# Alessio takes the blame for CSM codex



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Apparently Alessio Cavatore has had a chat with the guys at BoLS about various things...



> Two weeks ago Alessio Cavatore sat down with us, and talked game design. After the response from the BoLS readership he decided to offer a reply on two of the most contentious topics: True LoS, and Codex:CSM.
> 
> 
> Take it away Mr. Cavatore...
> ...


Cred to the BoLS team. Original article found here. BigRed suspects that this might be something that will happen more times in the future, time will tell I guessk:


Im not sure I completely buy the "Im to blame for the CSM codex part" but I do at least appreciate that he stands up for his work and explains some of the thoughts behind it. Cant say I like it at all, and its not only the competitive players that dislike it. For me its all about hoping that GW havent completely killed the idea of some kind of Legion specific CSM codex...


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Never really thought it was Gav to blame in the first place, neither does it matter. The codex is playable, neither is it particularly simple - particularly in regards to Icons etc.

That's a lot more than what can be said Necrons, and overall there's a huge amount of units, more so than any other, I think, when you factor in marks.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

> Two weeks ago Alessio Cavatore sat down with us, and talked game design. After the response from the BoLS readership he decided to offer a reply on two of the most contentious topics: True LoS, and Codex:CSM.
> 
> 
> Take it away Mr. Cavatore...
> ...



"The lash was a little too good"... You reckon? The rule listing jumped right off the page and hoofed me in the nuts the second I read it. Anyone with an IQ exceeding 40 would of seen that. 

Did you not playtest it?... Isn't that part of game development?

I bet this is how it went.

Allessio "Wanna play Chess Gav?"
Gav "What about the Chaos codex?"
Alessio "Fuck it, I'll throw something together 5 minutes before the guv'nor wants it"
Gav "Sounds good, roll for deployment..."
Alessio  "We haven't picked our armies yet, I think I'll take a King and Queen as HQ..."


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

'Takes the Blame'... for what? A perfectly playable and fun army list that I've been enjoying for a while now? 

It has a few legion / god specific choices, a few god / legion specific special characters, and the potential to build any number of fun-to-play lists. It's no longer broken, or requires that even almost-20-year veterans like myself have to spend hours trying to piece together a list from the mess-that-was-the-last-edition. 

And if (and yes, there are hints to this effect, from very good sources) they release Legion-specific books, then they can make them wildly different from the 'vanilla' CSM book, like with the various Marine Chapters. They can also then add in that that Legion could summon a specific type of daemon too, because of Legion leanings. Seriously, the CSM book has to play to *all* CSM players, not just those who want specific legions.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I love the answer to true LOS
"they already argue in tournies, so fuck it, may as well make matters worse, as to my second point I'll just quote the rulebook, I have now answered by not answering*


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Whats wrong with true line of sight? :scratchhead:


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I dunno. I think it makes total sense from my opinion. If my dudes with guns can't see the guy hiding behind a wall then surely they can't shoot them.

Well played for someone attempting to defend the Chaos Codex. I like it although not being a chaos player and the fact so much character and flavour was taken out of it for chaos daemons/allowing for renegades. However it does beg the question that if you wanted to run a renegades list then why not use Codex Space Marines and focus on a legion specific codex for chaos for those under the influence for a long time. Although IF I hear mention of exclusive iron warriors choices/4 heavy support slots or all infiltrating alpha legion daemon bomb armies then I will get very cross indeed. Unless they release a craftworld codex that makes ultwe and pathfinders awesome again!


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

The fact it isn't true?

They go on about it like its fantastic and new... we had true line of sight in Necromunda 15 years ago with soft Cover and hard cover.... 

Its a stupid selling point that doesnt even make sense. If you're going to call it "true" lets make it true and not fob it off with "you can see 1 guy in the squad you can kill them all"....


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Jezlad said:


> The fact it isn't true?
> 
> They go on about it like its fantastic and new... you have true line of sight in Necromunda.
> 
> Soft Cover..hard cover.... its a stupid selling point that doesnt even make sense. If you going to call it "true" lets make it true and not fob it off with "you can see 1 guy in the squad you can kill them all"....


This is what I thought true LOS was. I have always played like that. If only 2 of my guys can see your squad then only those 2 may shoot or if I can only see 3 members out of 10 of the other guys then I can only kill those 3 unless my Dark Reaper Marine Rape Launcher is firing (Only barrage I currently use at the moment).


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Jezlad said:


> The fact it isn't true?
> 
> They go on about it like its fantastic and new... we had true line of sight in Necromunda 15 years ago with soft Cover and hard cover....
> 
> Its a stupid selling point that doesnt even make sense. If you're going to call it "true" lets make it true and not fob it off with "you can see 1 guy in the squad you can kill them all"....


Ok, that statement does actually make sense, at least the see one guy kill all part, but other vise it makes sense...


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Doelago said:


> Whats wrong with true line of sight?


how open it is to abuse, yes we had TloS before, but its more literal now
"oh I can see your space marines tiny penis from behind the land raider, I am engaging him but killing everyone else behind him"
"but you can't even see his base or the rest of the men behind him standing behind this land raider"
"no I can see his penis, meaning I can shoot him but kill everyone else behind him"

and the old chestnut of laying down models now can't see shit if there behind a wall, but because private bob is modelled standing up the enemy can see you.

and eyes on stalks, but I do love how anyone wearing a full face helmet can't fire, since they now have no eyes and only LoS to the inside of there own helmet.

TloS=bullshit phase corner turning magic bullets


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> how open it is to abuse, yes we had TloS before, but its more literal now
> "oh I can see your space marines tiny penis from behind the land raider, I am engaging him but killing everyone else behind him"
> "but you can't even see his base or the rest of the men behind him standing behind this land raider"
> "no I can see his penis, meaning I can shoot him but kill everyone else behind him"
> ...


Simple solution, stop playing with twats you don't know and get a group of like minded mates who don't take the game too seriously. If I can do this, I'm sure others can. Anyone who makes a really big fuss over it really is not worth wasting time with over a game of plastic space men. The biggest problem with the non true LOS rules of 4th edition? Way too many situations which resulted in you not being able to shoot models you could actually see.

Having said that I agree with the point Jezlad made , the 'if you can see one model you can see the whole squad' rule is counter-intuitive and one of the few things I don't like about 5th edition. It's probably one of the few things my gaming group are going to end up house ruling in our upcoming campaign.


----------



## smfanboy (Apr 1, 2009)

Well, atleast he has the balls to admit he was wrong.....


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> how open it is to abuse, yes we had TloS before, but its more literal now
> "oh I can see your space marines tiny penis from behind the land raider, I am engaging him but killing everyone else behind him"
> "but you can't even see his base or the rest of the men behind him standing behind this land raider"
> "no I can see his penis, meaning I can shoot him but kill everyone else behind him"


If you can see a model's fruit and veg, but no other part of it I'd really like to see the pose that your miniatures are in...

True LOS is a trade off for me - it's less bad than levels of terrain blocking LOS at certain heights, and plays fairly quickly. If you play with a bit of common sense (IE recognising that just because you're plastic space man is modelled lying down, he isn't rigidly stuck in that position for eternity) then it plays fairly well.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I have mixed feelings on TLoS and think it could have been done better, and from a top down perspective, but its to late now, maybe 6th edition will fix it but probably not.


----------



## Zaden (Oct 21, 2008)

Jezlad said:


> Its a stupid selling point that doesnt even make sense. If you're going to call it "true" lets make it true and not fob it off with "you can see 1 guy in the squad you can kill them all"....


Yes this is a major problem with 5th edition. You can have said special weapon guy out in the open to make use of true LOS, but not need to remove him as a casualty until ALL of the rest of his hidden squad are removed. So you can make full use of awesome weapons without taking a chance of losing them right away.

"Yes under true LOS rules I can see you becuase I'm sticking out of cover. No under true LOS rules even though I'm the only model YOU can see you can't target me specifically, oh and when you do get a shot off at me, I get a cover save due to all of my fucking friends that you can't see. I like to call it a moral support cover save."

Basically one rule has two very different meanings depending on perspective; attacker or defender. How the fuck does that make sense?


As for the CSM codex, it's shite compared to the previous one. Anyone that doesn't agree needs to play them for a year, and see if you can stay interesting in the hobby. Its a tough grind. Yeah they are competitive, but with very limited variation to the lists. The obvious stuff like how ridiculous Lash is aside, they simply removed far too much of the themed play. Useful customizable daemons added a lot of flavour, and a lot of competitive lists. I suspect they will release the next codex with the same Traitor Legions in the current one, along with Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, etc. And in doing so, they will need to include some more options with daemons. At the very least include one variant per god. CSMs sell too well for them to repeat the current abomination of a codex.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> Simple solution, stop playing with twats you don't know and get a group of like minded mates who don't take the game too seriously.


thats easy to do, you just don't go to wank workshop


----------



## OIIIIIIO (Dec 16, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> thats easy to do, you just don't go to wank workshop


I sense some sort of hatefulness somewhere here?!?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

OIIIIIIO said:


> I sense some sort of hatefulness somewhere here?!?


well its difficult to like playing in a store where your harrased by staff, surrounded by morons and your nostrils are assaulted left right and centre by the stench of unwashed leather coats


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> well its difficult to like playing in a store where your harrased by staff, surrounded by morons and your nostrils are assaulted left right and centre by the stench of unwashed leather coats


You must mean the smell of fake-leather coats..........along with the stench children that don't wash or people that eat funky food that just has a stench that is killable.

Also......im the only one that has a leather coat at my gw that is real....the rest look like plastic! i think people cut up the bags and glue them together.
:king:


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> You must mean the smell of fake-leather coats..........along with the stench children that don't wash or people that eat funky food that just has a stench that is killable.


The proper application of cologne just bellow the nose that all goes away.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

Personally, I think TLoS could easily be fixed with a couple simple additions. 'Must see target's torso', or 'Must see hull of target, for example'. It only makes sense.


----------



## exsulis (Jul 17, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> how open it is to abuse, yes we had TloS before, but its more literal now
> "oh I can see your space marines tiny penis from behind the land raider, I am engaging him but killing everyone else behind him"
> "but you can't even see his base or the rest of the men behind him standing behind this land raider"
> "no I can see his penis, meaning I can shoot him but kill everyone else behind him"
> ...


Here Here!!!!



Zaden said:


> As for the CSM codex, it's shite compared to the previous one. Anyone that doesn't agree needs to play them for a year, and see if you can stay interesting in the hobby. Its a tough grind. Yeah they are competitive, but with very limited variation to the lists. The obvious stuff like how ridiculous Lash is aside, they simply removed far too much of the themed play. Useful customizable daemons added a lot of flavour, and a lot of competitive lists. I suspect they will release the next codex with the same Traitor Legions in the current one, along with Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, etc. And in doing so, they will need to include some more options with daemons. At the very least include one variant per god. CSMs sell too well for them to repeat the current abomination of a codex.


Try playing the Dark Angels for the last 4 years, if our codex was a 1/4 as good as CSM there would have been at least one playable build. And it only took GW 4 years to Errata playable build into the bloody thing.


----------



## GreatGunz (Jan 9, 2011)

well atleast the negative reactions to the DA and CSM codices seem to have cured the gw design team of their most radical simplifying tendencies. Hopefully the next edition of this book will have all the goodies we miss and more, as a kind of mea culpa for the last couple years of blah. I cant wait! 

And good for mr. Cavatore for accepting the responsibility. He made a mistake, he fessed up, as far as Im concerned its all good. CSM players can always play loyalist books when they just cant take it anymore...


----------



## Azrell (Jul 16, 2010)

Chaos got the apology? They raped the dark angels.

As for TLOS, that's how it was back in the day, and it works fine. At the end of the day this is hobby is as much about the miniatures as it is the game, and TLOS does just what he says it does, gets you down to the table looking at the pieces some of us spend hours apron hours on making them look good. Its fine i don't need to go back to system where i have to "talk out" what terrain is what b4 i play. it just is what it is.

With 1 exception really, kill area terrain (yeah, that's right fuck you IG, try hiding 30 guys with paper armor without that abstraction), power armor seems less like real mechanized tank thick plating on a 10 ft tall genetically enhanced super human when you get almost as good, better in some cases protection from tall grass in a field...

Cover should be changed to modify chances to hit not chances that hiding behind a rock. 

If you wanna play a game where the minis come right out the box painted all looking the same, 40k is not your game.


----------



## KaptainK (Jan 16, 2011)

I think this is the first time I've ever seen a GW games designer apologise for messing something up. 

I mean he doesn't work there now but it still counts, right?


----------



## Death Shroud (Mar 1, 2008)

I think true LOS is a gamebreaker for me. My first experience of it this edition has led to me not playing 40k for almost a year now. 

I played Daemons against guard. Each turn my army deployed units (which couldn't move) which could instantly be seen and targeted by roughly 3 units per unit deployed. 
I got cover saves which were one better than my normal save (except for the Horrors which got exactly the same save as they normally would) and got shot to pieces.

My opponent didn't move a single model all game, he didn't need to. Gone was the careful positioning of models to create lanes of fire, gone was the ability to use cover to close in on your enemy, gone was the need to use tactics to draw out enemy into the open for ambushes and counter ambushes. 

It wasn't the losing that annoyed me (I do that enough to have developed a well refined skill of losing gracefuly) it was the lack of fun. Still painting my Daemons as I love the models and I do intend to get another game of 40k but I just feel that 4th edition was much better than this and they felt the need to make sweeping changes that simply weren't required. 

I think abstraction has a strong place in miniature wargames on the larger scale, save true line of site for smaller skirmish games if you feel the need for it at all.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Death Shroud said:


> I think true LOS is a gamebreaker for me. My first experience of it this edition has led to me not playing 40k for almost a year now.
> 
> I played Daemons against guard. Each turn my army deployed units (which couldn't move) which could instantly be seen and targeted by roughly 3 units per unit deployed.
> I got cover saves which were one better than my normal save (except for the Horrors which got exactly the same save as they normally would) and got shot to pieces.
> ...


This was the exact experience I had. 2 years ago (or was it 3) I went to the first 5th edition gt. Over the course of the weekend I played my first ever games of 5th edition. Not once was I able to manoeuvre a single model out of sight. There wasn't a single way to shield my models from line of sight. The game had gone from tactically challenging and fun to a troop hunting objective dash.

I left that weekend vowing never to play 40k shit edition ever again (still haven't).


----------



## World Eater XII (Dec 12, 2008)

Fuck it Gav and alessio both wrote the codex, so they both get shit for it...

As with TLOS, no probs with me, me and my mate use city fight rules, so ruins block LOS.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

I really think that's the crux of the problem: bad terrain. TLOS is meant to be played with LOS-blocking terrain. My group has always more or less played CoD style tables so 4+ cover is all over the place and lots of places to hide units. They first year 5th ed. was played, lots of players played on what should be WFB tables. I mean in the year 40 000, who gives a damn about a frikkin forest with a pond and a marsh???

The start of 2011 has been a great for Games Workshop. It's like the beginning of a new Era. Real FAQ that update stuff AND a game designer talking to the customers and apologising? GW is turning into a company that I start liking. Let past mistakes be corrected and kudos to you, Mr Calvatore to stand and apologise in front of the angry mob we can be.

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

On true line of sight and cover: Me and a few friends who play rgularly are testing a couple of new house rules. 

1) Unless on elevated land, you can't see or shoot through more than 6" of scenery. Woods actually block line of sight as a result. 
2) You can't kill things your guns can't see. Anything else is just stupid. 

Working fine so far, and there's no reason you can't make house rules like this so long as you aren't in a tournament. Or even in a GW - if you ask your opponent first, there's no reason a sensible person wouldn't agree to them...

As for the CSM comments, by 'competitive' build, do you mean 'I must win every game regardless' rather than 'I don't mind occasionally having a hard fight, it's only a game and it's fun: not the end of the world'? Because if I can win games with my fluffy, hindering my own chances for the sake of background armies, then anyone can do it.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I don't understand the problem with TLoS. I played 2nd ed, Necromunda etc and as far as I can tell they were all TLoS games and they worked fine. The problem seems to be bad terrain, or not agreeing with people about terrain. For example Forests should always block LoS, the reason they don't is because you want to put models in them. That is not how the forest actually looks, it's a representation of a forest. 

The problem with 5th is not the LoS rules but rather the cover rules and being able to kill people you cannot see.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Yea I have a problem with the mass cover. I dont like that you can get cover save behind units as that means your cover is your friends. So each time you pass a 4+ cover save that means my model just hit your mate who seems to be fine.
I think cover needs to give a minus to BS.

I like how he said if he had his way he would have made the CSM codex even simpler, I didnt think you could 

Still waiting for a new CSM codex to get me back in to 40k


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

boreas said:


> I really think that's the crux of the problem: bad terrain. TLOS is meant to be played with LOS-blocking terrain. My group has always more or less played CoD style tables so 4+ cover is all over the place and lots of places to hide units. They first year 5th ed. was played, lots of players played on what should be WFB tables. I mean in the year 40 000, who gives a damn about a frikkin forest with a pond and a marsh???
> 
> The start of 2011 has been a great for Games Workshop. It's like the beginning of a new Era. Real FAQ that update stuff AND a game designer talking to the customers and apologising? GW is turning into a company that I start liking. Let past mistakes be corrected and kudos to you, Mr Calvatore to stand and apologise in front of the angry mob we can be.
> 
> Phil


Agreed.

I see games all the time where the terrain is marginalised instead of the focus of the action - this is just wrong. The 25% guideline in the rulebook is a starting point, really - while we often only use 25%, with the addition of craters for Explodes!'d vehicles, we can end up with as much as 40% sometimes.

I think TOs using inadequate terrain coverage is the biggest bugbear of 5e...essentially robbing players of the opportunity to play the game as intended. For instance, that Daemons example - there should have been at least 2 pieces of LOS blocking terrain for your Infantry.

As far as TLOS itself goes, I much prefer this system to the 4e one, that essentially saw me quit for like 2 years. The biggest abstraction is the time-line shift that gW have never really made enough of, IMO.

Back in the day (2e) we were never really told how much time was supposed to pass during the course of a battle. I suppose a lot of us assumed something like an hour or whatever - but a more recent WD (I think it was towards the end of 3rd) said that actually the 6 turns represented more like 6 minutes of 'real' time. When you think of it like that, a model being physically out of LOS while his mate(s) are visible...well - it's a very temporary state of affairs. Maybe he moves into the bullet, not the other way around.

Oh - and I never blamed Gav. Alessio was his boss, and is listed as co-writer. I think people just got far too carried away with the whole 'blame Gav!' thing. Alessio should have stuck to WFB, where he was much better...I remember him joining the WD team as a renowned tournament player - if only he'd stuck to that, huh? :laugh:


----------



## Justindkates (Apr 30, 2010)

Some one needs to take the blame for it. What a pile of dog shit that codex is.


----------

