EC Rumours

[Comandante Alexos]

6 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

Fair shout and seconded :)

They are actually 14, so no unknown heads, every variation has been shown yet. Sorry.

But still can confirm they are great 

[Fire Golem]

9 hours ago, Marshal Loss said:

For those also interested in incorporating parts into 30k-era traitor EC forces, a youtuber ('Hellstorm Wargaming') did so in a recent video:

 

I for one ordered 15 more MkVIs to bulk mine out and 30k-ify them a bit more after watching (and some cork tiles). 

[LSM]

1 hour ago, Comandante Alexos said:

They are actually 14, so no unknown heads, every variation has been shown yet. Sorry.

But still can confirm they are great 

 

The article said 14 for the Noise Marines plus 3 for the Disharmonist, totalling 17. (Which pictures of the sprues suggest is true.)

 

I've only seen 12.

 

I suppose the other 5 could be indistinguishable at a glance from the 12 already shown, but that would be disappointing.

[Comandante Alexos]

6 minutes ago, LSM said:

 

The article said 14 for the Noise Marines plus 3 for the Disharmonist, totalling 17. (Which pictures of the sprues suggest is true.)

 

I've only seen 12.

 

I suppose the other 5 could be indistinguishable at a glance from the 12 already shown, but that would be disappointing.

Ops my bad, I’m talking about Legionaries!

 

[LSM]

Poking around a little more, it does look like the Warhammer Instructions subreddit has the InTors and Noise Marines up.

 

The Obsessionist helmet does have an unseen bit - an optional blade-hawk (instead of a topknot). That's neat.

 

There are a couple of the other NM heads that I like, but... there are still some misses for me (17, 34, 95 - boring); but enough hits that I'm happy. (Even if I wish they'd pushed things harder.) Also nice to see that two of the Noise Marines have optional leather greaves. (Even if... I wish they'd pushed thing harder. There is a serious lack of superfluous voxes.)

[Comandante Alexos]

16 minutes ago, LSM said:

Poking around a little more, it does look like the Warhammer Instructions subreddit has the InTors and Noise Marines up.

 

The Obsessionist helmet does have an unseen bit - an optional blade-hawk (instead of a topknot). That's neat.

 

There are a couple of the other NM heads that I like, but... there are still some misses for me (17, 34, 95 - boring); but enough hits that I'm happy. (Even if I wish they'd pushed things harder.) Also nice to see that two of the Noise Marines have optional leather greaves. (Even if... I wish they'd pushed thing harder. There is a serious lack of superfluous voxes.)

These kits look old…but in a good way. Reminds me of the past multi-parts sprues with a lot of options, slightly different from the kits we are getting used to see right now.

Maybe I am an enthusiast, but I think this release is worthy the long wait.

[LSM]

4 minutes ago, Comandante Alexos said:

These kits look old…but in a good way. Reminds me of the past multi-parts sprues with a lot of options, slightly different from the kits we are getting used to see right now.

Maybe I am an enthusiast, but I think this release is worthy the long wait.

 

Oh yeah. I adore that the kits are bodies, backpacks, arms, and heads... feel free to put whichever with whatever.

[DeadFingers]

30 minutes ago, LSM said:

Poking around a little more, it does look like the Warhammer Instructions subreddit has the InTors and Noise Marines up.

 

The Obsessionist helmet does have an unseen bit - an optional blade-hawk (instead of a topknot). That's neat.

 

There are a couple of the other NM heads that I like, but... there are still some misses for me (17, 34, 95 - boring); but enough hits that I'm happy. (Even if I wish they'd pushed things harder.) Also nice to see that two of the Noise Marines have optional leather greaves. (Even if... I wish they'd pushed thing harder. There is a serious lack of superfluous voxes.)

Both the WarCom article and the instructions go out of their way to separate these three heads as being options exclusively for the Disharmonist.

 

 

Meanwhile, the studio painters:

 

[Rain]

I hear that if you use a Disharmonist (R) head on a Emperor’s Children (R) Noise Marine (R) body, you are committing an act of tarnishment of GW’s IP, and probably unfair competition under California law. This is a serious matter inflicting grievous harm upon GW. You’ll be hearing from their lawyers.

 

Disclaimer for the Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists players among us: The above post is humorous in nature and is not to be construed as legal advice.

Edited 10 hours ago by Rain

[Nephaston]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

I hear that if you use a Disharmonist (R) head on a Emperor’s Children (R) Noise Marine (R) body, you are committing an act of tarnishment of GW’s IP, and probably unfair competition under California law. This is a serious matter inflicting grievous harm upon GW. You’ll be hearing from their lawyers.

Which would be funny, because from the looks of it these kits seem to be made with interchangabiliy in mind.

[HeadlessCross]

On 3/3/2025 at 8:16 AM, LSM said:

 

Fair enough. 

 

(I'm just being salty that the Slaves to Darkness/Pactbound Zealots detachment, which I thought fit the Black Legion really well, got hand-me-down'd to the Word Bearers in the 10th edition Codex, instead of a daemon-summoning detachment that I was hoping for.)

 

Quick note: while checking some old sources, I noticed that the Index Astartes articles (which created Dark Apostles) had this to say: "During the Horus Heresy most of the Chaplains of the Traitor Legions resisted the taint of Chaos and were murdered by their brethren. The Chaplains of the Word Bearers Legion embraced Chaos willingly though and as an act of faith ritually desecrated their once sacred weapons."

 

(As explanation for why Dark Apostles - via the Accursed Crozius daemon weapon - were Word Bearer only.) 

 

Now obviously that's changed, and in 6th Dark Apostles became a common unit, available to all. But if the idea of Cult Legion codexes is to push them back into their 2nd and 3rd edition shape, it's not too surprising that other 2nd and 3rd edition concepts (and restrictions) start cropping up.

Does that assumption work that none of the Cult Legions have a Dark Apostle equivalent though? Leave the fact out that they're just called the Dark Apostle for a second, because people are hellbent on "ONLY WORD BEARERS HAVE A UNIT WITH THIS SPECIFIC NAME" (good job GW getting people to agree to bespoke rules all the time). Does it make sense that World Eaters would have a Possessed equivalent (with 8 deamons because) without the knowledge of a Dark Apostle for summoning, especially when there's no Sorcerers?

[Crimson Longinus]

20 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

The baseline EC seem to be the same height as other CSM (as in just a bit shorter than Intercessors)

 

 

Nope.

 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Does that assumption work that none of the Cult Legions have a Dark Apostle equivalent though? Leave the fact out that they're just called the Dark Apostle for a second, because people are hellbent on "ONLY WORD BEARERS HAVE A UNIT WITH THIS SPECIFIC NAME" (good job GW getting people to agree to bespoke rules all the time). Does it make sense that World Eaters would have a Possessed equivalent (with 8 deamons because) without the knowledge of a Dark Apostle for summoning, especially when there's no Sorcerers?

Absolutely, yes.

First of all, Eightbound are specifically stated as being a creation of the butcher surgeons, who presumably also dabble in demonic lore and summoning. We of course also lack model support for butcher surgeons, but that’s a separate issue.

 

Second, Khorne does not have “priests” as such. Khorne sermon is the scream of the chainaxe. His temple is the battlefield. His creed is killing. That’s it. He does not patronize reading books and reciting prayers, his truest apostles are the berzerkers themselves. 

[Nephaston]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

Second, Khorne does not have “priests” as such. Khorne sermon is the scream of the chainaxe. His temple is the battlefield. His creed is killing. That’s it. He does not patronize reading books and reciting prayers, his truest apostles are the berzerkers themselves. 

While not every Legion getting every specialist is fluffy (especially no sorcerers in WE) filling a role like the guy yelling to kill better is just a matter of creativity. DG for instance also have no Apostles, but the Tallymen kind of fill a similar role of the chanting guy with a book, just this one is counting, because counting stuff is something Nurgle and his daemons apparently like.

 

A WE apostle equivalent could be some form of witch hunting character dragging brazen collared psykers with a chain behind him to stoke his brothers nails. Or maybe mount the psykers heads on a stick after getting the butcher surgeons to pipe them up to keep them alive. Or maybe something unorthodox like a lone operative that crushes skulls instead of collecting them drawing Khornes ire, giving units in line of sight movement bonuses if they move towards him (maybe even getting to hit him on misses when both are in engagement with the same unit.

[LSM]

If I were doing it: besides the Butcher Surgeons, I'd give the World Eaters some kind of "daemon smith" character that's like a cross between a (non-psyker) Master of Possession and a Warpsmith. Someone who hammers machines, and hammers daemon into machines. (And marines). 

 

The Dark Apostle I consider to be more of a preacher/converter. The Chaos Cult detachment (as well as their ability to lead Damned units) sort of leans into this - if the cultist/traitor parts of Codex: CSM ever branched off into a Codex: The Lost & The Damned, I'd almost expect Dark Apostles to go with them.

 

And certainly one could conceive of the Cult Legions having similar characters... but that's ultimately the rub. Do you do super broad books that let people find their own narratives, or do you try to curate things a bit more.

 

My roots are in the 90's and early 2000's, returning to the game during Covid-19. So I'm good with restrictions (even if I think the EC codex has gone too far). I don't begrudge people (especially those who are more familiar with the late 2000s/2010s "Cult Legions = Marked CSM units"), but I also don't find it weird to limit what a Cult Legion can take.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Nephaston said:

While not every Legion getting every specialist is fluffy (especially no sorcerers in WE) filling a role like the guy yelling to kill better is just a matter of creativity. DG for instance also have no Apostles, but the Tallymen kind of fill a similar role of the chanting guy with a book, just this one is counting, because counting stuff is something Nurgle and his daemons apparently like.

 

A WE apostle equivalent could be some form of witch hunting character dragging brazen collared psykers with a chain behind him to stoke his brothers nails. Or maybe mount the psykers heads on a stick after getting the butcher surgeons to pipe them up to keep them alive. Or maybe something unorthodox like a lone operative that crushes skulls instead of collecting them drawing Khornes ire, giving units in line of sight movement bonuses if they move towards him (maybe even getting to hit him on misses when both are in engagement with the same unit.

 

That's fair enough. I suppose the primary argument is just how much abstraction is too much? In my opinion, units should be readily recognizable despite conversions, and the Dark Apostle is a guy with a book and a crozius. A Chaos chaplain. If you convert up a World Eater with a big axe dragging psykers on chains, it might be a really cool conversion, and it would "work" within general Khorne lore, but it would not be recognizable as a Dark Apostle.  The idea of a Khorne worshipper that drags around slave psykers to cause chaos is sufficiently different that it should really exist as its own unit. Otherwise, a conversion of this kind could just as easily work as a Master of Executions, or Khârn, or whatever else you want. It's not really a DA conversion, it's just a Khorne conversion that you are using as a DA by reasoning that his chained psykers have similar effects to a DA's prayers.

 

This reminds me of how back in 5th a lot of WE players used Space Wolves rules because the CSM book was trash, and SW had wolf riders (jugger riders) and lots of fun melee options that Chaos, and therefore WE lacked. I get the appeal, and you can explain how it all fits together, and how the rules for Frost Blades really represent Axes of Khorne, etc., but it devolves a bit too much into homebrew, and can be really confusing for the opponent.

[Nephaston]

14 minutes ago, LSM said:

The Dark Apostle I consider to be more of a preacher/converter. The Chaos Cult detachment (as well as their ability to lead Damned units) sort of leans into this - if the cultist/traitor parts of Codex: CSM ever branched off into a Codex: The Lost & The Damned, I'd almost expect Dark Apostles to go with them.

Good point. For the Cult Legions that could also translate since they have their own brand of cultists (sans EC lmao). Having a dedicated chaff wrangler in Power Armour would work imo well, If only by upping the amount of power armour per unit by 10%.

 

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

That's fair enough. I suppose the primary argument is just how much abstraction is too much? In my opinion, units should be readily recognizable despite conversions, and the Dark Apostle is a guy with a book and a crozius. A Chaos chaplain. If you convert up a World Eater with a big axe dragging psykers on chains, it might be a really cool conversion, and it would "work" within general Khorne lore, but it would not be recognizable as a Dark Apostle.  The idea of a Khorne worshipper that drags around slave psykers to cause chaos is sufficiently different that it should really exist as its own unit. Otherwise, a conversion of this kind could just as easily work as a Master of Executions, or Khârn, or whatever else you want. It's not really a DA conversion, it's just a Khorne conversion that you are using as a DA by reasoning that his chained psykers have similar effects to a DA's prayers.

 

This reminds me of how back in 5th a lot of WE players used Space Wolves rules because the CSM book was trash, and SW had wolf riders (jugger riders) and lots of fun melee options that Chaos, and therefore WE lacked. I get the appeal, and you can explain how it all fits together, and how the rules for Frost Blades really represent Axes of Khorne, etc., but it devolves a bit too much into homebrew, and can be really confusing for the opponent.

Oh, I didn't mean creativity on the hobbyists end, though more is always better in that regard. I meant creativity on geedubs behalf, which is why I used Tallymen as an example of DG "Apostles". As long as they give me fun units I'm fine, Hell, I'd even accept a WE "psyker" if it was something like a captured Librarian/Sorcerer is brazen shackles and brain shaved enough to simply walk into enemy lines starting to cast and swiftly blowing up.

Edited 9 hours ago by Nephaston

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Absolutely, yes.

First of all, Eightbound are specifically stated as being a creation of the butcher surgeons, who presumably also dabble in demonic lore and summoning. We of course also lack model support for butcher surgeons, but that’s a separate issue.

 

Second, Khorne does not have “priests” as such. Khorne sermon is the scream of the chainaxe. His temple is the battlefield. His creed is killing. That’s it. He does not patronize reading books and reciting prayers, his truest apostles are the berzerkers themselves. 

Khorne doesn't have priests? Well that's objectively incorrect. As well, Butcher Suegeons implies there are "sane" World Eaters that don't just hit things with a melee weapon all the time. Khorne was not just "all melee all the time" until GW flanderized it. Add on top that World Eaters have no reason to be as organized as they are, and there's absolutely no defense for them to have lost as many units as they did. 

[Evil Eye]

To be honest I'd be less mad about losing access to more niche units like the Dark Apostle (which wouldn't really fit with a World Eaters or Emperor's Children army anyway; a non-EC/WE Slaanesh or Khorne CSM army maybe, and for certain there's a whole discussion to be had about the difference between an actual Emperor's Children force and a Slaanesh CSM force) and more mad about stuff like Predators and Dreadnoughts getting the cut. But hey, we got the Heldrake...

 

I feel conflicted. On the one hand I'm only still paying attention to GW's 40K output for models to work with older rulesets (or homebrew) so I'm mostly unaffected as someone just interested in cool minis. But I won't lie, I do feel bad for anyone still trying to enjoy the modern game, seeing GW continuously surpassing expectations for bad games design.

[Rain]

34 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Khorne doesn't have priests? Well that's objectively incorrect. As well, Butcher Suegeons implies there are "sane" World Eaters that don't just hit things with a melee weapon all the time. Khorne was not just "all melee all the time" until GW flanderized it. Add on top that World Eaters have no reason to be as organized as they are, and there's absolutely no defense for them to have lost as many units as they did. 

 

You might be confusing Khorne in WFB and/or AoS, and Khorne in 40k. Khorne in 40k has always been "all melee all the time" since at least 2nd edition, which is when anything resembling modern lore was first crystalized. Now, I agree that interesting "on theme" units such as flamer/chaincannon WE's might be a neat idea for an addition, but WE are one of the worst fits for an apostle unit. WE do not waste time preaching or verbally converting people. They will either behead you, or, if you seem promising, capture you and hammer the Butcher's Nails into your skull, which makes for shake n bake Khorne Berzerkers. There is no preaching involved. Likewise, Khorne Berzerkers themselves are not going to be listening to chanting while the Nails are going off in their skulls in combat.

 

Finally, yes, not all WE are constantly blood crazy and hitting things, but that does not imply that World Eaters have Dark Apostles, that's specious logic. Just because some of set A (WE) are contained in set B ("sane" Chaos Marines), and some of set C (Apostles) are also in set B, does not imply that any of set C are in set A. 

 

20 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

To be honest I'd be less mad about losing access to more niche units like the Dark Apostle (which wouldn't really fit with a World Eaters or Emperor's Children army anyway; a non-EC/WE Slaanesh or Khorne CSM army maybe, and for certain there's a whole discussion to be had about the difference between an actual Emperor's Children force and a Slaanesh CSM force) and more mad about stuff like Predators and Dreadnoughts getting the cut. But hey, we got the Heldrake...

 

Agreed as to what should be common units such as Predators, Dreadnaughts, Terminator Lords, and some others. I can only guess that these removals are for gameplay army identity reasons, but I agree that they make little sense lorewise. Also, yes, there is a significant difference lorewise between a Khorne or Slaanesh aligned warband of a traitor chapter or splinter of an undivided Legion (such as the Sanctified, which is a Khornate Word Bearers splinter), and a warband of World Eaters or Emperor's Children, and I am very happy that this distinction finally has gameplay relevance. 

 

 

[01RTB01]

Just another perspective I guess. I think I partially understand the gutting of options - ultimately if they give each god legion largely the same choices there isn't enough differentiation. Although it sucks to lose things like Preds, etc, I do wonder where they'd draw the line otherwise. 

 

Not saying it's right but I do partially understand it.

[Mogger351]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Khorne doesn't have priests? Well that's objectively incorrect. As well, Butcher Suegeons implies there are "sane" World Eaters that don't just hit things with a melee weapon all the time. Khorne was not just "all melee all the time" until GW flanderized it. Add on top that World Eaters have no reason to be as organized as they are, and there's absolutely no defense for them to have lost as many units as they did. 

Again this is largely explained in recent novels. They recruit other marines who are a bit unhinged but ultimately atill marines. Their specialist types such as warpamiths/equivalent and so on comes from this pool. Not all of these have the butchers nails, they often seek access to a butcher surgeon to get given the nails.

 

Kossolax is one of the less nutty world eaters who cans still employ tactical thought and planning, often in conflict with the nature of the legion. This combined with the nature to club together into warbands, gives them the structure.

 

As for defending anything, I think that's a large part a you problem. It's a very adversarial and provocative word. Either people are OK with it, or they're not. They can reason through it, or they can't and that doesn't necessarily mean they like it.

 

Nobody wants or needs to "defend" anything, it simply is and impacts people differently. But the choice of tone makes it sound like you're looking for a fight over it.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Again this is largely explained in recent novels. They recruit other marines who are a bit unhinged but ultimately atill marines. Their specialist types such as warpamiths/equivalent and so on comes from this pool. Not all of these have the butchers nails, they often seek access to a butcher surgeon to get given the nails.

 

Kossolax is one of the less nutty world eaters who cans still employ tactical thought and planning, often in conflict with the nature of the legion. This combined with the nature to club together into warbands, gives them the structure.

 

As for defending anything, I think that's a large part a you problem. It's a very adversarial and provocative word. Either people are OK with it, or they're not. They can reason through it, or they can't and that doesn't necessarily mean they like it.

 

Nobody wants or needs to "defend" anything, it simply is and impacts people differently. But the choice of tone makes it sound like you're looking for a fight over it.

People lost the ability to use models in their collection. That's not up for debate, because that's what happened. It shouldn't be excused, but that's what's happening because new "Legionnaires But Not".

[01RTB01]

23 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

People lost the ability to use models in their collection. That's not up for debate, because that's what happened. It shouldn't be excused, but that's what's happening because new "Legionnaires But Not".

This has happened in every edition. Is it fun? No.

 

Is banging on about it every page on here going to change anything? No. You've made your points, please stop repetition of them as going on about it here changes nothing.

 

Between the 4 god codexes and the regular csm codex there's plenty choice.

 

However, there was no way they'd let all the god legions have access to everything otherwise they become CSM+.

 

I don't like it but it is what it is. Email GW based on how you feel as grumbling here achieves nothing.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

As one of the effected players, having an EC army I've been fielding since 8th edition, I'm not actually convinced that players have lost to ability to play any models in their collection.  Yes, they may not be able to play their existing models under a ruleset called "Emperor's Children", but nothing prevents them from fielding them under the exact same rules that they are using for them now - the current CSM codex.

 

I can understand how that is not ideal, and may be upsetting for many.  Myself, I am resigned (and saddened) to now carrying on my current "Emperor's Children" army as a Slanneshi flavoured Chaos Space Marine army, and not being able to field most of my existing models under the new EC Codex.  That said, all of my models remain legal under the ruleset I am currently playing them - in that regard, the 10th edition CSM codex invalidating autogun cultists (which continues to annoy me) had a bigger effect on my army's playability than the EC codex does.

 

So yes, I can understand being annoyed and dismayed by the units left out of the EC codex - I am one of the people that feel that way.  But to say my current models are not playable due to the EC codex is grossly inaccurate - they are just as playable post EC codex as they were prior to it.  I just can't call them "Emperor's Children" in terms of rules, though there is nothing preventing me from referring to them as such in terms of background, history or organization.  Sure, that disconnect may annoy some players, but that's not the same as being unplayable.

Edited 1 hour ago by Dr_Ruminahui