Speculation on future supplements

[Dragonlover]

Ok, so. For the purpose of this thread I'm assuming we're getting no more supplements named for Legions. Yes that's kinda sucky if that's what you need as a player, but please take the moaning elsewhere.

 

Instead, I'm assuming that we're gonna get a supplement that can easily represent a Legion, but named for and based around a warband. My speculations are as follows (with Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter in for completeness):

 

Alpha Legion - 

Black Legion - Black Legion

Death Guard - The Purge

Emperor's Children - The Flawless Host

Iron Warriors - 

Night Lords - Sons of Midnight

Thousand Sons - The Scourged

World Eaters - Skulltakers

Word Bearers - Crimson Slaughter

 

I am, as you can see, slightly stumped for Alpha Legion and Iron Warriors. The main problems here are that these Legions don't seem to have spawned all that many warbands that subsequently changed the name. The few that do exist are either from a BL novel (and thus will be perpetually ignored by GW) or from a Forge World book, and thus aren't going to get mentioned in a GW publication. The other problem specific to Iron Warriors is that the one warband that has shown up is the Steel Brethren, who are called out as specifically using drop pod assaults. I don't see them giving us drop pods as a supplement-only thing.

 

That said, possibly the Magma Hounds for Iron Warriors? They got done over by a Warpsmith Valadrak, and that's an Iron Warrior-y name if I ever heard one. Also, I can see the Alpha legion one being based around a Chapter that they subverted.

 

As to what I think the rules will be like, I've got a few ideas. The god-specific books will have a way of making all of the army into cult troops for X points, so we will finally be able to have Plague terminators and so on. Alpha Legion will probably have a better cultist unit of some kind. Sons of Midnight, there's the low hanging fruit of Raptors/Warp Talons as troops, along with Ld-nerfing gear. Iron Warriors... I got nothing.

 

So yeah, there's my thoughts on it. If anyone has any ideas for the two I've not filled in, that'd be awesome.

 

Dragonlover

[Kol Saresk]

So wait, all we expect of the Word Bearers is Possessed as troops? Kind of setting the bar low in my opinion.

[Dragonlover]

No, we expect the Word Bearers to be daemon summoning nutjobs clad in the baroque armour of the True Faith, set against the backdrop of uncountable howling cultists.

 

We are never going to get this. Ever. However, an army taken from the Crimson Slaughter codex with some allied daemons and appropriate modelling will probably get you most of the way there, especially if you take a Dark Apostle.

 

Dragonlover

[Kol Saresk]

Now I'm really confused. We only expect Cultists, Astartes HQ and Daemon allies, so instead the supplement that gives us Possessed troops with daemon allies is more representative than one of the cheese lists?

 

Sorry, like I said, I'm just confused how its all supposed to work out towards expectations when one of the internet cheese lists was daemons, cultists and Astartes HQ.

[Dragonlover]

I don't give a toss about cheese lists, this game should never be played competitively because it's fundamentally flawed. However, if you want a ruleset to represent the Word Bearers as they are in the current fluff, you can do worse than the Crimson Slaughter.

 

Also, notice how I said *most* of the way there. I never claimed that it was the one true way to represent a Word Bearer army, merely that it probably works. Hell, I'm not even gonna use it for *my* Word Bearers, but it's gonna form part of my Black Legion force.

 

Dragonlover

[Kol Saresk]

Sorry, I'm just confused because I thought you said Word Bearers should be represented by Cultists, a Dark Apostle an Daemon allies, all of which can be done with the base Codex, but then the option to have Possessed rulesets was bringing us closer to that. It's just a misunderstanding is all.

[Minsc]

Chaos Lord + Dark Apostle HQ

Cultists and Possessed as Troops. (Possessed as Troops being the essential part here.)

Daemon Allies.

 

Man, I wish Nightlords/Iron Warriors/Alpha Legion, etc. had as many options as those.

 

Crimson Slaughter is as Dragonlover pointed out, not perfect for a Word Bearers-army, but it's better than the regular CSM-dex, and it's more fitting for Word Bearers than the other legions.

[Smurfalypse]

I don't give a toss about cheese lists, this game should never be played competitively because it's fundamentally flawed. However, if you want a ruleset to represent the Word Bearers as they are in the current fluff, you can do worse than the Crimson Slaughter.

 

Also, notice how I said *most* of the way there. I never claimed that it was the one true way to represent a Word Bearer army, merely that it probably works. Hell, I'm not even gonna use it for *my* Word Bearers, but it's gonna form part of my Black Legion force.

 

Dragonlove

 

Well, please tell us about the faults of competitive play from your obviously extensive, first hand experience :P

Pidgeon holeing Word Bearers or any Legion for that matter into a single supplement that forces you to play a particular way is not what the game or fluff is about.

 

As ADB and a few others have said, the Chaos Warbands are so numerous that to take an individual book and say "this is how Legion X plays" is pretty much a travesty. People need to use what they want to use. You want your Word Bearers to summon a bunch of daemons? Ally with Daemons. Want to run Possessed as Troops? Run Crimson Slaughter. Want to run Chosen all over joint? Use Black Legion.

To pigeon hole would be a grave mistake and a disservice to the Legions themselves.

[Forté]

I still like the old idea of trading a FOC slot.

 

Eg. Iron Warriors drop a fast for a heavy. Night Lords the opposite.

 

Or there's an unlock for characters taken. Eg. Warsmith unlocks and extra heavy slot which must be a tank. Apostle lets you take a possessed squad as troops.

[Sception]

Possessed should certainly be an element of Word Bearers lists as well.  I don't really think making them troops is what they need though.  Rather, making them a unit worthy of their elite designation would bring them closer to what they should be for word bearers.  After that, just make dark apostles real characters (or an upgrade for lords who are already real characters), and some better integration with our battle brothers (give us an icon of summoning that works as a beacon for our own & allied deep strikers), and that's about it.  those are changes that, imo, the parent book warrants in and of itself, and once put in place it would be perfectly capable of representing word bearers armies without extra sublists or supplements.

 

A chapter-tacticsesque skin would still be appreciated (maybe changing the normal effects of the vet upgrade to zealot or crusader?), but at that point such rules would be a garnish rather than a meal, as they should be, and a word bearers supplement, should any appear, rather than carrying a rules burden of 'fixing' the bearers would instead be more interesting for the lore and fluff of what 10,000 years living in the eye and worshipping chaos had done to them, physically and mentally, how their descendant warbands interact with daemonic entities, each other, and other chaos factions, etc.

[Dragonlover]

Sorry, I'm just confused because I thought you said Word Bearers should be represented by Cultists, a Dark Apostle an Daemon allies, all of which can be done with the base Codex, but then the option to have Possessed rulesets was bringing us closer to that. It's just a misunderstanding is all.

No worries chap. I'm currently blessed by Nurgle, so my brain isn't up to full speed today.

I don't give a toss about cheese lists, this game should never be played competitively because it's fundamentally flawed. However, if you want a ruleset to represent the Word Bearers as they are in the current fluff, you can do worse than the Crimson Slaughter.

Also, notice how I said *most* of the way there. I never claimed that it was the one true way to represent a Word Bearer army, merely that it probably works. Hell, I'm not even gonna use it for *my* Word Bearers, but it's gonna form part of my Black Legion force.

Dragonlove

Well, please tell us about the faults of competitive play from your obviously extensive, first hand experience

Pidgeon holeing Word Bearers or any Legion for that matter into a single supplement that forces you to play a particular way is not what the game or fluff is about.

As ADB and a few others have said, the Chaos Warbands are so numerous that to take an individual book and say "this is how Legion X plays" is pretty much a travesty. People need to use what they want to use. You want your Word Bearers to summon a bunch of daemons? Ally with Daemons. Want to run Possessed as Troops? Run Crimson Slaughter. Want to run Chosen all over joint? Use Black Legion.

To pigeon hole would be a grave mistake and a disservice to the Legions themselves.

Hey, I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with wanting to play 40K competitively, just that the ruleset is inherently terrible for competitive play. I scratch my balanced competition itch with MTG.

I agree with your point about a single 'this is how Legion X plays' being pidgeon holey and naff, which is why I think they'll be doing a bunch of supplements based around Renegades that can easily(ish) represent how people think a certain Legion plays.

Think about it this way. If Codex Death Guard comes out, there's a lot of expectation regarding how it will play, what the fluff will be like and so on. Codex Vectors of Pox has way less people waiting to pull it apart because it doesn't do things the way 3.5 did, but would probably be usable to build a Death Guard army.

Dragonlover

[Minsc]

Pidgeon holeing Word Bearers or any Legion for that matter into a single supplement that forces you to play a particular way is not what the game or fluff is about.

 

I might be misunderstanding you, but isn't this what (most) of the chapter tactics in C:SM does - tactics that many CSM-players are longing for to have in the Chaos codex?

 

For instance;

*If you play Salamanders you should field alot of Flamers and Meltas, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics. 

*If you play Imperial Fists, you should field alot of bolter-weapons and some devastators, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

*If you play White Scars, you should really field alot of bikers, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

*If you play Raven Guard, you should field alot of jump infantry, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

*If you play Black Templars, you should field a bunch of melee units, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

 

The only 2 chapter tactics in C:SM that doesn't force you to play in a certain way are the Ultramarines and the Iron Hands' chapter tactics.

[King Jackal]

I don't give a toss about cheese lists, this game should never be played competitively because it's fundamentally flawed. However, if you want a ruleset to represent the Word Bearers as they are in the current fluff, you can do worse than the Crimson Slaughter.

Also, notice how I said *most* of the way there. I never claimed that it was the one true way to represent a Word Bearer army, merely that it probably works. Hell, I'm not even gonna use it for *my* Word Bearers, but it's gonna form part of my Black Legion force.

Dragonlove

Well, please tell us about the faults of competitive play from your obviously extensive, first hand experience

Competitive play = an arms race = "mine is bigger/better than yours"

[Dragonlover]

I've also just realised a reason I don't particularly want Legion supplements, and it ties back to expectations again. Say there's a Codex Word Bearers. I am then going to feel that I have to use that Codex for my Word Bearers, even if another Codex does it more like how I envision them, purely because of the name on the front. Not only that, my opponent is likely to assume I'm using the Word Bearer codex, and may even try and tell me that I'm doing it wrong if I'm not.

 

Stuff that for a lark.

 

Dragonlover

[Komrk]

That's probably also the reason that the SM supplements were Ruakann and Sentinels, so that you could still play Iron Hands or Imperial Fists without using the supplement.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

Pidgeon holeing Word Bearers or any Legion for that matter into a single supplement that forces you to play a particular way is not what the game or fluff is about.

 

I might be misunderstanding you, but isn't this what (most) of the chapter tactics in C:SM does - tactics that many CSM-players are longing for to have in the Chaos codex?

 

For instance;

*If you play Salamanders you should field alot of Flamers and Meltas, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics. 

*If you play Imperial Fists, you should field alot of bolter-weapons and some devastators, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

*If you play White Scars, you should really field alot of bikers, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

*If you play Raven Guard, you should field alot of jump infantry, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

*If you play Black Templars, you should field a bunch of melee units, otherwise you 'waste' the chaptertactics.

 

The only 2 chapter tactics in C:SM that doesn't force you to play in a certain way are the Ultramarines and the Iron Hands' chapter tactics.

 

 

The difference is that as Chapters, the Loyalists are supposed to have limited capabilities. The "Legions"(or rather their survivors) are only bound to ideologies and a very general doctrine of warfare.

 

Iron Warriors = Application of Force(typically through Siege)

Night Lords = Psychological(typically through terror tactics; typically represented through FA armies)

Black Legion = Speartip(typically through rapid assault followed by Deep Strike reinforcements)

 

and so on, so forth. Even in the Heresy era, it was impossible to pigeonhole the Legions to a specific list. Now that everyone has split and gone their own way? Even more difficult. Take for example the Steel Brethren. An Iron Warriors splinter faction. First thought that comes to mind is "Siege army". But you'd be wrong. While these guys remember their siege days, they actually specialize in drop pod assaults. But they are still "Iron Warriors" in terms of parent "Legion"/Faction.

[Minsc]

The difference is that as Chapters, the Loyalists are supposed to have limited capabilities. The "Legions"(or rather their survivors) are only bound to ideologies and a very general doctrine of warfare.

So basically a case of both wanting to have the cake and eat it?

Either way, many CSM-players have voiced opinions about them wanting to have the same sort of rules ("Legion tactics") as the loyalists got. If this would happen, expect to get pidgeon holed in the same way as the loyalists. Either you'll like it or you won't.

Like "Legion tactics" would ever happen in the first place.

[Kol Saresk]

If that's what you want to call it. But it is a fundamental fact of the background that Chaos is more widely varied, mostly due to its random nature.

 

And the obvious pigeon-holing is why I disagree with the idea of returning to a 3.5-esque format.

 

EDIT: If you want to see what I mean, look at how Forgeworld has done their Legions and compare it to Chapter Tactics or 3.5.

[Minsc]

 

And the obvious pigeon-holing is why I disagree with the idea of returning to a 3.5-esque format.

 

 

Fair enough.

[Vesper]

So wait, all we expect of the Word Bearers is Possessed as troops? Kind of setting the bar low in my opinion.

 

I bet it's pretty thin for the Crimson Slaughter too.

But hey. When you try to translate a whole identity into a ruleset, you have to make some sacrifices.

[the jeske]

If that's what you want to call it. But it is a fundamental fact of the background that Chaos is more widely varied, mostly due to its random nature.

 

And the obvious pigeon-holing is why I disagree with the idea of returning to a 3.5-esque format.

 

EDIT: If you want to see what I mean, look at how Forgeworld has done their Legions and compare it to Chapter Tactics or 3.5.

It is still better to take pre set units with legions, because of how primarch/legion buffs work . Sure you can take an army of WE with no assault units , but why would you want to do that . 3.5 was the same . Sure you could play NL without demonic visage stealth or move through cover and 3 hvy weapon squads or an EC army with 10 man sized squads no demons or slanesh stuff on your HQs.

[Scribe]

There is a difference between 'wasting' a trait, and being forced into using units.

 

My system (thread over yonder) for example doesnt say anything about not using Havocs, or Oblits, if you are 'World Eaters'.

[the jeske]

Am sorry , but I fail to see how is having access to NL style upgrades and viable to take terror upgrades [visage, move through cover , stealth] and the ability to fluffy units[raptors] at the cost of ,  I don't know , personal cusomisation with marks , is bad??? And having any army where you just now that taking unit X with legion X rules is always better then taking it with other legion rules .

[Smurfalypse]

Possessed should certainly be an element of Word Bearers lists as well.  I don't really think making them troops is what they need though.  Rather, making them a unit worthy of their elite designation would bring them closer to what they should be for word bearers.  After that, just make dark apostles real characters (or an upgrade for lords who are already real characters), and some better integration with our battle brothers (give us an icon of summoning that works as a beacon for our own & allied deep strikers), and that's about it.  those are changes that, imo, the parent book warrants in and of itself, and once put in place it would be perfectly capable of representing word bearers armies without extra sublists or supplements.

 

A chapter-tacticsesque skin would still be appreciated (maybe changing the normal effects of the vet upgrade to zealot or crusader?), but at that point such rules would be a garnish rather than a meal, as they should be, and a word bearers supplement, should any appear, rather than carrying a rules burden of 'fixing' the bearers would instead be more interesting for the lore and fluff of what 10,000 years living in the eye and worshipping chaos had done to them, physically and mentally, how their descendant warbands interact with daemonic entities, each other, and other chaos factions, etc.

 

They should be an element to a Word Bearers list is the person wants them too. . . To make a blanket statement on how my Word Bearers run is a bit rude :P

If I want my WB to be a faster element that is how that WB Warband is, if I want them to be over flowing with Heavy Support that is how they will be, if I want them to have a planets worth of Cultists under their banner than that is what I will have. To say that Possessed should be a thing for WBs is a bit restricting and I like my freedom. . . It is why I do not play any Imperial army :P

 

While I would have liked a very generic blanket coverage of a "Trait" of some sort for our Warbands, I believe that they should be VERY generic if ever implemented.

Though I do not expect it to ever happen and I am not really that bothered by it to be honest.

[the jeske]

This . 0-1 things , not being able to take something . Yeah those things are of the past . But if raptors are part of the NL fluff , if demons/possessed are part of the WB fluff , then a WB or NL player should want to use those .Now if GW made all units in the chaos codex like the ones in eldar or tau , where it is hard to find realy bad units [not that it ain't possible] , then it would be less of a problem.