On Word Bearers and Worship

[The Prophet]

“Armed with zealous faith in Chaos in all its myriad forms, the Word Bearers waged an unholy war against Man even before the Horus Heresy erupted.” [1]

 

 

 

 

 

(This is a long text I’m afraid. If you disagree with my theses, please read all of it before responding.)

 

 

 

 

 

I believe some people confuse the background of this game with the current or the previous rules for it. For example, there is a difference between the background description of an Accursed Crozius and the 4++ save it used to confer game wise, which people tend to forget. Though few people think of terminator armour as something that must give you a 3+ save with 2D6.

 

We have the background on one hand, and the codex with the rules on the other. To create a “fluffy” army list, your army background should fit with the rules you intend to use from the codex. Therefore, it’s not a background wise problem to have units in your army to “count as” something else in the codex rules, if your interpretation of the background corresponds well with how it will be used game wise. For example, the zealous and fearless word bearers, as described in the background, could take several units of Khorne berzerkers – counting them as the most fearless and hating zealots high on religion that they have at their disposal.

 

With this in mind (which I think most of you agree with), I will go further and argue that a Word Bearer player should not feel bad about taking a list with any of the following:

1) Daemons of any specific chaos god.

2) Icons of any specific chaos god.

3) Marks of any specific chaos god.

 

I don’t say that “anything goes” – I would for example not consider an army made entirely out of blue and yellow Thousand Sons to be a Word Bearer host – but for reasons below I think many fellow WB players put unnessesary restrictions on themselves. That being said, I do not think a list without god-aligned daemons, icons or marks is in any way less fitting background wise. This argument is for an inclusive rather than exclusive view on how to create your WB army lists.

 

 

---------------------------

 

 

The use of god-aligned daemons is widespread among WB players, for good reasons. Not only because almost all models out there belongs to the four major powers, but because the “lesser daemons” background wise must be of some type, and if they’re not furies or kathartes, there is the classical daemons of Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle and Slaanesh left.

 

Even when it comes to summoning greater daemons, the typical WB player goes with god-aligned ones. And why should they not? The WB worship every single one of the four powers, and receive aid in different forms of daemons. There is one daemonic unit though that many refrain from using god-aligned – the daemon prince. I believe that this is because many think of the princes mainly as former WB astartes, and that such individuals could not previously have bore any god-specific mark. But this is wrong, and I will explain why.

 

We could early read the following about Lorgar:

 

“So it was that even before Horus had been corrupted, Lorgar began to worship the gods of Chaos. He revelled in the different aspects of each of the Dark Powers, but worshipped no one in the

preference to another.” [2]

 

Passages like these, which talks of chaos in its myriad forms [3] and chaos as a pantheon [4], must be properly understood to grasp the religion of the WB. Though Lorgar and his legion do not worship any god exclusively, they do revel in the different aspects of the Dark Gods, and worship them all. The Chaos Pantheon is a collection of gods, not an abstract idea of disorder.

 

Icons and marks can be understood in the relation between the believer and the Gods he believe in. The icon is a religious symbol that shows the direction of worship, i.e.

Believer --> God. The mark is a blessing in the opposite direction, i.e. God --> Believer.

 

Whereas rituals and items of religion in a pantheon of course can be of a collective form, where all gods are venerated at the same time, it does not have to be so exclusively. The ancient greek or roman who venerated the multitude of gods in their pantheon, did often have celebrations and prayers in accordance to the aspects of their different gods. Before travelling at sea, a specific offering to Poseidon would be appropriate, even if he was but one of their gods. The very same I think should be thought about Lorgar’s worship, where he revel in the different aspects of the Chaos Gods. The Word Bearers’ worship is not about lacking flavour, it's about tasting everything!

 

A Dark Apostle could for example condemn the lives of a planet as an offering to Khorne, or order a ritual of sorcery for Tzeentch, without betraying his belief in the rest of the pantheon. He could surely demand a group of his host to do the ritual for him as well, in which an icon of the specific god could be used. A Dark Apostle would never hesitate to make a pact with any of the major powers, and neither would his followers hesitate to carry out orders of that kind.

 

But what about the other direction, of the marks? We know that

“The Legion can field more Daemons than any other Chaos Space Marine force and has access to unique blasphemous gifts and skills” [5]

 

This access to unique blasphemous gifts and skills is a great aid for the Word Bearers, and it is given by the Gods as a compensation for the Word Bearers commitment and actions. In the old chaos codex we can read how this background where to be represented game wise:

 

“To represent the gifts bestowed on a Chaos Champion you are allowed to buy Marks of Chaos for the Chaos Space Marine characters in your army [---]. Chaos Lords can have one or more Marks

of Chaos, and can even bear the Marks of all four Chaos Gods if desired. Horus is the most infamous example of such a Chaos Lord, being favoured by all four of the Chaos Gods at one time or

another.” [6]

 

While the Mark of Chaos Ascendant is not possible game wise in the current codex, this text explains what marks are about, and how a pantheon worshipper can receive blessings from either one or a multitude of gods. As said, the WB have access to unique blasphemous gifts, and with the previous “gifts of chaos” gone, what better could represent it game wise than the marks in the current codex? A Dark Apostle I think background wise should be seen as either having, or striving for, the Mark of Chaos Ascendant. While impossible to translate into gaming terms nowadays, any of the four god-specific marks would make sense.

 

 

 

So what is there left in the current codex to exclude game wise from a Word Bearer host, for background purposes? If not using “counts as” in your background, I believe the Thousand Sons and the Noise Marines are the hardest ones to include, not because of their god-specific marks of course, but because their background is more tied to other legions than the WB rather than just tied to a specific god. If included as allies, it would of course work, but I would prefer counting Thousand Sons as possessed brothers blessed by Tzeentch (maybe mutated with arms from daemonic flamers) and Noise Marines as the scouting squad responsible for setting up the voxcasters that pour out the Word to the unbelievers.

 

 

 

I may not have convinced everyone, but if so, what are your thoughts on this?

How do you perceive the Faith?

How do you think the background can give us rich opportunities for using different units and army lists?

 

/The Prophet

 

 

 

 

References

1) “Index Astartes: Word Bearers”, in White Dwarf no. 270. (June 2002), pg. 50.

2) Warhammer 40.000 Codex – Chaos (1996), pg. 13.

3) “Index Astartes: Word Bearers”, in White Dwarf no. 270. (June 2002), pg. 50.

4) Codex Chaos Space Marines (2002), pg. 43, 74.

5) Ibid., pg. 74.

6) Warhammer 40.000 Codex – Chaos (1996), pg. 25.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I skimmed, I admit, but the following I found as the important bit;

 

We have the background on one hand, and the codex with the rules on the other. To create a “fluffy” army list, your army background should fit with the rules you intend to use from the codex. Therefore, it’s not a background wise problem to have units in your army to “count as” something else in the codex rules, if your interpretation of the background corresponds well with how it will be used game wise. For example, the zealous and fearless word bearers, as described in the background, could take several units of Khorne berzerkers – counting them as the most fearless and hating zealots high on religion that they have at their disposal.

 

Theres alot of nonsense going around in the Index Astartes forum - and elsewhere - about using C:BA for RG or IH (and one other I can't think of?).

 

The above really speaks to the heart of the matter, because from the two examples I mentioned where do you fit in traits and rules of the BA successfully and completely with other Chapters? You can't.

 

Same with any Chapter - I speak from experience with C:SM that alot of times to build fluffy lists it often means limiting yourself; case in point is the Sallies - but is that really a bad thing?

[The Prophet]

Actually, that was only the background to my argument. I am sorry, but I do not fully understand what you mean, not even if you agree or not. Could you perhaps clarify? My knowledge is not with the Blood Angels, and this discussion is really about the Word Bearers.

 

My argument is different from the question if limiting is boring or fun. I argue that the restrictions done by many WB players is unneccesary, considering the legion background.

 

 

Thanks!

[Captain Juan Juarez]

My point was that alot of people seem to force in a different set of rules for an army just because of one basic point; BA/RG.

 

It's alot harder to balance fluff and getting rules that work than alot of people realise.

 

I use loyalist Chapters as my focus because that's what i'm familiar with, but it applies to every force.

It's like saying the Word Bearers could be used using Templar rules, because the fluff gives the Templars a very zealous foundation; but it wouldn't work in practise.

 

Basically, I agree with the point you made!

[minigun762]

I think the failing here is that there is no good representation for the raw, Undivided power that is Chaos.

 

We can justify almost anything with "count as" but the problem remains that anything outside the 4 cult Legions tends to be lumped together under the category of "Undivided" but there is at least as much difference between those Legions as there are with the Cult Legions.

 

Word Bearers and Night Lords for example, the one is based on the fact that you absolutely NEED to have worship and powerful gods to accomplish anything whereas the other redicules the notion of worship and servitude towards anything.

 

My point might seem unclear but what I'm trying to say is that if there was a more robust way to represent Chaos outside of the 4 gods, I'm sure you'd have a better method for creating a "fluffy" WB list.

 

The very same I think should be thought about Lorgar’s worship, where he revel in the different aspects of the Chaos Gods. The Word Bearers’ worship is not about lacking flavour, it's about tasting everything!

For me, I think this is the statement that makes me draw a different conclusion then yours.

I do agree that WB would want to embrace all aspects of Chaos, however (in my opinion) a Cult Marine is one who has forsworn all others and lives only to serve (X). In this light, you are not tasting everything but instead gorging yourself on 1 type of food.

I've made points before that I could possibly see "Icon'd" units in a WB force, because it could represent a temporary commitment to a particular god or it might be that the unit is calling out to the most appropriate god (as in the Poseideon example) but in either case an Icon can be changed or replaced whereas a Cult unit cannot.

 

Long story short: I can see a justification for Icons, not Cult units.

[Lexington]

Great post, Prophet!

 

I tend to be a little baffled by the debate that's stirred up here, though. There's a strange need on the part of many players to have single-Legion lists, while the background and current Codex suggest that the situation is anything but. As described from 2nd Edition onwards, the "cult" Legions have shattered into small warbands that ally themselves with larger forces of the non-aligned Legions for whatever reason. One doesn't need to justify the presence of Cult units in their Word Bearers force - the background's already done that for well over a decade.

[40kChrista]

I think a lot of it has to with previous rules holding up the fluff. Now that's not there... in the current 'Dex you can recreate things to to get the feel of a Word Bearer force.

How you play them is ultimately up to the individual.

 

Am I gonna look down on you for putting cult troops in your list? No. Will I scoff if you used Icons other than Glory? No.

It's a game and fluff or not, there are rules to play the game with. We have our set of rules... we can choose to restrict ourselves or not, or

go for broke and use the entire book. I have 2 Oblits in my force, a lot of demons, and some Preds... optimal? No. Fun? Yes.

 

I love the Word Bearer fluff, and how they still operate as close to a Legion as they can. But I'm not going to try and think of ways to

incorporate Cult troops into my force. I think Minigun hit it on the head, beyond Black Legion, there is no way to represent Undivided well.

 

What makes a truly Word Bearer force is such an old argument anymore that we should just play more games and have more

fun... not say "That's not what they'd do!" Enjoy the game right?

 

Grim

[The Prophet]

[---]

The very same I think should be thought about Lorgar’s worship, where he revel in the different aspects of the Chaos Gods. The Word Bearers’ worship is not about lacking flavour, it's about tasting everything!

For me, I think this is the statement that makes me draw a different conclusion then yours.

I do agree that WB would want to embrace all aspects of Chaos, however (in my opinion) a Cult Marine is one who has forsworn all others and lives only to serve (X). In this light, you are not tasting everything but instead gorging yourself on 1 type of food.

[---]

 

Long story short: I can see a justification for Icons, not Cult units.

 

 

Thanks for the response! While I think our view on WB seems to be somewhat the same,

I think you are right that we disagree on the marks/”cult units”. I’ll start with a litte story:

 

Traitor X is the veteran leader of a small group of traitor astartes. In the beginning of a war on some planet, they have been ordered to infiltrate the capital city and contaminate the water system in order to spread a foul pestilence before any open assault. They perform a ritual with prayers to Father Nurgle to aid them in their task, while dropping rotten carcasses into the reservoars. Their prayers are answered when a great plague takes hold of the city, the death toll rises, and foul shapes of the immaterium can be seen lurking around and devour the survivors. An action of such magnitude does not go unnoticed by Father Nurgle himself. He blesses the group with rot and resilience, in order to make them carry out his will further. Every day for thousands of years, the warriors in this coterie have given prayers to Nurgle. Now they are finally answered.

 

If the coterie described where not members of the Death Guards, but rather the Word Bearers, would they be looked down upon by their brothers for have gained such a foul appearance? No, hardly. The Word Bearers praise any gifts of the Dark Gods.

 

Whereas this coterie, let’s call them ”Coterie A”, have received a blessing (God -->Believer), another coterie of their host, ”Coterie B”, is carrying an icon of Nurgle. The icon is a powerful artifact that gives them a greater resilience, but when the bearer is slain and the artifact lost amidst battle, the effect of it disappears as well. A difference with Coterie A is that some of them might die, but since all of them are individually mutated and defiled, a death of one of them would not effect the others. Game wise, Coterie A would be plaguemarines, while Coterie B would carry an icon of Nurgle.

 

On Coterie A, it’s not diffucult to explain Fearless, Mark of Nugle, or Feel No Pain, which is what constitutes a plaguemarine. They are not members of a specific Nurgle cult, i.e. not ”cult troops”, but members of the Host that venerates Nurgle in a polytheistic manner. It is the ”God-->Believer”-blessing that explains why they should be represented by plaguemarines rather than given an icon. There is great variety in Chaos!

 

Given that the WB highly value all kinds of different gifts of the Dark Gods,

given the time spent in prayers for each single God,

given that the WB actually recieves a lot of gifts

– it is not surprising to see a character or a group of WB with mutations or other gifts that also betray the identity of the Giver. We all know the WB gets a lot of attention from the Dark Gods. Ask yourselves: from which Gods?

 

It’s true, there are more powers in the warp besides Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle and Slaanesh. But these are of course there as well! These are four of the Givers that bless the Word Bearers with different kinds of gifts.

 

 

 

-------------------

 

 

 

[---] As described from 2nd Edition onwards, the "cult" Legions have shattered into small warbands that ally themselves with larger forces of the non-aligned Legions for whatever reason. One doesn't need to justify the presence of Cult units in their Word Bearers force - the background's already done that for well over a decade.

 

Thanks! While I agree with you completely, I here think more of marks on actual Word Bearers and not allies of their Hosts. While staying true to the background, I think you can have World Eater allies as berzerkers, as well as WB Zealots as berzerkers.

 

 

-----------------

 

 

[---]

I use loyalist Chapters as my focus because that's what i'm familiar with, but it applies to every force.

It's like saying the Word Bearers could be used using Templar rules, because the fluff gives the Templars a very zealous foundation; but it wouldn't work in practise.

[---]

 

Alright, now I understand. I agree, and the CSM codex I think is by far the best (of the current ones) for representing WB background.

 

 

------------------

 

I think a lot of it has to with previous rules holding up the fluff. Now that's not there... in the current 'Dex you can recreate things to to get the feel of a Word Bearer force.

How you play them is ultimately up to the individual.

[---]

 

I, like many of you, cried when the specific daemons where taken from us. But the previous codex was not perfect either. Only the Alpha Legion could take cultist, for example, in opposition to what the fluff said. Except for the daemons, I think the current rules hold up the fluff as good as the previous rules. The background of 2002, for example about the accursed crozius, is still there, now to be represented by different rules. As I think the daemon weapon is even better for representing the crozius, the Fearless rule of the god-specific-marked troops is excellent for representing the demagogue abilities of the Dark Apostles and the fanatical devotion of their hosts. I don’t want to argue too much about different codexes, but I think - as you seem to do as well - that we have to use the current rules as best we can.

[minigun762]

Traitor X is the veteran leader of a small group of traitor astartes. In the beginning of a war on some planet, they have been ordered to infiltrate the capital city and contaminate the water system in order to spread a foul pestilence before any open assault. They perform a ritual with prayers to Father Nurgle to aid them in their task, while dropping rotten carcasses into the reservoars. Their prayers are answered when a great plague takes hold of the city, the death toll rises, and foul shapes of the immaterium can be seen lurking around and devour the survivors. An action of such magnitude does not go unnoticed by Father Nurgle himself. He blesses the group with rot and resilience, in order to make them carry out his will further. Every day for thousands of years, the warriors in this coterie have given prayers to Nurgle. Now they are finally answered.

 

If the coterie described where not members of the Death Guards, but rather the Word Bearers, would they be looked down upon by their brothers for have gained such a foul appearance? No, hardly. The Word Bearers praise any gifts of the Dark Gods.

 

Whereas this coterie, let’s call them ”Coterie A”, have received a blessing (God -->Believer), another coterie of their host, ”Coterie B”, is carrying an icon of Nurgle. The icon is a powerful artifact that gives them a greater resilience, but when the bearer is slain and the artifact lost amidst battle, the effect of it disappears as well. A difference with Coterie A is that some of them might die, but since all of them are individually mutated and defiled, a death of one of them would not effect the others. Game wise, Coterie A would be plaguemarines, while Coterie B would carry an icon of Nurgle.

 

On Coterie A, it’s not diffucult to explain Fearless, Mark of Nugle, or Feel No Pain, which is what constitutes a plaguemarine. They are not members of a specific Nurgle cult, i.e. not ”cult troops”, but members of the Host that venerates Nurgle in a polytheistic manner. It is the ”God-->Believer”-blessing that explains why they should be represented by plaguemarines rather than given an icon. There is great variety in Chaos!

 

I think your example is a good one and for me its justifiable up until the point where the Word Bearers from Coterie A become Plague Marine equivalents.

While it might be appropriate for that squad to give special thanks to Nurgle for his assistance, my understanding of the WB would be that that squad as well as the host itself would frown upon/discourage or outright stop the singular worship of Nurgle.

 

Its ok to flirt witih a particular god, but (in my mind) committing to one of them over the rest is the line that you shouldn't cross. That is why I think Icon of Nurgle would be a more appropriate way to represent Coterie A.

 

A related question is how far does a Marine have to go before they move from "Icon" status to full blown "Cult" status?

With Berzerkers, it seems to be the psycho-surgery. With Plague Marines, it appears to require Nurgle Sorcerers assistance. Thousand Sons is all but impossible unless they are recreating the Rubric on a small scale. Noise Marines would either require Fabius Bile's assistance or some other types of surgery/chemical alteration.

[The Prophet]

I think your example is a good one and for me its justifiable up until the point where the Word Bearers from Coterie A become Plague Marine equivalents.

While it might be appropriate for that squad to give special thanks to Nurgle for his assistance, my understanding of the WB would be that that squad as well as the host itself would frown upon/discourage or outright stop the singular worship of Nurgle.

 

Its ok to flirt witih a particular god, but (in my mind) committing to one of them over the rest is the line that you shouldn't cross. That is why I think Icon of Nurgle would be a more appropriate way to represent Coterie A.

[---]

 

 

 

I think I was a bit unclear, while Coterie A continously has given offerings to Nurgle, it does not mean a one-sided worship. My point was rather that all Word Bearers spend all of their days in prayers and occult rituals, and that a considerable portion of their (dull?) everyday life would be to venerate Nurgle. The Word Bearers, given their extreme religious observance, would therefore give Nurgle as much attention as a “monotheistic” Nurgle follower, for example a Death Guard astartes.

 

I would rather have the background above represented with the mark and other special rules, because of the strange situation when the icon bearer dies and the rest of the squad all of a sudden loses their blessings. I do not percieve icons and marks as a scale of less or more secteristic worship, but rather as the two directions in the relation described above. When given a blessing from God X, I don't think it stops the believer to continue to worhip God Y or God Z, if this is the norm in their congregation.

[Darkreaver]

I can see the argument for both sides on the cult/icon issue. And I am abhorred that a squad loses the god's benefit because of the lost of the Icon. This being the case. My opinion is that: While being fearless, having the increased toughness and feel no pain. I think that while fearless could be conferred by a Dark Apostle, the increased toughness would be for nurgle's blessing and a milestone along the way to worshiping all the gods. But feel no pain seems like it would be conferred on a squad who has given themselves to nurgle, (That their bodies are rotting constently and that it doesn't go away, thus they constently feel pain, thus they feel little 'more' pain from getting shot) just seems to be to be a big indicator of singular worship. I know that their has to be compromise, game wise ('Cult' or Icon) But I see it as the most accurate 'blessing' (I think it would be called) to represent Coterie A.

[Crovan]

I think I agree with The Prophet on this. Conflating fluff and rules can lead you down odd trains of thought. I see the counterpoint on the plague marine example, but remember that the individual marines may not get a choice in their god's patronage. Should Nurgle be suitably impressed by an act of a marine, perhaps he claims him. The marine may well continue to venerate all of the Powers, but Nurgle's claim means that his aims will always be served by the mariner's actions. As was put forth in the OP, the marking of a unit originates with the God, thus the degree and duration is solely at that god's discretion. Perhaps the cult units represent those temporarily in a single god's favor, and once their gift fades they will rejoin their original unit.

 

Alternatively, under the counts-as theory, maybe the "plague marines" are actually a sub-cult of the legion who practice flagellation and ritual scarification to such an extreme that it inures them to all but the most critical damage. As mentioned above, though, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are more difficult to fit to that sort of army model.

[Piousservant]

Alternatively, under the counts-as theory, maybe the "plague marines" are actually a sub-cult of the legion who practice flagellation and ritual scarification to such an extreme that it inures them to all but the most critical damage. As mentioned above, though, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are more difficult to fit to that sort of army model.

 

I guess what I'm about to say is more broad-brush than Word Bearer specific, but for me I think the question I'd ask is; are you trying to find a reason for including Plague Marines in a Word Bearers army or are you trying to find a way to represent your (cool) sub-cult in game? It's a grey area, don't get me wrong, but I'd have no problem with the second (I've lots of stuff like that myself) but I inherently dislike things done for the first reason. Of course, that's entirely subjective but still.

 

More directly on topic, I'd agree with minigun that icon'ed units in a WB force make sense for all the reasons previously explained, but cult units just seem harder to justify when there is the option for icons to designate the patronage/worship of a specific God for whatever reason.

[Crovan]

Alternatively, under the counts-as theory, maybe the "plague marines" are actually a sub-cult of the legion who practice flagellation and ritual scarification to such an extreme that it inures them to all but the most critical damage. As mentioned above, though, Noise Marines and Thousand Sons are more difficult to fit to that sort of army model.

 

I guess what I'm about to say is more broad-brush than Word Bearer specific, but for me I think the question I'd ask is; are you trying to find a reason for including Plague Marines in a Word Bearers army or are you trying to find a way to represent your (cool) sub-cult in game? It's a grey area, don't get me wrong, but I'd have no problem with the second (I've lots of stuff like that myself) but I inherently dislike things done for the first reason. Of course, that's entirely subjective but still.

 

More directly on topic, I'd agree with minigun that icon'ed units in a WB force make sense for all the reasons previously explained, but cult units just seem harder to justify when there is the option for icons to designate the patronage/worship of a specific God for whatever reason.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the first reason, myself. I've noticed the local metagame has gotten a lot more competitive since I started playing in the late '90s. You kindof have to find ways to get some of those good troops in if you want to be in with that crowd. For myself, I also like to have a fluffy force insofar as is possible. I may be dipping back into the IWs, and you bet I'll find fun ways to represent the cult troops with various demon-tech experimentation and whatnot, because I a) want a good army on the tabletop and :) think it's a way to distinguish my army from all the ones out there running IoCG and nothing else.

[Polonius]

I think that rules are a toolbox for building an army, in many ways similar to a box of paints or the models themselves. If your word bearers are dedicated and zealous combat troops, than the best tool to represent that is with berzerkers. If you want to build an Imperial Fists army, but paint it mostly grey except for the shoulder pads, it hasn't stopped being what you envision it as, which is an IF army. Likewise if you use different rules it doesn't change your army.

 

I have an Iron Warrior Terminator Cabal that I use space wolf rules for so I can field exclusively terminators. It's not suddenly an improperly painted and modeled space wolf army, it's an Iron Warriors army using the Space Wolf Rules.

 

This isn't permission to wildly build whatever you want, but there are ways to really represent aspect of different armies with the "wrong" rulebook, especially with the Marine/chaos books. When I start building Iron Warrior infantry, they'll be built using Iron Hands bionics to count as plague marines. They relentlessly replace any mutations with machinery, making them far tougher.

[The Prophet]

I'll try not to repeat myself, but I ask you all to point out any error in the following statement:

 

For a Word Bearer that has been marked by Nurgle (background),

it would be fitting to use the rules +1 toughness and feel no pain (rules).

 

 

 

I still think most people confuse rules with background. What is it about the rule feel no pain that makes it inappropriate for representing polytheistic followers marked by Nurgle, rather than the +1 toughness?

[Polonius]

I still think most people confuse rules with background. What is it about the rule feel no pain that makes it inappropriate for representing polytheistic followers marked by Nurgle, rather than the +1 toughness?

 

I'm not trying to offend, but in my experience the people that are most resistant to "counts as" and playing loose with the relation between rules and fluff are extremely casual gamers that resent any attempt to make an army more powerful, rather than more fluffy. There's simply a concern that if you're taking the rules for one thing (Death Guard remnants marked by nurgle) for something else (Word Bearers remnants marked by Nurgle), you're doing it to use a better unit, and thus trying to win more.

 

Most players think "why not use the best units in the book, as long as it's not ridiculous?", but most gamers are ok with playing to win. Not at all costs, but they understand that winning games is fun and doesn't take away your ability to craft a really cool army.

[The Prophet]

I still think most people confuse rules with background. What is it about the rule feel no pain that makes it inappropriate for representing polytheistic followers marked by Nurgle, rather than the +1 toughness?

 

I'm not trying to offend, but in my experience the people that are most resistant to "counts as" and playing loose with the relation between rules and fluff are extremely casual gamers that resent any attempt to make an army more powerful, rather than more fluffy. There's simply a concern that if you're taking the rules for one thing (Death Guard remnants marked by nurgle) for something else (Word Bearers remnants marked by Nurgle), you're doing it to use a better unit, and thus trying to win more.

 

Most players think "why not use the best units in the book, as long as it's not ridiculous?", but most gamers are ok with playing to win. Not at all costs, but they understand that winning games is fun and doesn't take away your ability to craft a really cool army.

 

 

 

The reason why I care about the theses 1), 2) and 3) above is because I favour variation when it comes to creating army lists - both competitive and non-competitive choices. But my motive behind arguing for these theses does not in any amount reduce or increase the level of truth in my argument.

 

 

 

So the question stays, and I will even answer it for you. In the older codex we can read:

 

"Champions bearing the Mark of Nurgle are swollen with corruption, their armour barely containing their bloated bodies. Because their bodies are dulled with disease and partly rotted away they feel little pain and can endure considerable injury without discomfort" [*]

 

This is the background part of the description of marks of Nurgle. Would anyone say that the rule feel no pain is inappropriate to represent this background? I think not. Yet the old rules only gave you +1 Toughness. Now, when we have the rule feel no pain, why would we think it was inappropriate to have it represent Word Bearers with the Mark of Nurgle, when an essential part of being marked by Nurgle (background wise) is to "feel little pain"?

 

 

 

[*] Warhammer 40.000 Codex – Chaos (1996), pg. 27.

[Cornelias]

<snip>

Long story short: I can see a justification for Icons, not Cult units.

 

I agree with mingun here, i always kinda had the idea in my head that undivided legions/chapters might prepare themselves before battle by worship/sacrifice/prayer or whatever........

 

WB Lord: "we are about to enter the system are your men ready?"

 

WB Dark Apostle: " yes my lord, as we speak Cameron and Clegg reside in the temple of Tzeentch preparing the men for battle, Brown seeks favour with Khorne, the gods willing we will have an advantage this day!"

 

WB Lord: " very well, gather our forces and make haste for planetfall, i can smell the fear of the population, this day will not end well for them"

 

:lol:

[Sgt. Blank]

I think that this is something that anyone who is playing a non-cult army has to grapple with and ultimately is up to the player to decide how to represent it. Personally, as long as the army's legal rule-wise, you can and should be able to come up with a justification pretty easily. Here's a great catch-all:

 

Members of several Chaos Warbands have been tasked by Abaddon the Despoiler to go on a campaign of terror and bloodshed, weakening the Imperial defenses and bringing glory to the Ruinous Powers. Old feuds are buried as aspiring champions of Chaos answer Abaddon's call to arms.

 

And thinking about it, are other armies as constrained by this? Space Marines are to an extent, but they also enjoy several Chapter-specific codices which match the rules with the current background. Consider for a second Orks or Tyranids or Tau or Eldar - none face this dilemma to the extent which Chaos does.

 

Part of the problem is that Chaos Marines figure so heavily into the story of the Imperium and people have expectations as a result. The other part of the problem is that the previous Codex, despite its flaws, gave players a choice of rules to match their chosen legion or warband.

 

I think you make a good point about what can and can't fit in the background but it's not entirely fair to pick and choose which parts of the old rules to draw on as the basis of your argument. The old Codex was structured very differently and allowed for a lot more of customization through selections, where as the current book goes back to the free-for-all style of 2nd Ed. codex as several of your cites illustrate.

 

In summary - do what you like. Hopefully, model the different units in an interesting and obvious way and be sure to distinguish for your opponent which units are cult troops and which are only carrying icons.

[The Prophet]

[---]

 

I think you make a good point about what can and can't fit in the background but it's not entirely fair to pick and choose which parts of the old rules to draw on as the basis of your argument. The old Codex was structured very differently and allowed for a lot more of customization through selections, where as the current book goes back to the free-for-all style of 2nd Ed. codex as several of your cites illustrate.

 

[---]

 

 

 

What I do is not picking old rules from the 2nd Ed. codex to have it justify certain listmaking in the current codex.

 

What I do is showing you background from the 2nd Ed. codex (among other sources) and discuss how it was and is now to be represented game wise. My whole point is to avoid the fallacy of taking rules for background, for example think of an accursed crozuis as a power weapon with a 4++ save and an icon, rather than a former Crozius Arcanum ritually desecrated by the Word Bearer chaplains by binding a daemon to it, making it a powerful link to the warp.

 

We cannot have rules justify background, it is the other way around. This is one of the points I am trying to make, but if you think that I do this mistake myself, I beg you to point it out to me in specific so that we can analyse it.

[Sgt. Blank]

Hmm, I think I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped. My basic point was that the jumps between codices and game rules have a huge impact on game play and army list construction, and older rules are 'officially' invalidated by newer ones. Conversely, there is no such substitution with background, it just builds or grows previous information. The fact that they are effected so differently by revision was what I meant by 'fair'.

 

I think I'll leave this is say that my general impression from reading background is that cult troops are parts of legions or chapters dedicated exclusively to one god, where as troops with icons were more prominent amongst the undivided legions but can certainly understand your suggestion about a particular unit having a fanatical dedication, especially for Word Bearers, and wouldn't mind in the least playing against an all Word Bearer army which included cult troops - so long as I had a way to see which squads were cults and which were icon bearers.

[Canadin]

I would ahve to say that I completely agree with you (prophet)

 

If Nurgle has the power to magically turn a random champion into a Great Unclean One at a moment's notice; then he SURE AS HELL has the ability to mutate some marines into plague marines. (Granting them them +1T, FNP and Fearless)

 

I mean why the hell not? The chaos Gods are divine beings! Why would a marine only qualify for noise marine status if and only iff he was initially part of the Emperor's children 10 000 years ago? Im sure if a squad of marines speciallizing in Vox Technology created a party so amazing that an entire city was dead by the end of the night due to either sonic bludgeoning or drug overdose; Slaanesh would be so impressed that he would bless with them with the knowledge of sonic weapon technology, fearlessness, and +1 init.

 

Even for 1000 sons. If a squad was extremely dedicated to Tzeentch, and one night, (after flooring an Inquisitor Lord prisoner in a very methodical chess game) the champion had an encounter with tzeentch in a dream. And in that dream, Tzeentch decided that he would grant the champion sorcerous powers, as well as protection (4++ save) for his squad mates. They do not become automatons, and they simply move slow and purposefully because they're chill and like to think before acting now that they know that they were so special.

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

And as for trying to justify using a unit presented in a codex... I would get rather annoyed at ANYONE who would complain that I use something that has been blatantly presented to me in a rulebook simply because they because they feel that it doesn't make particular sense.

 

It is one thing when a guy is playing Eldar-Chaos-Necrons army in Apocalypse; and you feel like calling bull-^_^

 

But it is completely different to harp at a guy who uses the units presented to him in army book for a war game, unless there is a specific clause within the rules that states that it is illegal. And I especially compliment people who use counts-as units in a game-state where it is nearly impossible to competitively represent any chaos army other than the Black Legion or some Renegades. If you found a legal way to represent the army that YOU WANT TO PLAY, then KUDOS TO YOU!!!

[Walter Payton]

My point was that alot of people seem to force in a different set of rules for an army just because of one basic point; BA/RG.

 

It's alot harder to balance fluff and getting rules that work than alot of people realise.

 

Like me, using Codex:BA for a Raptor Cult build. Ave Dominus Nox :P

 

The reason people do it is because people focus on what makes their Legion unique. In the old Chaos 'dex, I could field:

 

70 Raptors or 'counts-as-Raptors' (who were really winged Possessed), which could claim objectives. :P

 

In the current 'dex, I can field 30 Raptors, 30 'counts-as-on-a-lucky-roll-of-a-D6' Raptors, none of whom can claim objectives ;)

 

With C:BA, I can field 60 'counts-as' Raptors that can claim objectives, with an option on more 'counts-as' elite Raptors. :P

 

Do I use Librarian Dreadnoughts, Mephiston, Death Company, Baal Predators? No. In fact, the only BA specific units I take are a 'counts-as' Astorath, Honour Guard and a 'counts-as' Dante. And fast vehicles, but they make sense for a Raptor Cult anyhow.

 

What makes IH unique (and by extension gives much of their 'tabletop' character? Dreadnought heroes, bionics and terminator sergeants. Can they have them in C:SM? No. Can they have them in C:SW? Yes (bionics can be represented by Acute Senses). Its not perfect, but it allows outdated builds to keep going, and allows players to field a characterful force.

 

Raven Guard players have an invalid position when dealing with this. The RG are sneaky and fast. They are not exclusively jump pack troops. They even have an SC to help them make a force. IH and NL do not.

 

Back on topic, I commend the Prophet on his wonderful theses, and agree broadly with him.

[Darkreaver]

In the current 'dex, I can field 30 Raptors, 30 'counts-as-on-a-lucky-roll-of-a-D6' Raptors, none of whom can claim objectives

 

It's acually a 5-20 unit count.

 

Raven Guard players have an invalid position when dealing with this. The RG are sneaky and fast. They are not exclusively jump pack troops. They even have an SC to help them make a force. IH and NL do not.

 

You can make a force of 60 raptors if you wanted to in the Chaos Space Marine codex. Sure it's defiantly not as powerful, but you using the right kind of unit. I'm not saying that you can't, or not to. I'm just saying you have an alternative which seems to tie closer to fluff. (ie. actual raptors)

 

In Raven Guard you don't have to field Shrike to make it raven guard, the tactics you use and the way they are painted and modeled would be fine for representing Raven Guard. The 3rd company is only one of the ten companies. Also what if they wanted to field 8th company (I believe). The all jump pack army? Would they still not claim having a fluff (Background) reason for using blood angels?

 

Again I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't run this or anything like that but if you have a choice of running the actual codex where the fluff was made, and a codex where it allows you to field count-as army. I'd chose the actual codex because you wouldn't have to count as at least one of the units. If, of course, fluff is your only driving factor, that said, their is nothing wrong with using another codex for a more 'viable' (competitive) build, it is a way that people chose what to play and that is it. Their isn't anything wrong with it. But I chose not to chose my lists like that. And, if your not a fun guy to play against (an a-hole in game) then I may chose to not play against you, then again if someone's an a-hole I probably wouldn't want to play them regardless of their army.