Chaos Index

[ChazSexington]

Based on what we saw when GW released info about the Rubricae datasheet:

 

- "Chaos" as a generic Keyword;

- one keyword for each God;

- one keyword for "Heretic Astartes" so we can assume quite safely we'll also have "Daemons" and "Foresworn/Renegade Knights";

- one keyword specific for each Traitor Legion so we can also assume that something might be done for "Crimson Slaughter", "Red Corsairs" and KDK.

 

 

It's a technicality, but that name irked me. It should be <Warband>, not <Traitor Legion>.

[Plaguecaster]

I have a feeling for units like chaos marine squads Marks will only be keywords not buffs anymore only for cult units and possibly lords will have the buff which will be built int

[Raven1]

It's a technicality, but that name irked me. It should be <Warband>, not <Traitor Legion>.

Whoa whoa whoa pump the brakes. Chaos always has and always will be traitor Legions...these ragamuffin warbands. At least to me, but then again I played Iron Warriors legion and saw my rules stripped away while chapter tactics totally became a thing.

[Sonoftherubric21]

 

Based on what we saw when GW released info about the Rubricae datasheet:

 

- "Chaos" as a generic Keyword;

- one keyword for each God;

- one keyword for "Heretic Astartes" so we can assume quite safely we'll also have "Daemons" and "Foresworn/Renegade Knights";

- one keyword specific for each Traitor Legion so we can also assume that something might be done for "Crimson Slaughter", "Red Corsairs" and KDK.

 

 

It's a technicality, but that name irked me. It should be <Warband>, not <Traitor Legion>.

 

 

No; no no. no no no. NO.

 

Leave it with Traitor legions, the last time GW nixxed those they were gone for over a decade and the chaos fanbase lamented. 

 

Traitor legions for life. 

[Sception]

Warband is individual army.  Ie, your specific army, not other armies that share some subfactional affiliation with you.  Ie, my army is the Crimson Eyes.  They are a warband of the Black Legion.  The Black Legion is their traitor legion and gets a keyword.  The Crimson Eyes is the individual warband, no keyword there, none really necessary.

 

Traitor Legion shouldn't have to mean original Heretic Legion, either.  After all, the Black Legion weren't one of the original Heretic Legions.  The Red Corsairs should qualify as a traitor legion in the 40k era, imo.  The Crimson Slaughter not so much, but maybe they've expanded in the short time skip leading into 8th edition.  As long as they're at least a small fleet sized force, with multiple semi-independent warlords carrying their banner, then they'd qualify as far as I'm concerned.  Otherwise they'd just be a non-legion warband.  Ie, heretic astartes without taking a legion keyword.  Again, I expect <variable> keywords to be optional, and I don't expect too much game play functionality to hang on them apart from for the cult legions.

 

But that's just guesswork on my part.

[Kol Saresk]

Warband is individual army.  Ie, your specific army, not other armies that share some subfactional affiliation with you.  Ie, my army is the Crimson Eyes.  They are a warband of the Black Legion.  The Black Legion is their traitor legion and gets a keyword.  The Crimson Eyes is the individual warband, no keyword there, none really necessary.

 

Traitor Legion shouldn't have to mean original Heretic Legion, either.  After all, the Black Legion weren't one of the original Heretic Legions.  The Red Corsairs should qualify as a traitor legion in the 40k era, imo.  The Crimson Slaughter not so much, but maybe they've expanded in the short time skip leading into 8th edition.  As long as they're at least a small fleet sized force, with multiple semi-independent warlords carrying their banner, then they'd qualify as far as I'm concerned.  Otherwise they'd just be a non-legion warband.  Ie, heretic astartes without taking a legion keyword.  Again, I expect <variable> keywords to be optional, and I don't expect too much game play functionality to hang on them apart from for the cult legions.

 

But that's just guesswork on my part.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/302346-something-funny-i-found/?hl= traitor legions

 

And then just search for any post containing the word "warband" that was written by A D-B. He does a much better job of explaining it than me.

 

Suffice to say, in the 40K background, from the Imperium's point of view, calling a squad of Fabius Bile-engineered New Men a Traitor Legion is literally no different than calling the Night Lords a whole a Traitor Legion.

 

To 99.999999999999999999999999999999999(repeating)% of CSM fans, including you once upon if I remember our "debates" correctly, it specifically refers only to the original nine(well eight) Traitor Legions. I mean, I guess you could still call the Sons of Horus a Traitor Legion in that context. Not sure since there aren't too many SoH warbands floating around. Both in and out of the fiction.

 

Any, there is a point as to why "warbands" should have precedence over Traitor Legions in the keywords department. And that's because the Traitor Legions are basically just nine out of ten origin stories for "How to create your warband", with option ten being "They aren't mono-Legion/Legion-descended". Five of the Traitors do nothing to determine what type of warband you have. And for the four that do, those types are warbands are not exclusive to those Legions. Even the Rubricae can be found in non-Thousand Sons armies. Of course, strictly speaking, all Rubricae are Thoousand Sons, but not all warbands that include the Rubricae are Thousand Sons, or even mono-Tzeentch, warbands.

 

But that's why "warband types" should be more important than "warband origins". A Raptor Cult should be a Raptor Cult no matter what. It shouldn't have to call itself a Night Lord warband because people are idiots and they keep making the VIII Legion the Raptor Army, especially when it might be a Black Legion Raptor Cult. Or a Raptor Cult that is made from an 8th Reserve Company that got trapped in the warp and converted to Chaos(cookie for whoever gets that reference).

 

But that's not what people wanted. They wanted 3.5. So as far as keywords go, we went back to the 3.5 way of defining armies. Except when it comes to the Black Legion. They still get the Cyclopae Cabal.

[Slave to Darkness]

I wonder if Nurgle marked marines is still a thing. Then I wont feel so weird running RTB01 converted Plague Marines alongside the new ones in the starter.

 

*looks at army, looks at greenstuff*

 

I might bulk out my current army so they fit scalewise. Looks like Im painting 5k of Plague Marines in the next ETL.

[Blackheart1223]

"Or a Raptor Cult that is made from an 8th Reserve Company that got trapped in the warp and converted to Chaos(cookie for whoever gets that reference)."

 

Blood Disciples, formerly the 8th Company of the Emperor's Wolves.

[Cryptix]

The Red Death, former 7th company of the Grave Wardens.

[Lords of Preyspire]

I would be happiest with a traitor legion and warband routes (key words). They can mix or be separate.

 

 

Not that it really matters, I'm sure it will be open enough to play it in a warband style.

[DreamIsCollapsing]

Unlikely. Then they would end up with a 3+ invul save against any weapon doing only 1 damage. And that's out in the open without any Cover etc.

 

You misunderstood me. 

 

In the datasheet for Rubric Marines, they say : 

- +1 save for 1 Dmg weapon wound

- 5+ Invul Save (Tzeencht Favorites rules).

 

What i'm saying is : Maybee MoT still exist as bonus : +1 Invulnerable save. But this boons is already include in the Rubrics Marins Datasheet (like in V7 Noise Marine profiles was 5 Init coz the MoS was mandatory, and add to the base stat of the models). 

So Rubrics are 6+ Invulnerable save (mandatory MoT) but upgraded to 5+ (by the Favorit of Tzeencht rule). 

And a standard Marines with MoS will just have a 6+ Invulnerable save (without the All is Dust rule, as he is not a rubric marines)

[ChazSexington]

 

It's a technicality, but that name irked me. It should be <Warband>, not <Traitor Legion>.

Whoa whoa whoa pump the brakes. Chaos always has and always will be traitor Legions...these ragamuffin warbands. At least to me, but then again I played Iron Warriors legion and saw my rules stripped away while chapter tactics totally became a thing.

 

 

Chaos is more though. It's also the Red Corsairs, Crimson Slaughter, the Purge etc. The Red Corsairs are descendants of the Astral Claws, but putting <Ultramarine> (the Astral Claws' progenitors) as <Traitor Legion> wouldn't be correct. 

 

 

 

Based on what we saw when GW released info about the Rubricae datasheet:

 

- "Chaos" as a generic Keyword;

- one keyword for each God;

- one keyword for "Heretic Astartes" so we can assume quite safely we'll also have "Daemons" and "Foresworn/Renegade Knights";

- one keyword specific for each Traitor Legion so we can also assume that something might be done for "Crimson Slaughter", "Red Corsairs" and KDK.

 

 

It's a technicality, but that name irked me. It should be <Warband>, not <Traitor Legion>.

 

 

No; no no. no no no. NO.

 

Leave it with Traitor legions, the last time GW nixxed those they were gone for over a decade and the chaos fanbase lamented. 

 

Traitor legions for life. 

 

 

I'm not saying remove Legions, I'm saying the Legions are (mostly) broken. Hell, the supposed two biggest Warbands/Chaos factions weren't Legions - the Black Legion and the Red Corsairs. Sons of Horus/Luna Wolves were a Legion, but never the Black Legion.

 

Warband is individual army.  Ie, your specific army, not other armies that share some subfactional affiliation with you.  Ie, my army is the Crimson Eyes.  They are a warband of the Black Legion.  The Black Legion is their traitor legion and gets a keyword.  The Crimson Eyes is the individual warband, no keyword there, none really necessary.

 

Traitor Legion shouldn't have to mean original Heretic Legion, either.  After all, the Black Legion weren't one of the original Heretic Legions.  The Red Corsairs should qualify as a traitor legion in the 40k era, imo.  The Crimson Slaughter not so much, but maybe they've expanded in the short time skip leading into 8th edition.  As long as they're at least a small fleet sized force, with multiple semi-independent warlords carrying their banner, then they'd qualify as far as I'm concerned.  Otherwise they'd just be a non-legion warband.  Ie, heretic astartes without taking a legion keyword.  Again, I expect <variable> keywords to be optional, and I don't expect too much game play functionality to hang on them apart from for the cult legions.

 

But that's just guesswork on my part.

 

I'd kinda disagree - there were only ever 8 Traitor Legions, of which the only ones with a possible central command structure (and thus still functioning as a Legion) are the Word Bearers, Sons of Horus (in the form of the Black Legion), and the Night Lords if Decimus succeeds. Maaaaaybe the Alpha Legion, but nobody knows what's going on there. Not sure on the Death Guard either. 

 

I do agree it doesn't matter to game functionality, it's just a minor semantic annoyance tbh.

[Sception]

Night Lords have as much of a central command structure as any of the Traitor Legions without an actively involved primarch (ie, as much as Word Bearers or Iron Warriors have at this point), and more than Emperor's Children or World Eaters do.  And that central command has everything to do with Krieg Acerbus and absolutely nothing to do with Decimus who, if he shares Talos's character arc, will eventually decide to follow Abaddon.

 

Chaos is not the Imperium with rigid command structures even for the most organized and coherent of legions.  All chaos forces are organized in terms of independent or semi-independent warlords and whatever forces they can personally gather to follow them, whether based on old loyalties, personal magnetism, sheer power, or shared spoils.  Successful warlords inevitably attract larger followings.  Unsuccessful warlords followers abandon them and rivals rise to challenge them.  Warbands that grow too large for their warlords to directly manage see sub-commanders selected, effectively splitting them into multiple warbands flying the same banner.  Warbands that shrink too small risk getting preyed on or absorbed by other larger warbands.

 

To decrease the risk of such cannibalism, warbands might form (or simply claim) alliances with other warbands who share similar goals and philosophies, their warlords either joining a commanding council or swearing to a greater legion lord.  These alliances discourage hostile actions from rival warbands, allow the forces to engage in military actions that require forces larger than a single warlord is able to marshal, allow for territory to be taken and held, provide stronger leverage in negotiations with daemonic forces and the dark mechanicus agents, etc.  But they come at the cost of commitments to mutual aid and defense, required participation in Legion actions, etc.

 

These modern Legions are still loose affiliations of semi-independent lords, so they must share something to help them work together and get past grudges and trust issues.  Shared religious dedication or shared history between the warlords being the usual things, so the eight 'surviving' original heretic legions are the typical examples, plus the Red Corsairs, a post-heresy collection of warbands with a shared history and command structure.  With shared history generally comes shared training and shared combat philosophy and tactics that give different legions a somewhat recognizable style even for two different and largely unaffiliated warlords.  But dedication to a singular cause, and a legion lord championing that cause, can be enough even without such shared history and combat style, as seen with the Black Legion.

 

Or, at least, that's how it used to be.

 

Before 8th edition, I'd have said the majority of chaos warbands were largely or entirely independent, and even those that were part of a Legion were still mostly so, occasionally coming together for legion level actions but mostly existing as independent raiding warbands for whom the legion banners were mostly a 'please don't attack me, I've got friends' warning.  But that changes with 8th edition.  Now that the chaos marines can and have actually taken territories outside the eye, the motivation to align in larger forces, allowing chaos factions to take and hold greater areas, is much greater than it once was, and the costs of sharing resources and spoils much less.  Add to that once quiescent Primarchs becoming active again, and calling their scattered and wayward children back into their service - there may still be some banished sorcerers outside of the 1ksons legion proper, but the vast majority of them left whatever else they were doing and returned when Magnus called, as Ahriman did, and the same will likely happen as other Primarchs rouse themselves from their torpor.  On top of that, add an Imperium literally split in half and unable to marshal its forces in a coherent manner.  All together, you have a situation far removed from what we saw back when the traitor astartes were mostly bottled in their warp storms, only really able to launch limited raids into imperial territory before retreating back in the face of the inevitable and overwhelming Imperial counter offensive.

 

Simply put, Legion matters more than it used to.  Independent warbands are still at best pirates and raiders, while collective Legions - whether heresy legions like the Iron Warriors and Death Guard or post-heresy forces like the Red Corsairs and Black Legion* - are ascendant conquerors and upstart empires.  Warlords used to the old way are likely rather irritated by the lack of autonomy and the heavier burden of orders coming from above, but the rewards of pride and profit make the sacrifice of freedom well worth it.

 

* Legions may be ascendant, but I expect the Black Legion in particular is likely somewhat diminished what with many heresy vets returning to their original legions, newly active Primarchs providing alternative inspiring commanders to follow, and overthrowing Terra being a less motivating goal now that an entire galaxy of treasure and territory is lying belly up for the taking.  Which must be very frustrating for Abaddon, as Terra is likely as exposed as it will ever be, and the light of the Imperium would finally have been snuffed out forever if the rest of the traitor legions had simply stayed on target and done so before splitting away to claim their own territory and prey on softer targets, leaving Abaddon and a diminished Black Legion alone to try and batter on the gates of Terra.

[Kol Saresk]

Night Lords have as much of a central command structure as any of the Traitor Legions without an actively involved primarch (ie, as much as Word Bearers or Iron Warriors have at this point), and more than Emperor's Children or World Eaters do.  And that central command has everything to do with Krieg Acerbus and absolutely nothing to do with Decimus who, if he shares Talos's character arc, will eventually decide to follow Abaddon.

If GW, or any of the background, actually supported that the daemon prince Krieg Acerbus was in charge of the Night Lords Legion, then the Night Lords would have had Marks in 3.5 and in the 7th edition supplement.

 

The Night Lords do not have any centralized command whatsoever. Period. End of story.

 

What they do have is a massive warband that follows Krieg Acerbus, a warband possibly even large enough that it can split into smaller warbands. And then they have a coalition of warbands, that are currently operating on the advice of the Prophet Decimus that they shouldn't become a Legion again, but rather that they should consider coordinating their efforts during the 13th Black Crusade to attack the Craftworld Ulthwé.

 

Neither force controls a majority of the Legion and as far as we know, they might even split the Legion 50-50. It could end up being 30-20, with the other half of the Legion still doing whatever it wants.

 

As for the rest, time will tell. The only Legion we have direct background saying that its various descendant warbands have come together in common cause, or at least those warbands that listened to the call, are the Thousand Sons. We have direct background saying that obviously not all of the Thousand Sons have joined up with Magnus, but at least enough have for the Imperium to say "The XV Legion is at it again." Which, going back to the "Something Funny Topic", even the Sons of Malice and the Violators are considered "Traitor Legions" so calling the Thousand Sons an "active Legion", is relative at best.

 

That is the state of the background here and now. How it will change for 8th, we will find out in June 3rd in one week. Until then, right now, "Legion" means as much as did in 3.5 since that's the definition everyone wanted back. Which is the "If there's a name, that name is for a Legion. But nine Legions get rules because reasons."

[Sception]

A loose set of warbands who happen to fly the same legion flag is all most legions were before the 13th crusade, and Krieg is the leader of the largest coherent faction within the loose set of warlords flying the Night Lords flag, in exactly the same way that, say, Lucius was the direct commander of the largest coherent faction flying the Emperor's Children flag, or that Erebus and Kor Phaeron are the leaders of the largest factions within the ever-so-slightly more coherent set of warbands flying the Word Bearers flag.

 

On the rare instances when all or most of the Night Lords warbands gather to decide on a course of action for the entire legion, Decimus certainly has been shown to have a very influential voice, reflecting the respect shown to him for his precognative abilities and the role his forebear played, but I haven't seen anything indicating that other warlords want to take orders from him, and I haven't seen anything directly contradicting the fluff that had Krieg leading the largest coherent faction of Night Lords warbands.

 

As for the mark issue, there has been conflict between the fluff and the rules for Night Lords on that matter since third edition, and that conflict is in no way restricted to Krieg.  After all, the leader of Talos's own warband before he took over was explicitly Tzeentch Marked, while his own personal retinue included a marine marked by Khorne and another by Slaanesh.

 

 

How the Night Lords change or don't change in 8th edition remains to be seen.  We know how the legions with living primarchs change - the primarch returns and takes over again and everyone else just gets in line as they take territory and carve out their own sphere of control.  It's unclear clear how the Night Lords with their dead primarch will or won't adapt to the new paradigm, whether they'll unify under a single leader and carve out their own empire or keep scraping by as pirates, raiders, and mercenaries.

[Excessus]

The Alpha Legion is always unified and coherent! "For the Emperor"! :P

[Sception]

Yeah, well, if I were an Alpha Legion player, I'd be pretty annoyed at the changes to their background and their nature over the last few years, and wouldn't be at all excited for the inevitable 'Alpharius and/or Omegon returns to enact their exactly-as-planned-all-along scheme, where in the process the Alpha Legion becomes just another chaos legion / primarch-ruled mini-empire, and / or are just going to be retroactive secret loyalists like the Fallen, and everything that made them interesting or unique before will finally be snuffed out forever.

 

But I'm not an Alpha Legion player, so maybe there's something in the direction their fluff has been taking that I'm just not seeing.

[Excessus]

Yeah, well, if I were an Alpha Legion player, I'd be pretty annoyed at the changes to their background and their nature over the last few years, and wouldn't be at all excited for the inevitable 'Alpharius and/or Omegon returns to enact their exactly-as-planned-all-along scheme, where in the process the Alpha Legion becomes just another chaos legion / primarch-ruled mini-empire, and / or are just going to be retroactive secret loyalists like the Fallen, and everything that made them interesting or unique before will finally be snuffed out forever.

 

But I'm not an Alpha Legion player, so maybe there's something in the direction their fluff has been taking that I'm just not seeing.

 

Nah, I don't know where you're getting that from. Alpharius & Omegon are both dead. The legion however, still lives on despite the Imperium declaring them dead three times.

 

Lore and memes are quite different things...

[Sception]

When did Alpharius and/or Omegon - whichever wasn't killed by Ultra Magnus - killed?

[Excessus]

When did Alpharius and/or Omegon - whichever wasn't killed by Ultra Magnus - killed?

 

 

Dorn killed one of them in one of the latest heresy books, and the other one got killed by Guilliman on Eskrador.

 

[Sception]

 

Ah, I haven't read the most recent books yet.  It's promising that the writers may be pulling the Alpha Legion back towards their old status, but I'm not super confident that they won't randomly bring back one or both anyway.

 

[Brother Aiwass]

 

When did Alpharius and/or Omegon - whichever wasn't killed by Ultra Magnus - killed?

 

 

Dorn killed one of them in one of the latest heresy books, and the other one got killed by Guilliman on Eskrador.

 

 

This is what the Alpha Legion wants you to believe.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

Alpharius was killed by Dorn, but Omegon survived.  He know its Omegon because at the end of the novel, he was a little morose about how he was always going to have to be Alpharius from that point forward.

 

As for Eskrador, don't believe everything you read.  I'm still convinced that tale is a smoke-screen invented by a Legion plant in the Inquisition.

 

 

 

[adreal]

 

 

Alpharius was killed by Dorn, but Omegon survived. He know its Omegon because at the end of the novel, he was a little morose about how he was always going to have to be Alpharius from that point forward.

 

As for Eskrador, don't believe everything you read. I'm still convinced that tale is a smoke-screen invented by a Legion plant in the Inquisition.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe Gulliman died, and Omegon took the primarch project they stole from corax to cawl and built the new super marines

 

 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

 

Alpharius was killed by Dorn, but Omegon survived. He know its Omegon because at the end of the novel, he was a little morose about how he was always going to have to be Alpharius from that point forward.

 

As for Eskrador, don't believe everything you read. I'm still convinced that tale is a smoke-screen invented by a Legion plant in the Inquisition.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe Gulliman died, and Omegon took the primarch project they stole from corax to cawl and built the new super marines

 

 

 

Also a distinct possibility I've considered.  However, given the evidence in Index Astartes IV -- from whence the Eskrador tale originates -- I'm pretty sure that there never actually was a Battle of Eskrador (and thus no Alpharius vs Guilliman duel).  Seriously.  The article article is written from an in-character perspective based on the research of Inquisitor Kravin, who spoke admiringly of Alpharius and his devious tactics and, at the end, was summoned to face charges of heresy and espoinage at which point he promptly disappeared.  The whole article, start to finish, is a smoke screen.