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.

Personally, I would rather buy a new book every 6 months than go back to waiting year and years for updates, new models etc.

If you buy Vigilus 2 only for maybe 5 pages of updated rules you can get through other ways that's your problem, not GWs. Same with the updated Codex. Even GW says you don't have to buy it if you have the old one, so... just don't.

Its not the point that i can buy vigilus for all the new stuff. The point is that CSM is in need of some serious Rules work:

- Updates Legion Traits that work on our Tanks and Flyers
- Updated Rules for Basic CMS/Terminators/Bikers/Heldrakes

According to the flowchart, we wont get anything like that because all the new Stuff is in Vigilus, and in Vigilus its only BL / Renegades Traits and Formations.

THAT is what upsets me, that we get a "CSM Codex 2.0" and awesome new CMS/Terminators/Havoc Kits, but with the old crappy Rules to field them.

stormcraft wrote:
Its not the point that i can buy vigilus for all the new stuff. The point is that CSM is in need of some serious Rules work:

- Updates Legion Traits that work on our Tanks and Flyers
- Updated Rules for Basic CMS/Terminators/Bikers/Heldrakes

According to the flowchart, we wont get anything like that because all the new Stuff is in Vigilus, and in Vigilus its only BL / Renegades Traits and Formations.

THAT is what upsets me, that we get a "CSM Codex 2.0" and awesome new CMS/Terminators/Havoc Kits, but with the old crappy Rules to field them.

We actually don't know what has/hasn't changed yet. There may be more points adjustments, there may be new stratagems, more psychic powers etc.

Unless you've had the 2nd printing or the 2nd Vigilus book on hand, you're calling a product lazy based on your own expectations and nothing else.

Now vigilus being a few bob more than the codex does upset me but that's neither here nor there.

Dudeface wrote:

stormcraft wrote:
Its not the point that i can buy vigilus for all the new stuff. The point is that CSM is in need of some serious Rules work:

- Updates Legion Traits that work on our Tanks and Flyers
- Updated Rules for Basic CMS/Terminators/Bikers/Heldrakes

According to the flowchart, we wont get anything like that because all the new Stuff is in Vigilus, and in Vigilus its only BL / Renegades Traits and Formations.

THAT is what upsets me, that we get a "CSM Codex 2.0" and awesome new CMS/Terminators/Havoc Kits, but with the old crappy Rules to field them.

We actually don't know what has/hasn't changed yet. There may be more points adjustments, there may be new stratagems, more psychic powers etc.

Unless you've had the 2nd printing or the 2nd Vigilus book on hand, you're calling a product lazy based on your own expectations and nothing else.

Now vigilus being a few bob more than the codex does upset me but that's neither here nor there.

...also based a little bit on a long long history of abuse from GW towards chaos.

We Have.
The Flowchart explicitly states that you dont need the new codex if you buy Vigilus.
That means all that has changed is in Vigilus.
And we know what is in Vigilus: Datasheets for the New Stuff, BL /Renegade Stuff.


Sooo, either the flowchart is wrong, and I need indeed need both books for all the new rules or there is simplay nothing changed from the Core Rules (Legions Traits) and Datasheets in this Update.

stormcraft wrote:
We Have.
The Flowchart explicitly states that you dont need the new codex if you buy Vigilus.
That means all that has changed is in Vigilus.
And we know what is in Vigilus: Datasheets for the New Stuff, BL /Renegade Stuff.

Fair point that it specifies the relics & strats are for the forces listed rather than generic, but the specialist detachments might have something in store for all of the stuff people are griping about.

I find it a bit funny that so many people are complaining about the Gretchinization of Cultist and the sad state of Chaos Space Marines when we know that GW is looking at improving CSM (See Better Bolter Beta Rule). It might not be the required solution, but you can see they are aware of the problem.

They may change more about the CSM Core Rules with more Beta rules or Vigilus Special Detachments, thats true.

But these are All bandaids. When they said the early 8th codexes may need a rewrite a the LVO FAQ, I assumed they meant a REAL Codex rewrite, not just the same Book with some new Datasheets and new Formations. :(

Why would the codex need more than that? What is there that can't be done by some FaQ lines or errata? Yes, word Bearers could use some new legion trait and alpha legion could be toned down to +1to cover saves and every unit should be able to get a legion trait like in all (most?) other non-marine codizes. Nothing that can't be solved. Then do something about points costs (like CA did, but not enough for some people and I agree I would've liked 11/12 points for CSM).

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Why would the codex need more than that? What is there that can't be done by some FaQ lines or errata? Yes, word Bearers could use some new legion trait and alpha legion could be toned down to +1to cover saves and every unit should be able to get a legion trait like in all (most?) other non-marine codizes. Nothing that can't be solved. Then do something about points costs (like CA did, but not enough for some people and I agree I would've liked 11/12 points for CSM).

Because, quite simply, they don't do errata often enough to address it, and when they do they have a hard divide between what Errata does and what Chapter Approved does instead of having errata be errata of any kind (whether it's rules or points) and having Chapter Approved just consolidate those together.

That's why. If something needs rules fixes AND point fixes, you are most likely waiting an entire year for it to happen if it even does because the FAQ might change the rule, but you have to wait for Chapter Approved to adjust the points and vice versa. The divide between them is just silly. The FAQ should adjust points if that's what is needed, Chapter Approved should errata units/reprint updated datasheets if that's needed.

New Obliterators and the Venomcrawler are good examples: The points for them are a bit too high (Venomcrawler in particular as all Daemon Engines seem to have gotten a reduction in Chapter Approved 2018), but we are stuck waiting until the end of the year for Chapter Approved to see if they get adjusted, instead of GW being able to address it in any of the Big FAQs. Which even then, twice a year isn't enough. It should be quarterly, with Chapter Approved either taking the place of the final one and/or being a compilation of it (alongside the new missions/open/narrative stuff) so you can buy a book with all of the fixes in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stormcraft wrote:
They may change more about the CSM Core Rules with more Beta rules or Vigilus Special Detachments, thats true.

But these are All bandaids. When they said the early 8th codexes may need a rewrite a the LVO FAQ, I assumed they meant a REAL Codex rewrite, not just the same Book with some new Datasheets and new Formations. :(

Also 100% this. A 2nd printing of the book isn't going to fix anything unless GW's flowchart is incorrect.

Wayniac wrote:
Also 100% this. A 2nd printing of the book isn't going to fix anything unless GW's flowchart is incorrect.

If the preview page is any indicator Legion traits are not changing (at least Black Legion's trait is the same) and will apply to the same units, minus Cultists.

So far it seems like a lot of take and not a lot of give.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Why would the codex need more than that? What is there that can't be done by some FaQ lines or errata? Yes, word Bearers could use some new legion trait and alpha legion could be toned down to +1to cover saves and every unit should be able to get a legion trait like in all (most?) other non-marine codizes. Nothing that can't be solved. Then do something about points costs (like CA did, but not enough for some people and I agree I would've liked 11/12 points for CSM).

Can't fix Daemon engines ws/bs 4+ with a faq or errata. you need a guy like the new HQ, and that requires new datasheets. And just cutting points off stuff won't make them more able to kill Castellans. CSM have a lot of useless codex entries that are just there to fill the pages apparently. Many of them are generic units that are the same as the imperials (predator, rhino, land raider, vindicator, marines (= tacticals), chosen (= veterans), bikers etc). Can't change them at all in a faq unless you change the imperial ones equivalently.

How on earth does a predator cost 90 pts naked when a plagueburst costs 100? under what justification exactly does a vindicator cost 125 points? Why on earth don't daemon engines or other vehicles get legion traits? Why is it that something as big and imposing as a defiler can't move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty? how does a missile launcher cost 20 pts exactly? Why is the black legion trait directly invalidated by the better beta bolters rule? Why are mutilators even a thing? Why are the cult marines so weak and overcosted? Why do Rubric marines fail morale tests and run away? Why are the chaos terminators casually 5 points more expensive than loyalists? Why did they make it almost impossible to get 3++ with Chaos yet loyalists can do it for 2 pts per model? Why did cultists get nerfed but guardsmen stayed at 4 pts? And yeah, why exactly are chaos marines still a 13 ppm unit?

Then vigilus comes, and we know that CSM won't be changing rules or points, that obliterators get a direct nerf, that yet another useless daemon engine is coming, only this time it's also an overcosted one. There are only so many editions where you can have your army sidelined or being the guinea pig for whatever experiment GW wants to land successfully on the more important chapters.



Well this answer did not go the way I wanted it to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also 100% this. A 2nd printing of the book isn't going to fix anything unless GW's flowchart is incorrect.

If the preview page is any indicator Legion traits are not changing (at least Black Legion's trait is the same) and will apply to the same units, minus Cultists.

So far it seems like a lot of take and not a lot of give.

It's funny how the black legion trait (only applies to infantry and bikers of course, as a hellbrute can't get rapid fire weapons) is directly invalidated by the better beta bolters rule they only implemented like a month ago.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Why would the codex need more than that? What is there that can't be done by some FaQ lines or errata? Yes, word Bearers could use some new legion trait and alpha legion could be toned down to +1to cover saves and every unit should be able to get a legion trait like in all (most?) other non-marine codizes. Nothing that can't be solved. Then do something about points costs (like CA did, but not enough for some people and I agree I would've liked 11/12 points for CSM).

Can't fix Daemon engines ws/bs 4+ with a faq or errata. you need a guy like the new HQ, and that requires new datasheets. And just cutting points off stuff won't make them more able to kill Castellans. CSM have a lot of useless codex entries that are just there to fill the pages apparently. Many of them are generic units that are the same as the imperials (predator, rhino, land raider, vindicator, marines (= tacticals), chosen (= veterans), bikers etc). Can't change them at all in a faq unless you change the imperial ones equivalently.

How on earth does a predator cost 90 pts naked when a plagueburst costs 100? under what justification exactly does a vindicator cost 125 points? Why on earth don't daemon engines or other vehicles get legion traits? Why is it that something as big and imposing as a defiler can't move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty? how does a missile launcher cost 20 pts exactly? Why is the black legion trait directly invalidated by the better beta bolters rule? Why are mutilators even a thing? Why are the cult marines so weak and overcosted? Why do Rubric marines fail morale tests and run away? Why are the chaos terminators casually 5 points more expensive than loyalists? Why did they make it almost impossible to get 3++ with Chaos yet loyalists can do it for 2 pts per model? Why did cultists get nerfed but guardsmen stayed at 4 pts? And yeah, why exactly are chaos marines still a 13 ppm unit?

Then vigilus comes, and we know that CSM won't be changing rules or points, that obliterators get a direct nerf, that yet another useless daemon engine is coming, only this time it's also an overcosted one. There are only so many editions where you can have your army sidelined or being the guinea pig for whatever experiment GW wants to land successfully on the more important chapters.

You're still talking about points mostly, which are not more than a single page. We don't need a whole codex rewrite for that. I'm not even opposed to the things you don't like about the Codex, it's just that I don't see how the few points you mention need a whole rewrite of the codex instead of some small adjustments to points (Btw. the Castellan and Imperial Guard seem to be more the problem here than the choices in the CSM codex).
Also, maybe the Vigilus formations are just what you're looking after. Some small boni to units that can need them (like in Vigilus 1), but at the same time nothing game breaking like in 7th edition. I expect something for daemon engines in there, if it focuses on their WS/BS, or their speed or whatever we'll see, but I'd be surprised if there's nothing like a daemon engine hord with Venomcrawler, dinobots, deffy and that new rider, possibly even helbrutes in the mix.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it a bit funny that so many people are complaining about the Gretchinization of Cultist and the sad state of Chaos Space Marines when we know that GW is looking at improving CSM (See Better Bolter Beta Rule). It might not be the required solution, but you can see they are aware of the problem.

If GW wanted to fix csm, then they are just bringing out a new codex csm. Change rules, change stratagams, change the point costs. The bolter rule worked for only one army, DW and it worked, not because of the rule per se, but because it stacks with the really good ammo rule they have.

We are working on it, is something a new company can say, but not a company that has 40 years of expiriance of testing and writing rule sets. At some point one has to expect that people working at something know something about the thing your working on. If someone was a bad engineer after 40 years of work, they wouldn't be hired anymore.

The game is better balanced than it ever was and also sells better than ever. So I'd say they're on a good way. And looking at the years up until 8th edition I have the feeling GW is actrually new at playtesting and constantly balancing an edition...

Karol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it a bit funny that so many people are complaining about the Gretchinization of Cultist and the sad state of Chaos Space Marines when we know that GW is looking at improving CSM (See Better Bolter Beta Rule). It might not be the required solution, but you can see they are aware of the problem.

If GW wanted to fix csm, then they are just bringing out a new codex csm. Change rules, change stratagams, change the point costs. The bolter rule worked for only one army, DW and it worked, not because of the rule per se, but because it stacks with the really good ammo rule they have.

We are working on it, is something a new company can say, but not a company that has 40 years of expiriance of testing and writing rule sets. At some point one has to expect that people working at something know something about the thing your working on. If someone was a bad engineer after 40 years of work, they wouldn't be hired anymore.

Bro I'd like to agree, but GW has been writing garbage rules for as long as they've existed. I don't blame people for being cynical about it.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Karol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it a bit funny that so many people are complaining about the Gretchinization of Cultist and the sad state of Chaos Space Marines when we know that GW is looking at improving CSM (See Better Bolter Beta Rule). It might not be the required solution, but you can see they are aware of the problem.

If GW wanted to fix csm, then they are just bringing out a new codex csm. Change rules, change stratagams, change the point costs. The bolter rule worked for only one army, DW and it worked, not because of the rule per se, but because it stacks with the really good ammo rule they have.

We are working on it, is something a new company can say, but not a company that has 40 years of expiriance of testing and writing rule sets. At some point one has to expect that people working at something know something about the thing your working on. If someone was a bad engineer after 40 years of work, they wouldn't be hired anymore.

Bro I'd like to agree, but GW has been writing garbage rules for as long as they've existed. I don't blame people for being cynical about it.

Yet people continually make excuses for them after all this time and come up with excuses why they can't do it when all of their competitors seem to be able to with much less experience...

To this day I think GW really exploit the player base with rulebooks. Overly expensive, partially obsolete with the first FAQ, more obsolete within the first year despite the hefty cost and in honesty they are pretty much outshone by Battlescribe etc for functional purposes.

Wayniac wrote:

Yet people continually make excuses for them after all this time and come up with excuses why they can't do it when all of their competitors seem to be able to with much less experience...

And yet Privateer Press was all but dead at GAMA, X-Wing 2.0 shot itself in the foot, and GW took top 3 of ICV2.

I guess people just like garbage rules, eh?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Yet people continually make excuses for them after all this time and come up with excuses why they can't do it when all of their competitors seem to be able to with much less experience...

And yet Privateer Press was all but dead at GAMA and X-Wing 2.0 shot itself in the foot.

I guess people just like garbage rules, eh?

Amongst the blind the one-eyed is King.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Yet people continually make excuses for them after all this time and come up with excuses why they can't do it when all of their competitors seem to be able to with much less experience...

And yet Privateer Press was all but dead at GAMA and X-Wing 2.0 shot itself in the foot.

I guess people just like garbage rules, eh?

Amongst the blind the one-eyed is King.

Also:

1. Making a good game is much harder than people realise.

2. A good game is more than good rules.