No CSM codex in 2021

[MegaVolt87]

*long, heavy sigh.*

 

Yeah, about what I was expecting. All the missing stuff I was hoping to see last edition delayed for 9th. Not a good sign if GW is trying to sell us the extra wound bump, buffed demon engines and possessed as the selling point of the new codex instead of legion supplements to make us on par with loyalists.  

Edited August 16, 2021 by MegaVolt87

[Marshal Loss]

Not a good sign if GW is trying to sell us the extra wound bump, buffed demon engines and possessed as the selling point of the new codex instead of legion supplements to make us on par with loyalists.  

i don't know if we'll get legion supplements, but if not, we've got two possibilities: Charadon's reprinted Faith & Fury content simply being around for good, or a dedicated Traitor Legions supplement like we received right at the end of 7th. I think the latter is more likely and makes a lot of sense. GW may not be prepared to treat us on par with loyalists, but they'll leap at a chance to sell us another book (& there's no way that all of the F&F content will be translated into the C:CSM book, there's simply too much of it).

[Closet Skeleton]

*long, heavy sigh.*

 

Yeah, about what I was expecting. All the missing stuff I was hoping to see last edition delayed for 9th. Not a good sign if GW is trying to sell us the extra wound bump, buffed demon engines and possessed as the selling point of the new codex instead of legion supplements to make us on par with loyalists.  

I've not seen any proof of coordination between the writing team and the Warhammer Community preview hype articles.

 

I think they're pretty aware that the selling point of a new codex is just 'new codex' and everything else is irrelevant.

 

Chaos haven't caught up on loyalists with doctrines let alone extra wounds. There will be a lot more changes in the 9th ed book than extra wounds and equalisation of daemon engine datasheets. No one's even got time to discuss the real target: the final obliteration of the Kill Shot stratagem.

 

Legion supplements aren't needed to be on par with loyalists, not when most of what those are famous for is making loyalists not on par with each other. A balanced game matters more than 'favoured child jealousy' issues. Removal of separate Dark/Blood/Wolf books and addition of TS and DG books ruins any parity even if they did bring out a full suite of legion books and legions don't have successor chapters so wouldn't work quite the same anyway.

 

I want to be able to use chaos in a balanced fight against loyalists, I don't want to have to worry about my Black Legion being useless against an over-powered Alpha Legion or Iron Warriors supplement.

[Irate Khornate]

I've become apathetic to the situation. I'm expecting either Codex CSM III where it's just compiled updates or it will be like the amazing traitor legions supplements of 7th and outdated/useless in 6 months.

 

Apathetic might not be the right word, bitter might be the correct term.

[Galron]

Yawn we have to wait. Such is the game. The hey days of us being in our prime is long over, sadly just like real life for those who remember playing the older 2e and 3.0 codices. I have zero faith that GW will make us even remotely on par with current codices. I think what has happened in the fandom with the mindless super codex creep and people leaving the game for other TTWGs will make them either delay tone down codices they still have time to neuter like chaos or have a day 1 FAQ that does the same thing. Over the decades, I have learned one thing, GW hates Chaos. They will find a way to screw us over either on purpose or just due to sheer not caring. 

[techsoldaten]

Yawn we have to wait. Such is the game. The hey days of us being in our prime is long over, sadly just like real life for those who remember playing the older 2e and 3.0 codices. I have zero faith that GW will make us even remotely on par with current codices. I think what has happened in the fandom with the mindless super codex creep and people leaving the game for other TTWGs will make them either delay tone down codices they still have time to neuter like chaos or have a day 1 FAQ that does the same thing. Over the decades, I have learned one thing, GW hates Chaos. They will find a way to screw us over either on purpose or just due to sheer not caring. 

 

Plenty of reasons for pessimism, but "GW hates Chaos" goes too far. They certainly like us spending money on new models, we're at least held as useful idiots by executives.

 

There's an upside to waiting on the new Codex. Remember 6th edition, when we got our Codex first? Every Codex that came after was better, to the point where CSM where bottom tier by the time 7th came around. Traitor Legions and Traitor's Hate could do little to salvage the sorry state of traitorhood.

 

When 9th was announced, I had concern about the viability of elite mid-range melee armies. Charge rules in particular stood out to me, failed multi-charges resulting in no charge was a bummer. But also detachments, changes to the Supreme Allied Command detachment meant we don't get to rely on powerful HQs the way we once did. It doesn't seem like an easy task to make Chaos work in 9th.

 

I'd rather wait for a good Codex than receive a rushed copy-paste of 8th edition rules with some extra wounds and different statlines. GW is certainly examining the meta and it feels like they have some opportunity through FAQs and whatnot to make sure C:CSM is well-received.

 

But I'm hoping this leads to something along the lines of Death Guard (at release) when it's finally here. The talk about World Eaters is encouraging and I'd certainly like to see it happen. But the main CSM Codex needs to be right, and it does need to address issues with Legion Traits that made some Legions outstanding and others a joke. And Deamon Engines need to be something more than LOS blocking mobile terrain, and we need some more oomph in the shooting phase to make up for all those Primaris super-weapons. 

[Marshal Loss]

Legion supplements aren't needed to be on par with loyalists

Not needed to be as powerful on the tabletop, but as far as parity is concerned, that's not true. Having access to a larger array of stratagems and relics, and most notably of all dedicated secondaries specific to each chapter's playstyle, gives loyalists a significant leg up when it comes to the treatment of their subfactions, beyond what other non-SM 9th ed supplements we've seen so far (e.g. OOML) have offered.

 

As far as balance is concerned, whether we receive a supplement: traitor legions or individual supplements, some legions are inevitably going to be far better than others anyway, so regardless of the format you may still face busted e.g. IW or AL relative to BL. And there will be a supplement of some kind, it's going to happen, because there are too many relics/strats/traits from F&F to translate into a single codex, and they're not going to pass up on the chance to sell us extra rules to bring us back to where we were after the inevitable cull.

 

I think that avoiding dedicated supplements for the sake of bloat is probably a good thing, but they offer us a lot in return. More art, more rules, and possibly even characters/upgrade sprues if we got lucky and they followed the same format. Dedicated supplements are a treasure trove for fans, so it's not hard to see the appeal.

 

 and legions don't have successor chapters so wouldn't work quite the same anyway.

 

Not formally, but there's no reason why e.g. in a Iron Warriors supplement you couldn't work on the Steel Brethren as a successor or in a Word Bearers supplement you couldn't work on the Sanctified as a successor. Could easily work in the same way, mechanically speaking.

[Bulwyf]

About the Legions not having successor chapters...that's exactly what warbands are. Splinters from the old Legions making their own way and their own way of fighting/color scheme for kit/etc. So I do think they could have in effect successor chapter rules for CSM in the 2022 codex.

[Sarvis]

Maybe off topic but, what does “bumper year” even mean ?

[Kaiju Soze]

Maybe off topic but, what does “bumper year” even mean ?

In this case, lots of stuff, basically.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

Legion supplements aren't needed to be on par with loyalists

Not needed to be as powerful on the tabletop, but as far as parity is concerned, that's not true. Having access to a larger array of stratagems and relics, and most notably of all dedicated secondaries specific to each chapter's playstyle, gives loyalists a significant leg up when it comes to the treatment of their subfactions, beyond what other non-SM 9th ed supplements we've seen so far (e.g. OOML) have offered

 

 

Faith and Fury legion stratagems and relics are fully on par and sometimes superior to the stuff in loyalist supplements (daemon weapons are definitly worse than the special issue wargear though). Its the base rules and a few super doctrines that are the serious difference.

 

If I could take the Word Bearers stuff on a loyalist army I'd be able to crush most loyalist supplements.

 

 

 and legions don't have successor chapters so wouldn't work quite the same anyway.

 

Not formally, but there's no reason why e.g. in a Iron Warriors supplement you couldn't work on the Steel Brethren as a successor or in a Word Bearers supplement you couldn't work on the Sanctified as a successor. Could easily work in the same way, mechanically speaking.

 

 

About the Legions not having successor chapters...that's exactly what warbands are. Splinters from the old Legions making their own way and their own way of fighting/color scheme for kit/etc. So I do think they could have in effect successor chapter rules for CSM in the 2022 codex.

 

The chaos version of successor chapters would be custom renegade warbands which are not succesors to first founding traitor legions so would not work the same way.

 

The Red Corsairs are Ultramarine successors, what supplement would they use?

 

 

Maybe off topic but, what does “bumper year” even mean ?

Classic English farming term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_crop

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Closet Skeleton

[Cheex]

You know, I actually feel somewhat liberated by the news that we aren't getting a codex for at least 5 months, possibly 16. It's like...I can stop hoping that there'll be news next week and I can just focus on the projects that are on my desk now.

 

And with KT around the corner, where CSM has at least some parity with Marines, I've got something to keep my attention for a while. 

[Marshal Loss]

 

 

Legion supplements aren't needed to be on par with loyalists

Not needed to be as powerful on the tabletop, but as far as parity is concerned, that's not true. Having access to a larger array of stratagems and relics, and most notably of all dedicated secondaries specific to each chapter's playstyle, gives loyalists a significant leg up when it comes to the treatment of their subfactions, beyond what other non-SM 9th ed supplements we've seen so far (e.g. OOML) have offered

 

Faith and Fury legion stratagems and relics are fully on par and sometimes superior to the stuff in loyalist supplements (daemon weapons are definitly worse than the special issue wargear though). Its the base rules and a few super doctrines that are the serious difference.

 

As I clearly said, parity doesn't just refer to strength, it refers to the sheer wealth of options on display. Inconsistent as GW is, the more options you get, the higher the chance some of those options will be good. I will say though that secondary objectives are one of the more potent options available in the toolkit of the stronger 9th ed books, e.g. DA.

 

Besides, comparing relics or stratagems or traits in isolation is pointless.

 

 

The chaos version of successor chapters would be custom renegade warbands which are not succesors to first founding traitor legions so would not work the same way.

 

There's absolutely no justification for only the SMs getting access to that mechanic beyond SM being the most popular faction in the game.

 

Speaking hypothetically for a moment, you could have:

• CSM Codex, containing basic legion rules + custom warband traits (just like SM)
• Renegades operating purely out of the main book or out of a dedicated renegade supplement
• E.G. a Word Bearers supplement, containing in depth rules + the ability to combine use those custom traits under the broader WB umbrella (just like SM). Example: Sanctified (Khornate Word Bearers) swapping out the WB legion trait for more appropriate custom traits, losing access to some of the WB goodies while maintaining access to some of the options that make it clear that they are descendants of the Word Bearers.

The Red Corsairs are Ultramarine successors, what supplement would they use?

1. The Red Corsairs aren't Ultramarine successors, the provenance of the AC's gene-seed was never confirmed (go read the Badab books), and they're now a piratical warband without a fixed genetic lineage.
2. Why would renegades use a traitor legion supplement?
3. (insert chapter) don't know their lineage or are so heavily divergent as to have no resemblance to one of the main SM chapters whatsoever, what supplement would they use?

Both loyal and traitor space marines have first founding chapters/legions that dominate their respective factions. Both loyal and traitor space marines have groups that splinter off but maintain much of their original identity. Both loyal and traitor space marines have groups that splinter off and maintain no aspects of their original identity. The only difference is that the SM process is formalised, and even then you have innumerable chapters that have absolutely no clue who their grandad is and don't care.

Again, I absolutely do not think this should happen, the bloat would be ridiculous. But let's not pretend that successor chapters are some kind of unique commodity in the 40k universe and that loyal marines alone of all factions have a convincing case to have some kind of successor mechanic attached to their supplements.

 

You know, I actually feel somewhat liberated by the news that we aren't getting a codex for at least 5 months, possibly 16. It's like...I can stop hoping that there'll be news next week and I can just focus on the projects that are on my desk now.

You're totally right, and this is a great view to take. I'm taking it as an opportunity to work slowly on my Word Bearers while enjoying my 9th ed DG book. I just feel for folks who main CSM but don't have the option to play another army in the meantime like I do.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Are there not warbands that are split out from the main Legion? I would think there's a reasonable mechanic for some degree of successors there.

 

 

 

You know, I actually feel somewhat liberated by the news that we aren't getting a codex for at least 5 months, possibly 16. It's like...I can stop hoping that there'll be news next week and I can just focus on the projects that are on my desk now.

You're totally right, and this is a great view to take. I'm taking it as an opportunity to work slowly on my Word Bearers while enjoying my 9th ed DG book. I just feel for folks who main CSM but don't have the option to play another army in the meantime like I do.

 

This is what I'm doing too. I'm working on some Word Bearers, starting some Black Legion and having a good time with that and I'm not going to worry about it for six months. I'm trying to get my Death Guard playable in the meantime as well that I have from Dark Imperium and have a good time with that.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

• CSM Codex, containing basic legion rules + custom warband traits (just like SM)
• Renegades operating purely out of the main book or out of a dedicated renegade supplement

Renegades and custom warband traits WOULD BE THE SAME THING.

 

The idea of highly divergeant Chaos marine bands with a separate customisation system to renegade bands makes no sense from a priorities perspective.

 

There are renegade warbands who wear Night Lords colours, use their tactics and maybe at some point had a few marines of Konrad Curze geneseed that are practicaly as Night Lords as any warband and there are warbands made up mostly of marines with Curze geneseed who threw away all Nightlords aesthetics and developed new tactics who are as misc random warband as any group of renegades.

 

It makes way more sense to have decent customisable renegade rules and less customisable legion rules and let weird divergeant legion warbands play counts as renegades if they want more options.

 

That or make deeper warband tweaking a Crusade thing. The way Chaos Lord personalities are so de-valued is what I find most hollow about the Chaos rules. Players who can write an essay on their top 5 Primarch moments from the novels but don't know the name of their reroll 1s aura guy don't feel like real chaos fans in my very personal opinion.

[Marshal Loss]

 

 

• CSM Codex, containing basic legion rules + custom warband traits (just like SM)
• Renegades operating purely out of the main book or out of a dedicated renegade supplement

Renegades and custom warband traits WOULD BE THE SAME THING.

 

The idea of highly divergeant Chaos marine bands with a separate customisation system to renegade bands makes no sense from a priorities perspective.

 

I never said anything about renegades having a separate customisation system. Look at the book now; renegades use the <LEGION> slot like everybody else, slotting in their own (functionally identical) renegade trait in its place. The point was that renegades could have their own restrictions etc (just like they currently do not have access to VOTLW) or simply operate as vanilla CSM purely out of the main book, with only the traitor legions getting the extra layer on top. This is exactly how things work currently, just with the added "build a warband" options that we'll inevitably receive tacked on top.

 

Just as some space marine chapters have no connection whatsoever to any supplement-bearing chapter, some warbands will have no connection whatsoever to any hypothetical supplement-bearing legion. 40k's ruleset will never have enough granularity or depth to cover every single option.

 

There are renegade warbands who wear Night Lords colours, use their tactics and maybe at some point had a few marines of Konrad Curze geneseed that are practicaly as Night Lords as any warband and there are warbands made up mostly of marines with Curze geneseed who threw away all Nightlords aesthetics and developed new tactics who are as misc random warband as any group of renegades.

Yes, I said as much above. Though in this scenario, obviously any warband that is indistinguishable from Night Lords is going to use Night Lord rules, just as any chapter that is (almost) indistinguishable from the Ultramarines is going to use Ultramarines rules. It's just a matter of common sense.

 

To loop around to the point yet again, there's no justification for only Space Marines having access to "successors". I'm not making the argument that we should get successors. As I've made clear, I don't want them, and I think many of your suggestions are flavourful and possess at least some merit. But your argument that SM are justified having access to them and we are not is simply ridiculous. Literally the only distinction between successor chapters and the hordes of breakoff warbands is that one is the result of a formal process initiated by a third party, and the other is almost always not. It's not rocket science.

 

Are there not warbands that are split out from the main Legion? I would think there's a reasonable mechanic for some degree of successors there.

Yep, exactly. And there's just as much of a reason for those forces to be "successors" as any Novamarine or White Consul or whatever. You could say, "well, just use the (e.g.) Word Bearers rules for them", but...why wouldn't you just use the Ultramarine rules for the Novamarines? Why does there need to be a layer of "successors" on top of that? There doesn't. All successors do is 1) impose restrictions that the players could do themselves (e.g. don't use SC/famous UM relic), and 2) allow them to swap out the trait for their own trait while keeping access to stratagems, etc. Why on earth would that not be available to a WB "successor"?

 

You can't apply this logic to every subfaction in the game, but for both SM and CSM, where subfactions often slot into or associate with a complex array of genetic lineage/cultural traditions/history, it is easily justifiable.

[Galron]

They had the opportunity to do a doctrine style system last codex, they didnt do it.. While I loved the Faith and Fury upgrade to chaos and believe any chaos codex going forward will contain such a thing, I am not so sure on the custom warband trait thing. It has nothing to do with fluff, because fluff wise there is no reason why they wouldnt exist. The randomness of chaos means that there easily could be Night Lords who eschew the whole chaos thing and believe themselves pure and somewhat noble. Its in the fluff even. Problem comes in on coming up with traits that arent straight up copies of what Loyalist Space marines have. That in itself isnt much of a problem, its just lazy, which I suppose means its probably going to happen. But marines are already not top tier so making another marine codex but with spikes and re-named traits isnt going to help the cause, especially since we know a Marine codex 2.0 is not going to be far off after chaos, cant let their top sellers get too far behind the power curve. 

 

I see us getting +1 wound marines as a given. Reprints of the Faith and Fury legion traits, maybe they will throw us a bone here and there. Updated general strats. I forget if the 3 pred and 3 Vindicator strats are still there but those will go away like they did in all the other updated codices . 

 

What would be awesome is if they gave us doctrine-like abilities to go with each legion like they have every other army this edition. Again, the hard part is going to be differentiating chaos from loyalist marines. Then again GW is the king of copy/paste and I wouldnt put it past them to do that again with evil sounding names. BOILING BLOOD FURY -1ap for pistols and close combat weapons. Maybe to differentiate chaos from loyalist, they allow the player to pick the order of turns in which they occur.

 

EDIT 3 Hours later: Apparently, since I wrote this, there is a rumor of codex World Eaters in the very near future. Hopefully this implies there is a codex Emperor's Children in the near future as well. At least one of my chaos armies will have a book anyway.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Galron

[MegaVolt87]

Meh loyalists have copied us also (Judicar- MoE, DA- new chappie mechanics) etc. If it works and is effective fine with me, I'll give up unique in exchange for effectiveness and viability at this point.

[Doctor Perils]

They had the opportunity to do a doctrine style system last codex, they didnt do it.. While I loved the Faith and Fury upgrade to chaos and believe any chaos codex going forward will contain such a thing, I am not so sure on the custom warband trait thing. It has nothing to do with fluff, because fluff wise there is no reason why they wouldnt exist. The randomness of chaos means that there easily could be Night Lords who eschew the whole chaos thing and believe themselves pure and somewhat noble. Its in the fluff even. Problem comes in on coming up with traits that arent straight up copies of what Loyalist Space marines have. That in itself isnt much of a problem, its just lazy, which I suppose means its probably going to happen. But marines are already not top tier so making another marine codex but with spikes and re-named traits isnt going to help the cause, especially since we know a Marine codex 2.0 is not going to be far off after chaos, cant let their top sellers get too far behind the power curve.

I thought we were one of the very few codices to not have a "build a faction" rules? I know CW eldar and dark eldar both have them

 

I'd expect a "build-a-warband" more than doctrines

[Closet Skeleton]

 

To loop around to the point yet again, there's no justification for only Space Marines having access to "successors". I'm not making the argument that we should get successors. As I've made clear, I don't want them, and I think many of your suggestions are flavourful and possess at least some merit. But your argument that SM are justified having access to them and we are not is simply ridiculous. Literally the only distinction between successor chapters and the hordes of breakoff warbands is that one is the result of a formal process initiated by a third party, and the other is almost always not. It's not rocket science.

 

 

That's reading way too much into one line in a post.

 

Its not that loyalists are so unique they can't share their rules, its that Chaos is unique and shouldn't just copy loyalist stuff.

 

 

Problem comes in on coming up with traits that arent straight up copies of what Loyalist Space marines have. That in itself isnt much of a problem, its just lazy, which I suppose means its probably going to happen.

 

Having a few shared traits so you can make renegade Ultramarines or whatever sounds fluffy to me.

 

 

 

I thought we were one of the very few codices to not have a "build a faction" rules? I know CW eldar and dark eldar both have them

 

I'd expect a "build-a-warband" more than doctrines

 

 

Most codexes don't have that stuff if only on the technicality of it being added in Psychic Awakening and only half the 9th ed codexes having it rolled in.

 

Orks, Thousand Sons, Death Guard and Grey Knights don't have subfaction customisation at all, the only 8th ed book that had it built in was the obsolete Space Marine Codex.

 

Chaos should get it because it makes more sense than the Renegade traits from Vigilus Ablaze that got reprinted in the Warzone book and would help differentiate the two different kinds of Chaos faction and having making up your own colour scheme associated with forcing you into 'advance and charge' was a really dumb bit of the 8th ed book.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Closet Skeleton

[Marshal Loss]

That's reading way too much into one line in a post.

 

Boy, that's rich coming from the misread & use all-caps guy. "Wouldn't work the same way" is completely different from "shouldn't just copy loyalist stuff".

 

We're Chaos Space Marines. They're Space Marines. There are inevitably going to be mechanical similarities in places, and CSM getting access to legion-derivative successors is just as justifiable in-universe as SM getting access to chapter-derivative successors. That's really all there is to it. Whether or not we should get them is another discussion entirely, but enough has been said already.

 

Problem comes in on coming up with traits that arent straight up copies of what Loyalist Space marines have.

 

Given the sheer number of subfactions in the game now, there are inevitably going to be times where the same rule/trait pops up in different books. So long as mechanics that define an army like doctrines/contagions/cabal points remain unique, I don't think it's such a bad thing.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Marshal Loss

[Dr_Ruminahui]

<<<< MODERATOR HAT ON>>>>

 

Okay, enough of the personal attacks - whether or not CSM should get better options by having identical options to space marines is a matter of opinion, one that one may or may not share, but should be one that a person can understand both sides of.

 

Surely one can debate that civilly wihtout accusing each other of high handed behaviour.

 

Don't make me break out the neural prod.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Dr_Ruminahui

[Bat33.1]

 

Anyway look, somebody has to be first and somebody has to be last, every single time. CSM are often early in the Codex cycle and then get quickly overtaken as more Codexes come out and the power creep starts setting in.

 

The simple answer to this is nobody needs to be last, GW could develop all the factions before release and update the game in one release. Other tabletop games do this, GW did this to a limited extent when 8th released. This is a deliberate policy decision by GW.

 

The issue is 'new' GW is committed to milking as much cash as possible from fans and players with no concern for the way this impacts on the game or the community. GW is not your friend no matter how invested in the hobby you are, GW is a money making concern first and always, gaming and its development are minor concerns for them. They would pay games developers much more than virtual minimum wage and employ more than two people in the rules departments of both their major games if the game was a high priority to their sales plan.

 

If your army is not updated early in a new edition GW would prefer it if you bought another army that is now the new hotness it's that simple.

[Special Officer Doofy]

The simple answer to this is nobody needs to be last, GW could develop all the factions before release and update the game in one release. Other tabletop games do this, GW did this to a limited extent when 8th released. This is a deliberate policy decision by GW.

 

The issue is 'new' GW is committed to milking as much cash as possible from fans and players with no concern for the way this impacts on the game or the community. GW is not your friend no matter how invested in the hobby you are, GW is a money making concern first and always, gaming and its development are minor concerns for them. They would pay games developers much more than virtual minimum wage and employ more than two people in the rules departments of both their major games if the game was a high priority to their sales plan.

 

If your army is not updated early in a new edition GW would prefer it if you bought another army that is now the new hotness it's that simple.

Preaching truth frater!

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Yeah, well said PJ.

 

At this point we should just be happy our codex artwork will FINALLY be updated, anything else is gravy on top.

LOL they've been using that same (awesome, the way) art for our codex covers since 6th Edition. what makes you think they'll change it now?