Switch Theme:

Chaos Space Marine codex rumours and news.  [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
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 thepowerfulwill wrote:
 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.
Yup. It was already explained to him by multiple people how off-base his assessment is. It is like the people who got politics banned; present a bogus theory, get shut down, wait a few pages, present bogus theory again.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





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 that's just most recent so easy to note.

But blind people hell bent on their agenda always just ignore facts when they don't suit them.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend





Gurnee, IL

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
 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)


I expect what you'll here back is "You are free to play the game as you like, just consult the other player beforehand; or just play narrative. It's a great way to have fun with your minatures! Cheers." They'll will expect make more just supporting what's in the box over the long term, than what they'll loose in sales to old players angrey enough to stop purchasing.

"Fear the cute ones." 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 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.


I'm honestly iffy on whether or not it was (especially with the delays), but I 100% think we're going to be told that it was, especially by people outside of GW who have no idea one way or the other.


I'm still kinda curious what problems it 'fixed,' beyond the really obvious footnote that could have been slid into any FAQ or balance update years ago (+1 W, use point costs from Loyalist marines for same unit types)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/02 20:11:33


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Hellacious Havoc





Wales

Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.

Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.

Maybe this is more of a priority for Chaos platers than most others. Maybe it's just me. I dunno, it just feels like GW are gearing the rules further and further away from the way I like to play. Arguments can be made for using house rules and I probably will be doing so. But I'm getting a bit tired of having to write my own rules to play a game where narrative and army character are catered for. There are now many areas if the game where there are different rules for competitive play, so what I would really like them to do is start releasing codexes full to bursting with options and wargear choices and flavour, but with some of those options off limits to those who prioritise balance over personalising their armies. Surely this would please everyone.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/02 21:22:23


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

It feels like modelling is becoming more open ended, but the rules are becoming more streamllined.

Which can work for making it so people can be creative with what they build models with, but it can also cause issues like we're seeing now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/02 21:43:51


 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Samus666 wrote:
Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.

Maybe it's the rpg player in me.


You have to take the game with a grain of salt. Customization inherently makes a game more difficult to balance. It's not a big deal. GW always nukes their own products. It's part of their business plan. The best thing to do, which is what I've done and what our rather large community (50 players on the average showing up most weekends at one of our local stores) is to just buy multiple armies or other games. That's just how it is.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator






Virginia, US

 Sersi wrote:
 thepowerfulwill wrote:
 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)


I expect what you'll here back is "You are free to play the game as you like, just consult the other player beforehand; or just play narrative. It's a great way to have fun with your minatures! Cheers." They'll will expect make more just supporting what's in the box over the long term, than what they'll loose in sales to old players angrey enough to stop purchasing.


That's even better than what I got, the message I got back seemed honestly confused and said I should double check the rules, but hey, maybe we get enough of these we get an faq. or at least a token gesture.

"I don't have a good feeling about this... Your mini looks like it has my mini's head on a stick..."

"From the immaterium to the Imperium, this is Radio Free Nostramo! Coming to you live from the Eye of Terror, this is your host, Captain Contagion, bringing you the latest Heretical hits!"
 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 Samus666 wrote:
Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.

Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.

The idea of it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the specific way they decided to do it.

I don't care if there are mechanical differences between swords, axes and maces. (or as other WFB or WFRPG players know them, 'hand weapons'). When it comes to modelling, I actually like it that a cool-looking weapon isn't pigeon-holed into a statline that will change and become bad as editions change. The problem is they decided to be as inconsistent about it as possible, with some units getting exactly uniform weapons, some units keeping some (but not all) weapon options and other units (including the basic legionnaires) getting new 'unique' weapons that are... basically the same as an existing weapons (the heavy chainaxe and tainted chainax, which can pass as powerfists or mastercrafted weapons), or close enough that I personally don't care. If they did accursed weapons and heavy accursed weapons (x2 S) [and maybe even quickstab weapons (lightning claws)] and made it universal for all units... that would have honestly been fine. But instead its an unholy mess of 'sometimes.'

It feels like a compromise solution, but I have no idea how you get there with any sort of actual process.
And even then, that's something you decide for the entire edition in a design document in at the start of the edition. I can't overstate that enough. Plan. Ahead. For. Consistency.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/02 22:39:20


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

BrianDavion wrote:
so looking at my codex (I have it) anyone else feel like this feels like a "codex written for next edition"?
That's why I think there are no "super-doctrines", as those will be going away in the new edition.

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

 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend





Gurnee, IL

I expect best case is we see some points drops on the more expensive units. A points drop on either Noise Marines or their Sonic Weapons would go a long way to making me happy. I can always just proxy in whatever models I think look cool.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/02 22:54:53


"Fear the cute ones." 
   
Made in gb
Hellacious Havoc





Wales

RealAndTrue wrote:


You have to take the game with a grain of salt. Customization inherently makes a game more difficult to balance. It's not a big deal. GW always nukes their own products. It's part of their business plan. The best thing to do, which is what I've done and what our rather large community (50 players on the average showing up most weekends at one of our local stores) is to just buy multiple armies or other games. That's just how it is.


I don't have to do anything. And those of us who object to this are really tired of being told it's no big deal. We are entitled to our opinions. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to anyone else. And "just accept it and buy more" is terrible advice for dealing with anti-consumer practice.

Besides all of that, did you even read all my post? It wasn't even mainly about invalidated models, and I raised an obvious solution to the customization vs balance dilemma


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:

The idea of it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the specific way they decided to do it.

I don't care if there are mechanical differences between swords, axes and maces. (or as other WFB or WFRPG players know them, 'hand weapons'). When it comes to modelling, I actually like it that a cool-looking weapon isn't pigeon-holed into a statline that will change and become bad as editions change. The problem is they decided to be as inconsistent about it as possible, with some units getting exactly uniform weapons, some units keeping some (but not all) weapon options and other units (including the basic legionnaires) getting new 'unique' weapons that are... basically the same as an existing weapons (the heavy chainaxe and tainted chainax, which can pass as powerfists or mastercrafted weapons), or close enough that I personally don't care. If they did accursed weapons and heavy accursed weapons (x2 S) [and maybe even quickstab weapons (lightning claws)] and made it universal for all units... that would have honestly been fine. But instead its an unholy mess of 'sometimes.'

It feels like a compromise solution, but I have no idea how you get there with any sort of actual process.
And even then, that's something you decide for the entire edition in a design document in at the start of the edition. I can't overstate that enough. Plan. Ahead. For. Consistency.


Ymmv regarding the mechanical differences between weapons. Again, I'm in it for the role play, so having a range of distinct weapon profiles is more important to me than whether particular weapon types are strong or weak. I do see where you're coming from though, it's one thing that's entirely a matter of personal preference. And I totally agree that it would be better (or at least a sign of them making an understandable design choice) if the design philosophy was at least consistent between units and between armies

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/02 23:57:21


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Germany

Meanwhile I'm over here being salty GW didn't include the Traitor Guardsmen or the Commissar in the CSM Book, despite the article about them outright saying they're all going to be a great addition to a CSM army along all the other new Cultist stuff.

Like, I'm just sick of WarCom going "Sike! You thought we were actually telling the truth and not outright lying for the possibility of a 2-3% increase in sales!"
[Thumb - IMG_20220703_014444.jpg]


"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
 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.


More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.

Did the book fix many of the problems of the previous version? Yes.

Did it create some new problems along the way? Also yes.

These two facts are not mutually exclusive and don't cancel one another out. On the balance I feel that the pros outweigh the cons and the book is a net positive despite the problems I have with it and the invalidation of a portion of my army (which fir the most part Ill just counts as/ignore wysiwyg for until such time as the resultant issues are more properly addressed). So yeah, the state of the codex sucked and the new edition fixed most of the existing issues. While it brought some negative changes with it, those negative changes do not make the entire thing bad.

 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.


If it cuts back on rules layers then thats not a bad thing. That being said people said 8th and 9th would be AOS-ification and truthfully I don't really see it unless I swuint real hard and stretch what exavtly "AOS-ification" means.

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?


WarCom already said a chaos Kratos was coming, they just didn't say when or how or why it was delayed etc.

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.


Sure, thats definitely frustrating but I always struggle to shed a tear when someone loses the ability to spam a certain unit or build. Inevitably spam builds always get shafted, this happens to every army every edition (though granted usually by nerding the build through points increases and star chamges rather than making them outright illegal). Theres a degree of inevitability to it. If you've been around long enough I think you kind of know going in that your minis are at risk if you set them up in spam builds and you do so with the acceptance of that potentiality. The potential fix here is to keep some with dual LCs and those that can't have them keep one LC as an accursed weapon and swap the other out for a ranger weapon. It potentially means pulling arms off finished minis which sucks hard, but the alternative is leaving those minis on a shelf indefinitely, so pick your poison.

Ultimately this is not much different from when power weapons were split to axes/swords/mauls/lances nor any number of other such changes made in the past. This isnt the first time GW made a change that prompts people to pull weapons/arms off their minis, nor will it be the last. Im not fond of having to do so, but its hard to say that its particularly evil *this time* vs the dozens of other times the same thing has been done over the prior 8 editions. Im sure the guys who had space marines armed with shuriken rifles back in the day were annoyed when that option was taken away from them too. Unless this is your first rodeo, I think you kinda accept that this is part of the game if you continue to play it.

 thepowerfulwill wrote:

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



How are they illegal? i would think you'd be able to restructure your units in some way to make them fieldable (unless you also had 30 dual LC terms). If you had maybe 30 termies before with varied weapons in 3 units of 10, I would think now maybe youre looking at 2 units of 10 and maybe one other unit of 5 or something along those lines. Maybe you're able to buy one more box of termies and with that youd have 30 fieldable termies in units of 10 plus 5 extra weapon swaps or something.

Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.


I don't think endless customizability and balance can really coexist, there has to be some restrictions and limitations as to how far you can push levels of customization as a constraint for things like points systems and listbuilding to be structured against. RPGs can get away with it because they generally aren't competitive games where the interests of opposing players need to be counterbalanced against eachother but wargaming is a slightly different animal.

I don't care if there are mechanical differences between swords, axes and maces. (or as other WFB or WFRPG players know them, 'hand weapons'). When it comes to modelling, I actually like it that a cool-looking weapon isn't pigeon-holed into a statline that will change and become bad as editions change. The problem is they decided to be as inconsistent about it as possible, with some units getting exactly uniform weapons, some units keeping some (but not all) weapon options and other units (including the basic legionnaires) getting new 'unique' weapons that are... basically the same as an existing weapons (the heavy chainaxe and tainted chainax, which can pass as powerfists or mastercrafted weapons), or close enough that I personally don't care. If they did accursed weapons and heavy accursed weapons (x2 S) [and maybe even quickstab weapons (lightning claws)] and made it universal for all units... that would have honestly been fine. But instead its an unholy mess of 'sometimes.'


Yes, this more than anything else is what bothers me - that and the knowledge that the "accursed weapons" paradigm will likely be reversed another edition or two down the line and suddenly all these units are going to have weird specific weapons loadouts or otherwise be illegal again, etc. But ever since my first army (Tau) got screwed over by crisis suit weapon loadout changes I have built my minis with an eye towards the future - magnets and limited weapon upgrades that make it unlikely for my units to actually be made illegal. It still happens on occasion, but less frequently than others seem to have to deal with it and often the fix is easy enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Meanwhile I'm over here being salty GW didn't include the Traitor Guardsmen or the Commissar in the CSM Book, despite the article about them outright saying they're all going to be a great addition to a CSM army along all the other new Cultist stuff.

Like, I'm just sick of WarCom going "Sike! You thought we were actually telling the truth and not outright lying for the possibility of a 2-3% increase in sales!"


Yeah ive been quietly hoping that this means a traitor gusrd book is on the way, but I guess time will tell. Really gakky of them to say that when it clearly wasn't true - I don't even think its arguable as being "technically correct" as its not like you can run those models fully as cultists, etc either. Like what are you supposed to do w the traitor commissar and ogryn?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/03 00:03:04


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 Samus666 wrote:
Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.

I'm more irritated with the inconsistency of it. Take GSC for example, one of the best Codexes for Crusade content IMO, the custom Cult builder is good, and while HQ options are pretty bland equipment-wise the Troops units are really good for wargear. Neophytes can take 2 Special and 2 Heavy weapons per squad because the box comes with all the options but it isn't restricted to one of each. You can load up a unit of 10 with 2 Flamers and 2 Mining Lasers. It's a similar case with the Acolyte Hybrids. But CSM can't double up on Specials or Heavies despite enough being in the box to do so. Sternguard and Vanguard in the Marines book have more equipment freedom than Chosen do. It's easier to build a more background accurate CSM army with the Marine Codex than the CSM one because the latter is so strangely restrictive of wargear in random places.
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





I know that in some previews, we got to see rules for the Orb of Dessication, a Purge relic. Since Renegade rules aren't in the codex, are these relics like these in there or not?
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I know that in some previews, we got to see rules for the Orb of Dessication, a Purge relic. Since Renegade rules aren't in the codex, are these relics like these in there or not?
Do you have a link to this preview?

chaos0xomega wrote:
More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.
When someone accused you of bad faith/trolling I wasn't willing to accept that, as it would infer a level of malice in your posts. But then you went and said that, so, yeah, you really don't get it...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/03 02:40:06


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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Book officially came out TODAY, let's keep in mind.

For all we know, we could get the Traitor Guard datasheet any time in the next week or so. Just like the Novitiates, I'll bet they'll come out as their own datasheet that you'll be able to get online. I'm not ready to jump on the hate train on this one quite yet.

As for the AoS-ification of 40k.. honestly? Bring it on. Simplify this mess. Plenty of people poo-poo AoS but frankly the rules system is great. Having leaders give a particular buff to units wholly within their aura (limiting daisy-chaining) and the various "stratagems" being impactful, easy to understand, and generic as well, makes it far superior to the hodgepodge of "This gives you +1 to hit in this circumstance." and "this gives you +1 in another circumstance, but only for these specific units." I will not miss all these stratagems and such at all.

In terms of flattening options for units, great! Bring it on! I don't mind. It gives me more impetus to build the models however I want. But let's also, while we're at it, flatten the 50 kinds of Bolt Rifles that Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors get. Let's flatten the Predator and Gladiator into one datasheet again. Let's get some CONSISTENCY across what gets flattened and why.

I have seen far more questions about 'which tiny zit-sized magazine bit represents the auto bolt rifle versus the stalker bolt rifle?' than I've EVER seen about the difference between lightning claws, power swords, and power axes.

Chaos needs more bits in their boxes. Or remove extraneous crap like power mauls and power axes and just give us the standard chainswords, power swords, lightning claws, so that at least we can build a kit with themed weapons. ffs GW.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The trophy racks taking up as much space as they do for the new Chaos Terminator kit is a goddamn crime.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





EviscerationPlague wrote:
The trophy racks taking up as much space as they do for the new Chaos Terminator kit is a goddamn crime.


That, plus the idea that we, for some reason, needed a chain axe and power maul instead of an extra pair of lightning claws.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

drbored wrote:
As for the AoS-ification of 40k.. honestly? Bring it on. Simplify this mess.
Yeah I totally want weapons that have a set To Wound value regardless of target!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/03 05:18:28


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

 
   
Made in au
Liche Priest Hierophant







chaos0xomega wrote:
More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.

Pot meet kettle I guess?
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

chaos0xomega wrote:
 thepowerfulwill wrote:
 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.


More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.

Did the book fix many of the problems of the previous version? Yes.

Did it create some new problems along the way? Also yes.

These two facts are not mutually exclusive and don't cancel one another out. On the balance I feel that the pros outweigh the cons and the book is a net positive despite the problems I have with it and the invalidation of a portion of my army (which fir the most part Ill just counts as/ignore wysiwyg for until such time as the resultant issues are more properly addressed). So yeah, the state of the codex sucked and the new edition fixed most of the existing issues. While it brought some negative changes with it, those negative changes do not make the entire thing bad.

Yeah, that's pretty subjective, and has a big "Depends on the Legion" qualifier in it. This codex absolutely gutted Night Lords. The Legion trait is slightly better than the old one, but it's incredibly unbalanced depending on which faction you're playing against. It'll be fairly ludicrous against some, and completely useless against others. And that's just bad design. Couple that with all of our best stratagems either being nerfed or just flat out removed, and the fact that some of the most thematic unit and wargear options for the Legion also went bye bye, and you have a big, greasy hair right in the middle of the "chicken nuggies and a side of fries" that is the 9th edition CSM codex for anyone who plays Night Lords. And it looks even worse compared to the "exquisite ethnic cuisine" laid out on our plate by the HH writers. Seriously, I'd like anyone to give me a reason why any Night Lords player shouldn't just take a walk from this dumpster fire for the greener pastures of HH and the Liber Hereticus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
The trophy racks taking up as much space as they do for the new Chaos Terminator kit is a goddamn crime.


That, plus the idea that we, for some reason, needed a chain axe and power maul instead of an extra pair of lightning claws.

And the idiocy of locking CSM out of the "Relic Terminators" kits, which would give us the "in the kit" options for paired lighting claws (or Accursed Weapons), full power fists, or full chainfists. Or any combination of those.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/03 04:33:19


 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I know that in some previews, we got to see rules for the Orb of Dessication, a Purge relic. Since Renegade rules aren't in the codex, are these relics like these in there or not?
Do you have a link to this preview?

chaos0xomega wrote:
More like your screeching and bleating against it doesn't invalidate my viewpoint.
When someone accused you of bad faith/trolling I wasn't willing to accept that, as it would infer a level of malice in your posts. But then you went and said that, so, yeah, you really don't get it...



It's actually called the Orb of Unlife, my mistake. And it was one of the leaks from about a month ago.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/03 14:20:26


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
drbored wrote:
As for the AoS-ification of 40k.. honestly? Bring it on. Simplify this mess.
Yeah I totally weapon weapons that have a set To Wound value regardless of target!


Honestly? It helps flatten the game. It means you aren't punished for taking themed lists, and you're not punished when your opponent takes themed lists. Your opponent's tank-only army versus your conscript only army? You might be able to actually clog up the treads enough to stop them dead.

Is it fluffy? Heck no. Is it good? Meh, it's still got issues. Does it make the game simpler and reduce a lot of charts and toughness ridiculousness? Absolutely.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Samus666 wrote:
Besides the obvious issue with some of our existing models being invalidated, does anyone else just hate the trend towards more limited options and customisation in general? I have plans for an army from every legion, but I feel like future projects will be less fun with fewer options.

Maybe it's the rpg player in me. I want to be able to customise and theme every unit. I want to build armies that are really unique to me (especially when building Chaos Space Marine forces). For me, this is core to the narrative player experience, and matters far more than game balance or streamlined play.

Maybe this is more of a priority for Chaos platers than most others. Maybe it's just me. I dunno, it just feels like GW are gearing the rules further and further away from the way I like to play. Arguments can be made for using house rules and I probably will be doing so. But I'm getting a bit tired of having to write my own rules to play a game where narrative and army character are catered for. There are now many areas if the game where there are different rules for competitive play, so what I would really like them to do is start releasing codexes full to bursting with options and wargear choices and flavour, but with some of those options off limits to those who prioritise balance over personalising their armies. Surely this would please everyone.

not I sir I like the new wepon profile I would like to see ranged move in the same direction. The new melle profile replacing sword maces and axes is great now I can model whatever I want and not worry about the swords being better Than the maces and suck probably should be noorr than 4-5 melle profiles. And the same number of ranged profiles. I hate having to model for what's plays good over what looks good.
Now having said that they could have implemented it better without in validating model, just make lightning claws the Same as swords and axes and give plus one attack for having 2 melle wepons of any kind this opens more modeling opportunities.
   
Made in dk
Regular Dakkanaut




I saw a rumor at some point that daemons could be taken without breaking traits. Similar to guard in GSC. Was this just a false rumor? I've not seen any codex previews mention this. Kinda lame that they then would again split CSM and Daemons with all the restrictions that 9th I bringing to souping from different books. I really liked how 8th allowed for mixed armies.
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc






Southern New Hampshire

Us3Less wrote:
I saw a rumor at some point that daemons could be taken without breaking traits. Similar to guard in GSC. Was this just a false rumor? I've not seen any codex previews mention this. Kinda lame that they then would again split CSM and Daemons with all the restrictions that 9th I bringing to souping from different books. I really liked how 8th allowed for mixed armies.


If true, this would show up in the Demons codex, much like Knights.

"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln

Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.


DR:80S++G++M--B+IPwhfb01#+D+++A+++/fWD258R++T(D)DM+++
 
   
Made in us
Boosting Space Marine Biker





This book just... feels bad. Like mechanically it's strong, whatever, I do not play 40k competitively so that doesn't matter to me. It just lacks the stuff that made me love CSM in the first place. Being the army of wild customization, where every unit could feel unique in a variety of ways. The army where you could take twenty marines to a unit, with veteran tactics and marks and icons and all different kinds of weapon choices. And then on top of that my legion would give me bonuses as well.

We just spent years being one of the weakest armies in the game, one where even non-competitive play was painful and we didn't feel anything like we did in previous editions. Now we're a good army that still doesn't feel right at all because they've decided to chop away so many of our customization options. Throwing us marks back as some kind of a pittance, and then not even letting us give them to a huge chunk of our book.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Having spent yesterday going through the book, I’m going against the tide here, I really like this book.
I feel there are still plenty of options available to customize your force outside of the few glaring errors (jump pack lord, terminator claws etc).
I feel there are many units I actually want to use but I’m having to make sacrifices. For my Iron Warriors it’s head and shoulders above the previous book(s). I have so many HQs I want to try, but just don’t have the slots to make it happen. The only new thing I’ll get is the possessed, not feeling the mutants at al. I’m looking forward to getting my vindicators back on the table, plus building a land raider for my terminators.
This may not be the book for many, but it is far from a dumpster fire.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: