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 have a sizable army of CSM. I want to play them as Emperor's Children, but I also have a blob of Khorne Bezerkers with a custom Khorne rhino.
Can I take the 'Zerkers and Rhino as a combat (or Auxillary) detachment in my roster?

Granted, fluff-wise this does not mesh at all, however, I'm looking for rules clarification and as I'm returning, I'm still a bit unclear on how the detachments works and battle-forged and all the new to me stuff about build my force.

Thanks

You can do it if you create 2 different detachments (I.e., a patrol of Emp's Children and a patrol of World Eaters) each would retain their special legion rules as well.

Also in the earlier editions of 40K the opposite god to Slaanesh was Nurgle. Khorne couldn't stand the use of magic that was Tzeench.

Yes you can.
Open play rules let you take whatever you want. If you want to play “matched play” which is most similar to previous editions, then to be battleforged each army needs to share a faction keyword (certain faction keywords don’t count for this including Imperium and Chaos) but Chaos Space Marines do share a faction keyword (heretic astartes) so you can make a legal detachment.

That being said, most armies gain additional special rules by sticking to a single sub-faction, so you might loose some special rules by mixing Emperor’s Children with Khorne Bezerkers.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Also in the earlier editions of 40K the opposite god to Slaanesh was Nurgle. Khorne couldn't stand the use of magic that was Tzeench.

Originally, in Realm of Chaos books (Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned) Slaanesh and Khorne were opposites and Nurgle and Tzeentch were opposites. So things like Slaanesh and Khorne beastmen hated each other and the same for Tzeentch and Nurgle ones.

I then missed out a huge chunk of 40k between Rogue Trader and 8th Edition, but when I came back the situation was the same. Slaanesh and Khorne were "opposites" as were Nurgle and Tzeentch. Was there a period of time in 40k when that changed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:
That being said, most armies gain additional special rules by sticking to a single sub-faction, so you might loose some special rules by mixing Emperor’s Children with Khorne Bezerkers.

That certainly seems to be something that 9th Edition is doing. In 8th I could play my Nurgle Daemons and Death Guard in the same list without consequence. Now there are side effects, I don't gain the contagion that a pure Death Guard army would. So I think that encouragement to be mono-faction/codex is something that we're going to see more of as 9th continues. So I'd sound a note of caution to anyone planning on starting a new multi-faction/codex army that it may become "difficult" to play in future.

You could legally take everything in one detachment (all are HERETIC ASTARTES), although you would lose out on the bonus Legion traits. The better option would be to put all your Khorne stuff in its own detachment. If it is a patrol detachment then you need an HQ as well.

Thank you everyone. I was going to build a Battalion detachment of Emperor's Children and tag a Combat Patrol of World Eaters KB onto it. I have an appropriate model for a WE HQ.

So by taking the 2 detachments, I do not lose the "Flawless Perfection" for the EC or the "Butcher's Nails" for the WE.

 PlagueGardener wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Also in the earlier editions of 40K the opposite god to Slaanesh was Nurgle. Khorne couldn't stand the use of magic that was Tzeench.

Originally, in Realm of Chaos books (Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned) Slaanesh and Khorne were opposites and Nurgle and Tzeentch were opposites. So things like Slaanesh and Khorne beastmen hated each other and the same for Tzeentch and Nurgle ones.

I then missed out a huge chunk of 40k between Rogue Trader and 8th Edition, but when I came back the situation was the same. Slaanesh and Khorne were "opposites" as were Nurgle and Tzeentch. Was there a period of time in 40k when that changed?

I think that may be the case for WFB, but not 40k. Not entirely sure though. I remember something about the old world versions being slightly different in some important ways like that.

Mostly what I know is that Khorne hates trickery and magic, and thus was the opposite of Tzeentch. Besides being the god of blood, skulls, etc., Khorne is also the god of honor and chivalry in a sense. That's why his worshipers prefer "honorable" close combat to ranged weapons and magic. They charge the enemy head on in a clash of strength instead of resorting to cunning and trickery to defeat their opponents. Those are the domain of Tzeentch. In a way, Khorne is the law of nature and survival of the fittest made manifest, for he cares not from whence the blood comes, only that it continues to flow. Of course, I wouldn't say he's particularly friendly with Slaanesh either, since it likes guile and deception mixed with beauty and horror in equal measure. On the whole though, Slaanesh is much more likely to face you in honorable combat than Tzeentch.

Again, that is mostly my opinion based on everything I know about Warhammer lore, so it may be I'm completely wrong about a number of things. One thing I do remember though is feeling disappointed back in 5e because I couldn't run my Khorne Berzerkers with my Rubric Marines unless I went Black Legion. I may have been wrong about that then too.

I don’t think tzeentch and khorne have ever been “opposites” in 40K.

AFAIK it’s always been tzeentch/nurgle for change/stagnation. The Khorne/slaanesh one always seemed a bit odd to me though. I did always think Khorne/tzeentch seemed a more obvious fit for animosity though.

Bare in mind that while currently you can field Khorne Bezerkers in some form and Emperor's Children in the same army without losing out on any army rules so long as they are in different detachments, that may well change when their new book comes out.

What initially started with just loyalist marines has now followed with Sisters of Battle and Death Guard - having additional special rules only if your army is ENTIRELY single faction.

Theres no guarantee it would happen for these faction, but its worth considering as a fairly strong possibility when making purchase decisions.

At this point, World Eater or Emperors Children as their own codexes is just wishful thinking. No point in giving it a second thought.

 alextroy wrote:
At this point, World Eater or Emperors Children as their own codexes is just wishful thinking. No point in giving it a second thought.

That's not what I said. The legions will still have rules in the new CSM book, and they may well have rules that only apply if your whole army is one Legion.

Righter8 wrote:
So by taking the 2 detachments, I do not lose the "Flawless Perfection" for the EC or the "Butcher's Nails" for the WE.

Correct.

 Bilge Rat wrote:

Righter8 wrote:
So by taking the 2 detachments, I do not lose the "Flawless Perfection" for the EC or the "Butcher's Nails" for the WE.

Correct.

Yes. I think SM are currently the only army that has special rules lost by including detachments from different sub factions within the same book.

Righter8 wrote:
Thank you everyone. I was going to build a Battalion detachment of Emperor's Children and tag a Combat Patrol of World Eaters KB onto it. I have an appropriate model for a WE HQ.

So by taking the 2 detachments, I do not lose the "Flawless Perfection" for the EC or the "Butcher's Nails" for the WE.

correct. you would also retain access to warlord traits (though only one would get it, unless you spend a CP to give someone a second one), and a relic (agian, 1 free, another if you pay CP for it).

only thing to bear it mind is that aruas and stratagems are limited by the "<LEGION>" keyword(s), so your EC warlord's aura might not work on the 'zerkers becuase they are world eaters, not EC. Others are just limitied to "HERETIC ASTARTES", so will work on both CSM detachments of your army (but not any daemons, if you took them)


however, as others have pointed out, GW has been moving towards changing the wording on these traits so that the only work if the whole army is one legion, in order to combat crazy souping lists that cheese out the ying yang, so this might change when the new codex: CSM is released. but thats easily 6 months at least in the future, we have no date for its release, so don't let that hold you back