chaos marine codex split, yes or no?

Post by **Kinslayer** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:23 pm

How do we all feel about the possibility of codex chaos splitting off into five seperate books (chaos, world eaters, thousand sons, death guard & emperors children). Marines got it and apparently chaos are next. I feel it would be good, but then other races players would demand the same thing. I brought this one up in games workshop and already the guy there wanted the ork spinoff, codex: deff skullz.

Gnosis · Post by **Gnosis** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:28 pm

Somewhere on WarSeer:

One question put forward by our own HULKSTER had my FULL attention. Will we see Traitor Legion armylists. Jervis' answer was "Yes we aim to do a standalone codex for each Legion" no timescale on this at all (surprise) but if there is a genuine commitment to do this this is the best news of the entire UKGD for me.

Demetrius · Post by **Demetrius** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:15 am

Unless they do an Alpha Legion Codex, Im really not fussed. Besides, they should have just put all the Legion special rules in the current codex like 3rd edition.

Joeb · Post by **Joeb** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:59 am

I really hope they don't split. I love chaos and all, but I don't want to see more marine codices.

A Lost and the Damned codex OTOH, I'd be all over that.

Uman · Post by **Uman** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:42 pm

I don't really want to see a split, and with the mini ranges at the moment, I can't see any justification for it. Apart from Abaddon, the existing fluff doesn't really back enough of any real "Legion" leadership anymore, meaning that the traitors could be just as content operating as mixed Legion forces of same or even mixed Marks.... Ahriman, Fabius and Kharn are all marginalised and are more "ideals" than leaders of a particular Legion.

Abaddon is the one exception, and he commands more than just the Black Legion. For me, the Chaos Marines should work like the old Ork list with Clans to a point, where you can have different themes, but not necessarily different books.

ONLY if GW increase the mini ranges, beef up the fluff and bring out more awesome special characters (and these would need to be Abaddon or Daemon Prince level characters at least if we are talking about Legions that have been kicking around in the Eye for 10,000 years and so should have some pretty bad-ass characters) would I see any reason for a book for each Chapter.... With C'tan and the daemon special characters like Skarbrand floating around - would some of the daemon Primarchs be on the go? Hmmmm...

U

Demetrius · Post by **Demetrius** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:49 pm

Actually Uman, C'tan are being removed from the new Necrons codex (that said, not sure when its coming out). They will only be allowed in Apoc, they are gods after all.

Uman · Post by **Uman** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:12 am

Bugger! Not that I actually like playing against them. That's a bit of an unusual step by GW...

U

Fr0 · Post by **Fr0** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:30 pm

I'd really rather they keep them in one, but I suppose the change is bound to happen, how they will end up doing it in the end I'm not sure.

Silverheimdall · Post by **Silverheimdall** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:49 pm

Ork player here, so I voted Waaagh!

Mr_piechee · Post by **Mr_piechee** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:36 pm

they've condensed eldar into one army, instead of the many craftworld armies, and it worked really well, now they need to do the same with chaos and SM. all these extra codices is just annoying!

Cervix · Post by **Cervix** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:46 am

they've condensed eldar into one army, instead of the many craftworld armies, and it worked really well, now they need to do the same with chaos and SM. all these extra codices is just annoying!

Well try to field an Ultwhe army now... No Seer council no black guardians.

Yes you can still take aspects but fluffwise Ultwhe doesnt use them that much. And making an army just of guardians doesnt sound like a good idea...

Mr_piechee · Post by **Mr_piechee** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:46 pm

Well, take a retinue of 10 warlocks and then put your second hq choice in with your first, and you've basically got a seer council. Black guardians basically had identical stats to normal guardians if i remember correctly (just and extra ld or something like that). So while you can't make what you once could, you can get close enough for it not to matter.

Arquinsiel · Post by **Arquinsiel** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:47 pm

I would like to see either one huge codex covering all aspects of Chaos or three seperate ones for Daemons, Marines and cultist/traitor guard/mutant/beastman lists.

Mr_piechee · Post by **Mr_piechee** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:18 pm

thats not a bad idea, but i loved how the old warhammer chaos worked; 3 books, but could all be mixed.

Cervix · Post by **Cervix** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:46 pm

just and extra ld or something like that

it was +1 ws or +1 bs which is a huge difference

Well, take a retinue of 10 warlocks and then put your second hq choice in with your first, and you've basically got a seer council

you don't have the augment spell anymore which was the key for the seer council...

For the chaos codexes i agree with Arquinsiel

Though i prefer one huge book.

Belial · Post by **Belial** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:05 pm

I was disappointed that they didn't give special rules for legions in the last codex. I'd like a codex for Alpha Legion, since they are my boys, but it would be messy with a codex for each legion. One huge would be messy too, but that would be better. Split into three... Well, we are almost there. We just need a mutants/traitor book.

Someone above mentioned that Ahriman, Kharne and Fabius weren't really leader types... They're not meant to. In fact, they are all rogues in their own right, not connected to their legion anymore.
But there ARE rules for the Deamon Princes. In WD 455 (IIRC, it's either the one introducing the new Dark Elves, or Assault on Black Reach) there's rules for Angron of the World Eaters.

Malevion · Post by **Malevion** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:18 am

I prefered the chaos codex from the previous edition. Now that was an army book done correctly, awesome artwork and great rules and so much possible customisation. I was pretty upset when the new chaos book came out. sure plague marines and thousands sons got quite nasty but the codex just seems simplistic and bland by comparison to it's predesscesor.

That book showed GW was perfectly capable of fitting everything to do with an entire faction into one epic tome, I wish they would've kept to that theme in this edition rather than creating chaos for dummies.

So yeah I voted for one book. I just wish it was better done than the current one.

Mr_piechee · Post by **Mr_piechee** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:03 pm

Malevion wrote:I prefered the chaos codex from the previous edition. Now that was an army book done correctly, awesome artwork and great rules and so much possible customisation. I was pretty upset when the new chaos book came out. sure plague marines and thousands sons got quite nasty but the codex just seems simplistic and bland by comparison to it's predesscesor.

My thoughts exactly. i loved that edition!

Hulkster · Post by **Hulkster** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:14 pm

I but the question to them (I am the same Hulkster that is on Warseer) at the Forum thing at Gamesday.

There will be leigon codices, like I think there should be. But they are a long long way off. after everyone else has a book.

I think they just wanted to make sure the traitor leigons have the same kind of idenity as the SM chapters.

Over all I think this is a good thing as units can be priced in certain ways depending on the book, raptors being cheaper in night lords but more expensive in Iron warriors for example.

This will make the armies fluffy and powerful.

Demetrius · Post by **Demetrius** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:09 am

Hulkster- Points are determined on effectiveness not on fluff. Things like 0-1 caps are determined on fluff.

I loved the old Chaos Codex too, but looking back on it, it was so overpowered its not funny. For example, my entire army numbered 80+ in 1500 points (with cultists and marines), and my Raptors got first turn charge throwing out 27 S5 I5 attacks and my Champion was throwing out 5 S10 power fist attacks. Just things like that. Unit Champions shouldn't be able to do that. But I do think they should have kept everything simular in the current codex but more balanced,

Hulkster · Post by **Hulkster** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:22 am

Thanks Derm, I know that

But if the list is tailored in a certain way for fluff reasons then certain units effectiveness changes.

Thats what I was trying to say, just not very well lol.

What I was meaning is that in certain lists they can alter points and unit counts per army without having to make it possibly overpowered. The take the leigon and make it its own army. I think that is a better way to do it than jamming it in one book.

chaos marine codex split, yes or no?

i want

chaos marine codex split, yes or no?

Re: chaos marine codex split, yes or no?