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.
One could say they didn't put it in the CSM codex because it's gonna go in the WE codex.
Once Angron model drops, yeah there is high chances that there is a WE codex, or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IFC_Casting wrote: World Eaters psyker? That's too much heresy even for them.
In all honesty i always found the "No Psy Powers" kinda dumb, since Khorne is still an entety of chaos, thus made up of RAW Psychic power.
I would have setteled with a "Khorne's Psyker can only cast buffs and Direct attack powers" like Pyromancy and Biomancy powers.
Heck i would even settle for a Character like a "Skull Priest" who can throw buffs to other Khornate units based on the numbers of skulls they've taken in precedent turn, like a mini "Blood Tithe".
What i think is a missed opportunity is that for Pure Khornate lists there is no "Buffing" model other then the Lord or Exalt Champ.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/17 13:16:58
To be fair thought, what is stopping someone from taking a sorcerer with make undivided and some cultists as a separate detachment if they want to use powers? Then you paint it up and say "these guys are wannabe khorne". What would you lose?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/17 13:44:55
Slayer le boucher wrote: In all honesty i always found the "No Psy Powers" kinda dumb, since Khorne is still an entety of chaos, thus made up of RAW Psychic power.
I would have setteled with a "Khorne's Psyker can only cast buffs and Direct attack powers" like Pyromancy and Biomancy powers.
Because even though he is raw warpstuff, Khorne values brute strength and honour above all else. Using magical powers is "cheating". To paraphrase If-The-Emperor-Had-A-TTS-Device: Khorne will never betray you, or stab you in the back. He will just stab you in the face, repeatedly, until your face no longer resembles a face.
I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
8th Overhaul!
Over 18,000 SM
Over 7000 Tyranids
About 3000 Genestealer cult
About 6000 IG
About 2500 Chaos
About 5000 Skitarii/Admech *Current focus
About 3000 Deamons
2 Imperial Knigts... Soon to be a third
Tsol wrote: I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
You should be careful about someone saying "bold (sic) face lie", RAW it looks like they can, but as has been repeatedly pointed out by people this is a case where RAW is stupid, and to expect it to be taken care of in a FAQ. I think people here know the RAI for this and will follow that, but where the RAW is being dabated claiming one side is telling a lie without support (Tenet 1 of YMDC: "Don't make a statement without backing it up. ") is starting to question their motives. You might think they're wrong, or that they're mistaken in their reading of the RAW that they're arguing about, but that does not mean they're deliberately telling a lie. That also runs afoul of Tenet 5, which has its second sentence as "Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. ".
So, did you actually want to discuss what the rules say?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/17 19:09:14
Yeah, calling someone a liar is overkill here. This is a valid interpretation of the rules, even if some of us may think it's absurd.
The differences between Index and Codex for WE and EC have been handled poorly by GW. There are several areas where the rules / wording is ambiguous partly b/c this is the first time we had 2 books talking about the same thing - like with whether or not WE Army Rules apply to armies from the Codex.
Personally, I would let an opponent take the sorcerer if that person felt it was important. The only real benefit I can see is maybe it avoids the need for a separate detachment to get a battalion going. A few more command points on a World Eaters army is not going to make much of a difference.
With regards to Rubrics in a World Eaters army - yeah, the language could be interpreted that way. But that might be pushing it.
Tsol wrote: I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
You should be careful about someone saying "bold (sic) face lie", RAW it looks like they can, but as has been repeatedly pointed out by people this is a case where RAW is stupid, and to expect it to be taken care of in a FAQ. I think people here know the RAI for this and will follow that, but where the RAW is being dabated claiming one side is telling a lie without support (Tenet 1 of YMDC: "Don't make a statement without backing it up. ") is starting to question their motives. You might think they're wrong, or that they're mistaken in their reading of the RAW that they're arguing about, but that does not mean they're deliberately telling a lie. That also runs afoul of Tenet 5, which has its second sentence as "Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. ".
So, did you actually want to discuss what the rules say?
Actually no, I don't. As I said in my post, I came here to upset myself, because this is a good old fashioned people trying to break rules. What weirds me out, as mentioned above, is I am very confident that no one, not at any tournament or even in casual games would look at their friend or opponent and straight faced say. "Hey, I know this is wrong, and I am trying to break the grammar of this rule, because it wasn't explicit enough, and I'm fairly confident there will be a FAQ or even an errata to ensure there is no ambiguity as to what I am doing is wrong. And I know its wrong, but I'm still going to try and break it. Are you okay with that?"
Remember, when you admit, you know what the rule is supposed to be RAI but you want to break the rules by abusing grammar or taking advantage of poor rules writing; RAW, you are purposefully either lying (not being honest intentionally) or you are trying to break the game in an unfair advantage for yourself (still dishonest).
Which brings me back to my prior post. I dare any of you to go to a gameshop and try it. See if your opponents or friends will humor you.
Discuss the grammar all you please, from what I've read, not one person here is confused about RAI. Simply, how long can I abuse this loophole before they fix it.
8th Overhaul!
Over 18,000 SM
Over 7000 Tyranids
About 3000 Genestealer cult
About 6000 IG
About 2500 Chaos
About 5000 Skitarii/Admech *Current focus
About 3000 Deamons
2 Imperial Knigts... Soon to be a third
Tsol wrote: I am not going to lie, I read this thread just to upset myself. And I succeeded. I can understand word play and intentionally misconstruing statements just for funzies, but to bold face lie to people and make claims like Word Eaters can take sorcerors even makes me raise an eyebrow.
Just remember people you can lie to yourselves, and play word games here on the forums, without being face to face with your, incredulous skeptics but when you walk into that hobby store, and you pull the same stunt, they'll laugh at you, or simply say, find someone else to play with.
You should be careful about someone saying "bold (sic) face lie", RAW it looks like they can, but as has been repeatedly pointed out by people this is a case where RAW is stupid, and to expect it to be taken care of in a FAQ. I think people here know the RAI for this and will follow that, but where the RAW is being dabated claiming one side is telling a lie without support (Tenet 1 of YMDC: "Don't make a statement without backing it up. ") is starting to question their motives. You might think they're wrong, or that they're mistaken in their reading of the RAW that they're arguing about, but that does not mean they're deliberately telling a lie. That also runs afoul of Tenet 5, which has its second sentence as "Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. ".
So, did you actually want to discuss what the rules say?
Actually no, I don't. As I said in my post, I came here to upset myself, because this is a good old fashioned people trying to break rules. What weirds me out, as mentioned above, is I am very confident that no one, not at any tournament or even in casual games would look at their friend or opponent and straight faced say. "Hey, I know this is wrong, and I am trying to break the grammar of this rule, because it wasn't explicit enough, and I'm fairly confident there will be a FAQ or even an errata to ensure there is no ambiguity as to what I am doing is wrong. And I know its wrong, but I'm still going to try and break it. Are you okay with that?"
Remember, when you admit, you know what the rule is supposed to be RAI but you want to break the rules by abusing grammar or taking advantage of poor rules writing; RAW, you are purposefully either lying (not being honest intentionally) or you are trying to break the game in an unfair advantage for yourself (still dishonest).
Which brings me back to my prior post. I dare any of you to go to a gameshop and try it. See if your opponents or friends will humor you.
Discuss the grammar all you please, from what I've read, not one person here is confused about RAI. Simply, how long can I abuse this loophole before they fix it.
As already pointed out above, even RAI, if you really want you can take a sorcererer in WE army, it just isn't a World eater sorcerer at that point and you will need to put it in a separate detachment which is really not hard to work around.
This discussion has been mostly for fun on RAW (as you say, nobody will even try to take a WE sorcerer) to see if GW forgot to put a stop to RAWWE Socerers. Which it seems they did. I take it more like a funny useless fact then anything else...
WE can take any unit in the book with <legion>. If they couldn't, it would specifically say that.
The only requirement is that if they can choose the mark of khorne, they must.
There are plenty of units that can't choose their mark (cult troops etc) and sorcs, who don't have the option of khorne. It doesn't say anywhere that not being able to choose khorne means they can't be WE. It just says they can't willing choose something else instead of it. That's RAW, as far as i can tell. RAI could very well be something else.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
(I would say that the fact it needed an errata and not an FAQ means you were wrong RAW. Just saying since you decided to add that little message on the end.)
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
Goat wrote: I know this is non fluff but...
Sorcerers are not able to take a mark of Khorne
When selecting a mark you do not have to declare one.
World Eaters must be marked of Khorne, if able to do so.
Does the escape claus of the World Eaters "if able" allow for World Eater legion sorcerers? I don't see anything stopping this. Can someone point out if I missed something?
Ref. Pg. 116 of codex
I can't remember exactly but there's some sort of 1 unit detatchment you can take at -1CP. So you could have a World Eater Primary Detatchment and then a single detatchment that is not World Eater made up of the single sorcerer. You would still be battleforged, able to take to the WE Legion Trait, you just take a penalty hit of -1 CP and your one Sorcerer would not be able to benifit from legion traits or command abilities that target MoK or WE units.
