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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, some of the Mark abilities wouldn't work well with Cultists, same for vehicles. Which is why I was wondering if they'd be able to get something else, like they could in previous editions. Like being Dedicated to one of the Chaos Gods, or Legacies of Ruin. -1 to wound could be pretty ridiculous on a T8 2+ AoC vehicle, even if it does follow the weird rules from the playtest rules.

Honestly I doubt vehicles will get anything. It'd be nice if you could daemonify say a land raider, but they seem dead set on making vehicles worthless.

Ooooh ! Theory building !

To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:
Ooooh ! Theory building !

To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.

That was my understanding, which to be honest is still pretty decent given the volume of S4 out there.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:
Ooooh ! Theory building !

To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.

There must be a simpler way to word this. Like; "The enemy suffers a -1 to their to wound rolls when the strength of an attack is equal to or less than your unit's toughness. Furthermore an unmodified wound roll of a 1 or 2 always fails."

 Fergie0044 wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:
Ooooh ! Theory building !

To be fair the Nurgle thing sounds more complicated then it actually is. It basically means that if they would you on a 4+ instead they wound you on a 5+ and if they would wound on a 2+ they do on a 3+. Which makes it a worse transhuman but as a passive ability.

There must be a simpler way to word this. Like; "The enemy suffers a -1 to their to wound rolls when the strength of an attack is equal to or less than your unit's toughness. Furthermore an unmodified wound roll of a 1 or 2 always fails."

Those do not say the same things, the equivalent would be:

In the event that the strength of an attack allocated to this model is either the same as, greater then or equal to double the models toughness then subtract one from the wound roll. For example a nurgle marked chaos marine is successfully hit by a S3, S4, S5 and S9 weapon, as the models toughness is 4, the S4 is equal and as a result the wound roll is at -1. As S9 is more than double the toughness of 4, the wound roll is worsened by 1. as S3 and S5 do not equal and are less than double the targets toughness, they roll to wound as normal.

Enjoy that clumsy inconsistent word salad, I've tried to keep as true to the GW format of changing wording for modifiers mid way through and long winded examples that aren't great.

Dudeface wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:

Those do not say the same things, the equivalent would be:

In the event that the strength of an attack allocated to this model is either the same as, greater then or equal to double the models toughness then subtract one from the wound roll. For example a nurgle marked chaos marine is successfully hit by a S3, S4, S5 and S9 weapon, as the models toughness is 4, the S4 is equal and as a result the wound roll is at -1. As S9 is more than double the toughness of 4, the wound roll is worsened by 1. as S3 and S5 do not equal and are less than double the targets toughness, they roll to wound as normal.

Enjoy that clumsy inconsistent word salad, I've tried to keep as true to the GW format of changing wording for modifiers mid way through and long winded examples that aren't great.

That doesn't even make sense. If a weapon that's Str is twice the Tough of the model it suffers a negative modifier but if is 1 less it doesn't have a modifier? That means that in the instance above a S8 weapon wounds on a 3 but a stronger weapon also only wounds on a 3 therefore rendering it into a lesser weaon. If anything the modifier should be applied to anything that is double T or less and normal for greater than 2xT. I can just picture this scenerio- A shadowsword fires it's main gun at a Titan wounding it on a 2+ it then fires at a plague marine and only wounds him on a 3+. What's wrong with that picture?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:

Those do not say the same things, the equivalent would be:

In the event that the strength of an attack allocated to this model is either the same as, greater then or equal to double the models toughness then subtract one from the wound roll. For example a nurgle marked chaos marine is successfully hit by a S3, S4, S5 and S9 weapon, as the models toughness is 4, the S4 is equal and as a result the wound roll is at -1. As S9 is more than double the toughness of 4, the wound roll is worsened by 1. as S3 and S5 do not equal and are less than double the targets toughness, they roll to wound as normal.

Enjoy that clumsy inconsistent word salad, I've tried to keep as true to the GW format of changing wording for modifiers mid way through and long winded examples that aren't great.

That doesn't even make sense. If a weapon that's Str is twice the Tough of the model it suffers a negative modifier but if is 1 less it doesn't have a modifier? That means that in the instance above a S8 weapon wounds on a 3 but a stronger weapon also only wounds on a 3 therefore rendering it into a lesser weaon. If anything the modifier should be applied to anything that is double T or less and normal for greater than 2xT. I can just picture this scenerio- A shadowsword fires it's main gun at a Titan wounding it on a 2+ it then fires at a plague marine and only wounds him on a 3+. What's wrong with that picture?

Well, your version would be far too strong for one thing. Other than that it doesn't make much sense really, I just read the rumours and converted it into a horrid gw sentence.

edited by moderator

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.

I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits

40k has done 1 and 2, HH is doing 3.

And I'm still waiting to see some proper codex leaks. With how far out actual images from books have been the lack of images from the book continues to be a surprise.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.

I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits

40k has done 1 and 2, HH is doing 3.

And I'm still waiting to see some proper codex leaks. With how far out actual images from books have been the lack of images from the book continues to be a surprise.

Yeah, they seem to be doing an infuriatingly better job of keeping the CSM codex under wraps than earlier codexes. All we have so far is an early playtest doc and some rules from a few repackaged units. Seriously, where are our leaked codex pages like everyone else got?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yeah, they seem to be doing an infuriatingly better job of keeping the CSM codex under wraps than earlier codexes. All we have so far is an early playtest doc and some rules from a few repackaged units. Seriously, where are our leaked codex pages like everyone else got?

Yeah, come on ! Doesn't our potential leaker want to share ?!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits

Or option four: You can just take whatever, regardless of what's in the kit.

Despite the Kill Team box coming out, the 'buzz' on the CSM seems to have entirely burnt out.

Is anyone really waiting with bated breath for the wound that should have been provided a year+ ago, or a muddle of equipment outrages? The cool new possessed aren't exactly shaking the trees after the first look.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits

Or option four: You can just take whatever, regardless of what's in the kit.

Ranged weapons seem to operate under different rules than melee weapons, but point taken.

Tangentially related to the CSM book I sincerely hope GW gives CSM some of the HH legion options to represent the character of the legions proper and make the long war feel like the long war. That or let me take Accursed Weapons in every squad so I can run chainglaives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Despite the Kill Team box coming out, the 'buzz' on the CSM seems to have entirely burnt out.

Is anyone really waiting with bated breath for the wound that should have been provided a year+ ago, or a muddle of equipment outrages? The cool new possessed aren't exactly shaking the trees after the first look.

I've been waiting for a clearer image of what might be going on with wargear but I want to use HH models as the major core of my Night Lords mixed with some of the more "tainted" modern kits to represent those who have succumb to the influence of the Warp.

Yeha, that' smy thing. Out of the coming GW releases I'm almost entirely HH focused (and a little terrain-curious), and if I can build a 40k army out of it as well, that's a bonus.

They've pretty much killed my interest in anything else on the recent or upcoming list (either through wacky pricing or letting it sit in darkness too long), and this release is definitely falling into the second category. I'll do a heresy army that can moonlight with the codex that will actually get lasting support (and that can build an army a dozen different ways)...

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tangentially related to the CSM book I sincerely hope GW gives CSM some of the HH legion options to represent the character of the legions proper and make the long war feel like the long war. That or let me take Accursed Weapons in every squad so I can run chainglaives.

Unfortunately, Chaos just seems to lose options as time goes on. They get new units, but the units they have are constantly curtailed and reduced.

There's every chance that we could see max 10-man squads of CSMs with the same weapon upgrade structure as tactical squads. 1 special/1 heavy, and that's it. I used to love my 12-man (Infiltrating!) CSM squads with twin flamers or twin Meltas. Or the rare time you took a big unit with two heavy weapons. But, they push Chaos more and more towards the Codex Astartes, and I don't think the addition a few weird specialists (the low-level psyker guy, the low level possessed buy, the dude with the double-handed Chainaxe) will make up for these inevitable losses.

It's a weird and completely different attitude than what I had towards the recent Tyranid Codex. I was excited for that. I'm dreading this one.

Voss wrote:
... and a little terrain-curious...

Submit to your curiosity.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Exactly this. There were two solutions, and they took the lazier one that results in more boring units. It's frustrating.
I mean they've shown there are 3 solutions:
1. Every unit can take EXACTLY what's in the kit in that combination and nothing else
2. The unit can take whatever they want but all those weapons share a single profile
3. GW releases wargear kits

Or option four: You can just take whatever, regardless of what's in the kit.

Ranged weapons seem to operate under different rules than melee weapons, but point taken.

Tangentially related to the CSM book I sincerely hope GW gives CSM some of the HH legion options to represent the character of the legions proper and make the long war feel like the long war. That or let me take Accursed Weapons in every squad so I can run chainglaives.

We're not getting any Legion options. Loyalists get those. Obviously gw thinks that it makes more sense for a full primaris army to be running around with things like Contemptors and volkites. But we can probably have some chainglaives, they'll just have the same rules as everything else.

I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.

If you're going to make lazy rules, at least be consistent with them!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.

It does!
Its... not quite a power fist (+4 S rather than x2 S and -4 AP rather than -3). Or an eviscerator (+4 vs +3 S) . Or a chainfist (2 damage rather than d3 or 3 vs vehicles)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.

If you're going to make lazy rules, at least be consistent with them!

It does! And so does the "Daemon Blade". We know that from the one rules preview gw has allowed us to see. The only thing that gw is consistent about, is being inconsistent.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.

If you're going to make lazy rules, at least be consistent with them!

It does! And so does the "Daemon Blade". We know that from the one rules preview gw has allowed us to see. The only thing that gw is consistent about, is being inconsistent.

Mind you, the daemon blade looks even worse since the preview. +0 strength, -2AP (but armor of contempt), and 2 damage but additional mortal wound on 6 to wound makes it a pillow-fist against a lot of targets, and you'll lose either a damage point or the mortal wound (on the odd occasion it pops) against a variety of targets.

Remember when we had actual fething Daemon Weapons, and they did all sorts of crazy things like the Berzerker Glaive that made your Daemon Prince utterly uncontrollable (but also an absolute blender in melee that ignored half of what you threw at him!), or the Dread Axe that was (secretly) an anti-daemon Malal-based Daemon Weapon.

Or the Dark Blade. Oh the Dark Blade...

But nah, let's have yet another thing that causes Mortal Wounds on a 6. That's really innovative.

I imagine versions of the F&F daemon weapons will make it over. We won't have mechanics that do absurd things for fun, but maybe we'll get my old trusty tzeentch "bolter" daemon weapon back.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Remember when we had actual fething Daemon Weapons, and they did all sorts of crazy things like the Berzerker Glaive that made your Daemon Prince utterly uncontrollable (but also an absolute blender in melee that ignored half of what you threw at him!), or the Dread Axe that was (secretly) an anti-daemon Malal-based Daemon Weapon.

Oh, yeah. Chaos really needs to go back to the old days of "If you roll a one, the demonic weapon turns on you and you die."

 solkan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Remember when we had actual fething Daemon Weapons, and they did all sorts of crazy things like the Berzerker Glaive that made your Daemon Prince utterly uncontrollable (but also an absolute blender in melee that ignored half of what you threw at him!), or the Dread Axe that was (secretly) an anti-daemon Malal-based Daemon Weapon.

Oh, yeah. Chaos really needs to go back to the old days of "If you roll a one, the demonic weapon turns on you and you die."

Simple answer is to just not roll 1s.

 solkan wrote:
Oh, yeah. Chaos really needs to go back to the old days of "If you roll a one, the demonic weapon turns on you and you die."

Except that's not how Daemon Weapons worked. Like, at all.

There was a Mastery Test to overcome a Daemon taking over, and if you failed, you suffered an single Strength D6 hit with no save. In the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex that changed to gaining D6 extra attacks, and if a 1 was rolled you took 1 wound and couldn't attack.

And then by the time of the next book, Daemon Weapons were gone and replaced with Relics.

So no, Daemon Weapons never just killed you on a roll of a 1.

Yup, and in 3rd/4th, a "Mastery Test" was a Leadership Test, and every CSM character was Leadership 10. So rolling a "1" was great, because there was no way that you could roll an 11 or 12 if one of your two dice came up as a 1.

Voss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think that the double-handed Chainaxe does actually have unique rules, further emphasising why this Accursed Weapon thing is so stupid.

If you're going to make lazy rules, at least be consistent with them!

It does! And so does the "Daemon Blade". We know that from the one rules preview gw has allowed us to see. The only thing that gw is consistent about, is being inconsistent.

Mind you, the daemon blade looks even worse since the preview. +0 strength, -2AP (but armor of contempt), and 2 damage but additional mortal wound on 6 to wound makes it a pillow-fist against a lot of targets, and you'll lose either a damage point or the mortal wound (on the odd occasion it pops) against a variety of targets.

To be fair, looks like Champs have 4 attacks. There isn't THAT small a chance to inflict a mortal wound, but yeah I'd rather still take a Power Fist.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and in 3rd/4th, a "Mastery Test" was a Leadership Test, and every CSM character was Leadership 10. So rolling a "1" was great, because there was no way that you could roll an 11 or 12 if one of your two dice came up as a 1.

...if they managed to come up with a total of 1, Tzeentch needed to take a step back from the table.