What to expect from 9e CSM

[Vanger]

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!

[Verbal Underbelly]

How reliable are these leaks really?

 

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

[Akylas]

 

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.

[TrawlingCleaner]

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?

[MasterDeath]

I could imagine that Cultist affine Legions like WB or even more AL get an upgrade strategem to improve their Cultists

[Khornestar]

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.

[WarriorFish]

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 This is why ultimately we wait and see but it is fun to discuss what could be

 

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?

[WrathOfTheLion]

 

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

 

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.

[She Who Thirsts]

 

 

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

 

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.

[Vanger]

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

[WrathOfTheLion]

 

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 January 25, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[Clockworkchris]

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.

[Special Officer Doofy]

 

 

 

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

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.

[WrathOfTheLion]

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 January 25, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[She Who Thirsts]

 

 

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 January 25, 2022 by She Who Thirsts

[AxeC]

 

 

 

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.

[WrathOfTheLion]

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.

[She Who Thirsts]

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 January 25, 2022 by She Who Thirsts

[Clockworkchris]

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.

[She Who Thirsts]

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 January 25, 2022 by She Who Thirsts

[Cheex]

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 January 25, 2022 by Cheex

[Marshal Loss]

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

 

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.

[techsoldaten]

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.

 

Have to say, the leaks (overall) seem awfully restrained.

 

Hard to handicap Black Legion until we know what's going on with Abaddon and Stratagems. He made many of my 8th edition armies and can turn good units into monsters.

 

If he still has a full reroll aura, things like Thunderhammer Chosen with exploding 6s become IK hunters. If World Killers is still a Stratagem, 20-man Cultist units become supremely powerful for capturing points.

[Clockworkchris]

Time for an update post

 

SM doctrine:

• Similar to SM Doctrine, except exploding 6s (unmodified hits) instead of +1AP. Still 3 levels that affefct different weapons (the weapons listed below are not confirmed by my sources, but the ones in the legion traits are confirmed by my sources as well as the namez, so what I am about to list may be subject to change)
• Destruction ''Doctrine'': Heavy/grenade
• Massacre ''Doctrine'': Rapid fire/assault/pistol
• Slaughter ''Doctrine'': Assault/pistol/melee

Marks:

• Can only be applied to CORE & CHARACTERS

 

Icons:

• vengeance +1 CA
• wrath +1ap melee
• flame +1ap shooting
• excess +1 to hit melee
• despair 6s to hit = autowound

 

• All legions are getting 6 WT, 8 relics & 8 stratagems each (seems to be a lot from F&F but with some tweaks)

 

Legion traits:

 

NL

• -2LD & -1CA @ 9''
• +1 to advance & +1 to charges
• Wanton Slaughter: When using a pistol/assault/melee vs below half strenght unit or LD 6 and below = +1 to wound (Super doctrine)

 

IW

• Ignores cover
• Reduce ap1/2 by 1
• Wanton Destruction: Heavy/grenade vs vehicules/buildings/units in cover = +1 to wound (Super doctrine)

 

WB

• Charges/HI = reroll hits
• 5+++ vs MW
• Wanton Slaughter: When using a pistol/assault/melee = 6s to wound cause 1MW (capped @ 3MW per unit) (Super doctrine)

 

BL

• ignore CA
• +1  to hit when charge or shoot closest unit
• Wanton Massacre: rapid fire/assault/pistol = exploding 5s (hit) (Super doctrine)

 

EC (4chain leak, not from my sources)

• in the book
• have a way of consistently hitting on 2s (even with thunder hammers)

WE

• Not in the codex

Red corsairs

• In the codex

 

Creations of Bile

• In the codex

 

Datasheet info:

 

Cypher

• In the codex

 

Cult units (berzerkers/rubrics/plague marines, only noise marines are stille in the codex because EC wont be getting their own book very soon)

• Are no longuer in the codex
• Act like harlequins in CWE army,  or like Scions in Guard (including them is like including fabius bile, it doesnt cancel you legion trait)
• Always Elites
• can benefit from army rules
• Cannot gain a legion trait

Fallen

• No in the codex

Chosen

• 3w
• can use TH (unconfirmed)

Terminators

• Loadout options similar to DG blightlords

 

Mutilators

• no longer in the book

 

Warp talon

• lost cancel overwatch
• gained no fallback
• 5a (these are total with claws)

 

Raptors

• still have the -1LD aura
• +2a

 

Obliterators

• can shoot units that are in engagement range with them (like wraithguard)
• in melee they have powerfists without the -1 to hit
• 3 different shooting profiles

 

Havocs

• exactly the same as right now but 2w

 

Stratagems

• something to ignore invuls (4chan leak, so take with a grain of salt, leak said EC chosen could destory custodes hitting with TH on a 2+ and with strat ignore invul saves)
• NL deepstrike strat for jump packs, DS turn 1
• NL vox scream disables AURAS

Other:

• IW ectoplasma forgefiend can hit on 2+ and does flat 4 damage (damage buff is a WLT)
• New cultist unit HQ
• New mutant culstists

[WrathOfTheLion]

Interesting, I wonder if that means we'll see a supplement for Fallen using the existing datasheets, maybe in the next Vigilus book.

 

I'd love to do a small Fallen force, but I'm waiting for them to get something relatively stable as far as army rules go.

Edited January 26, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion