Rumors for Chaos Space Marines - Upd 8/12/2012 in OP

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.

**Exergy**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:I don't see how a renegade chapter would all of a sudden run out of storm bolters.

And lose all their Razorbacks.

and the marines forget how to rally

**Alpharius**

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Actually, the correct answer is "The Chaos codex isn't really about renegades. All the equipment is pre-heresy legion equipment. GW just threw the renegades in as an excuse for why the codex is so piss poor at representing the legions. Also Chaos Rhinos are MkIIC because GW's business strategy is to move as many SM models as possible so they sell you the same kit except with spikes."

Sadly, as much as it may be a horrible answer, I think Abadabadoobaddon probably closer to the truth with that than anything else we've been told to date!

**Minx**

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:GW just threw the renegades in as an excuse for why the codex is so piss poor at representing the legions.

or maybe it's just the lack of legions in a 40k setting

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

You're going to have to explain that one, Minx.

**Minx**

They might think that there are not enough structured elements of the former legions left to warrant a special treatment.

**catharsix**

Any further word or clarification on if Codex: CSM is coming out in September or October? It seems we have conflicting info floating around as to when it will be released, and when the Starter Set will be released. Would be pretty awesome for CSM players if it was the same month! (or not that awesome, given the hit on the wallet

)

-C6

**ZebioLizard2**

Minx wrote:They might think that there are not enough structured elements of the former legions left to warrant a special treatment.

Considering there was one chapter in the C:SM book that's even smaller than a typical chaos warband, yet still get's it's own rules with their special character, that answer is a load of complete and utter

**Nvs**

If they are going to introduce whacked out [censored] for Space Marine armies like Thunderwolf Cavalry or Dread Knights, they can spend the 5 seconds it would take to have a cult specific unit in each of the organization chart slots in a Chaos Codex.

**DarkStarSabre**

Minx wrote:They might think that there are not enough structured elements of the former legions left to warrant a special treatment.

Considering that the average Legion numbered into hundreds of thousands, if not higher....I'd say even if 5% remained structured that's still as much as 5 Loyalist SM chapters and more than a fair number of them.

**deleted20250424**

Minx wrote:They might think that there are not enough structured elements of the former legions left to warrant a special treatment.

Never mind the fact that GW has structured entire events around the Legions return (Black Crusades) and constantly refrences them in modern text that GW churns out.

I'm sure GW feels the Legions are nothing more than a bug on the windshield.

**Abadabadoobaddon**

aka_mythos wrote:Legions will never be represented because that notion generally requires excluding unit choices from being allowed... That means making some kits less likely to be purchased which goes against GW policy and strategy. It'd be nice if they did, but unlikely.

Excluding unit choices? In an edition in which SM and Tau are battle brothers? If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit! The defense rests.

**MasterSlowPoke**

H.B.M.C. wrote:You're going to have to explain that one, Minx.

I'm not him, but I see it similar to how Aaron Dembski-Bowden sees it:

Bear with me a moment. I'm going to use the Night Lords, but this could apply to any Legion. And, yes, it could - no matter what the 3.5 limited rules said.

Warband 1 is a Night Lords warband, consisting entirely of Heresy-era warriors from the Eighth Legion who care nothing for Chaos, but realise their "side" in the Long War are - to some degree - serving the aims of the malignant intelligences within the warp. They couldn't care less about the larger Legion; living in a realm of eternal Hell with no laws of space and time have depleted ancient bonds to more daily, relevant allegiances. They don't hate their Legion, they're still Night Lords, it's just a bond that applied ten thousand years ago holds little relevance for them now. They know they can't trust their own brothers, because all Chaos Marines spend as much time fighting each other as they do the Imperium.

Warband 2 is a Night Lords warband, consisting entirely on Heresy-era warriors from the Eighth Legion who don't worship Chaos, but raise icons to gain the blessings of various gods whenever it suits their needs, such as summoning daemons to win a war, or demanding the Blood God grant them power for an upcoming battle. They don't worship Chaos, but they recognise it as a weapon, and don't hide from using it. They consider themselves Eighth Legion to the core, forever staying in touch with dozens of other Night Lords warbands, uniting every chance they get - much like those rare moments when a full Chapter goes to war, rather than 1 or 2 Companies.

Warband 3 is a Night Lords warband with many newly initiated Night Lords over the course of the centuries, as they've needed to repopulate their ranks after losses in battle. Some of their squads are ancient veterans, others are newer blood. They feel the same about the Legion as Warband 1.

Warband 4 is a Night Lords warband with a core of Night Lord warriors, allied with a Raptor Cult (several Raptor squads originally drawn from several Legions) and a Thousand Sons sorcerer, who commands a small phalanx of Rubric Marines.

Warband 5 is a Night Lords warband that enhances its desire to feed on fear (and its ability to inspire terror) by merging with daemons. They have several Possessed squads, and are led by a Daemon Prince. They even have a few daemon engines, in various forms, and prefer Daemon possessed tanks.

Warband 6 is a Night Lords warband that (either because of a need to survive or a mutual alliance of trust) have allied with an equally sized Iron Warrior warband, to create a new warband led by a council of Night Lord and Iron Warrior Champions.

Warband 7 is a Night Lords warband that has somehow discovered the exact mechanics of Berzerker surgery, and have several Night Lord Berzerker squads among their ranks. In all other ways, they're similar to Warbands 1, 2 or 3.

Warband 8 is a Night Lords warband much like any other, except that they're allied with the survivors of a newly-turned Renegade Chapter that they conquered in battle.

Warband 9 is a newly-turned Renegade Chapter.

Warband 10 is a collection of Nurgle-aligned warbands, such as at the Siege of Vraks, with squads drawn from the Purge, the Lords of Decay, the Apostles of Contagion, and the Death Guard.

Warband 11 calls itself the Cimmerian Nightfall. In the Heresy, they were Night Lords; they still consider themselves Night Lords and they're no different to warbands 1, 2 or 3. They just have their own warband name, much as most Chaos armies would have - the same way the Skulltakers and Berzerkers of Skallathrax are still World Eaters, and my own warband the Aphotican Oath are still Word Bearers.

Warband 12 calls itself the Sons of the Sunless World. In the Heresy they were Night Lords, but much as the Sanctified left (but are still allied with) the Word Bearers, the Sons of the Sunless World left the Eighth Legion to pursue their own breed of tactics and goals that loosely conflicted with the focus of most other nearby Night Lord warbands. They're Eighth Legion stock, but prefer a degree of independence beyond even the usual scattering of warbands throughout space and time. Their armour is almost exactly the same as the Night Lords, except for red helmets.

Warband 13 calls itself the Tears of the Fallen Father. In the Heresy, they were Night Lords, but in the years that followed, they've sworn against everything the Night Lords stood for, considering their original Legion to be failures and weaklings. Their armour is black and grey, and they have a completely new symbol on their shoulder guards.

Warband 14 is a collection of Marines from different Chapters and Legions temporarily (for one crusade or for thousands of years) allied under the banner of a single god, following a council of leaders or a single warlord.

Warband 15 is a collection of almost completely unattached Chaos Marines from various Legions and Chapters, united only by the whims of fate and the winds of the warp - much like Chaos itself determining Angron and 50,000 Berzerkers would ravage Armageddon int he First War.

And here's the thing.

A codex - and the players - need to recognise that every single one of those warbands is just as realistic, just as possible, and just as viable as all the others. Our codex needs to offer all of those options (and I'm not saying it'll be easy) to players so they can create any one of those without feeling like their army is weaker because they didn't take a specific "must have" unit.

It's not a case of "Legions or Renegades" or "Legions are unified or Legions are totally divided".

Shades of grey, guys. Remember, the gamer perception of self-identifying as "I'm a Dark Angels player" really isn't relevant, here. By the lore, and the way Chaos works in the Eye of Terror, the codex needs to go beyond that - and so do some of us. Yes, we can still say "I'm a Word Bearers player" - I say it myself - but there are nuances by the truckload in all this.

It's not so much that the the Legions don't exist anymore, it's that the continuum of chaos is so vast, and the legion archetypes are a very small subset on that continuum. There need not be a distinction between Legionnaire and Renegade, because chaos forces simply don't organize that way, There is no Traitor Legion or Renegade chapter HQ to report to, Chaos is made up of warbands headed by powerful leaders who work for their own benefit. If a codex says that World Eaters work one way, this is a disservice to anyone who has World Eaters that work another way.

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

If anything that shows how diverse Chaos is, not how they should get no Legion rules at all.

As I and many others have said before, Marines are considered versatile enough to warrant 6 different Codices (and there are even more Chapters within, if you include Special Chars). I don’t think Chaos needs this level of representation, but I do think Chaos can get by with a single Codex that includes modifications for Legion armies.

“They are all Warbands now!” isn’t an explanation. It’s a cop-out.

And in reference to ADB's final comments - I'm a Word Bearer player as well. And a World Eater player. And a Death Guard player. I'd like that to mean something again, rather than just being a paint-job.

**MasterSlowPoke**

It's not so much that Legions don't exist, it's that any rules for such would be needlessly restrictive.

If you want to make a legion of Emperor's Children, you should be able to do it. If you want to make a force of Emperor's Children with a heavy sorcery focus, you should be able to do that. If you want to play a force of Emperor's Children where the Lord has defected to Khornate worship and dominates his still Slaaneshi compatriots, you should be able to do that.

The book should not be, here's a bunch of generic stuff, or you can play using 9 different subsets with a few baubles added on.

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

Restrictive? Sorry. I heard that comment levelled at the 3.5 Codex. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now. It’d even go so far as to say that it’s complete bull gak.

The Legion rules, as they were, modified the standard list to allow people to represent the various traits and idiosyncrasies within the fluff via new special rules, the occasionally bit of extra wargear, and also some shifting of what was available. If you didn’t want the “restrictive” rules placed on you then you just played the basic list.

I had an army of Word Bearers where their leader had slowly, over time, dedicated himself to Khorne. I used the basic list, and I didn’t get the benefits of the Word Bearer rules. But I could always go back to them. My World Eaters and Death Guard always played as a Legion force, but occasionally I’d take a regular Chaos army that included Berzerkers and/or Plague Marines.

It. Wasn’t. Restrictive.

It was the opposite of restrictive.

**aka_mythos**

As flawed a perspective as it is, GW's perspective was that it was restrictive because if it prevented you from taking a single unit, it was definitively restrictive... GW only saw the the one unit each legions was effectively prohibited from taking but ignored the fact that the rule effectively created as many if not more units for each legion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:Legions will never be represented because that notion generally requires excluding unit choices from being allowed... That means making some kits less likely to be purchased which goes against GW policy and strategy. It'd be nice if they did, but unlikely.

Excluding unit choices? In an edition in which SM and Tau are battle brothers?...

Non sequiter. I don't really know what SM and Tau have to do with GW's perspective that Legions are limiting... Really if anything, SM and Tau being battle brothers just shows the lengths GW will go to remove as many restrictions as possible, even if it is to a non-sensical degree... while also showing how even the tiniest slivers of restriction are too much for their current mindset. I don't agree with either thing. I was just stating the reality.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abadabadoobaddon wrote: If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit! The defense rests.

I sincerely believe this is the most idiotic form of condecension I've ever encountered.

**Zweischneid**

aka_mythos wrote:As flawed a perspective as it is, GW's perspective was that it was restrictive because if it prevented you from taking a single unit, it was definitively restrictive... GW only saw the the one unit each legions was effectively prohibited from taking but ignored the fact that the rule effectively created as many if not more units for each legion.

Which is of course right.

Restricting access simply adds nothing for anyone and only frustration to those who are tied in by the restrictions.

If you disallow a largely Khorne-Force to be led by a Slannesh Sorcerer or Lord, it is a rule that is 100% meaningless to those that wouldn't have opted for that HQ-choice in the first place (for whatever reason) and only harms those that would have wanted to do so.

If you don't like Slannesh in your Khornate Army, don't take it. Simple enough. But restricting this option to those who would enjoy the combination is just spiteful for no good reason.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:

Renegades weren't just thrown in as excuse, their inclusion was simply to reinforce the notion of all units being available in allowing the mixed composition of cults that for all intents and purpose only rarely cooperate in cult-centric legions.

Renegades were thrown in for the same reason successor-chapters where thrown in for the loyalists: to provide creative space for people to play "Night-Lords-but-with-a-red-colour-scheme" and remain within the universe in a way that other games (e.g. Warmachine) don't allow. This "build-your-own" option is one of the best things GW ever did.

aka_mythos wrote:
Legions will never be represented because that notion generally requires excluding unit choices from being allowed... That means making some kits less likely to be purchased which goes against GW policy and strategy. It'd be nice if they did, but unlikely.

Why?

Disallowing choices you wouldn't take in the first place means nothing to you and only harms those who would enjoy those choices. There is no added "fluff-value" in restrictions, just indulgence to the most despicable holier-than-thou instincts of flawed egos that feel the need to one-up other players by playing with "more official" or "more canon" armies in a hobby which is actually meant to promote creativity, diversity and ingenuity.

The superior hobbyist is always the one who "makes his own" army, not the one slavishly pouring over BL-novels in a misguided quest to make his or her army more "legitimate".

**Panic**

yeah,

Zweischneid wrote:Disallowing choices you wouldn't take in the first place means nothing to you and only harms those who would enjoy those choices. There is no added "fluff-value" in restrictions, ...

This is fine untill you realise that the purpose of a codex is also to make Lists that the community will find fair.
I dread the day chaos get Codex: do what you want.

Zweischneid wrote:The superior hobbyist is always the one who "makes his own" army, not the one slavishly pouring over BL-novels in a misguided quest to make his or her army more "legitimate".

In your opinion, if you want to make a uber death death army of can't be beaten by simply picked all the best units from the codex enjoy yourself.
In my opinion, seeing a hobbists holding true to the fluff brings tears of joy to my eyes and a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing that they are doing it right.

Panic...

**Abadabadoobaddon**

aka_mythos wrote:
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:Legions will never be represented because that notion generally requires excluding unit choices from being allowed... That means making some kits less likely to be purchased which goes against GW policy and strategy. It'd be nice if they did, but unlikely.

Excluding unit choices? In an edition in which SM and Tau are battle brothers?...
Non sequiter. I don't really know what SM and Tau have to do with GW's perspective that Legions are limiting... Really if anything, SM and Tau being battle brothers just shows the lengths GW will go to remove as many restrictions as possible, even if it is to a non-sensical degree... while also showing how even the tiniest slivers of restriction are too much for their current mindset. I don't agree with either thing. I was just stating the reality.

The error is in assuming that the inclusion of legion rules would mean restricting unit choices. If they included a rule saying Iron Warriors characters don't have to accept challenges how would that be restrictive? They didn't start emphasizing warbands to justify mixing different legion rules in the same army - they did it to justify eliminating them altogether. So a Word Bearers dark apostle is functionally no different from a Black Legion lord or a renegade SM captain? Really? Becuz dey iz warbanz? Ruleswise everybody is basically Black Legion.

**deleted20250424**

To me, the problem is that GW isn't approaching the CSM book like they approach the SM book.

Taking Lysander to represent a "more fluffy" Imperial Fists list doesn't make that list more restrictive, it adds a small amount of flavor/fluff and moves on. The same can be said for Crimson FIsts, Sallies, etc.. GW is only giving and taking in the form of rules and not in models. Why can't this be done in CSM? Why isn't it done in CSM?

I'm 3000 miles from my SM codex and don't play SM (I play BA

), so work with me here.... Vulkan revolves around what again... Flamers, Meltas, and Thunder Hammers? So that gives a player something to focus on and build around. I'm guessing that Salamander armies have a high amount of these weapons to take advantage of these bonuses. Lysander is something Bolt-weapon related if I recall correctly. I'm guessing there's a way to take advatage of that too through lots of Bolt-weapon troops. Pedro does what... makes Sternguard Troops or Scoring? I bet there's a way to take advantage of that too.

Now, let's apply that to CSM. Let's say that John Doe wants to build a NIght Lords army. Why isn't there a CSM HQ choice for Night Lords that does something like; move Raptors to Troops or say give 1 more Fast Attack slot that MUST BE filled by a Raptor squad, make one Raptor squad scoring, allow 1 squad to deepstrike like DoA? Any number of tiny rules can be added to a unit or all units to indicate they are Legion Vets. How about an HQ choice for Word Bearers that reduces the cost of a second Sorc, or say an HQ for Iron Warriors that opens an extra Heavy Slot that must be used by Oblits. Something, ANYTHING that add some flavor/fluff. It wouldn't restrict anything in selling models and add just that little bit of flavor. Just like C:SM.

I'd like to address this comment made earlier;

living in a realm of eternal Hell with no laws of space and time have depleted ancient bonds to more daily

The problem of this statement lies IN the statement itself. You use this as proof that somehow the Legions have dispersed and no longer have these "ancient bonds". If the laws of space and time no longer apply, then 10,000 years could seem as one day. To their knowledge, they entered the Eye of Terror yesterday where they were just on Terra. So why would the Legion magically fall apart? The Iron Warriors maintain 2 planets inside the Eye. I'm pretty sure they have an "HQ" and know fully well who to "report to" in their CoC.

So as far as; Eye of Terror, Warp Time, Laws of Physics and Quantum Physics, etc, et al.... the pendulum swings both ways and can be used to argue equally one way or another.

Abaddabadoo is on the right track. ^^

**aka_mythos**

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:Non sequiter. I don't really know what SM and Tau have to do with GW's perspective that Legions are limiting... Really if anything, SM and Tau being battle brothers just shows the lengths GW will go to remove as many restrictions as possible, even if it is to a non-sensical degree... while also showing how even the tiniest slivers of restriction are too much for their current mindset. I don't agree with either thing. I was just stating the reality.

The error is in assuming that the inclusion of legion rules would mean restricting unit choices. If they included a rule saying Iron Warriors characters don't have to accept challenges how would that be restrictive? They didn't start emphasizing warbands to justify mixing different legion rules in the same army - they did it to justify eliminating them altogether. So a Word Bearers dark apostle is functionally no different from a Black Legion lord or a renegade SM captain? Really? Becuz dey iz warbanz? Ruleswise everybody is basically Black Legion.

In the new book yes pretty much anyone who wants to play their Legion can play it like black legion if they want. There are Warsmiths, Dark Apostles, chaos cultists, etc... in the book, if the book were legion centric it insists on distinctions between the legions to be made, and these units most likely wouldn't be available to everyone. We are allowed to impose our own restrictions on our list building if we want, it doesn't GW has to do it for us. Not all Dark Apostles are Word Bearers, not all Warsmiths are Iron Warriors, and not all cultists are Alpha Legion agents; I'm sure there are chapters that have been led a stray by chaplains and techmarines alike... and plenty of chaos marines that have allied themselves with chaos cultists. I believe the Legions deserve their own rules more than loyalist chapters for no other reason than that they're organizationally larger and significant, but to do so in a single book is the real problem.

**deleted20250424**

aka_mythos wrote:I believe the Legions deserve their own rules more than loyalist chapters for no other reason than that they're organizationally larger and significant, but to do so in a single book is the real problem.

This could be done at 1 page per Legion, at most.

Again, let's go to C:SM (Don't ask how I suddenly know despite just saying my SM rulebook is 3000 miles away).

Crimson Fist Army - Add Pedro (1 page) on that same page gives all the rules for Pedro and includes some additional rules that make sense for Crimson Fist fluff. Removes nothing in the model area. On to the next page.

Imperial Fist Army - Add Lysander (1 page) on that same page gives all the rules for Lysander and includes some additional rules that make sense for Imperial Fist fluff. Removes nothing in the model area. On to the next page.

Raven Guard Army - Add Kayvaan (1 page) on that same page gives all the rules for Kayvaan and includes some additional rules that make sense for Raven Guard fluff. Removes nothing in the model area. On to the next page.

Salamanders Army - Add Vulkan (1 page) on that same page gives all the rules for Vulkan and includes some additional rules that make sense for Salamanders fluff. Removes nothing in the model area. On to the next page.

See where this is going yet?

Now I will admit that this is pretty weak considering that at least 50% of each of those pages is background/fluff and it's a lame attempt at what *could* be done. On the other hand, it's something and something is more than nothing. It's an effort to add variety, a half-assed effort, but CSM don't even get that.

Why can't it be:

Iron Warriors - Add Honsou (1 page) on that same page gives all the rules for Honsou and includes some additional rules that make sense for Iron Warriors fluff. Removes nothing in the model area. On to the next page.

Night Lords - Add Talos (1 page) on that same page gives all the rules for Talos and includes some additional rules that make sense for Night Lords fluff. Removes nothing in the model area. On to the next page.

And so on. It's not that hard. Hell GW could almost Cut & Paste mirror chapters if they wanted to be really lazy since in theory they made the SM and CSM mirrors of each other. GW has access to dozens of different rules that could be applied to CSM evenly as they have to SM. I would LOVE to have an IW codex. It probably will never happen. Would I be appeased with a one page nod to my Legion with a couple rules changes? Hell yes.

I believe I'm not the only one.

**Chaos Legionnaire**

Also remember that in the hallowed 3.5 dex, each legion got exactly one page (often less), of legion-specific rules.
That worked just fine.

**jmurph**

Hmm, looking at the new rumors, its seems like CSM might be ok (slightly cheaper then C:SM, hopefully Bolter/BP/CCW and 1 special weapon for 5) but 1 point for ATSKNF really makes Codex marines a more solid troop choice. Cult marines are looking quite overpriced and, by extension, marked termies are likely then overpriced (and almost certainly won't have access to SS or cyclones, making them, again, subpar). The wannabee assault terminators with morphing weapons seem kind of pointless unless they are cheap.

Cheap cultists are a meh add on since loyalists can just ally in IG, and the flier looks like a chaos stormraven in stats.

Non random possessed is a nice touch, but it looks like overall they are going to remain a pretty mediocre to poor codex in terms of powerlevel which will probably not age well.

**Rivet**

jmurph wrote:Hmm, looking at the new rumors, its seems like CSM might be ok (slightly cheaper then C:SM, hopefully Bolter/BP/CCW and 1 special weapon for 5) but 1 point for ATSKNF really makes Codex marines a more solid troop choice. Cult marines are looking quite overpriced and, by extension, marked termies are likely then overpriced (and almost certainly won't have access to SS or cyclones, making them, again, subpar). The wannabee assault terminators with morphing weapons seem kind of pointless unless they are cheap.

Cheap cultists are a meh add on since loyalists can just ally in IG, and the flier looks like a chaos stormraven in stats.

Non random possessed is a nice touch, but it looks like overall they are going to remain a pretty mediocre to poor codex in terms of powerlevel which will probably not age well.

I do not know about this. I have faith in Phil Kelly. He did amazing things for my Vampire Counts and my wife's Dark Eldar.

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

aka_mythos wrote:...but to do so in a single book is the real problem.

No it's not.
It's been done.

Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords and Word Bearers all got a page in the 3.5 'Dex. Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children, World Eaters and Death Guard all got roughly 2 pages (plus a special char) as they chose to put all the God-specific Wargear/Psychic powers in that section rather than with the rest of the armoury.

And it worked fine.

**Spartan089**

jmurph wrote:Hmm, looking at the new rumors, its seems like CSM might be ok (slightly cheaper then C:SM, hopefully Bolter/BP/CCW and 1 special weapon for 5) but 1 point for ATSKNF really makes Codex marines a more solid troop choice. Cult marines are looking quite overpriced and, by extension, marked termies are likely then overpriced (and almost certainly won't have access to SS or cyclones, making them, again, subpar). The wannabee assault terminators with morphing weapons seem kind of pointless unless they are cheap.

Cheap cultists are a meh add on since loyalists can just ally in IG, and the flier looks like a chaos stormraven in stats.

Non random possessed is a nice touch, but it looks like overall they are going to remain a pretty mediocre to poor codex in terms of powerlevel which will probably not age well.

And this is my greatest fear, the 4th edition rule book was mediocre from the start and aged horribly with only one viable competitive build that was played to death. This book can "balanced" when it comes out,but balance means nothing when books like Space Wolves and Gray Knights (and latter the Necron Update) came out inherently broken, the former only becoming less over powered due to the 6th edition transition. If chaos does have a "power creep" when it comes out then it is already behind by books more than a year and a half old. A gap that will continue to widen as new codexes come out, especially if they are written by Ward who has no semblance of restraint when writing broken books. That's just in terms of competitiveness. I don't even want to comment on the lack of legion rules and new special characters which is practically an insult considering how much they put into C:SM.

**aka_mythos**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:...but to do so in a single book is the real problem.

No it's not.
It's been done.

Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords and Word Bearers all got a page in the 3.5 'Dex. Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children, World Eaters and Death Guard all got roughly 2 pages (plus a special char) as they chose to put all the God-specific Wargear/Psychic powers in that section rather than with the rest of the armoury.

And it worked fine.

In context I'm saying its a problem with GW's mentality. That doing it in a single book creates exclsusion within the book, that goes against GW's current philosophy, creating the problem that makes a single book not feasible. Maybe I should clarify, its not feasible to GW. Its not worth it to me.

Even still I think its incredibly difficult to both balance doing the concept of each legion justice while simultaneously restricting the rules to a special characters, an HQ, or individual pages... you're still talking about 8 or 9 different sets of rules that should fundamentally alter the way the army plays. It would be more than any other individual army gets and I think it clutters a book to do it that way. I want to see Legion rules, I just don't think this is the best way. While confined to a single book, I think the approach of the new book is best, by simply allowing these different previously unique units together... the only inclusion the single book approach needs are reccomendations as to what a player should decide they should or shouldn't use.

I don't think the 3.5ed codex did the legions justice and I don't think it went far enough. I think it was a cluttered book that offered too much relative to every other army. I want to see several separate books for Chaos but in the absence of that I don't think its worth characterizing each legion in such a narrow way. While I believe the Legions should be better represented I don't really have an interest in playing such a narrowly described army. I play Ravenguard and never use Kayvaan, I play Emperors Children and never use Lucius...why should my army be so narrowly defined by a single page. In 3.5ed, I wanted to play a Iron Warriors army with Cultists... this codex will let me do what the 3.5ed one didn't. The free form format allows the player to dictate the narrative of their army, as opposed to the expectation that GW should say "every _____ army is pretty much this."

**protonhunter**

So wait if I want to get a special rool I have to build my army a certain way?

I'm absolutly fine with making a thousand sons army, I just don't want to not be able to take oblitorators. If I can and you want to give me some other special rule with no draw backs I'm fine. But handing out special rules with draw backs is stupid... my 2 cents

**deleted20250424**

Mythos must just skip right over my posts.

The Space Marine Codex ALREADY does this.

Why can the CSM Codex not do the same?

Taking Lysander, Pedro, Vulkan, etc. removes NOTHING from the SM army list in the way of models or units. It merely substitutes certain rules (already in the game) for other rules. This is turn gives each variation some amount of flavor.

Why can't FOC slots be slid around by increasing one while decreasing another, remove some demonic gift here and replace it with relentless there, etc. etc. etc.

It's really not that hard.