kodos wrote:
and everyone who has 18 Sentinels need to put 6 in the shelf and buy something new to fill the points again = more models sold

everyone who has a number not divided by 2 might also buy more sentinels to get the 2 per units, = more models sold

changing things always results in more models sold, not necessary the same models but overall

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

Plus, after 23 years in this hobby, the number of people i know who had 18 sentinels is precisely 0. I have 12 (6 old, 6 new), which is twice more than anyone else i know. The number of people with 18 sentinels is very small, not large enough for GW to care enough to mandate a unit size change for business reasons as you have proposed.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and everyone who has 18 Sentinels need to put 6 in the shelf and buy something new to fill the points again = more models sold

everyone who has a number not divided by 2 might also buy more sentinels to get the 2 per units, = more models sold

changing things always results in more models sold, not necessary the same models but overall

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

Plus, after 23 years in this hobby, the number of people i know who had 18 sentinels is precisely 0. I have 12 (6 old, 6 new), which is twice more than anyone else i know. The number of people with 18 sentinels is very small, not large enough for GW to care enough to mandate a unit size change for business reasons as you have proposed.

I think I might have 18? But only through chance and some are in a terrible condition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tauist wrote:
I'm really not a fan of the planned obsolence business model when it comes to miniature wargames.

Wrong company, you need to shift game system.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I hope next edition this 2 box max thing gets rolled back. Squadrons ought to be 3 not 2, and hordes of 20 are a joke when they should be 30 or more.

 Dysartes wrote:
There are n people at GWHQ - probably in Marketing and/or management - who need a good kick in the junk and telling to keep their noses out of it.

I strongly suspect that this 1-2 box thing is less of a marketing decision and more a result of the recent drive towards game balancing & tournament play. The early part of 8th struggled to balance certain horde style units and skew lists with 200+ models. Later on in 9th there were also plenty of examples of layered buffs giving more benefit to large units over small, particularly with stratagems.

Rather than have 10th try to accomodate ~30 model units alongside character buffs, enhancements, resurrection abilities, strats, etc I believe the rules writers instead just decided to slap hard limits on how army lists are written and dodge the issue.

As an AdMech player, it's nothing new - Onager Dunecrawlers went from squadrons of 1-3 to single models and Kastelan Robots went from max. 6 per unit to max. 4 (so I now own too many of each!).

 xttz wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I hope next edition this 2 box max thing gets rolled back. Squadrons ought to be 3 not 2, and hordes of 20 are a joke when they should be 30 or more.

 Dysartes wrote:
There are n people at GWHQ - probably in Marketing and/or management - who need a good kick in the junk and telling to keep their noses out of it.

I strongly suspect that this 1-2 box thing is less of a marketing decision and more a result of the recent drive towards game balancing & tournament play. The early part of 8th struggled to balance certain horde style units and skew lists with 200+ models. Later on in 9th there were also plenty of examples of layered buffs giving more benefit to large units over small, particularly with stratagems.

Rather than have 10th try to accomodate ~30 model units alongside character buffs, enhancements, resurrection abilities, strats, etc I believe the rules writers instead just decided to slap hard limits on how army lists are written and dodge the issue.

You say that, but the changes in the new codex now allows for you to bring 9 heavy weapon squads in an army (3 each cadian, catachan, krieg), even though the rule of 3 was implemented because (among other things) guard armies with 9 hws w/mortars was oppressive. Now youll be able to bring at least 6 squads worth (cadian/catachan), unlear if krieg has mortars in their version.

The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

Do we think that the the new Krieg artillery team crew minis would make for good alternatives to the cadians in the Field Ordnance Battery (you know, so you can make them Krieg flavored)?

If so, is it worth the time and money to do so, or do we think GW will be GW and attach the "Cadian" label to the ordnance team next edition and release a krieg version with an entirely different weapons load?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Do we think that the the new Krieg artillery team crew minis would make for good alternatives to the cadians in the Field Ordnance Battery (you know, so you can make them Krieg flavored)?

If so, is it worth the time and money to do so, or do we think GW will be GW and attach the "Cadian" label to the ordnance team next edition and release a krieg version with an entirely different weapons load?

Honestly a good many of these changes feel like "edition" changes that could all change up next edition and be entirely different again. Sometimes GW feels like they've a long term plan; other times it feels like they had one and then it changes. Heck sometimes it feels like it changes mid-season

So Krieg heavy weapon teams cannot take mortars now.
It is above stupid. And FW ones are useless.
Magnificent update for the army.

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

mortar_crew wrote:
So Krieg heavy weapon teams cannot take mortars now.
It is above stupid. And FW ones are useless.
Magnificent update for the army.

I doubt in the grand scheme of things there are that many owners of Krieg mortars from Forgeworld. And in any case, as the article points out, you can just field them as either Cadian or Catachan teams. GW rules have fluctuated since they started publishing.

Personally I'd rather something like the 4th Ed books with traits and such rather than the named Regts they are going with. But GW is clearly been moving towards a CCG model but with miniatures at least for now.

The two boxes to a unit thing is most likely downstream from GW hearing the complaints that in 8th ed. Fantasy you needed 4+ boxes of Greatswords to make a useful unit, which then got insta-gibbed by your opponant rolling some 6s to cast a spell at them, and that's a Feels Bad; so this is their belated 'solution'.

I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

There are a few oddities in this release that feel like a foreshadowing of direction change. Similar to that 9th ed free wargear patch and the WE codex loosely following the detachments format.

The "subfaction" - unit might be a thing they start shoving into other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

If you can have 3 units of sentinels, the change from 3 to 2 per unit make a difference. And for cold calculated lists small variation can make or break a spam unit.

 Fayric wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

If you can have 3 units of sentinels, the change from 3 to 2 per unit make a difference. And for cold calculated lists small variation can make or break a spam unit.

We're talking about 1 lascannon shot or something. Maybe a defensive buff, but I don't see it being gamebreaking exactly?

 cerebaton wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

Yeah, its... odd. The restrictions (2 groups, no duplicates, but only 2 special weapons total) work together in a very weird way. Effectively its a continuation of the old sheet, which prevented a plasma gun if you took a vox. But, with the addition of the meltagun to that group, the only thing prevented is the very specific combination of meltagun, plasmagun and vox (because they're all in the same group and its 0-2 of the 3). If you chose any anything else, you can have a vox and your choice of 2 weapons.

As that is a stupid restriction (and personally, not something I'd want, and not exactly definitely 'better' than a grenade launcher and meltagun against high toughness, if not good armor), it would've been much better to have the vox be its own 0-1 like the medpack, and just group the special weapons up. But GW decided to GW it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

If you can have 3 units of sentinels, the change from 3 to 2 per unit make a difference. And for cold calculated lists small variation can make or break a spam unit.

We're talking about 1 lascannon shot or something. Maybe a defensive buff, but I don't see it being gamebreaking exactly?

Honestly, personally I could not make a competetive list if my life depended upon it. Still the point was its a difference between 6 or 9 lascannons in total, and also (more important) that GW make sweeping changes because they cant see the impact or consequences of synnergy and spam units. It dont necessary say that Sentinels would break the meta, just that GW use collective punishment when trying to balance the game.

It's 3d edition, all over again.

Unfortunate that Rogal Dorn's dual battle cannons remain trash. There are of course other subpar option too. It is unfortunate that they did not take the opportunity to try to make more weapon options viable.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Any claim that it is for balance while said Sentinels can have a Heavy Flamer OR a Lascanon and Hunter Killer Missile and a Sentinel Chainsaw for the same cost is laughable.

Rules aside.

Sentinels, if memory serves, used to have a max squadron size of 3. And when restricted by the old FOC, you could field 9.

Which given their role wasn’t exactly undesirable.

But. Now it’s 6. Which means those who previously favoured Sentinels for whatever reason have at least 3 which will just sit on the shelf.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means those who previously favoured Sentinels for whatever reason have at least 3 which will just sit on the shelf.

Someone could have had three sentinels from each generation!

One could always whack some armour plates on and run the spares as 'Armoured Sentinels'. Unless that person already also had 9 armoured sentinels...

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means those who previously favoured Sentinels for whatever reason have at least 3 which will just sit on the shelf.

Someone could have had three sentinels from each generation!

One could always whack some armour plates on and run the spares as 'Armoured Sentinels'. Unless that person already also had 9 armoured sentinels...

Don't forget the Horus Heresy Sentinels.

 cerebaton wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

Im not convinced that interpretation of the rules are correct, as written, a 20 model squad can still take 2 vox casters + 4 special weapins because the vox caster option is not covered by the ** clause

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

I believe there's also issues with packaging and labelling, esp when you ship large amounts of them. It's why PP started putting them in boxes and had to take them out.

Suffice to say magnets get complicated and messy which is a reason most firms just don't even bother supporting them. It's money out of their pocket in terms of lowering how many things a customer might buy and its not something they can even sell easily as an addon/extra.

That said I noticed a few magnet only shops started marketing specifically on FB toward wargamers so perhaps in the future GW might strike a deal "GW official brand magnets from Magnets R US" or something

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

Its actually a product and child safety issue, nothing to do with taxes. Specifically there are laws in the EU and elsewhere prohibiting inclusion of magnets in toys and model kits.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

Plus, after 23 years in this hobby, the number of people i know who had 18 sentinels is precisely 0. I have 12 (6 old, 6 new), which is twice more than anyone else i know. The number of people with 18 sentinels is very small, not large enough for GW to care enough to mandate a unit size change for business reasons as you have proposed.

I have three for each one produced, except the old FW Rocket and Missile ones, which annoys me. Plus the absolutely ballooning number of minis it takes to make a legal guard list anymore.

I think I'm just tired of having army after army removed from Game, after I spend all the time that it takes to paint a full guard list.

I don't like the direction I see GW moving in.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 cerebaton wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

Im not convinced that interpretation of the rules are correct, as written, a 20 model squad can still take 2 vox casters + 4 special weapins because the vox caster option is not covered by the ** clause

Wow! That might be one of the worst written set of Wargear Options I have ever seen from GW, and I remember there have been some bad ones already.

From my reading, a unit of 20 DKoK can take up to 8 models with the first two options, but is limited to 4 weapons. However, you can't take more than 6 (4 weapons and 2 Vox-casters) AND Vox-Casters cut into your maximum of 4 Meltagun/Plasma guns (only 2 of each, but 4 total).

Medi-packs are outside of the weapon/vox limits, so you can only get 8 total option Troopers in your 20 man squad.

Also, they need Day 1 Errata to fix the mistake that the Watchmasters replace their Chainsword and Laspistol for Bolt Pistol and Close Combat Weapon when it should be Bolter (missing from Ranged Weapon list) and Close Combat Weapon if you follow the assembly instructions.

This horror of a codex makes me anxious about what they're going to do my Knights.

Hmm. I think I'll go back to my WGA traitor militia swarm project.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

Plus, after 23 years in this hobby, the number of people i know who had 18 sentinels is precisely 0. I have 12 (6 old, 6 new), which is twice more than anyone else i know. The number of people with 18 sentinels is very small, not large enough for GW to care enough to mandate a unit size change for business reasons as you have proposed.

I have three for each one produced, except the old FW Rocket and Missile ones, which annoys me. Plus the absolutely ballooning number of minis it takes to make a legal guard list anymore.

I think I'm just tired of having army after army removed from Game, after I spend all the time that it takes to paint a full guard list.

I don't like the direction I see GW moving in.

I feel your pain. I have yet to finish painting my IG, and now I will have to redo my infantry squads, and find extra miniatures to cover for the missing HWT.

M.

 Fayric wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

If you can have 3 units of sentinels, the change from 3 to 2 per unit make a difference. And for cold calculated lists small variation can make or break a spam unit.

We're talking about 1 lascannon shot or something. Maybe a defensive buff, but I don't see it being gamebreaking exactly?

Honestly, personally I could not make a competetive list if my life depended upon it. Still the point was its a difference between 6 or 9 lascannons in total, and also (more important) that GW make sweeping changes because they cant see the impact or consequences of synnergy and spam units. It dont necessary say that Sentinels would break the meta, just that GW use collective punishment when trying to balance the game.

So I think we can safely say it isn't an in-game or balance reason, given that they found a way for you to field 9 heavy weapon teams each with 3 of the same weapon as sentinel.

So I'll now buy into the "max squad size = 2 boxes" theory.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and everyone who has 18 Sentinels need to put 6 in the shelf and buy something new to fill the points again = more models sold

everyone who has a number not divided by 2 might also buy more sentinels to get the 2 per units, = more models sold

changing things always results in more models sold, not necessary the same models but overall

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

they only people I know who sell models they painted but cannot use are competitive players who don't buy anything from GW at all
Everyone else, specially beginners but stuff on the shelf and buy the new boxes
There is a reason people end up with a vast collection but still don't have a playable list when a new Edition/Codex drops

And if the reason for change is simply "maximum 2 boxes for a unit" it is still a business decision
Everything GW is changing has a business reason to increase profit or save money, just not always an obvious one (and 2 boxes per unit might just be their solution to fulfil demand)

Here comes my unboxing and review of the new Death Korps army set, inc. high-res sprue images for all models: https://taleofpainters.com/2025/01/review-death-korps-of-krieg-army-set/

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where toys would be taxed differently to the way GW's existing products are taxed. In the UK, for example, toys attract VAT at 20%, and miniatures (and games) attract VAT at 20%. In all the US states I'm familiar with which have a sales tax, this would also be true.

There may be regulatory requirements that differ around the world – magnets might be considered hazardous or dangerous in some areas – but GW already makes a number of products (knives, glue, spray paint) which are subject to significant regulatory restrictions in many jurisdictions, and GW deals with that by a mixture of labelling and restricting which territories and channels those products are sold through (e.g. knives are displayed on the webstore but not available for sale; sprays can be ordered but, in the UK at least, only if the order includes at least one non-hazardous item).

I don't think this story about how/why/whether/if GW looked into magnets and decided not to do it stacks up. If they wanted to, they can do it as easily as for the hobby products they already sell. If it was ever looked into at all and decided against, commercial reasons seem more likely.

Greenfield wrote:

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where toys would be taxed differently to the way GW's existing products are taxed. In the UK, for example, toys attract VAT at 20%, and miniatures (and games) attract VAT at 20%. In all the US states I'm familiar with which have a sales tax, this would also be true.

There may be regulatory requirements that differ around the world – magnets might be considered hazardous or dangerous in some areas – but GW already makes a number of products (knives, glue, spray paint) which are subject to significant regulatory restrictions in many jurisdictions, and GW deals with that by a mixture of labelling and restricting which territories and channels those products are sold through (e.g. knives are displayed on the webstore but not available for sale; sprays can be ordered but, in the UK at least, only if the order includes at least one non-hazardous item).

I don't think this story about how/why/whether/if GW looked into magnets and decided not to do it stacks up. If they wanted to, they can do it as easily as for the hobby products they already sell. If it was ever looked into at all and decided against, commercial reasons seem more likely.

This appears under the government website in the uk for health considerations:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1654

however other countries might have other restrictions and bulk shipping might also require some warning labels on the shipment front for transporting magnets.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
This horror of a codex makes me anxious about what they're going to do my Knights.

They'll likely address glaring issues with an end-of-edition event at the end of the year.

 Overread wrote:

Greenfield wrote:

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where toys would be taxed differently to the way GW's existing products are taxed. In the UK, for example, toys attract VAT at 20%, and miniatures (and games) attract VAT at 20%. In all the US states I'm familiar with which have a sales tax, this would also be true.

There may be regulatory requirements that differ around the world – magnets might be considered hazardous or dangerous in some areas – but GW already makes a number of products (knives, glue, spray paint) which are subject to significant regulatory restrictions in many jurisdictions, and GW deals with that by a mixture of labelling and restricting which territories and channels those products are sold through (e.g. knives are displayed on the webstore but not available for sale; sprays can be ordered but, in the UK at least, only if the order includes at least one non-hazardous item).

I don't think this story about how/why/whether/if GW looked into magnets and decided not to do it stacks up. If they wanted to, they can do it as easily as for the hobby products they already sell. If it was ever looked into at all and decided against, commercial reasons seem more likely.

This appears under the government website in the uk for health considerations:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1654

however other countries might have other restrictions and bulk shipping might also require some warning labels on the shipment front for transporting magnets.

Sure – there absolutely would be safety requirements. But GW already deals with numerous of those for all their products. I don't know if they ever looked into magnets, but it they did and decided against it, it's nothing to do with tax, and even the safety requirements wouldn't be especially onerous for a company that already sells knives, hazardous materials and products with small parts. It would be a commercial decision, I would think.

Via goonhammer: "We would like to thank Games Workshop for providing us with a review copy of the Codex. In addition, we have been provided with details of some day-1 FAQs accompanying this book, plus an early look at a set of points that are going to be provided online alongside the launch of the Army box for use with the Codex before its full release. The recommendation from GW will remain that tournaments shouldn’t use the new book till full release, but they’ve learned from the last few army boxes that people want a way to use their new toys in casual and practice games straight away."

Scions confirmed to get deepstrike back day 1.

Dudeface wrote:
Via goonhammer: "We would like to thank Games Workshop for providing us with a review copy of the Codex. In addition, we have been provided with details of some day-1 FAQs accompanying this book, plus an early look at a set of points that are going to be provided online alongside the launch of the Army box for use with the Codex before its full release. The recommendation from GW will remain that tournaments shouldn’t use the new book till full release, but they’ve learned from the last few army boxes that people want a way to use their new toys in casual and practice games straight away."

Scions confirmed to get deepstrike back day 1.

Isn't Goonhammer generally positive about GW? That highlighted part is a polite way of saying something very rude about GW. Even if it's absolutely believable that folks at GW might actually be that clueless.

Ah, its that time in the "3 year itch" cycle again, where GW can start dropping half-arsed products which they will then themselves use as an excuse for #New40K later. The next edition will fix everything, as usual. Its going to be the best edition ever.

Ave Imperator Ave

 Geifer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Via goonhammer: "We would like to thank Games Workshop for providing us with a review copy of the Codex. In addition, we have been provided with details of some day-1 FAQs accompanying this book, plus an early look at a set of points that are going to be provided online alongside the launch of the Army box for use with the Codex before its full release. The recommendation from GW will remain that tournaments shouldn’t use the new book till full release, but they’ve learned from the last few army boxes that people want a way to use their new toys in casual and practice games straight away."

Scions confirmed to get deepstrike back day 1.

Isn't Goonhammer generally positive about GW? That highlighted part is a polite way of saying something very rude about GW. Even if it's absolutely believable that folks at GW might actually be that clueless.

There were a few comments to that extent tbh, the comment elsewhere was they were glad some stuff is immediately fixed, but were dissapointed it needed to be in the first place etc.

 tauist wrote:
Ah, its that time in the "3 year itch" cycle again, where GW can start dropping half-arsed products which they will then themselves use as an excuse for #New40K later. The next edition will fix everything, as usual. Its going to be the best edition ever.

Ave Imperator Ave

"you pays your money, you takes your chances"-- seems to apply here too.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Ah, its that time in the "3 year itch" cycle again, where GW can start dropping half-arsed products which they will then themselves use as an excuse for #New40K later. The next edition will fix everything, as usual. Its going to be the best edition ever.

Ave Imperator Ave

"you pays your money, you takes your chances"-- seems to apply here too.

I'm not sure chance has anything to do with it. What appears to us as half-assing things halfway through an edition is likely founded in the developers already being so immersed in the next edition's rules that they have lost some of the understanding of what they were going for in the current edition. This is also why you so often see a paradigm shift in codices halfway through an edition. The developers sneak things into the current edition that's going to feature in the next one, be that because they think it's a great idea, that they want to future proof the current books so people don't feel completely left behind if they have to use the codex for much of the next edition, or because that's simply how the design things at the time.

Not that they strictly need to screw things up intentionally to better market the next edition as the best thing ever. 10th ed is a cut down edition that starts with comparatively little bloat. 11th ed will in all likelihood not throw out all the rules again but add clutter, and either it or 12th ed will become so unwieldy that the following edition will be the next reset. No need for artificial idiocy just yet. The naturally built in flaws suffice to laud the next edition as the best edition yet.

 tauist wrote:
Ah, its that time in the "3 year itch" cycle again, where GW can start dropping half-arsed products which they will then themselves use as an excuse for #New40K later. The next edition will fix everything, as usual. Its going to be the best edition ever.

This, so much this.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

"you pays your money, you takes your chances"-- seems to apply here too.

I have to admit, that 3d printer is looking better and better every day.

 Geifer wrote:

Not that they strictly need to screw things up intentionally to better market the next edition as the best thing ever. 10th ed is a cut down edition that starts with comparatively little bloat. 11th ed will in all likelihood not throw out all the rules again but add clutter, and either it or 12th ed will become so unwieldy that the following edition will be the next reset. No need for artificial idiocy just yet. The naturally built in flaws suffice to laud the next edition as the best edition yet.

To be honest, this fits with my own, granted, limited, experience with GW rules design. Absolute idiocy slips in with, I gak you not, the idea that 'Yeah, it's bad and/or imbalanced, we'll just remove it in the next edition". In my case, the idiocy stayed, because there was no next edition (yet, I keep hoping).

Honestly, go to Myminifactory and look up Guard proxies. Red Makers in particular make some very nice stuff. For the cost of the files, a 3D printer, and however much resin you think you need (plus cleaning supplies, etc.), you can get a pretty nice Astra Militarum army, probably cheaper than buying new from GW even if you were to just throw away the printer afterwards (not that you should ever do that, of course). If I do decide to expand my Astra Militarum into a full army, I'm probably going to mostly 3D print it, possibly supplementing it with Wargames Atlantic models.

Best way to promote GW is to support them by playing their game so they know that they do everything right with their rules and the 3 year cycle

I am in general impressed that the suggested solutions to GWs handling of the rules is to buy a 3D printer to keep playing said rules

Agreed with kodos, surprisingly. While GW wont get your money you are enabling the perpetuation and growth of a community that does. If your goal is to be an ethical consumer who drives change against GWs practices, the only way to do it is to divest entirely snd play other games from other publishers using otber minis.

While I find the 3 year edition churn a little...much, I actually really enjoy the current 40k rules, and have for the last few editions. So I don't mind promoting the rules or "supporting/enabling" GW by playing them. I especially appreciate their attempts to balance the game through points updates and Balance Dataslates, something that was sorely lacking in earlier editions (part of why 7th was so broken and the players formed the ITC to deal with the worst of it). I only promote all the third-party/3D printed stuff because it's cheaper than the official models, and makes it so lower-income players can participate in the game too. Outside of official GW events, nobody should even bat an eye at third-party models, either, as long as it's easy to tell what's what on the table.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Agreed with kodos, surprisingly. While GW wont get your money you are enabling the perpetuation and growth of a community that does. If your goal is to be an ethical consumer who drives change against GWs practices, the only way to do it is to divest entirely snd play other games from other publishers using otber minis.

See, I don't see it that way. If no one is buying their minis, they have to go all in on game design, or get the feth out of the business entirely. And I do make a point to explain to people that a 3d Resin Printer is vastly cheaper than an actual warhammer army.

True on pricing, but 3d printing is basically a hobby of its own to get into.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
True on pricing, but 3d printing is basically a hobby of its own to get into.

And also not accessible to everyone. Perhaps less so in North America, but in the UK having a room that can be dedicated to running a resin printer isn't all the common (and makes rather costly if you are basing your accommodation needs on requiring an extra room for it).

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Agreed with kodos, surprisingly. While GW wont get your money you are enabling the perpetuation and growth of a community that does. If your goal is to be an ethical consumer who drives change against GWs practices, the only way to do it is to divest entirely snd play other games from other publishers using otber minis.

See, I don't see it that way. If no one is buying their minis, they have to go all in on game design, or get the feth out of the business entirely. And I do make a point to explain to people that a 3d Resin Printer is vastly cheaper than an actual warhammer army.

well, if no one buys their minis, they stop making said minis and shift to different style of miniatures and not start improving the rules
if you want GW to make better rules, don't use them
if you want them to make cheaper minis, don't buy those minis
if you want both, don't play and buy

just thinking that stop doing X will result in a company changing Y and not changing X, they never go all in on game design unless the majority of people stop playing the game (not like we already were at that point)

would be the same to assume that if you buy a diesel car instead of an electric will force the state to offer better and cheaper public transport

It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

exactly, so as long as the new people see everyone else playing 40k, they will give GW their money and nothing will change

so the 3D printers are doing their part to keep everything as it is especially if using carbon copies instead of 3rd party plastics

If I use 3d prints to play GW games, I'm not giving them my money but I'm still promoting their product. That makes me an influencer!

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

Anyone know what the Ogryn/bullgryn options are like this time?

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

Why people keep saying GW is not doing a good job? I mean, I may not like their rules or models personally but it's not about you or me... overall GW never been so successful. Profits up, expanding market, shareholders happy, volume etc
The industry is not that great just look at the amount of competitors that evaporated in the last 10 years and did not get replaced, check conventions like salute and you will see less and less companies each year... GW on the other hand is displaying a relentless flood of products and making Warhammer actually mainstream. If thats not a sign that they are winning to competition each year I don't know what is.

 Geifer wrote:
11th ed will in all likelihood not throw out all the rules again but add clutter, and either it or 12th ed will become so unwieldy that the following edition will be the next reset. No need for artificial idiocy just yet. The naturally built in flaws suffice to laud the next edition as the best edition yet.

See, this is the crux of the problem. 40k now caters for an incredibly wide audience of people who want so many different things that it's impossible to deliver anyone's personal wishlist. You streamline the game for some and it's then too simple for others. The writers add 'depth' or 'flavour' and then suddenly there's too much 'bloat' to manage.

From time to time 40k will do some of the things you want it to, but it will never be everything you want. That pendulum is just gonna keep swinging, forever.

Andykp wrote:
a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

I've been watching the same cries of "vote with your wallet!" for so long now it's just white noise... In that time not only did Number Go Up but it has repeatedly Gone Up to record levels. It's almost as though online boycotts do not work

The simple solution is just to do what makes you happiest. Maybe that's regular 40k, or 40k with more affordable third-party / printed models, or whatever new shiny game system you & your friends want to explore.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Anyone know what the Ogryn/bullgryn options are like this time?

Check this link out

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

The well known internet hive mind nonsense, yea.

Not like you can't make a simple but deep game that has flavour and tactical depth, it is just GW that can not (and somehow people assuming that if GW doesn't try it is not possible) which is understandable as putting more work than the bare minimum into a game that is replaced within 3 years as long as people buy it anyway would be a bad business decision

 NAVARRO wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

Why people keep saying GW is not doing a good job? I mean, I may not like their rules or models personally but it's not about you or me... overall GW never been so successful. Profits up, expanding market, shareholders happy, volume etc
The industry is not that great just look at the amount of competitors that evaporated in the last 10 years and did not get replaced, check conventions like salute and you will see less and less companies each year... GW on the other hand is displaying a relentless flood of products and making Warhammer actually mainstream. If thats not a sign that they are winning to competition each year I don't know what is

because their success is despite what they are doing not because of it
"the hobby" which is 99% GW, is driven by people doing their work for free and GW is the only one directly profiting from it

GW has a gak app, bad rules, expensive models, not able to run events and can't keep up with demand and all those problems are solved by the community for free so GW can make more money
just remove all the army builder and tournament orga apps/websites out there and let people rely on GWs product alone, people would be so annoyed that instead of quitting the game they would just write their own

No other company has that feature but everyone who wants to compete with GW must have that as the community demands. Everyone else out there must have a working app with all the features that GW gets for free
that is why competitors evaporated in the last 10 years, everyone tried to be like GW and it just didn't work (best example here is still FFG that made an GW-light Edition change and the game died while GW can make a hard reset and sell more)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Agreed with kudos, surprisingly. While GW wont get your money you are enabling the perpetuation and growth of a community that does. If your goal is to be an ethical consumer who drives change against GWs practices, the only way to do it is to divest entirely and play other games from other publishers using other minis.

See, I don't see it that way. If no one is buying their minis, they have to go all in on game design, or get the feth out of the business entirely. And I do make a point to explain to people that a 3d Resin Printer is vastly cheaper than an actual Warhammer army.

I understand your train of thought, and that would be a logical approach, but not GWs.

We had an incident with Fantasy Battle not generating enough sales, Instead of reworking the rules to make it more attractive to new players, they nuked the IP and made Age of Sigmar which was at the time a very simple and not entirely satisfying rule set.

This has worked from a sales perspective but wasn't good for those of us who loved WHFB, it in fact broke a lot of hearts to see a venerated IP be dumped liked they did with End Times. They made a mistake doing so which they are trying to rectify with The Old World, but it's got a ways to go yet.

The moral of this story is to do you own thing and buy something if you like it, if you don't take your money and spend it on things that you do, because we have no control over what these companies do with "our" favourite games/films/books etc we can only choose how we spend our time and money.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

The well known internet hive mind nonsense, yea.

IIRC, it's an insight we've gleaned from people who have worked there, so hardly "hive mind nonsense".

Mad Doc might be able to comment on how it was in his day, for example, though I appreciate that's more than a few years ago now.

 kodos wrote:
Not like you can't make a simple but deep game that has flavour and tactical depth, it is just GW that can not (and somehow people assuming that if GW doesn't try it is not possible) which is understandable as putting more work than the bare minimum into a game that is replaced within 3 years as long as people buy it anyway would be a bad business decision

Got any examples of these unicorns?

 kodos wrote:


because their success is despite what they are doing not because of it
"the hobby" which is 99% GW, is driven by people doing their work for free and GW is the only one directly profiting from it

GW has a gak app, bad rules, expensive models, not able to run events and can't keep up with demand and all those problems are solved by the community for free so GW can make more money
just remove all the army builder and tournament orga apps/websites out there and let people rely on GWs product alone, people would be so annoyed that instead of quitting the game they would just write their own

No other company has that feature but everyone who wants to compete with GW must have that as the community demands. Everyone else out there must have a working app with all the features that GW gets for free
that is why competitors evaporated in the last 10 years, everyone tried to be like GW and it just didn't work (best example here is still FFG that made an GW-light Edition change and the game died while GW can make a hard reset and sell more)

I dont think its that simple and GW success is not only because of freebies from their community or an app... besides not everyone aimed to be a GW either.
Theres plenty of more important reasons why competitors vanished and why GW is doing better each year.

Obvious ones everyone knows is that Marketing shifted from "customers dont matter" to "we support the community". Another obvious one was increasing product churn to never seen levels and still going up... this keeps people busy buying, updating and discussing GW new thing. No other company has the resources to do that.
Not even going to mention video games etc has IP penetration...

So you have a Modern GW geared up for crushing everyone with constant news and products and community engagement... and this is just the obvious reasons, theres a lot more complexity to this.

It certainly WAS true that GWs business model at one point was to target and cater to new hobbyists rather than veteran and established customers, its not clear to me however that that model is still how they operate.

chaos0xomega wrote:
It certainly WAS true that GWs business model at one point was to target and cater to new hobbyists rather than veteran and established customers, its not clear to me however that that model is still how they operate.

Why pick one when you now have the resources to have it all?

How many games does GW have these days? Remember when there was not much on GW catalogue for skirmish small entry games and many companies filled that itch? Look how now GW adjusted and filled that hole making competitors vanish. Same with old school nostalgic IP games etc... blood bowl...
The only thing missing is sandbox solo games...

Regarding the leaks of the Astra Militarum codex:

Is the new artillery team a replacement to, or addition to the Feild Ordinance Battery?

If they are separate things, thematically it would look totally awesome to see 3 artillery teams, 3 sets of FOB, and 9 sets of heavy weapons teams surrounded by infantry.

Separate things according to earlier articles.

 xttz wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Anyone know what the Ogryn/bullgryn options are like this time?

Check this link out

Thanks, found them.

Still disappointed that they haven’t made ripper guns hit on a 2+ or just torrent. The things are supposed to basically be a hosepipe of lead shot – back in 2e they literally couldn’t miss.

Not at 6” short range anyway

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

The figures for gw as a business would suggest otherwise. Personally I think 40K is the best it’s been since second edition, and from all the actual, evidence we can get, it’s doing really well.

Andykp wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

The figures for gw as a business would suggest otherwise. Personally I think 40K is the best it’s been since second edition, and from all the actual, evidence we can get, it’s doing really well.

I seem to have forgotten the obligatory (but always implied) IMHO from my post. Doing a good job and making profit are not the same thing. IMHO.

 Dysartes wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Not like you can't make a simple but deep game that has flavour and tactical depth, it is just GW that can not (and somehow people assuming that if GW doesn't try it is not possible) which is understandable as putting more work than the bare minimum into a game that is replaced within 3 years as long as people buy it anyway would be a bad business decision

Got any examples of these unicorns?

like every other game that isn't written in a haste but given time to develop and get updates to improve it instead of just changing it?
or more specific which setting you are aiming for?

Rank&File, look at Lasalle as an example, for mass skirmish SAGA is to be named, Future War Commander if you want mass battle SciFi

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

The figures for gw as a business would suggest otherwise. Personally I think 40K is the best it’s been since second edition, and from all the actual, evidence we can get, it’s doing really well.

I seem to have forgotten the obligatory (but always implied) IMHO from my post. Doing a good job and making profit are not the same thing. IMHO.

It’s pretty good measure, especially for a business, which gw is, it’s not a public service but many seem to think it should be.

IMHO, 40K is in its best state in decades, games, models and products. All better than for a long time.

As for the whole vote with your wallet thing, the other reason it makes. O difference if a few do it because they are angry about this change or that is there is no real competition for gamesworkshop. There are other companies and games that occupy the same space but none that compete really. For the first most part they seem happy to share this space as a lot of “competitors” business just supports them. It’s a very special position to be in.

As someone said further up, you can’t please everyone all the time. And over the 10 editions I’ve played I’ve learned that stuff I don’t like won’t last for ever but the stuff I do like, that seems to stick around. That’s because it’s the setting that brings me back, not how many sentinels I can have in a squadron.

Nicely put Andykp. It's impossible to please everyone there's always someone grouching. Certain people seem to forget a hobby is meant for enjoyment.
From my point of view I'm having a lot of fun with 40k. Anything we don't like in my group we change. I've said before I'm very lucky as all the people I game with are laid back and just want to have fun. Power gamers aren't appreciated and we don't do competitions.
People enjoy playing different ways and that's good, however there's a lot of people out there with the mindset that only their way of playing is right. Mostly it's the tournament crowd who seem to be obsessed with everything being balanced and equal. Where's the fun in that? Maybe it's because some people have never had the experience of us old time historical gamers who had to do our own research into an army ( oh shock, horror) and found historically battles are never fought as an even competition and fighting against the odds can be fun.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Do we think that the the new Krieg artillery team crew minis would make for good alternatives to the cadians in the Field Ordnance Battery (you know, so you can make them Krieg flavored)?

If so, is it worth the time and money to do so, or do we think GW will be GW and attach the "Cadian" label to the ordnance team next edition and release a krieg version with an entirely different weapons load?

The answer to all of your questions here is "YES".

I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

they only have so much capacity, after all. i doubt they'd be able to justify skaventide-levels of production for a one-off army box

Esp considering they are releasing an army book what twice a month at least across different product lines?

We all know GW's production capacity is already exceeded due to both limits on their factory (which only just expanded) and due to a non-forecasted global pandemic which saw their market boom

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

Did you forget that they haven't had their 10th ed release yet or something? 3 days since an early release book, which if anything might be symptomatic of this release method sucking balls.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

Their codex is coming in the next couple of months; a lot of the range may simply have been removed for re-launching in the new boxes. About half the Eldar kits are temporarily out of stock, too. This is pretty normal – and, indeed, quite possibly part of planning for a codex launch. There are obviously a lot more problems with availability of GW products than in the past, but I'm not sure this is a particularly big deal in this case.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

My intuition on this (based on manufacturer experience but nothing to do with GW) is that all of their IG slots recently will have been devoted to the new Krieg units production. As you say it's not a good look to have new product and not enough of it. The limited ed set there will be an expectation to sell out but when the individual releases come out in a month or so they will want to make sure they do not run out. So they are sacrificing the current range being out of stock for a time to make sure the new range is properly supported. It's likely for a time that you can find Artillery Teams over Leman Russes until IG get their next round of slots and back product production begins again. It's pure restricted capacity production allocation.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

FOMO is a key part of Games Workshop's strategy, how is it possible that some people still don't understand this?

Andykp wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

The figures for gw as a business would suggest otherwise. Personally I think 40K is the best it’s been since second edition, and from all the actual, evidence we can get, it’s doing really well.

I seem to have forgotten the obligatory (but always implied) IMHO from my post. Doing a good job and making profit are not the same thing. IMHO.

It’s pretty good measure, especially for a business, which gw is, it’s not a public service but many seem to think it should be.

IMHO, 40K is in its best state in decades, games, models and products. All better than for a long time.

As for the whole vote with your wallet thing, the other reason it makes. O difference if a few do it because they are angry about this change or that is there is no real competition for gamesworkshop. There are other companies and games that occupy the same space but none that compete really. For the first most part they seem happy to share this space as a lot of “competitors” business just supports them. It’s a very special position to be in.

As someone said further up, you can’t please everyone all the time. And over the 10 editions I’ve played I’ve learned that stuff I don’t like won’t last for ever but the stuff I do like, that seems to stick around. That’s because it’s the setting that brings me back, not how many sentinels I can have in a squadron.

I am happy for you. I personally do not share your enthusiasm for current 40K. some reasons off the top of my head:

* "No Model No Rules"
* Wargear options are just what you get in the kit (nothing more, nothing less, no duplicates even when this goes against fluff)
* While 10th edition launched in a promising state, it has enshittified itself codex by codex. Soon the core rules errata is longer than the actual rules
* GW sells me a brand new firstborn army ("You can totally use your new HH2 models in 40K, trust me bro!", just to do a 180 degree about face a little later. All the shiny stuff you bought are now legends. "Sucks to be you I guess?"

So yeah.. from my POV they are profiting sure, but enshittifying themselves in the process

But hey, "you cant please everyone" amirite. I am glad they at least have LI and KillTeam, but 40K for me is in the worst state its been since 6th-7th edition

bobthe4th wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

FOMO is a key part of Games Workshop's strategy, how is it possible that some people still don't understand this?

The only FOMO parts are the discounted boxed sets. Regular retail stuff isn't running on FOMO its running on GW not having enough capacity to keep everything in production. You can't have FOMO on a regular pack of Space Marines or a Tyranid Exocrine when you know its a general production item and will come back into stock at some point. It's not a limited run product.

The only products you can really argue FOMO on on the general store are anything from Forgeworld in regular armies like 40K or AoS because that's always got a huge question mark over IF it will come back into stock or be removed or replaced with plastic (and replacements might come months or years after the FW resin version is removed)

bobthe4th wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I see GW demand planning is just as good as always.

Day 3 and roughly 75% of the IG line is sold out.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/40K-Imperium-AstraMilitarum-FP

I swear if that happened at a company I worked for people would be fired.

Stuff sells when it's shiny and new, you need to have enough on the shelves or they'll forget about it.

FOMO is a key part of Games Workshop's strategy, how is it possible that some people still don't understand this?

Definitely part of the plan, but no one goes under selling out. You are theoretically leaving money on the table, but when you overproduce, you actually stand to lose money in the process.

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It’s well known that games workshop target new players as their main audience for selling products. That’s where the bulk of their sales come from so a handful of gognards rage quitting or 3D printing an army isn’t going to have any real impact on this multibillion pound international business.

That is not entirely true, or HH and WHTOW would never exist. GW is trying to cater to both groups, they just arent doing a very good job of it ATM

The figures for gw as a business would suggest otherwise. Personally I think 40K is the best it’s been since second edition, and from all the actual, evidence we can get, it’s doing really well.

I seem to have forgotten the obligatory (but always implied) IMHO from my post. Doing a good job and making profit are not the same thing. IMHO.

It’s pretty good measure, especially for a business, which gw is, it’s not a public service but many seem to think it should be.

IMHO, 40K is in its best state in decades, games, models and products. All better than for a long time.

As for the whole vote with your wallet thing, the other reason it makes. O difference if a few do it because they are angry about this change or that is there is no real competition for gamesworkshop. There are other companies and games that occupy the same space but none that compete really. For the first most part they seem happy to share this space as a lot of “competitors” business just supports them. It’s a very special position to be in.

As someone said further up, you can’t please everyone all the time. And over the 10 editions I’ve played I’ve learned that stuff I don’t like won’t last for ever but the stuff I do like, that seems to stick around. That’s because it’s the setting that brings me back, not how many sentinels I can have in a squadron.

I am happy for you. I personally do not share your enthusiasm for current 40K. some reasons off the top of my head:

* "No Model No Rules"
* Wargear options are just what you get in the kit (nothing more, nothing less, no duplicates even when this goes against fluff)
* While 10th edition launched in a promising state, it has enshittified itself codex by codex. Soon the core rules errata is longer than the actual rules
* GW sells me a brand new firstborn army ("You can totally use your new HH2 models in 40K, trust me bro!", just to do a 180 degree about face a little later. All the shiny stuff you bought are now legends. "Sucks to be you I guess?"

So yeah.. from my POV they are profiting sure, but enshittifying themselves in the process

But hey, "you cant please everyone" amirite. I am glad they at least have LI and KillTeam, but 40K for me is in the worst state its been since 6th-7th edition

Tbh 10th in a nutshell is probably ‘great rules for playing, pump rules for army construction’.

Though the volume of errata and FAQs has got a bit silly.

Lord Zarkov wrote:


Tbh 10th in a nutshell is probably ‘great rules for playing, pump rules for army construction’.

Though the volume of errata and FAQs has got a bit silly.

I really don't want to spend time building lists I don't enjoy playing.

Lord Zarkov wrote:


Tbh 10th in a nutshell is probably ‘great rules for playing, pump rules for army construction’.

Though the volume of errata and FAQs has got a bit silly.

The problem with them is that GW rebuilds the game every 3 years. So they not only have to start fresh with those documents and have them come about again; but they also can't just collate them into a single printed fresh document. If the next edition were just 10th rules with the errata/faq built into every publication then the amount of additional paper material would steadily decrease.

Because GW doesn't stay with a single game and polish it there are limits.

That said I'll take the FAST FAQ/Errata publication we have today over the old-days. I still recall Tyranids getting an FAQ for an edition almost a week/month before the next edition came out.

I keep hearing the no models, no rules arguments. Is it safe to assume that of no model exists for a unit (or has ever existed, ever) that it will probably be removed for the next codex?

For example the Grey Knight Techmarine.

Let's also not forget the Tyranid FAQ from 4th/5th edition that answered the question about what happens when a Carnifex has to take a leadership test. Answer: "why? Monstrous creatures don't take leadership tests." Uh.... Yes they did?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I keep hearing the no models, no rules arguments. Is it safe to assume that of no model exists for a unit (or has ever existed, ever) that it will probably be removed for the next codex?

For example the Grey Knight Techmarine.

Anything without a model should be on the watch list. It may or may not go when a new codex drops. Or it might get a new model. Ot it might still keep he old rules.

One of the many frustrations with NMNR is that it’s wildly inconsistent. It’s not like they have formally come out and claimed it as an ofical policy, ut they do seem to follow it. Most of the time.

But not always…

I would recommend new players against investing heavily in things not in the box. You will never know if/when it will be cut.

For example Tyranid Warriors have only 1 close combat weapon profile despite the boxed kit having multiple close combat weapon choices.


Sometimes this is because rules are made for a future product - eg I could see GW doing a new warrior kit with wings included instead of multiple close combat weapon options so that warriors better pair with the new warrior prime released in leviathan.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I keep hearing the no models, no rules arguments. Is it safe to assume that of no model exists for a unit (or has ever existed, ever) that it will probably be removed for the next codex?

For example the Grey Knight Techmarine.

Anything without a model should be on the watch list. It may or may not go when a new codex drops. Or it might get a new model. Ot it might still keep he old rules.

One of the many frustrations with NMNR is that it’s wildly inconsistent. It’s not like they have formally come out and claimed it as an ofical policy, ut they do seem to follow it. Most of the time.

But not always…

I would recommend new players against investing heavily in things not in the box. You will never know if/when it will be cut.

Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone. If its rules feel like absolute placeholder garbage its either gone or getting replaced. If kitbashing is in any way required, expect it gone eventually. I've been more surprised by the things they haven't cut than anything that goes away, but understandably new players would have a much harder time telling the difference.

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone.

Not always... we've had a few cases of resin models sticking around only to be replaced with a plastic kit within about a year. Tankbustas are the most recent example, and Tyranids had a small cull of resin datasheets in 9th but kept several others until they were replaced with plastic 18 months later.

That's why I fully expect to see an updated Trazyn model before 11th rolls around.

I fully expect to see Necrons get all their named heroes; the destroyer kit and the destroyer lord updated in modern plastics.

The only real surprise is that they dripfed a new generic lord model in plastic and that they still haven't updated the destroyer model.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I keep hearing the no models, no rules arguments. Is it safe to assume that of no model exists for a unit (or has ever existed, ever) that it will probably be removed for the next codex?

For example the Grey Knight Techmarine.

Depends as an existing model might be given a new role as a new unit is introduced to take it's place. For example, a Tyranid Prime was taken from the Tyranid Warriors set but with 10th edition it was demoted from an HQ unit to a mere unit leader. At the same time they introduced a new Winged Prime model as it's replacement in the HQ slot.

Another similar example is the Harlequin Troupe Master which no longer has an official model. In a nutshell it was a build from the Players kit, but since 9th edtion its been given the new role of "Lead Player" which - like the Tyranid Prime - is only a unit leader. If not a new model then the other option is to retire the Troupe Master unit to legends and have the Shadowseer take over as the Warlord for the Harlequins. I'm okay with that as Eldar leadership is mostly filled by Seer councils anyway, but either way the Eldar codex is up next...

Not looked into the situation with the Techmarine, but I would assume it will be addressed when the codex is dropped or maybe even introduced through Kill Team? A Techmarine might have more relevence in Kill Team if continuing the indoor combat thing - operating and fixing stuff.

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone.

Imperial Agents lost Jokaero, Crusaders, Daemonhosts and Death Cultists - but retained resin Inquisitors. Inconsistent.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone.

Imperial Agents lost Jokaero, Crusaders, Daemonhosts and Death Cultists - but retained resin Inquisitors. Inconsistent.

Inconsistent, but easy to explain. If they didn't keep the resin Inquistors, there would be no generic Inquisitors, just the three named Inquisitors.

There was a plastic crusader from Blackstone Fortress, same as the two priests.
Death cultists I suppose joined up with the Rogue Trader retinue.

 cerebaton wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

But if you take a Vox, you can't double plasma or double melta.

If another rule says you can't take doubles at all, this convoluted wording would still mean that if you took a vox, you couldn't take both a plasma and a melta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Not like you can't make a simple but deep game that has flavour and tactical depth, it is just GW that can not (and somehow people assuming that if GW doesn't try it is not possible) which is understandable as putting more work than the bare minimum into a game that is replaced within 3 years as long as people buy it anyway would be a bad business decision

Well, I'm not going to stand up and mindlessly defend GW- they certainly could improve, and if they'd just drop the stupid three-year edition cycle, they could really have a good game on their hands.

But I'll say one thing that I'm willing to consider in GW's defense:

Is there another game company with a range and number of factions and scale variety as we get with 40k? I'm pretty sure there isn't.

People talk about how awesome Dust is. But yeah... There are more models in the Imperial Guard range than there are in ALL of Dust... And yeah, I think there's what, four factions? Six?

Battletech- great game, and as long lived as 40k (though it's changed owners a fair number of times, so it ain't a continuous 40 year reign)... But yeah, again... more models in just the guard than in all of Battletech, and again, five factions?

I think Infinity and Warmahordes are the closest, but GW's still got'em beat, especially when you consider scale- from characters to fliers, tanks, superheavies, knights...

Nothing anywhere comes close, and if it does, please tell me.

Now even with everything GW's got, I still concede it can be done better... And GW themselves HAVE done it better. I far prefer 9th to 10th... But even if you didn't let me have 9th, 4th was better than 10th. Third was better than 10th too, and so were 2nd and Rogue Trader... But these last three have so few models that they are closer to other games in scope and scale than they are to the modern behemoth. Second might as well have been Warmachine or Battletech. Rogue Trader might as well have been Infinity.

There are a lot of people who say GW should shrink the range and the number of factions for exactly that reason... And when you look at HH with its narrower, more likely to mirror match ups with fewer factions (though many subfactions), and much more limited range. It does well because it CAN'T be Knights vs. Grots. But 40k CAN be Knights vs Grots, and every damned obscure combination. And so yeah, its rules have to be kinda nuts.

Now I see WHY these people suggest that: they are Wargamers, and trimming superhavies and fliers, as well as other centrepiece and supercharacter models and streamlining down to no more than 10 factions (combining where necessary- ie. all eldar types are now combined into a single faction) would make a better, more balanced, easier to play game.

But I think that 40k's place is to not be every other well written but modest game. I think 40k is it's own thing, outside of Wargaming. I certainly play it as more of a large scale RPG than I do as a Wargame. I think if 40k WAS every other well written but modest game, it would not have survived 40 years and absolutely DEVOURED the marketshare. It might have had a good decade, and then maybe died, or maybe changed ownership...

You know, kinda like what did, does, will always seem to happen to all of these other games that everyone tells me are so good.

And Id rather play 10th than 10faction 40k with no knights, fliers or superheavies. It's exactly why I don't play Heresy era games. And I suspect a lot of other players feel the same way, though of course I can't speaak for anyone but myself.

There's over 650 battlemechs (closer to 4500+ if you include variants) in Battletech.

Plus a few hundred different aircraft, ground units, dropships and infantry units.

It's a ridiculously enormous game if you count everything.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone.

Imperial Agents lost Jokaero, Crusaders, Daemonhosts and Death Cultists - but retained resin Inquisitors. Inconsistent.

And a year after I bought Finecrap Drukari Mandrakes (and spent what felt like an eternity cleaning them up) they got replaced by nice new plastics.

Meanwhile, over in HH.... There's a Sisters of Silence squad that can include caimans. Yes, that's right, small alligators. To the best of my knowledge GWs never made a caiman. Or even an alligator/crocodile. And likely wont.

 Tastyfish wrote:
There's over 650 battlemechs (closer to 4500+ if you include variants) in Battletech.

Plus a few hundred different aircraft, ground units, dropships and infantry units.

It's a ridiculously enormous game if you count everything.

Battletech has its own unique problems balancing that much stuff, clan pulseboats that can jump 6+ come up pretty often. But it is nice having a history that long.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Battletech- great game, and as long lived as 40k (though it's changed owners a fair number of times, so it ain't a continuous 40 year reign)... But yeah, again... more models in just the guard than in all of Battletech, and again, five factions?

You don't know a damned thing about BTech do you?

There are 100 Guard units in the current base Munitorium list. + some more under Imperial armor & Legends.

Battletechs Technical Readout: 3025, published in 1986, contains 89 units (not counting variants).
So 39 years ago BTechs core unit book was only 11 units shy of todays base list for the Guard....
Then you add the Tech Readout for vehicles, the 2750 tech guide with more advanced mechs/vehicles, the 3050 guide with the original clan mechs, books full of areospace fighters, drop ships, jumpships, capital ship scale spacecraft.... and they keep right on publishing books full of new mechs etc to this day.
So are you sure you want to stand by your claim that the IG range out numbers Battletechs?

And Battle-Tech has well more than 5 factions here in 2025. (there were more than 5 in 1986 as well)

Those Battletech unit counts make me think of Star Fleet Battles and its 1200+ ship classes/variants spread across 50+ factions. 40k has NOTHING on these older games!

 alextroy wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone.

Imperial Agents lost Jokaero, Crusaders, Daemonhosts and Death Cultists - but retained resin Inquisitors. Inconsistent.

Inconsistent, but easy to explain. If they didn't keep the resin Inquistors, there would be no generic Inquisitors, just the three named Inquisitors.

Putting some foil on my bonce for a minute, there have been 2 plastic inquisitors, one as a store anniversary they can now roll out at least as MTO, the other a d the current WH+. From daddy GWs perspective, what loyal fan doesn't have WH+ and access to a plastic inquisitor?

ccs wrote:

Meanwhile, over in HH.... There's a Sisters of Silence squad that can include caimans. Yes, that's right, small alligators. To the best of my knowledge GWs never made a caiman. Or even an alligator/crocodile. And likely wont.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Those Battletech unit counts make me think of Star Fleet Battles and its 1200+ ship classes/variants spread across 50+ factions. 40k has NOTHING on these older games!

adding to that that in those games the factions actually have a different play style and are not just different colours

Even if you say BT only has 5 factions, those 5 have more variations on lists and play style than all of 40k together

Number of units of factions mean nothing if all are playing similar

 PenitentJake wrote:

Battletech- great game, and as long lived as 40k (though it's changed owners a fair number of times, so it ain't a continuous 40 year reign)... But yeah, again... more models in just the guard than in all of Battletech, and again, five factions?

What? It's true that Btech had a troubled history until the success of the KS but it has more mechs than 40K has by a good margin. We are getting cheap plastic mechs now but for a long time all you needed was the mech record sheet, and a carboard cutout with only the most hardcore players going for only metal minis. Iron Wind Metals has hundreds of metal mechs in their catalog, it's that tables don't look as crowded because you just need 4 mechs to a side for a game unlike 40K where in some armies figures are just glorified wound counters.

M.

 xttz wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone.

Not always... we've had a few cases of resin models sticking around only to be replaced with a plastic kit within about a year. Tankbustas are the most recent example, and Tyranids had a small cull of resin datasheets in 9th but kept several others until they were replaced with plastic 18 months later.

That's why I fully expect to see an updated Trazyn model before 11th rolls around.

As I said, I'm more surprised by things that stay than by things that go. If it stays, there's apparently a plastic rework in the cards though when we see it seems to be a bit up in the air.

Dudeface wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, its not all that inconsistent. If its resin, its gone.

Imperial Agents lost Jokaero, Crusaders, Daemonhosts and Death Cultists - but retained resin Inquisitors. Inconsistent.

Inconsistent, but easy to explain. If they didn't keep the resin Inquistors, there would be no generic Inquisitors, just the three named Inquisitors.

Putting some foil on my bonce for a minute, there have been 2 plastic inquisitors, one as a store anniversary they can now roll out at least as MTO, the other a d the current WH+. From daddy GWs perspective, what loyal fan doesn't have WH+ and access to a plastic inquisitor?

It's a mystery why they didn't just release one of the LE models as a regular Inquisitor for the line, and thus do away with another resin relic.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

It's a mystery why they didn't just release one of the LE models as a regular Inquisitor for the line, and thus do away with another resin relic.

Particularly when they made such a show of the agents codex and only released Coteaz. A generic Inquisitor would have really helped move some of those boxes.

Y'all are hittin me with some big numbers.

If battletech has 99,000 units on paper represented by 100 models, guess what?

Battle tech has 100 units. Cuz paper don't mean JACK.

Link me to the page where I can buy models for all of these units. There are 26 products available in the model section of the Battletech store. Now many if not most of those have four models each, so let's call it 120 units in 26 kits.

The Guard have 60 products on their page, though some are books, some are resin, some are boxed sets, whatever. This number will go up from here once the new release happens. But let's call it 50 kits to Battletech's 26 at present. And that's ONE 40k faction.

Someone clearly doesnt understand how Battletech products work. Heres the store youre looking for:

https://www.ironwindmetals.com/index.php/categories/cat-battletech

 PenitentJake wrote:
Y'all are hittin me with some big numbers.

If battletech has 99,000 units on paper represented by 100 models, guess what?

Battle tech has 100 units. Cuz paper don't mean JACK.

Link me to the page where I can buy models for all of these units. There are 26 products available in the model section of the Battletech store. Now many if not most of those have four models each, so let's call it 120 units in 26 kits.

The Guard have 60 products on their page, though some are books, some are resin, some are boxed sets, whatever. This number will go up from here once the new release happens. But let's call it 50 kits to Battletech's 26 at present. And that's ONE 40k faction.

First, Btech is not a WYSIWYG game, a Stinger can be used for any variant you want (14 just Inner Sphere + 2 Clan) nobody is going to have a fit if your mech doesn't represent exactly the stats unlike 40K.
Second, what Caos0Xomega said, and if that doesn't suit your taste check the 3d Cults page where you can find another ton of non-official but authorised models from Mechwarrior online.

M.

So I guess if Space Marines have a 100 different units on paper, but people only use 10 on the table, the game only has 10 units

Going by that, Space Marine are also just 1 faction as they share units.
So we compare BTs 5 factions to 40ks 7

Jake, I'd raise the white flag on this one as soon as you can - you're clearly out of your depth (and the CGL webstore is definitely missing products at present).

This discussion of the number of Battletech Units vs the number of Imperial Guard units is SO VERY INTERESTING, so I STRONGLY RECOMMEND, it be moved to its own thread and dropped from here.

Mod edit - removed.

Some updates are up in the warcom downloads section, grotmas FAQ stuff and the day 1 patch for Imperial Guard (points, Death Korp sergeant boltgun, some minor wording updates). Biggest change of note is both the index points and codex points are listed on the new MFM, the codex version has had the Forge World points values almost entirely deleted (2 units remain). No legends updates yet so wait and see on that.

Worth adding that Starshatter has recieved a fair nerf, with two strats going to 2CP and the reactive move changing from flat 6" to D6"

 Insularum wrote:
Some updates are up in the warcom downloads section, grotmas FAQ stuff and the day 1 patch for Imperial Guard (points, Death Korp sergeant boltgun, some minor wording updates). Biggest change of note is both the index points and codex points are listed on the new MFM, the codex version has had the Forge World points values almost entirely deleted (2 units remain). No legends updates yet so wait and see on that.

I'm curious to find out the logic for the Avenger Strike Fighter and Cyclops Demo Vehicle being the survivors of the purge. Extra stock? Future plastic releases? Champion for them in the studio?

The Avenger has only just had a book out focused on an Avenger squadron, and I've always been surprised at the love for the old cyclops.

That said, Death Korp engineers and a Cyclops in a Chimera will kick out a hell of a lot of mortal wounds in one turn.

Scions getting deep strike back again is a big one.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Insularum wrote:
Some updates are up in the warcom downloads section, grotmas FAQ stuff and the day 1 patch for Imperial Guard (points, Death Korp sergeant boltgun, some minor wording updates). Biggest change of note is both the index points and codex points are listed on the new MFM, the codex version has had the Forge World points values almost entirely deleted (2 units remain). No legends updates yet so wait and see on that.

I'm curious to find out the logic for the Avenger Strike Fighter and Cyclops Demo Vehicle being the survivors of the purge. Extra stock? Future plastic releases? Champion for them in the studio?

I’d guess future plastic releases for Horus Heresy.

The Avenger is currently a Legacies choice for HH and only for the Legiones Astartes.

I'd just chalk it up to weird decisions from whoever makes the cuts.

 Gert wrote:

I'd just chalk it up to weird decisions from whoever makes the cuts.

And as the past has shown even if you do get rules in an edition for a FW model that doesn't stop them randomly removing it mid-season.

Bit of a stretch, but it could be due to Interceptor City? The special edition features an extra flight journal or somesuch dedicated to the Avenger.

 Gert wrote:
The Avenger is currently a Legacies choice for HH and only for the Legiones Astartes.

I'd just chalk it up to weird decisions from whoever makes the cuts.

The Cyclops is a regular choice for Solar Auxilia though.

Proves my point that there isn't any logic behind it.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I keep hearing the no models, no rules arguments. Is it safe to assume that of no model exists for a unit (or has ever existed, ever) that it will probably be removed for the next codex?

For example the Grey Knight Techmarine.

I'd expect the GK Techmarine to remain in the GK Codex, because it is just a silver-painted Techmarine... possibly with a blue-painted force/power axe.

It's why the Techmarine is/was the only model in the Grey Knights army which can carry a regular bolter rather than storm bolter, because the generic model has one.

Similar to GK Chaplains, Stormravens, Land Raiders, Rhinos etc. If a generic SM model is discontinued, I'd expect that to be removed from the GK roster. Otherwise I'd expect them to leave it in.

Thoughts and hopes for the preview? Not on here but in other online holes there's a constant "the Emperor's Children box will be revealed and/or go up for preorder this week!!!" Since December. It's tiring. I was lucius and that's it for them. Bring on the knight previews so we know what is actually coming out for the next 3 months.

 Patriarch wrote:
It's why the Techmarine is/was the only model in the Grey Knights army which can carry a regular bolter rather than storm bolter, because the generic model has one.

Funnily enough, not the only one - GK librarian is the only GK model that can replace its storm bolter for combi-weapon (which is just bolter plus attachment). Why? Because GW used SM librarian in terminator armor in GK army box as they lacked any plastic characters back then, so they just copy pasted SM librarian in TDA rules into GK book. Not noticing the model itself has only storm bolter bit, and it had combi-weapon option in SM rules because different model, Blood Angels librarian in TDA, was armed with combi-melta. SM players were expected to use both, but only the generic one fit GK look yet it got options of both (and combi-plasma as a bonus, despite there never being TDA model with one, but not combi-flamer or grav or anything else, because CONSISTENCY!)

To make it even sillier, you could replace storm bolter with nothing, because model had optional hand in spell casting pose instead of a gun. Same as primaris sergeant, who has option to disarm himself almost completely due to empty/auspex hand options, because clown writing rules really expected people to replace free, good wargear on their army sheets with air for some reason, even though said models have pouches/holsters/scabbards for 'missing' stuff good enough for even most anal wysiwyggers. Logic!

ccs wrote:
Meanwhile, over in HH.... There's a Sisters of Silence squad that can include caimans. Yes, that's right, small alligators. To the best of my knowledge GWs never made a caiman. Or even an alligator/crocodile. And likely wont.

All weird animals found in SoS, Legion, and Militia 'pet' units are models from Necromunda. Because for some reason, HH is allowed to drive Necromunda sales but 40K is not allowed to drive HH sales, ditto with AoS and TOB because Spec Games team hates any and all help they could get for free from other games and banned it. Logic AND consistency!

I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

IMO it's because the goal for GW is to have people starting (but not necessarily completing) as many 2000 point armies as possible. That's where the money is and that's why they silo things so heavily.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

It is not a gamer or game designer philosophy, it is a company management perspective. They want to be able to tell if the sales of models for Game A justify dedicating the resources to continued support of Game A. They can't tell if HH is supporting itself if you keep putting HH Chocolate in your 40K Peanut Butter.

 alextroy wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

It is not a gamer or game designer philosophy, it is a company management perspective. They want to be able to tell if the sales of models for Game A justify dedicating the resources to continued support of Game A. They can't tell if HH is supporting itself if you keep putting HH Chocolate in your 40K Peanut Butter.

While true of in person sales, it's not necessarily true of online sales where consumers need accounts to make purchases, because you can see all the products the consumer has purchased. If I bought a Spartan online, GW would know it's for 40k cuz they've got dozens of straight 40k purchases in my history, but not a single straight HH purchase.

Granted, online sales are a fraction of total sales... But I'm curious how accurately online shopping data can indicate trends in retailer shopping.

I didn't expect nothing from EC reveal and still I feel disapointed.

I suppouse Slaanesh is just not for me.

Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Chaos Knights are on the upcoming releases, and I’m guessing Imperial Knights will either be a simultaneous release, or maybe a shared codex even. I don’t know why you wouldn’t release the two together anyway.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've never really understood the whole "Same universe, but not same game, so no models sharing" philosophy. You'd think you'd want as mush synergy as possible.

Yes, there could be balance issues. Just limit the really strange stuff to 1 per army or something.

I am adamantly convinced it has to do with bonuses for people internally. Someone is "in charge" of each product line and wants their bonus counted for just their products. That's just the sort of corporate nonsense that would lead here.

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Daemons go bye-bye? Please elaborate?

Are they finally dropping 40K support for AOS Daemon models, or just dropping the Daemons codex and consolidating them into these CSM subfaction dexes?

 tauist wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Daemons go bye-bye? Please elaborate?

Are they finally dropping 40K support for AOS Daemon models, or just dropping the Daemons codex and consolidating them into these CSM subfaction dexes?

Yeah they’re splitting the daemons into their respective CSM faction books.

 tauist wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Daemons go bye-bye? Please elaborate?

Are they finally dropping 40K support for AOS Daemon models, or just dropping the Daemons codex and consolidating them into these CSM subfaction dexes?

Slaanesh daemons were called out as being included in the Emperor's Children book, and World Eaters, Death Guard, and Thousand Sons are all in the soon after EC pipeline, so logical to assume they will be getting their god specific Daemons as well. EC are said to have 6 detachment, so I'm guessing 2-3 Astartes focused, 1-2 Daemon focused, and 1-2 combined forces

 ImAGeek wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Chaos Knights are on the upcoming releases, and I’m guessing Imperial Knights will either be a simultaneous release, or maybe a shared codex even. I don’t know why you wouldn’t release the two together anyway.

Because they're not the same army largely, there's no real reason to launch them together. It's like saying "I don't know why you wouldn't release eldar and dark eldar together". Beyond that they were next after eldar on last years "roadmap", they've just vanished.

Dudeface wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Chaos Knights are on the upcoming releases, and I’m guessing Imperial Knights will either be a simultaneous release, or maybe a shared codex even. I don’t know why you wouldn’t release the two together anyway.

Because they're not the same army largely, there's no real reason to launch them together. It's like saying "I don't know why you wouldn't release eldar and dark eldar together". Beyond that they were next after eldar on last years "roadmap", they've just vanished.

They’re small books with a lot of overlap, it makes sense to me to release them together.

But I’d forgotten about the ‘roadmap’ that had them on, I thought the timing for them was just based on rumour. That is weird that they’ve shifted so far.

Does splitting the demons into the 4 cult marine codex definitely mean no undivided demons codex? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 Fergie0044 wrote:
Does splitting the demons into the 4 cult marine codex definitely mean no undivided demons codex? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

We're at the point now where there would be no real reason for anyone to buy a daemon codex. The grotmas detachments covered the most obvious use-case for a dedicated codex; if it's not going to have god-specific armylists then what else would go in?

Most likely they just keep undivided daemons as a free index for at least the rest of 10th.

 xttz wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:
Does splitting the demons into the 4 cult marine codex definitely mean no undivided demons codex? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

We're at the point now where there would be no real reason for anyone to buy a daemon codex. The grotmas detachments covered the most obvious use-case for a dedicated codex; if it's not going to have god-specific armylists then what else would go in?

Most likely they just keep undivided daemons as a free index for at least the rest of 10th.

I agree, you'll likely see belakor slip into Chaos Marines in 11th with a detachment for pulling stuff in out the other books.

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

I knew this was going to be an Emperor's Children show, even though Imperial Knights were up next on the roadmap. Then being queue-jumped by three more codices...I'd rather they hadn't mentioned them at all to be honest, or just do the right thing and put them in the Ad-Mech and Chaos Marine codices and be done with it. Not mad or anything - just a game of toy soldiers - but I've been delaying other purchases based on the roadmap they'd given us.

The ECs are of course nice and I suppose if the Daemons are going then they might as well get all four chaos codices done in one go. I think the most awesome way to say good bye to Chaos Daemons would be through a 40K Quest game; Inquisition vs Daemons. Just saying...

GW are 100% doing to Demons in 40K what they did to demons in AoS where its worked really well honestly. Each demon army has a very unique look and lets face it, lore wise demon armies aren't supposed to appear as all 4 gods at once (the 4 fight each other all the time). Splintering them out means that there's MUCH more design room for more models for each of the chosen gods and demons.

Honestly whilst it is sad to see combined armies of demons go; at the same throw its not removing models; its adding more through separation. Plus you'll still have generic Chaos armies (or Slaves to Darkness in AoS) and the option of allying in demons. In AoS you have the ancient rivalry limits so a Khorne army can't take Slaanesh allies, but otherwise you can still throw down some mixed forces

I feel like 40k Daemons have never quite managed to find their niche. They've always been either 4 small sub-factions crammed into one book, or a really non-thematic amalgamation of all the best stuff from each god. Putting them with their respective Legion allows GW to integrate them more effectively with their mortal allies and also allows more scope for detachments in each Codex. Seems like the best way forward to me.

Slipspace wrote:
I feel like 40k Daemons have never quite managed to find their niche. They've always been either 4 small sub-factions crammed into one book, or a really non-thematic amalgamation of all the best stuff from each god. Putting them with their respective Legion allows GW to integrate them more effectively with their mortal allies and also allows more scope for detachments in each Codex. Seems like the best way forward to me.

Yep I'll also be really interested to see if GW starts to make more game specific demon models; or even fully splits them at some point in the future. Things like the Slaanesh chariots are awesome kits ,but they've always felt just a bit out of place in 40K. A huge chariot that rides over your foes like a lawn-mower works awesome in rank and file armies of AoS and Old World. In 40K it felt just a bit out of plate to not really have any ranged option or alternative ways of dealing damage.

I just hope they will not dump the soulgrinder into legends...

I thought I'd feel more excited about EC than I am.

The Spear Lord Exultant looks great as well as the Noise Marines.

But the rest of the range isn't really doing much for me.

Tyel wrote:
I thought I'd feel more excited about EC than I am.

The Spear Lord Exultant looks great as well as the Noise Marines.

But the rest of the range isn't really doing much for me.

I think it’s the Noise Marines that are letting it down for me. I thought they’d be the unit you’d look at and think ‘wow, the EC are really messed up’, but they basically look like Havocs with some speakers on their backpacks. The Kakophani from 30k, proto Noise Marines from 10,000 years ago, looked more messed up than these.

Slipspace wrote:
I feel like 40k Daemons have never quite managed to find their niche. They've always been either 4 small sub-factions crammed into one book, or a really non-thematic amalgamation of all the best stuff from each god. Putting them with their respective Legion allows GW to integrate them more effectively with their mortal allies and also allows more scope for detachments in each Codex. Seems like the best way forward to me.

I think if Daemons were ever going to really work as an army of their own they needed to go more heavily into undivided Daemons, in order to fill the core of the army, with the god specific ones then slotting into complementary parts. Because yeah, lore wise the gods don't get along, so a mix of just the god Daemons isn't the most logical.

 Overread wrote:
Plus you'll still have generic Chaos armies (or Slaves to Darkness in AoS) and the option of allying in demons.

Was this part confirmed?

oh, the EC models are perfect

Lucius is great. what i want out of a named character for the army. very flashy model, nd i love the whip

the chaos lord is also cool. seems fun to paint. the noise character is a lot better, tho. his flashy backpack really is what i want out of an EC character. and with his two pistols, maybe he becomes a 30k moritat

noise marines are fantastic. a little weird that that the units of six rumor was true, but i'm not complaining. they're exactly what 40k noise marines should look like, in my opinion (also i really like the green hair they're being painted with; fun touch)

blademaster guys are whatever. neat, not great. their backpacks are the coolest part of the novels

big fan of there being a line troop unit. definitely gonna be picking up a lot of these to use as tacticals in 30k. i think they'd look great with the purple

and then hearing that demons are finally going into the legion codexes is very nice to hear. a change that's been a long time coming, but will all the same improve 40k

curious what the releases will be for the other legions! i know that kson robots is rumored, and DG are probably just going to be the character + added demons, but i hope they release the second half of WE this year

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Plus you'll still have generic Chaos armies (or Slaves to Darkness in AoS) and the option of allying in demons.

Was this part confirmed?

I'm inferring it since you can do so in AoS and GW are clearly going to keep their core Chaos Space Marine army around

 Overread wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Plus you'll still have generic Chaos armies (or Slaves to Darkness in AoS) and the option of allying in demons.

Was this part confirmed?

I'm inferring it since you can do so in AoS and GW are clearly going to keep their core Chaos Space Marine army around

Agreed, but I was thinking more of including Daemons with Chaos Knights.

Well, the big thing with daemons is they kinda didnt work as monogod armies as each god has some glaringly large capability gaps and they are largely one dimensional in terms of what they do in that half of the units in each gods roster are just minor variations of the baseline lesser daemon and dont bring much different to the fold. As a mish-mash they kinda work better but theres obvious thematic/lore issues with that.

They will probably work better being folded in with their respective CSM legions as the non-daemon units will fill the gaps, and likewise they bring capabilities that fill in holes in the CAM army lists, problem is that it will probably just further dilute the themes of those army lists in the same way that TSons was more about Tzaangors than Rubric Marines.

Part of why they have glaring gaps is because they were rolled into one army. The lack of anything ranged with Slaanesh wasn't an issue because you had Khorn and Tzeentch in there etc...

So yes putting them into their Chaos Space Marine armies fills those gaps; but also means that now they demon armies are split GW can start to make new models that fill those niches since mono-demon is likely going to be a long term option in each of the codex going forward. Now you CAN give Slaanesh demons some beefier heavy hitters cause you won't rely on Khorne and Nurgle for them ;

mortar_crew wrote:
I just hope they will not dump the soulgrinder into legends...

Writing is on the wall there, it's legends in sigmar, so I can see it going in 40k. It's intrinsically tied to the somewhat cursed defiler kit.

Dudeface wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:
I just hope they will not dump the soulgrinder into legends...

Writing is on the wall there, it's legends in sigmar, so I can see it going in 40k. It's intrinsically tied to the somewhat cursed defiler kit.

I'd just slap it into CSM with Be'Lakor.

I was never happy lore-wise about multi-god daemon armies. The whole thing about chaos is that it's constantly at war with itself, and the followers of X would never think of teaming up with Y. It made characters like Abaddon more special, since he had the power to pull the various gods together into a single cause.

But as others have said, mono-god daemons had glaring gaps in capabilities that made it difficult to build competitive armies.

It would have been cool if they included fully daemon characters in these god-specific CSM codecies to allow for all-daemon armies, but you might not be able to call is Codex: Emperor's Children unless there was a summoner-style minor character or something like that. It's semantics, but call it Codex: Followers of Slaanesh. Heresy, I realize, and AoS kind of has that "Noun of God" thing going, and you don't want to confuse the customers.

Anyway, I love the new EC, top to bottom, or bottom to top if that's your proclivity. Also, those pink Land Raiders, a very bold choice! Great joyful face on that one Flawless Blade dude, nice touch. Even the "basic" EC marines are fantastic, though the bolters look a bit small in their hands. Hopefully they don't have bolter envy from the Primaris.

See, I don’t hate the soulgrinder concept, just the awful Tonka-toy model. I’d much rather they just gave us a new sculpt, maybe with god-specific options.

I definitely think demons work better worked in with their aligned legions. Definitely feel for anyone who just has a undivided demons army that won't translate well, but this really solves the longstanding chaos flavor issue and gives the whole subfaction some significant direction going forward.

I liked undivided daemon armies to represent a breach opening in reality and all sorts of randomness comes out. You used to see that in a lot of older art.

Waves upon waves of screaming, random daemons really appealed to me. Monogod daemon armies don't have the same feel...

Turns out Mira Lensk is just so popular that she get's TWO models now. Well who'd a thunk it?

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
I was never happy lore-wise about multi-god daemon armies. The whole thing about chaos is that it's constantly at war with itself, and the followers of X would never think of teaming up with Y. It made characters like Abaddon more special, since he had the power to pull the various gods together into a single cause.

Just imagine a rift in reality to a realm of unnamed horror. All kinds of deamons just pouring out as they catch the scent of poor mortal souls oozing their juicy emotions.

I would be more bothered with the concept of a daemon general that managed to gather a unified force of his patron god and break out of the warp for an organized assault.

I guess the first scenario is way more 40k, and the other feels more AoS.

Wow, that EC army set really makes the Krieg one look worse, doesn't it? It actually looks like being an army!

Making the basic Slaanesh Legionnaires a dual-build kit was pretty smart, and the Chaos Lord has weapon options! Enough spare bits to dole out to the squad leaders!

World Eaters REALLY lagging behind now.

Still no updated Chaos bikers.

Dudeface wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:
I just hope they will not dump the soulgrinder into legends...

Writing is on the wall there, it's legends in sigmar, so I can see it going in 40k. It's intrinsically tied to the somewhat cursed defiler kit.

Completely separate stabdalone kit with no parts commonality with the defiler, actually. Despite their visual similarity they dont share any sprues.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:
I just hope they will not dump the soulgrinder into legends...

Writing is on the wall there, it's legends in sigmar, so I can see it going in 40k. It's intrinsically tied to the somewhat cursed defiler kit.

Completely separate stabdalone kit with no parts commonality with the defiler, actually. Despite their visual similarity they dont share any sprues.

I’m fairly certain that’s not true. The Soul Grinder is the Defiler chassis sprues with one different sprue for the organic stuff. They even seemed to share an instruction book at one point.

https://imgur.com/a/chaos-daemons-soul-grinder-instructions-f8Y0Z
https://imgur.com/a/chaos-defiler-instructions-4TQTH

 ImAGeek wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:
I just hope they will not dump the soulgrinder into legends...

Writing is on the wall there, it's legends in sigmar, so I can see it going in 40k. It's intrinsically tied to the somewhat cursed defiler kit.

Completely separate stabdalone kit with no parts commonality with the defiler, actually. Despite their visual similarity they dont share any sprues.

I’m fairly certain that’s not true. The Soul Grinder is the Defiler chassis sprues with one different sprue for the organic stuff. They even seemed to share an instruction book at one point.

https://imgur.com/a/chaos-daemons-soul-grinder-instructions-f8Y0Z
https://imgur.com/a/chaos-defiler-instructions-4TQTH

I've built both over the decades, the mechanical abdomen is shared across both and you end up with left over defiler leg parts as a result iirc.

Oh yeah, I forgot I'm beyond extatic about Salamanders, but It was bed time and I'm on antidepressives so I was really sleepy.

 tauist wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Wtf is even happening. Imperial knights vanished, Salamanders looking like they get a release and confirmation daemons go bye-bye.

Daemons go bye-bye? Please elaborate?

Are they finally dropping 40K support for AOS Daemon models, or just dropping the Daemons codex and consolidating them into these CSM subfaction dexes?

*dices

Ive built several of both kits, my recollection is that the legs are visually very similar but not identical to the soul grinder kit

The more I think of it I start to believe it is the paintjob what makes me dislike those EC. Is not that that I dislike Black/Pink ( ) but in those guys it kind looks... forced? you get me? maybe if it was more predominantly purple or pink I'd like it more, otherwise they just look like a detachment from the Black Legion, just Slaanesh-marked.

People claiming with 100% certain Daemons "never work together in the lore" display such staggering ignorance of the actual material (which is no surprise, since 90% of players do not read the books, codexes, or really anything beyond 1d4chan and reddit nonsense). The lore consistently references multi-god Chaos incursions, warbands, pacts, alliances, etc.. "The Great Game" - the perpetual conflict in which the Chaos Gods battle and fight, consistently sees the power ally against one another and scheme, plot, and battle *together*.

It is also incredibly tiring how many people have been trying to do-away with Daemons as an army since the Codex first came out (though pure Daemons armies have existed since at least 2nd edition).

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Wow, that EC army set really makes the Krieg one look worse, doesn't it? It actually looks like being an army!

Making the basic Slaanesh Legionnaires a dual-build kit was pretty smart, and the Chaos Lord has weapon options! Enough spare bits to dole out to the squad leaders!

Its a shockingly good army box. I even like the model design- more smooth armor instead of mutated chaos gribbly bits than I expected.

Not sure how I feel about noise marines being shifted into small specialist units with the 'battleline' being new stuff.

It's not that united demonic forces don't happen, but that they are more likely to be mono or duel armies rather than all 4 at once. Also this isn't about doing away with the army; its if anything about getting MORE demon models for each god by splintering them so that there's creative room for more options.

We've also seen it work generally really great in AoS. Yes I'm sad I can't do a Slaanesh and Khorne focused united demon army with fiends and hounds charging over the battlefield with chariots and skull cannons backing them up - however at the same time it means I've now got way more options for models within each of those respective designs.

Also its not quite the same as, say, skaven where all the models share a lot of the same visual styles. Nurgle to Slaanesh to Tzeentch to Khorne are 4 very distinct design languages and styles.

 Overread wrote:
It's not that united demonic forces don't happen, but that they are more likely to be mono or duel armies rather than all 4 at once.

So we've established your claim is incorrect and therefore cannot be used to justify removing the option of multi-God armies. Because something is "rare" does not mean it should not be a force - by that logic a significant number of 40k armies should simply not exist!

Also this isn't about doing away with the army; its if anything about getting MORE demon models for each god by splintering them so that there's creative room for more options.

"It isn't about doing away with the army"

How is it not? If I cannot field the army, the how is it not doing away with the army? Complete dishonesty. I want to field a horde of Daemons, not "Daemons and Chaos Space Marines" or "Daemons but only of ONE colour!"

40k fans are always desperate to squat and dismember any armies that are not their own.

It might technically be possible to do a multi-god army, depending on how they do the faction key words. If all the daemons across the different chaos codexs have the "daemon" faction key words then you can make an army of just them. It'll suck to need multiple books though.

To be fair of all the 40k factions Chaos should be a good reflection of its own name, this orderly way to organise chaotic factions is quite unfluffy. So yes multigod, all demon etc etc is the bread and butter of chaos... add some beastmen for flavour too.

 cuda1179 wrote:
It might technically be possible to do a multi-god army, depending on how they do the faction key words. If all the daemons across the different chaos codexs have the "daemon" faction key words then you can make an army of just them. It'll suck to need multiple books though.

I'm also curious as to how this will affect the Grotmas detachments, since they invoke the current army rule of Shadow of Chaos.

OK, but how about the "lictor" at this timestamp?: https://youtu.be/08tRhsL0VWc?si=sbSY9H-LgD1V0HOl&t=1827

Lictor? I hardly know 'er!

 Platuan4th wrote:
Lictor? I hardly know 'er!

You win.

 CMLR wrote:
OK, but how about the "lictor" at this timestamp?: https://youtu.be/08tRhsL0VWc?si=sbSY9H-LgD1V0HOl&t=1827

Someone on Reddit pointed out it’s an exact match to this art.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ive built several of both kits, my recollection is that the legs are visually very similar but not identical to the soul grinder kit

I think your recollection is wrong.

Pet peeve that they keep using the black mane head as the chapter symbol when it's Ragnar's great company and the official symbol of the space Wolves is Leman Russ's heraldry of the wolf rampant that every great wolf adopts when they become chapter master...

I don't know why they don't just use the actual chapter symbol in all their imagery - here is grimnar presiding over a duel between a blood claws and grey hunter from Ragnars great company for some reason.

Even their army icons use the Ragnar head

Having 2000 odd points of EC from the way back time, I am excited to hear about the new codex and especially that it includes rules for things like maulerfiends, heldrakes, and of course our lovely Slannesh Daemons. It was my favorite faction to play in 4th and I look forward to their return to the tabletop.

Several of the new minis are must haves, but I don't see myself buying the Noise marine models as my old blastmaster and sonic blaster marines will do nicely.

So very happy with the EC release. It really is a dream come true after all these years. Can't wait to get my hands on them.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
So very happy with the EC release. It really is a dream come true after all these years. Can't wait to get my hands on them.

It has been such a long wait. I'm stoked too, but I'll have to get completely re-acclimated to the game, or, recruit some OPR players. Either way, I'm going to really enjoy painting some.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
It might technically be possible to do a multi-god army, depending on how they do the faction key words. If all the daemons across the different chaos codexs have the "daemon" faction key words then you can make an army of just them. It'll suck to need multiple books though.

I'm also curious as to how this will affect the Grotmas detachments, since they invoke the current army rule of Shadow of Chaos.

It won't affect them, the daemons index and grotmas detachments will likely hang around until 11th.

Belakor should get a daemon list that resemble horus heresys Daemons of the ruinstorm, where the units is generic like "daemonic beasts" and "daemonic cavalry" and you can give them treats to make them more or less obviously resmble the god specific units.

Im thinking there could be a CSM supplement with this style of daemon allies. If for no other reason that CSM recently got their dex, and worbearers would miss their warp pets.

 CMLR wrote:
The more I think of it I start to believe it is the paintjob what makes me dislike those EC. Is not that that I dislike Black/Pink ( ) but in those guys it kind looks... forced? you get me? maybe if it was more predominantly purple or pink I'd like it more, otherwise they just look like a detachment from the Black Legion, just Slaanesh-marked.

I also find the paintjob on these to look off-putting. But then again, I always thought CSM of 40K looked way derpier than 30K chaos. If I ever were to make an EC army, kitbashing these upcoming kits with HH plain marine stuff would be the way to go.

As for the Chaos Daemons being stuffed into their respective CSM codices, it does make sense from an army building POV. However, I still think anything with the CHAOS keyword shoudl be allowed to soup with one another somehow, I mean the word "Chaos" should still mean something..

I was looking at the future road map, and am I mistaken or are the Imperial Knights not on here, unless they are sharing space with Chaos Knights...

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I was looking at the future road map, and am I mistaken or are the Imperial Knights not on here, unless they are sharing space with Chaos Knights...

Could be after Chaos Knights, or the Chaos Knight art could be for both of them depending on how they release them (I’ve already said elsewhere and maybe here that it makes sense to me to release the two books together as they’re relatively small and have a fair bit of overlap, but some people didn’t seem to agree). They were right after Aeldari on the original ‘roadmap’ so it is weird the orders shifted so much.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I was looking at the future road map, and am I mistaken or are the Imperial Knights not on here, unless they are sharing space with Chaos Knights...

Could be after Chaos Knights, or the Chaos Knight art could be for both of them depending on how they release them (I’ve already said elsewhere and maybe here that it makes sense to me to release the two books together as they’re relatively small and have a fair bit of overlap, but some people didn’t seem to agree). They were right after Aeldari on the original ‘roadmap’ so it is weird the orders shifted so much.

It was also guard > eldar > IK > EC (in theory).

Now it's eldar > guard > EC

I consider it kinda wild that Salamanders are getting their own codex (supplement) so I am kinda suspicious if that is real.

Maybe IK are getting something big as an update and someone at GW production said that they can't cope with big Guard, Eldar and EC on top of OW and AoS (soulblight) big releases all in one big go and one has to give and wait

 Sotahullu wrote:
I consider it kinda wild that Salamanders are getting their own codex (supplement) so I am kinda suspicious if that is real.

There are some Valrak rumours of a Space Marine wave, including characters for the Codex chapters, so it may be an image to represent Space Marines in general rather than specifically a Salamanders wave.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
I consider it kinda wild that Salamanders are getting their own codex (supplement) so I am kinda suspicious if that is real.

There are some Valrak rumours of a Space Marine wave, including characters for the Codex chapters, so it may be an image to represent Space Marines in general rather than specifically a Salamanders wave.

But the tease is for new codex updates, right? So do you expect an Astartes 2.0 dex?

 Fayric wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
I consider it kinda wild that Salamanders are getting their own codex (supplement) so I am kinda suspicious if that is real.

There are some Valrak rumours of a Space Marine wave, including characters for the Codex chapters, so it may be an image to represent Space Marines in general rather than specifically a Salamanders wave.

But the tease is for new codex updates, right? So do you expect an Astartes 2.0 dex?

Well everything else will be a codex, but it doesn’t actually specify either way. I hope there’s not another marine dex but it wouldn’t be the first time they got 2 in an edition.

 Hellebore wrote:
Pet peeve that they keep using the black mane head as the chapter symbol when it's Ragnar's great company and the official symbol of the space Wolves is Leman Russ's heraldry of the wolf rampant that every great wolf adopts when they become chapter master...

I don't know why they don't just use the actual chapter symbol in all their imagery - here is grimnar presiding over a duel between a blood claws and grey hunter from Ragnars great company for some reason.

Even their army icons use the Ragnar head

You do realize that neither the dark angels or blood angels use theur actual chapter symbols either, yes? All those lovely plastic shoulder pads theyve been putting o ut on the upgrade sprues the past couple years are not technocally correct to the canon chapter symbols - the wings for both are presented as typical feathered wings on the shoulder pad upgrades, but the actual chaprer icons dont have those types of wings and instead each have their own distinct style.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Pet peeve that they keep using the black mane head as the chapter symbol when it's Ragnar's great company and the official symbol of the space Wolves is Leman Russ's heraldry of the wolf rampant that every great wolf adopts when they become chapter master...

I don't know why they don't just use the actual chapter symbol in all their imagery - here is grimnar presiding over a duel between a blood claws and grey hunter from Ragnars great company for some reason.

Even their army icons use the Ragnar head

You do realize that neither the dark angels or blood angels use theur actual chapter symbols either, yes? All those lovely plastic shoulder pads theyve been putting o ut on the upgrade sprues the past couple years are not technocally correct to the canon chapter symbols - the wings for both are presented as typical feathered wings on the shoulder pad upgrades, but the actual chaprer icons dont have those types of wings and instead each have their own distinct style.

Three wrongs make a who cares! It's the GW way!

SW have their wolf lords heraldry on the left shoulder and unit markings on their right. There is no "generic space wolf symbol" they are supposed to display on their armour.

Just like vanilla marines are not supposed to have the "space marines" icon on their shoulder.

 blood reaper wrote:
People claiming with 100% certain Daemons "never work together in the lore" display such staggering ignorance of the actual material (which is no surprise, since 90% of players do not read the books, codexes, or really anything beyond 1d4chan and reddit nonsense). The lore consistently references multi-god Chaos incursions, warbands, pacts, alliances, etc.. "The Great Game" - the perpetual conflict in which the Chaos Gods battle and fight, consistently sees the power ally against one another and scheme, plot, and battle *together*.

It is also incredibly tiring how many people have been trying to do-away with Daemons as an army since the Codex first came out (though pure Daemons armies have existed since at least 2nd edition).

The 2nd edition list was mono-god. The 1st edition Daemonic Legion list from Realm of Chaos could have damonic allies, but not from the opposing power.

Daemonic forces existed before the codex, yes, but were restricted to daemon worlds i.e. the Eye of Terror in the background (and yes, I read the books). Outside of it they could only enter the realspace via summoning or possession (one notable exception was the battle for Tallarn from Codex IG 2nd edition, where they came out of an old Eldar gate). Since the codex came out it seems they can pop out from the warp everywhere and it's not wrong that some people didn't particularly liked that idea - I wasn't fond of it either.

That did not changed, but as I know how it feels to loose rules for an army (Genestealer Cult) I think there should be at least a detachement to allow players with existing armies to continue playing it.

A pantheistic incursion does by no means require cooperation. Just a warp rift of sufficient size and stability that anyone who fancies a shot can bung their underlings through out.

Whilst I will always balk at Khorne/Slaanesh or Tzeentch/Nurgle alliances, there is still room for alliances of convenience. And so a given scrap where normally deadly rivals seem to be working together is “right, we’ll deal with these irksome mortals first, then get back to kicking seven bells out of each other”, so I can rationalise it.

What we need are new Daemon units. Not Daemon Engines. New Daemons. With some perhaps tied entirely to a Daemon Codex, representing elite Daemons only ever placed under the command of Greater or Exalted Greater Daemons when their parent God holds them in high esteem, or wants a particular job done right.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A pantheistic incursion does by no means require cooperation. Just a warp rift of sufficient size and stability that anyone who fancies a shot can bung their underlings through out.

Whilst I will always balk at Khorne/Slaanesh or Tzeentch/Nurgle alliances, there is still room for alliances of convenience. And so a given scrap where normally deadly rivals seem to be working together is “right, we’ll deal with these irksome mortals first, then get back to kicking seven bells out of each other”, so I can rationalise it.

What we need are new Daemon units. Not Daemon Engines. New Daemons. With some perhaps tied entirely to a Daemon Codex, representing elite Daemons only ever placed under the command of Greater or Exalted Greater Daemons when their parent God holds them in high esteem, or wants a particular job done right.

Something like the chaos harpies would be nice.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
AWhat we need are new Daemon units. Not Daemon Engines. New Daemons. With some perhaps tied entirely to a Daemon Codex, representing elite Daemons only ever placed under the command of Greater or Exalted Greater Daemons when their parent God holds them in high esteem, or wants a particular job done right.

Yeah, I'd love to see more daemons like the Daemon Brutes from HH show up. Some god-specific behemoths would be cool too.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Pet peeve that they keep using the black mane head as the chapter symbol when it's Ragnar's great company and the official symbol of the space Wolves is Leman Russ's heraldry of the wolf rampant that every great wolf adopts when they become chapter master...

I don't know why they don't just use the actual chapter symbol in all their imagery - here is grimnar presiding over a duel between a blood claws and grey hunter from Ragnars great company for some reason.

Even their army icons use the Ragnar head

You do realize that neither the dark angels or blood angels use theur actual chapter symbols either, yes? All those lovely plastic shoulder pads theyve been putting o ut on the upgrade sprues the past couple years are not technocally correct to the canon chapter symbols - the wings for both are presented as typical feathered wings on the shoulder pad upgrades, but the actual chaprer icons dont have those types of wings and instead each have their own distinct style.

...
Whether thats true or not, they are not remotely equivalent. The RT ERA geometric wolf head and the Ragnar head are the equivalent to your example. The same concept with different thematic execution.

My example would be GW using the ravenwing symbol for all their dark angel examples and their website/graphic iconography. Ragnar's company is but one amongst 12 and none of their symbols are the official symbol for the chapter.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A pantheistic incursion does by no means require cooperation. Just a warp rift of sufficient size and stability that anyone who fancies a shot can bung their underlings through out.

Whilst I will always balk at Khorne/Slaanesh or Tzeentch/Nurgle alliances, there is still room for alliances of convenience. And so a given scrap where normally deadly rivals seem to be working together is “right, we’ll deal with these irksome mortals first, then get back to kicking seven bells out of each other”, so I can rationalise it.

What we need are new Daemon units. Not Daemon Engines. New Daemons. With some perhaps tied entirely to a Daemon Codex, representing elite Daemons only ever placed under the command of Greater or Exalted Greater Daemons when their parent God holds them in high esteem, or wants a particular job done right.

Warp rifts tend to get opened by devoted cultists performing rituals, and they tend to be cults devoted to one particular Power, weakening the veil with actions evoking their patron's favoured emotions.

Multi-god alliances would be fine if they just brought back the Daemonic Animosity tables from back in 4th edition WFB. They don't play together well!

Dudeface wrote:

It was also guard > eldar > IK > EC (in theory).

Now it's eldar > guard > EC

I think the confusion has to do with people's interpretations of whether or not the launch box is considered a full release.

Because it's NOT now Eldar then Guard.

The guard Launch box was up for preorder last Saturday... But the full Guard release may not in fact come until after the Eldar; and I don't know if Eldar are getting a launch box, but if they do, their full release may not come until after EC.

EC's release IS a launch box, but perhaps Knights will come before their full release.

 Shakalooloo wrote:


Warp rifts tend to get opened by devoted cultists performing rituals, and they tend to be cults devoted to one particular Power, weakening the veil with actions evoking their patron's favoured emotions.

This may very well have been the case prior to 8th, but in current 40k, most warp riffs were torn open as part of the Cicatrix Maledictum- the single largest warp event since the birth of Slaanesh, and one which is STILL cutting the galaxy in half.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Multi-god alliances would be fine if they just brought back the Daemonic Animosity tables from back in 4th edition WFB. They don't play together well!

I'm not sure if the source you cite is the one I'm thinking of, but I have in mind fluff that said it isn't that every power hates and refuses to work with every other power- it's that each power has ONE power they consider an antithetical enemy, and they are various shades of okay with the other two. I think this is what Doc meant when he said he doesn't see Khorne/Slaanesh or Nurgle/Tzeentch alliances...

Although on that note, I recall the enmity being between Khorne and Tzeentch (Since Khorne actively HATES psykers, viewing them as weak, and having editions of precedent of having no psykers of their own, as well as a list of psychic resistances) and Nurgle and Slaanesh (since disease isn't pretty and beauty often involves freezing the cycle of life at it's most aesthetically pleasing stage).

If that's what's indicated in the Daemonic Animosity table you mention, then heck yeah, I'm behind that all the way.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Although on that note, I recall the enmity being between Khorne and Tzeentch (Since Khorne actively HATES psykers, viewing them as weak, and having editions of precedent of having no psykers of their own, as well as a list of psychic resistances) and Nurgle and Slaanesh (since disease isn't pretty and beauty often involves freezing the cycle of life at it's most aesthetically pleasing stage).

The hate is between Khorne and Slaanesh and between Nurgle and Tzeentch.

Although Khorne also hates Tzeentch, but in terms of rules Khorne daemons did not have the animosity rules towards Tzeentch daemons. Khorne's rivalry with Tzeentch is more of a professional rivalry between the warrior and the wizard. Khorne hates Slaanesh though because Khorne views bloodshed as a serious matter, as the be all and end all of existence, whereas Slaanesh makes a mockery of fighting as it is just one among many pleasures ("Why so serious?").

Nurgle and Tzeentch are more diametrically opposed due to what they are and represent. Nurgle is about despair and acceptance of one's horrible situation, and then enduring and deriving meaning from that. Tzeentch is about the desire and will to change one's circumstances rather than accepting.

When Cadia was destroyed, the various daemon factions immediately turned on each other. Coordinated multi-god armies are possible, but they usually require an extraordinary objective to be induced to do so, or be led by an extremely powerful and charismatic warlord.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
When Cadia was destroyed, the various daemon factions immediately turned on each other. Coordinated multi-god armies are possible, but they usually require an extraordinary objective to be induced to do so, or be led by an extremely powerful and charismatic warlord.

I dont see the point of these kinds of reasoning.
It would be incredibly rare to see a primarch on the battlefield. Thunder wolf cav is so rare its not even admitted as something SW deploy in battle.
Eldrad is dead, crystalized and super super busy.
Heck, even seeing a minor army of daemons would be so rare its almost unheard of (and if you saw it GK would purge you right away).
Yet all of these thing are indeed a common sight in most armies.

We literally had Codex: 100 Dudes. Arguments from rarity are absurd.


The aim isn't really to provide a background reasoning though - rather it's to justify whatever change GW is making.

Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

It wasn't

To be fair, they pulled back from that level of insanity. Whole codexes for one unit, or a specific company of one sub-faction of one army. Or supplement books that were one page of rules.

It was a dark time and I’m glad we’re past it. Not saying GW’s perfect, but that was a low point we’ve come back up from. at leaser a little bit.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

Wait, could we be gwtting a new Codex Legion of the Damned instead of salamanders?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

Wait, could we be gwtting a new Codex Legion of the Damned instead of salamanders?

While I’d love to see some LotD in plastic, if it’s a codex and not just a digital download/WD entry I’ll be torqued.

The thought did cross my mind at that picture. There are 2 major sources of fire on SM: LotD and Sallies.

 Nevelon wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

Wait, could we be gwtting a new Codex Legion of the Damned instead of salamanders?

While I’d love to see some LotD in plastic, if it’s a codex and not just a digital download/WD entry I’ll be torqued.

The thought did cross my mind at that picture. There are 2 major sources of fire on SM: LotD and Sallies.

But aside from plot-breaking Warp shenanigans (which, admittedly, are always a possibility) there wouldn't be any Gravis-armored Damned Legionnaires, would there?

...there shouldnt be, unless gw writes up a retcon or goes into some narrative shenanigans to justify it

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

Wait, could we be gwtting a new Codex Legion of the Damned instead of salamanders?

While I’d love to see some LotD in plastic, if it’s a codex and not just a digital download/WD entry I’ll be torqued.

The thought did cross my mind at that picture. There are 2 major sources of fire on SM: LotD and Sallies.

But aside from plot-breaking Warp shenanigans (which, admittedly, are always a possibility) there wouldn't be any Gravis-armored Damned Legionnaires, would there?

It would take minimal work to fluff up primaris LotD, even with the assorted theory's about what they are.. Indominus reinforcements lost to the warp, or they manifest from the warp in a more modern vision. We’ve seem far worse lore bending to shoehorn new models.

But I’d expect the first we see LotD to be in tacticus armor, lost interecessors. Not gravis. I do however, think a special unit/named character in flamestorm aggressor armor for the Salamanders is far more likely.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

Wait, could we be gwtting a new Codex Legion of the Damned instead of salamanders?

I very much doubt it, the Gravis marine in the art has two Salamander chapter symbols on his cowl

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Thank you for reminding me that Codex: Legion of the Damned existed at one point, even if that wasn't the codex you were referring to.

Wait, could we be gwtting a new Codex Legion of the Damned instead of salamanders?

While I’d love to see some LotD in plastic, if it’s a codex and not just a digital download/WD entry I’ll be torqued.

The thought did cross my mind at that picture. There are 2 major sources of fire on SM: LotD and Sallies.

But aside from plot-breaking Warp shenanigans (which, admittedly, are always a possibility) there wouldn't be any Gravis-armored Damned Legionnaires, would there?

By that logic, the Sanguinor shouldn't now be in silly-looking Primaris armour, but there you go..

I am not exactly sold that it will be salamanders supplement. Auspex made a good point that it very likely could be a SM codex 2.0 as GW doing a second SM codex before votan or DE would not be shocking. I hope that is not the case but I would temper expectations

Sunday Preview – It’s beginning to look a lot like Rhana Dandra

Eldar incoming!

Bye bye units of three War Walkers!