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.

Eldar used to have them too. Now they don't.

Is anyone really surprised that Chaos will use SC's to unlock different troop options? I mean, that trend started with Dark Angels and has been carried through in almost every single codex since!

It may, in the end, not be SC's that do it but just a "Nurgle Lord" or whatever in the same way that Orks work.

But cultists in the list make me happy!

Arm.chair.general wrote:

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.

No it isn't dumb... Especially if its a much more inclusive unit to allow the use upgrades to make some the dreadnought-like but not strictly speaking "dreadnought" units. of GW wants to have for example the blood-slaughterer in the same entry as the old "dreadnought" it isn't appropriate to call that new unit entry a "dreadnought".

By that same vein, a Dreadnought wouldn't fall under "Daemon Engine" category.

So thus its dependent on GW's new units name.

Well, alternatively I'd say there's the possibility of the Defiler being the one taken and replaced with a new name.

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...

Excellent point!

Mm. Doom wings. I used to use a bunch of those as Discs of Tzeentch.

Kanluwen wrote:By that same vein, a Dreadnought wouldn't fall under "Daemon Engine" category.

Under the current fluff.

heres my rumors

New books later this year
New models later this year
New price increase later this year
new terrain later this year

gorgon wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:By that same vein, a Dreadnought wouldn't fall under "Daemon Engine" category.

Under the current fluff.

Under any fluff we've had on Dreadnoughts.

Dreadnoughts house the remains of an Astartes in a kind of semi-aware stasis. There are some where the Astartes within or the Dreadnought body has been corrupted with Daemonic gifts, but that does not make them a Daemon Engine.

A Daemon Engine is a construct created to house a Daemon bound within.

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.

Next time you try to school people on reading do some of your own first

Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)

Where does it say "nearly identical unit with a different name"? Because Lychguard are not Pariahs with a different name, seeing as they have different rules, wargear options and background.

Giving CSM a new unit I could buy. Removing a unit that's not only iconic but also well liked despite having lousy rules is pure dumb.

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.

But for a fluffy Death Guard army that is really limiting if you don't take Typhus (assuming rumours were true).

HQ would be either a daemon prince (could be counting as Mortarion) or standard lord/sorcerer with your own fluff.

Now in Elites we'd have to pick between Plague Marines (who should be the bulk troops as all Death Guard are Plague Marines) and Terminators (who fluff-wise are the obvious choice as Death Guard had a large number of Terminators for boarding actions and high risk operations).

Troops would be Cultists (counting as plague zombies) and normal chaos marines (who would die on a Death Guard ship due to all the diseases).

So trying to build a Death Guard army without Typhus makes you choose between two units who should both be in the army.

All this is assuming that the rumour is accurate, of course.

Hehe just realised he must just mean the lesser and greater demons are gone but marked/named demons are back as there are supposed to be models for the word bearer guys aren't there? Unless....

Word bearers don't summon demons, but have a spell that conjures demonic fury, hits with 2D6 blablabla :facepalm

warboss wrote: 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.

I don't, I haven't used a special character since 2nd ed and I don't intend to start using one just to make my army 'legal' nor do I have any desire to be forced to pay 225 points for a single HQ choice who is armed completely differently to my current Daemon Prince and Sorceror.

There is no genuine need to force people to use special characters , there are much better ways of fostering list customisation and if people want to use special characters they will. Its bad games design pure and simple.

Will I 'rage' quit? Not really as I did that years ago, I did however make a Death Guard army in anticipation of 6th mostly because the early rumours sounded interesting.

I hope I don't regret my decision.

Palindrome wrote:Will I 'rage' quit? Not really as I did that years ago,

Not sure if serious... If you rage quit, why are you still here?

Note the quotation marks. It didn't quit in a rage but the internet loves its melodrama.

I came back because I like the game world (even if it has been severely degraded over recent years) and the early 6th ed and Chaos rumours sounded like the game had finally turned a corner. I'm not so sure now though.

Kanluwen wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:By that same vein, a Dreadnought wouldn't fall under "Daemon Engine" category.

Under the current fluff.

Under any fluff we've had on Dreadnoughts.

Dreadnoughts house the remains of an Astartes in a kind of semi-aware stasis. There are some where the Astartes within or the Dreadnought body has been corrupted with Daemonic gifts, but that does not make them a Daemon Engine.

A Daemon Engine is a construct created to house a Daemon bound within.

GW can change all that with a few keyboard strokes. There are countless examples of fluff changes. If they're so inclined to lump dreads under daemon engines, the old fluff isn't going to hold them back.

Kanluwen wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:By that same vein, a Dreadnought wouldn't fall under "Daemon Engine" category.

Under the current fluff.

Under any fluff we've had on Dreadnoughts.

Dreadnoughts house the remains of an Astartes in a kind of semi-aware stasis. There are some where the Astartes within or the Dreadnought body has been corrupted with Daemonic gifts, but that does not make them a Daemon Engine.

A Daemon Engine is a construct created to house a Daemon bound within.

Hypothetically ...an astartes can become possessed.... so how would a dreadnought with a possessed marine be all that distinguishable from a daemon engine?

"Because of the entombed Chaos Space Marine's weakened nature, Dreadnoughts exposed to the raw power of the warp are especially prone to daemonic possession." Done.

Losing Chaos Dreads would be another bad joke... they're in dire need of a plastic kit which I imagine would sell very well.

Can see a name change but not complete removal...

aka_mythos wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:By that same vein, a Dreadnought wouldn't fall under "Daemon Engine" category.

Under the current fluff.

Under any fluff we've had on Dreadnoughts.

Dreadnoughts house the remains of an Astartes in a kind of semi-aware stasis. There are some where the Astartes within or the Dreadnought body has been corrupted with Daemonic gifts, but that does not make them a Daemon Engine.

A Daemon Engine is a construct created to house a Daemon bound within.

Hypothetically ...an astartes can become possessed.... so how would a dreadnought with a possessed marine be all that distinguishable from a daemon engine?

In game terms or fluff terms?

In fluff terms: there's a huge difference. One is a vessel designed explicitly for a Daemon to use as a host, allowing it to operate and affect the outside world. Without that vessel--no Daemon.
The other is mutations and possession, anchored to a living being and the construct he's been forced into.

At worse, the Dreadnoughts rules will be only in ForgeWorld books.

His Master's Voice wrote:

Chaos Dreadnaught is removed and replaced with a new unit (like how pariahs were replaced with Lychguard)

Where does it say "nearly identical unit with a different name"? Because Lychguard are not Pariahs with a different name, seeing as they have different rules, wargear options and background.

Giving CSM a new unit I could buy. Removing a unit that's not only iconic but also well liked despite having lousy rules is pure dumb.

They are conceptually nearly identical... hence why I use the example of a blood slaughterer as an example of a dreadnought sized walker incorporable in a new broader unit. This all the same way Space Marine veterans became Sternguard and Vanguard... so now we get something not "dread" in name but in spirit.

This...
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2003372a_99120110012_Lychguard01_873x627.jpg" border="0" />
Look nearly the same as these...

"Daemon Engines are unholy combinations of Daemon and machine. Some were crafted by the minions of the Ruinous Powers in order to house the essence of a mighty Daemon. Others were once part of the Emperor's armies, now corrupted and possessed by the power of Chaos."

Two weeks after release, you'll have 12 year olds spouting this like it's always been true.

warboss wrote:

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.

I had at one point nearly 10,000 points of Death Guard and I did not own Typhus, nor did I ever run a "counts as" Typhus. The fact is, I did not want that character in my army, and I didn't want a Terminator armor model running with my power armor dudes. I should be allowed to run a Death Guard army led by a sorcerer or daemon prince or Chaos lord.

The last codex had cult marines as troops, and the one prior allowed cult marines as troops as long as the HQ had the same mark. Simple enough, just give us that option again. SCs shouldn't be the only way to run a legion force, especially when GW refuse to expand on the number of SCs for CSMs. Most other armies have roughly twice the number of SCs, so even when they affect FOCs, you still have more variety.

I'm actually think the dread drop maybe more than beneficial tbh. In the end I think the cover all dred unit (whatever it will be called) will most likely be more customizable and less static and simple. That can only be good from a list writers perspective and also for those making themed lists, which in chaos players there are loads.

So no need to jump the gun sounds seriously like there might be benefits to this catch all term and possible conversion ops.

GW now has an established history of dropping failed units and replacing them with units that are the same concept but with new rules as a simple way of fixing the defficiencies of a unit... this is no different.

I read the BoK rumors on here, and I can honestly say that I don't see what the big deal is-if "dreads" are removed, but a new model is coming in that is only slightly different, but can still use the model, this just differentiates from the SM codex-and that's a good thing, right? So many people on here whine that they want something that isn't just 'spikey marines,' and when they get it, the whining continues. Really? I've seen more grown up 5th graders. And 'lesser and greater daemons' are out-does that mean daemons are gone? No, it might just mean those titles are out, and we may get Daemonettes, Bloodletters, etc back in-we don't know yet, but everyone whines anyway.

Honestly, the only people who have a right to be upset (over rumors, not even fact, no-less) are those who don't want to run special characters to get cult troops. I happen to like the SCs, and I'd be okay with running them to get full access to cult marines, but I can fully appreciate that others may not be as accepting. But under these settings, I really hope all 40k tournaments (non-sanctioned only now, of course) allow special characters, as GW is really making it hard to make a fluffy list without adding SCs in. I look forward to the rest of the rumors, but these, so far, sit fine with me. And I look forward to the dragon too-as long as it doesn't look like the Power Ranger one seen a few pages back-I'd probably lead the mob on Nottingham if they make it look like that.

aka_mythos wrote:GW now has an established history of dropping failed units and replacing them with units that are the same concept but with new rules as a simple way of fixing the defficiencies of a unit... this is no different.

Did they ever drop a unit that has been in the game for, well, forever?

And I don't know how one could describe Chaos Dreads as a failed unit. Lousy rules, sure. They're still very popular despite that.

aka_mythos wrote:
They are conceptually nearly identical...

They're both bulky, CC orientated Elite choices. The still have different rules and background. I guess this is one of those "eye of the beholder" cases.

Anyway, as long as it's just a renaming, and the background does not change to suddenly remove all Chaos dreads from existence, I'm fine with that.

I can see the problem with forcing special characters too. If your going for that sort of a list you want it to be personalized and your own work and exactly as you want it.
It would be wrong tbh if GW made you take a special character to allow you to do that, and would probably put a lot off I think a nurgle lord or khorn lord or similar should be there to allow the same thing. That way if you want the SC then you can but there is no requirement.