Codex: Chaos Space Marines (Preorder: August 5th / Release: August 12th)

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.

**warboss**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.

Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.

**ochobits**

Yup, my bad.

The question is still valid though... does the -1 to hit for AL stack with the -1 to hit from The Changeling?

**CthuluIsSpy**

warboss wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.

Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.

And yet its clearly stated in the rules what it does. It doesn't matter if it seems odd, what matters is that a lot of people are getting what is clearly defined wrong.
It makes a lot more sense if armor is taken before wounding rolls, but no one makes that error.

Also, one can say that cover improving armor does make sense as now the shot has to bypass cover and armor. Kinetic energy is lost from penetrating the cover, thus allowing the armor to shrug off the shot. There, there's your reason.

**Arkaine**

It's good this way. Improving armor on space marines doesn't matter all that much while the other factions benefit greatly unless getting shot by heavy weapons. Whereas a -1 to hit would barely affect space marine shooters and greatly benefit them against factions that have horrible shooting already. Hordes depend on that blob shooting to get a few wounds in and if you're negating half their shots just by standing next to a tree... that's lame.

Armor can POTENTIALLY negate half your shots with the buff going from 3+ to 2+ but this won't always happen nor will it impact heavy weapons as much as the hit modifier would. They already get so few shots that making them fail to hit and deny their super strength a chance to wound is horrible.

It's not the first or last unrealistic or non-common sense thing in this edition. But it works!

**warboss**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
warboss wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.

Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.

And yet its clearly stated in the rules what it does. It doesn't matter if it seems odd, what matters is that a lot of people are getting what is clearly defined wrong.

You complained about others making the mistake and asked why and I answered your question. I'm not arguing that they're getting the rule wrong but rather explaining why they are. No need to get defensive.

**SilverAlien**

Arkaine wrote:
It's good this way. Improving armor on space marines doesn't matter all that much while the other factions benefit greatly!

Out of cover both a 5 man marine squad and a 10 man guard squad would expect it to take 15 wounds before saves to kill them. Inside cover, space marines take 30 while the guard squad takes 20. That's a larger relative benefit to SMs, or any other 3+ army. You are correct that a - hit modifier matters less to SM than other armies though.

**mrhappyface**

ochobits wrote:
Yup, my bad.

The question is still valid though... does the -1 to hit for AL stack with the -1 to hit from The Changeling?

Aye it does, now you only have to work out the problem of the lack of range on Heretic Astartes Daemon units.

Although... Now that posessed have 2W... You could take a 20 man unit of possessed, make them AL for -1 to hit, take the Changeling for -2 to hit, have a Herald for S6, cast Boon of change for S7, T5, A1+d3 and even cast the new Tzeentch power for a 4++. Lot of points but it'd be a tough nut to crack...

**Grot 6**

Voss wrote:
Grot 6 wrote:
buddha wrote:
Any word on if marks do anything other than add keywords?

Honestly it looks like someone overlooked writing about them. right now, all they are is a footnote.

Nope. They control interactions.

I think people misunderstand what keywords are for: they're a reference tag or pointer for other rules.

GW's problem is
a) they didn't bother to explain the design intent behind them (to be honest, I don't think they really understand them, just that they're a recently popular way of handling rules)
a1) this really shines through because they don't have types or subtypes: faction, subfaction, marks, and unit types are all under keywords as if they were the same thing, which lead to having to clarify that stormtroopers and ogryn auxiliary aren't actually regiments, which would have been clear if the keywords had types. [Much like with programming variables, integers and decimals aren't the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangeably). Which was also why the <Stupid Exploit> chapter/regiment/forge world had to be quashed, because they didn't bother to explain or assign types the keywords.

b) there are far too many (and they're left open to be effectively infinite- every planet in the galaxy could have a different guard regiment, for example)

c) simultaneously with the too many keywords, there aren't many rules that interact with them. This isn't necessarily a problem, but the player base is accustomed to Marks being really significant and paint scheme... not so much. That they just seem to be targets for a few spells and stratagems lessens their significance immensely. Hence why GW is recommending silly things like Iron Warrior Tzeentch Terminators and Sorcerers, and Slaaneshi Havocs (to use the double shoot stratagem) to prop up the shoddy Chapter Tactics of the non-god legions. The fluff is out the window in favor of scrounging up the few buffs that even exist.

That is an interesting take on it, and I never really thought of them in that way before.

You think that GW is going to readdress these as they continue on the single chapter books?

**ochobits**

mrhappyface wrote:
Aye it does, now you only have to work out the problem of the lack of range on Heretic Astartes Daemon units.

Although... Now that posessed have 2W... You could take a 20 man unit of possessed, make them AL for -1 to hit, take the Changeling for -2 to hit, have a Herald for S6, cast Boon of change for S7, T5, A1+d3 and even cast the new Tzeentch power for a 4++. Lot of points but it'd be a tough nut to crack...

That was exactly my idea, but with a 10 man unit. The Changelling, a Herald on Disc and the Possesed advancing every turn, maybe with a Sorcerer on Disc casting warptime on them as well. I guess I'd only use the new Tzeentch power depending on the enemy they are charging. The group will be completed with 3 flamers and a Exalted flamer. If I can get them on the other side of the table on Turn 2 I'd be a happy Chaos player.

**Oldmike**

mrhappyface wrote:
ochobits wrote:
Yup, my bad.

The question is still valid though... does the -1 to hit for AL stack with the -1 to hit from The Changeling?

Aye it does, now you only have to work out the problem of the lack of range on Heretic Astartes Daemon units.

Although... Now that posessed have 2W... You could take a 20 man unit of possessed, make them AL for -1 to hit, take the Changeling for -2 to hit, have a Herald for S6, cast Boon of change for S7, T5, A1+d3 and even cast the new Tzeentch power for a 4++. Lot of points but it'd be a tough nut to crack...

I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place

**Arachnofiend**

ochobits wrote:
Aye it does, now you only have to work out the problem of the lack of range on Heretic Astartes Daemon units.

Obliterators! With 12 shots in a unit now they seem to be pretty good, and with Alpha Legion+Changeling they should be very difficult to shift.

**ochobits**

Oldmike wrote:

I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place

Interesting... but in the latest FAQ it was stated that CSM daemons benefit from Heralds' auras, I don't see why it should be different with The Changelling.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Obliterators! With 12 shots in a unit now they seem to be pretty good, and with Alpha Legion+Changeling they should be very difficult to shift.

If only they had cool models! I hav some spares termies, I could throw a ton of Green Stuff on them and try to turn them into Obliterators and see how they go. They could Deep Strike 13" away the enemy when the rest of the group gets there.

**Voss**

Grot 6 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Grot 6 wrote:
buddha wrote:
Any word on if marks do anything other than add keywords?

Honestly it looks like someone overlooked writing about them. right now, all they are is a footnote.

Nope. They control interactions.

I think people misunderstand what keywords are for: they're a reference tag or pointer for other rules.

GW's problem is
a) they didn't bother to explain the design intent behind them (to be honest, I don't think they really understand them, just that they're a recently popular way of handling rules)
a1) this really shines through because they don't have types or subtypes: faction, subfaction, marks, and unit types are all under keywords as if they were the same thing, which lead to having to clarify that stormtroopers and ogryn auxiliary aren't actually regiments, which would have been clear if the keywords had types. [Much like with programming variables, integers and decimals aren't the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangeably). Which was also why the <Stupid Exploit> chapter/regiment/forge world had to be quashed, because they didn't bother to explain or assign types the keywords.

b) there are far too many (and they're left open to be effectively infinite- every planet in the galaxy could have a different guard regiment, for example)

c) simultaneously with the too many keywords, there aren't many rules that interact with them. This isn't necessarily a problem, but the player base is accustomed to Marks being really significant and paint scheme... not so much. That they just seem to be targets for a few spells and stratagems lessens their significance immensely. Hence why GW is recommending silly things like Iron Warrior Tzeentch Terminators and Sorcerers, and Slaaneshi Havocs (to use the double shoot stratagem) to prop up the shoddy Chapter Tactics of the non-god legions. The fluff is out the window in favor of scrounging up the few buffs that even exist.

That is an interesting take on it, and I never really thought of them in that way before.

You think that GW is going to readdress these as they continue on the single chapter books?

Nope. They actually can't. Changing keywords at this stage would be like changing the dice to 4 or 8 sided dice, the system would just explode.
They have to be used consistently throughout the run of this edition, or things won't work, for factions/sub-factions, unit types like infantry or fliers, and even weapons (which are keywords, even though they're formatted and presented in a different fashion, which is why the assault weapon rules are wonky- the rule writer seems to have been under the impression that having an assault weapon gave the 'assault' keyword to the entire unit, when in fact it's model-based. Which is why keyword types are important to define beforehand).

I think the big difference going forward is sub-factions and factions will have less of everything. And much of what we'll see will be rehashes of the same stuff (most factions will have a stealth subfaction that gets -1 to hit at over 12", another that ignores cover saves and so on).

The single chapter books will just straight up have fewer options, and (at least for stratagems, a couple reprints from their parent and then some bonus stratagems just for them. Which in a way will be a win, since they'll get more tailored material than legions/chapters in the main books, but they'll also be arbitrarily be missing access to some of the universal good stuff (in terms or relics/warlord/stratagems).

The interesting thing to see will be how they handle orks and eldar (with established sub-factions where people will have expectations), vs Necron dynasties and AdMech Forge Worlds, which are just going to be pulled out of a convenient nether region right before printing.

**TzeentchNet**

Oldmike wrote:

I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place

This is clearly addressed in the Designer's Commentary.

Designer's Commentary wrote:
Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.

**Oldmike**

TzeentchNet wrote:
Oldmike wrote:

I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place

This is clearly addressed in the Designer's Commentary.

Designer's Commentary wrote:
Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.

Nice I missed this now here's a good question what tactic shoud I use for some Tzeentch warp talons and possessed with a chaos lord (love the models but can't use them in my thousand suns

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I'm not happy that they cut out a lot of the Chapter Warlord Traits and Relics.

The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm not happy that they cut out a lot of the Chapter Warlord Traits and Relics.

The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.

They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.

**Kanluwen**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm not happy that they cut out a lot of the Chapter Warlord Traits and Relics.

The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.

They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.

The campaign books and "Angels of Death" had most if not all of the vanilla Chapters getting the same love as the actual book Chapters like BA/DA, barring characters.

**Egyptian Space Zombie**

I just have to say that the collectors edition for both of these books seems to be an incredibly poor deal. I know that this is usually true for collectors editions, but this one is really bad. You pay 30 dollars for a different cover and a ribbon? Really?

**Eldarain**

That was true of many. The few that came with coins etc were even more insanely priced.

In an edition where buying the dead tree version already feels risky with the volatility of the written words I can't even consider the collector's.

**ochobits**

Oldmike wrote:
Nice I missed this now here's a good question what tactic shoud I use for some Tzeentch warp talons and possessed with a chaos lord (love the models but can't use them in my thousand suns

Since both units have the Daemon keyword you might want to buff them with Heralds and The Changelling. Your Lord could go on a Disc of Tzeentch gaining that +1S from the Herald and the -1 to Hit from the Changelling, same with a CSM Sorcerer if you want to cast Prescience or Warptime on the Possesed. Warptalons could deep strike on the right moment once the group gets close to the enemy. Casting Boon of Change on the Possesed could give you quite a devastating unit if you are lucky with the D3 roll.

Now, I know this can be a pretty expensive combo, and your strategy may vary depending on your opponent - you will need to rush the group to get to other side of the board when facing Tau or Astra Militarum or stay in your deployment zone if you are facing Tyranids, Orks or Berserkers. I still have to playtest a lot but I think it offers quite a lot versatility and I'm having a blast converting the models.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm not happy that they cut out a lot of the Chapter Warlord Traits and Relics.

The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.

They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.

How is it excessive exactly? IIRC, the fething Ultramarines get that many relics and warlord traits in the new Codex. Why not the Raven Guard and White Scars too?

They gave us RG and WS players our own relics and trait lists in 7e. Now they've taken them away. Thats a step backwards no matter how you characterize it.

**Matt.Kingsley**

In the new SM codex Ultramarines get exactly 1 relic and 1 command trait.

And in 7th they had to wait for the 3rd last campaign book of the edition to even get anything unique to them (besides ~1 million characters and tyranic veterans, of course).

**Dudeface**

There's a lot of decrying marine chapters losing variance but they still have more now (1 trait 1 relic) than chaos legions had for long, long time.

The playing field is being levelled and that can only be good I expect to see necrons etc. Get a dozen or so relics and maybe 6 major dynasties, each getting similar treatment.

Probably likely to be the pattern for future books were seeing.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Dudeface wrote:
There's a lot of decrying marine chapters losing variance but they still have more now (1 trait 1 relic) than chaos legions had for long, long time.

The playing field is being levelled and that can only be good I expect to see necrons etc. Get a dozen or so relics and maybe 6 major dynasties, each getting similar treatment.

Probably likely to be the pattern for future books were seeing.

I wouldn't call this "levelling the playing field". More like "pandering to the lowest common denominator".

Taking away options and variety from one faction to lower them to the standard of another faction is not what I want. I want that other faction to be boosted up to be on par with the rest of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
With the Kauyon campaign book, which I only purchased last Summer, I had a wide variety of Raven Guard relics, which let me do the things I want to do with my HQ characters.

I could give the Sniper Boltgun to a Veteran Scout Sgt, so I could approximate my own Raven Guard equivalent to Sgt Telion. Now I can't.

I could give the awesome Raven Guard Lightning claws (got bonus attacks for every wound it caused) and the Jump Pack that lets you use the jump pack to Move AND to Assault to a Captain, to create my own personalized RG captain (I don't want to use Kayvaan Shrike). Now I can't.

I could give the Raven Skull of Korvaad (grants a hatred aura bubble around the spot where the bearer dies), the assault Boltgun (basically a souped up Boltgun) and the Raven Guard artificer armour (grants shrouded) to my Chaplain, for a budget support character. Now I can't.

These are all new features and options that gave extra flavour and variety to my Raven Guard in the previous edition which I loved. I felt like my favourite Chapter was finally getting the love it deserved. Now thats all gone and now we have just a single Relic (the jump pack). I want those relics back, is a Relic and warlord trait list too much to ask for?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm not happy that they cut out a lot of the Chapter Warlord Traits and Relics.

The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.

They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.

How is it excessive exactly? IIRC, the fething Ultramarines get that many relics and warlord traits in the new Codex. Why not the Raven Guard and White Scars too?

They gave us RG and WS players our own relics and trait lists in 7e. Now they've taken them away. Thats a step backwards no matter how you characterize it.

What are you going to do with 6 traits and 6 relics? Are you intending to use all relics in the same army? Must be an important even to have that many relics in such a small force.

**ph34r**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Now thats all gone and now we have just a single Relic (the jump pack). I want those relics back, is a Relic and warlord trait list too much to ask for?

I guess that would be fine, you are ok with a Space Marine codex with 48 relics and 48 warlord traits? Hopefully GW doesn't run out of ideas after the 15th relic, and relic #30-48 aren't just rehashes?

**warboss**

Apparently the 30th anniversary marine (likely $30 usd) will be able to use the power weapon vet sergeant option that doesn't come as a bit in the intercessor kit much to everyone's surprise.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/07/warhammer-40000-turns-30-and-theres-a-new-model-to-celebrate/

**buddha**

Just bumping again for anyone who either has a book or knows if legions like EC and World Eaters can still bring noise Marines and berserkers as troops respectively? Thanks!

**Mr Morden**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm not happy that they cut out a lot of the Chapter Warlord Traits and Relics.

The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.

As Codex Blessed they do now get a relic for free rather than having to spend pts on it.