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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Being Marked doesn’t make you a Cult Troop. So what should a Marked, non-Cult unit of a given God look like rules wise? What benefits should that Mark confer?

Exactly!

Khorne +1 Strength
Slaneesh +1 Attack
Nurgle +1 Toughness
Tzeentch 5++ ?

Cult status should give Fearless, for starters. Plus other goodies depending on alignment.

I think Not Online is on the right track:

Not Online!!! wrote:A Mark should be, if it is an upgrade, able to Turn a csm into a "half culti", so to speak.

They should be similar to what the Cult Marines of that particular God are, but not as powerful. A Nurgle Marked CSM, for example, would be tougher than a normal CSM, but not as tough as an actual Plague Marine. So maybe +1T, but no Disgustingly Resilient? Or maybe the other way around? Just spitballing.

I think from a game design perspective, they tried to do that with Marks originally. Remember when Mark of Nurgle added +1 to touhgness. But that was so OP that most people just used Mark of nurgle because in most cases, +1 toughness is far more powerful than any other Mark. And if they made the other marks as powerful as Mark of Nurgle, and the marks were free, that in itself would create a problem because the models then run a risk of being undercosted in points.

Also it created some design issues too. You suddenly had T6 nurgle bikes running around. You could design a list spamming Nurgle T6 bikes. Like Nurgle wasn't intended to be fast and mobile, but slapping a mark of nurgle on a unit of CSM bikes made a super durable unit that was fast and shooty too.

So, there were several issues with this, which was maybe why they ended making marks just do very little except add flavour and enable different icons. Not saying that was the best solution. But its not easy to balance.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Agnostic? Flexible in mindset, flexible in equipment.

I think having "Agnostic" be more flexible was what they were going for in 3.5 with how Marks and Veteran Skills were handled, only it was "tactically" flexible instead of being flexible in equipment. Basically: if a unit had a Mark, it could have one Veteran Skill, but if it was unmarked, it could have as many as you were willing to pay for. And besides Tank Hunters and Furious Charge, which were just straight power buffs, most Veteran Skills were the more "tactical" stuff, like Move Through Cover, Skilled Riders, and Infiltrate. So an unmarked unit typically lacked the sheer power of a Marked unit, but could pull off more tactical tricks. As someone who played (and still plays) what could be argued as the most "Agnostic " Legion, I always loved that difference. An unmarked Night Lords army got by on their skills as veterans instead of relying on the favor of some God or warp shenanigans.

Of course it didn't hurt that we got access to a Veteran Skill that no one else did: Stealth Adept (+1 to cover saves), and it was the same price as the Mark of Chaos Undivided that you were giving a toss to in order to lean hard into the Veteran angle. I always considered that as a "soft push" from the rules writers to get Night Lords players to go unmarked.

Holy double triple posting Batman. What's going on in this thread?

"Technical difficulties".

Fixed mine.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
"Technical difficulties".

Fixed mine.

Yeah that was nuts! I thought there was a way to delete posts, can't figure it out atm.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
"Technical difficulties".

Fixed mine.

Yeah that was nuts! I thought there was a way to delete posts, can't figure it out atm.

Dakka's system usually handles it. True "double posts" are exceedingly rare.

What usually happens is magically tricking Dakka into thinking the post is there twice but it really isn't, so don't ever edit them. If it's still up after 10 minutes it's a legit double post and probably had to do with a connection hiccup. When that happens? Yellow triangle that sucker and tag it as a "double post" for the moderators/Lego to handle.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
"Technical difficulties".

Fixed mine.

Yeah that was nuts! I thought there was a way to delete posts, can't figure it out atm.

Dakka's system usually handles it. True "double posts" are exceedingly rare.

What usually happens is magically tricking Dakka into thinking the post is there twice but it really isn't, so don't ever edit them. If it's still up after 10 minutes it's a legit double post and probably had to do with a connection hiccup. When that happens? Yellow triangle that sucker and tag it as a "double post" for the moderators/Lego to handle.

Interesting, thanks. I'll flag them then I s'pose.

I’m getting a strong vibe for vet skills being a chaos undivided mark of chaos thing... I really think marks of chaos and for chaos undivided, veteran skills being free buffs would make for a wonderful compromise to legion and war and traits being half a-I mean half a chapter trait. Under the best of circumstances I mean...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’m getting a strong vibe for vet skills being a chaos undivided mark of chaos thing... I really think marks of chaos and for chaos undivided, veteran skills being free buffs would make for a wonderful compromise to legion and war and traits being half a-I mean half a chapter trait. Under the best of circumstances I mean...

Cleaned it out best I could. This is not the first time I have seen this hiccup of late.

macluvin wrote:
I’m getting a strong vibe for vet skills being a chaos undivided mark of chaos thing... I really think marks of chaos and for chaos undivided, veteran skills being free buffs would make for a wonderful compromise to legion and war and traits being half a-I mean half a chapter trait. Under the best of circumstances I mean...

Sounds ok, but I'm not sure about them being "free". I expect Veteran Skills will be handled like Deadly Pathogens and Legion Command for Death Guard and Thousand Sons are: With a points cost and on a unit by unit basis, and probably tied to squad Champions.

As far as what Mark of Undivided should do, it should give like a tiny bonus, but x4, whilst the Big 4 give a big bonus in their own way. FOR EXAMPLE:

Mark of Chaos Undivided gives: 6+ invuln save, +1 attack, +1 to charge rolls, and a 6+ "feel no pain" against 1 damage weapons.

Mark of Khorne gives fight twice.
Mark of Slaanesh gives Advance and Charge and +1 to both.
Mark of Tzeench gives a 5+ invuln
Mark of Nurgle gives a 5+ Feel No Pain against everything.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As far as what Mark of Undivided should do, it should give like a tiny bonus, but x4, whilst the Big 4 give a big bonus in their own way. FOR EXAMPLE:

Mark of Chaos Undivided gives: 6+ invuln save, +1 attack, +1 to charge rolls, and a 6+ "feel no pain" against 1 damage weapons.

Mark of Khorne gives fight twice.
Mark of Slaanesh gives Advance and Charge and +1 to both.
Mark of Tzeench gives a 5+ invuln
Mark of Nurgle gives a 5+ Feel No Pain against everything.

Nice concept but it's hard for undivided not to be an auto-take if that's the case unless you're pushing a fluff/list design skew.

I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.

What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?

Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?

Yeah, that Undivided is....wow.

It would be entirely appropriate if each turn you had to do something to trigger that specific caveat or if it were once per game or you had to choose to activate them or something.

 Las wrote:
I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.

What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?

Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?

I’ve said it before; I think they should be a free bonus to apply to units in the army. It would balance out the fact that no matter what, legion and warband traits are always at best going to be a mediocre half of a space marine chapter tactic and at worst so useless they may as well not exist. It annoys me to no end that a chaos space marine squad has always been a loyalist tac squad with no flavor and being even more fragile than their power armor because of the lacking of and they shall know no fear and without the extra punch of combat doctrines and useful chapter traits

 Las wrote:
I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.

What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?

Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?

The "why?" is:

CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.

On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.


Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit

Is the Mark Undivided I've proposed really that good?

The 6+ invuln is almost useless in power armor (only works against -4 or better AP)

The +1 attack is probably the best, but isn't nearly as good as "double your attacks, also pile in, also consolidate again" that Khorne gets for not undivided.

The +1 to charge distances is basically irrelevant (slight change to probabilities but this is hardly noticeable over the course of a whole game)

And the 6+ FNP against 1 Damage weapons is super niche, especially on 2 wound models (where the FNP doesn't even work against most of the efficient weapons that will target them).

Unit Options. A suggestion by Mad Doc Grotsnik, aged 41 1/2, IQ -47.

Variety of unit leaders (Champion, Junior Warpsmith, Junior Dark Apostle, Junior Sorceror).

Chaos Mark

Icon of God - perhaps allows a specific Action?

Veterans of the Long War - Better against Loyalists/slightly buffed stats?

Each adds some new level of potency, with concurrent points cost.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is the Mark Undivided I've proposed really that good?

The 6+ invuln is almost useless in power armor (only works against -4 or better AP)

The +1 attack is probably the best, but isn't nearly as good as "double your attacks, also pile in, also consolidate again" that Khorne gets for not undivided.

The +1 to charge distances is basically irrelevant (slight change to probabilities but this is hardly noticeable over the course of a whole game)

And the 6+ FNP against 1 Damage weapons is super niche, especially on 2 wound models (where the FNP doesn't even work against most of the efficient weapons that will target them).

It's honestly just a lot of crap to remember for one buff. I'd prefer to keep it simple. Then it leaves more space for other options too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is the Mark Undivided I've proposed really that good?

The 6+ invuln is almost useless in power armor (only works against -4 or better AP)

The +1 attack is probably the best, but isn't nearly as good as "double your attacks, also pile in, also consolidate again" that Khorne gets for not undivided.

The +1 to charge distances is basically irrelevant (slight change to probabilities but this is hardly noticeable over the course of a whole game)

And the 6+ FNP against 1 Damage weapons is super niche, especially on 2 wound models (where the FNP doesn't even work against most of the efficient weapons that will target them).

+1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Unit Options. A suggestion by Mad Doc Grotsnik, aged 41 1/2, IQ -47.

Variety of unit leaders (Champion, Junior Warpsmith, Junior Dark Apostle, Junior Sorceror).

Chaos Mark

Icon of God - perhaps allows a specific Action?

Veterans of the Long War - Better against Loyalists/slightly buffed stats?

Each adds some new level of potency, with concurrent points cost.

Interesting @Junior characters. What would those do? Would it be better to create those "identities" through wargear selection choices?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Las wrote:
I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.

What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?

Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?

The "why?" is:

CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.

On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.


Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit

With respect, the fluff reason here is kind of irrelevant. There are infinite potential ways to convey this theme on the tabletop that would have nothing to do with the mechanics of the Mark of Chaos as it has existed in the past and today.

In order to fix Chaos, the question of why - in gameplay terms - we need marks and if so, how best should they be designed to accomplish that goal, should be scrutinized more closely and purposefully. The question of "what bonuses should the marks give?" is based on an assumption that the marks should give be bonuses that apply to units in the first place.

A more design based approach would be: "What are our gameplay objectives with Chaos in order to reflect the lore and setting? How can we incentivize that play behaviour on the tabletop mechanically? How can we wrap those mechanics in lore-based terminology?"

From there, you might designate a mechanic through application of the "marks of chaos" terminology. But constantly working from foregone conclusions about mechanical concepts that existed in the past is, I think, a big part of why Chaos is in the place that it is. The faction needs fresh design thinking.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
+1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of

My Daemonettes have had it since forever with their musician (and the ability to deep strike) and it really, really hasn't mattered that much.

It only matters if you roll an 8 on the dice (that's the only roll where a +1 means you make it when you otherwise wouldn't've). That's about 14% of the time, so not even once per game if you roll a charge from deep strike every turn, and about once per game if you roll it and then reroll it every turn.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
+1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of

My Daemonettes have had it since forever with their musician (and the ability to deep strike) and it really, really hasn't mattered that much.

It only matters if you roll an 8 on the dice (that's the only roll where a +1 means you make it when you otherwise wouldn't've). That's about 14% of the time, so not even once per game if you roll a charge from deep strike every turn, and about once per game if you roll it and then reroll it every turn.

you go from ~28% chance to make the charge to ~42%, thats a pretty big improvement.

with a CP reroll, it goes to ~47%/~66%

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
+1 to charge is actually huge for any melee deepstrike unit... which csm have plenty of

My Daemonettes have had it since forever with their musician (and the ability to deep strike) and it really, really hasn't mattered that much.

It only matters if you roll an 8 on the dice (that's the only roll where a +1 means you make it when you otherwise wouldn't've). That's about 14% of the time, so not even once per game if you roll a charge from deep strike every turn, and about once per game if you roll it and then reroll it every turn.

you go from ~28% chance to make the charge to ~42%, thats a pretty big improvement.

with a CP reroll, it goes to ~47%/~66%

that's exactly a 14% improvement. (42-14=28).

Not even the equivalent of getting +1 on a d6.

IDK, maybe you value it more highly than I do (value is subjective) but if you make 5 charge moves in a game at 9", less than 1 will succeed as a result of having the +1 to charge (as opposed to ones that would have succeeded anyways, or fail regardless).

 Las wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Las wrote:
I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.

What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?

Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?

The "why?" is:

CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.

On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.


Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit

With respect, the fluff reason here is kind of irrelevant. . .
. . .
A more design based approach would be: "What are our gameplay objectives with Chaos in order to reflect the lore and setting?

Um. . . Ok?

 Las wrote:

How can we incentivize that play behaviour on the tabletop mechanically? How can we wrap those mechanics in lore-based terminology?"

From there, you might designate a mechanic through application of the "marks of chaos" terminology. But constantly working from foregone conclusions about mechanical concepts that existed in the past is, I think, a big part of why Chaos is in the place that it is. The faction needs fresh design thinking.

I don't think "fresh design thinking" here is the key. We have examples from the past where the book was much more fun and interesting to use in ways that were both mechanically interesting and incredibly lore-friendly.

I mean, fresh ideas are totally great too. But I think it needs to be understood WHY players loved the CSM 3.5 book so much, even when they weren't building the few examples of OP builds that were in there.

I did have an idea where the mark of khorne could generate buffs for killing enemy units (I was thinking rerolls or something)... what if it generated CP instead?

Mark of slaanesh could confer bonuses for receiving wounds and exploding 6’s.

Or, should we keep the chaos space marine codex closer to in design principle to death guard and Tsons? Because those codices kind of put non legion nurgle and Tzeentch forces in a weird spot with respect to the chaos space marine codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Khorne I feel like should be an aggressive tempo army, all about thriving off of momentum gained from spilling blood. I also wanted it to reward shooting to an extent because khornate havocs absolutely are a thing. The shooting phase could be an excellent phase to set up an aggressive fight phase, or you could rely on pure attrition from the fight phase. You could use the cp generated to make your units more durable or more aggressive.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Las wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Las wrote:
I think a lot of the issue around the marks comes from a fixation on "how" to implement them and not "why" to implement them.

What are they intended to do? Kiss/curse that affects list design? Be purchasable upgrades to units akin to wargear? Both? Neither?

Honest question to the group: what's the ideal purpose of a mark on the tabletop?

The "why?" is:

CSM, broken away from their formally loyalist lives of rigid doctrines, training and scheduled prayer, begin to diverge wildly. Some languish and become 'lesser' Space Marines (basic CSM), but other individuals and groups go on to become more deadly individuals, and hard-bitten warriors that have to rely on guile and specialized tactics, (veteran skills). On top of that, some will start down the path of following one of the dark powers (marks). Beyond those, there are Cult troops, true devotees blessed by their gods.

On the table CSMs should run the entire gamut from 'undisciplined former loyalist rabble' through to 'powered up elite troops', and be highly customizeable.


Also bring back a bunch of the old Havoc options, I really hate what they did to that unit

With respect, the fluff reason here is kind of irrelevant. . .
. . .
A more design based approach would be: "What are our gameplay objectives with Chaos in order to reflect the lore and setting?

Um. . . Ok?

In your example, you're working backwards: "Some of them need to reflect that they've fallen to chaos, let's use marks for that," rather than forwards from an design objective "We want some units to play like this so that we can reflect this aspect of the lore . In order to encourage this type of play or list construction, what mechanics can we use to facilitate that?"

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Las wrote:

How can we incentivize that play behaviour on the tabletop mechanically? How can we wrap those mechanics in lore-based terminology?"

From there, you might designate a mechanic through application of the "marks of chaos" terminology. But constantly working from foregone conclusions about mechanical concepts that existed in the past is, I think, a big part of why Chaos is in the place that it is. The faction needs fresh design thinking.

I don't think "fresh design thinking" here is the key. We have examples from the past where the book was much more fun and interesting to use in ways that were both mechanically interesting and incredibly lore-friendly.

I mean, fresh ideas are totally great too. But I think it needs to be understood WHY players loved the CSM 3.5 book so much, even when they weren't building the few examples of OP builds that were in there.

I 100% agree with this part of your statement. I just believe that a design team would need to bring deeper design thinking in order to interrogate that "WHY." Game mechanics are tools, you don't pick up a tool until you know what you're trying to build. Otherwise it may not be useful at all.