Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just Dave wrote:I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, but I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like being forced to use a generic character.

You're not being forced to use a generic character; you are being forced to use a specific character.

You can still run World Eaters without all Khorne Berserkers or Death Guard without all Plague Marines. I see it happen all the time.

People work with what they got, doesn't make it right.

Well I personally think any sort of robot dragon is pretty awesome. And making a Thousand Sons army with Ahriman sounds good to me. Looking forward to the codex!

Just Dave wrote:Bit of both apparently; BoK came out with the details on the Overlord and C'tan, then Yak came out with everything else, which supported BoK's stuff. Then Tasty basically said that yaks right IIRC.

It's worth noting that Tasty released his Necron info in a similar manner, which similarly annoyed some.


Tbh, I'm not really seeing any reason we shouldn't believe him.

According to my notes it was more like Badtaste posts a rant on BOK about bunk rumors, then Yak posts some rumors, then Badtaste edits original post to state that Yak is correct, then Yak posts more rumors, then Badtaste starts posting rumors on specific units (first about Necron Lords and then Cytan) that are more much more detailed and specific then Yak.

People got upset with Badtaste because the nature of his posts was intentionally demeaning

pretre wrote:

Just Dave wrote:I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, but I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like being forced to use a generic character.

You're not being forced to use a generic character; you are being forced to use a specific character.

One and the same really IMHO.
I'd say 3 armies using Typhus is more generic than three armies using Chaos Lords using completely different set-ups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wyomingfox wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Bit of both apparently; BoK came out with the details on the Overlord and C'tan, then Yak came out with everything else, which supported BoK's stuff. Then Tasty basically said that yaks right IIRC.

It's worth noting that Tasty released his Necron info in a similar manner, which similarly annoyed some.


Tbh, I'm not really seeing any reason we shouldn't believe him.

According to my notes it was more like Badtaste posts a rant on BOK about bunk rumors, then Yak posts some rumors, then Badtaste edits original post to state that Yak is correct, then Yak posts more rumors, then Badtaste starts posting rumors on specific units (first about Necron Lords and then Cytan) that are more much more detailed and specific then Yak.

People got upset with Badtaste because the nature of his posts was intentionally demeaning

Aaaah, thanks for the clarity. Apologies for les confusion.
You're definitely right about the demeaning thing too.

Just Dave wrote:
To me - and many others - that should work the other way round:
Imagine you have a special lord you have written fluff for.
You're not going to want to simply use some "universal" profile (read: a special character), it's not the character you've created, but rather some named character with set rules, set fluff and included in several armies.

I can understand why GW use the Special-character-unlock method, but to me it's not entirely 'fair' and is pretty 'heavy-handed'. Why can't another or standard HQ choice do the same? Why can't I use my own character if I want to run a fluffy army?

I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, but I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like being forced to use a generic character.

Here is something which is never really considered.

Generic characters can take alternate loads of wargear. Specific characters cannot.

Regarding the pretty ridiculous-sounding concept of the Chaos mecha-dragon, I need only remind other readers that when rumors came out for the GK Baby-Carrier, everyone thought that was completely loopy, too. I know I called shenanigans on it.

Sadly, I was wrong.

pretre wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:These rumors sound completely off, and not what I have been hearing otherwise. If they are true then my army will be made completely redundant because my whole army is plague marines.

Or you can take the character that gets you plagues as troops. Poof, not redundant.

And what if your 'Deathguard Captain' is actually in power armour being carried on his palanquin? Or what if your 'captain' is actually a sorcerer? Or what if your 'captain' is characterised by his pair of lightning claws w/built-in combi-plasma?! Poof, totally redundant model/s that now need replacing and/or won't see the table nearly as often because you're forced to sink 200+ pts into a specific termie armour + daemon weapon build.

pretre wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

winterman wrote:The only problem with that is what if I want my deathguard to be led by a non-terminator? Or my world eaters to be led by a bad ass terminator like the FW one. etc etc.

You can still run World Eaters without all Khorne Berserkers or Death Guard without all Plague Marines. I see it happen all the time.

And if you want to run your army true to the background, keep in mind that all Death Guard marines are plague marines & all World Eaters are berserkers for example. Just as all 1ksons are either sorcerers or rubric marines.
Limiting the cult troops to a specific SC is simply GW shoehorning players into specific lists.

mazik765 wrote:And making a Thousand Sons army with Ahriman sounds good to me. Looking forward to the codex!

Making a full Thousand Sons army with or without Ahriman sounds better to me, as it is now.

I just hope cult units to be worth that elite slot. My fluffy HQ, which doesn't fit existing SC rules (Tzeentch terminator chaos lord and Slaanesh daemon prince) will have to hire berzerkers as elite...

pretre wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:These rumors sound completely off, and not what I have been hearing otherwise. If they are true then my army will be made completely redundant because my whole army is plague marines.

Or you can take the character that gets you plagues as troops. Poof, not redundant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

winterman wrote:The only problem with that is what if I want my deathguard to be led by a non-terminator? Or my world eaters to be led by a bad ass terminator like the FW one. etc etc.

You can still run World Eaters without all Khorne Berserkers or Death Guard without all Plague Marines. I see it happen all the time.

Yeah but I dont take characters, only Lords, and what about those people that have multiple cult units as troops?

Experiment 626 wrote:

pretre wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:These rumors sound completely off, and not what I have been hearing otherwise. If they are true then my army will be made completely redundant because my whole army is plague marines.

Or you can take the character that gets you plagues as troops. Poof, not redundant.

And what if your 'Deathguard Captain' is actually in power armour being carried on his palanquin?

I don't think anyone would object to that being represented on a Terminator sized base, do you?

Or what if your 'captain' is actually a sorcerer?

Typhus is actually considered a Sorcerer.

Or what if your 'captain' is characterised by his pair of lightning claws w/built-in combi-plasma?! Poof, totally redundant model/s that now need replacing and/or won't see the table nearly as often because you're forced to sink 200+ pts into a specific termie armour + daemon weapon build.

Personally, I think you're kind of being obtuse here.

While yes, certainly not every single character will be able to fit into the archetypical role--the vast majority of "fluffy" characters will.

pretre wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

winterman wrote:The only problem with that is what if I want my deathguard to be led by a non-terminator? Or my world eaters to be led by a bad ass terminator like the FW one. etc etc.

You can still run World Eaters without all Khorne Berserkers or Death Guard without all Plague Marines. I see it happen all the time.

And if you want to run your army true to the background, keep in mind that all Death Guard marines are plague marines & all World Eaters are berserkers for example. Just as all 1ksons are either sorcerers or rubric marines.
Limiting the cult troops to a specific SC is simply GW shoehorning players into specific lists.

If we want to get into the nitty gritty details of the background...
All Death Guard are Plague Marines, but not all Plague Marines are Death Guard. The same goes for World Eaters and Berserkers. So you very well could have a Berserker/Plague Marine force without the Legionnaires ever being involved.

For the Thousand Sons, it's a force being led by any Sorcerer with a cabal which has formed up around him.

How about we dial down the rage a bit until we see the book?

I get your points; I just don't think it is unique to C:CSM and isn't as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be.

winterman wrote:

Yes, you have to take Logan to unlock Wolf Guard as troops.

See how that works?

No one owned wolf guard armies prior to this. See the difference?

I have no issue with SCs unlocking special FOC builds or a few neat tricks. But this is a bit heavy handed. I can still run Salamanders without Vulkan, its not as cool but I am not entirely screwed should I choose not to. That doesn't appear to be the case here and its going to really tick people off if it comes to pass. Belial was bad enough but workable (cause DA had such terrible HQ options anyways) but this just takes the cake.

You can still run Bezerkers without Kharn as they fill up an elite slot instead (and one as a troops choice with a generic non-special general)... they don't just disappear according to these rumors. Pretty much everyone I've seen over the past 3 editions of 40k playing that has had a chaos god themed army has also had the special character that goes along with it as part of their collection. The majority of existing chaos god themed players won't have to buy a special character if this is true. This issue people have with Special Characters unlocking units in different categories isn't as big of a deal as people make. Frankly, this past codex was the aberration as it had all the god themed units as troops whereas previously IIRC they were usually in other slots until moved by an HQ's choice of marks. I suspect people will be able to take various marks on normal chaos marines as well as being able to take the legion specific god-dedicated units.

Kanluwen wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
To me - and many others - that should work the other way round:
Imagine you have a special lord you have written fluff for.
You're not going to want to simply use some "universal" profile (read: a special character), it's not the character you've created, but rather some named character with set rules, set fluff and included in several armies.

I can understand why GW use the Special-character-unlock method, but to me it's not entirely 'fair' and is pretty 'heavy-handed'. Why can't another or standard HQ choice do the same? Why can't I use my own character if I want to run a fluffy army?

I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, but I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like being forced to use a generic character.

Here is something which is never really considered.

Generic characters can take alternate loads of wargear. Specific characters cannot.

Doesn't this lack of customisation just make being forced to take special characters even worse then?

Just Dave wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
To me - and many others - that should work the other way round:
Imagine you have a special lord you have written fluff for.
You're not going to want to simply use some "universal" profile (read: a special character), it's not the character you've created, but rather some named character with set rules, set fluff and included in several armies.

I can understand why GW use the Special-character-unlock method, but to me it's not entirely 'fair' and is pretty 'heavy-handed'. Why can't another or standard HQ choice do the same? Why can't I use my own character if I want to run a fluffy army?

I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, but I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like being forced to use a generic character.

Here is something which is never really considered.

Generic characters can take alternate loads of wargear. Specific characters cannot.

Doesn't this lack of customisation just make being forced to take special characters even worse then?

Only if you think being able to readily recognize what you're facing(the biggest reason why people complain they will "never, ever let their opponent play Forge World armies!") is a problem.

Death By Monkeys wrote:Regarding the pretty ridiculous-sounding concept of the Chaos mecha-dragon, I need only remind other readers that when rumors came out for the GK Baby-Carrier, everyone thought that was completely loopy, too. I know I called shenanigans on it.

Sadly, I was wrong.

I don't think a mecha dragon is too different from established chaos vehicles...

I was just wondering if we can have all the rumors upto now reposted here. Theres been so many differant rumors on the forums concerning chaos. It would atleast give us an idea what everyones rumors are like and which ones are popping up more.

Also rbo dragon thing do you think hes talking about one the tzeentch daemon flyers because they could be confused as dragons looking at the old epic models

So if the named characters make the cult troops where will that leave my Plague Marine army with two daemon-princes?

aka_mythos wrote:

Death By Monkeys wrote:Regarding the pretty ridiculous-sounding concept of the Chaos mecha-dragon, I need only remind other readers that when rumors came out for the GK Baby-Carrier, everyone thought that was completely loopy, too. I know I called shenanigans on it.

Sadly, I was wrong.

I don't think a mecha dragon is too different from established chaos vehicles...

I saw that earlier and thought it was kinda weird.

Arm.chair.general wrote:So if the named characters make the cult troops where will that leave my Plague Marine army with two daemon-princes?

You'll have 2 HQ choices, 3 Elite choices (probably) and will need to fill your troop choices.

Edit: IF these rumors are real.

They might be bs. Don't go selling your army or quit in rage. Just hang on a bit, man.

Kanluwen wrote:Only if you think being able to readily recognize what you're facing(the biggest reason why people complain they will "never, ever let their opponent play Forge World armies!") is a problem.

Or, only if you think being unable to readily recognize a customised Captain/Lord/HQ is likely.

Just Dave wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Only if you think being able to readily recognize what you're facing(the biggest reason why people complain they will "never, ever let their opponent play Forge World armies!") is a problem.

Or, only if you think being unable to readily recognize a customised Captain/Lord/HQ is likely.

Being unable to readily recognize a customized Captain/Lord/HQ isn't a big problem.
Being unable to readily recognize a customized Captain/Lord/HQ and their wargear is.

I'm betting the appropriate character will make the cults at least scoring and that in the new fluff cultists are as much a defining part of the particular god specific army as the cult marines.

Sooo no Dreads, a mechanical dragon and traitor guard rules in...

Yeah, not buying this. Sounds one part pure dumb, one part smoking asbestos joints and one part wishful thinking...

winterman wrote:No one owned wolf guard armies prior to this. See the difference?

People owned Inquisitorial Stormtrooper based armies before. Now they have to use Coteaz and Warrior Acolytes. See the resemblance?

kronk wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:So if the named characters make the cult troops where will that leave my Plague Marine army with two daemon-princes?

You'll have 2 HQ choices, 3 Elite choices (probably) and will need to fill your troop choices.

Edit: IF these rumors are real.

They might be bs. Don't go selling your army or quit in rage. Just hang on a bit, man.

I wont be rage quitting I can guarantee you. I just pray that these rumours are a load of gak.

His Master's Voice wrote:Sooo no Dreads, a mechanical dragon and traitor guard rules in...

Yeah, not buying this. Sounds one part pure dumb, one part smoking asbestos joints and one part wishful thinking...

Do people actually "read"?... no "dreads" just a nearly identical unit of a different name.

That, plus a flying daemon engine and a Traitor Guard entry that's kind of a much-simplified version of GK henchmen isn't really that hard to believe. Might still be bunk, of course.

So rather than give Legions more options, we can expect to see no options whatsoever, if these rumors prove to be true. I never thought I'd say it, but I'll keep the current codex and my Plague Marine troops and still be able to take a single daemon prince, rather than having to run Typhus. Where do marked units like terminators fit in to this equation? We have to squeeze our cult power armor and terminator armor units into our elites slots?

No daemons of any sort is really the biggest turn off for me. I dealt with generic daemons, and at least you can have some form of daemons represented in a force, and I personally found them more effective than a lot of people gave them credit for. The lack of any sort of daemonic presence in a CSM codex really does just make them spikey marines. Even GW can't want Daemons to be such a stand alone force they would sacrifice sales of daemons kits to CSMs players.

I said all along I didn't expect the new codex to be a "legion codex" and would simply be the new CSM codex, but I never imagined they would suck out the little remaining character left to make it near impossible to represent a true Legion force.

I wish I could say I don't believe the rumors, but over the last 5-6 years GW seems to have a problem representing any Chaos faction in their codexes anywhere close to how they are portrayed in the fluff. I hope these are just wildly out of context if there is any truth to them.

aka_mythos wrote:

His Master's Voice wrote:Sooo no Dreads, a mechanical dragon and traitor guard rules in...

Yeah, not buying this. Sounds one part pure dumb, one part smoking asbestos joints and one part wishful thinking...

Do people actually "read"?... no "dreads" just a nearly identical unit of a different name.

Either way its still dumb, Chaos have always had Dreadnoughts.