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.
Think the last few comments really show the problem with Chaos.
Over the years, they’ve been done in different ways. From literal coalitions of piratical warbands in Rogue Trader to “pretty much the Legion as it was”, and everything in between.
This has been exacerbated by GW’s uneven Chaos Codex history. Some, they’re just Spiky Marines. Others (mainly with 2nd Ed) they were different in organisation, but with antiquated weaponry. Others yet have them mental hard.
The trouble of course is that none of these incarnations are exactly wrong. But with it wobbling around over the years, Chaos means different things to different folk.
They just need a Codex to unify those different takes, and just leave it to the player.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Gert wrote: Yeah, the no marks for certain Legions was dumb when we've had specific examples of those Legions using Marks and Marked units. Storm of Iron had a whole Grand Company dedicated to Khorne, the Word Bearers 34th Host had Berzerkers, and I'm fairly certain there were Astartes in the Night Lords trilogy that were either marked or came very close to it.
Yeah, if my Night lords end up not being blessed by Slaanesh for their compulsive "skinning art"-making because GW decided they can't be marked, i'll be pretty sad :(
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Think the last few comments really show the problem with Chaos.
Over the years, they’ve been done in different ways. From literal coalitions of piratical warbands in Rogue Trader to “pretty much the Legion as it was”, and everything in between.
This has been exacerbated by GW’s uneven Chaos Codex history. Some, they’re just Spiky Marines. Others (mainly with 2nd Ed) they were different in organisation, but with antiquated weaponry. Others yet have them mental hard.
The trouble of course is that none of these incarnations are exactly wrong. But with it wobbling around over the years, Chaos means different things to different folk.
They just need a Codex to unify those different takes, and just leave it to the player.
Right, which means maximum customization. The trick is doing that and keeping it balanced. 3.5 was very customizable, but that customization had some balance issues.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
Gert wrote: Yeah, the no marks for certain Legions was dumb when we've had specific examples of those Legions using Marks and Marked units. Storm of Iron had a whole Grand Company dedicated to Khorne, the Word Bearers 34th Host had Berzerkers, and I'm fairly certain there were Astartes in the Night Lords trilogy that were either marked or came very close to it.
Yeah, if my Night lords end up not being blessed by Slaanesh for their compulsive "skinning art"-making because GW decided they can't be marked, i'll be pretty sad :(
Yeah, that should be an option, if you want it. 3.5 handled it pretty well with how it handled Marks and Veteran Abilities (you could have as many Veteran Abilities as you wanted IF you didn't take a Mark. If you took a Mark, you only got 1). They just goofed by saying that Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, and Word Bearers could ONLY take the Mark of Chaos Undivided. That kind of removed the "choice", especially for Night Lords, who generally just gave the Mark of Chaos Undivided a toss for the equally priced "Night Lords only" STEALTH ADEPT Veteran Ability.
On Marks: I think each should give benefits that can help different kinds of units. Basically, they should help the shooty and the stabby. Otherwise, you get what we have now where if it wants to SHOOT, it's Slaanesh, and if it wants to FIGHT, it's Khorne. Something like:
Mark of Khorne: Add +1 attack and +1S, this unit can reroll charges. If this unit makes a shooting attack, it gets +1 to hit if it makes ALL OF ITS ATTACKS against the CLOSEST ENEMY UNIT.
That way, it's useful for both melee units like Warp Talons, and shooty units like Havocs. Do similar rules for the other Marks. Make it a choice, not a no brainer.
Well, I think there does need to be some restraint.
Others have commented that certain Legions don’t have ready access to Marked units. That’s one form of restraint and differentiation.
Unit limitations have been largely done away with in current 40k, but were used in 3.5. However, kind of unevenly.
I’ll use my old Iron Warrior army as an example under that. I could exchange two Fast Attack slots for a fourth Heavy Support slot.
That…should’ve been a tougher decision than it was. See, many Fast Attack choices were Daemons, which I couldn’t take. If hazy memory serves, that left me Raptors, which were really really good at that point, but also natively 0-1. The other option was….erm….Bikers. So the whole sacrifice was a no-brainer. There was only one decent FA option, and I could only take it once anyways.
I think with some shaping up and toning down a return to 3.5 might be exactly what Chaos needs, in terms of reflecting the anarchic variety in Chaos forces.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
On Marks: I think each should give benefits that can help different kinds of units. Basically, they should help the shooty and the stabby. Otherwise, you get what we have now where if it wants to SHOOT, it's Slaanesh, and if it wants to FIGHT, it's Khorne. Something like:
Mark of Khorne: Add +1 attack and +1S, this unit can reroll charges. If this unit makes a shooting attack, it gets +1 to hit if it makes ALL OF ITS ATTACKS against the CLOSEST ENEMY UNIT.
That way, it's useful for both melee units like Warp Talons, and shooty units like Havocs. Do similar rules for the other Marks. Make it a choice, not a no brainer.
I had a few ideas for that. They aren’t quite all encompassing but my design philosophy was to try to keep the bonuses simple and from being game breaking.
Spoiler:
Khorne needs to reflect martial proficiency in all forms of warfare, so possibly an extra attack and that crappy black legion trait that allows firing rapid fire weapons as though they were assault (to represent a hard and aggressive combat style that does something for both range and combat that is far from game breaking).
Slaanesh is tricky, but perhaps an ability that neuters always strikes first combat abilities to reflect perfection, and to reward better maneuvering of your army. Maybe an extra inch to charge and run moves as well... someone else has to have a better idea for slaanesh.
Mark of Tzeentch could award a free re-roll once per game to represent mastering fate. Or once per turn... maybe to represent the fickleness of the changer of ways, rolls of 1 from the re roll could trigger a mortal wound or leadership test or something.
Mark of Nurgle could grant a 5++ feel no pain to represent the resilience of the army, and the ability to fire bolters and combibolters as though they didn’t move (so generally always having rapid fire range at 24 inches). That way you can have an army constantly creeping forward.
Undivided could grant a selection of several special rules decided at list building, from scout redeployment to benefiting from friendly auras an extra one or two inches away to demonstrate being a particularly disciplined unit, for example.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Abaddon303 wrote:Definitely agree with statline enhancements for marks, they should have a decent cost and provide a decent modification to the unit in order to let you really diversify the basic CSM unit.
If you look at loyalists they have 6 different marine troop options ranging from 18 to 28pts per model intended to fill a reasonable variety of different roles.
Assault intercessors are a good example of why low cost, minor changes to the stats for the unit aren't really enough to make them interesting.
It would be nice to have khorne marked csm be genuinely scary on the charge so i'd be tempted to suggest strength, attacks and ap boosts, obviously for the right price per model.
Would say a 3ppm (21pts) upgrade to give chainsword CSM 4 attacks at S5 -2ap be reasonable? It would basically make them no more powerful than blood angels assault intercessors in assault doctrine but you're paying a couple of points extra per model for the greater variety of options...
The thing about Chaos Marks: they used to be squad based, not model based. So it cost the same to give a mark to a 5-man CSM squad as a 20-man CSM squad.
I don't know if this is the right approach for 9th, but I'd welcome it as a means of doing what you're suggesting: bringing CSM inline (power-wise) with Primaris variants.
I don't need a 5-man squad of Khorne CSM to be the exact equivalent of Assault Intercessors, just close to it. But when you scale to 10 men on the CSM side, the imbalance should favor CSM. Currently it does not. Marks could be a good solution for this.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Think the last few comments really show the problem with Chaos.
...
The trouble of course is that none of these incarnations are exactly wrong. But with it wobbling around over the years, Chaos means different things to different folk.
There's no 'right' way to do Chaos, they change with each edition along with every other faction in the game.
But I don't think it's a matter of different strokes for different folks. GW seems challenged to properly support the variety of factions that currently exist, and I don't think that's going to get any better.
It's a managing-the-ruleset problem. If you think about the various incarnations of Chaos, we've gone from infinite customizability in 3.5, to standardized Legion rules in 5th, to Legion-traits and bespoke rulesets for Legions in 8th.
9th ed CSM will resemble the other Codexes that currently exist in terms of structure, for good or for ill. I just hope we see some unique mechanics that introduce some variety in lists. Right now, I'm playing a Deathwatch army and keep thinking "CSM should have this level of customizability by default."
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, so far the 9th Ed Codexes, to the best of knowledge, are all relatively well balanced against each other, and none have absolute stinker units.
Others have commented that certain Legions don’t have ready access to Marked units. That’s one form of restraint and differentiation.
Unit limitations have been largely done away with in current 40k, but were used in 3.5. However, kind of unevenly.
I’ll use my old Iron Warrior army as an example under that. I could exchange two Fast Attack slots for a fourth Heavy Support slot.
That…should’ve been a tougher decision than it was. See, many Fast Attack choices were Daemons, which I couldn’t take. If hazy memory serves, that left me Raptors, which were really really good at that point, but also natively 0-1. The other option was….erm….Bikers. So the whole sacrifice was a no-brainer. There was only one decent FA option, and I could only take it once anyways.
I think with some shaping up and toning down a return to 3.5 might be exactly what Chaos needs, in terms of reflecting the anarchic variety in Chaos forces.
The problem is the restraints are always on every Legion except Black Legion. 3.5 made up for that by giving the other Legions their own things that only they got, Traitor Legions not so much. Right now, I'd say CSM are already under undue restraint for some of our units. Forcing the veterans of the Horus Heresy to pay CP for Horus Heresy era units is just backwards.
I think that people looking back on Traitor's Hate and Traitor Legions in such a positive light are doing so through rose-tinted goggles. There's nothing really that TL does that Faith & Fury doesn't do just as well, and the internal balance of the legion relics/stratagems/traits is far better and far more impactful than what we had access to in 7th. Don't get me wrong, TL was great, but I think that what we received in F&F is sufficient for our needs if superimposed over a good codex.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Forcing the veterans of the Horus Heresy to pay CP for Horus Heresy era units is just backwards.
That may no longer be an issue once the leaked 30k stuff is released and we have e.g. plastic Spartans & full Contemptor Dreadnought kits being actively sold in GW stores - it's not inconceivable that the rules team may more actively incorporate them into the game.
Marshal Loss wrote: I think that people looking back on Traitor's Hate and Traitor Legions in such a positive light are doing so through rose-tinted goggles. There's nothing really that TL does that Faith & Fury doesn't do just as well, and the internal balance of the legion relics/stratagems/traits is far better and far more impactful than what we had access to in 7th. Don't get me wrong, TL was great, but I think that what we received in F&F is sufficient for our needs if superimposed over a good codex.
I'd agree with that. For one thing, a LOT of the stuff in F&F came straight from Traitor Legions. For another, the 8th Legion made out like absolute bandits in it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Forcing the veterans of the Horus Heresy to pay CP for Horus Heresy era units is just backwards.
That may no longer be an issue once the leaked 30k stuff is released and we have e.g. plastic Spartans & full Contemptor Dreadnought kits being actively sold in GW stores - it's not inconceivable that the rules team may more actively incorporate them into the game.
I'm sure they will, just like they did with the first plastic Contemptor and Cataphractii and Tartaros terminators: by giving them to loyalists and not us.
In all seriousness, I don't think the units being from fw has anything to do with Martial Legacy. No other factions have a similar rule applied to their fw units, just marines. They were just trying to replicate the Relic rule from the 8th edition loyalist fw Index, and they just copy pasted it onto the CSM units without looking at the CSMfw Index or the 6th/7th edition Imperial Armour books. It explains why CSM received the CP tax despite having free access to the Hellforged units in 8th, the loss of ALL of their Chaos rules and equipment, and why the Chaos Land Raider Achilles was one of the few units that didn't get the Martial Legacy rule (it didn't have the Relic rule in the 8th edition loyalist fw Index, and the Compendium rules writers never bothered to look at its entry in IA13, where they would have seen that it was something that the Dark Mechanicus CAN'T build themselves. Which is why it was an Infernal Relic for CSM, but not a Relic for loyalists.). CSM pay CP for our Horus Heresy units simply because it was easier to copy paste their rules from the loyalist rules then look at the actual CSM rules for them in previous editions.
They DID go to the trouble to remove the MACHINE SPIRIT keyword from all of the relevant units though.
I think the incorporation of e.g. a Spartan, which can be tweaked easily with the same vehicle upgrade sprue used to turn Rhinos/Predators/Land Raiders into their Chaos equivalents, is far more likely than a monopose Contemptor which was never intended to be a core part of any range and Cataphractii/Tartaros which don't match CSM's 40k aesthetic.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No other factions have a similar rule applied to their fw units, just marines.
Because no other faction has quite the same relationship with millennia-old wargear as marines do (let alone the vast range of potential units). The designers spoke about this on stream last year.
Gadzilla666 wrote: CSM pay CP for our Horus Heresy units simply because it was easier to copy paste their rules from the loyalist rules then look at the actual CSM rules for them in previous editions.
CSM pay CP for it because, as with loyalists, these units are no longer widely available/easily maintained.
I'm sure there are real world reasons for them doing what they did - perhaps balance, perhaps laziness (the latter is certainly on display in some areas) - but the justification for the system being the way it is doesn't bother me in the slightest. I know that's probably not a popular view, but it makes thematic sense. Legions are no longer the forces they once were.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 22:30:53
Do you remember what stream they discussed that in? I'd like to see it. Did they specifically say ALL marines?
And no, it doesn't make thematic sense. Unless they're retconning what Forge World wrote in Imperial Armour 13. The Dark Mechanicus can still build and maintain many of the Horus Heresy era units, according to it. They doubled down on that in the 8th edition CSMfw Index by removing all limitations on them, and even created a Dark Mechanicus character that specifically buffed them.
And if it's because of the antiquity of the units, why doesn't it apply to Dreadclaws and the Karybdis? Those are both Heresy era units. They didn't get it because they aren't available to loyalists, so couldn't be copy pasted.
No, I don't have the link saved, although I took notes (habit from grad school). They were talking about all marines. I'd have a dig but pretty sure I can't view old VODs without a Twitch subscription? Will check.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And no, it doesn't make thematic sense. Unless they're retconning what Forge World wrote in Imperial Armour 13. The Dark Mechanicus can still build and maintain many of the Horus Heresy era units, according to it.
You mean the same book that repeatedly talks about the steep cost of obtaining these units from the Dark Mechanicum and which gave most of these units the "Infernal Relic" rule, which limited the number you were able to take without including a character who justified the inclusion/maintenance of such units? Restrictions already existed, they were just different. The 8th ed index was the exception rather than the rule. So sorry, you're wrong, because this is easily thematically justifiable. I mean, the lore stresses this fact again and again and again:
Spoiler:
...jealously guarded by those champions of the Ruinous Powers fortunate enough to count one amongst their forces. They are coveted by rival warlords and are often the target of inter-warband raids, and word of an unclaimed Relic Predator being located or dug up on some ancient battlefield is sufficient to draw numerous would-be claimants, and it is not uncommon for large battles to be fought over their possession.
The Sicaran Battle Tank is one of the rarest of sights on the blood-soaked grounds of the 41st Millennium
With very few execptions, the Land Raider remains the most technologically advanced battle tank to be found serving the followers of Chaos
The Chaos Space Marines' super-heavy tanks saw ever less frequent use, for battle damage was often beyond their ability to repair and the construction of new examples all but impossible.
...those few which the Dark Magi have been able to construct since, invariably from the salvaged remains of many destroyed machines.
I could keep mining quotes, but you get the idea. These units are very rare. Yes, the Dark Mechanicum can produce select numbers of some units, but in limited quantities, and the costs involved are always steep. Many new examples can only be constructed from old wrecks. It's going to be a very rare warband indeed that rocks up with a fleet of infernal relics, which the current CP tax fairly represents.
To be clear, I'm not saying that I think CSM in their current state necessarily have sufficient access to corrupted or original heresy-era technology, just that I think that a tax on relic vehicles is perfectly fair and thematic because e.g. an Infernal Sicaran is harder to justify the inclusion of in a random warband than Bob the Night Lord having kept his volkite pistol handy.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And if it's because of the antiquity of the units, why doesn't it apply to Dreadclaws and the Karybdis? Those are both Heresy era units. They didn't get it because they aren't available to loyalists, so couldn't be copy pasted.
GW's inconsistency and lack of proof-reading speaks for itself. Mind you, Dreadclaws for example didn't have Infernal Relic in IA13, while the Kharybdis did.
Yes, many of them were Infernal Relics, but not all of them. Contemptors and none of the LOWs were. And they can still build some of them, just in limited quantities, but still more than the Imperial Admech. It's also important to note that CSM actually use theirs, instead of locking them into a vault for 10,000 years like loyalists. Even the little lore snippets in the 9th edition Compendium show that.
I would like to see that stream though. I'll try finding it.
There's nothing to suggest that the Dark Mechanicum can produce more antique wargear than the Adeptus Mechanicus. If that were the case then newer Chapters like the Minotaurs would not be able to field them in the numbers that they do.
As for Chapters keeping their relic vehicles in stasis, yes, they do this so said relics don't just rust away. The biggest problem with the FW Indexes was that they added far too many Heresy era units to both SM and CSM. There shouldn't need to be restrictions on how many Leviathans or Sicarans you can take because they should never have been added in the first place. Only units that were part of the FW range prior to the Heresy series should be in 40kIMO. Contemptors, Spartans, the specialist Land Raider variants, and Dreadclaws (for CSM only) for sure but things like the Leviathan, Sicaran's, or Fellblade variants, no. But of course, you've got to sell to the 40k crowd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/07 00:05:14
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yes, many of them were Infernal Relics, but not all of them.
I said most, not all. Lords of War were already restricted by the nature of their detachment.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And they can still build some of them, just in limited quantities, but still more than the Imperial Admech.
That's supposition, not fact. There are no sources that I am aware of saying that the Dark Mechanicum can produce more relic wargear than the Adeptus Mechanicus. Besides, even if that were true, loyalists are obviously able to take better care of their remaining relics. CSM getting access to an extremely limited supply (that only the most powerful warbands are going to be able to afford; this is not the norm) probably averages out with the loyalist tendency to revere and maintain their relics while not living in a literal hellscape. Both sides should have limited access to relic vehicles.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's also important to note that CSM actually use theirs, instead of locking them into a vault for 10,000 years like loyalists.
That's more than a little hyperbolic.
It's also worth noting that you're not really taking into consideration how rare many of these vehicles were even at the time they were made. See e.g. the Sicaran, which was only just entering service at the time of the Horus Heresy.
At the end of the day, whether or not restrictions are a good thing is just a matter of opinion, but stating that there's no thematic reason for the restrictions is objectively wrong. If there's a thematic problem it is about the consistency and spread with which these restrictions are applied, or their severity, not whether or not they should exist.
edit: fixed a multitude of shameful grammatical errors
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/10/07 00:15:07
Ok, we're not going to agree on this, but if you think it makes sense thematically to limit CSM access to Hersey era units, why would having some of the kits available in plastic change that?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok, we're not going to agree on this, but if you think it makes sense thematically to limit CSM access to Hersey era units, why would having some of the kits available in plastic change that?
You'll have major plastic kits that required significant investment to produce taking up shelf space in GW stores, and I don't think it's inconceivable that GW might decide to put some of those kits in Space Marine or Chaos Marine books to boost their sales. The Imperial Armour Compendium isn't even sold on the Games Workshop website, let alone on the shelves of GW stores, it's a Forge World product. If something like a Spartan or a Sicaran ceases being a Forge World product then it would make sense for its 40k rules to be moved from one umbrella to another. I wouldn't expect GW products to be subject to the same kind of restrictions as FW products, see e.g. the difference in how Contemptor Dreadnoughts and Relic Contemptor Dreadnoughts are treated.
Some kits, e.g. the Spartan as I said in an above post, can be packaged up as a Chaos vehicle in the same way existing plastic vehicles are today, which is something you can't do with the existing BAC/BOP kits. This also has the bonus effect of selling "new" plastic firstborn kits to marine players who already own dreadnoughts/helbrutes and land raiders, etc.
But they're not Chaos units, they're Space Marine units. There would have to be some Chaos parts they could attach before they'd let them be in a different Codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But they're not Chaos units, they're Space Marine units. There would have to be some Chaos parts they could attach before they'd let them be in a different Codex.
Yeah, like the chaos vehicle upgrade sprue, thus this comment:
Some kits, e.g. the Spartan as I said in an above post, can be packaged up as a Chaos vehicle in the same way existing plastic vehicles are today, which is something you can't do with the existing BAC/BOP kits
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/07 02:00:09
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ok, we're not going to agree on this, but if you think it makes sense thematically to limit CSM access to Hersey era units, why would having some of the kits available in plastic change that?
You'll have major plastic kits that required significant investment to produce taking up shelf space in GW stores, and I don't think it's inconceivable that GW might decide to put some of those kits in Space Marine or Chaos Marine books to boost their sales. The Imperial Armour Compendium isn't even sold on the Games Workshop website, let alone on the shelves of GW stores, it's a Forge World product. If something like a Spartan or a Sicaran ceases being a Forge World product then it would make sense for its 40k rules to be moved from one umbrella to another. I wouldn't expect GW products to be subject to the same kind of restrictions as FW products, see e.g. the difference in how Contemptor Dreadnoughts and Relic Contemptor Dreadnoughts are treated.
Some kits, e.g. the Spartan as I said in an above post, can be packaged up as a Chaos vehicle in the same way existing plastic vehicles are today, which is something you can't do with the existing BAC/BOP kits. This also has the bonus effect of selling "new" plastic firstborn kits to marine players who already own dreadnoughts/helbrutes and land raiders, etc.
That doesn't change anything thematically. If you think it makes sense for resin models then it makes sense for plastic models. Just because there's more on store shelves doesn't mean there's more in the 40k setting. I know that would be gw's reasoning, I was wondering why it would change your reasoning.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That doesn't change anything thematically. If you think it makes sense for resin models then it makes sense for plastic models. Just because there's more on store shelves doesn't mean there's more in the 40k setting. I know that would be gw's reasoning, I was wondering why it would change your reasoning.
It didn't change my reasoning, you're just conflating two different points. I never said it changed anything thematically, nor did I say it made thematic sense for resin models and not for plastic. That post is incredibly explicit in highlighting real-world reasons, not thematic ones, and I've mentioned GW's inconsistency in three of my above posts. I'm not sure how I can make this any more simple: regardless of why GW did what they did, there is thematic justification for CSM to have restricted access to relic vehicles, but I can see GW increasing access to some of these vehicles due to the incoming plastic release. I did not say once that increased access would be for thematic reasons, nor did I ever say that I thought such a change was required. These are two separate issues - I've been nothing but consistent.
I've edited this post to be as clear as possible, because we're just going in circles here.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/10/07 02:32:53
Gadzilla666 wrote: That doesn't change anything thematically. If you think it makes sense for resin models then it makes sense for plastic models. Just because there's more on store shelves doesn't mean there's more in the 40k setting. I know that would be gw's reasoning, I was wondering why it would change your reasoning.
It didn't change my reasoning, you're just conflating two different points. I never said it changed anything thematically, nor did I say it made thematic sense for resin models and not for plastic. That post is incredibly explicit in highlighting real-world reasons, not thematic ones, and I've mentioned GW's inconsistency in three of my above posts. I'm not sure how I can make this any more simple: regardless of why GW did what they did, there is thematic justification for CSM to have restricted access to relic vehicles, but I can see GW increasing access to some of these vehicles due to the incoming plastic release. I did not say once that increased access would be for thematic reasons, nor did I ever say that I thought such a change was required. These are two separate issues - I've been nothing but consistent.
I've edited this post to be as clear as possible, because we're just going in circles here.
Ok, cool, got it. Agree to disagree on the thematic point. Hope you're right on the second point. No point arguing any more on either.
Yeah... I dunno if GW would take a brand new vehicle kit, throw this and this into it, and call it a day. I think thatGW is long gone.
They could always make a new accessory sprue I suppose, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing they'd do for Chaos. The last time they did an update for an existing kit, the price went up by 78%, despite having fewer sprues in the box. I dunno if we want that.
You're probably right on both counts. Still, we'll see - it's not even clear at this stage how far down the rabbit hole this 30k release will take us. Stranger things have happened.
To be honest I'd jump at a new upgrade sprue, prices be damned - I've already got enough of the existing ones for one lifetime. Not expecting that though. Hopefully they do a new one along with a redone Defiler at some point in the future.
