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.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

"It wasn't made completely useless, just redundant!"

How is that any better, exactly?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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.

"It wasn't made completely useless, just redundant!"

How is that any better, exactly?

They also didn't have to make it redundant or useless like they did with the 8th Edition Traitors Supplement, but here we are with people defending GW's paper selling.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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.

"It wasn't made completely useless, just redundant!"

How is that any better, exactly?

People keep attempting to use the codex as proof that GW doesn't write late codexes of an edition with the next edition in mind because some of the rules didn't work in the new edition. Well, given those rules don't work because they are redundant in the edition because they were part of the basic rules of the edition shows that GW really did write the rules with the new edition in mind.

8th Edition Mortifiers had a rule that allowed them to change Heavy Flamers from Heavy d6 to Pistol d6, which allowed them to fire into a melee it is in. 9th Edition allowed all vehicles to fire Heavy weapons into melee it is in. The rule was a preview of 9th edition. The rule was no longer useful in 9th, since the ability was already given by the basic rules. However, the unit's function didn't change. That's writing a rule with the new edition in mind.

 alextroy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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.

"It wasn't made completely useless, just redundant!"

How is that any better, exactly?

People keep attempting to use the codex as proof that GW doesn't write late codexes of an edition with the next edition in mind because some of the rules didn't work in the new edition. Well, given those rules don't work because they are redundant in the edition because they were part of the basic rules of the edition shows that GW really did write the rules with the new edition in mind.

8th Edition Mortifiers had a rule that allowed them to change Heavy Flamers from Heavy d6 to Pistol d6, which allowed them to fire into a melee it is in. 9th Edition allowed all vehicles to fire Heavy weapons into melee it is in. The rule was a preview of 9th edition. The rule was no longer useful in 9th, since the ability was already given by the basic rules. However, the unit's function didn't change. That's writing a rule with the new edition in mind.

Writing a rule with the new edition in mind is releasing Codex Adepta sororitas in 2020 and then another one in 2021.

 alextroy wrote:

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.

Hate it when shown last codex of edition isn't at all relevant to how 9e was?

There's nothing 9e'ish about sob 8e book. And it was replaced right away...

The "designed for new edition" is marketing speech for guillible people to be fooled by. It's there to screw you out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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.

"It wasn't made completely useless, just redundant!"

How is that any better, exactly?

People keep attempting to use the codex as proof that GW doesn't write late codexes of an edition with the next edition in mind because some of the rules didn't work in the new edition. Well, given those rules don't work because they are redundant in the edition because they were part of the basic rules of the edition shows that GW really did write the rules with the new edition in mind.

8th Edition Mortifiers had a rule that allowed them to change Heavy Flamers from Heavy d6 to Pistol d6, which allowed them to fire into a melee it is in. 9th Edition allowed all vehicles to fire Heavy weapons into melee it is in. The rule was a preview of 9th edition. The rule was no longer useful in 9th, since the ability was already given by the basic rules. However, the unit's function didn't change. That's writing a rule with the new edition in mind.

And what for crusade there was?

If it was for 9e WHY DID 9E BOOK COME AMONG FIRST ONES THEN?

The claim is just so that quillible people get fooled for money. Nothing more. Marketing speech.

On AOS side daughters of khaine were among last books in 2nd edition and got year later new book and there's nothing 3e'ish about 2e book either. Subfactions were same aos2 style rather than aos3 style. Same mandatory artefacts and warlord traits as other 2nd ed books.

It's marketing speech to deceive those who are easily deceived.

 alextroy wrote:

8th Edition Mortifiers had a rule that allowed them to change Heavy Flamers from Heavy d6 to Pistol d6, which allowed them to fire into a melee it is in. 9th Edition allowed all vehicles to fire Heavy weapons into melee it is in. The rule was a preview of 9th edition. The rule was no longer useful in 9th, since the ability was already given by the basic rules. However, the unit's function didn't change. That's writing a rule with the new edition in mind.

I suspect cases like this are somewhere in between. GW might have an idea of the general changes that a new edition will bring and write accordingly, but those rules changes won't all be set in stone at the time the codex is sent to print. No codex for X edition will ever be fully compatible for X+1 edition, incorporating these changes just mean a couple less FAQ lines to write.

The updated Sisters codex was undoubtedly released to sell all the new wave 2 kits alongside it - the current status of the rules had no bearing on that decision.

tneva82 wrote:

The "designed for new edition" is marketing speech for guillible people to be fooled by. It's there to screw you out.

Have GW ever advertised a codex like this? It always seemed to be an assumption from people chatting online rather than something they've said explictly.

 xttz wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

8th Edition Mortifiers had a rule that allowed them to change Heavy Flamers from Heavy d6 to Pistol d6, which allowed them to fire into a melee it is in. 9th Edition allowed all vehicles to fire Heavy weapons into melee it is in. The rule was a preview of 9th edition. The rule was no longer useful in 9th, since the ability was already given by the basic rules. However, the unit's function didn't change. That's writing a rule with the new edition in mind.

I suspect cases like this are somewhere in between. GW might have an idea of the general changes that a new edition will bring and write accordingly, but those rules changes won't all be set in stone at the time the codex is sent to print. No codex for X edition will ever be fully compatible for X+1 edition, incorporating these changes just mean a couple less FAQ lines to write.

The updated Sisters codex was undoubtedly released to sell all the new wave 2 kits alongside it - the current status of the rules had no bearing on that decision.

tneva82 wrote:

The "designed for new edition" is marketing speech for guillible people to be fooled by. It's there to screw you out.

Have GW ever advertised a codex like this? It always seemed to be an assumption from people chatting online rather than something they've said explictly.

Advertised? No, but they are on record they designed the sisters book with 9th in mind as they were worked on at the same time, they discussed it in a few places, both in the streams for psychic awakening and I think in the white dwarf to explain why sisters didn't get any articles/content.

What I find so funny about this is that people are asking fans to come up with reasons why World Eaters deserve subfactions - not asking why GWs writers (the people paid to do this) why they could not have come up with subfactions. It is their job to you know, write the lore.

 blood reaper wrote:
What I find so funny about this is that people are asking fans to come up with reasons why World Eaters deserve subfactions - not asking why GWs writers (the people paid to do this) why they could not have come up with subfactions. It is their job to you know, write the lore.

Sure, however i think people know that GW doesn't do a good job in regards to lore and rules, or else we would have far more differing and interesting chaos codex lineup than we have now.

In one of these forum I complained about the lack of subfactions and someone answered me "who cares, nobody uses them, lol". Even if it's true (which is not) I don't like competitive and tournament play having such a hold on narrative play, on the lore and on the rest of the hobby.

I don't know, I painted my guys with khaki and dark red for them to not be just another Born Soldiers guard army. I like customisation on the rules, even if people doesn't care.

I do.

 blood reaper wrote:
What I find so funny about this is that people are asking fans to come up with reasons why World Eaters deserve subfactions - not asking why GWs writers (the people paid to do this) why they could not have come up with subfactions. It is their job to you know, write the lore.

The standard is what, 6 right? Here you go (ignoring all the canon warbands):

The Horde of Blood: What became of the hordes of Inductii made during the Horus Heresy and the apothecaries that facilitated them. Encourages lots of buffed up jackhal backed by character marines.

The Gorestained Tracks: What's left of the old Armored companies, giving bonuses to mounting/dismounting infantry and encouraging armored forces.

The Pit Fiends: Caedarae (rampagers too far gone), unlimited by the constraints of an organized legion. Heavy buffs to basic bezerkers, and in ideal world, extra wargear.

Angron's hand: What became of the devourers and other world eaters of similar low status, along with Red butchers. They use harshly guarded and cared for terminator suits to execute missions of great importance in assuring their primarch survives, even if he doesn't know it.

The Bulwark of Brass: What became of the Triarii that didn't form the Riven in the Black Legion. The Specialize in mass marine formations, hardened by their years fighting in the voids. Moreso a slow tanky wall approaching as opposed to charging haphazardly.

The Exalted of Khorne: What it says on the tin, focuses on exhalted and Daemon Engines, and buffing them into absolute beasts. In an ideal would, would encourage Bezerker-Surgeons.


And for fun, an Army of Renown:

The Bloodied: Kharn's personal warband, formed by those willing to follow him and accept the risks of being his ally, primarily focuses on using Kharn and buffing himself and others, at the potential cost of allied units.


Boom, 6 right there, using nothing but existing lore anectdotes.

Garrac wrote:
In one of these forum I complained about the lack of subfactions and someone answered me "who cares, nobody uses them, lol". Even if it's true (which is not) I don't like competitive and tournament play having such a hold on narrative play, on the lore and on the rest of the hobby.

I don't know, I painted my guys with khaki and dark red for them to not be just another Born Soldiers guard army. I like customisation on the rules, even if people doesn't care.

I do.

Personally I hope that the approach taken with the Guard codex is used more often in 10e. It kinda sucks if several editions ago you committed to your models as Bad Moons or Imperial Fists, then a new codex shows up with them having the weakest sub-faction rules.

Just have a list of generic traits that players can mix & match to best suit their selected units & play style, and minimise the link between rules and colour scheme.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
What I find so funny about this is that people are asking fans to come up with reasons why World Eaters deserve subfactions - not asking why GWs writers (the people paid to do this) why they could not have come up with subfactions. It is their job to you know, write the lore.

The standard is what, 6 right? Here you go (ignoring all the canon warbands):

It's a little bit of a leap to go from "no subfaction rules in playtesting" to "world eaters have no subfactions". The handful of fluff pages in the WD article describes at least two warbands, and says that "Sons of Angron were a part of all eight spearheads of the so-called Blood Crusade, riding warp storms to world after world and leaving naught but carnage in their bloody wakes. "

I'd bet that at minimum World Eaters get fluff to cover 8 named warbands, in the same way TS got 9 cults and DG have 7 plague companies. Perhaps they'll also some token rules added for these too, perhaps not.

It is a bold move to assume Khorne gets the same love as DG or TS got.

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
It is a bold move to assume Khorne gets the same love as DG or TS got.

Mortarion: "Magnus I can explain-"
Magnus: "You're getting two separate entries for faction specific Temrinators in your Codex and I only get one?"
Angron: "Faction specific Terminators in the Codex? I'm only getting the regular ones!"
Fulgrim: "You guys are getting a Codex?"

heh, have an exalt for that. Made me chuckle.

 xttz wrote:

Garrac wrote:
In one of these forum I complained about the lack of subfactions and someone answered me "who cares, nobody uses them, lol". Even if it's true (which is not) I don't like competitive and tournament play having such a hold on narrative play, on the lore and on the rest of the hobby.

I don't know, I painted my guys with khaki and dark red for them to not be just another Born Soldiers guard army. I like customisation on the rules, even if people doesn't care.

I do.

Personally I hope that the approach taken with the Guard codex is used more often in 10e. It kinda sucks if several editions ago you committed to your models as Bad Moons or Imperial Fists, then a new codex shows up with them having the weakest sub-faction rules.

Just have a list of generic traits that players can mix & match to best suit their selected units & play style, and minimise the link between rules and colour scheme.

Worst of all is, this is the treatment theyve given to the CSM. They have subfactions, yes- but not renegade chapters. So, sorry Fallen fans, you now can't use either CSM codex or Dark Angels, you are just fethed

I think guard-style faction choice of mix n match would work perfectly for renegades. But tbh I feel like the Legions/VotLW should have a different codex from 'regular' CSM that focuses on marine stuff and lets them take relic HH units. Renegades get unrestricted cultist options and Brood Brother-style ability to take guard or even vanilla marine units.

But that's pure wishlisting on my part.

 xttz wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
What I find so funny about this is that people are asking fans to come up with reasons why World Eaters deserve subfactions - not asking why GWs writers (the people paid to do this) why they could not have come up with subfactions. It is their job to you know, write the lore.

The standard is what, 6 right? Here you go (ignoring all the canon warbands):

It's a little bit of a leap to go from "no subfaction rules in playtesting" to "world eaters have no subfactions". The handful of fluff pages in the WD article describes at least two warbands, and says that "Sons of Angron were a part of all eight spearheads of the so-called Blood Crusade, riding warp storms to world after world and leaving naught but carnage in their bloody wakes. "

I'd bet that at minimum World Eaters get fluff to cover 8 named warbands, in the same way TS got 9 cults and DG have 7 plague companies. Perhaps they'll also some token rules added for these too, perhaps not.

I mean, maybe, but we also have little-to-no proof otherwise. We have nothing but circumstantial evidence that they may add subfactions, and at least a few pieces of concrete evidence to the contrary. Occam's razor, you know? Either way, my post was moreso to prove the point that I can throw together 6 plus an army of Renown with little-to no effort, with no explicit lore issues (at least that I've found). Surely they can make that many, unless they are the most uncreative people I've ever met, in which case why are they writing codexes?

Oh wait, the subfactions will be in Arks of Omen: Angron.

 xttz wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

The "designed for new edition" is marketing speech for guillible people to be fooled by. It's there to screw you out.

Have GW ever advertised a codex like this? It always seemed to be an assumption from people chatting online rather than something they've said explictly.

Its usually retroactive when it comes up. A 'of course Rule XX was bad, it was designed with the new edition in mind, and now its so good its almost broken!'

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh wait, the subfactions will be in Arks of Omen: Angron.

Have you considered the possibility that the whole codex was meant to be in Arks of Omen: Angron, but this changed when they found we don't like that sort of thing?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh wait, the subfactions will be in Arks of Omen: Angron.

They already said that they wont be adding rules to the campaign. I wpuld expect an Armies of Renown in the best case scenario (and I even doubt that)

Garrac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh wait, the subfactions will be in Arks of Omen: Angron.

They already said that they wont be adding rules to the campaign. I wpuld expect an Armies of Renown in the best case scenario (and I even doubt that)

No to Matched Play rules. Not no rules in general.

Yeah so the World Eater sub-factions will be there, but everything will be Power Levels and no points.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh wait, the subfactions will be in Arks of Omen: Angron.

Ding ding ding. Someone has been paying attention to how GW operate.

GiToRaZor wrote:

charles_the_dead_lizzard wrote:
It is a bold move to assume Khorne gets the same love as DG or TS got.

Mortarion: "Magnus I can explain-"
Magnus: "You're getting two separate entries for faction specific Temrinators in your Codex and I only get one?"
Angron: "Faction specific Terminators in the Codex? I'm only getting the regular ones!"
Fulgrim: "You guys are getting a Codex?"

Fulgrim and Angron definitely have a claim to be disgruntled - Morty could ask Magnus about the number of faction-specific non-named-character psykers, though, I feel. If Magnus is going to bitch about having less of something that fits thematically with the Death Guard, then Morty could do the same regarding non-named-character psykers, I reckon.

Fulgrim should really be complaining about not getting a freaking dedicated Noise Marine kit yet, after how many years?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah so the World Eater sub-factions will be there, but everything will be Power Levels and no points.

How much sub-faction stuff has actually cost points so far, anyway?

 Dysartes wrote:
How much sub-faction stuff has actually cost points so far, anyway?

Can't you just have fun with the rest of us?

 Fergie0044 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh wait, the subfactions will be in Arks of Omen: Angron.

Ding ding ding. Someone has been paying attention to how GW operate.

Well those sub factions then wouldn't be matched play legal...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can't you just have fun with the rest of us?

Only if you swap out the vox operator for it.

tneva82 wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh wait, the subfactions will be in Arks of Omen: Angron.

Ding ding ding. Someone has been paying attention to how GW operate.

Well those sub factions then wouldn't be matched play legal...

That's not how it works.