Representing Cult troops

[ThisisJimmy]

I have been looking for ways to model cult troops as something other than what they are. The idea behind it, not an original one by any means, is that their rules could be applied to represnt specialist troops. My reasoning is that certain warbands, like the Word Bearers or Night Lords, wouldn't use troops so dedicated to one God.

 

So my question is: how do people feel about this type of count as, and how would you go about modelling them?

 

I had the idea for Plague Marine count as as Marines in Mk 2 armourcand boarding shields (although I'm not so sure about justifying FNP), and beserkers as CCW equipped Marines in Heresy armour (as it look like it has taken a beating and the armour has a 'mean' look about it.

[Kizzdougs]

Personally i'm all for it. I've seen plenty of sweet conversions on this site alone. Dan the daemon's 'obliterator/weapon teams' come to mined.

 

I built some 'siege berzerkers' for my Iron Warriors. Even just simple "kit bashing" like what i've done is ok. Obviously I don't have any problem with people converting there own Legion specific cult troops...its cool :P

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l522/kizzdougs/DSCN2148.jpg?t=1330334839

 

Ps. when you get some models finished i'd love to see them.

[totgeboren]

My Word Bearer Assault Veterans count as Berzerkers, or should that be the other way around?

I have been thinking of doing count-as for the other cults, but no idea so far have really gotten me inspired.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i95/totgeboren40/Daemons/Veterans004.jpg

 

I agree with kizzdougs, when you are done with some of your models, show em off! :wacko:

[Caffeineated Chaos]

On that note, for Word Bearers specifically. Real world polytheistic religions did/do have people worshiping multiple gods, but they usually have patron gods to that a person worships primarily based off what they do or personal taste. For a 40k example, an cc termie would most likely have Khorne as his patron, as that god is likely most in line with what he does, but his patronage wouldn't necessarily prevent him from offering a prayer to tzeentch before he teleports into combat to guide him through the warp successfully and closer to his enemies. So I can see certain word bearers hosts allowing their warriors to choose a specific god as their patron, and organize squads based on who had earned which god's favor, and who had which god as their patron, and for the most part equip them accordingly. Mind the dark council on sicarrus may be none too pleased with this, as it could be considered heresy, then again, there're a lot of hosts, such heresy may be overlooked so long as the host as a whole wasn't overly dedicated to any one god and continues to successfully serve the council, or it may be a secret hidden by the host. Just an idea.

 

That and some marines and squads will naturally earn a particular gods favor without necessarily worshiping them over the chaos gods if their methodology falls in line with a particular god, or if they're actions have significantly empowered a particular god in pursuit of their own goals. So I see plenty of reason for an undivided warband to still have actual cult troops, while still being undivided, even without counts as. After all it works for the Black Legion ;P

 

P.S. @totgeboren: those bezerke- I mean assault veterans look great, totally going to use them as inspiration as I work on my non-world eater-y Khorne Berzerkers

[the jeske]

Real world polytheistic religions did/do have people worshiping multiple gods, but they usually have patron gods to that a person worships primarily based off what they do or personal taste. For a 40k example, an cc termie would most likely have Khorne as his patron, as that god is likely most in line with what he does, but his patronage wouldn't necessarily prevent him from offering a prayer to tzeentch before he teleports into combat to guide him through the warp successfully and closer to his enemies.

yes but the gods didnt hate each other . its as if a legioner tried worshiped the official pantheon one day and then switched to christ . it would mean he would die. Worship of gods in w40k is exclusive , the gods do not look well at those who try to buff others . the whole pantheon ? sure . no worship at all [so less "power" gained from a god specific act] but still doing a gods work ? sure . trying to get boons from more then one god at the same time ? well you better be horus or abadon .

[Darth Badguy]

This might not help, but I've thought about doing an Alpha Legion or Red Corsair army where the cult marines are technologically enhanced. The plague marines would be heavily bionic to represent increased toughness with loss of sensation(i.e. lower initiative), the berzerkers would have arco-flagellant type close combat arms & stimulant injectors, the noise marines would have enhanced targeters & bigger guns, and the thousand sons would have nothing because I'm not going to use them. Obliterators could be anything, from regular terminators with some kind of big, multisetting energy cannon to small walker-like robots.

[AGPO]

I think it's fine so long as the difference is clearly modelled. If your 'counts as' unit could easily be mistaken for a regular squad with the mark of that particular god, then it's unfair on your opponent who has to keep tabs on this stuff throughout. With that proviso I'm keen to see what people come up with :D

[ThisisJimmy]

On that note, for Word Bearers specifically. Real world polytheistic religions did/do have people worshiping multiple gods, but they usually have patron gods to that a person worships primarily based off what they do or personal taste. For a 40k example, an cc termie would most likely have Khorne as his patron, as that god is likely most in line with what he does, but his patronage wouldn't necessarily prevent him from offering a prayer to tzeentch before he teleports into combat to guide him through the warp successfully and closer to his enemies. So I can see certain word bearers hosts allowing their warriors to choose a specific god as their patron, and organize squads based on who had earned which god's favor, and who had which god as their patron, and for the most part equip them accordingly. Mind the dark council on sicarrus may be none too pleased with this, as it could be considered heresy, then again, there're a lot of hosts, such heresy may be overlooked so long as the host as a whole wasn't overly dedicated to any one god and continues to successfully serve the council, or it may be a secret hidden by the host. Just an idea.

 

That and some marines and squads will naturally earn a particular gods favor without necessarily worshiping them over the chaos gods if their methodology falls in line with a particular god, or if they're actions have significantly empowered a particular god in pursuit of their own goals. So I see plenty of reason for an undivided warband to still have actual cult troops, while still being undivided, even without counts as. After all it works for the Black Legion ;P

 

The only issue I see with this is that fluff wise (based on the Anthony Reynolds series), god specific worship in the Word Bearers would be seen as a weakness an potentially subject to disciplinary action (also known as death). The other reason I like the idea of "count as" cult troops, is that it promotes the idea that there isn't simply the stock CSM, that there is specialisation within the legions, that certain Marines gain an affinity with a certain roles, such as totgeboren's Assault Veterans

[totgeboren]

The other reason I like the idea of "count as" cult troops, is that it promotes the idea that there isn't simply the stock CSM, that there is specialisation within the legions, that certain Marines gain an affinity with a certain roles, such as totgeboren's Assault Veterans

 

I was looking through the codex about a year ago, and realised that for an Undivided theme, I only had access to Chaos Marines, or Chaos Marines with infiltrate, jump packs, bikes or extra heavy weapons. We actually don't have any close combat specialists in power armour at all. The only thing we did have was Terminators, who could be upgraded to champions at a high cost.

With the removal of powerful lesser daemons and incredibly weak rules for Possessed, I didn't really see any other option for making the army fun to play other than going with the count-as route.

 

Hopefully the next codex will give us some options instead of just basic marines with some slight gear change, or at the very least some hard-hitting daemons or Possessed.

[Excessus]

Strangely enough, I had the exact same thoughts totgeboren...my Alpha Legion cell have a squad of veteran cc experts as well... B)

[A D-B]

The other reason I like the idea of "count as" cult troops, is that it promotes the idea that there isn't simply the stock CSM, that there is specialisation within the legions, that certain Marines gain an affinity with a certain roles, such as totgeboren's Assault Veterans

 

I was looking through the codex about a year ago, and realised that for an Undivided theme, I only had access to Chaos Marines, or Chaos Marines with infiltrate, jump packs, bikes or extra heavy weapons. We actually don't have any close combat specialists in power armour at all. The only thing we did have was Terminators, who could be upgraded to champions at a high cost.

With the removal of powerful lesser daemons and incredibly weak rules for Possessed, I didn't really see any other option for making the army fun to play other than going with the count-as route.

 

Hopefully the next codex will give us some options instead of just basic marines with some slight gear change, or at the very least some hard-hitting daemons or Possessed.

 

I think that sort of depends how you view Undivided. In a 3.5 way, sure, that's what it meant. It was very much Chaos Limited, rather than Chaos Everything. Chaos Undivided isn't really Chaos Neutral To The Exclusion Of All Else. It's Chaos Everything. Chaos Bits of Every God, All At Once. That's what a pantheon is. It's the concept of Chaos, yep, but it's also the manifestation and presence of every god.

 

(Note that I'm a big fan of a certain amount of Counts-As, so I'm not saying Assault Veterans with 'Zerker rules is somehow impure, or whatever. I like it a lot.)

 

But you'll absolutely find Word Bearers who are Khorne Berzerkers, for example. Squads will raise icons to different gods, depending on what benefits they need for the coming battle. And so on. A cult choice like 'zerkers are unlikely to be common in the Word Bearers, but the 3.5 rules - in their quest for tabletop variety - are probably the weakest approximation of the variety in the Legions. They're supremely limiting, in exchange for some unique rules. As if a Legion of such size would ever be so narrowly defined, especially in their fragmented forms after 10,000 years of war in Hell.

 

That's one thing that critics of the current Codex often fail to see. Yes, it removed a lot of the flavour text and failed to adequately explain the options, but among its other flaws, anything was possible.

 

F'rex, my army has an Undivded theme. They, as a whole, don't worship one god over any other. Their faith is totally similar to the Word Bearers in many ways (which was the point of what I'm going for). But they have Berzerkers, because my Lord had his Apothecaries and Fleshsmiths acquire the secrets of Berzerker surgery from the Black Legion. Most of the warband's un-Berzerker warriors would never choose to devote themselves solely to Khorne as a singular divinity, but those that do survive the surgery and now serve the Blood God (consciously or otherwise) are no different from characters who've been Marked by a particular god. They still worship the pantheon; they're just a little closer to one god in particular, because of the way they live their lives. The majority of the warband, like in many fantasy tropes, change their allegiance between gods depending on circumstances, and worship the whole pantheon equally. Berzerkers don't exactly earn much respect (and are a small minority).

 

I suspect the next Codex will reinforce that idea, rather than the vague and overly table-toppy 3.5 theme. Chaos Undivided is The Chaos Pantheon, choosing what you like from each god, in balance. It's not Chaos Never Ever Take Any God Benefits. In general, this isn't something the rules have ever reflected all that well.

 

The Word Bearers (and Chaos Undivded worship) are surprisingly well summed up by a couple of Dawn of War quotes, spoken by Word Bearers:

 

"Hear my warnings, unbelievers. Carried to your minds by the power of the Prince of Excess himself. We have raised altars in this land so that we may sacrifice you to our gods. Veterans of ten millennia of unholy war wait to grind you beneath the treads of their mighty boots. The chosen of Khorne hunger to add you to their bloody tally. The Blood God himself has marked this land, and will claim your skulls for his throne. There is no hope in opposing the inevitable. Put down your arms, unbelievers, and bow before the forces of Chaos Undivided."

 

...and...

 

"With the thirty-seven keys of Tzeentch, we open the way for our brothers. With the thousand whispers of Slaanesh, we call to them. With the twelve plagues of Nurgle, we fell their enemies. And with the mighty axe of Khorne, we cut open the world for them."

[Legatus]

I was looking through the codex about a year ago, and realised that for an Undivided theme, I only had access to Chaos Marines, or Chaos Marines with infiltrate, jump packs, bikes or extra heavy weapons.

Pretty much like a loyalist Space Marines army then. Only dedicated to Chaos instead of the Emperor. Who would have thought...

[Kol Saresk]

It's just wrong. We need daemon engines taller than an Imperator, we need the Bloodtide, the Blood Pact and the Bloodborn, warp vials that work throughout vox blackouts, those thingies Dan Abnett wrote about that are hung up like scarecrows until they are woken up and the Sons of Sek. We're supposed to be different, not Vanilla Marines with spiky bits. We are Humanity removed from Humanity, not just the shadow reflection you see through a cracked mirror.

[totgeboren]

I was looking through the codex about a year ago, and realised that for an Undivided theme, I only had access to Chaos Marines, or Chaos Marines with infiltrate, jump packs, bikes or extra heavy weapons.

Pretty much like a loyalist Space Marines army then. Only dedicated to Chaos instead of the Emperor. Who would have thought...

 

Loyalists have both Sternguard and Vanguard veterans, and even if the Vanguard Vets are overcosted, they have something to represent close combat vets. They also have techmarines, apothecaries, Land Speeders and many different sorts of dreadnoughts, not to mention whirlwinds, different Land Raiders and Razorbacks.

 

@A D-B

To me, what you described perfectly is the Black Legion. Chaos Everything. The Black Legion have always been about everything, with cults dedicated to the different gods within the Legion, and within the same warband and so on. What you just did in my mind was to simply change the name 'Black Legion', and put in 'Word Bearers' instead.

 

An army is not defined by it's strengths alone, and I find the WB more interesting because of their ideological limitations, at least as they were described in the 2:ed codex and in their IA article.

Making them into 'Chaos Everything' is for me kinda like making the Space Wolves into a codex chapter. Sure, they can do just about any tactic, and could field their squads in 10-man groups with a special and a heavy weapon. But many people like them because of of their preferences and traditions, which sometimes are not optimal, but it tells a story on the tabletop. And we already have the 'Chaos Everything' represented in the Renegades and especially the Black Legion. I like variation, and just having the paintjob as separator between the different chaos legion make them all less interesting to me.

 

I dunno, I really like the way the WB were presented, with no cults, but lots of human cultists and daemons. The Black Legion were the pragmatic ones, who used every tool to their advantage. But I didn't like them. To me, they lacked character and felt 'gamey'.

 

But count-as will always exist, and it is better with a codex that allows every theme, compared to one which forces you into something way to narrow. With everything allowed, every player can make their own warband. But to me it's like allowing Death Company in Ultramarine armies, with Sanguinary Priests on Thunderwolves as heavy hitters.

Sure, if someone wants an UM theme, they can simply not use Sanguinary Priests on Thunderwolves, but limitations can make for more interesting armies too, and as an opponent, the game feels much more 'gamey' when your opponent brings armies which tell no story at all compared to the other way around, even if said army is less than optimal as a consequence.

[A D-B]

I was looking through the codex about a year ago, and realised that for an Undivided theme, I only had access to Chaos Marines, or Chaos Marines with infiltrate, jump packs, bikes or extra heavy weapons.

Pretty much like a loyalist Space Marines army then. Only dedicated to Chaos instead of the Emperor. Who would have thought...

 

Loyalists have both Sternguard and Vanguard veterans, and even if the Vanguard Vets are overcosted, they have something to represent close combat vets. They also have techmarines, apothecaries, Land Speeders and many different sorts of dreadnoughts, not to mention whirlwinds, different Land Raiders and Razorbacks.

 

@A D-B

To me, what you described perfectly is the Black Legion. Chaos Everything.

 

You're looking at this purely from the tabletop view. From a tabletop Army List point of view, yeah. But it's also Chaos Undivided worship (at least, one overwhelming aspect of it, as shown very clearly in the DoW quotes), and how the Pantheon itself can function. It goes wider than just how to make an army list. If you read those quotes above and think "This is the Black Legion" then I'm not sure what to say, really. That's Chaos Undivided worship. It... just is. I can't change that.

 

It's certainly just one aspect to it, but it's the one that ties into the setting and the fantasy genre tropes the most fluidly. It's also the one I've seen most of when discussed behind the scenes.

 

 

 

I dunno, I really like the way the WB were presented, with no cults, but lots of human cultists and daemons. The Black Legion were the pragmatic ones, who used every tool to their advantage. But I didn't like them. To me, they lacked character and felt 'gamey'.

 

Which, to me, is what you make the Word Bearers sound like. Gamey. Not restricted along characterful lines, but on arbitrary, artificial "Use this model, not this model, because Army X already uses Model Y, so this army has to have something different, whether it conflicts with the lore or represents the fluff badly or not." To me, that's gamey, and hollow.

 

The Word Bearers still, obviously, have lots of human cultists and daemons. They just also have the option of going with whatever angle they want. That's the possibility of Chaos. It's not bland; it's only bland when it's presented blandly. The customisation is what makes everyone's army unique.

 

 

But count-as will always exist, and it is better with a codex that allows every theme, compared to one which allows nothing. With everything allowed, every player can make their own warband. But to me it's like allowing Death Company in Ultramarine armies, with Sanguinary Priests on Thunderwolves as heavy hitters.

Sure, if someone wants an UM theme, they can simply not use Sanguinary Priests on Thunderwolves, but limitations can make for more interesting armies too, and as an opponent, the game feels much more 'gamey' when your opponent brings armies which tell no story at all compared to the other way around, even if said army is less than optimal as a consequence.

 

Which is an odd opinion, as you're presenting a very narrow rule set, with cookie cutter option choices that badly reflect a lot of the fluff, and yet saying it offers a lot of story potential. Decent limitations and interesting choices, sure, would do just that. But the previous presentations of Chaos worship have been lacking, in various editions. Hence all this confusion.

 

Let me put it another way. In justifying the options on offer, and reflecting them in modelling and background, my army list is about 8,000 times more characterful and fluffy than just saying "My Word Bearers are like this, because these are the things I can take." So your point really holds no water, on any level beyond a quick "This feels generic" glance, which isn't the case at all. The options are there. That doesn't mean every warband takes the options in equal measure. It's down to players to shape their own warbands, bring their own grasp of the lore to the table. If they want to just have whatever's optimal, then fine; some players will always play to win, regardless of fluff. That's lame, but whatever. "Decent" players (from a lore standpoint) will work hard to reflect their Legion in their army. F'rex, as a Word Bearer player, not taking Plague Marines and Berzerkers and mono-Marked lords as the whole list. You can, but why? It's not traditionally Word Bearers. You can take a unit or two and still be perfectly fluffy and valid, of course. You shouldn't be denied that option. You can take entire army lists of Scouts, or entire army lists of Tac squads. But that reflects a Chapter very poorly. The option is still there, though. As it should be. Those lists reflect certain themed armies, or X, Y and Z strike force.

 

But 3.5 just doesn't reflect the diversity within the Legions. It just doesn't. It offered narrow generalisations and cookie-cutter lists.

 

No warbands will be the same; even 100 Word Bearer warbands will be different to each other. That's the Chaos Legions for you. 3.5 is artificially gamey, in the very way you accuse the reality of being.

[A D-B]

I can clarify all of that, much shorter.

 

The options should be there. But the lore for each legion should be presented well enough, and in enough detail, to show players what a warband of that Legion would usually "look like" on the battlefield. Or, even better, tell the themes and tendencies of the Legion, then let players interpret that their own way - the way Lords would with their own warbands, hosts, and so on.

 

As a Word Bearer, yes, of course your squads raise icons to different gods in different circumstances, or pray to different gods for different boons. Yes, they can simply take an icon to Chaos in all its glory, as well. The options are there. But, in the case of the Word Bearers, it would be worth (as an example) saying in the text that the Legion more often does the latter, rather than the former - if that's the case.

 

Characterisation and guidelines are what's needed. Not poorly explained lore and "You Must Take X, You Cannot Take A, B, C, D or E." The second option there does nothing but present the fluff badly. Remember, these are guys who've lived in the Eye of Terror, a literal Hell, for a potentially infinite span of time. No two warbands will be the same, even from the same Legion. We're not limited the way loyalists are, in that way.

 

The current codex tried to show it, with... limited success, and very little word count. It looked too "Renegades"-ish.

 

I have a feeling the next codex will fix it, and will go down much better if people can just stop looking at 3.5 as "The Way It Is", when really it's gamey and limiting, and reflects the lore quite poorly for the sake of artificial tabletop rules differences.

[totgeboren]

Well I presented my view as a mix between tabletop and background. But to be clear, I enjoy when the tabletop tells a story which jives with the background. Plague marines lead by a Slaanesh Daemon Prince feels very gamey to me, as I don't see chaos working that way background-wise. Dedication to a God is to me something more than gaining a nifty ability for the rest of the day.

 

But disregarding rules, I like the (maybe old) divide between the BL and the WB, where both were Chaos Undivided, but in very different ways. I liked that the BL were presented as pragmatic, worshipping all Gods and having cults dedicated to all, being Undivided on a legion-level, but not on an individual level.

 

The Word Bearers on the other hand really felt like religious fundamentalists in that even on the individual level 'Undivided' was the way, the light and the truth. They could still do any tactic and military strategy, but they had an ideological edge which set them apart from the other four undivided legions. Background-wise, allowing members of a Host to pursue one god to the exclusion of the others undermines the fanatical aspect of the legion, as they then become just like the BL in practice. Being Undivided wasn't all that important suddenly.

By allowing dedication to a specific god, some marines within the host are then free to have a different theology, which goes against the insane religious conformity that the WB represent to me.

 

I don't think my view is in any way a cookie cutter approach. I'm just saying that background-wise I don't think it is appropriate with a World Eater warband lead by a World Eater Sorcerer with the mark of Slaanesh. The background doesn't support that, and some people might find it boring or limiting, but no one is forcing you to take a "World Eater" Sorcerer. He could be of some other legion. Why not the Black Legion? Maybe as an envoy from Abbadon or something?

 

I see the WB in the same light. There are many warbands out there with a mix of cults, some who have red armour even, and the Black Legion are famed for their mix of cults. Why do the Word Bearers have to be like these? Is there not room in the 40k universe for unflinching dogmatism to a cause, even when it limits you? (I'm being facetious, but I hope you understand my position.)

Can't the WB keep their trademark characteristic, unflinching dogmatic dedication to Chaos Undivided?

 

Tabletop-wise, I can just do count-as like the pic I showed above, with my vets using the rules for Berzerkers. I give my Lord the mark of Tzeentch, just for the 4+ save to make him 'feel' more like a chaplain. But the story in my head have them all as undivided, because that was the Legion I fell for back in 2:ed (which did not have any limitations either, so saying my position stems from the 3.5 codex is simply not true. I mean, you could even take the mark from all the gods on your Lord if you wanted to.)

[Dammeron]

This may sound somewhat odd, especially to those like myself who have been playing Chaos for a very long time, but hear me out:

 

One way of doing away with these conflicts would be to entirely remove the enshrined chaos "cults" (e.g. Khorne Berserkers, Plague Marines etc) from the army list altogether (such things didn't even exist back when the Chaos space Marines were originally established; in RoC, there were only marines marked and gifted by a particular god. The established cults didn't develop until much later).

 

Instead, a system could be instituted whereby any unit in the Chaos army list may purchase a specific Mark of Chaos, which then provides the traditional stat boost (e.g. +1A for Khorne, +1T for Nurgle) for a suitable points cost per model. This would also include the Mark of Chaos Undivided. from there, any unit may purchase a single "Gift of the Gods" from a standardised list for a suitable points cost per model. These Gifts would include abilities redolent of the traditional chaos cults for those who want to go old school (e.g. a "Berserker" upgrade which would provide +1WS, Furious Charge and so on), as well as entirely new upgrades so that players could also create their own chaos cults. Also, the gifts themselves would not be restricted to particular gods or their servants, though many would be particularly redolent of certain chaos gods. This would free up the army list and allow chaos players to go absolutely wild with cult creation and army personalisation, whilst also undoing the rather thorny issue of cookie cutter or template armies defined by legion or cult restriction (such things would be up to the player to institute).

 

As well as gifts redolent of particular gods, there could also be gifts redolent of particular chaos legions (e.g. a "Night Stalker" gift which would provide stealth and a -1 modifier to Ld for any unit successfully charged in assault by one or more models with the gift). This would allow players to create entire armies redolent of one of the traditional chaos legions without the need for artifical appendix army lists or synthetic restrictions, as well as to mix and match units with different gifts throughout the army to personalise their own distinct warbands.

 

This is how you place power and variety in the player's hands: by providing choice, not removing it wholesale, which was a fault of 3.5 to a degree, and is the principle fault of the current codex.

[Dammeron]

That said, I am a huge proponent of re-writing the background of existing units to help them fit in with the theme and flavour of your force; such exercises often result in spectacularly unique units and armies with very distinct narrative flavours. Also, the potential for conversion is superb in such instances.

[A D-B]

I see the WB in the same light. There are many warbands out there with a mix of cults, some who have red armour even, and the Black Legion are famed for their mix of cults. Why do the Word Bearers have to be like these? Is there not room in the 40k universe for unflinching dogmatism to a cause, even when it limits you? (I'm being facetious, but I hope you understand my position.)

Can't the WB keep their trademark characteristic, unflinching dogmatic dedication to Chaos Undivided?

 

Firstly, I'm sure many Word Bearer warbands do. In the example you use, you're mistaking having an option for something as it being equally likely to be found en masse, everywhere, in every warband. That level of variety is the Black Legion's entire theme. That doesn't mean no one else ever does it on a smaller scale. Of course they do - artificially limiting tabletop rules aside.

 

But that's not the disconnect, here. The disconnect is in what Chaos Undivided actually is. And, well, it's many things. Your perception is just one, and it's a very narrow one. Chaos in all its glory is, in a literal sense, also The Chaos Pantheon. As shown in those Dawn of War quotes.

 

"With the thirty-seven keys of Tzeentch, we open the way for our brothers. With the thousand whispers of Slaanesh, we call to them. With the twelve plagues of Nurgle, we fell their enemies. And with the mighty axe of Khorne, we cut open the world for them."

 

"Hear my warnings, unbelievers. Carried to your minds by the power of the Prince of Excess himself. We have raised altars in this land so that we may sacrifice you to our gods. Veterans of ten millennia of unholy war wait to grind you beneath the treads of their mighty boots. The chosen of Khorne hunger to add you to their bloody tally. The Blood God himself has marked this land, and will claim your skulls for his throne. There is no hope in opposing the inevitable. Put down your arms, unbelievers, and bow before the forces of Chaos Undivided."

 

That's Chaos Undivided. It can be many things - from the worship of pure chaos as a concept, right through to forwarding the aims of Chaos with a capital C, as a sentient malignancy. But, like many fantasy settings and polytheist religions (of which the Word Bearers are a perfect example of both), "Chaos" is personified by its pantheon, and the lesser hordes that serve. Which is why that Apostle, speaking in the name of Chaos Undivided, uses all four gods equally. He's Undivided. He's not worshipping one god, and one alone. All, equally, as part of the pantheon, as part of Chaos incarnate. That's Undivided.

 

 

This is how you place power and variety in the player's hands: by providing choice, not removing it wholesale, which was a fault of 3.5 to a degree, and is the principle fault of the current codex.

 

Very much so. The current codex offered endless choice, with absolutely no context, and no structure. How is a Word Bearer warband supposed to be different from other warbands with no guidance on what they act like? We've done it both ways now: 3.5 was all restriction based on artificial limits, but it offered some background. 4-5 offered all the options, with no advice or information on how to use it in your own themed armies, based on the old Legions' styles.

 

What we need is, ultimately, pretty simple. We don't need to be told "This is how you play Word Bearers". We need to be shown how Chaos Marines live and fight and function, and get information on what the Legions' individual themes are. Then, with all the options on offer, we can make our armies to those themes, without needing nonsense like "This entire Legion of 100,000 warriors can't ever, ever, ever take an Icon of Khorne, no matter the circumstances."

 

That's just not how 40K, or the Chaos Marines, work. The current codex tried to show it, but everyone saw it as a mistake (largely because it presented it badly).

 

So what if it happens in the next codex, too? Will people still insist it's wrong? Or will they try a little more perspective, and decide that just because you can take something, it doesn't mean you have to, or that it's common, and customise their armies according to Legion themes without needing limiting, artificial rules?

[Excessus]

Counts-as is the only way for me...

 

Lobotomized warriors(zerkers) just doesn't fit the fluff when it comes to the Alpha Legion. Even if some would go down the path of Khorne-love, the act of removing their thought and reason is a bit far-fetched for a legion that operates on flexibility and independent thinking. Cc veterans fits a bit better...

 

Heck, even my squad icons are represented by comm-links because I deem flag-waving as 'un-AL'...

 

 

 

I was on my 40k-break just when the 3.5 codex was out so I never tasted the power of it. (damnation!) Though looking through it I would gladly 'pay' the downside of no marked troops for the options available in it. The current codex is just too dull! I believe the next codex will fix a lot of things, but hopefully without the potential of being so unbalanced as I've been told the 3.5 codex could become...

[A D-B]

Counts-as is the only way for me...

 

Lobotomized warriors(zerkers) just doesn't fit the fluff when it comes to the Alpha Legion. Even if some would go down the path of Khorne-love, the act of removing their thought and reason is a bit far-fetched for a legion that operates on flexibility and independent thinking. Cc veterans fits a bit better...

 

Couldn't agree more, dude. That's the key; not mistaking "This is possible" with "This is likely" or "This is very likely" or "This happens all the time". In that example (which is a very extreme one) it's incredibly unlikely the Alpha Legion will have many of those kinds of troops, for the reasons you mentioned. We know that from what we know of the Alpha Legion.

 

That's what a codex needs to do. We should have information to make informed decisions. Easy enough.

 

If I played Night Lords, I wouldn't take Plague Marines. Does that mean no Night Lord warband ever, anywhere, ever has had a squad of its warriors become Plague Marines? No. I'm sure it happened more than once, and each time it was an event of awesome resonance, betrayal, and possibly insanity. But it's not for me. It's not traditionally Night Lordy.

 

It just means I know the Legion well enough to see it'd be intensely rare, a little unthematic to say the least (by traditional judgements) and therefore not something I'd go with. I don't need to be told "LOL NO PLAGUE MARINES IN A NIGHT LORD ARMY" by the army list section of my codex. I'm not 4 years old. I know the lore. It's up to players to reflect their Legions accurately, just as it's up to players to realise what's possible in a warband, after a few years of intensely stereotyped and inapplicable generalisations.

 

Tell me the themes and details of a Legion, and I can go from there. Same as anyone.

[totgeboren]

I'm with Dammeron on how to deal with the cults and the legions. Why not do away with say "Khorne Berzerkers" as an entry, and instead have "Assault Veterans", with a list of upgrades? Those upgrades could allow you to make Night Lord terror troops, Iron Warrior breach-stormers, Khorne Berzerkers, Slaanesh Gladiators or some Nurgle rabies thingies?

 

A list of upgrades might be too much to ask for, but just by changing the name of the entries to something god-neutral, and having the background text say "The most famous and feared assault veterans are the Khorne Berzerkers of the World Eater legion..." we would have a much more open codex, which would allow many more sorts of armies.

 

Just look at the ork codex. By changing "Blood Axe Kommandos", "Bad Moon Meganobs" and "Evil Suns Bikers" into "Kommandos", "Meganobs" and "Bikes" we got a huge amount of variation in the composition of ork warbands, to the point that no to warbands look alike even when of the same klan (except maybe some Nob biker lists, but those are not really made with the background in mind).

 

I would bet the same would happen to Chaos. Put a brief mention in the background text of the specialised units (the former cult units) which legion/god favours which unit, and have some trademark tactics in the legion descriptions, and you have everything you need. I think chaos would be much more interesting for everyone involved if that was the case.

[A D-B]

I'm with Dammeron on how to deal with the cults and the legions. Why not do away with say "Khorne Berzerkers" as an entry, and instead have "Assault Veterans", with a list of upgrades? Those upgrades could allow you to make Night Lord terror troops, Iron Warrior breach-stormers, Khorne Berzerkers, Slaanesh Gladiators or some Nurgle rabies thingies?

 

A list of upgrades might be too much to ask for, but just by changing the name of the entries to something god-neutral, and having the background text say "The most famous and feared assault veterans are the Khorne Berzerkers of the World Eater legion..." we would have a much more open codex, which would allow many more sorts of armies.

 

Just look at the ork codex. By changing "Blood Axe Kommandos", "Bad Moon Meganobs" and "Evil Suns Bikers" into "Kommandos", "Meganobs" and "Bikes" we got a huge amount of variation in the composition of ork warbands, to the point that no to warbands look alike even when of the same klan (except maybe some Nob biker lists, but those are not really made with the background in mind).

 

I would bet the same would happen to Chaos. Put a brief mention in the background text of the specialised units (the former cult units) which legion/god favours which unit, and have some trademark tactics in the legion descriptions, and you have everything you need. I think chaos would be much more interesting for everyone involved if that was the case.

 

This is wisdom. I'll be surprised if they don't do something similar in the next codex, too.

 

EDIT: Or, rather, a qualification in the text / overall Legion descriptions, rather than a name change.

[Ammonius]

A list of upgrades might be too much to ask for, but just by changing the name of the entries to something god-neutral, and having the background text say "The most famous and feared assault veterans are the Khorne Berzerkers of the World Eater legion..." we would have a much more open codex, which would allow many more sorts of armies.

Absolutely absolutely. I already try to think of the cult troops as "Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Berzerkers, and Rubric Marines" to take the god- and legion-specific baggage out of their entries. I think that as long as you plan ahead and think about what you are doing, it all works fine. I have a unit of "Nurgle rabies-thingys" :tu: and once I point out the chainaxes and extra skulls, no one I have played yet has complained.