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.

RazorEdge wrote:
There are still people for them 5th Edition 40k was the best Edition GW ever made.

which does not contradict anything
it just because GW was never able to come up with something better does not mean it was an objectively good game, just that the other versions were worse

same way 3.5 was the best CSM Codex does not mean it was the best 40k Codex ever made, or that there were no problems
it just means all other CSM books were worse

the same way 6th Warhammer Fantasy is often considered the best, and people coming up and start to list all the flaws the game had back than

but "it was not perfect" is not a good counter argument to "the other versions were worse"

PS: a reason why 5th was the best is that GW stopped to support the games which opened up the people for the common use of house rules and scenarios
and it was the last Edition the Ork Codex actually was "orkish"

 kodos wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
There are still people for them 5th Edition 40k was the best Edition GW ever made.

which does not contradict anything
it just because GW was never able to come up with something better does not mean it was an objectively good game, just that the other versions were worse

same way 3.5 was the best CSM Codex does not mean it was the best 40k Codex ever made, or that there were no problems
it just means all other CSM books were worse

the same way 6th Warhammer Fantasy is often considered the best, and people coming up and start to list all the flaws the game had back than

but "it was not perfect" is not a good counter argument to "the other versions were worse"

PS: a reason why 5th was the best is that GW stopped to support the games which opened up the people for the common use of house rules and scenarios
and it was the last Edition the Ork Codex actually was "orkish"

That Ork Codex was a 4th ed codex though. So by that metric, 4th ed was best.
5th ed wasn't great, imo. That was when all the dumb Ward stuff popped up, like the Grey Knights and their silly walker.
Necrons got dunked on too because of the changes to the vehicle glance rule.

Yeah, the fact that we haven't yet seen any super doctrines - or even references to them - in writing is making me a bit nervous.

Baleful Icon feels like it would have been in every list before Nephilim. But now that relics and WLTs cost so much more (relative to your starting pool), I'm not sure a relic which just won't work against some armies (shooting armies and armies that don't rely on rerolls) is going to be quite worth it.

Also, hexagrammatic wards is going to be hilarious on Tzeentch helbrutes which already reduce the damage of the first failed save per turn to 0. Takes three railgun to kill one helbrute that way.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That Ork Codex was a 4th ed codex though. So by that metric, 4th ed was best.

yeah, this is were the famous "written with the upcoming Edition in mind" excuse for mistakes came from

I think 4th by itself was better, but it was nearly impossible to adjust minor errors because "not official", were the house-ruled / comped version of 5th that was around in some region was more fun (mainly until the Daemon Codex was released, from that point forward it became worse)

I'm going to guess that super doctrines did not make it in. Reasoning being that that level of subfaction support is reserved for codex supplements. But it's ok because Chaos gets daemon weapons instead.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
I'm going to guess that super doctrines did not make it in. Reasoning being that that level of subfaction support is reserved for codex supplements. But it's ok because Chaos gets daemon weapons instead.

In terms of layers of rules it could very well be that marks take the spot of super docs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
I'm going to guess that super doctrines did not make it in. Reasoning being that that level of subfaction support is reserved for codex supplements. But it's ok because Chaos gets daemon weapons instead.

In terms of layers of rules it could very well be that marks take the spot of super docs.

Except that Marks cost points and can't be applied to everything, and loyalist super doctrines are free and do apply to everything (ok, except servitors).

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/06/23/free-your-cultists-from-the-yoke-of-imperial-tyranny-with-a-little-help-from-the-dark-commune/

Cultist commune rules, which I don’t think have been seen before in this detail?

Not sure how they’ll get to where they need to be without dying horribly, but the buffs look cool, and not just for cultists. In fact, they’re probably better buffing marines than cultists.

The little mutated Icon kinda looks Slaaneshi. D'ya think the top of that staff will have alternates for the other 3 Chaos Gods?

 Thariinye wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/06/23/free-your-cultists-from-the-yoke-of-imperial-tyranny-with-a-little-help-from-the-dark-commune/

Cultist commune rules, which I don’t think have been seen before in this detail?

Not sure how they’ll get to where they need to be without dying horribly, but the buffs look cool, and not just for cultists. In fact, they’re probably better buffing marines than cultists.

article wrote:The Dark Commune itself will automatically pass any morale checks while the Iconarch still stands.

Immediately followed by Rules text block: While this unit contains a Cult Demagogue... it autopasses morale checks.
Sigh.


Anyway, after that mistake, we see that the icon gives leadership and reroll ones for all attacks, while the prayer gives rerolls melee attacks. Great, this isn't a mistake by WarCom, the unit itself just anti-synergizes its redundant abilities.

Nothing on how it even survives on the battlefield long enough to hand out buffs, so... cool, I guess.

Voss wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/06/23/free-your-cultists-from-the-yoke-of-imperial-tyranny-with-a-little-help-from-the-dark-commune/

Cultist commune rules, which I don’t think have been seen before in this detail?

Not sure how they’ll get to where they need to be without dying horribly, but the buffs look cool, and not just for cultists. In fact, they’re probably better buffing marines than cultists.

article wrote:The Dark Commune itself will automatically pass any morale checks while the Iconarch still stands.

Immediately followed by Rules text block: While this unit contains a Cult Demagogue... it autopasses morale checks.
Sigh.


Anyway, after that mistake, we see that the icon gives leadership and reroll ones for all attacks, while the prayer gives rerolls melee attacks. Great, this isn't a mistake by WarCom, the unit itself just anti-synergizes its redundant abilities.

Nothing on how it even survives on the battlefield long enough to hand out buffs, so... cool, I guess.

he atleast we now got a cult HQ, allowing those of us with R&H armies to avoid power armor.....

oh wait, we can't realistically

atleast the unit has a psyker and buff auras that affect not only cultists but also normal legionaires...

What's this errata to the iron warriors trait? Isn't it usually the same as the imperial fist one??

 Axlbush wrote:
What's this errata to the iron warriors trait? Isn't it usually the same as the imperial fist one??

Not anymore.

Have I somehow missed the official
new traits?

 Axlbush wrote:
Have I somehow missed the official
new traits?

Old leaks, yes, actual photo leaks or official articles, no.

Dark Commune looks fun.
I'd say powerful - but as said, I'm not sure how it survives being insta-nuked from the table if it lacks a "hides behind cultists" ability.

From the dataslate WarCom article and attributed to Robin Cruddace:

Tyranids and Aeldari have certainly been dominating the battlefields of the tournament scene over recent weeks, so we’ve made a few updates to reduce the oppressiveness of these factions and level the playing field without invalidating any player’s collection of miniatures

Was he on his two week holiday when the CSM codex was getting written?

Also, seeing the Necrons CORE changes makes you wonder at their ability to learn from their mistakes. Restricting it on DAEMONKIN is probably going to go the same was as restricting it on DESTROYER units.

I like the concept of the Dark Commune, but I think they went overboard a little on the models. I would have preferred something a little more "subtle".
Having a congregation of satanic (Chaotic?) mortal priests giving out buffs is a nice idea though, and would go great with Word Bearers or a Tchernobog / Blood themed army.

Cultists can take shotguns, right?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I like the concept of the Dark Commune, but I think they went overboard a little on the models.

They still haven't explained why they have a pair of Nazgûl as bodyguards.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I like the concept of the Dark Commune, but I think they went overboard a little on the models.

They still haven't explained why they have a pair of Nazgûl as bodyguards.

Yeah I noticed that. I guess they had to find work after the fall of Sauron.

 Axlbush wrote:
What's this errata to the iron warriors trait? Isn't it usually the same as the imperial fist one??

Leaks have the IW trait as the reducing AP, so they changed it like Salamanders and VH to just not reroll wounds.

I love that they give the ability to autopass morale to a unit with a total of (I'm guessing) 2 T3 ablative wounds. I hope they remembered to figure this powerful ability into their pts cost!

Raulengrin wrote:
People in this thread are so hyper-focused on complaining they are ignoring the actual, brand new, never-before-seen (on this forum) leaks posted on this very page.

Incredible. This thread really should be locked.

That's happened a few times really. The conversation will skim right over the actual leaks in favor of complaining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I like the concept of the Dark Commune, but I think they went overboard a little on the models.

They still haven't explained why they have a pair of Nazgûl as bodyguards.

Robes are comfy?

I guess it’s sort of that way with any response. The people who really hate something, really want to voice their opinion on why they hate it. The normal or mildly good stuff gets no reaction. The great stuff gets it’s heroes. I am a prof., student response evaluations are exactly the same.

Raulengrin wrote:
People in this thread are so hyper-focused on complaining they are ignoring the actual, brand new, never-before-seen (on this forum) leaks posted on this very page.

Incredible. This thread really should be locked.

Worth noting half of these "never seen before" leaks were already visible in the google doc linked in the OP

As for the dark commune... I guess it fills a niche that wasn't there before ? Now if someone wants to make a full cultist army (but not LATD) they can.

Whelp, guess I'll start grieving for our super doctrines. But I wonder: what was the issue with them ? Was it too strong ? To close to the loyalist rules ? No longer in line with the design guideline for 9th codex ?
Guess we'll never know. And in the meantime "spiky doctrines" are inferior to the doctrines they were based on.

Has anyone seen any data sheets regarding our terminator HQs? I'm wondering if/how much they've changed between 8th and 9th.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I guess it’s sort of that way with any response. The people who really hate something, really want to voice their opinion on why they hate it. The normal or mildly good stuff gets no reaction. The great stuff gets it’s heroes. I am a prof., student response evaluations are exactly the same.

Shame because it looks like there is a LOT of good in this codex, just some wtfery about wargear that has everyone hyperfocused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Has anyone seen any data sheets regarding our terminator HQs? I'm wondering if/how much they've changed between 8th and 9th.

I've been on the look out but nothing yet. Same for the Chaos Lord, the various wargear lists units can access and a number of other things.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I guess it’s sort of that way with any response. The people who really hate something, really want to voice their opinion on why they hate it. The normal or mildly good stuff gets no reaction. The great stuff gets it’s heroes. I am a prof., student response evaluations are exactly the same.

Shame because it looks like there is a LOT of good in this codex, just some wtfery about wargear that has everyone hyperfocused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Has anyone seen any data sheets regarding our terminator HQs? I'm wondering if/how much they've changed between 8th and 9th.

I've been on the look out but nothing yet. Same for the Chaos Lord, the various wargear lists units can access and a number of other things.

I've seen some of the other stuff in the Codex and I'm just not impressed. There's not really anything praise-worthy about the same bundle of over-complex layering of rules and stratagems that have painted 9th edition up to this point.

And here's the thing, if GW wanted to make the game more like AoS, where it's less about buying the individual weapon options and more about having pre-built units, I would be ok with that. That's not an issue. It's the inconsistency that's the issue. They're in this weird half-way point of flattening melee weapons into accursed weapons but they handle it differently from datasheet to datasheet.

One of the other reasons I"m focused on equipment is because THAT'S HOW YOU BUILD THE FETHING MODELS.

All the other things, the legion traits, the stratagems, are all mutable rules that don't change the bits that come in the box. You don't get an extra 'auspex scanner' bit in your box that you have to build your model with in order to use the stratagem.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I guess it’s sort of that way with any response. The people who really hate something, really want to voice their opinion on why they hate it. The normal or mildly good stuff gets no reaction. The great stuff gets it’s heroes. I am a prof., student response evaluations are exactly the same.

What do you mean by "good" stuff? Do you mean the powerful stuff that will work well in games? The abilities and units that will perform well in a competitive environment? The hard-as-nails choices that will be the bane of many'a table top*?

If you do, understand that the people despairing over this Codex are not doing so due to a lack of power, or because it doesn't seem competitive. For many of us this isn't even a tertiary concern. We're concerned about the soul of our army being stripped away even further than it has been in the past, where we get lazy copycat 'Chapter Tactics' rules, nonsensical wargear limitations and restrictions, and daft unit composition choices that leave us scratching our collective heads (ie. non-dedicated Possessed, weirdly regimented units of Mutant Rabble, split Cultist units, no Traitor Guard units, a Daemon Prince datasheet that will be replaced in 6 months, etc.).

Like some of have said: I'm sure this Codex will be plenty powerful, but who cares if it's not really Chaos anymore?



*Until GW feths it up with another balance dataslate.

“Good stuff” means different things to different players. Some are mostly into the hobby of painting, some are waacs, some are beer and pretzel players, some are thematic players. Some don’t play at all, and just like the forums. My point about reactions isn’t different for any of those. It’s just the way people react.