Switch Theme:

Lack of Custom Legion rules in Codex:CSM (9e)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"little specific chapter support" is not what I expected to hear from a faction that has 1 codex and 4 other codexes for subfactions.
In the Codex. Supplements are different publications.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Backspacehacker wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Also everyone now remembers that one brief moment in 7th ed where chaos had a golden time of really fun traitor legion combos and units.
We all remember...


Traitor legions hands down was one of the best supplements they ever put out.

I loved everything I ever heard about that book, and then it was made obsolete before my chaos army was ready for the table. May it rest joyfully upon the shelf next to my favorite 40k book purchase: thee 5e Dark Eldar codex.

Backspacehacker wrote:
I still say to this day and i will die fully on this hill, that 8th ed GW should have leaned into the soup lists and encouraged more of it to bring a mix of themed armies to gether, like knight and guard or sm and guard, Daemons and CSM, Eldar covens ect ect.

Like they do in AoS with coalition troops where if you are a tzeentzch army, you can take Slaves to darkness as long as they are tzeentzch marked and they are troops for you.

Well, in 8th you were sort of rewarded for souping up like that. You could take a dirt cheap detachment of Tzeentch daemons that farmed CP and performed mitosis on objectives while your chaos knight friend provided anti-vehicle support to your rubrics. IIRC, the issue was that 8e Thousand Sons leaned really hard into Tzaangor and Magnus. So Magnus was probably eating up that chaos knight's place, and your Tzaangor with their relatively low costs and decent invulnerable saves made pink horrors kind of redundant. Unless you were flying Magnus around with Fateweaver, of course.

Thing rattling around in my brain lately: replace detachments and subfaction bonuses with army themes. Army themes determine which books you can take units out of and give you a fluffy submechanic that corresponds to the theme. So your mostly Thousand Sons army might be able to choose from the following themes:
* Sorcerous Cabal - Basically what Thousand Sons are now including the sorcery point mechanic (or whatever it's called.) Would probably let you take units from various cults and still take/use their cult-specific powers.
* Cult Raptorae - Leaning into the idea that your army is made up of sorcerers from a single cult (the Raptorae). Would probably get like, 3 unique psychic powers, those powers would be usable multiple times per turn, and then I'd probably give them some sort of "predict the future" mechanic. Intercepting deepstrikers, bonuses to overwatch, something like that.
* Servants of Tzeentch - This would let you take daemons, chaos knights, and Tzeentchy non-Thousand Sons chaos marines. Few or no special submechanics, but you get to choose from a large array of units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/08 04:05:09



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 alextroy wrote:
In the Codex. Supplements are different publications.
A distinction without a difference.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
In the Codex. Supplements are different publications.
A distinction without a difference.
Really? You can play an army with just a Supplement?

Compare the contents of Codex Space Marines to Codex Chaos Space Marines and you will see that both offer loads of content. They have a different split of that content (SM have Custom Chapter but CSM has more content per Legion), but lots of content exist in both books. Space Marines get ahead once you add 11 Supplements in comparison to Chaos Space Marines and their one White Dwarf Supplement.

So given that all that extra SM content comes at 10 times the price of the available CSM content, why is anyone surprised SM have more content? You get what you pay for.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"little specific chapter support" is not what I expected to hear from a faction that has 1 codex and 4 other codexes for subfactions.


He means the chapter specific support are in supplements.

How much ultramarine specific rules are in main codex?

Blood angels?

Salamanders?

If CSM was same style you would have no black legion warlord traits, stratagems, units etc in CSM book but instead they would be in codex supplement: Black legion.

Basically his idea is that the space taken by custom legion rules is taken by black legion/word bearer/night lord etc specific stuff. Which sort of makes sense but seeing csm codex is likely lot thinner than loyal marine codex hardly unsurmoutable.

GW planning supplement for those(codex supplement: chaos renegade marines or something) is another possibility.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Or... GW plans are getting rid of chapter specific traits for 10e. I've said it before but codex chaos marines feels like it's one of those "late edition early new edition" codexs where they're already moving towards the design direction of the next edition in it's pages

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





And yet say knights got...and dg didn't get early up. Maybe not assume based on one data point when there's even another fresh datapoint opposite

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




BrianDavion wrote:
Or... GW plans are getting rid of chapter specific traits for 10e. I've said it before but codex chaos marines feels like it's one of those "late edition early new edition" codexs where they're already moving towards the design direction of the next edition in it's pages

But 9th removed options given at the end of 8th in the PA books. A large chunk of the marine books from PA books didn't work, when GW started changing how doctrines etc worked. And they didn't even bother to fix IF, CF or RG rules which efficiency was linked to old doctrine system.

For all we know in 10th GW could decide that for each Elite, Heavy or FA option you need to run a troop option, which would be hard on a troop light armies like chaos marines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/08 07:53:36


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: