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.

Feth it, if it does pan out this way and is successful, and it means a Genestealer Cult sub-dex comes out at some point... TAKE MY MONEY!!!

These rumors seem completely unbelievable. It's enough that GW has accelerated it's release schedule to a book a month--I cannot believe they'd have the motivation to generate more rules content.

More to the point, they've not recently shown much initiative in creating rules content without models to go along with the rules. No models = No rules.

Finally, if this were the case, how could any of these sub-armies sustain their own book or list? Some chapters are distinct enough to support an entirely separate codex but these are the exceptions to the general rule that a specialized army like iyanden doesn't have enough to distinguish itself from every other eldar army. If you want to pay iyanden paint your army yellow and blue and maybe through in some more wraithguard. That's it. That's all that playing iyanden means and that distinction alone cannot justify a new army list.

Also the op misspelled iyanden. Not a huge thing but makes the post seem less credible.

 erewego86 wrote:

Finally, if this were the case, how could any of these sub-armies sustain their own book or list? Some chapters are distinct enough to support an entirely separate codex but these are the exceptions to the general rule that a specialized army like iyanden doesn't have enough to distinguish itself from every other eldar army. If you want to pay iyanden paint your army yellow and blue and maybe through in some more wraithguard. That's it. That's all that playing iyanden means and that distinction alone cannot justify a new army list.

Which could imply that they are indeed expanding that distinction bolded. However, on the whole I share your incredulity on the whole thing. If the Iyanden book comes out with an actual army list that is distinctive and has unique rules/options, that might support this rumor a bit more. I doubt that will come to pass, and it seems more like someone taking a course of action to a logical, if perhaps inaccurate, conclusion.

If Faeit's timeline is to be believed and C:SM is in fact slated for an October release, then this has a good chance of being true and less of a chance of being testing.

IF you trust Reecius, which I do.

BUT, let's also just parse through this logically. Why would GW want to release a C:SM book that unites all their money-making marines into virtually one codex. One, you can't release enough new models to coincide with such a release. Two, it ruins the Imperium-Xenos-Imperium-Xenos rhythm in codex production that, more or less, has ruled the day for 25 years. This structure has kept their bread and butter (Marines) fresh. If you release a C:SM with 3-4 supplementary books, you've just competed with yourself for a finite amount of consumers' disposable income.

In closing, if they want to scale down Black Templars and only release ONE supplementary book (C:BT) with a unique model or two for them, that I would understand.

After all, unlike my Dark Angels, the Templars don't have anything special enough that a trait tree can't fix ;P

Are we taking this seriously considering the Iyanden book has been talked about as being a fluff book? No rules; just scenarios and paint schemes.

The Shrike wrote:
If Faeit's timeline is to be believed and C:SM is in fact slated for an October release, then this has a good chance of being true and less of a chance of being testing.

IF you trust Reecius, which I do.

BUT, let's also just parse through this logically. Why would GW want to release a C:SM book that unites all their money-making marines into virtually one codex. One, you can't release enough new models to coincide with such a release. Two, it ruins the Imperium-Xenos-Imperium-Xenos rhythm in codex production that, more or less, has ruled the day for 25 years. This structure has kept their bread and butter (Marines) fresh. If you release a C:SM with 3-4 supplementary books, you've just competed with yourself for a finite amount of consumers' disposable income.

In closing, if they want to scale down Black Templars and only release ONE supplementary book (C:BT) with a unique model or two for them, that I would understand.

After all, unlike my Dark Angels, the Templars don't have anything special enough that a trait tree can't fix ;P

I don't know if you noticed, but Imperium-Xenos-Imperium has been dead for a while. The next 40k codex to release is? Eldar. The previous 40k codex to release is? Tau. Prior to that I'm a bit fuzzy, but I think the order was Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Dark Angels, yes?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Are we taking this seriously considering the Iyanden book has been talked about as being a fluff book? No rules; just scenarios and paint schemes.

Trust me, I and others have tried making this point, nobody is paying attention and are only believing what they want to believe/hear. Then when the Iyanden supplement turns out to NOT be a mini-codex they are going to get all upset and scream that GW lied to them and ripped them off and blah blah blah.

I'm fairly sure the leaked pictures of the White Dwarf mention at least some rules in the Iyanden book.

King Pyrrhus wrote:
I'm fairly sure the leaked pictures of the White Dwarf mention at least some rules in the Iyanden book.

I think that was in the pproduct description of the supplement.

Edit: But those rules probably stuff like the dogfight rules from dots.

I'll take this with a massive load a salt...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm curious that we are getting alleged SM rumors instead of APOC rumors. July is the apparent release of APOC...yet no mention of it. :shrug:

*Dies from salt intoxication*

1) You could fix the chapters stuff with a traits system, as Hastings rumoured.
2) I thought the Iyanden supplement only contained scenarios and Warlord traits.
3) Why did they not do mini-codices (or traits) for Chaos Legions? Even just a generic Legions book would have sold better than Iyanden or Black Templars (for example), IMHO.

At this point, who knows?

It might pave the way to those legion books. There would be just as much possible fluff expansion for Space Marine Legions as for a Craftworld, after all, if they really made the effort.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Are we taking this seriously considering the Iyanden book has been talked about as being a fluff book? No rules; just scenarios and paint schemes.

The fact that the release explicitly states "new rules" hasn't put off the community from complaining about lack of rules.

Who is this "Community" that you speak of in such glowing terms?

While I'm skeptical of the rumor list in the OP, I do feel that its not a stretch to think GW will do the whole sub-dex thing for their number one selling army. Depending on the army being focused on (Imperial Fists and their successor chapters), I'd buy it.

Alot of people are complaining about it, but think about what the sub-dexes could bring to the hobby. More specific army books means more varied armies playing, instead of just generic marines painted yellow, or generic eldar painted red. Its far preferable than the old "Special Character unlock" bit that is kind of dull. It also allows GW the easy opportunity to go back and revisit some of the older 6th armies and maybe right some of the wrongs.

Waiting to see what actualy the Yianden supplement book looks like and if there is truely rules in it.

If it is some kind of Chapter Approved and really gives rules for alternat lists, then i do hope they do a Chaos Legions one.

If not, then they can go to hell with it* in deep german accent*

It worked well enough for FFG to release Deathwatch supplements focusing on only a few SM Chapters at a time. Yes, I played. Definitely not my cup of tea.

The Shrike wrote:


After all, unlike my Dark Angels, the Templars don't have anything special enough that a trait tree can't fix ;P

"Your" Dark Angels werent all that special before their update. Same for Blood Angels. In fact, before their updates they were so un-special they both hung out under the SM tab with BT on the GW site. Thats why armies get new books and models. Yknow, in case you forgot how the hobby works.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Are we taking this seriously considering the Iyanden book has been talked about as being a fluff book? No rules; just scenarios and paint schemes.

The fact that the release explicitly states "new rules" hasn't put off the community from complaining about lack of rules.

"new rules" could mean a lot of things, purchasable terrain, special scenarios, new characters, new units etc.

Being skeptical that some of the above possibilities may or may not be present is not complaining, its just being reasonable. The fact that GW has been synchronizing new unit rules with models in recent months makes it reasonable to doubt that new unit rules will be released with the supplement.

Mostly people want new unit rules and dont give two craps about special scenario rules, especially in a 50 dollar book.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
"Your" Dark Angels werent all that special before their update. Same for Blood Angels. In fact, before their updates they were so un-special they both hung out under the SM tab with BT on the GW site. Thats why armies get new books and models. Yknow, in case you forgot how the hobby works.

People seem to forget that the DA's and BA's are ostensibly Codex Chapters whereas the BTs are not. I don't know why people think the BT's should only get some special rules whilst at the same time think that DA's and BA's need entire Codices to document the simply unending list (/sarcasm) of differences they share to regular Codex Chapters.

I mean, in a perfect world all Marine Chapters outside of the truly divergent ones (Wolves and a few others) would just be special rules, a few units, and some special characters, but we won't get that, so we get full books.

If GW did what FW did with the Horus Heresy book - Core List, and then a sub-section containing specific rules for Legions, unique units to that Legion, and Special Characters - then Marines would be perfected.

More Chapters (with USRs, naturally) and yet no Legion additions. Colour me unsurprised.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If GW did what FW did with the Horus Heresy book - Core List, and then a sub-section containing specific rules for Legions, unique units to that Legion, and Special Characters - then Marines would be perfected.

This, so much this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
"Your" Dark Angels werent all that special before their update. Same for Blood Angels. In fact, before their updates they were so un-special they both hung out under the SM tab with BT on the GW site. Thats why armies get new books and models. Yknow, in case you forgot how the hobby works.

People seem to forget that the DA's and BA's are ostensibly Codex Chapters whereas the BTs are not. I don't know why people think the BT's should only get some special rules whilst at the same time think that DA's and BA's need entire Codices to document the simply unending list (/sarcasm) of differences they share to regular Codex Chapters.

I mean, in a perfect world all Marine Chapters outside of the truly divergent ones (Wolves and a few others) would just be special rules, a few units, and some special characters, but we won't get that, so we get full books.

Anyway, with the huge yawn (to me) that was the Dark Angels codex, I wouldn't have minded, actually. It's not a bad book, per se, but the "so much flavour your mouth explodes" feeling I thought these would warrant wasn't there. To omo imasu.

It is about time for an updated SM codex. Hopefully it will confirm the real height of SMs.

I'd find these a lot more credible if they predicted codex supplements before we knew about the Iyanden book.

Neronoxx wrote:
Agreed. This one sounds false, especially as he believes the new eldar supplement is required to play iyanden (which is incorrect.)

Isn't the Iyanden supplement iPad only?

Would these be iPad only? If so, I guess I'm SOL.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
It would just be stupid to make these digitally exclusive, do we all have to buy Ipads and bring them to every match?

Hey, GW thinks if you're able to pay their prices, then having an IPad should be no problem.....I wonder how much Apple has invested in GW? Or vice versa for that matter.

 kronk wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
Agreed. This one sounds false, especially as he believes the new eldar supplement is required to play iyanden (which is incorrect.)

Isn't the Iyanden supplement iPad only?

Would these be iPad only? If so, I guess I'm SOL.

Nope the supplement is not a digital only release, and not a splash release. There might not be enough originally à la Death from the Skies, but they'll keep printing it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is about time for an updated SM codex. Hopefully it will confirm the real height of SMs.

It's one of those things that doesn't really matter honestly. They're as big as they need to be for the story being told.

I agree, Its very unlikely that they would start doing Mini-dex for space marines, when Dark Angels already got a full codex of their own.

Not that I'm complaining as a DA player...

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
Agreed. This one sounds false, especially as he believes the new eldar supplement is required to play iyanden (which is incorrect.)

Isn't the Iyanden supplement iPad only?

Would these be iPad only? If so, I guess I'm SOL.

Nope the supplement is not a digital only release, and not a splash release. There might not be enough originally à la Death from the Skies, but they'll keep printing it.

K. I'm not seeing it on the GW website, though. Will it be on there later or something? I'm confused.