The 'New' Chaos rumour

[A D-B]

Warband 6 is a Night Lords warband that (either because of a need to survive or a mutual alliance of trust) have allied with an equally sized Iron Warrior warband, to create a new warband led by a council of Night Lord and Iron Warrior Champions

.

 

and the life of it will probably end after the first mission .

.

 

Maybe so! Again, that's something else you consistently miss in many of your posts. You frequently rail against any army concept that is somehow short-lived, forgetting that many Chaos armies would indeed be exactly that. Temporary alliances are incredibly common in Chaos. As part of a larger issue, when someone says "I play Dark Angels", what they really mean is "I play the Dark Angels X and Y Companies, during the years of ABC and EFG." Similarly, all armies are dated that way. It's no different. Some armies can be temporary alliances. I'm sorry it seems to be something you want to resist so strongly, but other people are allowed to do their own thing too, dude.

 

 

two structures based on different systems with two different ways of thinking wont work . two same sized groups wont work with each other unless there is a 3ed trying to wipe them out and if it can force 2 same sized forces from different back ground to join up , then it is strong enough to do that . if it isnt the IW/NL wouldnt join up .

.

 

Absolutely. That's the point. There are plenty of reasons for them to join up, and that's one of the best. You seem to be misunderstanding this so vastly, yet making my case for me. Yep. That's one of many reasons they'd join up. A realistic and compelling one, too.

 

 

Then explain what it's like to exist in the Eye of Terror, and explain how new Chaos Marines come to be

already done in the past by GW . its a hell . constant war against demons , other legions and each other . csm "like" to go on raids not because they are blood thirsty basterds[not that some of them arent] , but because for a normal "trooper" it is actualy safer being outside of the eye .

.

 

Yep. So have the codex into detail about it, as it's vital to understanding Chaos Marines. Don't rely on stuff listed several editions ago. Why resist new/reworked/fresh information for new players? Don't you want them to understand Chaos Marines? And you're right; the difference is, all that struggling is the very reason Chaos Marines' endless possibilities and the variety of the Legions makes sense, and your perspective of monolithic, unified armies of 100,000 souls all sharing the exact same ethos, with several thousand warlords all on vastly different worlds, with vastly different resources, all somehow magically thinking exactly the same thing and being best friends... doesn't. 10,000 years of living in a hell dimension does things, dude. There's going to be some changes a biiiiiiiit more compelling and individual than being Marines With Horns.

 

 

They couldn't care less about the larger Legion; living in a realm of eternal Hell with no laws of space and time have depleted ancient bonds to more daily, relevant allegiances. They don't hate their Legion, they're still Night Lords, it's just a bond that applied ten thousand years ago holds little relevance for them now. They know they can't trust their own brothers, because all Chaos Marines spend as much time fighting each other as they do the Imperium.

 

what kind of a military organistation works like that ?

 

One where anything is possible because it lives in an eternal hell realm of daemonic worlds, where every army is led by individual warlords with different ideals. Y'know, like a Traitor Legion.

 

At this point, mate, you're arguing against the fundamental point of the Traitor Legions with irrelevant soundbites.

 

If you genuinely think this real-world army jazz applies to Traitor Legions of 100,000 troops living in a psychic hell dimension..:

 

It is as if a unit said we arent interested in your war anymore , nothing personal ,but we are going to do our own thing now . At best anyone who commandes the rest of the force would order them to A give back weapons/ammo/uniforms and even then it would have to be something special for him to accept something like that [war ends he up keep for troops is too high , but then again you cant have a population of armed people not under your direct control for example]. To go back to w40k any lord who would control a bigger warband would say "ok , give back ammo , weapons , armors and you ship and then we harvest the seed and you can go". Space marine legions are like monastic orders you cant just walk away , what someone personaly thinks about stuff is only important , if you happen to be the high commanders or/and primarch .

 

...then there's no hope for debate. You're being deliberately obtuse, and refusing to see the balanced issue, let alone the other side.

 

Don't be allergic to nuance. That's not cool. And don't keep insisting the side that sees both perspectives is somehow blinded by some weird Legion-hate; I love the Legions enough to make my career writing about them and creating their lore, not just playing an army about them. I just recognise the possibilities and variances with each of them, considering - as you say - they live in a realm of eternal hell, where time and allegiances are fluid, and enemies are everywhere. Plenty will remain the monoloithic entities you suggest. I've said it myself. Plenty more won't, varying in many, many different and awesome ways, for better or worse.

 

Your interpretation is just too narrow. I know there's no "wrong" in 40K, but you're coming incredibly close. Your interpretation is too rigid, too narrow, and conflicts directly with practically every edition of game lore. Because there's no debate (there never is, with you, I've noticed - just you hammering the same narrow points over and over again) I hope you'll understand why I'm not bothering to address you anymore.

[Eerie]

The Chaos factions differ vastly. In an ideal world that is never going to happen, each major Chaos faction could easily be worked into its own Codex. This is never going to happen. But still, from a background point of view, a pure Khornate army would act and fight very, very different from a pure Thousand Sons army. Much more than lets say the Ultramarines would differ from the Blood Angels. This should be represented in the game.

The thing is that other than with Codex Marines and Space Wolves, you wont have a number of Khorne armies and then a number of non-dedicated armies. There will be countless variations and combinations of units of the two. You might have armies that are 100% one or the other, but you can just as much have on that is 50/50, or 70/30, or... etc.

With Codex Marines or Space Wolves you will generally assume that their forces consist of only members of that Chapter, and fight independently from other forces. Though they can ally with other Imperial forces, such arrangements are usually for one particular battle or campaign specifically. With Chaos on the other hand, mixed warbands are common. That's why it makes sense to have all the Chaos Space Marine units in one book, while Codex Marines and Space Wolves in the same book would make less sense, since these units would generally not be used in the same army.

 

Yes, mixed armies are common and that is one reason we have a united Chaos book. And I like that. But pure god-specific armies are also common. What I would like to see is that both directions (and any mix thereof) are treated as equal options in the codex, with none being inherently weaker than the other. Currently, a god-specific army is inherently weaker than an allcomers list, because the latter has access to every tactical option available in the codex and suffers no penalties in return. Using a one-god army means arbitrarily reducing your army strength, because you suffer only drawbacks, and get no bonus in return.

 

It should be a trade-off. Just say that "If every unit in your army has the Mark of [Chaos God], your entire army benefits from [insert special rule]. Your army wont benefit from this special rule if you use units without the Mark of [Chaos God].".

That would make god-specific units still available to an allcomers list, but they would be slightly stronger if used in "their" army. This would grant a balance. Wider choice of options vs more powerful units.

 

See it this way: The Chaos gods wont object if their followers collaborate with rival forces then and again. But their best favours would be reserved for the time when their servants fight in their name and theirs alone.

[Brother Nihm]

@everyone

 

Feel free to get back on track and discuss the actual rumours.

[Legatus]

what kind of a military organistation works like that ?

An extremely barbaric one, consisting of selfish and agressive super-human warriors.

 

 

It is as if a unit said we arent interested in your war anymore , nothing personal ,but we are going to do our own thing now . At best anyone who commandes the rest of the force would order them to A give back weapons/ammo/uniforms and even then it would have to be something special for him to accept something like that [war ends he up keep for troops is too high , but then again you cant have a population of armed people not under your direct control for example]. To go back to w40k any lord who would control a bigger warband would say "ok , give back ammo , weapons , armors and you ship and then we harvest the seed and you can go".

Maybe units leaving a warband aren't anouncing that officially in front of their Lord? Just an idea...

 

 

Warband 6 is a Night Lords warband that (either because of a need to survive or a mutual alliance of trust) have allied with an equally sized Iron Warrior warband, to create a new warband led by a council of Night Lord and Iron Warrior Champions

and the life of it will probably end after the first mission . two structures based on different systems with two different ways of thinking wont work .

I think there are enough similarities. Seeing as they are both Space Marine forces.

 

 

two same sized groups wont work with each other unless there is a 3ed trying to wipe them out

Like the Imperium? Or like any of the other Chaos warbands?

 

 

I'm trying to explain Chaos as it's been explained to me, and - dare I say it - as GW seems to intend it to be seen.

by the post H-man/chambers desing team which a lot of people dont like

Which is eerily similar to the ideas of the pre-H-man/chambers design team.

 

 

Chambers idea was that warbands were like crusaders sent out by the pop , that most legions had high commands and structure [with exaptions like WE or EC for example which were always broken up in fluff]

All Legions were always broken up. Then the Index Astartes series came along and gave a lot fo people the wrong impression by specifically describing mannerisms of homogenous Legion forces. That the Index Astartes articles mentioned World Eaters, Emperor's Children, Plague Marines as well as Thousand Sons Marines fighting alongside other forces (the latter two are mentioned in the IA NL) was lost on a lot of people. As was the 3.5 Codex introduction explaining that the player was free to either play a single-Legion force or a mixed warband.

 

But you know what? You can still play a single-legion force with the current Codex, if you so desire. That's what I usually did. I enjoy playing a pure Night Lord army.

 

 

its like RT chaos

It's also like 2nd Edition Chaos.

 

 

The warband idea doesnt make sense

I think the theme of the original Legions having been broken apart by aeons of internecine struggle in a hell dimension and then forming warbands as the necessities require is imensely flavourfull. Quite on the contrary, the thought that any type of formal organisation could be maintained in such an environment seems dubious.

Forces of Chaos Space Marines can survive in such an environment because Chaos Space Marines are the apex predators of the 40K universe. There will be a lot of attrition in such an environment, but it will not put them down. The first thing that is lost in such an environment, however, is a strict and formalised hierarchical structure. Especially if the Chaos Marines do not care for the agendas of their Lords and strive to pursue their own goals.

 

 

Edit: Oops. Took too long to type. Missed the appeal to return to topic...

[Dammeron]

Boiling it down to bare essentials, any army list provided should be flexible and adaptable enough to satisfy all comers and accounts for whatever one desires from one's force. The Dark Eldar codex is a fantastic example of how this can be done well; certain units unlock and allow for new army formations, without the need for abstruse or synthetic alternative army lists (such as those in the 3.5 codex, which was one of the few areas where that codex made some basic errors, IMO).

 

A core list that contains enough units and options to allow for perfectly viable, distinct Traitor Legion forces as well as any number of off shoots, cults and schisms they may have suffered isn't too difficult to conceive of, with a little imagination. Similarly, options that allow for a more rag-tag, renegade force shouldn't be that problematic to introduce; all it would conceivably require is a secondary "lieutenant" or pirate captain H.Q. option, or something to that effect.

 

Thanks to the (deliberate) flexibility, openness and variation in the background, all players have their own unique perceptions on how their army of choice functions. As is evident from this discussion alone, there are even significant variations on how players of the same legion perceive and structure their forces. None of these are illegitimate; it is, after all, a hobby first and foremost, and people should feel free to exercise their imagination and take whatever the hell they want from it. As for the army list itself, it should be flexible enough to account for this range of theme, structure and dynamic, without becoming too clunky and over-laden with alternative army lists etc (again, one of 3.5's more notable sins).

 

Whatever we get, I have no doubt it will be better than what we currently have to the power of N, simply because the current codex is not a competent or even finished product. As to what faults and qualities it does have, well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

 

As for the rumours thus far provided, I am taking them with a massive, heaping hunk of salt, as they largely read like a wish list rather than anything else. Even so, some interesting bits and pieces here.

[esinhorn]

I think he just wants his IW Balisks back :tu:

Nothing in 40k is set in stone,if I am not mistaken the whole original concept was like a giant game of telephone.

All of the stories are always from just one point of view and there can be 5 different versions of the same story each with a bit of truth to it.

Also there is always supposed to be an openess that lets you add your little bit to the story and have it be correct.

Hence why they never in the past even mentioned the two missing Legions,they were like that so home built armies could be legit.

If you want your Chaos Army to run purely one legion,totally cool an accurate as I am sure there are still pockets of 1000's from the same legion who have always stuck together.

But it is just as accurate to have the same legion have an army with specialists from every other legion.

Like How I run a Sons of Horus Army with World Eater assault troops still a very likely accurance.

The current Chaos codex always needed help but it is not wrong.

I think all of Chaos should be able to use Imperial looted armor and there needs to be cultsist and traitors in there.

But you can still build a fluffy army from it the Balisks can always count as Vinicators for IW for instance.

A mark of Nurgle could just mean he is a tough SOB.

[Sangneur]

Boiling it down to bare essentials, any army list provided should be flexible and adaptable enough to satisfy all comers and accounts for whatever one desires from one's force. The Dark Eldar codex is a fantastic example of how this can be done well; certain units unlock and allow for new army formations, without the need for abstruse or synthetic alternative army lists (such as those in the 3.5 codex, which was one of the few areas where that codex made some basic errors, IMO).

 

A core list that contains enough units and options to allow for perfectly viable, distinct Traitor Legion forces as well as any number of off shoots, cults and schisms they may have suffered isn't too difficult to conceive of, with a little imagination. Similarly, options that allow for a more rag-tag, renegade force shouldn't be that problematic to introduce; all it would conceivably require is a secondary "lieutenant" or pirate captain H.Q. option, or something to that effect.

 

Thanks to the (deliberate) flexibility, openness and variation in the background, all players have their own unique perceptions on how their army of choice functions. As is evident from this discussion alone, there are even significant variations on how players of the same legion perceive and structure their forces. None of these are illegitimate; it is, after all, a hobby first and foremost, and people should feel free to exercise their imagination and take whatever the hell they want from it. As for the army list itself, it should be flexible enough to account for this range of theme, structure and dynamic, without becoming too clunky and over-laden with alternative army lists etc (again, one of 3.5's more notable sins).

 

Whatever we get, I have no doubt it will be better than what we currently have to the power of N, simply because the current codex is not a competent or even finished product. As to what faults and qualities it does have, well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

 

As for the rumours thus far provided, I am taking them with a massive, heaping hunk of salt, as they largely read like a wish list rather than anything else. Even so, some interesting bits and pieces here.

 

I really think the DE codex is the pinnacle of codex design, barring some boners like the mandrakes, everything fits, and the design is perfect.

 

The book lets you make Haemonculi, Wych cult, and cabalite armies. It lets you create a fusion of any two, or even all three. One does not need to have decisions or boundaries added to be made for them, the player decides what will be in his army. Whenever I hear chaos players discussing the new books, I'm alarmed that people want the armies to be fettered by their choices, that they should not be able to use everything if they choose something. The happy family stuff is bogus yes, in a proper book you shouldn't need to cripple yourself to have an unbalanced army, it should just be a bit more challanging. If I choose not to take heavy support in exhange for having more melee, it should be harder to use, but I shouldn't be bound to using just one unit like in the current book if you choose one god you have one unit.

 

Ideally to me the book should be in three sections: CSM, LaTD, and daemons. You should be able to play an army made from any one, or two, or three. I might be a bit biased in that way, because I like to think that chaos rides in on the broken back of its slaves rather than putting iself in harms way to protect the weak,

[Dammeron]

Boiling it down to bare essentials, any army list provided should be flexible and adaptable enough to satisfy all comers and accounts for whatever one desires from one's force. The Dark Eldar codex is a fantastic example of how this can be done well; certain units unlock and allow for new army formations, without the need for abstruse or synthetic alternative army lists (such as those in the 3.5 codex, which was one of the few areas where that codex made some basic errors, IMO).

 

A core list that contains enough units and options to allow for perfectly viable, distinct Traitor Legion forces as well as any number of off shoots, cults and schisms they may have suffered isn't too difficult to conceive of, with a little imagination. Similarly, options that allow for a more rag-tag, renegade force shouldn't be that problematic to introduce; all it would conceivably require is a secondary "lieutenant" or pirate captain H.Q. option, or something to that effect.

 

Thanks to the (deliberate) flexibility, openness and variation in the background, all players have their own unique perceptions on how their army of choice functions. As is evident from this discussion alone, there are even significant variations on how players of the same legion perceive and structure their forces. None of these are illegitimate; it is, after all, a hobby first and foremost, and people should feel free to exercise their imagination and take whatever the hell they want from it. As for the army list itself, it should be flexible enough to account for this range of theme, structure and dynamic, without becoming too clunky and over-laden with alternative army lists etc (again, one of 3.5's more notable sins).

 

Whatever we get, I have no doubt it will be better than what we currently have to the power of N, simply because the current codex is not a competent or even finished product. As to what faults and qualities it does have, well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

 

As for the rumours thus far provided, I am taking them with a massive, heaping hunk of salt, as they largely read like a wish list rather than anything else. Even so, some interesting bits and pieces here.

 

I really think the DE codex is the pinnacle of codex design, barring some boners like the mandrakes, everything fits, and the design is perfect.

 

The book lets you make Haemonculi, Wych cult, and cabalite armies. It lets you create a fusion of any two, or even all three. One does not need to have decisions or boundaries added to be made for them, the player decides what will be in his army. Whenever I hear chaos players discussing the new books, I'm alarmed that people want the armies to be fettered by their choices, that they should not be able to use everything if they choose something. The happy family stuff is bogus yes, in a proper book you shouldn't need to cripple yourself to have an unbalanced army, it should just be a bit more challanging. If I choose not to take heavy support in exhange for having more melee, it should be harder to use, but I shouldn't be bound to using just one unit like in the current book if you choose one god you have one unit.

 

Ideally to me the book should be in three sections: CSM, LaTD, and daemons. You should be able to play an army made from any one, or two, or three. I might be a bit biased in that way, because I like to think that chaos rides in on the broken back of its slaves rather than putting iself in harms way to protect the weak,

 

 

Couldn't agree more. Personally, I'd happily pay through the nose for a MASSIVE, hard back volume that has untold chapters of background (The Heresy, the Warp, the Gods of Chaos, Daemons, The Primarchs, the Traitor Legions, Daemons, Renegades, Cultists, The Black Crusades, Daemon Worlds, The Eye of Terror; everything) plus seperate but interactive army lists for Chaos Space Marines, Daemons and Cultists. It would be wonderful to see as homage to the old RoC books, plus all the refinements that have been made to chaos and army lists in general since then.

 

And that should be the watch word: refinement; not simplification, which is where our current codex falls down. Rather than simply taking away options, it should refine the mechanism of their availability, tidy up the means of their application and keep an eye on the potential for abuse (3.5 had ALOT of this; I was primarily a Slaanesh player back then, and the possibility of taking completely insane creations was profound). That said, even those combinations seem pretty tame to what some armies are capable of now (Grey Knights and Blood Angels not being least amongst them). Personally, I'm not that concerned about this; Grey Knights are supposed to be the Imperium's finest, and I WANT them to be a difficult proposition to face, especially for the forces of Chaos, since they specialise in fighting our sort. Similarly, I WANT Chaos forces to be genuinely terrifying and convey the correct ethos on the battlefield; these guys haven't just come to torment and murder you; they will send your soul screaming into the clutches of the Chaos powers. Once again, the Dark Eldar codex has the required sense of atmosphere, which it conveys to the armies produced from it. Primarily, a good codex should be fun to read; even if you don't play as such, there should be enough in it to keep you gripped and engaged; to inspire you to go out and create your own insane, malevolent and/or aggrieved monstrosities; one of 3.5's greatest successes.

[Excessus]

Massive tome sounds good to me, I'd definitely buy it! :)

[the jeske]

Quite on the contrary, the thought that any type of formal organisation could be maintained in such an environment seems dubious.

how can one not serve abadon or his primarch ? not serving is rebelion , rebelion means not support so either on top of the eviroment trying to kill you , you also get your own "brothers" going after you just to make the high commander happy . magnus would have killed ahriman , he didnt do it only because Tzeench himself told him not to and durning the crusade he forced both to work with each other . Khârn is one of the most hated man by WE. Tyfus "rebelion" against mortarion only works because tyfus was a nurgle worshiper before the heresy and because thanks to the new GK fluff mortarion is not realy able to do anything anymore . WB activly hunt members who dont awnser the call of the chapter [makes sense as all real church work like that] . Why would someone abandon the safty of a group , go rogue and help that in a place where bigger organizations and mightier man failed he would succed. The csm maybe mad , but they arent stupid .

 

 

But you know what? You can still play a single-legion force with the current Codex, if you so desire. That's what I usually did. I enjoy playing a pure Night Lord army.

which looks identical like a IW/AL and WB one and has an identical game play like a DG or WE . and all of those are clones and weaker version of a BL version one which by mixing the same units works better. Awesome . Have you played chaos for the last few years after the gav dex came out ?

 

as the break up goes . It was never said that all legions were broken up . both BL and WB were alway said to have a structure and clear chain of command yes , there were independed working forced . But both tyfus and ahriman warbands were only a small part of the legion not under the control of their primarch and both working very much against what the primarchs wanted to do. Other warbands were working along side other legions not because they wanted but because they were ordered to do so . IW maning BL siege engines werent doing it because they wanted to do it , but because their primarch sold them to abadon.

 

 

 

Like the Imperium? Or like any of the other Chaos warbands?

like what in the imperium ? the high lords of terra dont break up the sm chapters , propagated those which are easier to control and openly wipe out those which may not accpet their rule [and those dont even have to openly rebel ]. Any organistation which tries to manufacture anything and is independed of the ad mech gets raided by them.

The inq exists in a perpetual state of civil war on every level from inq to inq lords .

when was the last time a chaos warband existed for a long time and was made from different factions ? ah yes . the BL , but we were told that they doing multi god mix is their special thing , like 1ksons being sorc and AL being sneaky .

[Captain Semper]

.

Couldn't agree more. Personally, I'd happily pay through the nose for a MASSIVE, hard back volume that has untold chapters of background (The Heresy, the Warp, the Gods of Chaos, Daemons, The Primarchs, the Traitor Legions, Daemons, Renegades, Cultists, The Black Crusades, Daemon Worlds, The Eye of Terror; everything) plus seperate but interactive army lists for Chaos Space Marines, Daemons and Cultists. It would be wonderful to see as homage to the old RoC books, plus all the refinements that have been made to chaos and army lists in general since then.

 

And that should be the watch word: refinement; not simplification, which is where our current codex falls down. Rather than simply taking away options, it should refine the mechanism of their availability, tidy up the means of their application and keep an eye on the potential for abuse (3.5 had ALOT of this; I was primarily a Slaanesh player back then, and the possibility of taking completely insane creations was profound). That said, even those combinations seem pretty tame to what some armies are capable of now (Grey Knights and Blood Angels not being least amongst them). Personally, I'm not that concerned about this; Grey Knights are supposed to be the Imperium's finest, and I WANT them to be a difficult proposition to face, especially for the forces of Chaos, since they specialise in fighting our sort. Similarly, I WANT Chaos forces to be genuinely terrifying and convey the correct ethos on the battlefield; these guys haven't just come to torment and murder you; they will send your soul screaming into the clutches of the Chaos powers. Once again, the Dark Eldar codex has the required sense of atmosphere, which it conveys to the armies produced from it. Primarily, a good codex should be fun to read; even if you don't play as such, there should be enough in it to keep you gripped and engaged; to inspire you to go out and create your own insane, malevolent and/or aggrieved monstrosities; one of 3.5's greatest successes.

 

I wish I wrote the above. There is literally nothing I disagree on. And frankly I keep my hopes high given the DE and the Necron Codices...

[Tchort]

Looking at ADB's list of warbands is impressive, but hoping that they have room for all that in a new codex is self-indulgent at best. I mean, we're possibly going to have one book to get the Legions right and you want to pay lip service to the fact that maybe out there some loyalist Marines decided to paint their armour blue and started calling themselves Night Lords?

 

No. That's... got nothing to do with it. That's not even what that list shows at all. Out of 15 warbands, 11 of them are directly Heresy-era warriors, and another 2-3 are largely comprised of them. So your point is absolutely invalid, and incorrect.

 

I don't have a problem with people exploring the "grey". Yeah, if you want your Night Lords to worship Nurgle, whatever floats your boat. But looking at the current codex , we don't have a strong focus on what makes the individual Traitor Legions tick, lore or ruleswise. There needs to be a tighter narrative that speaks to the original character of the Legions.

 

If we can step away from the Night Lords for one minute, let's take a look at the Black Legion. How about some warbands that consider Abaddon an usurper, and look elsewhere for leadership? Or warbands that relentlessly hunt down the Emperor's Children for their desecration of Horus. Yeah, these forces can include large numbers of Plague Marines or Possessed and riffraff from Renegades but that's not the focus. Rather, it spotlights their history and how they think that is unique to them.

 

I want to see them explore what makes the Traitor Legions so gosh darn special.

[Brother Nihm]

As so many failed to talk about the actual topic, which was the new Chaos rumours.