New Rumours about Chaos Legions

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.

**DrK36**

Noisy_Marine wrote:Meh.

If there really is a Chaos Legions book I reserve judgement until I see it. GW has a lot to make up for.

Seconded

**iproxtaco**

filbert wrote:
Flashman wrote:
filbert wrote:
Arschbombe wrote:
Sigh. I'm not here to debate you on the merits of the individual restrictions in the old chaos codex. I was trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the changes made in the current book, not defend them. Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.

That's highly ironic. H.B.M.C. did take it up with Gav Thorpe on the blog.

Yes, I believe ice cream was involved

That's the one - I couldn't be bothered scrolling through Gav's blog to find the exact quotes; there's 300+ odd comments, but I remember reading it at the time. Not only that, if you can wrangle the Dakka search engine you may well find the Dakka thread referencing it.

Found it. Yes, indeed, Ice Cream is a prime feature of the criticism, I wholeheartedly agree with it all. It's about a third of the way down, it's very long, should be fairly obvious. There's obviously a thread already on Dakka, so I wont copy and past any of it.

**gorgon**

Personally, I think by trying to cover all the Legions in one book, it'd run the risk of looking unfocused and similar to the current CSM book, albeit with more options and detail. So then what's the point of keeping Renegades?

Assuming this rumor has some truth to it (including the part about a WD update to the current CSM book), I'll put my bet on a Legions book covering the Black Legion and big four (and any other CSM group devoted to a particular god), with the CSM/Renegade book covering the rest. Just seems like the path of least resistance to me.

The CSM update would lose Kharne, Abaddon, Ahriman, etc. but gain SCs for the AL, WB, NL and IW. Org chart manipulation gets you most of the way there with NL and IW, while adding a Traitor unit to the list helps get you there with AL and WB. Then figure some points rebalancing, rules changes and new options here and there.

I know not everyone would be happy with that approach, but I think it might be more workable than a 9-Legion Legions book. Then again, if Phil K. is on the job, all bets are off...

**iproxtaco**

If you can cover four Legions and the most generic one, the one that's already covered in the current codex, the rest is simply extra pages needed.

**gorgon**

I hear what you're saying, but then we're back to there being no point to updating the existing CSM book. I know people are speculating about the book becoming LatD, but to me that's less of an update and more of a wholesale change in focus. Again, assuming the rumor has truth as written.

I suppose the big question is where the Black Legion fits. Do they fit in more with the cult Legions or with the rest? While not mono-god, my initial reaction is that they're more exalted/blessed/etc. than the non-cult Legions. I mean, you can argue whether AL are even Chaos worshippers.

*shrug* I dunno. I guess I just think it's tricky to cover everything in a satisfying way in one book, and that there has to be a reason why Renegades will stick around.

**JoeyHeadwounds**

Seems to me that Chaos Legions would be focused on the nine Traitor Legions, while Chaos Renegades would be more suited to the home-brew traitors, with focus on the Red Corsairs (as an example) and other ex Imperials.

As it stands now, the current Chaos Codex is a good starting point for either new book, even if it is dull and almost lifeless in regards to Chaos Legion fluff and options.

If they were to build on it character wise, expand on some of the example armies, and fix some of the rules, it could approach a good Renegades book.

If they inject it with the best parts of the 3.5 Codex and improve upon it, you get a great Chaos Legions book.

Will they do either of these? We'll just have to see when it happens...

**H.B.M.C.**

Arschbombe wrote:Just in case you think I am making this up here's a link to Gav Thorpe's comments on the codex. Take it up with him.

As others have pointed out, I did take it up with him. Here is what I wrote (just to save you time):

me wrote:Hmm… where to start. Ok, simple disclaimer.

Gav, I own the following Chaos armies:
Word Bearers (loads of Marines & Daemons – my first Chaos army, started in 2nd Ed)
Alpha Legion (loads of Marines & Cultists)
World Eaters (follows the fluff to the letter with Sacred Number units and so on)
Death Guard (7 units of 7 troops, all modelled very nicely, using a mix of 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed and even Forge World models – I like my Death Guard army)
Iron Warriors (filled with Havocs and siege weapons and bands of fire-support warriors)
Lost & The Damned (a mass of Mutants and Traitors backed up by Night Lord infantry, tanks and Defilers – I /really/ like my LatD army)

Now, looking at what armies I play you can probably guess that I am one of those people who have a few issues with the current ‘Chaos’ Codex. And by a ‘few issues’ I mean ‘despise with a unyielding fury’. However, rather than spewing bile and personal attacks at you, I feel this discussion would be better served with an open look at exactly where my dislike of your Codex comes from (and I say ‘your’ because you are credited as the writer – I am well aware that there is much more that goes into a Codex than just what you write personally).

But before we do this, as in any great debate or discussion, I need to directly address a couple of areas in your words above where I disagree.

Daemons:

Specifically these words of yours – “They were only folded into the Chaos Space Marines in the previous version of the Codex.”

I’m sorry to say this Gav, but there are only three possible explanations for why you’d say what you said here:

A). You’re being forgetful.
B). You have a selective memory.
C). You’re lying.

Why? Well, your comment simply isn’t true.

What Chaos Codices/Army Books have included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Realms of Chaos – Slaves to Darkness
2. Realms of Chaos – The Lost & The Damned
3. Codex Army Lists – 2nd Ed (can’t find my copy, but as the specific Daemon profiles are in Codex Imperialis, I have to assume that they were included in the place-holder Codex that came with 2nd Ed)
4. Codex Chaos – 2nd Ed
5. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Jervis’ one)
6. Codex Chaos – 3rd Ed (Pete Haines’ one)

What Chaos Codices/Army Books have NOT included named God-specific Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine Army list?:
1. Your Codex.

So really, the inclusion of Daemons as part of the Chaos Marine list isn’t recent, or just something that happened in the last Codex (Pete Haines’ Codex). It’s all of them – except yours. Even in Jervis’ original very thin and very uninspired 3rd Ed Codex (a Codex that has bears several striking similarities to yours), where the Daemons were a single entry, there were rules that allowed you to modify their statline to show the different types of Daemons.

Now, yes, the 2nd Ed Codex – a glorious style of book that we can only wish GW would go back to – did have a Daemon World list in it, but it wasn’t the only list to have Daemons, it was simply the list you used to represent Daemons World Armies. The Codex also had a Chaos Cult army list. Can you imagine if, say, 4th Ed Tyranids had rolled around and Genestealers had been removed from the book, only to emerge in a Genestealer Cult Codex 8 months later, and the reason by the writer given was ‘Oh, they had their own list in another addition, so including Genestealers with the main ‘Nid list is more of a recent thing’? Tyranid players would have gone crazy. The same thing applies to Daemons.

To put it another way – you took something away from Chaos that they had always had. Think about that.

Restrictions vs Flexibility:

As someone who has been quite vocal about my distaste for the ‘Chaos’ Codex, I have often come across the argument that the previous Codex was too restrictive and that this new Codex removed those restrictions therefore giving us more flexibility. This line of thinking is /technically/ true, but is actually quite disingenuous.

How can I best explain this? I know: With ice cream!

Say rather being a book with different Legions, it’s actually an ice-cream store with many different flavours. Say the flavours are:

1. Chocolate ice cream.
2. Strawberry ice cream.
3. Honeycomb ice cream.
4. Rocky Road ice cream.

Mmm… sounds good, don’t it? And so much choice! But say that you could only have one flavour at a time. Aww! No fair. That’s so restrictive. But, at the very least, I can have all the different types, just not all at the same time.

Now let’s say your Codex is also an ice cream store. The flavours you have are:

1. Vanilla.

But there’s no limit on how much vanilla I can have. I can have a little bit of vanilla, I can have a lot, I can have two scoops in two different bowls, three in eight bowls – any combination of vanilla that I want.

But it’s still only vanilla.

If I want Chocolate I can’t, and while I might have been restricted to only having one flavour at a time, at least I had the choice. Now I only have one choice. And having only one choice is the same as having /no/ choice. To extend the metaphor, all the Legions are now are different coloured tubs for vanilla ice cream.

The idea that the old Chaos Codex was ‘restrictive’ and that the new one ‘frees up’ players and gets them away from proscribed gaming simply doesn’t hold water. I have always been of the opinion that fluff and rules should be congruous, and for the most part, Haines’ Codex got that right. It wasn’t balanced – not by any means, but what GW Codex is? – but the rules stuck to the fluff quite well, and so an army that followed the fluff made good use of the apparently ‘restrictive’ rules. Essentially I think you’re looking at it backwards. You’re trying to say that the old Codex forced you down a certain path – you play World Eaters hey, then you /must/ play this way and this way only!!!!! – but that wasn’t the case. It was often a case of I want to play World Eaters, what is their fluff, oh, they have that sort of formation do they, what do the rules say, oh, the rules are set up in such a way as to let you play as the fluff describes.

And then, at its core, the previous Chaos Codex had the standard list which had no restrictions on units other than the rivalries between the Chaos Gods. You could have an army that had Plague Marines, and Thousand Sons in it, or Noise Marines and Berzerkers just by playing the standard list. At no point where you ‘forced’ or ‘restricted’ to play a specific Legion – the Black Legion covered everything!!!

Your Codex doesn’t free anyone up or somehow release them from proscriptive or restrictive gaming. Why? Because it removed all the options. It’d be like being a star athlete who’s been confined in a small room and is finally let out, only to have his arms and legs cut off. In other words, what good is a lack of restrictions if there’s no choice to be had – you can have any flavour you like as long as it’s vanilla?

So with that out of the way, I want to look at a few specific items within the Codex (and I’ll leave Daemons alone as they’ve been covered already).

I’ve written ‘Chaos’ Codex a few times, rather than Chaos Codex, and the bunny-ears are intentional. The reason for that, as mentioned when I talked about Daemons, you have taken away things that Chaos has never or should never have lost.

Daemonic Gifts are a good example.

I know what you’re probably thinking – “Half the Daemonic Gifts weren’t even being used!” or perhaps “The system of limitations on gifts was too complex”.

But you took Daemonic Gifts away from Chaos. You made them into Loyalist Marines with a Wargear List and nothing to make them Chaos besides a generic Daemon weapon and Marks. This isn’t a case of “there’s no rules for that axe” it’s a case of “there’s no way to represent the corruption inherent in worshiping Chaos… I just have all the same options a Loyalist Marine Captain has – what about this makes me a Chaos Commander?”.

Daemonic Gifts, and the mutations/boons/curses given by the Chaos Gods has been part of Chaos since their inception – you know this, I don’t need to tell you. Realms of Chaos had D1000 – Dee-One-Thousand FFS – tables for mutations. Now I’m certainly not saying that we need or even should go back to such a level of granularity but consider Gav – you took one of the very things that makes Chaos /Chaos/ away! They’re not there any more. They’re gone. Hence ‘Chaos’.

Your argue that you should need rules for various mutations etc.. I argue that mutations etc. are part of the fluff, and the rules should follow the fluff, therefore there should be rules for mutations etc.

Marks vs Icons

Why do squads of Marines forget whom they worship when the guy with the Icon dies? Why are there no Cult Terminators/Havocs/Bikers/Chosen? Why, if your aim was to remove restrictions, did you remove the options that had been previously restricted? Why does a Deathguard army now consist of some actual Plague Marines, and some Marines who may or may not forget what God they’re dedicated to?

What was so bad about the Marks system? And is it too cynical to say that the reason it was changed to Icons was because the new Chaos Marine kit included a nice new plastic Icon and GW wanted people to buy said kit for said Icon ie. the models drove the rules in this instance?

Possessed

I very keenly remember Pete Haines’ designer notes in White Dwarf describing that the change to Possessed came about as people didn’t like the random nature. I thought it was a great idea – made Possessed instantly viable. Then we get the new one and they’re back to random again. Why?

And, while we’re on the subject of Possessed please, Gav, tell us all – why do you roll /after/ deployment? Did you not ever stop and think that maybe rolling before deployment might be the better option, y’know, let plays have an inkling of what their Possessed are going to be able to do before they set them down on the table? Yes, no, maybe?

Daemon Princes

Now I saw your comment above that maybe you went too far, but why are the glorious veterans of thousands of battles, the champions of the Gods who have ascended to Daemonhood through their vile acts of slaughter limited to… wings or not wings. They can’t even get Daemon Weapons for crying out loud! It goes back to my ‘taking the Chaos out of Chaos’ thing, and why it’s a ‘Chaos’ Codex.

I think a lot of people celebrated what could be done with Daemon Princes in Haines’ Codex, as it was such a big relief from the mono-dimensional boring choices from Jervis’ original 3rd Ed Codex. Then we get yours and it’s very similar to Jervis’ original entry. Was that by accident?

Defilers

WS3? They’re as skilled as Guardsmen in HTH are they? I’ve never understood this. Please explain it so I know.

Lash of Torment

I think you’ve probably heard enough on this subject, but really, how was the power of this… power… not caught in play testing?

I realise now that I’m nitpicking, but those last two were something I had to ask. Getting back to my main point:

The legacy of the current Chaos Codex is that it took the Chaos out of Chaos Space Marines. ‘Loyalists w/Spikes’ or ‘When Good Marines Go Bad’ is about the best way to describe the current Codex. You can better represent the various Legions using the current Loyalist Marine Codex than you can the ‘Chaos’ one, and that to me is a huge problem.

Daemons are gone. You have to play a different army to have them now. Having a group that allows the mixing of Codices isn’t a way to explain away this problem either – not all groups are flexible, some groups are very large and need the structure of proscribed rulebooks to avoid arguments, and tournaments and leagues certainly can’t have custom armies.

Daemonic Gifts and all those very Chaos-y upgrades and choices are gone.

Legions are gone, reduced to paint schemes and fluff.

/Chaos/ is gone.

Being restricted to one of four options is better than having unlimited choice with one option.

Gav's response was... less than coherent. He completely missed the meaning of the ice cream metaphor and blathered on for quite some time in a way that no way explained how this new Codex was 'less restrictive'.

**Noisy_Marine**

Hm, I was looking for Gav's response, but couldn't find it. Oh well, sounds like it's not worth finding.

Anyway, I *hope* that a legion book would cover all the legions. Since that is the point of a book about legions, right? Alpha Legion aren't just sneaky chaos marines. They the fething Alpha legion. One of the original nine. They may or may not worship Chaos, I don't really care.

As for the current CSM book becoming a renegade book ... I think they should just scrap the damn thing. If you want to play renegades, use the space marine codex. Model your tactical squads with chaos symbols and deface their armor. Renegades don't have cult troops, defilers, or obliterators. They have imperial stuff with chaos symbols on it.

**H.B.M.C.**

One thing I will concede from my original review is that the Generic Daemons thing wasn't Gav's fault. That's one of those 'on high' decisions, made by people who want to sell more models via a new army rather than make a good set of rules, and therefore totally not Gav's fault.

**Noisy_Marine**

H.B.M.C. wrote:One thing I will concede from my original review is that the Generic Daemons thing wasn't Gav's fault. That's one of those 'on high' decisions, made by people who want to sell more models via a new army rather than make a good set of rules, and therefore totally not Gav's fault.

But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?

**AvatarForm**

H.B.M.C. wrote:Uhh... can we please not tie everything to HQ characters.

With the release of Draigo, I had assumed next edition would return to HeroHammer...

Noisy_Marine wrote:But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?

Which is why we have 1000 chapters of space marines... and 20 pre-Heresy foundings...

Please refer ro HBMC's sig for Jervis' theory...

**H.B.M.C.**

Noisy_Marine wrote:But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?

You're not thinking short term enough!

Option 1: Bloodletters in both armies.
People who own Chaos armies now have Daemon armies and don't need to buy any more! They also might be happy with what they have, but could replace some older models or branch out later. Either way, there's certainly no rush.

Option 2: Bloodletters only in one army.
People who own Chaos now have two armies, and their Daemonic contingent - always a small-yet-vital part of a Chaos force - isn't anywhere near being a fully fledged army yet, so they need more bits to finish them off, so they go and buy stuff.

Option 1 gives you long term growth (over time people will collect both armies as players of one or the other will decide to branch out, and the model ranges are available to both armies, giving better sales across two lines over a longer period of time). Option2 gives you immediate sales, as people rush out to make their small Daemonic contingents into full armies so they'll actually have a use for them.

GW neither understands nor desires long-term growth. They're all about the instant gratification.

**Achaylus72**

H.M.B.C

Hits the nail on the head.

GW is not interested in long term player retention. It is not in their overall business plan and it is reflected in their market stategy.

They (GW) have always been focussed on getting kids into the hobby and wring as much out of the parents as possible until the parents say enough is enough.

Not only that but GW is Space Marinecentric. Space Marines is the Flagship Range, they (GW) must make sure that all other Armies in relative terms can't be as powerful as Space Marines.

GW support for other armies have been traditionally poor, i mean Tau, Necrons have not had an update for over 5 years, Chaos has not had one additional IC or unit since September 2007.

Eldar has been ignored.

I have heard many rumours that are these and the month released

Imperial/Chaos Warhound Titan (September)
Chaos v Dark Eldar Box Set (September)
Summer of Flyers (September)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (September) Rumour version 1
Necron Codex and complete overhaul (September)
Tau Codex and complete overhaul (November)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (January) Rumour version 2
Space Hulk IV (September)
Bloodbowl (September)
Necromunda (October)
Chaos Legions Codex (September)

These are only the tip of the Iceberg. No one exept the top guys at GW knows what is scheduled to be released, the rest of us know jack crap.

**JoeyHeadwounds**

Achaylus72 wrote:H.M.B.C

Hits the nail on the head.

GW is not interested in long term player retention. It is not in their overall business plan and it is reflected in their market stategy.

They (GW) have always been focussed on getting kids into the hobby and wring as much out of the parents as possible until the parents say enough is enough.

Not only that but GW is Space Marinecentric. Space Marines is the Flagship Range, they (GW) must make sure that all other Armies in relative terms can't be as powerful as Space Marines.

GW support for other armies have been traditionally poor, i mean Tau, Necrons have not had an update for over 5 years, Chaos has not had one additional IC or unit since September 2007.

Eldar has been ignored.

I have heard many rumours that are these and the month released

Imperial/Chaos Warhound Titan (September)
Chaos v Dark Eldar Box Set (September)
Summer of Flyers (September)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (September) Rumour version 1
Necron Codex and complete overhaul (September)
Tau Codex and complete overhaul (November)
Sisters of Battle (Full Codex and all Finecast and Plastic range release (January) Rumour version 2
Space Hulk IV (September)
Bloodbowl (September)
Necromunda (October)
Chaos Legions Codex (September)

These are only the tip of the Iceberg. No one exept the top guys at GW knows what is scheduled to be released, the rest of us know jack crap.

That's a wholelottarumors for September there. Eight out of eleven, or seven out of eleven if you double up the Sisters rumors. As with all things GW though, it's all wait and see...

**aka_mythos**

Basically I think its a matter of people having a vague idea of what being works on but not enough info to know when anythings really happening and with a September shaped hole in the schedule people are perhaps inserting their rumor into that time frame.

gorgon wrote:Personally, I think by trying to cover all the Legions in one book, it'd run the risk of looking unfocused and similar to the current CSM book, albeit with more options and detail. So then what's the point of keeping Renegades?

This is why I think for it to really work, it can't be just in the context of solely the Legion codex, but that the Renegade codex would eventually need to be update and brought in line thematically. Minor changes like changing special characters might be enough, or something more comprehensive for the Renegades like incorporating more or making some units more like the Loyalist counterparts.

gorgon wrote:
The CSM update would lose Kharne, Abaddon, Ahriman, etc. but gain SCs for the AL, WB, NL and IW. Org chart manipulation gets you most of the way there with NL and IW, while adding a Traitor unit to the list helps get you there with AL and WB. Then figure some points rebalancing, rules changes and new options here and there.

I think it easy to take for granted that not all of those special character who exemplify a particular legion are necessarily still part of their legion... and depending on where the game designers decide to draw the conceptual lines that could make the difference. In general I do agree with you and I particularly like the idea of pulling those characters from the Renegade list because the Renegade concept is a good concept that was poorly executed because that codex tried to do too many things without really trying to do any of them well. A comprehensive overhaul of Chaos with a distinct Renegade and a distinct legion book... I think its a good thing, by removing the legions a renegade chaos book could focus in on a couple of specific renegade factions like the Red Corsairs, such as the Relictors... and also allow room for a special Character like Cypher to make a reappearance.

**AvatarForm**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Noisy_Marine wrote:But if you have bloodletters in 2 armies, will you not sell twice as many bloodletters?

You're not thinking short term enough!

Option 1: Bloodletters in both armies.
People who own Chaos armies now have Daemon armies and don't need to buy any more! They also might be happy with what they have, but could replace some older models or branch out later. Either way, there's certainly no rush.

Option 2: Bloodletters only in one army.
People who own Chaos now have two armies, and their Daemonic contingent - always a small-yet-vital part of a Chaos force - isn't anywhere near being a fully fledged army yet, so they need more bits to finish them off, so they go and buy stuff.

Option 1 gives you long term growth (over time people will collect both armies as players of one or the other will decide to branch out, and the model ranges are available to both armies, giving better sales across two lines over a longer period of time). Option2 gives you immediate sales, as people rush out to make their small Daemonic contingents into full armies so they'll actually have a use for them.

GW neither understands nor desires long-term growth. They're all about the instant gratification.

Mate, you forgot one thing...

Short Term means that GW can make immediate changes and hope players rush to buy a new army... every Quarter!

Im not saying they will, but the market is global and a proportion of gamers will as they wish to power through the next tourney with the latest codex (most likely Marine).

**Deathly Angel**

Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...

What I would like the most however is some good, interesting, detailed models (Chaos has infinite potential for this and the current CSM range, unconverted at least, looks a bit outdated and bland IMHO) and is it too much to ask for Jes Goodwin to have some involvement??? Some people are rather pessimistic about how GW will do the rules, but given the standard of the DE releases, the WHFB Warriors of Chaos HQs and most importantly the recent Storm of Magic sorcerors (most relevant the Undivided and Tzeentch sorcerors and the manticore mount) I think that we have something great to look forward to in the painting/modelling department.

**Alpharius**

Deathly Angel wrote:Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...

As much as I REALLY want this to be true, have we really seen any 'evidence' that GW is in fact working on a Legions Codex?

**Deathly Angel**

Alpharius wrote:
Deathly Angel wrote:Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...

As much as I REALLY want this to be true, have we really seen any 'evidence' that GW is in fact working on a Legions Codex?

Oops sorry, wrong word, I meant rumours

**OverwatchCNC**

Alpharius wrote:
Deathly Angel wrote:Great to see some evidence at least that GW is working on CSM, though I don't really believe that they will separate Legions and Renegades IMHO; it's very possible that they can fit the rules for both in one book and still have good rules for each legion. Like other people on this thread I'd like to see some cultists, at least marked daemons, legion specific rules and HQ's (Dark Apostles?) and and more vehicles, ie. daemon engines...

As much as I REALLY want this to be true, have we really seen any 'evidence' that GW is in fact working on a Legions Codex?

Stomping on our collective hopes and dreams!!!

OT: Daemon Engines would be an amazing addition to the CSM dex. I also hope Codex Daemons gets a new book in late 2012 early 2013 after 6th ed hits, having 3 playable chaos codices in a new edition would be really nice. Has GW ever done a major WD overhaul of a codex and then changed the printed codex to match in later runs of the book? That would be nice rather than having to carry around a magazine or PDF print out.

**Alpharius**

Deathly Angel wrote:
Oops sorry, wrong word, I meant rumours

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Stomping on our collective hopes and dreams!!!

I didn't mean it like that guys!

I want it to be true too, as I believe that when GW does release Codex: Traitor Legions it will be fantastic!

Just not sure when that will be...

**JoeyHeadwounds**

This thread needs a serious injection of leaked information...

**Kirasu**

The new chaos space marine book will have 25% more spiky bits

**chaos0xomega**

Noisy_Marine wrote:

As for the current CSM book becoming a renegade book ... I think they should just scrap the damn thing. If you want to play renegades, use the space marine codex. Model your tactical squads with chaos symbols and deface their armor. Renegades don't have cult troops, defilers, or obliterators. They have imperial stuff with chaos symbols on it.

Chaos renegades could encompass a lot more than just renegade CSM, it could also cover things such as traitor guard, dark mechanicus, etc. I.E. Lost and the Damned. It stands to reason that renegade CSM do in fact have access to gear that loyalist marines would not. For example, in the book Blood Gorgons, the renegade chapter the book is named for comes into an alliance with Plague Marines, not Marines dedicated to Nurgle, but real honest to goodness Legionary Plague Marines. Okay, the alliance was unwanted on the part of the majority of the chapter, and was only accomplished through trickery and deceit on the part of the wannabe leader of said faction, but it shows that these things happen.

IMO, the current CSM book should stay, but change the name to Chaos Renegades, add in mutants, traitor guard, and other such undesirables and turn it into an up to date version of Lost and the Damned. Add Chaos Legions in and make it a purist CSM book, with associated Legion specific units out the wazoo, and then add more variety to the Chaos Daemons book. Speaking of Daemons, i actually like the distinction was made between daemon armies and armies with daemons, but I think it went too far. The 5 or 6 different loyalist marine books all have some level of overlap, there is no reason why that same overlap cant exist for three chaos books, in the form of basic cult troops (plague marines, thousand sons, noise marines, berserkers) being present in both Chaos Legions and Chaos Renegades, and basic daemons (bloodletters, daemonettes, horrors, plaguebearers) being present in both Chaos Daemons and Chaos Renegades. With things such as Daemon Princes, engines and spawn/possessed units being everywhere.

I feel Chaos Legions should focus primarily on the marines side of the house, limiting daemons to the exalted daemon princes leading the way and the daemon engines used to support the battle. The CSM legions are veterans of 10,000 years (not absolutely true, but true enough) with a proud history and distinctive fighting style. While it stands to reason that they will utilize daemons as allies, they have a certain amount of pride in themselves as their own distinct organizations and their ability to fight without the aid of warpspawn.

**Dysartes**

Medium of Death wrote:I'd just like an increased level of customisation and restrictions on mixing marks. Khorne and Tzeentch teaming up... *vomits*

While Khorne may believe Tzeentch to be weak due to his reliance on magic, there has never been the animosity that there is between Khorne and Slaanesh.

**metalboxes**

Tastytaste has posted some interesting speculation (wink) (his words) about how legion customization may work in an article over on Blood of kittens. I've quoted the relevant section below.

Perhaps GW could take a page from RPGs or MMOs to design armies that look a lot like skill trees. Envision (wink) say the next CSM codex looking something like this…
Start with a Chaos Lord and depending on how you kit him, he unlocks certain ways you can play your army. Image an Iron Warriors Lord that gives you cheaper Predators and Vindicators or special abilities for your tanks. At the same time that Iron Warrior Lord can only get certain units because of the track he is on. More so the lieutenants (chosen) are customized to lead basic troopers in different ways as well. This is (of course) highly speculative, but it would be new and fun way for players to design armies. It would be a win-win for most players. Fluffy players could make unique armies based on a personal vision and competitive list builders would dive right in, finding the most killy combinations.

I find this a cool concept, as while customization is determined by HQ choice, in such a system you aren't stuck with running the same special character all the time, and it could allow for very fluffy and characterful customizations.

**lord_blackfang**

Yeah... no. That sounds unfeasibly complex for GW's target audience. And I'm not just talking about the 12 year olds.

**metalboxes**

Yeah... no. That sounds unfeasibly complex for GW's target audience. And I'm not just talking about the 12 year olds.

Well if the leaked 6th edition rumours are to be believed, GW seems to be adding some complexity back into 40k, which I view as a good thing.

**Brother SRM**

Kirasu wrote:The new chaos space marine book will have 25% more spiky bits

I DEMAND to see a source on this, and refuse to believe it until the codex is in my hands

**Earthbeard**

Kirasu wrote:The new chaos space marine book will have 25% more spiky bits

Only 25%? I'm out, it's 40% or nothing