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.

I wanted to get a little feedback on how people are handling the Factions for certain recent Codex releases.

Many of the recent releases have a different title on the front versus the side. A perfect example is the recent Eldar release. On the front, the full title is Codex Eldar Craftworlds. On the side, it's simply Codex: Craftworlds. I know that there is very little functional difference in terms of gameplay, but how is everyone handling the Eldar bit?

Specific Scenario...

Take something like the Keeper of Secrets. S/he has Preferred Enemy (Eldar). There is not currently a publication called Codex: Eldar. Therefore, there is no Faction called Eldar. We do have Codex Eldar Harlequins and Codex Eldar Craftworlds. Would Preferred Enemy (Eldar) impact both of those books?

My gut tell me that most people will say it only impacts the Craftworlds books since that's the "real" Eldar Codex. Is there any actual justification for this? Both books have Eldar on the cover, so if you include Craftworlds, you should include Harlequins.

OR... does Preferred Enemy (Eldar) do nothing as there is no simple Eldar Faction?

Other issues...

Codex Adeptus Astartes Blood Angels vs. Codex Blood Angels
Codex Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii vs. Codex Skitarii
Codex Adeptus Mechanicus Cult Mechanicus vs. Codex Cult Mechanicus

I think we'll see this issue more and more. I'd expect the new Dark Angels book will be Codex Adeptus Astartes Dark Angels, etc, etc. Will Preferred Enemy (Space Marines) be replaced with Preferred Enemy (Adeptus Astartes)? And if so, as above, how would it function?

Preferred Enemy and Hatred don't relate to factions, just a specific type of unit. That's why Grey Knights are included in Preferred Enemy (Space Marines), and you have something like Hatred (Daemons of Slaanesh), for which there never existed a specific faction or codex.

I'm afraid you'll just have to use common sense.

 Redemption wrote:
Preferred Enemy and Hatred don't relate to factions, just a specific type of unit. That's why Grey Knights are included in Preferred Enemy (Space Marines), and you have something like Hatred (Daemons of Slaanesh), for which there never existed a specific faction or codex.

I'm afraid you'll just have to use common sense.

I'm not looking for a common sense answer. I'm looking for a RaW answer, or at the very least the generally accepted community HIWPI.

Preferred Enemy - "This rule is often presented as Preferred Enemy (X) where X identifies a specific type of foe."

Would Preferred Enemy (Eldar) apply to Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins then? They are all Eldar foes, after all.

I think he has a good argument, that "where X identifies a specific type of foe" = / = Faction.

It just says "Preferred Enemy (Nids)" which is quite clear, "Preferred Enemy (Space Marines)" which is a little less clear, like "Preferred Enemy (Eldar)".

I mean we have "Preferred Enemy (Characters)" and i'd love to see the RaW for that (definitely not a Faction either)

 Kriswall wrote:
I wanted to get a little feedback on how people are handling the Factions for certain recent Codex releases.

Many of the recent releases have a different title on the front versus the side. A perfect example is the recent Eldar release. On the front, the full title is Codex Eldar Craftworlds. On the side, it's simply Codex: Craftworlds. I know that there is very little functional difference in terms of gameplay, but how is everyone handling the Eldar bit?

Specific Scenario...

Take something like the Keeper of Secrets. S/he has Preferred Enemy (Eldar). There is not currently a publication called Codex: Eldar. Therefore, there is no Faction called Eldar. We do have Codex Eldar Harlequins and Codex Eldar Craftworlds. Would Preferred Enemy (Eldar) impact both of those books?

My gut tell me that most people will say it only impacts the Craftworlds books since that's the "real" Eldar Codex. Is there any actual justification for this? Both books have Eldar on the cover, so if you include Craftworlds, you should include Harlequins.

OR... does Preferred Enemy (Eldar) do nothing as there is no simple Eldar Faction?

Other issues...

Codex Adeptus Astartes Blood Angels vs. Codex Blood Angels
Codex Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii vs. Codex Skitarii
Codex Adeptus Mechanicus Cult Mechanicus vs. Codex Cult Mechanicus

I think we'll see this issue more and more. I'd expect the new Dark Angels book will be Codex Adeptus Astartes Dark Angels, etc, etc. Will Preferred Enemy (Space Marines) be replaced with Preferred Enemy (Adeptus Astartes)? And if so, as above, how would it function?

I know it's an unpopular opinion but, this is a case where you'd have to assume that going forward, it's implied that these types of rules apply to whatever the current codex is called for that race.
So Eldar would imply codex eldar craftworlds

The special rule for the Tau formation, Tau Firebase Support IIRC say preferred enemy Space Marines and it gives all enemy Space Marine units the Hatred Tau Firebase Support Cadre. If they change codex to Codex Adeptus Astartes I would say that it's still a rule that applies to Space Marines from Codex Adeptus Astartes. I would not use this rule for space marines that are not from that codex, BA, GK, SW or DA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redemption wrote:
Preferred Enemy and Hatred don't relate to factions, just a specific type of unit. That's why Grey Knights are included in Preferred Enemy (Space Marines), and you have something like Hatred (Daemons of Slaanesh), for which there never existed a specific faction or codex.

I'm afraid you'll just have to use common sense.

I don't think that a blanket term like space marines can be applied to "space marine" forces that are so unique they warrant their own codex. Generally speaking units from codices, GK, BA, DA and SW are referred to as Grey Knights etc.. and not Grey Knight Space marines etc...

They are unique when compared to the Space Marines of the general space marines codex.

So it sounds like there are no hard, fast rules and that we almost have to make an agreement on a case by case basis.

Preferred Enemy (Eldar) would currently refer to Craftworlds, Dark Eldar and Harlequins in much the same way that we're often told that Preferred Enemy (Space Marines) refers to Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Space Wolves, etc. Presumably, Codex Legion of the Damned would also be included on that list, although I don't think it's ever explicitly mentioned.

Preferred Enemy (Harlequins) would just refer to Codex Harlequins.

My plan is to consider things like "Eldar" and "Adeptus Mechanicus" to be "Parent Factions" with things like "Harlequins" and "Skitarii" to be underneath them. So, PE (Eldar) impacts Codex Eldar Harlequins and Codex Eldar Craftworlds, but PE (Craftworlds) only impacts Codex Eldar Craftworlds.

I'm halfway expecting to see this happen with all future codexes. I could see a new Tau Codex being entitled Codex Tau Empire Fire Caste with a secondary Codex Tau Empire Kroot Mercenaries being released in the future.

I'm without the rulebook in front of me at the moment, but I recall the rules on Preferred Enemy giving an example of something far more specific than a whole codex. It was something like Preferred Enemy(Burna Boyz) or something like that. Now, Burna Boys so far are only found in the Ork Codex, but in theory if another faction came up that also got to use Burna Boys, then the model with preferred enemy for them would gain the use of the special rule even when not fighting things of that faction.

We've received confirmation before that Preferred Enemy(Space Marines) means not just codex Space Marines, but also Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc. If it's a "space marine", you get preferred enemy against it. It was also pretty clear in doing so that you don't get it against Chaos Space Marines, which, despite being Space Marines, it did NOT work against.

So anything that's Eldar works. It doesn't necessarily mean a Faction, as then it'd have to be more specific with Preferred Enemy(Faction: Eldar).

Well, how do we determine what's Eldar? The book cover perhaps? Some people say it's "Codex: Eldar Craftworlds", but the fact that the "Eldar" part is small here could mean that the top title is a heading, and the Craftworlds part a sub-heading, to form something more similar to;

"Codex: Eldar (Craftworlds)"

Notice how Harlequins are done similarly;

"Codex: Eldar (Harlequins)"


Now, looking at the Dark Eldar, we see that the whole name is in the bottom heading.

"Codex: Dark Eldar"

Which would seem to imply that having Preferred Enemy(Eldar) would not work on the Dark Eldar.



Looking at further similarities, Space Marines are now all called Adeptus Astartes. The newer codexes seem to follow this same "Codex: Heading (Sub-Heading)" format:

Codex: Adeptus Astartes (Blood Angels)


Unfortunately... there's also...

Codex: Space Wolves


For now, I'd say that the Dark Eldar are specifically different from Eldar, and the only reason Space Wolves and Grey Knights and the like are any different is because of the FAQ. When we see the next Dark Eldar codex we should know for certain if it's "Codex: Dark Eldar" or "Codex: Eldar (Commorragh)".

I'm expecting something like "Codex: Eldar (Commorragh)".

And the example they gave was PE (Characters).

The Faction of Codex: Eldar Craftworlds is "Eldar". The Faction of Codex: Eldar Harlequins is "Harlequins". And here's the proof:

Both Codexes (Codeci?) refer to themselves as such, whenever they are referring to Factions. Here's a list of examples:
Codex: Eldar Harlequins
Page 69 - explaining Datasheets, explains that the symbol at the top of the sheet shows what Faction that unit is, and that "All of the units described in this book have the Harlequins Faction.".
Page 82 - Cast of Players datasheet, the special rule Heralds of the Laughing God explains that is works with models with the "Eldar" or "Dark Eldar" Faction. (More on this later)
Page 88 - Explaining the ally table for Harlequins, it again references "Models with the Harlequins Faction" and plain "Eldar" and "Dark Eldar" Factions.
Page 95 - Tactical Objectives, again references a Warlord with the "Harlequins" Faction.

Straightforward so far yeah? Codex: Harlequins was written with the previous Eldar Codex in mind right? Ok, carrying on:
Codex: Eldar Craftworlds
Page 96 - explaining Datasheets, includes the phrase "All of the units described in this book have the Eldar Faction.".
Page 137 - The Avatar references the "Eldar" faction in it's Khaine Awakened special rule.
Page 148 - Warlord Table may only be rolled on by a Warlord with the "Eldar Faction".
Page 159 - Tactical Objectives, requires an "Eldar Faction" Warlord.

Same as for Harelquins right? Now let's kick it up a notch:
Rulebook, page 118 - Explains that for "older publications", the Faction is the same as the Codex name, but gives you a selection of reference icons - including the one found in the Craftworlds Codex at the top of every Datasheet - the Harlequins Codex had to explain it, as it doesn't have one in the rulebook, but the Eldar one is already printed there.

Naaris wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
Preferred Enemy and Hatred don't relate to factions, just a specific type of unit. That's why Grey Knights are included in Preferred Enemy (Space Marines), and you have something like Hatred (Daemons of Slaanesh), for which there never existed a specific faction or codex.

I'm afraid you'll just have to use common sense.

I don't think that a blanket term like space marines can be applied to "space marine" forces that are so unique they warrant their own codex. Generally speaking units from codices, GK, BA, DA and SW are referred to as Grey Knights etc.. and not Grey Knight Space marines etc...

They are unique when compared to the Space Marines of the general space marines codex.

Except that when you open the Chaos Space Marine codex, Preferred Enemy/Hatred (Space Marines) is explained to also cover GK, BA, DA and SW in one of the designer notes.

I'm inclined to say that Preferred Enemy (Eldar) includes Eldar of all variety, including Harlequins en Dark Eldar, unless it specifically says something like Preferred Enemy (Craftworld Eldar). In the same vein, I also expect the Preferred Enemy (Daemons) that Grey Knights have to include anything with the Daemon rule, like the Avatar of Khaine or Chaos Possessed.

It seems to me that, as Kriswall suggested earlier, there are "parent" factions with more specific subdivisions. So you might hate the Eldar race in general, or you might have a specific hatred for Harlequins.

That said, maybe this issue could be further clarified by some more examples? The clarification in the Chaos book is helpful. I think there's so little clarification because the players are meant to come to a sportsmanlike agreement based on mutual interpretation of the fluff. That's not super helpful in a more competitive setting where players would often be inclined to interpret and debate the fluff as they see fit. Given the insane propagation of what look like sub-codexes in this edition, it seems that Preferred Enemy could use an overhaul, as right now a lot is left to us to decide. From the language in the rulebook, it seems like GW overestimates the general populace's capacity for "sportsmanship".

It directly says on page 96 of the codex: All units in this book have the "Eldar" faction.

The cover and binder don't mean anything any more. It could say Codex: Ninja Turtles, and if it said inside the book that all the units were considered the Tau faction, then that's their faction. Recently, every book release has had an explanation page directly before listing the units within it, and that page tells you what faction/s you're dealing with in the book, and where on the datasheets the faction indicator icon can be found.

EDIT: Similarly, in the Codex: Eldar / Harlequin book, it says all units in that book belong to the "Harlequins" faction.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
It directly says on page 96 of the codex: All units in this book have the "Eldar" faction.

The cover and binder don't mean anything any more. It could say Codex: Ninja Turtles, and if it said inside the book that all the units were considered the Tau faction, then that's their faction. Recently, every book release has had an explanation page directly before listing the units within it, and that page tells you what faction/s you're dealing with in the book, and where on the datasheets the faction indicator icon can be found.

EDIT: Similarly, in the Codex: Eldar / Harlequin book, it says all units in that book belong to the "Harlequins" faction.

Ahhh... makes sense. Terrible writing though when the BRB tells us that the Faction is the same as the book title.

And why in the heck would you call the book Eldar Craftworlds with faction Eldar, but Eldar Harlequins with faction Harlequins? Grossly inconsistent.

GW DESPERATELY needs to hire a copy editor.

Preferred Enemy doesn't refer to a faction, it refers to a model or unit. Preferred Enemy (Eldar) would apply to all models that are part of the Eldar race. Same thing with Abaddon's Preferred Enemy (Space Marines). It doesn't apply specifically to the Space Marine codex, it applies to all space marine models.

 Kriswall wrote:
Grossly inconsistent.

GW DESPERATELY needs to hire a copy editor.

I agreee that they're terribly inconsistent.

I think that the primary reason is due to multiple writers being tasked with writing, sometimes even within the same book. I think different writers have different visions on how things should be, and it comes out through inconsistencies in the game based on what particular writer got tasked with writing that particular page/section that day.

As far as the craftworld codex goes a lot of people overlook this at the beginning of the datasheets section.

The unit’s Faction will be shown here by a symbol. All of the units described in this book have the Eldar Faction

Beyond that, RAW(ish) the book is official called "Codex: Craftword" because that is the title listed in the copy-write.

 DJGietzen wrote:
As far as the craftworld codex goes a lot of people overlook this at the beginning of the datasheets section.

The unit’s Faction will be shown here by a symbol. All of the units described in this book have the Eldar Faction

Beyond that, RAW(ish) the book is official called "Codex: Craftword" because that is the title listed in the copy-write.

There is nothing about copyright in the official rules of the book, or the game, so that isn't RAW, or RAW(ish). Only the rules in the book matter, and the rules say that the units in the book belong to Faction: Eldar, regardless of what the cover says.

Sigh. Ok. So my post was trying to address two points.

1) A unit's faction is on its datasheet, if its not then its the name of the codex they came from. Thats what the BRB says. The new codex says all the datasheets within it it have the faction Eldar. Regardless of what the name of the book is, these units all have the Eldar faction.

The book's official name is "Codex: Craftworlds". This is the title the publisher chose to copywrite. This is the title the publisher chose to register when they got an ISBN for the title. There is no such thing as "Codex: Eldar Craftworlds". If my 1st point could not be made, the faction would not mention "eldar" in its name.

Oh, yes, that would be right. But we shouldn't bother mentioning the second part, as all new codices will fall neatly within point #1, and explaining point #2, while correct, will just confuse more people than it will help. Obviously if someone is using an older edition codex, their faction has already been defined by the BRB, and all the new ones will be in the new format that doesn't necessarily follow point #2, so the second part of your explanation is accurate, but superfluous.