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.

 Blackie wrote:
From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.

If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.

I wonder sometimes if you live in an alternate dimension to the rest of us and your posts are going to the wrong Dakka.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's crazy talk.

Too early to figure out.
But I guess it's a quite strong 'dex.

I would argue the codex exists to sell models, the models are not even available for pre-order. For the game, who knows if it's a success. From a business standpoint, heads should be rolling for a failure this bad.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's crazy talk.

Too early to figure out.
But I guess it's a quite strong 'dex.

If it was strong we would have a 20 page thread about csm right now and asking why the forgefiend with full weapon load out costs 95pts or something similar. It is a marine book, with stuff layered on it. But in the end it operates on meq stat line which right now doesn't really work. But maybe there is some vehicle/demonic stufff build no one thought of and we will only see it, when someone who tested the books builds for 2-3 months takes a big event with it. I have my doubts about it though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.

If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.

The thing is that is now how GW books look like. Not the good one at least. All the good armies in 9th, were undercosted by at least 15% and had multiple over lap buffs on top of rules which were breaking the normal core rules and how the game functions. And as I said before, book like that age bad.
And the books that are similar to csm are having a really bad time right now playing against those eldar, DE, tyranids etc armies.

You're confusing "strong" or "good" with "unbalanced". These things are not synonymous.

the creations of bile looks cool. I am not surte it will be a supported army after a few editions, but i am excited to model it and seems power wise to be pretty good but not over the top. cool modeling project though to go nuts, getting some cool files and making a few of my own for the abominations to 3d print and slap on models that will be on the field

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
I would argue the codex exists to sell models, the models are not even available for pre-order. For the game, who knows if it's a success. From a business standpoint, heads should be rolling for a failure this bad.

Yeah, including shadowspear and the chosen/warpsmith, the some of newest 6 (7?) units and 2 characters are simply unavailable to buy. That's a complete clusterfeth.

List:
MoP and Warpsmith

Chosen
Cultists
Mutants
Cultist command
Possessed
Venomcrawler
Oblits

Voss wrote:
Yeah, including shadowspear and the chosen/warpsmith, the some of newest 6 (7?) units and 2 characters are simply unavailable to buy. That's a complete clusterfeth.

List:
MoP and Warpsmith

Chosen
Cultists
Mutants
Cultist command
Possessed
Venomcrawler
Oblits

Yes, I think calling it a 'success' in this case would require some truly convoluted metrics. I mean as long as you're not looking to get any new players for the faction, sure, I guess 'success' could be on the table.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're confusing "strong" or "good" with "unbalanced". These things are not synonymous.

I do not mix them up. If people run, lift, jump a certain high, then this is the benchmark to check other results against. You don't take a new codex, like csm and then compare it to the worse or mid tier books, because it doesn't show much. Well aside if it the books is mid against those, it being a hallmark of the book having some design problems. Also people can't say what is "unbalanced" when the rules for books are writen by GW with clear intention to work in a certain way. DE are strong and good, and can stay strong and good, because they were writen in a certain way. Eldar, in every edition are writen strong and good, and people can be sure to have fun with their new books every time. On the other side of design there are books that exist based on mechanic or rules interaction, they can be strong and good, but only for a short time. There are also books which are just put out, so GW can be done with them and move on to something else. Give an army X, Y and Z each army has in a given edition, and that is as much design is put in to them. Such book often end up really bad, specialy over time.

Again balanced books don't age well. When the so called unbalanced ones can have hights multiple times in an edition, and often have a good to mid tier expiriance next edition.

idk, on one hand i'm fething pissed at the wargear options being so jank and on Marks/Icons being weirdly restricted

On the other hand, it feels like the codex has so many more build options that are interesting compared to 8th's codex. For what its worth, i play mostly tempest of war so i don't feel the effects of the CP starvation of Nephilim

Blackie wrote:From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.

If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.

If we're evaluating this codex purely on external balance, I'd wait for more information before coming to a conclusion on that. They left plenty of jank in the faction, and we haven't had much time to see how it all shakes out.

As for "representing" CSM, I can only speak for my Legion, as players of other Legions should evaluate that for themselves. But this book is absolute for representing the 8th Legion. The removal of the HQs that both synergise with, and represent their preferred methods of warfare is a big hit, as is the almost complete removal of their most iconic and preferred melee weapon as an option. And the Legion trait is an unbalanced failure: utterly meaningless against some factions/units/builds and potentially dilipidating to others.

And it only looks worse when you consider that they were perfectly represented in the rules of another book released within weeks of this codex for another (and far superior rules wise IMO) game by the exact same company. The difference between the Night Lords rules in this book and the Liber Hereticus are stark, and all the more baffling considering how closely they were released, and therefore probably written.

Not Online!!! wrote:A good codex falls within the trifecta:

Balance
Fun
Representative of the faction.

It is fair to say the new CSM codex failed to be representative of chaos space marines.

It's also fair to say that due to the recent halfing of CP a lot of the balance mechanics around HQ and upgrades / are completely out of whack. So no, balance wise i think this codex already got a nerfbat to the knee before the party even started. Fun fact, due to a still existing double shoot stratagem we also got the prohibition to specialise legionaires with 2 of the same Heavy /special weapon.

fun: Oh boi, between inability of representing chaos marines as a whole (no custom traits), outright brainmelting datasheets (cultist mob, Mere mortals), the further existence of a double shoot and Votwl Stratagem (no matter how you slice it, those ARE unfun for your opponent and you)...


So no, this codex is bad.

Amen.

My impression of the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines is it okay. And can be considered a success by only the thinnest of margins. Like passing a class with a C- or maybe even a D+ depending on what the player values.

I think in optimized play, C:CSM will do mediocre. Good players will manage to be able to do some neat stuff with all the combinations and tactical play. Average and lesser players may struggle as the book doesn't seem to have much, "do this thing for more powah."

For better, or for worst, C:CSM's foundation is Legions (and others like the Creation of Bile). This is the starting point for building an army with everything branching off from there. However, I think there is a wide gulf between powerful legions and weak legions. I suspect in optimized play there will be a lot of Word Bearers and Black Legion but not a lot Alpha Legion and Night Lords doing well in tournaments.

Warlord Traits and Relics are a treasure trove of power. Almost to the point they feel like the reason the current GT pack limits pre-game CP expediture. Prior to this codex, I never went that deep with Traits/Relics beyond 1CP for Council of Traitors, which was more of a bargain getting 2 Traits for the price of one. Now I easily want to spend at least 4 CP on Warlord Traits and Relics.

Chaos Space Marines have always had, or wanted to give the player the impression of, stronger characters. I think this is very much the case with codex. It's kinda shame that they all crowd the HQ slot, which I think a CSM will be hard pressed to not use up all the HQ slots they have.

Troops options appear to continue to be pretty weak. Ranging from investing a fair amount of points (which is probably best spent elsewhere) to get something good to cheap but falls over in a stiff wind. Both wanting to make use of some stratagems that appear pretty good, but may still be worth the CP compared to other strats.

Elites has some pretty good stuff. However, like much of the rest of the codex, it is mostly geared toward melee. Which is fine to some extent. CSM are generally more melee to ranged focused. However, I think this codex may have over did things. I know I struggle to put down meaningful ranged firepower outside of Heavy Support. This is mostly tied to the restriction in infantry weapon loadouts, which defuse firepower concentration down to often being a consideration if it is even worth it.

Fast Attack is a surprisingly crowded area. To some extent, I don't think there are any bad options here. It just depends on what you want, and CSM players have a wide range of options to pick what they value.

Heavy Support (and Flyers) is an area I personally lean on heavier with the new codex, but I don't know if it is necessarily significantly more powerful. CSM tanks are marginally better than loyalist ones at the moment. I don't know if that is enough to make them worthwhile in optimized play. The same can be said about Daemon Engines.

Stratagems are good, but a lot of them seem overpriced. Or at very least, it feels the codex really wants CSM players to build bigger squads for more efficient use of many 2+ CP strats. As many of the infantry ones don't have a 1CP for minimum sized squads and 2 for bigger squads. This, combined with pre-game expenditures, leaves CSM starving for CP. I think I personally will be taking Trusted War-Leader most games to allow for more CP overall.

Spells and Prayers also seem excellent. Which ties into that crowded HQ spot, not really relieved by giving Legionaries spell tomes (at least by me so far).

***

So power wise, there's some stuff. But I don't think it is particularly easy to wield. Definitely not by a player at my level at least. Fluff wise, I think the codex is a mess. It wants to be Legion focused, but I can't say the book has any of them feel how I think the Chaos Legions operate. Take Black Legion, my army; +1 to hit is powerful, but it doesn't feel especially like Sons of Horus throwbacks or anything beyond it works well with any datasheet. Honestly, the most Black Legion things about this codex is Confluence of Traitors and Abaddon. And I would say Black Legion feel more like I think they should than most other Legions.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Take Black Legion, my army; +1 to hit is powerful, but it doesn't feel especially like Sons of Horus throwbacks or anything beyond it works well with any datasheet. Honestly, the most Black Legion things about this codex is Confluence of Traitors and Abaddon. And I would say Black Legion feel more like I think they should than most other Legions.

GW has made it pretty clear for awhile now that CSM is basically the Abaddon fan club and attendant groupies.

alextroy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.

H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.

Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.

But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.

But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.

 alextroy wrote:

alextroy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.

H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.

Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.

But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.

But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.

And what if every time you make a list or put your army on the table, you think "I'd rather be playing this army in Horus Heresy "?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

alextroy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.

H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.

Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.

But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.

But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.

And what if every time you make a list or put your army on the table, you think "I'd rather be playing this army in Horus Heresy "?

Is that the codex or core rules at that point?

Can't it be both?
But specifically in the case of chaos legions / chaos space marines and customizability it's an issue of the faction rules design, therefore codex.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Can't it be both?
But specifically in the case of chaos legions and customizability it's an issue of the faction rules design, therefore codex.

Spoiler:

I mean it can be both, but "does this 40k codex make you happy to use it" doesn't seem relevant if 40k as a core isn't something you like any more.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Can't it be both?
But specifically in the case of chaos legions and customizability it's an issue of the faction rules design, therefore codex.

Spoiler:

I mean it can be both, but "does this 40k codex make you happy to use it" doesn't seem relevant if 40k as a core isn't something you like any more.

That goes back though to the issue of people preffering a setting over another no?

Setting wise is still adore 40k, granted some of the new lore is not enticing to me but still on an acceptable level.
Rulewise baseline 40k 9th edition i find lacking, same with 8th.
So i can still enjoy 40k and want to play matches but unlike in the past after 1-2 rounds i got enough and yearn for another system.

My Night Lords are much more fun to play in OnePageRules anyway lol

Dudeface wrote:
Is that the codex or core rules at that point?

I don't mind the rules for 9th (just so it's clear I don't use the Tournament Packs) and there are things I really don't like about HH 2 (deepstriking comes to mind) but the massive gulf between the rules HH Night Lords get and 40k Night Lords get is astounding. When your army has rules that are ignored by about half the armies in the game (IIRC the last tally that was made), how are you meant to enjoy using that army? HH Night Lords don't have this at all. It's not the game that's the issue, it's the balance between armies and subfactions.

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

alextroy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.

H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.

Having to use a codex because that's your codex is different from wanting to play that codex. It doesn't have to have every option in the world you ever wanted or be a power codex that will crush the enemy before you.

But if every time you make a list or put your army on the table you think "maybe I should start/play a different army", the codex has failed. If every time you face that army across the table you think "why am I even bothering to play this game", the codex has failed. If every time you put your army on the table your opponent groans and says "why am I even bother to play this game", the codex has failed.

But if you and your opponent always have fun when you pull out the army, the codex was a success.

And what if every time you make a list or put your army on the table, you think "I'd rather be playing this army in Horus Heresy "?

Is that the codex or core rules at that point?

A little bit of both. I do prefer the HH core rules to 9th, and much of what makes Night Lords so much better in HH is how their rules interact with the core rules (as opposed to just stacking more rules onto the rules as most codexes in 9th do). But I do still enjoy 40k, even with my problems with 9th. Or at least I did. Thinking of playing my army without many of the things that have made it what it is for the last 2 decades just leaves me feeling cold. They've torn its guts out with this codex, and given it nothing but stratagems, Warlord traits, and other forms of poor compensation in trade.

VladimirHerzog wrote:My Night Lords are much more fun to play in OnePageRules anyway lol

Have you seen our HH rules Vlad? I can honestly say that they're the best, most fluffy rules we've ever had IMHO. Even better than 3.5. They're honestly that good.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:My Night Lords are much more fun to play in OnePageRules anyway lol

Have you seen our HH rules Vlad? I can honestly say that they're the best, most fluffy rules we've ever had IMHO. Even better than 3.5. They're honestly that good.

i honestly havnt looked at them not to torture myself lol. Nobody locally seems to be down to try HH because "marines boring" (even if most of them own marines -.- ) I did glance at the HH1.0 rules at one point and yeah, the fluffyness was there

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:My Night Lords are much more fun to play in OnePageRules anyway lol

Have you seen our HH rules Vlad? I can honestly say that they're the best, most fluffy rules we've ever had IMHO. Even better than 3.5. They're honestly that good.

i honestly havnt looked at them not to torture myself lol. Nobody locally seems to be down to try HH because "marines boring" (even if most of them own marines -.- ) I did glance at the HH1.0 rules at one point and yeah, the fluffyness was there

That's a shame. Because HH2.0 has taken that fluffyness and cranked it up to 11. Not only do we get more ways to play the dirty fighters with A Talent For Murder, but the revamped Night Fighting rules and Night Lords ability to take Preysight (Night Vision) on everything (for a price now, and for good reason) truly makes the 8th Legion the "Lords of the Night". Nobody wants to deal with the 8th Legion after the sun sets.

 Blackie wrote:
From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.

There's more than power though. It lacks in customizability.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.

There's more than power though. It lacks in customizability.

And it's not very powerful to begin with

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
I would argue the codex exists to sell models, the models are not even available for pre-order. For the game, who knows if it's a success. From a business standpoint, heads should be rolling for a failure this bad.

I bought the codex to finally get updated rules to represent my CSM armies and inspire me to add to them. I barely got the former, thanks to all the excised loadouts, and certainly haven't gotten the latter. I think I'll wait a little bit for Codex:Chaos Daemons to hit and just play with my armies from that side of the spectrum, they've gotta be better represented and more exciting than what C:CSM 9E gave me.

He said, jinxing the feth out of that book

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.

If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.

I wonder sometimes if you live in an alternate dimension to the rest of us and your posts are going to the wrong Dakka.

I also wounder if every dakka player only plays at events against Siegler... it appears so sometimes. I do know for a fact that Dakka doesn't represent what the majority of players experiences. A lot of very active posters here don't even play.

I firmly believe that tournament level lists are not the standard meta for many players, especially in this age of frequent changes, when it's really hard to chase the flavour of the month. I have between 8 and 10k of orks and I could never field a fully optimized netlist in this edition (9 squigbuggies, 5 flyers, 3 kill rigs, etc...). Not even once.

I do live in a dimension in which pre-game talk is not only allowed but encouraged and where toning down or up the lists in order to have a more balanced game is the standard procedure between players who know each other.

But honestly do you believe the CSM codex is worse or much worse than the necrons, TS, GK, orks, SM and all of their supplements, adepta sororitas, deathguard, chaos knights, gen cults or the custodes ones? There are 3 or 4 books that are better the other ones, those top codexes should be nerfed, not the other way around where every new release has to be in line with the flavour of the month. And if CSM codex fails to be as good as the tyranids, aeldari, drukhari, tau codexs that's good news. Awesome news. It means less nerfs are needed to get a more balanced universe.

 Blackie wrote:
But honestly do you believe the CSM codex is worse or much worse than the necrons, TS, GK, orks, SM and all of their supplements, adepta sororitas, deathguard, chaos knights, gen cults or the custodes ones?

Yes I do believe it's worse than all of those codexes (well maybe not Thousand Sons or Death Guard), because I don't play at a high level and don't care about broken wombo combos but do care about insane restrictions on wargear and deletion of units.

I'm really unhappy with it. We have fewer units than in the 8e codex, and a lot of the remaining units have had their wargear options gutted. Comparing codex to codex directly, you could say the legion rules are a nice addition, but these were already available in supplements.

Marks that actually do something are nice to have, but only certain units can have them, and Icons have also been restricted to specific units now.

We've lost way more than we've gained, basically. Power aside (and I really don't care about such things) the new codex stinks.