What to expect from 9e CSM

[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.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

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.

I think CSM are the last faction with the vehicle exclusion, so logic dictates that's going away.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I wonder if Abaddon will still give bonuses to that mechanic, or if he'll be altered.

[Doctor Perils]

Are these kinds of abilities generally worded as "6+" or "natural 6"?

[Kaiju Soze]

Are these kinds of abilities generally worded as "6+" or "natural 6"?

These days, "unmodified 6s", so nat 6.

[Slave to Darkness]

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+

 

Non combat Chaos doesnt bother me, its GW that has leaned on that aspect of the CSM since 2nd edition just to make them a little bit different from marines (these ones have spikes and hit you with sticks). Never really gelled with Iron Warriors because of this, I wanna blow things up not slap them every game. 

[Marshal Loss]

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.

Yeah exactly. There's also room for certain legions to interact with certain parts of the "doctrine", further reinforcing existing bonuses, so I think at face value there's a lot of merit in the system for us regardless of which legion one plays.

[Kaiju Soze]

Speculation: Berserkers always count as in being "assault doctrine".

[Hathor42]

Wonder if this will stack with death to the false emperor or replace it.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

Speculation: Berserkers always count as in being "assault doctrine".

I think the wulfen rules would be perfect for zerkers... even just a cut/paste job.  Seems perfect.  Great volume of attacks, fast, automatic fight on death bypasses all the fight last nonsense.  

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

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).'

Assuming this is legit (big assumption), I looks pretty good.  Daemon engines with BS 3 and exploding 6s on turn 1... ouch!  If there are stratagems to manipulate who gets what doctrine buffs and 2w CSMs (lol shield drones) then I could get behind this. 

 

That nightlords buff looks very spicy.  Most units will be ld6 or less when suffering from -2 and there are likely to be ways to increase that debuff.  How good would a NL maulerfiend or hellbrute be in close combat on turn 3?     

[Toldavf]

Currently the NL aura stacks with its self, I'm guessing this new version won't. Getting most enemy units down to ld 6 would be fairly easy with this debut, assuming raptors also keep their in built -1 even vetran Marines would be suffering. Orks are going to hate fighting night Lords while most tanks and deeds will be wounded on 4+ by them in melee.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

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.

I think CSM are the last faction with the vehicle exclusion, so logic dictates that's going away.

 

GW logic dictates that it's staying.

[MegaVolt87]

Prot, if you see this I weep for the potential future of chosen based on your experiences with BT SB. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

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.

I think CSM are the last faction with the vehicle exclusion, so logic dictates that's going away.

 

GW logic dictates that it's staying.

 

How so?  They've made that change for literally every army.  Why wouldn't they change it for CSM?  And don't pull the old "Woe is me, GW hates Chaos" line.  This isn't 5th Edition, there's no need to be melodramatic.

[MegaVolt87]

 

 

 

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.

I think CSM are the last faction with the vehicle exclusion, so logic dictates that's going away.

 

GW logic dictates that it's staying.

 

How so?  They've made that change for literally every army.  Why wouldn't they change it for CSM?  And don't pull the old "Woe is me, GW hates Chaos" line.  This isn't 5th Edition, there's no need to be melodramatic.

 

 

I'm hoping for a powerful codex, if only to sell the new chaos range refresh. I refuse to believe the CSM refresh hit the sales targets they set because of our weak codex. 

[JeffJedi]

Any ever use grenades on turn 1?

[Cryptix]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

I think CSM are the last faction with the vehicle exclusion, so logic dictates that's going away.

GW logic dictates that it's staying.

How so? They've made that change for literally every army. Why wouldn't they change it for CSM? And don't pull the old "Woe is me, GW hates Chaos" line. This isn't 5th Edition, there's no need to be melodramatic.

They literally did it last edition. In the 8.5 codex, AFTER the space marine codex expanded chapter tactics to all units, the CSM codex was still infantry, bikers, and helbrutes. Hell, I'm pretty sure they had to FAQ that the lord discordant got chapter tactics because he wasn't infantry or biker.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

 

 

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.

I think CSM are the last faction with the vehicle exclusion, so logic dictates that's going away.

 

GW logic dictates that it's staying.

 

How so?  They've made that change for literally every army.  Why wouldn't they change it for CSM?  And don't pull the old "Woe is me, GW hates Chaos" line.  This isn't 5th Edition, there's no need to be melodramatic.

 

I think you took my comment a bit too seriously.

[TrawlingCleaner]

Wonder if this will stack with death to the false emperor or replace it.

I think this is likely to replace DttFE, I'd love to see it stack as Turn 4-5 would be explosive for combat but it does seem like this system will replace DttFE. I'd imagine they'll call it something like "Let the Galaxy Burn" or somethign similar

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

I think CSM are the last faction with the vehicle exclusion, so logic dictates that's going away.

GW logic dictates that it's staying.

How so? They've made that change for literally every army. Why wouldn't they change it for CSM? And don't pull the old "Woe is me, GW hates Chaos" line. This isn't 5th Edition, there's no need to be melodramatic.

They literally did it last edition. In the 8.5 codex, AFTER the space marine codex expanded chapter tactics to all units, the CSM codex was still infantry, bikers, and helbrutes. Hell, I'm pretty sure they had to FAQ that the lord discordant got chapter tactics because he wasn't infantry or biker.

It wasn't a new codex. It was adding a couple datasheets. They also didn't change any of the Legion Traits even though the C:SM Chapter Tactics were updated; do you think the new dex won't have new Traits, too?

[WrathOfTheLion]

Are there any leaks of traits for other Legions besides the Night Lords?

[Excessus]

Are there any leaks of traits for other Legions besides the Night Lords?

I would hesitate to call this a leak, it's a rumour at most...