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.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Out of all the armies, CSM should be the most fluid in terms of how you can build it. Want daemons, done. Want mortals, done. Want neither, done.

100%. They should range from rabble to hyper-elite plus daemons for flavoring, at the players discretion.

In other words, their God-specific books should be just like the AoS books in terms of breadth of unit options.

Yup.

Slaanesh would allow for Emperor’s Children, Slaanesh dedicated Renegades in general, Daemons plus things such as Pleasure Cults. So on and so forth for each God and their forces.

The options should be sufficient for a given player to be as mixy or purist as they see fit within the confines of that Codex.

Codex CSM then covers forces not dedicated to any specific God, but without entirely cutting out Cult Marine units.

Then introduce a unique way for us to comprise an army from smaller formations picked from across multiple books, to represent the Classic Warband Style.

6 books into total (four Gods, Undivided, Lost and the Damned).

Then you’re starting to get nearer to Imperium variety without needing everything separated out.

^^^^^I could totally get behind this.

Could even just roll L&D into the Undivided book.

Pack the books full of options, let the player decide what their take on Chaos is. Because as this thread amply demonstrates, there are many different and equally valid (because internet, let’s make sure people know I’m being nice!) takes on what a Chaos force should be. And that’s down to GW never really settling on their own vision for it.

Voss wrote:


Maybe. But if all that's part of chaos marine codex, its a huge departure from the way they've treated non-marines in the TS and DG books, and their general attitude towards cultists for a long time now.
If it happens, I fear the nerfbat that will hit them when people just stop taking marines.

Its more believable as its own subfaction, even if that feels like not-genestealer-cults mk 2.

TBF, there's more than enough basis for not being guard or genestealer cult but spikey alone in most L&D / R&H lists that ever existed. And yes a own faction is more appropriate if CSM should be CSM . (one can discuss that theme to death with arguments for and against).
However, again, what is in there basically is 1/1 the IA13 options for units.
HQ as a command squad.
Elites, bigger mutants (probably ogryn sized)
etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Could even just roll L&D into the Undivided book.

Pack the books full of options, let the player decide what their take on Chaos is. Because as this thread amply demonstrates, there are many different and equally valid (because internet, let’s make sure people know I’m being nice!) takes on what a Chaos force should be. And that’s down to GW never really settling on their own vision for it.

I mean, yes, from a player perspective pretty please. And from a chaos in general pespective doubly so. (if done propperly)

But gw will not do so, when they instead can sell you 3-4 separate books instead.

To be fair we're talking about spanning Chaos across 6 books, 7 if you factor in a stand-alone Daemons book too. I think that's plenty for even the most avaricious of GWs bean counters.

That’s also where the proposed option of going 8th Ed Dark Eldar warband comes in.

Because sure, the practical didn’t exactly pan out for Dark Eldar, but I’m not convinced that’s a flaw with the idea so much as the execution.

Crispy78 wrote:
To be fair we're talking about spanning Chaos across 6 books, 7 if you factor in a stand-alone Daemons book too. I think that's plenty for even the most avaricious of GWs bean counters.

How many Supplement books got space marines again last edition?

No, i think it is perfectly expectable for GW beancounters to shovel us books down the wazoo .

Mortal Chaos forces without Astartes should be a thing again. There's a lot more of those than Astartes, after all.

Indeed. But given Chaos forces aren’t necessarily a formal military, I don’t think they need necessarily be separated out from CSM.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Mortal Chaos forces without Astartes should be a thing again. There's a lot more of those than Astartes, after all.

I completely agree.

I also don't think that you need separate books for that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Mortal Chaos forces without Astartes should be a thing again. There's a lot more of those than Astartes, after all.

I completely agree.

I also don't think that you need separate books for that.

No, they just need the rules to allow it. Separate codexes aren't necessary.

There are many suggestions here that would/ could work.

But we're definitely not fitting all of chaos into one book. The status quo is 5: CSM, Daemons, Knights and Ksons + DG.

If god-based books were a thing, I'd be worried about the feasibility of running pure CSM, pure Daemon, or pure Mortal/ Cult lists- all of which should be possible. If each god book was built on the DE model of Raiding Force rules, it could work. But as many have pointed out, counting on GW to get it right is a bit of a gamble.

If they are breaking out WE and EC as they have Ksons and DG, I feel like the god based books are somewhat redundant? I mean, I understand that not all followers of Slaanesh are EC, but I feel like an EC book + a Slaanesh book is a bit of a stretch. And since Ksons and DG are already done, this appears to be GW's way forward.

If WE and EC are pulled from CSM, I believe it gives CSM the opportunity to be a very strong book for the subfactions of CSM that remain.

Moreso if a mortal follower/ cultist book becomes available.

I also agree with the previous comment that the ability to ally between factions of Chaos needs to be examined and improved. Any separation in books is going to lead to the presence of a purity bonus, but it isn't feasibly to put ALL of chaos in one book and give units and subfactions the same amount of attention as they are getting under the current design standards for other dexes.

At this point all my hope for chaos rests in GW translating chaos from AoS to 40k because otherwise I don’t think they are ever going to get chaos undivided right... the monogods probably. But not undivided. There’s already too many factions for GW to manage as is.

Chaos books should just be:
- Codex: Chaos Mortals (Astartes, Lost & Damned)
- Codex: Chaos Daemons
- Codex: Imperial Chaos Knights (the same rules as loyalist Knights, just with a different cover)

Six or seven books for Chaos is insane.

We exist in a world with a 12 volume Loyalist Codex. And that's just paint variations for the most part.

Question for all you "one book" folks. Have you used the 9th Ed Space Marine Codex and/or complained about it?

 Eldarain wrote:
We exist in a world with a 12 volume Loyalist Codex. And that's just paint variations for the most part.

Loyalist Marines should be one book.
One-and-a-half if you count Grey Knights.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Chaos books should just be:
- Codex: Chaos Mortals (Astartes, Lost & Damned)
- Codex: Chaos Daemons
- Codex: Imperial Chaos Knights (the same rules as loyalist Knights, just with a different cover)

Six or seven books for Chaos is insane.

Since Chaos Knights are pretty limited and CSM pretty varied I'd say throw Lost & Damned + Knights together and leave CSM in one book.

As a monogod player I'd prefer the 5 book route, though. 1 book for every god + undivided with rules for CSM, Daemons, Renegades, and Knights in each.

 Gert wrote:
Question for all you "one book" folks. Have you used the 9th Ed Space Marine Codex and/or complained about it?

Maybe explain why you're asking this question, rather than laying in wait to spring what seems so obviously an attempt at a "gotcha" moment that shuts people down for wanting to change things.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe explain why you're asking this question, rather than laying in wait to spring what seems so obviously an attempt at a "gotcha" moment that shuts people down for wanting to change things.

Ok let's go.
So for CSM we've got 53 datasheets including the 4 Lesser Daemons. Add in all of the unique DG and Tsons units as well as the rest of the Daemon list, and Chaos Knights and whatever Cultisty additions are required to make a LaTD section.
The SM Codex has 90 pages of datasheets, how many do you think this all-encompassing Chaos book will have? How many repeated datasheets are there that use the same models but get different rules depending on the Codex they are featured in? How many unique subfactions and special rules are in each of the current Codexes? How are all of these armies going to interact within the same Codex?
If you're complaining about SM having a bad Codex with all of its rules, how can you say you want something far worse for Chaos forces?
Is the solution to just start removing subfactions or special rules? Is that not then removing player choice for Chaos armies? Are you suggesting that armies that were created less than an edition ago should get removed?
This one-book solution is such a poorly thought-out idea that's only based on nostalgia for a state of 40k that doesn't exist anymore.

For you specifically H.B.M.C, you seem to have this idea where I am fundamentally opposed to change. Have you read anything I've written in this thread where I specifically say that things need to change and that currently, the rules don't represent Chaos very well? I assume not because otherwise, you couldn't make your snide remark.
Change can be good and change can be bad. Proposing an idea purely based on nostalgia with no real way of actually making it work without significant changes to both 40k and the Chaos range is just stupid.

I kind of disagree with the idea its too many chaos books if we have the 4 gods and then an undivided (plus chaos knights) and chaos daemons. I mean, Loyalist Marines have even more than that.

So far, Tsons and DG have their own codex and not only do both have their own distinct way of playing, their own strengths and weaknesses, they are also very fluffy.

Like DG are resilient but slow. And they have their contangions. Very fluffy army. Tsons have now truly masters of the warp and they have all is dust. There are a lot of tactics to play with their rubrics and occults now. Very fluffy army to play as well.

If they can make EC and WE as distinct as Tsons and DG, it would be awesome really. And WE are basically the extreme melee killy version of a CSM army. So, its not hard to make WE distinct and fluffy (if it isn't already).

EC actually seems the most challenging to me to make fluffy and distinct. CSM as a faction has never been known to be extremely good in shooting, which is what EC seems to want to be. The basic CSM is pretty good in melee already and reasonably resilient (marine stats). The truly shooty factions are either fragile or bad at melee. At least they are supposed to give up something for being so so darn good at shooting.

If they raise EC to scary levels of shooting, while EC doesn't give up the typical marines statlines and melee killing power that typical marines have... I think we will have problems.

And Chaos knights are such a totally different unit from most other units they have their own style of playing. So they are fine.

This leaves just the generic CSM. Which is where I fear the problem is. Taking out the cult marines and making them their own codex makes generic CSM codex just feel "generic".

I agree that the Emperor's Children are the trickiest of the "big four" to make distinct, but they definitely do not want to be a pure shooting army. Slaanesh has sort of been the de facto shooting god for 4 years now thanks to Endless Cacophony but that'll inevitably get removed or tweaked, and EC have always had a lot of incentives to be in melee - and it's extremely fluffy for them to want to do so. There are all kinds of different angles they could lean into: the obvious sonic weapon spam, dueling (e.g. 40k-era Phoenix Guard/Palatine Blades), speed (e.g. the Jetbikes/Bikes that Fulgrim loved the imagery of, maybe with Doomrider thrown in for good measure), ludicrous amounts of combat drugs (possibly with some 3.5 style risks), or the writers could even look back further to 1988 era EC when they were infamous for their Possessed. They're also never going to possess the durability of DG/TS, and I don't see EC being significantly more dangerous at range than TS in any case.

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe explain why you're asking this question, rather than laying in wait to spring what seems so obviously an attempt at a "gotcha" moment that shuts people down for wanting to change things.

Ok let's go.
So for CSM we've got 53 datasheets including the 4 Lesser Daemons. Add in all of the unique DG and Tsons units as well as the rest of the Daemon list, and Chaos Knights and whatever Cultisty additions are required to make a LaTD section.
The SM Codex has 90 pages of datasheets, how many do you think this all-encompassing Chaos book will have? How many repeated datasheets are there that use the same models but get different rules depending on the Codex they are featured in? How many unique subfactions and special rules are in each of the current Codexes? How are all of these armies going to interact within the same Codex?
If you're complaining about SM having a bad Codex with all of its rules, how can you say you want something far worse for Chaos forces?
Is the solution to just start removing subfactions or special rules? Is that not then removing player choice for Chaos armies? Are you suggesting that armies that were created less than an edition ago should get removed?
This one-book solution is such a poorly thought-out idea that's only based on nostalgia for a state of 40k that doesn't exist anymore.

For you specifically H.B.M.C, you seem to have this idea where I am fundamentally opposed to change. Have you read anything I've written in this thread where I specifically say that things need to change and that currently, the rules don't represent Chaos very well? I assume not because otherwise, you couldn't make your snide remark.
Change can be good and change can be bad. Proposing an idea purely based on nostalgia with no real way of actually making it work without significant changes to both 40k and the Chaos range is just stupid.

I'd personally rather one big book of everything than 5-10 small books, especially with the way purity bonuses are going since right now, unless I'm mistaken, Death Guard actually lose out on rules for bringing Nurgle Daemons into the field. One big book divied up into sections that have subrules/specific data sheets for specific units would be neat, if for no other reason than being able to make a chaos list of mixed mortals, marines, and daemons.

At most, as opposed to 1 book per legion, I'd say 1 book per god would be the next best. No need for bloating up too much by having 10+ books on Chaos - Undivided (includes some unique rules and units for the unaligned Traitor Legions and Renegade groups), Nurgle (Includes Deathguard), Tzeentch (Includes 1k Sons), Khorne (includes World Eaters) and Slaanesh (includes Emperor's Children) - include the rules for standard cultists and mortal armies in Undivided book with rule saying can be freely allied/slotted straight in to a god aligned book with a keyword swap and maybe losing their Undivided ability and having it replaced with a thematic one for their god.

Really the key thing is to be give the player the ability to play their Chaos warband as they like, whether its new Renegades, members of a Traitor Legion, a squad of Marines leading a cult or a renegade militia, or a list fully consisting of mortals or Daemons.

I don't know. They are already doing that to a certain extent. But nowadays the cult books get their own distinct "horde units" which may or may not be daemons.

So, Death Guard has pox walkers. While Tsons has Tzaangors.

So instead of mixing, they have a separate unit which you can go "horde" if you want to in those books. This way, the Daemons book can still be distinct in its own way.

I think that's probably the better way to go. So that strategems and buffs can be specifically for that book rather than cross over to another book.

So, when the WE book come out. They will have a cheap horde style unit like Blood Reaver for WE as a horde type option that is specifically WE. And they will have to come up with an equivalent for EC as well.

The way I see this.

DG gets to go horde poxwalkers.
Tsons get to go horde Tzaangors
WE get to go horde (Blood reavers?)
EC get to go horde (new horde daemon unit Slaangors?)
CSM gets to go horde (Renegade guardmen).

And all 5 get cultists, which are absolutely worst than each one of these, but are the cheapest.

And they don't have to worry about cross book mixing of strategems and buffs and what not. I think they do not want to have a strategem in the daemons book buffing something unintended in a CSM or a cult book just because it happens to have the "demon" keyword. So they rather create a new unit and give it the Tzaangor keyword so that there is absolutely zero chance of that happening.

macluvin wrote:
At this point all my hope for chaos rests in GW translating chaos from AoS to 40k because otherwise I don’t think they are ever going to get chaos undivided right... the monogods probably. But not undivided. There’s already too many factions for GW to manage as is.

I've of the opinion (sadly) that GW will _never_ get Undivided right.

Some part of the studio, marketing, accounting or whoever absolutely hates the concept for whatever reason, and tries their hardest to squish it. Be'lakor is a unusual exception (probably because he's now a $140 model), but most undivided options are gone (must mark daemon princes, must mark soulgrinders, must mark frikkin' furies of all bloody things). I suspect simply because of the inherent IP protection that a proper name like Khorne, Slaanesh, etc provides over the generic Chaos concept that's just out there in fantasy/sci-fi.

That it survives to a large degree in AoS Slaves to Darkness is honestly a surprise, and if they could find a reasonable retcon to do it (and two more to 'balance' it), I'm very certain they'd slap Lorgar & Perturabo as some god's property. Other than a handful of named characters (Abaddon, Belakor, Lorgar and Perturabo) undivided chaos is functionally dead to GW, and worst case, I dread the day the remaining Legions gets raffled off to whichever gods or cut out of the background with a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' (or 'they were secret loyalists all along').

We aren't there yet, but someone in Nottingham seems to want that end.

 Gert wrote:
Ok let's go.

I'm snipping most of your queries because they're less hypotheticals and more accusatory in their structure. "This won't work, so what would you do? Huh, tough guy??? Not so clever now, is ya?" is what I see when I read them.

The truth is I'm not sure how I'd structure Chaos. My line of thinking has also changed over time. I also tend to go back on "full supplements for all Traitor Legions" and "consolidation of as much as possible." Right now I think that the four God-specific Legions should have books, and everything else (barring Chaos Knights, as I'm not really including them in all this) should be in one book that can cover everything from Traitor Legions to Lost & The Damned. And I'm not so sure where or how Daemons fit into all of this either.

But... I'm trying! The people in this thread have come up with some great ideas, clarified things for me, and even pointed out where something I have thought won't work. I don't feel like anyone has come along and gone "Well that doesn't work, so why bother?". Well... almost anyone.

As I've mentioned a couple of times so far, almost every day I go for a walk that takes 30-40 minutes. I'm one of those weird people who doesn't listen to music when they exercise, instead choosing to just think about gak. And for weeks and weeks now I've been choosing a topic before I head out, and then trying to tackle what I think are the issues there. On Friday it was morale, and how it interacts with various exceptions to morale both past and present (Fearless, Stubborn, ATSKNF), and how it interacts with actions units could take, fall back mechanics, and strats. Did I come up with a definitive iron clad answer for this conundrum? Not at all, but when I got back home I wrote it all down into my ever-increasing spreadsheet of scattered madness and eventually I will collate it all into something a bit more useful, and then really see what works, what doesn't, and isn't necessary and what I may have missed. It's a fun process, and it's somewhat less fun to see someone occasionally stamping on a lively and positive discussion every now and again.

 Gert wrote:
For you specifically H.B.M.C, you seem to have this idea where I am fundamentally opposed to change. Have you read anything I've written in this thread where I specifically say that things need to change and that currently, the rules don't represent Chaos very well? I assume not because otherwise, you couldn't make your snide remark.

It doesn't take a genius to see that your question was a leading question, and was asked in bad faith. You had the above ready to go, but felt it better to ask people to step into your trap before springing it.

But to answer you specifically, you've said plenty, but you've also spent a good amount of word count shooting down people's ideas, which is a pattern I've noticed. And that would be fine, generally speaking, but you tend to phrase it as less "I don't think that would work, and here's my alternative solution" but more in a "I don't think this is a good idea, so let's not do it at all!". Granted, it's no where near as bad as Daed's continuous false dilemmas and "But if you just...?" hypotheticals that tend to cherry pick edge cases and try to present them as the norm, but really if you're going to get involved in a conversation on these kinds of topic, try to engage with the topic beyond "That won't work!!!".

I mean it's like the "Change 1 thing in the setting!" thread in the 40k background thread. Post after post of people discussing all manner of things, and your first attempt at contributing was a "Yay, more complaining about Primaris. Must be a day ending in Y." generalisation rather than engaging with the topic.

 Gert wrote:
Change can be good and change can be bad. Proposing an idea purely based on nostalgia with no real way of actually making it work without significant changes to both 40k and the Chaos range is just stupid.

I'm confused as to what changes people have suggested here that would require 'significant change' to 40k, or even just Chaos (outside of consolidating TS/DG into a single book, which I disagree with).

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Chaos books should just be:
- Codex: Chaos Mortals (Astartes, Lost & Damned)
- Codex: Chaos Daemons
- Codex: Imperial Chaos Knights (the same rules as loyalist Knights, just with a different cover)

Six or seven books for Chaos is insane.

I think Codex Knights should just be one book with a Chaos Knight and an Imperial Knight fighting on the front cover, I do think each deserves to have their own unique relics etc. Doing this ensures that GW takes equal care of the two factions. Tying Lost & Damned to Astra Militarum would ensure that L&D don't get squatted and that AM and L&D are on par.

I don't think every CSM legion's rules and fluff can be covered in the same codex as the fluff and rules of Lost & Damned are covered, my ideal codex/index contains rules for FW as well, so maybe it'd be possible with a particularly large codex if FW stayed separated. Putting Chaos Daemons back with CSM would make more sense IMO.

The 8+ book method has several weaknesses, GW cannot even keep their current lot of codexes updated, there being too many SM supplements is probably part of that, adding another 2-5 codexes makes that worse. I personally hate the monogod book route, I think mixed Daemons is an important option to keep alive, shoving Nurgle Warbands into the Death Guard book wouldn't make anything better I don't think.

 Gert wrote:
Question for all you "one book" folks. Have you used the 9th Ed Space Marine Codex and/or complained about it?

I have not used it, I have complained about the supplements clogging up the early release schedule of 9th and SM getting too many updates too quickly. The 9th ed SM codex does seem pretty balanced compared to the second 8th edition SM codex and the 9th ed AdMech codex, so it might have been needed just because GW messed up SM 2.0 in 8th. I think CSM should be one book no matter what, I think CD, CK and L&D should be covered in different books unless GW makes something like Indexes again, I'd put several xenos races in the same index as well and every type of SM in one index and that worked out at the start of 8th.

I don't know the right answer as to how Chaos should organize its armies. There is something that appeals to me about forcing Rubrics to be Thousand Sons and make WE, TS, DG and EC Patrols 0CP if the WL is not from one of those legions. The lore is fraying under the strain of wanting to let people play with their minis from when it was decided that Chaos should be all unorganized warbands of mixed allegiance all the time. I really like detachments coming with an HQ to lead them as mercenaries instead of 3 units of Berzerkers joining a Night Lords Warband out of nowhere. At the same time, I think Chaos can have too little freedom, taking an L&D and a squad of Rubrics and a unit of Horrors led by a Khorne Chaos Lord and a Slaanesh Sorcerer would be pretty Chaos forward and could be a benefit that Chaos gets that Space Marines don't since they'd have to obey more strict detachment rules. The fear freedom like that generates is that people will take 0 Horrors and Rubrics and just take the cheap L&D and then spam whatever units are most efficient. If I was king of GW I'd ask around the studio what players wanted, before throwing it out on Facebook for a debate to tap into the hivemind. If the community didn't scream for Chaos to have the most freedom in list-building I'd probably lean towards the more restrictive thing GW has got going on ATM with Poxwalker limits etcetera because it'd be easiest to balance.

I'd put relics, chapter tactics, armies of renown etcetera into Chapter Approved whether Chaos has 1 Index or Chaos has 2 codexes and tagalongs in 2 Imperium codexes or Chaos has 10 codexes. Putting these rules into Chapter Approved makes balancing easier. Relics would be locked to certain factions, WL traits and Stratagems would all be generic and available to any unit in your army. I'd have a Crusade book with all the rules one could want for a crusade, every army covered at the same time, that would make more space in Codexes/Indexes as well.

Like DG are resilient but slow. And they have their contagions. Very fluffy army. Tsons have now truly masters of the warp and they have all is dust. There are a lot of tactics to play with their rubrics and occults now. Very fluffy army to play as well.

I don't think DG need a codex to be resilient but slow, besides if you just focus on the fast units then DG stop being slow and if an EC player just takes slow units then DG doesn't seem so slow in comparison. I don't love contagions, make DG relics grow more viral over the course of the game instead, make Necron relics require pre-programming, make Drukhari relics get power from pain. Why does Iron Warriors need the Spitespitter relic? It's just a boring up-gunned combi-bolter, most combi-bolters used by an Iron Warriors Character is some form of relic probably, for it to actually deserve relic rules IMO it should have rules that are relevant to the fluff of the army, that's how you world build with mechanics which enables the game to be tight and balanced. Crusade provides additional contagion rules and I think that's neat, let the bloat flow in that Crusade.

PBCs being DG only makes no sense IMO, aren't they opposite of a fluffy DG unit?

Voss wrote:

macluvin wrote:
At this point all my hope for chaos rests in GW translating chaos from AoS to 40k because otherwise I don’t think they are ever going to get chaos undivided right... the monogods probably. But not undivided. There’s already too many factions for GW to manage as is.

I've of the opinion (sadly) that GW will _never_ get Undivided right.

Some part of the studio, marketing, accounting or whoever absolutely hates the concept for whatever reason, and tries their hardest to squish it. Be'lakor is a unusual exception (probably because he's now a $140 model), but most undivided options are gone (must mark daemon princes, must mark soulgrinders, must mark frikkin' furies of all bloody things). I suspect simply because of the inherent IP protection that a proper name like Khorne, Slaanesh, etc provides over the generic Chaos concept that's just out there in fantasy/sci-fi.

That it survives to a large degree in AoS Slaves to Darkness is honestly a surprise, and if they could find a reasonable retcon to do it (and two more to 'balance' it), I'm very certain they'd slap Lorgar & Perturabo as some god's property. Other than a handful of named characters (Abaddon, Belakor, Lorgar and Perturabo) undivided chaos is functionally dead to GW, and worst case, I dread the day the remaining Legions gets raffled off to whichever gods or cut out of the background with a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' (or 'they were secret loyalists all along').

We aren't there yet, but someone in Nottingham seems to want that end.

Are you trying to depress me Voss?

In all seriousness, I think there's a bit of a tug of war in gw about whether or not Chaos Undivided should be a thing. It goes back and forth. But remember, it's only been 5 years since they released a book that said three of the Legions couldn't have any Marks or Marked units at all. Which way they swing this time is anyone's guess.