Talk:Warhammer 40,000/7th Edition Tactics/Chaos Space Marines

Land Raiders and Grav weaponry

Have you gone mad? No one uses Land Raiders, meanwhile grav guns are one of the most powerful weapons in the game. The only time SM ever take Tacs is when they are part of a company, in which case they have free rhinos. So you should be comparing Tacs in a company which is where they are taken against CSMs in CADs where they aren´t taken, because they are horrible, like the rest of the horrible codex. It is important to point this out to warn any potential players of the weakness of the army they are considering playing, stop sugar coating this shit, it´s borderline trolling. Is this page here to entertain and educate its viewers or for its editors to have a giggle about tricking some unsuspecting fool into playing an otherwise cool army, which is clearly among the bottom 3 armies? Angry Pirate (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Infernal Tetrad

big book: "If a Detachment does not list any Restrictions then it has none."

Nowhere in the rules does it say that an army symbol on a detachment page works as a restriction. Why else would the Glad Strike Force have "All units in the Detachment must have the Space Marines Faction", if a picture of the faction at the top functions as a restriction. Rules as intended doesn´t matter jack shit and since GW has stopped producing errata it won´t ever be changed.

Every single army that can do these sorts of things have either fallen by the wayside (Grey Knights) and won´t be resurrected because their Libbys manifest their precious invisibility a little easier or are complete garbage (BA and CSM) BA are still bad with the new Ravenguard and SM formations and the Infernal Tetrad would literally only be for kicks since DPs are still going to be shit after you shoot down the first prince.

I'm kinda with Angry Pirate on this one. Initially I would've been against it, but after going back to Codex: Space Marines, to follow the logic: I see no RAW argument against Blood Angels being able to create a Demi-Company using the formation listed there, other than the fact it's in a different codex. The brb does say to abide by any restrictions imposed, and in the case of the Gladius formation it does outright say that it can only be taken from the Space Marine faction, and that's in the Space Marine Codex! Which otherwise would've been a redundant rule. I'm not convinced that was the RAI but I can't find anything to argue against it, as long as the units used to make the formation are named EXACTLY as the formation dictates. This logic would similarly apply to the Infernal Tetrad. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Page 562 and 571 of Curse of the Wulfen explicitly state that these rules are supplements for Codex: Chaos Daemons. Page 118 of the BRB states "In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of." RAW, found. - Pink Tentacle

Thanks for responding. I´m afraid I don´t have the Wulfen book, but what you have provided from Warzone Fenris aren´t rules. What you have provided maybe suggests that RAI is it´s for DoC, but from what you have provided there is no RAW rule that prevents someone from using the supplement for CSM.

- "the Faction of all the units in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of" 
- "Faction of all the units" 
- "units"

The key word is "unit". Formations are not units and do not have factions, they have restrictions. I still don´t see any RAW rule that prevents me from bringing an Infernal Tetrad with CSM DPs. While you might think the intention is obvious, I see no reason why they would need to make a restriction for the SM Decurion but no restriction for the individual formations unless they wanted BA and GKs to have access to some of those formations. This is in fact exactly what has happened in the new SM supplement where all chapters have access to all the basic formations but they each have a unique Decurion. I know I´m being an ass about this, sorry for wasting your time, but I believe that the information posted here should reflect the RAW and then maybe with the addition of a RAI addendum that it for example would be a D bag move to bring Tiggy and two GK Librarians in the SM Psyker formation.

" I´m afraid I don´t have the Wulfen book, but what you have provided from Warzone Fenris aren´t rules. What you have provided maybe suggests that RAI is it´s for DoC, but from what you have provided there is no RAW rule that prevents someone from using the supplement for CSM." - Here's the exact quote from page 571 of Curse of the Wulfen: "The following section details background and rules that describe the forces used by the Chaos Daemons. Used in conjunction with Codex: Chaos Daemons, this section will enable you to forge your collection of Chaos Daemons miniatures into an army ready to bring death and ruin to your foes in games of Warhammer 40,000." - It explicitly states this entire section of the Warzon Fenris book contains rules for Codex: Chaos Daemons. I'm not trying to make this into a personal attack, but if you don't have the book then I have no idea how you think you are forming an informed argument against the rules as they are written. As for the argument of units vs. formations, since all formations contain units and those units are all the same faction unless they have specific rules like Deathwatch, I will have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the rules. - Pink Tentacle

• I have the main rulebook which is what I was argueing from, the main rulebook does not prevent you from using that formation with CSM. Just because a sandwich contains ham does not make it ham, a sandwich is a sandwich and it contains ham but it is not ham. I´ve only seen the rules for the individual formations which circle around the internet. No matter how you say it a faction icon does not give a formation a faction, because it simply can´t have one. I´ll back off on this issue, I´m sorry about wasting your time. - Pirate

Number of Attacks

To quote the page, "IMPORTANT NOTE: All Chaos Troops except Thousand Sons list either a bolt pistol and CCW or a bolter, bolt pistol and CCW". I don't think they do, actually. In the book, it says, and I quote, "Weapons: Each model may have a Close Combat Weapon and either a Bolter or a Bolt Pistol." It doesn't say Bolter, bolt pistol, and CCW, it says CCW and either Bolter or Pistol. Meaning you can get a long range weapon, or a pistol for CC. --71.229.74.0 23:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you can; in the case of Chaos Space Marines models you can have a Boltgun, Close Combat Weapon and a Bolt Pistol (you'd just be paying 2pts for the Close Combat Weapon if you decide not to swap the Boltgun for the C.C Weapon). --[[User:DarkIronCrown17|DarkIronCrown17] 02:42, 20 June 2014

Pyrovores Chaos spawn comparison

There is something wrong with the mention of pyrovores when its talking about CHAOS SPA..., er, you know. Anyways I wanted to know if they were both terrible units at the same time, if not the pyrovore mention should be removed, and if so then "still exist" should be switched with something along the lines of "existed back then too." I don't know which is the case, hence I didn't do it myself. If you know which is the case, please let me know in a reply to this and I will fix it, or delete the Pyrovores Chaos spawn comparison section on the talk page and fix it yourself. --99.160.164.162 04:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed it. Dok (talk)

I AM BEGGING YOU

DON'T STRIKE-THROUGH ANYTHING! CHANGE IT TO FIT 6TH EDITION, INTEGRATE THE NEW RULES INTO THE ARTICLE!! MAKE GOOD TACTICAS, NOT CRAPPY SELF-STRICKEN PAGES!!!

Besides, we have the 5th Edition Tactics archived.

• You're welcome :)

Word. People have been relatively good but this page is still descending into spawndom. A lot of stuff can get cut, especially the tables and explicit statblocks (which could even run us afoul of geedubs. Probly should wait until the dust settles for a full rewrite. --Petro 02:31, 6 October 2012 (BST)

I've gone through and removed most of the useless strikethrough-riddled back-and-forth. The big offender was probably the Cybork Bodies discussion. Please keep questions and responses in this Discussion page - it's why it exists. However, not all strikethough is bad id est the Pepperidge Farms joke under Inventory of Chaos. That's the sort of thing <s> should be used for. --Dr. Thompson 04:36, 12 October 2012 (BST)

• ANOTHER KEY NOTE TO MAKE THE TACTICA BETTER: Do not include your own homebrew bullshit A.K.A only write the tactics section if you are sure of the rules - FW emails are fine as long as they aren't the usual canned response of "I don't see why not, talk it over with your group :^)" the usual useful response is something like "We've spoken with our rules team and they said X". I just had to remove part of the entry that for the FI dreadnought in IA13 that said it's unclear whether the dread can get a 4++ if he takes the Host of Daemonic Iron and dedicated to Tzeentch upgrade. At no point does it say this gives you the daemon rule and even if it did, the Tzeentch upgrade is a flat 6++, not like the CSM codex - if you can't understand the fucking rules - DO NOT write in the tactica. Newer players will read the bullshit you write and think it is legit.

- Angry Anon who tries to make this tactica less awful, 29.02.16

Lucius

He has a Doom Siren. Whatever illiterate chucklefuck posted that he does not on the 16th of August needs to read his damn Codex.

Drop and Spray

Unless I'm misreading the codex, the only thing that allows scatterless deep striking is the Dimensional Key now. Nothing on the icon section suggests they allow scatterless deep striking.

• That is true, Dimensional Key is the only one.

Daemon Prince

The Daemon Prince counts has the daemon special rule which includes eternal warrior. The article stresses that his main weakness is the lack of the eternal warrior rule.

• No, the Warhammer 40K Rule book states that Daemon only confers Fear and a 5+ Invulnerable, not the Chaos Daemons bonus.

Flamers and Overwatch

For the LOVE of THE DARK GODS, people, flamers can be used in Overwatch. From pg. 52, underneath Template Weapons, underneath Wall of Death: "Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots... It automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit." That's GW's bolding, too!

Now, as to pertinence? Template weapons are the only weapons that currently, automatically, hit during Overwatch. That's one of the main reasons to take them now. And the Dirge Caster stops that, thankyouverymuch, and that's why the Dirge Caster is so nice. So, can we please stop this fucking edit war and agree that flamers can, in fact, be used in Overwatch? --Dok, at some time, on some day

OK, modders, block this illiterate asshole. He obviously cannot read ore understand what he is reading.

Guard Allies

The guard allies thing, I don't see a fluff problem with it, to my knowledge you keep things general you can normally find a defectors to chaos somewhere in the fluff regardless of what that person's rank and faction was (Except grayknights cause they are mary sues). And as Ciaphas Cain points out (in Cain's Last Stand), in a (successful) mutiny normally suspected loyalists (this tends to include commissars) are purged from the ranks, that is what the objective of the traitor legions was in the drop site massacre. Hell, commissars are sometimes killed by guardsmen who are loyal to the Imperium. Besides in that book it is explicitly stated that he knows of a case where commissar defected to with chaos.

It was mostly a joke on my part. Imperial Guard (and Planetary Defense Forces) fall to Chaos all the time, so if anything, it's weird that they aren't Battle Brothers. --Dok March 8, 2013

FW characters

Can we get entries for Zhufor the Impaler, Necrosius, and Arkos the Faithless from IA7? FW released a FAQ for 6th that covers all three.

• Do it! May be in form of Space Marine tactica FW characters section.

So I know someone has already taken a look at the Siege of Vraks updated entries, but I'd like to point out one thing; since there is only the one dice roll in 7th edition for deployment (at least in the standard deployment), and going first/second is based on who deployed first, doesn't that mean Arkos' warlord trait has no drawback now?

Lord of Skulls

Could someone please fill out the khorne lord of skulls entry? I found a good deal on ebay, but dont want to buy it without knowing if its any good.

The Sonic Dreadnought

So the argument that you can't take the Sonic dreadnought hinges on not being able to take a vanilla chaos dreadnought to upgrade into a sonic dreadnought, right?

But one of the earlier Imperial Armors, vol 6, allows CSM armies to take dreadnoughts as an Elite choice. By that logic, aren't you permitted to take a Chaos Dreadnought as per IA 6, and then Upgrade it to a sonic dreadnought as per IA Apocalypse 2?

Thank you, Imperial Armour 13 - not only is the Sonic Dreadnought back in business, it's a goddamn awesome inclusion! Tarbosaur (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Giant Chaos Spawn

Not sure if you want to edit the main article on this based upon the most recent Imperial Armour Apocalypse. These are the changes I've noticed:

• Move from Heavy Support to Elite section of article.
• Drop in points cost by 1/3rd.
• Loss of FnP.
• Loss of Slow and Purposeful.
• Gained Mutated beyond Sanity.
• Gained +2 attacks (now D6+2).

As of Imperial Armour 13, this is no longer a choice for Chaos Space Marine armies.

According to here: http://www.thediceabide.com/2014/11/some-ia13-questions-answered-by-forge-world/ giant spawn and spined beasts had their focus logos switched by mistake so you should be able to take them for Chaos Space Marines.

Spined Chaos Beast

Changed in the Imperial Armour Apocalypse so that it is now only available in Chaos Daemon armies so it should be removed.

Changed in IA 13 so that it is now available to Marines, but not to Daemons. Make your mind up Forgeworld.

Blade of the relentless, Crimson slaughter artefact

I'm not entire sure if sweeping advance kills count towards the weapon's kill count. If any one knows weather or not it does, please reply.

No i dont think the Sweeping Advance would count towards the weapon's kill count - hope it helps! --[[User:DarkIronCrown17|DarkIronCrown17]

7th Edition Changes

Should we make a new page entirely for the 7th edition? Since there are just minor changes, it could just be limited to:

• Removing the warning note "MUST accept challenges" in the Special Rule: Champion of Chaos entry (since any unused attacks now get redirected into the remainder of the squad).
• Add a note about Primaris Power now being free for god alignment.
• *Possibility, needs to be checked* As rules for allies and battle-brothers changed, could Dimensional Key now provide no-scatter for deep-striking allied Daemons?
• Counter Attack no longer requires the Leadership check, so Khornate Cultists are now an option.
• Could add something about summoning allied daemons into the tactics.
• Bikers have base Jink of 4+.
• Heldrake got nerfed a bit, due to Vector Strike and Non-turret weapon in it's head

Feel free to add other bulletpoints under this one.

Okay.

• Chaos Lords don't have to worry as much about challenges as they used to. (See: 6th ed) But still keep a champion to soak up those challenges for them, you don't need to waste kharn's attacks on some no-name captain.
• Flamers and Autoguns are viable on cultists for a cheap and relatively reliable anti-charge/infantry defense unit. Combine with MoK for added hilarity.
• Note that Ahriman can shoot at 4 different targets (YES FOUR. READ IT) with his psychic mindbullets AND shoot at another unit with his pistol.
• How about combining cursed earth with the deamon engines for a 4++.

MAGIC MUNCHKIN

Hey with the changes to psykers in 7th edition, the idea of adding an spell familiar, to a reasonably priced sorcerer sounds practical for spaming 3 charge powers with more chances of success.

New Codex released: 7th Edition Khorne Daemonkin

Just an anonymous reader who found this today on the Games Workshop website: http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Codex-Khorne-Daemonkin-ENG

Any chance the site can get a tactica? I haven't seen what's inside, but it looks awesome. Here's hoping it isn't a shit twinkie. Also, will it be treated as a supplement to Codex: Chaos Space Marines? Or will it be given it's own page?

Already done. Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Khorne_Daemonkin(7E) --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That was fast. You guys are awesome!

Cypher unable to give infiltrate to infiltrating units?

I see that in the tactics article, it says that Cypher cannot give non-infiltrating units infiltrate, as par FAQ. What FAQ is that? I thought that that was the point of cypher - infiltrating stuff (especially chosen). Admittedly, I've only ever played against him. --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the official 40K FAQ, they changed the rules so that infiltrate does not carry over into a unit that the character is in. Personally I think it's a really stupid decision, and without it Cypher loses one of his biggest advantages. -- Triacom (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Cypher's formation: "Fallen Champions" are a bunch of Chosen that all come with Infiltrate though, and can share his And They Shall Know No Fear, which is rather unique for Chaos, just saying.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Also this

Chaos Drop Pod Assault

Why hasn't anyone started talking about a chaos drop pod assault? Sure, Dreadclaws and kharybdi are possessed but they are entirely better than normal marine drop pods. They seem exactly like the kind of assault transport we need, something fast and relatively durable that protects our dudes before getting them into assault as soon as possible. Other than it being expensive ($$$$) why wouldn't we do this? (Lord Captain Kitten | talk)

Chaos Space Marine Squad question

So, under Troops Choices, the page mentions for Chaos Space Marines that "...yes, one dude has to take a banner but it's a flat cost per unit." I'm reviewing the 6th edition codex now, and don't see any such requirement. Have I missed something? I suspect I may be missing the context here.... Also, who's to say it restricts wargear? Couldn't a modeler just cut down part of the stave and affix the banner to the top of the Marine's power pack? --70.190.166.102 22:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed. Read through the codex and the errata, and icons aren't mandatory. I'm thinking the original editor may have misunderstood the rules, was in the mindset that an icon is an auto-take, or may have been trying to say it provides a squad buff only as long as the one guy who has it was still standing. Scamper (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Black Legion Artifact: Last Memory of the Yuranthos

• Entry to be deleted: Original question was answered by an FAQ found on the GW website. --70.190.166.102 07:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

--70.190.166.102 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The new introduction format to this tactica is very lame

Why was the "how to counter these cons"-section deleted? There is too much negativity without constructive feedback in the intro. Someone thought it was a good idea to write a boring, dry text, instead of an inviting, exciting section, as it was before. Don't re-write big sections of an article just like that, especially when you kill the feeling in this way. //The Awkward Man, 22oct2016

• There's a lot of "repeated information" in the Chaos Tactics page as is. The Black Crusade detachment was repeated twice, and the "what certain allies do" is currently repeated three times. Chill man, this is about getting the most power out of Chaos as a whole (so things like how to negate the "mandatory challenges" part of Champion of Chaos, how to run an efficient Psychic Phase, etc). MagicJuggler (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's all fine now, the recent edits were super great! :D The Awkward Man, 1nov2016

What All Needs to Be Added? Also, is there merit in "How To Use Bad Things, After Being Warned They're Bad?"

So I added some Psychic Primer details to the "general tactics" section for Chaos, as I've found that having at least one Sorcerer (I've not gone full-Cabal yet) tends to give more options to the army as a whole. One thing this page could use is a "how to deal with X" segment. For stuff like Riptide Wings/etc, that will of course have the Chaos player's work cut out for them, but that doesn't mean the only option should be "don't play." Another thing I've been trying, especially with the normally-bad Relics (so far, Dimensional Key/Scrolls of Magnus), is writing them in three parts. An overview ("what it does"), the reasons you don't normally take it ("why it's bad"), and how to use it if you want to try it out no matter what ("Making the Most Of It"). Let me know if you think this has merit? MagicJuggler (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

I cleaned it up, try to keep things in nice and orderly sections. Most discussion of decurions and supplements is now AFTER the individual unit, wargear and psychic tactics so you don't have to scroll through a full page of legion indexes just to get to the index to get to the unit tactics.

• "Detachments and Formations" is for generic detachments and formations used by multiple subfactions, as opposed to the unique legion and warband stuff. Any general discussion of shared decurion stuff goes here.
• "Supplements" is for discussing which supplements have which rules. Bookkeeping for Chaos Space Marines is a mess and this section tidies it up.
• "The Legions" is for discussion of Wrath of Magnus, Traitor Legions and any future expansions on the legion rules.
• "Other Warbands" is for Crimson Slaughter and The Purge, and any further Chaos subfactions that aren't legions

Legion tactics should all follow the same format, I set it up, just fill it in with descriptions, tactics, personal experiences etc. for whichever legion you play.

I threw the legion rules into boxes, and the same might be done for the other suppliments, which should help clean things up a bit. Josman (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you thinking the same should be done for Marines/Angels of Death? MagicJuggler (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be a good idea. I'll take a look when I get some time. Josman (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be a lot neater either to keep legion-specific detachments in the legion section, or to put each formation based detachment into a box to make things easier to navigate.

on the other hand, other than the Black Legion and Thousand Sons, most the multi-formation detachments are nearly identical to one another in composition barring one or two differences. They share the same Auxiliaries as a rule (the only unique Auxiliary being fortifications for Iron Warriors), and most of them only have the Warband as a core; there's not as much crazy variation as there is between the Loyalists. MagicJuggler (talk)

Currently, the "Tactics" part of individual Legions is in the Legion entries, the "List Building" in the List-Building section. I imagine there could be some merge between both? I'm focusing on Word Bearers at the moment! MagicJuggler (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: Black Crusade Detachment and the new Legions

Alright I have a question: the new Traitor Legion "decurions" all require your formations to be from the same Legion. But what of the old Black Crusade detachment from Traitor's Hate? Could each individual component formation/detachment come from a different Legion (subject to relevant restrictions in the rules) and all come together under the "Black Crusade Detachment" heading. So, say a World Eaters Chaos Warband, with a Word Bearer Lost & Damned and an Iron Warrior Cult of Destruction? -Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• • I should point out that the loyalist Gladius Strike Force has the specific restriction that all units be drawn from a single chapter to stop what I'm suggesting. The Black Crusade detachment only says that all units must have the Chaos Space Marine faction, of which the nine traitor legions remain part of. -Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Legion Detachment Formatting

So...other than Black Legion and the Thousand Sons, all 7 other Legions are fundamentally using a permutation of the Black Crusade, with only one "difference" per legion.

Seriously, 7 out of 9 Legions are "Warband core, 4 Lords of the Legion", and the exact same auxiliaries. Alpha Legion has the "base" detachment, 5 of the other legions get a second core to choose from, and Iron Warriors can take Fortifications. And that's really all there is.

It might actually be better to just print a generic "Legion Detachment" template, and then explain differences for each Legion? MagicJuggler (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dreadclaws Discontinued?

To squash an argument already happening in the edit section about whether or not Anvillus Pattern Dreadclaws are being discontinued, I present the response I recieved from Forgeworld:

"Hi, Thank you for your email. Fear not, your forces to will be able to resupply. The kit has not been discontinued. What we are doing is to change the packaging on this kit from a Ziplok bag to a box and as such when we do this we have to re-code it. So, we are just making more of the Anvillius and we hope to have them back in stock by the end of this week, start of next week, but under a slightly different code."

This happens every year. Something popular sells out or gets repackaged and people start panicking that they won't get their model fix, but those same people would have a lot less stress and not jump to false conclusions if they would just email Forgeworld and get the answers from those who know. PinkTentacle 03:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lord of Skulls and thematic legions

So, a thing I noticed: Lord of Skulls is a Khornate machine both fluffy and on the table. But there is no rule in new Legions supplement which strongly disallows the usage of Daemons of Khorne in, for instance, Emperor's Children or TS army lists. DP of Khorne are forbidden, yes, but Lord of Skulls is neither DP nor marked by Khorne. Even the Trinity of Blood formation is not tied to or forbidden for any particular legion. Sure, it creates the DoW-level of canon rape- like the big particular god relic unit which can be taken despite of army heraldry? But even a single Lord of Skulls can be a good addition to any big enough Legion army by adding both melee and dakka strength while being a DISTRACTION DAEMON ENGINE.

Post Traitor Legions unit analysis formatting

Some of the legions make rather dramatic changes to some units that shake up their traditional weaknesses/strengths. This is in addition to marks. Maybe we should adopt a certain template for units that are affected by the legions? Like say plasma Raptors. Normally they're eh, but with Death guard they become relentless making plasma guns a viable option.

Giving a generic analysis followed by 4 marks with sub points for BL/WB followed by 4 marked legions seems a bit excessive. Unless there is a hidden entry for each and then the whole thing is hidden again. The opposite end of the scale would be to give each legion (in their tactics) their own unit analysis'. Total overkill imho. So maybe we could add a "With Legion dedication" paragraph for each unit with VotLW and people just add to that as they see fit?

Empyrionic Guidance Mutilators

"<...> If a unit of Mutilators is selected, then it can attack twice after Piling In in the Assault phase of the turn. Carry out the first set of attacks to completion, then carry out the second set of attacks. A unit must use different weapons for the two different sets of attacks, and cannot use a weapon it used in the previous turn."

RAW there is nothing here that says "attack a second time immediately with another weapon". So this whole "initiative chainfists" uproar sounds like bullshit to me. How 'bout you?

• • From the given quote it looks like you either A) attack at initiative step 1 with something unwieldy then attack with something else (still at I 1) OR B) attack with something at initiative and switch to unwieldy that will then pop you down to initiative 1. Like you wrote: it does not say "immediately." The additional words after "attack twice" simply seem to serve as a clarification that you cannot simply get away with attacking twice with the same weapons.--Naeondaemon (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we please keep the humour?

Recent(ish) edits have removed much of the humour from these tactics. Such as the whole CORPSE thing in the murder sword or the butter cutting bringers of despair and what have you. I understand some of the articles aren't up to snuff anymore, but please try to keep those things in when updating. The humour is half the reason I read these tactics after all. I can't help but feel this tactica is getting increasingly dry.

I get you. At the same time, there was a lot of old misleading advice about a lot of stuff. Humor is good definitely, especially the comedy combos and bizarre edgecases that can come about from certain rule interactions, be it Typhus turning Alpha Legion Cultists in a separate detachment into sneaky ninja zombies, or Word Bearers potentially getting Warlord Psyker Defiler MagicJuggler (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Line Sight and cover

Several new rules for CSM faction provide line of sight on enemies. Does it mean that enemy models are counted as not obscured even partially and get no benefit from cover?

Black legion edit commentary

I bolded the hatred(everybody) for Black Legion which doesn't really follow general formatting, but I felt that it's important. It's my impression that many people ignore that part and assume BL only has an upgraded hatred vs imperium. So I felt that pointing it out would be beneficial in this case. Having hatred vs everybody is quite a big deal after all.

Alpha Legion Insurgency Force FAQ

To every THAT GUY attempting to claim that the FAQ is a poorly written re-roll, STOP IT. The FAQ CLEARLY states ""Q: Alpha Legion have the ability to bring Cultists back on a 4+ in their Insurgency Force, but the only way to take Cultists is in the Lost and the Damned Formation which already has the rule. How do these interact? A: These rules do not interact in any stackable way." These rules do not interact in ANY stackable way. There is no debate about this. Just like the FAQ concerning Demonic Possession on Super Heavies, which GW only added for completion sake by their own admission, this rule has no usable purpose. The FAQ isn't a rough draft, it's the final word of the people who write these rules. If another FAQ comes along saying to talk to your friends about the interpretation(which does happen from time to time), then I can see a reason to add that entry to the tactica. Until then, let's keep house-ruling out of the tactica page. I don't want new players seeing this shit then getting into a THAT GUY argument they aren't prepared for against the majority of players that will not agree with their attempt at powergaming a broken rule that GW has acknowledged is broken. PinkTentacle (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2017

- I can understand the reasoning, and will respect that. However, I have seen some discussion on other areas of the internet that show there is indeed some debate on how the FAQ ruling is supposed to be interpreted. To wit, the 40k subreddit had a number of individuals question it and interpret the rule differently. We're not even trying to be THAT GUY in doing so; a counter argument could be said about your response bearing a hint of "THAT GUY"-ness. So let's agree to the following: be respectful to each other per the Golden Rule most of our parents taught us, because nobody here wants to be seen as THAT GUY; discuss all future edits to the Insurgency Force rulings here in this discussion section from here on out, because there are most certainly others who have questioned the FAQ ruling and the interpretation; clear all edits for said rule with fellow contributors via this discussion page, to avoid a needless edit war and further cases of salt. --2600:8800:7500:3300:B10B:6CA4:5AD1:E56C 17:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but respectfully disagree about a couple things. First, a "THAT GUY" is someone who tries to bend the rules to THEIR advantage. I am asking for the rules to be followed as they are written, so there is no "THAT GUY-ness" to my argument. I am simply going by what GW has decided to do with the rules. Interpreting a rule that makes no mention of re-rolls as giving the player a re-roll is peak "THAT GUY-ness". Second, the 40k subreddit does not in any way supersede the rules simply by disagreeing with them, no matter how many people are in agreement there. I know how it feels to have rules I like changed by GW to something that makes little sense from a player's point of view(Emperor's Children player from the days of Blastmaster Havocs here), but it's something we all have to deal with from time to time. Lastly, if I seem like a hard ass on this issue, it's only because I went through a period where I was forced to adjust to the majority of my models being unusable because of rules changing what my army was capable of doing. In 3rd Edition I had Noise Marine weapons on everything, Predator tanks, Dreadnoughts, Bikes, EVERYTHING. 5th Edition made my entire army illegal. I still play it in friendly games, but I would be a pretty big THAT GUY to try and insert my interpretations of how my army SHOULD run in the tactica. To sum this up, disagreeing with a rule change is not the same as it being interpreted differently. I would absolutely make a house rule for this amongst friends, although the rule itself might be better re-interpreted as a bonus available to Alpha Legion CADs so you can get around the Dark Apostle tax and not be forced to take 4 units of Cultist at minimum. Just not in the tactica without GW writing something that agrees with said interpretation. PinkTentacle (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2017

- I was thinking of "That Guy" beyond the rampant munchkin-ism, but I see your point. And, from a more newly minted Heretic to a neckbeard of the old guard, I grieve for your loss as a Sonic weapons enthusiast. Truly, there is no greater rage inducing source of salt than to see your entire force rendered illegal in the span of a single codex. --2600:8800:7500:3300:B10B:6CA4:5AD1:E56C 03:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

- New Faq in for the Faq. The decurion now changes the roll to a 3+ instead.

Yeah, I modified the entry to reflect that. Please feel free to make the writing clearer if it's not up to snuff.--Naeondaemon (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks good. I give it my completely unofficial seal of approval. PinkTentacle (talk) 23:30, 04 February 2017

To quote Monty Python's Holy Grail, "And there was much rejoicing." --70.190.166.102 04:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Commentary on the Undo to alternate opinion on the eye of night

Somebody changed it to :***Alternate opinion:Considering how hard it is to get a vehicle in a decurion, this might not be as expensive as it appears. And that's why you take an allied CAD for that instead. Because your Legion bonuses pretty much exclude vehicles outright.

I changed it back, because A) a CAD is still more expensive than the eye, so the part they striked though is not wrong, B) there is no allied CAD and if they meant an allied detachment, that's not possible in an all csm list and C) there is no less incentive to take a vehicle for Black Legion than there is for any other Legion.

Blessing of Tzeentch Thousand Sons Legion rule

Regarding the "The +1 to invuln save bonus does not stack with more blessings, or it would say so in it's description" thing.

Nowhere does it say that it doesn't stack either. To use an analogy, Chaos Boons don't stack despite them simply saying "the champion has +1 this" or "the champion has +1 that" - it is because the Champion of Chaos explicitly states that multiple boons have no effect. In case of the Blessing of Tzeentch, however, the presumption is still there. RAW I see no reason for it not to stack, it is not technically a part of the psychic shenanigans where nothing can stack because the rules say so. I've already sent an email to GeeDubs about it, but they haven't replied. Anyone else is interested how this rule works?

- The blessing doesn't stack because it asks IF a unit is affected, not WHEN it is affected.

Lords of Slaughter, aka how is this hard to understand?

So I have no idea why there's a discussion about this in the first place, as it's so mindbogglingly stupid that I cannot comprehend how people are getting confused on the Lords of Slaughter formation.

• First point, the Chaos Lord is a ML1 Psyker who knows Prescience. Considering that ML1 Psykers can only get one power, this means he only knows Prescience. I cannot fathom how this is hard to understand.
• Second point, he cannot take a Mark of Khorne because on page 91 it says that Psykers cannot take the Mark of Khorne. I don't know how this is hard to understand, and no you cannot try to rules lawyer this by buying him first then put him in a formation because choosing formations/detachments is always the first step in making your army. He's a Psyker before he has the option of buying any wargear.
• Third point, yes Prescience is a Primaris power. No he does not know an additional power because the book specifically states he gets the Primaris, and it in no way states that he gets it thanks to Psychic Focus. In fact, he receives no advantage from Psychic Focus at all since he cannot know Prescience twice. Likewise he cannot generate additional powers from any other table, which on its own prohibits him from getting any sort of specific Mark since that's one of the requirements of getting those marks (so no T5 Sorcerer Lord for the Crimson Slaughter).

This is something that should have been brought to the discussion page in the first place, not asked about or debated on the main page. However since all of the answers are provided in the books themselves I've removed it from the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no limit to how many psychic powers a psyker may know, only to how many they generate and how many they can cast. I can agree with point 2, but the rest isn't quite as crystal clear. There still isn't a universal consensus on knowing vs generating as far as I know. So this formation doesn't necessarily preclude the other marks. Though I believe most people will go with knowing == generated and that would indeed preclude other marks and lock him into prescience.

I'd believe you if page 23 of the rules didn't say the following: In some Army List Entries, a Psyker will have one or more specific psychic powers listed - where this is the case, it will be clearly stated. These Psykers always start the game with those psychic powers. Otherwise, a Psyker generates random psychic powers from amongst the psychic disciplines known to him. See that otherwise? A Psyker can only generate powers if they do not know any other powers by default. -- Triacom (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I stand corrected.

Added Black Legion "The Tormented" formation

It was missing for some time now, so I added it. Forgot to change the edit summary to reflect that though, so here it is. I added another section in the black legion speartip because I wasn't sure where else to put it. It's not a dataslate, but it could be mistaken for a speartip formation right now.

About Boons

You can't outright choose boons, but you CAN choose to re-roll boons you don't want to have in order to get a better boon. And you can do so for any model that gets to roll on the chart, including even walkers. And some boons have edge case applications like for generating more hits with infernal gaze should you have rolled that, which you know before hand. Which is also something that should be kept in mind and thus mentioned on the tactica. Icy aura for example will suck on average, but with gaze it's an easy source for quite a few free hits. So I really don't see the hubbub about the boon update. More so in a black crusade where you get can end up with quite a lot of them and it can really pay to bring a dark apostle. Enlighten me what's so bad about assigning them a value.

It's your wording choice. Saying 'auto-take' or 'skip' makes it sound like you can pick and choose the results. If you instead write something like 'reroll unless you have X' then it fits the rules much better and makes it clear that you can't just pick and choose results. -- Triacom (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Then re-word the parts you feel need improving rather than undoing the whole thing. When you don't have the option to re-roll there is no choice to make anyway so I didn't feel like it would be a problem. Alternately, we could remove the comments on boons entirely and add a paragraph about the boons after it instead. It's good to have an idea how valuable the individual boons are, it's not always immediately clear just what you can do with some of them. I think we should have some evaluation of them.

If you write 'skip' when it's possible that you can't skip the result (either by rolling it twice or by getting it as your re-roll off of another result) then that's faulty information, and faulty information should be removed. Honestly I don't have an interest in adding commentary to each individual result, I only have an interest in keeping faulty information from appearing there. If you wanted to add a section that explains which boons are good for which builds, or what items they'd combo with, then that would be something I could get behind as I feel that would flow better and could have more emphasis on helping out whatever tactic you're going for. -- Triacom (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yyyea, we'll have to agree to disagree on the faulty information part. It IS a choice, both for re-rolling the boons or not, as well as bringing the option to re-roll in the first place. While there is no guarantee that your choice to re-roll will yield any better or even different results, it is a choice you have to make.Anyway, I updated the boons again with hidden comments for each boon. Adding a separate paragraph seemed redundant. One would have to cover all of them again. I was considering to remove the coloured back ground to save space and retain the old layout, but that's kind of bad design since it's very easy to miss there is anything to expand then. Go ahead and take a look.

I'll admit I'm not really a fan of the style (since a lot of it is kinda pointless as the sentence descriptions could above the collapsed portion), but I suppose that's really the best way to cover it without adding additional paragraphs or re-writing the whole thing. -- Triacom (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yea I'm not entirely happy with the design either, but I'm not really sure how it could be done any better. I'm not exactly a wiki guru though, so if anybody has a better idea on how to format it, be my guest. I don't really want to put the descriptions after each boon like with the warlord traits. There are too many boons for that. I prefer to see a clear list, but the way I did might be sub optimal.

I do have one idea, how about we outright remove the chart under boons, as anyone who has the book can just look at the table to see what they're going to get. This wiki isn't supposed to be a place to give somebody the rules and repeating information doesn't really help the reader, so instead of just repeating what everyone who has the book already knows, why not replace the various results with sections of which ones are good, which ones you want to re-roll, and which ones are good with certain combinations? -- Triacom (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed the backgrounds. I think I prefer it that way. It's slightly more awkward to use but it looks much nicer. As for replacing the list with a blurb, I can understand the sentiment, but the same would hold true for much of the wiki. So I don't really feel like that's an option. I mean, where do you draw the line? With all the boons fitting onto the same screen again, I think it's OK all things considered.