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.

A big issue and one that's seemingly been an issue for 20 years now is that GW doesn't want to have Chaos just be "marines with spikes" but don't seem to have any idea how to make them feel unique without either making Chaos the "soup" army (which at least makes *some* sense, horrible as it is) or pissing on the idea of playing mono-Legion despite the majority of books about Chaos focusing on what are essentially mono-Legion warbands and not a hodgepodge of various groups. Chaos players, perhaps more than any other except maybe Loyalist Marines, *want* to identify with a specific legion or warband, and not have to mix and match or counts-as for power reasons. A Word Bearers player, for example, wants to play Word Bearers because they like the background/fluff and not want to have to do shenanigans to make them work on the battlefield by using various legion rules or whatever.

They've never been able to think of a good way to do this so we constantly see them drop the ball on Chaos and we get lackluster or phoned-in stuff that quickly becomes overshadowed. There's also the issue that GW no longer seems to have anyone on the design team that's actually passionate about Chaos in the sense that years ago we had guys like Andy Chambers and Pete Haines who played Chaos as a primary army so had a vested interest in them being written well. Most of the team now, while I'm sure they have at least one army for nearly all the factions, all seem like Imperium and Xenos players from the bits that have been shown over the years so probably are not really that interested in Chaos which makes it harder for them to write rules that are interesting.

The best explanation for this is that somebody in the rules design studio hates CSM. I cannot come up with any other reason why GW would kneecap their model sales like this. I wonder how many of the new kits got stuck in the shelf because there is no good rules support for them.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
The best explanation for this is that somebody in the rules design studio hates CSM. I cannot come up with any other reason why GW would kneecap their model sales like this. I wonder how many of the new kits got stuck in the shelf because there is no good rules support for them.

Never attribute to malice what would be equally explainable by incompetence.

Legion traits aren't the be all and end all. There's the units, stratergems, psychic powers, WL traits, relics and weapons to consider. The reason that space marines got such a big boost is because they were only on a 40% winrate at tournaments and that was mainly because of guiliman. CSM have been hovering around the 50% mark forever because they had better stratergems and psychic powers.

Now it's been flipped on it's head so CSM are around 43% and space marines are 55% winrate. Because SM are the perfect counter to csm.

Now that the new rules are coming out from psychic awakening and CA 2019 around the corner they will be back in balance soon. No need to change the legion traits.

 small_gods wrote:
Legion traits aren't the be all and end all. There's the units, stratergems, psychic powers, WL traits, relics and weapons to consider. The reason that space marines got such a big boost is because they were only on a 40% winrate at tournaments and that was mainly because of guiliman. CSM have been hovering around the 50% mark forever because they had better stratergems and psychic powers.

Now it's been flipped on it's head so CSM are around 43% and space marines are 55% winrate. Because SM are the perfect counter to csm.

Now that the new rules are coming out from psychic awakening and CA 2019 around the corner they will be back in balance soon. No need to change the legion traits.

Tournament results Are skewed due to soup though.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Legion traits aren't the be all and end all. There's the units, stratergems, psychic powers, WL traits, relics and weapons to consider. The reason that space marines got such a big boost is because they were only on a 40% winrate at tournaments and that was mainly because of guiliman. CSM have been hovering around the 50% mark forever because they had better stratergems and psychic powers.

Now it's been flipped on it's head so CSM are around 43% and space marines are 55% winrate. Because SM are the perfect counter to csm.

Now that the new rules are coming out from psychic awakening and CA 2019 around the corner they will be back in balance soon. No need to change the legion traits.

Tournament results Are skewed due to soup though.

This is true but up until the SM suppliments they had the most reason and ability to soup. Every SM list had at least one knight, loyal 32, BA smash captains or Custodes Jetbikes.

Hopefully with more options for a single legion, they'll be more incentive not to soup.

Agree, there are little to no occurrences of mono-legion armies getting top placements.

As much as I hate it, I don't care if tournaments dont have mono factions. Mostly because they have their own skew where you ignore 90% of the game anyways to focus on the "best" 10%.

But for everything else, you should be able to not have to soup it up to be any good.

Wayniac wrote:
As much as I hate it, I don't care if tournaments dont have mono factions. Mostly because they have their own skew where you ignore 90% of the game anyways to focus on the "best" 10%.

But for everything else, you should be able to not have to soup it up to be any good.

Exactly. It's not just the fact that sm are so strong that's driving players of other factions crazy. It's also that the new sm rules allow the different chapters to play like they should and still be good.

Faith and fury showed that gw CAN make the legions feel the way they should. As a night lords player I can say they nailed the legion pretty well. They just stopped short of going all the way by fixing the traits.

Why? I'm guessing to sell more rules at a later date. Adding to the already large collection csm players need to play.

 small_gods wrote:
Legion traits aren't the be all and end all. There's the units, stratergems, psychic powers, WL traits, relics and weapons to consider. The reason that space marines got such a big boost is because they were only on a 40% winrate at tournaments and that was mainly because of guiliman. CSM have been hovering around the 50% mark forever because they had better stratergems and psychic powers.

Now it's been flipped on it's head so CSM are around 43% and space marines are 55% winrate. Because SM are the perfect counter to csm.

Now that the new rules are coming out from psychic awakening and CA 2019 around the corner they will be back in balance soon. No need to change the legion traits.

Traits and consequently Doctrines are kinda important unlike how you want to think because GW decided to take the lazy route and make CSM the dark mirror equivalent for another army.

Wayniac wrote:
A big issue and one that's seemingly been an issue for 20 years now is that GW doesn't want to have Chaos just be "marines with spikes" but don't seem to have any idea how to make them feel unique without either making Chaos the "soup" army (which at least makes *some* sense, horrible as it is) or pissing on the idea of playing mono-Legion despite the majority of books about Chaos focusing on what are essentially mono-Legion warbands and not a hodgepodge of various groups. Chaos players, perhaps more than any other except maybe Loyalist Marines, *want* to identify with a specific legion or warband, and not have to mix and match or counts-as for power reasons. A Word Bearers player, for example, wants to play Word Bearers because they like the background/fluff and not want to have to do shenanigans to make them work on the battlefield by using various legion rules or whatever.

They've never been able to think of a good way to do this so we constantly see them drop the ball on Chaos and we get lackluster or phoned-in stuff that quickly becomes overshadowed. There's also the issue that GW no longer seems to have anyone on the design team that's actually passionate about Chaos in the sense that years ago we had guys like Andy Chambers and Pete Haines who played Chaos as a primary army so had a vested interest in them being written well. Most of the team now, while I'm sure they have at least one army for nearly all the factions, all seem like Imperium and Xenos players from the bits that have been shown over the years so probably are not really that interested in Chaos which makes it harder for them to write rules that are interesting.

I endorse this post wholeheartedly.

Where did the creativity of 3.5 CSM go?

As I have mentioned elsewhere, if memory serves me right, GW don't want CSM to be top tier as it would undermine potential Primaris / Loyalist sales.

"Dividends for the Shareholder God"

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
As I have mentioned elsewhere, if memory serves me right, GW don't want CSM to be top tier as it would undermine potential Primaris / Loyalist sales.

How does that fit into Primaris not being very competitive in the past?
What difference does it make for a shareholder wether a Chaos box for 30€ gets sold or a Primaris one for 30€?

Genuine questions

To the OP....where have you been?

As a response, the Iron Warrior trait is nowhere near as bad as people make out. Ignoring cover is a big deal. Granted, IF get that +1, but it's still a decent trait overall (compared to some of the others). Haven't looked at what they got in F+F yet, but I hear positive remarks. Space Marine level, heck no, but hopefully some good synergies.

What I would Do:

Troops choices for CSM

Legion Marines = basically primaris marines.

Renegade Marines = The current Chosen datasheet, chosen rip.

Chaos Cultists = you love to hate them, however a needed role.

+

Designed focused on LEGIONS not warbands (that post 4th did.) CSM should "FEEL" like 30k+powerupspacehellpowers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Legion traits aren't the be all and end all. There's the units, stratergems, psychic powers, WL traits, relics and weapons to consider. The reason that space marines got such a big boost is because they were only on a 40% winrate at tournaments and that was mainly because of guiliman. CSM have been hovering around the 50% mark forever because they had better stratergems and psychic powers.

Now it's been flipped on it's head so CSM are around 43% and space marines are 55% winrate. Because SM are the perfect counter to csm.

Now that the new rules are coming out from psychic awakening and CA 2019 around the corner they will be back in balance soon. No need to change the legion traits.

Traits and consequently Doctrines are kinda important unlike how you want to think because GW decided to take the lazy route and make CSM the dark mirror equivalent for another army.

It feels like you're arguing against yourself here..? CSM don't get doctrines but they should. Also they are too like space marines.

I think they're pretty different from each other. For a start SM don't have anything like daemon engines, bezerkers, oblitorators or cultists. They also don't have the option to take marks (which means they can't double shoot, except thunder fires, and can't double fight, except blood angels).

They currently have better rules but have had worse rules for 3 years so seems like a year or two with the scales tipped isn't out of order.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's not really how that works. Berzerkers are currently 12 to a box. PM were the only unit to get a box tied to its sacred number.

I agree, the numbers don't add up with the Khorne Bezerkers, but then again the box is ancient.

 small_gods wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Legion traits aren't the be all and end all. There's the units, stratergems, psychic powers, WL traits, relics and weapons to consider. The reason that space marines got such a big boost is because they were only on a 40% winrate at tournaments and that was mainly because of guiliman. CSM have been hovering around the 50% mark forever because they had better stratergems and psychic powers.

Now it's been flipped on it's head so CSM are around 43% and space marines are 55% winrate. Because SM are the perfect counter to csm.

Now that the new rules are coming out from psychic awakening and CA 2019 around the corner they will be back in balance soon. No need to change the legion traits.

Tournament results Are skewed due to soup though.

This is true but up until the SM suppliments they had the most reason and ability to soup. Every SM list had at least one knight, loyal 32, BA smash captains or Custodes Jetbikes.

Hopefully with more options for a single legion, they'll be more incentive not to soup.

True however Chaos as a whole did so aswell, and there were only 3 types of csm units that Show up.

 bullyboy wrote:
To the OP....where have you been?

As a response, the Iron Warrior trait is nowhere near as bad as people make out. Ignoring cover is a big deal. Granted, IF get that +1, but it's still a decent trait overall (compared to some of the others). Haven't looked at what they got in F+F yet, but I hear positive remarks. Space Marine level, heck no, but hopefully some good synergies.

Hiding in The Rock...

All kidding aside, as I said before, I don't play CSM and I give much more attention to the core rules and Space Marines and their subsequent foundings. I totally agree with you that Iron Warriors have a decent, if not good trait, just like the Imperial Fists. There are just some things that irk me and make me think "why do X only get this when Y get something better?" when they are supposed to be equivalents.

 small_gods wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Legion traits aren't the be all and end all. There's the units, stratergems, psychic powers, WL traits, relics and weapons to consider. The reason that space marines got such a big boost is because they were only on a 40% winrate at tournaments and that was mainly because of guiliman. CSM have been hovering around the 50% mark forever because they had better stratergems and psychic powers.

Now it's been flipped on it's head so CSM are around 43% and space marines are 55% winrate. Because SM are the perfect counter to csm.

Now that the new rules are coming out from psychic awakening and CA 2019 around the corner they will be back in balance soon. No need to change the legion traits.

Traits and consequently Doctrines are kinda important unlike how you want to think because GW decided to take the lazy route and make CSM the dark mirror equivalent for another army.

It feels like you're arguing against yourself here..? CSM don't get doctrines but they should. Also they are too like space marines.

I think they're pretty different from each other. For a start SM don't have anything like daemon engines, bezerkers, oblitorators or cultists. They also don't have the option to take marks (which means they can't double shoot, except thunder fires, and can't double fight, except blood angels).

They currently have better rules but have had worse rules for 3 years so seems like a year or two with the scales tipped isn't out of order.

No legions shouldn't have doctrines as the legions all behave differently from one another and their rules should reflect that.

They should have multi-rule legion traits that bring them up to parity with the loyalists while reflecting that.

Gw understands how to make rules that reflect the legions individual fighting styles. Faith and fury proved that.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
As I have mentioned elsewhere, if memory serves me right, GW don't want CSM to be top tier as it would undermine potential Primaris / Loyalist sales.

How does that fit into Primaris not being very competitive in the past?
What difference does it make for a shareholder wether a Chaos box for 30€ gets sold or a Primaris one for 30€?

Genuine questions

At the end of the day it boils down to who wants to play the underdog.

Yes, CSM got some new models recently - great stuff - but when GW are sinking far more time and investment into a new product line from the ground up which do you think they want to succeed more?

Investment vs return.

In order to shift the new hotness it is way easier just to give flavour of the day egregiously good rules e.g. Iron Hands. Compare that to what CSM are allegedly getting in PA2 or Eldar in PA1.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
As I have mentioned elsewhere, if memory serves me right, GW don't want CSM to be top tier as it would undermine potential Primaris / Loyalist sales.

How does that fit into Primaris not being very competitive in the past?
What difference does it make for a shareholder wether a Chaos box for 30€ gets sold or a Primaris one for 30€?

Genuine questions

At the end of the day it boils down to who wants to play the underdog.

Yes, CSM got some new models recently - great stuff - but when GW are sinking far more time and investment into a new product line from the ground up which do you think they want to succeed more?

Investment vs return.

In order to shift the new hotness it is way easier just to give flavour of the day egregiously good rules e.g. Iron Hands. Compare that to what CSM are allegedly getting in PA2 or Eldar in PA1.

So, they want to put more into an entirely new line as opposed to something like GSC?

Considering the most popular models are centurions and TFCs do you think GW has been successful in pushing this new line?

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
In order to shift the new hotness it is way easier just to give flavour of the day egregiously good rules e.g. Iron Hands. Compare that to what CSM are allegedly getting in PA2 or Eldar in PA1.

Truth.

Don't ever forget the #1 priority of a corporation, it's to make profit for their shareholders. And players do respond well to flashy new rules, whether they're balanced or not.

I do understand your logic, but I don't feel that GW is following that line of thinking.

None of the recently released Marine kits got super strong rules with exception of Eliminators and that Iron Hands character (which has been regulated shortly after). Personally, I think the Invictor Warsuits are strong as well, but it felt like less of a problem within the community.

The new Eldar kits have new and improved(?) rules, but don't seem to be strong enough for competitive play.

The new sorcerer for CSM is okay as well, I guess. Didn't have the impression of it getting competitive rules, either.

The C:SM book buffed a lot of older kits directly and indirectly.

People saying GW doesn't care for Chaos legions must have missed the last 3 years since Traitor Legions. Up until SM 2.0 CSM were the stronger choice. And up until Vigilus Renegades were an afterthought in 8th Edition - and they still are. Legions are the focus. They also must have missed the update to most Chaos kits and two completely new Legion lines with Thousand Sons and DG.
And the people who want 3.5 back seem to ignore that we have a different Edition today. 3.5 forced every Legion into a monobuild while at the same time having not even half the choices CSM have today. Yes, it was a nice book, it was basically the current SM Codex + all supplements combined in 1 book, however, compared to today the unitchoice was very limited.
GW just needs to update the Legion rules and make them useful for vehicles, too, that is all. Give us a World Eaters and Emperor's children later

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Considering the most popular models are centurions and TFCs do you think GW has been successful in pushing this new line?

You're assuming that the GW rules team are competent and understand how their own game plays.

GW might genuinely be trying to make their new models awesome rules-wise but lack the competency to do so except by luck.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You're assuming that the GW rules team are competent and understand how their own game plays.

I'm sure they do, but they're ultimately not those with final responsibility on what rules get released.

The Wraithknights... well, that was a thing. The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs. So D-weapons, right? Because that's clearly what the weapons are. So we did it, and we tested them loads, and the points values shot up (I think the Wraithknight was about 450?). Then they went to review, and someone in a position of authority (who has since left) said "I love it, but don't increase any points values."
Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

So I said "Ok, so I'll put the rules back to how they were," and was told "no, keep them, just don't change the points values".

Makes me wince, just thinking about it.

Aye, the suits do intervene in order to push sales.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
In order to shift the new hotness it is way easier just to give flavour of the day egregiously good rules e.g. Iron Hands. Compare that to what CSM are allegedly getting in PA2 or Eldar in PA1.

Truth.

Don't ever forget the #1 priority of a corporation, it's to make profit for their shareholders. And players do respond well to flashy new rules, whether they're balanced or not.

Multiple companies have proven that a balanced ruleset is much more likely to generate profits in the long term, while badly balance games tend to frustrate their customers and eventually drive them out.

 Psionara wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Psionara wrote:


I am guessing World Eaters' Khorne Bezerkers will be boxed as 8, as Death Guard's number is 7 and they receive 7 in a box, Thousand Sons' number is 9 and they receive 9 in a box. Safe to assume that Emperor's Children will receive 6 Noise Marines. Price wise, I think we will be looking at $60 USD for each box.

Rubrics are 10 to a box.

My mistake. Tzeentch's number is 9, but since they are Rubric Marines (i.e. no autonomy), they must have an Aspiring Sorcerer to guide them, which would make 10.

I mean, sure, but there are parts in the box to make them all rubric marines. The sorc is optional. It is a 10-man box of rubric marines, no way around it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Considering the most popular models are centurions and TFCs do you think GW has been successful in pushing this new line?

You're assuming that the GW rules team are competent and understand how their own game plays.

GW might genuinely be trying to make their new models awesome rules-wise but lack the competency to do so except by luck.

If GW is not competent are not writing rules, and are also not competent at targeting rules at kits they just recently produced then isn't the more likely scenario just that they were trying to make fun rules and wound up overdoing it rather than making complicated leaps of logic?

Yes, I understand the guy on reddit said they wrote rules to sell models. He also said they were "aiming for exciting" and that "those days are over".

Let's look at 8th. Which mono codexes were as strong as marines are now and absolutely dominated the scene without soup? Not a lot, right? The mono armies early on very quickly took point hits, flyer restrictions, and rule of 3. When we got to soup issues (Ynnari and Castellans) it took longer.

Have the changes GW made been in the right direction? In other words was there a CA or beta rule that made you say "this will break the game"?

Was nerfing the Executioner before the supplements were out (people freaked the eff out on this) or IH with the strongest set of 2 week nerfs yet in the wrong direction?

You'll also notice that the IF 2 week FAQ is quite late like IH was.

Given the weight of the evidence which is more likely? GW was malicious or GW screwed up?

I believe it is in GWs best interest to aim for the best level of attainable balance, because it is good for the game and, ultimately, good for sales.

And if someone's only response to this is "hurry durr white knight" you can move right along.