Nightlords codex

[Journeyman]

Heresy abounds!

I was discussing codex with a GW chap. I have my Nightlords (nearly all painted) and was looking at purchasing the C:CSM when he mentioned that the C:BA really suited the style of play for the NLs. :o Well I wasn't going to whip out $48AU just to see if it would work and duly decided to consult the learned folk on B&C.

So?

Is the C:BA better suited or should I stick with C:CSM?

[AekoldHelbrass]

Both yes and no.

 

First of all, C:CSM has some Chaos style. Like 2 specials per squad of 10, instead of 1 special and 1 heavy in loyal codexes, plus Chaos wargear like autocannons, Daemon weapons and other stuff like this. While C:BA allows you to take Raptors as troops, and with priest they are way stronger and with better chances to survive then plain Raptors. But then, it's not fluffy to have Champion AND that other cool guy in one squad, Chaos is one leader per squad. Bikers of C:BA are 8 points cheaper, and that really matters. I don't know, I'd buy both of them and field one army or another.

[Lexington]

Heresy abounds!

I was discussing codex with a GW chap. I have my Nightlords (nearly all painted) and was looking at purchasing the C:CSM when he mentioned that the C:BA really suited the style of play for the NLs.

He's, um, wrong. The Night Lords don't have access to post-Heresy technology like Assault Cannons, Multi-Meltas, man-portable Heavy Plasma Guns, Thunder Hammers, etc., nor have they ever had access to Loyalist special rules such as ATSKNF and Combat Tactics. On the other side of things, the Blood Angels Codex lacks pre-Heresy equipment like the Reaper Autocannon and Combi-Weaponed Terminators, and access to Cult Troops that the Night Lords have always had available to them since the very beginning.

[AekoldHelbrass]

He's, um, wrong. The Night Lords don't have access to post-Heresy technology like Assault Cannons, Multi-Meltas, man-portable Heavy Plasma Guns, Thunder Hammers, etc., nor have they ever had access to Loyalist special rules such as ATSKNF and Combat Tactics. On the other side of things, the Blood Angels Codex lacks pre-Heresy equipment like the Reaper Autocannon and Combi-Weaponed Terminators, and access to Cult Troops that the Night Lords have always had available to them since the very beginning.

 

Take a look from the other side - if you're gathering fluffy Night Lords without any allies - they will not use cult troops, no special characters, heavy weapons are not their style (I think they have heavy weapons mostly because they were a Legion during great crusade), Obliterators and Defilers are not theirs too. Like someone already said here on B&C - you may use half of C:CSM units or half of C:BA units, so the difference is not that big. If you're using IA than it's completely another story - Hell Talon looks great in NL colors.

[A D-B]

He's, um, wrong. The Night Lords don't have access to post-Heresy technology like Assault Cannons, Multi-Meltas, man-portable Heavy Plasma Guns, Thunder Hammers, etc., nor have they ever had access to Loyalist special rules such as ATSKNF and Combat Tactics. On the other side of things, the Blood Angels Codex lacks pre-Heresy equipment like the Reaper Autocannon and Combi-Weaponed Terminators, and access to Cult Troops that the Night Lords have always had available to them since the very beginning.

 

Take a look from the other side - if you're gathering fluffy Night Lords without any allies - they will not use cult troops, no special characters, heavy weapons are not their style (I think they have heavy weapons mostly because they were a Legion during great crusade), Obliterators and Defilers are not theirs too. Like someone already said here on B&C - you may use half of C:CSM units or half of C:BA units, so the difference is not that big. If you're using IA than it's completely another story - Hell Talon looks great in NL colors.

 

The Blood Angels are a close-combat Legion, though. The Night Lords really aren't. Blood Angel rules and army choices are devoted to assaulting and melee. Raptors are still rare, even in the Night Lords, beyond one edition's ill-considered rules allowance that really didn't have much to do with the Legion's background at all.

 

I can't think of a worse match than Codex: Blood Angels, except in regards to the curiously popular "Raptors, Raptors, Raptors!" theme, which is misguided and inaccurate, anyway.

 

This one's a puzzler, but I'd always use Codex: Chaos Space Marines. I mean, I wouldn't use Warhammer Armies: Wood Elves for my Lizardmen. Same thing applies. I think there's a magnitude of difference between Codex: Space Marines players saying "This is a Counts-As Lysander, as a notable figure in my own Chapter" and "These are my World Eaters, using Codex: Space Wolves." One strikes me as legitimate, even encouraged. It's the way GW has chosen to allow special rules and army lists to be used in this edition.

 

But the other is... Well, I'm not a fan. It seems pointless, especially when most of the examples seen don't represent the army any better at all.

[minigun762]

The one reason I could see someone trying to argue for using Loyalist codex for Chaos is Drop Pods and this is especially true for Night Lords who are quoted as having a strong preference for this type of deployment (I think it was the IA article).

 

But the fix for that is simple, all Marine armies should have some access to Drop Pods or equivalents.

[AekoldHelbrass]

The Blood Angels are a close-combat Legion, though. The Night Lords really aren't. Blood Angel rules and army choices are devoted to assaulting and melee. Raptors are still rare, even in the Night Lords, beyond one edition's ill-considered rules allowance that really didn't have much to do with the Legion's background at all.

 

Fist of all, I don't know why but I thought that all CSM are close-bombat armies. It was like this forever.

 

Second, before you showed up 2/3 of Night Lords fluff described them as using Raptors. 2-3 edition Codex didn't cared about legions, telling general history and short biographies of Primarchs, 3.5 edition dedicated a full page for Night Lords describing them as using Raptors, Index Astartes told us only general background without any gaming information, and Lord of the Night showed us the captain of 1st (elite) company, who was not Terminator as it was in other legions, but he was Raptor, and size of 1st company would be about 1000, so you do the math. Now you wrote another part, and it's 50/50. And if you'll continue pushing against Raptors so hard - GW will not release any updated Raptors models ever, like "eh, they're almost all gone, nobody is using Raptors any way, even Night Lords do not have tham that much as Mr.A D-B showed us recently". I don't know, I hope very much that in your next NL series you'll show that it's possible to do some "terror tactics" using plain old space marines. But then I have to ask you: pretend that there are at least no (was no) limitation for Raptors in Night Lords legion.

[A D-B]

The Blood Angels are a close-combat Legion, though. The Night Lords really aren't. Blood Angel rules and army choices are devoted to assaulting and melee. Raptors are still rare, even in the Night Lords, beyond one edition's ill-considered rules allowance that really didn't have much to do with the Legion's background at all.

 

Fist of all, I don't know why but I thought that all CSM are close-bombat armies. It was like this forever.

 

Second, before you showed up 2/3 of Night Lords fluff described them as using Raptors. 2-3 edition Codex didn't cared about legions, telling general history and short biographies of Primarchs, 3.5 edition dedicated a full page for Night Lords describing them as using Raptors, Index Astartes told us only general background without any gaming information, and Lord of the Night showed us the captain of 1st (elite) company, who was not Terminator as it was in other legions, but he was Raptor, and size of 1st company would be about 1000, so you do the math. Now you wrote another part, and it's 50/50. And if you'll continue pushing against Raptors so hard - GW will not release any updated Raptors models ever, like "eh, they're almost all gone, nobody is using Raptors any way, even Night Lords do not have tham that much as Mr.A D-B showed us recently". I don't know, I hope very much that in your next NL series you'll show that it's possible to do some "terror tactics" using plain old space marines. But then I have to ask you: pretend that there are at least no (was no) limitation for Raptors in Night Lords legion.

 

You're kidding, right? I never said the Night Lords didn't use Raptors. I said they were rare (even in the Night Lords), because that's what the lore has always stated. The Night Lords have more than other Legions, but they're still noted as being rare.

 

At no point have I ever "pushed against Raptors". I love them; they're not only some of my favourite models, but I also love their background. One of the main characters in Blood Reaver leads his own cult. But it's not about what I like. It's about what's actually in the license. And saying "2/3 of Night Lords fluff described them as using Raptors" is beside the point. I know they use Raptors. All Chaos Marines do, and Night Lords more than most. But the Night Lords are not "the Raptor Legion" in the same way the Blood Angels are "the Assault Marine Chapter". Most of the Legion isn't made up of Raptors, and Raptor Cults themselves are arguably only tenuously linked to their parent Legions anyway.

 

 

In short, there's a huge difference between "This Legion uses this relatively rare unit more than other Legions" and "The Night Lords are all about Raptors". The former is true, backed up across the board. The latter is based on half an edition's rules, scraped together in a 1/2-page box, as spackle to make the Legions different from one another on the tabletop. The Night Lords needed a gimmick. Because their terror tactics are so difficult to show in the game, they got "Raptors, Raptors, Raptors". Everyone else's niches were immediately obvious. This option reflected that Raptors were more common, not that "All Raptors, All the time" was the way the Legion operated.

 

None of this makes the Blood Angels Codex a good match.

[Bulwyf]

Can I ask what may be an obvious question ADB? Why not have some specific Legion codexes for CSM?

[Hellios]

Heresy abounds!

I was discussing codex with a GW chap. I have my Nightlords (nearly all painted) and was looking at purchasing the C:CSM when he mentioned that the C:BA really suited the style of play for the NLs.

He's, um, wrong. The Night Lords don't have access to post-Heresy technology like Assault Cannons, Multi-Meltas, man-portable Heavy Plasma Guns, Thunder Hammers, etc., nor have they ever had access to Loyalist special rules such as ATSKNF and Combat Tactics. On the other side of things, the Blood Angels Codex lacks pre-Heresy equipment like the Reaper Autocannon and Combi-Weaponed Terminators, and access to Cult Troops that the Night Lords have always had available to them since the very beginning.

 

Well if you consider BL to be Cannon (and if you don't then there isn't a lot going around on the NL either way) then Assaultcannons are now Pre-heresy :'( sad times... and anyway if you do take BL to be cannon books such as ADBs show that Naughty batman type people might well loot from loyalist dogs :D so the can't have that equipment arguement is flawed... although no doubt they would be more rare... + you could choose not to use options which are not fluffy which a lot of people seem to have a hard time with... As for ATSKNF... yer I reckon in the case of the Nightlords it certainly makes little sense t have them (but it is no biggy) as for combat tactics... I'm pretty sure ADBs book shows that Night Lords can retreat when the situation isn't in their favour... hell they can do it on a planetary scale...

 

and yes they do miss some things but they also have options to things like... sane dreadnoughts... although the sane dreadnought did fire on another night lord XD... Cult troops don't seem to be that fluffy from what I know about night lords... yer sure some devote themselves to gods... but most of the time it seems like they aren't that into them... unless you mean the old khorne stuff...

 

As for the Raptor things yes not all NL armies consist of a million raptors but people often like to focus on the thing that makes their army different... and one of those things is that Night Lords may have greater access/better connections to the raptor cults... and while the fear/terror thing may be more NLs you can't really show that with the chaos codex... funnily enough however you can slightly in the Blood Angels codex by means Death Masks...

 

To the OP either codex is fine it depends what aspects of the Night lords you want to show... and neither book does them justice... If you want to remain fluffy then look at the BA codex and chaos codex and cut out any units or options that you think are not fluffy... then using those cut down lists work out what fluffy armies you can do... think about which one you would enjoy playing more or that you have the models to represent and go with that ones... remember it is your hobby so have fun if you think you can make a fluffy NL list that you will enjoy more with C:BA then do it and if anyone says you are wrong tell them to pull their head out of their recharge socket :D

[Bulwyf]

I've never understood the codex rules about CSM not being to use post heresy weapons or equipment. There is no reason 10,000 years removed from the event that professional soldiers would not use a better weapon.

[Hellios]

I've never understood the codex rules about CSM not being to use post heresy weapons or equipment. There is no reason 10,000 years removed from the event that professional soldiers would not use a better weapon.

 

It is more that Germans had panzers... Americans had Shermans... The Chaos boys didn't develope that technology... and so have old gear... although they have developed new technology such as walking daemonic tanks... and ships that can destroy planets... however I do not doubt that they would loot better items from fallen enemies or even allies :D

[Bulwyf]

I've never understood the codex rules about CSM not being to use post heresy weapons or equipment. There is no reason 10,000 years removed from the event that professional soldiers would not use a better weapon.

 

It is more that Germans had panzers... Americans had Shermans... The Chaos boys didn't develope that technology... and so have old gear... although they have developed new technology such as walking daemonic tanks... and ships that can destroy planets... however I do not doubt that they would loot better items from fallen enemies or even allies :D

 

That's what I'm talking about. You would get spoils of war for individual units and then you have cases where Chaos invades a world including the AM worlds that produce equipment. Why wouldn't they use some of that equipment? I realize this is just to keep the gaming armies varied and somewhat balanced in game play terms but it just doesn't make much sense.

[A D-B]

Can I ask what may be an obvious question ADB? Why not have some specific Legion codexes for CSM?

 

I have two answers to this, and both are from positions of supreme ignorance, with literally no insider information at all. In short, they're guesses.

 

1. Sales. Maybe GW doesn't think they'd sell enough as individual deals. I dunno.

 

2. Canon. And here's the biggie.

 

Despite 3rd Edition and the IA articles, GW has been saying one thing about the Traitor Legions for years, and some fans have been hearing another. Warband is an ugly word, somehow implying a dilution of theme and content. It's not supposed to be that way. People look at the current Chaos Codex and say how the Legions are all superfriends now, missing the point that the legions pretty much broke apart into fractured warbands since Day 1 of Warhammer 40,000, and even now, when they raid, it's not out of best-friends-foreverness. It's that they're united by hatred - a hatred so powerful it makes even ancient enemies join together, even if only temporarily for large assaults. Just as loyalist Chapters have companies, the Traitor Legions have warbands. It's really no different, except for how one usually comes to lead such an army, how the armies themselves are comprised, and the fact that Chaos Marines fight each other infinitely more than Space Marines fight themselves. But the core concept is the same.

 

Now, the breaking down of most Legions doesn't mean that warbands are made up of varied Chapters and Legions. Some are, sure. Of course they are. Especially in larger armies, naturally. But most are probably still just a mono-Legion deal. The Dudes of Awesome Land are still just a Black Legion warband. They're Black Legion to the bone, and that's that. To hell with everyone else. But the crux of the matter, relating to the question, is that most Legion warbands are now fairly independent of their former rigid organisational structure. Neverending war will do that. So they still feel the pull of the ancient allegiance, and they're still members of the Legions, but a Word Bearer warband that's spent X centuries doing Y, will likely be completely different in leadership, tactics and units than a Word Bearer warband that spent Z centuries doing B, C and D.

 

And that's why GW releases a codex like, well, every Chaos codex except 3 and 3.5. It's what the current one was supposed to show, and you can see it clear as day in the text. To give freedom of choice. To show you can do anything you want, because the Chaos Legions have that freedom themselves, and the have the variety of experience that no other Marines could ever have. Your Word Bearers aren't supposed to be exactly the same as that guy's Word Bearers. Different leaders, different wars, different trials and different soldiers. It's supposed to be the ultimate "customised army" deal.

 

But.

 

Ultimately, here's the rub: People like factions. People like to say "I'm an Iron Warrior player" and build armies to that specific theme, easily recognisable by all. Many players like unique rules that represent their force, rather than blanket rules that kinda-sorta cover everything at once, depending on what you choose. Sometimes, when you have a lot of freedom, it looks less like choice and more like a dilution. It looks less like guidelines, and more like you're being ignored in regards to background. And hey, maybe in some cases, that's an area where much more effort can be put in the future. Better guidelines. More info.

 

And that, I think, is why GW haven't done Legion-specific codices yet. Because they've intended one thing, and in some editions it worked great - people loved the choice and embraced the possibilities in the canon. But some people see it as a lack of rules, and a dilution of treasured individuality.

 

Really, no one is right, and no one is wrong - though you could argue that the current codex has several optimised units and army builds (completely anathema to much Legion lore), and I wouldn't argue with you at all. But this is one of those things that comes down to how information is presented, and how it's interpreted. Maybe one side or the other has dropped the ball there, and needs to reach out to meet the other halfway. That depends on your perspective, though.

[A D-B]

As for the Raptor things yes not all NL armies consist of a million raptors but people often like to focus on the thing that makes their army different... and one of those things is that Night Lords may have greater access/better connections to the raptor cults... and while the fear/terror thing may be more NLs you can't really show that with the chaos codex... funnily enough however you can slightly in the Blood Angels codex by means Death Masks...

 

To the OP either codex is fine it depends what aspects of the Night lords you want to show... and neither book does them justice... If you want to remain fluffy then look at the BA codex and chaos codex and cut out any units or options that you think are not fluffy... then using those cut down lists work out what fluffy armies you can do... think about which one you would enjoy playing more or that you have the models to represent and go with that ones... remember it is your hobby so have fun if you think you can make a fluffy NL list that you will enjoy more with C:BA then do it and if anyone says you are wrong tell them to pull their head out of their recharge socket :D

 

This is raw, undiluted wisdom, right here.

 

I took twice as many words to say something half as useful. Not a good trait in a writer, no sir.

[Bulwyf]

Can I ask what may be an obvious question ADB? Why not have some specific Legion codexes for CSM?

 

I have two answers to this, and both are from positions of supreme ignorance, with literally no insider information at all. In short, they're guesses.

 

1. Sales. Maybe GW doesn't think they'd sell enough as individual deals. I dunno.

 

2. Canon. And here's the biggie.

 

Despite 3rd Edition and the IA articles, GW has been saying one thing about the Traitor Legions for years, and some fans have been hearing another. Warband is an ugly word, somehow implying a dilution of theme and content. It's not supposed to be that way. People look at the current Chaos Codex and say how the Legions are all superfriends now, missing the point that the legions pretty much broke apart into fractured warbands since Day 1 of Warhammer 40,000, and even now, when they raid, it's not out of best-friends-foreverness. It's that they're united by hatred - a hatred so powerful it makes even ancient enemies join together, even if only temporarily for large assaults. Just as loyalist Chapters have companies, the Traitor Legions have warbands. It's really no different, except for how one usually comes to lead such an army, how the armies themselves are comprised, and the fact that Chaos Marines fight each other infinitely more than Space Marines fight themselves. But the core concept is the same.

 

Now, the breaking down of most Legions doesn't mean that warbands are made up of varied Chapters and Legions. Some are, sure. Of course they are. Especially in larger armies, naturally. But most are probably still just a mono-Legion deal. The Dudes of Awesome Land are still just a Black Legion warband. They're Black Legion to the bone, and that's that. To hell with everyone else. But the crux of the matter, relating to the question, is that most Legion warbands are now fairly independent of their former rigid organisational structure. Neverending war will do that. So they still feel the pull of the ancient allegiance, and they're still members of the Legions, but a Word Bearer warband that's spent X centuries doing Y, will likely be completely different in leadership, tactics and units than a Word Bearer warband that spent Z centuries doing B, C and D.

 

And that's why GW releases a codex like, well, every Chaos codex except 3 and 3.5. It's what the current one was supposed to show, and you can see it clear as day in the text. To give freedom of choice. To show you can do anything you want, because the Chaos Legions have that freedom themselves, and the have the variety of experience that no other Marines could ever have. Your Word Bearers aren't supposed to be exactly the same as that guy's Word Bearers. Different leaders, different wars, different trials and different soldiers. It's supposed to be the ultimate "customised army" deal.

 

But.

 

Ultimately, here's the rub: People like factions. People like to say "I'm an Iron Warrior player" and build armies to that specific theme, easily recognisable by all. Many players like unique rules that represent their force, rather than blanket rules that kinda-sorta cover everything at once, depending on what you choose. Sometimes, when you have a lot of freedom, it looks less like choice and more like a dilution. It looks less like guidelines, and more like you're being ignored in regards to background. And hey, maybe in some cases, that's an area where much more effort can be put in the future. Better guidelines. More info.

 

And that, I think, is why GW haven't done Legion-specific codices yet. Because they've intended one thing, and in some editions it worked great - people loved the choice and embraced the possibilities in the canon. But some people see it as a lack of rules, and a dilution of treasured individuality.

 

Really, no one is right, and no one is wrong - though you could argue that the current codex has several optimised units and army builds (completely anathema to much Legion lore), and I wouldn't argue with you at all. But this is one of those things that comes down to how information is presented, and how it's interpreted. Maybe one side or the other has dropped the ball there, and needs to reach out to meet the other halfway. That depends on your perspective, though.

 

I should confess that I'm a huge fan of the "my TT army is "X" Traitor Legion and here's the army build that most reflects the Legion as we know it in lore/fluff" before I say anything further.

 

I completely understand the point you make that GW feels it gives the players enough freedom to either have a "standard" Legion TT army or come up with a warband of your own that mix and matches various Legions or is simply its own player made Chapter turned rogue. As simply a fan and someone who comes from a military background you said it best: warband is a dilution on several layers. It shows the fractured element of all CSM Legions/Chapters. It shows the complete background of "up top" authority. There are no set rules or even fighting styles that can represent the fractured elements of the Legions or any resulting Chapters that themselves would degenerate from a tightly organized military unit to roving bands of reavers called warbands.

 

So yes, GW has every right to present to fans, "Look we are giving you a blanket rulebook that you can mix and match or you can try to emulate what the Legions ONCE were" with the latest codex and let it stand by itself.

 

I do think however that from both a financial and from a "fan service" aspect it would be in GW's best interest to print specific CSM Codexes simply to give the Legions more flavor outside the standard codex as well as showing that at least some elements of the fractured Legions would still fight and be organized in a fashion that existed in their Legions roots. I daresay that if GW marketing were to broach the question to fans they would receive a resounding "YES" to adding CSM Legion codexes.

 

Thank you for your answer. It is something that has bugged me for years and no GW rep I spoke to at Gamesdays events could really give an answer as to why you don't see Legion specific codexes for CSM.

[Hellios]

This is raw, undiluted wisdom, right here.

 

I took twice as many words to say something half as useful. Not a good trait in a writer, no sir.

 

But your writing is so much nicer... some people say that when using English you should always use as few words as possible and keep them simple... don't use gigantic if you mean big (otherwise what will you use when you mean gigantic?)... however it won't always sound as good... You can always hack bits out... if needs be... I could tell some of your stories but I wouldn't tell them half as well.

[Journeyman]

Wow, so I'll probably just get the C:CSM then.

Its funny but

This one's a puzzler, but I'd always use Codex: Chaos Space Marines. I mean, I wouldn't use Warhammer Armies: Wood Elves for my Lizardmen. Same thing applies. I think there's a magnitude of difference between Codex: Space Marines players saying "This is a Counts-As Lysander, as a notable figure in my own Chapter" and "These are my World Eaters, using Codex: Space Wolves."

Was the other conversation that occurred.

Me thinks 'tis best to purchase the C:CSM for both, (yeah, I've WE too; painted in Angels Sanguine colours )

[Paradigm]

Though this looks settled, I'd like to say that using codex: blood angels you can make just as representative force as you can with c:csm. Keep in mind however that you would be building a different kind of warband using it. I plan on using it for my Night lords.

 

To me, the night lords can be summed up as the most brutal of all the legions. They don't get bogged down in petty slaughter, they do not hide in the shadows (at least not any more than any other legion), they demoralize and drive their enemies to despair.

 

They use raptors a little more than other csm, not because they have more in their legion, but because the Raptor Cults appreciate their tactics. They use drop pod and orbital assaults as their preferred method of entry.

 

As far as their use of daemons and the powers of chaos? Some use it, but not all of them. Do they think they are somehow tragic heroes? Some do but others do not.

 

All we can truly say about the night lords is that they are one of the more fractured and varied legion remnants in existence. Each warband uses differing tactics according to what works for them and according to their principles.

 

The only real common thread among the warbands are their common link to the dual nature of Curze, some are "Curzites", (Those who feel they are somehow 'wronged anti-heroes') and some are "Haunterites". (Those who feel the Haunter's ultimate revelation was to spread terror for terror's sake.) Ultimately taken together they are their primarch's legacy. That there is evidence that there are more "Haunterites" than "Curzites" is fitting in that evidence suggests that the Haunter was the ruling personality at the end.

 

So if you are going for a less chaotic night lords, use C:BA, just don't go crazy with the raptors/assault marines, or other things that wouldn't make sense. If you want to represent a more fear for fear's sake night lord army then use C:CSM. Personally I feel it would be fitting and in Curze's legacy to build an army that works for both.

[Hellios]

This one's a puzzler, but I'd always use Codex: Chaos Space Marines. I mean, I wouldn't use Warhammer Armies: Wood Elves for my Lizardmen. Same thing applies. I think there's a magnitude of difference between Codex: Space Marines players saying "This is a Counts-As Lysander, as a notable figure in my own Chapter" and "These are my World Eaters, using Codex: Space Wolves."

 

This guy is wrong... Wood Elves and Lizardmen is like Imperial Guard and Space Marines... To be honest I get more annoyed about Vulkan going on a road trip with Ultramarines than people using codex blood angels for Chaos... but then again I think only the armies painted as a certain chapter should use that chapters heros... it makes them feel cheap for me :'(

[Chengar Qordath]

To be honest I get more annoyed about Vulkan going on a road trip with Ultramarines than people using codex blood angels for Chaos... but then again I think only the armies painted as a certain chapter should use that chapters heros... it makes them feel cheap for me :'(

Of course, that would be a touch unfair to everyone who wants to play a chapter GW hasn't made a special character for, not to mention DIY chapters.

 

As to the main topic of the thread, I would say that the Chaos Codex can do a fine job of matching any legion's fluff; it's flaws lie more in the direction of perfectly matching fluff while being a top-tier list.

[Pavement Artist]

It seems to be an odd trend thats developed since the Space wolf codex was released. I can understand people being dissatisfied with the chaos dex (i certainly am) but for me, playing a faction has always been about the way you play your army and the enthusiasm and love you have for that army. Im not saying the current book is optimal for building a night lords army, the latest edition lost a lot in terms of the individuality of the undivided legions. You can still build a competitive and fluffy Night lords list with the current book because at the end of the day, the legion is more about a mind set than 6 units of raptors and a jetpacking special character. Play them fast, play them in the shadows. Scare the living piss out of your opponent and cackle at them as you do.

[Hellios]

Of course, that would be a touch unfair to everyone who wants to play a chapter GW hasn't made a special character for, not to mention DIY chapters.

 

That is like saying it is unfair that Space Marines don't get Leman Russ Battle tanks... you pick your army and take what comes with it... I have a number of space Marine armies... from ones that have their own codices (DA, SW & BT) to relativly unknown chapters such as the Minotaurs... if I couldn't take Lysander I wouldn't break down crying about how unfair life is... I think they should bring back the IAs... and I think special characters should be just that special!

 

Sorry rant over...

[Chengar Qordath]

Of course, that would be a touch unfair to everyone who wants to play a chapter GW hasn't made a special character for, not to mention DIY chapters.

 

That is like saying it is unfair that Space Marines don't get Leman Russ Battle tanks... you pick your army and take what comes with it... I have a number of space Marine armies... from ones that have their own codices (DA, SW & BT) to relativly unknown chapters such as the Minotaurs... if I couldn't take Lysander I wouldn't break down crying about how unfair life is... I think they should bring back the IAs... and I think special characters should be just that special!

 

Sorry rant over...

Sure, if GW actually put out rules and special characters for every existing chapter that would be awesome, but that does not look very likely to happen. As it is, your standard is far too restrictive. Want to play a non-1st Founding Chapter? No special characters for you! Want to play Iron Hands? No special characters for you! Want to play Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers, or Iron Warriors? No special character for you! Want to actually be creative and make a DiY chapter? No special character for you!

 

For that matter, there are far too many copies of special characters running around; every World Eaters player has Khârn in their army. Every single player except for one lucky person should smash their Khârn models, because Khârn is a unique individual, so there should only be one of him!

 

What's the point of even having different chapters and warbands. if 95% of them are going to be nerfed compared to the chosen few? You might as well just say "Play Ultramarines or Black Legion, or don't play at all." When GW puts out special characters for every single canon chapter, and puts out official rules for creating special characters for DiY chapters, then you can insist people only play chapter-appropriate SCs. Until then, counts-as is the rule.

[Pavement Artist]

Id settle for a few legion specific organisational quirks/restrictions like in 3rd ed. Its not exciting but there was a specific way to build a death guard army dammit. Special characters arent the be all end all of the game and they certainly arent necessary for a "fluffy" legion specific army. I've seen Salamander armies without Vulkan. I've also seen a few beautiful iron hands armies. Those players werent perturbed by a lack of special characters