That's pretty much semantics by that point. If a trooper wants to flippy-flop to Chaos and be a heretic trooper instead of an IG trooper, then he can do so. Gameplay wise, he can still be referred to as an IG trooper, just like the Leman Russ will be referred to as a Leman Russ. Lore-wise, the trooper would be a traitor, and the tank would be a traitor Leman Russ, operated by traitors and no longer an IG tank, since it might actually be fighting IG troopers loyal to the Emperor.
First; if you wanna argue with my MAC's autocorrect we can make a separate thread about that second; It is based off lore, there is no disagreement there. the only disagreement is in where the lore is coming from. I say it derived directly from the codexes, just as GW states. You say it comes from novels and video games, which GW has specifically explained as semi-canon with influence of Imperial propaganda. The books are based off the codexes the games are based off the codexes the tabletop is based off the codexes This has nothing to do with the rules of TT, but the historical information given to us in each army's respective codices is indisputably the ultimate truth on which all other Warhammer 40k is based.
Exactly, like I said a page ago, it's semantics. It isn't literally saying a guardsman loyal to the Imperium will go and be friends with Chaos Marines, but that a guardsman (as in the unit, the troop choice) can join Chaos to represent traitor guardsmen.
if my ig army is painted pink and serves slaanesh and your ig army is painted green and serves the corpse-emperor, we're still using the same codex thats what that means GW isn't gonna make a new codex for the lost and the damned if its gnna be exactly the same as the ig codex with a different name same goes with corrupted tau
I'm not saying the lore is coming from anything. I know quite a bit about WH40k, but my knowledge of it doesn't come just from a Codex. It comes from years being immersed in the lore from TT games to reading codexes to playing Dawn of War over and over to reading Ciaphas Caine and so on and so forth. Arguing all of this is based on a codex is one thing, but there's a difference between reading the codex and saying "the Codex says this battle happened" and saying "the codex says this dice-roll needs to be here" in regards to Eternal Crusade. One is lore (for better or worse,) one is gameplay information for the Table Top. This chart is almost indisputably the latter, and should be ignored for any Eternal Crusade use.
And now large numbers of codices are written with no respect for the basic establishing factors of the universe, the works of other authors or even the armies themselves at times. The reason so many people roll their eyes at the Farsight Enclaves, Grey Knights or many other examples is because they not only don't make sense within the army, but don't fit in with any established elements of the universe. They effectively retcon themselves out of the canon thanks to including things which cannot possibly happen thanks to previously established points within the setting. Most notably, the Farsight Enclaves completely botched the entire idea behind the Tau Empire and ripped off half the ideas behind the God-Emperor's plan; and Codex: Grey Knights added things which made the Horus Heresy impossible. Actually, one minor correction. It didn't just conflict with multiple Imperial Fists novels. It made sure they could never take place and then stole their plotlines for the codex itself. Admittedly Ward does keep writing codicies to directly contradict and retcon just about anything Graham McNeill writes, especially Ultramarines. He's probably still furious McNeill tried to repair the damage he did in the fifth edition.
I've been reading warhammer 40k novels, playing their video games, and playing their tabletop for as long as i can remember and i know an absurd amount of lore as i am extremely interested in the wh40k universe. I am not doubting your knowledge of 40k lore. Also, i am not referring to the rules of the codices. each codex has two full sections solely about lore and the timeline of its respective army. THAT is what I'm referring to i could care less about how many die i have to roll to represent my combi-bolter. what i do care about is the little italic writing under the picture of the combi-bolter that describes its function Similarly, i don't care about the rules each army must follow, i care about the way they are depicted and they way they are described in their respective codex if the codices were simply for TT rules then they would be a lot smaller (and a lot cheaper AMIRITE), but theres more in it than just numbers
Thats sort of pushing it a little.The Tau wouldnt just return to Mont'au just because they lost a home world,even if it was Fal'shia or something. I mean not even Farsight did,and the guy is pretty much a walking "Farsight Heresy" ready to happen.(hopefuly it will never happen) Tau can be corrupted but: 1-Its much harder to do so,since they really dont respond to the warp.Any daemonic voice and telephaty comes across as "static". 2-There is little reason for someone to try and do so.They produce very little,almost negligible energy for the Chaos gods to feed from,and,as the Chaos players in this thread mentioned before,most Chaos Space Marines would rather kill them on sight. 3.Ethereals.
Sorry, I forgot to say that. I personally have not read the new Codex, I just heard about it from the forum.
