FAQs are up!

[Wildeybeast]

Either is not fine. Codices it is.

According to GW it's "Codexes" for their books.

Yes I know that's not right, don't yell at me.

Look, if we want to be prentious arses about this, then GW books are neither since they are not hand written or ancient. They are just books. However, it's just GW using the word in an 'atmospheric' way and since they are already using the term incorrectly, it really doesn't matter how they pluralise it. Even though that pluralisation has been commonly accepted as being acceptable for quite some time.

Edit: +1 what Copeland said. The overriding rule for language is use and acceptance and since codexes makes more sense and is easier than codices, it has become commonly accepted.

[Gleipnir]

Language and the meaning of words change constantly, and oftentimes over short geographical regions or among social demographics, hardly something to get worked up over. There is nothing wrong with having a preference either.

[DWest]

stick him in a unit of glaive encarmine spear wielding sang guard and go to town bouncing all over the place.

Unfortunately, the FAQ limits Glaives to Sword or Axe formats only. Granted, they *should* be spears, but I doubt this is the place for an angry and pedantic rant over the corruption of the term "glaive".

[Al Shut]

Those FAqs pose more questions than they solve.

Are there no errata for foreign language books or am I just unable to find them on this mess of a site?

Are Chaos Demons and Eldar gone or were there no English language errata in the first place and the mistakes are exclusive to my German editions?

Am I allowed to exploit these now? Shadow weavers with a 5 inch blast sure come handy

Long story short, the current situation does not satisfy me.

[Denzark]

There is no doubt about this issue. In the nomenclature of the creator of these documents, the plural is 'codexes'. It might not be a pure extrapolation/pluralisation of the Latin word 'codex' but seeing as the argot employed by GW is basically their own specialised vernacular, they can comment on the correct way to pluralise the word. It is 'codexes'.

Trying to change it is like telling our colonial cousins to add 'u' into colour.

A bit irrelevant as it is their language to render nonsensical as they please.

[Ben_S]

There is no doubt about this issue. In the nomenclature of the creator of these documents, the plural is 'codexes'. [...] It is 'codexes'.

They use Codexes, which is acceptable. But I don't recall them ever saying that Codices is not also acceptable, just because it's not the plural that they use.

codexes makes more sense and is easier than codices, it has become commonly accepted.

I'm happy with either, but I'm not sure Codexes makes more sense or is easier. Index --> Indices. Matrix --> Matrices. In both cases, -es is also used/acceptable, but the -ices is not unprecedented.

[Nabterayl]

Are Chaos Demons and Eldar gone or were there no English language errata in the first place and the mistakes are exclusive to my German editions?

They did exist, and now they're gone. GW seems to have taken down everything from Chaos Daemons forward (in terms of release date). Presumably those FAQs will be getting replaced ... uh, "soon."

[Gleipnir]

Anything after Dark Angels from Jan. 2013 they had not done more than a day one errata on anyhow, almost no FAQs and very little erratas having to do with more than typos, So I'd expect to see Chaos Daemons(expect they will add details for Exalted flamer), Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, and Tyranids and Imperial Guard to get a full write up, and hopefully we see the same for Apocalypse, and the newer print Supplements and Mini Dexes like Imperial Knights, Militarium Tempestus, Crimson Slaughter, Iyanden, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands and Black Legion.

If rumors are true about a new BRB that combines Escalation and Stronghold Assault I don't expect to see anything for those two, or a new FAQ for the BRB.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm happy with either, but I'm not sure Codexes makes more sense or is easier. Index --> Indices. Matrix --> Matrices. In both cases, -es is also used/acceptable, but the -ices is not unprecedented.

Depends who you ask. For someone skilled in English, that pluralisation is fine. Based, on my experience as a teacher, kids would find the es pluralisation is simpler, though I'm not saying that makes it better or correct. However, that is clearly why it has evolved over the years.

[Denzark]

They use Codexes, which is acceptable. But I don't recall them ever saying that Codices is not also acceptable, just because it's not the plural that they use.

They don't say that rolling an extra 3d6 to pen on my birthday is not acceptable either. You can only make a rational judgement on what evidence is evident. They say codexes, it is their use of language therefore correct in their parlance. They don't say that 'big floppy donkey pizzle' isn't the plural either. What are you getting at?