Word Bearers fluff question...

[deity12]

Hey, just wondering I'm writing up a Word Bearers list and all of my units have Icons. Is this fluff-wise ok? It says on lexicanium that Word Bearers shun those who are favoured by a paticular god and that they specialise in mass daemon summonings. So, in a 1500 list if I have all my units with marks or icons and have only one daemon summoning, a greater daemon, is it fluffy enough?

[totgeboren]

This is very much up to the player. I myself is a firm believer that the "Mark of Chaos Undivided" is as much a defining feature of the Word Bearers as the Mark of Khorne is for the World Eaters. That is, you are not playing a World Eater army if your boss is a Daemonprince with the mark of Slaanesh, some Berzerkers and some Plague Marines.

 

However, the fact is that the current Chaos codex becomes incredibly hard to use if you try and make a Word Bearer army using only the MoCU and IoCG.

 

For example, I play my Dark Apostle as a Lord with the MoT and a Deamon Weapon. He also has a big frikkin book, but I say that the shooting attack he can make is because of daemons bound to his book, and the book being such a powerful tool for summoning that it can be used to weaken the fabric of reality, allowing daemonic allies to scratch and claw through the barrier between the warp and reality, attacking anything threatening him.

 

Fluff-wise, the Word Bearers have been known to outright kill those with the mark of a single God, for blasphemy against the Word of Lorgar. (He was really into worship of all the Gods equally.)

The big problem with Icons is that you can't be "half-marked" by a God. If you get the gift of Nurgle, meaning +1 toughness, there is no turning back. If you would lose or cast of the blessing of Nurgle, you would die from all the disease. The rules now are extremely strange, and goes totally contrary to the fluff. Maybe Gav didn't think about the fact that Icon bearers can be killed?

Icons on the other hand can be used to represent different things. I have used my Sorcerer as a unit champion carrying the Icon of Tzeentch. The 5+ save was to represent him using his psychics to protect the squad he was leading.

I have also experimented with using Chaplains as unit Champions with the Icon of Khorne, to represent them inciting their brothers with righteous hatred. Giving a unit a God-specific icon and saying "today they chose to dedicate themselves to Tzeentch, so now they can predict the future and get a 5+ inv" would in my mind be against the fluff.

 

The icons can be used to represent the squads preferred combat tactics. Like representing an assault squad with the Icon of Khorne and so on. An Apothecary could be used as an Icon of Nurgle too. IoS could be combat drugs or something. However, using this line of reasoning, there is seldom any reason not to just pick the Cult entry that corresponds to the Icon and have a unit that is simply better for the points.

 

Or to put it simple. Word Bearers are dedicated to Chaos Undivided. If a Word Bearer is marked by a single God, he is not a Word Bearer anymore. He would either be killed or banished by his Dark Apostle, and saying a Dark Apostle would turn to one god is like saying Grey Knights turn to Chaos. They both represent the epitome of faith in their creed. You can't become a Dark Apostle if the possibility of turning against Lorgar even exists.

 

That's the fluff, but luckily, we have count-as. As I said I use a lord with the MoT for my Apostle, I am building a unit of count-as Khorne Berzerkers now, to represent a unit of assault veterans, kinda like Vanguards for the Loyalists. You can do quite a bit with count-as, but simply giving Word Bearers different marks and icons would be very unfluffy imo.

 

And regarding daemons. I think one or two units of lesser daemons are incredibly useful to have regardless of the fluff, but at least one unit is a nice homage to the fluff. I seldom use greater Daemons, the Champions are too important (especially for me, since my Champions count-as carrying the IoCG. Really is is just there to represent the leadership boost of the Champ.)

[The Prophet]

The discussion is already here.

[Midwest]

Good thread in the above link, but I'll post here to avoid necro'ing it.

 

There were a couple things that went into the original Word Bearers IA regarding them worshipping "Chaos Undivided":

 

1. The Alpha Legion worships all four gods (at the time, not sure if that's changed), but as individual cults. This is similar to the Black Legion, but AL are more relevant as (at the time) they were seen as possible rivals for the WB due to both being cult-seeding legions. As such, it made for a contrast to have the WB refrain from containing similar cults of Khorne, Nurgle, etc. within the legion.

 

2. It made for an interesting "theological" distinction to have the WB approach Chaos from a much different angle than the other legions. Instead of pursuing a single god, or having individual marines/units dedicate themselves to one god or another, the WB were seen as worshiping Chaos as a pantheon, rather than individually worshiping each god.

 

3. This also ties into the nature of the post-heresy WB. Unlike most legions, the WB remained as a unified legion still under the command of their Primarch. Similarly, the WB did not turn to Chaos out of desperation, rage, despair, need, or being tricked into it. Lorgar turned to gods who "deserved" to be worshiped, in the belief that humans *need* to worship gods. IE, the WB's did not turn to Chaos for personal gain, so to speak, but because their original focus of devotion rejected them, and in their minds they found a better replacement. The idea here is that the relative unity of the Legion, and their much different "relationship" to Chaos, is reflected into the idea that they refrain from choosing one god over the rest (and unlike most other traitors they also worship the lesser gods beyond the big four as well).

 

Personally, I think the current Chaosdex represents the WB much better than previous ones, save maybe for the ability in the 2nd ed book to take multiple marks for characters. I say that because, in practice, Word Bearers undoubtedly call upon the relevant gods before and during battle. Fex, assault squads would undoubtedly turn to Khorne (or even Slaanesh) to bless their weapons and enhance their prowess, or turn to Tzeentch for psychic augmentation. They would actually do that for multiple gods - e.g. "Khorne make my weapons true, Nurgle save me from my wounds, Tzeentch boon me with defense against the Warp, Slaanesh gift me with the ecstasy of combat" - but in tabletop terms maybe only one god or another grants those prayers strongly enough to have an in-game effect. So a 'regular' CSM squad temporarily adopting one of the Marks seems perfectly fine.

 

What they would be less likely to do is become true 'cult' warriors - e.g. Berzerkers or Noise Marines. Nor, IMO, would their officers adopt marks - as Chaplains, they would be less inclined to ever adopt any mark - even temporarily - as they see themselves as conduits for the entire Pantheon, never as avatars or champions of any individual god.

[The Prophet]

Personally, I think the current Chaosdex represents the WB much better than previous ones, save maybe for the ability in the 2nd ed book to take multiple marks for characters. I say that because, in practice, Word Bearers undoubtedly call upon the relevant gods before and during battle. Fex, assault squads would undoubtedly turn to Khorne (or even Slaanesh) to bless their weapons and enhance their prowess, or turn to Tzeentch for psychic augmentation. They would actually do that for multiple gods - e.g. "Khorne make my weapons true, Nurgle save me from my wounds, Tzeentch boon me with defense against the Warp, Slaanesh gift me with the ecstasy of combat" - but in tabletop terms maybe only one god or another grants those prayers strongly enough to have an in-game effect. So a 'regular' CSM squad temporarily adopting one of the Marks seems perfectly fine.

 

What they would be less likely to do is become true 'cult' warriors - e.g. Berzerkers or Noise Marines. Nor, IMO, would their officers adopt marks - as Chaplains, they would be less inclined to ever adopt any mark - even temporarily - as they see themselves as conduits for the entire Pantheon, never as avatars or champions of any individual god.

 

 

I agree with most of the things you say Midwest, and I think there is clarity in much of it. But as I explain in the original thread I do not view marks as an option to be chosen at will for a Word Bearer, but rather a blessing given by the gods at their whim. Maybe we confuse the Word Bearer with the gamer able to choose his marks for an army list? I don't see a reason why Father Nurgle would give someone just a bit of cold instead of the full frontal pestilence.

 

 

I still think we can use the original thread to discuss, so we don't have to repeat everything.

[Kristoff]

Personally, I think the current Chaosdex represents the WB much better than previous ones, save maybe for the ability in the 2nd ed book to take multiple marks for characters. I say that because, in practice, Word Bearers undoubtedly call upon the relevant gods before and during battle. Fex, assault squads would undoubtedly turn to Khorne (or even Slaanesh) to bless their weapons and enhance their prowess, or turn to Tzeentch for psychic augmentation. They would actually do that for multiple gods - e.g. "Khorne make my weapons true, Nurgle save me from my wounds, Tzeentch boon me with defense against the Warp, Slaanesh gift me with the ecstasy of combat" - but in tabletop terms maybe only one god or another grants those prayers strongly enough to have an in-game effect. So a 'regular' CSM squad temporarily adopting one of the Marks seems perfectly fine.

 

What they would be less likely to do is become true 'cult' warriors - e.g. Berzerkers or Noise Marines. Nor, IMO, would their officers adopt marks - as Chaplains, they would be less inclined to ever adopt any mark - even temporarily - as they see themselves as conduits for the entire Pantheon, never as avatars or champions of any individual god.

 

 

I agree with most of the things you say Midwest, and I think there is clarity in much of it. But as I explain in the original thread I do not view marks as an option to be chosen at will for a Word Bearer, but rather a blessing given by the gods at their whim. Maybe we confuse the Word Bearer with the gamer able to choose his marks for an army list? I don't see a reason why Father Nurgle would give someone just a bit of cold instead of the full frontal pestilence.

 

 

I still think we can use the original thread to discuss, so we don't have to repeat everything.

 

Marks, yes, but the 4th Edition codex presents a second option, that of the Icon. When a Chaos Marine unit picks up an Icon, they dedicate themselves to either a specific god who in turn grants them their specific blessing to prove themselves with. It even works that when they disgrace the Icon (in other words, the bearer dies), they lose the blessing. In this case, the Word Bearers demonstrate their deliberate seeking of gifts of the gods for combat, as opposed to the random bestowal of gifts that others receive.

[The Prophet]

Marks, yes, but the 4th Edition codex presents a second option, that of the Icon. When a Chaos Marine unit picks up an Icon, they dedicate themselves to either a specific god who in turn grants them their specific blessing to prove themselves with. It even works that when they disgrace the Icon (in other words, the bearer dies), they lose the blessing. In this case, the Word Bearers demonstrate their deliberate seeking of gifts of the gods for combat, as opposed to the random bestowal of gifts that others receive.

 

 

You really should read this argument for an inclusive view on icons and marks. I haven't forgot about the icons, and there is no reason why marks should be less fitting for the Word Bearers. It's all in there.

[Midwest]

I agree with most of the things you say Midwest, and I think there is clarity in much of it. But as I explain in the original thread I do not view marks as an option to be chosen at will for a Word Bearer, but rather a blessing given by the gods at their whim. Maybe we confuse the Word Bearer with the gamer able to choose his marks for an army list? I don't see a reason why Father Nurgle would give someone just a bit of cold instead of the full frontal pestilence.

If I understand you correctly, I agree completely.

 

My POV is that 40k's rules, esp post-v3, don't necessarily match-up well with the background. As such, a Mark (or icon) can really represent a lot of things. Fex, I recently read someone's comments about using the Mark of Tzeentch and a piece of wargear (IIRC) to proxy the Dark Apostle rules from the previous codex.

 

So when it comes to WBs getting marks, I think you can treat them as being boons granted by scheming gods for their own incomprehensible purposes, or as proxies for other affects too, like maybe the entire pantheon has booned a squad to do well in battle and the cumulative/overall affects happen to mirror a normal mark/icon of Khorne or Slaanesh, things like that.

 

But yeah, def. agree on choosing vs. gifting. The Word Bearers seek only to worship the Pantheon because they're driven to - the gifts they receive are rewards for that, not the results of bargains or pacts or other wrangling on the part of the WBs.

[Kristoff]

Marks, yes, but the 4th Edition codex presents a second option, that of the Icon. When a Chaos Marine unit picks up an Icon, they dedicate themselves to either a specific god who in turn grants them their specific blessing to prove themselves with. It even works that when they disgrace the Icon (in other words, the bearer dies), they lose the blessing. In this case, the Word Bearers demonstrate their deliberate seeking of gifts of the gods for combat, as opposed to the random bestowal of gifts that others receive.

 

 

You really should read this argument for an inclusive view on icons and marks. I haven't forgot about the icons, and there is no reason why marks should be less fitting for the Word Bearers. It's all in there.

 

I was agreeing that Marks are gifts, and just pointing out that the Icons are conscious choices. Basic Marks should be viable for Word Bearers, but if I remember my fluff correctly, the whole cult marine business is going to far for them.

[the jeske]

a mark is not a random boom , its is a visible sign that a mortal had made a contract with a god and that he is now dedicted only to him . There is no today I take mark X and tomorrow mark Y . dudes that try to do that stuff are either ultra rare[w40k history knows 2 such mortals horus and abadon] or dead after they try to enforce a different god . Undivided marked fuel chaos a whole , but it also gives them a smaller chance to get boons from gods [but on the other hand they have more "freedom" then so called cult marines].

[TheDarkApostle]

a mark is not a random boom , its is a visible sign that a mortal had made a contract with a god and that he is now dedicted only to him . There is no today I take mark X and tomorrow mark Y . dudes that try to do that stuff are either ultra rare[w40k history knows 2 such mortals horus and abadon] or dead after they try to enforce a different god . Undivided marked fuel chaos a whole , but it also gives them a smaller chance to get boons from gods [but on the other hand they have more "freedom" then so called cult marines].

Taken from the Warriors of Chaos Armybook, while it might be the "Gifts" section and not the "Marks" section it's still food for thought:

 

"Because most Warriors of Chaos worship the entire pantheon of the Dark Gods, it is not unusual for a warrior to bear the blessing of more than one of his patrons, or even to have taken his power from a defeated foe - for example, a warrior favored by Slaanesh might find his sinews alive with the blessings of Khorne after a particularly vicious slaughter."

 

TDA

[The Prophet]

...and considering the Word Bearers life is all about pleasing the Dark Gods, every god in his pantheon will probably recieve more attention from him than from a "cult marine". Single dedication does not mean more dedication at every comparison, and certainly not in this case.

[A D-B]

Tough call. In the past, the rules have been limiting, purely to keep Chaos marine armies separate from one another with a minimum of actual rules design. It was just a matter of saying "You get a few more of these, a few less of these, and there you go."

 

And, of course, now we have a codex that's rich in every possibility with no limitations, but there's so little background information compared to previous lore that it's not brilliant as a reference for making frameworks like this.

 

For the Word Bearers, Icons in squads obviously make a lot of sense. There's nothing unusual about a squad choosing to invoke a particular god's powers for a short while - that's been something in the background for a long time, as a general theme of Chaos worship. It's certainly one way to go about it, anyway. It's also a staple of a million Fantasy settings, where characters pray to particular gods for luck, power, or whatever, depending on their circumstances. In fact, I tend to think it's dead cool to prepare a ritual before a battle and fashion a treasured Icon to be raised in honour of a particular god for that battle/crusade/whatever, praying for its power and blessing as you slay in its name. That's killer.

 

Marks are a little trickier. I can see a Word Bearer lord either being "blessed" by a certain god with a Mark, or having a particular kinship with a deity above all others, similar to the way some religions and cultures acknowledge many spirits and gods, but the faithful often have a particular patron spirit/deity. I suspect most of their kin wouldn't be thrilled about it, though.

 

I think the line comes at Cult units. Rubric Marines are essentially Thousand Sons, and though there's nothing to stop a Word Bearer lord getting hold of some of the automatons and shackling them to his will via sorcery, they're basically just allies with a cool backstory. Khorne Berzerkers are a mixture of the Blood God's blessed warriors and the results of psychosurgery, and it's difficult to see a Word Bearer going that far down a mono-worship path. Similarly Noise Marines are a pretty limited cult, and Plague Marines follow the same sort of rule. They're the ones inevitably committed to a mono-deity path, and that's what makes my Spider-senses tingle when it comes to the WeeBees.

 

Ultimately, I know there's a very eager trend to look back at 3.5 and imagine it as a golden age, but let's not forget how limiting it was, too. Were still "enjoying" the Night Lords as "RAPTORS, RAPTORS, RAPTORS" 10 years later, despite it having almost nothing to do with their background, and for every sweet rule we had back then, there was another that artificially limited us in the name of some forced difference between Legions.

 

Given the fractured, individualistic nature of Chaos armies, we're supposed to be able to fly a little freer with stuff like this. It's about finding the balance between "There's no fluff now, we can do anything" and "There was a little bit of fluff 10 years ago, but the rules reflected it badly anyway."

[totgeboren]

Keeping the different legions different is not necessarily a bad thing.

We have the Black Legion, who have gone 'all-in' in their dedication to the Dark Gods, but they are also incredibly pragmatic. Their worship is more like a tool than a real, genuine display of religious conviction. However, the cult troops they employ might be a bit more dedicated than the average Black Legionnaire.

The Iron Warriors and the Night Lords both seem to have mixed feeling about the Gods, and when they honour them, it often appear to be purely as a form of bargaining.

It seems unclear to me if the AL are really chaos worshippers at all. They might just be freedom-fighters, who instigate rebellions based more on political ideologies rather than religious ones. Though some seem convinced that they are real and proper Chaos Marines, but you never know with the AL, do you? :)

 

So, where does that leave the Word Bearers? For me, they are the only Legion that seem to worship chaos for worships sake. All the other 'undivided' Legions seem to embrace chaos for pragmatic reasons, but the WB stand alone as true zealots. Their dedication to the Chaos Gods as an undivided pantheon is just as complete as the dedication of a Berzerker is to Khorne.

 

I can see the argument for Icons, but for me that takes away the defining feature of the WB. At least fluff-wise. Game-wise, count-as is a must to even be able to play WB using the Chaos Codex (I use both marks and cults to portray my army). :/

If a WB strays on the edge of over-dedication, the Dark Apostle might see though his fingers for a while, at least if it's useful. But considering just how demented these guys are, I think that the line might be draw sooner rather than later. If they can dedicate themselves to any god, and change their dedication depending on their needs, I think they become just like the rest. Pragmatic warriors, using chaos for their own needs. I much prefer to see them as Heralds of Chaos Undivided, driven by religious fervour.

With that interpretation, even Icons might be crossing the line.

[A D-B]

Keeping the different legions different is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Definitely not. So long as the differences are validated in the background, and are interesting. Differences for differences sake just dilute the lore and encourage stunted thinking.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Keeping the different legions different is not necessarily a bad thing.

We have the Black Legion, who have gone 'all-in' in their dedication to the Dark Gods, but they are also incredibly pragmatic. Their worship is more like a tool than a real, genuine display of religious conviction. However, the cult troops they employ might be a bit more dedicated than the average Black Legionnaire.

The Iron Warriors and the Night Lords both seem to have mixed feeling about the Gods, and when they honour them, it often appear to be purely as a form of bargaining.

It seems unclear to me if the AL are really chaos worshippers at all. They might just be freedom-fighters, who instigate rebellions based more on political ideologies rather than religious ones. Though some seem convinced that they are real and proper Chaos Marines, but you never know with the AL, do you? ;)

 

So, where does that leave the Word Bearers? For me, they are the only Legion that seem to worship chaos for worships sake. All the other 'undivided' Legions seem to embrace chaos for pragmatic reasons, but the WB stand alone as true zealots. Their dedication to the Chaos Gods as an undivided pantheon is just as complete as the dedication of a Berzerker is to Khorne.

 

I can see the argument for Icons, but for me that takes away the defining feature of the WB. At least fluff-wise. Game-wise, count-as is a must to even be able to play WB using the Chaos Codex (I use both marks and cults to portray my army). :/

If a WB strays on the edge of over-dedication, the Dark Apostle might see though his fingers for a while, at least if it's useful. But considering just how demented these guys are, I think that the line might be draw sooner rather than later. If they can dedicate themselves to any god, and change their dedication depending on their needs, I think they become just like the rest. Pragmatic warriors, using chaos for their own needs. I much prefer to see them as Heralds of Chaos Undivided, driven by religious fervour.

With that interpretation, even Icons might be crossing the line.

 

I think what A D-B is trying to say is "keep the Legions, but we shouldn't make up arbitrary restrictions for the Legions that have nothing to do with fluff for the sake of creating 8 variant lists". Case in point, the Night Lords. The 3.5/IA rules gave them more FA/less HS and more Raptors, just so we could have a mirror to the Iron Warriors with their more HS/less FA and more Obliterators, despite these things having no actual basis in Night Lords background. To this day, we're still stuck with the fallacy of "want to play Night Lords? Just spam Raptors!"

 

With this, I agree with A D-B as well in regards to army selection (ok, I promise not to do any more arse-kissing). Word Bearers can have mono-god Icons, but not mono-god Marks. An Icon of Nurgle doesn't necessarily mean that they gave up on worshipping the other gods, just that before battle the squad screamed "Mighty Nurgle, give us your blessings so that the fire of the enemy shall bounce from your faithful servants like rain! Glorious shall be the carnage in your name!" and then Nurgle decided to listen, and extended a slight amount of his power to them. Cult units can be used, but have them as allies or mercenaries, not as actual Word Bearers (or at least not well-liked Word Bearers, there is a group of Khorne-only WBs out there, after all). Be sure not to take too many either, or it stops looking like Word Bearers with allies, and more like "random mish-mash of Marines".

 

With this is mind, it'd probably be best to model the Icon-bearers as an orator, or something, along the lines of a Sabbat pack priest from V:tM (a guy who leads all the minor level rituals, for those who don't know). Sure, the Dark Apostle leads the main rites, but the orator (who isn't necessarily the sergeant/champion, either) is the guy who consecrates the weapons and armour, and leads the squad in prayers before battle begins.

 

What needs to be remembered is that the Word Bearers treat the Chaos Gods like a pantheon, and like any pantheon, each god has their own area of influence, and should be prayed to at specific times. As an example, the Romans had a pantheon, and didn't like favouring one god to the exclusion of the others, but a sailer would still pray to Neptune to bless him and not get him stuck in a storm, or hunters prayed to Diana for her blessing before going hunting. They still worship the whole pantheon, its just at that specific moment in time, one particular god is more 'useful', so they'll ask for its blessing in particular.

It's the same way with the Chaos Gods and the Word Bearers. Sometimes Tzeentch might have 'more to offer', say when going up against the Eldar of Ulthwé, so the Word Bearers will strengthen their bonds with Tzeentch, and ask for its blessing. They'll still give praise to the others and whatnot, they just won't ask for the blessings of Nurgle. This is what Icons can be used to represent.

 

People focus too much on the "Icons give a Mark", which has led to the belief that the Icon is a 'Mark on a stick', characterised by everything the Mark does, when it isn't necessarily the case. A unit can have an Icon of Nurgle without looking like Plague Marines. They can have the Icon of Khorne without becoming ax-wielding maniacs.

[Brother Nihm]

Simply put,

You're free to use any and all Marks/Icons in your WB force.

 

1. it is your army.

2. there is fluff precedence for both one-god focused WB groups and undivided ones.

3. Go forth and kill for the Dark Gods.

[Frater Uriah]

Simply put,

You're free to use any and all Marks/Icons in your WB force.

 

1. it is your army.

2. there is fluff precedence for both one-god focused WB groups and undivided ones.

3. Go forth and kill for the Dark Gods.

I would say this sums it up perfectly.

[God Of War]

Simply put,

You're free to use any and all Marks/Icons in your WB force.

 

1. it is your army.

2. there is fluff precedence for both one-god focused WB groups and undivided ones.

3. Go forth and kill for the Dark Gods.

I would say this sums it up perfectly.

Yep, it does.

1.It's alright to bend the fluff as long as it still makes sense with your army.

2.My biggest example would be Khalaxis (It was something like that) from the WB books.He and his squad always favored Khorne more than the other gods, but Jarulek allowed it because they were useful in an assault.

3.I don't have to supply an explanation for this.Just go grab a chainsword and start disemboweling.

[A D-B]

1.It's alright to bend the fluff as long as it still makes sense with your army.

 

True, but in this case, it's not necessarily a bend at all. It's all perspective, based on vague lore across many editions. According to current lore and rules, it's actually perfectly valid. According to past lore, it was either disallowed, allowed, or up for debate.

 

The joys of personal interpretation...

[totgeboren]

I would be surprised if every Dark Apostle enforced the exact same religious rules within his host. I mean, if it's one thing religions are good at, it's breaking up into many different, non-compatible versions.

Since Lorgar isn't leading the Legion in person any more, the divide between two Apostles could be as large as the divide between the Church of England and the Westboro Baptist Church. Both follow the same religion, and the same holy book for that matter, but it boggles the mind that the same holy book produced both religious.

 

However, I myself imagine the Word Bearers to be somewhat more centrally organized than my above example. I imagined them to be more like the Catholic Church, in that a priest in Africa will probably preach a different message to one in Europe, but they all, in principle, follow the same theological dictates of the ones in charge, i.e. the council of über apostles. They are suppose to be insanely loyal after all, and many are still alive that followed Lorgar in person. It's a lot easier to know what someone meant if you knew the guy personally.

 

I think the last interpretation makes more sense, but it is much more restricting for players and writers, because someone need to put down these rules to ink, so that others know where the line is drawn. And since no one is able to do that, they will by necessity be much more diverse in their religious teachings.

[Ethrion]

Were still "enjoying" the Night Lords as "RAPTORS, RAPTORS, RAPTORS" 10 years later, despite it having almost nothing to do with their background

 

I must admit my knowledge of the Raptor cult is quite limited - they are spread across multiple warbands and as it says in Blood Reaver they are raptors first, squad mates second and then allegiance to the warband third. But am I right in thinking that raptors originated in the Night Lords legion to begin with and were the 'first' assault marines?

[Lord_Caerolion]

Were still "enjoying" the Night Lords as "RAPTORS, RAPTORS, RAPTORS" 10 years later, despite it having almost nothing to do with their background

 

I must admit my knowledge of the Raptor cult is quite limited - they are spread across multiple warbands and as it says in Blood Reaver they are raptors first, squad mates second and then allegiance to the warband third. But am I right in thinking that raptors originated in the Night Lords legion to begin with and were the 'first' assault marines?

 

The problem with this logic is that just because a Legion/Chapter/whatever had the first of something, in no way means it's entirely composed of it, or heavily structured around it. To put it another way, Black Templars created the Land Raider Crusader, but to have a fluffy BT army you shouldn't simply spam Crusaders.

 

Night Lords dubbed the term "Raptor", apparently, and created the hit-and-run tactics that the Cult is infamous for, but during the Crusades jump-packs were rare, so the Night Lords wouldn't have had too many Raptors, and to assume that every current Night Lords warband is at least half Raptors is a vast inflation of how many there would have been.

 

While we had the first "Raptors", the Raptor Cult is now far larger than the original number of them, as Marines from every Chaos Legion, and possibly some loyalist ones, abandoned their ties during/post Heresy to join with others of their kind. Many are Night Lords, but many are probably World Eaters too, or Luna Wolves, or Emperor's Children.

 

In summary, 2000 Raptors out of a 100,000 strong Legion is still "more" than 1000 out of 100,000. This is what it realistically means by saying the Night Lords had more. Jump-packs were very rare, and it isn't harder to have more than crud-all.

[Ethrion]

Were still "enjoying" the Night Lords as "RAPTORS, RAPTORS, RAPTORS" 10 years later, despite it having almost nothing to do with their background

 

I must admit my knowledge of the Raptor cult is quite limited - they are spread across multiple warbands and as it says in Blood Reaver they are raptors first, squad mates second and then allegiance to the warband third. But am I right in thinking that raptors originated in the Night Lords legion to begin with and were the 'first' assault marines?

 

The problem with this logic is that just because a Legion/Chapter/whatever had the first of something, in no way means it's entirely composed of it, or heavily structured around it. To put it another way, Black Templars created the Land Raider Crusader, but to have a fluffy BT army you shouldn't simply spam Crusaders.

 

Night Lords dubbed the term "Raptor", apparently, and created the hit-and-run tactics that the Cult is infamous for, but during the Crusades jump-packs were rare, so the Night Lords wouldn't have had too many Raptors, and to assume that every current Night Lords warband is at least half Raptors is a vast inflation of how many there would have been.

 

While we had the first "Raptors", the Raptor Cult is now far larger than the original number of them, as Marines from every Chaos Legion, and possibly some loyalist ones, abandoned their ties during/post Heresy to join with others of their kind. Many are Night Lords, but many are probably World Eaters too, or Luna Wolves, or Emperor's Children.

 

In summary, 2000 Raptors out of a 100,000 strong Legion is still "more" than 1000 out of 100,000. This is what it realistically means by saying the Night Lords had more. Jump-packs were very rare, and it isn't harder to have more than crud-all.

 

I didn't mean to infer that because they originated in the Night Lords that it means they get to spam them nor entirely just raptors. I was just wanting to clarify that it was the case that the 8th Legion was where they began.

 

Certainly, raptors only make up a small part of a Night Lords warband with most marines being 'normal' ie. not part of the cult.

[Brother Nihm]

Were still "enjoying" the Night Lords as "RAPTORS, RAPTORS, RAPTORS" 10 years later, despite it having almost nothing to do with their background

 

I must admit my knowledge of the Raptor cult is quite limited - they are spread across multiple warbands and as it says in Blood Reaver they are raptors first, squad mates second and then allegiance to the warband third. But am I right in thinking that raptors originated in the Night Lords legion to begin with and were the 'first' assault marines?

That is what we are given to believe in Lord of the Night. Only the first part is ever detailed thoroughly though, as the protagonist refers to himself as the first raptor (and he is Night Lord).