The newest Chaos codex

[Brother Glacius]

***** You know what I find is funny, all of the complaints so far are about what was lost from 3.5 to 4.0. Every codex that goes from one version to the next has changes. Things are lost, things are gained. Its been pretty clear that the 3.5 codex was a bit OTT and made for cookie-cutter armies. However, it did allow lots of customization which is almost always a good thing.

 

Bear with me here though. GW just released a BA codex online. Why?

 

Its because they don't need a full codex thats why. Now, lets look at Death Guard. Do they need their own codex? No. But could GW put out an online version to be used with the 4.0 one? I bet they could. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if all the major legions eventually got an online codex. It makes sense doesn't it?

 

Did all the marine players bitch and moan when there wasn't Space Wolf, Blood Angel, or Dark Angel rules in the Marine codex? No...why? because there needs to be a baseline.

 

Thats what Codex CSM is, its a baseline. It allows people to play CSM's without having to go legion specific. I think thats the way it should be. Legions should have their own codex.

 

I understand it sucks to lose something. But if its done because its better for the game, then isn't it worth it? Isn't it worth having a decent and more balanced CSM codex that doesn't have all the bells and whistles, than simply another pile of "lets try to do everything in one book" crap?

 

As to JJ, I think he knows what he is doing. Look at the rules for the specialist games. They rock. I'm glad he's taken over 40K. I'd rather have a better game.

 

***** Brother G.

[Maeklos]

Did all the marine players bitch and moan when there wasn't Space Wolf, Blood Angel, or Dark Angel rules in the Marine codex? No...why? because there needs to be a baseline.

 

Thats what Codex CSM is, its a baseline. It allows people to play CSM's without having to go legion specific. I think thats the way it should be. Legions should have their own codex.

 

The only problem with that assessment is that there WILL be new Legion codices in some form or another. Space Wolf, Blood Angel, and Dark Angels all had existing codices of their own, and GW has flat-out said they will continued to support existing armies, ad infinitum.

 

What has been this support for Chaos armies? A token unit each in the new 'dex for the Cult armies. An Apocalypse tie-in for Lost and the Damned. Bits and pieces here, there, and everywhere. This technically fulfills GWs promise of continued support.

 

If they WERE planning on putting out a codex or compendium for individual Legions/Cults/etc, they would have said something by now, because I'm sure GW has their ear to the ground (and in these and other forums) to find out what Chaos players are saying and the vast majority of old Chaos players aren't happy. You've got the ones in the middle who are willing to grin and bear it and ride it out, and those that absolutely hate it. All the new Chaos fanbois are the ones whose first Chaos army will be with the new 'dex.

 

So, to sum it up, if GW was interested in keeping their old, hardcore Chaos players around, they would have said SOMETHING by now. If all they wanted to do was to put out what is pretty much a brand-new army (as different from the old Chaos 'dex army as, say, Black Templars are from Dark Angels) so that a whole new generation of people (who don't have thousands of points worth of Chaos models) go out and buy up hundreds of dollars of new models to start a new army, they succeeded pretty well.

 

They must've realized that the old Chaos players were pretty tapped out and happy with their armies, maybe willing to spend a few hundred more bucks buying a half dozen kits for Apocalypse, but all-in-all, pretty much done. How do you turn over an old customer base? Get a new one.

 

And that's just what they've done.

[Night Stalker]

If they WERE planning on putting out a codex or compendium for individual Legions/Cults/etc, they would have said something by now, because I'm sure GW has their ear to the ground (and in these and other forums) to find out what Chaos players are saying and the vast majority of old Chaos players aren't happy. You've got the ones in the middle who are willing to grin and bear it and ride it out, and those that absolutely hate it. All the new Chaos fanbois are the ones whose first Chaos army will be with the new 'dex.

 

while not technicaly fanboy - i support new codex - and i'm playing longer than you dude so dont insult ME

[Maeklos]

while not technicaly fanboy - i support new codex - and i'm playing longer tahn you dude so dont insult ME

 

I'm not insulting anyone. Just pointing out reasons for why GW is doing what they're doing. They probably figure that they've squeezed all the money they can get from the older Chaos folks and so needed "new blood". They made the new 'dex just different enough to get new people interested in it and so that those grognards who stick with Chaos have to go out and buy EVEN MORE models to make their army work now.

[Joah from Alberta]

Well, we're all going to just keep playing the way we have been and continue buying into the game accepting our meekness for what it is. I am appalled with the new chaos book but suddenly understand why it is allowed to be made so poorly. There are many players who have the put up or shut up attitude and love the game more for the models than the actual credibility. If GW wished to create a better game, they should rewrite the core rules rather than keep making revisions to the expansion codices. Mark my words, if ever this company is sold, I will be dancing in the streets, for I know that there will be more integrity and consideration for the game from a stranger than someone who has become so familiar as to present this poo on our tables. (My apologies for the oblit T5(4) rule, hey, learn something new everyday, and I don't want to be always right, dude.)

[Maeklos]

Well, we're all going to just keep playing the way we have been and continue buying into the game accepting our meekness for what it is. I am appalled with the new chaos book but suddenly understand why it is allowed to be made so poorly. There are many players who have the put up or shut up attitude and love the game more for the models than the actual credibility. If GW wished to create a better game, they should rewrite the core rules rather than keep making revisions to the expansion codices. Mark my words, if ever this company is sold, I will be dancing in the streets, for I know that there will be more integrity and consideration for the game from a stranger than someone who has become so familiar as to present this poo on our tables. (My apologies for the oblit T5(4) rule, hey, learn something new everyday, and I don't want to be always right, dude.)

 

I gave up on AD&D when WotC bought 'em out and turned it into the number-crunching, min-max crap that was DnD 3ed. Ended up going back to Shadowrun, which WhizKids had put out in its old third-edition format. Good stuff.

 

40k is still a great game, but the dubious quality of some of their recent endeavours, and lack of follow-through on others, is starting to piss me off. And while the $400 a month or so I spend on my hobby might be a drop in the bucket, if they keep ticking people off faster than they're bringing them in, especially with their LotR-inspired financial woes, they're going to end up having a sell-off. And then WotC will probably end up buying them off and turning 40k into Magic: Futurewar or some crap.

[Brother Nihm]

Keep it civil please.

 

I for one do not want the legion specific rules back, I would however like to see rules that allow me to support the fluff for my army.

An example of this is Daemonic Visage and the old Blasphemous rune.

 

 

To add to the legion rules debate,

Take away Deathwing, Ravenwing, and what will the DA be?

Wouldn't that make them pretty close to being Ultramarines, but with a different paint scheme?

[Excarnificator]

There are many players who have the put up or shut up attitude and love the game more for the models than the actual credibility.

As someone who's been playing on and off since -87, I can say that's very true. That this game became so popular in spite of the totally terrible rules is a real miracle, you know. :devil:

 

Still got no codex, but Armoured Wing got it right I fear (hope not, though). IMHO Most veterans will always be angered by "dumbed down codexes" and most competetive players will always be angered by "special rules and the unbeatable combo's from hell". So why not split it up? Why don't GW make one fixed tournament list for each faction? (Or just have one, marines, they're like 80% of all armies anyway...) And then publish lists with wargear and all the extras for those who game on more friendly terms? They could even publish experimental downloadable lists on their homepage for people to use. In this way GW could be selling two books for use with the same army. Bad idea? No?

 

/Cheers

[Astaroth]

Keep it civil please.

 

I for one do not want the legion specific rules back, I would however like to see rules that allow me to support the fluff for my army.

An example of this is Daemonic Visage and the old Blasphemous rune.

 

 

To add to the legion rules debate,

Take away Deathwing, Ravenwing, and what will the DA be?

Wouldn't that make them pretty close to being Ultramarines, but with a different paint scheme?

 

Hang on a second here. You're comparing two wargear options to two major companies of an army. Apples and oranges, my friend. A better comparison would be if Dark Angels lost Sword of Secrets (can they even give that to commanders anymore?) and the Chaplain thingy (forget what it's called).

[Maeklos]

Actually, I think Brother Nihm's example is very apt. Ravenwing and Deathwing are both VARIANT ARMY LISTS of an existing army, Dark Angels. The Legion lists were VARIANT ARMY LISTS of an existing army - Chaos Space Marines. Except, as Astaroth pointed out, some of these variant lists were no more than a wargear upgrade.

 

So, Chaos losing the Legions/Cult/etc, is actually a lot like DA losing Ravenwing and Deathwing.

[Excarnificator]

Hang on a second here. You're comparing two wargear options to two major companies of an army. Apples and oranges, my friend. A better comparison would be if Dark Angels lost Sword of Secrets (can they even give that to commanders anymore?) and the Chaplain thingy (forget what it's called).

 

No, not apples and oranges really. Because those wargear options is often what really defined one legion from the other. Each legion had about two or three special rules which made them unique. That's all there was. The wargear was there for flavouring your force as you saw fit. And some wargear was more fluffier for some legions than other.

Besides if it was apples and oranges, then the DA wouldn't need their own codex at all, or?

 

GW's policy is (has been?) that the game is model driven. Now that WYSIWYG is more or less out the window, fluff based rules seems to be next on the list of endangered species.

 

/Cheers

[mannstein]

Still got no codex, but Armoured Wing got it right I fear (hope not, though). IMHO Most veterans will always be angered by "dumbed down codexes" and most competetive players will always be angered by "special rules and the unbeatable combo's from hell". So why not split it up? Why don't GW make one fixed tournament list for each faction? (Or just have one, marines, they're like 80% of all armies anyway...) And then publish lists with wargear and all the extras for those who game on more friendly terms? They could even publish experimental downloadable lists on their homepage for people to use. In this way GW could be selling two books for use with the same army. Bad idea? No?

 

/Cheers

 

Actually, I've been thinking the same thing: they could have a set of lists for tournaments, with specific and limited options (standardised wargear and the like), with big fat "hobbyist" lists full of options and sublists that are not tourney legal. Hell, the tourney lists could even be one book, covering all the armies. Seeing as how (apparently) most of the tourney armies are cookie cutter efforts anyway, would it make much difference to the tourney scene?

 

And non-tourney players could have fluffy, "unbalanced" armies which they actually like playing...

[Lexington]

Lex man show some flexability

Your total lack of tolloerance for any debait on the codex and what it might lack or leave out is rather annoying at this point. Can you not have an open mind and accept that some (but not all) of what people are saying about the legion specific rules (or rather lack there of) has some merit?

Eh, I'm less against the idea of Legion rules, and more incensed at people complaining that their armies can't be represented in the new Codex at all, as if the whole of the Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, Night Lords and Alpha Legion were contained in the tiny paragraphs of special rules jammed into the back of the v3.5 book. There are gigs worth of text out there dedicated to complaining that the Alpha Legion lost Infiltration or that the Night Lords don't have more Raptors than others, but the fanbase is almost silent about the fact that these Legions' fluff has been all but eliminated from the new Codex, and that, to me, is nuts. The rich stories of these Legions are how you decide to make an army of them, not restrictions and advantages put there by GW.

 

Really, Legion rules aren't the worst idea, but I dislike the effect of putting the onus of making a characterful army on the rules set, which regulates the player's involvement to mere model-pushing. It's much more satisfying to see an Alpha Legion army done right because the player shows some real cunning, and not because his units have Infiltrate. A Word Bearers army shouldn't get its character from a couple of dinky special rules (or from daemons - stupid, stupid IA article - but that's a different rant), but because of the effort put into the modelling and fiction. Not every Legion needs to have a special army restriction - or lack thereof - to be well-represented on the tabletop. Their personality should come from the background and - much more important - the person behind the table.

[Excarnificator]

Seeing as how (apparently) most of the tourney armies are cookie cutter efforts anyway, would it make much difference to the tourney scene?

 

Nope. And then it would really be down to the individual "tactics" of each tourny player who'll win...

 

/Cheers

[Celestial Dragon King]

Specific relevant examples:

Alpha legion: A rule for infiltrate for chaos marines and chosen marines, and a unit entry for cultists

Word Bearers: Rule for giving a chaos lord a Demon Crozius (special weapon) and maybe a rule that would entice them to buy 1-2 units of lesser demons

Night lords: Night vision and an option to take raptors as elites and fast attack choices

Iron Warriors: Option for chaos lord to have a servo arm and bionics, and a entry for 0-1 basalisk

 

Vwala grand total maybe 2 pages with fluff and explinations. Not hard. This is reallly all people are asking for. More options (even a few) allow players to give a certain flavor to thier armies that otherwise would not be avalable. Its like taking a rack of spices out of a chefs kitchen, you just cant get the same taiste without them, no matter how creative you are.

 

And in each case, you've repeated the mistake made with Space Marine traits and also in the old chaos lists. Ech of your "legion rules" above adds new powers and options to the base list, with zero drawback to compensate. At the very least, you would need to say no to icons other than Chaos Glory for ALL those lists, and even that is a pretty minor drawback.

 

Anyhow, who's to say such modifications won't appear down the road? As you say, they would be very simple, short rules. That makes them very easy to publish online, in White Dwarf, or in a scenario expansion book. Or hell, make them as house rules. Chances are the differences would be so minor that you could use the same minatures in a tournament with nearly the same effect. (Yes, even Alpha Legion cultists; they could "count as" Kroot mercs.)

 

You have a good point. Like Alpha Legion could have no Demons at all or even have one less Heavy because they don't have as much equipment. But still that would have been maybe a page that would make them more interesting and not like every other army. Again If you are playing DA and they suddenly took away the ravenwing and deathwing, how would you feel? And who says traits are a mistake? I think they are great. Yes they need better disadvantages but I never thought the advantages were that great. I've seen guys loose with them as much as win. It was just a bit that you still had to pay for that made your army not like the guy next to you. The only difference being that he took one more fast and you one heavy. If they do take them away all the Salamander, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, etc players are going to feel a bit like us.

[AngelPride]

I kept it concise and left out any relevant drawbacks, my apologies.

Yes by no means are any of their special benefits "free" I agree that a force org slot loss and a points cost for each benefit must be incured or something else diabolicly hinderhing to make up for the new benefits they might recieve.

 

Iron warriors would have to pay 150% of normal points value for a basalisk and would loose a fast attack choice. The servo arm option would cost 20-25 pts. Only a single unit in the army could have an icon other than that of undivided or whatever they call it now (i forget, im at work and dont have it infront of me) Same with characters and marks

 

Alpha legion would be charged for the infiltrate skill and have a limit on how many units they could give it too, or have any unit of chaos marines that take infiltrate count as an elites choice. They would also not be able to take an icon of Khorne or marks of khorne, and would have one less heavy support choice.

 

Night lords would only be allowed 2 Heavys, and would have the equivilent of flesh over steel (exception rhinos), any raptors that are taken as an elites choice would cost an additional 5 pts per model.

 

Word Bearers would be restricted in number of chosen and terminator squads to entice the taking of possessed. No bererkers, thousand sons, pleague marines, or noise marines allowed in a word bearer army, and only icons and marks of chaos und-whatever allowed.

 

Im working thrugh the logic here for this bear with me, and as always your comments on my ideas are welcome.

Lex, sorry if i seemed harsh earlier, I can understand the frustration that comes with trying to get a point across on these boards.

[Freakiq]

Keep it civil please.

 

I for one do not want the legion specific rules back, I would however like to see rules that allow me to support the fluff for my army.

An example of this is Daemonic Visage and the old Blasphemous rune.

 

This is one thing I don't understand, why does everything got to have a rule?

 

Do you really need rules to show that your lord is ugly and has a rune? :(

[minigun762]

as if the whole of the Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, Night Lords and Alpha Legion were contained in the tiny paragraphs of special rules jammed into the back of the v3.5 book. The rich stories of these Legions are how you decide to make an army of them, not restrictions and advantages put there by GW.

 

I agree that a little special rule here or there, does not a legion make.

However I must disagree with Lexington about something, even though I've come to very much respect a fellow Dark Apostle :)

 

I think GW should have given the original legions SOMETHING, ANYTHING to say "Hey you ARE different than a renegade force that turned to Chaos last week".

 

A tiny little nod to those original Legions who are and should be different than renegade chapters.

I am not saying that they're better or worse, but lets face it there has to be some kind of noticeable difference between a chapter that went to Chaos 100 years ago and one that went 10,000 years ago right?

Frankly it didn't even have to relate to the older special rules and it most certainly not should be something to construct an entire army around as was the case with daemonbomb WB and super heavy support spam IW, just a little gesture.

In my mind, giving the 4 cult legions their own cult troops IS that gesture.

All I'd like is a similar one done for the Undivided Legions.

[Brother Glacius]

***** Oh come on, the new codex isn't even "out" yet. I think its way too early to say that GW has said all its going to about Chaos. How hard is it to send in an email to White Dwarf and ask about Chaos Legions? I'm also an ork player, and I haven't even seen a new codex is freaking years. So at least be happy that you have recent rules.

 

***** Brother G.

[AngelPride]

I agree with Brother Glacius here. The address to send Jarvis a letter is in the latest few white dwarves. I myself have written a letter to him about da and BA librarians, and had roughly 12-15 people sign it from the DA forum. Course I posted it on here to review and revise first... and im still waiting on a response but it hasnt been that long, and im sure he gets lots of mail to sift thrugh (i myself would only open about 10-20 pieces of fan/hate mail a day if I were in his position, of which maybe 2 would get a response, so I am not holding my breath, but dont get duscuraged, write a few letters people, if enough come in on the same subject they do listen and act, Ive seen it happen)

[Astaroth]

Keep it civil please.

 

I for one do not want the legion specific rules back, I would however like to see rules that allow me to support the fluff for my army.

An example of this is Daemonic Visage and the old Blasphemous rune.

 

This is one thing I don't understand, why does everything got to have a rule?

 

Do you really need rules to show that your lord is ugly and has a rune? :D

 

Some might argue that it isn't the rule or wargear that they're losing as much as the advantage that being ugly and having a rune gives them. If it was as simple as looks alone, then the transition from 3.5 to 4.0 would be near seamless, as everything quite literally looks exactly the same, but it happens to be the way that they play that was changed.

 

Granted, some concerns of fluff are legitimate, as people may have just enjoyed playing sneaky manipulative Alpha Legion without regard to win/loss records, the problem was that such lists as min/max "super pie plate" Iron Warriors or combat-happy Khorne armies were a tad over-powered, and an unfortunate casualty of balancing those lists with the others was the removal of every other Legion that had different rules, over-powered or not.

 

Nihm, I do see what you're trying to say, and I grant you the point there. I still maintain, as do others, that some of the changes to Chaos were needed, but I wasn't expecting full-on removal of a huge chunk of the uniqueness of some of the less-overtly powerful Legions, but I still believe that if you absolutely, positively need mass infiltrators (or four pie plates, or an unstoppable primal force of a Daemon Prince,) to play your army, win or lose, then ya gotta step back and consider why you really play that army.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

The Dark Angel options to take Terminators or bikes as troops is paid for by taking specific characters. On the other hand marked infantry can already be taken in the Chaos Codex.

 

Dark Angels get no equivalent to the Chaos Icons either. The units they take as troops are identical to those available in the normal slots.

 

For 215 points the Dark Angels can take a single five man terminator squad with no upgrades except close combat weapons. For the same cost a Chaos player can take 7 terminators with no upgrades but they have ranged weapons and power weapons to compliment their 2+ saves.

 

I am not saying that the Chaos Codex is perfect, it's a change and not always for the better. It is what you have to work with though so perhaps it would be better to focus on what you have rather than what you've lost.

[Brother Nihm]

Keep it civil please.

 

I for one do not want the legion specific rules back, I would however like to see rules that allow me to support the fluff for my army.

An example of this is Daemonic Visage and the old Blasphemous rune.

 

This is one thing I don't understand, why does everything got to have a rule?

 

Do you really need rules to show that your lord is ugly and has a rune? :P

 

 

The Night Lords thrive on sowing fear and confusion amongst the enemy. It is common practice for the communications of a planet targeted for attack by the Night Lords to be disabled and voices of prisoners being tortured to death broadcasted to the entire planet. The forces of the Legion then make planet fall and begin to slaughter the inhabitants at their leisure, making visible examples of those in power. They give no quarter, have no mercy, and honour no surrender. No targeted world has ever been spared, and the catalogue of atrocities continues to expand; this is their way of slowly wearing down the enemy's will to resist.

 

The Night Lords do not have any grand agenda or unholy crusade to fulfil, only fighting for the love of killing, in particular gunning down those with no way to fight back. Darkness is their ally, and the Legion's innate abilities give them an advantage over their enemies. They are masters of stealth and fear tactics, understanding that they are as effective as any weapon, and will patiently win numerous small victories if that is what it takes to achieve their goals.

 

The Night Lords pre-heresy doctrine has been described as one that uses the psychological effects of fear in order to accomplish a goal. In order to ensure that the Legion were not overcome by their predilection towards sadism, focus was of utmost importance to this end.

 

The Legion's current beliefs are based purely on a love of killing and the fear it inspires, as means unto itself.

Emphasis mine.

 

Daemonic Visage was used by Night Lord players to show that the Lord/Champion/unit was fearsome, as well as to represent the faltering morale in the enemy as a result of the legion's excessive tactics.

 

The Blasphemous Rune is a vehicle upgrade, not a piece of wargear. In all the stories that I've read which involves Night lord vehicles, the Night lords have done things like hanging live victims on them, painting them with Chaotic symbols etc.

While it's easily done by modelling, can I represent any of that using the rules? I used to, but now I can't. I miss that.

 

Is it necessary to have these rules in order to field a Night lord army? no not really. I can still field my Night Lords, but rules and options that support the fluff does add (much needed) flavour to the codex in my opinion.

 

Nihm, I do see what you're trying to say, and I grant you the point there. I still maintain, as do others, that some of the changes to Chaos were needed, but I wasn't expecting full-on removal of a huge chunk of the uniqueness of some of the less-overtly powerful Legions, but I still believe that if you absolutely, positively need mass infiltrators (or four pie plates, or an unstoppable primal force of a Daemon Prince,) to play your army, win or lose, then ya gotta step back and consider why you really play that army.

Well said, and I agree, the codex needed these changes.

 

The existing and revised rules contained within the new book are fine, some of them are in fact excellent (Daemon Summoning). Our rules were long overdue for an overhaul.

 

However, and this may sound harsh but, in spite of the new rules, I find the book to be very bland and I'm also certain that we'll see the same insanely overpowered cookie cutter lists (most likely involving 2 Lashes of Dumbmission) at tournaments time and time again.

 

I don't believe that anyone's Win/loss records factor into this discussion, our codex hasn't become weaker in any way, if anything it's more overpowered than ever.

Also, building lists have become easy now that the units are either: 1. not worth it/useless (e.g. dreadnoughts), or 2. overpowered (e.g. Lash princes). ;)

 

To me, the book ended up looking 'half-baked'.

 

 

My 2 Kraks.

 

 

The Dark Angel options to take Terminators or bikes as troops is paid for by taking specific characters. On the other hand marked infantry can already be taken in the Chaos Codex.

 

Dark Angels get no equivalent to the Chaos Icons either. The units they take as troops are identical to those available in the normal slots.

 

For 215 points the Dark Angels can take a single five man terminator squad with no upgrades except close combat weapons. For the same cost a Chaos player can take 7 terminators with no upgrades but they have ranged weapons and power weapons to compliment their 2+ saves.

 

I am not saying that the Chaos Codex is perfect, it's a change and not always for the better. It is what you have to work with though so perhaps it would be better to focus on what you have rather than what you've lost.

Grossly exaggerated example incoming,

 

Imagine a Spacemarine codex where marines couldn't take power armour or bolters. ;)

[El Magnifico]

how can anyone hate the new codex THIS much :P

 

 

i bought the old codex and spent a long time pondering a list (i ended up writing a tzeench list) but i never bought the models (i currently have a converted lord, thats it) because i hated the codex.

 

i have actually NEVER seen a truely legal army list from the old codex (mine included) because the rules were so abstract and customiseable that they inevitably clashed in places you diddnt think to look.

 

i understand poeples longing for the leigons to come back, i was planning on doing a word bearers list with the new rules. i can make the list, but it wont be "quite" the same.

 

 

i know everyone lost something from the new codex but i have seen it in action a couple of times (GW staff playing each other) and i think it is actually a very good codex. it is balanced (finally) and takes skill to use.

 

though i still dont see why there is such an outrage at the "lash of submission" power, it seems like a good power but its not exactly game winning ;)

 

 

 

 

 

all in all, i think the new codex is awesome, you should stop looking at what you lost (you will probably not get it back) and look at what you CAN do with the new codex. you want a dark apostle (sp?), take a lord with Mark of Tzeench and a power weapon (for example)

[Penmarch']

all in all, i think the new codex is awesome, you should stop looking at what you lost (you will probably not get it back) and look at what you CAN do with the new codex. you want a dark apostle (sp?), take a lord with Mark of Tzeench and a power weapon (for example)

 

Well, I'm glad that you really like this codex. Have fun with it.

 

However, unwillingly you pointed out exactly what annoys ex- legion players so much. Just one example amongst dozens .

 

Having to take a MoT to be able to approximate a Word Bearers Dark Apostle whereas Word Bearers are Undivided (or Chaos Glory if you like). You're currently in the Individed section of this forum although I suppose that will change soon enough as well.

 

Know what, to make it less painful we could start calling the marks by different names. Come to think of it I could re-name the MoT to Icon of Penmarch' :)