The Chaos Marine Warband

[A D-B]

Chaos has changed.

 

That seems an obvious thing to say, given that Chaos is change, let alone the semi-recent release of the latest Codex: Chaos Space Marines, which shook things up a lot. I'll put it politely when I say that opinion is divided, but the response I've seen online across the various forums - which may or may not hold true to the majority of players - is that this edition's C:CSM is a solid book regarding most mechanics (don't mention dreadnoughts...) and offers some competitive, variable army lists. In regards to the setting and the established lore, it takes a much harder beating.

 

Most of that beating is delivered, one way or another, to Gav Thorpe. He designed the latest codex, so the buck stops with him. People seem to dislike the changes because they were largely for the worse, or because any changes happened at all.

 

I'm not about to pass judgement on any of that. It's just context, and it's neither about defending the writer or accusing him, nor is it about disagreeing with people's opinions one way or the other. I'm not pro- or anti- the new codex.

 

And that's kind of my point. It's there, and I want to get everything I can out of it. I don't want to keep my head filled with army lists that rocked in some semi-mythical golden age, and I don't want to use Counts-As as a kind of holy grail to avoid playing with what's on offer. I have a Codex: Chaos Space Marines, and I want to get into it, to see what I can make rock and roll.

 

I was a Chaos Marine player a couple of editions back, and I really loved what the Index Astartes articles brought to the game. But I never felt like they represented the setting particularly well. They represented gamers' armies very well, yeah. But not the setting. Let me explain that thought a little better.

 

Maybe this is just my perception, but I thought I'd throw it into the mix and see what came out.

 

 

-- The Warband --

 

Chaos Marine armies are not organised by company, by Chapter, or by Legion. Space Marines have companies and Chapters. Space Marines and Chaos Marines both used to have organised Legions. Not anymore.

 

In the 10,000 years since the Horus Heresy, the Traitor Legions have almost entirely dissolved. While the Black Legion - led by the chosen one of the Chaos Gods - has grown immensely powerful, even they spent centuries (perhaps even longer) getting slaughtered by the other Legions. In the Eye of Terror, it's not an empire of peace and mutual respect. Chaos Marines are killing each other, when they're not out killing the people of the Imperium. The World Eaters are the other obvious example of a Legion that was reduced to scattered warbands, by the actions of Khârn the Betrayer. But in 10,000 years, the reason the Black Legion is so powerful is because they are the largest, by far. The other Legions have disintegrated, breaking down through millennia of civil war, battles with the Imperium, wars with other Chaos Marines, and internal rivalries.

 

See, that makes sense to me. I read all of this in various sources, and it makes perfect sense.

 

And this is what was such a change from previous editions. Before, you had Legion-specific rules for playing Chaos Marines as if they were Space Marines, as if the entire army had a unifying theme that immediately defined it on the tabletop. Same colours, same rules - a very easy and appealing theme for a painter and a gamer. But, I'd argue, not really all that accurate to the lore. While warbands made entirely of Traitor Legion Astartes definitely exist in huge numbers, they're still the minority. The Chaos Marines of Warhammer 40,000 are not unified by Legion, or even company. They're barely unified at all, until a powerful champion or warmaster inspires them to rise up together - and even then, they're hardly going to best friends with rival warbands.

 

I'm not saying Renegade Chapters immediately break up, or no Legion remnants remain "true" to what they perceive as their primarch's ideals. But dealing strictly with the Traitor Legions, their primarchs play almost no role in their activities. Abaddon the Despoiler is Warmaster of Chaos, and Lord of the Traitor Legions. The daemon primarchs are locked in their gods' (and their own) perspectives of the Great Game. They're mostly above the petty mortal fighting of armies in the real universe. While they do invade the Imperium from time to time, it's pretty clear their attentions and powers are elsewhere, on an unseen and more vital (to them) level. Some sources contradict this, such as Black Library novels, which have to be based around a specific Legion in order to sell. So you have the Word Bearers (and the upcoming Night Lords) series, both essentially tied to a Legion-specific theme. And the Word Bearers, bless 'em, are one of the few Legions that keeps its individual warbands relatively loyal to one another.

 

Warbands is the key word, here. Chaos Marines - lacking Legions, Chapters, and companies - are divided into armies of warbands, which is anathema to the regulated, traditional Space Marines of the Imperium. Warbands might be temporary or eternal, depending on the theme of unity, as well as the leader's strength and personality. But it's also what makes the Chaos Marines of 5th edition so interesting to me.

 

It's especially clear in the Special Characters. Half of them don't even associate with their Legions, anymore. I mean... that's pretty clear. Space Marine special characters are exemplars of their Chapters. Chaos Marine special characters couldn't usually care less. They're individuals, and they wage war according to their own principles, not only because the Traitor Legions failed, but because they barely exist in the same form anymore.

 

Look at the rules! Look at the sample armies! There's a lot of opportunity for cool armies that might at first seem random on the tabletop, lacking a colour theme - but they're closely bound to the canon. Armies of purely Thousand Sons or Emperor's Children are likely to be rare. Many are dead; others have joined the Black Legion in its powerful expansion; and many others have broken off to their own warbands to serve either a particular god or an inspiring leader. Others will have become leaders themselves, exalting themselves above their brethren to command armies in the name of Chaos Undivided, or their chosen god, or simply in their own name.

 

Chaos armies of 5th edition have inspired me to get back into the game with Chaos Marines, rather than Space Marines, because I feel they finally cling to the lore in the way the setting has always suggested they act. I'm definitely not thrilled about everything: there are plenty of rules I dislike - especially dreadnoughts, and the less-than-inspiring rules for Possessed and Chosen. I'm not big on what happened to daemons, but I see why they did it, and it's not a deal-breaker for me. I don't like that Chaos Marines apparently abandoned every drop pod, Thunderhawk gunship, landspeeder, attack bike, jetbike, etc. when they ran to the Eye of Terror. Jetbikes, especially, would be a cool and thematic difference between Chaos Marines and Space Marines - and they're littered all through the art of Horus Heresy: Collected Visions, so plenty of warbands would still run them.

 

I'm not an apologist for the 5th edition codex. There's plenty I'm disappointed with. I'm sure my disappointments are equal to anyone's. Just because most Chaos Marines are broken into fractured warbands, it doesn't mean there should be no rules for a warband made up entirely of Astartes from the same Legion, still trying to remain together.

 

But there's still potential, and I admit, it's sort of gripped me:

- A struggling Black Legion champion who must turn to other - even weaker Undivided warbands - to unite into a raiding force.

- A powerful Word Bearer daemon prince who draws his forces from the Word Bearers and a coven of Thousand Son sorcerers who ally with him, bringing a small host of Rubric Marines.

- An ambitious Night Lord commander who allies his biker warband with the remnants of an Emperor's Children army they recently defeated, because the Children's commander pledged fealty rather than be destroyed.

- Two Renegade Chapters depleted of strength, joining to survive together and working with several of the Obliterator Cult, who were drawn to the Renegades' updated and recent Imperial wargear.

 

All these ideas and more are spinning around, and I'm kind of amazed so few Chaos armies represent the new codex like this. The rules are there. The sample armies in the codex show that it can look cool. Yet people still play Chaos Marines like Space Marines: "I play Black Legion", "I play Word Bearers", rather than "My warband is themed around two allied commanders uniting the remnants of the Emperor's Children and the Night Lords." Hell, would these two commanders turn on each other one day? Almost definitely. Chaos Marines always turn on each other. In the Eye of Terror, they're always at war, and alliance shift all the time. But it's a cool story, and a cool army.

 

I know which one sounds cooler to me, anyway.

 

So where am I going with this? I just wanted to put forward how I see the new codex, and the way it seems Chaos Marine armies are designed from that. I was wondering if it's true that everyone is so disappointed with the damn thing, that people really don't play like this at all. Is everyone still clinging to "I play this Legion" and struggling to represent it unsatisfactorily in the rules? Would people feel weird facing a Chapter-themed Space Marine army with a Chaos warband of grudgingly allied Legionnaires and Renegades, as if they were somehow not making an army to a theme, like the painting guides and traditional gamer army-building wisdom says?

 

See, this got me thinking. People talk about wanting Codex: Chaos Legions all the time. And to me, that's sort of missing the point. Those Legions are - mostly - gone in the lore/setting/fluff. People playing Legion-specific armies are playing what, in the lore, is the minority of what Chaos Marines are.

 

For myself, I'm still undecided. I like the structure and theme of Legion-specific armies, but I also like the idea of an army painted up in the colours of 2-3 Legions, all allied together through a cool storyline. I guess what I want to know is why does the former appeal to almost everyone, and why is there such resistance to the latter?

[the jeske]

Is everyone still clinging to "I play this Legion" and struggling to represent it unsatisfactorily in the rules?

It is borderline impossible . trying to play pure EC or pure 1ksons is really really hard . I play a NM water build , without oblits [and they maybe many things said about them , but EC they are not] it just doesnt work all[not that it works really well since codex IG , but that is another story] . Some armie get it easier WE LR rush or DG[i just noticed I wrote pms <_<] are if not good , then at least playable . But the undivided legions ??? world of suck . I mean even putting butchered fluff aside , the happy chaos family and the rise of thousand and one renaged chapters [when did so many sm post heresy turn traitor 0_o?] , what we have is carbon copy armies . There is 0 difference between a NL,AL.WB and AL list . people will say but you can use bike/raptors/LSD etc but to be honest those units dont work . they are if not overcosted [i say all of them are] , then pointed in a such a way , that to build a fluffy army[of course what is fluff after the Thorpe dex is another thing to ponder about] people have to gimp their armies beyond playabilty. Taking a big unit of bikes or 2x8 chosen , if it just ment that I put my support section points in to them and that they are a bit weaker [but fluffier] would have been ok . But it is not the case , to take thos units not only the support points are lost , but either the HQ ones too[but cant run bikes or raptors without 2 babysiters for each unit] or the troop ones[well if bikers , raptors or chosen where SS/TH termis , maybe someone could say it is viable] which in a troop centric edition just makes no sense . Maybe GW and Thorpe really did think that the whole world will start to play 2k and 2250 pts battles as standard , maybe there was some other reason to do it [like rushing the codex , because the ork model range wasnt ready] . In the end GW will never tell.

 

 

 

 

 

Those Legions are - mostly - gone in the lore/setting/fluff

NL still have their high command and anwser their call. WB were never broken up . bL all anwser to abadon and abadon only . AL even before the heresy worked in cells . 1ksons are divided in to those loyal to Magnus and the ahriman cabal [that still anwsered magnus call durning the 13th crusade] . EC and WE are broken up . IW are still one force , even if they were in constant state of civil wall . DG are slacking[the primarch loyal] , true but tyfus is marshaling the active ones.

This is how it looked till Gav decided that that chaos marines are a happy family , legion dudes that dont even trust their own brothers now work hand in hand and opposing cult members that were going in to a rage state on sigh of their opponents [unless there was someone like Horus or abadon nearby] suddenlly are bros , because there is one chaos for all. But ranting aside I think that at the basic level people just want to play Evil Batman or Space ninjas and not differentlly color black legion . Ask a DA or BA player what would he think, if GW told him that because their chapters are codex [both are] there will be no dex for them and they should use codex sm .

 

 

ps Also the whole happy chaos family makes no sense [fluffwise] for BL . I mean if every lord or Demon Prince can force marines from many legions to work for him [and he is freaking leadin 60 man tops in a normal game] . then what is so special about BL and abadon ?

Great coalitions make sense at apo level . WE charge the walls , but the big guns are maned by the IW and that drop force inside is a force of terror driven NL. works at 10k points ? yes it does . does it work at 1500 ? not for me.

[Legatus]

I started playing Chaos in 2nd Edition, so the thought of Night Lords Chaos Space Marine units fighting next to squads of World Eater Berserkers or Nurgle Plague marines feels perfectly natural to me. I already tried to make the point that the Legions used to be considered broken down into individual warbands before, but other player have embraced the more purely concentrated Legion forces of the Index Astartes articles and the 3.5 Codex Chaos Space Marines (the previous one). I too enjoyed reading about the individual Legions, and I separated my force into "Nigth Lords" and "World Eaters". And I can still do that if I so wish, but I have no problem mixing them again. I also sometimes try to explain that it was not Gavs idea to have Chaos forces be organised in warbands. This background predates the Index Astartes.

 

I quite like the current Codex, mostly because it does not rely on fancy and difficult for th eopponent to anticipate wargear options but instead has very solid basic unit choices. The best element of all has to be fully equipped Chaos Space Marine squads. Gone are the days where Space Marines carry only their own boltgun in battle. Nowadays they come wit han extra sidearm and grenades for different purposes. The only thing that really bothers me about the Codex is how Icons work, that their bonus can be lost via the Icon bearer's death.

 

A lot of people complain about the loss of wargear options and demons, but those two developements were bound to happen, as they had happened to all the other armies. In the case of demons, GW decided that a "Chaos Space Marines" army should focus on Chaos Space Marines. I kind of miss Bloodletters, but I can understand the decision.

[Ashe Darke]

I don't mix because I don't want to. I'm a big DG fan and I've been a Nurgle fan since the 2nd Ed of the codex was released. So for me to mix would be to detract from what I what I want to do, but that's just me.

 

A lot of people won't mix because they feel it is unfluffy or they just feel that a themed legion army is cooler than a warband. Personally I agree but that's just my opinion.

 

The only people who I've seen who mix are kids who just take a little bit of everything as I find that once people get into the whole fluff of it all they start to think that legions are better than warbands. Whether this agrees with fluff or not is a different matter, some people will ignore fluff, or should I say the fluff that disagrees with their views, to build their chaos armies the way they think chaos is. I think this is kinda the problem with chaos players is that they pick and choose the fluff they like. The other problem is the fluff is diverse and it contradicts itself so it's not surprising arguments happen.

 

Then there is what Jeske always comes back to, competitiveness and how well these armies work. Sure the army might have a cool back story and have a great feel to it but if it sucks arse who is gonna use it?

 

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that someone is more excited about the idea of a warband than legion/legion fraction, but fair enough, people should be allowed to do so if they want.

[A D-B]

I don't mix because I don't want to. I'm a big DG fan and I've been a Nurgle fan since the 2nd Ed of the codex was released. So for me to mix would be to detract from what I what I want to do, but that's just me.

 

A lot of people won't mix because they feel it is unfluffy or they just feel that a themed legion army is cooler than a warband. Personally I agree but that's just my opinion.

 

And I can see why you think it. But warbands can be themed, too. They're just not as easy or immediate to theme. Of course, you're right, it can look awful on the tabletop if every single unit is different. You're just fielding a mess, even if it's a mess that complies with the lore, it's still an eyesore.

 

 

The only people who I've seen who mix are kids who just take a little bit of everything as I find that once people get into the whole fluff of it all they start to think that legions are better than warbands.

 

That's kinda interesting. Like I said, I'm still divided, but I have trouble seeing every single Chaos Marine army as a Legion-specific one, because that makes no sense in the established lore, despite a period where the rules reinforced it - primarily for collecting an army that could be painted to a theme. And yet, conflicting with that, I love Legion-specific armies, because it's satisfying to see on the tabletop, and to play to a certain ruleset.

 

I've never seen kids mix it to comply with the lore, they just do so to get the best variety of units, and that's not a bad thing as a gamer. I'm definitely not saying it takes some rare and elite adult viewpoint to see why a themed warband is better, but it's probably not wrong to say the appeal of a themed warband is more selective and difficult to get into. It doesn't immediately make sense, unless you know the lore. And even for people that do know it, it's not the only interpretation, nor is it always the best way to do things.

 

I play for the lore, and I like to represent it. I don't see it as Big Happy Chaos Families, because that's an intensely skewed view of the canon, and while it makes a great soundbite, it sort of drags the discussion into immature territory. Just because people ally once in a while out of millennia of killing each other, doesn't mean they're pals. I like the notion of themed warbands, depending on the theme itself and the reasons they're fighting together.

 

But again, I like the Legions too much to just abandon them. At this point, I'm certain my army will be centered around a relatively weak/young champion one specific Legion, banding together with a similar counterpart from another - working together as a warband until one of them inevitably betrays the other after a handful of decades. I think that'll still look unified and interesting on the tabletop, as well as offering a variety of units to succeed in-game, and working well with Chaos Marine lore.

[Ashe Darke]

And I can see why you think it. But warbands can be themed, too. They're just not as easy or immediate to theme. Of course, you're right, it can look awful on the tabletop if every single unit is different. You're just fielding a mess, even if it's a mess that complies with the lore, it's still an eyesore.

Yeah, there is definitely room for warbands, but if you're one to do a back ground and a theme for your armies then legions are simpler, most of it is done for you, you just need to personalise it and you're done. Where as a mixed warband it can be more effort what with things like ancient enemies to explain etc. And what is more interesting? An army who was attacking Terra 10,000 years ago or a rag tag war band? The point is that you could put in all the effort to create a back ground and theme only to end up with a potentially semi-interesting army which isn't as interesting as it's legion counterpart.

 

That's kinda interesting. Like I said, I'm still divided, but I have trouble seeing every single Chaos Marine army as a Legion-specific one, because that makes no sense in the established lore, despite a period where the rules reinforced it - primarily for collecting an army that could be painted to a theme. And yet, conflicting with that, I love Legion-specific armies, because it's satisfying to see on the tabletop, and to play to a certain ruleset.

 

I've never seen kids mix it to comply with the lore, they just do so to get the best variety of units, and that's not a bad thing as a gamer. I'm definitely not saying it takes some rare and elite adult viewpoint to see why a themed warband is better, but it's probably not wrong to say the appeal of a themed warband is more selective and difficult to get into. It doesn't immediately make sense, unless you know the lore. And even for people that do know it, it's not the only interpretation, nor is it always the best way to do things.

 

I play for the lore, and I like to represent it. I don't see it as Big Happy Chaos Families, because that's an intensely skewed view of the canon, and while it makes a great soundbite, it sort of drags the discussion into immature territory. Just because people ally once in a while out of millennia of killing each other, doesn't mean they're pals. I like the notion of themed warbands, depending on the theme itself and the reasons they're fighting together.

 

But again, I like the Legions too much to just abandon them. At this point, I'm certain my army will be centered around a relatively weak/young champion one specific Legion, banding together with a similar counterpart from another - working together as a warband until one of them inevitably betrays the other after a handful of decades. I think that'll still look unified and interesting on the tabletop, as well as offering a variety of units to succeed in-game, and working well with Chaos Marine lore.

In all fairness this is based on what I have seen personally. Kids with Thousand Sons and Plague Marines etc. He just took them because he thought they were cool, not for a theme etc. Everyone else I know who does chaos and isn't a kid does either a legion or a god. I'm sure there are people do mix for a tactical gain, but I bet any fluff attached to the army is only their to explain their 'odd' choices rather something they intentionally did.

 

See you appear to be thinking in the way how I think they intended people to with regards to this codex. The fluff in there is the more recent stuff so really you should be taking this into account and the gaming contents of the book is based on this text. So while it can allow people to do the legion armies because telling people they can't do that any more is mad, it is intended to go hand in hand with the fluff in the book. I tend to find people are using the gaming content of this book, because they have to, and combining it with fluff from elsewhere, the fluff they like, the fluff they best think represents chaos etc. And while they're not wrong to do so, the company seem to be trying to break away from that towards a newer idea of what chaos is doing as the millennium comes to an end.

 

I can see why you would want to stick to the lore and why you're thinking that a warband is more likely the kind of average chaos army people would face, but I think people are more happy with their 'sure it's rare but it's not completely off the table' armies, or just ignore that bit of fluff. I have tanks in my DG army and Index Astartes pretty much says no, so while it's a slim chance, I'm happy with saying 'they're a rare bunch' or 'they pooled all their tanks together' etc as this is 5th Ed and mechanisation is key and a competitive army is more important than sticking to subjective fluff. This is assuming I'm using IA as the basis of my army as any fluff is considered canon yet subjective so you can pretty much just ignore any bits you don't like to do as you want with your armies.

 

I personally don't think you see a lot of warbands is because if you're into backgrounds it's potentially more effort for less 'cool factor' and most the people who play chaos still cling to those older articles about legions which are still technically valid.

[Clewz]

Think "The Skull harvest" by Graham Mcneil is good way of setting the background fluff for the mixed warband idea. The respective forces have had the lord defeated so pledge an uneasy loyalty to the conqouring champion.

[the jeske]

A lot of people complain about the loss of wargear options and demons, but those two developements were bound to happen, as they had happened to all the other armies.

legatus . what kind of important unit did orks , IG , SW lose or nids and more so how many new unit types did those armies get [am not couting demons because they got a whole new army , they didnt have since 2ed] ?

 

I quite like the current Codex, mostly because it does not rely on fancy and difficult for th eopponent to anticipate wargear options but instead has very solid basic unit choices

Ok I think I understand this wrong here. Do you want to say , that the good thing about chaos sm is that every chaos sm player no matter what army he played plays the same stuff ?

 

Then there is what Jeske always comes back to, competitiveness and how well these armies work. Sure the army might have a cool back story and have a great feel to it but if it sucks arse who is gonna use it?

sometimes it is bad to be the powerplayer [funny thing at home am seen as one of those crazy fluff heads :)] . To be more precise it is not just the case of good build vs bad build . I played AL in 3.5 , could it be made fluffy ? yeah with cultists , csm with shoty squad , nicelly places havocks etc. But compering to BL khorn or IW or even the various demon bomb builds it was a joke army . It wasnt the uber infiltration army of doom[someone places an infiltrating units before you in the middle of the table and bam your army starts more or less in the deployment zone] , the NL with their raptors and bikes and visage ? the same . 1ksons thrall build ? fluffy but unplayable [not much changed here GW hates 1kson god knows why] . WB well they had a brutal demon bomb and an ok gunline list , but when someone [and a lot of people did] try to make the 3x8 rhino 2x5 mini/max build it was a watered down BL khorn build. those legion armies were the best armies you could do with the codex [or rather the number of really really good ones was way smaller then the number of "fluffy ok , but nothing special" builds ] , but they were yours , there is nothing my in a AL list that looks 100% the same as a WB one and has cosmetical difference from a DG build . And as people tend to forget it , if someone wanted to play AL with zerkers and slany demons[coming out of 2x3 bikers] etc in it there was nothing stoping him from using AL painted marines with BL rules .

 

People that played chaos just for power builds left chaos really fast after IG dex came out , it is plain a better codex with more options to play with [and units that are actually undercosted the chaos dex does not have one viable choice that costs too few points] . But the real problem with the dex was not that it was made or that options were cut [i agree here with legatus that a lot of stuff would have been removed] , but how it was done . Why no option for "special" asp champion , every new dex seems to have it[and let me remind people that codex orks was ready before codex chaos sm] ? why cant the icon be picked up ? why the copy past of old special characters and not one new one ? why no new unit type ?

I mean really even the DA got the jet bike bike and that was the JJ-cut all options codex.

Just because people ally once in a while out of millennia of killing each other, doesn't mean they're pals. I like the notion of themed warbands, depending on the theme itself and the reasons they're fighting together.

ok am not getting this . i buy and build a 1500 army . I play with it all the time [unless i play some other army], how is the alliance happening from time to time ? Even durning the crusades the legions worked under abadon , but almost never on the same zone .unless it was something like IW siege engines doing their job . but it was never a DG lord leading his trusted zerker band supported from range by noise marines . I cant remember one story when something like that happens . Horuse had two demons , some lords have a sub cult in their armies[like the khorn quarters huron has on his ship] , but muliti legion space marines in one force ? didnt happen since the orginal flight of the eisenstein.

 

 

 

 

 

 

God I still remember that quote from JJ about how cool it would be to have a Khorn Lord led a unit of 1ksons and how we had to anwser the question about why the new chaos dex looks how it looks . 2 of the worse hours in my life , when we had to convince people that no GW is not planing to do the same to all other w40k armies , it is still worth to buy the book [and oh how bad did the translated version sell] , yes there is a legion book in plans [and then Thorpe "left"desing] . I dont think I ever felt worse in my gaming life then when I had to tell people what good the new chaos dex gives us.

[Ashe Darke]

ok am not getting this . i buy and build a 1500 army . I play with it all the time [unless i play some other army], how is the alliance happening from time to time ? Even durning the crusades the legions worked under abadon , but almost never on the same zone .unless it was something like IW siege engines doing their job . but it was never a DG lord leading his trusted zerker band supported from range by noise marines . I cant remember one story when something like that happens . Horuse had two demons , some lords have a sub cult in their armies[like the khorn quarters huron has on his ship] , but muliti legion space marines in one force ? didnt happen since the orginal flight of the eisenstein.

I think this is one of the points he is trying to make. Why are we only making lists based on fluff that already exists? We make legion armies, we have their fluff. We make god armies, well that's easy and understandable. But why aren't we thinking out the box and making up these complex backgrounds to support these mixed choices etc. The point I think he was trying to make is (correct me if I'm wrong), why limit army themes to that which we've read about when it is implied we can do what we want, especially seen as the typical army should be a warband.

[Legatus]

legatus . what kind of important unit did orks , IG , SW lose or nids and more so how many new unit types did those armies get [am not couting demons because they got a whole new army , they didnt have since 2ed] ?

Orks had lost some units with their 3rd Edition Codex (weirdboys, boarboys, the cool "cannons" reduced to three generic ones), They got back the weirdboys in the current Codex, but still no cy-boars. 'Ard Boys and Skar Boys got consolidated into one single upgrade for regular Boys. IG had lost some units with their 4th Edition Codex (Exterminators, Griffons), but got them back now (and then some).

Chaos overall has gotten 5 new units since 2nd Edition (Raptors, Obliterators, Possessed, Defilers and Vindicators), just not this time around. Well, maybe the Vindicator, which was only a limited option for the Iron Warriors in the last Codex.

What units did Chaos lose since the last Codex (besides demons)? Alpha Legion Cultists. And Basilisks.

 

 

Ok I think I understand this wrong here. Do you want to say , that the good thing about chaos sm is that every chaos sm player no matter what army he played plays the same stuff ?

Not really, no. That's not what I see in the GW shops either. What I am saying is that I like how Berserkers are a very good unit, as you buy it. You are not taking one unit and tweak it with extra options, giving them chain axes to make them worth it. You buy the unit, get a Champion, and they are good to go. You buy some Chaos Marines and they come with boltgun and close combat weapons, as well as assault and anti-vehicle grenades. You don't need to buy anything else and a simple Chaos Marine already is a threat to the majority of vehicles and units in the game.

 

 

Edit:

Horuse had two demons , some lords have a sub cult in their armies[like the khorn quarters huron has on his ship] , but muliti legion space marines in one force ? didnt happen since the orginal flight of the eisenstein.

Well, there are the Index Astartes Night Lords, Alpha Legion, World Eaters and Noise Marines that flat out state that these Legions will often fight at the side of other Legion units, either by employing them or by fighting for them. The Iron Warriors are described in teh 3.5 Codex to be mistrusting of other Legion units (though Berserkers and Noise Marines cannot truly be refered to as members of any Legion anymore), and the Word Bearers are described as having kept more of a Legion cohesion, other than the rest of the Legions. I think the Black Legion, Death Guard and Thousand Sons are not specifically said to only fight at the side of their former Legion members.

[IronWinds]

The legions are broken up. Well first off, no, but that has been hit. Should they get their own rules. Well lets see. There are thousands of IWs, thousands of WBs, thousands of NLs, etc. And even the others, they still have pieces of their former legions that still work how they used to, so lets say at least 1000 for each. There are 1000 Blood Angels, and they have their own codex... legions just want 2-4 pages each like they use to have. So anyone who argues that legions should not have rules because they are too broken needs to look at even smaller armies that have rules.

 

Think "The Skull harvest" by Graham Mcneil is good way of setting the background fluff for the mixed warband idea. The respective forces have had the lord defeated so pledge an uneasy loyalty to the conqouring champion.

 

And McNeil's first book about chaos was Storm of Iron which focused on a legion doing very large organized battles. Skull Harvest was just McNeil selling out to Gav's new codex. Nothing in McNeil's early works had anything to do with warbands, and while SoI had fluff flaws it was the best of the IW books he wrote. In DSBS the IWs were making more marines so why would they recruit warbands... not to mention IWs are extremely paranoid, and trust no one, not really even each other so rag tag mercenaries they picked up at a gladiator fest are probably not on the list of possible recruits(unless your name is Honsue). I'm just glad other chaos writers are holding true to their characters' fluff. You don't see Marduk fighting in the pits to get more warriors when he already has an entire host :) .

 

They are changing the fluff, yes it happens. But lets see, the chaos legions stayed organized for 10,000 years, and its only in the 11,000th year they decide to break up and be warbands(also keeping on mind time goes by differently in the warp). No, that makes no sense ;) . I find it more likely that the chaos codex was a rushed job w/ no new units(actually we lost 1/3 of our units), less fluff, less rules, less content, and overall a codex that drove off players. Someone tell me it was not a rushed job. We didn't even really get new models. The new CSMs don't really look any better than the old ones. The new termies and termy lord are nice, the possessed models are nice but their rules are not, but we still have the same 'OLD' dreadnought model, the same special character models, the same bikes, tanks, etc. When other armies get new codexs they get new units and new models. The 4th ed codex was a rushed job, a bad job, and a slap in the face to what was once 40ks second largest line. What else is sad, there were and still are armies that NEED new dexs for 5th ed(Necrons, DE, Tau, -I-, etc.) and many chaos players, especially the ones that quit playing would have rather just kept 3.5 longer. You could make a warband with that one if you wanted, but you had more options if you didn't.

 

 

The people's preference, Legions or Warbands. You can argue this a billion ways, you could even have a poll. I however look at sales. 3.5 chaos was the second best selling army at that time, second only to loyalist marines. Now it is no where near being second. I would say many of your old chaos players who loved legions no longer play chaos because they hate warbands, and if we could see their opinions on a daily basis these forums would be even more anti-Gav's codex.

 

Fluffy: If you want to go off fluff a chaos army, warband or legion 1850 list would really be 100-200 cultists/traitors/mutants led by 0-20 chaos marines. So what was fluffy was LatD which also went the way of the dinosaurs with the 3.5 codex.

 

 

Why are we only making lists based on fluff that already exists? We make legion armies, we have their fluff. We make god armies, well that's easy and understandable. But why aren't we thinking out the box and making up these complex backgrounds to support these mixed choices etc.

 

There are some extremes that make no sense. You could have NMs and zerkers in the same army in 3.5. You could have TSs and PMs in the same army. What you couldn't do was have Kharne lead NMs into battle. Kharne got his reputation in a battle with the EC, he hates them more than he does many alien races. It would be like having Kharne lead eldar into battle. Why can't I do that? I could create some off the wall outside the box fluff that supported that.... doesn't mean it should be a legal list. That is people's problem. You could make weird armies before, my roommate had a warband not a legion in 3.5. And even he is against mixing ancient enemies... they are 'ancient' enemies, the time span of 1000 years is not going to change millions of years of hatred.

[Legatus]

The legions are broken up. Well first off, no, but that has been hit.

 

(...)

 

They are changing the fluff, yes it happens. But lets see, the chaos legions stayed organized for 10,000 years, and its only in the 11,000th year they decide to break up and be warbands(also keeping on mind time goes by differently in the warp). No, that makes no sense

Actually, that is old 2nd Edition fluff, which Gav merely reiterated. Over 10,000 (warp-relative) years of infighting the Legions were all broken down into individual warbands. The idea that the Legions are still distinct and cohesive and pursuing their own agendas has been introduced with the Index Astartes articles. These articles presented one Legion each, so it is only natural that they would give the impression that the Legions are still independent operationg formations (despite a few explicite statements to the contrary), which is what Pete Haines pretty much went with in the 3.5 Codex.

[Ashe Darke]

There are some extremes that make no sense. You could have NMs and zerkers in the same army in 3.5. You could have TSs and PMs in the same army. What you couldn't do was have Kharne lead NMs into battle. Kharne got his reputation in a battle with the EC, he hates them more than he does many alien races. It would be like having Kharne lead eldar into battle. Why can't I do that? I could create some off the wall outside the box fluff that supported that.... doesn't mean it should be a legal list. That is people's problem. You could make weird armies before, my roommate had a warband not a legion in 3.5. And even he is against mixing ancient enemies... they are 'ancient' enemies, the time span of 1000 years is not going to change millions of years of hatred.

Well that's what I said, a lot of people just plain disagree with it. As a creative person I guess he's gonna be expanding on ideas and opening his mind up to them more so than people who have been playing chaos for years. I guess the question should be 'why aren't people doing armies based on the more recent fluff?'. I think the answer is probably 'because we don't have to'.

[DaemonPrinceDargor]

Frankly,i liked the IA articles and 3/3.5 fluff better than 2nd and 4th edition.I started with Chaos during the last days of 2nd but i really really dont care about stuff like the "Company of Misery" or "Some-random-guy's Reavers" etc.Imho,Chaos is all about the Legions.They were there during the Heresy.They started it all.They are bitter,hateful veterans of a thousand battles that spit on the Emperor and fought in front of his palace.The majesty of the Legions cant be contested by random bands of raiders or the happy colective that passes as "Chaos" today.

 

Most BL novels are official fluff and i stick by them for the time being.IW in Storm of Iron,WBs in mr Reynold's novels,thats how i like my Chaos.

 

Of course GW will never admit they rushed the codex.It was the brief,disasterful reign of Jervis that messed things up.The man just had 2nd edition in his mind and his thinking didnt progress(look at the DA and BA codexes,2nd edition way of thinking with 4th/5th edition rules and setting = disaster).GW is a company first and they have to make money,thus they are going to stand by their product and squizze every last penny out of it before giving us a new one.So i guess all us people that like the Legions can do is wait...

 

 

 

 

Cheers! :unsure:

[Ashe Darke]

Most BL novels are official fluff and i stick by them for the time being.IW in Storm of Iron,WBs in mr Reynold's novels,thats how i like my Chaos.

 

All Black Library books are official fluff. In fact anything with the GW logo on it is considered official fluff apparently.

[A D-B]

The legions are broken up. Well first off, no, but that has been hit.

 

The published lore, almost overwhelmingly, says the Legions are broken up compared to their original incarnations. Yes, many warbands still maintain Legion-specific forces, and yes, several of the Legions still maintain vague ties of overall cohesion. But the majority of Chaos Marines are essentially divided, with varying degrees of loyalty and hatred to their leaders and one another. That's one of the things that makes it so dramatic and cool. They have difficulty even trusting their own brothers.

 

Again, there are nuances, here. The Legions aren't towering monolithic entities, anymore. Even the "unified" ones are splintered into warbands that make up the old Legion, and have their share of rivalries. It's not as clear cut as "Everyone is splintered" or "Everyone is still in the Legions". Simplifying it that much misses a lot of the point, and reduces the entire discussion to nothingness.

 

 

So anyone who argues that legions should not have rules because they are too broken needs to look at even smaller armies that have rules.

 

No one has argued that in this thread. Again, there are degrees of subtlety here. It's not just one way or the other, no matter how much someones likes it that way.

 

 

And McNeil's first book about chaos was Storm of Iron which focused on a legion doing very large organized battles. Skull Harvest was just McNeil selling out to Gav's new codex.

 

This is difficult to respond to, because you're ascribing personal irritation and essentially guessing at an author's intentions as he reveals more of his view on a setting. But because you dislike that broader view, you insult the writer. Difficult to respond to, and no offence, but pretty infantile.

 

 

They are changing the fluff, yes it happens. But lets see, the chaos legions stayed organized for 10,000 years, and its only in the 11,000th year they decide to break up and be warbands(also keeping on mind time goes by differently in the warp). No, that makes no sense

 

You're right, and if it was true, it would make no sense. But they've been broken up for a long time. Coming to terms with that is sort of... the whole deal, here. Denying it is all fine and good, but when it's established lore from several editions, I'd rather see how it can be made into a cool army, rather than pretending it's not there and getting in a bad mood.

 

 

There are some extremes that make no sense. You could have NMs and zerkers in the same army in 3.5. You could have TSs and PMs in the same army. What you couldn't do was have Kharne lead NMs into battle. Kharne got his reputation in a battle with the EC, he hates them more than he does many alien races. It would be like having Kharne lead eldar into battle. Why can't I do that? I could create some off the wall outside the box fluff that supported that.... doesn't mean it should be a legal list.

 

I agree. But we're all smart and reasonable people, here. I'm trying to approach this from the point of view of a realistic (in the setting) Chaos Marine army, and staying true to the lore is what everyone else so far seems to wanna do. So it's not about making technically legal lists that slaughter everyone and aren't possible in the lore. It's not about making "fluff off the wall". It's about trying to make a realistic Chaos Marine army, and the published lore most often shows that the Chaos Marines are reduced to warbands.

 

The trick is, some people see the word warband and say "BUT THE LEGIONS ARE THERE!!!!!!" as if there's no grey area. It's all grey. A Word Bearer army is still a Word Bearer warband; they just have ties to a greater Legion structure. Most CHaos Marines, however, don't really seem to have that greater structure anymore; until powerful leaders force them to work together.

 

Is there really nothing interesting in that? Does it really need to be looking back at a single edition with different lore and saying "Everything sucks now"? I don't like the new codex much, though I wouldn't say I was "anti-Codex", exactly. I certainly don't think it rocks the world. But it brings back a lot of already-established lore, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think a lot of the issue here is people that came into the setting with 3.5 and the Index Astartes articles, and assumed from the rules for Legion-specific armies that the Legions were still united and got on really great.

[A D-B]

Imho,Chaos is all about the Legions.They were there during the Heresy.They started it all.They are bitter,hateful veterans of a thousand battles that spit on the Emperor and fought in front of his palace.

 

I know I agree with that. But until Legion-specific rules slide back in, I can still represent those guys pretty well in their current state, after 10,000 years of civil war, rivalry, corruption, and shifting allegiances. THere's no need to adopt a completely negative outlook, when there's a positive side to it all.

[A D-B]

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that someone is more excited about the idea of a warband than legion/legion fraction, but fair enough, people should be allowed to do so if they want.

 

That's it, though. An army made up of a force from two or three Legions is a warband. I can get excited about that, easily. I admit, I'm not a fan of Renegade Chapters, but I respect that some people dig the idea.

 

The deal is, some people see that "mixing" as childish, impure, or not true to the lore. It's none of those things; there's more official lore pointing to the Traitor Legions being semi-fractured and banding together than there is of them just living in perfect harmony the way they were 10,000 years ago.

[DaemonPrinceDargor]

All Black Library books are official fluff. In fact anything with the GW logo on it is considered official fluff apparently.

 

I dont think they are going to include mr Swallow's Blood Angels civil war in the official fluff,but that remains to be seen.

 

 

Cheers! :P

[Ashe Darke]

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that someone is more excited about the idea of a warband than legion/legion fraction, but fair enough, people should be allowed to do so if they want.

 

That's it, though. An army made up of a force from two or three Legions is a warband. I can get excited about that, easily. I admit, I'm not a fan of Renegade Chapters, but I respect that some people dig the idea.

 

The deal is, some people see that "mixing" as childish, impure, or not true to the lore. It's none of those things; there's more official lore pointing to the Traitor Legions being semi-fractured and banding together than there is of them just living in perfect harmony the way they were 10,000 years ago.

Well I'm not one to write a back ground but I definitely consider my DG army to be a splinter force from the other DG forces seen as they're pre-heresy colours, so no longer functioning as part of a bigger legion, if it's still around. I personally don't think it as childish and not something I would get outraged about, in fact if it makes people happy and it means they enjoy the hobby then I'm fine with it, but a mixed not something that appeals to me over legion splinters.

 

I think you're right though, a lot of people take 3.5 as the bible of chaos and anything different was just a mistake. But as I've pointed this out elsewhere, the people who get funny about ancient enemies is a bit amusing as when chaos was first created for a titan game Adeptus Mechanicus (as I've been told), it was Tzeentch/Khorne and Nurgle/Slaanesh that didn't get on. This makes more sense to me as you have the psykers and anti-psykers not getting on. That is quite a big difference compared to a progressing time line.

 

I think one could argue that turmoil and confusion during those 10,000 years that they might forgo these rivalries that live in what has to be dwindling numbers of chaos marines, to find a sense of purpose which, from what I've read is what marines get kinda funny about. I don't see why new initiates would start to hold grudges against people they haven't met, god knows the world would be a lot more friendlier if everyone thought like that, but to say 'they hate each other and them working together is NEVER gonna happen' is a bit narrow minded and goes against what they're trying say is the current state of affairs. I do wonder what people would do if they write a irrefutable bit of fluff about all these things that could apparently never happen. GW is far too subtle for that though.

 

I dont think they are going to include mr Swallow's Blood Angels civil war in the official fluff,but that remains to be seen.

Well what I said was based on a quote from another thread. I like to use the word apparently in there just for some wiggle room. I've not read it but it would be interesting if information from there ended up in the new codex. Don't forget that while it's canon, it's also subjective. So true yet deniable. Yeah they keep things simple don't they.

[Gree]

Alright, my two cents on the whole situation.

 

At first I hated the new codex , but then I grew to appreciate it more and more. It always seemed to be cool to me to have various legions in one force. In my current army I run Black Legion, Night Lords and Emperor’s Children together.

 

I think something intresting is that Forge World presents many of those warbands as just traitor legion offshots with different color schemes and not so much as Renagade marines or a hodgepodge of different legions as splinter factions of the legions with different color schemes. I always got the impression the 4th edition codex implied they were mere renagades.

 

(On a side note are you really Aaron Dembski-Bowden? I liked Shadow Knight and Cadian Blood and am looking forward to Helsreach and Soul Hunter)

[Lay]

And what if we all embrace the supposed emphasis on "warbands" in this Codex? It's still a rag. The book is not so much about warbands as it is about "Spiky Marines" - both in terms of fluff and rules.

 

The background in the current Codex provides no distinct direction, no overall concept that defines Chaos Marines. Instead, it goes backwards and dismantles some of the previously established fluff without giving anything worthwhile in return. It doesn't explore warbands any more than it explores the legions or recent renegades.

What passes as new fluff is a number of colourschemes with names attached to them. There being a "Brotherhood of Darkness" or magical armour with real lightning isn't enough material to form a solid theme for warbands.

On the other hand we have random snippets of the Legions ...no, I mean Legion warbands and their shenanigans. Enough to remind us that they are still there (in some form).

The only parts with some meat on them are the single page that describes the Black Legion or the lengthy background about the Red Corsairs. Everything else is vague and interchangeable.

Now, Forge World did it right. The 3rd book of their Siege of Vraks series lets CSM act as warbands. The Codex doesn't go beyond the term.

 

But really, that's not the point, is it? The way I understand it, is that we should accept that we've moved away from distinct and separate legions, simply because they've splintered into warbands - as if the two concepts were mutually exclusive.

So, what IS a warband? You cannot argue against legion rules or the notion of legions simply by putting emphasis on the concept of mixed warbands, while admitting that there are "warbands made entirely of Traitor Legion Astartes definitely exist[ing] in huge number". Or acknowledge the existence of legion focussed stories in BL publications (and I disagree that this only so in order to sell books - though, even if that was true, what does that tell us about the justification of Legions?).

GW even provides rules for a pure Emperor's Children warband here.

 

Is this what warbands should be according to the fluff:

But there's still potential, and I admit, it's sort of gripped me:

- A struggling Black Legion champion who must turn to other - even weaker Undivided warbands - to unite into a raiding force.

- A powerful Word Bearer daemon prince who draws his forces from the Word Bearers and a coven of Thousand Son sorcerers who ally with him, bringing a small host of Rubric Marines.

- An ambitious Night Lord commander who allies his biker warband with the remnants of an Emperor's Children army they recently defeated, because the Children's commander pledged fealty rather than be destroyed.

- Two Renegade Chapters depleted of strength, joining to survive together and working with several of the Obliterator Cult, who were drawn to the Renegades' updated and recent Imperial wargear.

"Armies can be built to represent just one these legions or an alliance of the members of several, bound together by the magnetism of an especially powerful lord." That's from the 3.5 Codex, page 2.

Really, anything this Codex has to offer could be done with the previous one's vanilla list. The lack of rules and focus in this codex is NOT an increase of possibilities. Any of the ideas above would have worked in the 3.5 Codex. The whole "mixed warband" notion would've been just as valid.

 

In short, I don't see distinct and separate legions as outdated.

[A D-B]

But really, that's not the point, is it? The way I understand it, is that we should accept that we've moved away from distinct and separate legions, simply because they've splintered into warbands - as if the two concepts were mutually exclusive.

 

They're definitely not mutually exclusive. That's the point.

 

Again, it's not black and white. The entire crux is that it doesn't need to be one thing or the other. There are shades of grey. A Legion splintered into warbands that relatively get along fine is still a bunch of warbands that make up a Legion. Warbands are rife with possibility, which is what they're supposed to be. But the word seems to have come to mean "Renegade LOL losers who use every unit to screw with fluff LOL bad codex." And I think that's missing the point.

 

So, what IS a warband? You cannot argue against legion rules or the notion of legions simply by putting emphasis on the concept of mixed warbands, while admitting that there are "warbands made entirely of Traitor Legion Astartes definitely exist[ing] in huge number".

 

Of course you can. It's not black and white. There are nuances. Some Legions, although fragmented compared to the way they were in the Horus Heresy, still maintain varying degrees of Legion unity. Therefore, many warbands will be made up entirely of Legion-specific Chaos Marines. This is already acknowledged, and doesn't go against the notion that most warbands are made up of Chaos Marines bound together by god-worship or a charismatic leader, rather than Legion allegiance. But again, I'm just pointing it out. It seems being able to see both sides of the coin somehow angers people, who then accuse you of only seeing it from a pro-warband perspective.

 

 

Or acknowledge the existence of legion focussed stories in BL publications (and I disagree that this only so in order to sell books - though, even if that was true, what does that tell us about the justification of Legions?).

 

That's another good point, and one I agree with. The Legions are marketable, the same way all factions are. They provide lore, rules, themes, and are easily recognisable. They allow players to identify with their faction, and be recognised as a player of said faction. That has incredible appeal across many games: RPG designers almost always include "splats" (clans, classes, races, etc.) rather than freeform character generation, because the more structured games sell better, play better, and so on.

 

The rest of your point isn't that valid, though. People will buy a Word Bearer or a Night Lord book over a generic mixed Chaos Marine book, for the reasons stated above and more. I guarantee you, if I pitched a book about a warband of random mixed Chaos Marines, unless it had a very specific theme (like, say, 4 books - one each about the followers of a particular god) my editors would say no to it. They'd likely say it wouldn't sell, and that it's better to focus on Legion-specific books, as they're immediately recognisable. It's naive to say a generic Space Marine book would sell, either. Ones focused on specific Chapters sell plenty. A book about a bunch of them all hanging out (outside of the Deathwatch, a popular specific Chapter) wouldn't sell as much, and I'd expect my editors would look at me like I was mental if I pitched it. "Pitch a Chapter series", they'd say - or something similar.

 

At no point have I said warbands are better, or that Legions aren't marketable. I don't think warbands are better, and I think Legions are infinitely more popular and much more appealing on the surface. I'm just saying it's not retarded to see the big picture, and not stubbornly cling to lore you prefer without at least acknowledging the possibility other stuff makes sense. Seeing the shades of grey where warbands are concerned shouldn't get people venting spleen at you because they don't like the lore from several editions of the game, or a particular codex now. It's not a great codex. We've all said that. Is it a crime to see the bright side?

 

In short, I don't see distinct and separate legions as outdated.

 

Neither do I. But I acknowledge they're in much different (and often worse) shape than they were before 10,000 years of civil war across thousands of daemon worlds; killing each other; internal rivalries; varying god worship; and wars with the Imperium. It's published lore from various editions, not just common sense. You can have Legions that still cling to unity, and Legion-specific warbands. I prefer it that way myself, at the core of it all. But it's not a sin to see it both ways.

[A D-B]

(On a side note are you really Aaron Dembski-Bowden? I liked Shadow Knight and Cadian Blood and am looking forward to Helsreach and Soul Hunter)

 

You read Shadow Knight? Yikes. That was rare.

 

Your Index Astartes: Eagle Claws rocks the house, by the way.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

I missed this thread earlier, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. Sorry if this has been said.

 

My views basically agree with the OP. What you've said makes perfect sense to me. The problem is making a competitive list with it all. The codex has one obvious powerbuild that is the most effective: Lash princes, berserkers/pms, and oblits. So it isn't just a matter of people wanting to play legions. Its also the matter of everybody not wanting to be stuck playing the same army. Which they are. You can try to make a nice diverse army with lots of different and fluffy units, but if you want to win its just going to be death guard allied with world eaters led by black legion princes of slaanesh, with mercs from the oblit cult. The diverse and fluffy anything goes warbands that this dex is supposed to be about aren't viable on the tabletop. And its not even that they aren't optimal or aren't tournament builds. Its that they are REALLY bad for the most part.