Jump to content

What to expect from 9e CSM


Recommended Posts

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universal shoot or fight twice thing would be deleted, obviously. They caused balance problem in almost every faction, and removed in every updated 9th codices.

 

The CSM version may be changed to something like "a noise marines unit shoot sonic weapons twice".

 

*Stares in eradicators and Honour the Chapter stratagem. 

 

Shoot twice/ fight twice is going nowhere for the remainder of 9th at least. 10th maybe, Aggressors did lose their shoot twice in 9th changeover. 

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!

 

DG are a FAQ and point revision away from greatness. My condolences on the recent CA points. :sad.:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!

When even chaos marines who we got cut away from removing most of our stuff are getting decent rules to make them feared as a force whilst we have lack luster rules and yet still keep getting nerfed over more op armies

Even more so that WB are getting a army wide feel no pain which we got removed since it was deemed too powerful :(

Edited by Plaguecaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 relics per legion sound a bit excessive.

What I am happy about is that the legion traits do look solid, like they actually iterated on the marine ones and learned fromt hem (The shock!), same with the CSM doctrines. Exploding 6s are just way better, but if it's again tied to a :cussty system like how you have to use doctrines now, then it's just MEH. But the best part are the icons!!! Simply fantastic! Want to tailor a unit for a specific purpose? Use that icon! Hell I would even pay CP for that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It makes sense in that Possessed are a big thing for WB, and theyre only melee. I think a warp talon, possessed, daemon engine, and oblit WB army will look cool too. These leaks helped me sell my pile of CSM in the box.

 

 

I can see that.  I'm pretty excited at the idea of new possessed models so if they're also good, especially with WB, I'll be getting quite a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how/if cultists will interact with Legion Traits, like only getting 1 part of the 3 parts to each trait or getting a totally watered down version?

In other books Cultists, Poxwalkers and Tzaangors don't get legion traits, it would be odd for CSM to buck the trend on Cultists unless they make them part of their core identity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How reliable are these leaks really?

Can we be sure it's not some troll wishlisting?

For sure, we should all have our salt shakers handy. WB domination is an enticing prospect but history tempers my expectations for this stuff. Part of the fun will be seeing what pans out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How reliable are these leaks really?

 

Can we be sure it's not some troll wishlisting?

That's rumours for you - they can't have proof. If they did they'd be called "news" instead :laugh.::wink: This is why ultimately we wait and see but it is fun to discuss what could be :smile.:

 

I am wondering about EC as I have quite enjoyed the current trait, but maybe this is to differentiate between them and Daemons as it feels like this is what's happened with DG and Nurgle Daemons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!

When even chaos marines who we got cut away from removing most of our stuff are getting decent rules to make them feared as a force whilst we have lack luster rules and yet still keep getting nerfed over more op armies

Even more so that WB are getting a army wide feel no pain which we got removed since it was deemed too powerful :sad.:

 

Third trait is a doctrine style trait like SM chapters get, and the FNP for WB is only against mortal wounds, not all wounds.

 

So while I sympathize as well, as I also have been playing Death Guard, the CSM stuff is well in line with what is expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!

When even chaos marines who we got cut away from removing most of our stuff are getting decent rules to make them feared as a force whilst we have lack luster rules and yet still keep getting nerfed over more op armies

Even more so that WB are getting a army wide feel no pain which we got removed since it was deemed too powerful :sad.:

 

Third trait is a doctrine style trait like SM chapters get, and the FNP for WB is only against mortal wounds, not all wounds.

 

So while I sympathize as well, as I also have been playing Death Guard, the CSM stuff is well in line with what is expected.

 

Been reading the leaks and I haven't seen anywhere that says that the third part of everyone's trait is tied to how the doctrines works.  From my understanding, the Iron Warriors (For example) will wound vehicles with a +1 on every turn, not just on the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!

The third part (the +to wound buffs) is probably linked somehow to the CSM doctrine

 

How reliable are these leaks really?

 

Can we be sure it's not some troll wishlisting?

These rumours sound more plausible than the actual Tau rules :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Been reading the leaks and I haven't seen anywhere that says that the third part of everyone's trait is tied to how the doctrines works.  From my understanding, the Iron Warriors (For example) will wound vehicles with a +1 on every turn, not just on the first.

You can infer it, because the third part is scoped to the weapons that are associated with their probable favored doctrine.

 

So even if it's just a trait, it's specifically scoped to weapon types (Heavy/Grenade for IW, etc.). Given that, we can logically deduce that either way it's intended to be the relative equivalent of a superdoctrine, however it's implemented mechanically.

Edited by WrathOfTheLion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!

The icon names is simply me using placeholder names so people could easily understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So the Legions have 3 part traits? Is that to make up for not having a super doctrine? And their icons have the same names but different rules than the new DG and TS codexes? And the traits apply to every unit unlike DG where it doesn't apply to Daemon engines? Seems weird. I mean I'm happy for chaos marines but the creep keeps on creeping!

When even chaos marines who we got cut away from removing most of our stuff are getting decent rules to make them feared as a force whilst we have lack luster rules and yet still keep getting nerfed over more op armies

Even more so that WB are getting a army wide feel no pain which we got removed since it was deemed too powerful :sad.:

Third trait is a doctrine style trait like SM chapters get, and the FNP for WB is only against mortal wounds, not all wounds.

 

So while I sympathize as well, as I also have been playing Death Guard, the CSM stuff is well in line with what is expected.

Well in line with newer codexes being better than older codexes and codex creep being a thing, yes, as expected. But deathguard's legion trait doesn't apply to everything (besides cultists and poxwalkers). They also don't get a super doctrine, just a regular singular mono bonus. I would trade our icon out for some of those rumored ones in a heart beat.

 

Dont get me wrong, I'm happy for chaos marines. If anyone deserves tau rail guns at this point it's chaos marines, after the poop show of being left behind compared to loyalist for so long. I'm just upset with GW and their codex creep in general. Every codex always feels like a new writer that comes in and is like "well my dad can beat up your dad!" haha. Just gets old. Poor Necrons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's in line with the Loyalist codex is what I meant, which is generally where they're trying to make the equivalent, although it will be better because it's penned later and that's how that goes as you say. So we should compare TS to GK and CSM to C:SM for example, not CSM to DG. That's where I think we should be approaching this, or my mind is working here.

 

We can see how they've been moving mechanics back and forth between the two books for a while now, with the Dark Apostle vs Chaplains, etc.

Edited by WrathOfTheLion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can infer it, because the third part is scoped to the weapons that are associated with their probable favored doctrine.

So even if it's just a trait, it's specifically scoped to weapon types (Heavy/Grenade for IW, etc.). Given that, we can logically deduce that either way it's intended to be the relative equivalent of a superdoctrine, however it's implemented mechanically.

 

I'd wait till we have more information on it rather than making things up then.  All we have on it now is that it's 3 traits per legion, and nothing says that it's tied to what turn it is.  Think that bit of information would have been in the leaks if that was the case personally but it's definitely a 'wait and see' if we get more news on how it functions beyond what has been said.

Edited by She Who Thirsts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can infer it, because the third part is scoped to the weapons that are associated with their probable favored doctrine.

So even if it's just a trait, it's specifically scoped to weapon types (Heavy/Grenade for IW, etc.). Given that, we can logically deduce that either way it's intended to be the relative equivalent of a superdoctrine, however it's implemented mechanically.

 

I'd wait till we have more information on it rather than making things up then.  All we have on it now is that it's 3 traits per legion, and nothing says that it's tied to what turn it is.  Think that bit of information would have been in the leaks if that was the case personally but it's definitely a 'wait and see' if we get more news on how it functions beyond what has been said.

 

 

I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. Every other 9th codex has two traits, and the three traits here would just obviously broken. You seriously think that BL will just have exploding 5s on most of their guns the whole game along with two other traits?

 

Or take IW. If they ignore light cover and +1 to wound stuff in cover the full game, being in cover against them is actively worse than being in the open. It doesn't make any logical sense that it would be otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Black Legion one is the most obvious - turning the exploding 6s on Rapid Fire into exploding 5s can only happen while that doctrine is active, unless for some reason it just totally overwrites the existence of the tactical doctrine for them, which would be nonsensical imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that Clockwork Chris would have been told if they were turn dependent and probably would have stated as much.  Who knows, till he confirms or poo poos it, what we know from his is that the traits are independent from the Doctrine.

If it were the case that the third part of the traits were turn dependent, I'd say that some of them are pretty crap.  Especially the Iron Warrior one.
 

Edited by She Who Thirsts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that Clockwork Chris would have been told if they were turn dependent and probably would have stated as much. Who knows, till he confirms or poo poos it, what we know from his is that the traits are independent from the Doctrine.

 

If it were the case that the third part of the traits were turn dependent, I'd say that some of them are pretty crap. Especially the Iron Warrior one.

I am simply a messenger and have not seen these rules, all i know is my sources have been consistently revealing info for different codexes 5 months ahead of time and he/she have a 100% track record so far.

 

That said, what i have indocated is what i've been told and I expect my source to be somewhat vague as not to reveal himself to james workshop. Remember some info is better then no info.

 

My personnal guess is the 3 line of each legion trait is dependent on the doctrine. I believe that unlike the way SM super doctrines work, this one starts working when the specific weapon type is activated by a doctrine level.

 

So for example NL works on assault/pistols/melee, you gain the benefit for assault weapons in the tactical doctrine, and you gain the benefit for pistols/melee in the assault doctrine.

 

I have already asked my sources for clarifications, so we just have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my problem with that interpretation is that the Doctrines and the traits don't always line up.  As you said for the Night Lords there, why would they confuse things by having the 3rd part of their trait function partially in both the Tactical and the Assault doctrine.

I do hope your source can give us a clearer image of how it works sooner rather than later cos right now, from what you have shared, it doesn't factor in the doctrine turns.

Edited by She Who Thirsts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marine chapters essentially get three rules per chapter: two for the Chapter Tactic, and one additional ability if your whole army is from the same chapter.

 

For example, the Blood Angels chapter tactic provides +1 to advance and charge rolls, and +1 to wound on the charge/HI. If your whole army is Blood Angels, then they also get +1 attack on the charge/HI.

 

I suspect this will work in the same way.

Edited by Cheex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do we need to sacrifice to the Dark Gods to get some leaks as to what Marks of Chaos do? :tongue.:

 

How reliable are these leaks really?

Can we be sure it's not some troll wishlisting?

 

Some information (the "doctrine" equivalent & World Eaters not being in the book) had already been posted in public by one of the individuals who has been leaking information and images from the upcoming Eldar book. That seems to have a basis in fact. The poster here claims to be getting his additional information from an unnamed leaker on reddit who is apparently one of those individuals. There are some discrepancies but it largely sounds plausible. Up to each individual to decide how seriously to take this information; manage expectations accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.