Or will you move on to the new one, despite the trainwreck monobuild that it is? Apart from Libby, and Dreadknight and the psilencers, pretty much everything got wrecked.

But this isnt a discussion about the GK dex itself, because there's plenty of threads on dakka already for that.

My question is - if you are a non competitive player sticking to a gaming group, are you gonna continue playing with the old dex or move on to the new one to keep with the times? Assuming you are among a circle of friends where nobody coerces you into buying the new one, that is.

I.e., are you the kind of person who voluntarily says "no man, when a codex gets old, it gets old - it is time to embrace the new", or are you the kind of guy who appreciates the old GK dex for what it is (+ errata) and votes no with his wallet regarding the new one?

Well, in our gaming group we always stick to the newest codices.

From my point of view (pure GK player) the new Codex is what I wanted; more reasons to take Terminators over Strike Squads, better Dreadknights, and the special CAD allowing some interesting shenannigans. I feel for the people who ran combined armies, and I'm a tad annoyed at the removal of Mordrak, but other than that I'm not too fussed about it.

Oh lord, is it already time for the 'my army changed'-whine threads? Dex isn't even out.

Short answer: I will go with the new dex and so will my friend who mainly plays them.

Long answer:
I love the fact that Codex: GK will finally be Codex: GK, instead of Codex: inquisition.
They already 'wrecked' the old dex by removing all their unique powers and putting them into deamonology and removing half the special rules GK used to have.
What I've seen so far, I like, Apart from making the Dreadknight an even bigger 'autopick'.

That's not really legal to do...

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
That's not really legal to do...

Yes it is. There's no laws preventing you from doing so.

In my gaming group we use the most recent codexes for every army. So, yes, I will be using the new Grey Knight Codex

I'll be sticking with the old one. Why? Because it works, and allows me to use the models I spent money on. If it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing.

It's nothing to do with power levels, I'm not going to pay to replace something that already does what I bought it to do. Same reason I pretty much stopped buying books with the last SM codex and won't be touching 7th. I have, between 6th and various codexes, a ruleset that allows me to play the game, what more do I need?

Who would be ok with that outside a very friendly game? What next I get to play a Eldar 4th edition Falcon with the unkillable holo field? Jeez you haven't even played a game yet. Relax before assuming the codex is awful.

Case in point. Tyranids awful codex yet have over a 50% win rate at the BAO. Astra Militarum awesome codex yet have a 34% win rate at the BAO.

 lobbywatson wrote:
Who would be ok with that outside a very friendly game? What next I get to play a Eldar 4th edition Falcon with the unkillable holo field?

Half the Eldar codex wasn't removed so it's not a very good comparison. If it wasn't to exploit cheese and din't have any glaring edition based problems I wouldn't care in the slightest.

We have been examining these issues in our game group - deciding which bits to take and which bits not to from 7th Ed etc............which units to tone down and which to help. Most of us don;t play tounreys so don;t really care about the "legaility" however there are always going t eb some who prefer the current edition - which is fair enough as they want to be able to play what they would if they just walked into another club or a tourney.

I think taking the Inquisiton out of Gks was good but only if they had actually put some effort into both making the stand alone GK codex better and also not just cut and pasting stuff into the Inq one (and dropping Valeria) The other way of doing it would have been to have a bigger Inquisition Codex (say SM size) and including the Deathwatch and Grey Knights as their Chamber Millitant plus other stuff like Inq Storm Troopers.

Instead we just get more Baby Carriers - at least they didn't give more variants or giant versions of them as I feared,

Yonan wrote: If it wasn't to exploit cheese and din't have any glaring edition based problems I wouldn't care in the slightest.

precisely, me to.

It's our game, we shouldn't feel obliged to buy whatever GW puts out just to keep playing. To compare it to a hypothetical video game, would you stop playing Alien Shooter 1 if Alien Shooter 2 came out with a few minimal changes and less content?

lobbywatson wrote:Who would be ok with that outside a very friendly game? What next I get to play a Eldar 4th edition Falcon with the unkillable holo field? Jeez you haven't even played a game yet. Relax before assuming the codex is awful.

Case in point. Tyranids awful codex yet have over a 50% win rate at the BAO. Astra Militarum awesome codex yet have a 34% win rate at the BAO.

Like I said, it's nothing to do with the codex being awful. It's the fact I see no point in paying to invalidate a nearly-identical-but-more-useful product I already own.

Also, I would expect most non-tournament players to sympathise with anyone who used assassins or inquisition units in their army and would now have to buy three new books, and let them use the current one. Surely game against an old but still valid codex is better than no game at all?

Not only will I be picking up the new codex, I'll also be starting a small GK army to go against my much larger Daemons collection.

The last book was nothing but Codex: Crutchhammer. Good riddance it's finally dead and buried as it ruined the game for so many players.
The new book from a read through looks solidly middle of the road. The really heinous stuff got dropped, the Nemesis weapons are much more sensible, and the pts costs have been re-adjusted. There's still plenty in there that worries me as a primarily Daemon player, (god damn those Psylencers are scary!), but I can now look at a game against GK's as an entertaining challenge, rather than the utter waste of time it used to be.

Sure it sucks for anyone who ran =I= stuff and/or Assassmo's that you now have to fork out for the digital rules. I'm not thrilled myself as it means "there goes any chance of playing a Radical Inquisitor now" as I don't own a tablet or e-reader device.
But overall, it's not a huge deal as I can just count him as something else in the end... (I'm honestly much more peeved by Chaos & IG now being CtA allies which makes Traitor Guard an absolute b**** to try and play!)


I find it hilarious overall the amount of nerd raging and QQ'ing from GK players over this book. You want to see what "OMG!Nerfed!1!!!1!" really looks like? Try having run a Tzeentch or Khorne DoC army and then seeing what the 8th ed book did to it...
Or having been an Undead player at the beginning of 8th edition, where TK's became 100% unplayable and VC's literally were shoehorned into 1 build.

Grey Knights will come out okay, and even PA Psycannons will have their place. Just because something's no longer godly doesn't make it useless.

The problem with keeping to old rules is the death spiral it creates. You get very few new players coming to a group because they have no access to the rules (OOP codex/rulebook) so you're stuck with your existing group. Any losses to that group dwindles it beyond repair. It won't go anywhere but down.

It happened to my 20+ regular group in college with the advent of 3rd ed.

To compare it to a hypothetical video game, would you stop playing Alien Shooter 1 if Alien Shooter 2 came out with a few minimal changes and less content?

Yeah but its not a video game - you have to have opponents that also want to mox up editions - we used to have a player that used to take stuff from several Codexes for his Dark Angels - it was ok at first but then it became obvious that some of the combos were just dodgy and exploitiative.

If you can get the player base to stick to it - thats cool - but we have several players who have said they only play current edition (for varied reasons) and the Gaming player base is not that big to start with............

its similar to how mnay people let you play them with a fandex?

Not a GK player, but I'd actually prefer playing someone who had torrented all the relevant sub-books they felt they needed to play their army as updated than play against an out of date book.

Azreal13 wrote:Not a GK player, but I'd actually prefer playing someone who had torrented all the relevant sub-books they felt they needed to play their army as updated than play against an out of date book.

Why? What difference does it make? The old GK book iis still compatible with the current rules and functions perfectly well.

Mr Morden wrote:

To compare it to a hypothetical video game, would you stop playing Alien Shooter 1 if Alien Shooter 2 came out with a few minimal changes and less content?

Yeah but its not a video game - you have to have opponents that also want to mox up editions - we used to have a player that used to take stuff from several Codexes for his Dark Angels - it was ok at first but then it became obvious that some of the combos were just dodgy and exploitiative.

If you can get the player base to stick to it - thats cool - but we have several players who have said they only play current edition (for varied reasons) and the Gaming player base is not that big to start with............

Valid points, I only play with a very small group and so we have a lot more freedom in what we do. I guess, as with everything, you have to rely on player integrity to some extent. If someone is playing and older book just to exploit something I have no time for them at all, but if it's because they can't afford/see no reason to pay for what they already have, then it's all good.

But then, that's just the same as trusting someone not to bring a tourney list to a friendly game or not to bring a LOW at 750 points. A game of 40k relies on a social interaction as much as a rulebook, so it dots depend on what kind of situation you're playing in.

I prefer to play the new book. I wasn't happy about the Black Templars getting rolled into the SM codex, but life goes on. I dealt with it, you can too.

If your group lets you play with the old book, fantastic for you and your gaming group!

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The problem with keeping to old rules is the death spiral it creates. You get very few new players coming to a group because they have no access to the rules (OOP codex/rulebook) so you're stuck with your existing group. Any losses to that group dwindles it beyond repair. It won't go anywhere but down.

It happened to my 20+ regular group in college with the advent of 3rd ed.

It's only an old codex, not an old edition. An old edition causes similar problems to map packs, DLC, etc in video games - fragmentation of the community which yeah can cause problems resulting in a reduced playerbase. Using an older codex doesn't do that so long as it works fine still - which it does.

Saying that you're only going to use the old codex is just whining that you didn't get your way. I own the new codex, and it is fine. Like most other armies over the past 2 years it's our turn to adapt.

I would be ok with playing against a player who wanted to keep their old book on 2 conditions, regardless of army.

1: They don't get to add any new-shiny-stuff from the NEW book.

2/. I get to do it too.

Allowing mix-matching across several editions of codex is even more heinous for rules abuse.

Hell, i still play my GK as Daemonhunters, as i found the 'current' (not the brand new one) GK book to be a steaming turd (albeit a pretty overpowered turd in 5th, and still pretty potent in 6th).

If you can convince someone to accomodate you, go for it. If you are expecting a complete stranger to play your outdated codex, ask them. Don't be surprised/surly if they say no, though.

 Yonan wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The problem with keeping to old rules is the death spiral it creates. You get very few new players coming to a group because they have no access to the rules (OOP codex/rulebook) so you're stuck with your existing group. Any losses to that group dwindles it beyond repair. It won't go anywhere but down.

It happened to my 20+ regular group in college with the advent of 3rd ed.

It's only an old codex, not an old edition. An old edition causes similar problems to map packs, DLC, etc in video games - fragmentation of the community which yeah can cause problems resulting in a reduced playerbase. Using an older codex doesn't do that so long as it works fine still - which it does.

as we have discussed its going to depend almost entirely on the player base:

In my experience

Some will be fine.
Some will simply not play against it - they might just want to play the current Codex to not confuse them - esp if competative players preping for games.
Some will say if you can do X I can do Y yeah which may lead to arguments abouts whats approrpiate / fair?

 greyknight12 wrote:
Saying that you're only going to use the old codex is just whining that you didn't get your way. I own the new codex, and it is fine. Like most other armies over the past 2 years it's our turn to adapt.

Saying you're only going to use the new codex is just whining that other people are using the old one. They own the old one and it's fine. Like most other armies over the past 2 years it still works fine as the changes are so minimal that they *should* just be errata.

I would ask my opponent to play the new book and then give him a Tricorne if he wants to include the Assassins/Inquisitorials.

I have exactly 3 friends who still (reluctantly) play 40K. We decided when 7th Edition dropped to stick with 6th and our existing codices. I don't play tourneys anymore, and I don't play against randos at my FLGS. This works for us, and given that I've been unimpressed with the new Orks and GK 'dexes (both armies I own), I'm glad we made the choice when we did.

 Paradigm wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Not a GK player, but I'd actually prefer playing someone who had torrented all the relevant sub-books they felt they needed to play their army as updated than play against an out of date book.

Why? What difference does it make? The old GK book iis still compatible with the current rules and functions perfectly well.

Because what other reason is there not to other than cost?

If someone could get the extra books they needed for no extra cost to replace the units that have been taken out, but still insisted on usin the old book, I'd question their motives.

Personally, I would always use the new book for my armies, good or bad, because the whole thing is a massive set of swings and roundabouts and if one is invested in winning at 40K then you're in for a hard, or expensive, time. I would hold my opponent to the same standard.

Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

Hey, if my opponent chooses to use an older version of the rules, does that mean I can have Broadsides with Strength 10 AP 1 weapons and the ability to move and shoot at full BS? My Hammerhead could have Shrouded and still get to shoot at full BS if it moved 12 inches too.

Or a Lone Wolf that doesn't give up victory points if killed and Scouts that outflank from my opponent's table edge?

Maybe I'll go back to main book rules that let my Space Wolves assault out of their transports, that'd be cool.

We always play with thine new dexes.

 Yonan wrote:
Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

The counter argument is that say a new Tyranid player comes up with his new codex but its not very great - stuff that should have been in it was spread into dataslates - same with the new Ork Codex - now if they have splashed out on all this but then you say - hey well I'll just roll with my old codex - its all fine and balanced as it has twice the unit selection and different rules and such, hey you should have done that - don;t you feel a fool? then they may well be confused /annoyed / refuse to play you ?

GW is the one that made a fool of them, not the player still using the old 'dex. Someone using the older version takes nothing away from someone using the newer version. They could even play each other and have a more different game than if both played the same 'dex - different hive fleets ; )

Perhaps GKs were overpowered after all?

A 10 man squad of PAGKs combat squadded into two 5 man squads would only end up paying 2 points over their base cost per model to make both shots of their stormbolter S5 instead of S4...

And at the end of the day you still have a model whose base cost is 6 points more than a Space Marine, but comes with an additional ranged shot at ranges 12"-24", has an AP3 melee weapon, and most importantly of all, can deep strike and thus not be dependent on a transport?

Stuff like The Aegis and preferred enemy: daemons is only icing on the top

Removing psybolt ammo also put an end to the psyfleman dread spam that was present in every 2nd, if not every GK list. Regular rifleman dreads are still kinda useful...4 TL S7 shots at a convenient 48" that can move and shoot is still good vs incoming transports and even viable against flyers, given how many re-rolls you get.

And nobody ever said the Stormraven is underpowered, so the mandatory GK dakka raven is now also no longer present.

OTOH, we now have even more baby carrier spam...as if the Dreadknight was ever considered a waste of points.

We can also only take 2 HS and 2 FA....but at least got a competetive Libby

Then of course you have the removal of Mordrak and Thawn...no comment there, as cutting down on IP just because you couldnt be bothered to make a model is really sucky, GW.

And yeah...if you "acquire" the inquisition and assassins dataslates, you can have most of your old toys back anyway.


However, at the end of the day the fact still remains that GKs are a dumbed down Space Marine codex now. And when a new codex release is accompanied by literally zero new units, there is indeed few incentives to go and upgrade your versatile, competetive codex for this piece of bleh.

Azreal13 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Not a GK player, but I'd actually prefer playing someone who had torrented all the relevant sub-books they felt they needed to play their army as updated than play against an out of date book.

Why? What difference does it make? The old GK book iis still compatible with the current rules and functions perfectly well.

Because what other reason is there not to other than cost?

If someone could get the extra books they needed for no extra cost to replace the units that have been taken out, but still insisted on usin the old book, I'd question their motives.

Personally, I would always use the new book for my armies, good or bad, because the whole thing is a massive set of swings and roundabouts and if one is invested in winning at 40K then you're in for a hard, or expensive, time. I would hold my opponent to the same standard.

And if the opponent isn't that interested in winning and just wanted to play a game with the models they have? If they dying want to/or can't access pirate copies of the new books? Assuming the opponent was doing it to save money, not to exploit something, and didn't want to pirate copies, are you seriously saying your refused them a game?

Yonan wrote:Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

Indeed. With the last few books (IG, SW and GK if I can be bothered) I've simply edited points cost (or used Battlescribe)and made notes on any changes in a word doc. I still have a good enough understanding to discuss and play the new books if I want, but can just as easily use the old book if I want to. I know both versions well enough to play without referring to them more then one or twice a game if that, and have spent no money.

 Paradigm wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Not a GK player, but I'd actually prefer playing someone who had torrented all the relevant sub-books they felt they needed to play their army as updated than play against an out of date book.

Why? What difference does it make? The old GK book iis still compatible with the current rules and functions perfectly well.

Because what other reason is there not to other than cost?

If someone could get the extra books they needed for no extra cost to replace the units that have been taken out, but still insisted on usin the old book, I'd question their motives.

Personally, I would always use the new book for my armies, good or bad, because the whole thing is a massive set of swings and roundabouts and if one is invested in winning at 40K then you're in for a hard, or expensive, time. I would hold my opponent to the same standard.

And if the opponent isn't that interested in winning and just wanted to play a game with the models they have? If they dying want to/or can't access pirate copies of the new books? Assuming the opponent was doing it to save money, not to exploit something, and didn't want to pirate copies, are you seriously saying your refused them a game?

That's an awful lot of justifying you're insisting I do for what is only my stated opinion, but no, I probably wouldn't refuse the game, but I'd equally still feel slightly suspicious that their motives weren't "pure."

This is assuming I was playing a random, of course, it would be a total non-issue for my regular group as we have a "latest rules only" policy, and all have Internet access.

I'm rather surprised that there are this many people who would sit and take this codex without complaint... us GK players are literally auto-taking Dreadknights now, which is frankly a little annoying especially if you only had one of them.

Psycannons, our bread and butter will have to get remodeled largely especially if you were going assault cannon with psyammo.

Transports like the rhino and psyback are now obsolete as they provide nothing for the prefered troop choice: Terminators.

Techmarines... pretty much our best choice for anti-armor with the conversion beamer.

Soooo yea, my 4x rhino/razorback purifier army is realllly hurting right now so I'll probably end up selling part of it and then decide whether I want to use that money to make up a new one or just keep the models that I have because hey look cool.

DaPino wrote:
Oh lord, is it already time for the 'my army changed'-whine threads? Dex isn't even out.

Well these threads need to keep up with the recent speedy codex release. So now they are just being made preemptively. I think Blood angels, Dark Eldar, and Necrons threads should be popping up, complaining what might, any time now.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Oh lord, is it already time for the 'my army changed'-whine threads? Dex isn't even out.

Well these threads need to keep up with the recent speedy codex release. So now they are just being made preemptively. I think Blood angels, Dark Eldar, and Necrons threads should be popping up, complaining what might, any time now.

The entire codex leaked in News and Rumors, want a link?

.

stopcallingmechief wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
I'll be sticking with the old one. Why? Because it works, and allows me to use the models I spent money on. If it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing.

It's nothing to do with power levels, I'm not going to pay to replace something that already does what I bought it to do. Same reason I pretty much stopped buying books with the last SM codex and won't be touching 7th. I have, between 6th and various codexes, a ruleset that allows me to play the game, what more do I need?

allows you to play against whom? I certainly would not play a guy using a old codex when a new one exists, but it sounds if you dont play 7th, your gaming group must have come to some sort of agreement about using old books which works for you guys.

Primarily, myself , and two or three guys I've know for years and we've house ruled the game a lot in that time. If I were every to play at a store, I'd just use my SM or DA that I have the up to date rules for.

I do appreciate that not all players have the luxury of a regular group, though.

I don't think I would have much interest in playing against the old GK book in a friendly game. I mean, even when the book was current, it wasn't exactly a "friendly" codex. It was more a poorly balanced mishmash of units and special rules hellbent on convincing us of how super special the Super Special Marines really were. Oh, plus here's some Inquisition guys and assassins because, well, they're super special too. Basically, it was "One-upmanship: the Codex."

Psychotroke grenades, rad grenades, mindstrike missiles, psybolt ammo, warpquake, grand strategy, psychic pilot...all half-baked wargear/rules that I'm fairly certain most non-GK players will be glad to see go. Largely because they felt like they were conceived by a drooling fanboy rather than a person interested in game design. Unfortunately some of those still live on in the C:I book (making many of the complaints about the new GK book extra funny), but what can you do.

I mean, if I feel like taking a trip down memory lane, recalling in vivid detail how busted the end of 5th edition was because of the GK book alone, then I guess I might agree to it. But as tempting as that is, I think I'd rather forget all about it an move on to Draigo Gate-of-Infinitying 5 Grav-Centurions around the board every turn. Oh wait, $%!+.

I'll probably be getting it and using it. I'm thinking an ebook of it would work. I'm going to print it and the inquisition codex, and then blend the pages such that it comes out to the same effect as the previous one.

They still killed a lot of the flavor and options that I enjoyed of the last codex, but Codex: Dreadknight is going to be far from completely unplayable. It'll just be boring. Oh well, that hurts my opponents more than it hurts me.

I'm waiting for the stream of bitching that'll occur from all other players about how sick to death they are of seeing army after army of librarian/terminators/stormraven/dreadknight/dreadknight/dreadknight.

The DK sprue doesnt even come with 2 of every weapon, does it?

 Sir Arun wrote:
The DK sprue doesnt even come with 2 of every weapon, does it?

You can't even take two of the same on a DK

 whigwam wrote:
Psychotroke grenades, rad grenades, mindstrike missiles, psybolt ammo, warpquake, grand strategy, psychic pilot...all half-baked wargear/rules that I'm fairly certain most non-GK players will be glad to see go. Largely because they felt like they were conceived by a drooling fanboy rather than a person interested in game design. Unfortunately some of those still live on in the C:I book (making many of the complaints about the new GK book extra funny), but what can you do.

Psybolt ammo existed in the 3rd ed DH codex. It just did different things back then.

OP: No.
Old codex replaced.
You are not playing same game if using old.
Want to ask your opponent's permission? Please...

 daedalus wrote:

 whigwam wrote:
Psychotroke grenades, rad grenades, mindstrike missiles, psybolt ammo, warpquake, grand strategy, psychic pilot...all half-baked wargear/rules that I'm fairly certain most non-GK players will be glad to see go. Largely because they felt like they were conceived by a drooling fanboy rather than a person interested in game design. Unfortunately some of those still live on in the C:I book (making many of the complaints about the new GK book extra funny), but what can you do.

Psybolt ammo existed in the 3rd ed DH codex. It just did different things back then.

It ignored Invulnerable saves, back when they did fully counter demons, which wasn't a full army then as it was interlocked with 3.5 chaos.

Didn't it also make it AP4? Maybe not. Been too long.

daedalus wrote:Psybolt ammo existed in the 3rd ed DH codex. It just did different things back then.

Yeah, I'm aware. Ignoring invulnerable saves was an interesting rule at least. Definitely more flavorful than "+1S because...uh...mind-bullets."

Honestly. Between the army building software and the internet you can piece the rules together. So if you're a thrifty guy/gal that's ok but that's what this really comes down to. You don't want to spend the $50 bucks. Sure ok no problem do not hide it as an excuse of anything else though.
I haven't see a GK player take Coteaz until the the inquisition book rolled out and I've never seen one take a assassin. I ask humbly don't feed anyone that bologna please.
I'm not saying you have. I'm just saying call it what it is. You elude to that in the OP. Which I'm cool with. You don't want to spend the cash. To each their own.

I don't play GK so I can't answer the poll. I can tell you that I won't be playing anyone using the old codex. I also won't be playing anyone using the 6th edition rules. It's hard enough to keep track of what every army brings to the table without having to keep track of what they can do in their old book. I'm not going down that road. With GK it might be easier to keep track of than with other armies, but it's a slippery slope. Bring all the unbound cheese you want. I'll play titans, WS spam, or anything else you can come up with using the current rules for the game and your army.

 Yonan wrote:
Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

The way to fight against GW's business practices is to stop buying their products.

I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

As far as Grey Knights is concerned, you are seeing GW's move to new new marketing strategies around Codexes. Which is to say, the new norm is to release broken Codexes then sell you the fix several months / years down the line. I don't see this as something that's going to get better.

 Sir Arun wrote:
The DK sprue doesnt even come with 2 of every weapon, does it?

No comes with the bits to build 2 out of the 3 weapons.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

The way to fight against GW's business practices is to stop buying their products.
.

But why should we stop playing when we have a perfectly functional set of rules. If someone chooses to enjoy themselves without spending the money on a new codex, can you really hold they against them? You say your store plays other editions, and I don't really see how using an older GK dex (which is still compatible, and is current until Saturday so clearly works) is any different? If it were not being updated, you'd have no issue with it, nothing's going to change about the old book you've been perfectly for happy playing against.

As to those saying it's hard to keep track of what your facing, that's your opponent's responsibility, not yours. Seeing as it's your right to question anything at any time, no problem should arise. Not to mention you've been playing against the old dex for three years, that knowledge isn't going away just because a new book comes out.

No ones saying you have to, they're just saying if you're going to play outside your local group, expect some questioning.

But the poll is quite overwhemingly in favor of using the new dex

Of course not. I've never gone back and played an older edition of the game, and the only time I've played with or against an older codex was when it was for a tournament and within the 30day window.

I couldn't reasonably expect to go to any local game store and play an older codex, and I would have the same expectation of someone playing me.

Like it or not, its the new Codex.

Nope no need for it at this point
just mothballed the Gks, recycled the tanks into other imperial armies and already have c:inq
But that money i would of spent on the codex is going to DS:ASS

because i still like em.

Did they really make the Dreadknight better? Why on earth would they do that?

 krodarklorr wrote:
Did they really make the Dreadknight better? Why on earth would they do that?

Because Riptides and Wraithknights were still better

 krodarklorr wrote:
Did they really make the Dreadknight better? Why on earth would they do that?

Because its the edition of big kits and MCs. why stop the gravy train?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Did they really make the Dreadknight better? Why on earth would they do that?

Because Riptides and Wraithknights were still better

Eh, I don't think so? The Dreadknight is just better in melee than the others. What did they even do to make it better? I'm no a GK player, I'm just curious.

They are cheaper now. so you can take more.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Did they really make the Dreadknight better? Why on earth would they do that?

Because Riptides and Wraithknights were still better

Eh, I don't think so? The Dreadknight is just better in melee than the others. What did they even do to make it better? I'm no a GK player, I'm just curious.

Massive point reductions, some weapon changes (Heavy Psycannon has two firing modes, Gatling Psilencer has instant death)

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The problem with keeping to old rules is the death spiral it creates. You get very few new players coming to a group because they have no access to the rules (OOP codex/rulebook) so you're stuck with your existing group. Any losses to that group dwindles it beyond repair. It won't go anywhere but down.

It happened to my 20+ regular group in college with the advent of 3rd ed.

Basically what happened to me as well. It's cool and all to form your own group and stick to what you like but when people start dropping out... well... only so many times I can enjoy fighting nids primarily with a sprinkling of guardsman and even rarer tau and only those.

On the other hand the sword no longer ludicrously makes guns better.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Did they really make the Dreadknight better? Why on earth would they do that?

Because Riptides and Wraithknights were still better

Eh, I don't think so? The Dreadknight is just better in melee than the others. What did they even do to make it better? I'm no a GK player, I'm just curious.

Massive point reductions, some weapon changes (Heavy Psycannon has two firing modes, Gatling Psilencer has instant death)

still don't see why they needed to make it cheaper...

They were fairly overcosted with upgrades compared to similar units.

Make It Cheaper Is GWs brand of power creep. Each successive codex has better units than the last to keep the cycle going.

Actually that's some "stand alone balance" at work.

When a GK force could liturally spend nothing at HQs by taking a simple inquis, they could not afford to bring down knight price to what it is today because he would be too easy to splash into other armies.
With current codex forcing you to at least take a moderately powerful HQ rather than the cheapest in the game, they can afford to having the knight cheaper as a cornerstone you are expected to be using, without fearing the results of splashing it in other armies too much.

One of the few cases GW actually made a good call. in a true "GK" army, knights are nothing out-of-the-ordinary, as you are going to be hard pressed at points anyway and will be feeling the pain of low model count. unlike "GKquisition" codex they used to have, that could have cheap as hell HQ and troops and then max out on the heavy duty tools.

Even with the cheaper DK, within context-they are not any more powerful.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

This is the silliest thing I can think of.
During 2nd Edition D&D when 3rd Edition was announce "Hey we are working on 3rd edition" in a article in the beginning of the book 2 years before it was released we have 3 members of out group "Rage Quit".
The same thing in 3rd when 4th was announced the same way we had 2-3 people "Rage Quit".

Why would you quit a game you have never even seen the rules for?"

 Anpu42 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

This is the silliest thing I can think of.
During 2nd Edition D&D when 3rd Edition was announce "Hey we are working on 3rd edition" in a article in the beginning of the book 2 years before it was released we have 3 members of out group "Rage Quit".
The same thing in 3rd when 4th was announced the same way we had 2-3 people "Rage Quit".

Why would you quit a game you have never even seen the rules for?"

Because gamers are an irrational lot.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

This is the silliest thing I can think of.
During 2nd Edition D&D when 3rd Edition was announce "Hey we are working on 3rd edition" in a article in the beginning of the book 2 years before it was released we have 3 members of out group "Rage Quit".
The same thing in 3rd when 4th was announced the same way we had 2-3 people "Rage Quit".

Why would you quit a game you have never even seen the rules for?"

When 7th was announced 2 years early *just* in time for their end of financial year report it was clear that the new edition would be a clusterfeth. This has been borne out in reality as for many people there are many ridiculous things in 7th in addition to not enough fixes. I don't recall much pushback against DnD 3rd (my favourite after playing 1-4), but a huge pushback against 4th when it was clear they were trying to turn it into WoW - 4th ed DnD has been horrible for the brand, just as 6th and 7th has been for 40k. WotC however actually know what they're doing and can turn it around in the upcoming 5th - what they did in 4th they did well, it's just that it's not what we wanted.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Because gamers are an irrational lot.

Some people can add 2+2 mentally without requiring pen, paper and calculator.

Don't understand why anyone is complaining about the new dex if they want to do a combined army. Now that you can take multiple CAD at any point value the problem is easily avoided. Honestly think anyone who thinks they can get away with playing with the Old book may have issues just because there is an updated version out.

 Yonan wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

This is the silliest thing I can think of.
During 2nd Edition D&D when 3rd Edition was announce "Hey we are working on 3rd edition" in a article in the beginning of the book 2 years before it was released we have 3 members of out group "Rage Quit".
The same thing in 3rd when 4th was announced the same way we had 2-3 people "Rage Quit".

Why would you quit a game you have never even seen the rules for?"

When 7th was announced 2 years early *just* in time for their end of financial year report it was clear that the new edition would be a clusterfeth. This has been borne out in reality as for many people there are many ridiculous things in 7th in addition to not enough fixes. I don't recall much pushback against DnD 3rd (my favourite after playing 1-4), but a huge pushback against 4th when it was clear they were trying to turn it into WoW - 4th ed DnD has been horrible for the brand, just as 6th and 7th has been for 40k. WotC however actually know what they're doing and can turn it around in the upcoming 5th - what they did in 4th they did well, it's just that it's not what we wanted.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Because gamers are an irrational lot.

Some people can add 2+2 mentally without requiring pen, paper and calculator.

So there was no interest in the rules other than there will be changes that might or might not make the game better, just the fact they were basing it on current edition with tweaks?

 gmaleron wrote:
Don't understand why anyone is complaining about the new dex if they want to do a combined army.

Then you didn't read the thread. Reading the thread helps if you want to know what peoples issues are. To re-iterate: 15 of the 38 units were removed from the codex, minimal changes were applied to the extent that you can write them in on your old codex with 5 minutes work, and it now costs more. If you want the same content you have to buy 3 expensive books for virtually no improvement.

 Anpu42 wrote:
So there was no interest in the rules other than there will be changes that might or might not make the game better, just the fact they were basing it on current edition with tweaks?

Not sure what you're getting at sorry.

I wonder if they replaced the artwork with more miniature pictures.

 Yonan wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Don't understand why anyone is complaining about the new dex if they want to do a combined army.

Then you didn't read the thread. Reading the thread helps if you want to know what peoples issues are. To re-iterate: 15 of the 38 units were removed from the codex, minimal changes were applied to the extent that you can write them in on your old codex with 5 minutes work, and it now costs more. If you want the same content you have to buy 3 expensive books for virtually no improvement.

Funny, that poll at the top of the thread seems to indicate over 3 times as many people will use the new Dex instead of the old one.

 Yonan wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So there was no interest in the rules other than there will be changes that might or might not make the game better, just the fact they were basing it on current edition with tweaks?

Not sure what you're getting at sorry.

Ok lets try this
A lot of people thought 6th was bad [I am not one of those] and then GW announces 7th which is based on 6th with some fixes [or 6.5].
So people who were unhappy Quit because they did not scrap 6th.

Or at least that is how I read it.

For me it's an obvious money grab. Both the 7th update and recent codices.

The GK release is even more so because:

1.No new models released
2. Rise in price
3. Substantially fewer units (with nothing added)
4. Elements removed from the codex are available for extra as a download.

Talk about pissing in your customers faces.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Don't understand why anyone is complaining about the new dex if they want to do a combined army.

Then you didn't read the thread. Reading the thread helps if you want to know what peoples issues are. To re-iterate: 15 of the 38 units were removed from the codex, minimal changes were applied to the extent that you can write them in on your old codex with 5 minutes work, and it now costs more. If you want the same content you have to buy 3 expensive books for virtually no improvement.

Funny, that poll at the top of the thread seems to indicate over 3 times as many people will use the new Dex instead of the old one.

What? How is that relevant to the people who will be using the older one? You said you didn't know why people were using the older one, and justify it as "well most people will use the new one"?

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So there was no interest in the rules other than there will be changes that might or might not make the game better, just the fact they were basing it on current edition with tweaks?

Not sure what you're getting at sorry.

Ok lets try this
A lot of people thought 6th was bad [I am not one of those] and then GW announces 7th which is based on 6th with some fixes [or 6.5].
So people who were unhappy Quit because they did not scrap 6th.

Or at least that is how I read it.

Ahh k, gotcha. That's part of it - 6th changed the direction greatly from 5th as I understand it (i rocked up tail of 5th) and as that recent poll shows, 5th is peoples favourite edition followed closely by 4th, with 6th being the least favourite. There were a few main things though - the kneejerk release to prop the years numbers being evidence of a poorly thought out product with minimal content (to push profits), the introduction of unbound which is throwing away any attempt at balance (to push profits), fluff destroying stuff like SM summoning daemons to sell more models (to push profits) and lastly not fixing many of the problems in 6th (because incompetence). For me it drove home how GW doesn't improve their product much (when it could od with a *lot* of improving), they just move it sideways and charge you an arm and a leg for it.

 Yonan wrote:

Ahh k, gotcha. That's part of it - 6th changed the direction greatly from 5th as I understand it (i rocked up tail of 5th) and as that recent poll shows, 5th is peoples favourite edition followed closely by 4th, with 6th being the least favourite. There were a few main things though - the kneejerk release to prop the years numbers (ie. push profits), the introduction of unbound which is throwing away any attempt at balance (to push profits), fluff destroying stuff like SM summoning daemons to sell more models (to push profits) and lastly not fixing many of the problems in 6th (because incompetence). For me it drove home how GW doesn't improve their product much (when it could od with a *lot* of improving), they just move it sideways and charge you an arm and a leg for it.

That I understand

What I am trying to understand was one who stated that they quit when it was announced.
Again how I understand the statement:
GW: We are announcing 7th Edition!
40k Players: We Quit!
GW: ?? But we have not told you anything
40k Players: We Still Quit!

This is how my D&D Group reacted both times. My new group at least joined the Beta Play Testers and played it before we decided we did not like it.

It's been too long since 3rd was launched for me to remember it clearly - all I remember is we were excited about 3rd but 4th turned us right off when we had info about each. 7th ed we knew it was being released two years early in time for the end of financial year report - a huge sign it was going to be bad. At that stage we (I) were already expecting it to be bad which was quite reasonable imo. When we heard about unbound, maelstrom and what not it was the final straw - we didn't need to play it to know the impact they'd have on gameplay. This was later borne out by people who did play it and found the impact was as expected.

Yes some people can be unreasonable. Treat those individuals with the disdain they deserve, but don't lump us all together ; p A lot of us have been playing games for many years and can judge the impact of rules on gameplay pretty damn well now without needing to play it.

 Yonan wrote:
It's been too long since 3rd was launched for me to remember it clearly - all I remember is we were excited about 3rd but 4th turned us right off when we had info about each. 7th ed we knew it was being released two years early in time for the end of financial year report - a huge sign it was going to be bad. At that stage we (I) were already expecting it to be bad which was quite reasonable imo. When we heard about unbound, maelstrom and what not it was the final straw - we didn't need to play it to know the impact they'd have on gameplay. This was later borne out by people who did play it and found the impact was as expected.

That is different, you at least researched first.

And to be honest 7th is not as bad as everyone says it is in my opinion.

I can see why people like the effect on gameplay of the maelstrom of war, but the "random" nature completely kills it for a lot of us. Ignoring maelstrom, unbound, psychic phase, overall 7th is a somewhat refined 6th which is good, but even that isn't as good as it should be for a new edition and as mentioned earlier, 6th went in a different direction from 5th that many do not like. Whilst it's a similar situation with the GK codex, that's probably another thread and has been done to death already ; p

 Anpu42 wrote:

And to be honest 7th is not as bad as everyone says it is in my opinion.

Honestly, 7th edition seems leaps and bounds better than 6th. I was bittervet about 7th so soon already, but I was so sick of 6th that I was ready to quit in the middle of it. 7th makes me actually interested to play again. It's actually getting close to my level of interest with 5th.

In an attempt to get back on topic:

I am going to be playing with the now one, I can now field my full army in 2k games.

Where is the option for both?

Yes, I'll get the gk codex. At the same time in keeping the old one for the assassin stuff.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

The way to fight against GW's business practices is to stop buying their products.

I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

I'm just going to call you a liar on this. I doubt half. Unless you play in Piedmont ND and both you and the other dude quit. So I'm going to ask you to prove it. Prove half. I read this crap all the.time. Half this, no one this, its over that, yet I have zero issue getting games. Maybe your just a jerk and people hate you. Just throwing out ideas. I mean if we are making crap up I might as well to.

 lobbywatson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

The way to fight against GW's business practices is to stop buying their products.

I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

I'm just going to call you a liar on this. I doubt half. Unless you play in Piedmont ND and both you and the other dude quit. So I'm going to ask you to prove it. Prove half. I read this crap all the.time. Half this, no one this, its over that, yet I have zero issue getting games. Maybe your just a jerk and people hate you. Just throwing out ideas. I mean if we are making crap up I might as well to.

Yeah, you *do* read that a lot, meaning a lot of people are saying it. Coincidentally GW is selling a lot less, but that's probably entirely unrelated hey?

Even though I don't play GK, a player in our group does. So I shall be getting the newer codex when he does. I like knowing what my enemy does.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

Ahh k, gotcha. That's part of it - 6th changed the direction greatly from 5th as I understand it (i rocked up tail of 5th) and as that recent poll shows, 5th is peoples favourite edition followed closely by 4th, with 6th being the least favourite. There were a few main things though - the kneejerk release to prop the years numbers (ie. push profits), the introduction of unbound which is throwing away any attempt at balance (to push profits), fluff destroying stuff like SM summoning daemons to sell more models (to push profits) and lastly not fixing many of the problems in 6th (because incompetence). For me it drove home how GW doesn't improve their product much (when it could od with a *lot* of improving), they just move it sideways and charge you an arm and a leg for it.

That I understand

What I am trying to understand was one who stated that they quit when it was announced.
Again how I understand the statement:
GW: We are announcing 7th Edition!
40k Players: We Quit!
GW: ?? But we have not told you anything
40k Players: We Still Quit!
.

For many, myself included, the rules are a non-issue: 6th is fine from that perspective, and while don't like the new psychic phase as a concept, I imagine 7th is fine. But when the changes can literally be summed up on a side of A4, and the fluff is mostly recycled, why should I pay £50 to invalidate what I bought for £45 two years ago?

 Yonan wrote:

 lobbywatson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

The way to fight against GW's business practices is to stop buying their products.

I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

I'm just going to call you a liar on this. I doubt half. Unless you play in Piedmont ND and both you and the other dude quit. So I'm going to ask you to prove it. Prove half. I read this crap all the.time. Half this, no one this, its over that, yet I have zero issue getting games. Maybe your just a jerk and people hate you. Just throwing out ideas. I mean if we are making crap up I might as well to.

Yeah, you *do* read that a lot, meaning a lot of people are saying it. Coincidentally GW is selling a lot less, but that's probably entirely unrelated hey?

No you're right the sales were down 10%. I'm no mathematician but that's not 50% right?

Why would you say the new codex is a train wreck? It isn't even out and the released rules get the points about right.

 PhillyT wrote:
Why would you say the new codex is a train wreck? It isn't even out and the released rules get the points about right.

This is Dakka, where the sky is always falling and everything GW does sux...

 PhillyT wrote:
Why would you say the new codex is a train wreck? It isn't even out and the released rules get the points about right.

Because 90% of the codex's pages were leaked in the GK rumors thread in HD quality and so far confirmed ALL the rumors. The admins have removed them now

Trainwreck because there is only 1 effective monobuild now, and that is taking libbies and dreadknights and normal gk termies.

Craploads of options went the way of the dodo, and many units that used to be semi-good like PAGKs, purgators, interceptors etc. got hit with the nerfbat

Hell, theres no point in nemesis swords anymore either. And cc-upgrades for the DK are so cheap now that you'd be a fool to not auto-include them.

 PhillyT wrote:
Why would you say the new codex is a train wreck? It isn't even out and the released rules get the points about right.

For some, myself included, is more the fact there is an update. The old codex still works fine, and didn't need to be redone. The fact they've actually removed 6 units and added a total of 0 new ones is frankly insulting, the fact people are buying it without complaint objectively paying more for less, is baffling.

Surely there has to come a time where we as the customer tells GW 'enough', and that we're not going to blindly buy whatever they spew out.

 Paradigm wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
Why would you say the new codex is a train wreck? It isn't even out and the released rules get the points about right.

For some, myself included, is more the fact there is an update. The old codex still works fine, and didn't need to be redone. The fact they've actually removed 6 units and added a total of 0 new ones is frankly insulting, the fact people are buying it without complaint objectively paying more for less, is baffling.

Surely there has to come a time where we as the customer tells GW 'enough', and that we're not going to blindly buy whatever they spew out.

They even removed things that GK has always had like psybolts! I mean jeeze.

 Yonan wrote:

 lobbywatson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Enforcing purchase of the new 'dex on players when it's basically GK 5.1 lite only rewards GWs bad business practices. When GW pulls stunts like this - cutting 15 of the 38 units form a codex and selling them separately, then selling the new book at a higher price still - you really should push back imo.

The way to fight against GW's business practices is to stop buying their products.

I quit when 7th edition was announced, along with about half the players at my FLGS. We now have 2nd edition nights and 4th edition nights for people who still want to play, and the FLGS is now selling other games which people are starting to get into.

I'm just going to call you a liar on this. I doubt half. Unless you play in Piedmont ND and both you and the other dude quit. So I'm going to ask you to prove it. Prove half. I read this crap all the.time. Half this, no one this, its over that, yet I have zero issue getting games. Maybe your just a jerk and people hate you. Just throwing out ideas. I mean if we are making crap up I might as well to.

Yeah, you *do* read that a lot, meaning a lot of people are saying it. Coincidentally GW is selling a lot less, but that's probably entirely unrelated hey?

You also read from some posters about how they are quitting GW, selling all their stuff, and never looking back....but 3 days later those same people are posting about adding units to the very same army they claimed they were selling, posting about their game a day before, and generally acting as if they never said they were quitting, selling all their stuff, and never looking back. Just because somebody posts something on a internet forum doesn't make it so.

Sales figures are not the perfect representation of player population you make it out to be. I am still a very active player, and the only thing I've bought new in the last 6 months or so was the 7th edition rules and Maelstrom cards. A year prior to that, I bought exactly 4 new boxes of models, everything else was 2nd hand. I don't buy a lot because my two armies are large enough for multiple builds at 1850 points. I dare say I'm not helping their sales figures at all, but I'm still an active player, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Heck, the Eldar player in my group has only bought a new codex and two new model kits in the past 2 1/2 years. The 2nd hand market is the primary reason their sales figures are down 10% or so, not the rage quitters. If anything, rage quitters probably add to the sales figures (at least the ones I know did), because they sell everything, and then 3 months later they want back in and end up buying a bunch of new stuff. Its rather comical. I've seen quitters sell off one army, then buy another one almost 100% new, then sell part of the new army so they could buy back the original army they quit on.

I think there was an objective to make gear that is uniform throughout the Imperium uniform through the Imperium. For example Space Wolves Terminator Armour now has the normal, standard ruleset instead of eschewing Deep Strike for the ability to take drop pods. Likewise they have the same basic stats for common vehicles with the Marines now (as do the Grey Knights) and their Dreadnoughts don't get the SW's special rules.

So no more giving the GK Autocannons, Bolters and Flamers +1.

I expect we'll see the Inquisitional versions of Chimera, Rhino, Razorback, Land Raiders and Storm Ravens revised to standard AM and SM models soon. Blood Angels will probably see standard rules on the Storm Raven too.

However, the unique (and separately paid for) gear will still be around to keep the armies from getting too close together.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Sales figures are not the perfect representation of player population you make it out to be

What they are, is a perfect representation of player purchases. Your anecdotes are 100% irrelevant - what's relevant is consecutive years of falling sales. Static revenue combined with large prices rises each year = less sales. One veteran player may not be buying much but in the past this was made up by new players joining the hobby or another veteran starting a new army. That's not happening now, sales are just falling noticeably - at a time where other gaming companies are posting 25% annual growth - without huge price rises so it's all extra sales. So yes, when people say they're leaving, a lot of people really *are* leaving GW to play these other games.

 Yonan wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Sales figures are not the perfect representation of player population you make it out to be

What they are, is a perfect representation of player purchases. Your anecdotes are 100% irrelevant - what's relevant is consecutive years of falling sales. Static revenue combined with large prices rises each year = less sales. One veteran player may not be buying much but in the past this was made up by new players joining the hobby or another veteran starting a new army. That's not happening now, sales are just falling noticeably - at a time where other gaming companies are posting 25% annual growth - without huge price rises so it's all extra sales. So yes, when people say they're leaving, a lot of people really *are* leaving GW to play these other games.

So to you, sales are declining mainly due to lack of new players (due to entry level cost) and old players leaving. That idea itself is purely anecdotal because there is no proven market study that actually states this is really happening in significant numbers, just internet speculation on anonymous forums. Just because other game companies are seeing growth doesn't prove anything either, all that proves is there are new games being released by these companies, or the games they sell are still fairly new and popular. Short term growth means nothing in the grand scheme of things. For example, of course a company like FFG is seeing major sales growth right now, they just released X-Wing not that long ago, so people are still entering that particular market, and really, anything Star Wars related is practically a license to print money in the short term (at least in the US). Lets check those same figures 10-15 years down the road when market saturation has set in if you want to make any kind of accurate comparison to GW.

I take it from your post that you don't feel that the 2nd hand market is the driving force behind declining sales. Even though the rise in the 2nd hand market coincides rather nicely with the dip in sales. IMO, GW's biggest failing is not producing/supporting games outside of 40K, WHFB, and The Hobbit. Their narrow focus for such a large company is killing any hopes for real growth, and I can't help but think they are really missing out by not continuing support for older "specialist" games such as Blood Bowl, Mordheim, and Necromunda, or introducing new games. While those games wouldn't generate the long term sales that 40K (and to a lesser extent WHFB) does, they also don't require a great deal of overhead to support, and provide a great "introduction" to the Warhammer world. Does anybody truly believe a revised version of BB or Necromunda wouldn't sell like crazy, or even a Space Marine version of Necromunda? Even all the GW haters would probably line up for a true skirmish level big box game focused on the Deathwatch, especially if it used the same scale of minis.

Who knows, maybe with a new CEO next year, GW will go back to being a "game company" instead of a "model company".

 Yonan wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Sales figures are not the perfect representation of player population you make it out to be

What they are, is a perfect representation of player purchases. Your anecdotes are 100% irrelevant - what's relevant is consecutive years of falling sales. Static revenue combined with large prices rises each year = less sales. One veteran player may not be buying much but in the past this was made up by new players joining the hobby or another veteran starting a new army. That's not happening now, sales are just falling noticeably - at a time where other gaming companies are posting 25% annual growth - without huge price rises so it's all extra sales. So yes, when people say they're leaving, a lot of people really *are* leaving GW to play these other games.

You should find out what the word consecutive means. I think you should make better arguments if you did.
2012-2013 sales gain. Small but still a increase.
2013-2014 sales lose well documented.
That's not consecutive partner.

I'm not getting into this again, it's been done to death in relevant topics.

 lobbywatson wrote:
You should find out what the word consecutive means. I think you should make better arguments if you did.
2012-2013 sales gain. Small but still a increase.
2013-2014 sales lose well documented.
That's not consecutive partner.

You should read what I wrote - static revenue with increased prices equals less sales. I thought it obvious but I could rephrase if you like - static revenue with increased prices equals the sale of fewer units. When priced go up 25% and revenue remains the same, the number of products sold has decreased by the same proportion. Less products sold = less players. Which yes, has happened each year for a while now, partner.

I've always been a pure GK player, from 3rd to present. The new GK codex was written for players like me, so I approve, despite losing Mordrak and his Ghost Knight.

SJ

 Paradigm wrote:

But why should we stop playing when we have a perfectly functional set of rules. If someone chooses to enjoy themselves without spending the money on a new codex, can you really hold they against them? You say your store plays other editions, and I don't really see how using an older GK dex (which is still compatible, and is current until Saturday so clearly works) is any different? If it were not being updated, you'd have no issue with it, nothing's going to change about the old book you've been perfectly for happy playing against.

As to those saying it's hard to keep track of what your facing, that's your opponent's responsibility, not yours. Seeing as it's your right to question anything at any time, no problem should arise. Not to mention you've been playing against the old dex for three years, that knowledge isn't going away just because a new book comes out.

Well, what I was saying is stop playing if you want to protest their business practices. That's the logical and rational approach to dealing with a commercial entity you don't agree with. They either respect you as a consumer or you should walk away, there's no dignity in being slavishly devoted to a product made by people who want nothing more than to pick your pockets.

But playing with an alternate / old set of rules is still playing. This activity attracts new players, keeps attention on the game, and gives you reasons to someday 'get back into it.' You are indirectly contributing to their mission and perpetuating the very same status quo you seek to distance yourself from.

At the same time, it's not black and white. If you want to just ignore the current Codex, then just ignore the current Codex. Such an action just lacks the same teeth.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

But why should we stop playing when we have a perfectly functional set of rules. If someone chooses to enjoy themselves without spending the money on a new codex, can you really hold they against them? You say your store plays other editions, and I don't really see how using an older GK dex (which is still compatible, and is current until Saturday so clearly works) is any different? If it were not being updated, you'd have no issue with it, nothing's going to change about the old book you've been perfectly for happy playing against.

As to those saying it's hard to keep track of what your facing, that's your opponent's responsibility, not yours. Seeing as it's your right to question anything at any time, no problem should arise. Not to mention you've been playing against the old dex for three years, that knowledge isn't going away just because a new book comes out.

Well, what I was saying is stop playing if you want to protest their business practices. That's the logical and rational approach to dealing with a commercial entity you don't agree with. They either respect you as a consumer or you should walk away, there's no dignity in being slavishly devoted to a product made by people who want nothing more than to pick your pockets.

But playing with an alternate / old set of rules is still playing. This activity attracts new players, keeps attention on the game, and gives you reasons to someday 'get back into it.' You are indirectly contributing to their mission and perpetuating the very same status quo you seek to distance yourself from.

At the same time, it's not black and white. If you want to just ignore the current Codex, then just ignore the current Codex. Such an action just lacks the same teeth.

I sort of see what your saying, but I dont agree.

I still enjoy playing 40k a lot, and regularly buy new models and life the setting and universe. I'm not on a one man crusade to bring down GW, as model-wise they produce a great product. I only object to this codex as I really don't see why it was necessary and there is objectively less content than before, so I don't see why people are just happy to buy it.

It's this codex, not GW as some kind of evil entity that I have a problem with.

Just out of curiosity, how much content do you EXPECT from an organization consisting of about 1000 guys? (and some unimportant tech support who does not take part in battle) they number of units in the codex are more than enough to cover the different bases of a very small and single-minded organization.

Heck, you can quite say they are not MEANT to be an individual army, they CAN be, much like stormtroopers, LoTD, etc, but not meant to be. they meant to be, at their heart, a specialist supplementary force to the big imperial armies.

So yea, running the old GK book now requires 3 sources, but was there ever a rational reason why inquisition or assassins bound to the GK to begin with? people forget that they USED to be separate entities in the game, and got mixed for no good reason.
You can very well run your army with the new rules, legally, without buying a single one, we got something called the internet nowdays.
Not approving of how the new rules are handled is a good reason not to PAY for them, but not to even PLAY them?

 BoomWolf wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how much content do you EXPECT from an organization consisting of about 1000 guys? (and some unimportant tech support who does not take part in battle) they number of units in the codex are more than enough to cover the different bases of a very small and single-minded organization.

Heck, you can quite say they are not MEANT to be an individual army, they CAN be, much like stormtroopers, LoTD, etc, but not meant to be. they meant to be, at their heart, a specialist supplementary force to the big imperial armies.

So yea, running the old GK book now requires 3 sources, but was there ever a rational reason why inquisition or assassins bound to the GK to begin with? people forget that they USED to be separate entities in the game, and got mixed for no good reason.
You can very well run your army with the new rules, legally, without buying a single one, we got something called the internet nowdays.
Not approving of how the new rules are handled is a good reason not to PAY for them, but not to even PLAY them?

Your argument doesnt hold. SM chapters are also 1000 strong, but they have more toys to play with than we do - not just vanilla UMs, but also chapters like DA, SW, BA etc. Also by your logic, the next SM codex should (and, heh, probably will, now that the book is out) remove LotD.

We only have the GK equivalents to Tactical squads (PAGKs), Terminator squads (GK Termies), Assault Squads (Interceptors), Devastators (Purgators), and then we also have Purifiers (PAGKs on steroids) and Paladins (Termies on steroids), and thats it. From the SM motorpool we only get the Rhino, Razorback, Stormraven, LR variants and Dreadnought, and with it the Techmarine, and thats it. Oh and the Nemesis DK.

This means we are missing things like scouts, bikes, predators, vindies, whirlwinds, vanguard etc. and I'm not even going into faction specifics like centurions, stalkers, hunters, deathwing knights, death company etc.

There are alot more SM chapters than GK chapters though.
And the manpower is "recycled" more often, leaving more room for new ideas and new types to get be.
It DOES apply just as much to wolves, who got no followers, but that's another issue.

And yes, I think LoTD do not belong in codex marines, they are not part of them and show up even when there are no other marines.

GK do not HAVE any scouts, they recruit trained marines of other chapters, no scout bikes either than.
Preds, cindies, whirls, bikers, etc are simply not part of the GK doctrine, and never were in fluff or rules.
As for "special" things, GK has their own specials instead. paladins, NDK, all-unique heavy/special guns.

Now as for having "equivalents" of some marines things, that's the point-they are NOT so much of equivalents.
The "tactical" have better guns, and all carry force sword-and psykers ofc. the "assaults" can teleport, and again much better equipped, the better equipment (vastly so) applies on every so-call "equivalent", and its not like the DA codex where tacticals, scouts, etc are practically identical to codex marines.

All these toys the SM get represent all the vast array of different forces, equipment and tactics used across the galaxy in vastly different methods and scenarios, against vastly different enemies, the GK are, and fluff-wise always has been a focus, single-minded organization with tight doctrines and a single purpose-to kill demons.
They don't have bikers and drop pods, because they dont need them-if they need speed, they teleport.
The don't have tanks, because you don't field tanks against a demonic incursion, you go there yourself and banish them.
They don't have scouts because they don't RECRUIT scouts to begin with.

They are, fluff-wise, a tiny and very, VERY specialized force. they SHOULDNT be too complex with a pletora of options and vastly different units, because fluff-wise they just DONT have that.

Also, for those who complained about the power level, most SM players would upgrade to the "equivalent" without a blink where they in their own codex.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So yea, running the old GK book now requires 3 sources, but was there ever a rational reason why inquisition or assassins bound to the GK to begin with?

GKs are the military arm of the Ordo Malleus so yes it's very reasonable that they work closely with them. From the wiki: "The Grey Knights act as the military arm or Chamber Militant of the Ordo Malleus, the Daemonhunters who form the oldest branch of the virtually omnipotent Inquisition. The Grey Knights' fortress-monastery is based on Titan, the largest of the moons of the gas giant Saturn in the Sol System, that is kept as a private preserve of the Inquisition." and "This organisation, which was eventually named the Imperial Inquisition, was to include a branch of specialised warriors, as the onset of the Heresy demonstrated that a powerful military force was necessary to fight the daemonic minions of Chaos."

Since you could deploy only GKs, only Inquisition or both it worked really well. Nothing was lost by putting both in one codex, a lot was lost by separating them.

Assassins I know sfa about, they do seem separate and I don't care so much about them not being there.

And the ordo hereticus? xenos?
How about henchmen. how often do you suppose henchmen (without even inquisitors mind you) do you think work as part of a GK strike force?

And inquisitors, especially hereticus and xenos literally could not hand out with other armies except gray knights?
What logic is that a bunch of gray knight strike members or terminators have to tag along if an hereticus inqusitor an his team joined up with some sisters in an anti-traitor operation? or if a xenos and his buddies team up with some space marines to tackle some aliens?

And once inquisitors WERE separated so they could hang out with every imperial army, as they should. what reason was there to leave a second copy in the GK codex? they CAN work as a team still, allies rules are made for this, especially within the IoM.

I've seen a lot of griping over "use old rules" vs "using new rules". The way I view it is this: Play what is more fun for you. At the end of the day, this is, after all...a game. And no one plays a game to have a bad time. If someone wanted to use an old codex in a game with me, that's fine. Use it. But you'd be expected to use only the units/gear avail in THAT book, and they don't get their updated rules. If a player with last edition Orks wanted to play me, I'd be fine. I'd just use my new Ork dex. He wouldn't get the decreased costs I have, my warlord traits, my relics, my new unit or formations.

I can understand from a money perspective that someone can't get the newer books, and in that case I'm not going to be an ass. Money is money, and if you don't have it, you don't have it. But I'd urge them to get the newer books so we are all playing on proper power scales for the edition we are playing.

If your group plays only 6th or 5th, that's more power too you. I'm not going to look down my nose at you for playing what's fun for you. It's like Magic. I played strictly Commander and no other format, because that was fun to me. I can't count the time the Standard or Modern players gave me a stink eye, as Commander for a while was considered scrub format.

 BoomWolf wrote:
And the ordo hereticus? xenos?

Fine - name it codex inquisition then and have GK as a subset of them, I don't care in the slightest. Then you could add a deathwatch for Ordo Xenos to replace the assassins that were removed, works for me! GKs are the militant arm of one, DW works closely with another.

How about henchmen. how often do you suppose henchmen (without even inquisitors mind you) do you think work as part of a GK strike force?

Obviously enough to warrant their inclusion together in the first place. Henchmen, guardsmen, whatever are all expendable fodder for the GKs who will be killed after the mission is over anyway.

And once inquisitors WERE separated so they could hang out with every imperial army, as they should. what reason was there to leave a second copy in the GK codex? they CAN work as a team still, allies rules are made for this, especially within the IoM.

They already could hang out with any army as is thanks to allies rules. Ally GKs, take an inquisitor... easy.

Melevolence wrote:
I can understand from a money perspective that someone can't get the newer books, and in that case I'm not going to be an ass. Money is money, and if you don't have it, you don't have it. But I'd urge them to get the newer books so we are all playing on proper power scales for the edition we are playing.

If only the codices were on the same power scale ; p

Im going to use the old one for a while. I cant buy it right now so I mean what choice is there. Other priorities ar in the way this month. Maybe people will just me keep doing it. Ill ask TO's. But ultimately there isnt a REAL choice. if nothing else my blog has to get an update on the new codex. Seems inevitable that ill adopt the new one. Eventually....

Melevolence wrote:
I've seen a lot of griping over "use old rules" vs "using new rules". The way I view it is this: Play what is more fun for you. At the end of the day, this is, after all...a game. And no one plays a game to have a bad time. If someone wanted to use an old codex in a game with me, that's fine. Use it. But you'd be expected to use only the units/gear avail in THAT book, and they don't get their updated rules. If a player with last edition Orks wanted to play me, I'd be fine. I'd just use my new Ork dex. He wouldn't get the decreased costs I have, my warlord traits, my relics, my new unit or formations.

I can understand from a money perspective that someone can't get the newer books, and in that case I'm not going to be an ass. Money is money, and if you don't have it, you don't have it. But I'd urge them to get the newer books so we are all playing on proper power scales for the edition we are playing.

If your group plays only 6th or 5th, that's more power too you. I'm not going to look down my nose at you for playing what's fun for you. It's like Magic. I played strictly Commander and no other format, because that was fun to me. I can't count the time the Standard or Modern players gave me a stink eye, as Commander for a while was considered scrub format.

Possibly the most reasonable post in the thread so far, exalted. And I really wouldn't expect people to mix codexes. Paying more and having no relics is part and parcel of using the older one.

@Boomwolf: I have to say you make a good argument regarding the inquisition, but thinking about it, I'd have no problem with them being removed it we had been given something else. The fact is, we are paying more for objectively less, and that's where I have an issue. If they're going to cut content, they should drop the price, and conversely, if they're going to up the price, they should do something to make it worth it. Hence why I had no issues with the SW and IG releases, they took away some stuff but added units and option as well.

I will be using the old book because the group I play with have all decided to stick with 5th ed. If I ever decide to play at other stores I will have a fun time since I only have 1 or 2 6th/7th ed books and no rule book newer than 5th . As for if I would use the new book or not, I probably would! I like the little I know about it, except the second book needed to field Inquisition.

They already could hang out with any army as is thanks to allies rules. Ally GKs, take an inquisitor... easy.

Except you couldn't just have Inquisitors and their teams as the only HQ's were Special Characters and GK =- at least now you can have your own/ generic Inquisitors without having to drag along Grey Knights every time.........

If as has been suggested they had done Inquisition Codex with the two Chambers Militant (Grey Knights and Death Watch) that would have been awesome but only if you could take Inquisitors and their teams without the marines........

Assassins are the same - they never should have been in the GK Codex.....

I do agree they should have made the revised GK only Codex much less than a normal Codex - but then they charge nearly full price for the Knight Codex which to be fair I enjoyed the fluff there.

 Mr Morden wrote:

They already could hang out with any army as is thanks to allies rules. Ally GKs, take an inquisitor... easy.

Except you couldn't just have Inquisitors and their teams as the only HQ's were Special Characters and GK =- at least now you can have your own/ generic Inquisitors without having to drag along Grey Knights every time.........

If as has been suggested they had done Inquisition Codex with the two Chambers Militant (Grey Knights and Death Watch) that would have been awesome but only if you could take Inquisitors and their teams without the marines........

Not true. Of course there were generic inquisitors in the old gk book. Did you even read it?

Edit:
Okay henchmen were only troops with coteaz. You are correct. Im dumb.

...Our local ork and tyranid players are still using their old codices and so will most likely the GK. I just don't see much motivation to spend a lot of money on a book that is so, well, unnecessary. What does the new codex bring that the old one lacked and that is worth the price? We are starting to have difficulties seeing the value.

You could argue 'army balance changes' but that is not even close to worth the money, especially seeing as it's just a drop in the ocean in the game balance as a whole. The new codex actually -removes- units for whatever reason. And I have seen little mention of cool new fluff or art. I guess you are 'forced' to buy it to play in tournaments and against pick-up players who assume using an old book is cheesemongering, but that does not add value to the book.

 Ashiraya wrote:
...Our local ork and tyranid players are still using their old codices and so will most likely the GK. I just don't see much motivation to spend a lot of money on a book that is so, well, unnecessary. What does the new codex bring that the old one lacked and that is worth the price? We are starting to have difficulties seeing the value.

For the most part the Grey Knight units have gotten better and/or cheaper.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
...Our local ork and tyranid players are still using their old codices and so will most likely the GK. I just don't see much motivation to spend a lot of money on a book that is so, well, unnecessary. What does the new codex bring that the old one lacked and that is worth the price? We are starting to have difficulties seeing the value.

For the most part the Grey Knight units have gotten better and/or cheaper.

We can do that with an A4 and a pencil, and 15 minutes of debate. It is not worth the price. Anyone with a little playing experience can spot bad balance and adjust it.

I still feel balance changes should be 'patched' (such as via errata, or ideally just more pre-release playtesting) and new codices would only be warranted when there's new fluff, art, and units coming.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
...Our local ork and tyranid players are still using their old codices and so will most likely the GK. I just don't see much motivation to spend a lot of money on a book that is so, well, unnecessary. What does the new codex bring that the old one lacked and that is worth the price? We are starting to have difficulties seeing the value.

For the most part the Grey Knight units have gotten better and/or cheaper.

To a lot of people, I'm not sure that matters. They're still perfectly playable with the old book, I don't feel entitled to a power rise with a new book (actually, I think this sense of entitlement is why so many complained about every codex since Eldar) and so cost changes don't bother me and I'd rather have more less powerful options than fewer better ones.

 Mywik wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

They already could hang out with any army as is thanks to allies rules. Ally GKs, take an inquisitor... easy.

Except you couldn't just have Inquisitors and their teams as the only HQ's were Special Characters and GK =- at least now you can have your own/ generic Inquisitors without having to drag along Grey Knights every time.........

If as has been suggested they had done Inquisition Codex with the two Chambers Militant (Grey Knights and Death Watch) that would have been awesome but only if you could take Inquisitors and their teams without the marines........

Not true. Of course there were generic inquisitors in the old gk book. Did you even read it?

Edit:
Okay henchmen were only troops with coteaz. You are correct. Im dumb.

Yeah my point was to even take a generic Inquisitor you had to take either SC Inquisitor or Grey Knight HQ......

 Ashiraya wrote:
I still feel balance changes should be 'patched' (such as via errata, or ideally just more pre-release playtesting) and new codices would only be warranted when there's new fluff, art, and units coming.

This would be excellent for the game.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah my point was to even take a generic Inquisitor you had to take either SC Inquisitor or Grey Knight HQ......

So the best option was to split one book in three rather than adding a single line to the GK FAQ saying "0-2 henchmen units are now troops when taken with any inquisitor, Coteaz can still take 6."? I know which option I think is a lot better for players.

"Patching" would be good for the game, in theory. but will quickly get annoying when you need to go look for the "patches" every time you get a book, then compare side to side the patches and the text.

Sure, its easy for the veteran, but the new guy? he's get a headache. just give him a book with all the "patches" in it, the veteran will manage without getting that book right away with making himself a list of changes, and eventually getting the book when bothered to, or when enough patches (or new stuff he wants to use) are in it.
You dont HAVE to buy a new codex every time one comes out in order to play the newest codex.


As for the inqusition thing, it WAS a separate codex in the past, it got rolled into GK for no good reason (along with assassins who were also separate) and now the natural order is restored. I still fail to see the problem.
Sure, it was nice for someone who plays GK+inq+ass to have them all in one book, but it would have annoying that you need an entire GK book to have a random inqusitor if that line was written, and if assassin had a "can be taken as a slot-less unit in any imperial army" it really would have had nothing to do with the codex any more, would it?
Its HEALTHY for the game to separate them. slightly annoying for the GK+inq+ass players, but for the game as a whole that's a good thing.

No, I'll continue not playing. Easy!

 BoomWolf wrote:

As for the inqusition thing, it WAS a separate codex in the past, it got rolled into GK for no good reason (along with assassins who were also separate) and now the natural order is restored. I still fail to see the problem.
Sure, it was nice for someone who plays GK+inq+ass to have them all in one book, but it would have annoying that you need an entire GK book to have a random inqusitor if that line was written, and if assassin had a "can be taken as a slot-less unit in any imperial army" it really would have had nothing to do with the codex any more, would it?
Its HEALTHY for the game to separate them. slightly annoying for the GK+inq+ass players, but for the game as a whole that's a good thing.

The past is the past. The cats out of the bag... you already gave people those three baked together in one book for $33. Trying to even pronounce an iota of support for such a decision now, based on "it's good for the game" is as apologetic as one can get. As stated by multiple folks, if you think it's good they're separate, you could have kept GKs exactly the same, released Codex Inquisition (which isn't a codex anymore, yay!) and Splatbook Assassins and called it day. It also bones people over in the very common "two source" meta that we currently exist in because of the immense fear (warranted or otherwise) over letting it all go because of the terrible boned up job allies is.

It's a business thing... once it's been perceived at one cost (or free), it's very hard to justify the new cost (or any in the case of free) if the price goes up. And the price has nearly tripled for what you go the last time for less content.

I remember a day when you just played one army and it was awesome. They each had positive and negatives and you could at least play off them instead of a patchwork of Imperium and then Xenos. (Who plays Chaos anymore, AMIRITE? /s)

I'd love for a big book of Inquisition; pick your Ordo and you get access to Sisters, GK, or DW, all from the comforts of a single book.

I'm still fairly surprised there are people thinking that cutting content and charging more is a positive move. I'd buy that perspective if the new GK book was $20, and the other stuff was ~$5-10.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd love for a big book of Inquisition; pick your Ordo and you get access to Sisters, GK, or DW, all from the comforts of a single book.

I'm still fairly surprised there are people thinking that cutting content and charging more is a positive move. I'd buy that perspective if the new GK book was $20, and the other stuff was ~$5-10.

At this point, that would be a book worth $50. And if you took a Hereticus + Maleus, you got Sisters + GK. Plus, they could finally then make a single Deathwatch unit and call it a day. Make the "Force of the Imperium" book or w/e generic term for lumping in the cats and dogs together.

That would actually excite me. As it stands, to make such a book, you'd be out:

GK ($50)
Inq ($25)
Assassins ($20)
Sisters ($25)
Guard/Storm Troopers ($50)
Deathwatch (if it existed) ($20)

About $190 worth of rules to play something that should be one book by now. Then just add a few lines about taking them in the armies of the Imperium and Bob's your uncle. Oh wait, then that would be Codex Daemon Hunters and Codex Witchhunters in one book (which was about $60 in total). Oh, no!

The way I see it, its not like Sisters or GK have all that many units; even more so when you consider the different units are slight wargear swaps, and therefore require very little in the way of page count (see other marine books, where all PA units are shown on one page in the fluff sections). Deathwatch, even fleshed out more, would have a fraction of the units that GK/Sisters have. Plus, you could have a lot of fun, fluffy option for DW in a small amount of space (choosing the squad leader, adding specialists, cool wargear).

Then you have the Inq units that are 'neutral'. These units are available to all the Ordos, with some exceptions in wargear choices and Inq loadouts.

The book would have more units than the vanilla marine book, but not that much more. It'd certainly give Sisters more love than they're currently getting, but maybe not as much as some would like. As a personal taste, I also think it puts GK into the style they should be; a great allied force that can still be taken solo.

But yeah, needless to say cutting content, and asking more money doesn't gel with me. A combined Inq book would actually be worth a theoretical ~$50 price tag.

 BoomWolf wrote:
"Patching" would be good for the game, in theory. but will quickly get annoying when you need to go look for the "patches" every time you get a book, then compare side to side the patches and the text.

If the game was properly designed, a lot of patches would not be needed. The game's colossal buy-in price and generally time-consuming design (From modelling to painting to playing...) means that it is difficult to be a truly casual 40K player.

One patch every new edition would be easy enough to manage, especially if local GW stores assisted with informing.

You dont HAVE to buy a new codex every time one comes out in order to play the newest codex.

No, you can pirate it or whatever, but that really is not the point.

 TheKbob wrote:
The past is the past. The cats out of the bag... you already gave people those three baked together in one book for $33. Trying to even pronounce an iota of support for such a decision now, based on "it's good for the game" is as apologetic as one can get. As stated by multiple folks, if you think it's good they're separate, you could have kept GKs exactly the same, released Codex Inquisition (which isn't a codex anymore, yay!) and Splatbook Assassins and called it day. It also bones people over in the very common "two source" meta that we currently exist in because of the immense fear (warranted or otherwise) over letting it all go because of the terrible boned up job allies is.

The "two sources meta" is a problem created BY the players. 7th does not feature such rules, and is obviously not intended for it, its designed, at its heart, to follow the path of expansion, and splitting up factions to sub-factions who can and will join forces when the time is right.
And if we are lucky, soon enough the "cult marines" will be chopped off the CSM book, in favor of all-new cult ARMIES, who will, like IoM function by that you mix and match your subfactions to join forces in one bigger army (so you got "undevided" core, general demons, dedication to slannash/khorne/tzeench/nurgle, and maybe later throw in small factions from time to time like renegade guards, followers of mallal, etc...)

 TheKbob wrote:
It's a business thing... once it's been perceived at one cost (or free), it's very hard to justify the new cost (or any in the case of free) if the price goes up. And the price has nearly tripled for what you go the last time for less content.

I am backing up the splitting decision-not how its priced. the price is a whole other issue and I honestly thing GW would have done themselves a favor if they charged alot less for the books, even profitless prices, as it will result in higher traffic, and by such more model buys. but that's a whole other question...

 TheKbob wrote:
I remember a day when you just played one army and it was awesome. They each had positive and negatives and you could at least play off them instead of a patchwork of Imperium and then Xenos. (Who plays Chaos anymore, AMIRITE? /s)

As for "played one army and it was awesome", eeem, when? because allied DID exist in the old days, and got phased out.
The "patchwork of imperium" is nice, as they DO cover each other's bases in fluff as well, but do it at a cost (you gotta have a management HQ and some backbone of each force-because they don't quite listen to each other), its pretty cool that way.
Actually, the IoM are perfectly represented on the tabletop as they are and just require to fix up some codices now (BA mostly. SoB and DA a bit too, they others are fine.)
The xenos and chaos require some rework once the "grand IoM" is done, chaos needs a MASSIVE expansion, and preferably with a plit of the different big factions off the main book to their own books (each cult can fill a book of about the size of current GK), and the tau need to actually feature all the small races they have fluff-wise (they have like 7 rule-less races in their standing forces fluffwise), eldar/Deldar cover the remains of that race nicely and just need to broaden up a bit with niech aspects and such, orks and necrons ARE a bit monotone armies, and are wide enough as they are, nothing more than supplements is needed, and nids need some "make your own critter" rules or something to show off thier true versalitiy.
Did I miss anyone?

And if we are lucky, soon enough the "cult marines" will be chopped off the CSM book, in favor of all-new cult ARMIES, who will, like IoM function by that you mix and match your subfactions to join forces in one bigger army (so you got "undevided" core, general demons, dedication to slannash/khorne/tzeench/nurgle, and maybe later throw in small factions from time to time like renegade guards, followers of mallal, etc...)

Considering how hard they've been trying to cut 'undivided' from the fluff, the fact legions don't exist, they barely acknowledge the gods effect on their followers..

I honestly don't have much hope for it all in the end, and even then the 6th edition codex is pretty meh, a few bolsters doesn't help it too much unless it starts changing costs.

Also chopped out of the book? Really? That's the solution!? I'd rather not lose my Noise Marine's in that manner.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd love for a big book of Inquisition; pick your Ordo and you get access to Sisters, GK, or DW, all from the comforts of a single book.

I'm still fairly surprised there are people thinking that cutting content and charging more is a positive move. I'd buy that perspective if the new GK book was $20, and the other stuff was ~$5-10.

Sisters are not part of the inquisition.

teban wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd love for a big book of Inquisition; pick your Ordo and you get access to Sisters, GK, or DW, all from the comforts of a single book.

I'm still fairly surprised there are people thinking that cutting content and charging more is a positive move. I'd buy that perspective if the new GK book was $20, and the other stuff was ~$5-10.

Sisters are not part of the inquisition.

Yes they are.

 Sir Arun wrote:

teban wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd love for a big book of Inquisition; pick your Ordo and you get access to Sisters, GK, or DW, all from the comforts of a single book.

I'm still fairly surprised there are people thinking that cutting content and charging more is a positive move. I'd buy that perspective if the new GK book was $20, and the other stuff was ~$5-10.

Sisters are not part of the inquisition.

Yes they are.

No they're not. They're part of the Ecclesiarchy and function as the Chamber Militant for the Ordo Hereticus, but they're not formally under the Inquisition's auspices, just as the Grey Knights are an independent Chapter in their own right.

It would make for a great book if they were included all 3 as sub-sets of the inquisition though and basically solve everyones problems imo. Out of interest, how many pages is the new GK codex? The old one was 96 pages, and iirc the new Space Marine codex is 170. There should be ample room to hold it without it getting too clunky.

Generic inquisitiion
Ordo Malleus > Grey Knights
Ordo Xenos > Deathwatch
Ordo Hereticus > Sisters

I'd buy the feth out of that book... if the basic gamerules weren't a clusterfeth ; p

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

teban wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd love for a big book of Inquisition; pick your Ordo and you get access to Sisters, GK, or DW, all from the comforts of a single book.

I'm still fairly surprised there are people thinking that cutting content and charging more is a positive move. I'd buy that perspective if the new GK book was $20, and the other stuff was ~$5-10.

Sisters are not part of the inquisition.

Yes they are.

No they're not. They're part of the Ecclesiarchy and function as the Chamber Militant for the Ordo Hereticus, but they're not formally under the Inquisition's auspices, just as the Grey Knights are an independent Chapter in their own right.

Exactly. They're the Ecclesiarchy's work-around "women at arms"

 Yonan wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I still feel balance changes should be 'patched' (such as via errata, or ideally just more pre-release playtesting) and new codices would only be warranted when there's new fluff, art, and units coming.

This would be excellent for the game.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah my point was to even take a generic Inquisitor you had to take either SC Inquisitor or Grey Knight HQ......

So the best option was to split one book in three rather than adding a single line to the GK FAQ saying "0-2 henchmen units are now troops when taken with any inquisitor, Coteaz can still take 6."? I know which option I think is a lot better for players.

no please take the actual time to read my actual post where I suggested a Inquisiton/ Chamber Millitant book -

Always run the most recent codex for my army...

Got it, really like it. Quite a large number f changes, and was a not unexpected correction to the mish mash of the previous codex.

The changes to assassins are more than errata. Most function entirely differently now.

Alright, so what are the changes compared to the old GK dex (+ errata) that you think are better in the new codex?

Apart from cutting henchmen/assassins from the codex and removing the special rules on the force weapons? Just about everything.

And you can cry all you want about how 'so many different units were cut out' but in the end everyone stuck to the same config of henchmen (give or take 2 models) so you can just count that as 1 unit.
Assassins being removed is a bit sad but in the end they are neither GK nor inquisition so I was wondering why they were even in the book to begin with.

Psycannons are arguably nerfed (because I think it's more of a repurpose, leaning towards Purgators), but we got another weapon in return (psilencers barely saw any use).

Apart from that, GK just get more for less in general, with base costs and some upgrades being heavily reduced in price. Some things went up in price (like daemon hammers) but that is quite reasonable if you ask me.

Only MAJOR loss I can think of is psybolt amunition, which is sad, but I think we can manage with all these other tools we've been given.

The only reason people complain is that they 1) can't use their netlists anymore, which is ridiculous and 2) they don't have a 3-in 1 book anymore, which is understandble, but in the end you can build the same army if you REALLY wanted to.

Especially if C:Inquisition becomes a thing, I can only see this as a big + because it allows for flexibility.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Alright, so what are the changes compared to the old GK dex (+ errata) that you think are better in the new codex?

Pricing on PAGK and TAGK is now much more sensible, issue is NFS should do *something*, otherwise 2points for +1S seems a no brainer
PO 'nades make a ton more sense
H Psycannon change
Ranged force - makes opponents think very differently, even if the odds arent amaizng (ID makes people nervous)
Lack of "mind bullets" - psybolt was bollocks, frankly
DK are now worth their points when jumping, as opposed to being overcosted

Overall a more sensible3 layout, the stupid options like rad and psychostroke grenades are gone

You now get encouraged to play actual GK.

I'm partly biased - the changes to the army, even with loss of mordrak (who I dearly miss) mean I now get a redeemer in, for the same points as before and swapping out Mordrak + GK for a libby, level 3 and a unit of termies with incinerator. That now seems like quite a strong force.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Alright, so what are the changes compared to the old GK dex (+ errata) that you think are better in the new codex?

Pricing on PAGK and TAGK is now much more sensible, issue is NFS should do *something*, otherwise 2points for +1S seems a no brainer
PO 'nades make a ton more sense
H Psycannon change
Ranged force - makes opponents think very differently, even if the odds arent amaizng (ID makes people nervous)
Lack of "mind bullets" - psybolt was bollocks, frankly
DK are now worth their points when jumping, as opposed to being overcosted

Overall a more sensible3 layout, the stupid options like rad and psychostroke grenades are gone

You now get encouraged to play actual GK.

I'm partly biased - the changes to the army, even with loss of mordrak (who I dearly miss) mean I now get a redeemer in, for the same points as before and swapping out Mordrak + GK for a libby, level 3 and a unit of termies with incinerator. That now seems like quite a strong force.

^
Everything Above

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Alright, so what are the changes compared to the old GK dex (+ errata) that you think are better in the new codex?

Pricing on PAGK and TAGK is now much more sensible, issue is NFS should do *something*, otherwise 2points for +1S seems a no brainer
PO 'nades make a ton more sense
H Psycannon change
Ranged force - makes opponents think very differently, even if the odds arent amaizng (ID makes people nervous)
Lack of "mind bullets" - psybolt was bollocks, frankly
DK are now worth their points when jumping, as opposed to being overcosted

Overall a more sensible3 layout, the stupid options like rad and psychostroke grenades are gone

You now get encouraged to play actual GK.

I'm partly biased - the changes to the army, even with loss of mordrak (who I dearly miss) mean I now get a redeemer in, for the same points as before and swapping out Mordrak + GK for a libby, level 3 and a unit of termies with incinerator. That now seems like quite a strong force.

the changes you mentioned are literally something nobody even asked for.

Okay, armywide psybolt was indeed stupid, but at least NFW in the old codex were competitive. Now, halberds are an auto-take with the occasional hammer thrown in for that AP2. Rad and psychotroke nades were fun, and bordering on cheap for their points cost, but not overpriced. Brain mines will be missed, too. The NDK teleporter is too cheap now...almost no reason to take a knight without one. And 33 pt terminators? really? Whats the reasoning behind that other than "the codex kinda sucks now that we took away so much stuff, so lets at least give them this cookie to make them happy"

Compare the GK termie squad to a vanilla SM termie squad - the asscannon and psycannon are virtually identical, with the psycannon actually being better due to +1S on those 4 rending shots at same range. Vanilla marines pay out of the nose for the asscannon (20 points) while GKs also pay same. In the old dex they paid 5 points more to reflect the +1S. Gk termies also have a bunch of special rules like the aegis, preferred enemy chaos daemons etc. and are also psykers, which is more than the equivalent of slapped on chapter tactics for the vanilla marines, so that's also taken care of. The only difference remaining is the swapping of a powerfist with a lower strength, higher AP weapon like the sword or halberd. Again, in the old codex all 3 were same points cost (free) except the falchions, so you could decide between 4+ inv in cc, +2 I, AP2 T4 insta-kill, or pay 5 more points and get 1 more attack instead of any of these bonuses, given how termies dont have nades to charge into cover and thus their halberd extra I usually gets invalidated, and hammers might be too slow for some players. You also had the warding stave which you could give to characters and thus make them a real badass in duels (worth that points cost). In the new dex people will be busy clipping them off their models if they had assembled them before.

Ranged force is just about the only good thing to come out of the new dex.

bottom line: the new dex is a real buzzkill. Especially if you collect an SM army already, GK as an additional army lost a lot of their unique flavor and appeal.

Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Alright, so what are the changes compared to the old GK dex (+ errata) that you think are better in the new codex?

Pricing on PAGK and TAGK is now much more sensible, issue is NFS should do *something*, otherwise 2points for +1S seems a no brainer
PO 'nades make a ton more sense
H Psycannon change
Ranged force - makes opponents think very differently, even if the odds arent amaizng (ID makes people nervous)
Lack of "mind bullets" - psybolt was bollocks, frankly
DK are now worth their points when jumping, as opposed to being overcosted

Overall a more sensible3 layout, the stupid options like rad and psychostroke grenades are gone

You now get encouraged to play actual GK.

I'm partly biased - the changes to the army, even with loss of mordrak (who I dearly miss) mean I now get a redeemer in, for the same points as before and swapping out Mordrak + GK for a libby, level 3 and a unit of termies with incinerator. That now seems like quite a strong force.

the changes you mentioned are literally something nobody even asked for.

Really? "literally"? Or do you not mean "I didnt ask for them"?

Sir Arun wrote:Okay, armywide psybolt was indeed stupid, but at least NFW in the old codex were competitive. Now, halberds are an auto-take with the occasional hammer thrown in for that AP2.

Swords were garbage, as termies die to shooting, not CC. Everyone then, as now, takes Halberds and hammers. You still wont take Falchions, same as before.

Sir Arun wrote:Rad and psychotroke nades were fun, and bordering on cheap for their points cost, but not overpriced. Brain mines will be missed, too.

NO, they were underpriced. Especially the strokes, and were incredibly unfun to boot. Yay, ID T4 becoming so so much easier with hammer plus might, all at I6. Or "on a roll of a 2 lose the fight" strokes, which sucked for opponents. Brain mines werent bad, but still another clunky mechanic.

Sir Arun wrote:The NDK teleporter is too cheap now...almost no reason to take a knight without one.

Those points add up quickly. And if you want T1 DS, you only get two HS, and some squads really benefit from LR transports...

Sir Arun wrote:And 33 pt terminators? really? Whats the reasoning behind that other than "the codex kinda sucks now that we took away so much stuff, so lets at least give them this cookie to make them happy"

Lol. No, seriously. Lol. 30points is the new standard, for power weapon TEQ. 33 points gets you acute senses, CA and ATSKNF (SW) or ATSNKF, PML1 and a NFS so no cheap high strength without relying on a psychic power.

Its because, then as now, termies die to shooting, as AP2 / 1 is far, far too common. Its more common than strictly AP3 only long range shooting!

Sir Arun wrote:Compare the GK termie squad to a vanilla SM termie squad - the asscannon and psycannon are virtually identical, with the psycannon actually being better due to +1S on those 4 rending shots at same range. Vanilla marines pay out of the nose for the asscannon (20 points) while GKs also pay same. In the old dex they paid 5 points more to reflect the +1S.

20 points isnt "out of the nose" for an assault cannon.

Sir Arun wrote:Gk termies also have a bunch of special rules like the aegis, preferred enemy chaos daemons etc. and are also psykers, which is more than the equivalent of slapped on chapter tactics for the vanilla marines, so that's also taken care of. The only difference remaining is the swapping of a powerfist with a lower strength, higher AP weapon like the sword or halberd.

Yikes, so a powerfist is worth the same as a S: user AP3 NFW? Not in a million years.

Sir Arun wrote:Again, in the old codex all 3 were same points cost (free) except the falchions, so you could decide between 4+ inv in cc, +2 I, AP2 T4 insta-kill, or pay 5 more points and get 1 more attack instead of any of these bonuses,

Yes, but in reality people went for halberds and hammers, as killing opponents (I6) is better than being better at defending against htose should-be-dead-by-now opponents. And it meant, with the change to PW in 6th - remember that? When You went from effectively AP2 on all to AP3 on swords and halberds? - that suddenly PW were OVERcosted, as they couldnt breach termie armour. Meaning you do a points readjustment...whcih we're seeing now. In all codexes. Consistency.

Sir Arun wrote: given how termies dont have nades to charge into cover and thus their halberd extra I usually gets invalidated,

Then you missed the frag grenades.

Sir Arun wrote:and hammers might be too slow for some players. You also had the warding stave which you could give to characters and thus make them a real badass in duels (worth that points cost). In the new dex people will be busy clipping them off their models if they had assembled them before.

a) not many units could take warding staves
b) they were HIDEOUSLY expensive
c) theyre free on libbies and give adamantium will, meaning DTW on a 3+, rerolling 1s. I'm keeping my stave attached.

Sir Arun wrote:Ranged force is just about the only good thing to come out of the new dex.

bottom line: the new dex is a real buzzkill. Especially if you collect an SM army already, GK as an additional army lost a lot of their unique flavor and appeal.

Nope, complete tosh. Might be a buzzkill to you, but hav e you not noticed that only one reason you gave - removal of mines / nades - could remotely relate to flavour? The rest is points adjustments. And, without exception, the points adjustments are CORRECT - GK, as in ACTUAL GK, were too pricey previously.

strikes, well any PAGK, are still too expensive, as the opp cost of paying so many more points for guys that die as easily as marines isnt worth it.

Have all of my exalts Nos

I agree with NOS on everything except the PAGK.
That 4 PPM for force weapons and BoP is a steal, even if you just use it as a battery for other teams and "might come in handy" as regular power swords. where do you find 4 point power weapons for marines?
The fact its even force is just icing on top of the cake of cheap as hell power weapons and bonus warp charges.

We have people taking 15 point crusades. can you honestly say that a 1 point cheaper dude with armor instead of invul isn't worth it when he has upgraded to force weapon, provides ML, got frag and krak grenades and ATSKNF?

GKPA are EXCELLENT units within any other PA codex. its just that in GK they seem subpar on theory as you got access to troop termies who grant ML and wield force weapons for cheap anyway.

GK got butchered because the auto-take guns got nerfed? you don't even need to do anything clever with GK to be useful, just taking 3 NDK, libby and having the rest of your points into stock termies will be decent on the field due to simple 2+ saves saturation.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I agree with NOS on everything except the PAGK.
That 4 PPM for force weapons and BoP is a steal, even if you just use it as a battery for other teams and "might come in handy" as regular power swords. where do you find 4 point power weapons for marines?
The fact its even force is just icing on top of the cake of cheap as hell power weapons and bonus warp charges.

You have to consider that there's opportunity cost between not being able to take them off to save points, and they lose access to options that are arguably (particularly now) more useful than what PAGK have available to them.

GK got butchered because the auto-take guns got nerfed? you don't even need to do anything clever with GK to be useful, just taking 3 NDK, libby and having the rest of your points into stock termies will be decent on the field due to simple 2+ saves saturation.

That's actually one of my biggest complaints.

Boom - cheap objective holders don't need the extra 4ppm, and they lack cheap ap2 at range. I'd take gh any day if I want PA. Luckily I love my termies

You're not taking 3dk if you want turn 1 deep striking....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Boom - cheap objective holders don't need the extra 4ppm, and they lack cheap ap2 at range. I'd take gh any day if I want PA. Luckily I love my termies

You're not taking 3dk if you want turn 1 deep striking....

Maybe not in a Tournament list, but outside of playing someone else's version of Myhammer, there's nothing stopping you from taking 2HQ's + 2 Troops and getting access to a possible 4 Dreadknights while retaining the first turn Deep Strike.

Indeed, nothing stopping you. The three FW mentioned hints heavily at cad however.

I assumed someone taking strike squads isn't into deep strike shenanigans much. nothing more.

So now that you can have a proper GK only list (becuase you know, is codex: GK) people complain and try to return to codex: Inquisitorial wardbands.... i mean, the 5th ed codex
Seriously, i dont understand people

 daedalus wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I agree with NOS on everything except the PAGK.
That 4 PPM for force weapons and BoP is a steal, even if you just use it as a battery for other teams and "might come in handy" as regular power swords. where do you find 4 point power weapons for marines?
The fact its even force is just icing on top of the cake of cheap as hell power weapons and bonus warp charges.

You have to consider that there's opportunity cost between not being able to take them off to save points, and they lose access to options that are arguably (particularly now) more useful than what PAGK have available to them.

GK got butchered because the auto-take guns got nerfed? you don't even need to do anything clever with GK to be useful, just taking 3 NDK, libby and having the rest of your points into stock termies will be decent on the field due to simple 2+ saves saturation.

That's actually one of my biggest complaints.

PCs being turned into Salvo is something I'd kind of expected. I think their 5th ed rules where basicly a kind of "prototype salvo"

Ive been informed that any day BEFORE my birthday in a few day would be a bad day to buy the Grey Knight Codex. Weird. I wonder why she said that?

BrianDavion wrote:

PCs being turned into Salvo is something I'd kind of expected. I think their 5th ed rules where basicly a kind of "prototype salvo"

Yeah, I saw it coming, as did most of my group. We just hoped for better range, or something.

 anyeri wrote:
So now that you can have a proper GK only list (becuase you know, is codex: GK) people complain and try to return to codex: Inquisitorial wardbands.... i mean, the 5th ed codex
Seriously, i dont understand people

Its because pure GKs are lame. We only have...like...what? 7 different units + HQ choices & ICs and the most basic SM vehicles?

I remember 9 non-hq units off the top of my head.
Is there a real NEED for more?

I mean, look at them big space marines books, most units are variations of each other.
Bikes? pretty much upgraded assault marines.
Tac/Ass terminators? can be rolled into one unit without trouble.
Most tanks are the same thing with a different gun.

GK are an ultra-specialized anti-demon marines who focus on point-blank shooting and CC with force weapons, how many units does one NEED to represent that kind of force?

Even within the small GK book, you got units that are upgrades of each other, because there isn't anything to expand to without getting silly.

The fact C:SM is needlessly bloated does not mean GK needs to be too.

I would have wished for imperial jetbikes (if any order has access to them, it should be an elite force such as the GK) and more vehicles.

If the wolves got a flying dumpster and chariot, why cant GW be bothered to give us anything?

IoM don't know how to build jetbikes any more...

The IoM didn't know how to produce a lot of stuff... until a new codex release said they did.

 Yonan wrote:
The IoM didn't know how to produce a lot of stuff... until a new codex release said they did.

What technology that has been outright stated to be forgotten since several editions back did they introduce?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The IoM didn't know how to produce a lot of stuff... until a new codex release said they did.

What technology that has been outright stated to be forgotten since several editions back did they introduce?

"The Dark Angels recently rediscovered a new STC database in the later years of the 40th Millennium, using its information to create advanced vehicle engines. These engines allowed the Dark Angels to design their Nephilim Jetfighter, which is still a vehicle exclusive to them and their Unforgiven Successor Chapters. The Dark Angels also possess an STC database containing the designs for weapons known as Rift Bombs that can cause fluctuations in space and time. When faced with an inquiry by the Adeptus Mechanicus amid allegations that the Chapter has illegally hoarded lost technology in contravention of Imperial law that requires all recovered technology to be handed over to the Mechanicus, the Dark Angels have adamantly denied possessing any STC databases of any kind."

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Standard_Template_Construct_(STC)

There are more examples there. The Imperium rediscovering technology is not a rare thing.

True, they CAN re-discover it, but they didn't so far.

And FFS we need to have SOMETHING the IoM cant do or this is silly, one faction is currently hoarding all the cool toys anyway, and its the one that is canonically losing on pretty much every front because they are outmatched at nearly everything.and only survives thanks to the fact they are big enough to take the losses.

Oh for sure, I was just saying that them forgetting doesn't hold up as the (sole) reason to not have it. I don't think IoM should have much jet stuff either. Perhaps a little more than the one jetbike they currently have.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 anyeri wrote:
So now that you can have a proper GK only list (becuase you know, is codex: GK) people complain and try to return to codex: Inquisitorial wardbands.... i mean, the 5th ed codex
Seriously, i dont understand people

Its because pure GKs are lame. We only have...like...what? 7 different units + HQ choices & ICs and the most basic SM vehicles?

Theyre not a general purpose army, so should be more specialised.

I dont want PA bikers, PA AB, etc in a GK force. That isnt them.

You have yet to rebut a single point I made, so I presume you now accept them?

I assume you accept all the points you don't rebut too then Nos? There's been a fair few over the threads.

They were specific rebuttals to my points, that have then gone quiet

It was a genuine question, as I am trying to understand why the immense good of this codex is "dull"

Or, if we can bring in irrelevant other threads, can I point out your day one DLC mantra that was wrong?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Really? "literally"? Or do you not mean "I didnt ask for them"?

I mean there werent many GK player threads on dakka complaining about their army being outdated and lagging behind that of others.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Swords were garbage, as termies die to shooting, not CC. Everyone then, as now, takes Halberds and hammers. You still wont take Falchions, same as before.

Swords are even more garbage now for 2 reasons - one, for losing what little use they gave to terminators, and two, because the price difference to halberds is even less now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
NO, they were underpriced. Especially the strokes, and were incredibly unfun to boot. Yay, ID T4 becoming so so much easier with hammer plus might, all at I6. Or "on a roll of a 2 lose the fight" strokes, which sucked for opponents. Brain mines werent bad, but still another clunky mechanic.

Then make them costlier. Dont flat out remove them. It destroys uniqueness and flavor. Unless of course, youre the kind of guy who says funny psychotroke grenades and radiation grenades belong in the fallout universe and not the grimdark high gothic 40k.

Sir Arun wrote:The NDK teleporter is too cheap now...almost no reason to take a knight without one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Those points add up quickly. And if you want T1 DS, you only get two HS, and some squads really benefit from LR transports...

2 HS...thats another nerf I forgot about. Course it doesnt matter in the day and age of "throw foc out the window", does it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
20 points isnt "out of the nose" for an assault cannon.

It is, especially if regular termies can get a CML for 5 more. You need to realize that 20 points was already set during the day and age when each to-hit roll of 6 automatically caused a wound with no armor saves possible. This was 4th edition. Assault Cannons just arent what they once were. And now they got an even tougher time exploding vehicles with their rending. 15 points is more like it.

Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Really? "literally"? Or do you not mean "I didnt ask for them"?

I mean there werent many GK player threads on dakka complaining about their army being outdated and lagging behind that of others.

So, not "literally" anything then.

I shelved my GK army in 6th; it wasnt amazing in 5th, but the new wound allocation results, and the even greater amount of ranged AP2+ and further nerfs to assault meant they werent fun. They needed an update, badly, to bring them in line.

Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Swords were garbage, as termies die to shooting, not CC. Everyone then, as now, takes Halberds and hammers. You still wont take Falchions, same as before.

Swords are even more garbage now for 2 reasons - one, for losing what little use they gave to terminators, and two, because the price difference to halberds is even less now.

Free is not more than X points. Now, if you want a better weapon, you do at least pay for it consistently cross all units.

Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
NO, they were underpriced. Especially the strokes, and were incredibly unfun to boot. Yay, ID T4 becoming so so much easier with hammer plus might, all at I6. Or "on a roll of a 2 lose the fight" strokes, which sucked for opponents. Brain mines werent bad, but still another clunky mechanic.

Then make them costlier. Dont flat out remove them. It destroys uniqueness and flavor. Unless of course, youre the kind of guy who says funny psychotroke grenades and radiation grenades belong in the fallout universe and not the grimdark high gothic 40k.

UNFUN. As in, 'strokes were just disgusting. Anything that shuts down an opponents unit, regardeless of specialty and with NO defence possible, is just unfun. Points are irrelevant to that argument.

I disagree with your false dichotomy.

Sir Arun wrote:

Sir Arun wrote:The NDK teleporter is too cheap now...almost no reason to take a knight without one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Those points add up quickly. And if you want T1 DS, you only get two HS, and some squads really benefit from LR transports...

2 HS...thats another nerf I forgot about. Course it doesnt matter in the day and age of "throw foc out the window", does it?

No, its not a nerf. If you want ANYTHING thsat DS to be able to do so from turn 1, then you lose OS and HS / FA slot. Its called choice. Not a nerf. You cannot possibly call it a nerf, as T1 DS across ALL DS units was not possible in the old codex.

Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
20 points isnt "out of the nose" for an assault cannon.

It is, especially if regular termies can get a CML for 5 more. You need to realize that 20 points was already set during the day and age when each to-hit roll of 6 automatically caused a wound with no armor saves possible. This was 4th edition. Assault Cannons just arent what they once were. And now they got an even tougher time exploding vehicles with their rending. 15 points is more like it.

I realise that fully, and actually they were 25 then, and 30 for a CML that fired one shot, from memory. 15 is too cheap.

They cannot explode a non-open topped vehicle, they can just whittle its HP down. Like every other non-AP2/1 light anti tank weapon. Unless you think rending gives AP2 for armour pen? Thats quite a common mistake. However EVERYTHING in 7th has a harder time, this isnt just a "problem" with AC.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Or will you move on to the new one, despite the trainwreck monobuild that it is? Apart from Libby, and Dreadknight and the psilencers, pretty much everything got wrecked.

But this isnt a discussion about the GK dex itself, because there's plenty of threads on dakka already for that.

My question is - if you are a non competitive player sticking to a gaming group, are you gonna continue playing with the old dex or move on to the new one to keep with the times? Assuming you are among a circle of friends where nobody coerces you into buying the new one, that is.

I.e., are you the kind of person who voluntarily says "no man, when a codex gets old, it gets old - it is time to embrace the new", or are you the kind of guy who appreciates the old GK dex for what it is (+ errata) and votes no with his wallet regarding the new one?

Can I still play with my 3rd edition DE codex? No Venoms, No baron, no power from pain, and a crappy beast pack; but much more of how I want to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
20 points isnt "out of the nose" for an assault cannon.

It is, especially if regular termies can get a CML for 5 more. You need to realize that 20 points was already set during the day and age when each to-hit roll of 6 automatically caused a wound with no armor saves possible. This was 4th edition. Assault Cannons just arent what they once were. And now they got an even tougher time exploding vehicles with their rending. 15 points is more like it.

Have you seen what a CSM pays for a reaper autocannon? I would much rather have 4 shots with rending than 2 shots and twinlinked, even with the 36" range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
IoM don't know how to build jetbikes any more...

they dont know how to build them at a cost useful for war anymore

GKs getting jet bikes would be cool, but I think that'd be kind of a screw over for the Dark Angels, given one of their special characters is basicly the "man with the last jetbike evah!"