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.

Lockark wrote:

temprus wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:1) Hard back book - PITA to read, PITA to carry around. My model carry bag is heavy enough already and I don't really want to replace my reasonably light, thin paperback with a big, heavy hardback..

Hard back is for reading at home and to look impressive on the coffee table, the ipad edition is the one you are supposed to use at the gaming table.

A Netbook in cheaper then a Ipad, has better hardware specification, compatible with more programs, and actually comes with a Keyboard...
=/

To bad GW is more interested in the Ipad fad then creating digital products that are actually useful to the everyday gamer.

Coz netbooks are so commen... Oh, wait, no, that was 4 years ago.

Lockark wrote:If it looks like a Air plane shaped like a dragon, it's going to look really silly and cheap.

What do you mean "if"? Have you seen the direction that GW's fliers have taken?

Aye a throwback to the old Tzeentch Epic flyers might be a bit of a turn off, was never a big fan of them.

aka_mythos wrote:

Just Dave wrote:I get the feeling this Dragon will be kinda like the Dreadknight seems to be IMHO, in that most vet's will hate it, most new players will love it.

Personally I don't care... if I want one in my army and I like the look I'll use it, if I don't I'll convert it. People give it flak for being a "dragon" but as I've pointed out 2 of the epic chaos models are pretty much flying dragons... and in that sense had a more established basis to them than the Dreadknight did. Chaos employs daemon engines and I'm happy to see GW emphasizing that with a fully chaos kit, something that isn't just "imperial + spikes."

This rumored model has always sounded like a Doomwing to me. Or at least a "Doomwing" in the way that a Tyrannofex is an "Exocrine", etc. They seem to avoid using the old Epic names for certain things, even if that's what they really are.

And I agree that this book sounds a lot like a "Plus" version of the current one. Maybe not a lot of direct Legion support, but more tools and ability to do them yourself. Still sounds like an improvement to me.

The fluff in the new rulebook seems to have a greater focus on cultists, and includes multiple mentions of Plague Zombies and Mutants too. Might indicate what we'll see in the new codex. Perhaps Mutants and Zombies are "upgrades" for cultists? More LATD-type elements would be a very good thing.

I'll take two of everything new when it comes out for Chaos.

Maybe my dream of making a 1000pt list with only Chaos Space Marines (as elite Chosen) will actually come true.

40 cultists and 10 astartes, yes please.

On the same token..... Oh my... The possibilities of Aspiring Sorcerers leading cultists.

Battle of the Fang redo, YES PLEASE.

gorgon wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

Just Dave wrote:I get the feeling this Dragon will be kinda like the Dreadknight seems to be IMHO, in that most vet's will hate it, most new players will love it.

Personally I don't care... if I want one in my army and I like the look I'll use it, if I don't I'll convert it. People give it flak for being a "dragon" but as I've pointed out 2 of the epic chaos models are pretty much flying dragons... and in that sense had a more established basis to them than the Dreadknight did. Chaos employs daemon engines and I'm happy to see GW emphasizing that with a fully chaos kit, something that isn't just "imperial + spikes."

This rumored model has always sounded like a Doomwing to me. Or at least a "Doomwing" in the way that a Tyrannofex is an "Exocrine", etc. They seem to avoid using the old Epic names for certain things, even if that's what they really are.

My guess is its some mix of copyright/authorship considerations coupled with a desire to give the design staff the flexibility to create unit that isn't 100% identical to a preexisting concept.

gorgon wrote:
The fluff in the new rulebook seems to have a greater focus on cultists, and includes multiple mentions of Plague Zombies and Mutants too. Might indicate what we'll see in the new codex. Perhaps Mutants and Zombies are "upgrades" for cultists? More LATD-type elements would be a very good thing.

This is another positive in my book. Chaos is all about these different warlords running off and building their own little powerbases. Given that there are far more mundane mortals than space marines who worship chaos, it'd only make sense that such a personal empire would have more traitors and cultists than marines.

Steve steveson wrote:

Lockark wrote:

temprus wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:1) Hard back book - PITA to read, PITA to carry around. My model carry bag is heavy enough already and I don't really want to replace my reasonably light, thin paperback with a big, heavy hardback..

Hard back is for reading at home and to look impressive on the coffee table, the ipad edition is the one you are supposed to use at the gaming table.

A Netbook in cheaper then a Ipad, has better hardware specification, compatible with more programs, and actually comes with a Keyboard...
=/

To bad GW is more interested in the Ipad fad then creating digital products that are actually useful to the everyday gamer.

Coz netbooks are so commen... Oh, wait, no, that was 4 years ago.

There are componies that still make Netbooks, and I'm picking one up in a few months actually. The modern net-books well not as common, are still pretty good little machines that are sadly underrated by most people.

But the point is a Netbook runs the same OS that every other computer runs. Just on a Bugget. Heck instead of buying a Ipad, just buy a Laptop for just as much and have a even MORE powerful machine then a Ipad!

Or you know. You could buy a considerably less powerful machine with a gimmicky touch screen, and the "apple tax" on the hardware.

More or less I'm sick of the Tablet PC/Ipad fad.

I like the sound of these rumors. ADB had said that he guessed that the next book would have fluff to guide people into making fluffy armies, rather than rules to enforce it, which sounds good to me...

aka_mythos wrote:

Sgt.Roadkill wrote:meh, from me for my Iron warriors front especially if All chaos forces can take Warmsith equivalents....

Don't you want to atleast see IF they get anymore for them, or IF it really is an unrestricted choice for other armies?-Oh wait, what you're doing is easier. This codex seems to be defined by HQ and Elite choices that depending on your choice allow you to take more of them to represent different subfactions. For Iron warriors Warmith/warpsmith may become a 0-3 for one FOC choice... grasping for exclusivity of unit choices as the only way to define character is a rather weak one. The way I see it, you're likely to have the option of taking more obliterators... and even by means of the allies rule utilize other artillery. Then its upto you to say what an Iron Warriors army is, not for GW to force feed it to you, just so someone else can complain that its never enough.

While you maybe right and i should wait, I have have very little faith in GW due to the last few Codexes GW has released, (with the exception of the Necron one). I Am still hurting from the last dexes blandness/couple of uber builds and I also HIGHLY doubt if GW will reinstate 0-1 on oblits under any circumstances, once they unlock something through codex rewrites or retcons for an entire army its not usual for them to retcon the 0-1, well not that I've seen. Cult troops are an exception here as GW can never seem to decide where to put them, ofc as oblits are technically cult troops it could be argued that this would fit this pattern to. There may be a difference between Warpsmiths and Warsmiths. I am hoping the former is a member of the Dark Mechnicum rather than chaos techpriest.

And i have never relied on GW spoon feeding me, otherwise I'd damn well not have an Arbite army, floating around.

so um yeah have a nice day!

P.S: in relation to this whole waiting and judging? what the point of being able to comment on a thread about rumours for it if we can't have a minor bitch and be excited/speculate about something at the same time. Good pracitce for the looming presence of a first child

Sgt.Roadkill wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

Sgt.Roadkill wrote:meh, from me for my Iron warriors front especially if All chaos forces can take Warmsith equivalents....

Don't you want to atleast see IF they get anymore for them, or IF it really is an unrestricted choice for other armies?-Oh wait, what you're doing is easier. This codex seems to be defined by HQ and Elite choices that depending on your choice allow you to take more of them to represent different subfactions. For Iron warriors Warmith/warpsmith may become a 0-3 for one FOC choice... grasping for exclusivity of unit choices as the only way to define character is a rather weak one. The way I see it, you're likely to have the option of taking more obliterators... and even by means of the allies rule utilize other artillery. Then its upto you to say what an Iron Warriors army is, not for GW to force feed it to you, just so someone else can complain that its never enough.

While you maybe right and i should wait, I have have very little faith in GW due to the last few Codexes GW has released, (with the exception of the Necron one). I Am still hurting from the last dexes blandness/couple of uber builds and I also HIGHLY doubt if GW will reinstate 0-1 on oblits under any circumstances, once they unlock something through codex rewrites or retcons for an entire army its not usual for them to retcon the 0-1, well not that I've seen. Cult troops are an exception here as GW can never seem to decide where to put them, ofc as oblits are technically cult troops it could be argued that this would fit this pattern to. There may be a difference between Warpsmiths and Warsmiths. I am hoping the former is a member of the Dark Mechnicum rather than chaos techpriest.

And i have never relied on GW spoon feeding me, otherwise I'd damn well not have an Arbite army, floating around.

so um yeah have a nice day!

The notion is that different HQ choices make specific cult untis troops... if that holds true the implication would be that obliterators representing the Iron Warriors to a degree could be a troop or pseudo-troop choice for them. The other part of this is that if the codex really works this way, a majority of the time players will be fulfilling those requisites leaving secondary units as Warsmith/warp smiths as something they have to be pickier about.

You say cult troops are an exception... but I have to say its only an exception on paper and not in practice. Here is why: in the old codex you had 4 cult marine units competing for 6 FOC slots... now (dependent on your choice) you have 3 units fighting for 3 FOC slots and one unit that you can take 6 copies of. How many players actually played a list where they had all 4 cults in a single list?-I've never seen such a list, atleast not a good one. The only other thing you could do in the current codex that you can't with the new one is field 2 units of one cult, 2 units of a second cult, and 2 units of a third cult... another thing I don't see ever.

Also, I said "force feed" not "spoon feed." I don't tend to think its as well intended as the latter implies. Also I have an Arbite army to, so I know what you're talking about.. I'm happy GW is making cultists at the heart of this codex. Its the most straightforwardly fluffy inclusion they could have made.

aka_mythos wrote:]The notion is that different HQ choices make specific cult untis troops... if that holds true the implication would be that obliterators representing the Iron Warriors to a degree could be a troop or pseudo-troop choice for them.

WOOT!!!! I know we're wishlisting, but I'll double down on that!

kronk wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:]The notion is that different HQ choices make specific cult untis troops... if that holds true the implication would be that obliterators representing the Iron Warriors to a degree could be a troop or pseudo-troop choice for them.

WOOT!!!! I know we're wishlisting, but I'll double down on that!

I'm inclined to believe they'd be more of the pseudo-troop... all the benefits of being a troop choice while not filling those FOC slots. There is also the implication of there being two types of Obliterators, the ranged ones (sans close combat options) and then more of a close combat obliterator with all the different close combar weapons as morhpable options. SImply the lesser of the two maybe the only ones capable of doing the whole FOC jumping.

aka_mythos wrote:

kronk wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:]The notion is that different HQ choices make specific cult untis troops... if that holds true the implication would be that obliterators representing the Iron Warriors to a degree could be a troop or pseudo-troop choice for them.

WOOT!!!! I know we're wishlisting, but I'll double down on that!

I'm inclined to believe they'd be more of the pseudo-troop... all the benefits of being a troop choice while not filling those FOC slots. There is also the implication of there being two types of Obliterators, the ranged ones (sans close combat options) and then more of a close combat obliterator with all the different close combar weapons as morhpable options. SImply the lesser of the two maybe the only ones capable of doing the whole FOC jumping.

To bad we didn't have more info. It's hard to talk about anything at this point, with out devolving into Wish listing and speculation. lol

Lockark wrote:To bad we didn't have more info. It's hard to talk about anything at this point, with out devolving into Wish listing and speculation. lol

Yeah! Keep the wishlisting out of my perfectly respectable rumor thread.

This is a turn for the books.

I would have figured October, but it makes sense for September, what with the cultists in the box.

pretre wrote:

Lockark wrote:To bad we didn't have more info. It's hard to talk about anything at this point, with out devolving into Wish listing and speculation. lol

Yeah! Keep the wishlisting out of my perfectly respectable rumor thread.

lol, yah I know the irony of that statement. But I figured it was worth mentioning less this one get's locked like the last ones.

Sounds cool, thanks for the rumors!

Sgt.Roadkill wrote:While you maybe right and i should wait, I have have very little faith in GW due to the last few Codexes GW has released, (with the exception of the Necron one). I Am still hurting from the last dexes blandness/couple of uber builds and I also HIGHLY doubt if GW will reinstate 0-1 on oblits under any circumstances, once they unlock something through codex rewrites or retcons for an entire army its not usual for them to retcon the 0-1, well not that I've seen. Cult troops are an exception here as GW can never seem to decide where to put them, ofc as oblits are technically cult troops it could be argued that this would fit this pattern to. There may be a difference between Warpsmiths and Warsmiths. I am hoping the former is a member of the Dark Mechnicum rather than chaos techpriest.

And i have never relied on GW spoon feeding me, otherwise I'd damn well not have an Arbite army, floating around.

so um yeah have a nice day!

P.S: in relation to this whole waiting and judging? what the point of being able to comment on a thread about rumours for it if we can't have a minor bitch and be excited/speculate about something at the same time. Good pracitce for the looming presence of a first child

I'd find something that Aaron Dembski-Bowden posted about strict rules dividing up Legions being really silly and copy it here, but I can't really be bothered.

jmurph wrote:Usually the Chaos random tables turn out to be poorly thought out crap. Given that your lord HQ can spawnify on a bad D6 or 2d6 roll, I am guessing this will be about as useful as Possessed currently are. But random = fun, AMIRITE?

If you don't like randomness may I suggest that you don't play a game almost entirely based on dice rolls? Randomness is fine, it just needs to have positives that match any negatives or that the points value is calculated correctly.

Nothing particulary new or unexpected with these rumours, the only really noteworthy one is the release date. Hopefully the early rumours about cult units requireing a special character to become troops was incorrect and all that is required is an HQ with the correct mark. Either way the inclusion of cultists does mean that I can fill out the mandatory troops choices cheaply and keep my 3 squads of Death Guard.

I hope they do it on marks of chaos rather than character models to unlock the special troop types.

Not sure I'm keen on the new Oblit choices seeing as mine have weapons and power fists as per the current codex.

Palindrome wrote:If you don't like randomness may I suggest that you don't play a game almost entirely based on dice rolls? Randomness is fine, it just needs to have positives that match any negatives or that the points value is calculated correctly.

I would suggest there is a difference between dice rolls determining the success of actions in a game, and the randomness of a table which you roll against to determine whether your X hundred point model becomes utterly useless or not for no real reason, for example*.



* I'm not suggesting the table is like that, but you get the idea...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:If you don't like randomness may I suggest that you don't play a game almost entirely based on dice rolls? Randomness is fine, it just needs to have positives that match any negatives or that the points value is calculated correctly.

I would suggest there is a difference between dice rolls determining the success of actions in a game, and the randomness of a table which you roll against to determine whether your X hundred point model becomes utterly useless or not for no real reason, for example*.



* I'm not suggesting the table is like that, but you get the idea...

But thats not nessicarily a bad thing if the reward is great enough, or if that x hundred point model is discounted due to the chance that it may kill itself.

GW gamers seem to have an irrational dislike of randomness. This makes even less sense with chaos players.

Palindrome wrote:But thats not nessicarily a bad thing if the reward is great enough, or if that x hundred point model is discounted due to the chance that it may kill itself.

GW gamers seem to have an irrational dislike of randomness.

I play the game to use the models that I like, in the way that I like - as I said, I don't have a problem playing a game with chance, nor do I have a problem with some randomness. However, I do have a problem with the kind of randomness GW seems to be shoehorning into 6th. Randomness doesn;'t work on a D6 system, or in a game as reasonably simple as 40K. If I triggered a D100 random effect in D&D I'd not really have a problem; there is a scope for that built into the game. If my DP loses/wins combat or something and therefore has to roll on some "the gods do/don't like you any more" table, then I'm not going to be happy at all. I don't see why it is needed and I don't really see how it is fun. In a 6-8 turn game it just doesn't gel.

Only upon killing a challenger? Pity, I'd love to kill a model and roll. I play orcs and goblins in fantasy, animosity has trained me against any bad effects!

SilverMK2 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:But thats not nessicarily a bad thing if the reward is great enough, or if that x hundred point model is discounted due to the chance that it may kill itself.

GW gamers seem to have an irrational dislike of randomness.

I play the game to use the models that I like, in the way that I like - as I said, I don't have a problem playing a game with chance, nor do I have a problem with some randomness. However, I do have a problem with the kind of randomness GW seems to be shoehorning into 6th. Randomness doesn;'t work on a D6 system, or in a game as reasonably simple as 40K. If I triggered a D100 random effect in D&D I'd not really have a problem; there is a scope for that built into the game. If my DP loses/wins combat or something and therefore has to roll on some "the gods do/don't like you any more" table, then I'm not going to be happy at all. I don't see why it is needed and I don't really see how it is fun. In a 6-8 turn game it just doesn't gel.

WoC players seem not to mind

Then again they only need a snake eyes to have any ill effects. Everythign else helps out, or is neutral

Anyone else think its possible that these so called combat obliterators could actually be the new form of Possessed?

Yeah, if they're all beneficial effects, I'd enjoy it. Or even make it non-random so they're like pain tokens.

Personally, I like the random aspect. It lets you get things that would be overpowered if they werent random. Say, roll a d6, and if you roll a 6, your daemon prince gets 10 attacks at initiative 10 ap1 reroll to hit and wound. On a 1-5 you turn into jelly. I'd play that, because it has the chance to be SUPER OP, BUT it's okay and not cheesy because it's not guaranteed. (obv not that exact rule, but it illustrates what I'm going for with a random chance at something really good)

As far as the Dragon goes, I'm super pumped about it. All you fluff literalists... stop hating. If you had it your way where they stuck to the same old fluff forever, there would never be any change in the game, and never any inovation, and nothing ever new. It's good for new things to come, and if they stick to the old fluff then nothing new ever can be introduced.

/

kenshin620 wrote:WoC players seem not to mind

Then again they only need a snake eyes to have any ill effects. Everythign else helps out, or is neutral

I don't play WHFB, so have no idea how the system there works. Nor, frankly, do I really know how the random systems work in 6th (since I have not played a game using 6th yet), or in the upcoming CSM dex (since it is just a substantial twinkle in the internet's eye at the moment). Just commenting on conjecture.