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.

Zachectomy wrote:
More along the lines of "If you don't like it for the reasons people on this thread are perseverating on, you need a sense of perspective".

My perspective is that of someone who's been playing Chaos since 1996 and is tired of having things taken away from him.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Can someone clue me in on Night Lords?

Another thing about the Night Lords, other than their rules generally being sub-par, is that people are sick of GW's Flanderisation of them being the "Scary Legion". Once upon a time they were the scary stealthy hit-and-run Legion. Over time those last two bits vanished, and they were just left with Leadership debuffs. And, as Leadership has always struggled to matter in 40k, it meant that Night Lords have struggled to really shine as a Legion.

And then, the tired 40k Night Lords players see what the Night Lords are getting in HH and wonder if it's a different company altogether who wrote those rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:
More along the lines of "If you don't like it for the reasons people on this thread are perseverating on, you need a sense of perspective".

My perspective is that of someone who's been playing Chaos since 1996 and is tired of having things taken away from him.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Can someone clue me in on Night Lords?

Another thing about the Night Lords, other than their rules generally being sub-par, is that people are sick of GW's Flanderisation of them being the "Scary Legion". Once upon a time they were the scary stealthy hit-and-run Legion. Over time those last two bits vanished, and they were just left with Leadership debuffs. And, as Leadership has always struggled to matter in 40k, it meant that Night Lords have struggled to really shine as a Legion.

And then, the tired 40k Night Lords players see what the Night Lords are getting in HH and wonder if it's a different company altogether who wrote those rules.

I'm fine with them being "scary legion" as long as they try to remember "dirty fighter legion". I think the bonus against infantry squads at half size was a good way to partially show that.

With that said, I think Chaos Marines should be all giving LD debuffs since they're the long term evil enemy, but nobody cares what I think.

Generally speaking I actually like the Night Lord rules. They're not HH strong (and those rules work around the bulky rule which we don't have in 40k), but they're some of the nicest ones we've had in editions and pair well with Raptors.

I remain confused about the Lighting Claws relic because they feel made specifically for the Chaos Lord with Jump Pack, but he doesn't existing anymore apparently which feels like a massive screw up.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I think LD5 is appropriate. Almost every vehicle in the game is LD8 aside from titanics and Custodes it seems. LD6 would have been quite a lot of units. LRBTs are LD7 ( for now ).

Getting something in melee that can swing away when the LD is debuffed ... maybe it will be too fiddly, but it sounds like an interesting challenge.

LD 6 would have been fine. LD 5 makes it useless for a very large number of units and entire armies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I think LD5 is appropriate. Almost every vehicle in the game is LD8 aside from titanics and Custodes it seems. LD6 would have been quite a lot of units. LRBTs are LD7 ( for now ).

Getting something in melee that can swing away when the LD is debuffed ... maybe it will be too fiddly, but it sounds like an interesting challenge.

Trying to figure how having a fairly broad spread of units that are easier to wound for them is a bad thing.

Like, can we just accept that Ld modifying and attrition modifying abilities are still absolutely terrible in 40k with very little impact overall? Why do we feel it needs to be harder for a faction or sub-faction to actually be able to trigger its bonus for taking that specific sub-faction? I'm almost baffled by how it's perfectly acceptable for some armies' sub-faction bonuses to be always active or incredibly easy to trigger while others are just expected to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop for a similar effect?

I think my only issue with the CSM book is, as already stated....

It's not good, it's not bad. It just is.. It's literally a book of 'Meh.' It is. The end. And if kind of feels like this great big anticlimatic let down. The 'accursed' weapon issue is just....frustrating. While I understand and appreciate the generic weapons for AoS (as it allows mixing of weapon options, makes a unit just...a unit without people having to pick and choose between what is better, A or B) I feel that sort of thing should be more applied to, well, generic troops units rather than specialist units like Chosen and Terminators who you would expect to maybe be a bit more complicated in their armaments.

The feeling 'meh' thing though. It's a bit of a sting when we've seen constant incremental power creep in books as they're released just to have one plopped down that is very distinctly average.

GW could have given Night Lords:

-2 leadership and -1 CA
And +1 to advance and charges

And that would have been pretty fine. The issue I have is trying to tie their leadership shenanigans to an additional bonus, a bonus that you're not going to see very often, if at all, while other armies will get that bonus all the time and don't have to rely on their opponent taking a specific type of army.

I'd much rather have something that goes off more regularly rather than something that only applies some of the time. It's the old 'Death to the False Emperor' rule, which applied only to Imperium units, which they eventually made to apply to everything, and for a while that was decent since it didn't mean I was more powerful against only a specific army.

I would have liked to see no doctrines and CSM just have 6s hit twice, +2 flamer hits all the time for everything. It'd hardly be too strong.

Zachectomy wrote:

More along the lines of "If you don't like it for the reasons people on this thread are perseverating on, you need a sense of perspective". To chaosOxomega's point, I agree that a person new to 40k coming to this book with fresh eyes would probably see the book for what it is, because they haven't internalized the entrenched negativity we're seeing on this thread. And of course, if we whine hard enough, maybe we'll get lord jump packs like the eldar got their autarch options. Maybe i can even convince my ork buddies to lobby for our biker meks and doks back

So you agree that the people on the thread have valid points, but they won't be universal so they magically stop being valid? That's a ridiculous argument. This codex is like going from Windows 7 to Windows 8. I suppose people who had never used anything but a Windows tablet had no issue with it, but it was still a bad OS.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:

More along the lines of "If you don't like it for the reasons people on this thread are perseverating on, you need a sense of perspective". To chaosOxomega's point, I agree that a person new to 40k coming to this book with fresh eyes would probably see the book for what it is, because they haven't internalized the entrenched negativity we're seeing on this thread. And of course, if we whine hard enough, maybe we'll get lord jump packs like the eldar got their autarch options. Maybe i can even convince my ork buddies to lobby for our biker meks and doks back

So you agree that the people on the thread have valid points, but they won't be universal so they magically stop being valid? That's a ridiculous argument. This codex is like going from Windows 7 to Windows 8. I suppose people who had never used anything but a Windows tablet had no issue with it, but it was still a bad OS.

What defines it as bad? I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that's an entirely subjective opinion.

Edit: assuming you were using an analogy to the codex to say it's bad. I agree with some of the complaints, the jump pack characters are annoying, I'm not too upset over chosen or terminators really, I was annoyed at cult units going at first but I've had a few months to get over it and aren't too upset. The arbitrary loadout restriction on Legionaries bothers me, as does the lack of marks on the daemon based units, seems really backwards.

Are daemonkin allowed to have marks or not? If not does that mean that they are not allowed in EC or WE armies since it is required that all units have the mark of their God? What about unit that generally can't take a mark? Are they allowed in those armies or do the armies make exceptions and mark them or just let them in unmarked?

They can't have marks.

Supposedly (its a little fuzzy) in the god-locked legions, they (and other things that can't be marked) get the <god> keyword (which means some strats can be applied).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Can someone clue me in on Night Lords?

Another thing about the Night Lords, other than their rules generally being sub-par, is that people are sick of GW's Flanderisation of them being the "Scary Legion". Once upon a time they were the scary stealthy hit-and-run Legion. Over time those last two bits vanished, and they were just left with Leadership debuffs. And, as Leadership has always struggled to matter in 40k, it meant that Night Lords have struggled to really shine as a Legion.

And then, the tired 40k Night Lords players see what the Night Lords are getting in HH and wonder if it's a different company altogether who wrote those rules.

Yes indeed! I just received my copy of Liber Hereticus yesterday, and now that I'm home from work and can actually read it, I'm absolutely in love with these rules. Bloody Murder, Preysight and A Talent For Murder. Which is obviously what the CSM codex writers were attempting to replicate with our Legion trait. Emphasis on "attempting". Our HH rules are honestly better than the ones that we had in 3.5.

Oh, and the stealthy and hit-and-run bits didn't vanish. Gw just gave them to the Alpha Legion.

Daedalus81 wrote:Yea I think LD5 is appropriate. Almost every vehicle in the game is LD8 aside from titanics and Custodes it seems. LD6 would have been quite a lot of units. LRBTs are LD7 ( for now ).

Getting something in melee that can swing away when the LD is debuffed ... maybe it will be too fiddly, but it sounds like an interesting challenge.

Uhhh.....huh. An "interesting" "challenge". So, how about the "challenge" of getting it to work against a faction made up of L9 vehicles?

Honestly, I think that the second requirement of getting a squad below half strength will make the trait useful against high leadership infantry (though it will lead to slow-rolling sometimes, as you attempt to get the squad below the break point so that your remaining attacks can get the +1 to wound). But there is no recourse against high leadership vehicles. The obvious answer would be to make it take effect on a bracketed vehicle, as that almost always happens at 1/2 of the vehicle's total wounds. But they didn't do that. A Talent For Murder works on vehicles. This should too.

But, other than that, the Night Lords rules are fine. I just wish I could say the same about our units.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
My biggest gripe is as an EC player I lose a blast master from my 10 man unit for no reason. Ever since there have been noise marines people have been allowed 2 per 10 men now, all of a sudden, nope.

Also GW is going to need to Errata/FAQ doom sirens. As written you can take one in addition to all of your other weapons. I'm not sure if they mean to allow this (they haven't in the past) or if they just dropped the line about having to give up a weapon slot.

Then there's the question as to whether I need to pay for a mark on noise marines when they already have one. And whether I have to pay a 15 point tax on all of my units (even those that can't take marks)? Do the units that can't take marks get to use them anyway (since I need to buy marks for them)?

All of these questions for just a minor subsection of a book does not bode well for the book.

BLASTMASTERS:

Being reduced to a single Blastmaster happened in the 6th ed as well, and was corrected by Errata/FAQ. That said I'm not sure they'll change it to allow 2 per squad, as the new versions is already superior to two of the old version going off average rolls. Assuming all shot find there target, we're talking twice as much damage at full range and 3-4 times as much at half range. Which is why the Legends Sonic Helbrute at 130 pts for two Blastmasters and a Doom Siren for 130 pts is nuts. It can fire all that into melee by the way and take a helbrute fist with a Assault D6+2 heavy flamer, but I digress. I don't see NM getting and 2nd Blastmaster, as much as I'd love for them too.

Old:

Heavy D3/S8/AP-2/Dam D3 for 4 damage at 48"
Assault D6/S5/AP-1/Dam 1 for 3 damage at 36"

New:

Heavy 3/S8/AP-3/Dam 3 for 9 damage at 48”, or 12 damage at 24”.
Assault 6/S5/AP-2/Dam 1 for 6 damage at 36”, or 12 damage at 18”.

DOOM SIREN:

I'm not sure what you mean here the Noise Champion starts with a bolter and bolt pistol. The bolter can be swapped for a Sonic Blaster or melee weapon. His bolt pistol can be swapped for a pistol or melee weapon. He can always takes the Doom Siren regardless of his other weapons options. This is exactly how it works now. In fact you can take a Combi-bolter, Sonic Blaster, and Doom Siren in the 8th codex but not in the 9th codex.

MARKS:

Reviews keep missing this. Heck Goonhammer still erenously says today that Noise Marines can't take chainswords.

Note that LUCIUS THE ETERNAL (pg 153) and NOISE MARINES (pg 163) already have the MARK OF SLAANESH keyword in their datasheets.
Their Power Ratings and points costs already take this into account, so not addtional cost is required for these units.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Uhhh.....huh. An "interesting" "challenge". So, how about the "challenge" of getting it to work against a faction made up of L9 vehicles?

Honestly, I think that the second requirement of getting a squad below half strength will make the trait useful against high leadership infantry (though it will lead to slow-rolling sometimes, as you attempt to get the squad below the break point so that your remaining attacks can get the +1 to wound). But there is no recourse against high leadership vehicles. The obvious answer would be to make it take effect on a bracketed vehicle, as that almost always happens at 1/2 of the vehicle's total wounds. But they didn't do that. A Talent For Murder works on vehicles. This should too.

But, other than that, the Night Lords rules are fine. I just wish I could say the same about our units.

I think it'd be pretty rare to come up against a list that block you out like that.

On a separate note....spawn are friggin' awesome!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Uhhh.....huh. An "interesting" "challenge". So, how about the "challenge" of getting it to work against a faction made up of L9 vehicles?

Honestly, I think that the second requirement of getting a squad below half strength will make the trait useful against high leadership infantry (though it will lead to slow-rolling sometimes, as you attempt to get the squad below the break point so that your remaining attacks can get the +1 to wound). But there is no recourse against high leadership vehicles. The obvious answer would be to make it take effect on a bracketed vehicle, as that almost always happens at 1/2 of the vehicle's total wounds. But they didn't do that. A Talent For Murder works on vehicles. This should too.

But, other than that, the Night Lords rules are fine. I just wish I could say the same about our units.

I think it'd be pretty rare to come up against a list that block you out like that.

On a separate note....spawn are friggin' awesome!

Knights? Hello? And any Astartes "Heavy" tanks are L9 (anything Land Raider size and up). Then there's Custodes vehicle heavy lists. And of course anything Ultramarines.

There's a reason that the HH writers made A Talent For Murder add +1 to Pen rolls as well as wound rolls. Gw seemed to be taking notes from those guys. But it was only Cliff Notes.

Spawn get Legion traits, yes?

No obvious reason they don't.

It's weird that the Havoc unit is specifically stated as having 2 Autocannons and 2 Lascannons to begin with.

Tyel wrote:
No obvious reason they don't.

Could've lost them since they aren't real Marines anymore, I dunno. GW makes weird decisions all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's weird that the Havoc unit is specifically stated as having 2 Autocannons and 2 Lascannons to begin with.

That's in the kit. How they managed to escape unscathed is honestly bewildering to me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's weird that the Havoc unit is specifically stated as having 2 Autocannons and 2 Lascannons to begin with.

Well you can't build 4 of any kind out of the box. So they had to go with the ones they have doubles of.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:
No obvious reason they don't.

Could've lost them since they aren't real Marines anymore, I dunno. GW makes weird decisions all the time.

True. Cultists are called out along with Agent of Chaos.

I think the only odd interaction is Fabius Bile. Who you might have thought would have "gains a legion trait in CoB detachment, otherwise no" ruling that has generally been the norm (and is explicitly set out for Abaddon) - but in this case it just seems to be "nah, Agent of Chaos, on your bike with Cypher".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Knights? Hello? And any Astartes "Heavy" tanks are L9 (anything Land Raider size and up). Then there's Custodes vehicle heavy lists. And of course anything Ultramarines.

There's a reason that the HH writers made A Talent For Murder add +1 to Pen rolls as well as wound rolls. Gw seemed to be taking notes from those guys. But it was only Cliff Notes.

Yea, but anyone going full big knights is going to have a bad time, I think. Baby knights are crucial.

Tyel wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:
No obvious reason they don't.

Could've lost them since they aren't real Marines anymore, I dunno. GW makes weird decisions all the time.

True. Cultists are called out along with Agent of Chaos.

I think the only odd interaction is Fabius Bile. Who you might have thought would have "gains a legion trait in CoB detachment, otherwise no" ruling that has generally been the norm (and is explicitly set out for Abaddon) - but in this case it just seems to be "nah, Agent of Chaos, on your bike with Cypher".

I dunno, kind of makes sense fluffwise. He makes all sorts of new space marine mutants, but doesn't tend to experiment on himself as much.

HBMC wrote:My perspective is that of someone who's been playing Chaos since 1996 and is tired of having things taken away from him.

See this? Worth folk bearing in mind that Chaos have had more Bloody Awful Codecies than decent one.

Rogue Trader - OK I’ve never actually figured out how one created an army in those rules. But at the very very least you had two truly and justifiably Iconic books in Realms of Chaos.

Second Edition - The Great Rationalising of 40K. Where Rogue Trader was “throw everything including then kitchen sink and see what sticks”, 2nd Ed called in a Plumber. This is not rose tinted glasses either. This was when we first found the tech difference between Imperial and Chaos Marines. When we first got named characters. And some really, really nice models (and as ever some not so nice ones)

Third Edition - Best not talk about it. But here’s an example of its Kwalitee wiv a Kapital K.



3.5 Edition - A diverse and flexible Codex. By no means perfect, but still a solid entry. Sadly known for Power Gaming (and to be honest, not unfairly, see it not being perfect). This properly followed up on the 2nd Ed book by providing solid definition and differentiation for the Legions.

And the rest all kind of blur into one for me, but I’m sure someone more knowledgeable can pick up the tainted baton from here.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Uhhh.....huh. An "interesting" "challenge". So, how about the "challenge" of getting it to work against a faction made up of L9 vehicles?

Honestly, I think that the second requirement of getting a squad below half strength will make the trait useful against high leadership infantry (though it will lead to slow-rolling sometimes, as you attempt to get the squad below the break point so that your remaining attacks can get the +1 to wound). But there is no recourse against high leadership vehicles. The obvious answer would be to make it take effect on a bracketed vehicle, as that almost always happens at 1/2 of the vehicle's total wounds. But they didn't do that. A Talent For Murder works on vehicles. This should too.

But, other than that, the Night Lords rules are fine. I just wish I could say the same about our units.

I think it'd be pretty rare to come up against a list that block you out like that.

On a separate note....spawn are friggin' awesome!

Knights? Hello? And any Astartes "Heavy" tanks are L9 (anything Land Raider size and up). Then there's Custodes vehicle heavy lists. And of course anything Ultramarines.

There's a reason that the HH writers made A Talent For Murder add +1 to Pen rolls as well as wound rolls. Gw seemed to be taking notes from those guys. But it was only Cliff Notes.

Problem is the HH rules rely on mechanics missing from 40k such as pinning, and bulky. Now bulky could be solved with a bespoke rule but clearly they wanted to streamline it for 9th over adding additional conditional modifiers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
See this? Worth folk bearing in mind that Chaos have had more Bloody Awful Codecies than decent one.

The awfulness is the charm.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rogue Trader - OK I’ve never actually figured out how one created an army in those rules. But at the very very least you had two truly and justifiably Iconic books in Realms of Chaos.

Second Edition - The Great Rationalising of 40K. Where Rogue Trader was “throw everything including then kitchen sink and see what sticks”, 2nd Ed called in a Plumber. This is not rose tinted glasses either. This was when we first found the tech difference between Imperial and Chaos Marines. When we first got named characters. And some really, really nice models (and as ever some not so nice ones)

Third Edition - Best not talk about it. But here’s an example of its Kwalitee wiv a Kapital K.



3.5 Edition - A diverse and flexible Codex. By no means perfect, but still a solid entry. Sadly known for Power Gaming (and to be honest, not unfairly, see it not being perfect). This properly followed up on the 2nd Ed book by providing solid definition and differentiation for the Legions.

And the rest all kind of blur into one for me, but I’m sure someone more knowledgeable can pick up the tainted baton from here.

You left out Slaves to Darkness, which was outstanding. My first World Eaters army came from that book.

The original Obliterator sculpts were actually cool, compared to most other models of the day. Not sure making fun of them demonstrates anything useful.

And I noticed people talking about Ld9 vehicles, but let's not ignore the Ld10 elephant in the room that is the entire Necron army. They are almost immune to the trait thanks to how hard they are to attrition and their base Ld10 across the army.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And I noticed people talking about Ld9 vehicles, but let's not ignore the Ld10 elephant in the room that is the entire Necron army. They are almost immune to the trait thanks to how hard they are to attrition and their base Ld10 across the army.

Fair point. Necrons will likely become the king for a bit, too.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And I noticed people talking about Ld9 vehicles, but let's not ignore the Ld10 elephant in the room that is the entire Necron army. They are almost immune to the trait thanks to how hard they are to attrition and their base Ld10 across the army.

Fair point. Necrons will likely become the king for a bit, too.

Yeah that mass core is going to make them pretty strong.

Oh well, I didn't pick this Legion with expectations of steamrolling anyone.

So a question for the more knowlegable who might have spotted something I missed: can any characters take dual lighting claws in the book? Trying to figure out who can access the NL claws beyond the DP.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

HBMC wrote:My perspective is that of someone who's been playing Chaos since 1996 and is tired of having things taken away from him.

See this? Worth folk bearing in mind that Chaos have had more Bloody Awful Codecies than decent one.

Rogue Trader - OK I’ve never actually figured out how one created an army in those rules. But at the very very least you had two truly and justifiably Iconic books in Realms of Chaos.

At least one personality model to lead the army (and they could all take jump packs! Including World Eater Librarians!). After that, go nuts with whatever you liked. The lists limited the maximums you could take, but there were no minimums or "tax units".