that's me.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
As long as it stays a legends option most players will be good, but it's still a stupid move. We lost our Bikes and steeds in 8th, our jump packs in 9th, I wonder what they take away in 10th?

Plague Marines, Rubrics, Zerkers, and Noise Marines will become exclusive to their respective legions and only Black Legion will be able to take them but the cult marines won't benefit from any purity bonuses the rest of the army gets.

This is a good thing actually. It's streamlining the game. New players are effectively cattle and can't be expected to comprehend basic rules, and so need the ruleset to be as stale and as safe as possible - least they accidentally make an inefficient unit.

At this stage, if accurate, considering just how charachter drive CSM armies are, whats the point anymore?

Not Online!!! wrote:
At this stage, if accurate, considering just how charachter drive CSM armies are, whats the point anymore?

Maybe theyll be less character driven in the new book? Tbh if by character driven you mean "huddle around lords for rerolls and psykers for some buffs" I can live with a change.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
At this stage, if accurate, considering just how charachter drive CSM armies are, whats the point anymore?

Maybe theyll be less character driven in the new book? Tbh if by character driven you mean "huddle around lords for rerolls and psykers for some buffs" I can live with a change.

No i mean charachter driven not aurabots.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
At this stage, if accurate, considering just how charachter drive CSM armies are, whats the point anymore?

Maybe theyll be less character driven in the new book? Tbh if by character driven you mean "huddle around lords for rerolls and psykers for some buffs" I can live with a change.

No i mean charachter driven not aurabots.

Fair, I'd like them to return to being monster combatants that lead from the front, most hqs, including primaris, should be scared of having to face off a lord in melee, I'd even happily take hit to their buffing to get them back to being scary.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
As long as it stays a legends option most players will be good, but it's still a stupid move. We lost our Bikes and steeds in 8th, our jump packs in 9th, I wonder what they take away in 10th?

Plague Marines, Rubrics, Zerkers, and Noise Marines will become exclusive to their respective legions and only Black Legion will be able to take them but the cult marines won't benefit from any purity bonuses the rest of the army gets.

They've already done that twice in the past, and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
At this stage, if accurate, considering just how charachter drive CSM armies are, whats the point anymore?

Maybe theyll be less character driven in the new book? Tbh if by character driven you mean "huddle around lords for rerolls and psykers for some buffs" I can live with a change.

No i mean charachter driven not aurabots.

Fair, I'd like them to return to being monster combatants that lead from the front, most hqs, including primaris, should be scared of having to face off a lord in melee, I'd even happily take hit to their buffing to get them back to being scary.

That's how it should be. CSM shouldn't need their leaders constantly babysitting them, they should be able to get the job done themselves. Their leaders should be in command based on their own personal strengths, not their ability to tell everyone else in the army to "shoot better".

Btw, do we know anything about accursed weapon profiles?

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
Btw, do we know anything about accursed weapon profiles?

Page 1 summary:

"Chosen:
3w
can use TH

In the new book, their base loadout is boltgun & accursed weapon (S+1 ap3 d1; +1a)"

Also, new kill team sprue, which oddly won't show in a post for me: https://m.imgur.com/XO6eNxn

Dudeface wrote:

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
Btw, do we know anything about accursed weapon profiles?

Page 1 summary:

"Chosen:
3w
can use TH

In the new book, their base loadout is boltgun & accursed weapon (S+1 ap3 d1; +1a)"

Also, new kill team sprue, which oddly won't show in a post for me: https://m.imgur.com/XO6eNxn

Woooo ! Thanks ! Adding it the summary right now !

I spot... 6 new heads, the chain cannon, the nifty new CaC weapons but no book in sight ?

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
Btw, do we know anything about accursed weapon profiles?

Page 1 summary:

"Chosen:
3w
can use TH

In the new book, their base loadout is boltgun & accursed weapon (S+1 ap3 d1; +1a)"

Also, new kill team sprue, which oddly won't show in a post for me: https://m.imgur.com/XO6eNxn

Woooo ! Thanks ! Adding it the summary right now !

I spot... 6 new heads, the chain cannon, the nifty new CaC weapons but no book in sight ?

I can't spot it either, probably going up for preorder next week if the sprue is in the wild though.

I can't find it either. Could there be another sprue? Or are we all just blind?

Random thought: Since they're changing CSM to Legionnaires, do you think that they might actually let us have Legion equipment without silly restrictions? I mean, Legions should have Legion stuff.....

Dudeface wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
Btw, do we know anything about accursed weapon profiles?

Page 1 summary:

"Chosen:
3w
can use TH

In the new book, their base loadout is boltgun & accursed weapon (S+1 ap3 d1; +1a)"

Also, new kill team sprue, which oddly won't show in a post for me: https://m.imgur.com/XO6eNxn

Woooo ! Thanks ! Adding it the summary right now !

I spot... 6 new heads, the chain cannon, the nifty new CaC weapons but no book in sight ?

I can't spot it either, probably going up for preorder next week if the sprue is in the wild though.

Isn't the book on the other side of the spiky backpack piece next to the chaincannon?

Yeah, the book is there. It's just inversed.

A bit underwhelmed with the options. It's not a huge surprise, since the Warcom article was showing off generic CSM alongside the new upgraded guys, but still.

I know they're smaller and so need less room on sprue, but the Tau upgrade sprue at least had enough heads to fully deck out the unit.

That should work for you, Dudeface. Imgur's weird when it comes to the mobile tag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GaroRobe wrote:
Yeah, the book is there. It's just inversed.

A bit underwhelmed with the options. It's not a huge surprise, since the Warcom article was showing off generic CSM alongside the new upgraded guys, but still.

I know they're smaller and so need less room on sprue, but the Tau upgrade sprue at least had enough heads to fully deck out the unit.

The Tau upgrade sprue also has 'mandatory' heads for 2 of the Specialist types. There's one head tied to the Drone Controller build and one for the Grenade Launcher equipped Specialist.

Ranged weapons. That way all CSM will have to fight in HtH combat. In 11th they'll take away all weapon options and CSM will have to fight with fists and teeth.

So, crazy theory time. We know the prior KT kits come out the same week as the next one now as a potential trend. We know therefore the chaos marine box will get repacked/upgraded in 3 months give or take. Therefore codex is about 3 months out?

Dudeface wrote:
So, crazy theory time. We know the prior KT kits come out the same week as the next one now as a potential trend. We know therefore the chaos marine box will get repacked/upgraded in 3 months give or take. Therefore codex is about 3 months out?

That would match the schedule we've heard rumours of. So, it would be: Tyranids -> Chaos Knights -> Chaos Space Marines.

There's another rumour that I hope is wrong.

Hey at least it can't get any worse.

 Gert wrote:
Hey at least it can't get any worse.

Why would you tempt fate like that?

---
Supremely unimpressed with that upgrade sprue. Too many bald heads, not nearly enough toys. Chaos Marines aren't Crocodile Dundee. They don't need a pile of oversized knives to compensate.

Voss wrote:
Why would you tempt fate like that?

Whaaaaat? Noooooo. Wanna see me do it again?

Chaos Marines aren't Crocodile Dundee. They don't need a pile of oversized knives to compensate.

Don't need but want.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
There's another rumour that I hope is wrong.

What, for the Chaos Knights book?

Reminder that means this gets that bit more accurate:

I would think Gad is more meaning that the primary Chaos faction is coming after Death Guard, Tsons, and now Chaos Knights, an army that is less than an edition old.

 Gert wrote:
I would think Gad is more meaning that the primary Chaos faction is coming after Death Guard, Tsons, and now Chaos Knights, an army that is less than an edition old.

Yes, exactly. That rumour list specifically says "in no as-of-yet defined order", so having a codex made up of T8 3+ 5++ super heavies come out before the primary Chaos faction has nothing to do with it's veracity.

And as far as "it can't get any worse" goes: *remembers the 4th edition CSM codex*. Yes, yes it can.

Maybe they don't want to do two big range refreshes back to back and are installing a buffer via Tyranids and Chaos Knights. Maybe they don't see any real, meaningful reason to put the CSM book out before a codex+single model release in the form of Chaos Knights.

Additionally, the confirmation of its veracity has literally everything to do with the contents. You don't need a timeline to be correct when you've established from the outset that at the time of your posting there was no timeline.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Maybe they don't want to do two big range refreshes back to back and are installing a buffer via Tyranids and Chaos Knights. Maybe they don't see any real, meaningful reason to put the CSM book out before a codex+single model release in the form of Chaos Knights.

Additionally, the confirmation of its veracity has literally everything to do with the contents. You don't need a timeline to be correct when you've established from the outset that at the time of your posting there was no timeline.

The sad thing is a single new knight is still a large range refresh

 Kanluwen wrote:
Maybe they don't want to do two big range refreshes back to back and are installing a buffer via Tyranids and Chaos Knights. Maybe they don't see any real, meaningful reason to put the CSM book out before a codex+single model release in the form of Chaos Knights.

Yes, I'm sure they'd have their reasons for doing it, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

Additionally, the confirmation of its veracity has literally everything to do with the contents. You don't need a timeline to be correct when you've established from the outset that at the time of your posting there was no timeline.

That was my point. Having Chaos Knights come out before CSM doesn't make the rumordump any more accurate, as you claimed, because it didn't include a timeline.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Maybe they don't want to do two big range refreshes back to back and are installing a buffer via Tyranids and Chaos Knights. Maybe they don't see any real, meaningful reason to put the CSM book out before a codex+single model release in the form of Chaos Knights.

Yes, I'm sure they'd have their reasons for doing it, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

So why get upset that an effectively supplemental book is coming out first?

Additionally, the confirmation of its veracity has literally everything to do with the contents. You don't need a timeline to be correct when you've established from the outset that at the time of your posting there was no timeline.

That was my point. Having Chaos Knights come out before CSM doesn't make the rumordump any more accurate, as you claimed, because it didn't include a timeline.

I think you misunderstood why I reposted it then and chose to read something into my post that wasn't there to begin with.

Having Chaos Knights coming out before CSM doesn't make the rumordump more accurate...having Chaos Knights coming out with a new Knight does.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So why get upset that an effectively supplemental book is coming out first?

Because that's how emotions work Kan.

A new Chaos Knight model was never mentioned, we were talking about the codex. And it's aggravating because it pushes the CSM codex even further back. CSM are currently the only Marines still running around with 1W and 8th edition rules. And new models doesn't necessarily mean new codex, or new rules, anymore. The new Chosen prove that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
A new Chaos Knight model was never mentioned, we were talking about the codex. And it's aggravating because it pushes the CSM codex even further back. CSM are currently the only Marines still running around with 1W and 8th edition rules. And new models doesn't necessarily mean new codex, or new rules, anymore. The new Chosen prove that.

The Sisters of Battle Codex came out (annoyingly) before the Novitiates were added and the Tau Codex came out around the same time as Chalnath and those pathfinders, so predicting Codex release based on Kill Team models isn't going to give you anything consistent.

I'll just keep twiddling my thumbs then. If the Chaos Marine Codex is gunna be pushed further and further back, oh well. The waiting game is a game I'm pretty familiar with when it comes to GW. It's just wild to have so much potential playtest information and yet no idea of when the actual book is going to come out.

As it stands, I know GW has been struggling with paper products, and they're also juggling a bunch of other things to release shortly, including Eldar 2nd wave, Tyranids, Ash Wastes, upcoming things for AoS, Nachmund that's finally up for preorder next week, and who knows what else. I'd hate to be in charge of distribution right now because I'm sure it's a mess.

I've been thinking about the rumored rules for Chosen, and if they're true, that would be a converter's dream. I've got a bunch of cool AOS Chaos weapons lying around, and I could just slap them on without having to deal with any confusion or clashing rules. I was also considering making some Nurgle Chosen from Putrid Blightkings, complete with the rotten, arcane weapons that they come with, and again, these rules would leave me completely free to do so.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I've been thinking about the rumored rules for Chosen, and if they're true, that would be a converter's dream. I've got a bunch of cool AOS Chaos weapons lying around, and I could just slap them on without having to deal with any confusion or clashing rules. I was also considering making some Nurgle Chosen from Putrid Blightkings, complete with the rotten, arcane weapons that they come with, and again, these rules would leave me completely free to do so.

This is definitely a positive in the grand scheme of things. GW seems to bounce around between having lots of power weapons (maul, axe, spear, sword, etc) or just listing them all as 'power weapon' under one statline.

Having 'power weapon' or even 'chain weapon' or even simply 'melee weapon' allows people to use whatever bits they want to create whatever theme or look that they want without having to worry about which of the myriad weapons is the best.

In a lot of ways, I'm more annoyed by the hodgepodge of ranged weapons that some units get rather than the melee weapons. It also pushes any sort of identity that a melee unit has onto other special rules or abilities they may have, rather than their choice of melee weapon.

I'm sure in the next edition everything will be reversed anyway. Who knows?

drbored wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I've been thinking about the rumored rules for Chosen, and if they're true, that would be a converter's dream. I've got a bunch of cool AOS Chaos weapons lying around, and I could just slap them on without having to deal with any confusion or clashing rules. I was also considering making some Nurgle Chosen from Putrid Blightkings, complete with the rotten, arcane weapons that they come with, and again, these rules would leave me completely free to do so.

This is definitely a positive in the grand scheme of things. GW seems to bounce around between having lots of power weapons (maul, axe, spear, sword, etc) or just listing them all as 'power weapon' under one statline.

Having 'power weapon' or even 'chain weapon' or even simply 'melee weapon' allows people to use whatever bits they want to create whatever theme or look that they want without having to worry about which of the myriad weapons is the best.

In a lot of ways, I'm more annoyed by the hodgepodge of ranged weapons that some units get rather than the melee weapons. It also pushes any sort of identity that a melee unit has onto other special rules or abilities they may have, rather than their choice of melee weapon.

I'm sure in the next edition everything will be reversed anyway. Who knows?

So we've gone from powerfists and everything else is a power weapon, to different profiles for axes/swords/maces, and then back to powerfists and power weapons.

*chef's kiss* GW sure are masters of their craft.

All joking aside I hope they don't bungle this book too hard. I can already see caveats such as "you can not have more cultists/renegade guard/literally anything than you have basic chaos marines" because they sure love that stupid rule. Is it wishful thinking to hope Chaos get another transport? A man can dream can't he......

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I've been thinking about the rumored rules for Chosen, and if they're true, that would be a converter's dream. I've got a bunch of cool AOS Chaos weapons lying around, and I could just slap them on without having to deal with any confusion or clashing rules. I was also considering making some Nurgle Chosen from Putrid Blightkings, complete with the rotten, arcane weapons that they come with, and again, these rules would leave me completely free to do so.

That would also "solve" the problem of lightning claws doing different things depending on whether they are modelled on a warp talon or a terminator/chosen.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I've been thinking about the rumored rules for Chosen, and if they're true, that would be a converter's dream. I've got a bunch of cool AOS Chaos weapons lying around, and I could just slap them on without having to deal with any confusion or clashing rules. I was also considering making some Nurgle Chosen from Putrid Blightkings, complete with the rotten, arcane weapons that they come with, and again, these rules would leave me completely free to do so.

That would also "solve" the problem of lightning claws doing different things depending on whether they are modelled on a warp talon or a terminator/chosen.

People wanted bespoken rules, GW gave them bespoken rules.

Should be careful what you wish for.

Loving the new Obliterators they will be good in a TAC list. Expect a spearhead of PBCS for support along with chosen in dreadclaws with THs will be a nice army as long as EC keep the 6” cp charge

Sorcerer
Apostle
3x cultists
2 chosen THs and claws
2x dreadclaws
3x 2 oblits

Poxbringer
3x PBCs

Current list I’m working on

tneva82 wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I've been thinking about the rumored rules for Chosen, and if they're true, that would be a converter's dream. I've got a bunch of cool AOS Chaos weapons lying around, and I could just slap them on without having to deal with any confusion or clashing rules. I was also considering making some Nurgle Chosen from Putrid Blightkings, complete with the rotten, arcane weapons that they come with, and again, these rules would leave me completely free to do so.

That would also "solve" the problem of lightning claws doing different things depending on whether they are modelled on a warp talon or a terminator/chosen.

People wanted bespoken rules, GW gave them bespoken rules.

Should be careful what you wish for.

No one wished for that.

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
Loving the new Obliterators they will be good in a TAC list. Expect a spearhead of PBCS for support along with chosen in dreadclaws with THs will be a nice army as long as EC keep the 6” cp charge

Sorcerer
Apostle
3x cultists
2 chosen THs and claws
2x dreadclaws
3x 2 oblits

Poxbringer
3x PBCs

Current list I’m working on

If the Death Guard and Thousand Sons are anything to go by, that's too many cultists.

Yeah, would have to drop a unit of cultists to make that work if the DG/TS model holds true

More from Clockworkchris:

NOCTILITH CROWN
T8 14w
Lash has 8 shots and improved strength but degrades

Increasing aura every turn
-1ld
4++ vs shooting
PRIEST & PSYKER within 9" can perform an ACTION

ACTION, perform leadership test, if equal or below, gain 1 CP, can also replace 1 prayer or 1 spell

DISCO LORD
+1 to hit daemon engines in melee
Instead of healing vehicules can hurt ennemy vehicules
Limited to 1 and cant get multiple boosts (i don't understand what this means yet)

WARPSMITH
Can heal vehicules
+1 to hit for daemon engines for shooting

EXALTED CHAMPION
Same loadout as the model (power axe, combi melta & pistol)
Is elite and is now a lieutenant (rerolls 1 to wound @6")
Cannot change loadout
Hits better, more wounds, more attacks



Finally here are the units that have a native -1ld @6" aura:

Daemon prince
Accursed cultists
possessed
Chaos spawn
Raptors

Welp my Exalted Champion just got promoted.

Noctlith Crown I don't take now and it doesn't look like I will in future.
Dsco Lord being limited to 1, makes fluff sense I suppose but its still a kick to the boys if you have 3.
Warpsmith: +1 to hit for Daemon Engines isn't bad.
Exalted Champion: equipment locked with no option to upgrade and reduced to re-rolling 1's to wound? Damn I was looking forward to running him with some melee EC..
-1LD auras units: good for Night Lords.

I don't always aspire to be a chaos champion, but when I do I prefer a power axe.

This is pants-on-head.

Wait so is the Exalted Champion HQ option removed now and replaced with the Aspiring Champion Elite choice? Or is that in addition to?

And if Aspiring Champions are now elite characters, what are squad sergeants for CSM legionnaires and chosen units called?

More from Clockworkchris:

NOISE MARINES: all their weapons are improved, +1A/W/LD.

My mistake, did a brainfart, its exalted champion and not aspiring champion.

What are NM?