No loyalist Astartes codex until the end of the year?

[Ishagu]

It could be but all the different Primaris units are equipped with unique weapons so it makes equal sense to keep them all seperate.

 

As annoying as it is to have 20 different bolter variants they aren't actually cross unit compatible so there is a bit of elegance with each datasheet showing it's own weapon and rules.

[Captain Idaho]

I find it mildly amusing that many years ago we had the design team (Andy Chambers himself, I believe) telling us how revolutionary it was to put a Universal Special section in the rule book and now they've gone back to clutter and bloat as if it's revolutionary again... :)

[chapter master 454]

I find it mildly amusing that many years ago we had the design team (Andy Chambers himself, I believe) telling us how revolutionary it was to put a Universal Special section in the rule book and now they've gone back to clutter and bloat as if it's revolutionary again.

 

The problem was with the system at the time of 7th was they did the dumb thing and kept adding MORE and MORE and MORE USRs despite the fact few of them were really "Universal". I mean, how many of us knew of units with acute senses? Skilled Rider? Not to mention some rules weren't really suited to all units sort of how each unit would deep strike differently.

 

USRs were meant to be keywords, shorthands, for common effects that instead of taking space on the datasheet could be referred to to give us what the model can do without having to use up space for wording.

Examples of good USRs: Relentless, Eternal Warrior (back when Instant Death was a mechanic this was a HUGE deal to have), Move through Cover (I can't remember what it was called, it aided in moving through terrain), Feel No Pain (X+), Ignores Cover

What are they all doing? Taking a fairly wordy mechanic that is fairly useful to have on more than just one special character and taking it into one word. Centurions, Land Raiders and Stormravens all have a form of Relentless but instead spend an entire section of their datasheet on saying "ignore heavy penalty". Heck, how many weapons waste entire pages on just saying "ignores cover".

 

Relentless: Models with this special rule ignore the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. Models with the Monstrous, Vehicle or Titanic keyword have this special rule even if not stated on their datasheet except when noted otherwise by ether another special rule or explicitly on their datasheet.

 

Eternal: Half all damage models with this special rule take, rounding up (no damage can be reduced to below 1)

 

Steady: Models with this special rule ignore the penalty for advancing and firing assault weapons.

 

Orderly Retreat: models with this special rule can still shoot their ranged weapons in the shooting phase even they have fallen back that turn. Units with the Fly keyword have this special rule even if not stated on their datasheet except when noted otherwise by ether another special rule or explicitly on their datasheet.

 

Feigned Retreat: models with this special rule can still charge in the charge phase even if they have fallen back that turn. Units with the Bike or Jetbike keyword have this special rule even if not stated on their datasheet except when noted otherwise by ether another special rule or explicitly on their datasheet.

 

Feels No Pain (X+): models with this special rule roll a die for each point of damage they take from an attack. Each time the roll matches the result stated on the models datasheet, that point of damage is ignored. Models with Multiple Instances of this rule can only make one Feel No Pain roll per point of damage and must use the best version they have at the time.

 

Cover Bane: models receiving attacks from a weapon with Cover Bane cannot claim the benefit of cover for their armour save but any other benefits are unaffected.

 

Shield Bane: models cannot use their Invulnerable save against attacks that have Shield Bane.

 

 

Simple keyphrases that would allow us to move past the forsaken issue of all of us for some reason having all these rules with different names but the same function. GW did it in the first place so they could actually give units their own UNIQUE version of the abilities but lo and behold...just their excuse to make up cool names like edgy 14 year olds.

 

-goes and flips various office supplies and cursing various gods for unknown crimes...a stapler is seen leaving orbit-

[bolvar]

99% agree with chapter master 454, but at least, with how they give each specific rule/trait as a detailed rule per datasheet, they can twink around each individual rule without screwing/affecting others with the same one

[Cruor Vault]

We can't say yet if there's no big changes in Chaos 2.0. Have we seen the Legion Traits? All the strats? All the point adjustments?

 

From the Community Site releases, it appears the new rules are coming out of the Vigilius Ablaze book rather than the new Chaos Codex.  Which makes me hopeful that we might see a 3rd book sometime late summer with new options for Loyalist Astartes.

 

My read on the Community Site posting was that the Chaos Codex V2 was only a gathering the new datasheets into one place.

[Ishagu]

99% agree with chapter master 454, but at least, with how they give each specific rule/trait as a detailed rule per datasheet, they can twink around each individual rule without screwing/affecting others with the same one

Yes this is the best thing about it. You can now modify a rule for a unit without impacting multiple things across multiple books.

The idea of a few universal rules is nice in principle but incredibly limiting on practice.

[redmapa]

Vigilus Ablaze is the end of the campaign, if the Vanilla Codex follows the same model as the CSM then updated rules would be in a new campaign. Im not holding my breath for anything this year, the CSM codex only has extra stratagems and the legions that needed another set of rules got nothing and that to me says that GW doesnt understand the problems of certain rules or is unwilling to solve them, talking about the Vanilla codex it simply means that it will remain as restrictive as it is now in terms of gameplay and no real option of building an aggressive force that moves forward and instead just a castle of buff bots surrounded by a gun line.

[Tokugawa]

We can't say yet if there's no big changes in Chaos 2.0. Have we seen the Legion Traits? All the strats? All the point adjustments?

Have we seen the title of the book says "Vigilus Ablazed"?

[Red_Shift]

I had assumed there would be a third vigilus book with a primaris wave but that seems less likely now. I would actually like a staggered wave release for the sisters it would make it easier on my wallet!

 

There has to be some format for any new primaris kits to get rules though so maybe a new campaign book series?

[Panzer]

I had assumed there would be a third vigilus book with a primaris wave but that seems less likely now. I would actually like a staggered wave release for the sisters it would make it easier on my wallet!

 

There has to be some format for any new primaris kits to get rules though so maybe a new campaign book series?

 

They already said Vigilus will be only two books.

[Guest MistaGav]

A primaris only codex with new units and datasheets is starting to make more sense as it can apply easily to the other 3 SM faction codexes with a few keyword changes and without much effort.

[Ishagu]

A primaris only codex with new units and datasheets is starting to make more sense as it can apply easily to the other 3 SM faction codexes with a few keyword changes and without much effort.

This is very true also. We do need Primaris specific strategems for this to work.

 

The only units truly needed are a dedicated anti armour tank, a flyer of some kind and an effective, mobile CC unit - be it bikers, reasonably cheap infantry, elite unit, etc

[Captain Idaho]

99% agree with chapter master 454, but at least, with how they give each specific rule/trait as a detailed rule per datasheet, they can twink around each individual rule without screwing/affecting others with the same one

Yet all the unit rules between Codex books that do the same thing are kept the same ANYWAY.

 

So GW is just repeating the information 100 times yet if they want to change something that mean they have to make 100 changes. If GW don't make 100 changes then we've got 100 variations of the same rules.

 

I don't mind special rules being on the datasheet but we've got unbelievable bloat for new players to wade through. It's alright for us veterans who have followed the rules but teaching a dyslexic 10 year old has been difficult for me using GW's current method.

 

When stuff is centralised more it's easier to follow.

[Ishagu]

They can't leave loyalist Astartes in the situation where their army is spread across 5-6 books for another 6-8 months ☹️

[Panzer]

 

99% agree with chapter master 454, but at least, with how they give each specific rule/trait as a detailed rule per datasheet, they can twink around each individual rule without screwing/affecting others with the same one

Yet all the unit rules between Codex books that do the same thing are kept the same ANYWAY.

 

So GW is just repeating the information 100 times yet if they want to change something that mean they have to make 100 changes. If GW don't make 100 changes then we've got 100 variations of the same rules.

 

I don't mind special rules being on the datasheet but we've got unbelievable bloat for new players to wade through. It's alright for us veterans who have followed the rules but teaching a dyslexic 10 year old has been difficult for me using GW's current method.

 

When stuff is centralised more it's easier to follow.

 

 

They got the better system now so they could potentially do a better job ... but they are still the old GW who struggle writing good rules. :P

[Captain Idaho]

It's not a better system. There is no "better job" you can do - if all the special rules are stuck on the datasheet you can't do a different job. They're there or not.

[Panzer]

I disagree. If all the special rules are on the datasheets you can adjust them for each unit separately. If they are just a collection of universal rules you can't do that.

[balordazul]

Well lets hope GW learns a lesson from the CSM 2.0 codex and addressed some of the issues in the SM codex.

[Ishagu]

I agree with sfPanzer on this. It's infinitely better this way. You can tweak Death Guard without affecting FNP style rules across a dozen other books this way, as an example.

 

Also, to go back to Primaris, let's say it's decided that the bolters on the Infiltrators aren't good enough. GW can errata them to suddenly be Str 5 -2 AP and it wouldn't impact a single other unit so the balance can be adjusted far more easily. Same goes for every weapon across the Primaris range.

 

If you adjust a gun or armour rule in the regular line to make it better it becomes a problem as the equipment is shared across multiple units in the book.

 

 

The weapon selection "bloat" isn't really an issue for Primaris as the rules for the unit and it's weapons are on the datasheet in all cases.

[Captain Idaho]

People keep saying that GW can tweak rules on a unit by unit basis but when has this been done? When has a unit with a particular rule copied across many units in separate Codex books etc been changed when others haven't?

 

GW has been consistent with the rules and not made changes like this for 99% of rules if not 100%. And why can't a unit that DOES need a specific adjustment just get it added to their Datasheet? So using the example above, FNP for Death Guard can add +1 to a roll or affect on a 4+ instead of 5+?

 

The logic doesn't hold water when you consider these things.

[Panzer]

That was the point in my post. It's the better system because it's possible ... however GW sucks at doing things right so they don't really utilize this better system.

[Ishagu]

People keep saying that GW can tweak rules on a unit by unit basis but when has this been done? When has a unit with a particular rule copied across many units in separate Codex books etc been changed when others haven't?

 

GW has been consistent with the rules and not made changes like this for 99% of rules if not 100%. And why can't a unit that DOES need a specific adjustment just get it added to their Datasheet? So using the example above, FNP for Death Guard can add +1 to a roll or affect on a 4+ instead of 5+?

 

The logic doesn't hold water when you consider these things.

They just did it to Obliterators (Updated their statline and unique weapons), and in CA2018 they tweaked a few units.

[Captain Idaho]

No they changed the stats not rules universal to all units. So that isn't a relevant example.

 

SPanzer has a point that the current system could be operated better but I contest that it isn't operated better because of intention - the rules are supposed to universal as evidenced by GW's wording of rules and repetition.

 

****

 

Taking things back on track I think we all agree that a Codex Primaris is necessary.

[Lemondish]

I disagree. If all the special rules are on the datasheets you can adjust them for each unit separately. If they are just a collection of universal rules you can't do that.

I think there's a healthy middle ground. Is there really true value in having a FNP rule printed a million times when you could easily apply this universally? How about the ability to ignore cover with your shots, or being able to advance and fire, or advance and charge? There's really no variation achieved with those rules. No value in being able to tweak them independently and rarely any example of them doing so.

 

I think special rules can exist alongside a much smaller but unified list of universal special rules.

 

As far as Ishagu's point on weapon profiles - I've been championing this point since DI. It's a fine way to ensure you can balance individual units without affecting other units or even armies.

[Captain Idaho]

It's not that I don't think weapon and unit balance changes isn't a good thing, it's that weapons actually are centralised in the rules rather than on the datasheet.