arcanum wrote:
I really wonder what they are going to do to base marines/legionaries.

The CSM doctrines (exploding 6s) are weaker than their marine equivalents (+1 ap). But GW math isn't going to realise that.

MrNibbles wrote:

arcanum wrote:
I really wonder what they are going to do to base marines/legionaries.

The CSM doctrines (exploding 6s) are weaker than their marine equivalents (+1 ap). But GW math isn't going to realise that.

I agree with you as well, though in regards to regular troops, the question how things will mesh with the Icons (rumored Icon of Wrath -1 AP in shooting) - suddenly you have exploding 6s with -1, or 5s if you play Black Legion.

 Arbitrator wrote:
I feel like we have this discussion about Night Lords every time CSM get a new codex, with the same "just stack debuffs" argument that never works out when the book lands anyway.

arcanum wrote:

MrNibbles wrote:

arcanum wrote:
I really wonder what they are going to do to base marines/legionaries.

The CSM doctrines (exploding 6s) are weaker than their marine equivalents (+1 ap). But GW math isn't going to realise that.

I agree with you as well, though in regards to regular troops, the question how things will mesh with the Icons (rumored Icon of Wrath -1 AP in shooting) - suddenly you have exploding 6s with -1, or 5s if you play Black Legion.

Yup having run the numbers and excluding 6+ saves (rare), AP0, AP1 +1AP is better (so loyalists get better bolters fists and chainswords) but as soon as there is higher AP the maths swing to make exploding 6s better.

Loyalists get better with volume, Heretics get better with higher AP.

But given the spread of weapons and actually playing the game I think loyalists get the advantage here (but probably not worth a Point of advantage on a tactical marine profile)

 blood reaper wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Ah my old enemies; "Chaos Space Marines don't have Multi-Meltas and Plasma guns for whatever reason" and "Red Corsairs (an explicitly Chaos-ified faction who have not resembled loyalists with red crosses over their aquillas for four editions now) need to be moved into the Space Marine codex", we meet again.

Refute the points presented or admit you're wrong.

It's cool how exceptionally hostile the tone is of this to my semi-joking facetious message about 'enemies'.

But in general I have some basic problems with the logic that for whatever reason renegades and legions can't be in the same book.

It's very clear the Red Corsairs aren't just 'normal Space Marines but renegade', for example and they haven't been like that since what, 3rd ed (which has a few images of normal Space Marines with their Imperial icons crossed out with red paint).

They make full use of Daemons, Possessed, Daemon Engines, Huron wears a plethora of Chaos Symbols and is an open sorcerer. I don't think the Marine codex needs to have all these entries (or really any more than it already does). If you want to play 'standard' non-Chaos aligned renegades you can just use the existing Space Marine codex as is, since its perfectly suitable for fielding the Tyrant's Legion.

And what about all the Traitors who turned like, before M.41? Plenty of those guys are full on renegades on par with the existing Legions. The Corpus Brethren, for example, sound like they're pretty messed up dudes - as do pretty much every other SM chapter who took a trip into the Eye.

Incidentally I don't understand how the Legions wouldn't have access to grav guns. Isn't material captured all the time in war? I mean they had access to multi-meltas and plasma cannons in the Heresy - do these all suddenly stop working? Why not just make it they can have less of these than Loyalists can.

This fixation on faction identity seems kinda silly. I'm glad other wargames don't fall into this rabbit hole (another major benefit of historicals, imo).

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The CSM book on the other hand is a bit confused as to what its trying to represent.

It's trying to represent the models in the box. No more. No less.

Arbitrator wrote:I feel like we have this discussion about Night Lords every time CSM get a new codex, with the same "just stack debuffs" argument that never works out when the book lands anyway.

Gert wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Except now GW figured out a way to play with leadership that isnt purely to force checks. Getting bonuses against spooked opponents is thematic for night lords, Spooking a Custodes is harder than spooking a grot. i'm super happy with what the legion trait is rumored to be. And in anycase, i can't fathom how one can complain about that upgrade when we have the current one that does even less

I'm gonna steal Gadzilla's thunder here and say the Night Lords can be more than just Spooky, especially considering that Morale still isn't a big player with the upped lethality of 9th.
For Space Marines specifically, ATSKNF means Combat Attrition modifiers are just flat out ignored, or if they are Dark Angels you auto pass them.
For Custodes, -2 Ld isn't a big thing for a unit with Ld 11 and a unit size of 5 where you will likely lose 1 or 2 models/combat phase and will obliterate the thing that tried to kill you.
Sure it's great for weak squishies but there are also lots of armies that can already boost Ld, nullify Combat Attrition tests, or buff morale. Compared to something like HH's Talent for Murder where NL gets buffs in combat vs units with fewer models, it's pretty naff that these rumours say that NL get Ld debuffs and +1 to Charges and Advance, the latter of which makes no sense when they are a Legion of cowardly opportunists.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

On the bright side, at least they've figured out what your Legion is about. I look at the rumoured Word Bearer rules and can't figure out if GW even knows what the WB are meant to be doing anymore.

 GaroRobe wrote:
I just realized that there are basically no normal chaos space marines (multipart) kits that have a melee right hand.

Chaos space marines? Nope. (Except the Shadowspear unit champion.)

Havocks? Nope.

Chosen? Nope.

The new warpsmith has the axe in his right hand, and raptors have right hand options (but the claws on the vambraces are pretty raptor specific and the hand is pre attached to the arm.)

I assume its GW being lazy and its much easier to design one hand to hold a gun and the other to hold a melee weapon, but it's super infuriating for conversions.

The dual knife legionnaire is like the first right handed melee weapon option in ages...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

On the bright side, at least they've figured out what your Legion is about. I look at the rumoured Word Bearer rules and can't figure out if GW even knows what the WB are meant to be doing anymore.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

On the bright side, at least they've figured out what your Legion is about. I look at the rumoured Word Bearer rules and can't figure out if GW even knows what the WB are meant to be doing anymore.

GW doesn't understand the nuances of their own games though; DG are supposed to be resilient against small arms fire but have a special rule doing literally the opposite. Poster girl SCE hero Yndrasta is supposed to be the top monster hunter, yet she plays as a defensive support character. There is an evident disconnect between what they express something does and what it actually does.

Which is to say the rules may or may not represent what the Legion is supposed to be about in any manner.

 GaroRobe wrote:
I just realized that there are basically no normal chaos space marines (multipart) kits that have a melee right hand.

Chaos space marines? Nope. (Except the Shadowspear unit champion.)

Havocks? Nope.

Chosen? Nope.

The new warpsmith has the axe in his right hand, and raptors have right hand options (but the claws on the vambraces are pretty raptor specific and the hand is pre attached to the arm.)

I assume its GW being lazy and its much easier to design one hand to hold a gun and the other to hold a melee weapon, but it's super infuriating for conversions.

The dual knife legionnaire is like the first right handed melee weapon option in ages...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

On the bright side, at least they've figured out what your Legion is about. I look at the rumoured Word Bearer rules and can't figure out if GW even knows what the WB are meant to be doing anymore.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

On the bright side, at least they've figured out what your Legion is about. I look at the rumoured Word Bearer rules and can't figure out if GW even knows what the WB are meant to be doing anymore.

The rumoured WB trait is heavily inspired off the rules they've received over the last 9 years or so in 30k.

The re-rolls to hit in melee when charging is an homage to classic zealot rules/the zealot rules other religious factions like SoB have in 9th

The 5+++ against mortal wounds represents their use of hexagrammatic wards/the blessings of the dark powers

The MWs in melee when in the assault "doctrine" represent their use of tainted weapons, which is their trademark weapon in 30k

They're a ritualistic melee focused bunch of religious lunatics blessed by the dark powers, which is what they've been shaped to be since HH: Massacre dropped in c. 2013. It's not wholly consistent with everything in the past but what is these days with GW? Doubtless their stratagems will offer bonuses to units like Possessed and Dark Apostles. All in all I really like it and think it's actually the best balance of fluff/punch out of the rumoured traits by a longshot. As a WB player I'm chuffed.

What I really want after seeing the Eldar book is the ability to take a detachment of daemons without throwing my bonuses in the bin the same way they can take Harlequins. That'd be gold. Won't hold my breath though

drbored wrote:
GW aren't that imaginative when it comes to Chaos Marines. With Eldar they had to put on their thinking cap since they likely had to make a decision on whether or not to keep the harlequins separate or mesh them in. Chaos Daemons are very likely to continue being their own faction, so no effort will be wasted in letting Chaos Marines use them in any fun or interesting way.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

drbored wrote:
GW aren't that imaginative when it comes to Chaos Marines. With Eldar they had to put on their thinking cap since they likely had to make a decision on whether or not to keep the harlequins separate or mesh them in. Chaos Daemons are very likely to continue being their own faction, so no effort will be wasted in letting Chaos Marines use them in any fun or interesting way.

Yeah you're not wrong, and I don't think anybody expects CD to cease being their own faction. That being said, if these rumours are correct then CSM players who want to continue to use Berzerkers/Rubricae/Plague Marines in non-cult forces will presumably have to buy other books just to use their existing models. So I don't think it's unimaginable that either C: CSM or C: CD might have similar provisions in their books to what Craftworlds have with Harlequins, if not now then down the line.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
The rumoured WB trait is heavily inspired off the rules they've received over the last 9 years or so in 30k.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
The rumoured WB trait is heavily inspired off the rules they've received over the last 9 years or so in 30k.

Right...

You might'a put more thought into that than the person writing the rules. Good attempt though.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Ah my old enemies; "Chaos Space Marines don't have Multi-Meltas and Plasma guns for whatever reason" and "Red Corsairs (an explicitly Chaos-ified faction who have not resembled loyalists with red crosses over their aquillas for four editions now) need to be moved into the Space Marine codex", we meet again.

Refute the points presented or admit you're wrong.

It's cool how exceptionally hostile the tone is of this to my semi-joking facetious message about 'enemies'.

But in general I have some basic problems with the logic that for whatever reason renegades and legions can't be in the same book.

It's very clear the Red Corsairs aren't just 'normal Space Marines but renegade', for example and they haven't been like that since what, 3rd ed (which has a few images of normal Space Marines with their Imperial icons crossed out with red paint).

They make full use of Daemons, Possessed, Daemon Engines, Huron wears a plethora of Chaos Symbols and is an open sorcerer. I don't think the Marine codex needs to have all these entries (or really any more than it already does). If you want to play 'standard' non-Chaos aligned renegades you can just use the existing Space Marine codex as is, since its perfectly suitable for fielding the Tyrant's Legion.

And what about all the Traitors who turned like, before M.41? Plenty of those guys are full on renegades on par with the existing Legions. The Corpus Brethren, for example, sound like they're pretty messed up dudes - as do pretty much every other SM chapter who took a trip into the Eye.

Incidentally I don't understand how the Legions wouldn't have access to grav guns. Isn't material captured all the time in war? I mean they had access to multi-meltas and plasma cannons in the Heresy - do these all suddenly stop working? Why not just make it they can have less of these than Loyalists can.

This fixation on faction identity seems kinda silly. I'm glad other wargames don't fall into this rabbit hole (another major benefit of historicals, imo).

You're right the Marine codex doesn't need all those entries. It only needs Huron. The explicit amount of Daemon Engines available to Renegades is bad as well.

Plus it isn't like the Marine codex doesn't need to get rid of some entries either. Heaven forbid BOTH types of Intercessors be a singular entry, right?

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
The rumoured WB trait is heavily inspired off the rules they've received over the last 9 years or so in 30k.

Right...

You might'a put more thought into that than the person writing the rules. Good attempt though.

Not really, it's hardly rocket science, e.g. just look at all the reused 30k SoH ability names functioning as Black Legion stratagems, reused 30k WB abilities functioning as WB stratagems, etc, etc. GW have routinely turned to 30k since at least Vigilus Ablaze as a source of inspiration for their traitor legion rules. GW gonna GW, no doubt about it, but let's not pretend that they're incapable of haphazardly lifting themes/translating rules from their own publications. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

On the bright side, at least they've figured out what your Legion is about. I look at the rumoured Word Bearer rules and can't figure out if GW even knows what the WB are meant to be doing anymore.

They've "decided", that my Legion is about decimating hordes. Look at that trait and think about what factions/units it'll hit the hardest. You're always complaining about all of the "anti-horde" rules gw has been sticking in 9th, well now Night Lords are going to be the "anti-horde Legion". That doesn't aggravate you as much as it does me?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I can complain about this "improved trait" because of how imbalanced it is, and because going from being the Legion with the "2nd worst trait", to the Legion with the worst trait, just doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

On the bright side, at least they've figured out what your Legion is about. I look at the rumoured Word Bearer rules and can't figure out if GW even knows what the WB are meant to be doing anymore.

They've "decided", that my Legion is about decimating hordes. Look at that trait and think about what factions/units it'll hit the hardest. You're always complaining about all of the "anti-horde" rules gw has been sticking in 9th, well now Night Lords are going to be the "anti-horde Legion". That doesn't aggravate you as much as it does me?

again, i think the +1 to charge and advance will be much more impactful than the leadership part of our trait.

 Gert wrote:
But why are they getting +1 to Charge and Advance when they aren't a Legion that throws itself into combat or is know for rapid maneuvers outside of jump pack troops? Something like falling back and still being able to shoot would be much more in character of dishonourable sneaks who use underhanded tactics and traps.

 Gert wrote:
But why are they getting +1 to Charge and Advance when they aren't a Legion that throws itself into combat or is know for rapid maneuvers outside of jump pack troops? Something like falling back and still being able to shoot would be much more in character of dishonourable sneaks who use underhanded tactics and traps.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Night Lords have been the "Fast Legion" since we first got Legion rules in 3.5, where we got the option to trade two HS slots for an extra FA slot, and were the only Legion that could ignore the 0-1 limit on Raptors. In Traitor Legions we got Raptors as troops, and the "Strike First, Strike Hard" rule (reroll all charges). This isn't new.

Santtu wrote:
The original Index Astartes article painted Night Lords as masters of stealth and terror tactics, not fast attack. They also don't like fighting strong enemies so being anti-horde suits them just fine.