Night Lords and Raptors

[Kol Saresk]

As I understand it, since 3.5 Night Lords and Raptors have become synonymous with each. To have one without the other just seems wrong. In the New Chaos Rumors thread, I said something about that a player should have the option of taking a Slaaneshi Night Lords warband. One of the responses was "So, you want what, Noise Marine Raptors?"(paraphrased) This is part of what I mean. The other part is, that Night Lords are, as a generality, do not worship Chaos, merely use it as a weapon. Some warbands worship it, some avoid it entirely, dealing with it and its followers only when it serves their goals. But the original Raptor fluff from the IA articles says that the Raptors follow an unnamed Chaos power, hence their existence as a cult. So why does everyone carry the atheist/agnostic Night Lords with the Chaos-worshiping Raptors hand-in-hand?

 

If the Iron Warriors and the Obliterators can exist as two separate entities, why can't the Raptors and the Night Lords? A-D-B showed us a Night Lords warband that wasn't strictly made up of Raptors and everyone liked it. DarkVen and Tanith Ghost both have Night Lord warbands that are dominated by normal Marines. And everyone likes those as well.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I love Raptors. And I love Night Lords. Heck, I have a Night Lords Raptor for a profile picture. I just don't think that the two should be the same entity. You should be able to have a Night Lords warband without being dominated by Raptors, both in fluff and on the tabletop. Opinions? Am I wrong in this belief?

[Legatus]

I play Night Lords since 2nd Edition. In 2nd Edition, Chaos had no jump pack units whatsoever, because that had been considered complicated technology and had been a rare thing during the Heresy, only becoming more available to loyalists later on. So, naturally I am not at all attached to the idea that Night Lords need Raptors, because when I started playing them, Raptors did not exist. I did not exactly warm to them after they were introduced in 3rd Edition eitehr, since I did not much like their first models, and neither do I like the current ones. At some point I converted a unit of Chaos Marines with spiked plastic jump packs to use as "Assault Chaos Marines", a theme which I seemed to prefer over the "this particular unit has it's own cult and doesn't really belong to your Legion at all" theme Raptors had been conceived with.

 

So, yeah, to play Night Lords, you need Raptors as much as you need carnival bat wing helmets. Not at all.

[Lay]

As I understand it, since 3.5 Night Lords and Raptors have become synonymous with each.

[...]

If the Iron Warriors and the Obliterators can exist as two separate entities, why can't the Raptors and the Night Lords?

Sure about that? I don't recall any fluff stating that they are synonymous or that they aren't two separate entities.

[Vesper]

I said something about that a player should have the option of taking a Slaaneshi Night Lords warband. One of the responses was "So, you want what, Noise Marine Raptors?"(paraphrased)

 

 

Hey, that's me right ? You're talking about me !

Becoming famous already, I appreciate.

 

The fact is, when I said this, I was thinking more about GW tendency to oversimplify concepts : "you like white scars ? Take bikes. You like Raven Guard ? There, take this jump pack thingy."

And it's the same in Chaos. You like Khorne ? Berzerkers.

It appears that, in the process of pleasing everybody, GW choose to build archetypal visions of their armies to simplify the developpement team work and to keep the codices kinda simple, mainly for balances' sake.

 

You'll often heard that 3.5 from Haines and co was overcomplicated and sometimes imbalanced. But it was at this time the very best attempt at representing Chaos in its diversity. I don't think it was the dead end of the road to the perfect codex Chaos (because of some restrictions), but it was a step on the right direction. For exemple, the Night Lords COULD trade a HS slot for a FA slot. Awesome isn't it ? Raptors weren't a must have for a NL army, they just had the possibility to field a large number (and back then, Raptors were pretty cool with Hit and Run).

3.5 was a loving attempt to give Chaos its due. And it was the best codex GW ever released. Not perfect, sure, but the very best.

[Brother Nihm]

As I understand it, since 3.5 Night Lords and Raptors have become synonymous with each.

[...]

If the Iron Warriors and the Obliterators can exist as two separate entities, why can't the Raptors and the Night Lords?

Sure about that? I don't recall any fluff stating that they are synonymous or that they aren't two separate entities.

It is a common misconception that the IA article originally introduced, due to the whole: trade 2 heavy Support for 1 Fast Attack and no limits on the number of Raptors thing.

 

There are a few NL players out there (particularly some of the older ones that I personally know) who do not field any Raptors at all, some of them never have. It is the same thing with Iron Warriors = Oblits everywhere!

 

I used to field an all Raptor cult consisting of 40 Raptors, led by a Daemon Prince and a Winged Lt, strictly speaking they weren't Night Lords. Then the 2007 codex happened and that army is buried under so much dust now.

 

I can see GW going back to a semi-3,5 version view, it was the most popular one after all. But I don't like it either. Night Lords to me aren't synomynous with Raptors they would merely have more of them in some cases due to their history/historical ties.

 

 

My 2 Kraks

[Vesper]

There is no mention of raptors in the Night Lords' IA article. Not a single one. IIRC.

[Kol Saresk]

As I understand it, since 3.5 Night Lords and Raptors have become synonymous with each.

[...]

If the Iron Warriors and the Obliterators can exist as two separate entities, why can't the Raptors and the Night Lords?

Sure about that? I don't recall any fluff stating that they are synonymous or that they aren't two separate entities.

It wasn't really the fluff that stated this per se. It was the players more or less. Like Vesper mentioned, the Night Lords could take another FA slot at the cost of a HS slot. And more than a few people were loving Raptors(As I understand it). As a result, the two started being carried hand-in-hand to the point that many people thought of Night Lords as a Raptor Legion. So much so that when Simon Spurrier wrote Lord of the Night, he wrote the Night Lords Legion First Captain Zso Sahaal as being the one who trained/created the Raptors.

 

And like Nihm and Legatus said, the vets from before 3.5 didn't necessarily participate in this change of events. I say necessarily because there were probably some who went with it.

 

And then there was the aforementioned IA misconception. Night Lords went from being the epitome of overkill to preying on the weak. Raptors were arrogant warriors who preyed on the weak. Therefore, according to some people, Night Lords and Raptors should go merrily skipping down the golden brick road while holding hands.

 

And like Vesper said, GW likes to simplify things. So much so that they have three Legions who all rely on different styles of guerilla warfare and yet are stumbling over each other to become unique armies without copying each other.

[davidren2401]

I knew a Night Lords player a few years back who said he liked Raptors because they were one of the things that set Night Lords apart from the Alpha Legion

[Kol Saresk]

I knew a Night Lords player a few years back who said he liked Raptors because they were one of the things that set Night Lords apart from the Alpha Legion

But becoming jump pack oriented then puts them into conflict with the Raven Guard, as the Raven Guard have also fallen into this, which was the third Legion I was talking about. All three rely on guerrilla tactics. Night Lords rely on the terrorist aspect, Raven Guard relies on the misdirection aspect and the Alpha Legion relies on the infiltration/Black Ops aspect. All three are pretty dang close on tripping over each other in terms of fluff-compliant tactics and troop organization as it is. The only current thing that is separating them is individual fluff.

[Vesper]

BA became "JUMP-PACK EVERYWHERE YEAH" too.

What I'd love to see for the Night Lords is a focus on their terror tactics.

[Legatus]

IMVHO one of the problems of the Index Astartes articles was that GW tried too hard to make the Legions and Chapetrs very distinct from one another. Before that, they were just various Space Marine forces. They had their back stories and some themes, but were more or less assumed to be forces of Space Marines (or Chaos Space Marines). I.e. the Word Bearers were a force of Chaos Space Marines, and they were very much into worship and the occult. The Alpha Legion was a force of Chaos Space Marines, and they staged a lot of disciplined raids on Imperial outposts. The Iron Hands were a Space Marines Chapter, and they were into bionics. And I don't think there was anything wrong with this. Space Marine/Chaos Marine forces in themselves were versatile enough, with their different unit choices.

But with the Index Astartes series, GW attempted to make every Chapter stand out in some way or another. With some Chapters that kind of worked out, but with others it felt forced. In particular with the Alpha Legion and the Iron Hands I got the feeling that their newly described combat doctrines and organisation were made up just so they could get some special rules and units. Perhaps that's how it felt for the Night Lords as well. They had never been described as particularly mobile or fast attack heavy, and the "replace two heavy support option with one additional fast attack" seemed like a "token" special rule, a counter part for the Iron Warriors extra heavy support choice more than being motivated by the actual theme of the Night Lords. The Raptors had been a newly devised unit, so of course their inclusion was not really based on any previous lore. Presumeably their morale affecting rules were what made GW associate them with the Night Lords.

 

In short, during the Index Astartes series, GW tried to make all the Legions and Chapters different, purely for the sake of having them be different. In some cases that felt less natural than with others.

[Brother Ambroz]

There's also the book Lord of the Night which also gave a great deal of people the idea that all Night Lords were raptors. I don't plan on getting any raptors at all in my warband, at least not for a long time. If you want to have yours outright worship chaos that's not necessarily a bad thing either. There's always some people that branch out from the norm.

[Kol Saresk]

There's also the book Lord of the Night which also gave a great deal of people the idea that all Night Lords were raptors. I don't plan on getting any raptors at all in my warband, at least not for a long time. If you want to have yours outright worship chaos that's not necessarily a bad thing either. There's always some people that branch out from the norm.

I always thought Lord of the Night was influenced by the masses since it came out in 2005, six years after 3.o and three years after 3.5.

[the jeske]

Space Marine/Chaos Marine forces in themselves were versatile enough, with their different unit choices.

dude I remember the pre IA chaos , pre 3.5 . the JJ dex was the worse chaos dex ever . It was hated by the RT/2ed players because of the stuff it removed[more or less everything . good demons . multi marked lords , good gear , renegede/demon/beastman lists .etc etc] , it was even hated by people that were starting to play chaos because , suprise, just like the future gav dex it had nothing good . nothing , and it was rhino rush era where assault tailored marines [and chaos was always more about short range shoting/assault] were suppose to be good . GW started doing IA articles because chaos was not selling at all[just like they did the +5inv on termis in a IA article. and if I remember right Chambers him selfwrote it.] .

the very idea that 9 chaos legions are identical when they are made out of veterans of long war and 1k man chapters are totaly different from each other in game play , with different gear and different rules made no sense.

 

A DG army should not be playd like an NL one and both of those should not be played like a EC one . Otherwise we all may just say that all marines are the same and play ultramarine clones.

 

 

I always thought Lord of the Night was influenced by the masses since it came out in 2005, six years after 3.o and three years after 3.5.

it was something that made sense . just like other legions made tactical inventions in formations . DG had the whole landing on top of enemy line thing . WS had their bike formations . AL had their whole iniltration[not the w40k rule] etc NL on the other hand were the first who used raptors in company sized formations . All legions had jump troops but they were not using them in 100+sized units . the same happened with mass use of terminator armors[first it was used in boarding actions, for officiers or as single squads bolstering power armored marines].

 

 

They had never been described as particularly mobile or fast attack heavy, and the "replace two heavy support option with one additional fast attack" seemed like a "token" special rule, a counter part for the Iron Warriors extra heavy support choice more than being motivated by the actual theme of the Night Lords

and what was H man suppose to do back then . he wasnt making rules for a raptor cult army , he was doing one for NL . there were no make unit X troop options back then . and terror tactics were represented by DV . yes they were one of the weaker army builds[no good demon bomb . gunline was kind of a clone of AL with cost higher infiltration.etc]. Raptors were NL more then any other legion so NL got them , there were no other units linked to NL and to get pre game rules for terror attacks the dex would have to be writen by kelly .

[Legatus]

dude I remember the pre IA chaos , pre 3.5 . the JJ dex was the worse chaos dex ever

That was a problem with the 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines and it's unit choices in general, not specifically an issue of the Legions not being different enough from each other.

 

 

A DG army should not be playd like an NL one and both of those should not be played like a EC one

I probably should have adressed the cult Legions specifically. But I didn't. Now what did I get myself into...

 

Though I would see no problem with the Emperor's Children operating similar to the other undivided Legions. Of the "cult" Legions, they were not said to consist exclusively out of specific unit choices. All Death Guard are Plague Marines, all World Eaters are Berserkers, all Thousand Sons are either Rubric Marines or Sorcerers. But the Emperor's Children still had the standard Chaos Marine units, who simply were dedicated to Slaanesh.

 

 

and what was H man suppose to do back then

They did not really need an altered force organisation chart, for starters. Not every individual Space Marine faction needs special rules that only they get.

[Brother Ambroz]

I always thought Lord of the Night was influenced by the masses since it came out in 2005, six years after 3.o and three years after 3.5.

 

Aye it was influenced by the masses I imagine but it also influenced some people to create raptor only NL armies. Alot of the hype came from that book as well as the 3.5 codex in my opinion.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

They did not really need an altered force organisation chart, for starters. Not every individual Space Marine faction needs special rules that only they get.

 

But each one had special rules that only they got, or do you not recall the Traits and Flaws portion of the previous SM Codex?

[Legatus]

How's that doing now?

[Gree]

Now don't get me wrong, I love Raptors. And I love Night Lords. Heck, I have a Night Lords Raptor for a profile picture. I just don't think that the two should be the same entity. You should be able to have a Night Lords warband without being dominated by Raptors, both in fluff and on the tabletop. Opinions? Am I wrong in this belief?

 

No, you are indeed right. You can do whatever you wish with your warband after all. Personally in my Night Lords Warband I use a lot of Raptors, but fluffwise for my fluff they aren’t strictly “raptors” but more like regular members of the warband equipped with what few carefully maintained jump packs that the warband possesses. Having a jump pack is a status symbol for the Night Lords in my warband.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

How's that doing now?

 

Apparently just fine, you just have to buy a guy to give you your special snowflake stuff instead of, you know, sacrificing FOC pieces in exchange for other ones. I'm not sure how you can justify downing on 3.5's Legion-based FOC changes and still be accepting of how SMs keep getting the ability to mutate their FOCs over two entirely different Codices.

[Legatus]

I'm not sure how you can justify downing on 3.5's Legion-based FOC changes and still be accepting of how SMs keep getting the ability to mutate their FOCs over two entirely different Codices.

I can assure you that the Chapter Tactics rules were among the issues I had heavily criticized when the 5th Edition Codex Space Marines had been released. As far as I am concerned, you can play an Imperial Fists army that isn't led by the 1st Company Captain, or a Raven Guard army that isn't led by the 3rd Company Captain just fine. I play a 2nd Company Ultramarines army, but it is not led by "Sicarius".

[Kol Saresk]

I'm not sure how you can justify downing on 3.5's Legion-based FOC changes and still be accepting of how SMs keep getting the ability to mutate their FOCs over two entirely different Codices.

I can assure you that the Chapter Tactics rules were among the issues I had heavily criticized when the 5th Edition Codex Space Marines had been released. As far as I am concerned, you can play an Imperial Fists army that isn't led by the 1st Company Captain, or a Raven Guard army that isn't led by the 3rd Company Captain just fine. I play a 2nd Company Ultramarines army, but it is not led by "Sicarius".

Shame on you for not belonging to a stereotype. :)

[the jeske]

How's that doing now?

 

Apparently just fine, you just have to buy a guy to give you your special snowflake stuff instead of, you know, sacrificing FOC pieces in exchange for other ones. I'm not sure how you can justify downing on 3.5's Legion-based FOC changes and still be accepting of how SMs keep getting the ability to mutate their FOCs over two entirely different Codices.

 

+if you played one of those less codex armies . like the apothecary builds the true grit builds or the ccw/bolt pistols builds or the assault marines are troops/elites you switch to codex SW or codex BA . even GW told people to do that . as said by khestra it works just fine .

 

 

Before the new GK/SoB dex it was actualy possible to "build chaos" marine armies with cultists . took inq storm troopers , inq as leaders for those , SW or BA WD dex and your ready to go .

[Legatus]

The point I had been making, but which somehow was lost, was that a loyalist or traitor party does not need their own unique rules to be worth playing. People can play Imperial Fists without any "siege expert" rules, and even without fielding Lysander. I can play Night Lords without the ensurance that a Word Bearers army could not operate in exactly the same way on the tabletop.

[Gree]

The point I had been making, but which somehow was lost, was that a loyalist or traitor party does not need their own unique rules to be worth playing. People can play Imperial Fists without any "siege expert" rules, and even without fielding Lysander. I can play Night Lords without the ensurance that a Word Bearers army could not operate in exactly the same way on the tabletop.

 

Well if you want to play Raven Guard without Shrike you are just playing black Ultramarines.