06/02/2011: Draft 1



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I've started getting my ideas down on paper, thought I'd do it as a "rolling" document rather than publish it at the end and have 3+ versions of just corrections

Maybe I will use that nice fuchsia colour that GW are using in their FAQs to show the new bits each time

Basically I've lifted the Combat Tactics idea, but rather than link it to SCs, you just choose which army type you want. SCs won't be army restricted.

There will be options in some of the entries like for the Chaos Lord...
Iron Warriors:
May take a Servo Arm for 20* points.
Or the Sorcerer...
Word Bearers:
May be upgraded to a Dark Apostle for 20* points.

* Arbitrary example points

Other random thoughts washing around my head:

Potential SCs:
Abaddon - will make Termies scoring or allow them as Troops - personally I think Logan should have only made WG scoring, not Troops so will probably go for that
Fabius - including him will allow you to pick certain units to be Fabius Marines which swaps The Long War for Fearless and The Face of Chaos for the Mutation table
Huron
Arkos
The dude from Lord of the Night - makes Raptors Troops
The dude from Soul Hunter
The IW dude from Storm of Iron/Black Sky Dead Sun
Marduk and Kol Badar from the Word Bearers trilogy
The named biker dude from the Hounds of Huron Apoc formation - makes Bikers Troops
Maybe a Steel Brethren dude - allows Dreadclaws to re-roll scatter

Cult Troops to go back to Elites but marked Lord switches them into Troops. Only Cult unit as they appear now are in - if people want the full shebang they have the Legion Codices

Chosen to be selected like 3.5 Ed/current WG (apart from the squad leader bit).

If you are stripping back all your nice bits and bobs, you really need to look at some of what was taken away by the 4th ed codex too.
E.g. this probably won't have slaughterfiends.. but nor will it have mutated hull indirect fire.. It won't have landraider variants (unless chaos upgrades are brought back to balance out cruasaders) but it also won't have infernal device or a version of POTMS that makes an opponent think twice.

IMO Codex either needs an amalgam of your nice expanded universe stuff, or the stuff pre neutering adding back in, or taking the current codex wiping our minds of anything before and rewriting it in a post guard world (e.g. chaos is allowed '96 era giant spined beasts+ spawn, and angaraths)Oooh a spawn lord..lolcakes .

On smaller scale abaddon termies scoring\troops- too common. Something funnier required for the demi god of 41st millenium.

Well there shouldn't be anything coming out of this that's in the current book apart from the God-SCs, and I intend to review the Index Astartes and previous Codices (including 2nd Ed and Realms/Slaves) for ideas.

I've drafted an artillery unit to go in as a new unit rather than IF on Defilers, and you're right I probably won't throw in any specific God stuff like Slaughterfiends.

I only left in units I was decided on, though the Land Raider was more laziness as it definitely needs a think over.

Well the Termies thing may be too common, but he does mooch around with a load of Termies, I don't think abandoning fluff just because it's something a lot of people do is the right approach. I wasn't otherwise planning to change him directly*.

*Planning to change Daemon Weapons so that they go screwy on a '6', but you don't lose your attacks.

Aside: If I was writing all the Codices, only Deathwing would have been allowed to become Troops, but all other Chapters would have had someone allowing Termies to be Scoring to represent taking the Captain of the 1st Company (whether he was a named character or not). Same for Assault/Bikes (8th Co) and Devs (9th Co).

Baragash wrote:Well the Termies thing may be too common, but he does mooch around with a load of Termies, I don't think abandoning fluff just because it's something a lot of people do is the right approach. I wasn't otherwise planning to change him directly*..

Fair enough.. some ideas though that fit with fluff.
1) He is described as having the demagogue ability (like wordbearer HQs). If you make this a good skill he could have it.
2) He has some Blackstone fortresses,giant weapons from the first war flaying ctan.(he could have a super prelim orbital better than chapter masters)
3) He was the birth father of defilers.He could make them in several places.. even invest them with demonic consciousness so that machines might hold objectives.
4) as you say he led the "The Justaerin" but he also hung out with the chosen of abbaddon, who were a bunch of chaos lords http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Chosen_of_Abaddon (for this you could have guard like advisor's who do stuff to reserves, bombardments, corruptions, leadership tests for any within X, whilst also being old skool chaos liuetenants cheap ICs who also kick butt).
5) He really hates horus now, the whole "let it slip from his grasp" and destroying whole fleets of chaos who try to clone or ressurect horus. He really really hates failure. You could have a black rage/commisar style rule about having to justify to abaddon why you did not win..making the army always X

Never forget Abaddon is the sex

1) Well I was going to give him Fearless that applies to his squad (ditto CL n general), which is not too different (just less range). I'm not sure the character that is developing in the HH series really justifies Demagogue.
2) I like this idea
3) He only commissioned them IIRC, bit tenuous IMO
4) "Each of the Chosen of Abaddon is a mighty Chaos Lord in his own right and in charge of his own forces." I'm probably going to add an Icon Bearer as a 2W character as it happens (also inspired by the WB trilogy).
5) Well I have been considering how to work in a 40k version of "You Have Failed Me For The Last Time" (or whatever it was called), which was his rule in BFG.

As a distinction between Chaos and Imperial Marine characters, I see Chaos ones as being individually powerful, but not often beneficial to those around them, as they are essentially selfish individuals.

Why not use the combat tactics template from SM codex?

1) Basic is that CSM squads get re-roll to moral.
2) Select a lord & get choices to change this to certain other benefits like infiltrate etc... to represent certain legions/legion templates

Marked troops are elite & buy a SC to unlock to troops - or a lord with a mark to unlock?

Make psykers uber.

Keep DPs as they are.

The above gives good reasons to buy a lord or a sorceror or a DP, rather than in SM codex where unless you have a captain on a bike, you default to a librarian, or the current CSM codex where you just go direct to DPs.

Just some thoughts.

Other things that need changes:
- Land Raiders - get infernal device back (cp PoTMS)
- Chosen - get these to act like Wolf Guard - but still have the CSM squads with sarges too
- Make raptors useful!
- Defilers need to be sexified!

Cool, on this

Baragash wrote:4) "Each of the Chosen of Abaddon is a mighty Chaos Lord in his own right and in charge of his own forces." I'm probably going to add an Icon Bearer as a 2W character as it happens (also inspired by the WB trilogy).

. Abaddon wouldn't play nice with a demon prince, nor really a legion leader..He might vibe ok with fabius or someone who would be willingly dominated..
But imagine a charactor who allowed you to bump up the sorceror and lord options, maybe even took them from 1-2, up to 1-4 like space wolves. Really big warriors stompy stomping (herohammer writ small)
so

When taking Abaddon as an HQ he often travels with the very best of the bad any chaos lord taken provides strategic incite reducing reserve rolls by 1/2.Likewise any sorceror who accompanies him must have been decidely blessed by the warp.A psychic tempest dominates the arena of war any opponent psychic powers may only be activated after passing a 4+ roll on a D6.

(remember thats adding 350 points to abbadons cost before anyone screams about power level)

Why not use the combat tactics template from SM codex?

1) Basic is that CSM squads get re-roll to moral.
2) Select a lord & get choices to change this to certain other benefits like infiltrate etc...

Been toying with that for months, then I realised that just means that IW, AL and NL end up being pussies when it comes to Ld rolls, hence why I've put two rules in.

Marked troops are elite & buy a SC to unlock to troops - or a lord with a mark to unlock?

I said this (though not SCs, this is not a God book).

Make psykers uber.

They will be!

Keep DPs as they are

The rate at which they're selected shows they're too cheap, I put the price up in the Legion Codices, they'll be going up in this (not to DoC levels though). Will be looking to add other abilities to Lords and Sorcerers.

- Land Raiders - something needs to happen
- Chosen - I said this!
- Make raptors useful - will prob give H&R back
- Defilers need to be sexified! - not really sure how, why don't people use them? (I don't because they are too expensive for a massive Av12 model)

Baragash wrote:

Why not use the combat tactics template from SM codex?

1) Basic is that CSM squads get re-roll to moral.
2) Select a lord & get choices to change this to certain other benefits like infiltrate etc...

Been toying with that for months, then I realised that just means that IW, AL and NL end up being pussies when it comes to Ld rolls, hence why I've put two rules in.

But doesn't that just show that:
AL & NL - hit & run and lighting strike armies respectively - if heavily engaged would they not retreat & re-engage anyway?
IW - hmmm, agree - perhaps buying a MoTF upgrade for a lord unlocks tank hunters for a cost per unit?

Baragash wrote:

Marked troops are elite & buy a SC to unlock to troops - or a lord with a mark to unlock?

I said this (though not SCs, this is not a God book).

Doh - oh yeah!

Baragash wrote:

Make psykers uber.

They will be!

Yay!

Baragash wrote:

Keep DPs as they are

The rate at which they're selected shows they're too cheap, I put the price up in the Legion Codices, they'll be going up in this (not to DoC levels though). Will be looking to add other abilities to Lords and Sorcerers.

Are they too cheap, or are the rest simpley rubbish? By improving the other options, then they won't be the 'default option'. I'm not convinced they are undercosted in light of SW & BA...

Baragash wrote:- Land Raiders - something needs to happen
- Chosen - I said this!
- Make raptors useful - will prob give H&R back
- Defilers need to be sexified! - not really sure how, why don't people use them? (I don't because they are too expensive for a massive Av12 model)

Chosen - doh! It's a really good idea though

Raptors' issue is that they do the same thing as CSM for more points... How about vanguard vets rule for assault after DS (at a more sensible cost) - although the dreadclaw invalidates this too!

Defilers issue:
1) AV12 = not enough for the points cost
2) AV12 = not enough for its size
3) don't compete well with other HS choices
4) Battle cannon is fairly pointless

My fix options (off the top of my head)-
a) move to FA (!) - make AV 13:12:10 - keep infernal device - increase cost - increase cost of CCW upgrades: or
b) move to FA - make AV 13:12:10 - keep infernal device - add the penitent engines rules for rage (or similar) - costs?: or
c) keep in HS - make AV 13:12:10 - keep infernal device - keep/reduce cost - remove fleet - add more useful weapon options to compliment cannon

But doesn't that just show that:
AL & NL - hit & run and lighting strike armies respectively - if heavily engaged would they not retreat & re-engage anyway?
IW - hmmm, agree - perhaps buying a MoTF upgrade for a lord unlocks tank hunters for a cost per unit?

Ordered retreat <> running like a girl

IW - if it's a "trait" of a faction then IMO the GW Chapter Tactics method is superior ie if everyone should have it, charging x per model for every appropriate unit during army construction is unnecessarily PITA.

Or, perhaps I should ask:
a) what is wrong with the proposed method?
b) why is the alternative better?

Are they too cheap, or are the rest simpley rubbish? By improving the other options, then they won't be the 'default option'. I'm not convinced they are undercosted in light of SW & BA...

Well the points for CL/Sorc are pretty similar to the equivalents in other Codices. Now I see a lot of Librarians so I think vs a DP it's a bit of both. Captains are only popular in SW lists, so I would say with the CL it's more a case of being rubbish.

Well, Raptors are over-priced at the moment as well, plus it's not that well received to just go thieving too many rules from other people, needs more thought. Fluffwise it may be justified though.

I nearly suggested FA-ing the Defiler, but that opens up the old IW pie-plate list which is why I don't like it.

Baragash wrote:Ordered retreat <> running like a girl

Fair enough

Baragash wrote:IW - if it's a "trait" of a faction then IMO the GW Chapter Tactics method is superior ie if everyone should have it, charging x per model for every appropriate unit during army construction is unnecessarily PITA.

I agree, I don't like this method of army building - it is, as you say, PITA.

How about something like "CSM squad sargeants have access to a servo arm (for X points), if this is purchased the squad gains tank hunters USR"

Baragash wrote:Or, perhaps I should ask:
a) what is wrong with the proposed method?

1) GW has moved away from promoting certain armies as having certain traits - cp Vulkan the SMurf
2) In a tournament setting why would anyone not bin off "The face of chaos", it's too specific & unbalances certain games (either to or against CSM)

Baragash wrote:b) why is the alternative better?

1) It's tried & tested
2) It gives a reason to purchase a lord over the more powerful DP & sorceror
3) It gives more unique armies available
4) IMO it's more balanced

Baragash wrote:Well the points for CL/Sorc are pretty similar to the equivalents in other Codices. Now I see a lot of Librarians so I think vs a DP it's a bit of both. Captains are only popular in SW lists, so I would say with the CL it's more a case of being rubbish.

Agree, all the codexes have an issue in the HQ department IMO, with one type being far better than the others - why not use this codex to give the players a choice rather than a 'go to'. Sorcerors are arguably not as good as librarians (SM & BA) and are definately worse than SW (which is the only codex IMO which has a decent choice in generic HQs - which is why you see lords here).

Baragash wrote:Well, Raptors are over-priced at the moment as well, plus it's not that well received to just go thieving too many rules from other people, needs more thought. Fluffwise it may be justified though.

Agree.

Baragash wrote:I nearly suggested FA-ing the Defiler, but that opens up the old IW pie-plate list which is why I don't like it.

How about changing the cannon then? The soulgrinder can have different cannon... I think the old pie-plate list won't work so well in the 5th ed meta anyway... Arguably you'd do vehicle spam better with IG (up to 9 pie plates and/or inferno cannons) or BA (3 pie plates & 3 inferno cannons)

1) GW has moved away from promoting certain armies as having certain traits - cp Vulkan the SMurf

This isn't true!

Imperial Fists = Stubborn
Crimson Fists = Stubborn
Raven Guard = Fleet
Space Wolves = Counter-Attack
White Scars = Outflank

And to a lesser extent

Blood Angels = Furious Charge (in a lot of places) + effects of Black Rage
Salamanders = set fire to EVERYTHING!
(though really Vulkan is comparable the only reason it's down here is you have to buy the equipment to optimise for it)

And that's not including similar stuff in IA9 and rumoured in IA10.

Further, Chenkov and Al'rahem basically do this, the only reason it doesn't affect the whole army is because they aren't HQ equivalents.

And then there's army-wide rules like Mob Rule etc.

tl;dr - there's a difference between the reasonably specific FoC outlays of say Craftworld Eldar or 3.5Ed CSM (which are being removed) and army-wide characteristcs (which have always existed).

2) In a tournament setting why would anyone not bin off "The face of chaos", it's too specific & unbalances certain games (either to or against CSM)

Depends on the local meta for starters, SW, SM, IG and BA can all rock some effective lists, I don't think it's an automatic choice by any means. Rock, paper, scissors exists (nullzone vs Daemons for example, FW vs Nidzilla or even Warrior-heavy, Daemonhunters vs daemons) that's just the way it is some times. Since tournaments are by definition not fluff driven they're only important to me from the point of view of not putting in something broken, and I don't think PE: Imperium is by any stretch.

2) It gives a reason to purchase a lord over the more powerful DP & sorceror

So the Iron Warriors only get out of bed if their CL comes along? I don't see that as being popular or anything other than band-aiding the lack of balance between the 3.

3) It gives more unique armies available

How so? They all have to have a Chaos Lord with that suggestion and the only other differences is some units having x ability instead of all.

Agree, all the codexes have an issue in the HQ department IMO, with one type being far better than the others - why not use this codex to give the players a choice rather than a 'go to'. Sorcerors are arguably not as good as librarians (SM & BA) and are definately worse than SW (which is the only codex IMO which has a decent choice in generic HQs - which is why you see lords here).

Assuming that Librarians were in the CSM Codex IMO you'd see Lib + DP in most lists and the only reason that would be would be for the Psychic Hood, otherwise it would still be dual DP. The comments regarding the use of HQs in other Codices IMO shows that the base cost of CL/Sorc is correct and the power/options are not. Even so, if you compare the 20/10 point extra the DP costs against them for the stat increases it gets, it just isn't a competition.

How about changing the cannon then? The soulgrinder can have different cannon... I think the old pie-plate list won't work so well in the 5th ed meta anyway... Arguably you'd do vehicle spam better with IG (up to 9 pie plates and/or inferno cannons) or BA (3 pie plates & 3 inferno cannons)

Funnily enough that occurred to me when I went out for lunch. Maybe a small blast AP4 assault gun of some sort. Then the proposed artillery unit I have can be something like a "Stalkfiend", a smaller version with weak CC stats, perhaps looking a bit like a mechanical Biovore (and no Fleet obvs).

Baragash wrote:

1) GW has moved away from promoting certain armies as having certain traits - cp Vulkan the SMurf

This isn't true!

Imperial Fists = Stubborn
Crimson Fists = Stubborn
Raven Guard = Fleet
Space Wolves = Counter-Attack
White Scars = Outflank

All of which are unlocked through special characters (BA, DA, BT & SW aren't that comparable as they are stand alone SM codecies).

I'm with you on the fact that having a SC do everything in a CSM army seems silly, so why not have a 'trait' system that is unlocked by an IC?

Baragash wrote:And then there's army-wide rules like Mob Rule etc.

Now this is more what I'm talking about (if we ignore the ubiquitous BigMek with KFF). Orks & CSM are fluffed out as armies which congregate around a strong leader. Orks have a natural tendancy to krump stuff, however, CSM will operate in warbands that lend allegience to a Lord who either has the same ideals as them, or promises them some cool stuff.

In my opinion, the qualities of the lord that leads them will influence those he recruits. This would be different from a sorceror, who is indifferent to the goals of his thralls, or of a DP who draws anyone to him because he is powerful enough.

Taking CSM back to a character who is uniting a disparate warband would, IMO be the way forward.

Baragash wrote:

2) In a tournament setting why would anyone not bin off "The face of chaos", it's too specific & unbalances certain games (either to or against CSM)

Depends on the local meta for starters, SW, SM, IG and BA can all rock some effective lists, I don't think it's an automatic choice by any means. Rock, paper, scissors exists (nullzone vs Daemons for example, FW vs Nidzilla or even Warrior-heavy, Daemonhunters vs daemons) that's just the way it is some times. Since tournaments are by definition not fluff driven they're only important to me from the point of view of not putting in something broken, and I don't think PE: Imperium is by any stretch.

Local meta isn't an issue in tournament play, and certainly shouldn't be a consideration in codex design...

Nullzone is a single choice which may, or may not be taken. And is, IMO a bad comparison.

FW? Is that fire warriors?

Daemonhunters v's Daemons can be bad (depending on rules-lawering), but Daemonhunters v's everything else is worse the other way round - using DH as an example of codex design isn't a great argument in 5th...

I'm trying to think of recent certain-race effects - I can think of Tycho, DH, BT(? lance rule on raiders). There isn't a whole army wide version since DH for a reason...

Baragash wrote:

2) It gives a reason to purchase a lord over the more powerful DP & sorceror

So the Iron Warriors only get out of bed if their CL comes along? I don't see that as being popular or anything other than band-aiding the lack of balance between the 3.

Well, yes. See above, although I stress that it's only my opinion. Although, by the thought process you've put above, then Raven Guard only come out if Shrike is there...

Baragash wrote:

3) It gives more unique armies available

How so? They all have to have a Chaos Lord with that suggestion and the only other differences is some units having x ability instead of all.

Well you have a number of choices:
Generic warband - psycher lead
Generic warband - DP lead
Generic warband - Lord lead
'Legion specific' (however many 'legions' you'd like) - Lord lead
Big 4 legion - ? lead
All with the option of secondary HQs

Give enough options to the Lords & squads & you'll see very few similar armies...

Far better than the SM equivilent of Librarian lead, or a special character painted in the 'wrong colours', or a captain on a bike. And far better than the current CSM approach of DP unless cunning plan in which case sorceror or Abbadon.

Baragash wrote:

Agree, all the codexes have an issue in the HQ department IMO, with one type being far better than the others - why not use this codex to give the players a choice rather than a 'go to'. Sorcerors are arguably not as good as librarians (SM & BA) and are definately worse than SW (which is the only codex IMO which has a decent choice in generic HQs - which is why you see lords here).

Assuming that Librarians were in the CSM Codex IMO you'd see Lib + DP in most lists and the only reason that would be would be for the Psychic Hood, otherwise it would still be dual DP. The comments regarding the use of HQs in other Codices IMO shows that the base cost of CL/Sorc is correct and the power/options are not. Even so, if you compare the 20/10 point extra the DP costs against them for the stat increases it gets, it just isn't a competition.

Ok, agreed.

Baragash wrote:

How about changing the cannon then? The soulgrinder can have different cannon... I think the old pie-plate list won't work so well in the 5th ed meta anyway... Arguably you'd do vehicle spam better with IG (up to 9 pie plates and/or inferno cannons) or BA (3 pie plates & 3 inferno cannons)

Funnily enough that occurred to me when I went out for lunch. Maybe a small blast AP4 assault gun of some sort. Then the proposed artillery unit I have can be something like a "Stalkfiend", a smaller version with weak CC stats, perhaps looking a bit like a mechanical Biovore (and no Fleet obvs).

You could go for the 'build your own defiler' that works like Carnifexes do (did?) where if you kitted them out in different ways they'd be in FA or HS... I don't like that answer though - it screams of fudge - how about I pretend I didn't just write this...

All of which are unlocked through special characters (BA, DA, BT & SW aren't that comparable as they are stand alone SM codecies)

Sure, but that's a) a rubbish idea by GW and b) something that lots of people complain about/say they would change. Mine does the same thing, you just aren't restricted to one (usually expensive) character (and I don't for a second believe that the SCs cost makes any account for the CT change ie broadly speaking GW feel they're comparable).

Stuff about tournaments

1. Imperial armies are such a popular choice I don't believe an all comers list auto-opts out (or even comes close to auto-opting out) of the basic Face rule.
2. Competitors (as in hard core) will buy and use what they think is the strongest army, fluff players will play their army regardless of the rules. A player that wants to use an all-infiltrating army will play an AL or counts-as-AL list whatever. So:
Competitive players - will only play it if it's strong or broken, and then only if there isn't something more broken
Fluff players - irrelevant to them as long as you haven't destroyed the fluff
Concept players - irrelevant to them as long as it isn't weaksauce
3. Either PE is broken against Imperial armies or it isn't, I personally don't believe it is

Well, yes. See above, although I stress that it's only my opinion. Although, by the thought process you've put above, then Raven Guard only come out if Shrike is there...[.quote]

As I said, that's something much maligned in my experience of surfing most forums. I think most respondents would not be interested if a CL is a statutory requirement of playing a legion.

I also think the idea that a Sorc or CL ascending to DP suddenly becomes less mighty than a CL, or suddenly loses their desire to lead difficult to swallow. And given the selfish nature of individuals that being a Sorc suddenly lobotomises all ambition to lead. Or that a CL (even accepting that they somehow outrank achieving Daemonic ascension, whereas fluff suggests the opposite is true) can't send elements of his forces out under the control of his subordinates without them forgetting how they've behaved for the last 10k years.

(Actually Shrike is not a good example as his Company fights differently from the RG according to the fluff anyway, and representing RG is more about what units are used).

Well you have a number of choices:
Generic warband - psycher lead
Generic warband - DP lead
Generic warband - Lord lead
'Legion specific' (however many 'legions' you'd like) - Lord lead
Big 4 legion - ? lead
All with the option of secondary HQs

Give enough options to the Lords & squads & you'll see very few similar armies...

Far better than the SM equivilent of Librarian lead, or a special character painted in the 'wrong colours', or a captain on a bike. And far better than the current CSM approach of DP unless cunning plan in which case sorceror or Abbadon.

Except mine does:
Generic warband/BL - sorcerer lead
Generic warband/BL - chaos lord lead
Generic warband/BL - DP lead
Generic warband/BL - SC lead
Big 4 - sorcerer lead
Big 4 - chaos lord lead
Big 4 - DP lead
Big 4 - SC lead
Other factions - sorcerer lead
Other factions - chaos lord lead
Other factions - DP lead
Other factions - SC lead
That's substantially more combinations without forcing players to take a second HQ to use the model that they want, or forcing them into only taking a CL at low points values, or tying certain armies only to SC. Codices are not about restricting choice any more.

Ok, I look forward to this...