Heretic Astartes: Ancient Warriors using archaic weaponry.....or not?

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.

**Tycho**

xerxeskingofking wrote:we can but hope. certainly, the 9e codexes so far seem to have given serious thought into making the armies fight like their lore says they should. Thus i am hopeful they will manage to give us a good codex CSM that supports multiple playstyles in a fun and fluffy way, even if not all of them are tourney competitive.

Same. I've said a few times that while they aren't the most competitive rules, I actually do enjoy the Iron Warriors rules from PA. It gives me a chance to field my silver baddies and have them actually feel like Iron Warriors. Competitive? Not so much. Fun? Absolutely.

**Gert**

How dare you have fun playing CSM, hand in your tape measure and dice, you're off the team.

**A.T.**

Tycho wrote:
Why? It's a HUGE part of the lore, that the Heresy Era tech is, by and large, SUPERIOR to modern tech.

Is it though?
Dark Age technology is far superior, doubtless.

Heresy era-tech on the other hand - the marines of the crusades were just starting to roll out the mk4 plate, the early models of terminator armour with twin-linked boltguns, experiments with mounting the power supply for a thunderhammer on something smaller than a dreadnought, and so on. And it was something of a plot point that much of the newer pre-heresy stuff was difficult to produce maintain without the resources of a stable Imperium.

**Unit1126PLL**

The lore on that has changed.

Back in the day, Heresy-era stuff was better (with rare exceptions that were specifically noted).

Nowadays, GW has changed the lore such that newer stuff is better. Such is the way of things.

**Gert**

I would say it depends on your definition of "better" as even in the Crusade this was an issue.
A Volkite Charger is more killy than a Bolter because it is a death ray, very fun, much choom. However, they were very expensive and difficult to produce/maintain compared to a Bolter. So while the Unification Wars saw large quantities of Volkite weapons used amongst the Legions, by the time the Imperium had expanded beyond Sol the Bolter was the standard issue weapon.
A Spartan Assault Tank might be better armoured, have more guns, more transport capacity and the ability to mount specialist gear such as Flare Shields but it is going to be 100 times harder to maintain than a bog-standard Land Raider and a CSM Warband would have to resort to more dangerous methods of maintenance like possession or letting the repairs be done by a Magos with a less than stable grip on sanity.

**Unit1126PLL**

Gert wrote:
I would say it depends on your definition of "better" as even in the Crusade this was an issue.
A Volkite Charger is more killy than a Bolter because it is a death ray, very fun, much choom. However, they were very expensive and difficult to produce/maintain compared to a Bolter. So while the Unification Wars saw large quantities of Volkite weapons used amongst the Legions, by the time the Imperium had expanded beyond Sol the Bolter was the standard issue weapon.
A Spartan Assault Tank might be better armoured, have more guns, more transport capacity and the ability to mount specialist gear such as Flare Shields but it is going to be 100 times harder to maintain than a bog-standard Land Raider and a CSM Warband would have to resort to more dangerous methods of maintenance like possession or letting the repairs be done by a Magos with a less than stable grip on sanity.

Well, I mean, a gun is harder to maintain than a stick as far as weapons go, but the gun is still better. So while you're right that there is some subjectivity here, simply saying "It's harder to maintain!11!!!!" isn't helpful.

Take, for example, Battlefleet Gothic.

Heresy era ships were faster and had longer-ranged Lances and guns, and additionally had better fire arcs. They were also more expensive points wise (generally). Were they better than the Imperial ships? Or are the Imperial ships better because they are cheaper?

I know which one was higher tech, either way.

**Tycho**

Gert wrote:
How dare you have fun playing CSM, hand in your tape measure and dice, you're off the team.

You're right I'm sorry! I forgot we aren't allowed to like anything that isn't 3.5!

I'll see myself out ....

I would say it depends on your definition of "better" as even in the Crusade this was an issue.
A Volkite Charger is more killy than a Bolter because it is a death ray, very fun, much choom. However, they were very expensive and difficult to produce/maintain compared to a Bolter. So while the Unification Wars saw large quantities of Volkite weapons used amongst the Legions, by the time the Imperium had expanded beyond Sol the Bolter was the standard issue weapon.
A Spartan Assault Tank might be better armoured, have more guns, more transport capacity and the ability to mount specialist gear such as Flare Shields but it is going to be 100 times harder to maintain than a bog-standard Land Raider and a CSM Warband would have to resort to more dangerous methods of maintenance like possession or letting the repairs be done by a Magos with a less than stable grip on sanity.

Exactly. The fluff has changed to where not everything from "back then" is just universally better, but way to o many people have jumped to "that means it's universally worse", which is also not accurate. Think about it from a pure logical standpoint. If the majority of CSM really were stuck using tech that is THAT inferior, and which cannot be reproduced or fixed ... they wouldn't be much a of a threat would they?

Sadly, that seems to be the viewpoint a lot of people have. For some odd reason ...

**A.T.**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Back in the day, Heresy-era stuff was better (with rare exceptions that were specifically noted).

I can't offhand think of a single example from the early edition chaos or background books, save for the rarity of hover-based tech.

I guess it depends how far back in the day you go, forgeworld horus heresy stuff really ramped it up.

**Tycho**

A.T. wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Back in the day, Heresy-era stuff was better (with rare exceptions that were specifically noted).
I can't offhand think of a single example from the early edition chaos or background books, save for the rarity of hover-based tech.

I guess it depends how far back in the day you go, forgeworld horus heresy stuff really ramped it up.

Second ed Codex Imperials, rule book excerpts, and I THINK the weapons manual. Then again in the Angels of Death Codex (I think this was specifically in reference to the DA section .... ironic ....) and the CSM codex for that edition. Plus numerous novels, I THINK the Witch Hunters codex makes mention of it as well (in passing), and also some Inferno pieces. The 3.5 CSM 'dex makes mention of some special relics as well I believe. Although what's "canon" now in terms of novels and things like Inferno is pretty much up in the air. lol

**A.T.**

Tycho wrote:
Second ed Codex Imperials, rule book excerpts, and I THINK the weapons manual.

Wargear book, you might be mixing it with the very similar pre 2nd ed battle manual. I dug them out before the previous post trying to find an old quote I remember regarding thunder hammers but it wasn't in either. Nothing in the way of heresy tech
The witch hunters stuff was all apostasy era (even their inferno pistols are described as artificier-made rather than relics), and the chaos 3.5 stuff was all daemonic gifts.

I think landspeeders, hoverbikes, and similar technologies were the first bits of superior heresy-era / lost technologies back in the early days but there wasn't much of it going around in the core game books. I do wonder where that thunder hammer quote comes from too (something about the march of imperial technology).

**StrayIight**

Gert wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

They produce Thunderhawks using a STC, not the Hell-planes. And Xana II isn't Lockheed Martin, it's an entire planet producing arms and supplies for the forces of Chaos.

Their manufacturing capability is still going to be much less than a Mechanicus Forgeworld that has the backing of the Imperium. Regardless CSM shouldn't get a free pass on things like Laser Destroyer Vindicators or Sicarans because they're old, these same weapons are going to be difficult to maintain for a Loyalist Chapter with access to the secrets of Mars let alone a CSM Warband who may or may not have a pact with Mechanicum Forges.

What makes you say that? Xana II is a single Hell Forge (and I see no reason why that shouldn't measure up - or likely surpass in truth - any Imperial Forge World in terms of capability). And there are many others. The number of Mechanicum members who joined Horus during the Heresy was vast - and included the Fabricator General of the time themselves. I'll guarantee that they made off with many of the 'secrets of Mars'. The one thing we know they absolutely left behind was the dogma around technology which was holding them back...

We don't know very much at all about the modern Dark Mechanicus. But we do know they've had ten thousand years to create, experiment, and advance - utterly unimpeded.

**Eldenfirefly**

And you would have thought that ten thousand years of development and experimentation with no holds barred on test subjects, no morals, no rules. no traditions should have allowed the dark mechanicus to have come up with something good. lol

**BrianDavion**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Gert wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.

"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"

What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?

What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.

And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.

in fairness the Nightlords have always as long as I've been reading 40k been depicted as a legion of terror troops more then anything. that said it's obvious stealth is something they're good at too. IMHO they should get a stealth rule and a fear rule.

moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.

**StrayIight**

BrianDavion wrote:

moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.

I tend to agree. It makes much more sense to me to provide players the tools to represent/create disparate Warbands, rather than focus on Legions which don't function in the fluff the way the rules seem to want to indicate. We've 30K for playing as Legions.

Perhaps (as a very, very rough example) you'd gain 'buffs' depending on which Legions your Warband draws members from.
Just a bunch of really well devised custom traits to draw from - like we see in other Codex's - would probably do the job in truth. Given enough thought and care. Allows someone like Gad to pick a 'stealth' based set of custom traits for his Night Lords rather than feeling shoe horned into a fear based army that he doesn't feel represents them.

Spit balling obviously.

**BrianDavion**

StrayIight wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.

I tend to agree. It makes much more sense to me to provide players the tools to represent/create disparate Warbands, rather than focus on Legions which don't function in the fluff the way the rules seem to want to indicate. We've 30K for playing as Legions.

Perhaps (as a very, very rough example) you'd gain 'buffs' depending on which Legions your Warband draws members from.
Just a bunch of really well devised custom traits to draw from - like we see in other Codex's - would probably do the job in truth. Given enough thought and care. Allows someone like Gad to pick a 'stealth' based set of custom traits for his Night Lords rather than feeling shoe horned into a fear based army that he doesn't feel represents them.

Spit balling obviously.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793076.page I made this post towards the start of 9th edition, it was sort of my presenting a proposal of what I'd like to see. feel free to take a look. generall the idea would be to borrow from the codex necrons which has two general charst and you mix and match from between them. the idea being you'd have a "orgin" and a legion.

so using Gad's example, he might choose Nightlords as his orgin and get the "terror troops" rule across his army. and then there might be a stealth rule he can choose as well to reflect that the lord who runs his warband tends to favor stealth tactics. Meanwhile I might have a nightlords' warband that is all about in your face scream and rush and thus take a ability that gives me +1 to my charges.

basicly I think they should do that rather then even have standard legion lists because EVERY warband is differant. and IMHO the rules need to reflect this.

**Iracundus**

Tycho wrote:

Exactly. The fluff has changed to where not everything from "back then" is just universally better, but way to o many people have jumped to "that means it's universally worse", which is also not accurate. Think about it from a pure logical standpoint. If the majority of CSM really were stuck using tech that is THAT inferior, and which cannot be reproduced or fixed ... they wouldn't be much a of a threat would they?

Sadly, that seems to be the viewpoint a lot of people have. For some odd reason ...

I have the 2nd edition Chaos Codex. Obviously some stuff has changed since then but, the most relevant parts about CSM equipment is on p. 72-73. Basically among other things it mentions how the Terminator suits were too old to have integral targeters (and because targeters were bulky and prone to malfunction so CSM heavy weapons lacked targeters) and teleport homers fitted or that have subsequently broken down and never been repaired (part of keeping with the portrayal of CSM as somewhat ramshackle or run down hand to mouth raiders). It also mentioned how jump packs and skimmers involved more complex fabrication and maintenance and so were rarer proportionally than after the Heresy, and that the greater complexity led to the elimination of their usage among the Traitor Legions (obviously the bit about jump packs seems to have now been retconned).

On p. 73, it talks about how attempts to increase the power of Terminators resulted in the twin combi-bolter (and that combi-bolter/plasma did not come about until after the Heresy), and that after the Heresy this led to the Storm Bolter. Also that the Reaper was eventually replaced by the Assault Cannon.

When the Traitor Legions rebelled against the Emperor the far-flung Imperium was already in a state of flux as it tried to assimilate the lost knowledge and vast resources recaptured in the Great Crusade. The forces of the Adeptus Astartes were in the process of re-equipping their forces with the masses of newly forged armour and weaponry pouring out of the workshops of the Adeptus Mechanicus when Horus unleashed his Legions.

As a result, the forces battling in the Horus Heresy fought with a mixture of the sometimes archaic armaments which they had used during the Crusade and previously unknown weapons based on arcane ancient technologies. Because the Traitor Legions were the ones that had advanced furthest from Terra, they were among the last to receive new weapons and armour. This meant that the Space Marines fighting for Horus lacked many of the weapons which would be subsequently phased into the arsenals of the Imperium over the next millennia.

After Horus fell the Traitor Legions were driven into the Eye of Terror, untouched by the flow of time. Their weaponry and armour has been embellished and decorated with personalised schemes but otherwise it has stayed unchanged down the centuries as they fight the Long War. Innovation and invention have become anathema to Chaos Space Marines as they battle the hated Imperium. They preserve their bitter anger for the lost millennia forced on them by the Emperor and anything new serves only to drive the shards of their hatred deeper into their tortured minds.

p. 71, 2nd edition Chaos Codex

In BFG, the Imperium had a decline in technology after the Heresy. The Imperium is not unified in its technology. Every so often there may be a new rediscovery (or innovation that gets disguised or justified as a rediscovery or allowable variation) while in other areas there is decline and loss of knowledge.

**Gadzilla666**

Iracundus wrote:The Dark Mechanicus are not the same as the Adeptus Mechanicus, and in particular have doubled down on the use of warp tech, though they also do other things like dabble with xeno tech. That is why instead of conventional fighter craft, they produce things like the Heldrake, or the Hell blades (which are rumored to use xeno tech), or the BFG Idolator escort (which is rumored to also use xeno tech for its lances which outperform Imperial ones). Producing run of the mill Rhinos, Predators, Land Raiders, etc... while done is probably seen as a bit "meh". Like Ork Mekboyz, I would see the Dark Mechanicus Tech Priests as readily offering to "improve" them.

I would say it is more a lack of rules allowing for more representation of daemon engines beyond the existing designs given by GW.

Right, improve them. Like by adding Chaos derived weapons like Butcher Cannons and Soulburner Bombards to them, or powering them with warp energy so they can heal themselves by killing things in melee. Fw was headed down that route with the Hellforged vehicle rules in 8th edition. Unfortunately gw took that away when they took over the rules for our fw vehicles, deciding to just copy-paste the rules from the loyalist list instead.

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Gert wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.

"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"

What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?

What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.

And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.

in fairness the Nightlords have always as long as I've been reading 40k been depicted as a legion of terror troops more then anything. that said it's obvious stealth is something they're good at too. IMHO they should get a stealth rule and a fear rule.

moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.

Yes, I remember that. It's a good idea, and a great way to make your dudes YOUR DUDES again. I think it would be a great way to handle CSM.

**JNAProductions**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Gert wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, I don't "insist it", but gw has both of the times they've actually given meaningful rules to the Legions (3.5 and Traitor Legions). Again, if you prefer that the Legions remain a flavorless paste like they have been since the 4th edition codex your welcome to that opinion. But I don't.

"Hey why can't I use this unit in my army"
"Oh because in order to get flavour for your sub-faction you aren't allowed to use these select units nor are you allowed to use these Keywords to get access to strats/relics."
"But why tho. Here's specific examples of my Legion doing exactly those things."
"Nope, we gave them flavour by removing your options. Enjoy!"

What would you give IW that they already can't take in order to justify them not being able to take any kind of God dedication despite the IW not only being CHAOS Space Marines but also consistently shown as being dedicated to a God/Gods. What about the WB or AL? We know you don't think that NL should be terror troops despite their entire existence as both Imperial and Chaos Marines being defined by that role so what about the rest?

What would I do? I'd allow them to take Cult Marines and Marks, but only if the entire army has the same Mark. No mixing and matching, because that's Black Legion's thing. So no making all of your shooty stuff Slaanesh so they can always shoot twice, and all of your fighty stuff Khorne, so they can fight twice. That's always been a power move anyway. Pick one Chaos God if you want the benefits it gives.

And again, Night Lords affecting morale started at the end of 7th edition. Before that we were the stealthy and fast Legion. Don't lecture me on the Legion I've been playing for two decades.

in fairness the Nightlords have always as long as I've been reading 40k been depicted as a legion of terror troops more then anything. that said it's obvious stealth is something they're good at too. IMHO they should get a stealth rule and a fear rule.

moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I belive we traded some ideas in it Gad.

Yes, I remember that. It's a good idea, and a great way to make your dudes YOUR DUDES again. I think it would be a great way to handle CSM.

Funnily enough, CSM currently lack ANY "Make Your Own" subfaction traits. They have some renegade traits, but those are all set in stone.

**StrayIight**

Grimtuff wrote:
xerxeskingofking wrote:
I cant think of any dark mechanicus models in 40K (though i half expect to get corrected on that).

In the 8th ed FW indexes you had Helwrights and Helwrights on Dark Abeyants, no idea if they got rules in the 9th indexes or or Legended or whatever. There is also the Negavolt Cultists from BSF, which have the Dark Mechanicus keyword as well.

Renegade/Chaos Knights could have a 'Dark Mechanicus' Keyword until relatively recently also. It's still there in spirit really, but represented by the 'Infernal Household' choice.

Used to be you'd choose between 'Questor Traitorous' or 'Dark Mechanicus'. Now it's Iconoclast/Infernal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793076.page I made this post towards the start of 9th edition, it was sort of my presenting a proposal of what I'd like to see. feel free to take a look. generall the idea would be to borrow from the codex necrons which has two general charst and you mix and match from between them. the idea being you'd have a "orgin" and a legion.

so using Gad's example, he might choose Nightlords as his orgin and get the "terror troops" rule across his army. and then there might be a stealth rule he can choose as well to reflect that the lord who runs his warband tends to favor stealth tactics. Meanwhile I might have a nightlords' warband that is all about in your face scream and rush and thus take a ability that gives me +1 to my charges.

basicly I think they should do that rather then even have standard legion lists because EVERY warband is differant. and IMHO the rules need to reflect this.

Yeah, this is great Brian, and I think probably the best way forward in terms of player agency, and the modern fluff. It'd help with rules bloat too potentially.

Honestly, we'll likely never see it, but it's a reasonably sensible direction for loyalists too quite frankly. Though I suspect that'd be a very hard sell to the Marine players.

**Gert**

It sounds very similar to the Successor Chapter traits SM players already have. Pick two of these to represent your Warband or you can pick a Legion/Chapter trait.

**StrayIight**

Gert wrote:
It sounds very similar to the Successor Chapter traits SM players already have. Pick two of these to represent your Warband or you can pick a Legion/Chapter trait.

Yeah, somewhat.

I think the key thing would be to have quite an expansive list, and one that's written with the various perceptions of what the characteristics of the Legions are/were, in mind.

That'd be the trick. Having options that cause you to make tough choices about what you select, and not the usual 'x trait is clearly competitively superior, everyone then picks x trait'

**Gert**

I think the biggest issue will still be "CSM are all just copies of X SM Chapters", which I think is going to be difficult to shake. I dread to even think about balance because it's already not great. If for example, we take the SM traits Stalwart (can only be wounded on a 3+ regardless of weapon abilities) and Indomitable (auto pass Combat Attrition), a unit like Plague Marines would be nigh on impossible to kill. But at the same time, you could easily recreate something similar to the Night Lords with Fearsome Aspect (-1 Ld within 3") and Stealthy (light cover at more than 18"). I don't like just flat copy-pastes from the Loyalist book but in this case, it's such a good system both narratively and competitively that honestly, I would replace the Legion traits entirely with this sort of pick-and-choose mechanic.
You can make better versions of every single CSM Legion in the SM Codex which just makes me sad

**BrianDavion**

Gert wrote:
It sounds very similar to the Successor Chapter traits SM players already have. Pick two of these to represent your Warband or you can pick a Legion/Chapter trait.

obviously I borrowed from it but I was actually more inspired by the NECRONS 9th edition codex "custom subfaction" rules. I was a little suprised they didn't follow through with those rules for other factions as it was a nice way to balance out some traits conflicting withoiut having a ton of "you can't pick X and Y" exception rules.

the necrons have their traits divided into two catagories. Dynastic tradtions, which discuesses the character of the dynasty and it's tradtions. and "circumstances of awakening" which discuss how the dynasty awoke. I thought that'd be a good one.

**Gert**

I'll have to yoink my friends Codex to see this for myself, it seems interesing.

**BrianDavion**

StrayIight wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
xerxeskingofking wrote:
I cant think of any dark mechanicus models in 40K (though i half expect to get corrected on that).

In the 8th ed FW indexes you had Helwrights and Helwrights on Dark Abeyants, no idea if they got rules in the 9th indexes or or Legended or whatever. There is also the Negavolt Cultists from BSF, which have the Dark Mechanicus keyword as well.

Renegade/Chaos Knights could have a 'Dark Mechanicus' Keyword until relatively recently also. It's still there in spirit really, but represented by the 'Infernal Household' choice.

Used to be you'd choose between 'Questor Traitorous' or 'Dark Mechanicus'. Now it's Iconoclast/Infernal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793076.page I made this post towards the start of 9th edition, it was sort of my presenting a proposal of what I'd like to see. feel free to take a look. generall the idea would be to borrow from the codex necrons which has two general charst and you mix and match from between them. the idea being you'd have a "orgin" and a legion.

so using Gad's example, he might choose Nightlords as his orgin and get the "terror troops" rule across his army. and then there might be a stealth rule he can choose as well to reflect that the lord who runs his warband tends to favor stealth tactics. Meanwhile I might have a nightlords' warband that is all about in your face scream and rush and thus take a ability that gives me +1 to my charges.

basicly I think they should do that rather then even have standard legion lists because EVERY warband is differant. and IMHO the rules need to reflect this.

Yeah, this is great Brian, and I think probably the best way forward in terms of player agency, and the modern fluff. It'd help with rules bloat too potentially.

Honestly, we'll likely never see it, but it's a reasonably sensible direction for loyalists too quite frankly. Though I suspect that'd be a very hard sell to the Marine players.

with Marines it's a bit differant because I can point to the Ultramarines and say THAT is the Ultramarines. I can point to the Imperial fists and say "they are the Imperial fists" and their doctrines are relatively stable and reckongizable.
the traitor legions however, at the risk of sounding like everyone's favorite smurf, are more theory then practical. there's no one black Legion warband I can point to and say THEY are the black legion. the hounds opf Abaddon would be very differant from Sons of the Cyclops.

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

BrianDavion wrote:
moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.

I'm tired of this "the legions are broken up so probably shouldn't get anything" Flanderisation.

There are more Iron Warriors than there are Ultramarines. There are more World Eaters than there are Ultramarines. There are more Night Lords than there are Ultramarines. There are more Word Bearers than there are Ultramarines. And so on. Ultramarines get rules, why the hell shouldn't those legions? Because they're "broken up". There's still thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of them out there.

**Gert**

Maybe if the SM Successor traits weren't better than 90% of the Legion traits it wouldn't be much of an issue. I'd rather pick and choose than be stuck with some of the awful trash GW decides on *cough*Word Bearers*cough*.

**StrayIight**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm tired of this "the legions are broken up so probably shouldn't get anything" Flanderisation.

There are more Iron Warriors than there are Ultramarines. There are more World Eaters than there are Ultramarines. There are more Night Lords than there are Ultramarines. There are more Word Bearers than there are Ultramarines. And so on. Ultramarines get rules, why the hell shouldn't those legions? Because they're "broken up". There's still thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of them out there.

Because that isn't strictly true.

It's more accurate to say there are more ex-Iron Warriors, or more ex-World Eaters than (insert loyalist chapter). Some groups of CSM in the modern fluff still wear their old colours and kick around with other members of their old legion. But almost invariably in smaller Warbands - they do not commonly operate as a Legion any more - with one or two possible exceptions.

There are many prominent examples of Warbands made up of mixed Legion elements, and also many Warbands whose members are drawn completely or largely from a single Legion, who are down right adversarial toward other members of their old Legion!

Personally I reject the term 'Flanderization' in this instance. Because there is no simplification occurring. The most recent fluff is more complex and nuanced by far than the old concept of 'all CSM belong to one of these Legions'.

On the table top on the other hand, if you want to play your guys as the unified World Eaters Legion, you are completely free to do so. I'd encourage you to do so if that's fun for you. But the current lore largely doesn't really support it as a concept.

Finally, I don't think anyone is saying Legions shouldn't get rules. What's being proposed (or so I believe) is a 'have your cake and eat it' scenario, where you could pick appropriate rules to represent a specific Legion - if you so wish, but also diverge from that and run something much more custom, and that better represents the modern 'CSM Warband' concept.

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

StrayIight wrote:
It's more accurate to say there are more ex-Iron Warriors, or more ex-World Eaters than (insert loyalist chapter). Some groups of CSM in the modern fluff still wear their old colours and kick around with other members of their old legion. But almost invariably in smaller Warbands - they do not commonly operate as a Legion any more - with one or two possible exceptions.

Yes, they don't operate as 10,000+ strong Legions as a single cohesive force. But just because there aren't 15000 Word Bearers rocking around the galaxy as a single cohesive mega-army doesn't mean that the Word Bearers shouldn't be playable. A warband might have several hundred or even a thousand Word Bearers in there, who have broken off from the main group but remain Word Bearers, and in numbers enough to rival a decent sized Chapter. Why shouldn't they be represented?

StrayIight wrote:
There are many prominent examples of Warbands made up of mixed Legion elements, and also many Warbands whose members are drawn completely or largely from a single Legion, who are down right adversarial toward other members of their old Legion!

And that's what Black Legion is for - for your mixed groups that have everything, same as the Ultramarines represent the standard 'Codex Chapter' that basically has everything except for the really esoteric chapter-specific stuff.

StrayIight wrote:
Personally I reject the term 'Flanderization' in this instance. Because there is no simplification occurring. The most recent fluff is more complex and nuanced by far than the old concept of 'all CSM belong to one of these Legions'.

Fair enough on the word usage; I'll concede that.

What I won't concede however is the idea that just because some of the Legions aren't operating as a monolithic singular force that they are somehow too scattered, or two low in numbers to be represented in-game when tiny Marine Chapters get all the representation in the world.

StrayIight wrote:
On the table top on the other hand, if you want to play your guys as the unified World Eaters Legion, you are completely free to do so. I'd encourage you to do so if that's fun for you. But the current lore largely doesn't really support it as a concept.

The World Eaters aren't unified, but who's to say that a broken section of the World Eaters isn't 1800 strong and out for revenge? They may have broken apart as a singular unified force, but that doesn't mean that they suddenly stop being World Eaters.

**BrianDavion**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
moving aside from that I do think that the thing about the Legions is they're broken and every warband is likely to be distinct, I'm not sure Legion specific tactics SHOULD exist. I know awhile back I proposed a general view on how I'd revise the chaos space marine rules going into 9th.
I'm tired of this "the legions are broken up so probably shouldn't get anything" Flanderisation.

There are more Iron Warriors than there are Ultramarines. There are more World Eaters than there are Ultramarines. There are more Night Lords than there are Ultramarines. There are more Word Bearers than there are Ultramarines. And so on. Ultramarines get rules, why the hell shouldn't those legions? Because they're "broken up". There's still thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of them out there.

keep in mind, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rules to make an Iron Warriors warband, but rather that you shouldn't just pick iron warriors, get your traits and call it a day. rather Being an Iron Warriors warband should be only a single piece of a greater identity. basicly rather then have Iron warriors be the ONLY tactic. each legion orgin would give a single rule and then you'd pick a second trait from a list. In short, it's work like this.
Honsou is putting together a warband, as he has decided that the bulk of his warband are Iron warriors, he selects the Iron Warriors orgin trait, which gives +1 to hit rolls with heavy weapons (just for example) then he looks through a list of other warband traits that can be used to tweek the culture and nature of his own warband. deciding that his warband is notable for heavy use of cybernetics, giving his army the transhuman physilogy trait of needing a 4 or better with any weapon to wound.

Meanwhile Krogaer is putting his own iron warriors warband together, but his band is a Khronite IW warband, so he picks the iron warriors orgin and then a trait that gives him +1 to charge rolls.

so two differant warbands, both iron warriors, but both have some differances, because not all legion warbands work the same.