Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been looking through the Slaves to Darkness rules to try and figure out how I would want to build an army, and I noticed something interesting about the marks:

Marks of Khorne seem to deal with rerolling attacks.
Marks of Tzeentch tend to focus on rerolling saves and adding/improving magic.
Marks of Nurgle almost always add durability.
Marks of Slaanesh are about adding mobility and getting into combat faster.

All of these make perfect sense, but what surprised me is that while Khorne and Slaanesh both improve combat ability, Slaanesh actually seems more helpful to a CC army. Is this right? I always associated Khorne more with combat than Slaanesh, but it kind of looks like I might want to focus on Slaanesh.

Slaanesh use to be (maybe still is hate the new models) about ignoring psychology tests. You could avoid terror and such.
Khorne was all about auto play they run to closest enemy and get extra hot.
Nurgle yup also would add -1 to shopting at them.
Tzeench give 1 more spell.

I miss the oldies.