Codexes on GW site

Ljundhammer · by **Ljundhammer** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:25 am

Yeah, the CC =][= is awful.

But I just can't resist the words "Daemonhunter Inquisitor Lord with Daemon Hammer and Storm Shield". It just sounds pants-wettingly hardcore!

Spack · by **Spack** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:09 am

Despite the non-English codexes being updated to remove allies, it's apparently a mistake, at least as far as GW US is concerned:

The new PDF is up for the people who do not have access to buy the codex anymore. The missing Alies section in the U.S format is indeed a mistake. And whichever one the tournament/event organizer says to use is the one that we have to abide by. I know that for our tournaments we will be using the Physical codex and NOT the PDF. I hope this helps!

Thanks!

John Hollingsworth
Customer Service Specialist

Will be interesting to see if GW updates the PDFs to reinstate the allies rules, or if this is simply someone at GW US who hasn't been told the truth yet ...

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:12 am

Dim and distant memories...isn't there quite a creative differences split between UK and US HQs.. haven't one said one thing only to be told stop that and take it off by the other?..

Spack · by **Spack** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:58 am

UK is creative control worldwide, so have the last say. It's possible that in the US they've decided there's a screwup, but unless they can get the UK office to agree nothing will change.

Spack · by **Spack** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:10 am

The latest GW blog post stirs things up a bit: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conte ... =11200008a

We recently made the Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters codexes available to download as PDFs. Since then, we've received a spate of emails asking questions about the difference between the PDFs and the original, printed copies. Rather than reply to you all individually, I thought I'd try to answer your questions here. Firstly, the rules for allied Space Marines and Inducted Imperial Guard were originally written to reference books that have since gone out of print, so we streamlined the rules required to allow players to collect an army of Daemonhunters or Witch Hunters. The Daemonhunters army list uses the Standard Force Organisation chart, which you'll find on page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. The other point that seems to be causing the most confusion is whether or not the PDF versions supersede the printed versions. They don't: you should feel free to continue to use whatever resources you have available to play your games with; the PDF does not overrule or invalidate the printed Codex book. Yes, this may mean that you and your opponent are using what are essentially different army lists for the same army but not every Inquisition force will comprise of the same elements (highly specialised and secretive forces that they are). And if you'd rather use the same one as your opponent, why not simply decide which version you collectively want to use and share the rules between one another? As for tournaments and gaming events, it's entirely up to the organisers to decide which version to use; it is after all their event.

So, allies are still in if you have the printed codexes, but it looks like they're not going to fix the PDFs as this would mean having to reinsert 1 or 2 pages into their "streamlined" versions.

jlong05 · by **jlong05** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:48 pm

what a buttf&*k if I ever saw one. So basically they said. Ignore our recent rules. the old stuff is valid. continue as if we never said anything.

Dumb sh*ts

timewizard · by **timewizard** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:28 pm

Yeah, here's something good for free, you just have to go out and buy the hard edition if you want to play the army or want any of the background or need the FOC or, or, or....ahhh crap!

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:47 am

It gets better if you believe a spanish guy writing to a red shirt at HQ..
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264667
A page of
"2) The Mysetic spaw does not need an argument to back it up. That would lead to ambigious interpretations. A simple no answer leads to no other conclusions. They just cannot. Again, units from one codex should not be put aside units from other codexes, they are all different."

if we just say no and don't justify ourselves people just have do it ...so nyeh.. Now thats an interesting development in them admitting they can't make anything consistent.

timewizard · by **timewizard** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:27 pm

I wonder about the validity of the "reply" from GW. Even if we presume his questions were sent in spanish, and the reply was translated into english, I find it strange that he asked a question about a "Mycetic Spore" and received an answer about a "Mysetic spaw".

GW may not write clear rules or clear errata or even proofread their rulebooks, but I would have to at least figure that they would know how to spell.

mattjgilbert · by **mattjgilbert** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:35 pm

Why? He emailed the customer facing order-taking team and got their take on things. Hardly official and I may be being massively judgemental but you pay peanuts and get monkeys...

Spack · by **Spack** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:55 pm

I think in this case monkeys would be a step up ...

Drax · by **Drax** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:43 pm

in fairness to them its just the same as accepting a ruling from your local GW staffer - they are there to help and do the best they can, but its still interpretation.

hell, i know a few of you boys have been to GT so you'll know that if a situation comes up that needs a ruling, the 'ref' just listens to both sides and makes his mind up based on a mixture of each persons interpretation and his own thoughts.

having seen some of the answers given by independent FAQ councils, i think all things considered, you may as well just 4+ it anyway. and if anyone disagrees that the independent FAQ decisions can be just as dodgey i'll be more than happy to send you the one for the last version of the Beasts of Chaos army book and refer you to the answer regards ranking up against monsters!

LordMalekTheRedKnight · by **LordMalekTheRedKnight** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:16 am

Most intersting part seems to have been overlooked IMO:

"...and share the rules between one another"

Share the rules?

I wonder if GW Legal knew he was going to say that.

~ Tim

Angelwing · by **Angelwing** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:40 pm

er, as in share a book between you? Print two copies of the free PDF? I don't think the suggestion was photocopy the codex and pass it out. (but to be honest would they now care as they don't sell it and are putting free copies on the website for you to print off)