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.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Significantly to this discussion, both of the aforementioned books are more entertaining reads than the forthcoming Chaos codex is likely to be.

How do you figure that? My guess is that they'll have to cram a lot of different fluff into the legions book, but that doesn't really mean it'll be worse than the current one.

Ignoring the nutters overreacting, it's really it's just my pessimism and nostalgia for Rogue Trader speaking. That and my disappointment with the present trend in the studio's background material towards clichéd melodrama of the "Bwa-ha-ha! Let no good deed go unpunished!" variety. If we actually get a codex which allows workable, characterful single-Legion armies, it would be an improvement. The prospect of the studio producing a Chaos codex that's competitive, balanced and which adequately represents the background on the tabletop just seems too remote for me ever to believe it possible, when the previous four (yes, even the much-loved 3.5 codex) have failed so badly to do so.

wyomingfox wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:This 'ghost21' ... Have his rumours ever been accurate? (Genuine Question)

Off the top of my head...Some of his rumors have been accurate, though these relate largely to DreadFleet:

First guy to state a special box set game would be released for September

First guy to state it was Fantasy and not Warhamer Quest or Mordheim

First guy to state that it involved miniature ships

For Necrons:

First guy to state C'tan would not appear in the codex

First to state Necrons would get a flying chariot

I think it would be funnier (and make for a longer post) if you posted on what he was wrong about on Necrons. Also, all three of the other rumors about Dreadfleet are sort of the same.

Sorry, I don't think I understand how the three rumors are the same?

The first rumor states that it was a Box Game Set that would be released in September. Rather than an expansion to a pre-existing game like Cities of Death or Spearhead for 40K.

The second rumor stated that it was Fantasy themed. Rather than 40K.

The last rumor stated that it involved ships. Rather than featuring war machines, monsterous creatures, or infantry.

In an ideal world we would see a single Realm of Chaos style book with rules for LatD armies, full Daemon armies with options for monotheistic lists, rules for all the Legions as well as renegades, and the option for units in these lists to be merged with limitations of course. But only selling one book to all chaos players? That wouldn't make the maximum profit possible.

I'm dissapointed to see opinion from AD-B that there won't be seperate Legion and Renegade codices, also to see the rumour that LatD have been scrapped as a concept, but these are only opinions. I both disagree with and dislike the notion of three individual Legion codices, as it is not a flexible creative concept and is impractical in that it will burden GW with unnecessary armies to update. I would really like to see a joint renegade Astartes/LatD codex, even if for purely selfish reasons, and I do disagree with the rumour that cutists will only be available to Alpha Legion, partly because they are prevalents for other Legions like Iron Warriors and Black Legion and particularly the Word Bearers but also because this will not be a profitabler marketing choice for GW (this is GW though).

The following might be wishlisting, but it would be nice if:

- Legions will be take the 3.5 approach regarding Legion rules, not the 5th ed concept of Special Characters;
- Cultists, Mutants, Traitors etc. are available to all Legions in the Legion codex;
- There will be a Chaos Renegades codex, with a focus on LatD with, to a lesser extent, a Renegade Marine and Legion prescence, this would would represent Alpha Legion perfectly
- Perhaps renegade Chapters could still be available in the Legions Codex but with a focus on the Red Corsairs so to keep it Legion themed;
- Individual units for Legionares and younger Astartes, more recently recruited into Legions or belonging to a renegade Chapter. I saw good speculation on this in (I'm pretty sure) the previous Chaos thread.
- Dark Apostles and Warsmiths. These are central concepts to the Word Bearers and Iron Warriors and should never have been taken out of the codex.
- I have mentioned in the previous Chaos thread Daemon Engines, marked Daemons, etc.

Brother SRM wrote:I think it would be funnier (and make for a longer post) if you posted on what he was wrong about on Necrons. Also, all three of the other rumors about Dreadfleet are sort of the same.

I provided a summary of his Necron rumors back in another thread

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/410529.page#3576180

and here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/listByUser/8723.page

Alpharius wrote:

Durza wrote:Draigo's Law: As a thread increases in length, the probability that someone will hate Draigo and/or Matt Ward approaches 1.

Blatantly stolen from someone who I can't remember at the moment.

Goodwin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

And, I love this variation!

I stole it from Godwin and coined the Draigo's part. It hides in my sig.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wyomingfox wrote:

First guy to state C'tan would not appear in the codex

Why's this in your list of 'right' rumors...?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Petre wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

First guy to state C'tan would not appear in the codex

Why's this in your list of 'right' rumors...?

Because there are no C'Tan in the Necron codex. Just shards. If you think Shards are the same as having a Living God present on the skirmish table, I guess, we will just agree to disagree up front . Anyways, prior to Ghost stating that the C'tan would no longer be a playable option, the rumors mills were alive with news of a new and upcoming C'Tan and several predicted that it would be a the Dragon. Ghost disagreed stating it was a poor decision in the previous codex and that you wouldn't expect Chaos players to be able to field Khorne. Then Yakface stated that C'tan would be playable but were being moved to elites. Weeks later, Yakface corrected himself and said that the C'Tan would not be featured in the new codex but thier would be a new elite entry call Shards that were actually constructs created by the Necron's....and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth .

wyomingfox wrote:Because there are no C'Tan in the Necron codex. Just shards. If you think Shards are the same as having a Living God present on the skirmish table, I guess, we will just agree to disagree up front.

Well, you could use the same logic to say there are no Necron Warriors, Lords or Destroyers in the codex since they all received substantial updates from and are not at all in their original form. It is a strange distinction.

For all intensive purposes the C'tan weren't in the codex. The "C'tan" present there were a disgrace and Matt Ward clearly wanted to get rid of them to the absolute limit he was allowed to.

Though it's debatable if ghost21 meant it that way...

Harriticus wrote:For all intensive purposes the C'tan weren't in the codex. The "C'tan" present there were a disgrace and Matt Ward clearly wanted to get rid of them to the absolute limit he was allowed to.

I disagree. they finally have a point other then being badass, and you get versatility in a model that was basically just a greater daemon of badass.

Forget it.

Deathly Angel wrote:- Legions will be take the 3.5 approach regarding Legion rules, not the 5th ed concept of Special Characters.

This would indeed be ideal. A few tweaks, and they could just re-release 3.5 for 6th ed.

- Cultists, Mutants, Traitors etc. are available to all Legions in the Legion codex.

A few wouldn't have these options. IW definitely don't seem the type to allow weak humans into their ranks.

- There will be a Chaos Renegades codex, with a focus on LatD with, to a lesser extent, a Renegade Marine and Legion prescence, this would would represent Alpha Legion perfectly.

Boo to that. Alpha Legion get their own codex.

wyomingfox wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I think it would be funnier (and make for a longer post) if you posted on what he was wrong about on Necrons. Also, all three of the other rumors about Dreadfleet are sort of the same.

I provided a summary of his Necron rumors back in another thread

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/410529.page#3576180

He was right about Dreadfleet, that gave him credit.
With Necrons (according to your list), most of his hits were rather unimpressive:
1.) Current plastic kit will not change doh
2.) Might get a big gun doh.
3.) No more gods that can be killed by a lucky shot doh (long time rumour)
4.) November release (long time rumour since stickmonkey)
5.) He fell for the false long time rumour about the big humanoid walker, providing wrong details.
So with Necrons, his hit probability is less than 50%, less than educated or even random guesses.
I won't start on Sororitas (can anyone ask him on Warseer for pics running naked through London or Nottingham? )
And everytime, someone asks for new rumours, he provides them, whatever the topic, every second day.

Durza wrote:

Deathly Angel wrote:
- Cultists, Mutants, Traitors etc. are available to all Legions in the Legion codex.

A few wouldn't have these options. IW definitely don't seem the type to allow weak humans into their ranks.

I did hear somewhere that Iron Warriors use cultists as cannon fodder during sieges, but then again it was from a poster on Dakka and it is quite a bit too similar to the Word Bearers' tactics. I agree with you that they shouldn't be in the same force, maybe they'd be better suited as an allied army in Apocalypse games perhaps.

Boo to that. Alpha Legion get their own codex.

Alpha Legion rules and special units in both codices would be nice, with limitations in the Legions codex, representing a more Astartes orientated Alpha Legion force. They could have the sneaky marine special units in the Legions book with one special unit for operatives, with other human special units for them in the Renegades book.

tarnish wrote:

Harriticus wrote:For all intensive purposes the C'tan weren't in the codex. The "C'tan" present there were a disgrace and Matt Ward clearly wanted to get rid of them to the absolute limit he was allowed to.

I disagree. they finally have a point other then being badass, and you get versatility in a model that was basically just a greater daemon of badass.

Thye are a lot better, being an average of 65 pts cheaper than before. But lets stay on topic, so Alpha Legion....they are sounding like the only official Chaos Legion from what I've skimmed in the rumors and the CSM codex will still be valid? I hope thats a misunderstanding, Im tired of all these new marine dexes, give us some chaos not just traitors!

Harriticus wrote:For all intensive purposes the C'tan weren't in the codex. The "C'tan" present there were a disgrace and Matt Ward clearly wanted to get rid of them to the absolute limit he was allowed to.

Though it's debatable if ghost21 meant it that way...

First of all, representing literal gods on the tabletop is stupid. It makes no sense. ASPECTS of the gods, like the C'tan shards, the Avatar of Khaine, or the greater daemons of Chaos are cool. Aren't they pretty comparable in power now anyway, at least for the cost? Also, never say "for all intensive purposes" ever. The phrase is "for all intents and purposes" and misusing it like that can make someone look very foolish in how they present themselves. It also makes decidedly little sense as an actual phrase.

Deathly Angel wrote:
I did hear somewhere that Iron Warriors use cultists as cannon fodder during sieges, but then again it was from a poster on Dakka and it is quite a bit too similar to the Word Bearers' tactics. I agree with you that they shouldn't be in the same force, maybe they'd be better suited as an allied army in Apocalypse games perhaps.

That's from Storm of Iron, a solid BL book about the Iron Warriors in a protracted siege of an Imperial planet. It's awesome. They use hordes of slaves and prisoners with dummy rifles to run out in front of their actual army. The Imperials see a horde of ragged people charging towards them holding weapons, so they fire artillery at them. In doing so the Iron Warriors both test the ranges of the Imperial guns, and demoralize them once they figure out who they're shelling. I'm pretty sure every Chaos legion would be pretty happy to use cultists, freaks, mutants, and whatever other hordes of evil crap they could get their hands on.

Brother SRM wrote:

Harriticus wrote:For all intensive purposes the C'tan weren't in the codex. The "C'tan" present there were a disgrace and Matt Ward clearly wanted to get rid of them to the absolute limit he was allowed to.

Though it's debatable if ghost21 meant it that way...

First of all, representing literal gods on the tabletop is stupid. It makes no sense. ASPECTS of the gods, like the C'tan shards, the Avatar of Khaine, or the greater daemons of Chaos are cool. Aren't they pretty comparable in power now anyway, at least for the cost? Also, never say "for all intensive purposes" ever. The phrase is "for all intents and purposes" and misusing it like that can make someone look very foolish in how they present themselves. It also makes decidedly little sense as an actual phrase.

Deathly Angel wrote:
I did hear somewhere that Iron Warriors use cultists as cannon fodder during sieges, but then again it was from a poster on Dakka and it is quite a bit too similar to the Word Bearers' tactics. I agree with you that they shouldn't be in the same force, maybe they'd be better suited as an allied army in Apocalypse games perhaps.

That's from Storm of Iron, a solid BL book about the Iron Warriors in a protracted siege of an Imperial planet. It's awesome. They use hordes of slaves and prisoners with dummy rifles to run out in front of their actual army. The Imperials see a horde of ragged people charging towards them holding weapons, so they fire artillery at them. In doing so the Iron Warriors both test the ranges of the Imperial guns, and demoralize them once they figure out who they're shelling. I'm pretty sure every Chaos legion would be pretty happy to use cultists, freaks, mutants, and whatever other hordes of evil crap they could get their hands on.

Indeed they do, in both The Skull Harvest and Dead Sky, Black Sun IW is clearly stated as using cultists as cannon fodder.
A lot.

Durza wrote:
Boo to that. Alpha Legion get their own codex.

Because only Imperials should have 8 different books/PDFs to represent their fighting forces

(And before you ask... Space Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard - 8! 8 Imperial armies! AH AH AH!)

Why not do a big book similar to the ultramarine codex style where a lot of stuff is there. The basics of the chaos legions codex is there, and certain special charecters might have army wide traits (like the Ultramarine, Salamander, Crimson Fists, White Scars special charecters).

If don't want to limit it to special charecters, then we can still have it in the codex as sub rules. It probably can't be more than 2 pages if its stuff like if you are world bearers, you can't have scounts, etc.

So Black legion will be like ultramarines - the basic core CSM. And the other traitor legions will add further flavour by having their own subset of rules, a bit like like how Crimson fists sternguard units are scoring and stubborn, and how Salamander troops get twin linked meltas, flamers, and storm hammers.

Eldenfirefly wrote:Why not do a big book similar to the ultramarine codex style where a lot of stuff is there. The basics of the chaos legions codex is there, and certain special charecters might have army wide traits (like the Ultramarine, Salamander, Crimson Fists, White Scars special charecters).

The problem is where the SM characters are representative of their chapters a large proportion of the CSM characters are quite the opposite. As has already been pointed out Ahriman and Typhus are known exiles/rebels of their Legion who openly go against the daemon primarch's will (in Ahriman's case it was casting the Rubric, in Typhus' case it's by refusing to just settle on the daemon world the Legion was granted). Kharn's not much better (I don't think single handedly ripping apart your Legion's structure is a good representation) and there are no SCs for Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers or Night Lords at the moment.

Bit hard to take the SM approach without either a major fluff overhaul (and considering Ahriman and Kharn have been kicking around since 2nd edition...not that likely) or a whole slew of new SCs. We're going to have to wait and see. To be honest I'd like to see something similar to the Traits/Doctrines of the older codices - but rather than getting a freebie make it purchaseable like a 'mark'.

CSM (or Chaos Legions or whatever you want to call them) have grown up soooooo much from their creation that a single book is not enough to cover everything. As different SM chapters have been given relevance, they have been given a codex. Why chaos has to be tied to a 96 pages codex. We won't get a 300 pages codex, so any length will be not enough.

If we get just one codex, it won't represent what they say Chaos followers are.

Then don't tie it to the SCs. Just make a one or two page of special rules which govern specific traitor legions. I mean, if I was to summarize the blood angels, space wolves and black templar special rules, it would probably all fit into just two pages.

And Salamanders special rule was tied to a SC. But there really is no reason it can't just be tied to a Salamander army in general without requiring the SC to be there. We just have to balance it out by either paying a point cost for it, or having an associated penalty.

Example: World Bearers - All infantry units gets furious charge. But penalty - cannot take scouts.

Night Lords - All infantry units gets infiltrate and scouts rule. Penalty - cannot take vehicles!

If its something like that, you could easily have a generic army list and rules for Black Legion like Ultramarines. Then a two page special rules for all the other traitor legions.

If it was really good and nicely done, i wouldn't mind a 200pages book at 35$ for a real nice Legion list.

And i think i'm not the only one thinking this way.

What i don't understand is why since the release of the book, there wasn't any Errata where we did get back the Infernal Engine rule, Where Kharn got his EW back and so on.

This could have easely settle down the anger of most of the CSM players, after all DA and BT's did have an Errata like this,where DA could fill in a 15man LR crusader contrary of the classic 12 man Crusader in their Codex...

An Errata that would have fixed the stupidity of the Deamon Weapons and other things..., but for whatever reasons they did not...

I would be willing to pay more if the book was thick enough and had lots of fluff and variiety in it. Really I would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, I think the traitor legions are more thematic and fluffy than the renegades, and there's more info too. I am just not sure if there is enough material for renegades to justify another entire book.

I mean, sure Red Corsairs are cool, but do they really need a seperate set of rules? Red Corsairs have never stuck me as having a particular battle style unlike say World Bearers. How do you fill up a whole book on renegades? They are jsut all rebels and that's it. Its an excuse to throw in every single possible imperium and space marine unit into a list. Because you could even argue that any space marine chapter can go completely renegade, and so can an imperial regiment.

So, renegades is just anyone who has rebelled against the emperor or fallen into chaos after the Horus Heresy. You hardly need another army book just for that. Unless, you really want to have an army list like the Grey Knights and inquisition which can take imperial guardsmen plus space marines and plus daemons to boot.

Renegades would include mutants as well though. And plague zombies.

garrapignado wrote:CSM (or Chaos Legions or whatever you want to call them) have grown up soooooo much from their creation that a single book is not enough to cover everything. As different SM chapters have been given relevance, they have been given a codex. Why chaos has to be tied to a 96 pages codex. We won't get a 300 pages codex, so any length will be not enough.

If we get just one codex, it won't represent what they say Chaos followers are.

I have no idea why people keep saying this. The 3.5 ed codex is pretty much where these Legions have "grown up" to since their creation, and everything fit in there. I don't think we should exactly return to that codex, but it proves that you can do a lot in one book.

Brother SRM wrote:

garrapignado wrote:CSM (or Chaos Legions or whatever you want to call them) have grown up soooooo much from their creation that a single book is not enough to cover everything. As different SM chapters have been given relevance, they have been given a codex. Why chaos has to be tied to a 96 pages codex. We won't get a 300 pages codex, so any length will be not enough.

If we get just one codex, it won't represent what they say Chaos followers are.

I have no idea why people keep saying this. The 3.5 ed codex is pretty much where these Legions have "grown up" to since their creation, and everything fit in there. I don't think we should exactly return to that codex, but it proves that you can do a lot in one book.

I agree. An extra five pages in that codex would have fit in pretty much everything else- mutants and traitors, etc

Extra five pages would also work for DA, BA, BT, but they wrote full codexes. Why to surrender and get satisfied with "five extra pages"? "bad marines" can be nearly as profitable as "good marines" with proper treatment but they won't work in that direction if we just sit and ask for "five extra pages". That's why people keep saying this. I have a self created chaos legion, so I would easily buy every different chaos book, as it gives me a wider range of fun when playing my chaos marines. in the same way, I have loyal marines, and I created a home made chapter, so I can play them as vanilla, BA, DA, etc when needed/desired.

Also, some of us want tons of fluff and pics in our codexes, not only rules. We could really write one codex to imperials and one codex to enemies if we only pay attention to rules. If we were talking about merging all marines codexes, thousand of voices would rise against it.

Some of us want Chaos in one book because we don't want to wait 15 years for Orks, DE and Necrons to be updated again.

As Conan movie says: "that is another story". Chaos can be blamed for many things, but not this (yet) . Chaos has always have only one real codex at a time and we had to wait those years anyway for DE, Necrons.... (LatD was a minicodex, as Catachan was, and I think nobody will blame IG for the delay).

But hey, my wishes don't have to be others' wishes. And to say more, this is a rumours post, not a wishes one, so I will keep it rumour-oriented.