Nightlords codex

[maverike_prime]

my single biggest irk with the current Chaos codex is there's no motivation to do anything other then a Renagades/Black Legion army. Sure I can take 2 Vindicators and a trio of Obliterators, slap some Boltgun metal paint on 'em and call 'em Iron Warriors. Or I can toss 'em in my regal blue, stick some Lightning bolts on the same models and call 'em Night Lords. I mean look it at it like this:

Space Marines get

• Ultramarines
  
• Salamanders
  
• Crimson Fists
  
• Imperial Fists
  
• White Scars
  
• Raven Guard
  
• Blood Angles
  
• Black Templars
  
• Space Wolves
  

 

Chaos Space Marines get...

• renegades.
  
• um... renegades with different color armor?
  

 

I've heard the Warbands vs Legion argument before, and I gotta be honest at the scale that most 40k games are it, I don't see it holding much water. How many marines are typically in a 1,750 point list? 40? maybe 50 if you squeeze it. And you're gonna tell me that those 50 marines DON'T all share some measure of history?

 

Sure, the legion broke up to greater or lesser degrees following the heresy. Yes the formal structure is gone for most of the legions, I think the exceptions are Black Legion and Word Bearers but that's debatable nine ways from Sunday. Regardless, there must still be supply lines. Those war bands of 50-60 marines needs supplies, they need bolter rounds, and repairs. That means they need to interact with other groups that have those supplies. It would be in the legions... make that warbands, to enter into agreements with others to secure those supply lines. So wouldn't it make sense that Iron Warriors would prefer to deal with other iron Warriors? The whole alliances are built on similarities of mind and all that.

 

As for the question of using C:BA to represent a Night Lords Army... hard to say. I'd have to look at the book a bit more closely. The Night Lords are experts in terror tactics and tend to 'scare their enemies into defeat' more so then they fight them. With the exception of the Death Mask rules I can't really think of anything in the Blood Angles codex to play to that end. I suppose you say the Night Lord Commander (BA Lord with Death Mask) has a retinue that adorn their armor with icons and trophies of past atrocities and glorification (Sanguinary guard with Death masks) while the rest of the army is prone to acts of carnage (Blood rage).

 

If I think of anything else I'll post it. I'd be curious to see where the idea goes though.

[A D-B]

I've heard the Warbands vs Legion argument before, and I gotta be honest at the scale that most 40k games are it, I don't see it holding much water. How many marines are typically in a 1,750 point list? 40? maybe 50 if you squeeze it. And you're gonna tell me that those 50 marines DON'T all share some measure of history?

 

Sure, the legion broke up to greater or lesser degrees following the heresy. Yes the formal structure is gone for most of the legions, I think the exceptions are Black Legion and Word Bearers but that's debatable nine ways from Sunday. Regardless, there must still be supply lines. Those war bands of 50-60 marines needs supplies, they need bolter rounds, and repairs. That means they need to interact with other groups that have those supplies. It would be in the legions... make that warbands, to enter into agreements with others to secure those supply lines. So wouldn't it make sense that Iron Warriors would prefer to deal with other iron Warriors? The whole alliances are built on similarities of mind and all that.

 

Absolutely. But that's what a warband is. It's not Warbands Vs. Legions. A warband is, usually, just part of a Legion. The same way a company is part of a Chapter.

 

This is kind of the core misunderstanding. People say "So Chaos are all friends now?" Of course not. The Chaos Marines hate each other as much as they hate everyone else - in most cases, they've fought one another more than they've fought any other faction. But they have the option of uniting: they have the realistic chance to make pacts with one another, for temporary raiding purposes. Once in a while, they will find themselves united in their hatred of the other factions.

 

So of course an Iron Warrior warband will more than likely deal with other Iron Warriors first. They're all in the same Legion. But there are also Iron Warrior warbands that do things completely differently, because the Chaos Marines have that degree of choice that no one else really has.

 

Now, I'm not saying the current codex is perfect, but some people just invent problems with it. The "Chaos is all friends" thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the setting and the lore. I'm not really sure why it remains such a popular accusation.

[Brother Nihm]

I've heard the Warbands vs Legion argument before, and I gotta be honest at the scale that most 40k games are it, I don't see it holding much water. How many marines are typically in a 1,750 point list? 40? maybe 50 if you squeeze it. And you're gonna tell me that those 50 marines DON'T all share some measure of history?

 

Sure, the legion broke up to greater or lesser degrees following the heresy. Yes the formal structure is gone for most of the legions, I think the exceptions are Black Legion and Word Bearers but that's debatable nine ways from Sunday. Regardless, there must still be supply lines. Those war bands of 50-60 marines needs supplies, they need bolter rounds, and repairs. That means they need to interact with other groups that have those supplies. It would be in the legions... make that warbands, to enter into agreements with others to secure those supply lines. So wouldn't it make sense that Iron Warriors would prefer to deal with other iron Warriors? The whole alliances are built on similarities of mind and all that.

 

Absolutely. But that's what a warband is. It's not Warbands Vs. Legions. A warband is, usually, just part of a Legion. The same way a company is part of a Chapter.

Yep, the new Codex even supports this in fluff as well as rules, here's a few fluff bits:

These are the warbands of Chaos, and they can vary in size from a handful of individuals to mighty hosts that rival an Imperial Guard regiment in power.

Snip.

For Chaos Space Marines these warbands are mostly composed of comrades they fought alongside in the Legions or their Chapter. However, it is not uncommon for renegades with very different histories to find a common cause in their service to the Ruinous Powers of Chaos.

 

This is kind of the core misunderstanding. People say "So Chaos are all friends now?" Of course not. The Chaos Marines hate each other as much as they hate everyone else - in most cases, they've fought one another more than they've fought any other faction. But they have the option of uniting: they have the realistic chance to make pacts with one another, for temporary raiding purposes. Once in a while, they will find themselves united in their hatred of the other factions.

Now, I'm not saying the current codex is perfect, but some people just invent problems with it. The "Chaos is all friends" thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the setting and the lore. I'm not really sure why it remains such a popular accusation.

 

It is not a misunderstanding on the part of players, but more a string of design changes which invalidates/changes previous fluff and rules. I have separated fluff and rules as much as possible in the following,

 

C: CSM 2nd ed. describes the infighting going on between the Traitor Marines but it also goes on to describe the rivalry of the Chaos Gods, Khorne's hatred for Tzeentch etc. Most importantly it also mention that Tzeentch and Khorne can join forces when the prospect of blood-letting is great.

You could dedicate your Chaos Lords to all the Gods but you couldn't field Daemon Princes outside of Daemon Legion lists.

 

Enter 3rd edition.

A Chaos Space Marine army is the warband of a powerful leader. To represent this, the army must be led by either a Chaos Lord or a Daemon Prince. Furthermore you may not include both a Chaos Lord and a Daemon Prince in the same Army

They were also both restricted to 0-1.

 

There is no mention of the Chaos Gods and their rivalry. There was however rules that dictated the type of retinue a Lord had, based on the mark of his chosen god (singular, no multi-marking allowed). Little to no fluff (slim dex').

 

Late 3rd ed. Legion rules.

The Chaos Gods' rivalry is fleshed out and rules are included that enable/restrict your list options based on the mark worn by the commanding character.

The Ancient Enemies rule is in.

Great emphasis is placed on the Pantheon of Chaos - Chaos Undivided. The middle-ground rules and fluff-wise.

No multi-marking allowed.

Lords and Princes are 0-1.

 

4th ed. the present. (technically 4.5)

Multi marking is not allowed, you can field as many Princes and Lords as the mission allows, two being the most common. Sidenote, this was later admitted to be a design flaw but isn't seen as such by many (as is evident in the army list forums on various 40K sites).

No mention of god rivalry apart from the fact that they and their followers battle each other, for reasons unknown (explained later in the 'dex). The Khorne abhors sorcery text has been edited to exclude the previous bits. Now he and his followers only 'abhor sorcery', nothing more. Later in the codex we're told that the reason they fight each other is because they fight over the possession of artifacts, ancient knowledge, great weapons and machines of war as well as sacrifices for the power to summon daemons. Not because of the rivalry of 3rd ed.

 

 

With such heavy focus on the rivalry of the gods in 3rd edition, backed up by rules, fleshed out in pages of fluff, it cannot be considered a misunderstanding on the part of the players that 'we are all friends now'. Because the current rules did away with that, and newer players (2007 till now) have no way of knowing about it, unless they picked it up from older players/forums/sources. And what is fundamental lore and understanding to you? because I can assure you that for the new guy it is something else, unless the former criteria was met. What about a player who started in 2nd or 3rd edition, took a break (e.g. skipped 4th), came back to start again in 4,5?

What fluff is real and what isn't?

Only the current rules are real and they violate the fluff.

 

Catch 22, in full effect.

 

 

It is the invalidation and changing of fluff + rules which causes threads like 'Chaos is all friends' to crop up, not misunderstandings.

 

 

Here is a mind-frell for you all, in the current codex, what is there (both fluff and rules-wise to) stop a player from attaching Lucius to a squad of Khorne Berzerkers or Typhus to a squad of Thousand Sons?

 

 

My 2 Kraks

[A D-B]

It is the invalidation and changing of fluff + rules which causes threads like 'Chaos is all friends' to crop up, not misunderstandings.

 

On one hand, I consider almost all of that to be perfectly true. Although I still see fair mention in the current codex (which I personally consider the weakest incarnation of C:CSM, but whatever) that still heaps on the fact that Chaos Marines fight each other constantly, and that a warband isn't necessarily this band of "All Renegades, all the time" thing that some people insist.

 

But on the other hand, dude, you can't look at some of the discussions here and say the "Chaos is all friends" thing isn't down to intentional misunderstandings in some places. There are several posters that flat-out know it's not true, and still harp on about it because it's a powerful little soundbite that comes bloated with easy-to-understand derision. When they say it over and over, that's them intentionally misunderstanding the lore.

 

People need to address the shades of grey, here. That's all. Any defence of the options and freedom in the current codex is answered by "Chaos is all friends!", which isn't - and has never - been true. It's been clearer in the past, but even the tiniest, scarcest knowledge of what Chaos Marines are will show it to be nonsense. That's the attitude that needs to stop.

 

As Lexington said in another thread:

 

You can't make legion speccific armies any more. I mean sure I can take 2 Vindicators and a trio of Oblits and slap some Boltgun metal paint on 'em and call 'em Iron warriors. Or I could toss 'em in Regal Blue, paint some lightning bolts on 'em and call 'em Night Lords.

So...you've now made your Legion-specific armies. What's the problem?

 

You can't even really build Cult Marine armies either. I mean yeah, I can take 6 units of Berzerkers and have them lead by a Lord with Mark of Khorne... but it's not really a World Eaters army then.

That is, in fact, the definition of a World Eaters army. It is made exclusively of World Eaters. Gah.

 

Topics like this drive me batty. I swear, it's like the 3.5 Codex was a mutant virus that devoured the imagination of every single Chaos player since its release.

[Brother Nihm]

It is the invalidation and changing of fluff + rules which causes threads like 'Chaos is all friends' to crop up, not misunderstandings.

 

On one hand, I consider almost all of that to be perfectly true. Although I still see fair mention in the current codex (which I personally consider the weakest incarnation of C:CSM, but whatever) that still heaps on the fact that Chaos Marines fight each other constantly, and that a warband isn't necessarily this band of "All Renegades, all the time" thing that some people insist.

Aye, that is clearly stated in both old and new sources.

 

But on the other hand, dude, you can't look at some of the discussions here and say the "Chaos is all friends" thing isn't down to intentional misunderstandings in some places. There are several posters that flat-out know it's not true, and still harp on about it because it's a powerful little soundbite that comes bloated with easy-to-understand derision. When they say it over and over, that's them intentionally misunderstanding the lore.

None of the posts here on the B&C has come off like that to me, if you could point out one or two of those to me that would be great. Alternately by PM if it would 'incriminate' someone openly. But again, I've not seen posts on the topic as having any intentional misunderstanding in them.

 

People need to address the shades of grey, here. That's all. Any defence of the options and freedom in the current codex is answered by "Chaos is all friends!", which isn't - and has never - been true. It's been clearer in the past, but even the tiniest, scarcest knowledge of what Chaos Marines are will show it to be nonsense. That's the attitude that needs to stop.

I would like to counter this by saying it isn't the responsibility of the players to define the lore, but that of the game designers, it is however an option many go for because lore is lacking (e.g. new renegade warbands).

 

As Lexington said in another thread:

 

You can't make legion speccific armies any more. I mean sure I can take 2 Vindicators and a trio of Oblits and slap some Boltgun metal paint on 'em and call 'em Iron warriors. Or I could toss 'em in Regal Blue, paint some lightning bolts on 'em and call 'em Night Lords.

So...you've now made your Legion-specific armies. What's the problem?

 

You can't even really build Cult Marine armies either. I mean yeah, I can take 6 units of Berzerkers and have them lead by a Lord with Mark of Khorne... but it's not really a World Eaters army then.

That is, in fact, the definition of a World Eaters army. It is made exclusively of World Eaters. Gah.

 

Topics like this drive me batty. I swear, it's like the 3.5 Codex was a mutant virus that devoured the imagination of every single Chaos player since its release.

This will undoubtedly open an old can of worms for many people but where in the codex does it say that a Chaos Lord with a Mark of Khorne is a World Eater?

Are all Khorne Berzerkers World Eaters? Are marines with the Icon of Slaanesh World Eaters?

What defines a World Eater?

under the new Codex they both could and couldn't be. Again, it isn't the responsibility of the player to define the background material and everyone interprets things differently (hooray for human diversity, without it the world would be a dull place indeed).

 

With regards to having imagination (or those not having it, as in the case of the focus of Lexington's post), versus the oft-perceived restricted Legion lists of the past.

All the options in the current codex were made, according to the designers, to give us the most freedom, yet the problem was they also took away choice by removing fluff . On top of that about half the units in the codex make no sense/ are crap, further restricting a fluffy list to even be represented well on the tabletop.

 

Sadly,

All the imagination in the world does not change the fact that we also have people whose previously 'fluffy' armies were obliterated (pun intended), Refuse is the perfect example of this. His EC army, was fragged to hell and back by the new 'dex. The hobby takes time, imagine being unable to field 200+ models painted over many years. I understand the frustration over the new codex, even though I am not bothered by it as much as others. I still collect, play and have fun discussing the universe with like-minded individuals.

 

But if an issue with a product exist, people will complain, that is human nature - and there are a ton of issues with the new codex both in the fluff and rules.

All the imagination in the world does not change that what used to be distinct armies, favouring different tactics, are now only paint jobs and unit selections which in turn are often contested as being fluffy or not because the fluff has changed over the years.

 

 

The mind-frell still stands.

Here is a mind-frell for you all, in the current codex, what is there (both fluff and rules-wise to) stop a player from attaching Lucius to a squad of Khorne Berzerkers or Typhus to a squad of Thousand Sons?

I would also like to expand it to include Khârn leading a squad of Noise Marines.

[A D-B]

With regards to having imagination (or those not having it, as in the case of the focus of Lexington's post), versus the oft-perceived restricted Legion lists of the past.

All the options in the current codex were made, according to the designers, to give us the most freedom, yet the problem was they also took away choice by removing fluff . On top of that about half the units in the codex make no sense/ are crap, further restricting a fluffy list to even be represented well on the tabletop.

 

Sadly,

All the imagination in the world does not change the fact that we also have people whose previously 'fluffy' armies were obliterated (pun intended), Refuse is the perfect example of this. His EC army, was fragged to hell and back by the new 'dex. The hobby takes time, imagine being unable to field 200+ models painted over many years. I understand the frustration over the new codex, even though I am not bothered by it as much as others. I still collect, play and have fun discussing the universe with like-minded individuals.

 

Yeah, no argument here. With you 100% on that score. Hell, I'm even worried about it now. Sometimes I hesitate to get any work done on my own army in case all the painting and kitbashing is annihilated by the next codex (whenever that might be).

 

Ultimately (and please acknowledge I have to be careful what I say here) I'm "not a huge fan" of the current codex. I appreciate the efforts it made for army list freedom, but I can see plenty of armies that is essentially rendered completely invalid. I don't think some of the past bare-bones rules from IA were really all that amazing or special, so I don't miss them. They weren't popular because they were good rules, they were popular because it was all we had back then towards making Chaos forces individualised. But I do miss the way previous codices were written in regards to the background, and how they made certain things much clearer.

[maverike_prime]

This will undoubtedly open an old can of worms for many people but where in the codex does it say that a Chaos Lord with a Mark of Khorne is a World Eater?

Are all Khorne Berzerkers World Eaters? Are marines with the Icon of Slaanesh World Eaters?

What defines a World Eater?

under the new Codex they both could and couldn't be. Again, it isn't the responsibility of the player to define the background material and everyone interprets things differently (hooray for human diversity, without it the world would be a dull place indeed).

All the World Eaters became Berzerkers. I think that was said in the last codex. Not all Berserkers are World Eaters. Can you have Emperors Children World eaters? Sure. Do I expect them to operate differently then World Eater Berzerkers? Nope. Can I have World Eater Noise Marines? Rule wise, sure. There's nothing stopping me.

 

I'm not arguing against those points. If someone throws down a bunch of Slaneesh-esqu models with swords and pistols and says they're Berzerks, the only thing I'm gonna ask is where they got the idea for it. I'm not gonna tell 'em they can't use them cause they're not fluffy. Thats not what I'm asking for. What I'm asking for is the ability to field a World Eaters army with a Berzerker Lord that works the same way as my Berzerkers. Currently taking a lord a giving him Mark of Khorne doesn't make him a berserker. It just makes him a Chaos lord with 4 attacks instead of 3. Berzerkers are not just CSMs with an extra attack.

 

I will admit, one of my largest complaints with the last CSM codex was how you couldn't play a non-thousand sons Tzeentch army list. If you gave the marines Mark of Tzeentch they became Thousand sons even if by another name. I think they got that little messed up right with the current Codex. The Thousand Sons are Thousand Sons, and marines with the Mark of Tzeentch are Marines with the Mark of Tzeentch. Giving Mark of Tzeentch to Marines does not make them Thousand sons.

 

All the imagination in the world does not change the fact that we also have people whose previously 'fluffy' armies were obliterated (pun intended), Refuse is the perfect example of this. His EC army, was fragged to hell and back by the new 'dex. The hobby takes time, imagine being unable to field 200+ models painted over many years. I understand the frustration over the new codex, even though I am not bothered by it as much as others. I still collect, play and have fun discussing the universe with like-minded individuals.

I think that's the part that irks people more then anything else. We went from having 9 distinct Chaos army names that were unique, individual and seperate from one another, so if someone said "I play Iron Warriors" you could pretty much be guaranteed to be facing a Vindicator and a Unit of Obliterators. Now if someone says I have a Iron Warriors army... what do you expect? If the guy is playing the army fluffy then probably a pair of Vindicators. It's kinda like if the Blood Angles suddenly stopped having their own codex and where just a paint scheme again. How would a Blood Angle player feel if GW turned around and said

GW: "Hey glad you spent all that time and money building your army out of the old codex, but now they're just Ultra-marines with red armor. Have a good one, this is for the best. Trust us."

 

I'm not going to say I hate the current Codex. I do think it did a lot of things right. It simplified marks, gave us a very distinct difference between Cult troops and non-cult troops. I think it helped reign in some of the more... offensive psychic power/wargear combos. Anyone remember the Plague Marine unit with Aspiring Champion armed with Master Crafted Poison claws and Nurgle rot? Hi I get 6 attacks that re-roll wounds that already wounds on a 2+ and then if you're not dead you have to pass another test cause I smell so bad you might die from that alone. I think making the Daemon Prince distinct and separate from a Chaos Lord/ Chaos Sorcerer and making one daemonic while the other non-daemonic was a good move. Slimming down the equipment options from an open armory to unit specific choices, while I found it annoying at first, I like now that I've had a chance to live with it a little.

 

I just think that while they were fixing the problems with the previous codex, they lost some of what had been done right. I liked the ability to customize a Daemon Prince as extensively as I could in the prior codex. It gave me the ability to make a Dreadnought lord. Like in Dead Sky, Black Sun one of the Iron Warrior Warsmiths was actually a Dreadnought. I can still sorta do that with the current codex, but it's just not worth the effort. Using a Daemon Prince for a Fire base is kind of a waste of points.

 

And I gotta get ready for work. Be back later kids.

[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...

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!

 

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?

 

Yer because Pedro Kantor isn't a special character nor is Helbrecht... and neither the Crimson Fists or the Black Templars are second founding... Although your point is valid in the fact they should make more special characters... although why should every chapter have some exceptional peeps in it (I mean beyond normal space marine hero badass) you know what makes people special and exceptional? It is not being the norm...

 

You are right their should only be one Khârn... in any single battle...

 

Whats the point? Well some people are not just out there to power game but some people like to have fun and enjoy the background of the game and think that is what makes 40K awesome.... Oh and for this matter I don't think special characters should be no brainers... although I admit that seems to be a fault with some of the current special characters... not being balanced but that is hardly a counter-arguement... that only supports my other view that the rules should be written better... also bring back sub-lists such as klans/legions/craftworlds.... those rocked...

 

Oh and for people who say sub-lists are restrictive not if they are optional like the creaftworld codex... I can play my Ulthwé army as a default eldar army... or an Ulthwé army... technically I could use the rules of another craftworld for an Ulthwé army as well... If they did the same for chaos then technically you could play iron warriors as vanilla CSM or use the iron warriors restrictions... and if it followed craftworld eldar... if you wanted to do a black legion seige company... you could do that... although I would prefer it if they didn't do that but hey that is just me...

[Lexington]

o if someone said "I play Iron Warriors" you could pretty much be guaranteed to be facing a Vindicator and a Unit of Obliterators. Now if someone says I have a Iron Warriors army... what do you expect?

From my perspective, this is something to be celebrated. I'm not against Legion-specific special rules on the whole, but the method of doling them out via straight-jacketed "sub-lists" was close to the worst possible way to go about doing it. Besides being boring as all hell to field and play against, the lists gave rise to the perception that the Legions were defined by their in-game "gimmick," rather than by the themes and ideas that ran through their history. It's much more satisfying, for example, for the Night Lords to be a broken Legion of deteriorating psychopaths whose Primarch died to puncture the Imperium's facade of humanism, rather than the "Raptor Army."

[Hellios]

o if someone said "I play Iron Warriors" you could pretty much be guaranteed to be facing a Vindicator and a Unit of Obliterators. Now if someone says I have a Iron Warriors army... what do you expect?

From my perspective, this is something to be celebrated. I'm not against Legion-specific special rules on the whole, but the method of doling them out via straight-jacketed "sub-lists" was close to the worst possible way to go about doing it. Besides being boring as all hell to field and play against, the lists gave rise to the perception that the Legions were defined by their in-game "gimmick," rather than by the themes and ideas that ran through their history. It's much more satisfying, for example, for the Night Lords to be a broken Legion of deteriorating psychopaths whose Primarch died to puncture the Imperium's facade of humanism, rather than the "Raptor Army."

 

I didn't play chaos at the time of 3.5 dex but I played against chaos a lot and I must say that it was far more interesting to play against chaos under the 3.5 dex than under the 4 ed dex... One guy would be a red wave of khorne rushing across the board... the other would be alpha legion who would appear in front of me and go surprise using cultists to screen his more important units and keep mine busy, then the word bearer army that would seem small but as it got close would drop the denizens of the warp in front of me... and then you have the iron warrior player sitting back and blasting me... Oh and errrm from what I remember while the army list might have been straight-jacketed at least the unit upgrades weren't... especially the HQs... you could really make those your own...

 

Oh and night lords were the fast, stealthy army... it wasn't just raptors... they had bikes as well...

[Csm001]

The current codex is quite good if you have renegades in mind. It gave us a lot of freedom to create our own fluff, and I appreciate this.

 

Indeed I enjoyed the book a lot. And the lack of legions was fine, because I, in my idiocy, believed that a Codex: Chaos Legions was soon to be released. Lots of people loving chaos legions + plenty of money for GW to get = more codices. How could that be otherwise?

 

I still believe something like that is gonna be realeased. Hope is the first step in the road to disappointment.

 

Since then:

Night Lords as Blood Angels? Sure why not. Get that fear-power for your librarian and maskes for your S. Guard, and some raptors to justify it all. If you are serious is fine.

World Eaters as Wolves? Sure why not. Thunderwolf for juggernauts, wolves for hounds and please please do not even think about JotWW. Same that NL/BA.

The Fallen? Take Imperial Guard, remove the Company Commander and add a single space marine model. This is fluffy.

Alpha Legion? No idea.

 

Just my two cents.

[A D-B]

o if someone said "I play Iron Warriors" you could pretty much be guaranteed to be facing a Vindicator and a Unit of Obliterators. Now if someone says I have a Iron Warriors army... what do you expect?

From my perspective, this is something to be celebrated. I'm not against Legion-specific special rules on the whole, but the method of doling them out via straight-jacketed "sub-lists" was close to the worst possible way to go about doing it. Besides being boring as all hell to field and play against, the lists gave rise to the perception that the Legions were defined by their in-game "gimmick," rather than by the themes and ideas that ran through their history. It's much more satisfying, for example, for the Night Lords to be a broken Legion of deteriorating psychopaths whose Primarch died to puncture the Imperium's facade of humanism, rather than the "Raptor Army."

 

I didn't play chaos at the time of 3.5 dex but I played against chaos a lot and I must say that it was far more interesting to play against chaos under the 3.5 dex than under the 4 ed dex... One guy would be a red wave of khorne rushing across the board... the other would be alpha legion who would appear in front of me and go surprise using cultists to screen his more important units and keep mine busy, then the word bearer army that would seem small but as it got close would drop the denizens of the warp in front of me... and then you have the iron warrior player sitting back and blasting me... Oh and errrm from what I remember while the army list might have been straight-jacketed at least the unit upgrades weren't... especially the HQs... you could really make those your own...

 

Oh and night lords were the fast, stealthy army... it wasn't just raptors... they had bikes as well...

 

I think you're both completely correct, but on different sides of the same coin. The problem is that a lot of stuff, a lot of the freedom we now have, isn't supported or explained by extensive background/fluff in the codex, and it's also relatively ineffective on the tabletop. Chaos lists are often homogenised and similar, because so many of our own units fail in comparison to the ones we use/see all the time. Why take X, when Y is objectively better? etc.

 

It's the death of variety.

[maverike_prime]

I think you're both completely correct, but on different sides of the same coin. The problem is that a lot of stuff, a lot of the freedom we now have, isn't supported or explained by extensive background/fluff in the codex, and it's also relatively ineffective on the tabletop. Chaos lists are often homogenised and similar, because so many of our own units fail in comparison to the ones we use/see all the time. Why take X, when Y is objectively better? etc.

 

It's the death of variety.

 

I half agree with you A D-B. But I wouldn't call it a death of variety. Rather it's a lack of encouragement to explore. There are 33 paint schemes presented in the CSM codex. The way the codex is set up there is absolutely no reason what so ever not to explore those paint schemes and what ever information you can find behind the names and colors. What I feel is lacking is... hmm, I'm not sure of an appropriate word here so I'll default to 'reward'.

 

I really do hate to do this, but there was comment made by Gav Thorpe following the publishing of the 3rd edition Eldar codex. I don't have the WD issue on hand so I can't quote it directly, but the comment was made in response to the... voiced complaints about the Wave Serpent being changed from Armor 14 to armor 12 and having it's points raised a bit. Thorpe said something to the effect of "Armies are defined by what they don't have as well as what they have." I think the same point should hold true for the sub-variants of the armies as well as the individual codexes. The Salamanders are master craftsman, many of them born and raised in the forge houses on Nocturn. Because of this, the average Salamander Marine tends to take better care of their equipment then other average marines and the Salamander Techmarines tend to creature better examples of the weapons then the techmarines of other chapters (Yes I know there are exceptions to this statement, but let me finish). So what's the difference in-game? A Salamanders army gets the ability to re-roll misses with metla, and flamers. The Salamanders are now more then just a name and a paint scheme. If someone wants to build a Space Marine Army using just the basic Marine listing with out Vulkan and paint them in Salamander colors and call them Salamanders I'm not going to tell them they can't and I'll stand up to anyone else who tells them that they can't do it.

 

Going back to the Iron Warriors as an example. Right now, there's no reason for an Iron Warriors plays to play any differently then a Black Legion army. There's no real encouragement to explore alternative armies. I do feel there there should be some measure of reward to players who choose to explore other armies and back ground in the codex. That reward should be new experiences. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lord should play differently to Black Legion/Renegades should play differently to World Eaters should play differently to Iron Warriors.

 

Think back to when you first started playing a new army. Remember the first time your commander ran up and smacked a Nobz unit just to pellet whipped by a dozen snotlings because he only has 3 wounds? Or how about the time you charged your melta bomb equiped assault Marines at a Wraith Lord thinking the melta charges would be great against it's armor, only to be mortified to find out it's Toughness 8 and doesn't have an armor value? Or how about that time you got a rematch against those Snotlings but this time you charge your lord in with a unit of CC equiped marines and you just flat wrecked them?

 

Thats the sort of reward I want if I go to try out a new army, or subversion of an army.

[Lexington]

The problem is that a lot of stuff, a lot of the freedom we now have, isn't supported or explained by extensive background/fluff in the codex, and it's also relatively ineffective on the tabletop. Chaos lists are often homogenised and similar, because so many of our own units fail in comparison to the ones we use/see all the time. Why take X, when Y is objectively better? etc.

Oh, totally. I spend a lot of time here defending the Chaos Codex's approach, but as far as the actual execution goes, it's publication just skirts to the legal definition of criminal negligence. It's hideous, with all the internal balance of a bi-polar meth addict and fiction that fights a losing struggle with bare readability. I love the fact that it went back to a 2nd Edition-era army building philosophy, but that's all.

 

There's no real encouragement to explore alternative armies. I do feel there there should be some measure of reward to players who choose to explore other armies and back ground in the codex.

This is the crux of the issue, and it's where I depart from seemingly the majority of Chaos players.

 

As said, I've no particular problem with a few Legion-specific rules where appropriate. You can work out a Word Bearers Lord with an Accursed Crozius in the current Codex via "counts as," but the path to doing so is at least a tad distasteful. By all means, let the Warsmiths have their Servo-Arms, and for God's sake, give us back our Cult Terminators. Graham Sheckles damn near started World War III over those things during the primordial days of 3rd Edition. Should his gaze return to these mortal shores, I fear for all our souls.

 

What I don't want is a specific set of trade-offs in the form of army list restrictions. It's unnecessary and, as I said earlier, it turns the Legions into a set of gimmicks. It also makes for a weird disconnect between mixed and mono-Legion lists that's not even slightly justified in the game's background. Why do my Word Bearers stop being Word Bearers just because they brought along a couple of Plague Marines? Do Iron Warriors have tanks that phase out of reality in the presence of Thousand Sons? 5th Edition's already a patchy, barely-playable mess. Let's not add to the tabletop cognitive dissonance.

 

Also, really, I just plain bristle at giving players an expectation that they'll receive an in-game advantage for playing "correctly." Yeah, that genie's already long out of the bottle, and, yeah, these days, 40K competes in a market where the target audience is used to games that, by the virtue of their medium, don't allow for much imaginative play, but eh. I'm old, I'm cranky, and GW doesn't sign my paychecks, so eff the target audience, and eff their straight-jacketed game environments. An army played to its themes, and the pride of a well-made, well-modelled set of miniatures with an interesting backstory should be its own damn reward.

 

And, yes, while we're on the subject, you are on my lawn. :)

 

Finally, besides philosophical objections, there's the practical point that I simply don't trust the current Studio to translate background to tabletop without, to put it lightly, completely cocking up. Remember, this is the same bunch of geniuses who decided that what the Space Wolves really needed was a unit of Space Marines riding giant wolves. Yeah. Because, you know, that was the fatal flaw of the previous Space Wolf background - too much subtlety.

[maverike_prime]

Also, really, I just plain bristle at giving players an expectation that they'll receive an in-game advantage for playing "correctly." Yeah, that genie's already long out of the bottle, and, yeah, these days, 40K competes in a market where the target audience is used to games that, by the virtue of their medium, don't allow for much imaginative play, but eh. I'm old, I'm cranky, and GW doesn't sign my paychecks, so eff the target audience, and eff their straight-jacketed game environments. An army played to its themes, and the pride of a well-made, well-modelled set of miniatures with an interesting backstory should be its own damn reward.

 

I'm not advocating in-game advantages, merely rewards for trying different armies. Space Marines play differently then Eldar. The reward for building the Eldar army is the ability to explore new options, new units, and new abilities. The fact that the fluff further expands on why Eldar work differently to Space Marines is a secondary benefit to it. Lemme try mapping this out a bit.

 

When you start the hobby you buy the 40k Starter set. Presently you get a Space Marine Army and an Ork Army. The Ork army plays differently to the Space Marine army. Are there Ork Units that get a 3+ save like Space marines? Yep. Are there Ork Units that have a power fist like Space Marines? Yep. Does the Ork army have the same advantages as the Space Marine army? Nope. One on one, an Ork isn't likely to beat a Space Marine. But an Ork Army doesn't typically win by virtue of it's individual members and the army is built to work to that concept.

 

So you buy the Starter set and you and your friend each play one of the armies. You like Space Marines so you play them first. 'A' works this way, 'B' works this way, 'C' works that way and 'D' works that way. 'B' can cover 'A' and in a pinch 'C' can do 'A's job. 'D' can help 'A' and 'C' perform their jobs, but it can't do it for them. Then after a couple weeks you get bored with Space Marines and want to take a wack at Orks so you switch armies.

Now you find that 'A' doesn't work the same way it did for the Space Marines, 'B' in an Ork army isn't even close to 'B' in a space marine army, and why the hell do you have so many 'C's in an ork army? And where's your 'D'? oh, you don't have 'D'. You have a bunch of 'E's.

 

That's the reward for trying a new army. Being able to explore and learn all over again.

 

 

And, yes, while we're on the subject, you are on my lawn. :lol:

 

Finally, besides philosophical objections, there's the practical point that I simply don't trust the current Studio to translate background to tabletop without, to put it lightly, completely cocking up. Remember, this is the same bunch of geniuses who decided that what the Space Wolves really needed was a unit of Space Marines riding giant wolves. Yeah. Because, you know, that was the fatal flaw of the previous Space Wolf background - too much subtlety.

 

Yeah, can't argue with that one. Thunderwolf Calvery, while a cool idea... yeah. Just doesn't seem to mesh into the game terribly well.

[Frater Uriah]

As far as I see it, it ultimately boils down to what Codex promotes the best vision for your army. While I don't necessarily agree that C:BA is the best codex to represent MOST Night Lords, if super-fast, jump-packing, oops-I-crapped-my-pants-from-fear, It's Raining Land Raiders Night Lords are your idea of how they fight, with Assault Marines as Troops, Sanguinary Guard with Death Masks, and massive armored vehicles falling from the sky, use it. If you can come up with something yourself based on the current C:CSM, tricked out with some house rules, use that. I've hybridized the current mark of C:CSM and the previous edition for the independent characters of my Chaos Army, which is built around a strong Word Bearers core with individual units of Night Lords, World Eaters, Death Guard, Emperor's Children, and Thousand Sons, just because I like the flexibility it provides my warband and gives me an extremely variegated army that enables me to move from one paint scheme to the next without getting bored. And I completely agree with A D-B, that different warbands, splintered from their original Legions over the course of ten millenia, will certainly take on different characteristics and fighting styles, with irrational, overriding hatred standing as the sole unifying drive for any group.

 

I've discovered that an effective backstory will make it much more likely that your opponent will accept whatever house rules you come up with. Maybe your Night Lords fought alongside the BA during the Crusade and picked up some of their tactics? Was there some bitter grievance that bubbled up during their time together that continues to fester ten millenia later? There's a story there that will potentially add to the enjoyment of the game, whether you play one-off battles or campaigns, as my group and I tend to play.

[Kol Saresk]

Accidental threadomancy while reading. Please ignore.

[Cmdr Shepard]

In my opinion if you want an alternative to C:CSM for a Night Lords army your best choice would be the Heresy army list from FW. I think it's a far more acurate choice then BA.

[Xin Ceithan]

I´d also recommend going with the Betrayal Heresy-Era Codex for the less mutated ( or early) traitor Night Lords. You can have Assault squads as troop choice with the right HQ choice ( or Drop pd heavy deployment ). If you are using your list "closer" to the 41st millenium just limit the heresy era tech choices.

 

 

(Who am I kidding? Go Team Volkite! :P )

[Kol Saresk]

Accidental threadomancy while reading. Please ignore.

So, I take it everyone missed this then did they? If everyone wants to comment on a relative current topic, might I suggest go to this one? ===>LINKY

[Sception]

*Accidental threadomancy of 2 year old post, tries to stop the thread, but it's no longer under his control.

*posts like thread never stopped

*posts like thread never stopped

 

:) This is why you don't dabble with the dark art of thread necromancy. In inexperienced hands, the results can quickly get out hand.

[Brother Nihm]

Accidental threadomancy while reading. Please ignore.

So, I take it everyone missed this then did they? If everyone wants to comment on a relative current topic, might I suggest go to this one? ===>LINKY

Topic closed.