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.

Cerebrium wrote:Daemons are out, because you're supposed to use allies for them now, which is fair.

What I'm still really curious is whether CSM can take Daemons without having to fulfill the Allies FOC requirements of 1 HQ and 1 Troops Choice, since it doesn't make sense to need to summon a HQ daemon if you want a smaller daemon.

Enigwolf wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Daemons are out, because you're supposed to use allies for them now, which is fair.

What I'm still really curious is whether CSM can take Daemons without having to fulfill the Allies FOC requirements of 1 HQ and 1 Troops Choice, since it doesn't make sense to need to summon a HQ daemon if you want a smaller daemon.

Nah, I reckon it'll still apply as normal, it wouldn't be fair to other armies if it was the case.

At Gamesday Chicago some rumors may be confirmed. I will post many pictures in four days.

Sweet please do, always excited to see pics from gamesday, can't wait to see some awesome game boards.

TBH didnt know one was coming up hehe, do they sometimes show upcoming releases?

I have to agree that what we have so far is underwhelming.

Odd that they said they can't or won't put legion rules in the book, yet we are getting warsmiths, dark apostles, and night lord raptors as units ... It's like they will do everything but give us legion rules.

Demons weapons still sound stupid. Especially if Abbadon still doesn't have mastery over his demon weapon. And both demon weapons and Kharn are AP3? What's with all the terminator lovin?

Speaking of termies, they shouldn't have to pay more for marks considering you have to pay more for the terminator in the first place. This is like when WFB charged certain armies more points for magical weapons because the army had better fighty characters. If I pay the points for a Chaos Lord this is no reason the sword of strength should cost him more points. When is GW going to learn this?

Enigwolf wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Daemons are out, because you're supposed to use allies for them now, which is fair.

What I'm still really curious is whether CSM can take Daemons without having to fulfill the Allies FOC requirements of 1 HQ and 1 Troops Choice, since it doesn't make sense to need to summon a HQ daemon if you want a smaller daemon.

Well Heralds are fairly cheap and satisfy the HQ requirement.

I think were going to see a lot of price increases on termies and all other 2+ armor units. For both gear and the unit itself just because they are so much better now.

baron deathnyx wrote:At Gamesday Chicago some rumors may be confirmed.

GW Gamesdays only grudgingly confirm the releases of the previous months.
Remember the GD in Germany, where the staff was forced to deny all rumours on Space Hulk, when preordering started the very next day (and ended 2 days later when sold out)?

lazarian wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Daemons are out, because you're supposed to use allies for them now, which is fair.

What I'm still really curious is whether CSM can take Daemons without having to fulfill the Allies FOC requirements of 1 HQ and 1 Troops Choice, since it doesn't make sense to need to summon a HQ daemon if you want a smaller daemon.

Well Heralds are fairly cheap and satisfy the HQ requirement.

And you can throw it in the troop choice you took and forget that you even had it!

Noisy_Marine wrote:I have to agree that what we have so far is underwhelming.

Odd that they said they can't or won't put legion rules in the book, yet we are getting warsmiths, dark apostles, and night lord raptors as units ... It's like they will do everything but give us legion rules.

Demons weapons still sound stupid. Especially if Abbadon still doesn't have mastery over his demon weapon. And both demon weapons and Kharn are AP3? What's with all the terminator lovin?

Speaking of termies, they shouldn't have to pay more for marks considering you have to pay more for the terminator in the first place. This is like when WFB charged certain armies more points for magical weapons because the army had better fighty characters. If I pay the points for a Chaos Lord this is no reason the sword of strength should cost him more points. When is GW going to learn this?

True, I mean its not hard to give us legion specific rules...or new independent/special characters we have a grand total of six whereas C:SM has 11....

Really bummed about how poorly the thousand sons have turned out.

Still slow and purposeful apparently but no weapon options to make any use of it? All they gained was soulblaze? Still horrendously over costed? Still useless marks and icons? From what we've seen they have worse spell options?

I mean seriously... they've been complete garbage since third edition. Why is Tzeentch always the least appealing option with GW?

Nvs wrote:Really bummed about how poorly the thousand sons have turned out.

Still slow and purposeful apparently but no weapon options to make any use of it? All they gained was soulblaze? Still horrendously over costed? Still useless marks and icons? From what we've seen they have worse spell options?

I mean seriously... they've been complete garbage since third edition. Why is Tzeentch always the least appealing option with GW?

QFT. I was really hoping for all-plastic Thousand Sons at least. I would also trade a kidney for some Chosen-Sorcerers similar to Eldar Warlocks.

Nvs wrote:Really bummed about how poorly the thousand sons have turned out.

Still slow and purposeful apparently but no weapon options to make any use of it? All they gained was soulblaze? Still horrendously over costed? Still useless marks and icons? From what we've seen they have worse spell options?

I mean seriously... they've been complete garbage since third edition. Why is Tzeentch always the least appealing option with GW?

They are a bit cheaper (20 points cheaper due to the psyker, also getting a free roll on the Lores) , they are better in 6th overall (AP3 now matters, 5+ cover means 4++ is good, they don't have S&P unless the psyker is dead and have relentless while he's alive as well. soulfire means they'll hurt more things now overtime.

They aren't that bad now.

I have a question about cult termies: What do people want from them that a mark can't give?
Other than Thousand Sons and Emperor's Children, I can't see any need to, and to remedy what TS and EC get could be simple as "Mark of Tzeench X points, 1 terminator may be upgraded to Aspiring Sorcerer for X points and my buy 1 psycher power." and, "Mark of Slaneesh X points, + noise weapon upgrades"

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Nvs wrote:Really bummed about how poorly the thousand sons have turned out.

Still slow and purposeful apparently but no weapon options to make any use of it? All they gained was soulblaze? Still horrendously over costed? Still useless marks and icons? From what we've seen they have worse spell options?

I mean seriously... they've been complete garbage since third edition. Why is Tzeentch always the least appealing option with GW?

They are a bit cheaper (20 points cheaper due to the psyker, also getting a free roll on the Lores) , they are better in 6th overall (AP3 now matters, 5+ cover means 4++ is good, they don't have S&P unless the psyker is dead and have relentless while he's alive as well. soulfire means they'll hurt more things now overtime.

They aren't that bad now.

But relentless is the same exact thing except they can overwatch with relentless. Why bother with these rules when they can't use any of the weapons these rules are designed for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kenzosan wrote:I have a question about cult termies: What do people want from them that a mark can't give?
Other than Thousand Sons and Emperor's Children, I can't see any need to, and to remedy what TS and EC get could be simple as "Mark of Tzeench X points, 1 terminator may be upgraded to Aspiring Sorcerer for X points and my buy 1 psycher power." and, "Mark of Slaneesh X points, + noise weapon upgrades"

People want cult terminators because they want to play actual cult legion based armies and not renegade armies. Or at the very least having all cults offer something meaningful. But we're still seeing them all place a distant second, third, and fourth the nurgle. Only difference is now Thousand Sons are clearly last place as opposed to a bitter fight for last place with Slaanesh that we've seen the past 2 editions.

Terminators with a 2+/3++, ap3 combi bolter or a psyker squad ala grey knights could have been a lot of fun.

Noisy_Marine wrote:I have to agree that what we have so far is underwhelming.

Odd that they said they can't or won't put legion rules in the book, yet we are getting warsmiths, dark apostles, and night lord raptors as units ... It's like they will do everything but give us legion rules.

Sounds like you can make just about any legion you want with the small amount of info so far. Is it really any less of a World Eaters army if they have Berserkers, MoK, Rage and FC for terminators, but aren't explicitly called 'World Eaters Terminators.?" I don't need GW holding my hand telling me what units are legion units. If they give me the options to make them how I want, they can leave out the legion names.

Starfarer wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:I have to agree that what we have so far is underwhelming.

Odd that they said they can't or won't put legion rules in the book, yet we are getting warsmiths, dark apostles, and night lord raptors as units ... It's like they will do everything but give us legion rules.

Sounds like you can make just about any legion you want with the small amount of info so far. Is it really any less of a World Eaters army if they have Berserkers, MoK, Rage and FC for terminators, but aren't explicitly called 'World Eaters Terminators.?" I don't need GW holding my hand telling me what units are legion units. If they give me the options to make them how I want, they can leave out the legion names.

But can you make a competetive World Eaters army? Probably with little effort.
How about a competetive Nurgle army? Without a doubt.
Other 2 aren't going to say the same.

Starfarer wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:I have to agree that what we have so far is underwhelming.

Odd that they said they can't or won't put legion rules in the book, yet we are getting warsmiths, dark apostles, and night lord raptors as units ... It's like they will do everything but give us legion rules.

Sounds like you can make just about any legion you want with the small amount of info so far. Is it really any less of a World Eaters army if they have Berserkers, MoK, Rage and FC for terminators, but aren't explicitly called 'World Eaters Terminators.?" I don't need GW holding my hand telling me what units are legion units. If they give me the options to make them how I want, they can leave out the legion names.

Well GW said they wanted to do legion armies. They said they might do legion codices even. Then they decide not to because it's too hard or takes up too much space? All I'm looking for is 1-2 pages per legion detailing special rules, units, etc. They did the legions fairly well in the 3.5 book, it wouldn't be hard for them to repeat that effort. And yes, I am looking for explicit legion rules. It simply wouldn't take much effort for them to do it, but it sounds like we are going to get some half-assed effort yet again on GW's part.

But relentless is the same exact thing except they can overwatch with relentless. Why bother with these rules when they can't use any of the weapons these rules are designed for?

Because they can overwatch, and charge after firing, relentless works for Rapid Fire too.

To those who moan about Tzneech. 1000 sons kick serious butt against grey knights and since grey knights are kind of popular in this meta, it means that 1000 sons do fairly well.

Just saying.

Nvs wrote:

Starfarer wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:I have to agree that what we have so far is underwhelming.

Odd that they said they can't or won't put legion rules in the book, yet we are getting warsmiths, dark apostles, and night lord raptors as units ... It's like they will do everything but give us legion rules.

Sounds like you can make just about any legion you want with the small amount of info so far. Is it really any less of a World Eaters army if they have Berserkers, MoK, Rage and FC for terminators, but aren't explicitly called 'World Eaters Terminators.?" I don't need GW holding my hand telling me what units are legion units. If they give me the options to make them how I want, they can leave out the legion names.

But can you make a competetive World Eaters army? Probably with little effort.
How about a competetive Nurgle army? Without a doubt.
Other 2 aren't going to say the same.

First off, not every theme army out there is competitive. In fact this game is not designed to be competitive, but setting aside that argument, I think you can probably build competitive EC and TS armies. In my opinion, a big part of Legion armies for the Big 4 are about including daemons, and you can do so with the allies system. Tzeentch and Slaanesh probably have the best daemons available in the Daemon codex and including those units dramatically increases there effectiveness, and this is even before considering what any of the EC or TS units can do, other than knowing the general prices for them. TS may have insane psychic powers, and Mark of Slaanesh may be dirt cheap and might have amazing potential when combined with icons. We simply don't know what options will be available for competitive use.

All of that is irrelevant to the fact that you can create a themed army around a single Chaos god with much greater ease than the previous codex, if these rumors are to be believed. So while it appears a fluffy legion army is possible, fluffy and competitive remains to be seen.

Noisy_Marine wrote:
Well GW said they wanted to do legion armies. They said they might do legion codices even. Then they decide not to because it's too hard or takes up too much space? All I'm looking for is 1-2 pages per legion detailing special rules, units, etc. They did the legions fairly well in the 3.5 book, it wouldn't be hard for them to repeat that effort. And yes, I am looking for explicit legion rules. It simply wouldn't take much effort for them to do it, but it sounds like we are going to get some half-assed effort yet again on GW's part.

When was that exactly? When Jervis mentioned in 2009 they'd like to explore Legions, given the time?

Are we sure they decided not to because it couldn't fit in the book? Can we take a quote from a random person in Faeit 212's comment section as a direct quote from GW?

People hold GW to off hand remarks at Games Day as concrete commitment to a release and then wonder why they are so tight lipped with information. You can't hold out one hand and then hit them with the other and expect good results. I'm not happy with the secrecy by the way, but gak like this makes me understand it from a company perspective.

Cerebrium wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Daemons are out, because you're supposed to use allies for them now, which is fair.

What I'm still really curious is whether CSM can take Daemons without having to fulfill the Allies FOC requirements of 1 HQ and 1 Troops Choice, since it doesn't make sense to need to summon a HQ daemon if you want a smaller daemon.

Nah, I reckon it'll still apply as normal, it wouldn't be fair to other armies if it was the case.

I hope We can modify the Allied FOC for more troop slots instead of elites FA and HS slots.

It seems odd that so many of these rumours seem to change release months so rapidly.
The OP says that the 40K box is for September but it could change, as could the CSM codex.

But White Dwarf is finalised 3 months in advance of release, so September's and October's are already finished. There's no way a release month can change this close.

I'm not worried about the big four in the book as I am worried about the 5 unaligned legions. They should get as much love.

Spartan089 wrote:I'm not worried about the big four in the book as I am worried about the 5 unaligned legions. They should get as much love.

Iron Warriors got the biggest bonus here, Melee obliterates, standard obliterates, icons, new daemon machines, all new fancy gears, Warsmiths

Night lords got a new fancy raptor

Alpha Legion got ...Dunno yet

Word bearers can use icons for daemonsummoning, Dark Apostles, vast numbers of cultists.

Black legion..Is still the jack of everything.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Spartan089 wrote:I'm not worried about the big four in the book as I am worried about the 5 unaligned legions. They should get as much love.

Iron Warriors got the biggest bonus here, Melee obliterates, standard obliterates, icons, new daemon machines, all new fancy gears, Warsmiths

Night lords got a new fancy raptor

Alpha Legion got ...Dunno yet

Word bearers can use icons for daemonsummoning, Dark Apostles, vast numbers of cultists.

Black legion..Is still the jack of everything.

I agree with this. As A Word Bearer I'm fairly happy with the rumors, still iffy on a few things, but happy none the less.

Alpha Legion seem to be the Legion that is once again screwed over. Unfortunately they just aren't like the other chaos legions,they would need army wide rules to be truly unique.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Alpha Legion got ...Dunno yet

My guess is they'll have a decent set of rules for cultist... I'd guess some sort leadership bubble to marines.

Nah the Alpha Legion rules will turn them into moustache twirling villains with babies stapled to their foreheads (+1 Toughness).

Starfarer wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:
Well GW said they wanted to do legion armies. They said they might do legion codices even. Then they decide not to because it's too hard or takes up too much space? All I'm looking for is 1-2 pages per legion detailing special rules, units, etc. They did the legions fairly well in the 3.5 book, it wouldn't be hard for them to repeat that effort. And yes, I am looking for explicit legion rules. It simply wouldn't take much effort for them to do it, but it sounds like we are going to get some half-assed effort yet again on GW's part.

When was that exactly? When Jervis mentioned in 2009 they'd like to explore Legions, given the time?

Are we sure they decided not to because it couldn't fit in the book? Can we take a quote from a random person in Faeit 212's comment section as a direct quote from GW?

People hold GW to off hand remarks at Games Day as concrete commitment to a release and then wonder why they are so tight lipped with information. You can't hold out one hand and then hit them with the other and expect good results. I'm not happy with the secrecy by the way, but gak like this makes me understand it from a company perspective.

They wouldn't have to resort to secrecy if they wrote decent rules, released timely FAQ's and erratas with relevant answers, or *gasp* held public playtests before releasing their latest poorly written codex.

Thousand Sons don't look so bad to me. Soul Fire is ... meh. But being able to overwatch with the AS alive is nice. Cultist Spire Guard and Daemon Allies along with the Dragon and led by Ahriman looks pretty fluffy and fun!