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.

two_heads_talking wrote:according to that logic Phil Kelly never comes out and says chaos legions will not be revisited in the future.. etc etc etc.. so basically you have no better argument than anyone else ..

Wait, what??? Phil Kelly never comes out and says the Pan Fo will not be reviled. So if I then claim a Pan Fo codex is on the way then my argument is just as valid as anyone elses? Is that your position? Really??

Of course the fallacy of your counterargument is besides the point. I never claimed that the chaos legions definitely will not be getting codices. I only claimed that there is no evidence implying they definitely will be. Maybe logic's just not your game? I know! Let's have a spelling contest!

They don't know where to start?

How many years have they been at this? Writing and balancing Codices isn't easy... but not knowing where to start is absurd.

BYE

This is quite possibly the saddest part from that link:

DIVERSITY
The Codex formalises the idea that there are nine entirely different Chaos Legions, each with their own strengths and weaknesses rather than a single polyglot force.

Man... Pete Haines sure had a lot going for him.

God I miss him... and yes I can see the irony of that.

But it gets better:

Cultists work best as a separate army and there is plenty of scope for a distinct Cultist army list to be developed later.

I don't know whether to laugh or weep...

BYE

Don't worry, once GW finishes with all of the SM and CSM variants, I'm sure they'll jump on the IG variants like AdMech and LatD...

At the rate things are going, that'll be around 2013...

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Pan Fo

Sorry, but what is/are Pan Fo?

Oh no...

(Prepare to be reviled...)

The Pan Fo are the most dastardly, dangerous race ever to exist within the mysteries of the galaxy. The Pan Fo shall be reviled!

blinky wrote:

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Pan Fo

Sorry, but what is/are Pan Fo?

I can't say. I am swan to secrecy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:This is quite possibly the saddest part from that link:

DIVERSITY
The Codex formalises the idea that there are nine entirely different Chaos Legions, each with their own strengths and weaknesses rather than a single polyglot force.

But it gets better:

Cultists work best as a separate army and there is plenty of scope for a distinct Cultist army list to be developed later.

And this is exhibit A for anyone who believes that "existing codices will be supported forever."

Designers change and studio philosophies change, especially when 40K is involved. That's not meant to demean the studio. I don't like some of their recent codices, although I think 5th edition is more promising than not. Hopefully the new edition is the start of a clear direction for the game, whatever it is. It's mindboggling to consider 40K is over 20 years old, and yet the designers are still wrestling with what the game should really be about.

blinky wrote:Sorry, but what is/are Pan Fo?

With this information I will do what is necessary, and no more. I will keep it save.

gorgon wrote:It's mindboggling to consider 40K is over 20 years old, and yet the designers are still wrestling with what the game should really be about.

Over 20 years, any game is going to reshuffle. I think that change is healthy. Could you imagine playing a 1500-pt game of 40k using RT or ASL rules? Eek.

Look at how D&D (30 years old) changed for 3E (20 years old) and now 4E.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Over 20 years, any game is going to reshuffle. I think that change is healthy. Could you imagine playing a 1500-pt game of 40k using RT or ASL rules? Eek.

Of course that has nothing at all to do with what Gorgon was saying, but hey, don't let that stop you from your apologetics there John.

BYE

After spending a little bit of time with the new Chaos book, I've grown to like it more. IMO, it's a great black legion and renegade list, and the ability to create cults is actually pretty good. The loss of daemons still rankles, but that decision was financial, not creative.

I'm asking this question in all seriousness, but wouldn't it make more sense for GW to make codices for armies like Alpha Legion and Word Bearer then for the 4 dedicated legions? I can build a pretty good (certainly not great) 1k Sons army out of this book, but Alphas or Nightlords are much, much harder to distinguish.

One thing I like with the new book is that the cult marines are strongly distinguished: a Plague marine is stupid durable, a Khorne marine cuts through enemies in Hth, etc. it ties in to the GW philosophy of producing distinct units, and having old sublists simply be emphasis on those models.

The problem comes when the units aren't really that unique: look at DA. The bikes and termies are neat, but not strongly distinguished from codex marines, while BA have the DC and Jump troops to make them strongly unique.

My point is: are the traitor legions unique enough to support multiple books? I'd argue that Word Bearers are no completely dead, and could be a full codex (a true marines/daemons mix), but I'd rather see LatD before Word Bearers. To ask a belabored point: do we need more MEQ codices?

Of course, one possibilty would be to make the a series of codices that are one list, but two legions:
World Eaters and Space Wolves (codex: anger)
Night Lords and White Scars (codex: bikes)
Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors (Codex: seigecraft)

wait till they redo the 5th edtion codex chaos. then even more people will cry out for pete haines. It only gets worse.

Not for me as I like all the shiny new codexs. More stuff to read. And extra bits off fluff. thats all I care about.

Polonius wrote:After spending a little bit of time with the new Chaos book, I've grown to like it more. IMO, it's a great black legion and renegade list, and the ability to create cults is actually pretty good. The loss of daemons still rankles, but that decision was financial, not creative.

It's funny, but I've been working on a "new" CSM army ever since my SCAFH was nuked. With the new book, it really opened up and legitimized a lot of composition and modeling options for me that really didn't exist before.

I'm asking this question in all seriousness, but wouldn't it make more sense for GW to make codices for armies like Alpha Legion and Word Bearer then for the 4 dedicated legions? I can build a pretty good (certainly not great) 1k Sons army out of this book, but Alphas or Nightlords are much, much harder to distinguish.

That's a pretty good question, but I don't think that the unaligned Legions are sufficiently developed from a models / rules / theme / Fluff standpoint to create distinctively dedicated Codices with detailed Special Rules for them. The fact that you have trouble creating those lists simply reveals the lack of development for those armies.

One thing I like with the new book is that the cult marines are strongly distinguished: it ties in to the GW philosophy of producing distinct units, and having old sublists simply be emphasis on those models.

Totally agreed. The Cult Marines are well-defined. Given the choice, I would rather see 6 strongly themed Chaos books (CSM, Daemons, Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle, Tzeentch) than a bunch of weakly-themed Chaos books. These could be followed by IG-based LatD as "Chaos Traitors", although they'd probably need to have generic Daemons.

The problem comes when the units aren't really that unique: look at DA. The bikes and termies are neat, but not strongly distinguished from codex marines, while BA have the DC and Jump troops to make them strongly unique.

I think this stems from a current SM book that simply does far too much for its own good. When the new SM Book arrives, and Traits and Skills disappear into the immaterium, the DA will be perceived as more unique in being the only way to field more than 3 units of Bikes, or 3 units of Terminators.

My point is: are the traitor legions unique enough to support multiple books? I'd argue that Word Bearers are no completely dead, and could be a full codex (a true marines/daemons mix), but I'd rather see LatD before Word Bearers. To ask a belabored point: do we need more MEQ codices?

The 4 Powers are unique enough to support individual books. Black Legion, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, and Night Lords are all OK in the current CSM book. Alpha Legion is insufficiently developed to deserve a book.

Short term, yeah, we probably need the 4 semi-MEQ Codices to bring Chaos forward. But long term, GW should do "LatD" Traitors / Mutants as a standalone IG-style Codex with generic Daemons.

Of course, one possibilty would be to make the a series of codices that are one list, but two legions:
World Eaters and Space Wolves (codex: anger)
Night Lords and White Scars (codex: bikes)
Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors (Codex: seigecraft)

I can't see this happening because GW seems to have stopped the multi-army Codex format. And for good reason, as it really impedes their ability to track army sales and interest.

And even looking at your examples, it looks like you're straining to make a theme (codex bikes) - I thought Night Lords were more about Jump Troops, which would make them more like BA / RG. Bikes are more strongly associated with Ravenwing and White Scars. And HtH Anger is as much Black Templars as it is Space Woofs. So given the strongest parallels are within Loyalists, maybe this doesn't work so well except as defining "counts as" approaches for the Loyalist SM who don't / won't get Codices?

Polonius wrote:To ask a belabored point: do we need more MEQ codices?

Of course, one possibilty would be to make the a series of codices that are one list, but two legions:
World Eaters and Space Wolves (codex: anger)
Night Lords and White Scars (codex: bikes)
Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors (Codex: seigecraft)

That is probably the best solution that could keep everyone happy. However you make a valid point. If they were to release another codex, it would probably be very similar to the current list, and therefore completely pointless. Of course, the flipside of this is that they will make something which isn't even similar to the current CSM book, and anger everyone.

What they could do is release a single book called Codex:Legions or something similar, and give each legion a couple of pages of individual rules, and that might be enough to constitute a book of its own.

Polonius wrote:World Eaters and Space Wolves (codex: anger)
Night Lords and White Scars (codex: bikes)
Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors (Codex: seigecraft)

Fantastic idea. I want there to be Codex: Achetypes rather than Codex: Ultra-Specific.

In the same way there should be Codex: Flame & Fury (Sallies and Word Bearers). Codex: We Have Things That Aren't Marines (BT & Alpha Legion).

Yeah, ok, terrible names, but I like the concept.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Codex: We Have Things That Aren't Marines (BT & Alpha Legion).

I really want cultists as well, but I suppose now we'll have to wait until Codex LatD comes out. Can you still use that codex in tournements? Eye of Terror I mean.

I actually got the idea for the split when I realized that I can built a great Space wolf army out of the chaos dex:
Lord = Lord
Chosen = wolf guard
Termies = termies
berzerkers = bloodclaws
CSMs = grey hunters
havocs = long fangs

Add in fun bikes, and the ability to "call" fenrisian wolves (daemons), and it's a fun army (even better as a 13th company, in all honesty.

I know that you hate this new book HBMC, but I really think if you look at the full palette, there are some great options available.:
Black Legion: the current Chaos book
World Eaters/1k Sons/Death guard/Children: chaos book, with cult marines, marked troops, and oblits.
Night Lords: Blood angels (tons of jump troops, mephiston is like a DP, DC make great possessed, etc.)
IW: All oblit CSM? All dev SM?
Word Bearers: two options: use Daemons, with the marines as fiends/seekers/etc; or use BT with Bloodletters as initiates, daemonettes as neophytes, etc.
Alpha Legion: Chosen heavy CSM? DA with looted equiptment?

I think if you look at all the MEQ lists available, there is a good range of tactical options. The old alpha legion got way better in 4th with more infiltrate, and will get sick in 5th, so we need a new shtick for them.

If GW continues to push "counts as," then I think there are some great potentials for the old legions and new renegade forces.

The sheer diversity and detail of the old chaos book was a great thing, and allowed for some strong playstyle themes to emerge, but it blutned to an extent the themes of the legions. Alpha Legion is sneaky and often associates with cultists. Infiltrate was a good, but heavy handed way to represent that. I think they misfired on a few of the legions for the new book (most notably AL, NL, and WB), but I think they made more then they missed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

gorgon wrote:It's mindboggling to consider 40K is over 20 years old, and yet the designers are still wrestling with what the game should really be about.

Over 20 years, any game is going to reshuffle. I think that change is healthy. Could you imagine playing a 1500-pt game of 40k using RT or ASL rules? Eek.

Look at how D&D (30 years old) changed for 3E (20 years old) and now 4E.

I don't think it's evolution so much as the designers waffling. Now, WFB has shown a steady evolution since 4th ed. But since 2nd (so technically about the last 15 years) 40K has been a series of stops and starts, mid-edition overhauls, etc. They can't even seem to get it to where they're satisfied, let alone us. Heck, even RT started out as a skirmish-y game and moved into not-quite 2nd edition with the release of the Battle Manual. We haven't had one single edition that didn't endure some substantial changes in mid-stream. It becomes lunacy after a while.

Polonius wrote:I'm asking this question in all seriousness, but wouldn't it make more sense for GW to make codices for armies like Alpha Legion and Word Bearer then for the 4 dedicated legions? I can build a pretty good (certainly not great) 1k Sons army out of this book, but Alphas or Nightlords are much, much harder to distinguish.

My point is: are the traitor legions unique enough to support multiple books? I'd argue that Word Bearers are no completely dead, and could be a full codex (a true marines/daemons mix), but I'd rather see LatD before Word Bearers.

The thing is that LatD could be Word Bearers or Alpha Legion...at least the old list represented the mix of CSM and traitor/mutant/daemon fodder that you'd expect in those armies.

To ask a belabored point: do we need more MEQ codices?

Of course, one possibilty would be to make the a series of codices that are one list, but two legions:
World Eaters and Space Wolves (codex: anger)
Night Lords and White Scars (codex: bikes)
Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors (Codex: seigecraft)

Interesting approach. I hate to use corporate-speak, but it is "thinking outside the box."

It's interesting, I meant my dual legion codices as an off the cuff suggestion, but I'm starting to view a wider lens on MEQs and they're not as stupid anymore.

As John pointed out, after the new SM codex, DA will be the sole source for all bike armies, and it's already the only all termie army. BA are jump troops, SM will have ATSKNF and a few other toys, CSM have cult troops and gribbly units, BT have a horde of dudes, etc. The books have archtypes and themes, and rather then peg a legion in a book that doesn't make sense, use the correct book for the play style you want, not the fluff you want.

The question isn't necessarily "how many SM bike heavy lists do we need," but rather "do we need both regular and naughty biker heavy lists?"

blinky wrote:I really want cultists as well, but I suppose now we'll have to wait until Codex LatD comes out. Can you still use that codex in tournements? Eye of Terror I mean.

Poor blinky. You've been out of the loop, haven't'cha?

1. That'll never happen. The studio have no interest in LatD, ignoring the fact that the most common enemy fought by the Imperium is renegades and cultists (not one word JohnDD!)
2. No. LatD are no longer a valid or legal army in 40K.

And don't get me started on that either...

BYE

Polonius wrote:The books have archtypes and themes, and rather then peg a legion in a book that doesn't make sense, use the correct book for the play style you want, not the fluff you want.

This is happening, already. I think most White Scars players have been steered towards "counts as Ravenwing" for a while now, while most Raven Guard players have been steered towards "counts as Blood Angels" for similar reasons. And I really don't see anything wrong with this kind of approach of players separating their Fluff from their Rules. It provides a clean and stable structure for players to build their armies upon.

The question isn't necessarily "how many SM bike heavy lists do we need," but rather "do we need both regular and naughty biker heavy lists?"

I would answer in the negative. From the way the first few SM and Chaos lists will have been released, GW has clearly indicated that they will never do a CSM Biker list. SM have the list based around being able to spam an enhanced unit type as Troops: Bikers, Jump Packs, TDA, and mixed SM/Scouts. Chaos turns that on its head by remixing Cult Marines and Daemons. For Chaos to overlap the SM Bikes would have the same problems of dilution as Blood Angels vs Raven Guard or White Scars vs Ravenwing.

Of course, this could all be happy accident, but I like to think that Jervis is a lot smarter than the average gamer gives him credit for.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

blinky wrote:I really want cultists as well, but I suppose now we'll have to wait until Codex LatD comes out. Can you still use that codex in tournements? Eye of Terror I mean.

Poor blinky. You've been out of the loop, haven't'cha?

BYE

Yeah, not playing a hobby for 3 years will do that to you. Im struggling to catch up with everything, but that doesnt come as much of a suprise, as it was mostly a codex for the 2003 EoT campaign. Oh, and I never said that I thought that it was ever going to happen, but we can hope right guys? Anyone? *silence*

Oh we can hope. Personally myself along with all 90 of my individually converted and lovingly crafted mutants are hoping right along side ya, as are many LatD players that got shafted.

BYE

You know Polonius, I think you have a really clever idea there. Have the template army, and then have two example fluff armies with a few special rules. That could be pretty sweet, especially if they had a skills buy option for each unit so you could tweak the way it worked. Though perhaps a doctrine type system of mutually exclusive options would be better... very interesting to think on though.

In regards to the traitor legions, I wonder if an Allies system might not be the best way to go. I mean, a World Eaters army is sort of like a Khorne cult heavy army from the current 'dex, but with a few specialty units with special rules. That seems to be the theme with most of the Cult Legions (tm). So why not allow an allies system, where you can take the special units from your Cult Legion's list?

So, say I have Codex: Sex and Murder, which has Emp's Brats and W.Eaters. I have my vanilla chaos list, but want to make a W.Eaters list. So I need to take a Khorne cult champion from C: S&M, and then I can take say 0-2 elites, 2-4 troops, etc., things like Bloodletters, Blood Cannons, Blood Pudding, Blood Rocket, and whatever else. Suddenly my Vanilla Chaos list is filled with delicious bloody chunks, making it a whole new flavor. It's like the Cold Stone of Chaos.

Maybe it's just because I play Inquisition that I think that is a good idea, but I figure it could work pretty well.

blinky wrote:Yeah, not playing a hobby for 3 years will do that to you. Im struggling to catch up with everything, but that doesnt come as much of a suprise, as it was mostly a codex for the 2003 EoT campaign. Oh, and I never said that I thought that it was ever going to happen, but we can hope right guys? Anyone? *silence*

We mostly need an advocate for LatD at the studio. Jervis can tell you reasons why they're not doing them, but they're honestly kind of flimsy. Case in point -- they cite the lack of a dedicated miniature range as something holding LatD back, while WFB Chaos Mortals are apparently getting a unit that demands the use of repurposed Flagellent miniatures. So it's not as if it's GW will absolutely never budge on that point.

We're not getting LatD because no one at GW really wants to do them right now, simple as that. The good news is that people and opinions can change, and (per Jervis) conceptually they have no issues with LatD like they did with Squats.

can't you just use your same old LatD lists in Apocalypse? or any friendly game? Sure you can't in tournaments but then look at what they're doing with all the armies, they're dumbing it all down in an attempt to give competitive players some balance, but no one says you can't use an old list or make up your own for Apocalypse/friendly games.. and if your friends say no, you need to find nicer friends

I agree with Necros in principle, but I also recognize that a big lure of the game is being able to just get a game in with any random person at a shop and not have to debate various things. I don't think any of my group would argue LatD, but I would want an army I could (theoretically) take to a tournament too.