Using the Loyalist codex to represent Night Lords

[Legatus]

Since when does a dark apostle have the mark of tzeentch??? You are using an arguement hard saying that they arnt sorcerers, but then you go and give the mark of tzeentch to a lord and call him the same. Counts as is counts as is it not? Im sure hes been blessed with certain abilities or luck from various gods and what-not. The fact that you are willing to comprimise fluff with a mark but not with a sorcerer makes zero sense to me. Not trying to be a butt about it, but halfways dont work in my book, its one or the other, it cant be ok one way but not the other even though both comprimise fluff. Just my two cents bro.

In one instance you pay 30 points to get a 4+ invulnerabel save, which is the game mechanic equivalent of a loyalist (or old codex chaos apostle) rosarius. In the other instance you make him a psyker, who rolls psychic test to use his abilities, which can result in attacks from the warp or can be blocked by psychic hoods, and makes him vulnerable against certain other items and rules in the game (like Culexux Assassins). And apart from some black library novel heroes (appearently), chaplains or apostles are not generally known to be psykers. You could use the options at your disposal to make an accurate and equivalent rule representation of the unit type (dark apostle) in question, or you can go along and do what the heck ever you want. Sure, why not.

The mark of tzeentch does not include any other game mechanic other than to make his invulnerable save a 4+ one (and change his demon weapon to the tzeentch version). It has no other effect on the character or the army as a whole. It is simply the fact that it is called "mark of tzeetch" which makes it a problem for truly undivided forces. Making the dark apostle a psyker makes him a model it normally would not be. You have sorcerers/librarians and you have apostles/chaplains. I mean, why even bother making a certain "count as" model for your dark apostle if that model is not even a closer representation of a dark apostle at all?

You could just as well take a demon prince and call it "my super bad a** apostle of doom", but others might disagree that it would be a fitting representation of a dark apostle.

 

Now Imagine the following, your entire army, with their dedicated transports, gaining outflank for the cost of about 160. EVERY SINGLE UNIT that is NOT a vehicle... imagine the possibilities.

 

Imagine that character has furious charge, and gives it to his unit, imagine this character could have some kinda wierd power weapon that causes instant death on wound's of "6", or for just 45 more points could also get a bike with fleet (yeah wierd)

 

I give to you, Kahn.

 

The marine codex "Anything you can do, I can do better".

White Scars had flanking bikes in their Index Astartes IIRC, so while that specific character will surely become hated among players very soon, I cannot really blame them for giving them stuff they have no right to have. The white scars are the mongolian cavalry marines after all. Switching to the loyalist codex because they have such a cool special character is... questionable....

 

If you agree with the "counts as" rule in general i really dont see why anyone should have any objection to chaos players using the marine codex. If the army is all chosen from one codex it will still be legal and no different to one painted in marine colours. Therefore its not like chaos players are trying to seize an unfair advantage over others because they could potentially face the same army anyway!

There are some WYSIWYG concerns. A model in power armour with boltgun is a model in power armour wit hbolgun. No problem there. The problem is that when people see an Iron Warrior they now expext a model in power armour with Boltgun, Boltpistol and CCW and Leadership 9, but if you are using Codex Space Marines they will face a model in power armour with Boltgun, Boltpistol (no CCW) and Leadership 8, but with ATSKNF and combat tactics. A loyal marine is not identical to a traitor marine. It is not a big issue, and opponents should generally be able to cope. But there might be other problems, for example in bigger campaigns where several armies of order fight against several other armies of evil. You would play a "chaos" force, so would play on the bad side, but you would use the rules of a good space marine army.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Well, it doesn't really take long to say "Yeah, I'm using the Loyalist codex for my Legion", does it? There you go, your argument of WYSIWYG is gone.

 

Also, you seem to think that Dark Apostles are exactly like Chaplains, but they worship Chaos rather than the Emperor, with no other changes. How is it hard to imagine that a favoured Dark Apostle might have become a Daemon Prince? So what, people can't say "this is the Lord of my Chaos army" without being told that it isn't a Lord, its a Daemon Prince? Chaos is just that, chaos. There are many now-daemonic Dark Apostles. There are many that would have manifested psychic abilities, or been given the gift of sorcery. You can't tell me that the only way to represent such a diverse archetype is by a Chaos Lord with the Mark of Tzeentch.

 

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to list the two codii as a "good" and "evil" version of each other, with no middle ground. Otherwise, I'll point you to the Relictors, amongst other darker Loyalists, who use the Loyalist codex, but aren't really what you'd call "good". I'll point you to those Renegades that turned through a real sense of their own betrayal by the Imperium, that turned because they saw the Imperium as "evil". If you want to police everybodies armies, and divide every Marine player into whether they play a "good" or "evil" army, and give them the corresponding codex, then go ahead. I'll still be using the codex which better represents my army without hindering me by playing to my fluff, the Loyalist codex. The argument of "but you're the bad guys" doesn't mean crud. No list in the game, except the Necrons, Orks and Tyranids, has a set morality associated with it.

[Xenocidal Maniac]

New Chaos dex hate / whine fest # 8,673,954,163.

 

Yawn. :wacko:

[Rain]

No list in the game, except the Necrons, Orks and Tyranids, has a set morality associated with it.

 

How do any of those armies have a set morality? If anything they are morally neutral as they just do the only thing they can or know how to do. Also, it can be argued that the Dark Eldar are pretty "evil" as they exist for no reason but self gratification through killing and torture and even created the circumstances for their own fall.

[Lord_Caerolion]

@Xenocidal Maniac, no, I at least am saying that the Chaos codex is incredibly good, and can make some nasty lists. It just doesn't do anything for my army. The only things that this codex has to differentiate it from the Loyalists, really, is the Cult units and Daemons. Since my army doesn't use those, I'm using a Loyalist army without the extras with the Chaos codex.

 

How do any of those armies have a set morality? If anything they are morally neutral as they just do the only thing they can or know how to do. Also, it can be argued that the Dark Eldar are pretty "evil" as they exist for no reason but self gratification through killing and torture and even created the circumstances for their own fall.

Sorry, forgot about the Dark Eldar there, but you've just proved my point there. The armies I listed are all morally neutral, all the time. They do what instinct/programming tells them. Every other army can be different. Your Imperial Guard can be the steadfast defenders of the Imperium, rebels, or outright traitors. Your Eldar can be haughty and aloof protectors of the Maiden Worlds/Craftworlds, helping the Imperium against Chaos, or they can see the Imperium as a weed that must be cleansed in flame. Tau can be the ultimate society where everyone is equal, or they can be your evil expansionistic empire, not caring about those they inegrate into the Empire.

Still, I would put the Dark Eldar in morally neutral, as they don't see anything wrong with what they do. Can you blame something for doing what it was raised to do, being told that that was the correct way to act? Even so, I don't want this to develop into a philosophical debate, so lets not drag this further off topic.

 

Basically, 40k is full of shades of grey, which is what I love about it. I don't like having my army pigeon-holed into "good" or "evil" just because of the name of the root codex.

[Legatus]

Well, it doesn't really take long to say "Yeah, I'm using the Loyalist codex for my Legion", does it? There you go, your argument of WYSIWYG is gone.

You are still using proxies, and not adequate models for the rules you are using.

 

Also, you seem to think that Dark Apostles are exactly like Chaplains, but they worship Chaos rather than the Emperor, with no other changes.

Maybe it was the description in the last Codex Chaos that gave me that strange idear.

 

How is it hard to imagine that a favoured Dark Apostle might have become a Daemon Prince?

Then he would be a Daemon Prince.

 

So what, people can't say "this is the Lord of my Chaos army" without being told that it isn't a Lord, its a Daemon Prince?

There are three (non-special character) HQ choices in the Codex Chaos: The Lord, the Sorcerer and the Demon Prince. If your opponent asks what kind of HQ you have, and you tell him "it's my armies lord", when it is actually a demon prince that could be considered cheating.

 

Chaos is just that, chaos. There are many now-daemonic Dark Apostles. There are many that would have manifested psychic abilities, or been given the gift of sorcery. You can't tell me that the only way to represent such a diverse archetype is by a Chaos Lord with the Mark of Tzeentch.

Appearently you can just take any model and call it a "Dark Apostle", so why bother with any unconventional model types at all? You have your "plain apostle", "psychic apostle" and "mounstrous apostle" right there in Codex Chaos. Or you could try to emulate the previously official rules incarnations of that model type.

 

There are many that would have manifested psychic abilities

Normally (though strange as this might sound applied to anything "chaos") psychic abilities are discovered early in a marines career and they recieve specialised training as librarians. They don't suddently develope out of nowhere. Aspirants with psychic abilities do not have the highest survival rate either IIRC, so only the strongest and most in controll of their abilities grow up to become librarians or sorcerers. A sorcerer is a destinct and powerful personality, and not just a chaos marine with psychic abilities.

[Xenocidal Maniac]

@Xenocidal Maniac, no, I at least am saying that the Chaos codex is incredibly good, and can make some nasty lists. It just doesn't do anything for my army. The only things that this codex has to differentiate it from the Loyalists, really, is the Cult units and Daemons. Since my army doesn't use those, I'm using a Loyalist army without the extras with the Chaos codex.

 

Oh, sorry - I wasn't directing that towards you at all. I understand what you are trying to say. And I think it's totally fine if you want to use the new marine dex to represent your Night Lords.

 

It's just that the handful of usual suspects have moved in and hijacked the thread...

[Lord_Caerolion]

Well, when you've been in the Warp for who-nows-how-long, strange things are bound to happen regarding your mind. Also, the title of Dark Apostle is just that, a title, not a given form or anything. A Dark Apostle is a Word Bearer who speaks with the word of the Chaos Gods. His actual physical form has nothing to do with whether he's an Apostle or not. If anything, becoming a Daemon Prince would strengthen his standing in the Legion, as he's even closer to the Chaos Gods.

 

Also, how are they not adequate models if I use Chaos Marine colours for Loyalists? So I can't use any Loyalist parts in my Chaos armies, as that would just be proxying? As long as its clear what a model represents, and is modeled with the correct wargear, there's no problem with the models or rules. If I model up some Night Lords, with the models holding a bolter, without Chaos Stars on them (which my models have none of, or the bat wings either), how is that different from using some Iron Warrior parts in an Iron Hands army? Using Chaos parts to make a 13th Company Space Wolves force? Using Dark Angels models to represent Fallen? Basically, I have a pre-Heresy army fighting in the current time of 40k.

 

I'm not saying that people should be able to count their Daemon Prince model as a Chapter Master, or anything like that. I'm just saying that if people have a model that can be represented by the Loyalist rules, such as standard Terminators for Chaos Terminators, Veterans for Chosen, Bikes for Chaos Bikers, Assault Marines for Raptors, Scouts for some converted militarised aspirants. I'm not saying Daemons can count as Scouts, or anything like that.

 

To put it another way, would you stop someone from using the Dark Angels codex to make a 1st Company army? Even if their army wasn't an Unforgiven Chapter? If the answer is no, our debate is solved. If the answer is yes, you should lighten up a bit.

[the jeske]

Also, the title of Dark Apostle is just that, a title, not a full-blown rank or anything.

you mean in rules or in fluff . because in fluff it is a rank . the WB are all about ranks etc just like the imperial church .

[Lord_Caerolion]

Sorry, changed the wording there. I more meant that the rank of Dark Apostle has no real physical requirements for the job, other than the favour of the Gods, and being a Word Bearer. I was responding to Legatus' seeming claim that a Dark Apostle can't be a Daemon Prince, with his quote here:

You could just as well take a demon prince and call it "my super bad a** apostle of doom", but others might disagree that it would be a fitting representation of a dark apostle.

[Legatus]

I was under the impression that the criticism was that the current codex chaos does not offer a model to be used as a dark apostle directly, thus the need to come up with own model settings to represent them. If that was the case I would assume that the dark apostle should resemble the previous iteration that model. GW did not provide a certain model type in the codex, but instead of trying to emulate that model type accurately, you just take any model you currently please and call it by that name.

 

Chaos Space Marines have their own rules, and they differ from loyal Marines in some points. If you use loyalist rules for a model that is recognised as a chaos marine, then you are not using the rules other people would normally expect to be associated with that model. Hence not "WYSIWYG". It is against WYSIWYG if the model is armed with a boltbun but is supposed to carry a laser cannon. It is just as much against WYSIWYG if the model is a chaos space marie but is supposed to have ATSKNF.

[Monkeychunks]

What about the usual responses to this?

 

My Blastmaster certainly isn't an Autocannon, and I can even take those in the same list! Yet time after time, thats what gets shouted about.

 

Same as a Basilisk. It clearly isn't a Defiler or a Vindicator, yet how many people have to proxy them now?

 

 

And yet a Marine versus a Chaos Marine is too much to remember? When the entire army is the same?

[Jarulek]

Since when does a dark apostle have the mark of tzeentch??? You are using an arguement hard saying that they arnt sorcerers, but then you go and give the mark of tzeentch to a lord and call him the same.

 

No "count as needed". Sorry brother, I almost always agree with you regarding the Word Bearers, but I field my Lord also with a Mark of Tzeentch. I had the same opinion when the Codex 4.0 came out, but then I read Dark Apostle and the über-climax when Jarulek entered the battlefield on a Disc of Tzeentch and with a retinue of Tzeentch Screamers and I was sold.

 

However! I rather have the old Accursed Crozius and Deagogue ability back. And when we're at it, GW could make a Kor Phaeron models with Firebrand Demagogy rule which makes ALL units Fearless wuhahaha! *uchum*

 

Anyway, I'm by no means someone who makes up some BS story about LoS being the Apostle's charm attracting followers to their own dead or whatever, nor do I condone this form of horrible "count as". I won't defile my beloved WB's with this far-fatched nonsense. If it's really about the fun and not for winning, make your own rules or use the old codex. I rather lose every single battle than making some cheesy power list and come up with some bogus story to justify it.

 

EDIT: Holy sh*t, can't believe how far this discussion went when I was out to work. The post I quoted was one of the "first unread". Didn't know there was a whole new page already

[Legatus]

I guess there currently are no rules outside of Apocalypse or Imperial Armour to use vehicle mounted or terminator carried blastmasters or chaotified basilisks. So the opponent should know that the enemy Iron Warrior force in a regular game of 40K cannot have a basilisk, and the Emperors Children have no actual blastmasters outside of troop squads.

There are rules for chaos space marine forces however.

[chillin]

No list in the game, except the Necrons, Orks and Tyranids, has a set morality associated with it.

 

How do any of those armies have a set morality? If anything they are morally neutral as they just do the only thing they can or know how to do. Also, it can be argued that the Dark Eldar are pretty "evil" as they exist for no reason but self gratification through killing and torture and even created the circumstances for their own fall.

 

I agree on tyranids you can place no moral standards, they are like insects, they do what they are hardwired to do. Orks are have some higher thought, that they have mechanics and be it crude engeering support this. Thay are raiders and murders and bandits because it's easier then working, and to them, fun. Much like the mentality of a gangbanger. I understand that one can say "but their brains arn't like ours", but I say you could make the arguement that they are evil.

Really don't know much about necron fluff.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Well Legatus, the thing about Counts As is you can't use the same model for two things. So even if you can't have Blastmasters outside of Troops, you can't model them on anything else. Those are the guidelines for Counts As. I've heard the Emperors Children players rant about it enough.

However, the thing you seem to be forgetting, is that underneath it all, a Marine is a Marine. If I want to use Daemons and other Chaosy goodness, I should use the Chaos Marine codex. If my army is similar in playstyle to a codex list, I use the standard rules. If my army has a love of Assault Squads, and is unstable, I should use the Blood Angels. Loads of Terminators/Bikes? Dark Angels. Crusader theme? Black Templar. Foot assault theme? Space Wolves.

 

You cannot model ATSKNF on a model, therefore what the model actually looks like means nothing, as long as its a Marine. If I have a Blood Angel First Company list, they might try using the Dark Angels list, to have Deathwing, and let them have the whole army as Veterans, even though they won't have the Black Rage. Reserve Assault Company? Either Ravenwing or Blood Angels list. Holy zealots should go with the Black Templar. Cult Legion, or heavy Chaos worship? Chaos Marines. Marines that still fight like they did Pre-Heresy? Standard codex, no matter what their current loyalty (note once more, they should still limit themselves to pre-Heresy equipment).

 

Seriously, I really don't think the fact of ATSKNF should be a reason to stop Traitor Marines using the Loyalist codex. After all, these guys can be very united under apowerful leader, unwilling to fall back, because they know they'll die anyway. It could be an overwhelming desire for vengeance that keeps them fighting (what my Night Lords have). Of course, that last one doesn't really extend to Xenos, so I guess I'll be 'forgetting' about my ATSKNF against them. Chaos can be just as determined as the Loyalists can. But don't try to pull the "their faith in the Emperor gives them the abilty to keep fighting." I've heard that before, and never believed it for a second. Chaos Marines aren't some weak-willed little runts, who run away at the first sign of danger just because "they value their life more than the mission". Chaos Marines are often fuelled by millennia of hatred for their loathed kin, and you can't tell me that that won't make you want to stay in the fight.

[Smurfalypse]

Since when does a dark apostle have the mark of tzeentch??? You are using an arguement hard saying that they arnt sorcerers, but then you go and give the mark of tzeentch to a lord and call him the same.

 

No "count as needed". Sorry brother, I almost always agree with you regarding the Word Bearers, but I field my Lord also with a Mark of Tzeentch. I had the same opinion when the Codex 4.0 came out, but then I read Dark Apostle and the über-climax when Jarulek entered the battlefield on a Disc of Tzeentch and with a retinue of Tzeentch Screamers and I was sold.

 

However! I rather have the old Accursed Crozius and Deagogue ability back. And when we're at it, GW could make a Kor Phaeron models with Firebrand Demagogy rule which makes ALL units Fearless wuhahaha! *uchum*

 

Anyway, I'm by no means someone who makes up some BS story about LoS being the Apostle's charm attracting followers to their own dead or whatever, nor do I condone this form of horrible "count as". I won't defile my beloved WB's with this far-fatched nonsense. If it's really about the fun and not for winning, make your own rules or use the old codex. I rather lose every single battle than making some cheesy power list and come up with some bogus story to justify it.

 

EDIT: Holy sh*t, can't believe how far this discussion went when I was out to work. The post I quoted was one of the "first unread". Didn't know there was a whole new page already

 

I wasnt making an arguement about the mark on tzeentch on the lord (though i personally wont do it), i was trying to make a point that he was bashing the idea of using a sorcerer as a chaos chaplain but then mentioned that he would mark up the lord :P Its all the same is my point to the whole thing.

 

LOL yeah , this post has gotten piles of responses. Though i think between 6 or so people we are half of the posts :P

[Kalrik]

LOL yeah , this post has gotten piles of responses. Though i think between 6 or so people we are half of the posts :P

 

I think the root of the discussion is:

 

Can you legally field Loyalist Marine Models, and Chaos marine models, as the same thing, and the answer is yes* --

 

Pre-heresy armor with the ornate trim isn't what makes a chaos marine, technically per the book a power armored marine with a bolter, bolt pistol, or close combat weapon can be used as a chaos marine.

 

Inversely, an ornate trim Chaos marine, provided he isn't wielding a CCW can be fieleded as a tactical marine.

 

You need to shatter your perceptions, its not a "proxy" if its equiped correctly.

 

Now that I have the marine codex in my hands, I can say, that its quite competative, but does not make the Chaos codex useless, they're both useful, actually, in different ways, I'll say that combat tactics is HORRIDLY broken, and the basic Marine is now leaps and bounds better then a CSM at essentially +1 point, (the Extra CCW does NOT make up for ASTKNF and Combat tactics) however, this is really compairing apples to oranges, since the Chaos codex shines in other areas...

 

#1 Havocs can take special weapons, Devastators cannot -- 4 flamer, meltagun, plasmagun squads..

#2 The Icons, love em or hate em, they are useful occasionally, plus 2 special weapons.

#3 Obliterators

#4 Daemonprinces

#5 Defilers

#6 3 Highly Valuable Cult troops - Noisemarines are not so gud awksly

#7 Chosen squads with thier 5 special weapons

 

They're both different codexes, they have their strengths and their weaknesses, but really you can field your army how you want, and paint it how you want, and its gonna be legal, and your opponent can choose not to play you cause their britches are in a bunch, or they can shut the hell up and enjoy playing a game.

 

Personally I'd be honored to play against, something Nihm's Blood Angels based Night Lords, I think that'd be an amazing sight on the table, who cares what ruleset you use, as long as you only use one at a time =P and if I played against an iron warriors player who had techmarines and dreads that weren't mornonic, and used thunderfires, that'd be great too!

 

I'm personally going one step further in my blasphemy, My alpha Legion are modeled with mixes of imperial, chaos, tau, and eldar parts to show that while they are cut off from supply lines (both imperium and chaos) they steal what they need to make it work, and I'm even looking at fielding an occasional list out of Codex Space marines, for fun, since my models WILL be legal.

 

Though I'm kinda tempted to make a bunch of jump packers and try nihms idea for one-off-games

[mannstein]

Ultimately, isn't the whole discussion slightly moot, anyway? The official line from GW at this point is "counts as" is fine (and for some stuff actually essential), so if someone wants to use the new marine codex for their renegades/undivided legion there isn't really anything anyone can do about it...

[Arschbombe]

LOL yeah , this post has gotten piles of responses. Though i think between 6 or so people we are half of the posts :P

 

Well, there are the traitor marines and there are the cultists....

 

 

Now that I have the marine codex in my hands, I can say, that its quite competative, but does not make the Chaos codex useless, they're both useful, actually, in different ways,...

 

I think for most of us it has never been about competitiveness. It's about feel and adherence to legion characteristics that were ignored in the current Chaos dex. I think it has been argued and shown ad infinitum (and ad nauseam for many) that the current dex is as powerful as the old.

 

An analogy...

 

Once upon a time GW gave us oranges and we made orange juice. Then they changed and gave us lemons. So we made lemonade. The lemonade is just as strong as the old orange juice. But it doesn't taste like oranges. It's not as sweet and it's a little too tart. So we add some food coloring and some other flavoring trying to make it like orange juice again. We get close, but it's not the same. So we're not satisfied. Then we see these other guys making juice. GW gave them tangerines. Tangerines are kinda like oranges. They're sweet and not too tart. We think maybe it would be easier to make some ersatz orange juice if we start with tangerines. It's worth a shot. So we get some tangerines and make some tangerine juice. Then we fiddle around to see if we can make it taste like orange juice. If we can get it to be more like orange juice more easily we might just stick with the tangerines until GW decides to give us oranges again.

[BloodRed]

I am going to seriously going to look into Codex non-spikey-marines when it comes out... why? Cause hey look I can field my legion like I want to! fun =P

 

This.

 

I can't think of anything better to represent the Night Lords and the Iron Warriors than certain builds in the new codex. It gives them everything they should have. It'll work much, much better than trying to shoe-horn them into Codex: Red Corsairs & Black Legion.

 

Also, remember this quote from the beginning of the 5th ed rulebook:

"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely YOURS."

 

Everything in 40k is by opponent's permission only because without an opponent, you don't have a game to play. Other than in tournaments where everyone agrees in advance to abide by the organizer's take on things, it's all about two people coming together to have a blast. And I think refusing to have a game with someone using Codex: Space Marines because the models they choose to use are a bit more ornate and spikey and the name on the top of their roster says "Night Lords" is a bit ridiculous. Especially when everything is represented by perfect WYSIWYG modelled equipment.

[Magnus Thane]

Still it makes me cringe. The line between fluffyness and doing this for the sake of having a stronger force is thin.

And i can perfectly understand some players having a problem with this, just like they may have a problem with an unpainted army.

[Smurfalypse]

Still it makes me cringe. The line between fluffyness and doing this for the sake of having a stronger force is thin.

And i can perfectly understand some players having a problem with this, just like they may have a problem with an unpainted army.

 

I kinda cringed at first as well, but when you look at it from the stand point of..."Its not about the stronger force or they would just stick with chaos" then it is a bit easier to swallow. The chaos codex is VERY strong when it comes to sheer winning, no one really can contest that. So if someone wants to run an army that is, well, lower in strength, but fits what they want their legion to "feel" like, then im kinda all for it. I personally wont do it, but i can see where people are coming from and i want them to enjoy themselves in a game i love and have loved for 15 years. Cheers.

[chillin]

Still it makes me cringe. The line between fluffyness and doing this for the sake of having a stronger force is thin.

And i can perfectly understand some players having a problem with this, just like they may have a problem with an unpainted army.

 

If it was all about having a stronger force they would just have a "NL's" or "AL" or "IW's" force with dual lash, PM's and oblits wouldn't they.

 

I would MUCH rather play a NL's army that used the s/m dex then a "NL's" player with some crap story about how the dual lash was actually the NL's "scareing" the enemy to where they wanted them to go, or some other nonsense.

[Legatus]

Using the new Codex Space Marines merely for the drop pods (even though no chaos army list had them to date) or flanking all-bike armies (even though no chaos army had that to date) is one thing. But can those people stay away from Scouts, Scoutbikes, Stormshields, Landspeeders, Assault Cannons, 2 shot Cyclone Missile Launchers, Whirlwinds, Venerable Dreadnoughts? I already had to read in this thread how "fluffy" Night Lord Scout snipers would be, but really, in such a case the whole point of a fluffy list has been lost somewhere along the way.