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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheex wrote:
That is my point - that GW should clarify when "Codex: Death Guard" is in fact not "Codex: Death Guard".

They did.

"Codex: Death Guard 8th Ed" (Released in September 2017 is ISBN #978-1788260053) which is not the same as "Codex: Death Guard 9th Ed" (Released in January 2021 is ISBN #9781839061370)

Bear in mind once again that this supplement is still available from GW.

Let's say a hypothetical player buys WotS from the GW website, and the only Codex: Death Guard that is available from the GW website is the 2021 edition, so they buy that as well and use them both in game. What rule have they broken? The supplement refers to Codex: Death Guard (without specifying ISBN or publishing year) and they are using Codex: Death Guard.

Once more, I draw attention to the Book of Rust. When that was released, the only Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus that was available at the time was the 2017 edition - but we all know it was intended to work with the 2021 edition that was released a few months later, even though no rule actually says this (as far as I can see - correct me if I am wrong).

They also do not tell you how to roll dice or that your die must be numbered 1-6

Ah, this old stawman. It's a very handy tool to bring out when someone disagrees with you, isn't it?

At this point, I feel like I should remind you that the whole point of my argument here is that GW should be clearer with this, because I agree with your RAI conclusion even if I disagree with your RAW argument.

You just have to keep up with the latest releases if you want to know what the current rules are.

Terrible system, but that is GW for you.

This we can also agree on. All I'm asking of GW is a single line in the errata for WotS to say that the DG rules section has been superseded by Codex: Death Guard (2021).

 Cheex wrote:
Bear in mind once again that this supplement is still available from GW.

100% irrelevant.

Let's say a hypothetical player buys WotS from the GW website, and the only Codex: Death Guard that is available from the GW website is the 2021 edition, so they buy that as well and use them both in game. What rule have they broken? The supplement refers to Codex: Death Guard (without specifying ISBN or publishing year) and they are using Codex: Death Guard.

The supplement refers to "Codex: Death Guard" but not every version of anything called "Codex: Death Guard" It specifically refers to the "Codex: Death Guard" that was available at the time of WotS's release, which is "8th Ed Codex: Death Guard"

Once more, I draw attention to the Book of Rust.

Irrelevant, as the book of rust has nothing to do with the interaction between WotS and the 8th Ed Death guard book.

They also do not tell you how to roll dice or that your die must be numbered 1-6

Ah, this old stawman. It's a very handy tool to bring out when someone disagrees with you, isn't it?

What do you mean "this old stawman"? I think I have said this maybe once before. And it is not a strawman.

At this point, I feel like I should remind you that the whole point of my argument here is that GW should be clearer with this, because I agree with your RAI conclusion even if I disagree with your RAW argument.

Of course they could be clearer, but that does not mean WotS can be used with the 9th ed Death guard book.

You just have to keep up with the latest releases if you want to know what the current rules are.

Terrible system, but that is GW for you.

This we can also agree on. All I'm asking of GW is a single line in the errata for WotS to say that the DG rules section has been superseded by Codex: Death Guard (2021).

Then message GW and ask them for clarification, it might get a FaQ, but if you do not ignore the context they really don't need any FaQ about this.

We're going in circles, so I'm bowing out.

Except I do want to address one thing:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheex wrote:

Ah, this old stawman. It's a very handy tool to bring out when someone disagrees with you, isn't it?

What do you mean "this old stawman"? I think I have said this maybe once before. And it is not a strawman.

The answer is that, by RAW, nothing prevents you from using any outdated codices or supplements. This is by design - GW recommends that you use the most up-to-date rules, but outside of a tournament this will not be enforced.

Imagine GW telling a player they aren't allowed to play their army until they've waited 3-4 weeks for an online order to ship.

Fascinating discussion.

Worth noting that the Warhammer Community article cited before actually muddies the waters, because it explicitly says that older content is compatible with newer content.

There is, then, no reason to suspect that isn't the case across the board (except that WHC hasn't said so, but WHC hasn't said a lot of things, and has also said a lot of things that are false/misleading).

I would probably not be interested in playing against someone using the old PA book with the new DG codex, but I wouldn't have a reason they couldn't. Heck, I don't even have a reason to not play them except that it's vaguely suspicious behavior.

In fact, if they were a new player unaware of the history of the books, I probably would actually play them. After all, the PA WOTS Book is still available, and still advertised as having content for Death Guard armies in it. I wouldn't blame a new and upcoming Death Guard player for buying both books, thinking he was getting a codex + fun supplement based on the advertising.

Seriously, what is this about?

Plague companies as well as many relics and stratagems have been updated by Codex: Death Guard and can no longer be used. There is no ground to argue on for using old sources for rules which have been replaced.

For hateful assault at least there is circumstantial evidence that the rules on that page are obsolete since they directly contradict how the codex handles malicious volleys and because they reference a "CHAOS CULTISTS keyword" which doesn't actually exist anymore.

This leaves you with the relics and stratagems which haven't made it to the codex.
Relics
- Allwyther
- The Ague Stone
- The Epidemicyst Blade
- Wormspitter

Stratagems:
- Harbinger of Nurgle (obsolete, LoCs already have the aura)
- Soul Harvest
- Foul Gush (broken, no dice rolled for strength)
- Relentless Volleys
- Putrid Fecundity (broken, no dice rolled for DR)
- Warp Toll (weak because morale changed)
- Hypertoxic Tinctures
- Miasmal Afflictions (references an ability Mortarion doesn't have anymore)
- Parasitic Fumes (effect available as contagion)
- Life-Eater
- Accelerated Entropy (roll of 1 or 2 becomes a 3... when rolling a d3, also now the name of psychic power)
- Contaminated Monstrocity

So, while there are a few decent stratagems and a bunch of mediocre relics left, there is quite a lot of evidence that this book is not referencing the 9th edition codex. It's also worth noting that some stratagems might have been superseded by Crusade Mission Pack: Plague Purge, I don't have that yet.

The only valid response to someone trying to use the War of the Spider rules for anything but some fancy crusade upgrades is to whack them in the head with the book.

While I totally agree that the DG rules in WotS should no longer be used, GW lazyness makes it RAW unclear. They did not only miss the chance to put a single sentence in the WotS FAQ, stating the DG rules are no longer valid, but also still have this description on ther WotS shop page:

– Expanded army rules for Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard, Talons of the Emperor and Officio Assassinorum, including Warlord Traits, Stratagems and Relics

So they are still marketing this product as a book containing new DG rules...

https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Psychic-Awakening-War-Of-The-Spider-EN-2020

This is intellectual masturbation at its finest.

Jidmah gave a perfect summary of all the "clues" (and they are so numerous you cannot even call them "clues") why WotS is obsolete (for DG) now that DG has a 9th edition Codex.

If you want to argue that RAW, DG can still benefit from WotS, sure, go ahead. But be prepared for people either laughing at you or calling you TFG and rolling their eyes.

Bosseoc - I such thing as raw when it comes to cod exes, bar precisely two - assassins and craftworlds. GW otherwise never says "you can't use this" because you can do - it's your game!

In a tournament they'll say use latest rules, and wots is not the latest.