++From Hatred We Were Born, Creation of a 7.5 Chaos Codex++

[Teetengee]

Added Decimators, Renegade Chimeras, Hellcrawlers and Daemonfiends to the Auxiliaries book

I am considering dropping some of the WS/BS on Hellcrawelers and Daemonfiends (to a base of 2 buyable to 3s) to fit in as renegade stalk tanks. Potentially I also want to shift things around a bit in what counts as Heavy support, because once the renegades bring the tanks, it might make that slot heavily lopsided


(Although, I am planning on having some detachments with more troops, and some Dark Forge detachments that are Heavy Support/Elite/HQ type things, so maybe that is a work around).


Also, I removed some of the options from the wargear list, some may return if it seems they need to, hence the rules for those options remaining for now.

Also, I was considering disallowing the Warp Legacy rule on the daemon engines in this book. Thoughts?

[Carrack]

Maybe have the warp legacy as a purchasable upgrade? That way if an army is made to represent the mortal followers of a legion, the upgrade can be bought, but if it's just a renegade army where the rules don't fit, they don't have to get it. Another option would be to have a detachment where the warp legacy is applied to certain units, at the cost of purchasing iconic units of the legion.

[Teetengee]

Oh, it would only be a purchasable upgrade, just like in the other codices for vehicles.

[Khornestar]

*edit*

 

Nm, I was wrong. Just re-read what you wrote.

 

I really like how customizable you can make bodyguards, and that you've made Disciples playable instead of the stupid 1 special weapon per squad rule. Looking at your renegade units, I actually really like that you've changed very little, but the minimal changes you've made were exactly what the units needed to make them sensible instead of just... dumb. Really can't believe some of the "fluffy" decisions FW made when creating their versions. Rogue psykers, another example of a few changes that make the unit playable. Can join a squad, for example. And the madness rule is both fluffy and fun, equally likely to screw its owner as hurt the enemy.

[Teetengee]

*edit*

 

Nm, I was wrong. Just re-read what you wrote.

 

I really like how customizable you can make bodyguards, and that you've made Disciples playable instead of the stupid 1 special weapon per squad rule. Looking at your renegade units, I actually really like that you've changed very little, but the minimal changes you've made were exactly what the units needed to make them sensible instead of just... dumb. Really can't believe some of the "fluffy" decisions FW made when creating their versions. Rogue psykers, another example of a few changes that make the unit playable. Can join a squad, for example. And the madness rule is both fluffy and fun, equally likely to screw its owner as hurt the enemy.

Yeah, my thought was that FW got it almost right. Most of it just needs a few changes. (Plus I wanted to expand a little on some of the characters, since my list is a little different from theirs.)

[Teetengee]

Hey everyone, have a Valentine's day detachment with love from Malal. He will certainly find harmony with the other gods this year! ;)

Hidden Content

Labyrinth Raiding Force Detachment

Composition:

1 HQ

0-2 ELITES

2-4 TROOPS

0-2 FAST ATTACK

0-2 HEAVY SUPPORT

 

Restrictions:

All units must have the Chaos Faction (Traitors and Heretics).

Units from this formation are aligned with Malal.

No units from this formation may take Veterans of the Long War.

Units with a fixed Warp Legacy may not be taken.

Benefits:
All models with the Warp Legacy rule in this detachment must take the following Warp Legacy:
Anarchy and Terror: Models with this rule gain Fearless and Fear.
All models in this detachment gain Preferred Enemy (Chaos).

All vehicles increase their carrying capacity by 1 for every full 10 carrying capacity they normally have.
All units increase their maximum unit size by 1 for every full 10 models they normally would be able to take.

[Teetengee]

Made some updates to some wording and objectives in the Slaanesh codex after playtesting.

Also, added devotions to the Auxiliaries codex. I'd love thoughts on them.

[Teetengee]

Oh, I also restricted the resonance proccing to non-dedicated transports in the noise cult due to pintle sonic blaster rhinos being op. (HA, who would have thought I would have said that!)

I playtested a 1500 point list with Noise cult and Bedlam Engine, and it was buckets of fun, btw. Got to use single landraider+single dread+single pred as a core to my list, and it worked without hamstringing me!

[Teetengee]

It occurs to me that I have a small internal balance issue in my codices. The eviscerator and powerfist cost the same. On multiwound models that isn't an issue because the specialist weapon rule vs two handed means the powerfist is better in some circumstances even if it lasts the oomph. However, most single wound models can't take a second close weapon for the drawback to be noticed, so eviscerator > powerfist. I was thinking of dropping the powerfist cost to 18/25 rather than the 20/25 it currently is in my codices, but am worried that would just increase the points disparity between my codex and loyalist codices too much, so maybe I should increase the cost of eviscerators by 2 points? On the other hand, I think the former is a more accurate point cost for how effective it is, and that it isn't really my fault that close combat weapons have over costed legacy pricing. Thoughts?

[Khornestar]

I dunno, getting too precise for the blunt object that is my brain. I'd leave the costs as they are, as the legacy issue you mentioned is pretty frustrating to home brewing. That being said, a look at the cheap cost of the new wulfen weapons makes me think the ideas of upgrade costs are being thrown out of whack.

[Carrack]

Maybe there should be some reward for having an awesomely huge chainsword.

[Teetengee]

Maybe there should be some reward for having an awesomely huge chainsword.

Well, sure, I just want powerfist users to not feel useless too. Almost every list has included eviscerators for me, and autoincludes make me wary that they are undercosted or their competition is overcosted.

[Teetengee]

Thoughts on adding musicians to daemon units? They could potentially give counterattack, overwatch penalties, assault grenades.... Thoughts?

[Khornestar]

An interesting idea. That would add some interesting options to the otherwise bland units.

[Teetengee]

What sort of bonuses do you think they should give? I think something small like a -1 to enemy fear rolls would be too little to be worth it, but I'm not sure what effects would work best.

[Khornestar]

Well the listed overwatch penalties, counter attack, and assault grenades all sound pretty good. I think if GW was writing the rule it would definitely be -1 to Fear tests.

[Teetengee]

Ok, so overwatch penalties I think overlap too much with the benefits from vox screech and dirge casters, so I probably won't go with that. Assault grenades, though useful, would perhaps be too powerful, and also reduce the synergy of Skull Cannons. Counter attack would perhaps be too strong for what I want to be a small point upgrade, and wouldn't overlap well with the Charnal Cohort bonus.

Interestingly, both of the second thing are only really a problem in the Khorne dex. Additionally, Counterattack seems to be the strongest contender from a fluff standpoint, since historically musicians have been used for rallying cries and calling in reinforcements. Additionally, counterattack is a nice bonus for deepstriking daemons.

How would you cost it if it gave counterattack to the unit. I'm thinking 8 points probably works for just about all the daemon units, since the more powerful ones get less proportionally out of it due to the fact they already have plenty of attacks.

[Khornestar]

I think that's a good middle ground, yeah. You're right about the assault grenade thing, too. Just sorta part of their nature, other than daemons of Nurgle.

[Teetengee]

Added Instruments of Chaos for Bloodcrushers, Bloodletters, Pink Horrors, Plaguebearers, Plague Drones, Daemonettes, and Seekers.

[Vorenus]

Has there already been a thorough discussion of the proposed changes to Abaddon?  I tried to find it in the thread but it is over 10 pages long now so I wasn't able to easily find it if it is there.

[Teetengee]

I don't think anyone on this forum has discussed Abaddon much. I did talk about him with my friends though. What are your thoughts?

[Vorenus]

First, let me say that I can tell you have put a TON of time into this project.  It is definitely a labor of love for you, and I can tell you have put a lot of effort and thought into this.  Thank you for sharing your work with us.

 

If nobody else has brought it up, I would like to get the ball rolling discussing Abaddon.  Like him or hate him, I think it is safe to say that he is the single most important character in the Chaos faction in modern 40K.  (Not 30K, that's a completely different discussion.)  So his character is one that needs to be handled just right.  I think what you have so far for him is good.  I have a few reservations/questions but I'll get to those in a minute.  First, the good:  I like that you have written him up to show that he is a beat stick in combat, but also that he is a master strategist and master tactician.  His combat prowess is very obvious based on his statline.  His tactical and strategic genius is represented by his Warlord Trait, Iconoclast.  My first question:  What do you think about adding something else to him to represent his tactical/strategic gifts?  Perhaps a rule similar to your Tongues of the Serpent re-deployment rule, where he can re-deploy d3 units?  A modification to Reserves rolls (either +1 for his own side, or -1 for opponents' rolls)?  Perhaps a rule where he gets to choose his Warlord trait, rather than having it fixed?  Although Iconoclast is an interesting Warlord Trait, it will be completely useless in a lot of situations:  Games that don't have Objectives, for example, or games where the opponent doesn't have any units that have Objective Secured.  It would be nice to swap Iconoclast, which, as I said, is an interesting Warlord Trait, for something that would be more situationally useful for the specific game. 

 

I see that you gave him Preferred Enemy: Armies of the Imperium.  I like how in the 6th ed. Codex he grants Preferred Enemy to all friendly units within 12".  What do you think about that?

 

Now the elephant in the room:  I'm not sure why you have him costed at close to 400 points.  I see that his WS is higher (by 2 points), and that his Daemon Weapon now is a Destroyer weapon (more on that in a moment).  But none of his other attributes were increased.  His Invulnerable Save remains 4++ since you have re-written the way that Mark of Tzeentch works, otherwise it would be a 3++ because you have him a Sigil of Corruption instead of just relying on his Terminator Armor with the bonus from MoT.  I'm not sure that raising his Weapon Skill from 7 to 9 and giving him a Destroyer melee weapon is worth the 115 point increase in his cost.  Could you explain your reasoning there? Maybe I am missing something else.

 

Finally, Drach'nyen.  I have mixed feelings about this.  Personally, I am not a fan of Destroyer weapons in normal games of WH40K.  I believe Destroyer weapons should be limited to Apocalypse level games.  That said, obviously I am in the minority--with the Eldar Codex in particular it is obviously very possible to get multiple Destroyer weapons into a regular 40K game.  I think that is a terrible thing for the game, but oh well.  So, back on point:  You made Drach'nyen a Destroyer weapon, but then made it so he doesn't get the full benefit of all the possible attacks he could get from his regular profile plus the Daemon Weapon roll.  Currently, in his 6th edition glory, he gets to choose which weapon he wants to use.  For example, when I run him, if he is fighting regular power armor dudes, I don't bother with Drach'nyen since there is a risk of wounding myself and he has something like 7 attacks anyway with the Talon of Horus.  That's enough to slaughter a typical squad of power armor dudes, no need to risk rolling a 1 on the Daemon Weapon.  The Talon of Horus is also good for cracking open light vehicles (or even heavier vehicles if you are in a unit with an Icon of Wrath so you are hitting at Strength 9 on the charge).  I save the Daemon Weapon for when it is necessary, like if he gets stuck in a challenge with somebody wearing Artificer Armor (presumably because the Chaos Champion you sent to do the challenge first is already dead).  Then Drach'nyen's AP2 really shines--but what makes it work is that you will have so many more attacks than the typical Chapter Master Captain America Smashbro that you can reliably take him down.  The way you have it set up, though, he has no choice:  He has to use BOTH the Talon of Horus and Drach'nyen.  This is going to be problematic, I think.  Although making Drach'nyen a Destroyer weapon obviously makes him more powerful, writing it up this way actually reduces his flexibility--which goes against the image I have of Abaddon as a tactical genius.  Put another way:  Why would Abaddon ever use the Destroyer weapon against regular power armor troops when a Strength 8 (or 9) lightning claw with AP3 is more than enough to do the job?  And finally, you made it so that Drach'nyen will give him a wound with no saves allowed at all.  In the current rules he still gets his Invulnerable save if Drach'nyen wounds him.  I think the reason you did this was to balance out the fact that you made it a Daemon Weapon.  If so, I don't think it really works to balance it out.

 

Let me close by saying again that I can tell you have put a lot of thought and effort into this project, and you have a lot of good stuff here.  I have spent a few hours today reading through your various Codexes, and I really like the way you have put these together.  Thank you for sharing them.  I look forward to hearing your responses to my questions/comments.

[Teetengee]

So a lot of the stuff with Abaddon was patterned after his old 3.5 ruleset where he made all but one attack with drachnyen but that attack did basically autoremoval. I figured that STR D was pretty close to that. Additionally, Drachnyen is a daemon weapon and has always had that chance to harm the user. The reason I wrote it the way I did with him taking an auto wound when it fights back is because otherwise it might Str D him into death from full wounds, and I figured this was a good compromise.

As for giving a preferred enemy bubble and choice of warlord trait, both of those sound reasonable, I'll think about adding them in.


Also, the point cost was because I think offensively he has about the same output as a knight, but he can hide in a squad or a transport for ablative wounds, even if he himself isn't quite as survivable. Also he has some force multiplier ability. However, the point cost could be shifted around, as things that much more powerful than a regular guy are pretty hard to balance.

[Tenebris]

I agree with Drach'nyen being a Strength D weapon. I recall it being used to shatter the armored gates of a mighty Cadian Kasr as well as being able to tear the very reality apart. I find it not just credible but a worthy tribute to Abaddon and his daemonic sword, fluffwise. 

[Vorenus]

It still limits Abaddon too much, in my opinion, to require him to use BOTH weapons in every melee. He should still have the flexibility to choose when to use either. There are lots of situations where the Talon is a better fit, and vice versa.