Using the Crimson Slaughter Supplement

[Sception]

The relics are still artefacts.  It says so right at the top of the relics section.  "Only one of the following artefacts can be chosen per army".

[Kol Saresk]

@Forte:Then it does nothing to fix the debate on whether or not you can take multiple artifacts as they are two different things.

[Forté]

The relics are still artefacts. It says so right at the top of the relics section. "Only one of the following artefacts can be chosen per army".

Let's just agree to disagree because this is going nowhere.

 

And there's a proof reader somewhere who needs a hard slap.

[Sception]

They're not two different things.  "Relics of the Crimson Slaughter" is the name of the table.  The items in it are still artefacts, as per pg 51.

 

The relics are still artefacts. It says so right at the top of the relics section. "Only one of the following artefacts can be chosen per army".

Let's just agree to disagree because this is going nowhere.

And there's a proof reader somewhere who needs a hard slap.

 

I agree with the latter point, but what are you even trying to argue, that the blade of the relentless doesn't replace a weapon?  Because it clearly does, as per Krannon's wargear.

[Forté]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mtjw7qfA0vE/UJay15EGnbI/AAAAAAAAGbQ/HsyIQiKpKzw/s640/orangutan-jimmies-rustled.jpg

[Gratan]

I got my Codex yesterday, spent last night reading through it.

 

I have some mixed feelings about it. First, the book itself. It is a really nice book. While some of the art is reused from elsewhere, overall it is well done. I especially love the dust jacket. Of all the codexes I've bought with 6e (CSM, DA, Eldar, SM), this is my favorite by far.

 

Second, the fluff section of the book is pretty damn cool. I was a fan of the Crimson Slaughter from the release of Dark Vengeance and I really enjoyed reading more. Having more about the army you like really helps to bring it all home for me.

 

Third, my disappointments... Yeah, so you read all about the Crimson Slaughter, learn more about the characters and major players and then you get to the rules section... And I felt like they just stopped short... I really think they missed a big opportunity by not having an actual Character section... Just stating "Kranon is a Lord with these artifacts" is kind of a let down... Where is Draznichts special ability to see the future? This really should have been a full codex... Maybe not as full as CSM, they didn't have to repeat entries from CSM, but having new entries for Characters, Possessed and maybe even Helbrutes would have been nice...

 

Artifacts. I really like the Artifacts, but honestly, I think most of them should have stayed Character specific... Kranon is still using his, Orkark (ponderous name is ponderous), still has his Mace. Balestar isn't attached to Mannon anymore, so it and the others could be open to non-named characters...

 

I'll still be playing CS, and I'll be redoing my army list to account for the new changes. It just feels like someone wrote a full codex, and then the powers that be came along behind him and stripped out everything that should have been there... Oh well.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel like I wasted money buying it.

[Kol Saresk]

Draznicht's special ability to see the future is why we get a Chosen squad with Preferred Enemy.

[BitsHammer]

Crimson Slaughter relics replace the codex ones, rules and all. There is am army rule that states just that.

 

And yes it looks like the Relentless Blade -should replace a weapon, but RAW it doesn't.

[Kol Saresk]

Crimson Slaughter relics replace the codex ones, rules and all. There is am army rule that states just that.

 

And yes it looks like the Relentless Blade -should replace a weapon, but RAW it doesn't.

Unless you count Kranon's description which includes everything but his CCW.

 

Also:

Any character in your Crimson Slaughter detachment that can select Chaos Artefacts cannot select from those listed in Codex: Chaos Space Marines, but can instead select from the Relics of the Crimson Slaughter, presented opposite, at the points cost shown.

 

.....

 

The Relics of the Crimson Slaughter are relics of incredible power that the renegades have acquired over the course of their bitter campaigns. Only one of each of the following artefacts can be chosen per army – there is only one of each these items in the entire galaxy!

Where does it say these do not follow the rules of the Chaos Artefacts in the Main Codex, provided they are Artefacts as Forte believes they are not.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I have the ebook on my iPhone so I don't have page numbers. But these are both entries that immediately follow the headlines "Relics of the Crimson Slaughter".

[Sception]

from page 50:

 

Any character in your Crimson Slaughter detachment that can select Chaos Artefacts cannot select from those listed in Codex: Chaos Space Marines, but can instead select from the Relics of the Crimson Slaughter, presented opposite

 

from page 51:

 

Only one of each of the following artefacts can be chosen per army

 

 

So the Relics are still artefacts, and nothing stated in the supplement replaces the rules for selecting artefacts, only the list from which those artefacts are selected.  Since the rules for selecting artefacts are not specifically overwritten, they remain in effect.  The relics of the crimson slaughter section doesn't replace the rules for selecting artefacts, since it doesn't mention them, any more than the allies section on page 50 replaces the entire CSM allies matrix.  Only the changes are called out - ie, the artefacts available, or that the slaughter can allie with CSMs.  The bits not mentioned - the rules for artefact selection or the rest of the CSM allies matrix, remain as is.

 

This interpretation is consistent with Krannon's equipment, which constitutes an official example from GW of how they intend the supplement to be played, which is the best we're going to get in this era of no FAQs and no Errata.  We cannot base arguments off of pure RAW because GW does not write their rules tightly enough for pure RAW to function on its own, and they no longer produce FAQs or Errata to plug the gaps.  We have to use indirect rules sources like Krannon's equipment to play the game at all.  Even with them, we're stuck trying to make best guesses, as per whether characters and units that have vets by default count as 'taking' vets per the renegades of the dark millennium ban (best guess seems to be that they don't, but it's far from clear, and unless we see something like an official GW battle report with huron leading a crimson slaughter warband, there will still be room for table variation).

[BitsHammer]

Kranon's description isn't a rule, it's just a description. Yes it shows intent to have it replace a weapon, but the rules for the weapon lack that sentence. I'd replace it to be friendly, but honestly if someone wants to play it as written then I can't really say they're wrong. Cheesy, but not wrong.

[Forté]

I make one request to be left out of any further discussion on this subject because frankly...it's a game and I have more important things to decide on like which nostril to pick first, which shoe to put on first, how much washing up liquid to squeeze into the sink for the bacon frying pan.

 

I'll be in the painting threads.

[BitsHammer]

Sorry, my phone doesn't let me edit my posts it seems.

 

If we want to look at implied intent The Crozarius specifically replaces a weapon. If the CSM artefact rules were still in effect that wouldn't need to be stated, but it is implying that they are not in effect for the CS rules.

[Sception]

Kranon's description isn't a rule, it's just a description. Yes it shows intent to have it replace a weapon, but the rules for the weapon lack that sentence. I'd replace it to be friendly, but honestly if someone wants to play it as written then I can't really say they're wrong. Cheesy, but not wrong.

 

The crozius replaces a specific weapon, not just any as per the standard rules, which is why it had to be specified in that instance.  This was done, I'd imagine, for thematic reasons, as the apostle's maul is his crozius, and an apostle isn't supposed to have two of those.  That's why the crozius calls out the specific weapon it replaces.  It has no bearing on whether other items do or do not replace weapons as per the standard rules for selecting artefacts.

 

RAW, the blade is still an artefact ("each of the following artefacts"), and the Slaughter doesn't replace the rules for selecting artefacts, only the artefacts to be selected.  RAW, artefacts replace weapons unless they say otherwise, so by RAW krannon isn't even legal, since no CS artefacts say they don't replace weapons, so they all do, so Krannon should be trading away three weapons, when he's only traded away one, and only had two to trade to begin with.

 

RAW doesn't work in 40k.

 

(edited to address crozius issue)

 

Also note, that in addition to outright saying the relics are artefacts on page 51, that interpretation is also more natural with the wording of the relics section on pg 50, which says that CS characters cannot select artefacts from "those listed in codex: CSM", which implies that they can select other artefacts listed elsewhere, in this case in the Relics of the Crimson Slaughter section on page 51.

[BitsHammer]

Fair arguement. Don't think it'll kill the issue, but it's reasoned well enough for me.

[Forté]

Kranon doesn't break the rule from the main codex anyway as its only the weapons that replace weapons. The two non weapons have a number 3 next to them which in the notes below state..

 

3 Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

[Sception]

The thing is that the Crimson Slaughter and Black Legion artifacts leave out those threes without replacing the note that artefacts replace weapons by default, so a pure raw argument would have them all replace weapons, weapons or no.  But nobody plays that way, and I'm certainly not arguing it, I'm simply pointing out that a pure RAW argument doesn't really work in 40k, as GW does not take sufficient care to make pure raw clear, nor do they print FAQs or Erratas to provide clarity after the fact.

 

So the only thing we have to go on when the rules are not perfectly clear is indirect evidence of how the writers intended the rules to be played, in this case Krannon's equipment, which indicates that multiple non-weapon artefacts are allowed (multiple weapon artefacts may or may not be allowed, Krannon provides no clarity there), that weapon artefacts in the supplements are still meant to replace weapons, and that non-weapon artefacts are still meant not to replace weapons.  Which are which is left to intuition, but should be relatively clear, with the exception of perhaps the Eye of Night, which has a weapon profile, but from the description (and the note about firing it 'instead of the model's ranged weapon') seems to indicate that it might not be intended to count as a weapon.

[BitsHammer]

Kranon doesn't break the rule from the main codex anyway as its only the weapons that replace weapons. The two non weapons have a number 3 next to them which in the notes below state..

 

3 Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

That generally seems like a safe assumption to make as that seems to apply to most codexes (except Sisters, but they're limited on all non-SCs when it comes to how many relics a model can have).

 

EDIT:

 

The thing is that the Crimson Slaughter and Black Legion artifacts leave out those threes without replacing the note that artefacts replace weapons by default, so a pure raw argument would have them all replace weapons, weapons or no.  But nobody plays that way, and I'm certainly not arguing it, I'm simply pointing out that a pure RAW argument doesn't really work in 40k, as GW does not take sufficient care to make pure raw clear, nor do they print FAQs or Erratas to provide clarity after the fact.

 

So the only thing we have to go on when the rules are not perfectly clear is indirect evidence of how the writers intended the rules to be played, in this case Krannon's equipment, which indicates that multiple non-weapon artefacts are allowed (multiple weapon artefacts may or may not be allowed, Krannon provides no clarity there), that weapon artefacts in the supplements are still meant to replace weapons, and that non-weapon artefacts are still meant not to replace weapons.  Which are which is left to intuition, but should be relatively clear, with the exception of perhaps the Eye of Night, which has a weapon profile, but from the description (and the note about firing it 'instead of the model's ranged weapon') seems to indicate that it might not be intended to count as a weapon.

Krannon indeed does not provide clarity on the matter but there are only two weapon relics and their limited to two different HQ choices so the point may be moot there.

 

And I agree that trying to suss out intent usually makes the game a lot more fun to play, but sadly some people I've dealt with are really into RAW no matter how it makes the game fall apart.

 

Then again if we were playing as the devs intended we should probably be playing armies that look more like the ones in the Battle Reports than anything that gets tossed around as "the only competitive choice".

[Forté]

Like I said. The proof reader needs a slap and the codex (funny term for two pages that could have easily been in a WD article) writers need beating round the heads with their own creations

 

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/i+m+tired+of+people+taking+this+meme+way+out+of+_73f8a1bc4e34d370fb62257e08bbda98.jpg

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/bill-murray-playing-golf-0.jpg?w=500&h=332

[Smurfalypse]

 

 

Getting back on topic. . . I think I am gonna try a "Possessed-Star" list this weekend vs a shifty opponent.

 

Thinking Daemons as primary

Karios + Herald with Grimoire

 

Possessed x20

Profit!

[Sception]

I think that's an opinion we can all agree on.

 

As for 'only competitive choice', I don't think there's too much of that for CSMs, honestly.  In HQ, we've got axelords, brandlords, mace princes, telepathy sorcerers, biomancy sorcerers, BL memory sorcerers, CS divination sorcerers, CS 2+ lords, huron, typhus, and Be'Lakor, and that's not a bad set of 'competitive' options.  Troops is worse off, with basically just plagues and cultists.  Elites is in the worst shape - with not much of anything worth fielding 'competitively'.  Fast is flush with bikes, spawn, and, of course, drakes.  HS's got oblits and maulers.  For transports we're kind of sol on the assault front, but rhinos are still decent for our assorted bolter squads.  In formations we have Cypher's Fallen, which aren't half bad.  Delivery apart from that is pretty sparse, but huron is an option.  If you let in FW there's eagles, raptors, plague hulks, blight drones, spartans, and giant spawn.

 

And while they might not be 'competitive', warpsmiths, basic chaos marines, certain builds of noise marines and BL chosen, termicide, MSU nurgle muts, Decimators, Contemptors, Raptors, Slaughterfiends, Havocs, and predators, while maybe not 'competitive', aren't exactly bad, either.  Maybe CS possessed or helbrute formations might be halfway decent in practice as well.  I mean, I doubt it, but I'm not ruling them out until I see them on the table a few times.  I'm looking forward to hearing how the possessed star does for smurf.

 

That's not exactly an awful selection to work with.  I mean, I'm not happy about the state of our rules, there are a lot of real problems and real gaps (I will scream about homing beacons until the day they're fixed or the day I die), but we're not in an obvious monolist situation the way we were under the 4e book.

[Ammonius]

 

 

 

Getting back on topic. . . I think I am gonna try a "Possessed-Star" list this weekend vs a shifty opponent.

 

Thinking Daemons as primary

Karios + Herald with Grimoire

 

Possessed x20

Profit!

Cool! Let us know how it goes.

 

Would you consider 20 Possessed in a Spartan with an appropriate HQ (Warpsmith for HP fixing?) for a Possessed-Star? I'm trying to decide if I'd rather put 20 PM's or CS Posessed in the FW grocery getter for the ultimate "What are you gonna do about that?!" unit.

[Sception]

iirc, possessed max at 10 per squad?  Do I remember that wrong?

[Scribe]

I got my Codex yesterday, spent last night reading through it.

 

I have some mixed feelings about it. First, the book itself. It is a really nice book. While some of the art is reused from elsewhere, overall it is well done. I especially love the dust jacket. Of all the codexes I've bought with 6e (CSM, DA, Eldar, SM), this is my favorite by far.

 

Second, the fluff section of the book is pretty damn cool. I was a fan of the Crimson Slaughter from the release of Dark Vengeance and I really enjoyed reading more. Having more about the army you like really helps to bring it all home for me.

 

Third, my disappointments... Yeah, so you read all about the Crimson Slaughter, learn more about the characters and major players and then you get to the rules section... And I felt like they just stopped short... I really think they missed a big opportunity by not having an actual Character section... Just stating "Kranon is a Lord with these artifacts" is kind of a let down... Where is Draznichts special ability to see the future? This really should have been a full codex... Maybe not as full as CSM, they didn't have to repeat entries from CSM, but having new entries for Characters, Possessed and maybe even Helbrutes would have been nice...

 

Artifacts. I really like the Artifacts, but honestly, I think most of them should have stayed Character specific... Kranon is still using his, Orkark (ponderous name is ponderous), still has his Mace. Balestar isn't attached to Mannon anymore, so it and the others could be open to non-named characters...

 

I'll still be playing CS, and I'll be redoing my army list to account for the new changes. It just feels like someone wrote a full codex, and then the powers that be came along behind him and stripped out everything that should have been there... Oh well.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel like I wasted money buying it.

 

So since I just have to...(see my sig) you are essentially unhappy that the CS 'characters' are built with relics? You are missing all the other people picking up how great said relics are, and the new variations and build options? :p

 

I dont know. If I could build my own characters using...Gorechild, or whatever, I'd be pretty damn happy. :]

[Sception]

Well, I mean, I don't know if the CS relics are 'great' apart from divination.  Several of the rest are decent, but, I mean, while artificer armor is a big deal for us, that's still a lot of points to pay for it, and we can't get it, a 3++, and EW on the same dude.