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.

 some bloke wrote:
I haven't seen any of the leaks so entiely going on optimism and the desire to blow the dust off my eons old chaos army, but I will likely be picking up the codex at some point.

I would strongly suggest reading those leaks before buying the codex. Unless you think that buying it and then demanding a refund for the defective product would send a stronger message to GW? It's a truly awful book and the rules are an insult to GW's loyal customers.

Voss wrote:
Someday I'll figure out how they consistently manage to make it worse than 'loyalists, but with spikes.'

That bar strikes me as about curb level (ankle high), and yet somehow they can't manage to clear it.

Because that's not a bug, it's a feature. They're not trying to clear that tiny hurdle. CSM were made better than loyalists once, and they'll never let it happen again. It's part of the factions design ethos: Never better than loyalists, always worse. That's the target that they always aim for.

 some bloke wrote:
I haven't seen any of the leaks so entiely going on optimism and the desire to blow the dust off my eons old chaos army, but I will likely be picking up the codex at some point.

I will doubtless need to buy some more models (I kinda stopped playng chaos when the dreadnaughts grew diapers), because in my experience you can't get anywhere without the new stuff (I regularly play orks vs orks, and my old boys just fail against the new beast snagga boys). But, nevertheless, kinda excited to see what I can convert for them!

we have actual scans, not just "rumors". It's completely stupidity.

is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

It's interesting to me that the reactions to the leaked codex pages here are the complete opposite of what they are on the 40k reddit.

 CommunistNapkin wrote:
It's interesting to me that the reactions to the leaked codex pages here are the complete opposite of what they are on the 40k reddit.

I'd warrent that its because Reddit is mostly newer players, whereas Dakkanauts are jaded curmudgeons. Also Reddit's upvote system tends to foster positivity inclined hugboxes, rather than any actual discussion

Nothing reflects the disappointment of this turd better than the last post in our tactics thread still being from last month.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

Only? No. Its a big part of it, of course (especially the legionary restriction that flat-out invalidates existing squads)

But its also several 'not appearing in this book' things (traitor guard, jetpacks), and how wretchedly bad some of the new stuff is.

Some of it revolves around how utterly incoherent things are- like IW getting a special objective about wasting shooting into empty space when there is a foe to fight. (It would be a little less dumb if you could put objectives in terrain and remove defensive terrain features the opponent occupies, but 9th just doesn't allow that level of sanity)

I'm sure there are bunch of 'Word Bearers' players talking about stacking buffs on possessed somewhere, because that raw statline lends itself to doing something, and BL players are probably happy to have a legion trait that gives a bonus, but as a general book it just looks really bad.

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

Only? No. Its a big part of it, of course (especially the legionary restriction that flat-out invalidates existing squads)

But its also several 'not appearing in this book' things (traitor guard, jetpacks), and how wretchedly bad some of the new stuff is.

Some of it revolves around how utterly incoherent things are- like IW getting a special objective about wasting shooting into empty space when there is a foe to fight. (It would be a little less dumb if you could put objectives in terrain and remove defensive terrain features the opponent occupies, but 9th just doesn't allow that level of sanity)

I'm sure there are bunch of 'Word Bearers' players talking about stacking buffs on possessed somewhere, because that raw statline lends itself to doing something, and BL players are probably happy to have a legion trait that gives a bonus, but as a general book it just looks really bad.

So they are getting rid of raptors?

mrFickle wrote:

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

Only? No. Its a big part of it, of course (especially the legionary restriction that flat-out invalidates existing squads)

But its also several 'not appearing in this book' things (traitor guard, jetpacks), and how wretchedly bad some of the new stuff is.

Some of it revolves around how utterly incoherent things are- like IW getting a special objective about wasting shooting into empty space when there is a foe to fight. (It would be a little less dumb if you could put objectives in terrain and remove defensive terrain features the opponent occupies, but 9th just doesn't allow that level of sanity)

I'm sure there are bunch of 'Word Bearers' players talking about stacking buffs on possessed somewhere, because that raw statline lends itself to doing something, and BL players are probably happy to have a legion trait that gives a bonus, but as a general book it just looks really bad.

So they are getting rid of raptors?

No, they stay but the champ can't take lightning claws for... reasons. No hq can get a jump pack any more was what Voss was referring to.

There's the weird loadouts as mentioned. There's the fact we know a new bigger Prince is on the way which we know will have a different profile to the one in this codex in less than 6 months. There's the weird cultists box with only melee weapons. There's the weird mutants that look like a sigmar dual system kit but basically fill the exact sane role as either spawn and/or cultists. The legionary restriction: cannot take duplicate specials or heavies. No other unit in the book (I.e. bikes) has the same restriction.

It's a bit of a mess conceptually.

Sadly, I don't have any enthusiasm for the new CSM codex.

It could be great if the diveristy of builds from 3.5 ed was offered but frankly it simply wouldn't work in the current rules bloat.

I will cross my fingers and hope the new WE codex replicates the Khorne: Daemonkin book but not holding my breath.

GW either don't get CSM or they purposely make them Saturday morning cartoon villains. GW are probably still butt hurt from the old Lost and Damned campaign days when Chaos actually won yet they expected an overwheming loyalist victory - got to sell meh Emperor loving spes mahrines.

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

Only? No. Its a big part of it, of course (especially the legionary restriction that flat-out invalidates existing squads)

But its also several 'not appearing in this book' things (traitor guard, jetpacks), and how wretchedly bad some of the new stuff is.

Anyone seriously expecting Traitor Guard was always going to be disappointed & set themselves up for it.... Afterall, it is Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Besides, anything "missing"? Is just fodder to be included later in one of the 6 months-to-end-of-edition PA style filler volumes you all know are coming.

 Sim-Life wrote:


I'd warrent that its because Reddit is mostly newer players, whereas Dakkanauts are jaded curmudgeons. Also Reddit's upvote system tends to foster positivity inclined hugboxes, rather than any actual discussion

A person which is about to buy some new models and build a new army is going to be more happy about an upcomming codex or set of rules, then someone who is now looking at 2000pts of models and ponders what is he going suppose to do with those extra same special weapons, lack of unit caster models, oblits at 90pts etc.

Has nothing to do with being jaded. The rule set is better then what csm had till now. The question is, and it maybe a rhetorical one, if the rule set is on pair or better then what top armies are rocking right now. Because just getting a spiky marine codex, which gets dunked on the same other marine books do, and being made to rebuy an army, is not something more then a few people may not be very happy about.

ccs wrote:

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

Only? No. Its a big part of it, of course (especially the legionary restriction that flat-out invalidates existing squads)

But its also several 'not appearing in this book' things (traitor guard, jetpacks), and how wretchedly bad some of the new stuff is.

Anyone seriously expecting Traitor Guard was always going to be disappointed & set themselves up for it.... Afterall, it is Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Besides, anything "missing"? Is just fodder to be included later in one of the 6 months-to-end-of-edition PA style filler volumes you all know are coming.

agreed. it's not like chaos guardsmen where a thing in the last book eaither.

personally I'd rather chaos guard get a dedicated codex rather then be tossed into a CSM codex as a crap option

ccs wrote:

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

Only? No. Its a big part of it, of course (especially the legionary restriction that flat-out invalidates existing squads)

But its also several 'not appearing in this book' things (traitor guard, jetpacks), and how wretchedly bad some of the new stuff is.

Anyone seriously expecting Traitor Guard was always going to be disappointed & set themselves up for it.... Afterall, it is Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Because certainly the KT eldar corsairs and the KT sprue for additional legionary options didn't appear in the relevant codexes, one of which was this one. Oh. No. Wait, they did.
I'm doubting your oracular ability, here. 'always going to be disappointed' doesn't make any sense when they actually did it for 2 out of 3 kits. (sisters and tau were too late for their books, but got datasheets) and Codex Marines Again hasn't happened yet.

Voss wrote:

ccs wrote:

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is all the outrage only because of the jank loadout restrictions?

Only? No. Its a big part of it, of course (especially the legionary restriction that flat-out invalidates existing squads)

But its also several 'not appearing in this book' things (traitor guard, jetpacks), and how wretchedly bad some of the new stuff is.

Anyone seriously expecting Traitor Guard was always going to be disappointed & set themselves up for it.... Afterall, it is Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Because certainly the KT eldar corsairs and the KT sprue for additional legionary options didn't appear in the relevant codexes, one of which was this one. Oh. No. Wait, they did.
I'm doubting your oracular ability, here. 'always going to be disappointed' doesn't make any sense when they actually did it for 2 out of 3 kits. (sisters and tau were too late for their books, but got datasheets) and Codex Marines Again hasn't happened yet.

Traitor Guard isnt CSM tho......

thats like saying "oh man, why wasnt Guard included with my SM codex!"

Cultists aren't Chaos Marines either.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Cultists aren't Chaos Marines either.

yeah but the trend with cultists has been to be with the CSM in recent years....

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Cultists aren't Chaos Marines either.

yeah but the trend with cultists has been to be with the CSM in recent years....

And Corsairs trended to be with Craftworld Eldar?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Cultists aren't Chaos Marines either.

yeah but the trend with cultists has been to be with the CSM in recent years....

Do you actually have a point, or no?

Traitor Guard should have been in the book for the same reasons Corsairs are in the Eldar book.

The fact that they aren't, despite having a new kit, just like the Corsairs, is utterly perplexing.

Dudeface wrote:
There's the fact we know a new bigger Prince is on the way...

Ah, I can see your confusion. The Prince is for the Chaos Daemons release, not CSM. I would be surprised if Chaos Daemons get any other model released along side with the codex.

JakeSiren wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
There's the fact we know a new bigger Prince is on the way...

Ah, I can see your confusion. The Prince is for the Chaos Daemons release, not CSM.

Well...
it might actually be come alongside the newest AoS STD, not daemons.
but the model build they decided to show off during the Warhammer Fest Preview show ('oh gods they leaked it, quick, splice in some footage!' edition) was very clearly an ascendant daemon marine, not just a fantasy or generic prince (though it can also be built that way)

I would be surprised if Chaos Daemons get any other model released along side with the codex.

I also suspect this. I hope it won't be that bad, since Daemons perennially need to be treated as an actual army, not a pile of subfactions with no cohesive approach, but... no real hope there.

JakeSiren wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
There's the fact we know a new bigger Prince is on the way...

Ah, I can see your confusion. The Prince is for the Chaos Daemons release, not CSM. I would be surprised if Chaos Daemons get any other model released along side with the codex.

I'm not confused at all, I understand its coming with the StD book as that's what they stated in the stream.

The points the 40k profile will change when this new model comes out as the current one doesn't have a gin option, the new one does. So the CSM codex will have datasheets replaces/supplanted almost immediately.

This isn't the same as errata or balance changes, this is out and out giving you a redundant profile to save face for 3-6 months.

To those arguing not to expect renegade guardsmen in the chaos book, I'm curious where you'd put the rules without inventing a new faction otherwise.

GW will probably release a Traitor Guard Codex along side an Imperial Guard Codex. They'll be almost identical. The differences will be that the Chaos Codex won't have the Commisars and other agents of the Imperium but will have a copy/paste note saying the core units can buy a mark of (Whichever God) for 15 points.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
GW will probably release a Traitor Guard Codex along side an Imperial Guard Codex. They'll be almost identical. The differences will be that the Chaos Codex won't have the Commisars and other agents of the Imperium but will have a copy/paste note saying the core units can buy a mark of (Whichever God) for 15 points.

I know you're joking but I feel like its more likely GW are keep Traitor Guard on the back burner so they can release a Renegade and Heretics style army with Traitor Guard rules similar to that of GSC.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Traitor Guard should have been in the book for the same reasons Corsairs are in the Eldar book.

The fact that they aren't, despite having a new kit, just like the Corsairs, is utterly perplexing.

if they gave Traitor Guard the same treatment as corsair, you all wouldve complained just as much. Traitor guard needs its own codex, not just two units that have zero synergy with the rest of the dex

Voss wrote:
but the model build they decided to show off during the Warhammer Fest Preview show ('oh gods they leaked it, quick, splice in some footage!' edition) was very clearly an ascendant daemon marine, not just a fantasy or generic prince (though it can also be built that way)

Must've been a Night Lords build.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Traitor Guard should have been in the book for the same reasons Corsairs are in the Eldar book.

The fact that they aren't, despite having a new kit, just like the Corsairs, is utterly perplexing.

if they gave Traitor Guard the same treatment as corsair, you all wouldve complained just as much. Traitor guard needs its own codex, not just two units that have zero synergy with the rest of the dex

So what's your point?

Karol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:


I'd warrent that its because Reddit is mostly newer players, whereas Dakkanauts are jaded curmudgeons. Also Reddit's upvote system tends to foster positivity inclined hugboxes, rather than any actual discussion

A person which is about to buy some new models and build a new army is going to be more happy about an upcomming codex or set of rules, then someone who is now looking at 2000pts of models and ponders what is he going suppose to do with those extra same special weapons, lack of unit caster models, oblits at 90pts etc.

Has nothing to do with being jaded. The rule set is better then what csm had till now. The question is, and it maybe a rhetorical one, if the rule set is on pair or better then what top armies are rocking right now. Because just getting a spiky marine codex, which gets dunked on the same other marine books do, and being made to rebuy an army, is not something more then a few people may not be very happy about.

Except we have seen the pictures and it's not "better". It might be stronger in a tournament sense, but if you lose build options, iconic units and already know this is a stopgap because of EC and the Daemon Prince rules it's not "better". If they'd have released that 2 years ago maybe CSM players wouldn't be as salty, but after waiting two years for a 2nd wound and getting just copy pasted loyalist rules again (which people argued about in 8th already) and getting worse datasheets than before (honestly, GW knows people don't like that crap since the DG codex at the start of the edition, yet they managed to do even worse) it's legitimate to criticize that book.