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.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.

I assume it's perpeatuated by the stories of people bringing 9 grey Voidweavers to a tournament.

tneva82 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
When people are saying 'cult troops are gone' do they not see the rules to bring in cult troops or do they just find those rules too restrictive?

GW has made pretty darn worthless to bring in allies anymore except for some specific like knights and even THOSE are hurting bad from being allies.

Sure you can in theory play. You can in theory play open play as well. Don't see that often around.

Cult troops are not allies in this book. They are an available unit without a datasheet.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.

Yeah, there's many people that go to tournaments and spend -more- money on their army than the average player. Many that use a tournament as motivation to get their army fully painted, and likely have painted more armies or miniatures than many casual players.

At the end of the day, though, the codex's competitiveness will never be the issue, since that changes ALL. THE. TIME.

Yes, I am an older fan of this faction and would love to see it get treated properly. GW has made it clear through their business model that they are more focused on recruiting new players than keeping old ones, but player retention is an important factor too. If all you're selling are the starter boxes, why even make any other models, after all?

drbored wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.

Yeah, there's many people that go to tournaments and spend -more- money on their army than the average player. Many that use a tournament as motivation to get their army fully painted, and likely have painted more armies or miniatures than many casual players.

At the end of the day, though, the codex's competitiveness will never be the issue, since that changes ALL. THE. TIME.

Yes, I am an older fan of this faction and would love to see it get treated properly. GW has made it clear through their business model that they are more focused on recruiting new players than keeping old ones, but player retention is an important factor too. If all you're selling are the starter boxes, why even make any other models, after all?

I mean, the new players might buy another box or two of models to start to be fair. When I started Necrons a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, after getting the codex I saved up enough for the Battleforce (which at the time was 20 something Warriors, 3 Destroyers, and the Scarabs that were with the Warriors), Necron Lord with Warscythe, 2 extra Destroyers + the Destroyer Lord, and 5 Immortals. That didn't break the bank in the very late 90s/very early 00s. Of course I used 5 of the Macragge Marines as an extra 5 Immortals for the time so I had a full block for Veiling

EviscerationPlague wrote:

drbored wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
I think the stereotype of the tournament grinder not being interested in the modeling side of the hobby is overblown, but meta-chasers probably aren't that attached to their individual builds to be bothered by needing to tear off arms and rearrange infantry units.

Yeah, there's many people that go to tournaments and spend -more- money on their army than the average player. Many that use a tournament as motivation to get their army fully painted, and likely have painted more armies or miniatures than many casual players.

At the end of the day, though, the codex's competitiveness will never be the issue, since that changes ALL. THE. TIME.

Yes, I am an older fan of this faction and would love to see it get treated properly. GW has made it clear through their business model that they are more focused on recruiting new players than keeping old ones, but player retention is an important factor too. If all you're selling are the starter boxes, why even make any other models, after all?

I mean, the new players might buy another box or two of models to start to be fair. When I started Necrons a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, after getting the codex I saved up enough for the Battleforce (which at the time was 20 something Warriors, 3 Destroyers, and the Scarabs that were with the Warriors), Necron Lord with Warscythe, 2 extra Destroyers + the Destroyer Lord, and 5 Immortals. That didn't break the bank in the very late 90s/very early 00s. Of course I used 5 of the Macragge Marines as an extra 5 Immortals for the time so I had a full block for Veiling

I hang out a lot at a Warhammer store so I see a lot of what people buy, the way the manager sells stuff, etc. The manager makes it clear with new customers that they're a 'recruitment store', his job is to get people into the hobby. Many of those people will go on to play with friends at other locations, which is all fine.

In that process, after you've gotten someone their glue, nippers, paint, and the models that their wallet is willing to bear that day, there's the hope that they're going to come back to buy more, right? That's the whole point of recruitment, to get a hobbyist that's going to buy some more later, and the more you recruit, the higher the chance that you're going to get more people to come back for that second shopping trip, and third, etc.

In order to motivate a customer to come back for more, you've got to not only supply a product that they want to buy, but as these models are for games, you've got to make sure that the game is compelling enough to participate in. If the way to expand an army is to dip into clunky 3rd edition models or the rules don't inspire you to build other entries in your codex, then that's a failure and you're working against your own recruitment goals.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As I was working on building a Spartan I was mulling over this book and I really feel like if they just put Accursed Weapons on the melee list (and maybe even gave the weapon +1 attack if a model has two) a lot of the frustration would be gone because we'd have the freedom to do a lot with melee weapons on a number of models without any major issue to the rules.

But what would those Accursed Weapons represent? For example Chosen can't take Power Fists so any Power Fist you see on a Chosen must be an Accursed Weapon. But a Power Fist on a Terminator really is a Power Fist because Terminators can take both, so you can't use a Power Fist to represent an Accursed Weapon on a Terminator and still be WYSIWG. If you put Accursed Weapon on the melee weapons list then you couldn't represent it with any of the other options that appears on the list. Basically it would be a Lightning Claw (or some exotic weapon option that you converted, possibly with 3rd party bits, which is a BIG NO-NO!!! so let's ignore that possibility), at which point you might as well just put the Lightning Claw on the list.

Anything you want to model? It was more if I had Accursed Weapons as a general melee option I could at least WYSIWYG my models. And I'm using HH kits in my legion, so Chainglaives are an option.

Have we still not had a 40k Kratos datasheet for CSM/TS/DG?

EightFoldPath wrote:
Have we still not had a 40k Kratos datasheet for CSM/TS/DG?

No they have not secretly updated the datasheet without commenting on it publicly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Have we still not had a 40k Kratos datasheet for CSM/TS/DG?

No they have not secretly updated the datasheet without commenting on it publicly.

And thusly they continue to not sell as many as they might.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Samus666 wrote:
I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.

Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.

Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".

Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!

Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda

tneva82 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Samus666 wrote:
I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.

Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.

Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".

Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!

Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda

It’s like all the “don’t buy Nephilim” reviews just didn’t happen!

 JohnnyHell wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Samus666 wrote:
I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.

Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.

Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".

Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!

Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda

It’s like all the “don’t buy Nephilim” reviews just didn’t happen!

Ah yes, ONE negative review out of how many for what should deserve negative reviews?

If all you can shout is "what about Nephilim" it goes to show how overly positive reviews are.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Samus666 wrote:
I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this.

Negative reviews from influencers means influencers dont get early products or discounts. Never trust them except for the actual overview of said rules.

Also love how the main praise is "look two wounds!" when thats something that could've been fixed with a quick PDF saying "add a wound to these models for X points".

Also WOWEE, TWO PART LEGION TRAIT! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING!

Ah yes. Let's ignore negative reviets so you get to claim you agenda

It’s like all the “don’t buy Nephilim” reviews just didn’t happen!

Ah yes, ONE negative review out of how many for what should deserve negative reviews?

If all you can shout is "what about Nephilim" it goes to show how overly positive reviews are.

Or people like stuff you don't?

 Samus666 wrote:
I'm really confused by the almost overwhelmingly positive reviews for this. A lot of the reviewers seem really bowled over by the legion traits, warlord traits, stratagems and relics. I could understand this if these were new things but they aren't. They are mostly just carried over from Psychic Awakening. I've seen reviews that gush about the fact that these are now included in the codex but ignore the inconveniance of having cult troops in different codexes. Having all the rules in one book is either important or it isn't - pick one!

Once again, "wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change". We've listened to several years of complaints now about how gakky borderline unplayable the current CSM book is (i.e. "the state of the game"). The new codex, despite a couple of key faults in it that don't generally harm the competitiveness of the army, is a *massive* improvement. Influencers are overwhelmingly positive with it because its worth being overwhelmingly positive about and makes the army more than playable - they have embraced the change recognizing that the new book is a net positive rather than a net negative, whereas a large segment of the community on dakka have missed the forest for the trees and are focusing only on the negative aspects they don't like, despite the fact that GW has overwhelmingly fixed many of the existing issues they have spent the last 3 years complaining about.

Dudeface wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Have we still not had a 40k Kratos datasheet for CSM/TS/DG?

No they have not secretly updated the datasheet without commenting on it publicly.

And thusly they continue to not sell as many as they might.

Round here all the local stores have completely sold out and restock orders are running on a 3 month delay, so somehow I don't think this is an actual issue.

"The new book is more powerful" is not the same as "The new book is better".

If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.

Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Have we still not had a 40k Kratos datasheet for CSM/TS/DG?

No they have not secretly updated the datasheet without commenting on it publicly.

And thusly they continue to not sell as many as they might.

Round here all the local stores have completely sold out and restock orders are running on a 3 month delay, so somehow I don't think this is an actual issue.

Of course it is, imagine all the chaos players buying them as well and maybe there'd be a 4-5 month backlog of sales. Just because it didn't struggle to sell doesn't mean they couldn't sell more.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"The new book is more powerful" is not the same as "The new book is better".

Now this is flair worthy

chaos0xomega wrote:
If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.

Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.

If your primary metric of evaluation is the playability of your current models/specific model you love, then no it's not the same.
This book straight up deletes so many options people love and have themed their armies around or it's invalidated models they've put their time into building and painting. No amount of "Abaddon is strong", etc changes that.

We told chaos that the first time, but apparently he's back to completely miss the point all over again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We told chaos that the first time, but apparently he's back to completely miss the point all over again.

I'd assume bad faith/trolling at this point.

Well today is release day so guess we're now playing the waiting game for the FAQ.

so looking at my codex (I have it) anyone else feel like this feels like a "codex written for next edition"?

BrianDavion wrote:
so looking at my codex (I have it) anyone else feel like this feels like a "codex written for next edition"?

I have a feeling of that as well. 10th could very well be an AoS-ification of the army options even further than now.

Ok - anyone know how new codex effects Decimators?

Key words use old terminology RAW but wording looks like they should get legion traits?

Anyone noticed the Kratos miscellaneous datasheet has a reference for Havoc launchers? Am I clutching at straws or does this mean they were at least considering letting CSM take them?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.

Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.

If your primary metric of evaluation is the playability of your current models/specific model you love, then no it's not the same.
This book straight up deletes so many options people love and have themed their armies around or it's invalidated models they've put their time into building and painting. No amount of "Abaddon is strong", etc changes that.

I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.

That seems like a feasible hypothesis. It's not like GW hasn't moving in that direction with their most prominent line - Primaris are a lot of things but a customizer's dream they ain't.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If your primary metric of evaluation is competitiveness and playability, then yes, it is the same.

Outside of dakka, restrictions to weapon access are generally (IMO erroneously) seen as game balancing rather than shenanigans relating to bits availability. I'm also frankly not sure that many outside of dakka care that much about "logic" like why lightning claws in one unit are called accursed weapons alongside power swords and chainaxes, etc. but in another unit are still lightning calws. Ultimately most people would seem to consider this a triviality and not something thats going to bring down their enjoyment of what they perceive to be a fun to play army.

If your primary metric of evaluation is the playability of your current models/specific model you love, then no it's not the same.
This book straight up deletes so many options people love and have themed their armies around or it's invalidated models they've put their time into building and painting. No amount of "Abaddon is strong", etc changes that.

I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.

It definitely does feel like GW geared this book up solely with the intent of making it easier to balance through removing options and easier for new players, but completely shafted long time players who have standing collections they put a lot of effort into.

Kinetochore wrote:Ok - anyone know how new codex effects Decimators?

Key words use old terminology RAW but wording looks like they should get legion traits?

Anyone noticed the Kratos miscellaneous datasheet has a reference for Havoc launchers? Am I clutching at straws or does this mean they were at least considering letting CSM take them?

I'm sure that Decimators and all of our other fw units will eventually get the proper keywords and such to work with the new codex. Anyone's guess as to how long it takes them to do it, though. And the Kratos getting Havoc Launchers doesn't mean anything. It's just another case of gw giving loyalists Chaos stuff. They've already had Reaper ACs for a while now.

ClockworkZion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
so looking at my codex (I have it) anyone else feel like this feels like a "codex written for next edition"?

I have a feeling of that as well. 10th could very well be an AoS-ification of the army options even further than now.

Hmmm. All the more reason to move to a rule set with actual options and customization. Oh, and good rules for the Traitor Legions.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

I, for one, am sure my friend with 30 Chaos Terminators with dual Lightning Claws that he spent a good few hundred hours on is absolutely thrilled that Abbaddon, whom he doesn't even own, is really strong.

I DO have 100s of dollars worth of now illegal chaos termies. and can say without a doubt I am unhappy.

I even sent an email to GW asking them to faq this and explaining this will simply cause me and others like me to buy less models in the future not more, and I encourage anyone else upset about this to do the same. (Just dont be a dick about it)