Cult Troops in different Legions

[Phoros]

So I've been reading stuff that ADB has posted about there being fluffy potential for including any and all Cult Troops in any Chaos army, and I was thinking about interesting ways to make that happen. It doesn't have to literally be a way to include the actual unit; just something that could seem appropriate with the rules. Ideas that I came up with included:

 

Word Bearers Zealots - Berzerkers representing Word Bearers driven into a frenzy by their faith.

Khorne/World Eaters Golems - Thousand Sons, modelled as a set of animated stone statues with Khornate runes cut into them, lead by a "Rune Champion".

Night Lords Scary-as-hell Zombies: Night Lords Plague Marines, maintained for the sole purpose of having them jump out at the enemy and scare the heck out of them.

Alpha Legion DISTRACTION MARINES: Alpha Legion Marines dressed up as Marines from another warband or chapter, charging at the enemy Berzerker-style.

 

Post your ideas if you have any!

 

(edited for oops sorry)

[darth_giles]

So I've been reading stuff that ADB has posted about there being fluffy potential for including any and all Cult Troops in any Chaos army

Not all of us agree with his stance, though. You'll find there's a fair few of us from the 3.5 era and before who want to stick to the fluff from the IA, one-Mark legions and all.

 

Alpha Legion DISTRACTION MARINES: Alpha Legion Marines dressed up as Marines from another warband or chapter, charging at the enemy Berzerker-style.

Hell with that, just dress up Alpha Legion marines as loyalists and go place a big order with the local Forge World. How else do you think Chaos got all those new Vindicators in the 4.0 codex?

[A D-B]

So I've been reading stuff that ADB has posted about there being fluffy potential for including any and all Cult Troops in any Chaos army

Not all of us agree with his stance, though. You'll find there's a fair few of us from the 3.5 era and before who want to stick to the fluff from the IA, one-Mark legions and all.

 

The problem with that is all the limitations it entailed, completely against the variety and hell-realm-living of the Legions, in favour of half a page of rules.

 

My Word Bearers are led by a former captain, not a dark apostle. That's already 'Not Word Bearers' in the 3.5 system. And Iron Warriors get Basilisks, but no one else does. That makes no sense, but it was a weak attempt to simulate "The Iron Warriors have more siege gunnery stuff going on than other Legions".

 

It's so sad to see those weak, limiting, unfluffy half-rules hailed as The One True Way to field a Legion force. I mean, the sad thing is, claiming they're accurate is also dead wrong. And it's very, very hard to be wrong in 40K. They were certainly a way of presenting a cookie-cutter example of a stereotypical, variety-less Legion warband, yeah. But they were nothing more than that.

 

And that's coming from someone who adored 3.5, and loved having my half-page of rules that made me feel unique with my army. The problem is, as I read the lore and got into the setting more and more, I realised they represented the Legions absolutely atrociously. I don't need a half-page of rules to make a Word Bearer warband different from a Black Legion warband. I know how those Legions work. I can make them different myself, whether they had every single unit different on the tabletop, or every single unit the same.

[darth_giles]

And that's coming from someone who adored 3.5, and loved having my half-page of rules that made me feel unique with my army. The problem is, as I read the lore and got into the setting more and more, I realised they represented the Legions absolutely atrociously.

Can you list me some firm canon sources? Codices, the Realm of Terror books, Index Astartes articles, that sort of thing?

[Vesper]

I guess he means representing the Legions in their actual state. Shattered, broken into warbands with the diversity we all know about.

Yeah, I'm one of the 3.5 fanboi Dbag, yet, it clearly wasn't perfect at all, and yeah, those mono-mark legions were really bothering me when I was making lists.

If only the gavdex was the 3.5 without those limitations instead of being just the 3rd ed Chaos codex with just a huge middle finger in the face of Chaos players, it would be really great to play Chaos.

But that's not really the topic, so, to the OP, yeah, you can actually do that. My Night Lords got three squads of Khorne Berzerkers AKA assault troops, and a squad of PM AKA average marines on combat drugs. Hell, I even have a possessed squad, just because my sorcerer wants to remind to every CSM in the warband what happens to those who fail.

[A D-B]

And that's coming from someone who adored 3.5, and loved having my half-page of rules that made me feel unique with my army. The problem is, as I read the lore and got into the setting more and more, I realised they represented the Legions absolutely atrociously.

Can you list me some firm canon sources? Codices, the Realm of Terror books, Index Astartes articles, that sort of thing?

 

It's difficult to say without being offensive. Um. Anything about the Chaos Marines ever mentioned across several editions? I'm sure Legatus could give a bajillion page numbers, but you're ignoring the wood for the trees, here. My point is that 3.5 doesn't represent the Legions well. I'm not sure I could take anyone seriously if they said it did, though I'd totally agree it was fun to have unique rules at the time, to separate X from Y. I no longer need that; I know the lore well enough that I can make a Legion force specific enough whether it had limited options or every unit the same as another warband. But that's not the point. How could anyone say 3.5 accurately represents the Legions? Even from the three seconds of examples I slapped up in a rush, it's clear they don't. My Word Bearer army is led by a captain, not a Dark Apostle. In 3.5, that's wrong. In the lore, of course it wouldn't be wrong. That's nonsense. Not every Word Bearer warband ever is led by a Dark Apostle. Not every Iron Warrior warband has access to a Basilisk, while no other Chaos Marine does. Don't look at massive restricting limits and see flavour. God, that'd be tragic. Given the variety of living and fighting in an eternal Hell, there may be hard and fast rules, but THIS LEGION HAS 0-1 OF X UNIT is by far the least convincing way to do it.

 

I guess he means representing the Legions in their actual state. Shattered, broken into warbands with the diversity we all know about.

 

Exactly. Sorry, should've been clearer.

 

I agree with your points, absolutely. It's not about saying the Gavdex did it perfectly. It's about saying 3.5 offered a hint of flavour with ludicrous limitations, and the current codex offered all the choice with none of the structure, reference or legion lore flavour previously seen in the other editions. Neither were ideal - and out of the two, I preferred 3.5. But I suspect the future's bright on this score, though.

[techsoldaten]

It's not about saying the Gavdex did it perfectly. It's about saying 3.5 offered a hint of flavour with ludicrous limitations, and the current codex offered all the choice with none of the structure, reference or legion lore flavour previously seen in the other editions. Neither were ideal - and out of the two, I preferred 3.5. But I suspect the future's bright on this score, though.

Read this and thought to myself, "here's someone who has seen the new Codex foreshadowing what's to come. His suspicions cannot be ignorant of what's about to be released."

[A D-B]

It's not about saying the Gavdex did it perfectly. It's about saying 3.5 offered a hint of flavour with ludicrous limitations, and the current codex offered all the choice with none of the structure, reference or legion lore flavour previously seen in the other editions. Neither were ideal - and out of the two, I preferred 3.5. But I suspect the future's bright on this score, though.

Read this and thought to myself, "here's someone who has seen the new Codex foreshadowing what's to come. His suspicions cannot be ignorant of what's about to be released."

 

Naw, I've been saying this about the new edition stuff for months and months. It's purely based on the chatter about the setting I've had over the last 2 years, and the way it's talked about in meetings / over emails, as well as in general conversation with how a lot of people see the lore. You'll usually see me agree with Legatus, f'rex, about the Chaos Legions - neither of us seem to hold much truck with 3.5 actually representing them well, for obvious reasons. Most of all, it's based on my guesses for what would make sense, given the lore. And limiting like Ye Olde Dayes doesn't seem to be the direction anyone's taking it in. Give choices, but make them informed. Don't make something unique by saying you have to have X, and can't have Y. In a system like the Traitor Legions living in the Eye of Terror, that just makes no sense. Flavour comes from personality, creed, motivation... not being forced to take Unit X to make a warband of Legion Y.

 

None of it is insider info. When I bring stuff up, it's all based on informal 40K chatter.

 

I'm very careful, as I don't want to be axed over something stupid or misunderstood.

[Ethrion]

I think the "flavour" that the 3.5 codex gave us was the crap ton of wargear that was in it and the feeling that you could "build your own" lord. I totally agree that the idea of saying army X are the only ones to get a specific unit and no-one else can have it = flavour is completely wrong. All of the options should be laid out for everyone and it is up to you to build your legion/warband as you see fit.

 

Legions shouldn't = unlocks is what I guess I am saying.

[Hellios]

3.5 Didn't force you... that is the point... You could make an Iron Warrior army and not use the Iron Warriors special rules. The whole point of the limitations was to stop the whole thing being broken and with the Iron Warriors some might say they failed anyway.

 

If you want to go with the no limitations thing then Hell I may as well be able to take nids in my chaos list because according to the BL the Iron Warriors have a few pet nids. If character just comes from the players choice alone then their should be just one codex and then the units you choose and the way you model or paint them will tell you if a squad is a bunch of marine veterans with meltaguns or a squad of Eldar fire dragons.

 

If the rumours are true that you need to take a special character to make cult units into troops... Hell that restriction is far worse than any in the 3.5 dex...

 

Rant rant rave *WDHBHVNSB<NMD< .

[Phoros]

I was going to type out a response to each of the points in that post, but then I realised that you clearly wouldn't be persuaded no matter what I said.

[Xenith]

So I've been reading stuff that ADB has posted about there being fluffy potential for including any and all Cult Troops in any Chaos army

Not all of us agree with his stance, though. You'll find there's a fair few of us from the 3.5 era and before who want to stick to the fluff from the IA, one-Mark legions and all.

 

Problem there, is that the one mark legions thing is not fluff, but the rules. The IA rules section that stated you could only have one mark. What about the Berzerkers that could be included in an IW force?

 

You do not have to worship a god for the god to favour you. A particularly agressive warsmith may not worship Khorne, but Khorne may decide to help the guy out.

 

Much like: Ahriman and Tzeentch - Ahriman does not worship Tzeentch, but has his mark anyway.

 

Fabius Bile was part of the Emperors Children, who were all Slaanesh, but you don't see Bile with the MoS.

 

The most pointed example is Abaddon, who is Black Legion (and by your thinking, is undivided and thus can never have a mark), but possesses the marks of all four greater gods. All four.

[Vesper]

And that's coming from someone who adored 3.5, and loved having my half-page of rules that made me feel unique with my army. The problem is, as I read the lore and got into the setting more and more, I realised they represented the Legions absolutely atrociously. I don't need a half-page of rules to make a Word Bearer warband different from a Black Legion warband. I know how those Legions work. I can make them different myself, whether they had every single unit different on the tabletop, or every single unit the same.

 

I do think you're really hitting hard on 3.5.

The portrayal of the legions is far from perfect, I can't agree more with you. But NL don't cease to me NL just because they join a warband. There's flesh on the bones of the legions. Tactics, traits, tendancies and experiences. 3.5 tried to give the Chaos players an opportunity to have that on tabletop. It wasn't made in a way that allows the creation of a real warbands, say with a squad of Night Lords fighting along some Alpha Legions infiltrators. But at least it tried to give a representation of the flesh of Chaos on tabletop.

As I see it, it's a love letter to Chaos players. Maybe a clumsy one, but still a move that we should value because it made a step to the representation of the diversity (in a way) of the Chaos Marines.

And, to be honest, I don't think we'll ever have anything that close of being perfect.

[Hellios]

So I've been reading stuff that ADB has posted about there being fluffy potential for including any and all Cult Troops in any Chaos army

Not all of us agree with his stance, though. You'll find there's a fair few of us from the 3.5 era and before who want to stick to the fluff from the IA, one-Mark legions and all.

 

Problem there, is that the one mark legions thing is not fluff, but the rules. The IA rules section that stated you could only have one mark. What about the Berzerkers that could be included in an IW force?

 

You do not have to worship a god for the god to favour you. A particularly agressive warsmith may not worship Khorne, but Khorne may decide to help the guy out.

 

Much like: Ahriman and Tzeentch - Ahriman does not worship Tzeentch, but has his mark anyway.

 

Fabius Bile was part of the Emperors Children, who were all Slaanesh, but you don't see Bile with the MoS.

 

The most pointed example is Abaddon, who is Black Legion (and by your thinking, is undivided and thus can never have a mark), but possesses the marks of all four greater gods. All four.

 

Well to be honest fluff contradicts itself (But hey... Chaos...) and it depends on how you see things... I still see rubrics that are now fighting for another legion as 1ksons... All rubrics are from the 1ksons... Who they fight for they are 1ksons.

 

 

I however think you also over simplify things... Yes someone who doesn't worship khorne may gain his favour but over time they will likely end up dedicated to khorne... that is one of the reasons you don't normally see people with all 4 marks... It takes real strength to earn such favour from a god and not be dominated by them.

[totgeboren]

It's difficult to say without being offensive. Um. Anything about the Chaos Marines ever mentioned across several editions? I'm sure Legatus could give a bajillion page numbers, but you're ignoring the wood for the trees, here. My point is that 3.5 doesn't represent the Legions well. I'm not sure I could take anyone seriously if they said it did, though I'd totally agree it was fun to have unique rules at the time, to separate X from Y. I no longer need that; I know the lore well enough that I can make a Legion force specific enough whether it had limited options or every unit the same as another warband. But that's not the point. How could anyone say 3.5 accurately represents the Legions? Even from the three seconds of examples I slapped up in a rush, it's clear they don't. My Word Bearer army is led by a captain, not a Dark Apostle. In 3.5, that's wrong. In the lore, of course it wouldn't be wrong. That's nonsense. Not every Word Bearer warband ever is led by a Dark Apostle. Not every Iron Warrior warband has access to a Basilisk, while no other Chaos Marine does. Don't look at massive restricting limits and see flavour. God, that'd be tragic. Given the variety of living and fighting in an eternal Hell, there may be hard and fast rules, but THIS LEGION HAS 0-1 OF X UNIT is by far the least convincing way to do it.

 

I fully agree that the 3.5 rules were quite restrictive to those who wanted to accept the restrictions for some small rule quirk. Everyone could use the basic list and have access to everything, almost like in the 4ed codex (ok, you couldn't have a Slaanesh and Nurgle Daemon Prince lead a horde of Berzerkers, but almost!)

 

But the background in the 3.5 codex was really just the IA articles compressed to fit on half a page. The real IA articles were many pages long, and I still fondly remember WD 270 (that's ten years ago now) with the article for the WB. I had started a WB force maybe 6 months before the article was published, and when I read it I was really inspired. The article has actually managed to keep me inspired for the last 10 years, so I can honestly say I really enjoyed it.

However, it clearly portrayed the WB as not taking to kindly to those who stray to the worship of a single god. Background can change, as can rules, but this article was the most comprehensive piece of background published regarding the WB legion to that date.

What you are saying is that this article simply never existed. I understand if you don't like the WB being that way, and I certainly understand if you don't like rules that don't allow marks for example (I like count-as myself), but saying the 3.5 rules didn't represent the legions very well is simply not true. The 3.5 rules for the WB just took what the background said was stereotypical of them and made that into rules.

 

In the 3.5 rules, you could do a 'stereotype' force from one legion, using the extra page of rules, or you could use the basic list. Still, I didn't like that the rules were so restrictive. My Assault Veterans who count-as Berzerkers have been great fun playing using the 4ed codex, but it is still the background from the IA article which is my main inspiration. And that background brings limitations (regarding marks and such, which I really like).

 

I think you are mixing up the legions quite a bit, treating them as being more or less the same after so long in the Eye/Malestrom, but remember that an AL fan might not like the WB at all. For someone who want to play a World Eaters warband, having rules that make them different from an NL warband is really appreciated.

Even if the background is changed so at all the legions are now split up into 5-10 man squads, some people will still want to theme their armies after just a single legion. I agree that the rules should allow people to mix up their force quite heavily if they want to, but at the same time it shouldn't punish players who want to remain close the the 'restrictive' IA-era background, which many of us still love.

[TheDarkApostle]

I fully agree that the 3.5 rules were quite restrictive to those who wanted to accept the restrictions for some small rule quirk. Everyone could use the basic list and have access to everything, almost like in the 4ed codex (ok, you couldn't have a Slaanesh and Nurgle Daemon Prince lead a horde of Berzerkers, but almost!)

Because in 3,5 you actually could have a Daemon Prince of Nurgle leading a horde of Berzerkers of Khorne, and with an attached Lieutenant (who possibly was a Sorcerer as well) of Slaanesh.

 

But not Tzeentch :tu:

 

TDA

[Lexington]

I agree that the rules should allow people to mix up their force quite heavily if they want to, but at the same time it shouldn't punish players who want to remain close the the 'restrictive' IA-era background, which many of us still love.

I'm with you here, but...isn't that how things are now? As it is, you can have "restricted" lists that are plenty varied, or pick and choose from Cult/non-standard units to your lil' black heart's content. I mean, I understand that people want rules to differentiate themselves, but the age of Allies, to me, makes such things even less necessary than they were before. If you want to abide by the 3.5 era, fill your table with demolitions hardware for the Iron Warriors, Cultists for the Alpha Legion or daemons for the Word-Bearing types. Personally, I'm planning to go nuts on taking a mix of Chaos Marines, renegade Guardsmen and Daemonic engines from Forgeworld. The quickly-approaching Codex looks to be giving us specific choices for Warsmiths and Dark Apostles, plus a host of other options that can be thematically applied in all sorts of ways. For Chaos players, these are some heady days no matter what sort of army you'd like to run.

[totgeboren]

I agree that the rules should allow people to mix up their force quite heavily if they want to, but at the same time it shouldn't punish players who want to remain close the the 'restrictive' IA-era background, which many of us still love.

I'm with you here, but...isn't that how things are now? As it is, you can have "restricted" lists that are plenty varied, or pick and choose from Cult/non-standard units to your lil' black heart's content. I mean, I understand that people want rules to differentiate themselves, but the age of Allies, to me, makes such things even less necessary than they were before. If you want to abide by the 3.5 era, fill your table with demolitions hardware for the Iron Warriors, Cultists for the Alpha Legion or daemons for the Word-Bearing types. Personally, I'm planning to go nuts on taking a mix of Chaos Marines, renegade Guardsmen and Daemonic engines from Forgeworld. The quickly-approaching Codex looks to be giving us specific choices for Warsmiths and Dark Apostles, plus a host of other options that can be thematically applied in all sorts of ways. For Chaos players, these are some heady days no matter what sort of army you'd like to run.

 

Well, it's how it is now, if you ignore that we can't take say a Dark Apostle to lead our WB, or Chaos lords with proper marks of the Gods to lead such a themed force. That a Chaos Lord of Nurgle is easier to kill than a basic Plague Marine leaves a foul taste in my mouth (pun intended). Hit him with a powerfist, and hit a basic PM. The PM will remain standing longer than the lord. So much for heroic leaders.

I'm all for allowing flexible lists. I would even prefer if they got rid of the cults more or less, and had say a unit of "Tough CSM" (with a better name), who in the fluff are described as Plague Marines, or Iron Warrior siegebreakers, with extra heavy armour and bionics, or some Tzeentchian horrors who reknit their form after suffering horrible injuries or whatever. Berzerkers, Assault Veterans, Rabies Plague, Drug gladiators, whatever.

Do it like they did it with the Ork codex. Instead of having "Bad Moon Meganobs" or "Blood Axe Kommandos", they just had "Meganobs" and "Kommandos". This simple change made ork armies explode in variation. My Blood Axe mechanized krumpany don't even include Kommandos (though I'm working on it), and with the way the current ork codex is made, that's perfectly fine.

Having a slaanesh-themed army without including any Noise Marines should be possible, if the units are presented in the right way. Basing them around some sort of gladiator-style slaanesh cult, using the rules for Berzerkers would fit the fluff just as well as Noise Marines. It doesn't now because of the way the unit entries are presented in the codex.

 

But what I think is the bare minimum that a list should provide is the ability to play (boring as some would say) stereotypical Legion forces. A Berzerker Lord (preferably not a SC) leading his merry berzerkers. A powerful TS Sorcerer leading a cabal of lesser sorcerers and henchmen. Things like that.

[Feste]

I agree, the area where I feel the current codex falls down is in the leaders. Generic marked terminators, possessed etc, that's quite ignorable, but the leaders, the HQs should be allowed to feel special.

 

A loyalist has relic armour, while Warsmith wearing the same armour with which he stormed the Gates of Terra has to make do with standard power armour? It's not that I can't imagine that my Wordbearer heavy company leader has a servo-harness and select it as a powerfist, but the rules can be so much more than that.

 

Also,

 

All rubrics are from the 1ksons

Sure, but not all marines with the 1kson's profile have to be Rubrics. Iron Warrior golems, or Nurgle Hulks could just as easily fill that profile.

 

The rules and the fluff are two things, and it's entirely up to you to make what you want with the rules. It'd just be nice if there were more of 'em.

[Hydra Omega]

I really like the idea of having more generic-named unit types to encourage creative and fluffy armies. That said, I don't think that the more defined rules (like 3.5 cult troops or Legion-specifics) were bad at all. Sure, like ADB and others have been saying, they were horribly restrictive, inadequate and didn't really represent the Legions well. They were still a great effort by GW to intentionally enable Legion-specific armies without waiting for some FAQ or WD article. People have been talking about how armies don't necessarily follow those patterns, like ADB's Captain-led Word Bearers or Khorne golem-TSons. That's fine, because you could do that *already.* 3.5 was great in that if you wanted to use the restrictive Legion recipes or cult troops rules, you could. But you didn't have to. You could do all the Slaanesh/Berzerker gladiators you wanted, or model your troops however you want (I'm thinking of those Cthulhu-daemon dryad conversions. Whoever you are, I think I love you a little). My point is, 3.5 was great in that it gave you lots and lots of choices. You could be restrictive if you wanted, but that was your *choice.* As compared to the dry, repetitive codexes (codices?) before and since, 3.5 stands out in my mind as the second-most inspiring and impressive Chaos source to date. Liber Chaotica would be #1, btw.

 

Anyway, the tl/dr version is:

More choices = good

Specific (but optional) rules = not always bad

Lots of background, awesome artwork = really good

Not enough Alpha Legion love = bad as Nurgle's armpits.

[Warsmith Aznable]

To respond directly to the OP:

 

Iron Warriors cult proxies

 

Berserkers - Specialized assault troops for line-breaking and exploiting breaches.

Nothing much special to do here, these would just be super aggressive troops employed in the final stages of a siege.

 

Rubric Marines - Led by a corrupted Tech Marine trained by the Dark Mechanicum, this unit advances slowly behind personal siege shields firing specialized ammo to break enemy lines holding redoubts.

Model them with shields and differentiate their boltguns in some special way. Make the Aspiring Sorcerer have bionic parts and maybe a dark red robe or hood to indicate Dark Mechanicum affiliation.

 

Noise Marines - Equipped with ranged weapons from Hell Forges and energised by special combat drugs, these units maneuver quickly as a rapid response unit.

Use bits to create the Sonic Weapons, then use wiring to show the combat drug injectors.

 

Plague Marines - Heavy troops who specialize in holding objectives, using advanced personal armour and energy barriers to resist all but the most severe injuries.

These could also use shields to represent FNP, or an Iron Halo or something like an Iron Halo to say they've got a force field to explain FNP, or extra armour applied using plasticard or putty or custom shoulder pads or whatever.

 

Raptor Cult - Mobile infantry armed with jump packs that can use their advanced maneuverability to hunt enemy tanks or attack the enemy rear area.

Regular CSM using GW or 3rd party jump packs if you want to make them Iron Warriors assault marines instead of specifically Raptor Cult troops.

 

Obliterator Cult - Regular Obliterators are originally IW units, aren't they? OR: Either teams of heavy weapons specialists (two regular power armor guys with heavy weapons on a Terminator base) or corrupted Legio Cybernetica robots from the Dark Mechanicum (the sky is the limit for these conversions).

[Hellios]

All rubrics are from the 1ksons

Sure, but not all marines with the 1kson's profile have to be Rubrics. Iron Warrior golems, or Nurgle Hulks could just as easily fill that profile.

 

The rules and the fluff are two things, and it's entirely up to you to make what you want with the rules. It'd just be nice if there were more of 'em.

 

I was talking about fluff. While you can make up reasons for berzerkers from other legions that won't really work with rubrics. With counts as I could put an Eldar gravtank in my chaos army, use a cool model and claim it is some kind of daemonic vehicle. I don't care if people take a squad of noise marines in a world eater army.... They lose cool points but I won't cry. They don't need to justify it to me.

 

My only concern is being able to make my own cool army without having to resort to lame counts as or bland generic units.

[Plaguecaster]

For my Nurgle army I use Thousand Sons but model them as zombie marines with a aspiring sorcerer who brings them back to life like a necromancer

[*Furyou Miko]

For my Thousand Sons warband army, I use a plethora of models that are completely unrelated to each other. They use the Thousand Sons rules, but with the exception of the Sorcerers, they're all just ghosts and daemons bound into whatever armour the sorceress cabal could find (although over time, the force is slowly becoming more true to my Order of Dusk fluff, which would put them all in Sororitas armour).

 

I also occasionally field Black Legion squads and the odd plague marine or khorne berserker squad because four wandering sorcerers often join up with other warbands for a battle or two (and those are the models I have access to).

[totgeboren]

*Edit* Reading comprehension fail.