New rumours on Chaos Legions (latest on pages 30, 32 and 34; compilation in first post)

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.

**Manchu**

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:And the Iron Hands' Chapter Approved had them not having chapter masters and not holding Marneus Calgar as their spiritual liege.

I don't get it.

**Samus_aran115**

theQuanz wrote:Just have 1 chaos book, that includes it all....ALLLLLLLLLLLL
Not this division gak.

Yeah, no. Division is what makes chaos interesting. A tasteless, bland book (like what we have) is exactly what needs to be avoided.

**Kanluwen**

Samus_aran115 wrote:
theQuanz wrote:Just have 1 chaos book, that includes it all....ALLLLLLLLLLLL
Not this division gak.

Yeah, no. Are you brain dead? That's the whole reason the current book is tasteless and pathetic.

Um no. The "whole reason the current book is tasteless"(personal opinion on your part. It's fine if you want to do a Renegade Chapter like the Red Corsairs or a generic warband. Bad for everything else) and "pathetic" has to do with the fact that it was supposed to be the first of two books. The second was, in fact, to be "Legions".

Couple the fact that it was incomplete with the fact that it was done with a "different design ideal in mind" as Alessio Cavatore was in charge of the Studio design direction at that time and you get the "Big Two" crummy books: Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marines.

**GentlemanGuy**

I cant see GW releasing god specific upgrade sprues like they did with DA and BT. I reckon plastic boxsets will come out for them but what i would like are legion specific boxsets you can spread through your army like they've done with SW and BA. Imagine an Iron Warrior boxset with bionic arms and legs or a word bearers boxset ith scrolls and parchment covered shoulder pads. What about an Alpha legion one with scaly shoulder pads and reptilian helmets and small multi headed serpents to use as familiars XD thats what i'd like to see

also about cultists an traitors in a legion army. I reckon all but 3 legions use them. Iron warriors who fight siege and trench warfare would need expendable troops to grind there adversaries before sending the legionarres as shock troops. Word bearers would requirecultists wherever they go. Alot of sacrifices and cannon fodder. The same with the black legion who would need meat shields to grind an opponent down. Even death guard would use cultists which would be just as pox ridden as their overlords

**timetowaste85**

tarnish wrote:Seeing as the new trend is putting out sprues that can be 2 or even 3 different things, i think its likely that there will be a thousand sons/noise marine set out eventually. they look enough like each other to fit such a set wouldn't you agree?

This would be an absolutely horrible idea if GW did it. The two model ranges shouldn't look anything alike. We need Noise Marines to look like they did in the previous range, not add-ons to current CSM bodies and Thousand Sons should be in flowing robes and have a very obvious Egyptian theme to them. Maybe make THEM the best friends of the Newcrons.

Also, I have to say, I'll miss this Chaos book when it circulates out-don't get me wrong, I welcome the new book, but I'll be sad to see this one when it goes. I still think it's a strong codex, haven't lost a game yet and I NEVER take the 2 lash, PMs, oblit spam. Never. I change it up every game. Last night I even ran spawn. Yes, spawn. And they did exactly what they were supposed to-tied up a major shooting unit for the first round of the game, thanks to working in tandem with my 2 lash princes (always take princes, but not that dreadful meta-combo). So, yes, I'll miss this book, but I look forward to the new one when it comes out. But I'll only have to add kits for new units that come out, I think, because I have exactly what I want already for chaos (barring a few models).

**Vaktathi**

Kanluwen wrote:
Samus_aran115 wrote:
theQuanz wrote:Just have 1 chaos book, that includes it all....ALLLLLLLLLLLL
Not this division gak.

Yeah, no. Are you brain dead? That's the whole reason the current book is tasteless and pathetic.

Um no. The "whole reason the current book is tasteless"(personal opinion on your part. It's fine if you want to do a Renegade Chapter like the Red Corsairs or a generic warband. Bad for everything else) and "pathetic" has to do with the fact that it was supposed to be the first of two books. The second was, in fact, to be "Legions".

The current book was never intended to be a one of two parter, it was done with leaving the door open to invididual books later as a possibility, but never intended to be one part of a never-finished duo.

**Kanluwen**

Vaktathi wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Samus_aran115 wrote:
theQuanz wrote:Just have 1 chaos book, that includes it all....ALLLLLLLLLLLL
Not this division gak.

Yeah, no. Are you brain dead? That's the whole reason the current book is tasteless and pathetic.

Um no. The "whole reason the current book is tasteless"(personal opinion on your part. It's fine if you want to do a Renegade Chapter like the Red Corsairs or a generic warband. Bad for everything else) and "pathetic" has to do with the fact that it was supposed to be the first of two books. The second was, in fact, to be "Legions".

The current book was never intended to be a one of two parter, it was done with leaving the door open to invididual books later as a possibility, but never intended to be one part of a never-finished duo.

Not what the author said.

I'm pretty sure the author knows better than you do.

**Vaktathi**

Kanluwen wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Samus_aran115 wrote:
theQuanz wrote:Just have 1 chaos book, that includes it all....ALLLLLLLLLLLL
Not this division gak.

Yeah, no. Are you brain dead? That's the whole reason the current book is tasteless and pathetic.

Um no. The "whole reason the current book is tasteless"(personal opinion on your part. It's fine if you want to do a Renegade Chapter like the Red Corsairs or a generic warband. Bad for everything else) and "pathetic" has to do with the fact that it was supposed to be the first of two books. The second was, in fact, to be "Legions".

The current book was never intended to be a one of two parter, it was done with leaving the door open to invididual books later as a possibility, but never intended to be one part of a never-finished duo.

Not what the author said.

I'm pretty sure the author knows better than you do.

Gav used to post on Warseer frequently, still is around sometimes. Back when the book came out, I PM'd him about the book, I'll repost some of the conversation here.

Vaktathi wrote:4th Why the removal of veteran skills and Legion rules? Is it just being done across the board or was it felt that they were just too powerful? will they make a future comeback possibly?

GavT wrote:The removal of Legion-specific rules seems to be causing the most contention, which we expected. However, I think in the longer term giving ourselves the option of producing proper, full Codexes for the most interesting and different Legions is very exciting. For example, imagine a full 20+ page background section and unique army list for the World Eaters, with specific troop types and war engines, for which we actually produce models?

**gorgon**

Someone I trust told me that Codex: CSM *was* intended and written to be the first of two parts. But management changed their minds and cancelled part two.

Seems like Gav was really left holding the bag on that one.

**Kanluwen**

Vaktathi wrote:
Gav used to post on Warseer frequently, still is around sometimes. Back when the book came out, I PM'd him about the book, I'll repost some of the conversation here.

Vaktathi wrote:4th Why the removal of veteran skills and Legion rules? Is it just being done across the board or was it felt that they were just too powerful? will they make a future comeback possibly?

GavT wrote:The removal of Legion-specific rules seems to be causing the most contention, which we expected. However, I think in the longer term giving ourselves the option of producing proper, full Codexes for the most interesting and different Legions is very exciting. For example, imagine a full 20+ page background section and unique army list for the World Eaters, with specific troop types and war engines, for which we actually produce models?

Which doesn't really negate what I said. That sounds about the norm for when Codex authors talk about projects they're pitching and really want to do.

**Vaktathi**

Except he's saying that no second part was a part of the plan, only that they left the possibility open as an option in the long term. There's nothing about it being "part 1 of 2", rather "there's the option way down the road".

**Kanluwen**

Of COURSE he said there was no second part as "part of the plan".

At that point in time, it probably was just an idea on a blackboard.

You have to remember that Gav Thorpe was responsible for Warhammer Armies: Hordes of Chaos where he actually promised "at least two companion volumes". The only one we saw materialize was "Beasts of Chaos", and then a halfcocked attempt to tie Storm of Chaos in.

**Manchu**

This could be settled with Kanluwen giving us a source for the two-parter story.

**Brother SRM**

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
Why not just get ADB to write the Fluff for the new Chaos dex? He's kicked butt with the NL's and Word Bearers so far. One of his future HH book's is going to be World Eaters...the man does know how to write good fiction.

I'm quoting this post for the new page, because I'm more than a little bit gay for Aaron Dembski-Bowden. I'm kind of curious why there isn't a little more BL integration going on with some of the better writers (ADB, Abnett) and the game design crew.

**Vaktathi**

Kanluwen wrote:Of COURSE he said there was no second part as "part of the plan".

At that point in time, it probably was just an idea on a blackboard.

In which case, how was the CSM book supposed to be "the first of two books" if any other ideas were, ideas on a blackboard meaning 3-4 years out, if even that (as we've got nothing but speculation on that)?

You have to remember that Gav Thorpe was responsible for Warhammer Armies: Hordes of Chaos where he actually promised "at least two companion volumes". The only one we saw materialize was "Beasts of Chaos", and then a halfcocked attempt to tie Storm of Chaos in.

Right, that's all fine and dandy, but from my conversation with him, no second part was ever intended or planned, only considered a future possibility as you can see.

**Kanluwen**

Vaktathi wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Of COURSE he said there was no second part as "part of the plan".

At that point in time, it probably was just an idea on a blackboard.
In which case, how was the CSM book supposed to be "the first of two books" if any other ideas were, ideas on a blackboard meaning 3-4 years out, if even that (as we've got nothing but speculation on that)?

Gee, probably because Gav had Alessio and Jervis on board with said book.

If the information I've got is correct, Alessio vetoed it after the abysmal showing of Codex: Chaos Space Marines(which he was largely responsible for anyways) as he was considered by the higher-ups in the Studio at that time to be someone "more responsible" than the other creative types.

You have to remember that Gav Thorpe was responsible for Warhammer Armies: Hordes of Chaos where he actually promised "at least two companion volumes". The only one we saw materialize was "Beasts of Chaos", and then a halfcocked attempt to tie Storm of Chaos in.
Right, that's all fine and dandy, but from my conversation with him, no second part was ever intended or planned, only considered a future possibility as you can see.

Except you're missing the point. Thorpe had, at the time of Hordes of Chaos releasing, made VERY firm notations as to the name of the third book.

It was "Machines of Chaos" and was to be Chaos Dwarfs.

It never happened. He learned his lesson, presumably, and did not make any firm allusions to the book being definitive because of that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:This could be settled with Kanluwen giving us a source for the two-parter story.

I'd love to.

Jervis around the time of the Codex: CSM release. It was a little throwaway line where he made mention to a "surprise in store for the followers of Horus within the next few years".

**aka_mythos**

Vaktathi wrote:
Right, that's all fine and dandy, but from my conversation with him, no second part was ever intended or planned, only considered a future possibility as you can see.

I think people forget what actually happened. The codex came out, it was done with the intention of just simplifying the scope and complexity of codices a trend that stopped because of the negative reception of the book. At the time the book was written there wasn't any intention of a second book... the quotes about a second book were made a number of months later and were largely in response to the negative feedback.

Outside of that, the simple proof that there was no intent at the time to write a second book that was legion centric is that the "Renegade" book uses so many traditional special characters that would be more appropriately central to a legion codex. Even if we disregard that, the codex was a failure to capitalize on the concept put forth.

**Vaktathi**

Gee, probably because Gav had Alessio and Jervis on board with said book.

With a future book? And we know this how...? Gav says it's an open possibility, nothing indicating the current CSM book was intended or designed as anything but a complete CSM book.

He learned his lesson, presumably, and did not make any firm allusions to the book being definitive because of that.

So...when we get a direct quote from a guy, it means less than nebulous "throw-away" lines and vague (and sourceless) information on a veto from a guy who would have definitely been on his way out by the time the full impact of the CSM release (which, I don't have any numbers in front of me but from what I gather wasn't a financial loss) was known.

Basically we've got a throwaway line relating to "a surprise in store for the followers of horus", which tells us...not a whole lot of anything on this matter, whereas Gav mentions it as a possibility but a far off one, and some nebulous information about Allessio vetoing it after the release of C:CSM (at which point both guys were already making their way out anyways...)

None of this really indicates that the current C:CSM was intentionally designed to be a "part 1 of X" release.

**Kanluwen**

Whatever. Believe what you want. Thorpe had no control over whether or not it would have happened, and Jervis was the driving force behind an attempt for the book.

**Vaktathi**

If you're going to make assertions that a book which encompasses (however weakly and poorly) all the aspects of a faction and it's primary characters, was designed specifically a multi-parter from the outset and don't have anything specific except scuttlebutt and assert that someone who had no part in writing the book was the driving force behind it, while dismissing a direct quote from one of the actual authors saying that it was only a future possibility after stating that they did in fact say they were planning it as a multi-parter, don't expect the assertion to be taken seriously.

/obligatorybelievewhateveryouwant"I'm out"counter-response

**Manchu**

I have to agree with Vaktathi, it does seem like weak point -- even if I exclude Vaktathi's alleged PM from Mr. Thorpe. First of all, Kan, a proper source is not "Jervis once said ..." You need something like, "in the Standard Bearer from WD#2XX, Jervis said ..." It's hard to take Vaktathi's "Gav Thorpe PMed me once" line seriously (no offense but anyone could say something like that in any argument) but "at some point, somewhere, Jervis mentioned ..." is just as underwhelming. So, dismissing all the seemingly anecdotal evidence regarding what the designers said outside of published, ready-to-hand sources, we're left with logic. It's very hard to see how C:CSM 4th leaves room for a legions book. I'm open to anyone explaining how this could be the case but I'm skeptical of it. The book does not feel incomplete, whatever one thinks of the quality, as far as either fluff or rules are concerned.

**gorgon**

As I said before, I trust what I was told and it agrees with what Kan heard. I also think people are splitting hairs here somewhat. Whether the Legions book was officially on the docket or just an idea they were "leaving design room for", that means the current codex was written with a Legions book in mind.

Also consider that from a design standpoint, they had no choice but to cover (if poorly) the Legions in the CSM book. The alternatives were completely invalidating all Legion-based armies for a period of time, or keeping the Legion lists from v3.5 (but not other parts of the book) around in some fashion. The former would have enraged the player base even more, while the latter would have been confusing and counterproductive. There had to be a "complete", functioning CSM codex available before they could release a Legion codex(-ices) that delves deeper into those armies.

GW and its representatives would never have publicly and officially promised a Legions book, just because it would have driven too many players to shelve their armies and sit on their money until the Legions book was released. This still happened, but this way at least some players ponied up to update their armies for v4. We've discussed this ad nauseum here as it relates to their secrecy policy.

**Vaktathi**

Manchu wrote: It's hard to take Vaktathi's "Gav Thorpe PMed me once" line seriously (no offense but anyone could say something like that in any argument)

Understandable, though if anyone really wants I can post the entire log if they want more.

**Lint**

I'd always assumed that the "second" chaos book was the Daemon release, and not a Legions book.
They pretty much nerfed demons in CSM 4.0, and then followed it up by giving them their own codex.
Cult troops and traitor legion characters however, were included in C:CSM.
So you could argue that they did in fact have plans for a second chaos book, but it was daemons, and not traitor legions...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Granted I could be way off, I didn't start playing until 4th edition.

**Evil Lamp 6**

Vaktathi wrote:
Manchu wrote: It's hard to take Vaktathi's "Gav Thorpe PMed me once" line seriously (no offense but anyone could say something like that in any argument)
Understandable, though if anyone really wants I can post the entire log if they want more.

I wouldn't mind seeing the whole log.

**Sidstyler**

Kanluwen wrote:At that point in time, it probably was just an idea on a blackboard.

It couldn't have been, they didn't get one until just recently!

**Vaktathi**

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

I wouldn't mind seeing the whole log.

Here ya go. Keep in mind this was August 2007 in the midst of 4th edition.

GavT wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:Hi again, I had a few questions for you about upcoming chaos changes with the new codex if that's cool?.

As it's now confirmed, I can't see there being any problems with answering some questions.

I'd like to say first off that there are alot of things I like about the new codex so far alot (I love the new affordable Raptors and Terminators, as well as BP/CCW/Bolter/Frags on basic marines, cult troop changes are great), and a couple that I dont like so much (Predators, removal of legion rules, dreadnaught fire frenzy), but that is the way of things I guess.

Well, I think people will always like some changes and not others with a new Codex or Army book, so no surprises there!

First question is why did the basic marine squad get changed to need to be a minimum of 10 strong to take a heavy weapon? I understand wanting to cut down on min-maxing, but with the current box holding only 8 marines, and when most chaos armies used 6-9 marines, often with a heavy bolter instead of a lascannon, I was just curious as to what spurred this change?

The Chaos Sace Marines frames have been re-tooled along similar lines to the Space Marines and so the updated box comes with ten-man squads. The principle is for players to make choices about their army on a much more unit-by-unit level rather than individual models. By limiting heavy weapons in the basic squads, players have more incentive to look at Predators, Havocs, Obliterators and such. Multiple small units having access to heavier weapons undercuts the role of other parts of the army.

2nd, I can understand Oblits being moved to heavy support, but why reduce them to S4, T4 and Ld9 and remove their autocannons and heavy bolters in conjunction with a price increase while only giving them weapons that are offer slight advantages to weapons they already have? (e.g. multi-melta when they already have lascannons and TL meltaguns) I ask this not to complain, but just to understand the changes better for myself.

Again, this is about giving the Obliterators a more defined role, and also to address a more system-wide problem with the escalation of profiles. The Obliterators main strength is their versatility, and while they remained outrageously tough this meant that Plague Marines would have to be even tougher to show their strength. This could have developed into an internal 'arms race' with units all competing for the same ground in people's armies rather than having a place and role to fulfil. All of the changes, to the squads in particular, should be taken as a whole. We've removed lots of the special rules that 'cluttered' the army list and added much more definition to each unit with simple but significant differences between them.

Secondly, since the re-write of the Codexes back in 3rd edition, we 'flattened' all of the profiles so that Toughness 5 was remarkable and limited to very few troop types. This is because the system used Imperial Guardsmen (the average human) as a benchmark, but over the years the prevalence of WS, BS4, S4, T4, 3+ armour save Space Marines seems to have shifted that middle ground in people's perceptions. If an Obliterator is T5, then surely a Daemon Prince should be T6, a Great Unclean One
T7? So, the escalation continues to pull the system away from its founding principles. T4 is meant to be better-than-average, but at the moment that's not very obvious.

3rd, Predators and Dreadnaughts, why the huge increase in lascannon costs coupled with increase in costs for vehicle upgrades or reduced functionality (BS3 possession for example, although I can understand removal of Mutated hull)? Is that just part of a general trend of toning things down accross the board?

The Predator is in line with changes made in the Dark Angels Codex. Again, here we want people to make significant decisions. The investment in points for a supreme anti-tank vehicle means that players must think before they upgrade. The humble autocannon Predator really hasn't had a chance in either CSM or SM armies for many year now, and no surprise when it was so cheap (relatively speaking) to upgun?

And with dreads, why make Fire Frenzy even more dangerous when people are loathe to take dreads already (both because the Chaos dread model is very old and outdated and the that a CC dread is now greatly overshadowed in ability by the new 5A fleeting defiler)

It's only more dangerous if you're too close! :eek: Firing twice is more dangerous to the opponent in the right circumstances. This was simply a step back towards the Dreadmoughts of the original 2nd edition Codex, making them unpredictable but potentially deadly. Regarding the Defiler, I'm glad players see it more as an assault walker than an indirect-firing tank, as that's more fitting with what it's supposed to be. With the Dreadnoughts and Defilers now occupying different force organisation chart slots, players will have to look at their overall army composition. Sure, they can take Defilers over Dreadnoughts, but that restricts access to other heavy support choices, so Dreadnoughts might be ther better option if you also want Havocs, Obliterators, tanks and so on; the wider shape of their army becomes more of a consideration.

4th Why the removal of veteran skills and Legion rules? Is it just being done across the board or was it felt that they were just too powerful? will they make a future comeback possibly?

The removal of Legion-specific rules seems to be causing the most contention, which we expected. However, I think in the longer term giving ourselves the option of producing proper, full Codexes for the most interesting and different Legions is very exciting. For example, imagine a full 20+ page background section and unique army list for the World Eaters, with specific troop types and war engines, for which we actually produce models?

5th. Kharne. Does his "always hits on a 2+" apply to skimmers as well? Or was this supposed to be when measuring against an enemies WS?

At first glance, I cannot see any reason why vehicles would not be hit on a 2+, regardless of speed or type. Further investigation may prove otherwise!

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

No probs, I hope you understand some of our reasons a little better. I know that some players won't agree with our reasoning or decisions, but I find that if we can explain some of the principles behind our thinking players are less likely to fill in the gaps and make the wrong assumptions.

Cheers,

GAV

GavT wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:also, one last nagging question, why "chaos glory" over "chaos undivided"? It just doesnt sound quite as...menacing I think.

-thanks!

We've found that the concept of Chaos Undivided within the rules was affecting people's perception of the background. 'Chaos in all its Glory' better reflects what's going on - followers worshipping all of the Chaos gods, as opposed to some non-existent 'fifth power' represented by Chaos Undivided. It was also as much for ourselves, as a reminder that the majority of Chaos followers don't choose a single god over any other but worship them all equally. I kinda like Chaos in all its Glory, it's more of a statement than Chaos Undivided, which is seems technical and pragmatic. Ideally, we'd just keep it as Chaos and nothing else, but that got a little confusing when writing about Marks of Chaos in general, and Marks of other gods...

Cheers,

GAV

**Manchu**

Thanks for posting that, V. Nice bit of history. I especially like the quip about "some non-existent 'fifth power' represented by Chaos Undivided." Losing Malal was definitely not a mistake and giving that tripe any way back in would be. Although, I have to admit, I do like "Chaos Undivided" a lot better than "Chaos Glory." I don't see "Chaos Undivided" as too confusing, as far as an idea like Malal goes.

**aka_mythos**

Lint wrote:...They pretty much nerfed demons in CSM 4.0, and then followed it up by giving them their own codex...

The problem with a Daemons codex is a presentation and conceptual issue. When daemons were in the Chaos Marine codex, it was good enough that they be roughly even with chaos marines in terms of cost and capabilities... and were functionally another god specific alternative. Separating them from Chaos Marines they lose their conceptual cohesion where you can have a mish-mosh of different units that should have their own allegiances and suffer from having tactical capability gaps in their army. When GW spun daemons off from Chaos Marines, they needed to be something more unique than the units they were in the Chaos codex. Most normal marine armies do plenty fine against them... so why were GK made?

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

Manchu wrote:Thanks for posting that, V. Nice bit of history. I especially like the quip about "some non-existent 'fifth power' represented by Chaos Undivided." Losing Malal was definitely not a mistake and giving that tripe any way back in would be. Although, I have to admit, I do like "Chaos Undivided" a lot better than "Chaos Glory." I don't see "Chaos Undivided" as too confusing, as far as an idea like Malal goes.

Chaos Undivided, as a concept, no longer exists. Just look at Black Crusade. You've got things dedicated to the four Gods, and then you have 'unaligned'. It's not even done as a proper noun any more.