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 asked for proof and you have provided none.

that's no different to you providing proof that the last Eldar codex is not legal. where is that written?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I asked for proof and you have provided none.

With the supplement, it says it's usable with Codex: Eldar, correct? Is the newest book Codex: Eldar? Sadly, it isn't. It's Codex Eldar: Craftworlds.

Personally, I wouldn't care. But if you're trying to play as legit as possible, I don't think using it with the current codex will fly. While some call it semantics, those subtle wording differences matter. And unless there's a FAQ by GW stating otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to get it to pass, me thinks.

 Toofast wrote:
Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

That's really about as simple as it gets, but really, common sense should prevail. The CWE units have changed drastically, so you shouldn't be able to pair the two. It just isn't logical.

You SHOULD be able to play with Iyande+6e Eldar with anyone who is willing to ply the old codex, though. Presuming this is because you have an army bulit on Iyanden+6e anyhow. I have no idea why someone would be building a new Iyanden+6e army.

The fact that gw no longer sells a codex has always been their way of cycling out the old for new. So we know codex eldar craftworlds is the new eldar codex. We also know that lyanden says it works with codex eldar. The new codex is codex eldar craftworlds. now... Where is your proof? Don't argue for the sake of arguing.. bring some facts please. Your pointless arguing is tiresome.

bullyboy wrote:
that's no different to you providing proof that the last Eldar codex is not legal. where is that written?

It's a 'legal' book. But if you enter events, they expect one to use the current rules. Players can use the previous dex if they wish, as it works. But as for 'competitive' legal, the book isn't. It's like any other tabletop game. As newer 'sets' come out, older ones get retired for competitive play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
The fact that gw no longer sells a codex has always been their way of cycling out the old for new. So we know codex eldar craftworlds is the new eldar codex. We also know that lyanden says it works with codex eldar. The new codex is codex eldar craftworlds. now... Where is your proof? Don't argue for the sake of arguing.. bring some facts please. Your pointless arguing is tiresome.

Well, here's another thing. The supplement was made with the 6th edition book in mind. I'm not too familiar with Eldar in general, but using the supp with the current dex with either make the supp too good, or too weak. if it makes it too good, then it's clear that it really isn't going to work. The balances aren't there (Despite GW not really being known for that). If it becomes weak...then I'm not sure why one would WANT to use it with the new book. *shrug*

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Why not? It is its own book which gives you rules on how to use it (along with the Eldar codex). Codexes are only made illegal when they are replaced by a current one, and there is no current Iyanden book to replace to old one. You are given permission to use it as a supplement to Codex: Eldar, and that permission is never revoked.

Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

Is it then your argument that if a product is not available on GW's web store it isn't legal to use? That's a dangerous precedent to set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:


TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

If so, and the new book replaces the old for rules purposes, then you can still use Iyanden with it.

For codexes, yes that is my precedent, and the only one that makes any kind of logical sense. To your second point, no you cannot. Codex: eldar and codex: eldar craftworlds are 2 different books. Iyanden says "to be used with codex: eldar". The new book is not codex: eldar, therefore iyanden cannot be used with it. This is not complicated. Your argument is "yes you can, because reasons". Repeating that over and over just because the new codex has the word eldar in the title is not going to convince anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, you have still failed to address my last point. Why would GW known loss and throw out hundreds of copies of the iyanden book if it was still legal? The only LOGICAL answer is, of course, they wouldn't. They would only do that if it was no longer a current book because it was designed to be used with the old eldar codex (like it explicitly says in the book).

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Two schools of thought: Craftworlds is the new Eldar codex, and thus Iyanden is legal.

Craftworlds is its own dex, and cannot be fielded with Iyanden. (Which would mean Eldar 6th codex is still legal...)

Absent clarification from GW, it's unclear.

Lyanden is not legal with the new codex, and it is the new eldar codex. supplements do not roll over to new codex. Lyanden, unless agreed upon to use the old 6th ed eldar codex, is now outdated.

Why not? It is its own book which gives you rules on how to use it (along with the Eldar codex). Codexes are only made illegal when they are replaced by a current one, and there is no current Iyanden book to replace to old one. You are given permission to use it as a supplement to Codex: Eldar, and that permission is never revoked.

Iyanden book specifically says to be used with codex eldar. The new codex is not codex eldar, it is codex eldar CRAFTWORLDS. Just because the words codex eldar are in there doesn't mean it's codex eldar. No, legally in tournaments and the like, you can't use iyanden. If your friends want to let you use it, that's fine. If iyanden was compatible with the new codex, why was it pulled off the Web site completely along with being pulled from all GW retail stores, "known lossed" and thrown in the dumpster out back when the new codex was released? I would say that alone is pretty good evidence that GW does not intend iyanden to work with codex eldar craftworlds.

Is it then your argument that if a product is not available on GW's web store it isn't legal to use? That's a dangerous precedent to set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:


TL;DR New name, replaces Codex: Eldar from 6th edition.

If so, and the new book replaces the old for rules purposes, then you can still use Iyanden with it.

Negative. Says you can use with Codex: Eldar. New Codex is not called Codex: Eldar. It expired with the 6th edition rulebook.

at this stage I would state that it cannot be used with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds due to name change, but there is nothing stopping someone from using it with Codex Eldar. I don't see anywhere where GW has stated that Codex Eldar cannot be played, and I don't care what the usual "precedence" is, it's either a written rule or it isn't. Someone here wanted written proof that it can be used, but failed to provide written proof that Codex Eldar cannot be played. Typical internet BS.
Each event can dictate what they want regarding their events, which books to use, no ranged D or whatever. As an Eldar player, I'd skip any event that said no ranged D AND cannot use Codex: Eldar and Iyanden. I'll take my wraithguard elsewhere thank you.

Here's a fun fact, I believe the Iyanden supplement used to be a digital release.

Black Library keeps on the non-apple release:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Codex

The new Eldar book is specifically named Codex: Craftworlds (strike one), the Iyanden supplement isn't even available digitally (strike two), and I cannot find it in the iTunes store (strike three).

Give that it's not commercially available in any form and the very distinct name change of the new Eldar book, I'd say, sadly, it's not legal.

Which is just another super major bummer of a reason not to buy GW products.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bullyboy wrote:
at this stage I would state that it cannot be used with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds due to name change, but there is nothing stopping someone from using it with Codex Eldar. I don't see anywhere where GW has stated that Codex Eldar cannot be played, and I don't care what the usual "precedence" is, it's either a written rule or it isn't. Someone here wanted written proof that it can be used, but failed to provide written proof that Codex Eldar cannot be played. Typical internet BS.
Each event can dictate what they want regarding their events, which books to use, no ranged D or whatever. As an Eldar player, I'd skip any event that said no ranged D AND cannot use Codex: Eldar and Iyanden. I'll take my wraithguard elsewhere thank you.

The rule of thumb for any wargame is, if you're staying relevant, you play with the recent official release.

To not do so, well, that way madness lies.

bullyboy wrote:
at this stage I would state that it cannot be used with Codex: Eldar Craftworlds due to name change, but there is nothing stopping someone from using it with Codex Eldar. I don't see anywhere where GW has stated that Codex Eldar cannot be played, and I don't care what the usual "precedence" is, it's either a written rule or it isn't. Someone here wanted written proof that it can be used, but failed to provide written proof that Codex Eldar cannot be played. Typical internet BS.
Each event can dictate what they want regarding their events, which books to use, no ranged D or whatever. As an Eldar player, I'd skip any event that said no ranged D AND cannot use Codex: Eldar and Iyanden. I'll take my wraithguard elsewhere thank you.

Cool, one less eldar player to worry about

less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

bullyboy wrote:
less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

Please try to add something to a topic when you post, instead of simply insulting the community. If you have nothing to add, it's as simple as not posting. Thank you. Come again.

Iyanden is gone, ravaged by something far worse than the hunger of the Tyranid hive mind... the Games Workshop Design Team! All that remains is but one formation. One single utterly broken and undercosted formation...

The writing is on the wall. GW no longer sells the codex online or in stores, and the book specifically states that it is for "Codex: Eldar". The current book is Codex: Craftworld Eldar, so Iyanden is not compatible. In addition, there have been changes to the units that make up the Iyanden supplement in the new codex, specifically for the worse. This does not bode well for the Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter supplements when GW updates CSM. I would be feeling quite cheated out of my money.

For the OP, there is some saving grace. The Wraith Host formation is pretty much what most Iyanden armies looked like. You could always try using the 6th edition Distort rules. Or downgrading the Wraithknight to a Monstrous Creature, or mysteriously leaving out 50 points in list building, or swapping it out for another Wraithlord,or something.

The new codex is just awful, if you hadn't already heard.

Awful? I think it's far better than the last one. Nearly every unit is playable. Yes, scatter bikes, D scythes and wraithknights are the go to units but at least all of the aspects can be used, vypers got a point drop, crimson hunters got a point drop, hemlock got an extra psychic level, it's no longer just codex: wave serpents + min unit tax.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

Please try to add something to a topic when you post, instead of simply insulting the community. If you have nothing to add, it's as simple as not posting. Thank you. Come again.

and you have added???

I stated quite clearly what I thought about the Iyanden codex (relevant to the OP).....and as someone who actually plays the list, I probably have more of a voice than yourself anyway. I'm going to play the wraith host from the new book but then again my group wear big boy pants and have no issue with wraithguard in the new book. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have cared if I said I wasn't getting the new book and would continue using the older book and Iyanden.
And to be quite honest, I'm pretty sure that they would allow the Iyanden book with the new Codex since there isn't anything in the Iyanden codex that breaks the game any more than it already is.

as for TOs, they will have to make the call themseleves for their own events. It's going to get really interesting when the new Sm codex drops in regards to those who have bought the IH or IF supplements.

RIP Codex: Eldar

As much as I'd hate to say this, Codex:Eldar is now replaced by Codex craftworld and Iyaden is now irrelevant. If you want to play with the old codex and supplement then you can just like you can play with a 6th edition rule book and the old SM codex. In a friendly setting anything goes but if you were to turn out to a tournament don't expect it to fly.
It is a frightening notion that what you buy has no value and it's a major deterrent tome from buying anything else. Why buy the apocalypse book if it gets outdated the next month after?

Heck, my brother bought the Eldar codex and got the Iyaden supplement right after as a B-day gift. When the new deamon powers came, he bought a chaos deamon book so he can summon monsters (3 books now) and can't use any of them because he bought a 4th book (codex:craftworld).

This also occurred with the Imperial knights. You bought a full codex for 2 models. Got a bit of fluff and 4-5 pages of rules. Fast forward less than a year and you now another book on the same thing with 3 more models that invalidates the previous book....argh

So when I saw the codex for codex skitarii- I was like DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK. It is bait! There will be an updated better version of the same thing down the road.

 Blacksails wrote:
Is this the first case of this in recent memory?

Are there any examples from the past where a book had a supplement then got updated?

Recent? Not that I'm aware of. Previously, the 3rd edition Space Wolf supplement codex, and to a lesser extent the 3rd edition Blood Angels codex, were used with at least the follow on Codex: Space Marines. Those are the two that come to mind.

 Toofast wrote:
Awful? I think it's far better than the last one. Nearly every unit is playable. Yes, scatter bikes, D scythes and wraithknights are the go to units but at least all of the aspects can be used, vypers got a point drop, crimson hunters got a point drop, hemlock got an extra psychic level, it's no longer just codex: wave serpents + min unit tax.

I will admit to exaggerating in my last post.

Like you said, there are a lot of changes for the better in this codex, and I agree with a lot of them. The problem lies in the D weapons and the Wraithknight and scatter bikers. I play in a casual and friendly gaming group, and there were a lot of people who actively despised the top-tier codexes for throwing the balance out of their local meta. Judging by the number of Eldar rage threads this board has going at the moment, people's opinion of Eldar armies and the people who play them have only gotten worse.

I'm just afraid that I'm not going to get as many pick-up games with my favorite army anymore, even if I take and use the units the tournament scene finds "sub-optimal" (I am not saying that the tournament players are wrong, just that I personally don't enjoy playing in that manner).

Going back to the OP, maybe we'll see some Iyanden-themed formations coming out in the new campaign this year? it would certainly help diversify the theme of the army out of just one formation.

Edit: This trend also doesn't bode well for Skitarii. How like GW would it be to put out a book with only half the units, then release a second book and totally invalidate the first?

I am being rather cynical. The next AdMech book is probably just a collection of formations with the new units. Same thing with the new Imperial Knights. But I wouldn't put it past GW to try it.

 Toofast wrote:
Awful? I think it's far better than the last one. Nearly every unit is playable. Yes, scatter bikes, D scythes and wraithknights are the go to units but at least all of the aspects can be used, vypers got a point drop, crimson hunters got a point drop, hemlock got an extra psychic level, it's no longer just codex: wave serpents + min unit tax.

And yet they did nothing for the Wraithlord and massively buffed the Wraithknighht... Seriously incompetent.

The old Dex was more than Wave Seroents and Min Unit Tax, it was super solid codex, most everything in it was good or great, it was just Windriders, Seroents, Wraithknights, and Seer Councils that stole the show.

BS5 Warp Spiders wounding almost everything on 2s... Rending on 6s... With 2 shots... And the ability to jump out of weapon range during your opponents turn... All for 19pts/model...

They fixed the Wave Serpent, thankfully, but they broke so much more... And the formations, damn. Buff a unit, then give them a formation that massively buffs them further.


Edit: To the OP. I doubt Iyanden will stay legal, maybe we'll be lucky and get an FAQ. I hope so for my Farsight!

Raw it doesn't work for Craftworld. But, Raw C:E isn't invalidated either. It's inconclusive and we need clarification.

bullyboy wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
less Eldar players is probably a good thing as it's always sad to see grown men cry and whine so much. I've already raised a 2yr old, no reason to witness that again.

Please try to add something to a topic when you post, instead of simply insulting the community. If you have nothing to add, it's as simple as not posting. Thank you. Come again.

and you have added???

I stated quite clearly what I thought about the Iyanden codex (relevant to the OP).....and as someone who actually plays the list, I probably have more of a voice than yourself anyway. I'm going to play the wraith host from the new book but then again my group wear big boy pants and have no issue with wraithguard in the new book. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have cared if I said I wasn't getting the new book and would continue using the older book and Iyanden.
And to be quite honest, I'm pretty sure that they would allow the Iyanden book with the new Codex since there isn't anything in the Iyanden codex that breaks the game any more than it already is.

as for TOs, they will have to make the call themseleves for their own events. It's going to get really interesting when the new Sm codex drops in regards to those who have bought the IH or IF supplements.

big boy pants? I'm honestly confused on who in this thread you are attempting to prove to that your group is mature, as I'm sure no one cares. Regardless, your group can do as they please. The thread was if the lyanden codex can be used with the new eldar, and we answered as to why it can not, with no real argument as to why it can other than "cause its eldar"

but who says it can't?
GW does not officially come out and say what you can and can't use...they pretty much just release things at a mile a minute and let the public decide. TOs decide, LGS owners decide, groups decide, friends decide. That's why there really is no point to this....there is no official stance, blame GW.
GW has been pretty hush about Iyanden (yes, it's pretty early), but that hush neither confirms or denies it's use currently with the exception of the Codex name. My local GW employee stated he was waiting to hear from GW, that was a few weeks ago.
My expectation is that it's obsolete....too bad you have 5 Seers, play multiple CADs or 5 wraith host formations...that's the GW way. For the most part, there is no real reason to take the Iyanden codex, the wraith host gives you Battle Focus anyway. The spirit mark rule changed and became better so I would say people would only want to use it for the different warlord traits and relics.

but there is still nowhere stated that it can't be used. Gotta love GW's lack of communication for that.

and to add to that, I just checked my new eldar codex.....I don;t see anywhere where it states "7th edition". The FAQ online is dated from 2014. There is literally NO rule that tells you what you can and cannot use in regards to new Eldar, old Eldar or Iyanden. People decide.

No, there isn't a written rule anywhere in a codex stating that it invalidates the last one. I've just never seen a TO or group of players that considers an old codex to be valid after a new one has been released.

 Toofast wrote:
No, there isn't a written rule anywhere in a codex stating that it invalidates the last one. I've just never seen a TO or group of players that considers an old codex to be valid after a new one has been released.

and i agree, but this was mainly a response to the "show me proof!" approach. That just isn't GWs way, we're all just forging a narrative.

Instead of devolving into insults, why not quote the actual rulebooks? SOME of Iyanden supplement is legitimate for play, others are not.

For example, The Army of Iyanden section is no longer applicable (the emphasis is not added; it is in the original) as it specifically relates to Codex: Eldar -

The Army of Iyanden: Alternations and additions to the rules given in Codex: Eldar, that will help you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a warhost worthy of Iyanden Craftworld

However, the Echoes of War section does not refer to Codex: Eldar, so it would be legal to play:

Echoes of War: Five new missions that recreate pivotal battles from Iyanden's History.

The Armies of Iyanden portion particularly doesn't make sense, because it refers to things which are no longer true. For instance:

The Wraithknight is a Jump Monstrous Creature...

There is also the rule of common sense. Very significantly, the Iyanden supplement was written when Death Speaker was a special rule, and taking a Spiritseer allowed Wraithguard and Wraithblades to be a Troops choice instead of Elite. This was important from a fluff and army design perspective because Wraithguard are supposed to replace most Aspect Warriors in an Iyanden army (it says that in so many words). Since Death Speaker is gone, this isn't possible anymore, so from a structural perspective, marrying the two books no longer works.

Also, importantly, the supplement was written when Distort did not mean Destroyer, and there are many references to D-weapons (meaning Distort weapons).

Has the Iyanden Supplement become a total waste of money? I would argue: NO. The first half of the supplement is fluff and pictures of Iyanden armies. This hasn't changed at all. The second half has a small section (the units, warlord traits, relics, etc.) that are no longer applicable.

The campaign/scenario section is pretty much usable as is.

So what have you lost? The Armies section. Yeah, that sucks. What have you gained? A Wraith Host and War Host (cough D weapons cough) -- which is arguably, much, much better. Oh yeah, and all the other Eldar stuff.

The Iyanden Craftworld hasn't disappeared. Just the rules for it have changed, and I can't imagine anyone jumping up and down and screaming that their wraith army has been nerfed.

I don't understand why Codex: Eldar Craftworlds can't replace both Codex: Eldar *and* Codex: Iyanden.

I would definitely not use the word nerf with Iyanden currently
However, by using the wraith host formation, I have now lost the ability to use my 2nd spirit seer and 2nd wraithlord. So now I need to add a CAD with the seer, 2 troop selections (probably 2x rangers or 1x rangers and 1x guardians) and then the wraithlord. Neither this seer or the wraithlord will get battle focus, but that won't make much of a difference. I will probably just end up using the wraith host detachment and then figuring out what else to spend points on (harlies, aspect host etc)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't understand why Codex: Eldar Craftworlds can't replace both Codex: Eldar *and* Codex: Iyanden.

Well, duh! Iyanden is a Craftworld, right? Besides, Iyanden is right in the beginning of muh shiny new book. The way I would see it is that the old Iyanden book is just extra background information, and the rules part of it has been combined into the main Eldar Craftworld book, and you can play their theme by using the Wraith Hosts. If you bought the old Iyanden book, you still have all the neat stories and such, which aren't in the new book. It's not like there were really much rules in Iyanden anyways. I don't know why people are getting so worked up about it.

 TheKbob wrote:
The rule of thumb for any wargame is, if you're staying relevant, you play with the recent official release.

To not do so, well, that way madness lies.

Actually, the rule of thumb for any wargame is, once you buy the rules and the models, they're yours, and you use them any way you want - having permission from your opponents, etc.

The madness (new codex every two-three years make the previous one and its 50$ supplements "illegal") is actually GW and their GWombies' way.

 Chardun wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Is this the first case of this in recent memory?

Are there any examples from the past where a book had a supplement then got updated?

Recent? Not that I'm aware of. Previously, the 3rd edition Space Wolf supplement codex, and to a lesser extent the 3rd edition Blood Angels codex, were used with at least the follow on Codex: Space Marines. Those are the two that come to mind.

Also Codex: Catachans (got invalidated by a new Codex: Imperial Guard) and at least two lists of Codex: Armageddon (by a new Codex: Chaos and a new Codex: Eldar).
Those mostly got hit by the fact that units they referenced changed names or disappeared altogether.