What to expect from 9e CSM

[She Who Thirsts]

Yeah, I know it's very early days, but from what I can gather, nothing I've seen so far is going to change in our ability to make viable armies, especially at top tables.  From how I feel, it would be optimistic to believe that our codex will be mid to low tier and it's probably still best for us to lean as heavily as possible on daemon engines.  And yeah,  CWE, Tau, and GSC got some really cool rules and ideas and even things that sound crazy and we're getting, exploding 6's and repurposed rules from F&F.

 

My main focus here is obviously Iron Warriors, and when I look at the Trait, I'm still trying to decide if it's worse than the Imperial fist trait or not.  Is that protection against low ap weapons really that good when you're an elite infantry force where it's best to take high ap weapons against anyway?  The Super Doctrine looks good on paper but I also feel that it'll be a 'do nothing' like most turn one shooting abilities due to the meta being 'hide in case you go first'.

 

Icons being actually useful is nice though.

Edited January 26, 2022 by She Who Thirsts

[hierojin]

Say what you will about GW limiting the options in boxes of Terminators/Havocs/normal CSM.

 

And I can understand people who invested lots of time and money into converting their (soon to be invalid) squads into pure plasma bombs or such.

 

BUT

for me personally it is quite relieving not having to search ebay or 3rd party for plasma/melta/chaincannon bits to make my squads "competative".  

Not having to magnetize every arm and every gun... keeps a little pressure of me while assembling new models.

 

I am really looking forward to explore a new codex and all the "new" ways to play my Iron Warriors, Night Lords and Creations of Bile. ^.^

[DesuVult]

The rules in general seem quite bad. Doctrines are not good in general. For melee armies they can be serviceable activating turn 3 but for rapid fire they tend to feel rather poor and and particularly for heavy weapon doctrines they are abysmal.

The legion traits mostly seem pretty weak and will not matter against quite a few armies. IW, for example, want enemies to use cover but their rules remove any benefit of cover except to block LoS so their enemies can simply not get into cover but work to remain behind it when possible or as far in front as they desire. Objective markers cannot be placed in terrain in matched play. There is a large amount of AP -3 and is the traditional method of removing marines. Armies such as Eldar jump from AP 0 to AP -3 in most circumstances and AP -3 appears increasingly common for them and other armies.

CSM do not have the wealth of weapon or unit options loyalists do in order to utilize these style of rules and even loyalists have suffered in trying to make them work. The loyalist marines armies able to form comfortable lists tend to do so from rules other than their turn based doctrine and for some with little concern for their chapter traits. That does leave some potential but I am personally doubtful. The mention of D4 plasma from forgefiends leads me to believe that the Daemonsmith warlord trait has been changed from +1 hit on 6s to hit to +1 damage on 6s to wound based on the mention of supplement rules mostly remaining.

The only rule that stands out to me is the Black Legion trait. +1 to hit against the nearest enemy is quite powerful and feels like it would be fun. There is even a reasonable chance to get much doctrines usage with exploding 5s hitting on 2+ turns 2 and 3.

It is annoying that these leaks would spell out that GW has little concern for CSM if confirmed though. Multiple options removed and getting second hand loyalist rules already considered an edition out of date.

Edited January 26, 2022 by DesuVult

[She Who Thirsts]

The rules in general seem quite bad. Doctrines are not good in general. For melee armies they can be serviceable activating turn 3 but for rapid fire they tend to feel rather poor and and particularly for heavy weapon doctrines they are abysmal.

 

The legion traits mostly seem pretty weak and will not matter against quite a few armies. IW, for example, want enemies to use cover but their rules remove any benefit of cover except to block LoS so their enemies can simply not get into cover but work to remain behind it when possible or as far in front as they desire. Objective markers cannot be placed in terrain in matched play. There is a large amount of AP -3 and is the traditional method of removing marines. Armies such as Eldar jump from AP 0 to AP -3 in most circumstances and AP -3 appears increasingly common for them and other armies.

 

CSM do not have the wealth of weapon or unit options loyalists do in order to utilize these style of rules and even loyalists have suffered in trying to make them work. The loyalist marines armies able to form comfortable lists tend to do so from rules other than their turn based doctrine and for some with little concern for their chapter traits. That does leave some potential but I am personally doubtful. The mention of D4 plasma from forgefiends leads me to believe that the Daemonsmith warlord trait has been changed from +1 hit on 6s to hit to +1 damage on 6s to wound based on the mention of supplement rules mostly remaining.

 

The only rule that stands out to me is the Black Legion trait. +1 to hit against the nearest enemy is quite powerful and feels like it would be fun. There is even a reasonable chance to get much doctrines usage with exploding 5s hitting on 2+ turns 2 and 3.

 

It is annoying that these leaks would spell out that GW has little concern for CSM if confirmed though. Multiple options removed and getting second hand loyalist rules already considered an edition out of date.

Far better at explaining what I was trying to get at before.  If these leaks are accurate, then Chaos Space Marines are getting a book that is 2 years+ out of date.

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

Checks the Space Marine sub forum: Space Marine players wishing they had new CSM rumored rules.

 

Checks the CSM sub forum: CSM players down on the rumors because loyalists are better.

 

Yep, checks out.

 

If these rumors are accurate, this will be a great time to be a Word Bearers player.

[Clockworkchris]

I am a night lords player and I am loving these rules so far. They are all really good.

[Marshal Loss]

Checks the CSM sub forum: CSM players down on the rumors because loyalists are better.

 

Yep, checks out.

Literally nobody has said anything of the sort. What complaints exist are overwhelmingly in response to rumours that people's existing model loadouts will be invalidated. Let's not hurl childish bait into the discussion, please

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

Honestly didn’t mean that as “childish bait.” And I’d separate out the complaints about terminator load outs (where I’d agree with you, I’ve held off building mine out of fear of exactly that, but it’s still disappointing) from the comparisons people have made with loyalist options in the thread.

 

People make “the grass is greener” on the other side arguments pretty often, and I’m seeing them both here and in the SM sub. What I’d offer is twofold:

 

1. We don’t have the full view of CSM rules yet

2. When people here feel that CSM are an underwhelming shadow of loyalist SM, understand that some SM players feel exactly the same in opposite.

 

Other than the terminator load out issue, these rumors look really good, guys. CSM will be fun to play if these are right.

[DesuVult]

Checks the Space Marine sub forum: Space Marine players wishing they had new CSM rumored rules.

 

Checks the CSM sub forum: CSM players down on the rumors because loyalists are better.

 

Yep, checks out.

 

If these rumors are accurate, this will be a great time to be a Word Bearers player.

 

Some loyalist rules are better.  I also play Imperial Fists and am well aware how much higher the new IW rules will put them over my IF.  The IW rules are also shockingly close to a direct upgrade over the Salamander rules.

 

Where some issues arise in the comparison is access to weapons and units that can make use of those rules.  As an example, loyalists can take shields that are an improved version of the IW trait.  Salamanders can take units such as aggressors and eradicators in the elite and HS slots to make use of their doctrine and take those without sacrificing much elsewhere.

 

GW CSM Heavy Weapons

 

HQ:

Lord Discordant - autocannon

 

Troops:

CSM 1 per 10

 

Elite:

Chosen 1 per squad

Terminators 1 per 5

Helbrute ML + 1 other

 

FA:

N/A

 

Flyers:

Heldrake - autocannon

 

HS:

Numerous

 

 

Were the IW rules given to loyalists I would have a low opinion of them but there would be better opportunity to make use of them.  The loyalist elite and fast attack slots can carry a lot of heavy weapons before turning to forgeworld dreadnoughts.  With the limited CSM options, being pushed off rules that benefits the limited CSM options disproportionately affects them.  Taking an army perhaps best equipped to deal with a bad rule, seeing they could not handle it well, and putting it on an army poorly prepared to handle it does not inspire confidence in me.

Edited January 26, 2022 by DesuVult

[Clockworkchris]

Ok here is a weird one...

 

Greater possessed are supposedly not in the codex

 

Regular possessed

S5 t5 w3 5a

 

So either the greater possessed sculpts are going to be used as normal possessed

 

Either these playtester ruleset he has is something special

 

Or maybe hes trying to blurr the line because of all the attention this is getting. My info was on Valrak and spikey bits, so weve gobe full on mainstream.

[techsoldaten]

CSM do not have the wealth of weapon or unit options loyalists do in order to utilize these style of rules and even loyalists have suffered in trying to make them work. The loyalist marines armies able to form comfortable lists tend to do so from rules other than their turn based doctrine and for some with little concern for their chapter traits. That does leave some potential but I am personally doubtful. The mention of D4 plasma from forgefiends leads me to believe that the Daemonsmith warlord trait has been changed from +1 hit on 6s to hit to +1 damage on 6s to wound based on the mention of supplement rules mostly remaining.

 

I'd be careful drawing too many conclusions from the initial read.

 

Have been playing Deathwatch so far in 9th edition, the initial reception for the Codex was depressing. Losing SIA on most bolt weapons was made units like Aggressors seem like pale comparisons to their previous incarnations. The lack of long-range and high strength shooting meant it wasn't clear how this was anything but an anti-infantry army. It was also clear optimal lists needed to be wildly different from previous editions.

 

After some optimization, I have a pretty tough army. Everybody has a 5+ invul, Stratagems / chapter tactics / specialisms get me full rerolls to hit against most units, just about every gun shoots 30" minimum, and they're capable of about 150 S5+ shots per turn. 

 

This isn't to say your concerns are not valid, just that first impressions are sometimes very misleading.

 

The only rule that stands out to me is the Black Legion trait. +1 to hit against the nearest enemy is quite powerful and feels like it would be fun. There is even a reasonable chance to get much doctrines usage with exploding 5s hitting on 2+ turns 2 and 3.

 

It is annoying that these leaks would spell out that GW has little concern for CSM if confirmed though. Multiple options removed and getting second hand loyalist rules already considered an edition out of date.

 

In 8th edition, Black Legion's chapter tactic was Abaddon and his reroll aura. The second most important feature of the army was the World Killers Stratagem.

 

Each was a force multiplier. Being able to reliably hit from range and being able to grab an objective from an opponent with a single Cultist changed how the army was played.

 

I'm confident datasheets will change our impressions of the Legion Traits, for good or for ill. If I can't do Plasma Termicide squads, that's not the end of the world. I'm more interested in how units will benefit from basic rules and what kind of advantages I can build out of them.

 

[She Who Thirsts]

Ok here is a weird one...

 

Greater possessed are supposedly not in the codex

 

Regular possessed

S5 t5 w3 5a

 

So either the greater possessed sculpts are going to be used as normal possessed

 

Either these playtester ruleset he has is something special

 

Or maybe hes trying to blurr the line because of all the attention this is getting. My info was on Valrak and spikey bits, so weve gobe full on mainstream.

Ok, this one kinda makes me feel like your source is a fake.  Greater Possessed being removed makes zero sense.  Mutilators I can believe being removed, but a fairly new model?

[Marshal Loss]

Honestly didn’t mean that as “childish bait.”

Then maybe don't use such broad strokes to characterize the discussion in a 400+ reply thread where the discussion is most certainly not themed around "loyalists being better". Scroll back to page 7 where the leaks began and actually read the thread and you'll find that the response has been and remains overwhelmingly positive, Terminator options aside. Comparisons with loyalist options =/= "CSM players down on the rumors because loyalists are better".

Edited January 26, 2022 by Marshal Loss

[Clockworkchris]

 

 

Ok here is a weird one...

 

Greater possessed are supposedly not in the codex

 

Regular possessed

S5 t5 w3 5a

 

So either the greater possessed sculpts are going to be used as normal possessed

 

Either these playtester ruleset he has is something special

 

Or maybe hes trying to blurr the line because of all the attention this is getting. My info was on Valrak and spikey bits, so weve gobe full on mainstream.

Ok, this one kinda makes me feel like your source is a fake. Greater Possessed being removed makes zero sense. Mutilators I can believe being removed, but a fairly new model?

I have his reddit comment history, the dude has been leaking info on different recent codexes for the 5 past months and all his calls have been true.

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

I’ve read the whole thread. You can disagree with my assessment—that’s fair—but I’m well aware of the overall set of opinions being expressed.

 

The responses were indeed overwhelmingly positive until recently, which is why I found it odd that there were suddenly a group of complaints that the rumors look like underwhelming shadows of loyalist rumors.

 

Again, I’m not at all referencing the terminator issue. I agree with you on that. I’m suggesting that people consider that, based on what we know so far, these rules do not seem to be shadows of loyalist abilities. Mirrored, yes—but seems to be in a good way.

[She Who Thirsts]

 

I have his reddit comment history, the dude has been leaking info on different recent codexes for the 5 past months and all his calls have been true.

 

 

Still, for GW to remove a model that is not that old for no reason?   It does have me wondering if your source is still credible like they've been in the past.

 

I think after that one though, I'm at the stage that, if it doesn't have actual evidence to support it, then it's full of crap.

Edited January 26, 2022 by She Who Thirsts

[Marshal Loss]

I’m well aware of the overall set of opinions being expressed.

Evidence indicates otherwise. Your generous interpretations aside, please don't shovel coal on that particular fire in what has been a fruitful discussion. Thanks

 

 

 

I have his reddit comment history, the dude has been leaking info on different recent codexes for the 5 past months and all his calls have been true.

 

 

Still, for GW to remove a model that is not that old for no reason?   It does have me wondering if your source is still credible like they/ve been in the past.

 

I think after that one though, I'm at the stage that, if it doesn't have actual evidence to support it, then it's full of crap.

 

 

Yeah I agree, although there's no way they're discontinuing the models in any case as then the only available Obliterators/Venomcrawler would also be removed from circulation - I suppose it's possible that Greater Possessed are now just regular Possessed, but that'd come as a bit of a surprise (& render e.g. Death Guard Possessed essentially irrelevant).

 

I wouldn't be mad about it at all, to be honest, as that'd probably mean that we were getting a squad of Possessed who are as beefy and glorious as the GPs. Rolling the GPs into Possessed isn't going to ruin anybody's army even if it's an exceedingly weird curveball (if true). But this is far and away the biggest ??? so far

[Clockworkchris]

Okidoki back to the realm of rumour/leaks that make 100% sense. Ive been asking about night lords stuff:

 

NL Wlt

6" aura that cancels obsec

 

NL relic

Jump pack; move over unit or if you charge a unit, d3 MW on a 2+.

[She Who Thirsts]

Okidoki back to the realm of rumour/leaks that make 100% sense. Ive been asking about night lords stuff:

 

NL Wlt

6" aura that cancels obsec

 

NL relic

Jump pack; move over unit or if you charge a unit, d3 MW on a 2+.

And wheres the proof of this?

 

Just checked when your account was made and it is VERY recent.  Where is your credibility in these rumours?  Because right now, without actual evidence (pictures for example), it would be foolish to believe a word you say.

 

A Quote from Christopher Hitchens.  -  "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Edited January 26, 2022 by She Who Thirsts

[Clockworkchris]

 

 

Okidoki back to the realm of rumour/leaks that make 100% sense. Ive been asking about night lords stuff:

 

NL Wlt

6" aura that cancels obsec

 

NL relic

Jump pack; move over unit or if you charge a unit, d3 MW on a 2+.

And wheres the proof of this?

 

Just checked when your account was made and it is VERY recent. Where is your credibility in these rumours? Because right now, without actual evidence (pictures for example), it would be foolish to believe a word you say.

Believe what you want, i dont care I am just sharing info. I gain litterally nothing from doing all of this.

 

I created my account when my source told me the doctrine ability and while lurking here it was posted by someone else. I also did all the math to compare the csm and sm doctrine.

 

At the end of the day believe what you want, i am still going to relay info for those who want to know, if you dont believe any of this just stop commenting and go participate on another thread.

[MasterDeath]

 

Okidoki back to the realm of rumour/leaks that make 100% sense. Ive been asking about night lords stuff:

 

NL Wlt

6" aura that cancels obsec

 

NL relic

Jump pack; move over unit or if you charge a unit, d3 MW on a 2+.

And wheres the proof of this?

 

Just checked when your account was made and it is VERY recent.  Where is your credibility in these rumours?  Because right now, without actual evidence (pictures for example), it would be foolish to believe a word you say.

 

A Quote from Christopher Hichens.  -  "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

 

Then don't believe him, your call. I enjoy a bit of rumour going on in the time until we get some previews. If its all fake, then at least I had fun reading his comments. Better then going all Gloom and Doom.

[Dhar'Neth]

Ah. Its rumors! That’s part of the fun! Don’t expect for proof (wouldn’t be rumors then). Clockworkchris passes what he gets, I doubt he has “proof” as per pictures (this could lead to GW tracking “source”).

[Toldavf]

I am a night lords player and I am loving these rules so far. They are all really good.

I just started collecting them last November and i'm having a blast painting them. I even converted 5 of the fw terminators with combi meltas and chainfists....

[She Who Thirsts]

 

 

Okidoki back to the realm of rumour/leaks that make 100% sense. Ive been asking about night lords stuff:

 

NL Wlt

6" aura that cancels obsec

 

NL relic

Jump pack; move over unit or if you charge a unit, d3 MW on a 2+.

And wheres the proof of this?

 

Just checked when your account was made and it is VERY recent.  Where is your credibility in these rumours?  Because right now, without actual evidence (pictures for example), it would be foolish to believe a word you say.

 

A Quote from Christopher Hichens.  -  "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

 

Then don't believe him, your call. I enjoy a bit of rumour going on in the time until we get some previews. If its all fake, then at least I had fun reading his comments. Better then going all Gloom and Doom.

 

No doom or gloom about it here.  :)  Just pointing out that someone with a fresh account is claiming things without any proof to back it up.  Speaking rumours is all well and good, but right now no one can tell if Chris is lying, being lied to, is trolling, or is credible.  I'm still happy to discuss the content, but more warning others that, as it stands, everything we have at this moment is non-sense until we have some solid evidence that backs it up.

[Clockworkchris]

Look at this guys quoting Hitchens to me.

 

Bro these are leaked rules for a tabletop game with plastic army men... not trying to disprove the theory of relativity.

Ah. Its rumors! That’s part of the fun! Don’t expect for proof (wouldn’t be rumors then). Clockworkchris passes what he gets, I doubt he has “proof” as per pictures (this could lead to GW tracking “source”).

You are correct, our exchanges are text based in a private reddit chat. So no photos or anything.