Should the next CSM Codex Mirror the SM Codex setup?

[Noctem Cultor]

Hi all,

 

Seeing as we are almost at a level slate with 7th Edition and everybody having a Hardback Codex. The future will of course produce a new Chaos Codex.

 

Should CSM get as much love as the SM do?

 

CSM Master Codex with Legion traits:

Black Legion

Alpha Legion

World Eaters (Khorne)

Death Guard (Nurgle)

Thousand Sons (Tzeentch)

Emperors Children (Slaanesh)

And

Red Corssairs

The Fallen

 

Three separate Cpdexs like BA DA SW

Iron Warriors - Give them back a siege tank and maybe more Heavy Hitters

Night Lords - Less Chaos but more Shadow Hit And Run

Word Bearers - Daemonic Pacts ahoy

 

Each Legion should have at least one Special Character (if they are redoing in plastic this shouldn't be an issue) and Drop Pods.

 

Thoughts?

[daboarder]

Should it, Of course.....but thats been the case since 4th ed......

[Leif Bearclaw]

Well individual dexes for IW, WB and NL simply won't happen, it just won't. Thanks to being separate armies for twenty odd years, BA, DA and SW have large dedicated fanbases within the community to support the range, as well as the inertia to keep their current status. I don't think the individual Traitor Legions have the pull to hold up individual codex releases. The best you'll see is probably Supplements.

 

Also, The Fallen shouldn't be a playable army. A gathering of half a dozen or so Fallen is an extremely rare event (usually occurring thanks to Cypher), they simply do not exist in warband sized gatherings. If you had to include Fallen in the crunch (which I don't think is required, at all), then a dataslate with a handful of guys available is the only way to go. Also, what make the Fallen special vs the Black Legion, Corsairs or generic traitor number 7? If it's only their beef with the Unforgiven, that would be a terrible trait that is useless 95% of the time, so might as well be left out.

[Forté]

Personally. No. It would be nice to break away from the "Marines with spikes" theme and have something that can show more how the 10k+ years and lack of proper authoritative organisation from higher up can alter things.

 

Would be nice to distinguish between Renegades and dedicated Chaos followers though.

[A D-B]

"Legion Tactics" sort of feels like the barest basics of possibility. I mean, I'd accept it and enjoy it, because it's nice to take the first few steps on a long journey. But it's still only the first few steps. It's hardly the whole race.

 

What I'd like would be enough options and customisability to create pretty much any kind of warband, and make them distinctive in whatever way I felt necessary, either because they're Night Lords or because they're Khornate, or newly-rebelled, or are a warband that creates daemon engines as their main strength, or whatever else. With special rules to reflect each chosen theme. But that's a lot to ask. The book would be a bajillion pages long. The Chaos Codex already tries that approach, but the level of insane variety I'm talking about would be a book the size of... a really big book. 

 

You can shorten it some. Look at how Forge World do it. They have a few Legion traits, and while they're very welcome they're also arguably the least defining traits of an army, compared to the Rite of War you choose, the special units you have available, and the masses and masses of unit options you can choose to show your theme.

 

So, sure, Legion Tactics are a cute step. But as 15-20% of the solution, not the entire thing. They're a very limited answer to a broad slice of lore. Chaos Marines have many, many more possibilities open to them than narrowly-defined Chapters. Most Battle Companies will look very similar. But take 25 Night Lord warbands, and 15-25 of them won't look anything like the others beyond their ideologies and preference for when to strike. That's the sort of thing that should be reflected (which, you'll notice, Forge World does very well, and not through something as simple as just going for "Legion Tactics".)

 

We have precedent for how it works well, encouraging choice and variety: we have Forge World. Chaos that up a lot, add even more variety to reflect the Chaos Marine experience, and I'd be over the moon.

 

We have precedent for how it works terribly and limits people: we have the old Index Astartes 'box rules', with "All Raptors, All the Time" and "0-1 Basilisks". Lord, no. 

[Loesh]

I agree, despite my fixation on a single legion, my warbands themes and backstory incorporate a lot of unorthodox elements into it(They take a page from the Word Bearers just for starters.) and while at it's core it's still a Emperors Children Warband, after ten thousand years in the roiling mass of madness somewhere between heaven, hell, and purgatory that is the Eye of Terror I still like to emphasize in many ways they have become a very different beast then their first incarnation. The rules should be flexible to allow showing that kind of thing, while there should be traits that can be accessed because of their legion, it shouldn't define them and I feel that would be shame considering the sort of things Chaos Marines go through that make them so much more varied then their counterparts.

[incinerator950]

I have a lot of issues with the current direction in codex writing in general. Do I want to repeat myself like every sad topic I find myself in constantly? :cuss no, but IA13 just proves putting quality into writing and listening to customers gets you results, even if it's merely an update on pre-existing units.

 

Quite honestly we just need someone to put effort in making better rules than 3.5 and better fluff than 2. Is it easy with how scatterbrained every step, every author takes? No, but dumbing everything down, trying to push drake and unicornfiend sales is not a step in a good direction if you think everything goes for a paintjob is good. We have so many poorly grandfathered units you may as well give them walkers and powersleigh wheelchairs.

 

You have to draw a line if you want super duper sporadic Chaos, or you want clear and cutting edge above the call Chaos in gameplay, and I'm sorry, I'll take archetypes if it means getting some :cussing backbone that doesn't involve a mechanical wyvern for pre-teens.

[the jeske]

 

We have precedent for how it works terribly and limits people: we have the old Index Astartes 'box rules', with "All Raptors, All the Time" and "0-1 Basilisks". Lord, no.

how is that a problem in a multi cad edition? even if something was 0-1 or limited to only with legion tactic X , one could still take multiple.

 

I also don't agree that it is somehow legion rules limit people to playing an army this or that way. Sure not all NL all raptors all the time, but all NL are "scary" , all WE are berzerkers and all WB are religious zelots. And it doesnt matter if the WB are crack veterans in terminator armor or few marine sprinkled around 2 milion of cultists, they have the same traits. If they didn't have those what sense would there be in picking them over something else. In fact lack of legion rules/traits limits the number of ways stuff can be played , the supposed freedom of choice we got since 4th ed gav dex and up lowered the number of armies or unit choices taken drasticly.

 

 

 

Puting those rules is an option and it looks like this is the way GW is going to do it. Awesome for people that play where FW is accepted, sucks hard for everyone else.

[Lord Asvaldir]

Legion tactics like what SM has for chapter tactics would be pretty cool, however I don't feel like that many different codex supplements is really necessary. We don't need entire new codexes just for the different legions, small changes in the core codex is good enough in my opinion. 

[A D-B]

 

 

We have precedent for how it works terribly and limits people: we have the old Index Astartes 'box rules', with "All Raptors, All the Time" and "0-1 Basilisks". Lord, no.

how is that a problem in a multi cad edition? even if something was 0-1 or limited to only with legion tactic X , one could still take multiple.

 

 

Because it could be done better than the old 0-1 stuff. That's the entire point of that post, in almost every sentence of it. That's what I say every time this comes along, and there's the tragic insistence that Legion Tactics will fix everything and be The Only Answer. It's an okay answer. It's a nice touch. But it's not a brilliant way of reflecting the lore, or an ultimate solution. If it was, it'd have been in every edition since 3.5. If it was, Forge World would be doing it right now. And they're not, are they?

 

Legion Tactics could rock... as part of a greater, wider solution to what people want. 

 

 

I also don't agree that it is somehow legion rules limit people to playing an army this or that way.

 

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying bad Legion rules (which we've seen before) would be limiting, which is entirely true and entirely evident, as it happened in the past. And I've not said I'd expect them to be bad, just that they were in the past. Done well, Legion Tactics might very well be 1. a nice touch, and 2. a great step in wider changes. I said that clearly and repeatedly. You're mistaking "This could be better and isn't a final solution" for "I completely hate the idea of Legion Tactics and we should never have them".

 

 

Puting those rules is an option and it looks like this is the way GW is going to do it. Awesome for people that play where FW is accepted, sucks hard for everyone else.

 

Let's be honest. Forge World is a legal, official part of the rules. Not accepting them is nothing more than a local group's house rules, now that the misunderstandings have been publicly cleared up. It can suck if people's house rules chop off part of the variety and richness in the game, but that's their choice. It's not really relevant or worthy of mentioning in the discussion.

[walpurgisnacht]

Rationality, in the realm of Chaos, is a foolish road.

Easier to let the internet rage flow throughout your posts.

Let me announce that I started playing Chaos in 3rd Ed book. Moved to 3.5, felt it was too much. The arguments for bringing the legions back are rooted in fallacy.

I say this knowing that the trolls will rally against me. I Don't Care.

I saw what happened to "fun" games. They turned into rules debacles.

Also, if you weren't familiar with limits on daemon princes, it was an opportunity for cheating.

The point in the this message is thus: the chaos legions are no more. Defunct. Get over it. We have renegades and warbands. Use them. Crush your foes.

If you still want to field a legion, paint it black and hail the Warmaster.

[Shuggnuggath]

If I was writing the book I would offer a list of 'favoured tactics' that players could choose one of to represent their army. I would not tie any of them to a specific legion or war band. That way how the player wished to represent his army and add some flavour would be down to the individual.

 

I also think chosen and terminators should have the option get access to a 'veteran skill' chosen from a list, to represent their vast experience and favourite mode of warfare. 

[Gree]

I would love Legion Tactics, but I really don't think we are going to get it. Games Workshop's past two codices have spelled out a very clear design direction for the Chaos Space Marines and it's not going to be legion specific rules.

 

Which I find it rather said that my Night Lords can't even have Night Vision and appearantly love challenging everybody to single combat regardless of the odds.

 

For all the talk of renegades and hodgepodge warbands (Which might even be fluffy) in my experience people simply like playing Legions. There is a certain pride and joy in identifying as a ''Word Bearers player'' or a ''Night Lords player''. Personally for me,, I have seen more Chaos forces painted as a single Legion rather than a hodgepodge group of various renegades. Even on this forum you have a bunch of Hall of Honour threads lovingly showing off well-painted forces of World Eaters, Night Lords or etc, etc. Even in this sub-forum you have a bunch of Legion-specific threads for players.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

The point in the this message is thus: the chaos legions are no more. Defunct. Get over it. We have renegades and warbands. Use them. Crush your foes.

If you still want to field a legion, paint it black and hail the Warmaster.

 

And this is entirely the problem with the anti-Legion argument.  Sure, there's no Legions any more.  But if you were recruited by a Legion that uses lots of tanks, trenches, and artillery; were trained to use lots of tanks, trenches, and artillery; became an expert in the use of lots of tanks, trenches, and artillery; and trained the next generation of your Legion to use lots of tanks, trenches, and artillery; doesn't it make sense that despite no longer belonging to the Legion, you would still retain your expertise in the use lots of tanks, trenches, and artillery?

 

When it comes to rules, the color of the paint scheme shouldn't matter.  How they operate, that should be the key point.

[Lay]

I have no interest in anything less than proper Legion rules.

[plasmaspam]

@Walpurgisnacht - respectfully, I can only say I'm glad you don't get to make the rules in this game of ours.  Poetic approach aside, your assertion that the legions are "defunct" and demand that people should "get over it" comes across (to me at any rate) as dismissive and mildly obnoxious.

 

From an in-universe perspective, so long as there is one warband or remnant company from the traitor legions flying around the galaxy, then that legion persists.  If we accept that for many of the traitor legions only a few centuries have passed, as opposed to the real-world ten millennia, then it follows that these groups would largely retain the training, tactics and mindsets imprinted upon them by their legion, and that they will fight as such in the 41st millenium.  Certainly many have succumbed to corruption, pledged loyalty to a Chaos power, or perhaps simply abandoned any humanity given the experiences and fallouts of the Heresy.  Motivations will have changed for many, whilst others may blindly cling to interpretations of their Primarchs beliefs.

 

All these words are arguably romantic thoughts about the backgrounds of small plastic soldiers and the fictional characters they represent; but, if as we are encouraged to do, we are to apply some logic and narrative structure to this game, then the traitor legions are far from defunct.  They are a part of the rich background that we all seem to willingly buy in to.

 

To this end, demanding that people "get over it" is a bit offensive, and contrary to the whole hobby that again we are asked to invest in.

 

Personally, GW have me hooked - I want to spend more on their products because I want to be able to build and play something like the Traitor Astartes warband that I envision.  The current codex does not really allow me to do this, and since release I haven't read any analysis or opinion here or on a similar website that asserts the current codex is actually really satisfactory to anyone.  It's built around Chaos Marines (as opposed to Traitor Astartes) and the four major powers; but from all i've read, players of the four powers are dissatisfied as it seemingly only pays lip service to the flavour of these legions (and they are still legions!).

 

As things stand, I for one haven't spent £1 on Chaos products since the release of the current codex.  Simply because I found it to be a disappointment, and no improvement over it's predecessor.  Without any evidence to back it up, I speculate there are many Chaos collectors out there who feel the same, and that it is hurting GW's sales as such.

 

I would argue it's safe to say we won't be getting over it any time soon simply because we care about the hobby and want to see it improve.

 

Rant over; spleen vented.  I hope to see your work in Call of Chaos VII, and that you'll excuse my seeming hypocrisy as I enthusiastically strip my current collection, to be repainted and reorganised as the latest take on my warband for the current painting challenge.

 

@A D-B - point taken that "Legion Tactics" represents the shallow end of the pool with regard to the flavour and character of the traitors and renegades, but is it not a case of "baby + bathwater" to not even have it as a starting point for a codex because of the failures of past attempts?  Agreed that, if I get your point correctly, previous incarnations of this approach have really hard-wired the legion traits to the extent that they become just as restrictive as if they weren't available.  Surely though the thought processes have evolved since then, as evidenced by the FW books, the current C:SM, and the limited Supplements on offer.  Personally I feel basic legion traits can be well represented via sets of gaming USR's, without going down the roads such as "Night Lords = Raptor Legion".

[Gree]

I don't even think that implementing at least the basic traits of a Legion should be a problem. I mean, it gets pretty silly when Night Lords don't even have Night Vision. Just allowing a squad with VotLW to purchase a single suitable USR for a unit would go a long way to putting some flavor into the legions.

[Strazhakov]

I'd like less random tables and more customization of units and characters but someone at GW must really like random rolls...

[BrainFireBob]

No. It's a lazy cut and paste solution that smacks of simple envy.

 

Chaos needs its own thing. I'd favor a bonus for being mono-marked- including bonuses for taking no marks at all and only taking undivided. That's 7 different options- more than loyalists have- while still being a distinct thing.

[Bat33.1]

The biggest issue I have is ATSKNF why do we not have a rule that gives CSM parity with that one USR? Marine v CSM that rule is often the difference between staying in the fight and just running off the board. I appreciate the fluff but in game balance terms it's as bad as having holywood marines. VotLW is not a replacement for ATSKNF and GW have simply failed to give any kind of balance to the CSM codex for years because we can't compete with the flexibilty this gives SM.

I am not even going to get into the 'Dude where's my Landspeeder?' arguments about why the remaining VotLW have lost half their tech but SM boys find new tech behind the sofa when required yet they are the ones with STC pattern kit and a distrust of new tech!

[Loesh]

Rationality, in the realm of Chaos, is a foolish road.

Easier to let the internet rage flow throughout your posts.

Let me announce that I started playing Chaos in 3rd Ed book. Moved to 3.5, felt it was too much. The arguments for bringing the legions back are rooted in fallacy.

I say this knowing that the trolls will rally against me. I Don't Care.

I saw what happened to "fun" games. They turned into rules debacles.

Also, if you weren't familiar with limits on daemon princes, it was an opportunity for cheating.

The point in the this message is thus: the chaos legions are no more. Defunct. Get over it. We have renegades and warbands. Use them. Crush your foes.

If you still want to field a legion, paint it black and hail the Warmaster.

 

With all due respect, this ideology is just as much poison to the setting as the idea that Legions oversee absolutely everything we do. Warhammer has never been, never will be, a setting about absolutes. The rule only holds true until the exception comes along and over 10,000 years there are a lot of exceptions, for every handful of infighting Legion warbands there is a cohesive and very organized Warhost out there, over 10,000 years the legions have had time to evolve from their 'shattered' states into new things entirely and some of those things have a very organized structure to them. Chaos Space Marines are as varied as a pack of skittles and when you try to attach 'facts' to them, you're automatically wrong.

 

Of course i'm sure you'll just say i'm a troll.

[Lord Lee]

My first CSM army (Thousand Sons) was with the 3.5 codex so I remember what has been avalible before.

 

Honestly I think that 7 ed style system for each of the legions would be restrictive, I would go for a true expanded chaos version of the old 4th ed space marine traits system where you could pick and choose what positives and negatives applied. From this you could build the old legions or newer war bands, add on 4 god dedicated formations with something like "1 Lord/Sorceror, 2 CSM Squads, 0-2 Terminator Squads (etc for the other CSM Squads) then apply the rule benefits from Berzerkers/Thousand Sons/etc to the whole formation" giving players option to make the army they want.

 

Add on a fully expanded relic list and a custom daemon weapon creator and it's a big step in the right direction.

 

Lord Lee.

[walpurgisnacht]

@ Plasmaspam- acknowledged that my humour was quite bilious. No anger or disrespect intended for any particular frater, I only allowed the memory of a game when :cuss cheated with no limit gifts and wargear.

 

Also, I agree that it is a good thing that I am not in charge of the rules making.

I am not a game designer.

 

My point was not defending the current status of the codex in its blandness. It was to skewer the ideology of "back in my day, chaos was amazeballs, now it's crap".

[Lexington]

I think something like what's apparently been done with IA13's "Renegades & Heretics" army list wouldn't be a bad idea - pick a "trait" for each Chaos Lord in your force, and they get some kind of ability or minor shift to the army list (and a positive one, rather than negative(, but don't have it completely change the army.

 

Well, except for more recent renegades, but I think those, by nature, would be more complicated.

[Lord Asvaldir]

Seven options? I count 5..

 

A bonus for chaos undivided units is something I'd love to see (in fantasy as well). Sadly I doubt it will happen though. And I don't really see it as too space marine like to give each legion just a small bonus-nothing major, just something like night vision for night lords, maybe tank hunters for iron warriors. Traits for big renegade warbands like red corsairs would be cool as well. Would that really be sufficient to give each legion its own character? Not really but it would be a good start. 

 

And with regards to the legions being gone debate, it's mostly true for some legions-world eaters come to mind given they are so fractured, however legions like the word bearers, iron warriors and black legion are still fairly united and well organized.