World Eaters news and rumours. Skulls for the Skull Throne!

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.

**DreadfullyHopeful**

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
No sub-factions.

This really is a rush job.

Not to disagree that this is a rush job, but how would World Eaters subfactions even work? I think it was already contrived when they gave them to the Cult Legions and Grey Knights, and World Eaters subfactions would seem to be even tougher to demarcate.

Though at the end of the day, that's also GW's fault as the natural end state of excessive flanderization.

Kind of disagree. The different TS cults make a good show of the bunch of school of sorceries a legion devoted to tzeentch might get to. Especially a few gnarly looking sorcerers we get illustrations.
Likewise, if was paid to find a bunch of possible posses with the WE I wouldn't have trouble making some that make sense

**Abadabadoobaddon**

Fayric wrote:
Sub factions for World Eaters would purely be based on exactly what kind of heavy metal they listen to

I think you mean based on exactly which Cannibal Corpse album they listen to. Otherwise still only 1 subfaction.

**H.B.M.C.**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
You're saying the rules don't have any way to reflect that!?

I know you're kidding around, but in all seriousness: Why shouldn't they have subfactions?

For years at this place people have been bleating about how the Traitor Legions aren't really Legions anymore but are all rando split-up warbands. That's always been an erroneous exaggeration, but there really is one Legion that fractured into many, many warbands and that Legion was the World Eaters.

So, more than anyone, they should have sub-factions to show how much they've spread apart from their original formations.

**Selfcontrol**

Gotta agree with HBMC. If there is ONE Traitor Legion where subfactions make sense, it's the World Eaters.

Also, when the Codex was announced back in summer, Stu Black recognized that they are (still) a fractured Legion.

**NinthMusketeer**

Yeah, that's the way I see it as well. It doesn't make sense for them NOT to, in my eyes.

**DarkStarSabre**

Garrac wrote:
The "leaked" rules, compiled by B&Ch

World Eaters Traits
+1 Attack on Charge/charged/HI
+1 Strength on Charge/Charged/HI (May end up being diffrent)

WE Armywide Mechanic: Bloodtithe
Two current rumors:
Rumor 1 is you get a point for each unit destroyed and +1 bonus point for a vehicle/Monster the first time each turn and +1 for Titanic. So you could get up to 3 points if something like Angron was destroyed.
Rumor 2. Works similar to CK favors of the dark gods. Keep a Tally of total wound dealt by models destroyed (I.E. Ork Boyz give 1 point when killed, Custodes troops 3, etc)
Bloodtithe effects (which are PERMANENT)
6 to hit in Melee Auto wounds
+1 to hit
+1 AP for Melee Weapons
Attacks +1
Add 1 to Advance and Charge
5+ FNP to Mortals
6+ FNP to everything
Revive Angron (Puts him into deepstrike with 8 wounds and he deepstrikes next turn

Warlord Traits:
When your WL kills a unit, you get a bonus Bloodtithe point
WL takes half Damage in Melee
Fight First
Angron Trait: Remove OBSEC in 6'
Khârn: if 6 or more models within 3' of Karn gain D3 attacks
See Invoctus for other trait

Relics:
Every Dead model counts as 2 for morale
Relic Axe: +2 S -3 AP Damage 2, 6's to hit grant two additional hits
Select CORE unit with in 6' 6's to hit auto wound

Khârn
6 2 2 6 4 6 9 9 3+
Pistol 8 -3 2
Axe S:user AP-4 D2
4+ inv
Core reroll 1's to hit
End of the movement phase if any friendly units are within 3", pick one, on a 2+ cause 2 mortals

Lord Invoctus
Has FLY
Ignores invulns, only unit that does so.
Warlord trait is pregame move 2 CORE WE units OR Select Core or Character within 9" can charge if it fell back. (From different versions)
Has an aura of +2 Movement of CORE WE Units

Jakhals:
6" 4 4 3 3 1 2 6 6 jak
6" 4 4 3 3 1 3 7 6+ leader
6" 4 4 4 3 1 2 6 6+ Dishonored
2 Attacks at AP -1
A couple can have +2S, -2 AP D2 -1 to hit upgrades
A couplemore can have User -2 AP D2 Double Attacks
Once per battle, can kill D3 of themselves and gain +1 Strength

8Bound
9" WS3 BS3 S6 T5 3W LD8 3+/5++
Pregame move built in

Exalted 8bound
9" WS2 BS3 S6 T5 3W LD8 3+/4++
Prevent Fallback
SGT can get two cahinfists that get Damage 3

Angron:
2+/4++ 18W
1 WLT - Removes enemy obsec within 6'
Warp Locus
Currently does not ignore Wound caps or invulns, but has so many attacks he can "Destroy anything in close combat pretty easily"
Can be revived with the bloodtithe mechanic

GENERAL STRATAGEMS:
+1 Damage for Exalte 8bound

KHORNE ARMY of RENOWN:
Khorne Daemons Only and... Land Raiders is the restriction
This means Angron + 8Bound + Maybe Lord Invoctaus from WE and of course the Khorne Daemons

Some AoR Stratagems:
8bound
+1 to Wound
6" Consolidate
If an opponent kills in 8bound in their shooting phase, but does not destroy the entire unit you can move it 9" (May have ended up being D6 instead)
Buff Stratagem choose 1: 1)Obsec, 2)wound roll of 6 causes 1 MW up to 6, 3) 4+ FNP against MW

BAD News:
Only 1 Relic/WLT. No Stratagems for extra
Only 3 WLT for non-special Characters
No Subfactions

Christ. The more I look at this the more it feels like it was intended as a Codex Supplement rather than a standalone Codex.....

**Platuan4th**

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Christ. The more I look at this the more it feels like it was intended as a Codex Supplement rather than a standalone Codex.....

More worryingly, it reminds me more of the AoS armies that got a second wave with a revised book.

**Irbis**

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Not to disagree that this is a rush job, but how would World Eaters subfactions even work?

Like orks?

One would be rippy but teary, the other teary but rippy. And no one could agree on which is which

ArcaneHorror wrote:
There are multiple Khornate warbands out there that differ at least somewhat in their tactics and ideology. There's one that waits on a planet that is about to be attacked by another enemy so as to be able to bear the brunt of the assault, there's another called the Foresworn who focus on daemonic rituals, there's the Bloodblessed who are obsessed with becoming Chaos Spawn, and there's the Brazen Beasts who are like Khornate Iron Warriors. Granted, none of these are World Eaters, but there is room for a diversity of subfactions.

That's the problem. These are Khornate warbands. Not WE. With other Khorne SM, you can see different approaches to war, duels, guns, tanks and other gak, but WE? They were literally lobotomized into being one dimensional, Friday show one on one gladiator matches product enforced by behavioral control. There is literally no room for anything else. I mean, look at 30K WE:

They are already doing only one thing, differing only in hack or smash preference, and that was before 10K years of degeneration. Why would they suddenly diversify and improve when the whole point of Chaos is falling downward?

Really, WE book was a mistake. GW really should have done Khornate legions book and made WE one of factions in there, with heavy restrictions (but capability of fielding Angron). As it is, they really didn't have much of a choice if they wanted WE book to be canon accurate.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
For years at this place people have been bleating about how the Traitor Legions aren't really Legions anymore but are all rando split-up warbands. That's always been an erroneous exaggeration, but there really is one Legion that fractured into many, many warbands and that Legion was the World Eaters.

Being actually correct in lore instead of inventing dumb fanfiction marines ignoring all drawbacks is 'bleating' now?

Yes, they aren't legions anymore. They split along ideological and personal differences. WE, though? They don't have ideology and personality anymore. Just lobotomy turning them into druggies seeking next kill to stop withdrawal for a bit. Where such differences would come from when they are literally incapable of having them? The WE legion split because the leadership no longer cares, is too dumb to care now, or forgets about caring once mind control device rammed into their brains turns on, not because they wanted to. They all act similarly because they were modified to do so. Comparing them with other legions that actually have scope to deviate is just dumb, WE marines are in a sense even less flexible than Rubric ones and to deny this would be just ignoring 99% of their tragic story.

**H.B.M.C.**

Nope.

Platuan4th wrote:
More worryingly, it reminds me more of the AoS armies that got a second wave with a revised book.

Yeah but I don't think we're getting one. 1KSons hasn't.

**tneva82**

choppinboard wrote:
I think people are failing to remember that this is most likely the last codex before 10th / the first true 10th codex. Everyone's going to get nerfed like this, WE are just the whipping boys here.

Last codex for edition doesn't mean it's at all related to new edition. Look at 8e sister codex. Rules that didn't work in 9e, nothing said 9e and 9e codeu came early.

More so if 10e is reset as some rumours say.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

choppinboard wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
choppinboard wrote:
I think people are failing to remember that this is most likely the last codex before 10th / the first true 10th codex. Everyone's going to get nerfed like this, WE are just the whipping boys here.
I really hope that's not true.

Because, while I'd love 40k to be a tight, well-balanced experience, I can acknowledge that that's incredibly unlikely.
But dammit, if it's gonna be a mess, at least let us customize our models within the rules!
Does every army really need so many subfactions? How many of the TS or DG subfactions actually see the table? If the WE Codex is just THE World Eaters, I think that's fine. Paint as you will and run your army as you will.
.

No subfaction rules, power gamers unhappy about lack of free bonuses'

**Darnok**

I think some folks mentioned it already, I just want to bring it up again: GW did a shortlived codex called "Khorne Daemonkin" in the distant past of early 2015.
Back then this codex had Khorne bikers and raptors, a list able to mix CSM and Daemons, and quite some background on a variety of warbands with different agendas and ways of waging war. It is understandable that not every current 40K customer is aware of it, but GW must be.

This makes the complete lack of WE subfactions so much more puzzling - the ground work has already been done! There really is no excuse.

**Albertorius**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
You're saying the rules don't have any way to reflect that!?
I know you're kidding around, but in all seriousness: Why shouldn't they have subfactions?

For years at this place people have been bleating about how the Traitor Legions aren't really Legions anymore but are all rando split-up warbands. That's always been an erroneous exaggeration, but there really is one Legion that fractured into many, many warbands and that Legion was the World Eaters.

So, more than anyone, they should have sub-factions to show how much they've spread apart from their original formations.

Absolutely agreed... but GW has limited SO MUCH the ways Khorne worshippers are depicted, that here we are. Again.

**Dudeface**

I don't get it, fluff wise as stated by others they're a fractured legion of warbands with their own methods and agendas. If I can think up 5-6 rule and fluff angles for subfactions it evidently isn't hard, certainly well within GWs remit.

I'm starting to think the people who are saying there shouldn't be subfactions are actually the ones flanderising the entire army down to hurr durr chop fings.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Irbis wrote:

Like orks?

One would be rippy but teary, the other teary but rippy. And no one could agree on which is which

I would absolutely give GW all the credit in the world if they introduced the Brutal Murders (+1A +1S on charge) and the Murdering Brutalizers (+1S +1A on charge) and explained they are arch rivals.

Really, WE book was a mistake. GW really should have done Khornate legions book and made WE one of factions in there, with heavy restrictions (but capability of fielding Angron). As it is, they really didn't have much of a choice if they wanted WE book to be canon accurate.

Man Codex Khorne, Nurgle, whathisface, and Thatotherguy would be amazing. Daemons, cultists, traitor legions, mutants, daemon engines, and chaos marines together again for the first time. But then people would buy one book instead of 3 and we can't have that.

**xttz**

Irbis wrote:
Really, WE book was a mistake. GW really should have done Khornate legions book and made WE one of factions in there, with heavy restrictions (but capability of fielding Angron). As it is, they really didn't have much of a choice if they wanted WE book to be canon accurate.

I wouldn't be surprised that when Emperor's Children finally get their update, we start to see a book structure similar to AOS. GW already started the process of splitting up the daemons codex in the new book. Recent rules mean the daemons for each god are more encouraged to fight alongside their related traitor legion than with each other.

Once Fulgrim & friends are ready for release we could see something like:
Codex: Khorne stuff (WE & daemons)
Codex: Nurgle stuff (DG & daemons)
Codex: Slaanesh stuff (EC & daemons)
Codex: Tzeentch stuff (TS & daemons)
Codex: Chaos (remaining CSM, unaligned daemons, perhaps R&H)

**The Red Hobbit**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I would absolutely give GW all the credit in the world if they introduced the Brutal Murders (+1A +1S on charge) and the Murdering Brutalizers (+1S +1A on charge) and explained they are arch rivals.

Be sure to collect a royalties check on that idea

Exalted

**alextroy**

tneva82 wrote:
choppinboard wrote:
I think people are failing to remember that this is most likely the last codex before 10th / the first true 10th codex. Everyone's going to get nerfed like this, WE are just the whipping boys here.

Last codex for edition doesn't mean it's at all related to new edition. Look at 8e sister codex. Rules that didn't work in 9e, nothing said 9e and 9e codeu came early.

I really wish people would stop using this example to prove a point. The 8th Edition Adepta Sororitas Codex was filled with rules that were made redundant by 9th Edition rules, not non-functional. They were basically 8th Edition unit rules rules that presaged universal 9th Edition rules.

As for World Eaters, only GW knows what they have planned. Given the thinness of what we have seen, and GWs love of all things Khorne, I find it hard to believe there isn't a second wave planned in the next few years. Still, this is looking like a most one dimensional codex.

**chaos0xomega**

Why should any codex have subfactions, really? They are one of the biggest sources of rules bloat, and 80% of them almost never get used. The things that need to have subfactions are already separate codexes that cover the distinction that the relevant subfactions have (Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Grey Knights) or are Codex Supplements (Space Marines in general), or are Armies of Renown. We don't need to put a selection of 6 special snowflake variant armies into every codex, only a small literal handful of armies have enough distinction within them that might warrant subfaction rules vs separate codecies/supplements (Astra Militarum, Craftworlds, etc.) - though arguments can be made there too.

Giving World Eaters subfactions is like giving subfactions for different Cadian regiments (i.e. the Cadian 51st Highlander Assault Regiment with a +1BS or the Cadian 666th Doomed Assault Company that can re-roll failed armor saves), its an unnecessary level of detail and specificity. And yes, get rid of the DG/Thousand Sons, etc. subfaction rules while we are at it.

**EviscerationPlague**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Why should any codex have subfactions, really? They are one of the biggest sources of rules bloat, and 80% of them almost never get used.

It cites the source for its claim or it gets the hose again

**Dudeface**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Why should any codex have subfactions, really? They are one of the biggest sources of rules bloat, and 80% of them almost never get used.

It cites the source for its claim or it gets the hose again

It is kinda true, the faction purity rule hinge on subfaction being aligned, there's 2 layers of interlocked rules to begin with and as you love pointing out they the a result in a further 6 warlord traits per subfaction for Marines and a books worth of strats and relics.

Bin off subfactions and the "purity bonus" just becomes an army wide rule, you go down to id guess 6 warlord traits and a list of universal (in faction) relics and strats, slicing out a good dozen pages of rules from every book as a minimum.

I'm sure they do all get used, I like them for flavour and representing different forces, but they're definitely a source of bloat where in competitive balance land there is usually a "best".

**Nightlord1987**

DG don't have subfaction rules. They have a warlord trait, relic and a stratagem...

**Dudeface**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
DG don't have subfaction rules. They have a warlord trait, relic and a stratagem...

What are the plague companies if not subfactions?

**Kid_Kyoto**

The Red Hobbit wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I would absolutely give GW all the credit in the world if they introduced the Brutal Murders (+1A +1S on charge) and the Murdering Brutalizers (+1S +1A on charge) and explained they are arch rivals.

Be sure to collect a royalties check on that idea Exalted

I wish I could claim credit but it's a bit of old Ork fluff.

Mork and Gork, one is cunning but brutal, the other brutal but cunning, and no one is sure which is which.

**EviscerationPlague**

Dudeface wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
DG don't have subfaction rules. They have a warlord trait, relic and a stratagem...

What are the plague companies if not subfactions?

Ways to just access a couple more miniscule rules. None of the Plague Companies drastically alter list construction I'd argue.

**Dudeface**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote:
DG don't have subfaction rules. They have a warlord trait, relic and a stratagem...

What are the plague companies if not subfactions?

Ways to just access a couple more miniscule rules. None of the Plague Companies drastically alter list construction I'd argue.

There's likely composition stuff around the unique contagions as a guess, but it is less profound as the CSM legion rules though, that's true.

**Tsagualsa**

blood reaper wrote:
It would've been cool to do Teeth of Khorne armed with Plasma Cannons, imo. Like in the original art.

It would've made them distinct from CSM Havocs, added a bit of 'close support' ranged flavour, and felt like something new.

Instead, you get TWO varieties of possessed who look like they're wearing power armour shirts (I can't stand this aesthetic).

The unit fluff basically writes itself. Give them oversized, possessed or otherwise souped up plasma cannons, rocket launchers and the like, with a seriously powerful overcharged fire mode, but the downside/risk of damaging the unit or even other friendly units in some way, perhaps by some sort of scatter mechanism, or by being forced to fire into melee or something like that. ''Khorne does not care from where the blood flows'' is not necessarily limited to close combat.

**lord_blackfang**

Question, is the super ripped Jakhal supposed to be a Marine out of armour? I thought so the plugs in his skin were black carapace, but some of the weedier members have them too.

**Tsagualsa**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Question, is the super ripped Jakhal supposed to be a Marine out of armour? I thought so the plugs in his skin were black carapace, but some of the weedier members have them too.

They seem to be augmented and definitely use combat stims. On some models the stim containers on their backs are linked to the plugs, so i guess they are some sort of IV port for combat drugs.

Also about half of the Jakhals are female, so they're probably not marines. The leader may be a failed aspirant or something like that though.

**NinthMusketeer**

I feel like the one-dimensional nature of Khorne right now is a problem than needs to be resolved, not embraced. While I dislike the term for being overused, flanderized really fits in this case.

**charles_the_dead_lizzard**

I was about to write a long post about how there are some other aspects of the WE and Khorne lore that make Khorne more than a one dimensional concept that goes beyond KillMainBurn. But while writing it I noticed that it is not just about adding new faces to Khorne. There are several damn cool lore takes: The tragic of Angorns Background, the fact that whenever Tzeentch plots lead to a war, Nurgles Despair drives people to aggression or Slaaneshs Excess leads to bloodshed, a tax to khorne has been already paid. The sole fact that even the imperium of man fuels him with their rage is so damn cool. Imagine Khorne providing loyal marines with his blessings to slowly subdue them. The ,He doesn’t care for whom blood flows‘ aspect alone is damn sweet, and AoS has done a great pickup on this with the Blood Tithe mechanic (which sadly was butchered ruleswise).

There are more dimensions to Khorne and the WE. The point is, that neither GW, nor many players actually care to read in to this or to pick up on these motifs. GW has previewed with the Eightbound to what level of whack nonse we can look forward to. Eight Deamons in a Box, great, the whole Meme is the number 8 and some old joke about a barfight. It is inconsistent and simply cheaply written. And while I understand that many people are outraged when GW publish such trash when we actually need some good lore building, I also feel that with todays internet mentality people tend to write off stuff way too early and go for the easier to consume memes. Not all the time and heck, I tend to fall in this pattern as well, but yeah.

World Eaters have many open points in their lore which I am curious how GW will solve them: How does the Legion grow? How did it rebuild after the HH? How much of a role does Angron play? What are the goals of the faction? How do they manage to keep some basic logistics running? Do they have homeworlds? Or just warfleets? Are they still the old remaining warbands, or did Angron or another character managed to unite them? How important are the nails for the legion? And how much is the legion connected to the deamonic legions of their patron?

With what we know about the models, there is reason to be afraid that GW will just write gakky lore for a faction that has potential for a great release. With their weird model release decisions they ready confused many: Who is the new named guy? Why do we have Lords on Juggernauts bo no others models with them? Why do we have no new ranged options but instead elite berserkers with 8 deamons inside that doesn’t look possesed at all? Where are the red butchers?

All in all I think that a lot of frustration comes from fans who know at least some of the potential that so far seems unused