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.

The Legends document for Forge World units introduced new keywords for Death Guard and Thousand Sons: Bubonic Astartes and Arcana Astartes respectively. Could this herald a return to rules similar to previous editions where many of the Undivided Legions couldn't take things like Plague Marines or Rubric Marines or marks other than Undivided, while some units were restricted from the God-aligned Legions (yes, I know that's already the case for Death Guard and Thousand Sons for many csm units)? Could we be getting new keywords for Emperor's Children and World Eaters? Or maybe even some of the Undivided Legions? This approach seems different to what has been done with loyalists, who have been moved to the single codex + supplements system except for Grey Knights.

Is there a functional difference? It sorta just seems like a way for people to make "Plague Marine" armies that aren't explicitly of the Death Guard Legion, in the same way a loyalist can make a Chapter of "Not Iron Hands", while gaining some Iron Hands abilities/Relics/Stratagems but also still being able to choose some customizable traits.

Then presumably, actual Death Guard Characters could have specific effects on keyword Death Guard models, while not effecting non Death Guard "Plague Marines".

My guess is it's simply a kludge because <LEGION> can't be DEATH GUARD or THOUSAND SONS, RaW. It was only able to be so for FW stuff due to an FAQ.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Is there a functional difference? It sorta just seems like a way for people to make "Plague Marine" armies that aren't explicitly of the Death Guard Legion, in the same way a loyalist can make a Chapter of "Not Iron Hands", while gaining some Iron Hands abilities/Relics/Stratagems but also still being able to choose some customizable traits.

Then presumably, actual Death Guard Characters could have specific effects on keyword Death Guard models, while not effecting non Death Guard "Plague Marines".

That's what I'm wondering about. Obviously it will limit what strategems, psychic powers, etc will work cross-faction, but will Plague Marines etc even continue to be an option for some Legions? You've been around awhile, you remember when those weren't available to most of the Undivided Legions in 3.5 because they couldn't have units with the required marks, this ended in the 4th edition codex when all csm were turned into a grey flavorless paste, and that was continued in the 6th edition codex, only for Traitor Legions to return to the 3.5 paradigm by not allowing Night Lords, Alpha Legion, etc to take marks or marked units, then 8th rolled around and the flavorless grey paste returned. I was wondering if this could herald a return to the 3.5/Traitor Legions design philosophy for the Legions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My guess is it's simply a kludge because <LEGION> can't be DEATH GUARD or THOUSAND SONS, RaW. It was only able to be so for FW stuff due to an FAQ.

That's possible, but wouldn't it be easier just not to add the exception for fw units in 9th, instead of new keywords?

Maybe its instead of the <heretic Startes> keyword to stop unforeseen overlap/interaction between <Heretic Astartes> stratagems from CSM codex and rules and DG/TS rules and stratagems?

They had to do a bunch of FAQs for Aeldari umberlla rules overlapping like heywire quins gettign doom etc.

The whole chaos keyword thing confuses me tbh so im just spitballin

 Argive wrote:
Maybe its instead of the <heretic Startes> keyword to stop unforeseen overlap/interaction between <Heretic Astartes> stratagems from CSM codex and rules and DG/TS rules and stratagems?

They had to do a bunch of FAQs for Aeldari umberlla rules overlapping like heywire quins gettign doom etc.

The whole chaos keyword thing confuses me tbh so im just spitballin

this would be my guess. I think 9th edition is gonna move away from soup via restricting interactions among armies and giving us bonuses for mono codex. a carrot and stick approuch as it where

I like how the community will pick up on this little rule changes and try to divine the implications

 Argive wrote:
I like how the community will pick up on this little rule changes and try to divine the implications

In the olden days they looked at the entrails of animals n an attempt to divine the future, we look at the entrails of datasheet entries to attempt to do the same...


they're proably just as accurate

Argive wrote:Maybe its instead of the <heretic Startes> keyword to stop unforeseen overlap/interaction between <Heretic Astartes> stratagems from CSM codex and rules and DG/TS rules and stratagems?

They had to do a bunch of FAQs for Aeldari umberlla rules overlapping like heywire quins gettign doom etc.

The whole chaos keyword thing confuses me tbh so im just spitballin

That could be it as well. If it is then hopefully they'll give csm good enough rules that we don't have to rely on soup to compete with other factions.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I like how the community will pick up on this little rule changes and try to divine the implications

In the olden days they looked at the entrails of animals n an attempt to divine the future, we look at the entrails of datasheet entries to attempt to do the same...


they're proably just as accurate

But this is far less messy.

It most certainly is... Unless you're a chaos sorcerer. I think its an occupational hazard at that point

If I were to hazard a guess I think DG and TSons are going to be sharing a keyword schema with CSM and this plays a part in that. It would also explain why Leviathan and Contemptors are no longer available to DG and TSons because they were created with what's to come rather than what is.

We will see soon enough when the DG codex drops.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I like how the community will pick up on this little rule changes and try to divine the implications

In the olden days they looked at the entrails of animals n an attempt to divine the future, we look at the entrails of datasheet entries to attempt to do the same...


they're proably just as accurate

Community finds out problems and broken stuff before official releases. Yes community can be quite accurate. Not that gw is particularly hard to deduce

I think it is to completely separate DG from CSM. no more precience and warptime crossover tech. Separate faction in every way but same superfaction. Like the way they stopped doom working for drukhari.

The FW loss of models almost feels like an awkward collateral damage move from the design team. They were all excited that they can control balancing of these armies without strats and psychic powers working across them but then they remembered that they would have to create separate datasheets for every FW entry, nah that's too much work just restrict access to legends, JOB DONE.

 Nithaniel wrote:
I think it is to completely separate DG from CSM. no more precience and warptime crossover tech. Separate faction in every way but same superfaction. Like the way they stopped doom working for drukhari.

The FW loss of models almost feels like an awkward collateral damage move from the design team. They were all excited that they can control balancing of these armies without strats and psychic powers working across them but then they remembered that they would have to create separate datasheets for every FW entry, nah that's too much work just restrict access to legends, JOB DONE.

You wouldn't need new datasheets. Replace <Legion> with <Death Guard>, replace <Heretic Astartes> with <Bubonic Astartes>. Done.

 Argive wrote:
I like how the community will pick up on this little rule changes and try to divine the implications

We get to know exactly 2 factions rules for 9th in the first six months of the edition's existence, heck yeah we're going to try and divine in the tea leaves what the heck anything means.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I like how the community will pick up on this little rule changes and try to divine the implications

We get to know exactly 2 factions rules for 9th in the first six months of the edition's existence, heck yeah we're going to try and divine in the tea leaves what the heck anything means.

Tea Leaves would be an awesome name for a librarian-heavy custom chapter

But yeah, everyone being excited over small bits of info is a much better reason for being here. Much better than yet another thread on a certain faction.

 Nithaniel wrote:
I think it is to completely separate DG from CSM. no more precience and warptime crossover tech. Separate faction in every way but same superfaction. Like the way they stopped doom working for drukhari.

The FW loss of models almost feels like an awkward collateral damage move from the design team. They were all excited that they can control balancing of these armies without strats and psychic powers working across them but then they remembered that they would have to create separate datasheets for every FW entry, nah that's too much work just restrict access to legends, JOB DONE.

DG and TS have access to FW stuff, GW published two versions of the legends document and the second version lost its "consider them legends" when talking about these legions taking the models.

 Jidmah wrote:
Tea Leaves would be an awesome name for a librarian-heavy custom chapter

You mean the Blood Ravens? (You have to know rhyming slang to understand this joke.)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
I think it is to completely separate DG from CSM. no more precience and warptime crossover tech. Separate faction in every way but same superfaction. Like the way they stopped doom working for drukhari.

The FW loss of models almost feels like an awkward collateral damage move from the design team. They were all excited that they can control balancing of these armies without strats and psychic powers working across them but then they remembered that they would have to create separate datasheets for every FW entry, nah that's too much work just restrict access to legends, JOB DONE.

DG and TS have access to FW stuff, GW published two versions of the legends document and the second version lost its "consider them legends" when talking about these legions taking the models.

The second version of the legends document only allows DG and TS to access the FW stuff in the legends document, which is already legends. It does not grant access to the imperial armour book unfortunately. I'd imagine a FAQ for the imperial armour book will contain the option of accessing the units in there as legends...

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I like how the community will pick up on this little rule changes and try to divine the implications

We get to know exactly 2 factions rules for 9th in the first six months of the edition's existence, heck yeah we're going to try and divine in the tea leaves what the heck anything means.

Tea Leaves would be an awesome name for a librarian-heavy custom chapter

But yeah, everyone being excited over small bits of info is a much better reason for being here. Much better than yet another thread on a certain faction.

I imagine Arihman is sat in his tower somewhere enjoying a cuppa right about now as his ears start to burn randomly. "huh.. guess somebody is talking about me. *looks into his tea leaves*"