How will you play Word Bearers now?

[Brother Gothard]

Slightly related note, but what do people think about modeling the accursed crozium as something other than your typical mace? Or even using an entirely different weapon all together ?

Or are we thinking that a crozius does a Dark Apostle/fallen chaplain make?

Well, a Crozius a Dark Apostle does make, in my mind: after all, where the traitors killed their chaplains, the Word Bearers followed them willingly into Chaos, and so the original leaders of the Word Bearers - both loyal and traitor - were Chaplains, and their mark of office is the Crozius.

 

That said, the old codex did mention that they ritually debased their Crozius' in a mockery of their former faith, so it seems like the typical 'mace' could be stretched a lot. As I see it, as long as the weapon is in some way reminiscent of either the chaos faith or the imperial faith, it works for me.

 

Then again, some members of this board take the 'badge of office' note quite seriously, and merely mount the crozius on the chaplain model and arm them with swords or claws, etc.

 

AND, in the old fluff, the Crozius was infused with a 4+ save as a gift from the Chaos Gods, so why couldn't you say that a Fallen Chaplain was given a daemon weapon as a reward for his service?

 

Ive thought about doing a marked sorcerer as a second HQ choice, but to be honest, im not a huge fan of lash or any of the other marked powers. I would personally run Gift over anything right now, its just to cool to be able to rip off powerfists in peoples units. To each his own, but i stand by my conviction that if your leader has a mark, you are no longer a WB army

Are you so opposed to Lash because it's a 'cheesy' power that has a lot of people up in arms, or because you don't think it's worth it's points, or that you simply cannot see a good use for it? The way you ran over Lash in my and other people's lists makes me think it's just because it's perceived as being beardy.

 

Now that we're forced to have one model to mark our non-cult troops, and now that we're subsequently fearing vindicares and their model specific targetting ilk, it might be nice to have something to fight back with, and gift is just that. So maybe I'm ready to side with you ... maybe not.

[Galahad_Knight]

While I'm not a WB player, I figured I;d step up for the minority and say that I see no problem with using a mark to represent something else.

 

Just because the model's stats say 'MoS, Lash' doesn't necessarily mean your fluff has to read "Devoted sexual pervert using a psychic whip"

 

This is why we HAVE the 'counts as' rules.

 

If you think a Sorcerer (Apostle) with a Force Weapon (Crozius) and Lash (Demagogue) fits your fluff, then play it.

 

If you think a Lord with a Power Weapon and MoT represents an apostle, then go for it.

 

And I say YOU are the one with the balls to play true because you're not sitting in a corner crying that your favorite characters are gone. You're not buckling down to people who say you aren't allowed to use all the new choices the new dex offers. Because if you DID use all those new options to construct a viable, interesting and fluffy army then, well, these people will have to stop crying about GW screwing them over.

 

You're not making excuses, you're marrying fluff to rules and you're thinking outside of the box. Creativity always wins out over people too timid to think for themselves and try something.

 

If you want to make your troops, then mark them. Either represent all gods equally (perhaps a squad or two for each god to represent the glory of chaos coming together under one flag), or explain how the mark represents a different fascet of their fanaticism.

 

IoK could represent their religious frenzy to smite unbelievers and drive the blasphemous followers of the false emperor under their heels.

 

IoS could also represent religious fervor and frenzy, the rapture of their worship drives them with unholy speed to seek out and crush those who oppose their views

 

IoT could represent their faith in the gods of chaos protecting them from harm and allowing them to shun cowering in cover loke loyalist dogs.

 

IoN could represent their religious fervor allowing them to shrug off wounds that would destroy lesser men. The fury of the chaos gods lifts them and carries them to fight, no matter how great their wounds.

 

Hell, throw Culties into the mix.

 

Zealots, gripped in religious frenzy charge the enemy lines, howling praise to the four winds of chaos, their unholy fury giving them speed and strength beyond what a faithless loyalist could hope to muster.

 

Devout preachers scream their blasphemy through doom-sirens and blastmasters, using the word of the chaos gods to crumble walls and break tanks.

 

Undying, unyielding, the servants of the four gods soak up fire that would kill mortal men, and throw grenades of unholy incense to quell their emeny's charges.

 

Aspiring apostles, fueled with the might of chaos raise the souls of the slain and bind them into unstoppable suits of armor to crush the ubelievers under their empty boots.

 

Counts As exists for a reason.

Don't be afraid to use it just because other people would rather cry about being screwed over than think for themselves and come up with something new and interesting.

 

This gives you an opportunity to create some fun fluff and interesting conversions. Give all the culties the same color scheme and just model them to clearly show their role. Berzerkers shold be dynamically posed, charging, leaping, foaming at the mouth with fury. Plague Marines should be shown with huge wounds, swinging incensors and chanting. Noise marines should have mobile pulpits and huge PA speakers. The stock bolter boys could be shown carrying long scrolls for their champions to read into the microphone. Thousand Sons could look like SM zombies, perhaps painted in a variety of colors, all with glowing battle damage, lead by unholy chaplains with rune-covered crozius.

 

Seriously, it's your army.

[Smurfalypse]

While I'm not a WB player, I figured I;d step up for the minority and say that I see no problem with using a mark to represent something else.

 

Just because the model's stats say 'MoS, Lash' doesn't necessarily mean your fluff has to read "Devoted sexual pervert using a psychic whip"

 

This is why we HAVE the 'counts as' rules.

 

If you think a Sorcerer (Apostle) with a Force Weapon (Crozius) and Lash (Demagogue) fits your fluff, then play it.

 

If you think a Lord with a Power Weapon and MoT represents an apostle, then go for it.

 

And I say YOU are the one with the balls to play true because you're not sitting in a corner crying that your favorite characters are gone. You're not buckling down to people who say you aren't allowed to use all the new choices the new dex offers. Because if you DID use all those new options to construct a viable, interesting and fluffy army then, well, these people will have to stop crying about GW screwing them over.

 

You're not making excuses, you're marrying fluff to rules and you're thinking outside of the box. Creativity always wins out over people too timid to think for themselves and try something.

 

If you want to make your troops, then mark them. Either represent all gods equally (perhaps a squad or two for each god to represent the glory of chaos coming together under one flag), or explain how the mark represents a different fascet of their fanaticism.

 

IoK could represent their religious frenzy to smite unbelievers and drive the blasphemous followers of the false emperor under their heels.

 

IoS could also represent religious fervor and frenzy, the rapture of their worship drives them with unholy speed to seek out and crush those who oppose their views

 

IoT could represent their faith in the gods of chaos protecting them from harm and allowing them to shun cowering in cover loke loyalist dogs.

 

IoN could represent their religious fervor allowing them to shrug off wounds that would destroy lesser men. The fury of the chaos gods lifts them and carries them to fight, no matter how great their wounds.

 

Hell, throw Culties into the mix.

 

Zealots, gripped in religious frenzy charge the enemy lines, howling praise to the four winds of chaos, their unholy fury giving them speed and strength beyond what a faithless loyalist could hope to muster.

 

Devout preachers scream their blasphemy through doom-sirens and blastmasters, using the word of the chaos gods to crumble walls and break tanks.

 

Undying, unyielding, the servants of the four gods soak up fire that would kill mortal men, and throw grenades of unholy incense to quell their emeny's charges.

 

Aspiring apostles, fueled with the might of chaos raise the souls of the slain and bind them into unstoppable suits of armor to crush the ubelievers under their empty boots.

 

Counts As exists for a reason.

Don't be afraid to use it just because other people would rather cry about being screwed over than think for themselves and come up with something new and interesting.

 

This gives you an opportunity to create some fun fluff and interesting conversions. Give all the culties the same color scheme and just model them to clearly show their role. Berzerkers shold be dynamically posed, charging, leaping, foaming at the mouth with fury. Plague Marines should be shown with huge wounds, swinging incensors and chanting. Noise marines should have mobile pulpits and huge PA speakers. The stock bolter boys could be shown carrying long scrolls for their champions to read into the microphone. Thousand Sons could look like SM zombies, perhaps painted in a variety of colors, all with glowing battle damage, lead by unholy chaplains with rune-covered crozius.

 

Seriously, it's your army.

 

didnt see anyone crying, but ok ;)

[Galahad_Knight]

It's called 'hyperbole', but not far off, really.

 

I'm seeing tons of threads about "How, oh how will we ever get by as an undivided legion now?! How do we make due with just CSMs in this cult-heavy codex?!"

 

My question is why the hell are people complaining so much about having access to some really great units? Shouldn't the question be "How can I integrate cult troops into my <AL, WB, IW, NL, etc>?" or "Finally, I can toss some 'Zerkers in my assault-heavy Undivided list!"

 

People mention the Fluff, but fluff, just like Rules, changes as the edition changes.

 

Take a look in the color section and you'll see black-armored Alpha Legion Cult Troops. It's okay to use culties in your undivided list. GW is doing it right this minute.

 

Why is it so unreasonable for people to imagine that, when presented with a pantheon of gods, certian individuals or groups will associate more with gods that they can identify with?

 

Sure, the World Bearers venerate the gods of chaos as a whole. And the legion, as a whole, does. But why, for example, can't a few squads of assault troops hold up Khorne as their patron deity while still respecting and paying homage to the other gods? Or why can't you use Berzerkers to represent frenzied Zelots who worship all the chaos gods? Khorne is so pleased by his fervor that he rewards them with his blessing, despite the fact that they serve all gods equally. Tzeentch smiles upon your fireteam and extends his magical protection to them so that they can spread the word of chaos, undivided. Nurgle sees your faith and, more importantly, sees your open wounds and swinging incensors and uses this squad to spread plague while they spread the word of all the chaos gods.

 

The Gods work in mysterious ways. Just because the legion serves all gods equally doesn't mean that the gods themselves can't play favorites within the army, now does it?

 

By the way, if you're going to completely ignore both my point as well as my suggestions, then I suggest you don't bother quoting the entire post. It wastes a lot of space and makes your response look trivial and flippant.

[BloodRed]

While I'm not making a WB army, I am having a Blood Angels Successor army that was seduced to Chaos and it will include the Chaplain who lead them into freedom. I do plan on using the sorcerer stats for him as part of his fall included delving into sorcery and communing with the Ruinous powers. I could also use the Lord. Or possibly even adapt the stats from one of the named characters.

 

Whatever you go with, there's no lack of options for representing a Demagogue.

[Galahad_Knight]

Good to see another Fallen Angel ;-)

 

I'd kicked around the idea of bringing my chaplain in as a sorcerer, though in my case I'm trying to keep them loyal (for now) while just using chaos rules, so his powers would have to be less obvious, or explained by some artifact equipment. But in the end, I relegated him to champion of my berzerkers when I decided to bring my Furioso back as a Daemon Prince.

 

But marked or unmarked, lord, sorcerer or even DP, there's plenty of ways to do it, especially if you can bring hyourself to think past the surface.

[Lexington]

Slightly related note, but what do people think about modeling the accursed crozium as something other than your typical mace? Or even using an entirely different weapon all together ?

Or are we thinking that a crozius does a Dark Apostle/fallen chaplain make?

Well, a Crozius is a mace, or at least some sort of bludgeoning weapon. Nothing to say it couldn't be corrupted or changed over the years into something else entirely, however.

[Galahad_Knight]

Actually, the Crozius is never said to be any particular shape. It's just a 'badge of office' that also counts as a power weapon.

 

It's often time represented as a mace, however there are some like the Salamanders Chaplain Xavier that use a different look (in Xavier's case, a hammer). It;s never given a set form, and even the mace shape has been shown in a dizzying array of shapes and sizes. Lemartes uses a set of scales. Some models have a baton-like rod, others have an undecorated mace, still others have skull-headed maces, or maces with blade-like flanges

 

If you do go for a non-mace, however, I suggest making it look as much like a Crozius as possible. Which, generally, means give it skulls, wings, flares, etc. Perhaps a standard Crozius with axe blades protruding from the head, or a sword with an elaborate crozius-like hilt and crossguard with the blade coming out the top. Or even a sword with a mace head at the tip. Sure, it can;t stab, but it can chop like hell with all that weight on the end ;-)

 

I suggest making it mace-like largely just for ease of recognition. People should be able to look at it and go, "Ohhh, Dark Apostle, ok."

[Lexington]

Actually, the Crozius is never said to be any particular shape. It's just a 'badge of office' that also counts as a power weapon.

Fair enough. I believe the old RT/2nd Edition era background states that it has a conversion field built into it, which is activated when the weapon strikes, so I think the mace angle is really just there because that'd be the best method of delivery.

[Tokunator]

I have just read the new Word Bearer novel Dark Apostle and the Word Bearers are portrayed as worshippers of the whole pantheon of Chaos and perceiving the pantheon as an entity (so not a group of gods) while at the same time being capable of worshipping single gods more strongly. For example, on page 171, one of the leaders sends the warriors most dedicated to Khorne into the frontline of his assault.

 

So it would possible to assign units an icon to show that they feel particularly attached to one god or even that they want to dedicate this battle to that god (as some kind of ritual service cycle where they would worship one god after the other), but I think that Cult units would be inappropriate because they would represent a complete dedication to one god.

[minigun762]

So possibly marked units either showing a particular love for a certian god or they're just the unit dedicated to carrying that gods banner today could be fluffy.

Like I mentioned I could accept that, but I do agree that straight up Beserkers or Death Guard would probably be going too far. There is favoring one god, perhaps just temporarily and there is dedicating your soul to one. One of those, the WB would frown upon.... with a power axe.

 

With the crozium, I ask because I'm toying with the idea of using lightning claws instead, simply because they're a cool model on the new terminators and so partially trying to find a reason to justify why it would be ok haha.

[Galahad_Knight]

I still don't see why you couldn't 'counts as' cult units into the army. Like I said, perhaps there's a squad of men that are so gripped with rabid zelotry that they have the same capablities as berzerkers, without being expressly khorneite? Maybe you have a unit of super-dedicated monks who swing drugged incensors and are so wrapped up on worship (or are so possessed by the power of chaos) that they ignore wounds. Counts as plague marines, but the fluff says otherwise.

 

Plus, the fluff shows Cult units aren't nessecarily dedicated to their god above *all* else. The Black Legion hosts cult squads that are dedicated to Abbydon above all. Perhaps your army has converted some berzerkers. They still favor Khorne, but they serve the pantheon above all else. After all, if the forces of chaos are strong, then Khorne is strong as a result. So they serve the Word-bearers in order to bring greater glory to Khorne, through the expansion of chaos as a whole.

 

As to the Crozius LCs, I personally try to draw the line at weapons that have their own associated rules (similar to the 'force fist' mentionmed in another thread. If you had a set of lighting claws that counted as a crozius then that would lead people to think you were using lightning claws when in reality you;re just using a power weapon.

 

however, in this case, you'te buying and using the LCs, but calling them a crozius. That;s not so bad, though ti can be confusing.

 

I;d reccomend modeling a crozius mace-head motif onto the back of the gauntlet so it still shows it;s obviously a badge of office.

 

Failling that, you could always give him LCs and then model a crozius dangling off his belt

 

I had a LC chaplain back when blood angels were still allowed to do that.

 

I did a little of both.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f41/Galahad_Knight/DSC01567.jpg

 

In this case, I modeled a crozius-looking winged skull onto the back of his right hand LC, but I went a step further and modeled that gauntlet stuck into a twisted piece of tank armor, as if it had been torn free from his armor when the tank exploded, revealing the akeletal bionic arm underneath. So, with his gauntlet disabled, he grabbed his trusty Shillelagh O' Smitin' off his belt and is using it to rally his death company onward.

[sjon]

Well I've read some things about the Word Bearers and some info has given me the idea that in some aspects the new codex works better if you want to make a fluffy arly. For example, word bearers see daemons as lesser beings than themselves and usually send them forward to serve as meatshields. With the new codex this is easier to do the daemons are the cheapest unit available so good for meatshield (eventhough you have to summon them first). With the old codex I would never use any of the daemons as a meatshield, but mainly as main assault unit... which is in fact rather unfluffy :rolleyes: .

Also the Word bearers do indeed worship chaos as one, but some tend spend their lives to one of the aspects of chaos (like all eldar worshipping khaine, but some serve other aspects). So in this case take icons of certain gods is justified in my eyes. Cult troops on the other hand are still the troops belonging to one of the legions belonging to the uinious powers, berserkers for world eaters, noise marines for Emperors children etc.

The only thing you miss is the Dark Apostle but in the old codex the dark apostle was a guy with an invunerable save and a power weapon, the demagogue ability was rarely used as far as I can remember.

Ohw and a crozius is indeed a badge of office but resembles something of your faith (winged skill, aquila, chaos star, the thunder hammer of xavier would resemble the hammer of Vulkan)

So, fluffy word bearers are perfectly playable and maybe if you try hard enough you can make an even fluffier army than before! ^_^

But now I want the codex... need the build a list...

[Smurfalypse]

Well I've read some things about the Word Bearers and some info has given me the idea that in some aspects the new codex works better if you want to make a fluffy arly. For example, word bearers see daemons as lesser beings than themselves and usually send them forward to serve as meatshields. With the new codex this is easier to do the daemons are the cheapest unit available so good for meatshield (eventhough you have to summon them first). With the old codex I would never use any of the daemons as a meatshield, but mainly as main assault unit... which is in fact rather unfluffy :sweat: .

Also the Word bearers do indeed worship chaos as one, but some tend spend their lives to one of the aspects of chaos (like all eldar worshipping khaine, but some serve other aspects). So in this case take icons of certain gods is justified in my eyes. Cult troops on the other hand are still the troops belonging to one of the legions belonging to the uinious powers, berserkers for world eaters, noise marines for Emperors children etc.

The only thing you miss is the Dark Apostle but in the old codex the dark apostle was a guy with an invunerable save and a power weapon, the demagogue ability was rarely used as far as I can remember.

Ohw and a crozius is indeed a badge of office but resembles something of your faith (winged skill, aquila, chaos star, the thunder hammer of xavier would resemble the hammer of Vulkan)

So, fluffy word bearers are perfectly playable and maybe if you try hard enough you can make an even fluffier army than before! ^_^

But now I want the codex... need the build a list...

 

Yeah, what he said!

 

In the end, its what each person views as fluffy. My point in all of this is that if you have to make a post to try and explain how this particular thing is fluffy and argue the point....Then it probably isnt fluffy. NOW, the rules are set up to be able to play them mixed and integrated as an army as a whole and you are allowed to play it however you want. You show up with a list that includes thousand sons marines (which are in fact their own legion, same as death guard and the other cult troops) and i think your pushing the envelope very very hard in favor of just attempting to play with something you think is good, vs playing with an army that is "in the spirit of"...But hey, we all play for fun and we all must play what we think is fun :)

 

Smurfalypse

[refuse]

Gripe gripe, whine whine. Are we chaos? I think most of the eldar players playing craftworld got more shafted then what you guys think and the Eldar players took it just fine. Just goes to show what difference in sportsmanship and tolerance gap between the two armies players are. I own eldar, so with 30 un-used warp spiders, 30 un-used chaos bikes, many un-used blastmasters and dreadnoughts and ... and... List goes on and on. I accept the new codexes, why cant you guys?

 

(If you want a total number, between eldar and chaos new codexes I'm screwed over 2000 bucks) Live with it guys.... And ebay!

 

Wait. Again, you accept this and you want others too?

 

I accept that I am god, why can't you? Now that we established I am god, send me your money, your god demands it! I mean you are screwed over 2000 bucks, so what is a little more? Don't you want to make your god happy?

 

:P

 

Well, a Crozius a Dark Apostle does make, in my mind: after all, where the traitors killed their chaplains, the Word Bearers followed them willingly into Chaos, and so the original leaders of the Word Bearers - both loyal and traitor - were Chaplains, and their mark of office is the Crozius.

New fluff. BAH.

All chaos kept their chaplains! RT era baby, RT era!

 

It's called 'hyperbole', but not far off, really.

 

I'm seeing tons of threads about "How, oh how will we ever get by as an undivided legion now?! How do we make due with just CSMs in this cult-heavy codex?!"

 

My question is why the hell are people complaining so much about having access to some really great units? Shouldn't the question be "How can I integrate cult troops into my <AL, WB, IW, NL, etc>?" or "Finally, I can toss some 'Zerkers in my assault-heavy Undivided list!"

Why do you have to call them the AL, WB, IW, NL when you just want to change their rules a little.

Why not call it WB lite, or NL Faction.

 

People mention the Fluff, but fluff, just like Rules, changes as the edition changes.

Same logic to you. Why do you need to call them the Word Bearers and modify the fluff. Why not the Sound Carriers and use the rules you want. Why the Word Bearers? Words change just like editions.

 

Take a look in the color section and you'll see black-armored Alpha Legion Cult Troops. It's okay to use culties in your undivided list. GW is doing it right this minute.

To GW the fluff is justification. Not reason. They have changed the fluff so much over time, I doubt they really care about fluff.

 

Why is it so unreasonable for people to imagine that, when presented with a pantheon of gods, certian individuals or groups will associate more with gods that they can identify with?

It isn't. Why is it so unreasonable to rename your army to fit the fluff. Why Word Bearers? Because you know the established fluff for them is against your ideas. Why not call your army the "counts as Word Bearers"? Is there some attachment to the name?

 

By the way, if you're going to completely ignore both my point as well as my suggestions, then I suggest you don't bother quoting the entire post. It wastes a lot of space and makes your response look trivial and flippant.

I would say that last line is trivial and flippant.

 

Your points are just as valid as others, and my points about changing yoru name the same. If to you counts as isn't that bad. Couldn't you count as Word Bearers with a different name? If the name is so important, then there must be fluff behind it. Then fluff is important!

 

:)

 

Plus, the fluff shows Cult units aren't nessecarily dedicated to their god above *all* else. The Black Legion hosts cult squads that are dedicated to Abbydon above all. Perhaps your army has converted some berzerkers. They still favor Khorne, but they serve the pantheon above all else. After all, if the forces of chaos are strong, then Khorne is strong as a result. So they serve the Word-bearers in order to bring greater glory to Khorne, through the expansion of chaos as a whole.

Actually the cults are dedicated to their gods above all else. That is what makes them cult.

Abaddon (per the fluff) is Chaos Ascendent. He is favored by all of chaos (read last edition codex).

Please, keep the fluff straight (the EC don't have to be!)

[Lexington]

But why, for example, can't a few squads of assault troops hold up Khorne as their patron deity while still respecting and paying homage to the other gods? Or why can't you use Berzerkers to represent frenzied Zelots who worship all the chaos gods? Khorne is so pleased by his fervor that he rewards them with his blessing, despite the fact that they serve all gods equally. Tzeentch smiles upon your fireteam and extends his magical protection to them so that they can spread the word of chaos, undivided. Nurgle sees your faith and, more importantly, sees your open wounds and swinging incensors and uses this squad to spread plague while they spread the word of all the chaos gods.

Nothing wrong with this idea (I'm doing something similar, and more Esarhaddon-specific), but it should also be pointed out that there's no reason your Cult Troops couldn't just be a small group tooling around with an Undivided Chaos Lord and his normal flunkies. Chaos armies as multi-Legion, hodgepodge warbands is actually well-supported by the fluff. Perhaps not for the Word Bearers specifically (we're arrogant little sacrificial altar boys that way), but there's specific precedence of Night Lords working along with Berzerkers and Noise Marines from back in the 2nd Edition Codex, even if the NL's did roll their eyes a lot at the 'Zerkers' religious fervor.

[Desecrater]

Dont get me wrong, (i personally DO NOT do it) but if a WB took an icon of khorne or something in a base CSM squad, I wouldnt consider that to much of a slight and would seem acceptable to me...Provided they represented each god somehow within the army (icon of slannesh on chosen, icon of nurgle on bikers, icon of tzeentch on havocs). As i said, i personally dont do it, but it wouldnt be to much of a slight.

 

This is how I plan to run WB with the new codex. Either no Cults and no Icons or all 4 Icon. I love the idea of WB carrying all 4 Icons into battle with them. Worshiping Chaos as a whole as they March (or ride Rhino's) into battle against all those that doubt the Word.

 

An unmarked Terminator Sorcerer leading the surrounded by his personal guard. With (will try with and without Daemons) a Greater Daemon and a host of Lesser Daemons waiting in the warp to unleash their fury.

 

Of course this is all without a copy of the codex yet and solely based on the table scraps I have been able to acquire online.

[Galahad_Knight]

Refuse, I see your point but I think you;re going in the opposite direction. First off, I never said that all the fluff was unimportant. Obviously, if you like an army for its background and fluff you want to stay with that army.

 

That's why I didn't suggest changing the army's fluff, just the fluff of the units you want to include in it. Obviously, you have to decide which fluff is important to *you*.

 

If you want to include berzerkers because you like the Khorne/WE-speciffic background of them, then yeah, putting them into your WB army might not make a lot of sense. But if you like the berzerkers because you think a group of frenzied zealots would fit in nicely with the fluff of your WB army, then change the bits you don't like.

 

Or do neither. Change none of the fluff and just say "Khorne has decreed that Archbishop McNasty of the Word Bearers is onto something good. He orders these lost members of the World Eaters to accompany him and revel in the battles he will bring. Archbishop McNasty sees the arrival of the khorneites as a blessing from the chaos gods and decides not to insult them by refusing the gift." There, fluff satisfied. You wouldn't be a very good priest to the powers of chaos if you told one of the four gods to sod off when he gives you a present. And if you see all the gods as aspects of the same whole, then why deny what is obviously an aspect of your religion?

 

But then again, religion never made a lot of sense to me ;-)

[refuse]

That's why I didn't suggest changing the army's fluff, just the fluff of the units you want to include in it.

 

Sorry read that line again!

 

So I don't want to change X, just what is inside X! Got it! ;)

[Galahad_Knight]

I think you know what I mean.

 

There's a difference between changing the WB fluff to say "Ok, we totally accept people who dedicate their lives to only one god, so bring in the Khorne Berzerkers." and saying "Ok, World Bearers don;t favor one god over the other, so instead of having Khorne Berzerkers, they have Undivided Zealots. You're not compromising the WB stance on not favoring particular gods, you're changing the berzerker's stance on favoring one particular god.

 

It's saying "I'm not going to change X, so I'm changing Y so it fits inside X."

[refuse]

It's saying "I'm not going to change X, so I'm changing Y so it fits inside X."

Square peg, round fluff.

 

Why say they are word bearers at all then? Is there some need?

[Galahad_Knight]

Did you read my post at all?

 

I just said if the background and ideaology of the world bearers is something you like then you will want to play them as word bearers, and to do that you will need to change some of the background on *other* things so they fit within the ideology and background of the word bearers.

 

A square peg can be made to fit in a round hole. You just have to decide what's more important, how square the peg is or how big the hole is. If you want to keep the hole the same size, then you just have to shave the corners off the peg so you can work it in (change the berzerkers so that they fit into the WB ideology)

[Lexington]

Square peg, round fluff.

Only if you want to believe that GW's provided fluff is all that there is in the 40K universe, no more, no less. I'm fairly sure that Galahad's premise only extends to his particular warband, and isn't an attempt to say "oh, this is common across all Word Bearers."

 

Why say they are word bearers at all then? Is there some need?

Only answering for myself, but it's because the Word Bearers history and attitude grabs me, and I've been toying with it for the past ten years or so. I've watched it grow from just a couple of paragraphs in the 2nd Edition Codex to what it is today, and see nothing wrong with skewing my own warband's makeup to my own preferences, especially when much of that is taken from the fiction of the guy who wrote their Index Astartes article in the first place. Why not say they're Word Bearers? What's with the suggestion that we need to stay directly on the path provided by GW in a Codex without providing any personality of our own?

[Smurfalypse]

I think the idea is, play renegade if you want but dont call it what it isnt. Berzerkers tool themselves out to khorne above all else, thus it would kinda go against what the WB's stand for this applies to all the cult troops. Icons are a different story, they are just a representation of how that unit feels, but you still maintain the balance so to speak, acceptable as WB. Someone had mentioned (and i salute the person who said it) that WB's are arrogant, and we are, we look down apon most other legions/daemon/everyone in general. I think it would be a huge stretch for a leader to bust out with the mark of slaanesh, (this is what started this topic), at this point your not taking the mark of slaanesh for fluff reasons, your taking it to fit in lash (which is a huge disgrace to the WB cult).

 

Someone asked why i dont like lash...There is a multitude of reasons, one 60% of all chaos armies are going to fit it into their lists somehow so it will lack creativity and originality. Two, it really doesnt fit in with the fluff at all (aside from the manipulation factor), but you could accomplish this with gift of chaos (your turning someone to chaos, what is more representative of WB than that). Three, i 100% refuse to use mark of slaanesh on a leader in my army. Its a line i wont cross otherwise i feel ive stepped into the renegade territory of things and lost my way.

 

Now dont get me wrong, renegades are great and the true possibilities are endless when it comes to customizing your army list. But if thats what your playing, dont come up with random fluff reasons as to why your leader has a mark of a certain god (zomg i want my chaos lord to have mark of khorne, daemon weapon, and a juggernaught for 5+2d6 str-6 attacks standing still) thats not WB, though anyone can come up with a reason as to why they think it is. <3 renegades and i love the new codex, even though my daemons are now generic, but call something what it is, not what you want it to be :)

 

Smurfalypse

Ps. Lets keep it friendly

[minigun762]

For those of you who have it, does the new codex give alot of extra fluff for the Word Bearers or is it pretty lean on the original legions?

Also, there is a new WB book coming out this month (thanks Lex!) and it might have a different take on things.

 

EDIT: Right now I'm personally going to run my army without a mark partly to satisfy my interpretation of their background and partly because marks are expensive! haha

However it would be kinda cool to see a well done army that had all 5 marks present. I'd personally say the HQ unit should remain Undivided to show equal love to everyone but if you added the 4 god marks and still got an effective list, I'd have no problems with that and it would kinda unique.