What to expect from 9e CSM

[Aeternus]

Some rumours around reddit/fb regarding new doctrine and NL legion rules. Can't speak for their actual veracity, but seem mostly believable stuff - still, word of mouth being what it is, who knows.

 

 

If it's genuine can't say I'm too thrilled with the doctrine ability - arguably a worse buff than the loyalist -1ap, and with the same turn scaling which I would say doesn't fit, given that overall we are geared more towards getting in combat early on with shooting being secondary.

 

The NL stuff looks nice however, assuming that they mean -1 for Combat attrition tests (making 1-2 or 1-3 a failure), with the nice bonus condition when trying to finish off low strength units or units that are debuffed by the aura enough.

 

To quote from someone on reddit concerning the strat however - 'The stratagem is weird and is less likely than the rest: the "no deep-strike turn 1" is only in Matched play rules not in the core rules. (They never made a stratagem for Matched play only).'

[Aeternus]

Some rumours around reddit/fb regarding new doctrine and NL legion rules. Can't speak for their actual veracity, but seem mostly believable stuff - still, word of mouth being what it is, who knows.

 

 

If it's genuine can't say I'm too thrilled with the doctrine ability - arguably a worse buff than the loyalist -1ap, and with the same turn scaling which I would say doesn't fit, given that overall we are geared more towards getting in combat early on with shooting being secondary.

 

 

 

The NL stuff looks nice however, assuming that they mean -1 for Combat attrition tests (making 1-2 or 1-3 a failure), with the nice bonus condition when trying to finish off low strength units or units that are debuffed by the aura enough.

 

 

 

To quote from someone on reddit concerning the strat however - 'The stratagem is weird and is less likely than the rest: the "no deep-strike turn 1" is only in Matched play rules not in the core rules. (They never made a stratagem for Matched play only).'

[Verbal Underbelly]

Good insight on that last point.

The doctrines, if true, are actually interesting to me. Lends a bit of parity to the loyalist marines in terms of being "trans-human warriors" but instead of the application of skill (AP bonus) it's more akin to unbridled savagery (exploding 6s). We'll see if it turns out true ay?

[Cheex]

Seems plausible. I don't hate the doctrine-like ability, but I do wish it were a little more creative. And it's not like the game needed more reasons to load up on heavy weapons for alpha striking...

 

NL trait looks interesting. Most enemies will be Ld6 or below when within 9", which would make things like flamers fun. Depending on any other Ld shenanigans you can do, it might help with damaging vehicles as well.

 

 

To quote from someone on reddit concerning the strat however - 'The stratagem is weird and is less likely than the rest: the "no deep-strike turn 1" is only in Matched play rules not in the core rules. (They never made a stratagem for Matched play only).'

 

To be fair, Narrative Play also has the same restriction. It's really only Open Play that would not be affected by such a strat.

[Marshal Loss]

Thanks for posting this - I was going to do it in the "what to expect topic" but this is big enough to deserve its own thread. I'll say that while I've heard nothing about the NL trait, one of the posters who has been giving (what appears to be) concrete and reliable information about Eldar has said this "doctrine" ability is true, and also that World Eaters are not going to be in our book.

 

The doctrine equivalent definitely sounds plausible (effectively turning a tweaked version of DTTFE into our monofaction ability) and would work well as a " dark mirror" to SM. It also doesn't force players to spec entirely into melee which is really fantastic.

 

In terms of strength, it's actually quite good. Mathematically in some contexts it is superior to SM doctrines and there will obviously be ways to manipulate it. I will say though that I'd prefer a bonus that isn't entirely luck-dependent, but I'm not against this at all.

[Marshal Loss]

As I put in Aeternus' dedicated topic, this (the doctrine ability, not the NL trait at this stage) has been corroborated by one of the current Eldar playtest leakers, who has also added that World Eaters are not going to be in the book. Take with salt as always - I'll update the OP soon with sources.

[Verbal Underbelly]

The world eaters aren't going to be in the CSM codex!?

[MegaVolt87]

The world eaters aren't going to be in the CSM codex!?

 

Just remember DG and TS are also not in the CSM codex. 

[MegaVolt87]

Exploding 6 vs -1AP- I think -1AP is better on lower model count armies. The NL, +1 CA= attack on charge? +1 to wound makes plasma pistols an interesting prospect for NL's in melee against tougher units. 

[Cheex]

As I put in Aeternus' dedicated topic, this (the doctrine ability, not the NL trait at this stage) has been corroborated by one of the current Eldar playtest leakers, who has also added that World Eaters are not going to be in the book. Take with salt as always - I'll update the OP soon with sources.

 

It's happening!

 

I wonder if a World Eater codex will be released around the same time, or if we'll get a "get you by" pamphlet until it's out.

[Slave to Darkness]

I'd love an updated Defiler - as classic as the current one is, you could paint it lime green and it'd fit right in with the Constructicons.

You say that like its a bad thing. :lol:

[Cryptix]

Exploding 6 vs -1AP- I think -1AP is better on lower model count armies. The NL, +1 CA= attack on charge? +1 to wound makes plasma pistols an interesting prospect for NL's in melee against tougher units.

I believe CA means +1 to combat attrition losses

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Exploding 6 vs -1AP- I think -1AP is better on lower model count armies. The NL, +1 CA= attack on charge? +1 to wound makes plasma pistols an interesting prospect for NL's in melee against tougher units.

I feel like the AP modifier doctrine is better for personal weapons -- small arms & chainswords -- whereas exploding 6s is better for big hitters like heavy weapons snd power fists. Just consider getting extra shots from lascannons for example. You're potentially doubling the damage of that gun *for free*.

[Cheex]

 

Exploding 6 vs -1AP- I think -1AP is better on lower model count armies. The NL, +1 CA= attack on charge? +1 to wound makes plasma pistols an interesting prospect for NL's in melee against tougher units.

I feel like the AP modifier doctrine is better for personal weapons -- small arms & chainswords -- whereas exploding 6s is better for big hitters like heavy weapons snd power fists. Just consider getting extra shots from lascannons for example. You're potentially doubling the damage of that gun *for free*.

 

 

That's my conclusion, too.

 

On top of this, exploding 6s is always going to be a useful ability regardless of target, whereas -1 to AP loses effectiveness against things with invul saves. This is especially the case with heavy weapons etc, which often already have the AP needed to trigger invul saves anyway.

 

Like you say, it's mainly the small arms fire that suffers from this.

[Khornestar]

*Looks at newly built unit of havocs with 4 chaincannons*

 

Hello, Dreadclaw turn 1, and a prescience sorc to chaperone. Mark of Slaanesh for double shootin’ (if that is even possible any more). Edit: unmodified so nm. Chaos lord for reroll 1’s, there.

 

That sounds like a fun alpha strike.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Khornestar

[Cheex]

*Looks at newly built unit of havocs with 4 chaincannons*

 

Hello, Dreadclaw turn 1, and a prescience sorc to chaperone. Mark of Slaanesh for double shootin’ (if that is even possible any more). Edit: unmodified so nm. Chaos lord for reroll 1’s, there.

 

That sounds like a fun alpha strike.

 

Assuming Havocs don't move to limited loadouts.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

*Looks at newly built unit of havocs with 4 chaincannons*

 

Hello, Dreadclaw turn 1, and a prescience sorc to chaperone. Mark of Slaanesh for double shootin’ (if that is even possible any more). Edit: unmodified so nm. Chaos lord for reroll 1’s, there.

 

That sounds like a fun alpha strike.

 

Assuming Havocs don't move to limited loadouts.

 

Oi!  Don't be bringing that bad juju around here.

[Hathor42]

Need to see the wordbearers trait lol. Sad that emperors children still seem to be in the book which means another edition before they come put on their own.

[Maschinenpriester]

Need to see the wordbearers trait lol. Sad that emperors children still seem to be in the book which means another edition before they come put on their own.

Thought the same... I wonder if we will still be stuck with the current noise marines which don't even have real kit currently and mutilators.

[Verbal Underbelly]

Personally, I'm okay with EC remaining in the next CSM (selfishly because I've only just started out and don't want to buy a whole new set of models).

 

If the exploding 6s is true then heavy bolter havoc squads are going to come into their own. As would obliterators.

 

I am concerned that the writers will still keep the artificial limitation on which models receive their own monofaction bonus e.g. only infantry and helbrutes etc.rather than making it genuinely army wide.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Verbal Underbelly

[MegaVolt87]

 

 

*Looks at newly built unit of havocs with 4 chaincannons*

 

Hello, Dreadclaw turn 1, and a prescience sorc to chaperone. Mark of Slaanesh for double shootin’ (if that is even possible any more). Edit: unmodified so nm. Chaos lord for reroll 1’s, there.

 

That sounds like a fun alpha strike.

 

Assuming Havocs don't move to limited loadouts.

 

Oi!  Don't be bringing that bad juju around here.

 

 

I have every confidence this will not happen for CSM.*

 

 

 

*Boxes of primaris + custodes visible in background.

[WarriorFish]

A little disappointed that it's more or less the SM doctrines, but being able to explode dice on more than combat will be good as shooting CSM won't be losing out any more so I'd take it. I would hope that we don't need to wait until turn 4 for melee and pistols though, but I'm assuming there would be the option to hold/move on in the same way SM can with theirs?

 

Hoping that this leak means we don't have too long to wait, but I will wait and see as always ;)

[MegaVolt87]

After going through the BT litanies, WB need their own custom set for DA's to preach for sure.

[TrawlingCleaner]

Exploding 6s on hit rolls, statistically speaking, is equivilant to +1 to hit and a very nice buff to what we already have. The downside I can see is that this will tilt us into a more Dakka orientated army that only wants to hit combat at turn 4+

As others have pointed out, there will likely be ways to manipulate this but as with SM its likely to be very targetted or constricted in unit scope.

 

Very hopeful of these changes though, more Dakka makes my inner Iron Warrior happy

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Bear in mind that we're also likely to get stratagems to push a unit into different "turns" of the doctrine. There's a SM one and then there's subfaction ones for them as well, so we *should* have access to at least one such strat.