About the Chaos Legion vs Chaos Warband thread...

[totgeboren]

I might be beating a dead horse here, but to start off I want to say I do agree with Tenebris that the 'winner' of the debate was the warband side (how could any other side win when the legions are split into warbands?)

 

But I was out running today, and thought a bit more about the topic. (Sadly it is locked so I have little choice but to make a new topic.)

 

Anyway, a new SM codex seems to be coming, and we have the current one which is definitely 'legion' focused (there are only traits for legions+BT). The other loyalist SM codices for BA, DA and SW codices are also definitely legion focused, even though these original chapters only make up what, 1% of all astartes?

Once upon a time in 4th ed we had a SM codex that was DIY focused, where you could pick your own traits to make your very own Chapter.

 

For me the Legions of old are now split into Chapters on the loyalist side, and Warbands on the Chaos side. Sometimes Warbands are made up of marines from different legions, but the loyalists also often fight side by side with marines from other chapters, so that isn't a big deal. Some chapters even have geneseed from two different sources.

 

Also, many chapters have diverged strongly from their parent chapter, so that even though they might be of the same bloodline, their ways of war are like night and day. A Mortifactor is an Ultramarine, but their skull collecting, ancestor worship and meditative-trance-to-commune-with-the-Emperor is about as far from how an Ultramarine would formulate a battleplan as you can get. Many chapters have diverged so strongly from their parents that they have now joined the ranks of us, the fallen!

 

Since this is true, that the vast majority of SM chapters do not in fact behave as direct descendants of the original legions (and as such many differ greatly from their origin chapter), would that not make the current SM codex just as ill suited for representing the background as a equivalent CSM codex with legion traits would be?

 

And secondly, in my experience at least 50% of SM armies you see are based on the original 9 loyalists. And in my experience something like say 80% of CSM armies are based on their original 9.

 

So, with that said, does anyone know how dissatisfied the loyalist side are that they only have legion-focused codices? They don't have a single non-First-Founding-themed supplement even, when we have the CS at least.

Is there a strong opinion that the trait system of 4ed should be in place instead of First-Founding themes?

 

I just haven't heard of anyone having trouble representing their DIY chapters by picking one First Founding legion trait, either because they want them to be descendants of that legion, or because they want their battle doctrines to be reminiscent of that legion (but be of a different linage).

And if they can manage, why cannot we? If I want to make a WB warband that is the survivors of the 37th siege company, and as such use the IW traits (or with a bit of luck the name would be less legion-specific) because that represent my preferred battle tactics the best (but background-wise my WB are still WB), would that be a huge issue?

 

I simply don't believe GW would give either us or the loyalists the freedom of 4ed traits again, and as such we are probably stuck between legion traits (at most), or nothing (like now).

 

And so, back the the question yet again. Are the loyalists in any way hamstrung by the current legion-focused codices (SM, BA, DA and SW)?

[Aspiringchaoschampion]

I do agree with you. For example my Death Guard are a smurfs succesor who joined the DG unofficially and so have a fighting style which is a cross between death guard and ultramarines. Id love to be able to reresent their flexability in some way lol

[sitnam]

I think the majority if players doing loyalist DIY forces pick their preferred legions because they are attracted to the background of their primogeniter. As such I think many players, like myself, build our forces as a mirror of their favored legion but in new colors and with a new culture. That said, the current rules are awful in regards to representing divergent succesors. The best bet for a divergent player is too pick the rules that fit their chapter best and just fill the background with details connecting them to their parents. The current Codex rules often dont represent official succesors well; look at the Mantis Warriors as an example (thank goodness FW gave them attention)

 

GW could learn from forgeworld designers in regards to these types of rules. Both the Taghmata Omnissiah and Legiones Astartes lists are great examples of DIY yourself design. Those legion rules make the 37th siege company of the word bearers an easy thing to do. The R&H rules also allow for a lot of variety

[Wade Garrett]

That debate was a joke.

 

Posts arguing against the war band side were deleted. Let me censor the opposing viewpoint and I can "win" every "debate" I participate in effortlessly too.

[Rain]

No, they aren't, and they get worried every time a new vanilla codex rolls around that their divergent chapter will get rolled in. Saying that we shouldn't have Legion traits because it would be impossible to write them in such a way as to cover all the myriad organizations of Chaos warbands is like saying that we shouldn't have cars because they occasionally break down or get stuck in traffic.

 

So yes, we should have Legion rules , even if they are called "Rites of War" and don't specifically name the Legion in question. From an academic standpoint it's practically a non-argument. More optional rules can never be a bad thing. Don't like em? Don't use em.

[Tenebris]

On the other hand it should be said that the Chapter Tactics are the perfect medium through which describe an orthodox chapter. Sons of Orar for example, The Genesis Chapter... and so on. They are effectively Ultramarines but with different colors but their mindset, rules and iconography mirror those of their primogenitor Chapter 

 

For the less codex like chapters I personally think that there will be no rules. The loyalist side has a lot of marine armies, each with distinct rules. From the developers point of view this would only lead to even more confusion in terms of rules, schemes and it is a problem to market it right. 

 

What this means for the Chaos Warbands? Well not much. If we get legion rules people will field their own brand of Legion Warband. If we get veteran skills people will still field their legion warband albeit via a different medium of rules and if we get legion formations, people will still field their legion warband. The theme is that people will use whatever rules are given to them in order to create as first the legion warbands and as second their own DIY warbands. 

 

Though it is very hard to combine all in one book due to the diversity of Chaos itself, hence the key word here is "compromise". 

[Plaguecaster]

I always lamented the fact that FW never expanded in their pursuit of fleshing out chapters or legions missed out by GW. They could of easily added some legion/ warband traits to their Imperial Armour books or even do a seperate mini dex with options to further customise your chaos army. Of course that will never happen as its too easy I doubt chaos will never get the love it deserves.

[Radiation]

I have a DIY loyalist chapter that is an Ultramarines successor. I'm building them using the BA codex. After I finish that I will build a centurian list using Ultra tactics. Then someday maybe a First Company using DA. I used to be totally against rolling all the codexs together, but now I think it would be great. Legion chapters could limit themselves to their established fluff and us diyers could make some real lists. Although, with allies we're getting close to this anyways. And unbound is like an additional sidestep closer. Still it would be fun to pick from all the codexes and then throw a couple of traits, ob sec and special characters on top, if everything was game in one book.

 

But you chaos guys got your own problems. I would like to do a chaos SPACE MARINE force down the road, but I paint so slow. I was thinking WE painted white, blue and red with spikes and mutations.

[Rain]

The thing is that they aren't going to fit 5 books of content into one book, so when factions get rolled, flavor, options, and individuality are lost. You couldn't have your fast rhinos and troops terminators if variant SM lists didn't exist, even though you play a SM successor. Which is of course the whole point. There will never be rules for the "Death Shadows" or the "Slaanesh following Iron Warriors allied with a Lord of Change" but Legion rules could still potentially make such an army better fit its theme.

[Tenebris]

In all sincerity we should be very happy if we get "Legion Tactics", 9 of them and one for generic Undivided. Do not expect much effort by GW. Maybe a tribute to the Chaos Legions but I highly doubt we will see veteran skills returning. GW likes to solve the problem of "fluff" by making formations. It is easier for them and they can force our hand with less desirable units. I half expect that in the next iteration of our codex we will see many things like Warp Talons, Mutilators, Forgefiends and Terminators forced upon us via formations. 

 

Remember the goal is to sell kits, especially those kits which are not big sellers and gather dust. Remember the Tomb Blades. 

 

A fate which is shared with all the other armies who are getting new books in the future. 

[Xenith]

In all sincerity we should be very happy if we get "Legion Tactics", 9 of them and one for generic Undivided. Do not expect much effort by GW. Maybe a tribute to the Chaos Legions but I highly doubt we will see veteran skills returning.

 

What, not even in some kind of format, where if you picked certain units, all the units that you picked got some kind of bonus rule, to reflect how well and how often they fight together? 

[Radiation]

The thing is that they aren't going to fit 5 books of content into one book, so when factions get rolled, flavor, options, and individuality are lost. You couldn't have your fast rhinos and troops terminators if variant SM lists didn't exist, even though you play a SM successor. Which is of course the whole point. There will never be rules for the "Death Shadows" or the "Slaanesh following Iron Warriors allied with a Lord of Change" but Legion rules could still potentially make such an army better fit its theme.

I could have as many fast rhinos and terminator troops as I wanted. They would be listed as fast rhinos and terminator troops and I would pick them according to their CAD slot. There would be no loss of anything as it would all be there. GW could do this. It is very possible to do. All you need is an Indesign File. They probably won't do this because they have their own sales models catering to the special snowflake in us all involving a billion different books, magazines and supplements, but it would take an afternoon to make the file if you had access to the codex Indesign files they currently use. Copy ctrl c, past ctrl v. Apple key if they use macs. Create press quality PDF. Saying they can't do it is wildly unreasonable and rediculous, because it would be so easy to do. You may not want them to do it, and that's fine.

[Rain]

I didn't say that they can't, I said that they "aren't going to" that is, that they won't. There hasn't been a codex that expansive in a long time, probably because selling you 3 codices to give you fast rhinos and troopinators makes them more money. Also, the various divergent factions have tons more unique options, sang priests, death company, libby dreads etc. it's a lot to roll in, and would require either a breaking of the fluff (Ultramarines somehow succumbing to black rage) or sub lists within the codex that grant access to some options while barring access to others. You know, like 3.5 Chaos. So I'm hardly against the idea, I just know that it's not something GW is willing to do.

[Excessus]

In all sincerity we should be very happy if we get "Legion Tactics", 9 of them and one for generic Undivided. Do not expect much effort by GW. Maybe a tribute to the Chaos Legions but I highly doubt we will see veteran skills returning. GW likes to solve the problem of "fluff" by making formations. It is easier for them and they can force our hand with less desirable units. I half expect that in the next iteration of our codex we will see many things like Warp Talons, Mutilators, Forgefiends and Terminators forced upon us via formations. 

 

Remember the goal is to sell kits, especially those kits which are not big sellers and gather dust. Remember the Tomb Blades. 

 

A fate which is shared with all the other armies who are getting new books in the future. 

I think that any "Legion" rules should be restricted to HQ and Elite slots. Even Legion warbands have new recruits that aren't as experienced and battle-hardened as the "real stuff". That is what the entire elite section depicts, the old guys, the veterans, the experienced. Make terminators be upgraded from cults units and chosen, and make chosen troops for undivided lords...

 

...this would most likely, together with boon chart re-write and points-cost reductions for non-competitve units and adding in decurion style detachements be enough for fluffy and competitve players, but it will never happen...

[Scribe]

If Formations remain a thing up till our book, I firmly expect to see Legion Formations.

 

Precedent: Codex Eldar