Any official legions that would use a mix of cult troops?

[incinerator950]

Just wanted to point out that technically every Chaos Legion or Chapter can "use" cult units. They can employ units of cult mercenaries. The World Eater berserkers and the Emperor's Children Noise Marines are particularly known to fight for anyone who will employ the. but the Night Lords may very well employ units of allied Death Guard Plague Marines.

 

I hate this dex :D

Remember when a NL's army was full of NL's and a DG army was full of DG ?

 

Remember when 40k took more than having an army list?

[The WarpGhost]

Though I dislike it intensely, I'd advise taking advantage of the current codex's lack of cohesion and simply "re-imagine" the cult units you want to use with reference to the appropriate legion's character.

Funny, considering the last Codex had the same 'lack of cohesion' too. A lot of people forget that.

 

Anyway, my Steel Brethren follow a similar principle to that laid out; heavily armoured siege troops with combat shields, extra armour and chirugeons represented by Plague Marines, and bionically reconstructed 'revenants' lead by a Tech Marine with daemonbound servo-harness represented by Thousand Sons. The only really overt statement of alignment is a Nurgle DP, but Im seriously considering using a converted techno-heresy Sameal instead.

 

Of course, if the totalitarian One True Mark "Make Legions not Warbands" crowd had their way I'd be expected to screw my own interests and use them as one of the cookie-cutter Eight Legions, like everyone else. Thank goodness GW have given me the opportunity to pursue my own choices.

[Legatus]

Remember when a NL's army was full of NL's and a DG army was full of DG ?

I remember when "NL" were only NL CSM. I also remember that before that an army used to have mostly NL CSM but would include other units as well.

 

Since I started in 2nd, the progression for me was "Warband --> Warband --> Legion --> Warband". But of course at any point of the "warband" episodes you are free to not take any units form a different Legion.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

But of course at any point of the "warband" episodes you are free to not take any units form a different Legion.

 

Until now. Unless you want to play an all troops army.

 

I guess this is going to be another one of those threads, isn't it?

[Legatus]

I did't start it. :)

 

Anyway, yeah, just use Troops for World Eaters. Or maybe make due with Berserker Terminators that will lose their bonus or retreat. While I personally would love for all my Wrld Eaters units to be fearless, IIRC they weren't in 2nd Edition. So I at least cannot complain that GW has removed a rule they allways had and cannot be without.

[The WarpGhost]

Remember when a NL's army was full of NL's and a DG army was full of DG ?

I remember when "NL" were only NL CSM. I also remember that before that an army used to have mostly NL CSM but would include other units as well.

 

Since I started in 2nd, the progression for me was "Warband --> Warband --> Legion --> Warband". But of course at any point of the "warband" episodes you are free to not take any units form a different Legion.

Well, that makes two of us. But its awefully lonely out here, isnt it?

[Legatus]

It sure is. But I can understand the appeal of dedicated Legion army lists. It is kinda cool to play "Legion X" instead of just "Chaos" and use mostly models from Legion X. On the other hand, a Squad of Berserkers or Plague Marines excells much more when used in a force of otherwise regular CSM, and not in an army of only such units. I like having the Option to just take one single squad of Berserkers as a dedicated HtH unit without having to use "Black Legion".

[Lay]

Of course, if the totalitarian One True Mark "Make Legions not Warbands" crowd had their way I'd be expected to screw my own interests and use them as one of the cookie-cutter Eight Legions, like everyone else. Thank goodness GW have given me the opportunity to pursue my own choices.

Come on now, you know you could have played the vanilla list. Contrary to what you seem to imply, playing a Legion list was a choice, not an obligation.

[chillin]

Anyway, my Steel Brethren follow a similar principle to that laid out; heavily armoured siege troops with combat shields, extra armour and chirugeons represented by Plague Marines,

and bionically reconstructed 'revenants' lead by a Tech Marine with daemonbound servo-harness represented by Thousand Sons.

The only really overt statement of alignment is a Nurgle DP, but Im seriously considering using a converted techno-heresy Sameal instead.

 

Thank goodness GW have given me the opportunity to pursue my own choices.

 

- Yeah, my BL "PM" are reg csm's with shields and x armor too. I didn't want actual PM in my army, also I like the look.

- Good idea w/ the "T-son's"

- You should do the converted techno-DP, I think it would look good. Have also heard of IW's players using a converted dread as DP, that is also kool and fits in well w/ IW's theme.

 

- this is the statement I never understand. people seem to think that by taking away you options, GW has given you an opportunity. It doesn't even make sense. Fewer options = less opportunity, always. What stopped you from putting "PM's" in your IW's army in 3.5 dex ?

Nothing. Then you had the opportunity to choose "do I want cult units in my army or the special IW's rules (xtra HS, siege spec, etc)"

You could go back and forth from game to game if you wanted. Not to mention being able to give them tank hunters, etc.

Taking away choices does NOT give you more choices, it doesn't make sense. I am always buffled when I see this "logic" on here.

Somebody PLEASE explain to me (in a way that uses any kind of logic) how you have more options/choices in this dex then in 3.5.

[Legatus]

this is the statement I never understand. people seem to think that by taking away you options, GW has given you an opportunity. It doesn't even make sense. Fewer options = less opportunity, always. What stopped you from putting "PM's" in your IW's army in 3.5 dex ?

The problem is that you would then not have been playing "IWs". As soon as you include one unit of Berserkers in your Night Lords army (a pretty common sight if we go by fluff) then you are not playing "Night Lords" anymore. You are now playing "Black Legion", but painted up as Night Lords. It is the same as playing "Ultrawing" with the Codex Dark Angels. Of course you can do that. You could probably even do that in a tournament. But every time you would have to declare that you are not actually using the rules that are intended for the force you are playing, but instead a different set of rules. You were basically just proxying or using counts-as.

 

Now you can take only Night Lords units if you want. Or you can include cult units. Either way, you do not have to declare that you are not actually playing by the rules your army would usually be associated with. That is a big plus in my humble opinion. "Stealth adept" and "daemonic visage" were cool. But I have played "Night Lords" with two previous Codices where such rules did not exist, and I can still go without now.

 

See, if GW decides to give Marines of a certain Legion something extra, cool. I don't need a NL Marine to have different rules from a WB Marine, but let's see what the next Codex brings. But what the 3.5 Codex did was taking away 80% of the army list if I wanted to play proper "Night Lords". That does not exactly feel like "more options".

[The WarpGhost]

Of course, if the totalitarian One True Mark "Make Legions not Warbands" crowd had their way I'd be expected to screw my own interests and use them as one of the cookie-cutter Eight Legions, like everyone else. Thank goodness GW have given me the opportunity to pursue my own choices.

Come on now, you know you could have played the vanilla list. Contrary to what you seem to imply, playing a Legion list was a choice, not an obligation.

You would think that, but my experience with many current codex critics (who use v3.5) has been otherwise. Ive got into many rounds with people who seem to think its obligatory. On TWF we were having a 'discussion' the other day, and several people were even going so far as to say that non-Legion armies should only be allowed if they followed the LatD list (ie. mainly humans, with only a few CSM allowed)! I even remember many times people would put vanilla lists on the net and most of the comments would involve telling them to take a Legion instead (especially if they mixed Marks)!

[Lay]

You would think that, but my experience with many current codex critics (who use v3.5) has been otherwise. Ive got into many rounds with people who seem to think its obligatory. On TWF we were having a 'discussion' the other day, and several people were even going so far as to say that non-Legion armies should only be allowed if they followed the LatD list (ie. mainly humans, with only a few CSM allowed)! I even remember many times people would put vanilla lists on the net and most of the comments would involve telling them to take a Legion instead (especially if they mixed Marks)!

Big deal. It's not like differing opinions are keeping players from using the SM, SW or BA codex for their Chaos Marines in this edition.

Really, this isn't something that'd keep anyone from using the vanilla list. Personally, I still recall two players (WB, AL) using it without anyone objecting.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

this is the statement I never understand. people seem to think that by taking away you options, GW has given you an opportunity. It doesn't even make sense. Fewer options = less opportunity, always. What stopped you from putting "PM's" in your IW's army in 3.5 dex ?

The problem is that you would then not have been playing "IWs". As soon as you include one unit of Berserkers in your Night Lords army (a pretty common sight if we go by fluff) then you are not playing "Night Lords" anymore. You are now playing "Black Legion", but painted up as Night Lords. It is the same as playing "Ultrawing" with the Codex Dark Angels. Of course you can do that. You could probably even do that in a tournament. But every time you would have to declare that you are not actually using the rules that are intended for the force you are playing, but instead a different set of rules. You were basically just proxying or using counts-as.

 

Now you can take only Night Lords units if you want. Or you can include cult units. Either way, you do not have to declare that you are not actually playing by the rules your army would usually be associated with. That is a big plus in my humble opinion. "Stealth adept" and "daemonic visage" were cool. But I have played "Night Lords" with two previous Codices where such rules did not exist, and I can still go without now.

 

See, if GW decides to give Marines of a certain Legion something extra, cool. I don't need a NL Marine to have different rules from a WB Marine, but let's see what the next Codex brings. But what the 3.5 Codex did was taking away 80% of the army list if I wanted to play proper "Night Lords". That does not exactly feel like "more options".

 

But now nobody is ever playing cult legions at all. Now its ALL just color schemes...You make no sense.

[Legatus]

And people are not really playing Silver Skulls or Mentor Legion or Aurora Chapter, it's all just color scheme... <_<

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Not a good analogy. The different codex chapters are defined by their different unit compositions and different tactical approaches. This works with the vanilla codex because of the amount of flexibility and options. The difference between Ultramarines and crimson fists is that ultramarines stereotypically favor tactical marines and crimson fists favor veterans. That, and the color scheme. The difference between the cult legions is much, much larger. Codex marine chapters are very similar. Thats almost the whole point of them. Chaos legions are NOT similar at all. More so, loyalists have the option of defining their chapter by what sort of army they run because enough viable units exist in the codex. Chaos do not because the units simply do not exist in the codex beyond the basic troopers.

 

You still have the broken logic going that less options = more freedom. There is nothing you can do in this codex that you couldn't in the previous. And there were 9 legion lists you could run in the previous that you cannot now. And the previous codex didn't have ~80% of its units be totally awful.

[Legatus]

The difference between Ultramarines and crimson fists is that ultramarines stereotypically favor tactical marines and crimson fists favor veterans. That, and the color scheme. The difference between the cult legions is much, much larger.

So how different are Emperor's Children and World Eaters? World Eaters will obviously consist mostly of Berserkers, while the Emperor's Children are largely Noise Marines. That is a pretty cruicial difference. But it is one that can be reflected with the options given in the Codex.

What else would be entirely different?

 

Lord: Both Legions have Lords obviously.

 

Sorcerers: World Eaters don't have them. The Codex lets you do that.

 

Terminators: Both Legions use them, though I would prefer cooler rules for them.

 

Chosen: Berserkers and Noise Marines are already pretty much "veterans" of that particular cult. I guess "super berserkers" would be cool...

 

Possessed: Slaanesh ones or Khorne ones. Codex provides.

 

Dreadnoughts: Both Legions use them.

 

Troops: WE got Berserkers, EC got Noise Marines. Codex provides.

 

Rhinos: Both Legions would use them.

 

Bikes: Both Legions use them.

 

Havocs: Depending on how far you go back, World Eaters either would use them or they would not. Emperor's Children do.

 

Predators: Both Legions use them.

 

Land Raiders: Both Legions use them.

 

Defiler: Both Legions would use them.

 

 

So out of 13 choices, 9 are used by both Cult Legions. The biggest difference is the cult Troops unit, which is adequately represented in the Codex. World Eaters do not use Sorcerers, but that's accounted for as well (by not taking one). The only issue is that the rules for Terminators or Chosen are not that exciting right now. But both Legions would be using Terminators or Chosen, and they would not be all that different (but potentially cooler).

 

Out of 13 choices:

 

- 9 match

 

- 2 (or 3) "match", but do not have cool rules (Terminators, Chosen and potentially Havocs)

 

- 1 is the Troops unit (Berserkers/Noise Marines)

 

- 1 the WE do not have (2 if you count Havocs)

 

 

You still have the broken logic going that less options = more freedom. There is nothing you can do in this codex that you couldn't in the previous.

I can use CSM units painted up as Night Lords together with Berserkers without having to declare that I am not playing "Night Lords" but "Black Legion painted up as Night Lords". I could not do that with the 3.5 Codex.

 

 

And the previous codex didn't have ~80% of its units be totally awful.

You don't honestly think that, do you?

[chillin]

-The problem is that you would then not have been playing "IWs". As soon as you include one unit of Berserkers in your Night Lords army (a pretty common sight if we go by fluff) then you are not playing "Night Lords" anymore. You are now playing "Black Legion", but painted up as Night Lords.

- Now you can take only Night Lords units if you want. Or you can include cult units.

- But what the 3.5 Codex did was taking away 80% of the army list if I wanted to play proper "Night Lords". That does not exactly feel like "more options".

 

- You are totally contradicting yourself Legatus. You would have been playing IW's just as much as you are playing IW's now. If you put a unit of brzrkrs in your NL's army in 3.5 you are playing NL's just as much as you are now. Now all armies are "BL" but painted up in different color schemes. In 3.5 at least you had a choice. You have hit me with no logical arguement that there is something you can do now that you could not do in 3.5

- You can not take only NL's now, b/c there's no rules for them. You could include cult units in your NL's army in 3.5, nothing forced you to use the NL's rules.

- How did 3.5 take away 80% of the army list you wanted to play. In 3.5 you could decide between taking cult units in your NL's army

or using the NL's special rules. You no longer have that choice. You could even take brzrkrs in you NL army and still give them infiltrate or move through cover. You could give your NL's lord D. visage, causing fear.

Your less options = more options theory is flawed at the most fundamental level.

[chillin]

I can use CSM units painted up as Night Lords together with Berserkers without having to declare that I am not playing "Night Lords" but "Black Legion painted up as Night Lords". I could not do that with the 3.5 Codex.

 

OK you have me there (kinda). In 3.5 you might, as a coutesy, want to tell your opponent "I am putting cult units in my NL's army and not using the NL's special rules". If you think not having to be bothered with that is worth losing dozens and dozens of options, then that's your opinion and that's fine. But in no way does it make your "fewer options = more options" theory make any more sense.

[Night Lord Dred]

Rules wise - Have to agree with Chillin and the others.

 

Fluff wise - NLs dont use cult troops. They may fight alongside them, but they do not belong to the NLs. This codex is garbage with the fluff, 3.5 rules all.

[Legatus]

- You are totally contradicting yourself Legatus. You would have been playing IW's just as much as you are playing IW's now. If you put a unit of brzrkrs in your NL's army in 3.5 you are playing NL's just as much as you are now. Now all armies are "BL" but painted up in different color schemes. In 3.5 at least you had a choice. You have hit me with no logical arguement that there is something you can do now that you could not do in 3.5

The 3.5 Codex specifically describes how a "Noght Lords" force has to look. What units they can and cannot take. If you were not playing that list, you were not technically playing "Night Lords", and opponents would certainly be all too happy to point that out to you.

In the 4th Edition Codex there are no "Night Lords" or "Black Legion" lists, so now it depends on how you construct your force and, yes indeed, paint your models. You are now not playing "Black Legion painted as Night Lord". In 3.5, if you wanted to include any of the 80% units not in the official Night Lords roster, you were not playing "Night Lords" anymore.

 

 

- You can not take only NL's now, b/c there's no rules for them. You could include cult units in your NL's army in 3.5, nothing forced you to use the NL's rules.

And you could just play your Dark Angels with the Codex Black Templars. Some people just prefer to use the rules that are intended for the faction they want to play.

 

 

If you think not having to be bothered with that is worth losing dozens and dozens of options, then that's your opinion and that's fine. But in no way does it make your "fewer options = more options" theory make any more sense.

What kind of Options did the Night Lords lose? They gained several more unit choices. They can now use Berserkers, Plague Marines, Thousand Sons, Noise Marines, Obliterators, Vindicators and Greater Demons. What did Night Lords lose? Daemonic Gifts?

[Drudge Dreadnought]

What kind of Options did the Night Lords lose? They gained several more unit choices. They can now use Berserkers, Plague Marines, Thousand Sons, Noise Marines, Obliterators, Vindicators and Greater Demons. What did Night Lords lose? Daemonic Gifts?

 

But Night Lords are not supposed to have those units...

[Legatus]

Unless you go by the Night Lords Index Astartes, which describes that they use cult units of each type with equal favour, even if they despise their faith. They make great assets none the less.

 

Obliterators are mercenary units, and can be employed just as easily. I would probably not take Vindicators (they could have left them out as far as I am concerned) and greater daemons. On the other hand, it does not seem to be out of Character for the Night Lords to summon a greater daemon to an unfortunate world, given the opportunity, but it would no be something they would routinely do.

[Brother Nihm]

A friendly reminder,

 

If this topic goes the way of the previous ones, it will suffer the same fate.

So please do keep it civil.

[Legatus]

Ah, yes. Well, my last post was actually going back to the original question of this thread. Would any official Legion use a mix of cult troops? The Black Legion is the only Legion that has actual members of all four cults, while for the four other undivided Legions, employed mercenary units of World Eaters, Emperor's Children or other Cult units are not an uncommon sight. Night Lords and Alpha Legion would use cult units without hesitation. For Word Bearers it would all depend on the whim of the Host's Dark Apostle. Iron Warriors are less likely to employ outsiders, though the previous Codex describes that they rarely ally with other Legions, including a unit of mercenary World Eaters Berserkers is not really "allying with the World Eaters Legion".

[Dammeron]

Ah, yes. Well, my last post was actually going back to the original question of this thread. Would any official Legion use a mix of cult troops? The Black Legion is the only Legion that has actual members of all four cults, while for the four other undivided Legions, employed mercenary units of World Eaters, Emperor's Children or other Cult units are not an uncommon sight. Night Lords and Alpha Legion would use cult units without hesitation. For Word Bearers it would all depend on the whim of the Host's Dark Apostle. Iron Warriors are less likely to employ outsiders, though the previous Codex describes that they rarely ally with other Legions, including a unit of mercenary World Eaters Berserkers is not really "allying with the World Eaters Legion".

 

 

It's an odd situation; one of the elements of the current codex that I think is entirely laudible is the purported intention of creating a SINGLE all singing, all dancing army list from which the various legions, warbands and their variants can be created if the individual player so chooses. Ideally, this would leave "wiggle room" for those who want to field a traditionally "pure" Iron Warriors, Night Lords or whatever army, whilst also allowing those who wish to field something that has a legion specific "flavour" but is not so rigid in terms of its restrictions (e.g. allowing limited access to cult specific options, etc).

 

The last codex fell down, IMO, by introducing the legion specific army lists. They were unnecessary; if you take the core 3.5 army list, remove the limitations on particular units, refine certain elements (i.e. the availability of daemonic gifts), you have an army list from which one can produce a wide variety of armies, legion specific or otherwise. All they had to do was make options such as "Stealth Adept" or "Siege Experts" standard veteran skills that could be purchased like any other. Then one could have created Iron Warrior or Night Lord specific Plague Marines, Noise Marines or other cult units if one so chose. The introduction of upgrades for Chaos Lords by which they could be adapted to legion-specific characters (Dark apostles, war Smiths, etc) would've also been a means by which the core army list could have stood alone, without the need for the abstruse appendix army lists.

 

Where the current codex falls down is that it threw baby out with the bath water; rather than taking the good from the last codex (character, adaptability, incredible scope for customisation and individuality) it took the lazy option and simply excised that which was problematic, even when there were clear and evident means of tackling the issue (e.g. the problem concerning the application of daemonic rewards could have easily been fixed by simply limiting their availability to a maximum of three for HQs and 2 for none-HQ characters).

 

As to which legions would utilise cult troops, as I mentioned in my original post, it is extremely easy to adapt or re-write the existing fluff or descriptions of the "cult" units to represent specialists within a given army. Alternatively, there is no real reason why most legions would not utilise limited numbers of the cults themselves as mercernaries or expendable allies (save perhaps the Word Bearers, who would undoubtedly regard them as heretical). Also, I personally really like the idea of splinter factions and break away renegade warbands of the original Traitor Legions who have perhaps become corrupted to the worship of a particular chaos god. Certain options within the core army list itself could make it entirely possible to have a band of, say, Night Lord Plague Marines that are subtly distinct from Death Guard Plague Marines (upgraded with Stealth Adept or Acute Senses). I am of the opinion that it is entirely possible to create a single, coherent, characterful, customisable army list for the Chaos Space Marines that will satisfy most if not all players, regardless of their individual perspectives. all it requires is a little time and consideration.