Jump to content

Multiple gods in one army


Joshta

Recommended Posts

Does anyone field weird when they field in army with multiple marks of different chaos gods?

 

Lately I have been playing full khorne, but it feels weird when i think about putting a squad of NM's in. I've seen people get marked down in tournament because of "Unthemed armies." Has anyone else seen a judge mark down an army for not being a full one-god army?

Link to comment
https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170363-multiple-gods-in-one-army/
Share on other sites

new fluff . legions are friends ,even if they almost destroyed eachother durning the legion war that happened post heresy . Chaos gods dont hate each other anymore , they are bros now working hand in hand . no animosity between different cults and worshipers. almost make you think why is abadon so special then . :P
It's generally frowned upon. I play a Death Guard army, but I've started to incorporate Berserkers as of late, as it runs off the theme of my multi-armies (Nurgle / Khorne alliance). If you don't have a good reason (Black Crusade, Black Legion), or some great fluff to back it up, it'll just seem like you're metagaming. Which is what it is most of the time (Lash Prince in general... lame).

Themed armies are great. And fluffwise the contempt/feuds etc are still there.

But the codex is... and i find this good... open-ended. You can do Undivided, God-specific and warband orientated forces.

It's just up to the maturity of the player to make the call.

If you play a World Eaters Legion for instance don't use Plague Marines.

If you play Iron Warriors try to go for lots of vehicles and normal CSM's.

Night Lords -> Raptors, Bikes,...

Common sense is the key.

Well since the new SM codex is basicly Codex UltraMarine, the Chaos Dex is Codex Black Legion, Who can call upon all of the cults to work with them. It is still pretty fluffy to have WorldEaters and Death guard together, and Tzench and Slanesh Since those Legions/Chaos Gods are not opposed to one another.

Use your imagination. Thanks to counts-as, your legion troops don't have to have the right color scheme or even look. In an all-Khorne army, Death Guard could just be Berzerkers with better armor or lots of bionics, for example.

 

And Noise Marines could be crazed Warriors that use experimental weapons to drive their enemies insane before attacking them with high speed.

 

If you manage cool conversions and it is still visible what your units represent, I doubt any Tournament judge or other player would really look down on you.

 

 

Just mixing legion troops like skittles will always get you some flame from most players, but if you take some time to come up with a solution by fluff or conversions, you should be fine.

That, to be honest, is why I loved the idea of putting a tale or two behind your army to explain WHY certain troops turn up as adjoined to your army somewhat randomly other than telling a mate "cos i just fancied painting them". Back in the old 2nd ed days, which was when most of my playing days were, my Night Lords were explained by "Abaddon wanted them to go into this, lead by one of his sorcerers... and the PMs are cos he wanted some steely resolve to back up this quick attack option" and likewise for stuff if i added MoT for the sorcerer or if i took half a dozen berserkers etc. My friends used to make fun cos it sounded like i was blaming all of my army choices on a piece of lead that cost me £6 (remember those days guys? kids, ask your parents)... but it worked, and to be honest, people liked playing against that style.

 

I think the arguement i'm trying to make is that if you can give a fluff reason to them adjoining another force. HQs of BL, 1ksons and WB seems to be the best reasoning for these things. WB = they were seduced by the ideals of the Dark Apostle, BL = "cos Abaddon said so" or 1ksons = "they manipulated the minds of those otherwise opposed to their god. We made an extra rule for the last one once... if you rolled 2D6 and got 11, the other cult did nothing that turn as they saw a flicker of their "allies" true form and were confused. If you rolled 12 then they turned on you and attacked the nearest squad/model that was not of their chapter in each turn... both yours and your opponents. It made some fun games and it actually made for some fun ends to games, most of which made me lose but it was still fun to do. Can you imagine giving a berzerker squad the best of both worlds, 2 armies to attack at double the rate...

  • 2 weeks later...

In this current codex I have nothing against it. Since I play alot of competive and max gaming games at my gaming club these days. But when it comes to a friendly game I focus on undivided mainly.

 

To look down on someone just because they mix alot to get an good and fun list in this current codex. I find them quite ignorant it's the players choice and no one should feel neglected just because a few plastic models with different rules.

I think its totally asinine that, given the current codex, people would judge you by what marks / icons you give various units. Its like slamming a space marine army for having scouts, power armor, bikes, and terminators in the same force because those "come from different companies".

 

I used to run a pure WE army. Now my prince literally wears a slaneesh icon over the khorne one, and I run a unit of plauge marines in my land raider. That plays more like my old list did (tactically) than anything I can do using just Khorne units. So which is more important? That my list plays the way it used to (functionally) so I can still enjoy using it, or that the little plastic runes on my dudes match some fiction from an out of print book?

 

Edit- and yes, I don't say its a WE army any more. My opponents usually say that, looking at the berserker's and vehicles paint jobs, but there's no WE logos anywhere on the force, and I've been doing most of my new non-berserker paint jobs in Red Corsairs colors (which are not far from WE's anyhow...)

Its like slamming a space marine army for having scouts, power armor, bikes, and terminators in the same force because those "come from different companies".

 

No it's not. It's like giving a s/m player a lower comp score for having 2 SC's from different chapters in the same army (which I would also do)

I must say that I do not understand the attitudes of Humongous and Important. Comp scores are there for a reason, to ballance things out, so if a player takes a more fluffy army to a tourny and sacrafices some uber powerful combos for the sake of fluff they get alittle better on the comp score then someone that takes a totally unfluffy army to give himself every atvantage in the win-loss score. To give the unfluffy "ubercheeze" army the same comp score as the guy that knowingly put himself at a disadvantage in order to keep to the fluff is not fair to the guy that sacraficed uber for fluff. The pwrgamer is probably going to have more victory pts after all. It just helps to ballance things out (a very little at that) IMO.

If I'm not mistaken in tournies like 'ard boyz, there is no comp score, b/c that's not supposed to matter, so that means that in tournies with a comp score it is supposed to matter (and never as much as win-lose and victory pts anyway)

Except, take a look at the big spread on pp 78-79; I see 1K sons, Death Guard, World Eaters (and some Iron warriors to boot) all on the table with Black Legion. The C:CSM has all those "legion" units as TROOP selections, and shows pisctures of them being used together in multiple different armies. Are we to assume its not fluffy because.... ?

 

And yes, if you are talking purely from a perspective of a comp score, a mono-god army (or no-god) should bonus comp points compared to one that just picks strong units from the codex. But there are other criteria as well. Does the army spam the same unit 3+ times, or take the same HQ twice? Is it a "one trick pony"? Is it a "balanced list" vs a purely mech / infantry one designed to win against "take all comers" via metagame? I've seen mono god armies that were hideously broken and failed hugely on all those criteria. Composition scoring is not just "fluff luv".

 

And why the hate OUTSIDE of tournaments? OK so an army's not fluffy in your mind. Is it fun to play with / against? I'd rather play against an unfluffy army that works decently than a fluffy one that has gaping weaknesses I'd have to struggle NOT to exploit / totally fails in certain scenarios.

OK so an army's not fluffy in your mind. Is it fun to play with / against? I'd rather play against an unfluffy army that works decently than a fluffy one that has gaping weaknesses I'd have to struggle NOT to exploit / totally fails in certain scenarios.

 

I thinkwe are talking about 2 totally different things. Or have different definations/ideas of some key words/concepts

Except, take a look at the big spread on pp 78-79; I see 1K sons, Death Guard, World Eaters (and some Iron warriors to boot) all on the table with Black Legion.

 

Anyone that has been playing chaos longer then this dex will tell you that this dex is a piss-poor representation of almost 20 years of established chaos fluff.

As for the pic you referenced, # 1 it's just a pic to show different armies and paint schemes, #2 even in this extremely pic it does not show khorne brzrkrs being LED by a slanny worshiper.

As for Gav Thorpe's "knowledge" of BL history/fluff (which goes back to "slaves to darkness"), you don't even want to get me started, could he not be bothered to even read any of it before he wrote the crap in this dex.

My interpretation is they want to simplify the codex to get more people to play, so they have to buy more models because of the variations, and thus getting more money.

 

In the end, all GW cares about is sales of the product, not what the product is overly about and it's background.

only considering how even this forum looks now and that our tournaments droped from around 400 different people per year to around half of that , I dont think it made the player base bigger.

 

so they have to buy more models because of the variations, and thus getting more money.

how does taking away all legion lists and giving one [a fusion of IW and BL] to chaos players give more model variation . all you need to play chaos ever is 8 terminators 2 dps 6 rhinos 2 land raiders 6 oblits and 60 marines . when you have that and counts as is in full effect you dont need to buy any models for 5th ed.

 

 

 

I really blame it on chaos demon dex and the policy to make a dex for both WFB and w40k[so people would have an army for 2 games giving a better chance of them starting both a new wfb and w40 army if they got bored with demons] they knew that to make it work , they had to make a chaos happy family move [or buff specials and HQ like in no other dex , but that wasnt really an option for w40k as they had other things in mind for 5th ed]. and as both dexs were in testing at the same time , they unifide the fluff for both csm and demons [as much as they are only about selling models , GW knows that people would go :cuss , if 2 dexs coming after each other had totally different fluff]. having Thorpe resonsible for it didnt help much too .

Per se , it wasnt a bad idea. Demons were/are an uber WFB army , having an army that can play both WFB and W40k could mean more w40k players and more sales . only it didnt happen after a short hype with demons [like with any other dex even DA had that for a very short time], people stoped playing them .

that page is Abbadon rallying the legions behind him. I agree with Jeske, only because it was fluffy for only the black legion, and that one warband to be taking multiple legions/warbands under one banner.

 

And red corsairs too.

 

 

So you are saying in a galaxy as big as the 40k one, were gazillions of warriors fight each other every second, there are only TWO warbands that are allowed to incorporate more than one cult? That no other warband can have, for example, Noise Marines, Plague Marines and Undivided Marines fighting together for some mutual cause?

 

I don't like people using totally different units per list, like a Tzeentch sorc leading Berzerkers, but if you don't go over the top, and come up with a satisfying story to back your ideas up, that's fine with me.

 

 

All many people seem to see is how stupid the current codex is. Whining about it won't help anyone. Do I want the old codex back, with all those great options and possibilities? Sure.

 

But right now, all we have is this one codex, and why don't we try to make the best of it?

there are only TWO warbands that are allowed to incorporate more than one cult?

well corsairs actually are know to have a zerker sub sect. but yeah thats more or less what it means .+aside the for the chaos legions who most of the time go mono cult or no cult at all , there arent many chaos space marines to begin with . a lot of traitor warbands are not even chapter sized , more then a few of them died out /were killed etc .

That no other warband can have, for example, Noise Marines, Plague Marines and Undivided Marines fighting together for some mutual cause?

you have the same chance for it as having a 50 man strike force made up of 3 different chapters . is it possible ? yes , and as the fluff tells us its ultra rare [deathwatch] .

 

 

abadon is ultra rare and his specialy gimick is that he has the favor of many gods , other lords dont have it . I mean you think its possible that squad leader X comes to demon prince and leader of his warband and says" we decided to go plague marines , no offense my lord but being NM sucks hard".

 

But right now, all we have is this one codex, and why don't we try to make the best of it?

because "we" made the best out of it

  1. a few months ago .and the prospect of playing with the same list and seeing the exactlly same lists over and over again for the next 2+years aint what I call fun . And remember if people stop saying that they dislike this or that
GW will think that the silence means we are ok with the dex . only we are not ok with it. It also means that if they ever try to do a legion dex they will think a few times what people actually want from a chaos dex , both as armies and fluff goes.
Have to agree with Jeske there about our codex. In 3.5 chaos dex my gaming club had 5 chaos marine players. Now it's me left who just started playing them regulary again. But when I think about it, I don't spend that much time playing I mostly sitt and paint / convert my models while people are playing around me.
I'm with the masses on the codex thing Gav Thorpe doesn't know his :D from his elbow,as for the NM with PM and zerkers in one list I played against a list like this in a turnie and the guys "fluff" was the abbadon/BL thing but none of his non-legion units were BL and he didn't use abbadon or a counts as so I did cut him on points.I then found out he cut me on points for my IW army with a zerker unit(anybody thats not Gav Thorpe sees the problem there)after sayin' something to him he confessed to cuttin' me on points for cuttin' him.So yes I want a new codex(please no more GT)with my armies fluff but as of now I'll take the bad with the good.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.