Gar Shadowfame:
Actualy in 5th ed one could take allies, up to 25% of army, which could be models with different mark.
Hashut’s Blessing:
Gar Shadowfame: That may be true, but you could then take 25% Dark Elves for example. It’s not quite the same as the mix & match mentioned, even though it’s VERY similar. There are still rules for allied armies in fact, such as at Doubles Tournaments, but it’s more a single army, than a pair of allies that’s being discussed.
Slev, I agree wholeheartedly. Greater Daemons shouldn’t feature in a mortal army, for example. Tuskgor chariots too, maybe. As for special rules, things like Ambush can’t be used anyway with a mortal/daemon led army. However, I think that removing/changing the daemon’s ward save makes them too vulnerable: they’d attract a lot of magic/shooting (based upon which route it went down) and they still lose large numbers of model in combat if they lose… I could only suggest making them stubborn and changing/losing the ward save. Maybe the Warriors would only get the panic re-roll if it’s panic caused by mortals or mortals&beastmen…
Regardless, I too understand why they’ve done it, but I enjoyed being able to use beastmen with mortals (I didn’t like daemons because a whole unit could disappear after one combat and magic targetted them a lot and they were too expencive for their points. I didn’t wish to buy expencive metal models that would be failtastic in my games, lol 
).
AGPO:
I felt the sixth edition selection rules worked really well, it was purely the fact that certain units were not balanced one way or the other. The Mark of Tzeentch for example was insanely powerful. Foot daemons, on the other hand were never really a good option, especially when one took into account relative points and the cost of the minis.
I’d like to see them bring out a single book for all of chaos featuring the selection rules from sixth edition, with a couple of changes. First of all I’d like to see a retinue rule - so if you wanted to take a character with a certain race or mark, you’d have to take at least one unit they were eligable to join (or just a unit with the same mark/race for monsterous characters).
Secondly maybe a return of something like the ‘true core’ rule from the SoC Daemonic Legions list. Maybe needing a core unit with a mark/race to access the rare units for that army. For example, to use Bloodcrushers you’d need to also include a core unit with the mark of Khorne, whilst to take a spawn you’d need a mortal or beasts core unit.
This would actually mean people were encouraged to pick themed armies rathe rthan the daemonic power lists we get these days. IMHO it will always be more fitting for bloodletters to be fighting alongside knights of Khorne than daemonettes
snowblizz:
Conspiracy theorists will tell you that the changes in the make up of chaos armies are a conspiracy by GW to constantly force people with existing forces to expand into two or three different armies. Consider:There is one thing which this fails to take into account though. The rules have changed substantially. While discussing the mark-mixing in other places it would eventually surface that e.g. unitmarks (as such) did not really exist before 6th ed so the comparison isn't quite valid.
AGPO
I'd like to see something a bit less restricted than 6th ed, but playing more to the "like would prefer like" idea that GW has sold us for 25 years.
Bassman:
I’m happy to see many people agree with me. I can understand a lot of problems combining such different armies, they really dug a ditch between different races but it’s weirdo you read fluff about great Chaos invasions were hordes of beastmen open the way to armies of mortals and… in games you cannot! Well, we can always play a double but it’s not the same.
I wish one day we eill be able to see at least Warriors and beastmen together… 
Hashut’s Blessing:
AGPO, I think you’ve said something that makes the most sense: have a core army (mortals, beastmen or daemons. These count as core and will have your general etc), then cores must be taken from the others (such as beast herd, plaguebearers, warriors respectively as an example). Maybe these would be special, specials of these races would be rare and then rares would count as both or not be allowed or be two rare or something? It seems logical-ish to me. I also agree that if your general has a mark, there should be at least one core unit that also has mark of that God (MAYBE excepting Undivided, although it would still be logical).
I’m just debating characters from the “lesser” portions of the army being allowed (Greater Daemon, Sorcerer of Chaos, Minotaur Lord, for example) or if maybe only hero level ones are allowed. Maybe make it so that you MUSt have a character from the others? Although that doesn’t necessarily fit the non-allied version. (By which I mean, to summon daemons, you don’t necessarily HAVE to summon a leader for them. A group of beastmen or warriors would not necessarily be have to be led by a wargor or exalted champion to fight alongside those that worshipped/feared/revered.)
It’s all interesting and if we can hash out a system that makes sense and is fair, it could be cool to use in friendlies and propose to WD as a fun article to post up…
snowblizz:
HB, a lot of what you suggest have been hashed out by the Beastmen players (in particular). :~
In some sense that’s how it worked previously actually.
Also the “highest LD is general” would to some extent take care of the Lord choices. I.e. taking any lord choice means you can’t take any other and the lords usually have the highest Ld.
Hashut’s Blessing:
I know that that’s how it’s worked previously and it seemed to work then. Why fix what ain’t broke, after all 
Yes, the highest Ld is general does take care of that, but do you understand what I was getting at with it? On that note, if you are playing 3k points and up, you would be able to take 2 Lords, which is partly what I was talking about.
snowblizz:
If you are running an army at those levels I don’t see the problem of being allowed the “non-core” lords. Its an (most likely fragile) alliance between two powerful Chaos warlords.
I don’t think its is necessary for one army’s core to automatically count as specials in another. That should probably be considered more on a utility basis.
Kera foehunter:
well i like to see some new figure!! i hope gw will give a sneek peek
Hashut’s Blessing:
snowblizz, I agree that you could simply use them as allies, playing it similarly to a Legendary Battles game, but I’m simply giving suggestions for how things could be considered.
I think it would help to reinforce the core army as being the main portion. It’s easier than restricting it to being 25% and allows more freedom.
Regardless, there were just suggestions and ideas, more for inspiration than actual playability. Let’s get this back on track as to the Beastmen Rumours.
Have there been rumours about non-goat beastmen models? I thought I heard (a long time ago) it was something that they considered? After all, I’ve been thinking of buing Lizardmen and Skaven to use in a beastmen army (Kroxigors/Rat Ogres as Minotaurs, Temple Guard/Stormvermin as Bestigors, Saurus/Clanrats as Gors, Skinks/Slaverats as Ungors for example).
Bloodfire:
Have there been rumours about non-goat beastmen models? I thought I heard (a long time ago) it was something that they considered?If they do that, bring on the Chaos Snakemen! I loved the concept of those models, I had an idea hovering around about having an army based on these guys, although im not sure which rules to use them as.
Hashut's Blessing
Hashut’s Blessing:
You could always get the old champion of Slaanesh that had a snake tail instead of legs. A good starting point for a snakeman 
You could use beastmen or lizardmen. Both seem feasible to represent the models
slev:
There was a passage in an old WFRP book about Beastmen in the Southlands which where part-ape instead of part-goat.
Various mentions of Imperial Cathay mention various aspects of the rise of Tsien-Tsien which imply that the celestial throne employs Beastmen of some variety…
snowblizz:
No rumour suggest anything like that. Different Beastmen that is.
They seem to be focusing a lot on the Woods of Empire Beastmen really. What with various silly statements from some developers vis a vis Shaggots and forests.
Willmark:
GW did make Snakemen models back in the lates 80s.Have there been rumours about non-goat beastmen models? I thought I heard (a long time ago) it was something that they considered?If they do that, bring on the Chaos Snakemen! I loved the concept of those models, I had an idea hovering around about having an army based on these guys, although im not sure which rules to use them as.
Hashut's Blessing
Bloodfire
Bloodfire:
GW did make Snakemen models back in the lates 80s.I managed to find them on stuff of legends website, I really love those models so mich so I might start sculpting some bodies soon, just need some milliput/green stuff and i'll be good to go :hat off
Willmark
AGPO:
I’ve thought about different schools of beastmen in the past - I really liked the idea of zebramen for a while. It would make an excellent themed unit of Tzeengor to have lots of different types of beastmen in a unit.
Personally, I’d love to see the return of some of the old types of beastmen from the Realms of Chaos books - Caprigor, Bovigor, human mutants and Gave Childer would all be awesome. They bought back Centaurs in the form of Centigors and more or less kept the fluff the same (with the exception of the ancient rivalry between Centaurs and beastmen). IMO beats should cover all the wierd andwonderful aspects of chaos not covered by the civilisations of the Norse or the Daemons of the realms of Chaos. A return of some of the classic beasties - Gorgons, Cockatrices, Chimeras and the like would be brilliant
wallacer:
Yeah, it’s always kind of bugged me the way they turned beastmen into goatmen.
There should be all kinds of wierd and wonderful mutants.
slev:
GW did make Snakemen models back in the lates 80s.Guess what I own ;)
Willmark
Besides, Bloodmoon miniatures are making this sort of thing now.