Misconceptions About CSM

[Nemesor]

So for quite some time the seemingly wilful ignorance of some CSM fans has really been bothering me. People who have and are propagating ideas about CSM that aren't correct. It's not a desire to be proven right that makes me want to talk about this - but a desire to open peoples' eyes to the myriad possibilities CSM provide. Possibilities that are often made to seem 'unfluffy' or just plain wrong by members of the online 40k community. These attitudes we ourselves often spread to our fellow gamers and collectors influence them and lead them to limit themselves in their enjoyment of the hobby.

 

Chaos is nothing if not varied - and I think I'm just going to list a few things that discourage that variety in players' armies. Things people say a lot. And why I think they're wrong:

 

The "Happy Chaos Family" criticism - So I do see quite a few gamers who seem to have the notion that mixing of warbands and marks in an army is a bad idea. They say it's out of character for CSMs as we know them from the fluff. I disagree! There are so many reasons these alliances can occur. Hired guns, fellow Space Hulk passengers, mutual immediate goals, working under a powerful warlord (Abaddon being the greatest example)... The list goes on. Mixing marks and warbands within an army is not unfluffy, nor is it out of character. CSMs will fight each other as often as they will a common foe. They're not somehow bound by magic to never work in concert. Just look at the Black Crusades! These mixed armies are a great way to incorporate different colour schemes, conversions and entire models into your forces! They can really make an army more fun to build and paint by virtue of variety.

 

"Cult troops only come from the Cult Legions" - I see this one quite a bit. Despite the fact that fluff does explicitly discuss the existence of these units in warbands beyond their originator Legions, a lot of players can't seem to get past the associations. The obvious exception to this are Rubric marines - who aren't really a Cult group IMO anyway. They have more to do with the Thousand Sons' unique history than Tzeentch and how his minions behave typically. Plague Marines can be created by any Sorcerer or powerful daemon who feels like it and has the knowledge to do so - Death Guard have the most Plague Marines - but they aren't the only ones who have them by a long shot. Berzerkers can be made by a whole host of different processes. World Eaters just knew the best way to do it. Noise Marines? All that sets them apart are sensory augmentations and sonic weaponry. Any half-decent servat of Slaanesh can get that. Don't have to be a son of Fulgrim. Don't shy away from having Cult troops in colours other than those of the Cult Legions - they are not the only guys who can have 'em.

 

"Night Lords = Raptors" - This one always perplexed me. It really did. Night Lords in 3.5e got the 0-1 restriction removed from Raptors and extra FA slots. That has been construed by many as a sort of requirement for fluffy Night Lords to feature Raptors. This isn't the case. The two were linked because Raptors share a similar mindset to Night Lords. Night lords love to use terror tactics - so do Raptors.  That's it. Maybe a lot of Raptors used to be Night Lords - but I'll bet most of them are just assault marines from other Legions/Chapters. Night Lords don't have to use Raptors. Raptors don't have to be Night Lords.

 

Why don't you guys chip in and try to dispel some misconceptions that annoy you? Encourage your fellow CSM players to stop limiting themselves and embrace the full majesty of Chaos unbound!

[Chronotonic]

Whoa WHOA WHOA man

 

First off

 

Why are you making so much sense...

 

I mean really who goes out of their way like this to make a valid and very understandable statement...

 

I mean really man

 

haha

 

-Also the Raptor/Night Lord thing always bothered me...Don't get me wrong in A-D-B novels the Raptor cult stated they were the first to breach the walls of the Palace...he also says that a majority of the Raptors were ...key word being were here... Night Lords...

 

-The Cult Troops makes sense...I am sure that a few Wolves fell to Khorne in the last 10,000 years...

 

-Whos to say that the mixed armies were under The Black Crusade flag but after the Crusade saw how well they worked together and kept going until something happened...

 

Think about that...

[dees]

I agree, a local player told me my list that includes Nurgle and khorne didn't seem right.  A big issue I have with some players list i've seen is putting a mark on every unit to "theme the army", then complaining about game out comes.  Why put a MoS or MoK on havocs or cultists, you just wasted points you likely wont get back and gimped you army.  

 

I think what it really boils down to is theming lists restricts you and makes it harder to play competitively.  I like the fluff in this game but it makes for less than great/fun lists to play with. 

[Hazath]

 I don't see Legion advocates hating about Happy Chaos Family as limiting their choice for their army, but its because people want distinguishing characters for their Legions (or chapters, worshippers, whatever you wanna call them).

 

3.5 had, although not perfect, some resemblence of different characteristics for legions. I enjoyed having Chaos lord apostle with lots of demons, or World Eaters with actual berserker terminators.

 

But Gavedex happened, and most of them dissapeared. At least for me, that's where I really started to become engaged in Happy Chaos Family or Cult troops only come from the Cult Legions  discussions.

 

 

In the end though, despite neverending discussions, everyone is still going to be entitled to their own opinion.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Hazath

[Kol Saresk]

So for quite some time the seemingly wilful ignorance of some CSM fans has really been bothering me. People who have and are propagating ideas about CSM that aren't correct. It's not a desire to be proven right that makes me want to talk about this - but a desire to open peoples' eyes to the myriad possibilities CSM provide. Possibilities that are often made to seem 'unfluffy' or just plain wrong by members of the online 40k community. These attitudes we ourselves often spread to our fellow gamers and collectors influence them and lead them to limit themselves in their enjoyment of the hobby.

 

Chaos is nothing if not varied - and I think I'm just going to list a few things that discourage that variety in players' armies. Things people say a lot. And why I think they're wrong:

 

The "Happy Chaos Family" criticism - So I do see quite a few gamers who seem to have the notion that mixing of warbands and marks in an army is a bad idea. They say it's out of character for CSMs as we know them from the fluff. I disagree! There are so many reasons these alliances can occur. Hired guns, fellow Space Hulk passengers, mutual immediate goals, working under a powerful warlord (Abaddon being the greatest example)... The list goes on. Mixing marks and warbands within an army is not unfluffy, nor is it out of character. CSMs will fight each other as often as they will a common foe. They're not somehow bound by magic to never work in concert. Just look at the Black Crusades! These mixed armies are a great way to incorporate different colour schemes, conversions and entire models into your forces! They can really make an army more fun to build and paint by virtue of variety.

 

"Cult troops only come from the Cult Legions" - I see this one quite a bit. Despite the fact that fluff does explicitly discuss the existence of these units in warbands beyond their originator Legions, a lot of players can't seem to get past the associations. The obvious exception to this are Rubric marines - who aren't really a Cult group IMO anyway. They have more to do with the Thousand Sons' unique history than Tzeentch and how his minions behave typically. Plague Marines can be created by any Sorcerer or powerful daemon who feels like it and has the knowledge to do so - Death Guard have the most Plague Marines - but they aren't the only ones who have them by a long shot. Berzerkers can be made by a whole host of different processes. World Eaters just knew the best way to do it. Noise Marines? All that sets them apart are sensory augmentations and sonic weaponry. Any half-decent servat of Slaanesh can get that. Don't have to be a son of Fulgrim. Don't shy away from having Cult troops in colours other than those of the Cult Legions - they are not the only guys who can have 'em.

 

"Night Lords = Raptors" - This one always perplexed me. It really did. Night Lords in 3.5e got the 0-1 restriction removed from Raptors and extra FA slots. That has been construed by many as a sort of requirement for fluffy Night Lords to feature Raptors. This isn't the case. The two were linked because Raptors share a similar mindset to Night Lords. Night lords love to use terror tactics - so do Raptors.  That's it. Maybe a lot of Raptors used to be Night Lords - but I'll bet most of them are just assault marines from other Legions/Chapters. Night Lords don't have to use Raptors. Raptors don't have to be Night Lords.

 

Why don't you guys chip in and try to dispel some misconceptions that annoy you? Encourage your fellow CSM players to stop limiting themselves and embrace the full majesty of Chaos unbound!

 

You read my mind.

 

On the note of the Raptors, for Capitano, that's a yes and no. The Raptors who were a part of Zso Sahaal's Company(known as "the Raptors") were the ones to breach the walls. From there, it seems that those Raptors simply split off from the Night Lords Legion from there and made their own various warbands(known as Raptor Cults, such as the Bleeding Eyes) which then collected "Raptors" from other Legions and also inspired similar organizations amongst Assault Marines from other Legions and later Renegade Chapters to the point that all Chaos Assault Marines, cult-affiliated or otherwise, are collectively known as "Raptors."

 

But as you said, it is suggested that at least Lucoryphus is a Night Lord. I say suggested because I don't recall an outright mention, but if there is one then I will have no problem with it. However, in the same Raptor's words, "Raptors first, Cult second, Legion third."

Edited February 21, 2013 by Kol_Saresk

[Brother Ambroz]

This isn't really new man. Most fans on this website, the ones that get into their background, devour every BL novel on chaos and write their own fluff have no such misconceptions. There are a few that still cling to the ideas such as that Night Lords = Raptor legion. Another bad one is "undivided" legions should never have marks etc etc but for the most part those that played through last edition and into this one have begun to embrace all different marks into their warbands.

 

Cult troops from cult legions just seems a bit ignorant to me. There are so many examples even in the little fluff and pictures we get from our codex books. Plague marines that aren't Death Guard? The Purge or the Cleaved. Beserkers? The Sanctified or Skulltakers. Those are just off the top of my head too.

 

Another misconception is Legions. It's brought up all the time and part of it really bugs me to no end. We all miss the rules for 3.5 and many call for legion rules again but most people think they just want to be OP again or OTT. No they want something to represent where all the marines in their warbands came from and they're not talking about playing as a legion either. They're talking about having marines from a Legion in said warband. Some of this can be represented via marks or icons but that rings hallow still. Anyways just my thoughts.

[Pariah Mk.231]

So ADB changed the fluff to say the Raptors were the first to breach the walls of the Imperial Palace? The fluff used to be that it was the World Eaters who got in first (2nd edition Chaos codex), shame to see that cast aside.

[Kol Saresk]

So ADB changed the fluff to say the Raptors were the first to breach the walls of the Imperial Palace? The fluff used to be that it was the World Eaters who got in first (2nd edition Chaos codex), shame to see that cast aside.

No. The fluff says that according to the Raptors, or at least those in the Bleeding Eyes, the Raptors were the first on the walls, not the first to breach. That honor goes to the Iron Warriors while the honor of carrying the breach goes to the World Eaters.

 

Of course, the biggest part to remember is that the Raptors being on the wall, is according to the Raptors. ;)

[Pariah Mk.231]

Thanks Kol, there is indeed a distinction between being on the walls, breaching the walls, and carrying the breach. Good to know the fluff wasn't actually changed, just added to.

[Kol Saresk]

Exactly. One of the things I like about A D-B is that he doesn't change the fluff too much. He adds to it for the most or takes what were simply abstract concepts suggested elsewhere in the fluffdom and shows the origin of those concepts. Anything that is a "change" isn't a change so much as a perception by one of the characters, such as the aforementioned Raptors on the walls. We could very well get to the Siege of Terra and it be the Catulan Reavers, not the Raptors who were first and the Raptors just say they were because of their egos.

 

Another example would the 500 worlds of Ultramar. There are dozens of examples over the years that have been suggested that the 500 worlds were a possibility. The three sister planets of Calth that were destroyed, the fact that there were what, one or two worlds between Prandium and Macragge when the Hive Fleet Behemoth moved in a direct straight line. The fact that there is a whole Successor Chapter who is noted for patrolling the worlds conquered by Ultramar that are not already protected by the Ultramarines or one of their Successors. It's been there forever. Yet when it came, the reactions where pretty bad.

 

On topic, Tanith you are and are not correct. Yes, some play the Legions because they are iconic and simply want a notifier of sorts to say "This is where my warband came from." But there are some who want to play "as a Legion," as you put it. This can be identified whenever someone lists the reasons why the Legions are dead and they respond "not my Legion."(highly paraphrased) Although lately that has become a rarity.

[totgeboren]

Well, to be honest, just look at the Daemon Prince entry, and in particular the 'Daemon of...' rules. The chaos gods hate each other, some to the point of actually getting rule benefits for attacking each other.

This makes it somewhat odd to have a warband with say mixed Khorne/Slaanesh troops, and for most of 40k history, mixed marks is in the same boat as mixed race armies, like SM with ork allies (remember that SM doesn't even hate Orks). It happens, but it's odd.

But each to their own. I have come to terms with the rules, and for me the marks represent 'blessings' from each of the Gods by my Dark Apostle. I'm still Undivided, GW be damned!

 

And about people complaining about say slaanesh havocs not doing well (or something like that). Well, if someone has themed their army around the worship of one god, then all other marks are not in theme by definition. We can't say the theme is wrong, because the theme is clearly supported by the background (Emperors Children anyone?)

 

Also, the first post is right in that there is a lot of variation in chaos, but he seems to miss that many (most?) warbands are based around the companies of the old legions, or based around a fallen chapter. This means mixing legion warriors would be the exception, not the rule even if there are plenty of mixed warbands.

 

Remember that the Eldar and Dark Eldar are on better terms than the followers of the different chaos gods, just to put things in perspective.

Edited February 21, 2013 by totgeboren

[Kol Saresk]

Well, to be honest, just look at the Daemon Prince entry, and in particular the 'Daemon of...' rules. The chaos gods hate each other, some to the point of actually getting rule benefits for attacking each other.

This makes it somewhat odd to have a warband with say mixed Khorne/Slaanesh troops, and for most of 40k history, mixed marks is in the same boat as mixed race armies, like SM with ork allies (remember that SM doesn't even hate Orks). It happens, but it's odd.

But each to their own. I have come to terms with the rules, and for me the marks represent 'blessings' from each of the Gods by my Dark Apostle. I'm still Undivided, GW be damned!

 

Also, the first post is right in that there is a lot of variation in chaos, but he seems to miss that many (most?) warbands are based around the companies of the old legions, or based around a fallen chapter. This means mixing legion warriors would be the exception, not the rule even if there are plenty of mixed warbands.

I'll focus on these two. I will also start off by saying that this is my personal interpretation of the fluff based on the examples I show.

 

The Daemons. It's kind of a "no duh" factor(sorry, couldn't think of a more polite way of saying it) that yes, the daemons are divided. However, we do see them "joining" forces in more than a few occasions and in the exact way the OP described it. M'Kar, an Undivided Daemon Prince from the Word Bearers Legion leading Skulltakers, Xenos, Pirates, Renegade Marines and Iron Warriors into battle as well as a daemon horde that seemed to have daemons from every branch of the warp in it. The Horus Heresy. All four Major Powers working together to bring the galaxy into their image. The Black Crusades. And other countless examples.

 

Oh, and speaking of the Skulltakers. They are World Eaters. Or at least, some of them are. And their most prominent leader, is not. So the best way to approach the Cult Troops is "The Cult Legions are all Cult Troops but not all Cult Troops(except Rubric Marines) are from the Cult Legions." There are plenty of Berzerkers that exist outside of the World Eaters and not all have the same implant as the Butcher's Nails and not all of them will even have implants. The Cholercaust Crusade in Legion of the Damned was a warhost made of Space Marines from a variety of Chapters and Legions who were all devoted to Khorne. We saw a Dragon Warrior, World Eaters, Skulltakers, Brazen Guard, Angels Apocrypha, Thunder Barons, Red Heralds and the Goremongers, most of which are Renegades while some are simply a mix of Renegades and former Legionnaires. Oh, and there was also a huge following of mutants, cultists and Traitor Guard in that warband.

 

Groups of Space Marines from different gods. The Black Crusades are the biggest example. Perfection by Nick Kyme had a Slaanesh Warband organizing a temporary cease fire with a Khornate warhost so both could ransack an Imperial world. And as agreed upon, as soon as the Imperials were finished, they turned on each other. Oh, and let us not forget the biggest examples of a Legion/Renegade Mix and Worship Mix: the Black Legion and the Red Corsairs.

 

As far as play style goes, that is entirely up to the individual. But when ti comes the fluff...

 

Note, I do agree that there should be an Undivided Daemon Prince option as there are several in the fluff from Periclitor to Voldorius to M'Kar and I highly doubt that Abaddon is the only one to receive blessings from more than one god. Granted, not many can claim all four, but still, more than one is plausible.

[Iron_Within]

I believe I remember reading that the Rubrics aren't completely unique to Thousand sons any more. In the millennia since creating the rubric TS sorcerers have recreated it on a smaller scale at the behest of warlords they were in the employ of, which is why in some colour sections in previous codex's there were a few Rubric Marines in BL colours.

 

Though that could have been swept under the carpet.

[Kol Saresk]

I believe I remember reading that the Rubrics aren't completely unique to Thousand sons any more. In the millennia since creating the rubric TS sorcerers have recreated it on a smaller scale at the behest of warlords they were in the employ of, which is why in some colour sections in previous codex's there were a few Rubric Marines in BL colours.

 

Though that could have been swept under the carpet.

Hmm, I don't recall that. I remember something like KSons sorcerers leaving for other warbands and bringing their Rubrics with them as well as all the fan-made counterparts to them, but nothing like that. But, then again it just might be that I don't remember it.

[*Furyou Miko]

I'm not sure about non-Son Rubrics either, but there are plenty of other ways to use the rules to represent a non-Son unit - for example, a sorcerer leading a unit of daemons bound into armour (the path I took). Horror ranged attacks are AP3, so are Inferno Bolters. Slow and Purposeful can be explained by the fact that the daemon isn't used to having a body, let alone having an empty body with strange senses. Or even just, you know, the fact that having a kinaesthetic sense is so completely foreign to daemons that they can't get used to it.

[Hellios]

I think it also depends on how you define your warband temporally as well as the nature of the warband itself.

 

For example a Black Legion war band by its own nature is more likely to have cult troopers of Slaanesh and Khorne at the same time than a Khornate war band.

 

Then on the Temporal aspect... when someone is making their war band... are they making the core of the war band with members who have been fighting together for 5,000 years or are they representing the forces in one battle or in a campaign. Maybe the forces represented aren't even of the same war band. If the first is the case then I would say it is very unlikely that Noise Marines would survive in a Khornate warband but it is feasible if they are just working together for various reasons for a shorter period of time.

 

I think part of the problem when you get two groups arguing about 40K and with no side willing to give in is not that one side doesn't understand the b background but that they are interpreting the background from another point of view. The example above for example. If one person is looking at the long term structure of a war band and another at the short term structure... It is understandable that people would come up with two different answers.

 

The same with legions, although this is more difficult. I personally believe that the legions still exist. The problem is I don't believe they exist as they did in 30K which is what everyone seems to assume and then shouts at you for when you say "that isn't very Y-legion-ish". I was going to use X-legion but I didn't want to cause any confusion :P.

 

I believe a few of the legions are still pretty intact. Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and the Black Legion. Now the command structure of all the legions is different. The black legion has been totally rebuilt; they are no longer the Sons of Horus. The other two are different from each other but the issue really is that they don't have their primarchs (They are physically there but they are not leading the legions for a cause at the moment), the Word Bearers do seem to have some sort of central command but individuals Apostles also seem to have a lot of power to do what they want. The Iron warriors are split into at least two major camps and those camps themselves are split again, but they still see themselves as Iron Warriors and a leader who was strong enough could probably bring most of them back into line.

 

The Alpha Legion... Who knows, for a Legion that has been reported destroyed more than once they seem to be doing alright. If they are scattered warband, a coherent body or a mix of the two... I couldn't say.

 

Night Lords, I think these guys were only ever bound by their primarch, without him they have scattered following powerful individuals and their own desires.

 

Thousand Sons... Have at least two major factions... When I say major, even combined they still probably number less than the Black Templars.

 

Death Guard, again at least two factions.

 

Both the World eaters and the Emperor's children are noted as being broken legions, however Angron's path of blood or whatever it was called seems to suggest that strong leader could probably bind them to him as long as he provides them with things to kill.

 

You may have noted I use two factions a lot as you may be thinking "hey that legion is shattered into more parts than that", well I'm talking about major named known factions which often end up being those who follow the primarch and those who don't. There may be other lesser factions and the major factions may themselves be divided (as I mentioned with the Iron warriors).

 

So a lot of this comes down to what the war bands identify themselves as. The Skull-takers are the Skull-takers and are mostly made up of World Eater stock but do they still consider themselves as World Eaters? Some war bands will, some won't. This is often what people refer to when they say my war band is part of the Iron warriors legion. Their war band may be a tiny fraction (also faction) of the legion that once was but then members of the war band still identify themselves as Iron warriors and still chose to do things in the Iron warrior way. You will also get Iron Warrior war bands who no longer consider themselves Iron warriors or even if they do they may have developed a different style of warfare because of their leader, environment or background (a war band descended from an Iron warrior biker company for example).

 

So when someone says that isn't fluffy, maybe they mean "that isn't typical of legion Y, why do you want to play legion Y?", but they are attacking you as it is your game ;)

[totgeboren]

@Kol_Saresk. I think it's a question of scale. With the exception of Perfection by Nick Kyme, which I have not read, I can't think of a single BL book which features a mix of God followers, or even a mix of legionnaires.

 

The NL series is about the NL, the Dark X is a WB series. Lots of people enjoy the legion theme. And the Black Crusades are no argument at all, because of the scale. Remember that the Imperium has got lots of multi-chapter campaigns too. It seems to me more of a rule than exception really, as most of the time a few chapters each send a company or two to the specific war effort. Yet no one bats an eye if someone wants to field 'Space Wolves', or 'Salamanders'.

When SW players lament their lack of fliers, it is understandable that they don't always like the response "Just use allies!"

 

Why should CSM players be forced to mix their legions? To put it like this. On the smallest scale, a CSM warband can be a mix of legionnaires, even mixing within a single squad. But on the larger scale, the old legions can amass larger forces than any single SM chapter can. Like in the last Dark X book, where I think something like 5-6000 thousand WB assaulted a world.

 

And what is the norm? The impression I got is that a warband, in general, will be based around a specific legion. A campaign on the other hand will quite often contain forces from many legions. But 40k, the game, is such small scale engagements, the numbers are often maybe half a warband tops. From that perspective, a mix of legions on the tabletop looks 'unusual' as it implies a mix of warbands.

 

But sure, the background is open for warbands mixing, exactly like it is open for 'crusade'-type SM chapters, where each squad is painted in a different chapter colour. But there is a reason why I have never seen a 'crusade'-type SM army. People in general want to theme their army around a specific common background. It's not as 'cool' to just have a random gang of rebels and heretics (though some like that of course).

 

I just don't see why people/GW expect CSM players to abide by completely different laws of psychology than SM players?

 

It's simply about 'the rule of cool'. Most people don't think mixed warbands are as cool, and don't like it when they are told they are wrong. If people think the legion theme is awesome, that's what they think is awesome.

[the jeske]

I did this so many times .

 

So I do see quite a few gamers who seem to have the notion that mixing of warbands and marks in an army is a bad idea. They say it's out of character for CSMs as we know them from the fluff. I disagree! There are so many reasons these alliances can occur. Hired guns, fellow Space Hulk passengers, mutual immediate goals, working under a powerful warlord (Abaddon being the greatest example)... The list goes on. Mixing marks and warbands within an army is not unfluffy, nor is it out of character. CSMs will fight each other as often as they will a common foe. They're not somehow bound by magic to never work in concert. Just look at the Black Crusades! These mixed armies are a great way to incorporate different colour schemes, conversions and entire models into your forces! They can really make an army more fun to build and paint by virtue of variety.

three things . First if everyone is forced to play happy chaos family , then we all play BL , it is their trait , their own special and unique modus operandi . So eithr the whole legion theme makes no sense [why make it  if everyone plays BL anyway] or the BL are worse then spiky ultramarines , because if everyone has happy chaos family[gamingwise]+ their own fluff and BL has only happy chaos family , the BL is missing half the stuff other armies have.

 

Second thing . People want to play legions . If there are people who want to play 1ksons[nearing on 30 years of being bad] , then his means people dont want to play a happy chaos family. Now imagine you made 1 loyalist codex for everyone ranging from BT/SW to ultramarines[spit] and then forced everyone to play GH , rune priest , long fangs . hey you could even rise the same arguments about crusades. they still happened post heresy , as do wars of faith , there is stuff in the fluff like honor companies made out of members of different legions . In fact it actualy works better for loyalists then for us , because outside of BL , chaos isnt known for having long standing forces made of different legions/god followers .

 

third thing . the common foe argument is good for a book , for a one time thing . not for an army you play 4-5 years. 4-5 years is not a one time thing . It is playing black legion no matter how you painted[or not] your army.

 

 

 

I see this one quite a bit. Despite the fact that fluff does explicitly
discuss the existence of these units in warbands beyond their originator
Legions, a lot of players can't seem to get past the associations. The
obvious exception to this are Rubric marines - who aren't really a Cult
group IMO anyway. They have more to do with the Thousand Sons' unique
history than Tzeentch and how his minions behave typically. Plague
Marines can be created by any Sorcerer or powerful daemon who feels like
it and has the knowledge to do so - Death Guard have the most Plague Marines - but they aren't the only ones who have them by a long shot. Berzerkers can be made by a whole host of different processes. World Eaters just knew the best
way to do it. Noise Marines? All that sets them apart are sensory
augmentations and sonic weaponry. Any half-decent servat of Slaanesh can
get that. Don't have to be a son of Fulgrim. Don't shy away from having
Cult troops in colours other than those of the Cult Legions - they are
not the only guys who can have 'em.

you know saying that the only thing that makes a slanesh csm different from a NM is the sonic weapons ,is as good as saying that the difference between a GH and a tac marine is "only" the ultra grit , the dual plasma , sw chaos icon and  hiden power ax/MoTW.

+ the real problem is not that DG is the only source of plaguemarines[still considering the size of DG and know renegade nurgle marine chapter , most plaguemarines should still be DG], but the fact that playing something else is sub par . That to have an optimal army you have to play nurgle . that kind of a sucks for anyone who doesnt want to play BL or nurgle in his army . And woe to the dude who likes tzeench .

 

 

 

This one always perplexed me. It really did. Night Lords in
3.5e got the 0-1 restriction removed from Raptors and extra FA slots.
That has been construed by many as a sort of requirement for fluffy
Night Lords to feature Raptors. This isn't the case. The two were linked
because Raptors share a similar mindset to Night Lords. Night lords
love to use terror tactics - so do Raptors.  That's it. Maybe a lot of
Raptors used to be Night Lords - but I'll bet most of them are just
assault marines from other Legions/Chapters. Night Lords don't have to
use Raptors. Raptors don't have to be Night Lords.

and untile GW decides to make the Ld stat and pre game engagments more important to the game or if it gives a special "terror" table for NL players to roll on , the NL in the game will be the "raptor" legion . + wanting raptors not to be part of the NL theme is like wanting non bike white scars or non cyborg iron hands .

[Vesper]

 

"Cult troops only come from the Cult Legions" - I see this one

quite a bit. Despite the fact that fluff does explicitly discuss the

existence of these units in warbands beyond their originator Legions, a

lot of players can't seem to get past the associations. The obvious

exception to this are Rubric marines - who aren't really a Cult group

IMO anyway. They have more to do with the Thousand Sons' unique history

than Tzeentch and how his minions behave typically. Plague Marines can

be created by any Sorcerer or powerful daemon who feels like it and has

the knowledge to do so - Death Guard have the most Plague Marines - but they aren't the only ones who have them by a long shot. Berzerkers can be made by a whole host of different processes. World Eaters just knew the best

way to do it. Noise Marines? All that sets them apart are sensory

augmentations and sonic weaponry. Any half-decent servat of Slaanesh can

get that. Don't have to be a son of Fulgrim. Don't shy away from having

Cult troops in colours other than those of the Cult Legions - they are

not the only guys who can have 'em.

Well, we know for example that Abaddon has Khorne surgeons and Nurgle sorcerers able to make CSMs into Berzerkers/Plague Marines.

 

 

 

On topic, Tanith you are and are not correct. Yes, some play the Legions

because they are iconic and simply want a notifier of sorts to say

"This is where my warband came from." But there are some who want to

play "as a Legion," as you put it. This can be identified whenever

someone lists the reasons why the Legions are dead and they respond "not

my Legion."(highly paraphrased) Although lately that has become a

rarity.

Your view on the legions is narrow.

Take the Black Legion. Quite an exception in 40k. The only legion that still is as a real legion. They have one leader to rule above every other lords (Abaddon), the guy who made the legion with his bare hands (and thaking the black is basically taking the oath to follow Abaddon). It's composed from Sons of Horus, and many other marines from other legions/warbands, all united in their hatred for the imperium... And they are ten times more numerous than the Word Bearers.

One leader, one purpose. It's a legion. The Black Compagnies can act differently and stuff, but what makes them a coherent force is the leadership of Abaddon and their oath. That's the whole point of the Black Legion.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Vesper

[the jeske]

the WB are a "real" legion too , they didnt break up post heresy . unless there is retcons we dont know of.

[Vesper]

They more or less "broke" into several factions thanks to the ego of some of their ruling concil. The Black Legion is a post-heresy legion.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Vesper

[*Furyou Miko]

Ahriman Exile's main warband are made of multiple groups - there's a heretek, three renegade Space Marines from am unknown chapter, two chaos sorcerers from an unknown legion (maybe even two different legions), and then Ahriman of the Thousand Sons leading them all.

 

They stick with him even after the climax of the book which shifts things round a bit and makes it look more legion-centric.

[Brother Ambroz]

Yeah Kol, that's why I said most.

[Lieutenant Steel]

Personally, and the only point I dispute with the OP, is the one about mixed armies. I have nothing against them in practice except the fact that they look very messy and unappealing with so many clashing colours (I've come a long way from being an old Slaaneshi player in the 3.5 dex...). But I don't think it's wrong to field a mixed army, just to my taste it's beter to co-ordinate the theme and colour of the army first- which is why I plan to play a Word Bearers force, using perhaps different shoulder pads/ icons to depict the affiliation of the units, whilst retaining the overall theme and style of the force.

[Kol Saresk]

@Totgeboren: I'm not saying that a Warband of Legionnaires has to be mixed. I'm just saying that it exists.

 

And I can't think of anymore examples now, but Khorne/Slaanesh mixed are rare because of the direct confrontation of their dieties being directly opposed to each other. But improbability does not mean impossibility.

 

But warbands between Khorne and Nurgle might be more common. I wouldn't say common enough that all you have to do is turn the corner and there's twenty of them, but more common than Khorne and Slaanesh, or Nurgle and Tzeentch. And they might last longer.

 

@Vesper: I never said that the Black Legion wasn't a Legion. I also did say that the Black Legion is a mix of Marines from all sorts of background.

 

Of course, if your definition of a "Legion" is that it is a massive body of warbands functioning and existing together that is led by a single leader............. But then that would be a narrow view.

 

However I can name one group of Black Legionnaires who do not follow Abaddon. The group from Honour Among Fiends. There are also the Black Brethren of Eyreas from Forgeworld's Siege of Vraks. Of course, since the death of their leader, they have since been amalgamated into Zhufor's Skulltakers.

 

However, the other big difference is that between the Black Legion and the other "Legions" is as you pointed out: no infighting. There might be dissident factions, but there are no records of those dissident factions attacking each as far as I am aware. Of course, that's as far as I am aware. I could be wrong.

 

Back to point, the other eight Legions either have no recognizable command structure or are filled with internal factions that have no problem attacking each other. Just look at the Word Bearers. The two most notable interactions are Kor Phaeron and Erebus. However, they are far from being the only... "ambitious" Word Bearers. After all, the Word Bearers preach that servants of Ruin should be ambitious and they do practice what they preach.....

 

The Iron Warriors. One source, specifically a Battle Novel, mentions "the Lords of Medrengard." I'd like to point out that the Iron Warriors who weren't trying to fight each other in that novel had no problem talking about fighting other Grand Companies. There might be a command structure, but the organization itself does not appear to be coherent due to the constant threat of internal fighting.

 

Then there's the Alpha Legion. Yeah.... Those guys.

 

Everyone else has been broken up to some degree or another. Over half the Legions no linger have a coherent enough organization or even a command structure. And some of those that have a command structure aren't exactly coherent or even uniform. At least with the Black Legion, those who are under Abaddon's command are smart enough to know who the boss is and that he will kill them for thinking of the wrong person.

 

But this is a talk about misconceptions and many of you will think of my interpretations as much misconceptions as well.