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.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

There was not tax on Inquisition. Coteaz is one of the best HQs in the game for the points, and he makes Warbands Troops (in the GK Codex) which means they can fill a Force Organization Chart on their own.

And Assassins could have gotten a Formation that is just a Lone Assassin to make them available to everyone.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

You coulda just bought one dex, the old GK dex. It had it all in one easy package. No one got screwed. The new way, everyone does!

Ok did anyone notice in the new white dwarf the box of the LR only for them. The fact they get their own stormraven shows most likely special weapons only they can use. Then flip to the army of GK later. 2x Twin linked auto cannons. And a new dread psychic dread? So there is 3 most likely upgrades to them.

a GK dread with twin AC options would by itself proably end a lot of complaints. hell it'd turn into one of the more popular released in the past year.


which of course is why I'm sure it's not actually in the kit

It's a conversion as has been pointed out in the N&R thread.

 agnosto wrote:
It's a conversion as has been pointed out in the N&R thread.

yeah, and it's proably right still we can hold onto hope that it's not and they used the peices to actually create a new kit.

hey it's a fool's hope but possiable right. *isn't counting on it but is willing to hope that GW'll give us SOMETHING positive with the relase*

MW- only if you wanted to run coteaz could you run pure inquisition, so it wasn't all available. This way two very shoved together forces can function more appropriately, and can be updated more flexibly.

Sucks froma cost, but it's fairly logical
Also - you're not forced to do anything. Your sense of entitlement is strong. If You don't want to, don't.

I know people don't like having to pay even more money for codices when we could have more things shoved together so that the cost to us isn't that bad but I don't see any malicious intent especially when they first made the Inquisition codex, it was to give access to Inquisitorial forces without having to get a GK codex but still have an Inquisitor be the warlord of any Imperial force and still have them be battle brothers. This has changed in 7th with all Imperial forces being Battle Brothers but the Inquisition keeping their own force since the GK can and do work autonomously, an Inquisitor can just request a group of GK go with him.

The only thing is that I do think the Assassins should of went with the Inquisition but other than that, I actually like the splitting of the codices because it gives people options without all the things they don't want. Also, from a fluff stand point, the Inquisition codex gave Inquisition specific fluff while they got nothing in the GK codex besides their unit entries which I really liked.

So yeah, it sucks that it costs more money but I like it and I do feel it gives players more of a choice about what specifically they are trying to do with their armies. I am just hesitant that GW is handle bar mustache villain trying to steal all of our money.

Honestly, if there was any negativity associated from this it would probably be a design stand point. If you really think about it, the Inquisition codex didn't come out until one key thing happened: People stopped taking actual GK, took Coteaz and made henchman armies with them and those armies did pretty well. Crack open the Inquisition codex and which Inquisitor is featured pretty heavily? Coteaz. So the devs took notice and released an Inquisition specific codex so people could place that way without the bloat from GK codex. Then with the new release of the new hard bound codices (Which are nice and an upgrade from the papaer back. I know they cost more but they are miles above the paper backs in quality.) and wanting to bring every codex so that everyone has that same quality, they release a new GK codex with the Assassins kind of just hanging out so they cut the odd man out of the codex and streamline it. That is my one criticism, Assassins should of went with Inquisition but other than that, I can see why they did it and I am happy they did it since I play a pure GK army with some times adding the Inquisition to be there. I am just unhappy about the loss of Mordrak but then if every single GK can Alpha Strike, I don't care but I do feel the pain of everyone who made the Ghost Knight conversions. I had never gotten around to mine.

 Envihon wrote:
I know people don't like having to pay even more money for codices when we could have more things shoved together so that the cost to us isn't that bad but I don't see any malicious intent especially when they first made the Inquisition codex, it was to give access to Inquisitorial forces without having to get a GK codex but still have an Inquisitor be the warlord of any Imperial force and still have them be battle brothers. This has changed in 7th with all Imperial forces being Battle Brothers but the Inquisition keeping their own force since the GK can and do work autonomously, an Inquisitor can just request a group of GK go with him.

The only thing is that I do think the Assassins should of went with the Inquisition but other than that, I actually like the splitting of the codices because it gives people options without all the things they don't want. Also, from a fluff stand point, the Inquisition codex gave Inquisition specific fluff while they got nothing in the GK codex besides their unit entries which I really liked.

So yeah, it sucks that it costs more money but I like it and I do feel it gives players more of a choice about what specifically they are trying to do with their armies. I am just hesitant that GW is handle bar mustache villain trying to steal all of our money.

Honestly, if there was any negativity associated from this it would probably be a design stand point. If you really think about it, the Inquisition codex didn't come out until one key thing happened: People stopped taking actual GK, took Coteaz and made henchman armies with them and those armies did pretty well. Crack open the Inquisition codex and which Inquisitor is featured pretty heavily? Coteaz. So the devs took notice and released an Inquisition specific codex so people could place that way without the bloat from GK codex. Then with the new release of the new hard bound codices (Which are nice and an upgrade from the papaer back. I know they cost more but they are miles above the paper backs in quality.) and wanting to bring every codex so that everyone has that same quality, they release a new GK codex with the Assassins kind of just hanging out so they cut the odd man out of the codex and streamline it. That is my one criticism, Assassins should of went with Inquisition but other than that, I can see why they did it and I am happy they did it since I play a pure GK army with some times adding the Inquisition to be there. I am just unhappy about the loss of Mordrak but then if every single GK can Alpha Strike, I don't care but I do feel the pain of everyone who made the Ghost Knight conversions. I had never gotten around to mine.

You make good points, but I still feel that if something is broken, you fix it, and you don't just take away the other options to force the players in the direction you want them to go. The fact is that Inquisition and Grey Knights are separately tiny codexes, and the value was much better with them together.

With the ally rules there was literally no point in making the Inquisition Codex except to squeeze money from customers. People could have simply bought the GK codex. It especially makes no sense from the perspective of 7th edition and unbound.

So you see, players would have choice regardless of whether everything was in one codex or three.

 MWHistorian wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

You coulda just bought one dex, the old GK dex. It had it all in one easy package. No one got screwed. The new way, everyone does!

Well no. Under the new system, if I just want assassins or inquisition I pay less. You are advocating that I should pay more, why should I?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ForeverARookie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

There was not tax on Inquisition. Coteaz is one of the best HQs in the game for the points, and he makes Warbands Troops (in the GK Codex) which means they can fill a Force Organization Chart on their own.

And Assassins could have gotten a Formation that is just a Lone Assassin to make them available to everyone.

Irrelevent. I should be able to take an Inquisiton ally without taking a HQ as well. You're being facetious.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Irrelevent. I should be able to take an Inquisiton ally without taking a HQ as well. You're being facetious.

I thought that was the purpose of the whole "unbound" thing, take whatever you want from any codex/supplement/book you want; there's no need to divide up army books into smaller components.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

You coulda just bought one dex, the old GK dex. It had it all in one easy package. No one got screwed. The new way, everyone does!

Well no. Under the new system, if I just want assassins or inquisition I pay less. You are advocating that I should pay more, why should I?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ForeverARookie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

There was not tax on Inquisition. Coteaz is one of the best HQs in the game for the points, and he makes Warbands Troops (in the GK Codex) which means they can fill a Force Organization Chart on their own.

And Assassins could have gotten a Formation that is just a Lone Assassin to make them available to everyone.

Irrelevent. I should be able to take an Inquisiton ally without taking a HQ as well. You're being facetious.

Your way screws over people with existing armies. (GK) The old way screws over people with a pure Inquisition army and let's face it, that's a much smaller percentage. Stop acting like a special snowflake and think of the majority. This is just another way to fleece more money out of people. Next up, Rhino dataslate, only $15!

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

You coulda just bought one dex, the old GK dex. It had it all in one easy package. No one got screwed. The new way, everyone does!

Well no. Under the new system, if I just want assassins or inquisition I pay less. You are advocating that I should pay more, why should I?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ForeverARookie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW Exec - How can we squeeze more money out of our customers? We've already sold them Space Marines, Guard, Knights and a new edition. We must keep the money flowing, but how?
GW Bean Counter - Sir? What if we divide the codecies up, raise the price, and make them buy all of them to play the army they had?
GW Exec - Genius! They'll love it and they'll thank us for making it simplier. Make them pay more for less. That should be our new motto!
GW Bean Counter - Umm...I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

So screw the people who wanted assassins or inquisition but didn't want a full GK codex? And don't want to pay a tax to take them as allies in non-Unbound lists?

There was not tax on Inquisition. Coteaz is one of the best HQs in the game for the points, and he makes Warbands Troops (in the GK Codex) which means they can fill a Force Organization Chart on their own.

And Assassins could have gotten a Formation that is just a Lone Assassin to make them available to everyone.

Irrelevent. I should be able to take an Inquisiton ally without taking a HQ as well. You're being facetious.

What are you talking about? You want Henchmen without an Inquisitor? The only way to do that with either the old or new rules would be to go unbound. Or did you not realise that INQUISITOR Coteaz is part of the Inquisition?

As for the Assassins, $33 for Grey Knights, Inquisition, and Assassins is still a better value than $20 for the rules on 4 lone model Assassin units. So no, it's not irrelevant and I'm not being facetious.

 agnosto wrote:
With the ally rules there was literally no point in making the Inquisition Codex except to squeeze money from customers. People could have simply bought the GK codex. It especially makes no sense from the perspective of 7th edition and unbound.

So you see, players would have choice regardless of whether everything was in one codex or three.

See, I disagree, this pattern of "behavior" from GW doesn't reek of money grubbing but quite frankly, "eureka!" moments. The Inquisition Codex illustrates that by itself but just the whole structure of everything that 7th has brought doesn't feel to me to have any ill will and for the most part since a lot of people already are saying that it is edition 6.5 which it kind of is with the restructuring of the ally matrix, a response to certain metas like jink and flyers, all shows that GW is listening to the community...finally but the problem is that for them to have this kind of turn around, it has been costing us more money but the changes people have been wanting have been happening. From people complaining that they want their army to have the nice hard back codices to the fact that they would like to see campaign boxes like the ones coming with Sanctus Reach. All signs that GW is wanting to turn around what happened in 6th and create a better game as well that they are listening to the community because many of the changes and new things that have come in 7th edition are the changes that I saw suggested here on this first or on BoLS, etc. no matter where it came from, it came from the community and is now in 7th. I support this but these awesome changes come at a cost as GW tries and turn things around.

Things are never going to be perfect and I am not saying to stop criticism because for anything to be good, criticism and critique must go on otherwise these awesome things that happened with 7th, wouldn't of happened but I see this rapid release schedule in the next year as GW trying to get things back on track as well as create a more community driven game as well as the ability to get people into the game more easily. What I am trying to say is kind of bear with it and I might at the end of this eat my words but I just don't see a greed driven business model but a reactionary business model as GW tries to align with the community more.

Should the Inquisitorial forces, GK, SoB, and Assassins just be wrapped up into one solid Codex called Inquisition (With an option to have a Death Watch contingent) be something GW should do? Maybe, it would save us money but the same thing could be argued for the Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels but there aren't that many people wanting to have that happen especially the players of those armies, they like having their own codices and recognition that their army has a distinct fluff flavoring as well as a distinct tactical play styles. There is why they were split. Despite being related by fluff the GK play a lot differently than Inquisitorial forces which play like almost a specialized AM contingent with specialized weapons and units unique to them because they are Inquisition. The GKs on the other hand are the Teleporting Deep Striking specialists of 40k now especially with the rumors surrounding this new codex. The meta on how to play them is use their shunting ability or deep strike them, otherwise, you were doing it wrong so the split is just like when they decided to split SW, BA, and DA from the main SM codex. The split happened for the same reason it happened before but you can't make everyone happy and I am sure the same complaints happened during that time as well but those players would never want to go back even if it would be cheaper.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Your way screws over people with existing armies. (GK) The old way screws over people with a pure Inquisition army and let's face it, that's a much smaller percentage. Stop acting like a special snowflake and think of the majority. This is just another way to fleece more money out of people. Next up, Rhino dataslate, only $15!

How am I "acting like a special snowflake"? Inq and Assassins never belonged in GK to begin with, they only put them in because they stopped releasing WD codexes. Now they're split from GK, and people who want to add assassins or inquisition will not have to pay the full GK codex price. They are saving money.

It's fine if you think GW players who already have inq and assassins built into their rules are more important than players who do not, but at least say that, don't just ignore the issue and spam anti-gw hyperbole.

 Envihon wrote:

Should the Inquisitorial forces, GK, SoB, and Assassins just be wrapped up into one solid Codex called Inquisition (With an option to have a Death Watch contingent) be something GW should do? Maybe, it would save us money but the same thing could be argued for the Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels but there aren't that many people wanting to have that happen especially the players of those armies, they like having their own codices and recognition that their army has a distinct fluff flavoring as well as a distinct tactical play styles. There is why they were split. Despite being related by fluff the GK play a lot differently than Inquisitorial forces which play like almost a specialized AM contingent with specialized weapons and units unique to them because they are Inquisition. The GKs on the other hand are the Teleporting Deep Striking specialists of 40k now especially with the rumors surrounding this new codex. The meta on how to play them is use their shunting ability or deep strike them, otherwise, you were doing it wrong so the split is just like when they decided to split SW, BA, and DA from the main SM codex. The split happened for the same reason it happened before but you can't make everyone happy and I am sure the same complaints happened during that time as well but those players would never want to go back even if it would be cheaper.

First let me compliment you on a well-reasoned response, devoid of emotional hyperbole.

I rolled-together codex would make a great deal of sense as each of these forces seems to be "unfinished" in that they don't seem to be meant to be fielded on their own merits but require additional support from other sources. It also would have been an opportunity to put the Inquisition "codex" into print. Opportunity lost in my opinion and money lost for GW as I have zero intention of buying into the current trend of ala carte army books releases.

 agnosto wrote:

 Envihon wrote:

Should the Inquisitorial forces, GK, SoB, and Assassins just be wrapped up into one solid Codex called Inquisition (With an option to have a Death Watch contingent) be something GW should do? Maybe, it would save us money but the same thing could be argued for the Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels but there aren't that many people wanting to have that happen especially the players of those armies, they like having their own codices and recognition that their army has a distinct fluff flavoring as well as a distinct tactical play styles. There is why they were split. Despite being related by fluff the GK play a lot differently than Inquisitorial forces which play like almost a specialized AM contingent with specialized weapons and units unique to them because they are Inquisition. The GKs on the other hand are the Teleporting Deep Striking specialists of 40k now especially with the rumors surrounding this new codex. The meta on how to play them is use their shunting ability or deep strike them, otherwise, you were doing it wrong so the split is just like when they decided to split SW, BA, and DA from the main SM codex. The split happened for the same reason it happened before but you can't make everyone happy and I am sure the same complaints happened during that time as well but those players would never want to go back even if it would be cheaper.

First let me compliment you on a well-reasoned response, devoid of emotional hyperbole.

I rolled-together codex would make a great deal of sense as each of these forces seems to be "unfinished" in that they don't seem to be meant to be fielded on their own merits but require additional support from other sources. It also would have been an opportunity to put the Inquisition "codex" into print. Opportunity lost in my opinion and money lost for GW as I have zero intention of buying into the current trend of ala carte army books releases.

I would try to argue that the it ultimately saves money for the person wanting to play just Inquisition into their army would be saving money but there is already talk about the Inquisition getting their own hard bound book (But we are still leaving the SoB high and dry? There is a design decision I don't get) so that point would be moot. I do argue as far as the Inquisition forces go that they do seemed unfinished but not so much as the GK because the things that the GK lack to make them a TAC codex are found in other codices and not with the Inquisition. I mean, you could get anti-armor with the Inquisition but the anti-armor I get with my Eldar, Imperial Fists, and Imperial Knight is far superior than what I got with the Inquisition at least that was my experience but you are right, the GK significantly lack the anti-armor capabilities and do rely on allies more than others but again, I think this was a conscious fluff design decision based on the fact that a lot of people didn't like that the GK could be a self-reliant force onto themselves and not the Daemonhunters they were before so they made their point cost a bit higher and gave them this obvious flaw.

One thing that you can't ignore though is that although most Imperial armies can operate autonomously just out of their codex, allying goes a long way for Imperial forces. SM and AM are the best ones that can work just by themselves but you combine forces and it feels a lot more well rounded, again I think it was another design choice by GW. We saw the "What is the point of SM?" thread here and I think having the sides show their strengths and weaknesses in this manner goes to the fluffy reasons why they exist and also show the strategy and tactics about it as well having it proven on the tabletop why the SM and why the AM exist as someone uses both allied with each other to make a better strategy. That is probably why I like the Imperial Forces the most, you get to dip into other codices to make an awesome army which 7th has gone to cater to even more. It is all coming together and I have a feeling this is how GW wanted it. Not so much wanting to run our wallets dry but allow Imperial players to really pick and choose what armies they want to use to represent the Imperium with as well as refine an awesome strategy which other self-contained armies like the Tau and the Eldar don't really get but their single codex is more self reliant than the Imperial codices. It is an attempt at marriage of fluff and game mechanics which for a person like me who makes an army for fluff reasons and not competitive reasons appreciates.

Of course, it is your money and you can choose to support it or not by buying or not buying it which you have chosen to do as I have chosen to buy into it. That is after all how we tell a company whether we truly like something or not. They make a good design decision the community supports it and if not, they go by the way side. This is why they really need to release a SoB hard bound codex with plastic models and I think the community would go nuts for it.

 Envihon wrote:
One thing that you can't ignore though is that although most Imperial armies can operate autonomously just out of their codex, allying goes a long way for Imperial forces. SM and AM are the best ones that can work just by themselves but you combine forces and it feels a lot more well rounded, again I think it was another design choice by GW. We saw the "What is the point of SM?" thread here and I think having the sides show their strengths and weaknesses in this manner goes to the fluffy reasons why they exist and also show the strategy and tactics about it as well having it proven on the tabletop why the SM and why the AM exist as someone uses both allied with each other to make a better strategy. That is probably why I like the Imperial Forces the most, you get to dip into other codices to make an awesome army which 7th has gone to cater to even more. It is all coming together and I have a feeling this is how GW wanted it. Not so much wanting to run our wallets dry but allow Imperial players to really pick and choose what armies they want to use to represent the Imperium with as well as refine an awesome strategy which other self-contained armies like the Tau and the Eldar don't really get but their single codex is more self reliant than the Imperial codices. It is an attempt at marriage of fluff and game mechanics which for a person like me who makes an army for fluff reasons and not competitive reasons appreciates.

You bring up some good points but it feels like GW is almost giving up on certain armies. Like they realized that they couldn't be autonomous on the game table so why bother trying to make them that way, instead let's separate them out and expect players to sort out what they want to do. Though I understand what you and others are saying, and it does provide some flexibility, I can't help feel that they could have accomplished the same thing by leaving them all together. I know that I'm in the minority when I say this but I really dislike allying. I personally want armies that can stand alone without the crutch of bringing in an ally to fill gaps in battlefield needs; by separating the books, I'm now stuck with more than likely losing if I play my GK force because the only anti-tank I'll have is stompy DKs or point expensive storm ravens. And I really, really dislike having to use more than one book for rules; I play once a month (if that) and I will forget rules, my opponent doesn't need to sit for 10 minutes as I sift through a shelf full of reference materials to find what I'm looking for.

Just some thoughts and a general gripe; I'll adjust or I'll shelf the army like I did Tau in 5th.

 agnosto wrote:

 Envihon wrote:
One thing that you can't ignore though is that although most Imperial armies can operate autonomously just out of their codex, allying goes a long way for Imperial forces. SM and AM are the best ones that can work just by themselves but you combine forces and it feels a lot more well rounded, again I think it was another design choice by GW. We saw the "What is the point of SM?" thread here and I think having the sides show their strengths and weaknesses in this manner goes to the fluffy reasons why they exist and also show the strategy and tactics about it as well having it proven on the tabletop why the SM and why the AM exist as someone uses both allied with each other to make a better strategy. That is probably why I like the Imperial Forces the most, you get to dip into other codices to make an awesome army which 7th has gone to cater to even more. It is all coming together and I have a feeling this is how GW wanted it. Not so much wanting to run our wallets dry but allow Imperial players to really pick and choose what armies they want to use to represent the Imperium with as well as refine an awesome strategy which other self-contained armies like the Tau and the Eldar don't really get but their single codex is more self reliant than the Imperial codices. It is an attempt at marriage of fluff and game mechanics which for a person like me who makes an army for fluff reasons and not competitive reasons appreciates.

You bring up some good points but it feels like GW is almost giving up on certain armies. Like they realized that they couldn't be autonomous on the game table so why bother trying to make them that way, instead let's separate them out and expect players to sort out what they want to do. Though I understand what you and others are saying, and it does provide some flexibility, I can't help feel that they could have accomplished the same thing by leaving them all together. I know that I'm in the minority when I say this but I really dislike allying. I personally want armies that can stand alone without the crutch of bringing in an ally to fill gaps in battlefield needs; by separating the books, I'm now stuck with more than likely losing if I play my GK force because the only anti-tank I'll have is stompy DKs or point expensive storm ravens. And I really, really dislike having to use more than one book for rules; I play once a month (if that) and I will forget rules, my opponent doesn't need to sit for 10 minutes as I sift through a shelf full of reference materials to find what I'm looking for.

Just some thoughts and a general gripe; I'll adjust or I'll shelf the army like I did Tau in 5th.

I can certainly relate to that because I was in the same position when I first started playing, my lifestyle at my unit wasn't the best for the hobby and I wasn't living with my wife so I was running back forth. A new unit has changed that and I get to play more regularly and now the ally system works heavily in my favor just because it saves money. I am a person who likes a lot of different stuff and I like a small aspect of almost every army despite being a die hard fan of the GK so I get distracted a lot because I also like the Imperial Fists, the Eldar and the Imperial Knights. The allies system let's me experience those armies without having to spend even more money to make full sized armies. I am also a pretty slow painter as I am still working on my GK let alone getting anything else done so it let's me have my main force of my GK that I can focus on with my rotating ally line up to mix things up if I get bored of running pure GK or another of my ally combinations so that is why I kind of champion this system because in the long run it has saved me a lot of money. I have seen people with army ADD and they drop tons of money on a new army or are constantly buying and selling armies. To me, the ally system and lots of codices helps to some what alleviate that problem, at least for me it does. It also provides a basis a future full army since most allied detachments are smaller versions of a full army.

There are pros and cons to having it either way and we have to adjust and adapt as best we can. I wish the GKs were more generalist so I could continue fielding pure GK but that doesn't suit who they are really. The generalists are the SM and AM, with this whole "forge a narrative" I feel that GW is trying to make it that way with the smaller forces like the Inquisition, GK, SoB, and Militarum Tempestus being more specialized forces to supplement the rest of the Imperium but with a adjustments can achieve some autonomy but to do so is a merit to someone strategy and tactical knowledge almost like GW is challenging us to think of different way to use those pure armies but at the same time realize the benefit of allies. Regardless, I will have multiple lists with a list of pure GK, GK with Eldar, GK with Imperial Fists and GK with Imperial Knight. I probably will still pick up the Inquisition codex as well because despite falling out of love and respect for the Inquisition because of the events in The Emperor's Gift and all that happened with Armageddon, I still kind of like them. Also, I have converted specialist models that I want to use from time to time.

 agnosto wrote:

 Envihon wrote:
One thing that you can't ignore though is that although most Imperial armies can operate autonomously just out of their codex, allying goes a long way for Imperial forces. SM and AM are the best ones that can work just by themselves but you combine forces and it feels a lot more well rounded, again I think it was another design choice by GW. We saw the "What is the point of SM?" thread here and I think having the sides show their strengths and weaknesses in this manner goes to the fluffy reasons why they exist and also show the strategy and tactics about it as well having it proven on the tabletop why the SM and why the AM exist as someone uses both allied with each other to make a better strategy. That is probably why I like the Imperial Forces the most, you get to dip into other codices to make an awesome army which 7th has gone to cater to even more. It is all coming together and I have a feeling this is how GW wanted it. Not so much wanting to run our wallets dry but allow Imperial players to really pick and choose what armies they want to use to represent the Imperium with as well as refine an awesome strategy which other self-contained armies like the Tau and the Eldar don't really get but their single codex is more self reliant than the Imperial codices. It is an attempt at marriage of fluff and game mechanics which for a person like me who makes an army for fluff reasons and not competitive reasons appreciates.

You bring up some good points but it feels like GW is almost giving up on certain armies. Like they realized that they couldn't be autonomous on the game table so why bother trying to make them that way, instead let's separate them out and expect players to sort out what they want to do. Though I understand what you and others are saying, and it does provide some flexibility, I can't help feel that they could have accomplished the same thing by leaving them all together. I know that I'm in the minority when I say this but I really dislike allying. I personally want armies that can stand alone without the crutch of bringing in an ally to fill gaps in battlefield needs; by separating the books, I'm now stuck with more than likely losing if I play my GK force because the only anti-tank I'll have is stompy DKs or point expensive storm ravens. And I really, really dislike having to use more than one book for rules; I play once a month (if that) and I will forget rules, my opponent doesn't need to sit for 10 minutes as I sift through a shelf full of reference materials to find what I'm looking for.

Just some thoughts and a general gripe; I'll adjust or I'll shelf the army like I did Tau in 5th.

I don't think they are giving up on Grey Knights, if anything, it feels more like GW has finally figured out how they want to represent the various armies of the IoM. It NEVER made sense that the Inquisition and Assassins were rolled into the GK codex. Sure, it worked for the inquisition specific codexes of 3rd edition, because Inquisitors were the focus and GKs were just a form of ally. But with the shift to Grey Knights as the focal point, it was just a lazy approach to roll those Inquisition and Assassin units in with them. As far as losing economical anti-tank, aren't GKs gaining access to the standard Space Marine tanks such as predators, vindicators, and whirlwinds?

Does it suck for those GK players that built a significant portion of their army around inquisitors and assassins? Sure, because now they have to drop another $50 US on two e-books to still use the models in their collection. However, its a huge boon for those of us that play non-GK imperial armies that have long wanted to include an inquisitor and/or assassin, and it actually makes sense to have them this way.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Does it suck for those GK players that built a significant portion of their army around inquisitors and assassins? Sure, because now they have to drop another $50 US on two e-books to still use the models in their collection. However, its a huge boon for those of us that play non-GK imperial armies that have long wanted to include an inquisitor and/or assassin, and it actually makes sense to have them this way.

But you've been able to bring Inquisition and Assassins in since 6th edition because of allies and especially now in 7th, in the age of "unbound". I get the separation but in the same sense I guess it feels unnecessary because "one book to rule them all" is just simpler and makes it easier for part-time gamers like me who will have to fiddle with several books to find rules that I'll need to play. I don't care about the cost of the books, for me it's a convenience issue.

(sorry, starting to sound like a broken record)

It's not the end of the world for me, I'm primarily GK but liked to sprinkle Inquisition in for flavor and to fill holes; I just don't like being forced to reference too many sources during a game (see my signature), it takes quite a bit of the fun out of playing a game.

In my opinion, if the rumors that the Psycannon can only be fired up to 12" on the move by models in Power Armour, that is the single worst change in this codex.

I think we can come to forgive the loss of Assassins and Inquisition. I'll even give Mordrak and Thawn a moment of silence, but gimping the workhorse of the Grey Knight army down to practically pistol range is worth all the hate people can muster. It destroys the only weapon the power armored troops could used to face off against vehicles and Monstrous Creatures at more than 8" away. Their only options have been reduced to the Incinerator (8.5" Template), Psycannon (12"), and the Psilencer (Still worthless, even with Force)

But we can hope against hope that GW had the sense to make the Psycannon a 36" Salvo instead of leaving it at 24".

ForeverARookie wrote:
In my opinion, if the rumors that the Psycannon can only be fired up to 12" on the move by models in Power Armour, that is the single worst change in this codex.

I think we can come to forgive the loss of Assassins and Inquisition. I'll even give Mordrak and Thawn a moment of silence, but gimping the workhorse of the Grey Knight army down to practically pistol range is worth all the hate people can muster. It destroys the only weapon the power armored troops could used to face off against vehicles and Monstrous Creatures at more than 8" away. Their only options have been reduced to the Incinerator (8.5" Template), Psycannon (12"), and the Psilencer (Still worthless, even with Force)

But we can hope against hope that GW had the sense to make the Psycannon a 36" Salvo instead of leaving it at 24".

This is the first time I have heard about this. Do you have a link to where these rumors come from? To do this would utterly take the point away from taking Psycannons on anyone except for Terminators which may be the reason why they reduced the cost of them.

The rumor thread as it atm

Some one on 4chan has the book (with pictures)

Im more sad at the nemesis weapon nerfs

And psychic out grenades no longer making initative 1 instead of being a god damnned defensive grenade against psyker/daemons....

 Envihon wrote:

ForeverARookie wrote:
In my opinion, if the rumors that the Psycannon can only be fired up to 12" on the move by models in Power Armour, that is the single worst change in this codex.

I think we can come to forgive the loss of Assassins and Inquisition. I'll even give Mordrak and Thawn a moment of silence, but gimping the workhorse of the Grey Knight army down to practically pistol range is worth all the hate people can muster. It destroys the only weapon the power armored troops could used to face off against vehicles and Monstrous Creatures at more than 8" away. Their only options have been reduced to the Incinerator (8.5" Template), Psycannon (12"), and the Psilencer (Still worthless, even with Force)

But we can hope against hope that GW had the sense to make the Psycannon a 36" Salvo instead of leaving it at 24".

This is the first time I have heard about this. Do you have a link to where these rumors come from? To do this would utterly take the point away from taking Psycannons on anyone except for Terminators which may be the reason why they reduced the cost of them.

The person on Bolter and Chainsword with the codex confirmed salvo on the psycannon 2/4 and 3/6 (heavy). He did not confirm the range (to my knowledge) but the assumption is no change so 12" move and shoot or 24" stationary.

Terminators of course can "run and gun".

 Desubot wrote:
The rumor thread as it atm

Some one on 4chan has the book (with pictures)

Im more sad at the nemesis weapon nerfs

And psychic out grenades no longer making initative 1 instead of being a god damnned defensive grenade against psyker/daemons....

Yeah I looked it up. If it is true, umm...Psylencers just became the new Psycannons against Monstrous Creatures...especially a Nemesis Dreadknight with a Gatling Psylencer. We will have to see but the Psycannons days might be numbered on regular troops.

Not exactly.

Lacking in the AP section at ST4 to generally what will be t5+ then armor and other goodies. + casting (which shouldn't be that hard)

It will however be AWESOME at taking out Necron Wraiths and possibly spawns (which i hate those guys)

I am kind of not surprised that they turned Psycannons into Salvo weapons, it goes with the assault portion of the army to try and make your GKSS and Interceptors want to get into Assault range and it honestly gives purpose to Purgation squads again giving them their function as a heavy weapons team. That being said, I still don't think they will be used and we are going to have to deal with Psycannons being Salvo. Still a ranged Force weapon is kind of nuts.

So there are a few things I don't like but it will do one thing that I want to happen: Bring back GK Terminators into being useful again. Relentless still let's them fire full Salvo doesn't it?

Scans of the whole book are up in the N+R thread chaps, no need to speculate any more!